31.3.09
30.3.09
This is why we hate them
Hate is nothing but a four-letter word. Whatever.
It's always fascinating to experience liberals hagiographically profile other liberals. Evan Thomas's piece in Newsweek about more-liberal Nobel Laureatte, NYT Op-Ed page nutcase Paul Krugman is no exception. The nonexistent, er, unstated subtext - which Thomas stumbles into, because and not in spite of his own glaring ignorance of the subject - is that Krugman thinks The Dear Leader isn't doing enough to wreck the economy.
Thomas dances around it using the limber rhetoric of the follower. In essence, Krugman - who I just described as a nut - is at least honest enough to note that Obama has not followed ideological diktat closely enough. This perturbs Thomas, presumably because he's not as smart as Krugman. Having not met either man, I can state flaty that Thomas is not as smart as Krugman, not because Krugman has a Nobel while Thomas writes for a party organ like Newsweek, but because Thomas and his ilk take their "smart points" from people like Krugman.
I'm frineds with a fair share of uber-brains of the academic persuasion, and even the ones I love, even the ones I consider mentors, would I never describe as "sweet."
Also, what is particularly enjoyable about this moment is that Krugman thinks he has a megaphone, especially a big one. It's sad when a Nobel winner and acclaimed economist like Krugman doesn't realize he's doing mop-up duty for Meghan McCain. And, as a final observation, only a liberal could bask in the glory of having a proftiable microphone just as "the wold [is] going to hell."
Seriously:
Krugman is having his 15 minutes and enjoying it, although at moments, as I followed him around last week, he seemed a little overwhelmed. He is an unusual mix, at once nervous, shy, sweet and fiercely sure of himself. He enjoys his outsider's power: "No one has as big a megaphone as I have," he says. "Aside from the world going to hell, it's great." He is in much demand on the talk-show circuit: PBS's "The NewsHour" and "Charlie Rose" on Monday last week, ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" this past Sunday. S
FoxNation debuts
I'm mixed on it - it has the look and feel of a news site, but is obviously to the Right. On one hand, I like this. On the other hand, I worry that it may devalue FNC as a viable news source, something I currently beleive it to be (and it does employ MK, who is arguably The Greatest Woman Ever Birthed by a Mere Mortal). As a raging Conservative, the site's blatant bias is not a small critique. Before MSNBC went insane, it was the network I watched for my daytime news when I had the hotdog cart and barfly'd during the day.
In short, not a trivial criticism.
Excellent site
Conservative Grapevine's site of the day is Cynthia Yockey: A new conservative lesbian. I read through a few of the pieces, and she is a clear thinker and wonderful writer. I recommend a piece she has highlighted, "Why ridicule is Obama's Kryptonite." She uses the work of Eric Hoffer (one of my favorite American thinkers from the 20th Century) to illustrate an obvious weak point of Obama's. Good stuff.
29.3.09
I don't care for The Dear Leader, but I do like this
For now, we are who they say we are.
In addition, a team from the White House kitchen will travel with the president to prepare his food. As one official put it: "When the president travels, the White House travels with him, right down to the car he drives, the water he drinks, the gasoline he uses, the food he eats. America is still the sole superpower and the president must have the ability to handle any crisis, anywhere, any time."
Atlas is shrugging
GM is a shitty company larded by union contracts, ugly cars, decent trucks and SUVs. Regardless of that, this is disturbing.
The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.
Be mildly afraid
I don't react strongly to msot things UN, and this is not exception, but it's still worth noting:
Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.
Interesting story, poor writing
Unless it's an insufferable snob, I don't like knocking other people's writing, especially when I agree with their point. Ben-Peter Terpstra's piece over at American Thinker is strange, because while making a point about anti-Reds in Old Hollywood, it's particularly bad writing.
What's more, Hollywood's anti-communists were not toothless hicks with tics from the back of Bourke. In this real reality, fiery intellectuals like Ayn Rand, for example, fueled their intellectual arguments. In all truth, the MIA was a great coming together of minds, from libertarian writers to Christian conservative actors (and, okay, fabulous costumes designers). Need more evidence? The libertarian-minded playwright/novelist, Ayn Rand, wrote the following in an official MPA pamphlet entitled Screen Guide for Americans:
28.3.09
See, the thing is, there is no such thing as "new capitalism." Markets are free to flourish, or they're not. Nothing free is managed, and nothing managed free. It may seem a simplistic tautalogical duality, but it's true. Ergo: It either is, or it ain't. Michael Miller at RCP sums it up pretty nicely:
The allure of Davos Capitalism is understandable: bright people solving our problems, ending global poverty and the vicissitudes of the free market. It's the dream, in T.S. Eliot's words, "of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good." No such system exists. Morality is indispensible. Nor would it have worked even if the men and women gathering at Davos truly had been our best and brightest, for no group is good or smart or prophetic enough to manage centrally the billions of opportunities and choices that comprise the market.
More roundup
Excellent piece from Shelby Steele. I'm a lover of basic truths being stated in one sentence, and the first sentence of the following passage is one of best I've read:
What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue. This meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good. It could be above moral vanity. And so it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom. Until my encounter with conservatism I had only known the racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other -- two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior.
Mark Steyn, per usual, rockin' like Dokken
Read the whole thing here.
That’s part of the self-correcting dynamism of capitalism: For example, Bono, the global do-gooder who was last in Washington to play at the Obama inauguration, recently moved much of his business from Ireland to the Netherlands, in order to pay less tax. And good for him. To be sure, he’s always calling on governments to give more money to Africa and whatnot, but it’s heartening to know that, when it comes to his wallet as opposed to yours, Bono — like Secretary Geithner — has no desire to toss any more of his money into the great sucking maw of the government treasury than the absolute minimum he can get away with. I’m with Bono and Tim: They can spend their money more effectively than hack bureaucrats can. We should do as they do, not as they say.
Excellent piece by VDH, the second in a series
A long thinkpiece, but its most salient passage is this:
A Dutch friend once asked me why we Americans work 2-3 jobs. I replied to leave something better for our children than what we inherited. He answered, “But why? They will be taken care of by the state.” But if one does not have a vision of building something big, a thing that will last, endure, or at least appreciating such audacity in others, then we will be sentenced to live crummy, little lives of punching in at the government clock, perennially worried that someone else has something marginally better in our view than what we were allotted. It’s like running a race in which the goal is that all the runners cross the finish line at the same time, corner-eyes fixed on each other, scared to death that some trouble-maker might bolt out ahead.
If you haven't seen Daniel Hannan's viral smackdown...
...of British PM Brown at the EU, you can watch it here. Adding a bit of clarity to the last post about Americans considering leaving the country, what Hannan directs at Brown is what we think. The best snippet? "...you cannot spend your way into growth and you cannot borrow your way out of debt..." See it here.
