Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘O Mores!’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

No opinions allowed

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 17, 2007

Bryan Ferry apologizes for Nazi remarks:

British singer Bryan Ferry apologized on Monday for remarks he made in an interview with a German newspaper in which he praised the Nazis’ iconography as “just amazing” and “really beautiful”.

The 61-year-old lead singer of Roxy Music told Germany’s Welt Am Sonntag newspaper last month: “The way that the Nazis staged themselves and presented themselves, my Lord!

“I’m talking about the films of Leni Riefenstahl and the buildings of Albert Speer and the mass marches and the flags — just fantastic. Really beautiful.”

The reason Ferry should be spanked is that his taste in design runs toward the fascist. But expressing admiration for the “Heroic Realism” style in design and art, which was really a variation of Socialist Realism, makes you a poor aesthete, not a Nazi. Nonetheless:

Jewish leaders in Britain, some of whom had condemned Ferry’s comments and questioned whether he should be dropped by the Marks & Spencer retail chain that employs him as a model, welcomed Ferry’s clarification.

I’d welcome a new group of “Jewish leaders.” What an embarrassment — does it never end? These guys should go learn some Aleph-Beis and worry about some real problems.

Posted in Faith and Works, O Mores!, Oppression | Leave a Comment »

Philosophers’ blogging song

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 26, 2007

Or, rather, swan song as a blogging polemicist. Like my putative co-blogger David Nieporent, I stop by Brian Leiter’s blog from time to time. He’s a very intelligent guy — well, both of them are, but I mean Leiter — and Exhibit A+ of how sharp you can be and still absolutely refuse to be mugged by any modicum of reality in your political judgments. Brian and I used to do document review high-level antitrust work for Texaco when we were associates at a big law firm back in the day.

I do remember being struck, as we sat there stupidly sifting through hundreds of boxes looking for the word “oil well” doing substantive attorney review of the factual record in complex commercial litigation, at Brian’s vehemence in arguing against the morality of the first Gulf War. What was even more remarkable was when he insisted, a week into it, when the dreaded Revolutionary Guard took to their heels and ran home, that the moral imbecility of the war was more obvious than ever now because “it’s a slaughter.” His argument was that when you’re winning a war, it’s immoral to continue it. At this point even the mid-level associate (who today is happily helping run a race-car track) who was supervising us, and who by his own admission was no philosopher and no big fan of the war, thought this was among the dumbest things he ever heard.

But Brian is not dumb. He demonstrated just how smart he was by just not showing up for the rest of his life starting one morning and heading back to academia, and he has for years now had a comfy tenured chair in philosophy and law at the University of Texas. He has also run his very spunky, wildly left-wing blog, focusing on a lot of inside baseball in philosophy and law faculties (he seems always to be making my law school, Northwestern University, sound on the brink of extinction), writing about Kant but also dishing plenty of cant. It is a good, and hardly unexamined, life.

Whereas I stayed at that document production and at commercial litigation until blood ran out of the spigots and kept looking, as I do today, for that soft, pliable spot on the wall on which to continue slamming my head.

Brian recently announced, in fact, that he’s going to be toning down his political commentary and focusing more on “philosophy, academia (including academic freedom), and the broader intellectual culture,” partly because “The fact that the war criminals in Washington, DC are in retreat (happily) has also lessened my enthusiasm for dissecting them” and also because, he says, students were too tuned into his political views because of the blog. How Brian intends to return that genie to its lamp — and why he thinks these “war criminals” are “happily” in retreat (though maybe that explains this — Brian loves Instapundit!) — are truly philosophical quandaries. But Brian’s the guy with the laurel wreath here, not me.

Posted in Blogophilia, O Mores! | 4 Comments »

We are only amused

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 23, 2007

crystalpalaceimagehobhouse.jpgThink about the Victorians lately? They were, a generation ago, iconic for conservatives, as the quotation from Margaret Thatcher at the link to Slate indicates. But as she points out, she was raised by a Victorian grandmother, for in the 1970’s and ’80’s, people who knew actual Victorians still walked the earth. And not only that — the shuddering of the collapse of their world was still being felt.

Has a civilization ever gone from business casual to morning coats? Not without being rebuilt from the ground up in ways too painful to contemplate. We’re so far from that today that the concept of hearkening back to Victorian anything is pretty comical. We may as well speak of bringing back the Great Awakening or the good old days of Antiquity. It’s not just because of the distance in time: Our culture of slovenliness, gracelessness and, well, just about everything, er, blogging is about is so antithetical to the starched-collar and class-conscious ethos of Victorianism that it is simply impossible to imagine our civilization looking or feeling so civilized — or, of course, so stratified.

