perfidy

just me, or has the National Review Online really gone to the dogs recently? It used to be that I could read (if not agree with) most of the pieces posted, and at least find substantive points to hang a rebuttal on. Recently, the editorial tone has become approximately 45% snarkier and 20% screedier, at the expense of substance, humor, and equanamity. It's too bad-- the NRO used to be how I took the measure of what intellectual neoconservatives were thinking.

In the meantime, check out this half-decent and well deserved parody of NRO's "The Corner" that got Jonah Goldberg all cheesed off.

Calpundit has an interesting post up, about just what are the Republicans up to?

A while back I had an email exchange with another blogger who said that the problem with Democrats is that they're under the misguided impression that their social policies are actually popular. So they keep banging away on guns and abortion and gays and they don't realize that the country just isn't with them.
As it happens, I don't agree with most of that, but let's leave it alone for now and apply the same thought to the Republicans.Every party in power eventually overreaches, and I think the Republicans are on the verge of doing this right now because they keep fooling themselves into thinking their economic policies are popular. But they aren't. Sure, no one wants to pay taxes, but eventually we'll have to make a choice between cutting taxes and cutting Social Security and Medicare and other programs, and Republicans are going to learn what they know in their hearts already: these programs are a lot more popular than tax cuts. When that day comes, the Republicans will be out on their ears.

I know conservatives hate to face up to this, and libertarians hate it even more, but the social safety net is really, really popular. You screw with it at your peril, and sometime soon it's going to become clear that Republicans have no support for a policy that's designed to cut back on them. The only question is, is "sometime soon" 2004 or 2008?

What he said. Times are hard. Don't try to BS me on this one: times are hard. Tax policy is only sexy until people need to go the emergency room, or go on disability, or lose their job. Then the social safety net suddenly becomes really, really important. (This fact is what blocks me from becoming a true fiscal conservative. The outer reaches of that philosophy are a bit more social-darwinist than I can stomach.) Depending on how the next few months go, this fact may become the deciding issue of the '04 election. That is, unless Buckethead's Chicago-school economics are right. We shall see. We shall see.

I'd rather go this route than the comments field. Brookhiser is clearly discussing secondary education, but there is an even greater problem in the universities. Many U.S. courses in the IT have also abandoned politics whole-hog. Having taught U.S. history for the first time this past spring, I did find that a social and economic focus with a dash of culture was more suited to the subject, because it's meatier. American political history can get pretty boring. I would have to disagree with Brookhiser specifically as it relates to U.S. history, that students prefer a political focus. My most popular lectures are those that deal with popular culture and the social implications of the industrial revolution. It says so in my evaluations. 

But Brookhiser has some points, and this deals with the entire abandonment of political history I've witnessed. To ignore political issues entirely ignores one of the most important aspects of American history. Here I will toot my own horn. My students know who George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Marshall, and Abraham Lincoln were, to name just a few, and what they did. It's absurd to cut the politics out entirely. They're critical. 

This is even more true of a European survey course, having taught those as well. In my American survey course, a history of one nation over a maximum of about 250 years, I emphasize social and economic aspects, little culture, while still giving appropriate weight to political aspects. My European survey courses, as a history of 50+ nations or dynastic states or empires or regions or whatever, over a maximum of 5,000years, pursue a political focus while still granting appropriate weight to social, cultural, and economic aspects. Best thing to do is to balance out all the interests, and don't ignore important stuff. Nonetheless, the social and cultural effects of the industrial revolution make a big bang there too, especially the time I brought my fiddle and played tunes to give a hands-on demonstration of agrarian rural Irish culture. They loved that bit. 

Ergo, politics, economy, society, and culture make history. They are intertwined. It is possible to deal with all of them, even in a survey course, and particularly in the one nation 250 years format.

Boomers have exhibited some sense of entitlement, as Steve correctly argues. I would say, though, that Gen Y has the biggest sense of entitlement I've ever seen. As we three are members of Gen X, I don't think we ever really expected easy and rich lives. Prophetic in my case, to say the least. We were born amidst the Vietnam war, the subsequent economic collapse, including an energy crisis, and a general spirit of malaise. We were the first generation raised by single mothers. We were the first latchkey kids. We lived with the constant threat of a nuclear holocaust that could potentially have wiped out all life on earth. We were told by media, teachers, and our parents, "You're screwed," in so many words. What media, teachers, and our parents specifically told us was, "You will be the first American generation to do worse than your parents." 

So why is Gen X an aggregate ranging from ennui to nihlism while Gen Y thinks the world owes them a living? Like any historical explanation, it's multi-faceted. Gen Y knows little of hard economic times. They know nothing of the Cold War and the threat of human extinction. If you say the words, "the wall came down," they think you're referring to, "that old band? What were they called? Purple Frood?" 

But for the issue at hand, Gen Y are the children of boomers. Gen X are the children of pre-boomers, those born not after World War II, but perhaps during. Or, we are the children of people born during the Great Depression. The message from our parents was, "Life isn't fair. Suck it up." Boomer parents have communicated to their children, "The world is your oyster. You are special. You can be anything you want to be." 

As a result, while teaching Gen Yers at a certain Jesuit institution, I was confronted with rage and tears whenever students received Bs or even B+s in lieu of As. One student called me an asshole, in front of the class, because I gave her a B on a paper despite carefully explaining what was required for an A, and that what she did merited a B. But according to the Gen Y folk, when I did grant As (grant hell, sometimes I hand them out like lollipops; I'm a grade inflater), I still failed to recognize their special contribution to the human race. 

Some of my current students, however, at a city college, have criticized me through course evaluations for being too easy on them. They don't have the sense of entitlement. Why? They're at a city college. Life has not been so kind to them. I see my role as a corrective to that, but not to toot my own horn. Most of my current students aren't Gen Y either, but a little older. The bottom line is that Boomers have inculcated their children with the notion that they are perfect, special, and oh so precious. A former mantra of our generation was, "Life's a bitch. Then you die."

