Archive for category Uncategorized
Scott Walker vs. the Mandarins
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on February 24th, 2015
A recent column in The Federalist explains why Scott Walker’s success despite not having a college degree, much less an Ivy League degree, is so threatening to the emerging aristocracy:
But behind that, there is a more visceral reaction. The real purpose of higher education is to learn the knowledge and skills required for success later in life. So if someone has already become a success, whether or not he went to college is irrelevant. If he has achieved the end, what does it matter that he didn’t do it by way of that specific means? But for the mainstream elites, particularly those at the top level in the media, a college education is not simply a means to an end. It is itself a key attainment that confers a special social status.
There are no real class divisions in America except one: the college-educated versus the non-college educated. It helps to think of this in terms borrowed from the world of a Jane Austen novel: graduating from college is what makes you a “gentleman.” (A degree from an Ivy League school makes you part of the aristocracy.) It qualifies you to marry the right people and hold the right kind of positions. It makes you respectable. And even if you don’t achieve much in the world of work and business, even if you’re still working as a barista ten years later, you still retain that special status. It’s a modern form of “genteel poverty,” which is considered superior to the regular kind of poverty.
If you don’t have a college degree, by contrast, you are looked down upon as a vulgar commoner who is presumptuously attempting to rise above his station. Which is pretty much what they’re saying about Scott Walker. This prejudice is particularly strong when applied to anyone from the right, whose retrograde views are easily attributed to his lack of attendance at the gentleman’s finishing school that is the university.
Paul Johnson, in The Birth of the Modern, explains what such a society can end up looking like, and how it differs from pretty much everything American:
China was that worst of all systems: a society run by its intelligentsia, a cathedocracy ruled from the scholar’s chair….
The system was obnoxious because it placed scholars at the top, followed in descending order by farmers, artisans, and merchants. What it meant in practice was that the country was ruled by those who were good at passing highly formalized examinations. So early 19th-century China, with its rapidly increasing population, had many of the symptoms of underdeveloped Third World societies today, especially an overproduction of literate men (not technocrats or scientists) in relation to the capacity of the political and economic system to employ them usefully. The educational system trained Mandarins for official life in the narrowest sense, not for anything else, least of all commerce….
As the intelligentsia grew in size, the ethics of the system were progressively destroyed. Degrees, studentships, and places in the academies, as well as the statutory jobs themselves, were all in time put up for sale… All these men had high notions of their worth and healthy appetites for power and money. All that they had been taught in the academies was how to write examination essays. All they learned in their jobs was how to translate the minuscule slice of power each exercised into money, in the form of bribes from those whose activities they controlled…
We’re not quite at that point yet, although the outlines are clear enough. It’s much too much to suggest that the path of Merit vs. Mandarin will be determined by the 2016 election, but how we react to Walker’s success without a degree is a marker on how far we’ve gone along this path.
Thoughts on Rick Santorum
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on January 12th, 2015
In what looks like the wide-open Republican nominating process for 2016, word is that Rick Santorum is once again considering a run. Santorum is a genuinely decent guy, and though I think he’d be a disaster as a nominee, having him up on the stage would add a lot to the debates. Better than anyone else, Santorum made the connection between social issues and economic ones. The state, by adopting policies that deliberately undermine the traditional family, ends up creating welfare and entitlement dependencies that hobble the economy and create additional dependencies. And as the welfare check replaces the father, the corrosion turns back on itself in a cycle of decay. Historically, this has been seen as a problem in minority communities, but in 2012, the number was 40% nationwide. The idea that this problem would stay contained in the easily-ignored black community was always a mirage. Santorum, almost alone among national politicians, has been effective in drawing these connections.
He’s also the only Republican candidate that I had a chance to meet personally. I went to the 2011 debate in Sioux City, Iowa, representing Who Said You Said, and Santorum was the only candidate who personally came out to the media area to answer questions. All the rest sent flacks to spin, but Santorum stood there and patiently answered my questions about free trade for five minutes. He had no reason to do that, other than that to a retail politician, everyone – everyone – matters.
