The Kenyon Observer Blog

As H1N1 Hits Kenyon, A Debate on the Ethics of Vaccination

2009-09-16T19:33:00.001-04:00

Late this summer, as we were all eagerly preparing our returns to campus, the Health Center sent an e-mail titled "Student with Influenza" to the student body. The meaning was clear from the title alone: the H1N1 influenza virus, colloquially known as swine flu, had arrived. A student was infected. Now, what were we to do? We got the usual advice: "wash your hands" and "cover your face when you sneeze," etc. But real help is on the way. According to information in an e-mail and on the College Web site, the H1N1 vaccine should be available to the campus this fall.

This sounds all well and good, right? Maybe not. It would be wise to stand back and look at the whole picture before succumbing to hysterics.

Read the rest here...

Rethinking the "Good War"

2009-09-05T11:28:00.003-04:00

On September 1, seventy years ago, Germany invaded Poland. And thus began the most destructive and deadly war in human history. Too few people, however, dare ask Why? or How? The orthodox view of World War II as the "Good War," as a war of Good versus Evil, has reached canonical status.

Patrick Buchanan provides us with the insight that, if not for British guarantees to Poland, the entire war could have been avoided. Justin Raimondo adds to Buchanan's observations: "...the Cold War would most definitely have been avoided. For Hitler was determined to destroy the hated Bolsheviks, and it was only US entry into the conflict – engineered by FDR, in alliance with the Brits, the Communists, and the left in general – that saved the "workers’ paradise" from Germany’s sword." And finally, Robert Higgs reminds us that "One is scarcely engaging in moral equivalence if one concludes that neither side represented 'the good guys.' There was plenty of evil to go around."

No historical event should be sacrosanct, including World War II.

Enough About Iran

2009-06-22T12:15:00.003-04:00

The whole election hullabaloo in Iran has made me even more cynical about the U.S. news media -- if that is even possible. Sure, there are probably some inconsistencies in the voting. But who cares? However, if you still care, here is a great little piece by Ilana Mercer that makes the case for why you should not, or at least watch to the mainstream news with a critical eye.

More on gay marriage

2009-05-02T09:15:00.003-04:00

I deposited the following rant on the current hot topic over at Taki's Magazine, under the flourishing title, "'Do You Take This Pony?' Or, The Counterrevolution Will Be Facebooked."

You used to be able to take some sort of traditionally-minded patriarchal order for granted. Now it is in pieces and streaks of mayhem, mediocrity, anxiety and insanity are running strong. What do we have to leverage some sort of restoration? Blogs, web magazines, comment threads and social networking sites, apparently. Just another reason to turn gloomy and Spenglerian.

But, why not and what the heck? I use my Facebook profile to air all sorts of reactionary web literature, as if I’ll coax egalitarianism back to the underworld proper with another turn of phrase by Mr. Zmirak, Mr. Spencer, or the Other McCain.

Recently one of those links was to Mr. Derbyshire’s rubric for the secular-right heteronormative argument, which Razib Khan brought to our attention. Since gay rights are so hot right now I got plenty of response, some of it from relatively new friends, acquaintances, and coworkers who only lately have wandered within my right-wing orbit. The Left gets heaps of abuse for social experimentation, but I have my own styles of social labwork, and I love nothing better than witnessing the squeals and writhing of those who can’t keep this particularly unsettling reactionary vampire at bay with the usual crummy crosses, garlic, and accusations of prejudice and discrimination.

I have met the common egalitarian mind, and it is really hot and bothered that Mr. Derbyshire would write the following:

Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose further redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team?

Oh, those crazy conservatives! What can you say about people who are worried that man-pony marriages will soon become epidemic?

The point to Derbyshire’s remark, of course, is logical and cultural, which would become clear to the PC antagonist could he but pluck his head out from whatever orifice it was crammed in and engage in a moment’s reflection. Once the publicly-accepted understanding of something changes so does the wider social setting, which shapes what people can make of their lives. Our understanding of marriage reflects the kind of world in which we live, and the confidence and reinforcement we can expect to enjoy in that world. Will it be, on the one hand, a setting where people see in their attachments to others nothing deeper or more fundamental than a practical and perhaps momentary solution to the question of their own individual needs and wants? Or will it be one in which those attachments relate to greater obligations, a wider social order, and ultimately a transcendent good?

I might be free, in the egalitarian society, to cohabit with a woman and call it marriage. Yet I’m palpably not free to enjoy the support of a wider society that gives my attachment to that woman its traditional meaning and obligation. To the extent that gay “marriage” is accepted as a non-controversial public understanding, the older traditional patterns erode. Those traditional attitudes aren’t just an arbitrary function of nasty heteronormative preference. They are based on a time-tested recognition of what makes sense and tends to work with regard to human activity and attachment.

By the way, if you would like to upgrade from my budget traditionalist conceptualizing to the authentic product, you will need to obtain a copy of Jim Kalb’s recent accomplishment, The Tyranny of Liberalism. Now if you will excuse me, I have a Facebook feed to tyrannize.

