Stones Cry Out

1. Zap.
2. COIN and Afghanistan.
3. Snuck in the pork bill. Anti-stimulus stuff in there too.
4. Just a little permutation?
5. Philosophy boners.
6. Mr Polamalu and Orthodoxy, and she didn’t remark that it looks like he’s intoning “Lord have mercy” when he’s crossing himself.
7. The pork bill again, a serious question unanswered alas it seems thus far.
8. Heh.
9. In which I concur completely with the NYTimes.
10. Rugged individualism … or not.
11. Yah, nope. It is misleading, duh. I’d be getting over 110 mpg if I drove 40 mph with minimal stopping in my Insight.
12. For yer office or home.
13. Art and bike … and a ultra low carbon emissions SUV.
14. Shakespeare as crypto-catholic, a review.

Economists are by no means exclusively Keynesian (or more properly append a “neo” to be hip to that term), however our beltway denizens are almost to a man Keynesian. Climate scientists are not “settled” by any means on anthropomorphic causes for global warming but, again, politicians are. Why is this? It think the answer boils down to a logical fallacy hinging on simple psychology.

When your child has the flu the desire is to actively do something to combat the illness. After all, your kid is (gasp) sick and hurting. Some, but certainly not all, pediatricians will cater to this desire of the parent and prescribe antibiotics. Antibiotics have no effect on viral infections. But it gives the appearance of action. After all antibiotics fight diseases and your child has a disease. So, therefore there is some notion that the pill or potion is helpful. The real active palliative measures that should be taken in the case of flu is to provide rest and fluids, i.e., basically do nothing. That is a moral equivalent to “do nothing” for rest and fluids are the response taken in the case of any illness, be it bacterial (in which case antibiotics will help), or cancer, or other.

Similarly Keynesian economics offers to the government the notion that specific actions in the times of economic change are helpful. Do “X” in inflationary times, during recession provide “stimulus”. During economic expansion, act to curb growth (that one I really really don’t get). The point is these actions have two effects. They cater to two strong impulses that governments are vulnerable. The first is the above, it gives justification for action in the face of crises. It provides an explanation for why antibiotics might help the virus infected patient. The second is more pernicious. All governments for a variety of reasons find growth necessary and good. All of these actions provide reasons for larger and a more active central government. Keynesian economics thereby provides an excuse for central/federal expansion in the face of economic crises of any flavor. Read the rest of this entry

1. Looking at Keynes.
2. UK demographics.
3. To avoid 3 common fees.
4. Getting ready for Lent 3 weeks to go and it’s not just about eating the meat out of fridge and freezer.
5. Filled with extraordinary, uhm, wouldn’t that mean just ordinary?
6. I concur 100%, and I certainly am a fan of that genre.
7. Translate: asian?
8. Cool animation.
9. Where build bridges means, bring on the concessions … we’ll give not an inch.
10. Testing and failure, epic variety.
11. Predator.
12. On Mrs Palin.
13. Crises and profit, how the “gouger” outperforms government disaster relief.
14. Biden’s remarks on competence.
15. Evaluating Presidential performance.
16. Theology and ecumenical movement.
17. Is unconditional pacifism immoral, an interesting look.
18. Looking for love in 2009.
19. I spotted 2 problems … how about you?
20. Toward the up and coming collapse of environmental policy.
21. What rugged Yankee individualism looks like in 2009. Don’t tread on me indeed.
22. Becker/Posner usually debated unite against pay caps (here and here).
23. Not socialism, participatory fascism.
24. Christian blogger held in Egypt, where is the (muted) joy in Christian communities. We used to celebrate martyrdom, why do we whine today?

We have a new poll that gauges your view of the economic stimulus package moving through Congress.  Do you think spending is going to do it, and if so, how much?  Or, do you believe tax cuts would work better?

Cast your vote an let us know what you think in the comments here.  Thanks.

History only repeats itself when people don’t learn from it.  Even recent history.

Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.

Yes, some still think that such spending can indeed create a recovery (notably, in the article, tax scofflaw Timothy Geithner), but it’s all theoretical, much like Japan’s attempt at stimulus.  In fact, Japan bailed out its banks as well, and the cure, at least according to the people living there (as opposed to those watching from an ivory tower) was far worse than the disease.

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

In the United States, it has also led to calls in Congress, particularly by Republicans, not to repeat the errors of Japan’s failed economic stimulus. They argue that it makes more sense to cut taxes, and let people decide how to spend their own money, than for the government to decide how to invest public funds. Japan put more emphasis on increased spending than tax cuts during its slump, but ultimately did reduce consumption taxes to encourage consumer spending as well.

