The recent trampling-to-death of a Wal-Mart employee on "Black Friday" has received a lot of press coverage. The coverage started by recounting the events and the resulting lawsuit, but quickly began moralizing and seeking cause.
ABC News blames the economy, in "Bad Economy, Dangerous Holiday Shopping."
The Moscow News Weekly blames human nature in general and Western consumerism in particular - "Black Friday."
Columnists and writers to the editor all across the country offer varying explanations, usually heavy in the use of the words "greed", "animalistic", and/or "heartless." Here, here, here, here, and here.
It's apparently very difficult to condemn the event without self-righteous generalizing.
Can we truthfully judge the core value of a culture by looking at where people get trampled? [We'll discard the events where people die escaping a fire, building collapse, shooter, etc. Avoiding sure death is a universal human value.] A quick search shows that hundreds die every year during the Hajj in Mecca. 93 died in 1989 at a soccer match in Britain. A combination of a rainstorm and a rock concert caused 54 people, mostly young girls, to be trampled to death in Belarus in 1999. Just this year, nearly 150 people were killed in a stampede in a Hindu Temple in India. A full list of modern "crowd-related deaths" can be found at http://www.crowddynamics.com/technical/ by clicking on the "Crowd Disasters" link at right. [This is an all-around interesting site - using scientific methods to analyze the dynamics of too many people in not enough space]
The wide diversity of event types and locations for trampling deaths seems to preclude any values-based analysis. In terms of physically damaging moral values, based on world-wide events, religious piety and attending soccer matches seem to be the worst. Yet we don't see round condemnation of the culture of soccer, or of religious pilgrimage.
It's easier to condemn a culture of consumerism. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of consumerism myself. My wife and I bought our family's Christmas presents at a local craft fair, and I do most of my clothes shopping at a consignment shop. But I've benefited, too, from the consumer-based economy that's in part responsible for making our society the most prosperous in history. I'm also hurt, along with the rest of the country, by the current financial backlash to this type of culture/economy.
Condemning the greed of post-Thanksgiving shoppers necessitates drawing a line between ourselves and the tramplers. In reality, that greedy, heartless mob is composed of individuals who, I would venture to say, are not *really* that much different from the rest of us. "Ye who is without sin..."
ABC News blames the economy, in "Bad Economy, Dangerous Holiday Shopping."
The Moscow News Weekly blames human nature in general and Western consumerism in particular - "Black Friday."
Columnists and writers to the editor all across the country offer varying explanations, usually heavy in the use of the words "greed", "animalistic", and/or "heartless." Here, here, here, here, and here.
It's apparently very difficult to condemn the event without self-righteous generalizing.
Can we truthfully judge the core value of a culture by looking at where people get trampled? [We'll discard the events where people die escaping a fire, building collapse, shooter, etc. Avoiding sure death is a universal human value.] A quick search shows that hundreds die every year during the Hajj in Mecca. 93 died in 1989 at a soccer match in Britain. A combination of a rainstorm and a rock concert caused 54 people, mostly young girls, to be trampled to death in Belarus in 1999. Just this year, nearly 150 people were killed in a stampede in a Hindu Temple in India. A full list of modern "crowd-related deaths" can be found at http://www.crowddynamics.com/technical/ by clicking on the "Crowd Disasters" link at right. [This is an all-around interesting site - using scientific methods to analyze the dynamics of too many people in not enough space]
The wide diversity of event types and locations for trampling deaths seems to preclude any values-based analysis. In terms of physically damaging moral values, based on world-wide events, religious piety and attending soccer matches seem to be the worst. Yet we don't see round condemnation of the culture of soccer, or of religious pilgrimage.
It's easier to condemn a culture of consumerism. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of consumerism myself. My wife and I bought our family's Christmas presents at a local craft fair, and I do most of my clothes shopping at a consignment shop. But I've benefited, too, from the consumer-based economy that's in part responsible for making our society the most prosperous in history. I'm also hurt, along with the rest of the country, by the current financial backlash to this type of culture/economy.
Condemning the greed of post-Thanksgiving shoppers necessitates drawing a line between ourselves and the tramplers. In reality, that greedy, heartless mob is composed of individuals who, I would venture to say, are not *really* that much different from the rest of us. "Ye who is without sin..."
03/12: Sarah Continues to Impress
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From Chris Cillizza and the Washington Post:
"Winners.
"Sarah Palin: While Chambliss' winning margin suggests he would have won whether or not Palin stumped for him on Monday, the Alaska governor's high profile swing through the state is sure to be cited by her backers as evidence of her political potency as talk of 2012 heats up."