Addendum: Let me finish off my gloss on Derbyshire, to spell out every last hint and syllable for people who need to believe that conservatives are, for example, terrified of the legitimization of barnyard love. The point of such phraseology by Derbyshire (are we really having to make this clear?) is not that pony marriage trends are likely to develop, but that such questions start to occur to people given what we now have decided marriage to be. They start to occur, in the sense that it becomes harder to say what is truly special about an arrangement that is just a suitable utilitarian pairing between two individuals and that lacks the old meaning and significance. People start to say, “What’s to stop us from marrying ponies?” not because such things are actually on the horizon, but to express something about how difficult they find it to make sense of the concept of gay “marriage” as an overall social standard. To be worthy of the appellation marriage needs to have a real overall social purpose, like transmitting the habits and customs of one generation of a civilization to the next, which then ends up relating to a more transcendent meaning. Gay marriage lacks this. So would marrying a pony.

I have also heard from five people in the last twenty four hours, almost verbatim, that “THERE IS NEVER ANY REASON TO DENY PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS.” Never? Never ever? I seem to recall some sort of historical trend involving the mass murder of those who had some reluctance in accepting the social reconstruction of the rights regime. The Vendée? The unfortunate flotsam and jetsam of opposition to the Communists? I know that my impoverished interlocutors can’t be bothered with the marrow of their own civilization’s history. I also recognize that direct brutalization is no longer the egalitarian fashion, in our present phase of “soft” anarcho-tyranny (except when it is, and we decide it is time once again to spread some more of that democracy by the bayonet and the bunker buster). But maybe the PC moralists could afford to be a little less categorical and a little more agnostic in their socio-political judgments.

The abnormal is the new normal

2009-04-21T22:29:00.001-04:00

This especially is true when it comes to sex. Why?

In Sartre: Ideologue of Our Time the Hungarian Catholic philosopher Thomas Molnar follows the path of Sartre’s ethical neutrality and exaltation of freedom and individual choice to one of its major destinations: the valorization of sexual exotica per se.

Freedom [in Sartre’s analysis] is a dreadful possibility before which we [as bourgeois people] recoil; in self-protection we set up taboos, collective guidelines, so as to avoid making free choices. We prefer to act comfortably, within what society permits with our own tacit approval. Yet there are those not afraid of their freedom and its consequences. Society chooses to call them criminals, as if they had injured an absolute good when in reality they acted outside and against the prevailing taboos. If society did not define a certain evil, their acts would have no ethical connotation, they would even be sources of value. The myth of evil was forged by the so-called respectable people (gens de bien) who deprive human freedom of its positive power and give it a negative interpretation. They call a free man an evil man; and once he is so labeled, whatever he does as a free agent will be called harmful.

Sartre thus pushes with metaphysical determination for a de-neuroticization of society. Such a society would be purified of such dishonest, self-serving bourgeois oppression and denial of freedom. Molnar writes:

The de-neuroticised society is the one which knows no good and evil, whose only criterion is freedom. But the problem arising here, ignored by Sartre, is that this kind of freedom invariably begins and ends with the approval of certain acts (called evil in the language of conventional morality) and the condemnation of other acts (called good in that language). It other words, the “de-neuroticised” society does not look neutrally at man’s conduct; it does not abolish, but merely reverses, the meaning of good and evil: It gives the first term a negative, the second term a positive, sign. Hence it is not difficult to see in Sartre’s analysis of the Genet case history the desire to indulge in absolute license in a world to which his own imagination alone sets limits. Theoretically, this would not have to lead to the abolition of all restraint and ultimately to sexual frenzy. But there is a logic of human nature at work here as was shown by the Marquis de Sade in La Philosophie dans le boudoir. Welcoming the Revolution, the divine marquis exhorted his compatriots not to stop halfway but to push toward the ultimate freedom, the abolition of all institutions as man-made, and the institutionalization of the satisfaction of instincts, made by nature. The basic instinct is, of course, the sexual one, so true freedom for Sade consists in license for all, men and women, young and old, to satisfy their sexual urge in any way and with whomever desired. A frenetical sexuality was, thus, the goal of mankind, the last and best thing freedom could offer. A singular restriction of the infinite number of choices permitted by the theoreticians of freedom!

Why object?

2009-04-15T11:52:00.002-04:00

A teacher I had in high school whom I respected was dismayed to find me taking shots at opinion columnists whom he apparently agrees with and sees as supporting the moral and sensible viewpoint. We had an email exchange, a lot of it toxic, in which I tried to establish that the right-minded writers I chase after are doing good work. That didn’t take with my former teacher, though. “Why play the right-wing hack?” he ended up saying in effect. “Why not do something closer to the pursuit of truth?”

He’s right, in part. Fuming buys nothing and comes across as amateurish and uncultivated. You can complain and criticize, but eventually you have face bigger questions and say where it’s all headed. If you just fume, eventually you lose the ability to say what it’s all about.

Saying you should just pursue truth has its own problems, though. Such pursuits don’t occur in a vacuum—they happen in a particular setting that favors certain understandings, attitudes, and views over others. If you like the favored views and think they sum things up well then you can just go ahead. If you have objections, though, you’ll need a way to gracefully refrain from going with the flow.

Getting mad at Connie Schultz might not be the solution, ultimately. Rejecting things like multiculturalism, universalism, egalitarianism, and propositional nationhood is the solution to some degree and at some level, though. There are people who make that case intelligently and who deserve to have their arguments given some due. Instead they are kept out of the public view.

What's happening?

2009-04-15T10:22:00.002-04:00

There’s a piece in the Harrisburg Patriot-News today by Anthony Infanti, a professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. He writes in support of a pending state anti-discrimination bill that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

He focuses on what he says are the economic benefits the legislation will bring by making the state more welcoming to LGBT people. Professor Infanti doesn’t much develop the logic of anti-discrimination, which makes sense, since that logic is increasingly taken as given across our culture, and in our social, religious, and political institutions. Why spend time defending something that a lot of people will take at face value, at least in the public square?