Rod Dreher picks up on a quiet trend
Americans are leaving and/or planning expatriating. Lost of them. Wait - lots of us. I am one of them. I remember how much fun it was to poke fun at Alec Baldwin and others who said they'd leave the country if Bush was re-elected. Needless to say, they did not. Me and a growing number people I know have started considering it - I'll not say how seriously I've investigated doing this or where I'm considering, but when those of us who toil in the private sector are about to be saddled with debts that cannot possibly be repaid, don't think for a second thousands of Americans are not dead serious about leaving. Adding insult to this injury is the very people working in the private sector are being demonized by a crop of tax cheats and life-long bums sucking from the public tit.
As I told my dad the other day, just wait - the longer The Dear Leader is in office, the more difficult it's going to be to leave the country.
From Dreher's piece:
What is this meme? I suppose anything could happen, but I really do find it all but impossible to imagine conditions getting so bad in this country that I would take my family and leave. Are people seriously thinking this way?
26.3.09
The hits keep coming
Another Atlas piece, this time from Big Hollywood:
The solution Rand offers is for the men and women of industry and business to simply withdraw their skills and energies from the market rather than place them in the service of an evil socialist state. In “Atlas Shrugged” they go to a secret valley in the mountains. In real life, millions of Americans are reevaluating their efforts in light of the Obama administration’s punitive and senseless tax and spend policy. It is a viable option and one which every right-minded American must consider. And by right-minded, I mean Americans who understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to whom the pursuit of happiness is holy but the guarantee of happiness is a cruel joke perpetrated by the present gang of looters in the White House and Congress who couldn’t make a buck if their lives depended on it.
25.3.09
24.3.09
We shoulda played Statist bingo tonight...
The ever-reclusive, camera-shy Dear Leader presented himself to us tonight, and it was a bonanza to fuel the pragmatic, the paranoid, the delusional and the rest. Here's a good place to start:
Couldn't resist
The TOTUS is enjoying its 15 minutes, but at the rate the POTUS is going, the TOTUS will continue its robotic takeover of all media.
23.3.09
VDH: Well said, yes
Victor David Hanson, over at The Corner:
Forget Halliburton, Enron, etc. — AIG is the metaphor of our new century. Let's get this straight: Our president takes over $100,000 from AIG in campaign donations. Then he signs into legislation a bill crafted by his own party, with input from his own Treasury secretary, giving mega-bonuses to the execs of this bankrupt, federally bailed-out company — and then goes on the stump to trash the culture of Wall Street as typified by . . . AIG, of course.
22.3.09
Mark Steyn's latest at NRO
Hysterical and prescient, as always.
To his credit, the Hopeychanger-in-Chief has had some difficulty doing the outrage kabuki with a straight face. In the middle of his press conference the other day, he got a tickle in his throat and departed from his telepromptered script to joke: “Excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here.” How the assembled hacks laughed! Why, it was almost as funny as his gag on The Tonight Show. Referring to his 129 score at the White House bowling alley, the president cracked that “it was like the Special Olympics.” Ha-ha! What a card that Obama is when he unplugs the prompter and kicks loose a little. Maybe next time he can toss in that the Dow Jones has got “Down” syndrome — geddit? Oh, come on! Don’t be so uptight and politically correct!!! And besides, anyone who says the president shouldn’t be doing crip jokes is a racist.
Pithy, perfect point
From The Corner over at NRO, Andy McCarthy hits multiple nails on the head with a few strokes regarding The Dear Leader's desire to regulate executive compensation:
Is there any evidence, since the government began nationalizing swaths of the economy last autumn, that Washington has a clue about what causes positive corporate performance or about what is in the financial interest of a business enterprise? Yet the more value the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress destroy — their demagoguery and fiscally insane policies eviscerating the very tax base needed to pay for their exploding liabilities — the more control they get.
Ma Chalmers is fuming
Interesting piece about organic food, what it is, what it ain't, and what most of us already know: it is a money-grubbing hoax (my term, not the NYT's). I must admit, I can't believe The Times even ran this piece. Excerpt:
The government’s organic program, says Joan Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department, “is a marketing program that sets standards for what can be certified as organic. Neither the enabling legislation nor the regulations address food safetyor nutrition.” People don’t understand that, nor do they realize “organic” doesn’t mean “local.” “It doesn’t matter if it’s from the farm down the road or from Chile,” Ms. Shaffer said. “As long as it meets the standards it’s organic.”Hence, the organic status of salmon flown in from Chile, or of frozen vegetables grown in China and sold in the United States — no matter the size of the carbon footprint left behind by getting from there to here.Today, most farmers who practice truly sustainable farming, or what you might call “organic in spirit,” operate on small scale, some so small they can’t afford the requirements to be certified organic by the government. Others say that certification isn’t meaningful enough to bother. These farmers argue that, “When you buy organic you don’t just buy a product, you buy a way of life that is committed to not exploiting the planet,” says Ed Maltby, executive director of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance.
New posts at CBK.com
Things to do in IKEA when you wish you were dead
Blogging Atlas Shrugged will get a new entry later today or tomorrow evening. Check-it. Go Pokes!
21.3.09
Be Very Afraid: He shrugged.
Here.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
20.3.09
Krauthammer on the triviality and impact of the AIG circus
Always interesting. An excerpt:
And there is such a thing as law. The way to break a contract legally is Chapter 11. Short of that, a contract is a contract. The AIG bonuses were agreed to before the government takeover and are perfectly legal. Is the rule now that when public anger is kindled, Congress will summarily cancel contracts? Even worse are the clever schemes being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. We're going to overturn that for $165 million?
And you can read the Bill's text....
...here. (Good luck with that - I skimmed half of it and my head is about to explode.)
The first installment of Be Very Afraid: Forced volunterrism
Obamacorps was one of the creepiest plans The Dear Leader touted during his Most Exalted Ascenscion. In short and in theory, it will require mandatory volunteerism of all non-infants in the country. This primarily would be aimed at high school graduates. As details leak out, the plan to require uniforms only heightens the creep-factor. Exit question: so Liberals aren't againt people working, just from profiting from their work? Ok, I think I understand. From WND:
"H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes. … The Give Act puts tow-headed school children and silver-haired seniors in the official uniform of the new State, and encompasses every walk of life in main-street America," the commentary said. "Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama's National Civilian Community Corps."
Groups of such "volunteers," would, under the legislation, be "grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. … There shall be a superintendent for each camp."
New one at CBK.com
Today's column is more AIG fun, though this should be the last in the series for a bit.
NRO weighs in on the influence of Ayn Rand
I'm a huge fan of National Review, many of its writers, and its founder, William F. Buckley. One area where I part ways with the mag is its dislike of Rand. This in itself is not a problem, but NRO - just like Parker, Frum and others invoking Rush Limbaugh - knows that writing about Rand is a great way to create quick traffic.
