WHAT’S MORE IRONIC THAN IRONIC?
Every so often I read something that just floors me. The Moscow Times carried a story about the revival of the Jewish community in Berlin. It is made up almost entirely of Russian Jews, 70 of whom are Red Army veterans from World War II. That is ironic. Unfortunately, I do not know a word for superironic. What is superironic is the second half of the story, in which the author discusses the burgeoning anti-Semitism and Nazi movement in . . . Russia.
The only Russian who could be a Nazi would have to be illiterate. Hitler, in Mein Kampf (which you’d expect a Nazi to look to for guidance) wrote:
“. . . the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. . . And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state. We have been chosen by Fate as witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest confirmation of the soundness of the folkish theory.” Vol. I, Ch. XIV.
Anyway, the author ends the story quoting a Russian man who says that the Jews are to blame for Russia’s problems. “I lost family in the war," he said. "But that doesn't mean that Hitler wasn't right.” Fascinating. As stupid as you’d have to be to be a Nazi, you’d have to be that much more stupid to be a Russian Nazi.
CARE AS DUTY
The Straits Times, which sounds like an alternative news paper for straight people, but is actually the semi-official paper in Singapore, carried a story on a law the are considering passing in Korea (South—I’m not sure the North really has “laws” as opposed to “whims”). It seems that Korean children are failing in the filial duties with regard to their aged parents. In Korea, it is traditionally expected that sons will take care of their parents as their parents age. To help encourage this tradition, the opposition is about to introduce a bill that would give people who showed “filial piety” a reward of 10 million won, as well as discounts on other services.
As I was reading this, I was picturing Homer Simpson bargaining with the state. “Well, 10 million would be nice, but what’s it worth if I just get him a private room at the retirement home?” I wonder if they have a sliding scale for this sort of thing.
THE BROKEN WEB
Today our web access keeps disappearing. I’ll be reading a story, hit the back button, and get a server not found message. If this keeps up, I half expect to see people walking around my office in tears. Thankfully, golf is still up.
PARTY POLITICS REDUX
My earlier rant about party politics and F’s blog actually started me thinking. As an aside, that is the key to quality blogging. Write, THEN think. Anyway, there was a time when I was much more interested in many of the sorts of political issues I now think are either irrelevant or unsolvable. I started wondering why I, a person for whom the American meritocracy has worked fantastically, was so disillusioned with politics. It struck me that I thought both parties were full of jackasses.
Anyway, into that brainstorm walks David Brooks. Not the David Brooks my aunt married (I don’t think). Instead, the David Brooks who writes for the New York Times. Last Sunday he had an article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine entitled “How to Reinvent the G.O.P.” Now, it is not clear to me exactly why the formula would only apply to the GOP. It would return to the ideology of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, but parties change and the ideology he discussed is not any more inherently “Republican” than any other idea is. In any case, I will excerpt from Brooks here, but you ought to get your hands on the original if possible. While I have tried to assemble a sensible and condensed narrative, Brooks expands on several points and discusses more history than can be done here.
“Today we have one political tradition, now housed in the Democratic Party,
which believes in using government in the name of equality and social
justice. We have another tradition, recently housed in the Republican
Party, which believes, or says it believes, in restricting the size of
government in the name of freedom and personal responsibility. But through
much of American history there has always been a third tradition, now
dormant, which believes in limited but energetic government in the name of
social mobility and national union.”
“This progressive conservative tradition is built on an admiration for a
certain sort of individual: the young, ambitious striver, who works hard,
makes something of himself, creates opportunities for others and then goes
on to advance America's unique mission in the world. Alexander Hamilton
was the first embodiment and definer of this creed.”
“[Hamilton] rejected the formula, assumed too often today, that you can be for government or for the market, but not for both.
For his part, Hamilton saw entrepreneurial freedom, limited but energetic
federal power and national greatness as qualities that were inextricably
linked. It was always the cause of America, or rather, the cause America
represents -- universal freedom -- that was uppermost in his mind.
Hamiltonianism was about spurring individual initiative, but it was also
about gathering the fruits of that energy in the cause of national
greatness.”
“This free-labor ideology was a contract. Individuals would be held
responsible for their own behavior. But government would do what it could
to open up opportunities, so that people would have second and third and
fourth chances to succeed. During Lincoln's presidency, this government
philosophy produced a raft of legislation: the creation of a single
currency, the Homestead Act, the Morrill Land Grant College Act, the
railroad legislation and so on. All of these initiatives were designed to
stimulate, energize and unify the nation. The Homestead Act placed land in
the hands of families. The Land Grant College Act promoted the spread of
practical knowledge. These Republicans were not trying to care for the
downtrodden or shelter them. They were trying to open fields of enterprise.”
“Roosevelt, too, believed that government must sometimes play an active
role to give everybody a fair shot in the race of life. ''The true
function of the state, as it interferes with social life,'' he wrote,
‘should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish
them.’”
Let me first point out that the Land Grant colleges, like my two-time alma mater, University of Illinois are an invaluable resource that needs to be funded for a big part of this dynamic mobility to be realistic. However, I don’t know if we can ask for more of our policies than (a) we act decently and humanely to the least among us, and (b) we strive to open real opportunity for everyone. The first is necessary because as a society we have a responsibility to not abandon people unable to fend for themselves, and the second is necessary because it does not doom the children of those unable to fend for themselves to a life of not being able to fend for themselves.
End of political posts.
HEADLINE SPOTTED
“Car Explosion Kills 5 in Moscow, Reason Unknown”
Wait, wait, wait. Do they mean that the cause of death of the five is unknown? Is this a more universal condemnation of the Russians, who are apparently unfamiliar with Reason? I’m confused.
Every so often I read something that just floors me. The Moscow Times carried a story about the revival of the Jewish community in Berlin. It is made up almost entirely of Russian Jews, 70 of whom are Red Army veterans from World War II. That is ironic. Unfortunately, I do not know a word for superironic. What is superironic is the second half of the story, in which the author discusses the burgeoning anti-Semitism and Nazi movement in . . . Russia.
The only Russian who could be a Nazi would have to be illiterate. Hitler, in Mein Kampf (which you’d expect a Nazi to look to for guidance) wrote:
“. . . the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. . . And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state. We have been chosen by Fate as witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest confirmation of the soundness of the folkish theory.” Vol. I, Ch. XIV.
Anyway, the author ends the story quoting a Russian man who says that the Jews are to blame for Russia’s problems. “I lost family in the war," he said. "But that doesn't mean that Hitler wasn't right.” Fascinating. As stupid as you’d have to be to be a Nazi, you’d have to be that much more stupid to be a Russian Nazi.
CARE AS DUTY
The Straits Times, which sounds like an alternative news paper for straight people, but is actually the semi-official paper in Singapore, carried a story on a law the are considering passing in Korea (South—I’m not sure the North really has “laws” as opposed to “whims”). It seems that Korean children are failing in the filial duties with regard to their aged parents. In Korea, it is traditionally expected that sons will take care of their parents as their parents age. To help encourage this tradition, the opposition is about to introduce a bill that would give people who showed “filial piety” a reward of 10 million won, as well as discounts on other services.
As I was reading this, I was picturing Homer Simpson bargaining with the state. “Well, 10 million would be nice, but what’s it worth if I just get him a private room at the retirement home?” I wonder if they have a sliding scale for this sort of thing.
THE BROKEN WEB
Today our web access keeps disappearing. I’ll be reading a story, hit the back button, and get a server not found message. If this keeps up, I half expect to see people walking around my office in tears. Thankfully, golf is still up.
PARTY POLITICS REDUX
My earlier rant about party politics and F’s blog actually started me thinking. As an aside, that is the key to quality blogging. Write, THEN think. Anyway, there was a time when I was much more interested in many of the sorts of political issues I now think are either irrelevant or unsolvable. I started wondering why I, a person for whom the American meritocracy has worked fantastically, was so disillusioned with politics. It struck me that I thought both parties were full of jackasses.
Anyway, into that brainstorm walks David Brooks. Not the David Brooks my aunt married (I don’t think). Instead, the David Brooks who writes for the New York Times. Last Sunday he had an article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine entitled “How to Reinvent the G.O.P.” Now, it is not clear to me exactly why the formula would only apply to the GOP. It would return to the ideology of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, but parties change and the ideology he discussed is not any more inherently “Republican” than any other idea is. In any case, I will excerpt from Brooks here, but you ought to get your hands on the original if possible. While I have tried to assemble a sensible and condensed narrative, Brooks expands on several points and discusses more history than can be done here.
“Today we have one political tradition, now housed in the Democratic Party,
which believes in using government in the name of equality and social
justice. We have another tradition, recently housed in the Republican
Party, which believes, or says it believes, in restricting the size of
government in the name of freedom and personal responsibility. But through
much of American history there has always been a third tradition, now
dormant, which believes in limited but energetic government in the name of
social mobility and national union.”
“This progressive conservative tradition is built on an admiration for a
certain sort of individual: the young, ambitious striver, who works hard,
makes something of himself, creates opportunities for others and then goes
on to advance America's unique mission in the world. Alexander Hamilton
was the first embodiment and definer of this creed.”
“[Hamilton] rejected the formula, assumed too often today, that you can be for government or for the market, but not for both.
For his part, Hamilton saw entrepreneurial freedom, limited but energetic
federal power and national greatness as qualities that were inextricably
linked. It was always the cause of America, or rather, the cause America
represents -- universal freedom -- that was uppermost in his mind.
Hamiltonianism was about spurring individual initiative, but it was also
about gathering the fruits of that energy in the cause of national
greatness.”
“This free-labor ideology was a contract. Individuals would be held
responsible for their own behavior. But government would do what it could
to open up opportunities, so that people would have second and third and
fourth chances to succeed. During Lincoln's presidency, this government
philosophy produced a raft of legislation: the creation of a single
currency, the Homestead Act, the Morrill Land Grant College Act, the
railroad legislation and so on. All of these initiatives were designed to
stimulate, energize and unify the nation. The Homestead Act placed land in
the hands of families. The Land Grant College Act promoted the spread of
practical knowledge. These Republicans were not trying to care for the
downtrodden or shelter them. They were trying to open fields of enterprise.”
“Roosevelt, too, believed that government must sometimes play an active
role to give everybody a fair shot in the race of life. ''The true
function of the state, as it interferes with social life,'' he wrote,
‘should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish
them.’”
Let me first point out that the Land Grant colleges, like my two-time alma mater, University of Illinois are an invaluable resource that needs to be funded for a big part of this dynamic mobility to be realistic. However, I don’t know if we can ask for more of our policies than (a) we act decently and humanely to the least among us, and (b) we strive to open real opportunity for everyone. The first is necessary because as a society we have a responsibility to not abandon people unable to fend for themselves, and the second is necessary because it does not doom the children of those unable to fend for themselves to a life of not being able to fend for themselves.
End of political posts.
HEADLINE SPOTTED
“Car Explosion Kills 5 in Moscow, Reason Unknown”
Wait, wait, wait. Do they mean that the cause of death of the five is unknown? Is this a more universal condemnation of the Russians, who are apparently unfamiliar with Reason? I’m confused.
posted by David at 3:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home