End The Fed by Ron Paul

I’ve been a fan of Ron Paul since the last election. I had heard about his campaign on the Internet and checked out his first book (The Revolution) and found a lot to support on it. This book is an extension of one of the chapters in his previous book, as well as some of his campaign speeches. The title pretty much says it all, Paul would like to dismantle the Federal Reserve and insert a gold standard (or some other form of “hard” money) in place of it. While this is a fairly radical thesis, the book sets out to prove that it’s not so radical in the larger historical perspective; like all ideologies Paul meticulously traces his case through American financial history, showing the battles between “hard” and “fiat” currencies, cumulating in the unconstitutional creation of the Federal Reserve. He tries (I think successfully) to draw a parallel between some of the past Jeffersonian/Jacksonian arguments that were made against the Bank of the United States in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

I think he effectively argues his case and brings up many disconcerting issues relating to the policies around the Federal Reserve. I’m not too familiar with economics or constitutional law, so at this present time, I would be unable to point out any massive inconstancies or just general complaints about his analysis. I will say that I think he too quickly brushes aside some of the concerns relating to having a gold standard. Mainly I think he indulges in a utopian fantasy to think people would accept some of the limits of revaluing our currency to a commodity. Just as the economy greatly suffered when Jackson destroyed his bank, similar things would happen if we dismantled the fed. Of course, in light of the present crisis, I’m sure many would say that it would be an acceptable cost for reinstating some economic “sanity”. But, it seems a tad bit unrealistic to me—people are simply used to deficit spending and are accustomed to government programs. A gold standard would severely limit these programs and their capacity to care for people. While people can make all the arguments they want, I don’t believe that the population in general would accept this.

However, that being said, Ron Paul makes many strong points in his book about the Federal Reserve and its responsibility in the current financial crisis. I think the book is doing a public service in raising awareness to auditing the Fed and many of it’s “hidden” practices. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in some of the current financial issues of the day- even if you do not have a strong background in economics.

Be the change...

Jonah Goldberg over at the corner reminded me of this link. I thought I would share.

No matter how often I watch this, the last minute of the video still just creeps me out.

Obama the Burkean

So, today one of the biggest talking points on the blogs (at least the Corner) was a well written piece by Gabriel Sherman about the relationship between New York Times columnist David Brooks and the Obama Administration.

First admission, while I think the Times is an excellent news paper, I hardly ever get a chance to read it. Secondly, I'm not a big fan of David Brooks, for the obvious reasons that are stated in the article. As Sherman says:

Brooks has kept a certain distance from movement conservatism. “David is a conservative who is motivated by a deep distrust of ideology,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, a Brooks friend, says. “That is a strain of conservatism. It puts him in a position where he’s not taking views simply because they fit a party line.”

So, right there- I respect a thinker who breaks from the party lines (some of my favorite bloggers are people associated with the American Scene, where it can hardly be said they follow a standard "conservative" line. However, Brooks and Sullivan's) insistence on Obama's Burkean qualities are strange. There is no denying that Obama has a strong intellect, but does he really have a Burkean sensibility?

Maybe a different Obamacon will shed some light on this- at the Daily Beast, Jeffrey Hart also holds Obama up as a "prudential" politician- his first example- in relation the Iraq war:

Obama did understand. In his now famous 2002 speech, while he was still a state senator in Illinois, he said: “I know that a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, of undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without international support will fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.”

But, didn't he also suggest invading Pakistan and aren't we still at war in Afghanistan? Hart's second point relates to abortion:

Ever since Roe vs. Wade, abortion has been a salient controversy in our politics. But the availability of abortion is linked to the long advancement of women's equality. Again, we are dealing with social change, and this requires understanding social change, a Burkean imperative that Obama understands.