Good riddance? Well, if Mrs. Thatcher had some regrets, how can any cultural conservative — damn the historicism! — have none at all? But a century has come and gone and the Victorians, really the ones who ushered in the technological world in the West, only get further away in the rear-view mirror.

Posted in O Mores!, Past is prologue | 4 Comments »

Edwards resolves key political question

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 22, 2007

John Edwards’s priorities:

Democrat John Edwards is forging ahead with his second bid for the presidency despite the sobering news that his wife, Elizabeth, is battling an incurable reappearance of cancer.. . .

Putting to rest speculation about his political future, Edwards told reporters: “The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly.”

. . .

“From our perspective, there was no reason to stop,” Edwards said. “I don’t think we seriously thought about it.”

“I don’t think we seriously thought about it.” So what does this resolve? It tells us that John Edwards — whom, I will admit, I never liked politically, though of course our sympathy must go out to him and his family on a personal level — is one of two things:

Either merely an inveterate liar, or a complete moral retard. Democrats are certainly used to having one or the other of those as their candidate, but chances are there’s at least one better one in this year’s field.

One what — liar or idiot? Pick ’em.

UPDATE: Characterizations softened — see the comments. On the other hand, excuse me while I call out what I think are cheap shots from the other side of this issue. (Yes, I think there are two sides.)

Posted in O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 67 Comments »

An inch of time

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 21, 2007

Now that you’ve, perhaps, read the next-to-last word, prepare to read the last word on the Iraq war. First read this (sweet) story and this (God-awful) story to put you in the mood.  But that’s the last word whether anyone else’s mouth ever moves again or not. Gerard Van der Leun, who does happen to be something of a not-so-old friend, just wrote the best thing ever about the war. I don’t even know where to excerpt from it, it’s so good. But I’ll try if it there’s any chance it gets one more person to read this essay (emphasis added):

Four years in. An inch of time. Four years in and the foolish and credulous among us yearn to get out. Their feelings require it. The power of their Holy Gospel of “Imagine” compels them. Their overflowing pools of compassion for the enslavers of women, the killers of homosexuals, the beheaders of reporters, and the incinerators of men and women working quietly at their desks, rise and flood their minds until their eyes flow with crocodile tears while their mouths emit slogans made of cardboard. They believe the world is run on wishes and that they will always have three more.

Like savages shambling about some campfire where all there is to eat are a few singed tubers, they paint their faces with the tatterdemalion symbols of a summer long sent down to riot with the worms. They clasp hands and sing songs whose lyrics are ash. “We shall… over… come.” Overcome what, overcome who? Overcome their nation? Is that their dream? It is the lifelong dream of those that lead them that much is certain.

Four years in and we see these old rotting rituals trotted out in the streets like some pagan procession of idols and shibboleths, like some furred and feathered fetish shaken against the sky by hunkering witch-doctors, to hold back the dark, to frighten off the evil spirits and graven images that trouble the sleep of the dreamers.

Four years into the most gentle war ever fought, a war fought on the cheap at every level, a war fought to avoid civilian harm rather than maximize it. Picnic on the grass at Shiloh. Walk the Western Front. Speak to the smoke of Dresden. Kneel down and peek into the ovens of Auschwitz. Sit on the stones near ground zero at Hiroshima and converse with the shadows singed into the wall. Listen to those ghost whisperers of war.

Four years in and the people of the Perfect World ramble through the avenues of Washington, stamping their feet and holding their breath, having their tantrums, and telling all who cannot avoid listening that “War is bad for children and other living things.” They have flowers painted on their cheeks. For emphasis. Just in case you thought that war was good for children and other living things.

There were children and other living things on the planes that flew into the towers. They all went into the fire and the ash just the same. But they, now, are not important. Nor is the message their deaths still send us when we listen. That message is to be silenced. The rising brand new message is “All we are say-ing is give….” And it is always off-key.

Four years in and they are upset that their party of the 90s has been so long interrupted; that their raves are foreshortened; that their sleep is persistently shaken by car bombs beyond the far horizon; that their time at the mall can not be entirely, completely, and utterly without guilt. . . .

Four years in and the fools in the streets multiply. They are tired of the war, but full of themselves. . . .

It is in patience alone that our enemies outstrip us. After all, when you look at what they have made of their “civilization” what indeed do they have to lose?

Posted in O Mores!, Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

Not so gay Paree

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 14, 2007

France’s highest court Tuesday rejected as unlawful the first marriage by a gay couple in France, annulling the union of the two men.

Stephane Charpin and Bertrand Charpentier were married in a civil ceremony on June 5, 2004, in Begles, a town in the southwest Bordeaux region. The government immediately said the union was outside the law, and a series of court decisions unfavorable to the couple followed.