Santorum, a former US Senator from Pennsylvania, came in second in the delegate count in 2012, and if he runs, he’ll be thinking that he can repeat Romney’s route to the nomination, when Romney parleyed his second-place 2008 finish into “next-in-line” status. I doubt that will work, for a variety of reasons. The libertarian wing of the party is strong and better-organized than it was in 2012; Romney won in 2012 because he entered the race as the front-runner, and Santorum will not; Romney effectively positioned himself as most people’s default second choice, in large part by not going out of his way to offend segments of the party; it remains to be seen whether or not Santorum can pull off the same trick, and his recent comments about Rand Paul and Ted Cruz don’t bode well on that score.
If Rick Santorum were to run in 2016, I won’t be supporting him in the primaries. His priorities aren’t mine, and I doubt he has much appeal outside of the breadbasket and the South. The one electoral benefit he might bring to the party would be to weaken the equally socially-conservative Mike Huckabee. But his presence on the stage will do a lot to remind the country of the mutually-reinforcing damage caused by the intrusive welfare state and a state not even neutral on, but actively hostile to, essential moral values.
A Tale of Two Ads
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on February 6th, 2014
Football aside (and let’s face it, this past Sunday, it was all to easy to put it there), the Super Bowl is about ads, and ads are about the culture. Which is what makes the conservative response to the Coke “It’s Beautiful” ad and the Cheerios “Gracie” ad, and Left’s reaction to that response, real and imagined, so fascinating and instructive.
In case you missed them, the Coke ad showed recent immigrants and 1st-generation Americans, with a multi-lingual soundtrack of “America the Beautiful.” The Cheerios ad showed the same mixed-race family as last year’s ad, this time expecting a new addition.
A fair number of conservatives were offended by the Coke Ad. I happened to find it powerful and moving, a testament to the universal appeal of America, especially to people who move here and find out what we’re really about.
The Left, on the other hand, was absolutely convinced that the Cheerios ad was driving conservatives up the wall by portraying a bi-racial couple. This turns out to have been mostly in their own imaginations. Nobody I know – literally nobody, which is quite an achievement – was offended by the idea of a white wife and a black husband. The first time I saw the original Cheerios ad, I had to have the supposed Big Reveal explained to me. It turns out that our Orthodox Synagogue has three bi-racial couples, and I am friends with several more such couples, so maybe I’m just too open-minded for my own good.
A generous reading of the leftist reaction would be that they’re upset with their own imaginary caricature of conservatives. Less-generous but probably more accurate would be to say that they’re projecting their own race obsession onto their political opponents.
But that’s almost trivial partisanship. What’s really telling is the leftist assumption that the only reason some conservatives didn’t go bonkers over yet another multi-racial child being born into the world was that they were distracted first by “America the Beautiful” in Hindi. That is, the Left’s routine assumption that race and culture are the same thing.
Of course, nothing proves this idea wrong better than the actual reactions by conservatives to the two ads.
Those conservatives who were upset by the Coke ad believed that it was politically-correct multiculturalism that undermined assimilation and promoted the cultural balkanization of the country. I think that’s a vast over-reading of the ad, but a fair interpretation of multiculturalism. What matters is that if the ad had shown exactly the same scenes, but without the translation, conservatives wouldn’t have been upset at all. That goes hand-in-hand with why they didn’t much care about a little girl with a black daddy and a white mommy. It’s not about race, it’s about culture and the adoption of the American Idea.
Conservatives still promote America as a melting pot, where people come here to adopt the American idea, and part of that assimilation is learning to speak English. We welcome the colorful dress, the new cuisine, and even (as long as they’re not preaching jihad) the new temples and houses of worship. If we don’t care about any of that, we really don’t care about someone’s skin color.
This stands in direct contrast to how liberals relate to minorities, women, and gays, where they assume that once they know you’re black or Jewish, for instance, they know everything that’s relevant about you.