Buckethead writes: 

Mike and I may differ on what services should be provided to the poor, but I think he'll agree that we should not be giving handouts to people who own their homes, have investment portfolios, and a pension.

Damn straight.
 

Well ho-ly.... 

Tony Blair has abolished the position of Lord Chancellor in Britain, in favor of what is essentially a Supreme Court. Ho-ly cow. Volokh Conspiracy guest-blogger Iain Murray has the story here. 

Can he do that?!? 
 

Last week, I came across a story in the Wall Street Journal which referred to those very poor people who don't pay federal income tax as "Very Lucky Duckies." After windexing my monitor and calming myself down from a red rage, I was left to wonder if the author of said article found it painful to sit, seeing as his head seems permanently lodged in the intragluteal position. I mean, wow. You know what would be real great? To be homeless! Think about it... no job, no income, no obligations, no mortgage, no rent, no car payments, damn! No taxes at all! Now THAT'S a lucky ducky!! Yeeeeah!!! 

As an opinion, the Journal's assertion is monumentally retarded, and as a joke, it's not funny.

The New Republic reprints a letter to the WSJ which sums up the counter-argument better than my feeble gutter ranting ever could.

'LUCKY DUCKIE' INVITES EDITORS INTO HIS POND 

I am one of those lucky duckies, referred to in your June 3 editorial "Even Luckier Duckies" who pay little or nothing in federal income tax (at least by the standards of Wall Street Journal editors; $800 is more than a chunk of change to me). I am not, however, a stingy ducky, and I am willing to share my good fortune with others. 

In this spirit, I propose a trade. I will spend a year as a Wall Street Journal editor, while one lucky editor will spend a year in my underpaid shoes. I will receive an editor's salary, and suffer the outrage of paying federal income tax on that salary. The fortunate editor, on the other hand, will enjoy a relatively small federal income tax burden, as well as these other perks of near poverty: the gustatory delights of a diet rich in black beans, pinto beans, navy beans, chickpeas and, for a little variety, lentils; the thrill of scrambling to pay the rent or make the mortgage; the salutary effects of having no paid sick days; the slow satisfaction of saving up for months for a trip to the dentist; and the civic pride of knowing that, even as a lucky ducky, you still pay a third or more of your gross income in income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. 

I could go on and on, but I am sure your editors are already keen to jump at this opportunity to join the ranks of the undertaxed. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Pier Petersen Chicago

If I ever meet Pier Petersen, the (cheap) beer's on me! Although, I would point out that the occasional trip to the day-old-produce store does wonders to stave off the rickets.

If we are going to have laws against drugs, fine, I can cope with that. I haven't done anything except alcohol in years and years. My problem, like Johno's, is with other laws being used in the drug wars. If someone is carrying, bust them for possession - its already illegal. If someone is selling, bust them for that. Prohibition, for all its faults, stuck mostly to stopping people from drinking. There was not the vast expansion of police powers that we have seen in thirty years of the war on drugs. 

The RAVE act infringes on our right to assemble peaceably. The RICO statutes have been used (quite often) to infringe on our fourth amendment rights. Civil forfeiture is based on the ridiculous premise that property used in the commission of a crime, or even suspected of such, is somehow "guilty". Never mind that only people can be guilty, and that the constitution says that we cannot be deprived of our property without due process of law. 

I have not yet read enough to know for certain that the Patriot II act is bad or not - I've heard people come down on both sides. But there is no question that RAVE act and RICO statute provisions are regularly abused, most noticeably by federal law enforcement agencies. And these abuses are regularly given the high sign by our courts. 

Why are federal agencies busting raves attended by a couple hundred (at most) teenagers and college students? And bong manufacturers? And doctors? And people like Zippy? Because they're easy, and any bureaucracy wants to expand its power. These are matters for state and local police, not federal agents equipped and trained like military units. The FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not the FB of Let's pick on some teenagers or shoot some people and then burn the building down to conceal the evidence of our fuckup.

Apparently Ross and I agree on something. (Actually, not as rare as our comments section would have you believe.) My dad (from the "Silent Generation") and I have discussed the failures of the boomers many times.

We have heard much of the greatest generation in recent years. By and large, this is a fair appraisal I think. That generation suffered through the Great Depression. (Caused by a Republican, prolonged by a Democrat; using exactly the same set of ideas.) After that, they shook the dust off and traveled all over the world to open a stupendous can of whoop ass on Japanese militarism and European fascism. After that, they came home and set about building our country into the most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

However, they fucked up in one crucial regard. They gave birth to the most self-absorbed, self righteous and deluded generation in our history. The progress of the boomers through recent history is a long tragedy. The unrest of the sixties, the indolence of the me generation, the abandonment of all their "ideals" in the eighties; and now as they approach retirement, they are proposing to screw every following generation to finance a comfortable and medically well supported retirement.

The boomers are by and large even wealthier as they approach retirement than their parents were. The average 50 year old boomer owns his home, has investments and a comfortable salary. Despite this, they want the government to provide health care, prescription drugs and social security benefits. How will these benefits be paid for? From taxes on the wages of the younger generations, or deficit spending on a scale that we have never seen in this country.

The only solution is means testing, and some sort of realistic benefit plan that takes into account the amount of money they paid in. And for the rest of us, something like the government workers' pension plan (they are exempt from social security taxes) for the rest of us so that this situation doesn't happen again.

Mike and I may differ on what services should be provided to the poor, but I think he'll agree that we should not be giving handouts to people who own their homes, have investment portfolios, and a pension. That really is theft. Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme, and our generation is on the bottom of the pyramid.