Tom Sowell on CEO Pay

Thomas Sowell is a man with a gift. When you read his books and essays, you think "Of course, this is obvious!" Now if only those obvious thoughts would occur to us before reading what he has to say - but then that's the gift. See for instance his insightful remarks on the emotionally vexed topic of CEO pay. It seems outrageous that an executive who runs a company into the ground can bail out with a golden parachute, and indeed, on one level it is outrageous! To take one's justifiable anger about this and then apply it to legislation limiting CEO pay, however, is to offer a cure that's worse than the disease, as Sowell so eloquently points out. (Exercise for the reader: figure out why that is before reading his essay.)

The Obamajünge

Lawrd, this is creepy. [Update: The Obama people have removed this video from YouTube and everywhere else, apparently recognizing what's obvious to normal people; to wit, that having pre-teen children singing hymns to a political candidate is somewhere between creepy and cultic.]

Christianity and Politics

How should they be related? Frank Pastore offers some brief but thoughtful reflections.

Reflections on Palin

While I want the McCain & Palin to be elected, my enthusiasm for that ticket diminishes each time I see Palin in action. With the exception of her speech at the Republican National Convention, she has not been an effective speaker. Her prepared answers are shallow, and when flustered her remarks border on incoherence. Her gestures are awkward (please, Governor Palin, stop with the raised left hand!), and she doesn't give off an air of either confidence or competence. Obviously this is grist for the opposition's mill, but it doesn't help with independent/undecided voters and doesn't inspire the base, either.

So Palin needs, without question, to work on her presentation skills. That said, let me offer several comments in her defense. First, there's surely an accent bias at play. Those of us who don't live in the South or in certain rural areas - like Alaska - expect politicians to sound a certain way; namely, the way almost everyone on TV sounds. If someone has a different sort of accent or verbal style, it can grate or lead us to look down our noses at the person. Second, it's obvious that Palin has to catch up on lots of issues, and that will take a little time. Until she does, then she has little choice but to offer up these canned answers. That she needs to catch up on some issues doesn't mean she's incompetent; other skills and areas where her knowledge is up to snuff can compensate, especially if she's a quick study. And third, a tu quoque: Biden has been a "gaffe machine" for years, and he hasn't shown any signs of abating. (Here's a piece from last year when Biden was running for the top of the ticket; for more recent "accomplishments" here's another, and another.)

This Thursday's debate is Palin's biggest - and probably last - chance to make a good impression on the American voting public. It would be a pleasant shock to see her hit it out of the park, but at this point a demonstration of competence, both on the issues and as a public speaker, would go a ways toward reversing the Republican slide in the polls.

Do We Even Need A Bailout?

Or more specifically, do we need the current bailout package? 166 economists say no in this open letter.

Voter Fraud from Democratic Ally ACORN

Read about it here. There's no excuse for voter fraud from either party, and it's likely that both have engaged in it over the years. It seems clear that the Democrats are the biggest beneficiaries these days, however, all the while claiming to be the party dedicated to "openness", "transparency" and "integrity" in government. (So said Nancy Pelosi in the 2006 campaign, when corrupt Republicans were ousted in favor of corrupt Democrats.)

Barney Frank's Chutzpah

An old joke: a man killed his parents, then begged the court to have mercy on him because he was an orphan.

A new joke: Barney Frank fought to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deregulated when concerned Republicans saw things were dangerous, then in 2008 blamed the Republicans for their deregulating us into this mess. And now he's grandstanding at Republican opposition to the bailout package - is this guy a winner or what?

More about Representative Frank here, and see also the previous post.

The Democrats and Fannie Mae

One expects politicians to spin and pass blame around whenever possible, but it would appear that Democratic deceit on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue goes above and beyond the "call". Behold the Democrats in 2004, in their own words, strenuously objecting to any regulation on those entities, insisting that they are the picture of health and that houses are "riskless" assets. Riiiiiiight.

McCain and the Keating Five

Should John McCain be dismissed as an agent of financial reform on account of the old Keating Five scandal? Not if you believe that more than disproved innuendo is enough to besmirch a man's good name - witness the evidence here. (If this post is read after October 1, 2008, go here and select the September 24, 2008 column.) Or if you don't like that source, read this or this (the final section is the most relevant).

Two Types of College Feminism

One is oppressive to women, and the other is positive. One is seen on some of the most prestigious campuses in the United States, and the other can be found on Evangelical campuses like Hillsdale and Wheaton. Can you guess which is which? The answer is here.

The Mortgage Crisis of 2008: Who's to Blame?

The quick answer: the other guy!