In the latest decision, the court ruled that “under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” backing a 2005 decision by an appeals court in Bordeau.

Now, that’s not supposed to happen, is it? I don’t think so.

I find this particularly interesting in juxtaposition to the “outrage” and “demands for resignation” regarding the comments by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calling lesbian and gay personnel “immoral.” Here’s why:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Lex scripta, O Mores! | 27 Comments »

The Pope is Catholic. Rudy Giuliani is a politician.

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 13, 2007

It should not be newsworthy that the Pope insists that Catholics, including politicians, take their faith seriously, not as something for Sunday in the pews but as something that guides their moral choices — even if they are officers in a democracy. But this Pope does have a spine, if much of the Vatican “career staff” that serves him doesn’t.

On the other hand, Allahpundit’s obsession (in the link) with the un-Catholic public policy stands of Rudy Giuliani is not new. I can’t imagine Giuliani even holds himself out as a practicing Catholic except in the most nominal sense, being on his third wife and all, but if I am wrong about this I will say I am not surprised. I expect little from politicians, even those I admire in their roles (not as role models) and support. But while I hesitate to speak for traditional Catholics, I can imagine that they expect, and are happy to get, far more from their religious leaders.

And that is not something to take for granted.

If I thought he were listening, I would advise my old friend Allahpundit not to get too hung up on Giuliani’s departure from the creed. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have his feet held to the fire on these issues, and that it isn’t a good idea for conservatives to be the ones to do it — I think we should. I just don’t think there are all that many people left who don’t know that Giuliani has historically been pro-abortion, even though he is actually rather conservative — or makes the conservative move — on many social issues. And after all, the present President was rock-solid on abortion. But even Allah has to admit that, from a conservative point of view, that choice (if you’ll pardon the expression) has not necessarily worked out so well.

That is the problem with single-issue candidates. We’ve all been there — I voted for Clinton in 1992 to punish GHWB for James (“F the Jews”) Baker — and we’ve all been burned. Is that the stake you want to flame out on, Allah? Because I’m not so sure the Church is going to keep you company.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Faith and Works, O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 13 Comments »

Pure and chaste … from afar

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 11, 2007

Dawn Eden, more than a little interested in the subject, clarifies the word chaste:

[E]veryone is supposed to observe chastity according to their state in life, so there’s single chastity and there’s married chastity. Chastity is really a way to look at all your relationships so that they no longer become mere exchanges of commodities. It’s a plan for your whole life, for your happiness, and for eventually going to heaven. I look at chastity as a way to practice what it’s like to be in heaven.

Huh — live and learn. It reminds me of the Jewish concept of tzeniuth, which is usually translated as “modesty” (typically alluding to modesty in matters of dress) but which I learned really means “dignity.”

There is one use of the word “chaste,” though, that I will always remember. It was on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show, when Murray Slaughter — the crypto-Jewish copywriter played by Gavin McLeod — his heart filled to bursting, finally has to tell Mary that he’s in love with her. (This was before McLeod became captain of, ironically, the Love Boat.) Mary, perpetually single but very desirable, expresses how flattered she is and gently reminds Murray that he’s married (thus avoiding the more painful truth that he’s not in her league). Murray, the literary romantic, resolves it by assuring her that he knows this, he loves his wife, and that he will still always love Mary (“Myeh-ry” as he says it; the Jewish part of his character is not played out as Rhoda Morgenstern’s is, but with that accent in Minneapolis, and his literary pretensions, it’s pretty clear) “pure and chaste from afar.”

I found that very touching, and of course somewhat sad, but also was impressed by the level of maturity that Murray showed in making this acknowledgment. I must have been impressed — I am sure I saw that episode about 30 years ago, and it still sticks with me. Still and all, the higher service for Murray would have been to keep his feelings to himself — this would truly have been pure and chaste and, especially, “afar.” In Jewish sensibility we call this k’rivath hadaath, literally, “the bringing-close of the mind” — for such a revelation of one’s feelings about another, regardless of acceptance or rejection, opens up new mental gateways between the two people in conversation. The Torah teaches us that merely expressing something verbally, among other things, can cross a line of the heart, breach a wall of emotional propriety that protects far more than mere emotions.

Murray, in fact, pushes the point and cannot restrain himself from asking Mary if the feeling is mutual. Of course, it isn’t. So she kind of says, “I love ya, buddy” and bear hugs him as his aunt might — thereby bursting his bubble — not as if he could ever have dared to think otherwise.