Anti-discrimination, though, isn’t a habit of mind that occurs to everyone naturally. Until recently in human history it didn’t occur to anyone at all, practically. Affairs were conducted on a basis that was less than fully egalitarian, and it seemed natural for people to live in a setting in which different individuals with different identities would be placed on different footings. While not all of our past attitudes are to be invoked as things worth restoring—impossible, anyways, since attitudes that differed from time to time often contradict each other—at some level we should be surprised to find that justice and basic decency now require us to replace our inherited public understandings with a single self-contained principle of equality that is to override all other considerations. That seems to be what is happening, though, even though some continue to object and complain.

Jim Kalb

2009-04-14T12:58:00.001-04:00

I’m young and novice, so naturally I’m heavily indebted to people who have been experiencing, thinking, and articulating longer and more seriously than I have. One of those people is Jim Kalb, an independent writer who keeps a website here, and whose recent book has been fairly described as “a blockbuster that belongs on the shelves of any thinking conservative who wants to understand where we are today, and where we are going.”

In his writing he focuses on overall tendencies, general trends, and basic issues, instead of emphasizing particulars. That seems to leave a lot of room for people to adapt their answers to particular questions in ways that suit their circumstances. To that degree you might say there’s a level of agnosticism to his approach. Still, he favors the Catholic Church as the institution best fitted overall for housing civilization’s renewal.

Among those with whom he’s made some sort of common cause, in writing, analyzing, and pointing toward ways out of the current crisis, not all share his Catholic bent. That’s not really alarming—things in general are highly fragmented, and people with a variety of loyalties and inclinations are going to reach a variety of conclusions on central questions, even when they’re pulling in the same right-wing sort of direction. I wonder, though, if that point of diversion is something Jim has had occasion to deal with directly. I wonder what he would say are the strongest criticisms he’s seen on this point, and how he would respond to them, and how much he thinks the question matters in the scheme of things.

Update: Jim follows up with remarks about his approach.

Prejudice versus exotica

2009-04-08T09:45:00.004-04:00

An article in the New York Times suggests that sexual exotica is growing more open in Iraq, as a result of conditions created by Western invasion. The authors of the article can’t call homosexuality “exotic,” but the view comes across anyways, in the quotations from Iraqis and their officials, and in the apparent effort by Iraqis themselves to brutally stamp out homosexual habits, even and especially among family members. The authors say that a spate of violence against openly gay men shows that “Iraq remains religious, conservative — and still violent.”

On that view it’s the regular, “heteronormative” habits and attitudes of Iraqis that are the problem and the source of violence and tension. A traditionalist might ask, why not the other way around? Why doesn’t the effort to normalize anti-traditional modes of behavior attract blame as being the root of the problem? It might be seen that way by evangelical Christians, but their handling of basic issues always seems amateurish and superficial to me—at least, that’s my unstudied view.

If traditional attitudes and prejudices are merely aberrant and arbitrary, then there shouldn’t be any fundamental difficulty with reconfiguring things to get rid of them and obtain satisfaction and social peace. That sort of project is now typical in the West. But that’s not what traditional attitudes are, and that’s not how dealing with them works.

Update: Razib Khan's observations in response to mine are, I think, correct. I probably abused the terms "homosexual" and "gay" a little by mixing them, but I hope my overall point doesn't contradict Khan's remarks, which are sound. He writes:

An addendum to Evan McLaren’s comment on The New York Times piece, Iraq’s Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder. I generally think that the semantic quibbles of anthropological types who caution against comparing societies as if terms are equivalent is a rather useless exercise, but in this case I believe some clarification is warranted. It seemed implicit in The New York Times piece that there is a distinction between homosexual behavior, and an open gay subculture. Whether it is taboo or not, homosexual behavior exists in many human societies. In fact because of sex segregation in much of the Islamic world homosexual behavior flourishes.* See this piece from The Atlantic about homosexuality in Saudi Arabia. But it is likely that most men who have engaged in homosexual behavior in Saudi Arabia are as gay as most prisoners who have engaged in homosexual behavior; not very. The point is that the violent reaction to gay subculture in Iraq from traditionalists is less about homosexual behavior per se, as opposed to the emergence of a gay subculture which seems to be modeled on its Western variants. In fact some scholars, such as Camille Paglia, have argued that the gay culture as we understand it in the West is a relatively new phenomenon which is qualitatively distinct from variants of homosexuality which are extant in the historical record, from ancient Greece down to Tokugawa Japan. The rise of the gayness internationally, and the subsequent backlash, can therefore be viewed as simply another clash between Western values and non-Western values.

* The Sultan of Oman seems likely to be exclusively homosexual in his preferences.

The Devalued Prime Minister of a Devalued Government

2009-04-05T23:35:00.004-04:00

Apparently there are still some decent politicians in Britain:

Fact or Fiction?

2009-03-27T10:03:00.001-04:00

I think this is about as arbitrary as what they have been doing:

Thanks Tim Swanson at mises.org

Walter Block Takes on Campus Thought Police

2009-03-26T22:04:00.003-04:00

I posted last semester about Prof. Walter Block's incident at Loyola College Maryland. He was accused of racism and sexism after claiming wage gaps between races and sexes might be due to something other than discrimination. Of course he used evidence to support his claims, but egalitarians on a witch hunt don't usually bother with the facts. Anyways, Dr. Block gives a nice update on the situation during a podcast with Lew Rockwell.