Defining social change is difficult in this instance. For a start, most states were enacting abortion laws before Roe vs Wade- the case simply nationalized the issue. Now, Obama's own position on abortion is stated on the 35th anniversary of Roe V Wade:

"I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president. "

The Freedom of Choice act would prohibit all levels of government from interfering with abortion. Now, as Hart elequently makes clear that pregnancy will always be a concern for young woman, so abortion will always be a social fact. This is a fair point- if only Hart acknowledged the fact that the American public has become steadily more pro-life within the past twenty years. By forcing a law through congress is this not a form of social engineering? Or at least a disrespect for organic change, one that is by nature Burkean? Now, as the Wikipedia article suggests, Obama quickly cast the bill aside after becoming President- I'll leave that to a reader to decide if that's Burkean. Equally, Hart's last point seems moot to me- as he addresses- McCain himself supported stem cell research.

So, to Hart, a Burkean is simply a politician who is "prudent" and understands social change.But But, neither of main points seem to align with any form of respect for "tradition". It would seem to me, that Hart sees the true "conservative" as just someone who agrees with him. Fair enough.

As for Brooks, I don't really see anything different between him and Hart. Maybe Brooks is less angry than Hart, just search through the archives at the New York Times you will find many smart ideas, but also soft on the simple fact that Obama is a progressive. His column on July 21st, seems to throw the blame to Obama lazily following congress. In Sanders piece, it delves into Brooks' personal relationship with members of the Obama administration; It's not a stretch to infer that much of his feels are based off of a personal admiration for the man, less than a substantively "Burkean" thread of policies. Obama is a lot of things- but Burkean is not one of them. Much of the Obamacon fan fair is just wishful thinking. I will explore this in my next post.

Do I really need to say anything?

Kennedy again...

So, this weekend in Boston (and all over cable television) has been dedicated to the memory of Senator Kennedy. This isn't surprising given his high approval ratings (an old one I read reads at 73% approved of his job) and of course his last name.

But, despite all of the hero worship and the sneers from his fans, Conor Friedersdorf links to a great column by J.P. Freire which sums up pretty much how I feel about weighting Kennedy's achievements and personal faults.

Glen Beck

I'm not a big fan of Obama either- but this guy is crazy.

*Hat Tip to Freddie De Boer's twitter*

Nostolga

I was watching this review of We're Back: A Dinosaur's Story. I remember either my younger sisters or cousins watching this movie. I had completely forgotten about it until I watched this review- but now I remember thinking at the time how strange it was. Defiantly check out the review (or the movie on Youtube) It's crazy.

Gattaca

Just last night I watched the Scifi mystery/thriller Gattaca. I had wanted to see this when it came out, but never got the chance; thankfully, Freddie De Boer recommended it on his Twitter feed- so I checked it out on Netflix instant cast.

Gattaca combines all that is great in the Science Fiction genre- blending fantasy, with realistic fears,concerns, and hopes. It captures the imagination, while keeping a viewer conscious of the real world. The story takes place in the "Not too distant future" where humanity has created a complex caste system defined by an individuals genetics. Rather than producing humans the ole' fashion way- most "civilized" people opt to genetically engineer their child to be the "best". This relationship is played out between Vincent (Ethan Hawk) who was conceived the way you and I were; and his younger brother Anton, who engineered by their parents. In one simple exchange of dialogue, the doctor explains the world that does not seem too far away:

"Antonio: We were just wondering if, if it is good to just leave a few things to, to chance?

Geneticist: We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn't need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply, the best, of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result."

On the surface, the two brothers are polar oppositions. Vincent is short, frail, has poor eye sight, and according to records taken at birth- has a weak heart and will most likely die as a result; In contrast, Anton is perfect in every way, and this smugness corrupts him from childhood. Because of Vincent's heart condition, he is bared from any meaningful work (his dream is to work for Gattaca and be an astronaut). Instead, he must do manual labor jobs, with little chance of achieving anything.

But, Vincent has other plans. Through an elaborate plan that involves a down-on-his-luck genetically engineered man, Vincent is able to gain access into Gattaca, work among the elite, and hopefully get to travel in space.