Walter Russell Mead, in his just-barely-pre-9/11 survey of American schools of foreign policy thought, Special Providence, identifies one – the Jacksonian – that grew from the Scots-Irish tradition and seemed on its way to extinction under the tide of eastern European and German immigration. Until a funny thing happened: many of those immigrants moved to the suburbs and adopted the ideas of their predecessors. For a liberal, this makes no sense, but for a conservative who believes in assimilation, it’s the most natural thing in the world.
That conservatives didn’t respond badly to the Cheerios ad is probably was causes liberals the most angst.
After all, we’ve already see how they react when people don’t conform to their stereotypes.
Recycling, Global Warming Style
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on January 5th, 2014
Guess the year:
Some climate computer models say that the warming so far this century should be greater than it has been. Why hasn’t the Earth warmed more?
Some of the possible reasons are:
- Pollution, especially sulfur particles, could be blocking enough sunlight to offset greenhouse warming
- Oceans could be storing more heat that most theories allow
- The climate might be in a natural cooling phase, offsetting some of the greenhouse warming
- Natural “thermostats” could limit the Earth’s heating. One idea is that as oceans warm, thicker clouds would form, blocking more sunlight and keeping temperatures from rising further
Climate models that take the effects of sulfur into account and that have more details of ocean currents come close to creating the current conditions. [Senior Scientist at the National Climate Data Center Tom] Karl says enough sulfur is in the air over the eastern U.S., and parts of China and Europe to easily offset a greenhouse warming. Heat stored in the oceans and changes in ocean currents could account for the 1940 to 1975 cooling.
…
This leads to speculation that the weather’s ups and downs of the last few years are caused by global warming. Some have blamed greenhouse gases for Hurricane Andrew, the 1993 Mississippi floods and other events. But there’s no real evidence that global warming was involved. In fact, Hurricane Andrew hit in August 1992, the earth’s coldest month in a year that was cooler than any since the 1970s because of the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991.
Over the last few years, various scientific findings have been publicized as either proof or refutation of the idea that greenhouse gases are warming the climate. Reports of these findings could leave “the impression that science changes its mind each six months,” [NCAR’s John] Firor says. Instead, what’s really happening, is “every year we learn a little bit by thinking very hard” about climate. “Science progresses very slowly.” In climate science, “changes have been minor, even since 1988 when all the fuss about global warming was front page news.”
This means that policymakers will have to continue making decisions about the balance between economics and the danger of greenhouse warming without firm predictions from scientists. (Emphasis added.)
And then, there’s this graph:
Every once is a while, I’m able to overcome my neuroses and throw out a book that’s past its sell-by date. But before tossing out the 1995 Weather Almanac, I thought I’d take a look at what it had to say about Global Warming. Here are the relevant portions under, “Greenhouse update.” The article points out that the earth was warming between 1900 – 1940, then cooled from 1940 – 1975 or so, before starting to warm up again. This means that right at the tail end of a warming spurt, climate scientists were struggling to explain why the earth hadn’t warmed as much as models had predicted. Sound familiar? It should. Right now, climate scientists are struggling with exactly the same problem right now, with no net warming (and potentially even a little cooling) since 1998. So should some of the explanations. (Also, note the honesty about “extreme weather events,” notably absent from most of today’s reporting about climate.)
Perhaps most notable is the simultaneous assumption that the greenhouse gases will warm the planet, along with a modesty about how much is actually known. Actual temperatures are what matter, not models and their predictions, for instance. That said, it’s clear that the Climatocracy already understood the dangers of public debate in a field in which they knew so little but assumed so much. It goes a long way toward explaining the speed with which they moved to shut off that particular threat.
Yes on 66 Campaign Goes Brave Sir Robin
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on November 3rd, 2013
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin
“Monty Python and the Holy Grail”
That was roughly the approach taken by Abigail Hinga of the Yes on 66 campaign Sunday morning.
In response to WatchdogWire’s coverage of Amendment 66, News Director Roman Moore of Krystal 93 FM in Dillon invited me and a representative of the Yes on 66 campaign to participate in a radio forum of about 45 minutes, to be aired at least once, and podcast on the site. The show was to be recorded at 1:00 PM.
