Articles, Opinions: China's Way Forward, The US Response

Idle factories, moored container ships, widespread bankruptcies, massive migration back to the hinterlands, strangely clean air—the signs of depression are everywhere in China. Because it makes so many of the goods the world isn't buying now, China stands to be worse hit than the rest of the world —just as America was during the Depression, when it was the world's sweatshop. But like America then, China will use tough times to design innovative products that will get it the high profits and the high-value jobs Americans kept to themselves for decades. And that is very bad news for the United States, unless it uses tough times to reinvent itself, too....

Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government if it tries to sneak in new export subsidies or push the RMB's value back down. But no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people's work. Many Chinese companies will fail or make mistakes under today's intense pressure. But many are using the moment to prepare for their next advance. The question for Americans to think about is how we are using the same moment.

---"Interesting Times," by James Fallows, The Atlantic (April 2009)

A very good article. This Atlantic cover piece provides a broad, realistic perspective on China's struggle with this deep, global recession: suffering the deepest unemployment impact, protecting its sizable, favorable trade balance, and using this time of national stress and international weakness as an opportunity to strengthen its relative economic place and role in the world. James Fallows, a long-time China observer, visitor, and correspondent for The Atlantic, brings his substantial experience and understanding of China to this matter-of-fact treatment of China's unique challenges and opportunities.

A recent Washington Post article, "China Uses Global Crisis to Assert Its Influence," looks from the outside at China's emboldened international posture. Rather than defensively drawing within itself during this time of extraordinary economic challenge, it is now openly and confidently exercising a critical voice on issues of self-interest, and increasingly, opportunisticly claiming a place of financial leadership in a struggling world. From the Post article:

Overseas aid and loans are just one way China is asserting itself in its new role as a world financial leader. While polishing China's own image, Premier Wen Jiabao and other top leaders have blamed the West for the global economic crisis. Chinese officials increasingly are challenging the primacy of the dollar, warning other countries about the danger of keeping reserves in just one or two currencies, such as dollars and euros. And as the global economic crisis has eroded faith in U.S.-style capitalism, there's growing talk that a new "Beijing Consensus" will replace the long-dominant Washington Consensus on how developing countries should manage their economies.

The current edition of Foreign Affairs also leads with two interesting opinion pieces written under the heading, "The China Challenge." The first is "The G-2 Mirage: Why the United States and China Are Not Ready to Upgrade Ties," by Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal. It argues that the opportunities for a stronger China-US bilateral relationship are limited by their different circumstantial interests and dictates, and that only inviting broader multilateral relationships can move China and the US forward together. From the article:

Calling on the United States and China to do more together has an undeniable logic. Both Washington and Beijing are destined to fail if they attempt to confront the world's problems alone, and the current bilateral relationship is not getting the job done. Real coordination on trade and currency reform remains stunted, both sides lag behind the rest of the world in addressing climate change, and meaningful partnership on global challenges -- from food safety to nuclear proliferation -- is limited.

But elevating the bilateral relationship is not the solution. It will raise expectations for a level of partnership that cannot be met and exacerbate the very real differences that still exist between Washington and Beijing. The current lack of U.S.-Chinese cooperation does not stem from a failure on Washington's part to recognize how much China matters, nor is it the result of leaders ignoring the bilateral relationship. It derives from mismatched interests, values, and capabilities.

The United States must accordingly resist the temptation to initiate a high-profile, high-stakes bilateral dialogue and instead embrace a far more flexible, multilateral approach to China. In other words, Obama should continue to work with China in order to address global problems, but he also needs to enlist the world to deal with the problems created by the rise of China.

The second Foreign Affairs piece is, "Deng Undone: The Cost of Halting Market Reform in China," by Derek Scissors. It takes a different tack. Staying with a bilateral model, Scissors argues for dialing back the unworkable scope of the US agenda for further reforming China's market economy, and focusing on a few important issues and pressing them aggressively. From Mr. Scissors:

The Chinese Communist Party no longer sees the pursuit of further genuine market-oriented reform as being in its interest. The burst of growth that the economy exhibited after the initial state-directed stimulus convinced the CCP that true liberalization is now unnecessary as well as sometimes painful. Whatever the objectives of the Obama administration, it must realize that it will be difficult to change Beijing's views quickly. True broad-based market-oriented reform in China should remain a long-term goal of U.S. economic policy. But for now, the Obama administration would do better to focus its economic diplomacy on evaluating and responding to the Chinese government's strategy of aggressively promoting state-led growth. It should not presume that Beijing will return to market reform anytime soon.