I'm Glad He's Here

2009-03-22T21:34:00.003-04:00

Oops. Turns out the U.S. government will have to borrow $9.3 trillion over the next decade to pay for Obama's inane projects. Right now the national debt stands at just over $11 trillion. Our total Gross Domestic Product equals $14.5 trillion. So if we add all of that new debt to our current debt, we will have a national debt 140% of our total national GDP. That means it would take over an entire year to repay all the government owes; that is over a year of paying for nothing but debt and nothing else. And to bring it a little closer to home: $20.3 trillion in debt equals almost $67,000 per man, woman, and child in this country. I am sure it is all worth it, Barack.

Hope

2009-03-21T23:15:00.003-04:00

This is ~~change~~ vast sums of money I can believe in:

Six Years Later

2009-03-20T15:15:00.003-04:00

It has been six years since the war on Iraq began. What do we have to show for it? Well, there are the 4259 American soldiers dead. Then we have $600 billion in official costs; other estimates go as high as $3 trillion. And of course, we can't overlook the 1.3 million Iraqi civilians that have been killed.

The costs are clearly staggering. But there seems to be no end in sight. Obama has said he will end our "combat" role in the country within a couple of years. Apparently the 50,000 remaining soldiers--trained in the art of warfare with guns at the ready--will have nothing to do with "combat" missions.

Nevermind all that! I am sure in these tough times our gracious leaders would never lead us astray. Besides, I am also quite sure that the squandering of trillions of dollars must stimulate our economy. Or something.

Can Government Fix the Roads?

2009-01-28T11:29:00.003-05:00

A scare story over at CNN about our failing infrastructure got me thinking. Would any of this have happened without government ownership of roads, bridges, dams, etc.? I think we would be in a much better place with a competitive market for infrastructure.

The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our roads a grade of "D-". Apparently we spend "more than $4.2 billion a year stuck in traffic." This points to one of two things: either we have a shortage of roads or the cost to drive on the roads is too low. Either way, it seems there hasn't been an efficient distribution of roads. Government, of course, owns these roads. Why not let private individuals and companies own the roads? With competition and free pricing system we could figure out where roads are most needed and ration the space available on the roads to avoid too much traffic.

Next, I think the Engineers inadvertently admit who is at fault. They also handed a "D-" to the inland waterways. "The average age of all federally owned or operated locks is nearly 60 years, well past their planned design life of 50 years." Of course the federally owned or operated locks are outdated. As Milton Friedman once said: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand." Mismanagement, waste, and inefficiency is a symptom of any government-owned entity.

This may all seem a little abstract and not applicable to these so-called "public goods." But put it in the context of your everyday life. What if the government mandated that all milk would be "free," that is, it would be paid for like roads, with taxes and fees that are often divorced from the milk market all together. Clearly everyone would hurry to get some free milk and shortage would ensue, either by all the normal milk drinkers taking the milk or inviting new milk drinkers that did not buy milk before. So it goes with roads; free access or encouraging driving at high-traffic hours creates traffic jams, which could be a shortage of roads or an overabundance of drivers.

Or what if you went into Best Buy and instead of selling computers they were selling typewriters? The market would surely put them out of business, or severely damage their revenues. Government ownership, however, allows outdated equipment and infrastructure precisely because there is a lack of competition.

Engineers, when you say "that the government and the private sector need to invest $2.2 trillion over five years," I say: You stick to engineering and let others take care of the economics.

Maybe Economists can be "Racist" Too

2008-11-20T12:38:00.002-05:00

Prof. Walter Block has recently got himself into some trouble over some "offensive" remarks he made at Loyola College in Maryland. Prof. Block dared to claim that women and blacks earn lower wages because they tend, on average, to have a lower marginal productivity.

This is the same explanation put forth by our very own Taylor Somers in the last issue of The Observer. And, of course, Prof. Block got the same treatment as Mr. Somers. It is not politically correct to assert that these groups do not face systematic discrimination, but could really just be less productive. As Prof. Block says: "After all, if black people had the same productivity as white people on average, but were paid less, then there would be profit opportunities available to all those who hired blacks and fired whites, and such a situation could never last." The same holds true for women.

How are we supposed to address these problems - if that is even desirable - when politically incorrect explanations are rejected without discussion? Alas, we seem to be haunted by this ill-defined specter we call "inequality" or "discrimination." No one can see it, but it is still there. If you reject its existence, then you are a racist or bigot or some other epithet. Until we redefine the acceptable parameters of debate, I suppose we will never truly address these issues.

Who hopes for what he already has?

2008-11-03T20:30:00.004-05:00

The Sermon Lesson at church yesterday was a passage from Romans chapter 8. Specifically, verses 23-25 stuck out in my mind:

Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Hearing the word "hope" instantly turned my mind to Barack Obama. This word, along with "change," is unsheathed by his campaign continuously. "But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?" Indeed, America has already become a social democracy. Not on the grand scale of our European contemporaries, but we are following hard and fast. Progressive taxation, government centralization, and rampant multiculturalism are already upon us. What kind of hope is this? Hope that we can put this nation on a quicker path to self-destruction?

I believe it is still within my right to hope. I will await patiently the day when property rights and traditional values are respected. I will hold some hope that, while the rest of society is imploding, there will be a few left who are prepared to put it back on track. But Barack Obama's hope is no hope at all. His plans are just the same-old government tricks disguised as something new.

