Neoconservatism: An Obituary?

Glenn Beck said that C. Bradley Thompson’s new book Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea is “a must-read for all Americans interested in defending the founding fathers vision of a free and just society.” Actually, as far as I have seen until now, this book is being described by reviewers and readers as a comprehensive analysis of what neoconservatives call their “philosophy of governance” which probes and explicates the deepest philosophic principles of neoconservatism, traces the intellectual relationship between the political philosopher Leo Strauss and contemporary neoconservative political actors, and provides a trenchant critique of neoconservatism from the perspective of America’s founding principles. I have just ordered it from Amazon. Will let you know what I think.

Egypt: Another Iran In The Making?

Now that Mubarak has stepped down, what will happen in Egypt? That’s the question we all are asking ourselves. More precisely: What will the new Egyptian government look like? And what will be the role of the Muslim Brotherhood? Needless to say, as many international observers—including the Italian doyen of political scientists, Giovanni Sartori—have pointed out, the risk now is that a second Iran might be born.

Like the Shah Reza Pahlavi before him, Mubarak has been a loyal ally of the West. Also on the list of likenesses between the two stories is that the Shah, besides being the first Muslim leader to recognize the State of Israel, went down in history for countless clashes with radical Islamists, and Mubarak, in turn, banned the Muslim Brotherhood (which presents itself as the moderate face of Islam but supports Hamas in Palestine) and strengthened relations with Israel. We know how things went in Iran.

Perhaps it is true that, as Scott Atran put it, the Muslim Brotherhood is not to be feared because it is “marginal to the spirit of revolt now spreading through the Arab world.” Or perhaps Caroline Glick was right when she wrote, “If the (Egypt) regime falls, the successor regime will not be a liberal democracy. Mubarak’s military authoritarianism will be replaced by Islamic totalitarianism.” What I know is that, according to a survey conducted in Egypt—and in six other majority Muslim countries—by the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “at least three-quarters” of Muslims in Egypt say

they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion.

The survey also finds that

Muslim publics overwhelmingly welcome Islamic influence over their countries’ politics. In Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan, majorities of Muslims who say Islam is playing a large role in politics see this as a good thing, while majorities of those who say Islam is playing only a small role say this is bad for their country.

Yet, when asked for their views about democracy, majorities in most of the Muslim communities surveyed say that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government… Maybe this means that—whatever President Obama may think about the Egypt crisis—we should start asking ourselves to what extent their way to think of democracy is compatible with ours. In the meantime, I can’t help recalling what an Egyptian student had to say about this whole matter, a story very different from what most of us have been seeing on television or reading in our papers. However, and in any event, let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best, no matter what our personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) may be.

Lincoln, Reagan, Poltical Parties and the Current Political Power Shift

~ “LETTERS FROM AMERICA” - by The Metaphysical Peregrine ~

Last weekend, we celebrated the 100^th anniversary of Ronald Reagan, and this weekend we celebrate the 202^nd anniversary of Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the modern Republican Party. What both men had in common was governing by the principals found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The Democrat Party tried all through the 20^th century up to now to co-opt Lincoln for its own purposes, and now is trying to co-opt Reagan. There was the recent Time Magazine cover putting Obama arm in arm with Reagan. If it weren’t a Democrat Party mouthpiece, I would have thought it satire.

The foundation of the Republican Party was anti-slavery, and a civil war had to be fought to bring it to an end. (The Democrat Party was pro-slavery) Another part of the framework of the Party was and is keeping government limited. Democrats will say, when trying to co-opt Lincoln, was that he was a good Progressive because he expanded government. He did; he had to conduct a war. The US budget began at $63.2 million in 1860 and increased to $1.29 billion in 1865, and it was reduced to $293 million by 1870. Blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican after the Civil War and into the 1930’s when the Democrats started offering something for nothing. Since then Blacks have seen themselves moved into urban ghettos, put in housing projects, seen their families dissembled, and the men emasculated by those policies. The Ku Klux Klan was all Democrats; one could say they were the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. Yet Blacks overwhelmingly (over 90%) still vote for the Party and politicians that resisted freeing slaves, murdered them, continued to impoverish them, then re-enslaved them to the State. When Moses was leading the Jews out of Egypt, the hardships were such that many begged him to take them back to Egypt and slavery, it being better to suffer that than what they were going through. Democrats and Franklin Roosevelt (Moses) complied and lead Blacks back into slavery.

