Entries from November 2008 ↓

At least two Americans–from here in Virginia–are among the 145 people killed in India by terrorists. In the attacks, which began just after 9:00 p.m. local time (the day before Thanksgiving for us), dozens of young men strode through the city firing their automatic weapons at crowds and then rendezvoused at hotels at the local Jewish center, where they took hostages. They sought specifically Americans and Britons. Indian commandos are still battling the terrorists.

Americans were killed because of their country. Those Virginians did nothing to those terrorists. Just being an American is enough to get you killed these days. We mourn all those killed, most of whom were Indians. The war on terrorism must continue.

UPDATE: Now that the dust has cleared and order has been restored, it turns out that there were nine gunmen who killed 172 people, six of them Americans.

Charles Krauthammer observes that we have shifted from a market-driven economy to a political-driven economy:

Today’s extreme stock market volatility is not just a symptom of fear — fear cannot account for days of wild market swings upward — but a reaction to meta-economic events: political decisions that have vast economic effects.

As economist Irwin Stelzer argues, we have gone from a market-driven economy to a politically driven economy. Consider seven days in November. On Tuesday, Nov. 18, Paulson broadly implies that he’s using only half the $700 billion bailout money. Having already spent most of his $350 billion, he’s going to leave the rest to his successor. The message received on Wall Street — I’m done, I’m gone.

Facing the prospect of two months of political limbo, the market craters. Led by the banks (whose balance sheets did not change between Tuesday and Wednesday), the market sees the largest two-day drop in the S&P since 1933, not a very good year.

The next day (Friday) at 3 p.m., word leaks of Timothy Geithner’s impending nomination as Treasury secretary. The mere suggestion of continuity — and continued authoritative intervention during the interregnum by the guy who’d been working hand in glove with Paulson all along — sends the Dow up 500 points in one hour.

Monday sees a 400-point increase, the biggest two-day (percentage) rise since 1987. Why? Three political events: Paulson’s weekend Citigroup bailout; the official rollout of Barack Obama’s economic team, Geithner and Larry Summers; and Paulson quietly walking back from his earlier de facto resignation by indicating that he would be ready to use the remaining $350 billion (with Team Obama input) over the next two months.

That undid the market swoon — and dramatically demonstrated how politically driven the economy has become.

Russia is trying to rebuild its connections with left-leaning governments. Thus we have the visit of Russian President Medvedev and a Russian naval flotilla to the Venezuela of Hugo Chavez. I wonder if the Russians are aware of The Monroe Doctrine, which forbids nations outside the Western hemisphere from starting colonies and establishing spheres of influence here. Or if the Russians are testing whether our new government will enforce that doctrine.

Have a grateful Thanksgiving! Usually, this blog takes major holidays off, but I am feeling unusually thankful this year and I have to express it. Our whole family is here. This is the FIRST time the clan with all of its members is all in one place, since it now includes a new member, the granddaughter who is only three months old. Not to mention yet another member who is here, but not born. We will also have some other guests: my Australian son-in-law’s mother visiting from down under, and my other daughter’s good friend who has just moved to the area. So I offer a special Thanksgiving edition of this blog.

The negative reviews of the movie “Australia” are right. It is corny, idealized, and way over the top. But the positive reviews are also right. It is epic, shows magnificent scenery well photographed, and communicates some fascinating history. Even the negative reviews concede that it is quite entertaining.

If you insist on irony, complexity, and gritty realism, looking down on anything else, this movie is not for you. But if you want retro-Hollywood, magical realism, and an unusually satisfying cinematic experience, this movie is for you.

It was a movie for me, and not just because I’m an Australiaphile. It is an interesting combination of genres and conventions: the western, the epic, the romance, and the war movie. I got a big kick out of it, including the outlandish parts.

We watched the movie in two shifts so that the grandchildren could always be watched by a blood relative, and with each group accompanied by an actual Australian.

that, judged from his actions as president elect and his appointments, that he may not be the radical leftist I feared him to be. I’m thankful that he is setting aside many of his campaign promises. That he is going to keep the Bush tax cuts after all. That he is going to keep Bush’s Secretary of Defense–who is doing such a good job waging the Iraq and Afghanistan wars–as part of his own cabinet. That his economics experts are all mainline establishment figures (though aren’t they to blame for the current mess?). I know Obama hasn’t even taken office yet, but I’m thinking maybe FW is right, that he is actually a conservative! That we are looking at Bush’s third term, though a Bush with good press and with public support!

Remember the part of the doctrine of vocation that stresses how God is present in vocation. That means that when people serve us, in the course of everyday life and everyday economics, God is serving us through them. We should be grateful to those–in farms and factories and stores and in the family kitchen–who make our Thanksgiving feast. And we should be grateful to God who is providing for us through them and for giving them to us. And God looms behind all of the other people and institutions that bless us.

I think philosophers should work out an argument for the existence of God based on thankfulness: that the feeling of gratitude for existence implies that there is Someone to feel grateful to.

