Category: The Dish

One reader agrees with me:

I agree with your position about the Gospels not mandating a welfare state. Jesus seemed most concerned about what we were like on the inside, which is why the widow’s tiny donation to the poor of a mite – all that she had – was worth so much more than the very large donation of another. A welfare state attempts to care for the poor, but does so through compulsion. From the perspective of the teachings of Jesus, those who are compelled to "be good" aren’t really any better off than those who choose not to do good.  In fact, some of his harshest attacks were for those who kept "the letter of the law" while not attending to those things which we have a difficult time measuring: kindness, generosity, forgiveness, love. Giving grudgingly is not following the Gospel message. Those who contend that the Gospel message teaches us to have a welfare state have uncoupled Christ’s teachings, choosing to obey – or, rather, force – one, and neglect the other.

It works the same on the right as on the left, of course. Compelling good behavior does not give us good people, for if the laws are ever removed the people will be as they always were.  (I’m excluding children; raising children is a different – and difficult – matter.)  It does not appear to be possible to force a man to heaven.

But boy how many have tried.

It may be impossible to avoid, according to a new study:

This study shows that our environment greatly influences our perceptions. Even infants at 3 months of age demonstrate signs of racial preference, but this preference is limited to the race they are mainly surrounded by. Heightening cross racial contact mitigates the effects of the bias. Is the own-face race bias a problem? Perhaps: the bias signals a lack of diversity in surroundings. The influence of the own-race face phenomenon may carry over into our daily perception and can cause some racial prejudice beyond our direct control.

A reader has put up the section of my C-Span interview from last fall about my HIV infection. It may help to put some context behind my defense of the drug companies, and behind the resilience of my religious faith.

Another case of being totally out of touch. More commentary here.

Marty Lederman wades through the legal thickets and finds much less there than meets the eye. WaPo reaches the same conclusion. Meanwhile, Leahy ups the ante.

Well worth revisiting these days. Money quote from a bracing piece:

Not merely militarism but war itself is repellent to any orthodox conservative. It is a great uprooter of men and material and a fine destroyer of tradition. The costs of conflict are monumental, the rewards too often minimal. With each falling bomb, international order is torn asunder – contrary to hawkish bombast, war is never fought to maintain or advance an existing order, but always to institute a new one. Bellicosity prompts a disregard for national and popular sovereignty, two important items on the conservative agenda. Randolph Bourne was correct: war is the health of the state, and true conservatism pictures the state as a necessary but terribly sour pill.

Yes, but sometimes the state must be defended by force and enemies deterred. No conservative should rule out war. But what marks conservatism is extreme prudence in initiating conflict, a principle I foolishly rushed past in the wake of 9/11.

(Photo: Wissam Alokaili/AFP/Getty.)

A reader writes:

I do question your interpretation of the Social Gospel rhetoric of religious liberals like Barack Obama. You argue that their rhetoric calls for an expansive welfare state of the likes found in Europe. I see it as a call to make more effective, not more expansive, use of the tools of government for dealing with poverty, and as a criticism of the wasteful & bloated spending that the Bush administration has brought us. When Obama and others talk about how a small change in our priorities can ensure a better life for the poorest of our citizens, he isn’t talking about creating a European-style socialist state.

They are talking about the wasteful spending our government puts into national defense (such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq) and corporate welfare, and how many of our fiscal policies are aimed at enriching Big Businesses who feed off the public trough (such as Haliburton). They are talking about taking the money we spend already on things that benefit only special interests (and businesses like Haliburton are the epitome of special interests) or actually harm our national interests (like ill-conceived and executed military actions), and redirecting it to programs along the lines of the GI Bill, programs aimed at promoting individual initiative for self-improvement by providing the resources to carry out such initiative. In other words, Obama and others want make sure that American society has an effective framework and infrastructure for the poor to learn how to fish, so that they can feed themselves for a lifetime.

They don’t care if this teaching work is done primarily through the private non-profit sector and through the government; they do know that creating this framework and infrastructure requires a societal committment of resources, and that government has a key role to play in channeling these resources.

Ah, yes: eliminating waste and maximizing government efficiency. But who isn’t for these things? I’d love to kill off corporate welfare, avoid doomed wars, and encourage self-reliance among the less advantaged. But that’s less government, not more. There is somethig awry in believing that government can help people do without government. I see the goal as admirable. But history shows us that the means usually coopt the end.

Not encouraging news from the one place in Iraq where we were getting some.

Here’s some video:

For some reason, this isn’t front-page news. It should be. You can see more photos from a Tehran blogger here. Australia’s ABC News is on the case. FT has a story here. Gateway Pundit has gone cable on it. Blogger Winston opines:

The sanctions are affecting the regime slowly and the last punch (read Regime Change) can come through these scenes. We may wake up one day and hear on TV that mullahs are gone.

Know hope.

A reader writes:

I’m keeping my beard. And keeping it trimmed short. An unruly beard is an unsightly beard and properly an object of mirth among the young. But beardlessness can be equally funny, apparently. The last time I shaved mine off (once in thirty-five years), my son and his friends literally rolled on the floor laughing.  As my son said, "Dad, some guys are MEANT to have beards, and you are one of those guys." Shortly thereafter, at a fairly large party, my hostess handed out ballots and asked the guests to vote "Willard’s beard: Yes ___   No ____." 

The only "No" vote was my mother’s, who, incidentally, a month earlier had greeted me at a family funeral (the first time she saw me after the shave), by extending her hand, saying "Hello, I am Margaret Henson – so happy to meet you," passing on by and continuing to work the room.  Oh, and don’t be surprised if your dogs bark at you. Mine did every time I entered the house until I grew it back. As for the "minimalism" of hairlessness, please. It takes a lot more work.

If you need tips, here’s the best guide to growing and maintaining a beard I know. I’m not trimming mine till after Ptown’s Bear Week next month. But my mother is very unhappy about my having one for the wedding. So the follicular surge may fade by the end of August.

(Photo: James Russell Lowell, one of the founding editors of the Atlantic with a killer beard.)