Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« March 2009 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Decline of the West
Freedom's Guardian
Liberal Fascism
Military History
Must Read
Politics & Elections
Scratchpad
The Box Office
The Media
Verse
Virtual Reality
My Web Presence
War Flags (Website)
Culture & the Arts
The New Criterion
Twenty-Six Letters
Friday, 6 March 2009
The Sporting Spirit
Topic: Must Read

As mentioned once or twice in past posts, I have a visceral dislike of professional sports. This, as I well know, places me in the ranks of a despised minority. And as I've discovered over the years, it's practically impossible to explain my reasons for disliking professional sports without causing great offense to those who do like them. What a pleasure it was, therefore, to reacquaint myself with this essay by George Orwell. "The Sporting Spirit" was written in 1945, shortly after a crack Soviet football team, the Dynamos, completed a tour of Britain. An excerpt:

Nearly all the sports practised nowadays are competitive. You play to win, and the game has little meaning unless you do your utmost to win.… [A]s soon as the question of prestige arises, as soon as you feel that you and some larger unit will be disgraced if you lose, the most savage combative instincts are aroused. Anyone who has played even in a school football match knows this. At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators….

Now, I am quite willing to stipulate that neither I nor Orwell is being quite fair in our attitude toward sports. Probably there are discreditable psychological reasons why we both found it impossible to enter into the spirit of the thing. Still, I recommend that you read this essay—and recall it the next time you see fans rioting on the field at the end of a baseball game.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:24 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 9 March 2009 9:34 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Two More Bite the Dust
Topic: Decline of the West

Say, have you heard the one about the Obama nominee who withdrew her nomination even though she'd payed her taxes? No? Then meet Annette Nazareth.

Unlike the typical Obama nominee, Ms. Nazareth didn't have tax problems. What she did have, apparently, was a lack of confidence in her prospective boss (who does have tax problems), Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Treasury Department sources are telling reporters that Nazareth bailed on her Treasury appointment after concluding that the hapless Geithner just doesn't pack the gear.

Oh, and another Treasury nominee, Caroline Atkinson, has backed out due to…tax problems. Is this a real-world Administration, or is it an Onion parody?


Posted by tmg110 at 6:49 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 9 March 2009 9:35 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 5 March 2009
He Didn't Fool Rush
Topic: Decline of the West

Commenting today on the Rush Limbaugh brouhaha, National Review's Rich Lowry made an excellent point. Of all the pre-election assessments of Barack Obama, Limbaugh's has turned out to be among the most prescient. At a time when many conservatives were entertaining the possibility that Obama would prove to be a pragmatic centrist, Limbaugh was calling him a radical leftie. And as events since Inauguration Day have shown, Rush was right. 


Posted by tmg110 at 6:58 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Someone Hit the Pause Button!
Topic: Decline of the West

Watching Barack Obama and his crack management team in action is like…well, it's like…watching the Carter Administration on fast forward…


Posted by tmg110 at 6:51 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
California Nightmare
Topic: Decline of the West

That politics has little to do with common sense is obvious when you consider how easy it should be to demolish the pretensions of  President Barack Obama. On every major issue, from foreign policy to healthcare, the Administration's policies are quite clearly wrongheaded—often ludicrously so. Yet large numbers of people have managed to persuade themselves that this time, policies with a perfect record of failure will somehow work out all right.

As it happens, there's an easy way to get a realistic assessment of Obama's plan for America: just take a look at California. Writing for National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson hits the high notes:

California managed to achieve all at once the nation’s highest sales and income tax rates—and yet also the largest annual state deficit. So far under Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s tenure, state spending grew by 34.9 percent, well beyond inflation— and of population, which increased by only 21.5 percent…

The budgets of Medi-Cal, the state-run health program for the poor, are out of control. Prison costs increased by about 50 percent in less than a decade, and now claim almost 10 percent of state spending—almost as much as higher education. 

The state is in its third year of drought. Billions of dollars of agricultural production are threatened by water cut-offs. Yet California hasn’t build a major dam or canal in years.