That reportage on the big win in GA is pretty mild compared to many other analyses.
Bottom Line: Sarah Palin rocks.
As for the advice from Democrats to drop Palin like a bad habit (for our own good), I think the GOP is likely to say "thanks--but no thanks."
Sarah is here to stay. The girl's a rainmaker.
"Winners.
"Sarah Palin: While Chambliss' winning margin suggests he would have won whether or not Palin stumped for him on Monday, the Alaska governor's high profile swing through the state is sure to be cited by her backers as evidence of her political potency as talk of 2012 heats up."
That reportage on the big win in GA is pretty mild compared to many other analyses.
Bottom Line: Sarah Palin rocks.
As for the advice from Democrats to drop Palin like a bad habit (for our own good), I think the GOP is likely to say "thanks--but no thanks."
Sarah is here to stay. The girl's a rainmaker.
Gates, Clinton, and Jones.
What about Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Susan Rice?
If Holder is no great AG, it won't be the first time we have had an incompetent or a lightning rod or both at that position. Remember, JFK quipped that he was giving the position to his younger brother to get him some experience. Here is a list of AG's. My bet is that Holder will NOT be the worst ever.
Does it really matter who runs DHS? Homeland security strikes me as the ultimate boondoogle (to quote a friend); that is, the star-crossed agency is the epitome of a bloated and ineffective government solution to a vital problem, originally and primarily designed as a CYA.
Susan Rice? Is she related to Condi Rice? Seriously, folks, ambassador to the UN is not exactly where the rubber meets the road in American foreign policy.
But Gates, Clinton, and Jones. In that order:
1. Much more than we had a right to wish for in arguably the most vital department of the government.
2. Much better than the alternatives (Kerry, Richardson, and/or Biden).
3. Marine. Not every Marine is Chesty Puller--but it's a better place to start than Les Aspin.
Are there going to be some egregiously offensive (to us) cabinet picks? Of course. But, then again, we lost. That is one of the unhappy consequences of losing elections.
What about Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Susan Rice?
If Holder is no great AG, it won't be the first time we have had an incompetent or a lightning rod or both at that position. Remember, JFK quipped that he was giving the position to his younger brother to get him some experience. Here is a list of AG's. My bet is that Holder will NOT be the worst ever.
Does it really matter who runs DHS? Homeland security strikes me as the ultimate boondoogle (to quote a friend); that is, the star-crossed agency is the epitome of a bloated and ineffective government solution to a vital problem, originally and primarily designed as a CYA.
Susan Rice? Is she related to Condi Rice? Seriously, folks, ambassador to the UN is not exactly where the rubber meets the road in American foreign policy.
But Gates, Clinton, and Jones. In that order:
1. Much more than we had a right to wish for in arguably the most vital department of the government.
2. Much better than the alternatives (Kerry, Richardson, and/or Biden).
3. Marine. Not every Marine is Chesty Puller--but it's a better place to start than Les Aspin.
Are there going to be some egregiously offensive (to us) cabinet picks? Of course. But, then again, we lost. That is one of the unhappy consequences of losing elections.
03/12: Jeb?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today, potentially, marks the beginning of the return of Jeb Bush.
Perhaps this post I composed a few years ago (Sept. 2006) is worth revisiting (albeit hilariously un-prescient on several key points):
Is Jeb Bush finished as a Prospective President?
Right now, if the public opinion polls are accurate, the American electorate holds President Bush in such low esteem that anyone associated with his administration seems tainted. No one is mentioning Alberto Gonzales as a potential governor and future presidential candidate. The recent boomlet for Condi Rice for 2008 has fizzled, partly as a result of her non-interest, but more importantly because the affairs of state seem so dismal. And Jeb Bush, once "the next in line" in the Bush dynasty, seems suddenly and completely finished as a prospective president. Is he really?
Maybe not. Jeb Bush continues to be an extremely popular person (and eminently electable candidate) in a very important state. Also, the death of Jeb Bush's viability assumes the permanence of disdain for Bush-43.
The only thing certain about American politics is that nothing is certain.
George Herbert Walker Bush lost in 1992 with 39 percent of the popular vote. At that point, for most Americans, Bush-41 epitomized an inept, insensitive, and detached failed leader. Almost immediately, Americans felt guilty for their poor treatment of this good American.