Yes, Murray would have been better nurturing, or neutering, his secret love secretly. I wish I could remember in whose name I saw this bit of doggerel — it went something like this: “Not everything that is said should be written; not everything that is thought, should be said.” Imagine where the blogosphere would be with such a worldview; and yet this golden rule — and not merely whether my swinging fist implodes your visage — is , perhaps, the very minimum guideline of a civilized, i.e., social, person. Perhaps this too it is of a piece with Dawn’s definition of chastity.

Posted in Faith and Works, O Mores! | 16 Comments »

You’re not helping…

Posted by David M. Nieporent on March 11, 2007

Headlines that make you go “Hmmm…”:

Giuliani defends Gingrich during campaign stop in Nevada

Newt Gingrich’s admission of having an extramarital affair as he pursued President Clinton’s impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky affair has been defended by Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.

Yes. The guy who let the media find out about the affair he was having by bringing another woman to public events, the guy who allowed his wife to find out he was leaving her by calling a press conference to tell the media about it, is defending Gingrich’s adultery. You know, I don’t really care about the issue, but for those voters who do, about the only such defense that would be less helpful would be one coming from Bill Clinton. (That having been said, the media’s attempt to link this to the Lewinsky case is disingenuous. So what if Gingrich was having the affair while “pursuing” Clinton’s impeachment? The impeachment wasn’t about extramarital affairs.)

I guess I should clarify my claim about not caring about the issue, because that’s not really true. I don’t intend to become the morality police, but I’m not a “Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged” sort of guy (wrong religion). I have no problem judging him as a person, and I conclude he’s somewhat distasteful. But as Ron said, he’s not running for the position of my son-in-law.

It does demonstrate poor judgment, though. I mean, there are bad ways to handle these sorts of situations, and really bad ways. Gingrich’s way — having an affair and keeping it secret — is bad. Giuliani’s way — having an affair in public and hoping people won’t notice — is really bad. Still, if it’s the only instance of poor judgment, I can live with it, and if it isn’t, well, let’s look at all those other instances.

As an aside, the article I linked to above had this bizarre comment:

About a dozen anti-war protesters waved placards near the house where the evening fund-raiser was held. They criticized Giuliani’s support of both the war in Iraq, and the expansion of police powers under the USA Patriot Act and other legislation. “As a presidential candidate and a firm supporter of (President) Bush’s policies, we want to let the public know that his views are not those of the majority of Americans,” said Lisa Stiller of the Reno Anti-War Coalition.

They want to let the public know what the public thinks?

Posted in O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 6 Comments »

A bourgeois luxury

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 5, 2007

Glenn Reynolds picks up this quote from the Washington Post …

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. The working class and the poor, meanwhile, increasingly steer away from marriage, while living together and bearing children out of wedlock. . . . Marriage has declined across all income groups, but it has declined far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education. These couples are also less likely to divorce.

… and cites back to his own citation in January to the work of Kay Hymowitz. I discussed this the month before, actually, writing this at Dean’s World:

I’ve fought an uphill battle in these pages for the proposition that we have lost something in our abandonment of traditional morality, especially as regards family life. There are so many unclear empirical questions, though, and so much cultural and religious baggage this conversation has to carry, that I never felt I was making any headway, or could, without recourse to explicitly religious arguments.

That’s why I’m grateful for a link provided in the Kaus article to an article by Kay Hymowitz in City Journal. Hymowitz takes apart the truisms, generalizations, assumptions and illogic that dance around the just plain truth that the socioeconomic, and social, reality for mothers and children — and dads — in households without a husband are worse off, remain worse off, and bestow a future of worse off to their own offspring.

I was, however, quite unable to get any traction in the comments. People ended up defending what great parents certain single parents were, while, in my view, missing the real issue — that traditional morality, as rapidly dwindling as it is in popularity in this country — even among “conservatives” — has something to say about healthy relationships, healthy child-rearing, and healthy adulthoods.

Now even the Post agrees that, empirically speaking, those with the most choice and given the most options more or less choose the most traditional arrangements. Why is that? I can’t say it’s because of a rebirth of religious or “traditional” morality — that’s not happening among elites in the West. But here’s one hint: People who accomplish the most — “couples who make the most money and have the best education” — are the most likely to have gotten to that point by virtue of being accustomed to discipline, i.e., self-denial and delayed gratification. Hence: “These couples are also less likely to divorce.”

Investment pays off. Successful people not only know this, but apply to all aspects of their lives — not only careers and finances. It is true that success in those areas can make you think there’s a shortcut to happiness in the other, arguably more challenging ones — family, love, and making some stab at finding meaning in life. But the only shortcut achieved, usually, is distraction from the truth.

As the research shows, the poor and working class don’t even have that. Nor the leadership — political or spiritual — to suggest where they can find it.

UPDATE: Villanously more.

Posted in Gelt, O Mores! | 3 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »