Faith and I went to New Hampshire. We took pictures. These ones are humanless.
Faith and I went to New Hampshire. We took pictures. These ones are humanless.
One of the grand features this summer here at the blog has been the plethora (Three Amigos anyone?) of European travel photos. We’ve certainly got supply. I’m not sure what demand is looking like, but I’m going to flood the market with a few more because NW seems pretty busy and I wonder how much time he’ll have for writin’.
Paris is a nice city. It’s in France. It’s got nice architecture.
It’s no easy task to deal with the many photos coming from a wedding and honeymoon and distribute them via different media to different folks. This task is exacerbated when one is distracted by other things, like getting back to work and getting up to mischief while the family is away in Spain! Nevertheless, I apologize for being a bit pokey about getting some pictures up. There are about 2000 to choose from, all told. Here are just a couple from the day of the wedding.
This year I would like to embellish my Independence Day salutations with some Russell Kirk (from his chapter on John Randolph). I was particularly taken by these two quotes since they speak so strongly to our times. I wasted a fair bit of time writing some paragraphs to accompany them, but couldn’t escape the feeling that my words were detracting from the argument. So here they are without commentary.
When a people begin to think that they can improve society infinitely by incessant alteration of positive law, nothing remains settled: every right, every bit of property, every one of those dear attachments to the permanence of family, home, and countryside is endangered. Such a people soon presume themselves to be omnicompetent, and the farther their affairs fall into confusion, the more enthusiastic they become for some legislative panacea which promises to cut all knots in Gordian fashion.
Public vanity is turned to personal and class advantage by demagogues and clever speculators, so that government becomes a means for extracting money and rights from one portion of the population to suit the interests of men who manipulate the system. Good political constitutions alone do not suffice to resist this legislative maggot: first the delusion that the state is competent to regulate all things must be exploded, and then the power must be counterpoised against power, since mere parchment is no insurance against oppression.
Have a vigilant Independence Day!
It’s awfully quiet around here. There’s always either hustle or sometimes bustle in this house and not infrequently a mixture of the two. But Faith is at work late tonight, the birds are uncharacteristically calm, Sly is amusing herself with personal hygiene… Oh, and NW, the Reverend Mother and Tiger Lilly have flown the coup, gotten out of Dodge, rendered themselves scarce.
It’s times like these that
try men’s souls, suggest mischief, feel real peaceful.
Ahhh, I hear the pitter patter of wife feet. G’day!
by The Son@Night
Voting without reading
Blind stumblebums and thieves
Spending without needing
Who cares what it achieves?
It’s nothing but illusion,
A pretense and a sham
Captured by delusion
All hail our Uncle Sam!
There has been a disturbing habit in Congress as of late, purposely ramming through votes before anyone has had the opportunity to read the legislation in question. It happened back in February when Congress passed the massive stimulus bill and it happened again yesterday when the House of Representatives passed the
Cap and Trade National Energy Tax bill. Both of these bills were controversial and close. It seems that Congressional leadership did not want anyone looking too closely under the hood before buying the vehicle. Tactically this makes sense. After all, both bills passed. Ethically? Not so much. Your government does not want anyone to understand what is happening before it happens. That can’t be a good sign.
This post at the Corner examines the phenomenon more closely and proposes a solution.
I’ve always considered it easier to complain about what Congress is doing than actually get in touch with my representative and tell her (my rep is Betty McCollum) how I would like her to vote. But I read this morning that Congress will be considering the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill this week. It sounded as if this might be another rush job, like the unpopular “stimulus” bill earlier this year. There is the Fourth of July weekend coming up and what better place to kill public interest in a controversial vote than in a long weekend of barbecuing, family fun, and patriotism?
So I found the phone number for Betty and politely told her to please vote “no” on the cap and trade bill. Why no? Under the guise of environmental responsibility, it will seek to tax production. The simple minded among us will shout “hurrah” that nasty businesses pay taxes for their sins, but the rest of us know that these costs get passed along to consumers. In other words, the Congress is considering passing a hidden tax on everyone. I’ve heard numbers bandied about suggesting that the cost isn’t that bad. Poppycock. No matter what the rosy promises might be, in fact this bill will tie an anchor around the American economy. We don’t need that now. We don’t need that period.
So I would encourage you to get in touch with your representative. If you haven’t done it before, it’s pretty painless. Just look up your rep’s phone number here.
By Son @ Night
A bit more than three years ago, the Nightwriter posted a picture of Faith wagging her finger at me in front of Big Ben. It really made me smile at the time and left an impression on my memory.
So when we were traipsing about London on our honeymoon we decided that we needed to take the shot again, but this time with a fantastic, new reality in place. So here you go, Faith and Big Ben in London, v2.0.
Sure, it’s not an exact replica. It’s better! And that’s exactly as it should be.
By the way, I’ve started going through the 700+ pictures from our trip and will be posting some of the more interesting ones in the days to come.
by The Son@Night
The following is a question and answer from an interview with Gloria Steinem in the Star Tribune this morning.
Is the recession America is now experiencing disproportionately affecting women?
It obviously is.
Now let’s take a look at that old conservative rag, the New York Times.
The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.
There appears to be a credibility gap. Just what would it take for Gloria Steinem to admit that women aren’t victims in need of her brand of feminism? When women are still “disproportionately affected” by this economic downturn when men are absorbing 80% of the layoffs this year, I think it becomes clear that there is nothing in the world that would convince her. Or rather, maybe she’s not actually interested in equality for men and women so much as she is in pushing her own political agenda?
Of course this is an exercise in the obvious and will surprise no one. But somehow this type of thinking, that women still have a long way to go to achieve equality, still gets trotted out year after year. We’ve still got to fix rampant sexism! When will we finally overcome this problem? Only when it is politically expedient to let go of it.
While this issue is certainly important, the assumption that Gloria Steinem and so many adopt and how society learns to view this assumption is far more important. The basic assumption is this, that society is perfectible if only we try hard enough and are willing to do what is necessary. That almost sounds noble. But it isn’t. Because “what is necessary” always requires more of your freedom and more of your funding. The noble goal always remains just out of reach.
This type of positivist thinking was prevalent prior to the world wars, as modern society seemed on an inexorable march of progress. As standards of living rose, life spans stretched, and human capabilities shot through the roof, only curmudgeons could possibly deny that societal perfection was a rational goal. The only question was how we might achieve it. The human cruelty of the world wars disabused some of this notion, and the spectacular failure of communism made it even clearer. But it remains a very enticing thought. And it remains the foundation of modern liberalism.
But positivist thinking is bankrupt. Society is not perfectible and humans certainly are not. Every time we try another experiment to reach the noble goal, “unforeseen consequences” swoop down and saddle us with more problems. Social Security, welfare, the war of drugs, etc… are all examples of this. They sound like great ideas, but they cost more than advertised and they work worse. Quick, name a government program that costs less than envisioned and works better! It just doesn’t happen. Yet many persevere in the quest for societal perfection.
That is where we are at today. We elected a leader who campaigned on quixotic positivism. Yes we can! Alas, the “unforeseen consequences” are licking their chops just offstage. Our president, like Steinem, wants to point us to unreachable goals couched in warm sentiment. But it isn’t about reaching the goals, because any fool knows that perfection can’t happen this side of Nadia Comaneci, it is about power and pushing a political agenda.
Beware of noble goals coming out of the halls of government. This world does not know perfect and anyone pushing it is either a deceiver or deceived.