The U.S. government cannot afford to get this wrong. Because of the increasing pressure of the global economic crisis, some have called for a policy of partial disengagement. But the U.S.-Chinese relationship is the most important bilateral economic relationship in the world....Even incremental improvement in a relationship of this magnitude would have a large economic payoff, all the more so given the recent collapse of the global financial system.

And so he must engage China--only he [Obama] must do so while reorienting U.S.-Chinese trade policy in light of Beijing's lack of interest in discussing issues such as its subsidization of state enterprises and its apparent decision to halt market-oriented reform. Washington should encourage the Chinese to focus on a narrow range of feasible measures. Energy, the environment, and bilateral investment are fine topics for bilateral negotiations, but the agenda should be restructured to emphasize a series of meaningful reforms designed to, for example, liberalize prices, curb state dominance in corporations, shield U.S. companies from mercantilist measures, and allow money to move freely in and out of China.

So, despite their suffering at this time, China continues to assert itself, plan its continuing growth, and reach for international leadership. The Atlantic's Fallows dispassionately provides the more clear-eyed view of China, as it is, and where it is likely headed. While the Foreign Affairs article by Scissors acknowledges US failure to influence further market reforms in China, it presumes that market reform should continue to be our principal goal, and that we should pursue it aggressively. Although, he counsels, any near-term success will require paring significantly our economic reform agenda.

Understandably, but unrealistically, Scissors appears to presume that it is China's place to be more accomodating of US interests, geopolitically and economicly. After all, shouldn't China understand that that is the order of things? He does not appear moved by the reality that China understands full well where it's economic policy interests lie, and what the changes or reforms advocated by the US will mean for them, plus and minus, now and later. China's leadership is very astute about such things. And they do take the long view: politically, geopolitically and economically--and that means decades, not just the next economic or business cycle.

China will proceed in advancing their markets, businesses and higher-value employment, but only as fast and as far as it serves the evolving interest and preserves the advantage of China and its people--as they see it. More respect, patience and resilience might serve the US better at this point, more balanced realpolitik. Economy's and Segal's multilateral approach to working with China reflects the wisdom of practical reality. Only a multilateral approach will likely be effective with many issues; although, we will necessarily have to work some mutual issues on a bilateral basis. And that real-world approach would also encorporate Scissors' practical observation about a short list of issues for economic diplomacy.

But, whatever our agenda and tactics, we must approach those issues with Fallows' respect for China as it is today: their abundant strengths, considerable needs, their ascendant future--and their soverign sense of destiny in plotting their future in accordance with their view of their best interests. And then there's Fallow's question: is the US using this period of both weakness and opportunity to prepare and strengthen us for a changing international economy and geopolitical landscape, and our role in it? Embracing significant change will be, must be, our future, too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/chinese-innovation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203823.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64946/elizabeth-c-economy-and-adam-segal/the-g-2-mirage

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64947/derek-scissors/deng-undone

Perspective, Finally: The End of Excess

This is an article worth reading. All of it.

It is a Time article, "The End of Excess: Is This Crisis Good for America?" (The print version is titled, "That Was Then...and This is Now.") And it is worth the read, whatever your politics or views.

I've selected some excerpts, but there is just no way I can do justice to the scope of this article that way. And I've doubtless selected ones that appeal most to me. But there is much more. This is a big-picture piece, a perspective piece, that really helps readers see the broader, historical context and evolving social and economic factors behind it all--how we got where we are, and where we are likely headed.

We saw what was happening for years, for decades, but we ignored it or shrugged it off, preferring to imagine that we weren't really headed over the falls. The U.S. auto industry has been in deep trouble for more than a quarter-century. The median household income has been steadily declining this century ... but, but, but our houses and our 401(k)s were ballooning in value, right? Even smart, proudly rational people engaged in magical thinking, acting as if the new power of the Internet and its New Economy would miraculously make everything copacetic again. We all clapped our hands and believed in fairies.

...We knew, in our heart of hearts, that something had to give. Remember when each decade, not long after it finished, assumed a distinct character? ...But in all salient respects, "the '80s" — Reaganism's reshaping of the political economy, the thrall of the PC, the vertiginous rise in the stock market — did not end. The '80s spirit endured through the '90s and the 2000s, all the way until the fall of 2008, like an awesome winning streak in Vegas that went on and on and on....Even if deep down everyone knew that the spiral of overleveraging and overspending and the prices of stocks and houses were unsustainable, no one wanted to be a buzz kill.

But now everything really has changed....The party is finally, definitely over....Those of us old enough to remember life before the 26-year-long spree began will probably spend the rest of our lives dealing with its consequences — in economics, foreign policy, culture, politics, the warp and woof of our daily lives...