California has the worst credit rating in the nation. It has the fourth-highest unemployment rate and the second-highest home-foreclosure rate—thanks to enormously inflated prices due in part to complicated building regulations, high labor costs, and often Byzantine land-use restrictions. California’s net state-to-state migration loss is higher than that of any other state. Most reports suggest that those who are leaving the state are far more highly educated than those entering it.

And so it goes. California has always provided a vision of America's future. Today, that vision makes me wince. For the lame stupidity that ruined California is firmly embodied the policies of the Obama Administration.


Posted by tmg110 at 9:06 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Trashing the People's Tribune
Topic: Decline of the West

 

I suppose we should be grateful that President Obama & Co. have taken a break from demolishing the nation’s economy to attack Rush Limbaugh. And the adolescent silliness of this onslaught—which magnifies the importance of Limbaugh while diminishing the stature of the Administration—has proved useful to the opposition in an unexpected way. From the various reactions of conservatives, we get a pretty good idea of who is and is not the genuine article.

 

I should begin by stipulating that I've never been a Rush Limbaugh fan. Some of the criticisms leveled against him—lowbrow coarseness, incendiary rhetoric, etc., etc.—though ludicrously exaggerated, do to some small extent resonate with me. In many ways, Limbaugh simply isn't my kind of conservative. Sometimes it's what he says, but mostly it's just the way he says it. On the rare occasions when I have a chance to listen to him, I generally enjoy the show. I tune out, though, with the feeling that enough is enough.

 

On the other hand, I understand and sympathize with Rush and his audience. For years he's been the standard bearer and public face of American conservatism—not the conservatism of intellectuals and pundits, but that of average, put-upon people who are sick of being hosed by the IRS and condescended to by this country’s elites. William F. Buckley, Jr., may have been the father of the modern conservative movement, but it was Limbaugh who became our tribune of the people. Over the years, his services to conservatism have been invaluable. Think tanks and journals of opinion are all very well, but without a strong dose of populism, the conservative movement is going nowhere.

 

For obvious reasons, progressives loathe and fear Limbaugh. Over the years they’ve made repeated attempts to destroy him. But Rush always comes roaring back. And I doubt that such criticisms from conservatives as we’ve seen in recent days from people like Kathleen Parker and David Frum will make much a dent in his armor either. But the mean-spiritedness and intellectual dishonesty of this friendly fire betray a kind of snotty elitism that bodes ill for conservatism.

 

As her recent Limbaugh-bashing column shows, Ms. Parker is basically a lightweight. Frum, on the other hand, is a consequential personage. By all accounts, the man is a serious conservative. How, then, to account for this attack on Limbaugh? Here’s a sample:

 

A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word—we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

 

What is striking about the above passage is its nasty personal tone—given which, Frum’s criticism of Limbaugh as “cutting and sarcastic” strikes an unintentional note of comedy. But really, it’s easy to see why Kathleen Parker and David Frum dislike Limbaugh. They imagine that they own conservatism—that the “philosophy” of the thing is something to be handed down from on high. No doubt Frum in particular would protest that he imagines no such thing—but in his vicious personal criticism of Rush Limbaugh, Frum’s fear and loathing of conservative populism is clearly manifest.

 

The trouble with people like Kathleen Parker and David Frum—the flaw that keeps them from striking a balance between Buckley and Limbaugh—is their own unacknowledged preference for the elitism of the Left. No doubt they’d prefer conservative policies to those of the Obama Administration—but they wish such policies to be promulgated at the summit, preferably by some guy as charming as Barack. And Limbaugh’s audience? They should just shut up and let the grownups run things.

 

That’s no way to revitalize the conservative movement.


Posted by tmg110 at 6:39 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
They're the Greatest (2)
Topic: The Box Office

 

It’s  an extremely difficult thing for any native-born American to think himself into the dark heart of tyranny. Unlike Europe, unlike Asia, unlike Africa, this country has never experienced the political, intellectual and moral cancer that goes by the name of totalitarianism. Thus in America, books like Nineteen Eighty-four or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich tend to be greeted with complacent incomprehension. The paranoia of the police state, the terrors of the Ministry of Love, the cruelties of the Gulag, do not live in us.