An aside: I always get a chuckle when Democrats profess their great admiration for George Herbert Walker Bush. I suspect some of that is just talk, and some of it is a rhetorical foundation for criticizing the son, but I think to myself: we could've used some of that kind-spiritedness in '92. One possible lesson: you don't win elections extending your hand across the aisle and impressing the opposition as a decent and competent fellow.
How did guilt over handing George-41 his walking papers help the son? As more citizens came to believe that the elder Bush received a raw deal, the younger Bush grew in stature as a candidate for governor of Texas and then for president. Many Americans felt the Bushes deserved a second chance.
Assuming that the current President Bush has bottomed out in terms of public opinion (it is hard to imagine things getting worse; even in the current polls, he seems to be slightly on the upswing); assuming Iraq continues to be very bad for the foreseeable near term--but then settles finally into a lackluster stability, George Bush and his team will rebound a bit in the minds of Americans. After four (or eight) years of Clinton-44, there will be a natural reappraisal of the second Bush presidency. At that moment, Jeb may very well emerge as a familiar fresh face.
Perhaps this post I composed a few years ago (Sept. 2006) is worth revisiting (albeit hilariously un-prescient on several key points):
Is Jeb Bush finished as a Prospective President?
Right now, if the public opinion polls are accurate, the American electorate holds President Bush in such low esteem that anyone associated with his administration seems tainted. No one is mentioning Alberto Gonzales as a potential governor and future presidential candidate. The recent boomlet for Condi Rice for 2008 has fizzled, partly as a result of her non-interest, but more importantly because the affairs of state seem so dismal. And Jeb Bush, once "the next in line" in the Bush dynasty, seems suddenly and completely finished as a prospective president. Is he really?
Maybe not. Jeb Bush continues to be an extremely popular person (and eminently electable candidate) in a very important state. Also, the death of Jeb Bush's viability assumes the permanence of disdain for Bush-43.
The only thing certain about American politics is that nothing is certain.
George Herbert Walker Bush lost in 1992 with 39 percent of the popular vote. At that point, for most Americans, Bush-41 epitomized an inept, insensitive, and detached failed leader. Almost immediately, Americans felt guilty for their poor treatment of this good American.
An aside: I always get a chuckle when Democrats profess their great admiration for George Herbert Walker Bush. I suspect some of that is just talk, and some of it is a rhetorical foundation for criticizing the son, but I think to myself: we could've used some of that kind-spiritedness in '92. One possible lesson: you don't win elections extending your hand across the aisle and impressing the opposition as a decent and competent fellow.
How did guilt over handing George-41 his walking papers help the son? As more citizens came to believe that the elder Bush received a raw deal, the younger Bush grew in stature as a candidate for governor of Texas and then for president. Many Americans felt the Bushes deserved a second chance.
Assuming that the current President Bush has bottomed out in terms of public opinion (it is hard to imagine things getting worse; even in the current polls, he seems to be slightly on the upswing); assuming Iraq continues to be very bad for the foreseeable near term--but then settles finally into a lackluster stability, George Bush and his team will rebound a bit in the minds of Americans. After four (or eight) years of Clinton-44, there will be a natural reappraisal of the second Bush presidency. At that moment, Jeb may very well emerge as a familiar fresh face.
01/12: Greatest Jazz Musicians
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
WAER is the Syracuse University radio station. They have been compiling lists of the top jazz musicians for each instrument, including human voice. These lists are great--thoughtful, knowledgeable, and I pretty much agree with them. Each entry, in most cases, has a paragraph biography with it.
Trumpet
Saxophone
Piano
Guitar
Male Vocalists
Female Vocalists
Trumpet
Saxophone
Piano
Guitar
Male Vocalists
Female Vocalists
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Powerline links to two must-read posts by VDH on American culture.
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
26/11: Small Towns
Paul Gregory Alms, a Lutheran minister in Catawba, North Carolina (population 700) has a wonderful post on small towns over at the First Things blog:
Excerpts:
In many ways, they are exactly like the rest of America. People in them watch CNN and Fox news. They have cable and satellite television and high-speed Internet connections. Kids play the same video games and wear the same fashions. But there is one distinctiveness here, and a single word captures much of it: connectedness. To live in a small town is to be connected, and not electronically or digitally. Rather it means to be connected to people in the flesh, to actual places, to land and buildings, to a common past.
....
People are often born, grow up, marry, raise a family, work, retire, and die all within the same few miles or even acres. Birth, childhood, family, place, memory, and death are all tied tightly together. These few acres or miles are a part of daily experience. You drive by the place where you grew up every day. It is the same with the place where you went to school or played baseball or where your granddaddy used to work. The past is not past in a small town. The past is experienced viscerally and concretely every day. It is a part of today as surely as the ground upon which one walks.