All that conventional wisdom about 2008 being a "change" year? We had no idea. Recently Rush Limbaugh appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, panicking not so much about the economy but about how the political winds are blowing as a result. If we finally manage to achieve something like universal health care, Limbaugh warned, it would mean "the end of America as we know it." He's right, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is the end of the world as we've known it. But it isn't the end of the world....

We'll see soon enough how well President Barack Obama copes, but long before the collapse, he clearly sensed the nature of the historical moment. His Democratic opponents were all over him a year ago when he gave the Reagan Revolution its due, but he was exactly right: "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America ... He tapped into what people were already feeling ... [He] transformed American politics and set the agenda for a long time ... In political terms, we may be in one of those moments where we can get a seismic shift in how the country views itself and our future. And we have to take advantage of that."

...A big reason for Obama's election and high approval ratings is his privileging of the empirical and pragmatic ahead of ideological reflex. We have not, of course, arrived in a golden age of fair-minded, intellectually honest postpartisanship, as proved by the congressional votes on the stimulus package and the redoubled ferocity of brain-dead partisans. But a majority of Americans out in America are dialing back or turning off their ideological autopilots, thanks to the economic crises, Obama's approach and the post–Cold War realities...But with the economy in uncharted territory, we'll come to recognize that party-line adherence to old political convictions won't provide any easy way out....

If you want to feel encouraged about our economic near future...ignore the stock traders and go talk to some venture capitalists.... [T]hey are optimistic about an imminent tide of innovations in technology, energy and transportation.... The next transformative, moneymaking technologies and businesses are no doubt coming soon to a garage near you....This is the moment for business to think different and think big. The great dying off of quintessentially 20th century businesses presents vast opportunity for entrepreneurs....[T]hey will have a clearer field in which to grow....

In fact, we surely will have to adjust the ways we think of ourselves. Still an exceptional country, absolutely, but not a magical one exempt from the laws of economic and geopolitical gravity. A nation with plenty of mojo left, sure, but in our 3rd century, informed by the wisdom of middle age a little more than the pedal-to-the-metal madness of youth....

But do read the whole article. It is worth the time.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887728,00.html

And Immigration, Too

AMERICA receives more immigrants than any other country. But its system for dealing with them is a model of dysfunctionality, with 11.9m illegally present in 2008, up 42% since 2000. Past efforts at reform have failed dismally. In 2006 protesters filled city streets after the House of Representatives passed a bill making illegal immigration a felony; but the proposal failed to pass muster in the Senate. The Senate's own effort in 2007 fared even worse. Police clashed with a crowd in Los Angeles. Opponents of reform barraged senators with so many calls that their phone system crashed. The Senate's bill, designed to please all sides, ended up pleasing no one.

Now Washington may try again.

--"All together now," The Economist (April 18, 2009)

You wouldn't think that President Obama's agenda or calendar could possibly accomodate another critical issue any time soon. Yet, his staff say that later this year Obama will address immigration reform and a process for legalizing illegal immigrants. Some advocacy groups expect to hear from Obama on the subject as early as next month, May. Major unions like the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition of unions have changed course and now are active advocates for the reform process. Business, too, although their agenda and that of the unions reflect notably differing interests.

It is time for intelligent, principled and pragmatic reform of our immigration policies and processes. We are after all, the great nation of immigrants: immigrants are who we are, and immigration is a foundation stone of our greatness. We should be able to manage this process a lot better than we do. It is also time for a fair and reasonable process for allowing illegal immigrants to achieve legal status as guest workers or legal immigrants.

But let's not press the issue precipitously or unwisely. The president is already up to his eyes in alligators with the economy and international issues and relationships. Rather, let's be patient enough to allow Obama and his team to get their timing right, be sure their allies are aligned and prepared, that a strong set of policies and plans are crafted, and that the necesssary time and effort has been devoted to informing and preparing the public. I do expect that he will get it right. From The Economist article:

When Mr Obama may dip his toe in these choppy waters, let alone dive in, remains unclear. "The president has consistently said that he wants to start the discussion later this year," says Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for the White House. "But the economy comes first."

Sounds about right to me.

[For my reflections on these subjects, see my 2007 essay "Strangers, Different Folk,'" one of my Cassandra's Tears essays. And if you view yourself as a Christian, you may also be interested in my recent blog post, "Reminders for Christians," below.]


http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496202

Reminders for Christians

• What is the first and greatest commandment?
  
  Love God with all that your are, and lose your identity in Him. Abide in Him and let His words abide in you. Then let that love flow over to your neighbors; love them as God loves you. (Matt. 22: 36-40; Matt. 16: 24-27; John 15; Gal.2: 19-20)

• Who is my neighbor?
  