"Racism" and TKO

2008-10-29T17:21:00.001-04:00

Here is my letter on the "racism" controversy that the Collegian refused to print.

For the sake of argument let us assume that the worst is true, and that the wording of Taylor Somers’ Observer article does unambiguously suggest that women and minorities are less productive than white males.

People who think the Observer printed something offensive, by the way, are entitled, and I have no wish to see them prevented from expressing their judgment. Nor did I suggest as much when I came to Somers’ and the Observer’s defense in my email to the community.

Even if we assume that the article says what some allege, where do we go from there? How do we react as individuals, and what course does the community take?

Granville reacted poorly and dangerously. He did not merely express his anger. Having interpreted the article as he did, he apparently did not hesitate to assume the worst of Somers’ imaginable motives, and to construe him and the Observer as agents of pure and deliberate bigotry. In several allstus, and in personal emails, he vented open rage against Somers’ alleged racism, and that of the Observer. His most dramatic smear, in an email to me, was to state that the Observer promotes “racist ideology,” and his public comments took an identical tone. In two word clusters that must be read several times to be believed, Granville adopts something like the language of Uncle Remus, calling Somers “massah.” In case anyone needs this insanity spelled out for them, Granville has suggested that Somers may be supportive of white supremacy or ante-bellum slavery.

Granville’s frank and unmistakable intent was to dehumanize Somers and his defenders as completely as possible, and to cause them as much injury as he might through public attacks. He has mocked anyone who sees grey area and attempts to stake out a neutral point of view. He has openly gloated that he can call whom he wants “racist” and get away with it because of free speech.

It is hard for me to understand that claim. The exercise of free speech doesn’t mean the absence of responsibility and accountability, and it is not the same as license to attack person by whom one feels slighted.

But even if Granville is correct, the practical issue of how to handle the matter needs still to be addressed so that the rest of the college can function normally. To accuse someone of racism is to say that he is a standing social and perhaps physical threat, unfit for regular society, and unworthy of regard or respect. Life in a community does not just go on after such a charge is made. If one churchgoer openly denounces another as a heretic, no one would be naïve enough to think that the congregation is unaffected, that the accuser and accused will simply sort the matter out between themselves, or that afterward the church will function regularly. Regardless of one’s love or loathing for the Observer, necessity requires some sort of public settlement.

When that happens the Observer likely will have to share a measure of accountability. Whether I or the current staff agree that Somers’ article was so deeply offensive, the Observer would do well to reconsider its boundaries and the tenor of its articles, out of both respect for the community and instinct for self-preservation.

But if the Observer needs to correct itself and apologize, it could have been asked or directed to do so without casting it and its associates totally outside the boundaries of civilized society with such venom and hatred. By their nature Granville’s menacing attacks have affected not only the Observer but the stability of the setting in which the rest of Kenyon people work and live. Granville will have to be held accountable as well, particularly since he arrogantly boasts otherwise.

Collective common sense obviously is lacking, and so it will fall to school administrators to somehow restore order. But people at Kenyon should not require such authoritative direction to avoid this sort of spectacular collapse in civility. It would be shameful if that were in fact the case.

What Election?

2008-10-29T16:19:00.000-04:00

Observers,

I am sure most of you have joined the herd that is being guided to the voting booths by our civic-minded shepherds. But for those of you who, like me, made a conscientious decision not to vote, please join this event on Facebook: What Election? It is about time more people learned that democracy is a sham. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voice your opinion by not voting.

Liberal Tyranny

2008-10-09T23:16:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

An essay from a few years back by Donald Livingston makes a point I always have in mind very nicely:

From 1900 until today, nearly four times as many people have been killed by their own governments as have been killed in all wars, foreign and domestic. This destruction would not have been possible without the unprecedented concentration of power available to modern states. Had Hitler and Stalin been 18th century monarchs, they could not have murdered millions because they would not have had the authority to mobilize the necessary resources. They would have been hedged in by powerful independent social authorities (the Church, the nobility, and provincial powers) whose authority, in their sphere, was as good as the monarchs' and who could be expected to resist. The czar, for example, from 1825 to 1905 executed an average of only 17 people a year. With the collapse of the monarchy and all independent social authorities, large-scale corporate resistance vanished, and Lenin and Stalin could murder millions.

The French Revolution gave birth to the first truly modern state. The storming of the Bastille revealed only 7 inmates, none of whom were political prisoners. The king, who was willing to become a constitutional monarch and refused to use force, was executed; the nobility, clergy, provincial authorities, and an independent judiciary were eliminated. The French republic, in the name of the ‘rights of man,' seized half a million political prisoners. Of these, 17,000 were executed with trial; 12,000 without trial; and many died in prison. The republic, for the first time in Europe, ordered universal male conscription. The armies of the great monarchies had hovered around 190,000; the French republic, overnight, placed a million men in the field. By the end of Napoleon's reign, the republic had conscripted 3 million. Other European states followed suit. As a result of European imperialism, world wars, and global capitalism, most of the world was hammered into the form of the modern state.

Universalist liberalism views the destruction carried out in the 20th century as the result of illiberal forms of government. What is overlooked is that liberalism itself first legitimated the destruction of independent social authorities, and concentrating power to the centre. The French republic was the first modern state, the first government legitimated by liberal ideology, and the first totalitarian regime.