Ronald Reagan came to power inheriting double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates. He did exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing now. Obama has increased regulation of private business, Reagan reduced it. Obama has weakened the military, Reagan strengthened it. Obama wanted to raise taxes, but even he recognizes that doing so during a recession would be a near death blow to the US economy. Reagan cut taxes across the board. The top marginal tax rate was 70% and he reduced it to 28%. Obama has weakened foreign policy and Reagan strengthened it. Reagan believed in strength by projecting power, and Obama projects appeasement and apology. Part of co-opting Reagan is trying to redefine the man’s ideas and principles, just as they have Lincoln’s. They are trying to rewrite history too, saying they (Democrats) were always respectful of Reagan and his policies.

Here’s some of the things said about him during his presidency. Tip O’Neill, Speaker of the House during Reagan’s presidency, said, “The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.” Lot’s of ‘working class’ people were thrown out of work during Carter’s administration, yet during the Reagan administration, 21 million jobs were added. Democrat congressman William Clay of Missouri said Reagan was trying to replace “the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf”. I remember all kinds of comparisons of Reagan to Hitler and Nazism, part of the unrelenting attacks and insults that have lasted until recently.Even during Reagan's funeral, Democrats and their mouthpieces in the Jurassic Press were making snide and cynical comments about him and people that agreed with his policies and principals. 

The Democrats are now saying Reagan was good on foreign policy, yet at the time were horrified that he called the Soviet Union the evil empire, were aghast he told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”, mocked and blocked his Strategic Defense Initiative; in short opposed everything he tried to do in foreign policy.

The reason for this attempted usurpation is the Democrats are losing power. They lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives in the last election, six Senate seats, several governorships, and several state legislatures. They are going to lose several more in the next election. The latest census shows that Democrat run states, with serious over regulation of business and uber high taxation have lost a lot of population; people have moved to business friendly states with low taxation. Those Republican states will gain, through redistricting, more house seats, in addition to more Democrats and RINO’s (Republican In Name Only) being voted out next year. Since their shine is off, Democrats are trying to gather for themselves some of the shine that comes from leaders that actually believe in, and apply, the principles of the Constitution.

It was important to Lincoln that he keep the Constitution intact. Lincoln was castigated for not, by the stroke of the pen, abolishing slavery the minute he came to power. He responded saying, they “seemed to think that the moment I was president, I had the power to abolish slavery, forgetting that before I could have any power whatsoever I had to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States and execute the laws as I found them.”

Reagan wrote a friend in 1979: “…the permanent structure of our government with its power to pass regulations has eroded if not in effect repealed portions of our Constitution.” It was during Reagan’s second term that he directed his Attorney General, Ed Meese, to start challenging legislators and the Courts to apply the “original intent” of the Constitution to law and governance. It caused a big fight, and the Democrats hated it.

The principals set forth by Reagan and Lincoln today is the foundation of the TEA Party movement and the re-emergence of the idea of limited government, low taxation, and the return to the original intent of the Constitution; that there is human equality, not equality of outcome through governmental regulation outside the parameters of the Constitution.

Why Big Government Doesn’t Work

The latest video released by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation (CF&P) highlights the “four reasons why big government is bad government.” This is the eleventh video of CF&P’s Economics 101 series, which is designed to explain free market concepts, with particular emphasis on reaching students and young people.

In short, the video explains that excessive government spending:

1. crowds out private growth
2. requires destructive levels of taxation
3. created deficits and a massive debt
4. violates the Constitutional prescription of limited government.

Needless to say, this is also the path which led to the fiscal collapse of some European welfare states.

Ronald Reagan: A Fan’s Tribute

This fan is also a good friend of mine and a valued contributor to this blog, and his tribute is a genuine and heartfelt one, with a couple of moving quotes at the end. I truly loved it, almost as much as I loved, and still do love, what President Reagan did for America, for the world, and for Freedom.

P.S.  I would just point out that there is some similarity between my friend's political path and mine. Back in 1980 both of us were left-wingers. I was a sympathizer, and later on a member, of the Italian Socialist Party, which was then a post Marxist, pro-business and pro-market party—more a center-left party than a left-wing one (Blairite before Tony Blair, so to speak). And it was in the summer of 1980, during my first stay in the U.S., when I first became aware of Ronald Reagan—I heard a speech by him, if I remember well. Since then I have always been a Reagan fan, although my “conversion” to political Conservatism was not complete until September 11 and what followed. But it was also in 1980 when my friend Steven, who was then “anti anything Reagan said or represented,” heard a speech by Ronald Reagan, at the end of which he found himself thinking that what that man was saying was true. Ah, how I love coincidences…

Google Introduces Art Project

Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy—with a view on Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus”

Wow! This is absolutely astonishing, brilliant, and breathtaking! Believe me, I’m not exaggerating. By using the same process as the Street View vans that trekked through cities and suburbs for Google Maps, Art Project gives people a first-hand look at 17 of the world’s most acclaimed art museums—including, among others, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, The National Gallery in London, and the Uffizi Gallery in Florence—with a selection of super high-resolution images of famous works of art as well as more than a thousand other images, by more than 400 artists, at one’s fingertips.

It all began, says the head of the Art Project, Amit Sood, in Google’s official blog,

when a small group of us who were passionate about art got together to think about how we might use our technology to help museums make their art more accessible---not just to regular museum-goers or those fortunate to have great galleries at their doorstep, but to a whole new set of people who might otherwise never get to see the real thing up close.

As it was not enough, Amit Sood says that he hopes more museums will join the project and that the project will develop the technology further: “I want to find the technology to capture three-dimensional art such as Michelangelo’s David. It’s not going to be easy but these are the kinds of things we hope to explore.”

So what are you waiting for? Go there and enjoy!

~ First written for The Metaphysical Peregrine ~

Learning From Reagan

What today’s leaders can learn from Reagan (in view of the approaching 100th anniversary of the birth of President Ronald Reagan). Mortimer Zuckerman, in U.S. News & World Report:

He had an instantaneous grasp of the main issue or the true problems, and he was decisive in his responses.
[...]
Reagan provided what Americans wanted most: a strong leader who could and would lead in a principled way. To refresh a phrase once used about former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, this man was "not for turning." He made that clear early on, to the gratified astonishment of the nation, when he fired the striking air traffic controllers—who quickly learned that this commander in chief was not to be taken casually.
[...]
As if born with the instinct to be a transformational president, Reagan knew how to instill confidence in a nation that felt it had lost its way. Add to that his transparent likability, and you can understand why Americans felt so good about him and better about themselves when they listened to him. In the process, he earned an enormous presumption of credibility, affection, and support from the American public, even among those, like myself, who hadn't voted for him.
[...]
So today we remember fondly "the great communicator" who loved to frame his public policies in such pithy metaphors. "A recession," he explained, "is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours." And he could be bitingly direct, too. He uttered the most memorable line of the Cold War in Berlin in 1987: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Yet he was ready to form a friendship with the same Mikhail Gorbachev, negotiating agreements, and again bringing forth another pointed slogan: "Trust but verify."

The Great Stagnation

Tyler Cowen 

To be honest, I don’t usually read books on economics, but Tyler Cowen is one of the few economists whose … blog posts I read (or try to read!) quite regularly, in fact, he also runs, along with Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution, a famous economics blog. Yet, despite my own limitations, this post is about a book on economics I have only just started reading, as suggested by my Italian economics guru, Oscar Giannino.