  Yes, even the foreigner and stranger, especially the foreigner in distress in a strange and threatening land. Yes, even your enemy. (Luke 10: 25-37; Matt. 5: 43-47; Col. 3: 10-17)

• What does the New Testament make troublingly clear to us about how in the end God will judge us?
  
  Have you served Christ by serving and clothing the poor, feeding the hungry and and giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming with hospitality the stranger/foreigner, attending to and visiting the sick and the prisoner? If yes, you are the ones that Christ will claim for eternity. If no, then Christ will say to you, "Depart from me..." (Matt. 25: 31-46)

• How should we judge others?
  
  We shouldn't. Jesus was particularly intolerant of legalistic people, the self-righteous, and the judgmental. We are called to see others through His eyes and love them with His heart--and leave the judgment to God. The lost people that God would have us serve are not drawn to us or Him by self-righteous, legalistic judgement toward them. (Matt. 7: 1-5; Matt. 9: 10-13; Matt. 23; 1 Cor 5:9-13; Col. 3)

• What are the characteristics we should bring to our relationships with all people if we would be disciples and ambassadors of Christ?
  
  Unqualified love of all God's people and creation (1 Cor. 13; 1 John 4: 16-21; 1 John 2: 15-17; John 15; John 13: 34-35); unqualified, unlimited forgiveness (Matt. 6: 12, 14-15; Matt. 18: 21-35; Luke 7: 36-50); compassion (Matt. 5:7, 12-13; Matt. 9: 12-13; Matt.12: 7; John 8: 1-12); humility and gentleness (Matt. 5: 5; Matt. 11: 28-30; Matt. 21: 5; Eph. 4: 1-3; Col. 3: 12-15)

Real Tab for Bailout? A Lot Less Than You Think

Announced efforts top $7 trillion, but cost to taxpayers will be far lower.

Exact figures remain elusive, like most of the way the government handles and accounts for money, and it's complicated by a simmering alphabet soup of programs aimed at revving up the economy. The bottom line also depends on whom you ask....

So far, cash commitments made by various bailout efforts — including the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout and various lending programs by the Federal Reserve — are just shy of $3 trillion, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for TARP, told the Senate Finance Committee March 31.

But the net cost to taxpayers will be much lower — more like $356 billion in direct spending — according to an analysis published last month by the Congressional Budget Office.

--"What's the real tab for the bailout? Take your pick " by John W. Shoen, msnbc.com

It's amazing how apparently ignorant or slyly disingenuous political players can act--particularly those who would have us believe that Obama's team has cavalierly, irresponsibly, spent $7-10 trillion for no good reason at all. It's as though they're saying that is just what Democrats do, or if you are a conservative Democrat, that is what liberal Democrats do. No one is pushing back very hard to make clear that these programs--most all of them--are completely consistent with the best macro-economic research and the views of the vast majority of the best economists today, whether Democrat or Republican. They may divide along party or ideological lines about how the money should be spent, but they all agree that the banking system bailout and the economic stimulus packages are essential.

And another fact that seems repeatedly and conveniently omitted is that most of the government support is not in the nature of unconditional spending of gifts. The msnbc.com article:

An analysis by msnbc.com concludes that Congress, the Fed and government agencies have announced plans to spend $7.2 trillion to fight the economic downturn, with the vast majority of that coming in the form of loans and loan guarantees.

So, this article is as welcome in it's clarifications as it is interesting. And it helps us put the Obama administration's various remedial and stimulus plans in better perspective. It also offers an entertaining and interactive "bailout breakdown" chart that allows you to add one separately identified spending program after another to an enlarging circle that keeps a cumulative total. It's fun. And if you want more of a discription of each of the programs, you can jump over to another article: "Bailout acronym soup: A handy guide," msnbc.com.

And now, Obama has appointed a Chief Performance Officer and a Chief Technology Officer to oversee a budget review process with the stated purpose to "trim the fat and waste from the budget." Good idea, and a first for presidential budget oversight. Many items have already been identified and, if we are to take the President seriously, many more will follow. The president:

"In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective," he said. "In this effort, there will be no sacred cows and no pet projects. All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same.

"As surely as our future depends on building a new energy economy, controlling healthcare costs and ensuring that our kids are once again the best educated in the world, it also depends on restoring a sense of responsibility and accountability to our federal budget," Obama said. "Without significant change to steer away from ever-expanding deficits and debt, we are on an unsustainable course."