The film works because Vincent is such a convincing character. There is no question throughout the story that Vincent is qualified to travel is in space. With this out of the way, the viewer is left to ponder the discrimination that he is exposed to, and the injustice of it. One of the film's strongest qualities is never letting the audience loose sight of the possibilities of this future taking place, while avoiding being overly preachy. In the thirteen years since this film was made, the world of genetics has exploded, we are treated daily to new stories about science discovering a new way to manipulate cells.

Gattaca is also successful because it not only deals with high-minded philosophy, but it creates an web of suspense surrounding a murder and the investigation that might expose Vincent as a fraud. It also features the beautiful Uma Thurman who plays Hawke's love interest and coworker.

I could not highly more recommend Gattaca, It's one of the better modern Science Fiction films I've seen in awhile.

RIP Teddy

Speaking as a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I had an opportunity in 2006 to reelect Teddy K. for his eighth term in office, and I happily declined the offer. But, since moving here, I've secretly hoped that I would get a chance to meet him; there were a couple occasions were he made public appearances at Faneuil hall, but sadly my lunch breaks were too short, and I never even got a glimpse of the man. Even while being well into his seventies his shadow could be felt in the city- when he came down with cancer, I lost track of all of the businesses that posted his picture on the wall. And, now as I type, his legacy lives on, the state legislature is debating the idea of repelling the succession law that requires a special election to be held no less than 160 days after a spot is vacant in the senate (a law he specifically endorsed in '04) to allow Governor Patrick the ability to appoint someone until the next election. Ah, Massachusetts democracy at work.

Either or, RIP Teddy- you were probably one of the only individuals in the Senate worthy of being called Great.

Power Play

I can't help but feel that the Obama Administration is trying to stir up It's own controversy by appointing a prosecutor to investigate possible abuses by the Bush administration. It's debatable as to whether or not this is a bold move. On one hand, as people like Michelle Malkin so candidly calls a "hit job". And, of course, Glen Greenwald sees the Obama Administration as not doing enough.

Honestly, I can't say that I'm complaining that Attorney General Holder is appointing this prosecutor. The Bush Administration challenged a lot of existing laws and much of our constitutional framework; now, personally, I supported them on the grounds that they were in dangerous times (I feel a bit misguided now writing that), and that much of the existing legal framework needs to be updated. I'm not a lawyer, so It's laughable for me to write substantive response to Greenwald's well throughout and written posts. But, I will say that some of those memos the Administration wrote regarding treatment of prisoners and the Geneva convention rules were antiquated and not one-hundred percent suitable for judging modern day terror suspects.

Hooowever, if even half of what Jane Mayer's The Dark Side is true than even the most hard hearted Conservative should still be shuttering. I think Conservatives need to let this play out, and be fair to the prosecutor. Of course, this won't happen. And, to be honest, I'm not sure why I'm even writing this- as I don't have anything important to say about it.

Inglourious Basterds- Kosher Wet Dreams

Jeffrey Goldberg has an interesting piece in the newest issue of the Atlantic on Quentin Tarantino's new film Inglourious Basterds. In the piece, Goldberg brings up a variety of moral questions about Jewish revenge fantasies. I have yet to see the film in question, but being a Tarantino enthusiast, I've been hearing rumors about this movie for years. It features a Jewish military outfit which parachutes into Germany and causes mayhem behind the lines of the Third Reich.

My first Tarantino experience was Pulp Fiction. It came out in 94, when I was eleven, and of course my elders would not let me see it. Like a lot of other red-blooded American boys, I had an obsession with the mafia. They were modern day cowboys- fighting for their families honor, in a world that no longer understood the concept of the word. Around the same time I first saw the Godfather on TV and was truly blown away. Michael Colone was a bad ass; he knew who his enemies were, he eliminated them, and then basked in his wealth! Of course, as an adult, I see how this is a complete misreading of the film. Anyway, I digress, Pulp Fiction is a gangster film, and yet it is so beyond that. Pulp Fiction is modern and exciting. It has none of the moral issues that Colone battles with. It seems that Inglourious Basterds is following in the same vein. Tarantino is a one trick pony. He takes a genre, turns the violence up to 11, and then puts the audience through a two plus hour blood bath. I'm not exactly sure what the point of seeing Inglourious Basterds is- unless as Goldberg explains, you are Jewish, and have been wanting to see a film were Jews truly steal, kill, and destroy.