As I was driving up to Dillon this morning, I got a call from Mr. Moore saying that the Yes on 66 representative had cancelled – without giving a reason – and that he didn’t feel it would be right to continue with the forum with only one side in attendance. Mr. Moore asked be for a statement, and I gave him the following: “It’s sad that the out-of-state money and union interests that are backing this amendment don’t want the residents of Summit County to have access to a full and fair debate. That’s probably because under the new funding formula, it’ll just mean more broken promises to Summit County public school students.”
It should be noted that Watchdog Wire has not taken an official editorial position on Amendment 66, however, we have devoted a fair amount of time to discussing the inconsistencies of those who are supporting the measure, including Governor Hickenlooper and ProgressNow’s Alan Franklin.
Let’s be reasonable here. The Yes on 66 side has bought a tremendous amount of airtime on Krystal 93 for advertising. Without a participant, it was clear that Moore wouldn’t be able to have a forum. And without a forum, they would effectively muzzle the opposition. The way this game is normally played, the side who thinks they have nothing to gain ducks and dodges, while the side who wants the debate accuses them of ducking an dodging. But it’s highly unusual – to say the least – to commit several times to a forum and then pull out of it at virtually the last minute. That’s not politics, it’s just poor form.
Clearances
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on June 12th, 2013
For those who are wondering what a 29-year-old with a GED was doing with clearances, I actually know something about this. I had TS/SCI, with various compartments within a specific type of program, before I was 25. None of that was unusual.
I also had a bachelor’s in physics & math, but that was needed for my job. Evidently, for Snowden’s computer work, he had skills in demand. He had whatever tickets they felt he needed to do the computer work he was hired to do. So while this was obviously a failure from a vetting point of view, there’s nothing about his age or his skills that a priori points to a problem.
Senator Wyden (who evidently tried to trap DCI Clapper into revealing the existence of the NSA program in open session) has also made much of the contractor/employee division, implying that contractors are somehow at greater risk for this sort of thing to happen.
This is also overblown. I was always a contractor, once for a company whose primary client was in Langley. There was cultural friction between the “blue badges” (employees) and the “green badges” (contractors), to be sure. There was a difference in pay, and there was also a difference in the type of work they did. The employees did the actual analysis, for the most part, while the contractors did the programming and the support work.
There was never any sense that contractors were inherently less trustworthy or loyal to the country. We had passed the same polygraph tests, after all. But we were clearly outsiders, who hadn’t made the sacrifice of joining the Company, and so were always more temporary.
There is no reason to believe, and nobody at the time believed, that contractors were more likely to be careless with security, or to go trotting off to our primary adversaries, portfolios tucked under our arms.
Even A Failed Nork EMP Attack Is Bad
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on April 7th, 2013
In the wake of Kim Jong Un’s loud talk from and missile movements within the Hermit Kingdom, there has been much speculation about what he’s actually up to. My own pet theory is that it’s an EMP attack, the sort that would wipe out the electrical grid, fry a great deal of electronic infrastructure, and more or less set us back to 1850 (although we’d have battery-powered devices and personal generators available for a while).
The odds of North Korea actually being able to pull off such an attack successfully remain thankfully low, but even failure shouldn’t leave us too complacent. Here are a number of ways in which such an attack could fall short or be thwarted, and yet not really let us breathe much of a sigh of relief.
- Technical failure: Obviously, such an attack is still a tricky thing to pull off. The missile has the launch, the warhead has to deploy and explode properly. But men are solving technical problems all the time, and the easiest ones to solve are those that have already been solved by someone else.
- Our Countermeasures Discourage the Attack: In part, this is a variant of the last. Technical countermeasures, such as THAAD, are always subject to technical solutions. In part, it’s also a strategic thinning of our defenses, since once up, we’ll never really be able to let these stand down.