He has praised the efforts of Defense Secretary Gates in this area, and others in the congress--both Republicans and Democrats. Could it be that when the dust clears, Obama's presidency will not only have boldly saved us from a depression and restored us to economic health, but also brought more responsibility and accountability to the federal budgeting process than any Democrat or Republican in the last half century? So far, so good? You bet it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30115091/

Paul Krugman

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are.... Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right? What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?

... But, says Krugman, "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I've never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong"—when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an "oo," not an "uh" sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.

It's possible that Krugman is a little wounded by this high-level disregard, and he said he felt sorry about criticizing officials whom he regards as friends, like White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer. But he didn't seem all that sorry....

Krugman has a bit of a reputation for settling scores. "He doesn't suffer fools. He doesn't like hauteur in any shape or form. He doesn't like to be f––ked with," says his friend and colleague Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz. "He's not a Jim Baker; he's not that kind of Princeton," says Wilentz... Krugman's fellow geniuses sometimes tease him or intentionally provoke his wrath. At an economic conference in Tokyo in 1994, Krugman spent so much time berating others that his friends purposely started telling him things that they knew weren't true, just to see him get riled up. "He fell for it every time," said a journalist who was there but asked not to be identified so she could speak candidly. "You'd think that eventually, he would say, 'Oh, come on, you're just jerking my chain'." Krugman says he doesn't recall the incident, but says it's "possible."

---"Obama's Nobel Headache," by Evan Thomas, Newsweek (3/28/09)

I find Paul Krugman very interesting, and often very provocative. He's is both fun and useful that way. But he seems to me too cavalier in advocating for more extensive or complete government take over of the private banking system, even if it's just until things turn around. It's a difficult balance, and it's messy to be sure, but I think Bernanke's approach of being wary of too much government control and adjusting the government role one step at a time is more prudent.

Also, Krugman leaves the impression that his disrespect toward Obama's economic team may, in part, be just the latest engagement in a career-long competitive relationship with Lawrence Summers--a competition in which Summers has previously, clearly emerged as more publicly and academically successful (even if often very controversial). But now the newly minted Nobel laureate has found his public voice, his forum, and his cause: undermining establish figures and establishment thinking. First the Bush administration, now Obama's. Sometimes, it seems, I can almost hear the axe grinding.

And I don't know why he is also so outspoken and uncollegial toward Bernanke, his colleague and department head at Princeton. Perhaps there are issues there, too. But like Bernanke, he is said to have always been a shy-ish person, and a careful researcher and commentator. But with his column in the NYT and now the Nobel prize, he appears to be letting it all out--publicly, brashly, with professional abandon--as if on a mid-career spring break where all the bridled emotions and constrained personal expression can be let out to play. His Nobel, his NYT column, the public demand, have given him permission for his cathartic season. And he really seems to be enjoying it.

But his could be a much more useful and influential voice--if he could only approach issues, institutions and people in a more tempered, constructive way. Too often his temperament, his chosen platform, and his style undermine his credibility. Publicly and in print, he is too often the impish mid-life intellectual entertainer cavorting in the limelight, enjoying his season of demand as an anti-establishment economic and political provocateur. He could and should be more.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393

Who is My Spiritual Brother?

Who is my brother or sister on my spiritual journey? How do I recognize such people? Is it their profession of faith, their claim of identity or outward appearance? Is it everyone who says, Lord, Lord? More and more, as my prayer relationship with God has deepened, there has emerged another understanding for me. The New Testament’s first letter of John challenges us saying,

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love….God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”

This teaching finds added authority and inspiration in the many similar and challenging teachings on love by Jesus, especially those in the Gospel of John.

Another challenging teaching of Jesus is on the disowning final judgment of those who do not help or serve “the least of our brethren”—those who therefore do not serve Him. These two teachings would cause me to be much more humble and generous in my recognition of who may know and walk with God—both in the many Christian communities and in other faith traditions as well. At the very least, I should be ready to share God’s love toward all of them, and be open to receiving God’s love from any of them.

And for those who would hasten to point out that another person has not accepted Jesus as Lord, I would only suggest that we carry enough humility to inform us that we may not know all things about God, or Jesus, or the Spirit of God, or how He works with the people He loves—which includes all people, everywhere. An evident love of God and all humanity, and unselfish service or help to those most in need, brings one so close to Christ’s identity and teaching, so close to the heart of God, that I would feel uncontrollably moved to call him brother—and leave the working out of our differences and their importance to God.

But beware of those who profess faith in God and identity with His people, who maintain the outward appearance and language of faith community, but reflect no love for the larger family of humanity, or do not serve the needs of the poor and unable. Avoid the angry, cultural and political warriors, and the fundamentalists of all faiths who appear unable to receive or convey God’s unqualified love. They too often serve only themselves and their cultural, political or cultish interests, and are too often in the process of condemning or discriminating against one group or another that God would have them love. They also appear unable to receive God’s Spirit, His forgiveness, compassion and humility. For if they could, they would more often reflect it and share it with others in the lives they live within and without their communities.

First written: November 2006 – January 2007 ("Who is My Brother," in my What God series of essays ), updated November 2007 - March 2008
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007

The New Humanism

Observing the new humanism from my old perspective I am struck not only by its lack of positive belief, but also by its need to compensate for this lack by antagonism toward an imagined enemy. I say "imagined," since it is obvious that religion is a declining force in Britain. There is no need to consult the pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury: the response to the bus campaign abundantly proves the point. But a weak enemy is precisely what these negative philosophies require. Like so many modern ideologies, the new humanism seeks to define itself through what it is against rather than what it is for. It is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular.

--"The New Humanism" by Roger Scruton, The American Spectator (3.09)

First, for transparency's sake, I am a Christian of a type: a seeker after God as a follower after Christ, at least to the extent I understand His essential spiritual teachings and example. And I also count myself something of a traditional humanist, at least so far as I understand that term. I do not consider the highest understandings and expressions of each to be incompatible with the other, and certainly not mutually exclusive.

But I am now more than a little troubled by a shameless, unapologetic appropriation of the proud and worthy name of humanism. It is a tradition that has long and consistently stood for the highest regard, respect, and caring for all humanity, and a kindly tolerance for cultural and religious differences. For now comes an angry, edgy group of self-important anti-theists, counting among their proselytizing leaders the fundamentalist Darwinist, Richard Dawkins. The article's author, Mr. Scruton:

This humanism is self-consciously "new," like New Labour; it has its own journal, the New Humanist, and its own sages, the most prominent of whom is Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and vice-president of the British Humanist Association. It runs advertising campaigns and letter-writing campaigns and is militant in asserting the truth of its vision and its right to make converts. But the vision is not that of my parents. The new humanism spends little time exalting man as an ideal. It says nothing, or next to nothing, about faith, hope, and charity; is scathing about patriotism; and is dismissive of those rearguard actions in defense of the family, public spirit, and sexual restraint that animated my parents. Instead of idealizing man, the new humanism denigrates God and attacks the belief in God as a human weakness. My parents too thought belief in God to be a weakness. But they were reluctant to deprive other human beings of a moral prop that they seemed to need.

I understand that some might rightly say that the rise of this publicly aggressive, anti-theistic initiative by those who have made a religion of Darwinist theory is a predictable response to the long-standing public aggressiveness of anti-evolution, anti-science fundamentalist Christians, those who express their faith to the world primarily as conservative cultural and political advocates. For unlike the U.K., these kinds of Christians in the U.S. are forces to be reckoned with. And I also understand there has long been a troubling strategy by marginal political or cultural groups of appropriating honored philosophic or patriotic descriptors or names to provide cover for and misdirect understanding of their marginal views. For this anti-theist group, humanism will do nicely.

So, yes, publicly aggressive, intolerantly judgmental, and poorly informed elements of the Christian or other faiths have likely invited this response. What else might we reasonably expect in response to the threatening, ignorant denial of evolutionary and environmental science by influential fundamentalist Christians? And a result, perhaps the least of the harm done, is that a proud name and tradition could be smeared and changed irreparably--much as the name "Christian" has been. "Humanism" may no longer be viewed the way Mr. Scruton or his parents understood it; and the expectation that faith and humanism can share the same common ground with respect and good will may no longer be realistic. Hear Mr. Scruton on the humanism of his parents:

They regarded humanism as a residual option, once faith had dissolved. It was not something to make a song and dance about, still less something to impose on others, but simply the best they could manage in the absence of God.

All around me I encountered humanists of my parents' kind. I befriended them at school, and was taught by them at Cambridge. And whenever I lost the Christian faith which had first dawned on me in school assemblies I would be a humanist for a spell, and feel comforted that there existed this other and more tangled path to the goal of moral discipline. Looking back on it, I see the humanism of my parents as a kind of rearguard action on behalf of religious values. They, and their contemporaries, believed that man is the source of his own ideals and also the object of them.... All the values that had been appropriated by the Christian churches are available to the humanist too. Faith, hope, and charity can exist as human causes, and without the need for a heavenly focus; humanists can build their lives on the love of neighbor, can exercise the virtues and discipline their appetites so as to be just, prudent, temperate, and courageous, just as the Greeks had taught, long before the edict of the Church had fallen like a shadow across the human spirit. A humanist can be a patriot; he can believe with Jesus that "greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friend." He is the enemy of false sentiment and lax morals, and all the more vigilant on behalf of morality in that he believes it to be the thing by which humanity is exalted, and the proof that we can be the source of our own ideals.