The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All The Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History,Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better is a short take on the US’s recent economic trajectory and was released only in electronic format in January 2011. The book’s central issue is: Why American median wages have risen only slowly since the 1970s, and why this multi-decade stagnation is not yet over? This, according to Cowen, has

a single, littlenoticed root cause: We have been living off low-hanging fruit for at least three hundred years. We have built social and economic institutions on the expectation of a lot of low-hanging fruit, but that fruit is mostly gone.

In a figurative sense, he says elsewhere,

the American economy has enjoyed lots of low-hanging fruit since at least the seventeenth century, whether it be free land, lots of immigrant labor, or powerful new technologies. Yet during the last forty years, that low-hanging fruit started disappearing, and we started pretending it was still there. We have failed to recognize that we are at a technological plateau and the trees are more bare than we would like to think. That’s it. That is what has gone wrong.

The problem, of course, won’t be solved overnight, but in Cowen’s opinion there are reasons to be optimistic: Americans simply have to recognize the underlying causes of their past prosperity—low hanging fruit—and how they will come upon more of it.

This book is about America, but it is also about Europe.

For those who don’t know him, Tyler Cowen is Holbert C. Harris Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a columnist for The New York Times and Slate.

The Beatitudes

Fra Angelico, Sermon on the Mount. San Marco Church, Florence

Yesterday’s Gospel was the opening section of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:1-12), which is called the Beatitudes, that is, the  characters and situations which our Lord emphatically pronounced blessed:

When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Are there even words to describe this? Don’t think so. But if you’re looking for some insight into this whole wonderful thing, then go here and read what Fr. Philip Neri Powell has to say:

Think for a moment about what it is that we are asked to believe. We are asked to believe that there is an all-good, all-knowing, ever-present god who loves us. Yet, evil seems to flourish. Disease, violence, unimaginable suffering, natural and man-made disasters. We are asked to believe that this god took on human flesh and sacrificed himself for our benefit. We are asked to restrain perfectly naturally passions and desires so that we might imitate the goodness of this god. Perhaps the most outrageous demand for modern Americans is that we are asked to sacrifice in order that others might flourish, to set aside our own needs, our own wants and work diligently for the benefit of strangers and for our enemies. What sane person helps those who would see him dead? But therein lies blessedness. That's not just a promise made by a crackpot preacher 2,000 years ago. That's a promise made by the Word made flesh, God Himself, a promise already fulfilled and waiting for us to claim it.

Living in this world as faithful Catholics is often an exercise contradiction and opposition. We stand against a culture that promotes death as a solution to unwanted pregnancies, terminal illnesses, and inconvenient suffering. We stand against a culture that promotes the goodness of satisfying every base desire regardless of the consequences. A culture that rewards lying, self-promotion, greed, the prestige of wealth and celebrity. But while standing against the tides of this world, we stand with the blessed: the poor, the diseased, the oppressed, those persecuted for the faith. We stand with self-sacrifice, unconditional mercy, boundless hope, and the promise of freedom from the slavery of sin. Most importantly: we do not stand alone, as individuals but together as one Body in Christ. With all of our weirdnesses, all of our outrageous demands, with all of our pungent and offensive beliefs, we are of one heart, one mind, and we give God thanks and praise with one voice. Our hope lies in a single truth. Though we are engaged on the frontlines of a spiritual battle, the war has already been won. God is victorious. Our work—as His faithful sons and daughters—is to make sure that His victory shines through everything we do, everything we think, everything we say. As living, breathing testimonies to His redeeming love, we stand—as weird and offensive as we can sometimes be—we stand always as witnesses for His will that all of creation return to Him, whole, pure, perfected in Christ.