- THAAD: This is probably the best option. In war, our actually using a weapon is an intelligence coup for the enemy, and don’t think there aren’t other enemies who’ll be looking. But a THAAD intercept from a forward deployment won’t tell them much they don’t already know, since THAAD has been around for a while. And a successful intercept of a presumed attack launch provides a lot of pretext go ahead and bomb all sorts of North Korean missile and nuclear facilities. It also suggests they don’t have a real warhead (since an EMP attack is a high-altitude explosion), making a nuclear response to a sustained bombing campaign not a credible threat.
- Our ASAT: We actually have tested several successful anti-satellite systems, most famously the plane-launched ASAT in the 1980s, most recently a ship-based weapon designed to send a message of deterrence to the Chinese. My understanding is that the tracking needed for this weapons to work reliable will only work once the warhead is no longer being boosted, so it’s kind of a last line of defense. You would always rather hit things earlier rather than later, since that cedes far less of the actual attack timeline to the enemy.
- Chinese ASAT: We could also be talking to the Chinese about their ASAT. Or having the Chinese talk to the Norks about their ASAT. This is probably the worst option, since even if the weapon isn’t actually used, it puts our defense in the hands of a primary adversary.
A word about ASAT weapons in general. The administration has historically been very cool on the idea of ASATs, mostly for the same ideological reasons that lead it to think that unilateral nuclear disarmament is a good idea. In 2011, they were talking ASAT limitations with the EU – as though the EU were our major worry on that front. One hopes that, just as the current crisis has led them to rethink their position on missile defense, it has also led them to reconsider their position on ASAT weapons.
Ultimately, my own feeling is that an EMP attack remains an extraordinarily cost-effective temptation for the Norkos or the Iranians to try against us. The failure, defeat, or deterrence of one attack shouldn’t lead us to be complacent about what can happen, or the need to harden our power generation infrastructure against a future assault.
Similarities and Differences
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on September 27th, 2012
Music helps with the writing. Especially Bach. Ahhhhh, Bach. So I like to put on the Rhapsody playlist and let it run. It means I can’t give it the attention it deserves, so it’s mostly just background. Until this jumped out:
Why? Because I’d recognize it anywhere. From here:
This Mendelssohn piece has been one of my favorites since I heard it, almost 30 years ago. Now, up until Mendelssohn’s day, performers played new pieces, not old ones. There might be a few fan favorites that hung on, as appetizers for the new stuff, but by and large, people didn’t go to concerts to hear covers. Mendelssohn organized the first retrospective – a concert of Bach. So he obviously thought a lot of the old master. So much so that he apparently didn’t mind quoting this fairly obscure passage in what would go on to be a blockbuster hit capable of moving people 200 years later.
Then, there are the Canadians who are apparently insecure about their independence from Britain, at least insecure enough to think that the rest of the world can’t tell the difference between them.
I can promise that even benighted Americans, who can barely tell the difference among non-English-speaking foreigners, never mind muster the Henry Higgins-like skills necessary to distinguish among the various Southern Hemispheric English-speakers, can figure out the difference between Brits and Canadians. Working at home, I like to have the TV on for background noise, and for a while, one of the cable channels was running “Wind At My Back.” It’s the sort of anodyne, inoffensive production you get from most BBC government-funded “art.” Only in this case is was the CBC, and I never once thought it was set in Kent. (Canadian TV is a lot closer to home, but never gets the same play here as British stuff, probably because PBS doesn’t have a long-term player development contract with it. Maybe they only license the French stuff for export.)
It’s only a space-sharing arrangement, but there’s no reason that it couldn’t be replicated with other Anglospheric countries, and even extended to routine administrative matters, without compromising sovereignty. You want to build up a new and improved Commonwealth, it’s going to start with little things like that.
Which leads me to Revolution.
If you’re of a certain age, and grew up at any point during the Cold War, you imbibed your share of dystopian futuristic science fiction. A lot of it was crap, like “The Day After,” produced mostly to remind everyone of how big a risk they had taken by electing Reagan in 1980, and how they would soon have a chance to fix that and avoid the end of the world. It came out right around the same time as the “Weinberger for President: Let’s Get It Over With” bumper stickers, with little mushroom clouds. Nobody would confuse it with “Threads,” an even more hopeless vision, but one that for all that stuck with me long enough to give me nightmares. It was British, of course. The basic thesis of all of these was the in the aftermath of a nuclear war, civilization was doomed and you were pretty much better off saving the effort and using the first bullet on yourself. Which isn’t nearly as interesting as a world where life goes on, is it?