...
Land and family inevitably bring one in contact with the past. The past lives here in ways that are inconceivable elsewhere. To go to the grocery store is to potentially encounter your entire past life and even ancestry: your grandmother, your first grade teacher, your girlfriend from high school, your cousin, your boss from years ago. When one lives in the place where one was raised and when that place is small and self contained, the past is its own character in the drama of life. Memories are resurrected often and in many ways. The memories are also associated with place: a childhood accident there, your grandfather’s farm there, a marriage proposal there. All of it is just around the bend. People in small towns do not escape the past by moving to some other place. They confront it daily. They inhabit it.
Excerpts:
In many ways, they are exactly like the rest of America. People in them watch CNN and Fox news. They have cable and satellite television and high-speed Internet connections. Kids play the same video games and wear the same fashions. But there is one distinctiveness here, and a single word captures much of it: connectedness. To live in a small town is to be connected, and not electronically or digitally. Rather it means to be connected to people in the flesh, to actual places, to land and buildings, to a common past.
....
People are often born, grow up, marry, raise a family, work, retire, and die all within the same few miles or even acres. Birth, childhood, family, place, memory, and death are all tied tightly together. These few acres or miles are a part of daily experience. You drive by the place where you grew up every day. It is the same with the place where you went to school or played baseball or where your granddaddy used to work. The past is not past in a small town. The past is experienced viscerally and concretely every day. It is a part of today as surely as the ground upon which one walks.
...
Land and family inevitably bring one in contact with the past. The past lives here in ways that are inconceivable elsewhere. To go to the grocery store is to potentially encounter your entire past life and even ancestry: your grandmother, your first grade teacher, your girlfriend from high school, your cousin, your boss from years ago. When one lives in the place where one was raised and when that place is small and self contained, the past is its own character in the drama of life. Memories are resurrected often and in many ways. The memories are also associated with place: a childhood accident there, your grandfather’s farm there, a marriage proposal there. All of it is just around the bend. People in small towns do not escape the past by moving to some other place. They confront it daily. They inhabit it.
Category: From the Heart
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
On 5 November, in a post entitled "congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama," I wrote:
I hope Obama completes the mission in Iraq regardless of where the credit for success may fall. If the president-elect decides to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and David Petraeus as commander of Cent-Com, and allows them to back us out of Iraq in a responsible fashion, he will have my undying gratitude for the duration of his administration.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!?!
According to the AP, Gates will stay on as Secretary of Defense for at least a year.
Remarkable. Truly Remarkable.
I will happily stand by my pledge.
I hope Obama completes the mission in Iraq regardless of where the credit for success may fall. If the president-elect decides to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and David Petraeus as commander of Cent-Com, and allows them to back us out of Iraq in a responsible fashion, he will have my undying gratitude for the duration of his administration.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!?!
According to the AP, Gates will stay on as Secretary of Defense for at least a year.
Remarkable. Truly Remarkable.
I will happily stand by my pledge.
25/11: OUR HAIR IS ON FIRE!!!
Category: The Economy
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Lately, my time to blog has been scarce. However, I have enjoyed reacting to my friend Mark Osler's blog. From the beginning, Osler has consistently and adamantly expressed opposition to the financial sector bailout. He continues to inveigh against the practice in this post on the latest "Citigroup" episode in the unfolding melodrama.
However, I am not sure that I have fully expressed my deep anxiety over this financial meltdown on my own turf. If you are interested, you can get a feel for my abject trepidation concerning our current financial crisis.
Three comments from Osler's Razor that capture my dread:
No Auto Bailout!!!!
If Nissan and Honda can make cars profitably in the USA, we should not give GM and Ford any freebies. Let 'em sink or swim.
However, the continuing government bailout/rescue of the financial sector continues to be worth the effort.
In for a penny; in for a pound.
Here is a sad but true fact:
it is better to be a banker than an auto worker.
Why?
Because the sine qua non of any modern economy is liquidity [and banking stability and depositor security]. The banks have a gun to our head. If we lose the banks, we are fourth world.
Massive Bank failures = GREAT DEPRESSION.
Nothing else you can imagine compares to this dreadful looming possibility.
Creative destruction is a part of capitalism--yes. And I am a big proponent of capitalism--yes.
Pull GM's decaying carcass off the road and clear the way for the next innovator.
But that is not the way banking works. Remember, massive bank failures = GREAT DEPRESSION.