Death Was a Small Price to Pay

The Dalai Lama fleeing from Tibet
with his entourage on horse in 1959

Tibet is, in the West, a story of a weak nation taken over and occupied by a more powerful one. But “this is the American theme, the theme of 1776, when we threw off our own band of occupiers,” says Stephan Talty, the author of Escape from the Land of Snow (see my previous post). That’s why any American, he continues, can understand Tibet in a phrase. And perhaps this is also why—unlike their Commander-in-Chief, if I may say so—many Americans do care about Tibet. But patriotism and civic virtue seem to be less fundamental than one might think at first sight…

Stephan Talty on his own book at The Huffington Post:

When I went to Lhasa in 2009 to research my book on the Dalai Lama's escape to freedom, I expected to be meet patriots almost exclusively. But I was wrong. The story of modern Tibet is in many ways the story not of nationalism but of Buddhism.
[…]
What struck me in interviewing survivors of the uprising was its religious undercurrent: If His Holiness had been a secular leader only, most likely Tibetans wouldn't have raised a finger to protect him. Many of them distrusted the aristocrats and bureaucrats who ran the government -- they were seen (correctly) as corrupt allies of the Chinese. It was what the Dalai Lama meant to them as people of faith that caused ordinary Tibetans to risk their lives.

Teenagers who had never been particularly patriotic ran to the Norbulingka, His Holiness's summer palace, to act as human barriers. Older men opened their shirts as they stood in front of the palace gates, daring the Chinese soldiers to gun them down. Monks in the colleges grabbed rifles, dooming themselves to a reincarnation as a lesser being for violating the Buddhist maxim against violence.

None of these people had taken up arms in 1950 when the Chinese invaded their borders. Nationalism didn't rouse a majority of them to fight. The notion of Tibet was too diffuse. Many Tibetans in 1950 didn't even speak the same language; each region had its own dialect that made it impossible to communicate with someone from another province. The only thing that united the far-flung populations was their love of tsampa, the roasted barley that is a staple across the country. And the figure of the Dalai Lama.

I spoke to monks who now live in tiny rooms in the hills of Dharamsala, India, and many told me the same thing: In fighting the Chinese in Lhasa, they believed they were protecting His Holiness as he fled toward freedom. They believed if he was captured, the dharma would be irreparably harmed. Death was a small price to pay if they stop that from happening.

Obama Channeling Reagan? Hardly

The story that he is modeling his presidency on Ronald Reagan’s is “one of the least credible tales to come out of President Obama’s recent ideological makeover,” says the Washington Times.  And here is a handy list to remind people how little these two men have in common. Funny but very serious.


Thanks: Sandra Kennedy Schimmelpfennig.

The Loneliness of Silvio B.

Ok, the character may not be one of your favorites—and as for me I have already expressed many times both my personal dislike and my “political acquittal,” so to speak. But this piece by Beppe Severgnini is worth reading:

Some men need an audience just to be able to wake up in the morning. If they can’t find it, they buy it. There is a little of Tiberius (as described by Suetonius) and a little of Hugh Hefner (immortalised by Playboy) in Silvio B. Thus are empires undone, in between parties, debauchery and attempts to stop time, with tricks that time has taught us to recognise. Family and professional success are never enough. What is wanting are cheerleaders, admirers, singers and stages both spectacular and, above all, melancholy. For it is his role to banish melancholia.

Read the rest. See also, by the same author, Berlusconi Explained to Posterity and Friends Abroad (this is an English translation of a chapter from the recently published La pancia degli italiani. Berlusconi spiegato ai posteri).

Chesterton on Dogma

A collection of forty-nine essays which first appeared in June of 1910, G.K. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong With The World is still a fresh and fascinating book, whose message is as applicable in today’s world as, if not more than, when it was first published, as if Chesterton had foreseen some of the issues that arose later in our history.