And a few years ago, I interviewed One Second After author William Forstchen on the air. It’s about the after-effects of an EMP attack on the United States. My sister had gotten me the book as a present, and my immediate reaction was that I was delighted to have gotten the book, and really sorry to have read it. One commentator on NPR ridiculed the idea of an EMP attack (“What, they get a nuclear bomb and they’re going to use it to turn off our lights?”), but it was clear he hadn’t really thought about where he got his tapwater from. The book thinks through the consequences, and they’re not, really not, pretty.
A quick search shows that the publicists have been hard at work, and the show did get some advance reviews after the carpet bombing we got during the Olympics. There’s every incentive, though, for the MSM to ignore or downplay or even ridicule the notion now, because scaring people now works against their preferred candidate, not in his favor. Of course, it doesn’t have to come from an attack. It’s possible that a massive solar storm could do the same thing, and we’ll never know what that commentator has to say then, because he won’t be broadcasting it.
They won’t be broadcasting Revolution, either, which is probably a blessing.
Look, the biggest problems after an EMP-led outage are going to be food, food, food, and water. We’ll lose a lot of people who are dependent on the easy distribution of drugs and medicine, but for those left, there’s just no getting around the fact that once the trains stop running, there’s just not going to be a lot of food coming from the farmland into the cities. And if the EMP also takes out the major farm equipment, then it’s really Welcome to 1850, because the farmers are going to back to that level of technology, too.
It makes the whole premise of one of the main characters completely implausible. There’s just no way that 15 years after “The lights go out,” as the euphemism has it, a chubby ex-Google programmer with no identifiable practical skills is still around.
The show also tips its hand in the first 15 minutes. Just like the theme of the original Battlestar Galactica was the quest to find Earth, this one’s going to be about whether or not one of the main characters can use the information stored on a thumb drive to “turn the lights back on.” Too much happens, and there’s not enough build-up for any of the reveals to have any payoff. The main character is looking through an old stash of postcards of major cities, and one of them is of Wrigley Field. Voila! One segment later, she and her compadres are walking past a dilapidated Wrigley Field where the outfield vines have clearly gotten well out of hand. We have no idea how far they are from Chicago, they barely pack anything for this life-threatening excursion, there’s no sense of adventure in the journey, so there’s no emotional payoff when they finally get there.
Doing it this way makes it too easy for the writers to pop up some convenient obstacle when they need it.
I know Firefly got cancelled, but I still think that it and Babylon 5 did it right. Set up the world, skip the history lesson, and use the first season to tell basic stories about what life in that world is like. Save the long-arc stuff until you’ve got the characters and the universe established. (Yes, I know Serenity used the same conceit of a history lesson to kids, but that was a movie, where you have to establish what’s going on immediately, or have the audience spend the whole time trying to put the pieces together and follow the storyline at the same time.) Tell interesting stories each week, while giving us some sense of what to expect. That approach also means you have to sketch out the world in advance, and really do your homework.
Too bad they didn’t have time for that.
Memory and History, Jews and the 4th
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on July 4th, 2012
George Washington’s letter to the Newport Synagogue is justly celebrated as one of the first official descriptions of what Free Exercise and Non-establishment meant in the United States, although the Bill of Rights wouldn’t become officially part of the Constitution for over a year. What’s less well-known is the letter of congratulation written by Moses Seixas to Washington, as the new President visited Newport as part of a tour of the country. Here are the two letters:
Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, in his short book, Zachor, makes the claim that Jews, up until the Enlightenment and its rationalist influences, had essentially given up recording history, instead seeing events through a shared cultural memory. While history happens to someone else, your memories can only be of things that happened to you. As a result, almost all Jewish recordings of contemporary events are in a voice that either echoes Biblical events, or analogizes to Biblical personages. Instances where local kings intervene to prevent massacres are recorded in scrolls that mimic Megillat Esther (the Book of Esther), for example. This has the effect of providing a context for everything, but it also prevented Jews from seeing anything as actually new.