My issue with its latest symposium, Going Galt, is that many of its contributors don't seem to have read the book in years, if at all, which as I've stated many times before is the highest sin for a critic writing about any expression of art. Some (and I am not familiar with any of the contributors or their work, for what it's worth) fall back on the common cliches that surround Atlas, while others - including the snippet below - take the elitist view that people who find Rand's work excellent literature are simpletons:
Ayn Rand’s novels passionately interest young people, but no person of mature literary taste would willingly reread them. Rand’s books are for young adults what the Oz books are for children — with greatly superior economics. In that role they have been extraordinarily valuable, introducing several generations of budding American intellectuals to economic realities, the possibility of a consistent philosophy of life, even the law of non-contradiction — truths that have led many of them through Objectivism to better things.
19.3.09
So did a Model T get better economic- and power-bang for the buck?
Nope, I would have never wondered either, but after The Dear Leader suggested it, it's a fascinating contrast in technologies...
Fun with site
I'm screwing around with colors right now and I'm half color-blind, so if you have suggestions on what works and what doesn't, please comment or email. Thanks -CBK
Fear the reaper
They're coming for the AIG bonus money, and your bonus is next.
The bill would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses given to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at American International Group and other companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.
"We want our money back now for the taxpayers," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he expected local and state governments to take the remaining 10 percent of the bonuses, nullifying the payouts.
Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money.
Democrats led the charge in an attempt to get in front of raging public anger over the AIG bonuses, even though a provision that would have made such payouts illegal was stripped from last month's $787 billion stimulus bill by its Democratic sponsors
18.3.09
Interesting Nietzsche/Rand analysis RE: The Watchmen
I'll probably kick myself for not watching The Watchmen in the theater, but I hate going. Anyway, some good thinking can be found here about the book and film:
By contrast, Rorschach was the Randian absolutist, the man who saw good and evil as absolute, and would never, ever back down. He figured out what Ozymandias was doing, saw it as evil, and fought against it, at the cost of his life. The Randian hero has no face because he represents the truth, the absolute reality. He locks his mask on to keep that truth in place and push his weaknesses and fears away. The mask is a barrier between the world and himself. At the end, in the comic, he tears the mask away revealing a pathetic looking man and demands that Dr Manhattan kill him. Yet his writings survive, sent to a Rush Limbaugh-like tabloid publisher, revealing the truth behind the ghastly plot Ozymandias triggered.
Union of union workers goes on strike after laying being layed off by union
There are few people I like seeing being laid off. The people who staff union offices happen to be the few I do like seeing tossed. Excerpt:
The Service Employees International Union, considered the most influential union in the nation, has notified the union that represents about 220 of its national field staff and organizers that 75 of them are being laid off. In return, the workers' union, which goes by the somewhat postmodern name of the Union of Union Representatives, has filed unfair labor practices charges against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board. The staff union's leaders say that SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use -- laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temp firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers.
17.3.09
Inhofe fun
Gotta love Jim:
But let’s be clear on where the outrage should be targeted – the 74 Senators, including now President Obama, who voted in favor of handing over an unprecedented amount of money and power to an unelected bureaucrat last October. The AIG situation is clear evidence of what happens when you shovel money out the door with no strings attached and no transparency.
This is the industry taxpayers are being dragged into
I drive a Yaris, which is not a hybrid but is damn-well fuel-efficient, even the way I drive it. I have a few friends that drive hybrids, and I have nothing against the cars. As a commuter vehicle or for people who get all angsty about the non-existent threat of MMGW (er, climate change), they are excellent deals for good cars. Yet, as the Detroit automakers let the Fed through the door, they are also going to be letting them dictate what kinds of cars they can produce, and make no mistake, those cars will be hybrids or small subcompacts like my Yaris. When gas is cheap, you can imagine what happens. Which means the Fed will have an incentive to ratchet up prices to sell the fuel-efficient cars it will be forcing Detroit to produce.
Last month, only 15,144 hybrids sold nationwide, down almost two-thirds from April, when the segment's sales peaked and gas averaged $3.57 a gallon. That's far larger than the drop in industry sales for the period and scarcely a better showing than January, when hybrid sales were at their lowest since early 2005.
New column at CBK.com
Today's column examines the insanity of The Dear Leader's plan to charge wounded veterans and any private insurer they might have for their med bills incurred in the line of duty. Stay classy, Chosen One:
They are talking about saving a half-billion dollars in the most dishonorable way imaginable, while The Dear Leader at the same time gets righteously indignant about the AIG bonuses that he helped put into play in the first place. The whole idea of the AIG bailout started with Henry Paulson and was enthusiastically endorsed by Tim "The Smartest Guy in the Room" Geithner when he was at the New York Fed, and thus billions of dollars we don't have have disappeared into the ether of international banking. And now The Dear Leader is nitpicking wounded veterans for savings?
16.3.09
15.3.09
An instant classic from Michelle Malkin
Meghan McCain is making quite a name for herself. Like her father, she is being lavished with media coverage for her "bravery" in going after Conservatives, most recently in pieces bashing Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. I happened to be listening to Ingraham when she referred to Ms. McCain as "plus-sized" and what's striking is that in the five-minute piece Ingraham did on Ms. McCain, that reference was a throwaway compared to the red meat Ingraham provided (and the whole bit is beyond-hysterical). Ms. McCain, like so many other RINOs and quasi-Conservatives, is learning that all a self-described GOPer needs to do is attack Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, and all the sudden they're fluffing Jon Stewart while beating eggs with Harry Smith. Michelle Malkin just posted a long, verbal smackdown about Meghan, which is a must-read for dorks like me who find such things fascinating.
You know what’s wrong with Meghan McCain? It’s not her weight. It’s not her voice. It’s not her looks. She’s a beautiful young girl with TV-friendly poise and natural charm. The trouble with Meghan McCain is that, like her father, she has no fixed ideological principles — conservative, liberal, or otherwise. She seems to have inherited the notion that playing the “maaaaverick” imparts her with moral authority and credibility as a fresh voice for the GOP. I’m all for speaking truth to power. But like her father, Ms. McCain’s maaaaverick-iness appears to be rooted less in any firm set of beliefs than in the need for liberal approbation.
Well, that's a relief...
Palin had to choose a choicer:
But Mrs. Palin ultimately chose Judge Christen and said "I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice."
"When we looked into it, we felt Morgan Christen was probably the one who would be most in opposition to our issues," AFC President Jim Minnery said. "From everything we could tell, even though he was probably not in line with our values, he was the lesser of two evils."