In this book, as in many other of his writings, with his often paradoxical prose he forces the reader to consider problems from an entirely different perspective. Take the following excerpt, for example, in which he reverses the concept of “dogma” as it is thought of in our modern time of scientific enlightenment. In Western culture dogma is a dirty word, and to call a person dogmatic means, to say the least, he has a narrow, closed mind. To the point that even among us believers there is often a certain reluctance to use that term to describe our beliefs about God, faith and religion.

“Some people,” he wrote, “do not like the word ‘dogma.’ Fortunately they are free, and there is an alternative for them. There are two things, and two things only, for the human mind, a dogma and a prejudice.” By the way, Martin Heidegger couldn’t have said it better himself… But let’s continue with the excerpt from the book:

The Middle Ages were a rational epoch, an age of doctrine. Our age is, at its best, a poetical epoch, an age of prejudice. A doctrine is a definite point; a prejudice is a direction. That an ox may be eaten, while a man should not be eaten, is a doctrine.
That as little as possible of anything should be eaten is a prejudice; which is also sometimes called an ideal.

Now a direction is always far more fantastic than a plan. I would rather have the most archaic map of the road to Brighton than a general recommendation to turn to the left. Straight lines that are not parallel must meet at last; but curves may recoil forever. A pair of lovers might walk along the frontier of France and Germany, one on the one side and one on the other, so long as they were not vaguely told to keep away from each other. And this is a strictly true parable of the effect of our modern vagueness in losing and separating men as in a mist.

It is not merely true that a creed unites men. Nay, a difference of creed unites men—so long as it is a clear difference. A boundary unites. Many a magnanimous Moslem and chivalrous Crusader must have been nearer to each other, because they were both dogmatists, than any two homeless agnostics in a pew of Mr. Campbell's chapel. "I say God is One," and "I say God is One but also Three," that is the beginning of a good quarrelsome, manly friendship. But our age would turn these creeds into tendencies.

It would tell the Trinitarian to follow multiplicity as such (because it was his "temperament"), and he would turn up later with three hundred and thirty-three persons in the Trinity.

Meanwhile, it would turn the Moslem into a Monist: a frightful intellectual fall. It would force that previously healthy person not only to admit that there was one God, but to admit that there was nobody else. When each had, for a long enough period, followed the gleam of his own nose (like the Dong) they would appear again; the Christian a Polytheist, and the Moslem a Panegoist, both quite mad, and far more unfit to understand each other than before.

It is exactly the same with politics. Our political vagueness divides men, it does not fuse them. Men will walk along the edge of a chasm in clear weather, but they will edge miles away from it in a fog. So a Tory can walk up to the very edge of Socialism, if he knows what is Socialism. But if he is told that Socialism is a spirit, a sublime atmosphere, a noble, indefinable tendency, why, then he keeps out of its way; and quite right too. One can meet an assertion with argument; but healthy bigotry is the only way in which one can meet a tendency. I am told that the Japanese method of wrestling consists not of suddenly pressing, but of suddenly giving way. This is one of my many reasons for disliking the Japanese civilization. To use surrender as a weapon is the very worst spirit of the East. But certainly there is no force so hard to fight as the force which it is easy to conquer; the force that always yields and then returns. Such is the force of a great impersonal prejudice, such as possesses the modern world on so many points. Against this there is no weapon at all except a rigid and steely sanity, a resolution not to listen to fads, and not to be infected by diseases.

A boundary unites. A thoughtful and thought provoking passage. This theological hand-holding with Islam might seem surprising, considering how wonderfully Chesterton explained the abyssal difference between Islam and Christendom, between “the great creed born in the desert” and a religion whose believers have been nurtured by Greek rationality—this difference, according to Chesterton, is also why, compared with Christendom, the world of Islam had become poor, weak, and ignorant. Yet, notwithstanding the differences between the two, what unites them is greater than what divides them. That’s why it’s so true that “Many a magnanimous Moslem and chivalrous Crusader must have been nearer to each other, because they were both dogmatists, than any two homeless agnostics in a pew of Mr. Campbell’s chapel.” That’s what I call freedom of thought, that is to say freedom from prejudice.