That noble form of humanism has its roots in the Enlightenment, in Kant's defense of the moral law, and in the progressivism of well-meaning Victorian sages. And the memory of it leads me to take an interest in something that calls itself "humanism" ...

But these traditional humanists may now be relegated to their quiet, anonymous back seats as the "new humanism" assumes a more strident public voice, much as people of more traditional religious spirituality were shouted down by the strident voices of the cultural, political soldiers of the religious right. So this is what it has come to: culture wars, too often fueled by misunderstandings or misrepresentations of matters of faith and spirituality.

Regrettably, history clearly informs us that it is all too sadly human and too troublingly predictable. It makes me careful in relating the nature of my Christian identity, for I want in no way to be confused with the intolerantly judgmental, anti-science, politically-oriented Christian cultural warriors. How can you miss the point of Christ so badly? And now I must also be careful in relating my sympathies and solidarity with the honorable notions of humanism, for it is being defined anew as a strident and uncompromising anti-theistic voice in the public forum. And it is addressing all people of faith, whether or not they are among the aggressively intolerant, judgmental forces of the cultural and religious right. May God help us. And, too, may the more moderate voices of wisdom step forward to lead us.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/10/the-new-humanism

Barack Obama's Foreign Policy: A Good Start

America's president has made a good start in foreign policy. But the hard choices are still to come...

So far, the outline at least is fine. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to tear up every one of George Bush’s policies, but he has transformed the tone. The fight against al-Qaeda is to continue, but without the preaching that alienated America’s allies or the torture that betrayed its values. He is pulling out of Iraq, but on a cautious timetable. He is sending more troops to Afghanistan, but reviewing the strategy of a war he admits America is failing to win. He is extending his hand to adversaries, but without yet making America look like a soft touch.

--"All very engaging," The Economist (3.12.09)

A good start, indeed--especially considering that, as The Economist allows, "For impeccable reasons, Barack Obama has concentrated since becoming president on fixing America's economy." And also considering the many other legislative and policy issues he is already addressing. When has a newly minted president come out of the gate with such an array of critical issues demanding his immediate attention? And when has a president so tirelessly, timely and ably met that challenge? "Very engaging," indeed.

Of course, the loyal opposition, pundits and columnist obliged to fill talking time or printed space, and sometimes his own party, seem almost too eager to share their concerns or express their doubts. (See also, "Why Washington Worries: Obama has made striking moves to fix U.S. foreign policy—and that has set off a chorus of criticism," by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek (3.23.09.)) Even The Economist appears to feel the need to strike a calculating, self-serving pose of caution to provide cover for it's open praise of Obama's speed and effectiveness in changing the tenor and direction of US foreign policy in many important areas.

What remains unclear is not whether Mr Obama is clever or tough. It is his basic reading of the world. Does he see China more as a rival than an ally? Too soon to say. Is Afghanistan winnable? Watch that review. Is Palestine solvable? Mrs Clinton’s recent visit, showing sympathy but changing no policy (Hamas remains beyond the pale), leaves the question dangling. Will he risk pre-emption against Iran or does he believe it can be contained? The mullahs would love to know.

The first big clue to Mr Obama’s instincts may come in his treatment of Russia... So far, Mr Obama has not had to confront these hard choices. Soon he will.

Yes, of course it is understandable that many would exercise restraint in relating Obama's notable progress, and avoid trumpeting "a good start" as more than it is. They fairly, rightly say, "So far, so good," not wanting to get ahead of themselves or President Obama's initiatives or successes. But it's also true that many of us are breathing a deep, audible sigh of relief, feeling our spirits lifted and our hopes reinforced by the impressive level of energy the new president has so timely committed to so many needed initiative in so many problem areas. In addition to restoring a functioning financial system, there is the critical need for healthcare reform and access, alternative energy research, and a more realistic policy addressing the threat of global warming.

So, if the economy rightly commands priority on his attention--and it does--and if there are so many other deserving problems that Obama is also addressing--and there are--who would have it any other way? But perhaps we could also be forgiven our sense of relief and thanksgiving that so much has already changed for the better, for the wiser and more hopeful, in an area that so recently was the principal concern of Americans and others around the world: the approach, role and priorities of the US in addressing it's international interests and relationships.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13278173

60-Minutes, Bernanke: Recession Bottoms '09, Recovers '10--IF US Continues to Strengthen Financial System

"Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna start with a question that everyone wants me to ask: when does this end?" 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asked Bernanke.