Another essay, by Jim Kalb, helps frame the current status of liberal tyranny:

A man who arbitrarily imprisons me or confiscates my property is a tyrant. Ruling elites that destroy the social institutions and relationships that make me what I am, that attack the family and abolish gender distinctions, ethnic ties, and traditional moral standards, that drive religion out of public life and tell private associations what members to choose and why, are also tyrannical.

Best,

Evan

What about Biden?

2008-10-03T00:46:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

While the rest of the world works up a good froth about what a horrible disaster Sarah Palin supposedly is, I'm noticing that Biden apparently has had some moments to be humble about as well:

San Diego Union-Tribune blogger Chris Reed recalls Biden's 1988 response in Claremont, New Hampshire to a question about his law school record from a man identified only as ''Frank.'' Biden looked at his questioner and said: ''I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.''

Biden of course couldn't leave it at that. He is not known for his concision or care with the facts. He added that he ''went to law school on a full academic scholarship -- the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.'' He also said that he ''ended up in the top half'' of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. Biden still wasn't done. In college, Biden said, he was ''the outstanding student in the political science department'' and ''graduated with three degrees from college.''

Reed then turns to Biden's subsequent statement on this exchange. At Syracuse College of Law, Biden graduated 76th in a class of 85. He acknowledged: ''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.'' Just a slip of memory.

As for receiving three degrees, Biden conceded: ''I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors -- I said 'three' and should have said 'two.''' His arithmetic was off.

As for his undergraduate preeminence in the political science department -- well, that was somebody else. But one of his professors thought he fit the bill. ''With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,'' the statement went on, "my name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.'' Professor Ingersoll had it right!

As for his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ''My recollection is -- and I'd have to confirm this -- but I don't recall paying any money to go to law school.'' Reed cites a Newsweek report that Biden had gone to Syracuse ''on half scholarship based on financial need.'' About that moot court competition, however, Biden may have nailed it. Biden said he had won such a competition, with a partner, in Kingston, Ontario, on Dec. 12, 1967. So there.

And so on.

So why is liberal scorn reserved exclusively for Palin?

Best,

Evan

Art Laffer Owes Peter Schiff A Penny, or, Why I Get Angry Sometimes

2008-09-30T16:45:00.000-04:00

The DOC blogs on Peter Schiff, who was predicting this crisis at least as early as 2006, and in great detail.

"Hahaha!" the YouTube clips capture all the analysts saying. "What planet are you on, poor Peter? Debt isn't a problem! If you keep saying such dumb things, you'll never get invited on our informative shows again."

Oh . . . did you see this? It's the Wikipedia entry on Peter Schiff. It mentions this place called the Ludwig von Mises Institute, this thing called the Austrian School of economics, and this guy named Ron Paul. I'd wonder what that's all about, but the people with expertise and credentials (who are doing such a bang-up job running things!) don't talk about them, so I guess they're not important.

LOLRON says:

A Debate About Nothing

2008-09-28T01:15:00.000-04:00

Richard Spencer is dead on.

The Last Days of Disco

2008-09-22T21:41:00.000-04:00

The next time someone throws a disco party at Kenyon, they need to include this video in their allstus:

Is this merely a ploy on my part to get people noticing the films of Whit Stillman? Is it, a deeper level, part of a ploy on my part to get people to enjoy art that is subversively right-wing in its sensibility? No comment.

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin

2008-09-22T21:27:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul has announced that he will support Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in the presidential election. I personally like Baldwin. He's a principled conservative (not of the 'neo' variety). He supports ending our immoral War on Iraq. He believes in securing our borders. He recognizes that all life is sacred. And now he is supported by Ron Paul, the man I worked for in the New Hampshire Primary.

What's not to like? I can't think of much, but I am still undecided as to the candidate I will support. It will most definitely not be John McCain or Barack Obama. However, this whole process has left me disillusioned and questioning what the future holds. The government by its very nature is built on violence, theft, and coercion. How can we add legitimacy to that system by voting for its leaders? Is there really any room for candidates who respect the rule of law, private property, and free markets?

At this time I plan on not voting for the office of President. Hell, I may not vote at all. However, I still have a little over a month to decide. And there's always the chance I could relapse.

In liberty,
Tyler

And Syria?

2008-09-17T21:23:00.000-04:00

"The destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor last year was the result of an intelligence collaboration that included a 'foreign partner' who first identified the facility's purpose, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said on Tuesday." Hayden followed by saying, "We were able last year to spoil a big secret, a project that could have provided Syria with plutonium for nuclear weapons."

This has simply gone too far. What authority, legal or moral, does the CIA have to "collaborate" in the breach of a nation's sovereignty and subsequent destruction of its property? The CIA has also been sending unmanned drones into Pakistan to bomb targets. Last I checked, the United States Congress has a monopoly on the power to declare war. But who will enforce that clause? The men with the guns and bombs, of course! Oh, wait...

In liberty and peace,
Tyler

First Afghanistan, Then Iraq, and Now Pakistan

2008-09-12T10:20:00.000-04:00

The New York Times has reported that President Bush approved ground raids into Pakistan beginning a few months ago. The raids by Special Operations soldiers were executed despite not having permission from the Pakistani government.

Pakistan's top Army official declared that foreign operatives would not be welcome in his country and that they would defend Pakistan's sovereignty "at all costs." In addition, Major General Athar Abbas of the Pakistani military has said that the Pakistan Army has been ordered to retaliate against any foreign forces within the borders of their country.