He admitted, however, that Mrs. Palin was "backed into a corner" by the state's system for selecting judges, known as the "Missouri Plan." Alaska's constitution requires an independent panel to vet and then submit choices to the governor when positions on the court open up. The only names the panel submitted for consideration were Judge Christen and Mr. Smith - neither an obvious conservative choice.
"She didn't have the ability to go out and pick anyone she wanted," said Palin communications director Bill McAllister.
14.3.09
Two new ones at CBK.com...
The first is regards Dollhouse...
The second is a CBK Special regarding Sunday and Thomas invading a Conservative thing...
More Blogging Atlas tomorrow...
Is Ayn Rand Relevant?
From WSJ Online, Yaron Brook writes:
Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.
13.3.09
The problem of mixing mysticisim and political leaders
Could The Dear Leader be too awesome? Most-excellent satire by Frank J. Fleming over at PajamasMedia:
Before you grab the pitchforks and label me an apostate, hear me out. Now I am an enlightened individual who fully understands and appreciates President Obama (pbuh), but can we expect the same from other countries with non-Obama leaders? Those people have never produced a person like Obama, not to mention elected him, so it is natural for them to be scared and intimidated by someone so beyond their understanding. To them, meeting Obama must be like encountering Jesus riding a dinosaur — both reassuring and intimidating at the same time. It’s natural they’ll be confused.
11.3.09
New column at CBK.com
My latest piece concerns the death of the Rocky Mountain News and what papers are doing wrong.
I've written on these themes before...
but PJTV does a good job summarizing them here.
1. Since investors and the market in general hate uncertainty, have a vast array of conflicting ad hoc policy decisions so as to create uncertainty everywhere.
2. Transfer money from those who create sustainable jobs to those who create unsustainable jobs, e.g., the government
3. Promise to invest money in things that will enhance the country’s infrastructure, such as roads and internet access, but then practice bait and switch on a breathtaking scale, so the effort is swamped with pork for pet projects dear to Democrats
10.3.09
Camille Paglia: My favorite intellectual
I've loved her work for so long, and have read both of her books. I don't know how long she'll be able to hold out as an ardent Obama supporter with words like these, but agree with her or not, she is a treasure to American thought:
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.
9.3.09
Cramer getting even madder: shocked that criticizing TDL leadds to ad hominem attacks and out-of-context quotes
I've always liked Jim Cramer and I agree with his piece, but as I'm sure was pointed out on every Conservative show today, it's not like being demonized by the media for disagreeing with a Democrat is a new thing, even if one happens to be a Democrat.
Suddenly, bloggers, opinion people, columnists and, yes, pundits who haven't paid attention to anything I have been saying or writing for the past 18 months are all over me. Suddenly, I find myself in the center of a firestorm over Obama's economic policies, taking enfilading fire from the "liberal" media (from serious columnist Frank Rich to entertainer Jon Stewart) while being defended by Rush Limbaugh, the standard-bearer for the Republicans.
Bloomber writer sees Manchurian Candidate
Some good points in this piece by Kevin Hassett over at Bloomberg. A choice excerpt:
He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.
8.3.09
Cramer's mad yet again
Jim Cramer posted a reply to The Obama Administration calling him out after his up-temper ranting regarding their systemic destruction of wealth in this country. Cramer, the host of CNBC's "Mad Money" is a money genius, and is a committed Democrat. Interesting what he had to say:
How much I wish it were true right now that stocksplayed less of a role in peoples' lives. But stocks, along with housing, are our principal forms of wealth in this country. Only the people who have lifetime tenure, insured solid pensions and rent homes but own no stocks personally are unaffected. Sure that's a lot of people, but believe me, they aspire to have homes and portfolios. If we only want to help those who have no wealth to destroy, we are not helping the majority of Americans; we are not helping the broader population.
7.3.09
Ohmeohmy...
I'm not a GOPer, I'm a Conservative. One of the great conflicts of our political age right now among our political minority is the fight between Conservatives and Republicans, one that is getting uglier by the day. It may seem a nuanced view for those without a great deal vested in politics, but the infuriation GOPers incite among Conservatives (and vice-versa) is ruining both. As a Conservative, I would note that the GOP has done nothing to warrant Conservative support, and theoretically deserves to die a quick death. The only problem with said theoretical is the GOP is the only party Conservatives have even a a minor stake in. We, as Conservatives, vote on very few issues, and take the good with the bad regarding the rest: we want lower taxes, less spending, concrete protections to our rights of guns and property, stronger defense, and an overall Pro Life position regarding abortion. All of this can be massaged, but these positions cannot be negotiated. If the GOP doesn't have the sack for this, it will be abandoned by the only base it has.
Over at Newsweek, a long piece by David Frum just posted. Frum was, among other things, a speechwriter for Pres. Bush who is said to have coined the phrase "Axis of Evil" (a claim that was disputed in piece in The Atlantic last year). What is not in dispute is that Frum managed to get caught up in the needless non-controversy involving Rush Limbaugh and The Dear Leader. Frum, in short, took the route of Parker and Noonan and Brooks and Buckley and so many others: facing criticism from those who presumably think as he does, he has now compounded a non-issue into infinity. In short, Frum took the anti-Limbaugh position (which is confusingly to also say, not necessarily the pro-TDL position), and was excoriated by Right-Wing Radio, especially by Mark Levin. What so many Beltway GOPer/Cons fail to understand is that with every explanation of their "nuanced" views, they further marginalize all of us in the middle of the country who sincerely believe that our voices are not being heard, not by a long shot. As it resonates more and more, the notion that Obama fiddles with Limbaugh while the nation burns is not only common sense, it is being amplified by those in print and on the Right as a silly ego-stroke. Frum is merely the latest.
Frum spells out his position and his Conservative credentials in the long piece linked above, and it comes off as half-sincere, half-smug. Although I try to keep an open mind, Frum's piece - especially the forum in which he presents it (Newsweek) - is not reassuring. He repeats his concerns about Limbaugh, while stating inadvertantly the reason Limbaugh is such an influential voice. As GOPers have abandoned the Conservative ship while the GOP is the de facto party of Conservatives, we have entered a tangled Catch-22: Is the GOP a Conservative pary, or do Conservatives, by an absence of legitmate choices, merely flock to the GOP? To anyone who pays attention, Conservatives are to the GOP as blacks are to the Donkeys: a vote taken for granted, because frankly, where else is either group going to go?
Oh, and then there is the issue of self-described Conservatives like Frum spending so much ink on Limbaugh as The Dear Leader sinks the economy. But such talk would be impolite - who am I to imply - no, to dictate - what another Conservative should write about?
As a Conservative, John McCain (war hero, Pro Life, not a Conservative) was my last call in the GOP. Nominate a Conservative, and I - along with many others - will join the party line, Yet Frum states, among other things, that tax cuts aren't the answer. I daresay that come '10 and '12 and forever and ever, tax cuts will win voters. The problem with GOPerism isn't Conservatism, it's a lack of it.
Another issue Frum brings up is homosexuality; the fact is, even in California, the bulk of Americans do not want gay marriage legislated from the bench (I favor gay marriage, but that's a different story). And Frum brings up the enviornment, yet another trapdoor Progressive issue that is putting GOPers in a no-win situation.
Ultimately, what is putting the GOP and Conservatives - two very different creatures at this point - at odds is turncoats like Frum writing about Limbaugh. Where are the Liberals casting stones at Pelosi, Reid, Obama, HRC, Frank, Dodd and Rangel? Where are the Liberals apologizing for the endless number of media figures who enrage and insult those of a Conservative bent? There aren't any. Yet so many GOPers are self-satisfied with their open-mindeness, continuing to wage an absurd rhetorical battle against the most influential Conservative - right now - in the country.
They call Limbaugh an entertainer and they dytopically whine about his profiting from the ordeal, while still carrying some bizarre notion that they are Conservatives. When will this end?
From Parker to Dreher to Frum and beyond, ideas matter, and the sophistic nature of their thin skin, one gets the idea that their day in the sun is getting too hot, which is indeed silly. What compels self-described Conservatives to split hairs about Limbaugh, to waste so much time on him while the American experiment is being unwound by an inexperience, party-happy President is not only abominable, it would in previous times be unthinkable.
But yeah, they get sack points for standing up to Rush Limbaugh, a figure they all describe as electorally inconsequential.
Exit question: if he's so inconsequential, why are so many turncoat Conservatives wasting so much time talking about him?
Michelle Malkin is loving her some Going Galt
In completely random news, Sunday and Thomas are celebrating their anniversary at the same hotel where a slew of young Conservative thinkers - including Malkin - are having a conference. Tres bizarre. Anyway, Malkin is reporting on what she calls Going Galt almost daily, but I still feel the need to link to her anyway.
Another Atlas reference
Watch out Judeo-Christianity, it appears Atlas Shrugged may overtake The Holy Bible as the most oft-referenced text. From the always brilliant David Kahane, also at NRO:
Take Fairness. Sounds unexceptionable, right? That’s exactly what we want you to think. Who could possibly be against Fairness, except for maybe Ayn Rand and the Atlas Shrugged kooks? (Sorry, Angelina! I’m not talking about you. My agent will call your agent, apologize, and beg you to give me a shot at the rewrite.) In our view, everything in modern America is unfair if it results in the slightest disparity in income, lifestyle, job description, or the availability of Chicken McNuggets at your local fast-food place — which we’ll soon be shuttering in the interests of the People’s Health; no further need to call 9-1-1! And we are more than willing to sacrifice everything you have in pursuit of social justice.
Steyn howler
Mark Steyn, over the past year, has evolved into my favorite observer of contemporary events. He is most reminiscient of P.J. O'Rourke in his ability to make me laugh while presenting brutally clear arguments. I added Steyn to the blogroll if you want to read more of his work. His latest post at NRO is about the shoddy treatment suffered by Brit PM Gordon Brown at the hands of The Dear Leader. Regarding the tacky gift of 25 DVDs, Steyn writes:
Evidently, the White House gift shop was all out of “MY GOVERNMENT DELEGATION WENT TO WASHINGTON AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT” T-shirts. Still, the “classic American movies” set is a pretty good substitute, and it can set you back as much as $38.99 at Wal-Mart: Lot of classics in there, I’m sure — Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Sound of Music — though this sort of collection always slips in a couple of Dude, Where’s My Car? 3 and PoliceAcademy 12 just to make up the numbers. I’ll be interested to know if Mr. Brown has anything to play the films on back home, since U.S.-format DVDs don’t work in United Kingdom DVD players.
New column at CBK.com
My latest column is a blood-pressure wrekcing stemwinder about HRC and how patently not intelligent she is. Writing about HRC's absnece of intelligence really is almost better than sex and drugs. Almost. So, can everyone finally admit that HRC is a blooming idiot?
Where is Atlantis? If the IOEF and common sense is to be believed, it's New Zealand
When I play the 'what country will I move to should America turn socialist,' there are two that come up immediately: Uruguay and New Zealand. New Zealand probably wins out. While the rest of the world's economic powers try to spend their way out of a recession, the Kiwis are cutting taxes, cuttinng spending and becoming even more market-oriented. Huh - what a novel concept.
6.3.09
BLOGGING ATLAS SHRUGGED: 1.1 - The Theme
Part 1 of 30 on blogging Atlas Shrugged is now up at www.cbrookskurtz.com. Enjoy!
Blogging Atlas Shrugged: Part I, Chapter 1 - The Theme
"Who is John Galt?" is the first line of "Atlas Shrugged," and the question, both full of meaning and absent any, is presented chapter-after-chapter in the sense of "Who the heck knows?" or, darkly, "What do I care?", "What's it matter to me?" It is a question that expresses hopelessness, and the setting of the novel, while not hopeless yet, hints at it. It is a philosophical "Where's Waldo?"
5.3.09
The blurry haze of statistics
Up way too late one night, my friend Beth and I got into a nutty screaming match regarding education. We both know of what we speak - she works in a collegiate department of education, I did my grad work in the subject - and then we hit a brick wall: dropout rates. We were both drunk enough that, honestly, I can't remember whose point was proved, but I know what my point was: from the late 1950s on, it is a fact that approximately 30 percent of Americans - primarily men - drop out of high school. You can find variances, but overall, this stat - the 30 percent one - stands true, year in and year out.
A strange facet of American life is the insistence of quantification: we cannot accept as natural that, once Americans hit the age of 16, three of ten of us don't care to finish high school. The statistics can be massaged, but overall, this is, was and will remain the truth among American public schoolers. Some don't want to go, others start working, still others get fed up. Whatever the reason, the idea is that the dropout rate being a bad thing is skewed. Who among the educated classes, at this tumultuous moment in American economic life, is happy they didn't learn a trade and start working? Precious few, I'd suggest. It's not to downgrade the fruits of an education, it's merely to say that if one has a point to dropping out - a plan, an arc - then one is wise to do so.
I bring this up regarding an otherwise wonderful column by Victor David Hanson, a damn smart fella, a Californian and a farmer. The point herein is that he should (must) know that 30 percent of young adults don't care to graduate from high school. Fair or not, the implication that 30 percent of California high schoolers not graduating is an anamoly bugs me - look it up, it's not.
VDH, whose writing I enjoy and whose column where the following is included, is on target otherwise:
Biannual state proposition initiatives, often put on the ballot by narrow special interests, allowed voters to vote for additional entitlements and benefits without providing the money to pay for them. Yet Californians are not an informed electorate, as the state’s mediocre public high schools experience 30 percent dropout rates.
An interesting review of "The Watchmen" graphic novel
I have no interest in seeing the movie until it hits DVD, but this review from Big Hollywood's Janes Hundall is a cool read, whether you agree with its findings or not. I would note that unlike many Liberal writers, I saw a great deal more of Conservatism in Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta" than most seem to regard. One of the fallacies of Liberal benevolence is that the State taking absolute power is a Conservative fantasy. It is not, nor was it ever. From Hundall's review of "The Watchmen" graphic novel:
The Comedian is one of the “bad guys” in the book. A super-hero who has done a lot of evil deeds in his career. Kind of like a corrupt cop. But we come to understand him eventually and see that he actually had love in his heart. The stand out character in the story is Rorschach, who is based on the Charlton comics character The Question. The Question was created by Spider-Man co-creator Steve Ditko who was a hard core Ayn Rand follower. He believed in absolute right and wrong. Moore added that emphasis in Rorschach, making him a kind of demented avenger seeking absolute justice in the world. He immediately became the most popular character.
Well, at least we have Sen. Coburn
At least someone is saying something about the 8,500+ earmarks in the budget. This clip of Coburn is from The Corner over at NRO. As I recall, The Dear Leader said he would fight to contain earmarks. Hmmm, I'm sure we can expect a swift veto.
New column at CBK.com
Today's piece concerns the strange indifference of The Dear Leader to the plunging Dow. I wish I could remember where I read it, but the sense that "Obama fiddles with Rush while nation burns" is alive and well. You can read it here.
Another Galt sighting...
For a book I've been told since college no one takes seriously, there sure seem to be a lot of smart people taking its lessons seriously and writing about it. Dr. Melissa Clouthier is the latest to write about the phenomon:
Before I finish this, I’d like to address motive. Is President in over his head or mendaciously driving the country to failure so he can be free to rebuild a Utopia in his image? President Obama’s amateurish foreign policy would seem to indicate the former, but I think it’s both.
President Obama is the ultimate theorist and professor. He’s going to “teach” the silly students the way things ought to be and if they have to learn tough lessons, so be it. He seems utterly unconcerned about real-world results.
What is particularly fascinating to me is how quickly the phenomenon has happened. I say fascinating, though I don't mean surprising. The economic wheels are slowing exponentially, and more and more examples of small businesses - the bulk of the nation's employers - are cutting back on employees and trying to figure out how to make only a certain amount of money. Some times, it really sucks to be right.
'Disclosing the names of the borrowers would cast a stigma on them'
Straight outta Galtville: trying to protect the dignity of the failures that are mooching away our future. Excerpt:
The Fed refused yesterday to disclose the names of the borrowers and the loans, alleging that it would cast “a stigma” on recipients of more than $1.9 trillion of emergency credit from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
The bank provides “select members and staff of the Board of Governors with daily and weekly reports” on Primary Dealer Credit Facility borrowing, said Susan E. McLaughlin, a senior vice president in the markets group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in a deposition for the Fed. The documents “include the names of the primary dealers that have borrowed from the PDCF, individual loan amounts, composition of securities pledged and rates for specific loans.”
Off topic, but oh-so fun
Ann Coulter goes after Keith Olberman in her latest column. An excerpt:
If you've ever watched any three nights of his show, you know that Olbermann went to Cornell. But he always forgets to mention that he went to the school that offers classes in milking and bovine management.
Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent "Ivy League" education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: "My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class."
Except Keith didn't go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.
4.3.09
Greenspan still shrugging
A wonderful essay from a member of Ayn Rand's inner-circle critiquing Alan Greenspan's move from Objectivist to Statist. Sample graph:
In addition to our social relationship with Rand we were also her lawyers, so frequently we made “house calls” to her apartment to conduct legal business. On more than one occasion when Erika and I arrived, Ayn and her husband would be finishing a private dinner with Alan Greenspan. It was apparent to us that Ayn had a special relationship with him, an impression buttressed by comments Ayn made occasionally to the effect that Alan was a brilliant man.
3.3.09
The $490 ticket
I found this over at NRO's Web briefing. It struck a nerve for me because here in Ardmore-OK, no matter where I go I have to be cautious of the monetarily deadly combination of a light-hearted lead foot and an unusual number of speed traps throughout the town. The story cited above, from the SF Chronicle, involves a $490 running-a-red-light ticket.
The issue for me is twofold: first, in a time of economic distress, why do towns, cities and our other microgovernments continue to punish people with absurdly high fees for driving infractions. While I get the issue of public safety, I can't help but think that 'public safety' has become a trapdoor for local revenue in the same manner that Greenunism has become a trapdoor for socialism. The first speeding ticket I got - one that was on a city street for the exact same speed over the exact same limit (1991 in Ardmore, 2007 in Enid) cost me three times as much ($60, $180). Yet, by definition speed traps are just that - traps. Red-light cameras, well, don't get me started. Just see where your money is going is the point...
The story hysterically documents where all that money goes. In part:
-- A $100 state penalty - $70 of which is divvied up among a dozen programs, including crime-victim restitution, witness protection, a Department of Fish and Game preservation fund and even a fund for victims of traumatic brain injuries. The other $30 goes to the county's general fund.
-- A $70 county penalty that goes for automated fingerprint identification, court and jail construction and other programs.
-- A $20 penalty for a state DNA crime evidence collection program.
-- A $55 fee for more court construction.
Since when did they care about the COTUS?
I'm thrilled by this one, but seriously, when did the Constitutionality of anything ever appeal to modern Democrats? Or Post-modern ones? Or prehistoric ones?
Badging, we need stinking badging
Statists, fascists, despots and the uncreative really love badging. The Dear Leader's followers had a secret handshake, The Dear Leader himself badged "The Office of the President Elect" and now he will badge all those public works projects with this dippy monstrosity. I'm quite happy to know that when so many of these projects are half-finished and failing, we'll know exactly where the credit goes.
Sometimes, you don't wanna be right, but it's fun when you are
It's too bad it's funny, because it's not. I'm still a bit chilled about the stock market having plummeted several thousand points while more tax increases are in the works, but really, what good is a free person's money if the government can't seize it. Oh well...
2.3.09
Santelli gets it, so he's of course being painted as a nut
Excellent written ire from Rick Santelli, the CNBC reporter who started the national Tea Party movement with his impassioned rant from the floor of the Chicago Exchange. And excerpt:
The new team in the White House now owns a challenging and complex mix of banking, economic and social issues. As important as new thinking and strategies are, we must remain vigilant that while success is desired there are NO guarantees. We must question "all or nothing" approaches to very complex problems that may result in a wide spectrum of unintended consequences.
New columns at CBK.com
1.3.09
2009 Index of Economic Freedom rankings
Funny how the most desirable nations to live in are the most economically free - I fear where America will be when the '10 rankings are released. We're currently sixth, but the rankings were compiled before TARP, before Porkulus, before TARP II, before more auto bailouts, before a $3.5 trillion budget, before Obama. Read the results here.
Blogging Atlas Shrugged: Overview of Part I
This entry begins a project I've wanted to do for some time. In the coming days, there will be an essay regarding each of Atlas Shrugged's 30 chapters. The novel is broken into three, 10-chapter parts. At the completion of section I, I will post the section II overview before addressing each individual chapter.
ATLAS SHRUGGED was Ayn Rand's flawed masterwork, containing passages, plots and page-after-page that are triumphs of the human spirit, only to nose-dive at the beginning of its third part. The novel's great flaw is that is supplies the reader with any number of Larger Than Life characters, but insists in the aforementioned third part that there is one man who is greater than all of these characters established early on, and when we finally meet that character, the vanished inventor of a legendary engine, he simply cannot live up to the hype.
Part I, though (heretofore referred to as NC) is a different story. Dominated in its first half by Francisco D'Anconia, and its last passages by a mystery, it is a novel in itself, brilliant and epic and fascinating.
The first time I read ATLAS, I fond the first 200 pages not exactly dull, but nowhere near the spark contained in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. The more I've read the book over the years, the more that come to understand that first feeling, and the more I've come to disagree with it. The three driving characters of ATLAS's first part are Dagny Taggart, the Vice President of Operation for Taggart Transcontinental, the nation's largest railroad; Hank Rearden, a wunderkind metallurgist who started his fortune from nothing with Rearden Ore, and has invented a new super-metal, a blue-green substance he calls Rearden Metal; and, though he's give a fraction of the space as Taggart and Rearden, there is D'Anconia, for my money the most brilliant character Ayn Rand ever wrote. Gail Wynand was her most complex, Elsworth Toohey her most viciously evil, but there is nobody in Rand's universe that holds a candle to Francisco.
Francisco, on first reading, is an enigma. Heir the world's largest fortune, everything he touches turns to gold. He was Dagny's first love, and their childhood and adolescence was spent together, fantasizing how they would some day multiply their family's fortunes. As Dagny went to work as a teenager on her father's railroad, Francisco traveled the world, and before he'd graduated from college had bough his first mine.
And then, something happens. What happens is not set up as a mystery, but it is the first revelation of the mystery that is at the heart of ATLAS. Francisco, one of the world's wealthiest individuals, becomes "a worthless playboy" and leads Dagny's brother James - one of the novel's only fleshed out villains - and some other "looters" (as all villains are referred to in ATLAS) into a crackpot scheme into Mexico, where James's misguided branching of the railroad into the desolate Mexican badlands ends with it being nationalized, as well as Francisco's mine that he sunk $15 million into. That action - Francisco willingly losing money and taking a lot of people with him - is appalling to both Dagny and Rearden, Dagny because she sees Francisco as a shell of his former self, and Rearden because he finds the "man without purpose" abominable; Rearden recognizes Francisco's ability, his potential and his value immediately, and finds his actions far more deplorable than that of the world's looters.
***
Re-reading that first section, I've told you a lot without telling you much. Most of you who I know who read this site have read this book, but I'll continue as though you're bathed in ATLAS ignorance.
The book's theme is basically Rand giving Socialism and Communism the thought they really deserve. Socialism is most wickedly sketched out in NC's final passages, when Dagny - in search of the man who invented the motor - tracks down the former owners and investors of the Twentieth Century Motor Company, only a decade earlier one of the most successful industrial concerns in the country, but now a deserted plant in Wisconsin, one of the first states in the country that feel the true effects of social planning. The factory owner died, and his heirs instituted a policy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," ie Socialism. What happened at this factory is only hinted at in NC, though we do finally come to learn that when the scheme was implemented, the engineers in the company's lab quit, and coming upon one of these engineer's widows, Dagny begins to learn about the man who invented the motor, a young man who was only 26 when he finally developed his idea. Without getting into it, I will say that in Part 2, when the whole story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company is revealed by a - for lack of a better term - noble hobo, it is horrifying.
The book's examination and subsequent rebuke of Communism are more far-reaching and much more subtle. Throughout NC, several laws are passed in Washington, but the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule and The Equalization Bill are the indicators of things to come. The idea is that men in Washington who were either failures in their respective fields, bureaucrats who long for nothing more than power and corrupt industrialists like James Taggart want to limit competition in the name of the greater good, but primarily to line their own pockets. They use healthy competition as the excuse, when all they really want is a certain kind of economically-insured monopoly in their respective areas.
The laws are aimed at Colorado, where the figure of Ellis Wyatt - a brilliant (all the heroes of ATLAS are de facto brilliant, but I feel compelled to keep using that term) chemical engineer who has squeezed oil from fields no one thought possible. Taggart Transcontinental's Rio Norte Line was unreliable thanks to the all the resources going to Mexico, so Wyatt started using the Phoenix-Durango, and both concerns grew more prosperous. The first act - the ADED - ruins the Phoenix-Durango, and the second attempts to ruin Ellis Wyatt. SPOILER ALERT - SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IF YOU ACTUALLY PLAN ON READING THE BOOK
While Dan Conway of the Phoenix-Durango gives in and goes along with the with ADED Rule lobbied for by James Taggart, Ellis Wyatt has no intentions of going so quietly. NC famously ends with the chapter Wyatt's Torch, which is a reference to Wyatt setting his oil fields on fire, disappearing, and leaving only a sign that says: "I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."
SPOILER ENDED
***
So what does all this mean? After you've read it the first time, the clues are so obvious as to what is taking place, you feel rather stupid for missing it the first time around. I will say, for my own part, only that I figured out the identity, but not the intention, of John Galt in the early pages of the book.
Let us consider some of Rand's writing here. Fifty-three pages into the book, we are introduced to Francisco, and his subsequent appearances throughout the text are the novel's show-stoppers, specifically his in/famous speech about money in Part II.
[Rand's characters deliver three famous speeches in her two famous works. In THE FOUNTAINHEAD, there is Howard Roark's defense in his second trial, and in ATLAS, there is Francisco's rebuke of the woman who says that money is the root of all evil, a half-hour monologue examining the premises of such a common statement; finally, there is John Galt's way-too-long speech that is sort of the climax of Part III, a speech that I actually have read word for word one time, but a passage that most people - even Galt lovers - skim.
What's funny when reading Francisco's speech is that people still say money is the root of all evil, and people like me still cringe when they say it, and when motivated we still use Francisco's beautiful argument as to why such a thought is poppycock.]
On page 53, Rand writes: "At the age of twenty-three, when he inherited his fortune, Francisco d'Anconia had been famous as the copper king of the world. Now at thirty-six, he was famous as the richest man and the most spectacularly worthless playboy on earth. He was the last descendant of one of the noblest families in Argentina. He owned cattle ranches, coffee plantations, and most of the copper mines in Chile. He owned half of South America and sundry mines scattered through the United States as small change."
First, I want to point out the use of the term "noble." Rand - one of the most careful writers of philosophy to ever live - chose every word carefully. Reading a biography of her, it was humorous to hear her editor talking about the unenviable task of going through ATLAS's massive text, and Rand vigorously defending every word cut he wanted to make. Much reference is made to nobility and royalty in her writing, but their common meanings are not even in her usage's ballpark. We learn that Francisco's family, complete with coat-of-arms, is noble not because of stolen titles, but because of a wealth that was earned by hand by his ancestor that fled Spain for his life and started a new one in South America. Each subsequent ancestor had increased the family's worth by 10 percent, and Francisco was expected to increase it by 100 percent. Francisco is the book's most interesting character for any number of reasons, but the fact that he comes from the book's sole famous family that has always produced and never looted only adds to his complexity, and all of this is what makes his turn as a playboy all the more confusing on first reading.
What's particularly funny about Francisco is that even though he is the world's wealthiest man, he talks about economics only in philosophical terms. Rand uses Francisco to get the tenets of Objectivism out there, and the deepest philosophical talk in NC comes from Francisco, while it is Dagny, Rearden and the various men in Washington who tackle the various issues of Capitalism.
It is a shame that the book didn't start with Chapter V, "The Climax of the D'Anconias," for it is possibly the best chapter in the entire book (you'll have to excuse the seeming skipping around here, because I'm just going page-by-page through my margin notes). It is here where we learn of Dagny and Francisco's childhood together, the history of D'Anconia family, and Francisco's meteoric rise to economic dominance in his early twenties. By getting Francisco's past, we also get Dagny's, a character that is conflicting to me, because her greatness is so desired by Rand, but when Rand injects her creepy Objectivist Sex Ethos* using Dagny, the character often comes off as deeply sad.
[This is not the term Rand uses for it, but that's basically what it is. Objectivism will forever be tainted by those who wish to taint it because Rand's two heroines - Dominique from THE FOUNTAINHEAD, and Dagny Taggart - have such bizarre sex lives. Dominique, recall, lost her virginity to Howard Roark, who raped her, and her love for him was cemented. Dagny's affair with Rearden is started near the climax of NC, where Rearden calls her a whore after they've had sex. She laughs at him, understanding, so forth. Question: why do these strong women let men brutalize them the way they do? Rand's views on sex have an infinite Creep Factor.]
Anyway, we learn that Dagny was forever competing with - and losing to - Francisco, who beats everyone at everything all the time. At Dagny's debutante ball, we learn how beautiful she is - to the happy surprise of her mother - and how disappointed the girl is with the fake happiness of everyone at the ball.
The story of Francisco hinges on something troubling him. He's become a stranger to Dagny when they're young, and he portents much trouble in the world. On 112, he states, "Dagny, don't be astonished by anything I do ... or by anything that I may ever do in the future." A key to understanding what Francisco is getting at comes on the next, page, when he asks, "Dagny, what would you say if I asked you to leave Taggart Transcontinental and let it go to hell, as it will if when your brother takes over?" She replies, "What would I say if you asked me to consider the idea of committing suicide?" This key difference in outlook and understanding is what begins the real mystery hinted at in NC; why are all the competent men of the world disappearing? In NC, Francisco doesn't disappear, but he seems to quit what drove him. Other men just disappear. Hugh Atkson, a great philosopher and the last advocate of reason, retires from university life to sell hamburgers. Midas Mulligan, the most preposterously successful banker in the U.S., disappears. The inventor of the motor disappears. Ted Nielsen, the motor-maker whose innovation began the sinking of Twentieth Century Motor Company, disappears. And then, as stated earlier, there's Ellis Wyatt, who not only disappears but does so behind a wall of fire.
It is from this point, this conversation, that everything changes. Francisco changes into a worthless playboy while Dagny works harder and harder. As Dagny constructs her Rio Norte Line made of the controversial Rearden Metal - NC's epiphany - Francisco wrecks other people's marriages and throws outlandish bachanals. Francisco tries to warn her of this repeatedly, but Dagny won't listen. On 115, he states, "Don't wait for me, Dagny. Next time we meet, you will not want to see me. I will have a reason for the things I'll do. But I can't tell you the reason and you will be right to damn me..." And so forth.
***
Rearden and Francisco finally meet at the anniversary party Rearden's wife Lillian hosts. Rearden finds Francisco deplorable by his public actions, but their conversation, which weaves in and out of Chapter 6 is fascinating, and it hints at what is to come, especially considering Francisco's speech in Part II is aimed directly at Rearden, who has a conscience he cannot bear, a family who hates him, a sexual guilt a mile wide and really is in love with nothing more than his work.
Other characters seem to come and go haphazardly, but that's the point of NC. We learn about Ragnar Danneskjold, the Norwegian pirate who was rumored to have gone to Patrick Henry University, Francisco's alma mater and the place where Hugh Atkson taught. We're also introduced to Dr. Robert Stadler, also a former teacher of Francisco's who is now the head of the State Science Institute. Stadler was the wunderkind of physics in his day, developing a theory of cosmic rays that all modern physics was based (think Einstein here). As the book states, "At the age of twenty-seven, Dr. Robert Stadler had written a treatise on cosmic rays, which demolished most of the theories held by the scientists who preceded him. Those who followed, found his achievement somewhere at the base line of any inquiry they undertook. At the age of thirty, he was recognized as the greatest physicist of his time. At thirty-two, he became head of the Department of Physics of the Patrick Henry University, in the days when the great university still deserved its glory. It was of Dr. Robert Stadler that a writer had said: 'Perhaps, among the phenomena off the universe which he is studying, none is so miraculous as the brain of Dr. Robert Stadler himself.'" Stadler's introduction and presence throughout the book is one of the eeriest, saddest things Rand wrote. Most of her villains are cut/dry evil, just as most of her heroes are unquestionably brilliant and noble. Even moreso than Gail Wynand, though, it's tough to know what to think of Stadler, especially in the early stages of the book. The end he comes to is disturbing, to say the least, and I suppose he serves Rand's purpose of showing that not everyone who is brilliant is also good. Stadler is not particularly evil, but he's just not, well, good.
And there you have Part I. Apologies for the jumpiness of all this, but there's so much to evaluate, discuss, etc., I imagine I'll end up fusing all three parts together when I'm done and attempt a more coherent contemplation.
This piece was originally published at cbrookskurtz.com on May 12, 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