What’s Wrong With The World has been recently translated into Italian and published (e-book edition) by the small press publisher Rubbettino. The above excerpt was printed some days ago in the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire, and that’s how I learned about it. Thanks: Il Blog dell'uomo Vivo.

How Liberal Journalists Think

An aspiring liberal journalist tries to explain why she thinks the Tea Party is dangerous, or the liberal mindset in one easy video. Via Ace of Spades HQ.

Escape from the Land of Snow (Updated)

The strangest fact about the Dalai Lama’s strange life, writes Jeffrey Paines in his Washington Post review of four books on the subject, is that it remains largely untold. “Most books promoted as biographies of him hardly qualify as such and are indeed no more revealing than Testu Saiwai’s recent manga, or cartoon, biography. That’s why, according to the reviewer, of the recent attempts to provide insight into the Dalai Lama, the most effective one is Stephan Talty’s Escape from the Land of Snows.

After all “Talty has actually written three books in one: a biography of the young Dalai Lama up to his 24th year (1959), a history of recent Tibet and a hair-raising tale of daring and escape. The last of these makes Talty’s story come alive—and made the Dalai Lama the man he is today.“

Not that the other books aren’t worth reading, but, you know, time is a tyrant and you can’t read everything you’d like to read. However, the other books are The Essence of Happiness (and the best-selling The Art of Happiness from which it is excerpted), and My Spiritual Journey—unfortunately the Dalai Lama did not write, or apparently read, any of the first, nor of the second, while the third has a misleading title, for it is no autobiography...

-----

UPDATE January 30, 12:30 pm

The author of Escape from the Land of Snow on his own book at The Huffington Post.

Top 10 Composers

Some candidates: above, from left, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Mozart, Schoenberg, Haydn, and Stravinsky; below, from left, Schumann, Brahms, Schubert, Handel, Bach, and Debussy.

Anthony Tommasini

Are you a fan of classical music? Then, don’t miss in the New York Times these days the double opportunity to take part in the Top 10 Composers poll—at the present stage Beethoven, Bach and Mozart are neck and neck, boasting between 10 and 11 thousand votes each—and to explore, with classical music critic Anthony Tommasini, the qualities that make a composer great in a series of videos and ArtsBeat posts. In today’s video Tommasini masterfully explains the importance of Bach and his influence on classical music to come. Unmissable.


Apropos of Bach, here is how Tommasini introduces the Master of Baroque:

He would probably be the consensus choice among thinking musicians for the top spot. But why?
Bach came at an intersection in music history. He was born in 1685, when the Baroque period was thriving yet vestiges of the Renaissance age of polyphonic music were lingering. By the time he died in 1750, opera, for which he had no interest, was a century and a half old, music was getting hipper, and elegantly decorous styles like the Rococo were widespread. Even some of Bach’s sons, who revered their father, thought he was a little old-fashioned as a composer. Bach did not care how he was perceived. He was too busy being a working musician, a composer who wrote pieces to order for whatever his job at the time, whether in a church or a court, demanded.
Bach stood right in the middle of this historical crossroads. His music is an astonishing synthesis of what had been and what was coming. Elements of the high polyphonic tradition run through his work. Yet the era of simpler Baroque textures and clear, strong tonal harmony had arrived.
In just the collected Bach chorales — the four-part, hymnlike settings of church tunes that crop up in his oratorios and cantatas — he codified everything that was known about harmony and anticipated the future, including wayward chromatic harmony à la Wagner. In the opening measures of the chorale “Es Ist Genug,” the one Berg incorporated into his final work, the Violin Concerto, Bach even anticipates atonality.
The 48 preludes and fugues of “The Well-Tempered Clavier” are the ultimate exploration of counterpoint in all its complexities, yet also a dazzling collection of quirky, sublime and sometimes showy character pieces.
What composer before or after Bach could have written the opening Kyrie of the Mass in B minor? It begins with choral cries of “Lord have mercy” (“Kyrie eleison”) as harmonically wrenching as anything in Brahms or Mahler. Then, with transfixing calm, the winding Kyrie theme is heard in the orchestra over a steady tread of a bass, as the inner voices build up. One by one the sections of the chorus enter, until Bach has constructed an intricate web of counterpoint at once intimidating in its complexity and consolingly beautiful.