One problem may be that many people today do NOT feel grateful for existence. They believe, quite illogically, that they are entitled to existence. Still. . .

A federal district court ruled that government officials in a government context can legally pray in the name of Jesus. Judge Richard Story, referring to the county situation at issue, made a useful distinction:

To be sure, many of these speakers, in offering their invocations, identify the deity to whom they direct their prayer. In that respect, they surely convey their alignment with one religious creed to the exclusion of others. But viewed cumulatively, given the diversity in the denominations and faiths represented, it is difficult to extrapolate from any one speaker’s affiliation a preference on the part of the Cobb County government.

Respected Russian policial analyst Igor Panarin is predicting not only that America’s economy will completely collapse but that the USA will split up into separate countries:

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: “A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

He also cited the “vulnerable political setup”, “lack of unified national laws”, and “divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions.”

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that “we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all.”

I find this somewhat comical. The northern states are under the sway of Canada? As a recent resident of Wisconsin, I admit that we were always watching Canadian movies, reading Canadian books & magazines, watching Canadian television, and following Canadian sports. I worried that our Wisconsin culture was being overshadowed by our powerful neighbor to the North. But I don’t recall any Wisconsinites wanting to become Canadian, though if that warlike nation ever acquired territorial ambitions, I suppose we would be easy pickings and greet the invaders as liberators.

I find this also somewhat alarming. Russia thinks it can reclaim Alaska? I didn’t realize we just leased it and are behind on our payments.

Professor Panarin shows an astonishing lack of understanding of America’s national unity. We were willing to kill each other to preserve the union back in the 1860’s. I have heard of absolutely no desire on the part of the West Coast or the East coast to secede from the rest of America. Have you? I didn’t think the coasts were even aware the rest of America exists. And he thinks the central states will be taken over by the Indians? He has been watching too many movies and listening to Ward Churchill.

I believe the professor is projecting here; that is, assuming that what happened in the U.S.S.R.–economic dysfunction followed by national breakup–will also happen to the U.S.A. Still, lesser misunderstandings of other nations have led to horrible consequences, as we well know.

Arch-satirist Stephen Colbert turns out to be a practicing, mostly-believing Catholic, as this blog chronicles:

In an interview with Time Out Magazine, he responded to a question about This Week in God: “How do you square your Catholicism with comedy?”

I love my Church, and I’m a Catholic who was raised by intellectuals, who were very devout. I was raised to believe that you could question the Church and still be a Catholic. What is worthy of satire is the misuse of religion for destructive or political gains. That’s totally different from the Word, the blood, the body and the Christ. His kingdom is not of this earth. . . .

And this from the oft-cited NPR Fresh Air interview:

This Week in God is–you know, This Week in God is, for me, a tightrope, because I–while I’m, you know, not a particularly religious person, I do go to church, which makes me kind of odd for my profession. You know, most people can’t understand why I do, other comedians. And I have to walk that thin line because I don’t want to criticize anyone’s religions for the fact that it is a religion, and what’s funny to me is what people do in the name of religion. …

We’re, you know, very devout and, you know, I still go to church and, you know, my children are being raised in the Catholic Church. And I was actually my daughters’ catechist last year for First Communion, which was a great opportunity to speak very simply and plainly about your faith without anybody saying, `Yeah, but do you believe that stuff?’ which happens a lot in what I do.

In the dentist’s office, I came across this from BusinessWeek:

Thousands of subprime mortgage lenders and brokers—many of them the very sorts of firms that helped create the current financial crisis—are going strong. Their new strategy: taking advantage of a long-standing federal program designed to encourage homeownership by insuring mortgages for buyers of modest means.

You read that correctly. Some of the same people who propelled us toward the housing market calamity are now seeking to profit by exploiting billions in federally insured mortgages. Washington, meanwhile, has vastly expanded the availability of such taxpayer-backed loans as part of the emergency campaign to rescue the country’s swooning economy.

For generations, these loans, backed by the Federal Housing Administration, have offered working-class families a legitimate means to purchase their own homes. But now there’s a severe danger that aggressive lenders and brokers schooled in the rash ways of the subprime industry will overwhelm the FHA with loans for people unlikely to make their payments. Exacerbating matters, FHA officials seem oblivious to what’s happening—or incapable of stopping it. They’re giving mortgage firms licenses to dole out 100%-insured loans despite lender records blotted by state sanctions, bankruptcy filings, civil lawsuits, and even criminal convictions.

As a result, the nation could soon suffer a fresh wave of defaults and foreclosures, with Washington obliged to respond with yet another gargantuan bailout. Inside Mortgage Finance, a research and newsletter firm in Bethesda, Md., estimates that over the next five years fresh loans backed by the FHA that go sour will cost taxpayers $100 billion or more. That’s on top of the $700 billion financial-system rescue Congress has already approved. Gary E. Lacefield, a former federal mortgage investigator who now runs Risk Mitigation Group, a consultancy in Arlington, Tex., predicts: “Within the next 12 to 18 months, there is going to be FHA-insurance Armageddon.”