Economists tend to divide into two camps on the question of Japan’s infrastructure spending: those, many of them Americans like Mr. Geithner, who think it did not go far enough; and those, many of them Japanese, who think it was a colossal waste.

Learn from history, or we may in for our own Lost Decade.

1. Heh.
2. Ayers returns … but Rick (?) more than Bill.
3. Heh … LOL Saints.
4. Some items in the Pork package … which has no earmarks because you can’t tell. More on “clean coal”.
5. Real … or satire, hard to tell sometimes.
6. Great blessing of water … where cold means cold.
7. Signs.
8. One consequence of Obama in the WH, Chicago dirt is getting some light.
9. A true statement about economics … which is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of the stimulus bill.
10. How can you tell if a politician is lying … Obama no different. Surprise! or not.
11. Mr Carter and legacy.
12. A book about a book reviewed.
13. Does the government create jobs? Technically yes, practically no.
14. Duality in math is often beautiful. In politics not so much.
15. Remarks on Obama from a speech writers blog.
16. Obama looking at Islam with the same pair of tinted glasses as Mr Bush.
17. Zoooom. Reprised.
18. Big snake boogie … which begs a question. One reason I’ve heard on my kids dinosaur type planet Earth dvds is that in the ages in which larger critters (dinosaurs and the like) dominated one reasons they were so big was that the earth was warmer and had higher levels of CO2 which enabled more plant growth and provided more energy for the biosphere. So then why is this a bad thing for Mr Gore and company?
19. Disposable income, where is the crises?

So. Our Congress critters are concerned about jobs and the economy. A few innocent questions:

1. Consider the minimum wage. If I cut it in half, I can hire twice as many people for low skilled positions. So then, does increasing or decreasing the minimum wage increase employment? If the answer is decreasing, how long will it take our Democratic dominated beltway to remember this?
2. I’d support eliminating a national minimum wage in favor of a international one. Currently that would set the minimum wage at what, about $1 per diem. Perhaps a push for an Kyoto-like international accord moving that to $3 or so would push more money to the actual poor in the world instead of the relatively wealthy poor in this country.
3. How long will it take for the current Democrats in the Beltway to forget that welfare reform worked and return to the welfare policies that destroyed our inner cities in the 60s?

National Review’s Larry Kudlow says it’s time for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to resign:

For all of Mr. Geithner’s apparent skills and knowledge and other professional qualifications, he still has a tremendous ethical problem. Pres. Obama has made much of the need for a new era of responsibility and ethics. Obama is right. But Mr. Geithner is wrong. He should follow Daschle and Killefer by submitting his resignation.

This is a matter of personal character and accountability. It is a matter of honesty. Too many of our leaders suffer big deficits in these areas.

As Kudlow points out, the fact that President Obama has made ethics a central part of his administration makes the Geithner problem more acute. In addition, with the focus of the administration’s energies on the economy, it is going to be difficult for Geithner to be the face of economic policy for the administration. In a separate post, Kudlow made this point:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner stood alongside President Obama in a White House press briefing yesterday. Obama talked about bank compensation limits and Geithner spoke about the need for trust, confidence, and faith in our leaders to get the job done. Only a day earlier, Pres. Obama said there should be no double standard when it comes to paying taxes.

However, Mr. Geithner is guilty of a double standard. He dodged his taxes. We know that. The only reason he eventually paid his taxes is because he was nominated to the Treasury. He has never gotten honest about his tax dodge. He never answered the key question of whether he would have paid his back-taxes had he not been nominated to the Treasury. And the result is that Mr. Geithner has lost the trust and confidence of the American people.

It’s time for Mr. Geithner to go.

Living beyond our means is now, apparently, so important that, according to Obama, "we don’t have a moment to spare."  Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine demonstrates just how irresponsible the economic stimulus bill is, and how it 180 degrees away from what Obama once preached.