Of course, I think my curiosity will get the better of me...Tarantino used to be my favorite director. He's really not anymore, but out of loyalty, I'll probably see it.

Comedy of Errors

Last night I saw a production of Shakespeare's Comedy Of Errors, put on by Boston's very own Commonwealth Shakespeare Company. They have been putting on free Shakespeare in the park for 14 years, and after seeing them for the first time last night, I can defiantly see why! I had also never seen Comedy of Errors (well, It's misleading to write that, given that I've only seen Macbeth before!). But, everything about the show last night was great. I will totally be back next year!

Review: Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor

Tonight, I just finished reading Flannery O'Connor's Wise Blood. I had been meaning to read this novel for quite some time, but was persuaded by Terry Teachout, who ranked it as one of his Fifteen books in fifteen minutes.

Wise Blood is defiantly a fascinating novel that peers into the depths of one man’s tortured soul, in his quest to find/run away from God. The novel is quite short and for me read smoothly. The story focuses on Hazel Motes, who after being discharged from the army is wondering around the fictional town of Taulkinham, trying to convert the local residents to his: “Church Without Christ”. Mote’s main doctrinal beliefs appear to be that the lame do not walk, the blind do not see, and so on. It’s easy to view Motes as an absolute nihilist. And as the novel progresses, Motes becomes meaner and darker- to the point that it’s nearly impossible to feel sorry for him. Another character, Enoch Emery, is an eighteen year old who is abandoned by his father and lives in Taulkingham. He has no friends and quickly attempts to bond with Motes. There is also a blind preacher, his wayward daughter, and a rival preacher named Hoover Shoats who founds: “The Holy Church Of Christ Without Christ” in an attempt to capitalize on the perception of Motes being a “prophet” in order to make a profit.

This being my first experience with O’Connor’s writing, I was really not sure what to expect. The novel ended up being much more depressing than I thought it would. As many of the other reviewers note, there is not much in the way of character development in the story; nearly the beginning, we get a little background on Motes, that casts him in a sympathetic light, but shortly after he quickly loses it. Aside of Emory, many of the other characters drift in and out of the story, seemly just to affect Motes, without little character traits. For the most part, I think O’Connor was looking to argue/promote different philosophical and theological arguments, and just used the characters as vessels for that. All of the characters seem to identify with different aspects of protestant theology. Having grown up as a protestant, I found some of the characteristics of the preachers as funny and sad. All throughout my childhood, my mother had us watch various television preachers. We always had the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Many of the people who appear on that network could easily have found themselves in this novel. The TBN southern evangelical type of protestantism is at the heart of TBN. Of course, O'Connor seems to see these types of individuals as crooks and quite frankly heretics... O'Connor, a catholic in a time and region that did not take kindly to Catholics. I'm not sure I would quite label Paul Crouch as a hieratic, but he defiantly has the whiff of Hoover Shoats about him.

One of the other noteworthy aspects of this novel is the Southern setting. O’Connor had a wonderful ear for dialogue, and is able to perfectly capture the southern dialects. I would say that Mark Twain easily as well writes O’Connor’s dialogue as anything I’ve read.

I highly recommend this book. It’s not pretty and it will not leave you with a happy feeling at the end. But, the prose is beautiful. And, while not well “rounded” the characters depict Christianity in their own unique ways.

No Public Option?