The Democrats' preferred scapegoat is Phil Gramm, an economist, former senator, and recently removed McCain economic advisor. (Example here.) On this way of telling the story, Gramm and his evil friends (boo! hiss!) deregulated the banking industry, which gave greedy banks the go-ahead to offer all sorts of dubious loans. If the loans were repaid, then great: they'd make a profit; if not, then ultimately the government (read: taxpayers) would foot the bill. Win-win.

That's an easy story to tell, and a convenient one in election season. There may even be something to it, but the overall story is far more complicated. This Wall Street Journal article lists a number of culprits, including the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, the screwups at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. And as Rich Lowry notes in a TownHall.com article, the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley bank deregulation bill received 90 votes in the Senate (out of 100 possible; in other words, it received very strong bipartisan support), including that of Joe Biden (Barack Obama's running mate), and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.

The upshot, then, is that the attack on Gramm - which is used as an attack on McCain - is essentially bogus. If Gramm is to blame for his 1999 bill, then so are the Democrats. And as noted above, there are other culprits behind the mortgage crisis, too. If the goal is to simply score cheap political points, then we should note that Barack Obama was the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's largesse - but that's probably just as unfair. (The jury is instructed to disregard that last statement.)

Teddy Roosevelt's Timeless Wisdom

"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" (Theodore Roosevelt)

Amen, brother.

A Misguided Assumption

According to the 1950 pronouncement by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus (MD) it happened that Mary, the mother of Jesus, "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Pius XII did not invent this doctrine, nor is it distinctive of Roman Catholicism. What the Pope did do in MD was to turn this teaching into a dogma. As the Catholic Catechism points out, a dogma goes beyond mere doctrine:

The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (88)

Thus the doctrine of Mary's Assumption is not just any teaching, but something a Roman Catholic must believe. Let's assume (no pun intended) for the sake of argument both that the doctrine is true and that it's historically well-founded. (I will address the issue of the historic evidence in a subsequent post.) All the same, one should wonder why this is a dogma. A Roman Catholic must accept the Assumption on pains of forfeiting salvation, but what in the name of heaven could this have to do with anyone's salvation? The Virgin Birth (better: Conception) is reasonably construed as dogma, because its denial implies that Jesus has a human father, which would violate the fundmental Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Word made flesh. And while I don't subscribe to it, the dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception makes sense as a dogma, as its telos is the purity of Jesus. But by the time of the (presumed) Assumption, Jesus had not only been conceived and born, but crucified, died, buried, risen and ascended as well. We can even grant the Roman Catholic view that Mary lived a sinless life. But the doctrine of the Assumption doesn't follow from any of these, and it's extraordinarily hard to see what possible relationship it could have to any factor relevant to salvation.

So while I have no serious problem to its being a doctrine, nor any deep theological objection to the claim itself, it at least seems evident that this should not be a dogma. I'd be happy to be corrected, though.

A Day in the Life of Joe Democrat

Perhaps some of you have seen this clever little piece, called "A Day in the Life of Joe Republican". The gist is that as the Republican goes through his day, enjoying his safe coffee, safe breakfast, clean air, cheap public transportation, union-created job benefits, safe car, affordable house and so on (all the while belittling Democrats and proclaiming his status as a self-made man), there's a deep irony at play. All of these benefits, according to the author, were brought about by Democrats and resisted by Republicans.

Three comments:

(1) There's an unargued assumption in the article, that the good outcomes could only have arisen by the means chosen by Democrats. But is this true in every case? In the case of unsafe products, there's nothing like lawsuits and competition to get businesses in line. And it's not clear that government-subsidized public transportation really is cheap. It might not cost much to cross the turnstile at the subway or to get aboard the bus, but the costs buried in the tax system are considerable.

(2) It may be true that these benefits were brought to us by Democrats and resisted by Republicans. But did they need to be? Unless there's a deep link between the each party's philosophy and their actions on these past matters, it's not a good argument that Joe Republican and his friends should change their party affiliation.

(3)  Note the parasitic relationship between most of the Democrat goods and the Republican ones. It is the free market that generates the primary goods: that we have access to coffee, diverse foodstuffs, a wide variety of attractive employment possibilities, attractive homes and cars, etc., are what happen in the sort of free market economy Republicans promote and those on the left don't. The more a government tilts to the left, the lower the quality and variety of goods.

Thus for Joe Democrat, busy sneering at the ignorant Republicans who don't realize all the ways in which Democrats have made their life better, is himself a rather ignorant character. Without the contributions made by pro-free marketeers like Joe Republican, the Dems might enjoy a safe life, but one lacking in the comforts of 21st century living. At best, the story of Joe Republican might show a role for both parties to play, but it's a long way from showing that we should prefer the left wing of American politics.

Welcome

And so begins an exercise in working through the topics that perplex me and the issues that confound me. Topics in religion, politics, and philosophy are likeliest to arise, but if it grabs my attention, it will show up here. Let's get started.