Category: The Dish

Nerynx, Kentucky, 7.30 am.

Here’s a sudden insight for Kate O’Beirne, discussing the guests on the recent National Review Cruise:

They appeared to attribute many of the GOP losses to the betrayal of the conservative principles they strongly support.

Funny how the magazine did little but frantically encourage voters to reward exactly those politicians in the recent election, isn’t it? The pro-war liberal blogger/writer Johann Hari was also on the cruise. He crashed on my couch Saturday night. His account of the trip should make a very interesting piece.

A reader writes:

As a big fan of Tori Amos I was torn between mortification and hilarity … this is one of the most gawd-awful video’s I’ve ever seen – and from my favorite current performing artist, too. I almost think having a porn flick out there somewhere would be less humiliating (although I kind of doubt she would feel the same way).

Watching the whole miserable thing was one of the most painful experiences I’ve had in years ‚Äì but I HAD to see if it got any better, and if not, just how much worse it would seem as it progressed. My impression: the awfulness grew exponentially with each passing frame. I’m relieved that I only had to view it once.

You’re welcome.

An interesting take on the late, great economist. Richard Posner thinks Friedman was a market dogmatist. His blog post reminds me of Oakeshott’s famous critique of Hayek – for believing systematically against systems.

A friend who has read more than I have sets the record straight:

I do not know whether Burke ever said: "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

But I do know that in 1867, in fulfillment of his obligation upon being elected by the students to the position of Honorary Lord Rector of the University of St. Andrews, J. S. Mill gave to the university community a remarkable speech on liberal education. In explaining why liberal education must include study of the law of nations, Mill wrote,

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

The Inaugural Address can be found in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, J.M. Robson ed. (University of Toronto Press, 1984).

Michael Richards isn’t the only one to lose it occasionally. A reader writes:

You’re just a rumor-mongering waste of time, whose mind is clearly warped by AIDS-meds, AIDS, and who knows what other immunosuppressive behavior you’ve engaged in. You want to drag everyone else down in the gutter with you. Kindly mind your business and quit knocking the Pope…

I want what I write next to make you sad because it’s completely true and the whole gay rights agenda is warring with this reality: WE (Catholics, normal people, red-blooded Americans, heterosexuals) WILL NEVER ACCEPT YOU NO MATTER WHAT BULL***T LAWS YOU MANAGE TO GET SOME SECULAR COURTS TO FOIST UPON US.

Tell me how you really feel. Seriously, though, I have no interest in being "accepted" by anyone, let alone a reader with these views. I’m just interested in being treated equally under the law, and letting others hate whomever they want to. And I’m interesting in holding leaders of churches to the same rules they apply to others. That’s all. Have a great Thanksgiving.

Another proponent:

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

That’s Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers. (Hat tip: Publius.)

I haven’t written about the latest Judith Regan obscenity because writing about the controversy only helps the bottom-feeders at places like Harper Collins and Fox television. (Full disclosure: Harper Collins published my book; and the Sunday Times is a News Corporation company.) But now that this nightmare is over, it’s worth remembering what it represented. In much of the media, there really is less and less interest in the actual content of books or television programs these days. What matters is merely the sell, which increasingly means the hype. The actual product comes last in priority. With free markets comes great freedom but also some responsibility: to publish books worth publishing, to air TV shows actually worth airing, to care about content as well as ratings and sales. Those criteria are distinguishable from what the market will reward. That distinction has been lost in many places. It is not a criticism of the market; it is merely a reminder that markets also require integrity among those who work in them. That point deserves recovering.

Everything else was said better by Paddy Chayefsky. If you haven’t rented or Netflixed "Network" recently, do yourself a favor.

You’ve seen the clip already. It’s distressing. It’s distressing because it really does show what lies beneath the surface of so many minds and hearts. No one is immune. And the only thing that really changes the deeper hatreds is, in my view, constant exposure to others, self-criticism, self-doubt and spiritual work. I hope Michael Richards can tackle all of the above.

Garry Wills has a new book out on St Paul. The surprise is: he’s an unabashed fan. Here’s an interesting review of the book, from Slate. Money quote:

Like the Niebuhrians before him, Wills will be mistaken for a conservative Christian, since he admires Paul so much and since he remains devoted to the orthodox teachings of the faith—the Messiah as sacrificial lamb and risen Lord, not just Jesus as ethical exemplar. But Wills remains a liberal because he highlights the gospel of love, asserts the equality of women, distrusts institutions and hierarchies, and endorses the findings of modern biblical scholarship. He depends on that scholarship to make his case for placing Paul back in a pre-church period, a time when Jews like him—followers of Jesus the Messiah—were proclaiming their faith in heated competition with Jewish traditionalists. Both groups of Jews vied for the conversions of gentiles drawn to the zealous monotheism of the Jewish faith, an increasingly attractive alternative in a Mediterranean world whose standard polytheistic beliefs struck many as anachronistic.