According to Drudge, the top story is that Obama is indicating that the public option could be set aside. This seems to be the main evidence that Obama is trying to drop the issue:

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety ofhealth care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

All and all, this appears to be a positive sign. I don't think any rational person would be surprised at all. But, on the other hand, Isn't this just the normal course of events for a sitting President? I politically came of age with George Bush in the White House, so perhaps that's not the best way of judging how a president is normally treated; however, nearly every president suffers a drop in popularity once they start advocating something. This drop in popularity does not seem beyond the pale to me.

As I see it, the main question is how should a right-learning individual view the protesters, especially if they are are possibly going to relieve us of the "public" option. As Freddie observes, in a characteristically insight post:

"But as the volume of these protesters grow louder– the more loudly these protesters insist that this is a defining moment of us vs. them– it becomes harder for culturally sophisticated conservatives to resist the pull of circling the wagons"

I think the heart of what Freddie is saying is true...When your own "team" is attempting to score, you defiantly don't want to undermine their efforts. However, as Freddie knows, by accepting the protesters as part of the "team" of Conservatives, that therefore undermines the arguments behind the so called - "reformists". Freddie makes his most salient point here:

"And, God bless them, conservative pundits of all stripes just do not fall out of love with the idea that the country is at its heart and in its majority white, straight, Christian, rural and Republican. I don’t know how many elections we have to have where the shifting demographics of this country are clear before they will catch on. Will it really take until this country becomes a majority Hispanic nation before there penetrates the larger conservative mind the reality that this country is not made up solely of people just like the protesters? Why do they still think they can refer to “America” when they are really referring to one shrinking slice of our electorate? I didn’t get it in November; I don’t get it now."

This is the kind of thinking that reformist Conservatives need to clearly refrain from and understand, so they can effectively whoo the protesters away from the likes of Palin. I don't see any way for a future Republican/Conservative coalition without them; however, how do you convince them to embrace a party to include a more diverse members, while answering fears (sometimes understandable, most of the time not) about Globalization and the like?

For a start, right now we need a smart, charismatic, and organized Conservative to setup and put forward something other than "USSR SOCIALISM FLAG FREEEEDOM PORK" arguments that Freddie is laughing at.

Julie and Julia

I'm at work at the moment, stuck on hold with someone trying to deactivate a wireless terminal. Thankfully I have The Corner to keep me company. I was reading a review of Julie & Julia by Fred Schwarz which sums up a lot of how I felt about the film. One of his major points:

First of all, potential viewers should know that even in this seemingly light and innocuous story, the screenwriter/director, Nora Ephron, can’t resist indulging her political obsessions. In the Julia Child sections, people keep grumbling about Sen. Joe McCarthy, who had either a minuscule effect on Paul Child’s diplomatic career or none at all. A mystifyingly elaborate subplot seems to exist for the sole purpose of mocking Julia’s father — a Republican! (gasp) —who is as harrumphy and reactionary as every conservative in a Hollywood movie. And in one of the present-day scenes, Julie’s boss, completely unprompted, says, “If I were a Republican, I would fire you!”

The office banter sounded wooden to me. Granted, in an office in Boston, there are sometimes comments made about Republicans and such. But, in reality, this kind of stuff is usually left unsaid. None of my bosses would risk alienating anyone here on the account of some stupid Republican insult. As for the other stuff, I'm not going to defend the actions of Joe McCarthy- but It again was wooden and lame. Most importantly though:

the movie doesn’t really have a story to tell. You can imagine how the project got approved: Julie’s blog was popular among twentysomethings (though it’s hard to fathom why from the few brief excerpts she reads on screen), and older folks remember Julia Child, and everybody likes food, so it should have universal appeal. The problem is that it’s basically a movie about a cookbook, and every bit as xciting as you’d expect a film on the book-publishing industry to be.