Western civilization, on the other hand, studies history as events that may have happened to others, but from which we can learn. That historical accounts are not treated as entertaining stories, but as a description of how we got where we are, doesn’t change the fact that they’re written with the distance of time.
These two views of history are on full display in the two letters. Seixas makes no fewer than four scriptural analogies. The whole tone of his letter is one that is trying to shoehorn current events into ancient paradigms. Washington’s letter is more familiar to our way of thinking. His history – with which he was personally fully conversant – is implied, rather than stated, and his Biblical reference is a blessing, not an event.
Washington was President of a Constitutional Convention filled with men who studied the Greeks, the Romans, and other republics in-between, and put their lessons to use in designing our own government. Seixas was struggling to describe his awe that he had the privilege to live in a time when a new concept of citizenship had been born and put into practice.
And yet, each realizes that this country is something new under the sun. It’s not just that bigotry gets no sanction, it’s that “tolerance,” which implies that (in this case) the Jews have their rights by sufferance of the majority, isn’t the operative principle here. Full citizenship and participation in the government are completely unconditional on one’s faith or religion.
Which is why, as Jews, we ought to celebrate Independence Day with a special fervor and gratitude, and why we have a special obligation to help preserve that order,
February, the Silas Marner of Months
Posted by Joshua Sharf in Uncategorized on February 2nd, 2012
Thirty days hath September
April, June, and November.
All the rest have thirty-one
Except for February, which is endless.
Yes, I borrowed that from Charley McDowell, a Washington columnist of my youth. But then, so did Tom Silvestri, by way of Ray McAllister, where I found McDowell’s Greatest February Hits. He found 10 of them. All we need is about 275 more, and we could market a nice February desk calendar. It might be possible, since the University of Virginia has his papers, and there’s a heading, “Columns – February, Seasons, Holidays.” Since he reprinted them from the old Washington Daily News Richmond Times-Dispatch archives, without fear of SOPA, PIPA, or Righthaven, so do I. Consider this the Name of the Rose of blog posts.
•”February is set apart from other months by the outrages it perpetuates, including its fraudulent pretense to brevity.”
•”February dissolves hope like its rain dissolves taxis.” (A Washington perspective.)
•”We know the trickery of this month. Over the centuries it has become famous for its pretense to brevity on the calendar. In reality February is distinguished for weather that balefully stretches time, a month as long as the War of the Austrian Succession, a month of Mondays, an addled sequence of snow, sleet, rain, freezing fog, floods, mud, drizzles, sudden gales of old oak leaves, trash, parking tickets, forgotten Christmas bills, and expensive prescriptions. Yes, we have come to know that a glimmer of sunshine in February is just stage lighting for the entrance of furies.”
•”The only thing that goes fast in February is the occasional misapprehension that things are getting better.”
•”Not that anyone would by fooled by February once he got used to the pace and mood of it. It is . . . less exhilarating than the flu. It is the Silas Marner of months. . . . It is 28 Sunday afternoons in Philadelphia, except leap year, when it is 29.”
•”There is nothing short about February but the temper of man. February is when the battery quits, the snow shovel breaks on the ice, the glove is lost, the galosh is ripped, the milk freezes, the dessert doesn’t jell, the cat and the paranoid furnace run amok.”
•”There is enough of February left to do us in. But February also is capable of a joke in which it undermines our sanity by never getting notably unpleasant. To February, the greenhouse effect, global warming, is a thousand laughs.”
•”Whatever we don’t know, surely, we have learned not to look to February to make us feel better about anything.”
•”February has the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington in it, but actually everyone in the world gets at least a year older in the course of February.”
•”What interests me about February was how long it seemed, how bleak and relentless, how humorless and, at the same time, how full of mockery for optimists and for groundhogs who thought they had seen a signal of better times.”