I for one thought Iran would be our next major conflict. This incident could prove me wrong. How many more sovereign nations must we conquer for this madness to finally end? With hundreds of thousands of lives lost or ruined, do we still really think it was worth it? I say no; war, the unnecessary destruction of lives and property, is anti-human and will never bring us anything good. Only peace and free association in the market place can bring us true freedom and prosperity.

In liberty and peace,
Tyler

Frum gets it right

2008-09-11T22:59:00.001-04:00

Dear observers,

I'm surprised to be quoting the execrable David Frum, but his remark here is well phrased:

It’s widely understood that abundant low-skilled immigration hurts lower America by reducing wages. As the National Research Council noted in its comprehensive 1997 report: “If the wage of domestic unskilled workers did not fall, no domestic worker (unskilled or skilled) would gain or lose, and there would be no net domestic gain from immigration.” In other words, immigration is good for America as a whole only because — and only to the extent that — it is bad for the poorest Americans. Conversely, low-skilled immigration enriches upper America, lowering the price of personal services like landscaping and restaurant meals. And by holding down wages, immigration makes the business investments of upper America more profitable.

If liberals are so upset over the plight of the working class, why aren't they sounding the alarm over immigration? Call it the Lou Dobbs question.

Best,

Evan

Reading Steve Sailer

2008-09-11T02:50:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

Steve Sailer points out . . .

. . . that the Republicans (you know--the evil racists we're always hearing about) didn't mention Reverend Wright at all during their convention.

. . . that Obama's time as a community organizer has certain nuances to it that no one discusses.

. . . that the Democrats' "feeding frenzy of scandal-mongering" over Palin carries more than a whiff of hypocrisy.

Please don't mistake me for a Republican booster. I hope the pose I strike doesn't matter, but in case it does, I'm opposed to both the candidates.

Best,

Evan

Some links

2008-09-10T00:45:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

* Tom Woods delivered my very favorite speech at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic. Videos of it from YouTube are here and here. (For some reason I can't get the videos to embed in this blog post. Yet again, technology buoys up my expectations with promises it fails to fulfill.)

Dr. Wood's explanation of American politics as the province of the Stupid and Evil parties originated with Sam Francis, of course, who functions as sort of a litmus test for men and women of the Right. As in, if you automatically reject Dr. Francis as beyond the pale, you aren't on the Right at all.

* Speaking of un-PC reading, I happened upon some when I read a semi-recent post by Michael Blowhard. It's about F. Roger Devlin, who appears to be the most dug-in anti-feminist intellectual type in existence. Personally I'm getting alot out of Devlin's articles on feminism, marriage, and sexual life. But his material isn't for the faint of head and heart. Michael Blowhard included the following disclaimer in his post:

Oh, and "Un-PC"? Well, the essay's scathing view of feminism is part of that. But the tender of soul and the noble of nature deserve a warning too: F. Roger Devlin has published pieces in the notorious Occidental Quarterly, which is often described as a White Nationalist site.

What are Devlin's views on racial matters? Beats me. Is Devlin a noxious and despicable person? Perhaps he is, and perhaps all he really deserves is shunning. But the three essays of his that I've read on the state of affairs between the sexes have been awfully smart and provocative. Download 'em all here. For what appear to be a couple of recent pieces, read "Home Economics" parts one and two. Why doesn't Devlin maintain his own website?

I trust, by the way, that visitors to 2Blowhards have the subtlety to understand that linking is not endorsing, and to notice that I've nowhere indicated that I agree with all or even most of Devlin's points. I am happy to say, though, that I found the three Devlin essays that I've read daring and even enlightening, and that I've enjoyed thinking them over.

Where do you think Devlin makes a decent point? Where in your opinion does he go awry?

And how do you feel / what do you think about the idea of reading a piece by someone who has written for The Occidental Quarterly? Am I an irresponsible blogger for having linked to the likes of Devlin? Or are those who won't take a flyer on some far-out reading the real fools?

What I'm really curious about, though, is people's reactions to Devlin's ideas about feminism and the sexes. Still: If you want to raise objections to my linking to Devlin in the first place, go right ahead. But don't just hold your nose. Supply some reasons.

Maybe I too am taking a risk by linking to Devlin. Oh, well.

* This article by the recently-retired Charley Reese gets a little utopian for my tastes, but it contains some necessary doses of reality:

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

That's all for tonight.

Best,

Evan

Some links

2008-09-08T16:04:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

* Richard Spencer is upset about the MSM's coverage of the crisis in mortgage lending. How can "experts" get away with discussing the problem as a failure of the free market?

* Helen Rittelmeyer reads Burke, who reminds us that "Love approaches much nearer to contempt than is commonly imagined."

Best,

Evan

Articles Due September 19th for First Issue

2008-09-07T20:29:00.000-04:00

Observers,

Articles for the first issue of the 2008-09 school year will be due September 19th. Send us your musings on anything from Presidential Politics to Kenyon Culture. If it's well written and well thought out, then we will accept it.

Help make this, our 20th Anniversary, a beautiful year. And let us have another 20 years fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom. Just send your 1000-2000 word piece to tko@kenyon.edu and we will do the rest.

In liberty,
Tyler Stearns
Editor, The Kenyon Observer

Some links

2008-09-02T22:08:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

William, via the wonderfully Catholic Helen Rittelmeyer, tells us what to do before we get tattoos. (For the record, I've seen only one tattoo that I actually have appreciated. And my verdict may change.)