 

All the more reason, then, to make sure that you see this movie:

 

Das Leben der Anderen (2006; German, English subtitles). Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

 

The place is East Berlin; the year, appropriately, is 1984. At the instigation of a senior government official, the secret police—the Stasi in the parlance of the German Democratic Republic—place a famous playwright under surveillance. Officially he is suspected of harboring unorthodox political opinions. In actuality, the corrupt official covets the playwright’s girlfriend, a celebrated actress, and seeks to eliminate the competition. An officer of the secret police is given the task of bugging the writer’s apartment. Such is the scenario that sets this marvelous film in motion.

 

The Lives of Others, to give it its English title, is both a taut political thriller and a moving testament to the nobility of the human spirit. In the person of the Stasi officer, portrayed with measured intensity by the late Ulrich Mühe, the moral degeneracy of totalitarianism, the mutilation it is capable of inflicting on the human personality, is made plain. For Captain Wiesler is not an evil man; he is true believer in socialism and a dedicated servant of the state. Little by little, we suppose, he has over the years negotiated with his conscience: “Sometimes, Herr Hauptmann, it is necessary to do evil that good may come, no?” But now, finally and inarguably, his socialist faith has stranded him at the dark end of a moral blind alley. “Remember the oath we took?” he asks his superior after it has been made clear that the object of Operation Lazlo is to further the sexual ambitions of a brutish and corrupt apparatchik. But there’s no choice—or, rather, Captain Wiesler made his choice long ago. As ordered, he wires the playwright’s apartment and commences the surveillance.

 

I shall not spoil anyone’s enjoyment by discussing the film’s plot at length. But I will say that the great jest of The Lives of Others is the manner in which the very apparatus of totalitarianism—the Stasi’s sophisticated technology of bugging and eavesdropping—ends by subverting the very system that spawned it. For as he sits alone in the attic of the writer’s apartment building, headphones clamped to his ears, listening in on the lives of others, the secret policeman with the stony soul experiences a spiritual rebirth.

 

The film’s cast is uniformly excellent, particularly Martina Gedeck as Christa-Maria Sieland, the brilliant but blemished actress, and Thomas Thieme as the corrupt government minister. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (who also wrote the screenplay) directs with a sure hand. After five minutes, you’ll cease to be bothered by the German dialog with English subtitles. The Lives of Others is that good.

 

In its depiction of life in a totalitarian state, The Lives of Others is quietly frightening. In its portrayal of a lost soul redeemed , it is profoundly moving. The late William F. Buckley, Jr., called the best movie he’s ever seen. Who am I to disagree? And why haven’t you seen Das Leben der Anderen?


Posted by tmg110 at 8:21 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 8:31 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Signs of Recession
Topic: Decline of the West

The license plate on the car in front of me as I was driving home from work this afternoon (and I hope this was not a vision of the future):

DOW 104


Posted by tmg110 at 6:47 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 8:30 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Second the Motion
Topic: Decline of the West

Rush Limbaugh has been taking a lot of heat from the Left over his comment that he hopes President Obama to fail. Well, duh. I hope he fails, too. If I wanted to live in Sweden, I’d move there.


Posted by tmg110 at 9:07 AM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 4 March 2009 6:51 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
One for the Presidential Suggestion Box
Topic: Decline of the West

 

My daughter is a US Army MP, currently serving in Korea. She happens to be assigned to the Army’s detention facility for Korea, where US military prisoners are held temporarily until the final disposition of their cases.

 

Many of the soldiers in my daughter’s unit have served tours at US military detention facilities for terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. To say that these troops are no fans of President Obama would apparently not be an exaggeration.

 

Unlike the rest of America, these soldiers have had close, sustained contact with the Islamofascist terrorists who’ve been taken prisoner by the US armed forces. And to summarize their impression of their charges is not too difficult: “scum of the earth” will do very nicely. So you can imagine how these soldiers feel when Barack Obama wrings his hands over the evils and injustices suffered by the poor souls imprisoned at Gitmo’s Camp X-Ray.

 

When my daughter and I were chatting about this, she made a suggestion that I thought was brilliant. If President Obama insists on closing Gitmo, the inmates should be sent to Washington, D.C. Perhaps they could be quartered in the White House basement.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:52 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older