The Good News: President-elect Obama is bringing back a group of Wall Street sharpies who are clear-eyed realists. They understand where we are and what needs to be done.
The Car Question is politics; the Bank Question is pure survival.
Of course, none of this may matter. The banks might still fail--but, at this point, that means that they take the whole government down with them.
We cannot save every industry in the coming crisis. But, if we get real lucky, and God really does watch over drunks, fools, and the United States, we just might save the banks—and our own hides.
And this:
The difference between the banking crisis and the tragedy of American automobile manufacturing is that we can survive without American-made cars.
If the government folds its hands and watches banks like Citi go bust, or the other myriad private financial institutions that we have bolstered, or the quasi-public Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, we will initiate a launch sequence of massive panic.
Right now the thin blue line between society as we have come to know it and complete chaos is the assurance that money and banks are backed by the United States government.
You [Osler] are correct that the liquidity is not coming back as hoped--although we have thus far avoided the Great Crash and the ensuing pandemonium.
And there is some irony that the new President-elect is charging the foxes to guard the hen house--but, the truth is, we just have no other choice.
Or do we?
What is your proposal at this point?
Osler replied:
I think if you are going to intervene, let the weak go bust and bolster two groups-- the strong and the new innovators.
Are you assuming the feds will cover all the losses on all the banks we elect not to prop up?
I don't think we have the ability to do that. That is, I fear this is financially NOT feasible. NOT POSSIBLE.
The only hope for us, in my view, is for the feds to guarantee the banks, pump in massive amounts of fake cash, create the illusion of security, and allow the banks to heal themselves.
No guarantee there--but our best bet.
If we start letting these big banks fail, I fear we put the lie to the house of cards we are counting on to protect us from the cold.
However, I am not sure that I have fully expressed my deep anxiety over this financial meltdown on my own turf. If you are interested, you can get a feel for my abject trepidation concerning our current financial crisis.
Three comments from Osler's Razor that capture my dread:
No Auto Bailout!!!!
If Nissan and Honda can make cars profitably in the USA, we should not give GM and Ford any freebies. Let 'em sink or swim.
However, the continuing government bailout/rescue of the financial sector continues to be worth the effort.
In for a penny; in for a pound.
Here is a sad but true fact:
it is better to be a banker than an auto worker.
Why?
Because the sine qua non of any modern economy is liquidity [and banking stability and depositor security]. The banks have a gun to our head. If we lose the banks, we are fourth world.
Massive Bank failures = GREAT DEPRESSION.
Nothing else you can imagine compares to this dreadful looming possibility.
Creative destruction is a part of capitalism--yes. And I am a big proponent of capitalism--yes.
Pull GM's decaying carcass off the road and clear the way for the next innovator.
But that is not the way banking works. Remember, massive bank failures = GREAT DEPRESSION.
The Good News: President-elect Obama is bringing back a group of Wall Street sharpies who are clear-eyed realists. They understand where we are and what needs to be done.
The Car Question is politics; the Bank Question is pure survival.
Of course, none of this may matter. The banks might still fail--but, at this point, that means that they take the whole government down with them.
We cannot save every industry in the coming crisis. But, if we get real lucky, and God really does watch over drunks, fools, and the United States, we just might save the banks—and our own hides.
And this:
The difference between the banking crisis and the tragedy of American automobile manufacturing is that we can survive without American-made cars.
If the government folds its hands and watches banks like Citi go bust, or the other myriad private financial institutions that we have bolstered, or the quasi-public Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, we will initiate a launch sequence of massive panic.
Right now the thin blue line between society as we have come to know it and complete chaos is the assurance that money and banks are backed by the United States government.
You [Osler] are correct that the liquidity is not coming back as hoped--although we have thus far avoided the Great Crash and the ensuing pandemonium.
And there is some irony that the new President-elect is charging the foxes to guard the hen house--but, the truth is, we just have no other choice.
Or do we?
What is your proposal at this point?
Osler replied:
I think if you are going to intervene, let the weak go bust and bolster two groups-- the strong and the new innovators.
Are you assuming the feds will cover all the losses on all the banks we elect not to prop up?
I don't think we have the ability to do that. That is, I fear this is financially NOT feasible. NOT POSSIBLE.
The only hope for us, in my view, is for the feds to guarantee the banks, pump in massive amounts of fake cash, create the illusion of security, and allow the banks to heal themselves.
No guarantee there--but our best bet.
If we start letting these big banks fail, I fear we put the lie to the house of cards we are counting on to protect us from the cold.