Clyde Wilson watches critical war documentaries by leftists and finds them seriously wanting.

The wrangling over Palin continues at numerous traditionalist and paleo blogs, including TakiMag.

Also, when the videos of the speeches from today's Rally for the Republic go up on YouTube, I'll link to the ones given by Bill Kaufmann and Tom Woods.

Best,

Evan

Obama's Kind of Town (Chicago Is)

2008-09-02T00:41:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

Barack Obama's background is considerably more gritty and complex than anyone officially "in the know" knows. But Steve Sailer hasn't missed a beat so far. His latest of many articles on Obama is more helpful than all the Republican defamation and Democratic bleating combined in understanding the Chicago setting out of which the nominee emerged.

Best,

Evan

I'll take the Palin, hold the excitement

2008-09-01T13:22:00.001-04:00

Dear observers,

Like others, I have a great deal of reading to do on Sarah Palin, McCain's surprising running mate selection. I'm noticing, though, that paleo-oriented conservative sources are already buzzing a little.

After The Nation rediscovered Palin's interest in Pat Buchanan (here), people to the right had a moment of alertness. Ross Douthat (here) said, "Hmmm - could McCain-Palin be the neocon-paleocon fusion ticket we've all been waiting for?" My friend Richard Spencer called Palin's support for Buchanan "very good news" (here) and said Buchanan had talked about Palin's membership in the Buchanan Brigades on Hardball.

I’m surprised at Richard--is he seeing something that I’m missing? Does he have a source for optimism that I haven’t tapped into? He might--I admit I’m much his junior when it comes to knowledge and analytical strength. But to me this looks like a moment of excitement that we’ll later be trying to play down if it goes on too long, like a high-pitched college romance or a fascination with war games.

Unless we move into a hitherto-unimagined historical phase, there will never be such thing as Douthat’s “paleocon-neocon ticket.” There is only one exception to this rule that I can imagine at present. If the term “paleoconservative” were vandalized as completely as the term “conservative” was decades ago, perhaps people calling themselves paleos would then join neocons in Republican power grabs. It’s hard to imagine why this would happen, though. Conservatives had money, resources, and standing as debating partners for the left, and this made their movement as attractive a prize to Zionist social democrats as ancient Rome was to barbarian armies. Paleoconservatives, by contrast, have nothing worth stealing. Maybe, though, it’s helpful for establishment conservatives to let float the idea that reconciliation between neos and paleos is possible and potentially significant, and that there are people pining for this to occur. There would be only one way to understand this narrative--not as a move to give greater voice to paleos, but as a tidying-up process, in which neocons and their helpmates further disenfranchise opponents on their right by pretending to band up with them. Perhaps, though, I’m being too cynical and derivative.

One also must consider that Palin’s gender is potentially as significant in the present race as her politics. Whatever the nature of her conservative stances, Palin is being asked to help McCain make the case that he, too, is on the good side of history. As the manager of a family seafood restaurant remarked to me this evening as he took in CNN’s political coverage, “No matter who wins--a black president or a woman vice president--we’re making progress.” McCain wants Palin to service his progressive narrative, and so far she appears happy to play her role. While this doesn’t automatically disqualify her from some measure of right-minded approval, to me it is a fact of nature more palpable than Palin’s past support for Buchanan.

And of course, not all of the sweepstakes are over. The short list of possible Republican vice presidents hasn’t been discarded. No doubt McCain is making pledges to keep channels of cooperation open. The idea of McCain choosing Lieberman as his Secretary of State became intuitively obvious to me the moment I read it in Tom Woods’ Facebook status.

On the other hand, I might be attempting too much political calculus in my head. Maybe it is that simple: McCain felt he had to make a gesture to what’s left of the Right, by placing someone in his camp to whom conservatives can relate. What this might mean in real terms, though, isn’t easy for me to figure.

Best,

Evan

Update: Richard Spencer, Paul Gottfried, and I all follow up at Taki's Magazine. Steve Sailer (here and here), VDARE.com (here and here), and View from the Right (here, here, and in a fiew other posts) are other people and outlets of the non-neocon Right that have been carrying on worthwhile discussions of McCain's new VP pick.

Why the TKO Blog?

2008-09-01T13:01:00.000-04:00

Dear observers,

Could we really use one of these? I think we could. TKO will hold its reputation as the school's finest political and cultural magazine with or without a blog, but a blog has its own function. It will give our little band of dissident-minded and right-wing-oriented observers the opportunity to comment with more freedom and immediacy on a variety of relevant matters, including those that pertain specifically to life in Gambier. It will allow Kenyon students to see how intelligent people of the Right think about the world in the day-to-day, and how they tend to process and discuss Bigger Issues. I imagine that the truly open-minded will welcome this and perhaps even benefit from it, assuming we are able to keep our writings lucid, relevant, engaging, and stylish.

Those are ways that other people might gain from our blog. Personally, I'm simply looking forward to discussing things with the rest of you. We have an intelligent and clear-minded group, I think, and I'm glad be able to blog with you.

Best,

Evan

Update: By way of introduction, I'm Evan McLaren, a graduated member of Kenyon's class of 2008 and former TKO editor. I'm out in the world now but not entirely rooted yet. I'm at home in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, looking for long-term work while I enjoy my most worthwhile responsibility currently--writing for Taki's Magazine, an up-and-coming outlet of the anti-neocon Right. (Taki's own explanation of his magazine is very much worth a glance.)