1. As the Administration tacks limits on salaries … they might look to their own profligate wasteful spending as well.
2. A cancerous parable.
3. Christian martyrs in 16th century Japan remembered.
4. Africa and an aid (not AIDS) pandemic. Read the Bottom Billion.
5. A Protestant hesychast? If he starts talking about “the Taborite light” that will really give him away.
6. If you can’t find a man with integrity find a man with ambition … Obama or Grave’s Caligula?
7. Stimulus to get behind.
8. That rap be really bad .. no not just bad but really really horrible.
9. Elitism in politics starts young. No sir, you’re just not qualified to run?
10. The Christian carnival.
11. Spending and the current downturn. So, if spending isn’t the problem … why would stimulus fix that?
12. Global persecution and the Christian faith.
13. A case for blogging.
14. Why I’m not in politics … I like cookies. And cake too.
15. Road signs not just for zombies anymore.
16. Another view of the stimulus.
17. Science fiction and politics a continuing series. I wonder if the Dorsai stories enter into discussions of war at some point.
18. Politics and fear mongering. The left complained about the Bush Administration doing that … Will they defend it when it’s coming from their camp?
19. Are high tension lines and step up/step down transformers too confusing … cause with all that copper up there, I don’t think they are more expensive.
20. Obama and abortion … is he stupid or evil (my paraphrase of the beginning of the last paragraph)?
21. Luck.

For a little perspective:  Mitch McConnell said that if you spent $1 million every day since Jesus was born, you still wouldn’t have outspent the proposed stimulus bill.  PolitiFact say, yup, he’s right.

ABC News thinks it’s possible.

An epochal media moment Monday night on ABC’s World News? In an upbeat story about the election in Iraq "with virtually no violence," reporter Jim Sciutto raised the possibility the war is now over — just in time to enable President Barack Obama to fulfill his promise to reduce troop levels — as Sciutto asked a member of Iraq’s parliament: "Is this the end of the war?" Mahmoud Othman cautiously predicted: "If the Iraqi leaders could get together and work together sincerely, yes, this could be the end of the war."

     Anchor Charles Gibson set up the story by asserting the Saturday elections "mark a major turning point in the Iraqi effort to move forward and the U.S. desire to pull back." Sciutto began with a woman who agreed with his premise "Iraq is ready to move on without the Americans." Sciutto described how "almost every day there’s another handover from American to Iraqi authority" and that "it was Iraqi soldiers who kept polling stations remarkably safe" while check points "used to be manned by American soldiers. Today, they are almost exclusively Iraqi security forces."

Thank you George W. Bush, for this "liberation moment".  Thanks especially from Barack Obama who can now safely pull the troops out.

1. Fire … in Chicago.
2. If right, perhaps it’s too bad that it will happen before any stimulus bill’s effects really kick in. But then that bill isn’t about stimulus … it’s about paving the road to serfdom.
3. A wicked woman.
4. Treason?
5. Risk and banking.
6. Lots about Doug (I also played AH strategy games a lot when I was younger).
7. One … getting less excited about the next Star Trek film.
8. A man’s passing noted.
9. St. Maximus.
10. A question asked … my answer … “Well, that’s because their parents are very rich and influential.”
11. A Marine in Anbar on the election.
12. From back when “be a man” had meaning.
13. Hmm.
14. A suggestion … simplify taxes … no no really really simplify them.
15. A leftist arguing in bad faith … that conservatives are acting in bad faith.
16. Art … from China.
17. Math tricks.
18. Color me unsurprised.
19. Medical ethics or the lack thereof.

The White House has become as hypocritical on the matter of global warming as Al Gore’s house. 

The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Oh, well, that explains it.  Cranking up the thermostat is OK for native Hawaiians. 

Where’s Jimmy Carter when you need him?  I’m sure he has some spare sweaters.

Celibacy. A word used with fear and trepidation in our sex-drenched society. A common notion amongst (perhaps liberal or is it also Protestant?) some Christians is that celibacy is a calling. And that it is but few that are called. Parenthetically, the remark might be added that is is confusing to myself as to why the calling has evaporated in modernity and in the Protestant West … but not elsewhere. However, that is not the main point that I’m going to make tonight. Celibacy is not a “calling for the few” for the Christian. It is a universal calling. All Christians are called during times of their life to celibacy. From puberty until marriage … we are called to be celibate. When we travel apart for work or otherwise … we are called to be celibate.

Jesus remarks at one point when his disciples fail to cast out a demon, “that sort of demon can only be removed through prayer and fasting” … St. Paul counsels that married couples should fast from sexual activity (in a manner of speaking) only when they mutually agree. This seems to imply strongly as well that such celibate periods within marriage are beneficial to spiritual growth. The larger church accepted this idea quite universally, East and West, and this held until a few centuries ago but has dissolved in the modern era.

So … my question is the following. Where is there a defense of the notion that celibacy is a calling for the few? Where is defense of the abandonment of monasticism and single celibacy as a calling?