The thing is, I actually did find the movie more enjoyable than Mr. Schwarz- which is a sad commentary on this years summer movies. I mean, this movie was a standard chick flick, but I feel that the audience really got into it (Its telling though that no one laughed at any of the jokes poking fun at American tastes). A lot of the movies I've seen this past year: (500) Days of Summer, Watchman, Revoluntary Road (OK, so that was last year) and the like have just been big downers. It's encouraging that Hollywood decided to make something that doesn't make you feel like shit when you leave the theater. But, In reality, blogging is not exactly gripping drama. The only moment of drama that really challenges Julie (the blogger) is when her perfect husband suddenly erupts into anger over her blogging. After the scene is over their marriage goes back to culinary bliss. Ephron clearly didn't have much material to work with here.

While I feel that Mr. Schwarz is by and large correct in his assessment of the film. I do think the film deserves credit for not making you want to slit your wrists.

Book Review 1- Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles)

Richard Pipes’ pithy book is a highly readable work of history that examines a very complex subject. It’s informative and will give a reader an overview of Communist intellectual and political history. Of course, given the book’s relative shortness (It’s only 160 pages) it should not be taken as a definitive text on the subject. The book is designed for someone who may not have time to delve into the subject like Pipes’ other book, The Russian Revolution (which is over 900 pages).

Pipes organizes the book into three different aspects of Communism: the ideal, program, and regime. These subjects are organized to show the gradual progression of Communism from a Platonic philosophical concept to Lenin leaving the Finland station. As other reviewers have noted, most of this book is taken up describing the rise of Lenin and the cruelties of Stalinism. Given that Pipes is an expert on Russian history, this naturally is the bulk of the text. But, again, this is mainly on Leninism and Stalinism; Trotsky and his followers are given very little time within the book. Other Communist figures are lumped into a chapter entitled: “The Third World” which covers some of Mao, but gives limited information on figures like Ho Chi Man, Pal Pot, Castro and others. Pipes main thesis, other than that Communism was a failure, is that Russian Communism (Bolshevikism) was the main instigator of Communist aggression and expansion throughout the twentieth century, and thus is given more time within the text. However you feel about this summery will largely affect your opinion of the book.

The only other aspect of this book that would cause someone to like or dislike it is the relative bias of the author. It’s nearly impossible to be nuanced about Communism; let alone discussing Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the like. Much of the text focuses on the catastrophic loss of life under the various Communist regimes. Pipes wears his anti-communist credentials on his sleeves. This may bother some rather- personally; I’m not really bothered by any of the points that Pipes chooses to focus on. Not only where the Communists an overwhelmingly destructive force on their respective populations; Pipes shows that they did not even have the best intentions for what they were doing, for the most part men like Lenin and Stalin were mainly just concerned with the consolidation political power. Pipes doesn’t give credence to the notion that communists were idealists gone astray. None of this practically bothered me, but I could see how this would cause some to dislike the book.

Overall, I really enjoyed the book and would recommend it. It’s not perfect, but it does succeed with what it sets out to do. It’s not perfect, but unless you have a political axe to grind, I think a reader will find this book a very use introduction to communist history and thought.

Town Hall Protests.

Right now the top story at the Drudge report is that government servers are being flooded with emails.

This ruckus over the health care debate has caught me by surprise. I'm not quite sure why, considering the Tea Party protests have shown there active discontent on the populist right. But, I would have to agree with David Frum:

"I don’t think the former speaker could tweet such a thing today in good conscience. The person who drafted that homeland security memo has gained very good reason to be worried. The guns are coming out. The risks are real"

While a big hyperbolic, this is not exactly far off...Of course, here in Boston, these town hall outbursts are nonexistent. My own representative, Michael Capuano, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is one of the Democrats who wrote a letter to Speaker Pelosi regarding the Blue Dogs.

For a long time (most of my adult life) conservatism has been drifting in a strange Populist direction. Even if Obama's approval ratings are declining at the moment; this type of rhetoric and foolishness is only going to set conservatives even further back. If the public continues to view Republicans and conservatives as belligerent and unwilling to seriously discuss policy, we'll be nothing but a lynch mob.

I'm aware this is a bit of a meandering post. I'm hoping to contribute to the discussion in my own way- but I still have my day job!