Via normblog

Liberty's Lifeline

Though I haven’t had the chance to read it yet, I guess Liberty’s Lifeline: Engaging the Grassroots Movement to Stop the Erosion of American Freedoms is one of those books that readers will either love or hate, according to their political orientation and whether or not they think Obama is doing a terrific job—well, there must be someone, somewhere, who still believes he is the best for the job, but if this is your case, then you might not want to read any further than this introduction…

A lifelong resident of a blue state such as New York, Bill O’Connell, the Author of this book, is also a very influential blogger and the owner of Liberty’s Lifeline, a great blog I recently discovered, and that’s how I heard about the book and why I’m posting this. The book is already available for Kindle at amazon.com, while the hardcover version is coming out in April. The title is highly descriptive of the contents of this book, but to get a clearer idea of what it is all about, here is what will appear on the jacket back cover (emailed to me by the Author. Thanks, Bill!) :

In a country of over 300 million people, how can you make your voice heard? Most US citizens consider themselves powerless when it comes to making a difference in political issues, but in this book, Bill O’Connell describes how you can stop sitting on the sidelines and step into the arena.
From the housing crisis to health care, from taxes to terrorism, O’Connell offers his plan for restoring America back to the country our founding fathers fought so hard to create. O’Connell challenges readers with tough questions, building his case with facts and escaping the trap of name-calling. He also offers concrete steps that you can take to effect real change in Washington. Now is the time for Americans to work together to take back a government that is quickly becoming ‘of, by, and for the bureaucrats.’

In One Word, It’s “Boccaccesco”

Min. from Boccaccio, De Casibus Virorum Illustrium, Paris, 1467.
Glasgow University Library Special Collections. 

The right word in Italian is “boccaccesco,” which derives from the Italian author Giovanni Boccaccio (= in the style of Boccaccio), and roughly means “licentious,” “lascivious.” But this is not a literary post. Instead it is a brief note on today’s Italian politics. Yes, all this Berlusconi stuff is getting more and more boccaccesco—and silly, crazy, grotesque, and you name it. Nevertheless, to be honest and straightforward, I think that politics is politics, not moralism or good taste or “esthetic sense.” I repeat I don’t want to be hypocrite about that, nor, on the other hand, would I want to play the cynic and to behave the way Franklin D. Roosevelt did when in 1939 supposedly remarked that “Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch…” But then again, since there is no alternative to Berlusconi (please, see my previous posts on the subject), paraphrasing FDR I’d put it this way: Berlusconi may be … whatever you want, but he’s our … whatever you want.

“The Glory of American Discourse”

Flags at half staff In Washington after Tucson shooting

What’s the lesson of the heated debate—often rancorous and occasionally defamatory—that ensued over the Tucson shooting? Well, that there is much to admire about political discourse in the U.S. And this is precisely what Americans take for granted, but also the first thing that strikes a visitor:

[T]his is a country where fundamental questions are constantly aired, argued and litigated over - the size of government and the limits of its power, the meaning of equality under the law, when life begins, you name it. It is hardly surprising in this protean atmosphere that there should be a good deal of rancour. But it's unique and invigorating too. It is in fact a breath of fresh air after the soggy centralist consensus that usually prevails in Britain and much of Western Europe.

Rather well said, I’d say. Read the rest.

In a World Turned Upside Down

Was the reading of the U.S. Constitution in the House the other day “uncalled for?” Well, yes, of course it was, in a world turned upside down … [Thanks: Sandra Kennedy Schimmelpfennig]