"It depends a lot on the financial system," he replied. "The lesson of history is that you do not get a sustained economic recovery as long as the financial system is in crisis. We've seen some progress in the financial markets, absolutely. But until we get that stabilized and working normally, we're not gonna see recovery. But we do have a plan. We're working on it. And I do think that we will get it stabilized, and we'll see the recession coming to an end probably this year. We'll see recovery beginning next year. And it will pick up steam over time."

Asked if he thinks the recession is going to end this year, Bernanke said, "In the sense that this decline will begin to moderate and we'll begin to see leveling off. We won't be back to full employment. But we will see, I hope, the end of these declines that have been so strong in a last couple of quarters."

"But you wouldn't say at this point that we're out of the woods?" Pelley asked.
"No," Bernanke replied. "I think the key issue is the banking system and the financial system."

--Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke interviewed by Scott Pelley on 60- Minutes (3.15.09)

I have for some time been an unapologetic supporter of the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. He appears to me the right man, with the right background, for this troubled season. And last night on 60-Minutes, he talked to Scott Pelley in a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the economy, the financial system, and what has to be done now. This is something chairmen of the Fed just don't do. If you haven't yet seen this, you really should. (Just click the link and click the video.)

Why invite an interview now? Because it is so very important for all Americans to get past their understandable resentment and anger at all the money that the US must spend to restore some of these undeserving financial institutions to health--whether through lending or buying "toxic" assets, whether by borrowing itself, "printing" money, or providing lines of credit. And, yes, it will be this and the next generation of Americans who will bear the cost and effects of both the original financial failures and the necessary government financing to restore them.

Nonetheless, we must also understand that, as Bernanke assures us, we came "very close" to falling into a financial depression at the time the first traunch of TARP funds were lent to financial institutions--and only that TARP lending and other Treasury programs allowed us to avert it. A failure now to continue the necessary refinancing of the country's financial system will most likely mean that our financial condition will get much worse for much longer with worse implications for us and our children. And our attention must not be diverted by troubling issues like the merits of AIG bonuses (payable, it turns out, under the terms of binding performance contracts, wisely written or not).

You could say Bernanke is carrying water for Obama and the administration's program. If that is true--and it likely is--he takes on that role only to the extent that he believes in the correctness and importance of it. Ben Bernake isn't owned by Wall Street or the White House. Rather, he appears to me animated and inspired principally by the opportunity to serve his country, and by is his steady, independent commitment to use all his estimable knowledge and experience to help lead it through this frightening time. He joins the short list of critical leaders we must count on, and he appears to me worthy of our trust and high expectations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/60minutes/main4862191.shtml

Two Sufi Poems & Psalm 16

Golden Compass 1

Forget every idea of right and wrong
Any classroom has ever taught you

Because
An empty heart, a tormented mind,
Unkindness, jealousy and fear

Are always the testimony
That you have been completely fooled!

Turn your back on those
Who would imprison your wondrous spirit
With deceit and lies.

Come, join the honest company
Of the King's beggars--
Those gamblers, scoundrels and divine clowns
And those astonishing fair courtesans
Who need Divine Love every night.

Come, join the courageous
Who have no choice
But to bet their entire world
That indeed,
Indeed, God is Real.

I will lead you into the Circle,
Of the Beloved's cunning thieves,
Those playful rogues--
The ones you can trust for true guidance--
Who can aid you
In this Blessed Calamity of life.

Look at the Perfect One
At the Circle's Center:

He Spins and Whirls like a Golden Compass,
Beyond all that is rational,

To show this dear world

That everything,
Everything in Existence
Does point to God.

Keeping Watch 1

In the morning
When I began to wake,
It happened again--

That feeling
That You, Lord,
Beloved,
Had stood over me all night
Keeping watch,

That feeling
That as soon as I began to stir

You put Your lips on my forehead
And lit a Holy Lamp
Inside my heart.

Psalm 16
(excerpted)

I said to the Lord, "You are my Lord;
I have no good besides You."

The Lord is my portion, my inheritance, my cup;
He provides for me always.

The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places;
Indeed it is all beautiful to me.

I will bless the Lord who counsels me;
Indeed, He instructs me even in the night.
I have set the Lord continually before me;
Because He is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.

Therefore, my heart is glad and rejoices...

The Lord makes known to me the path of life;
In His presence is the fulness of joy...

1 From I Heard God Laughing: Poems of Hope and Joy, interpretive renderings of Hafiz by Daniel Ladinsky.

Business Roundtable: US Healthcare Most Expensive, Delivers Less

If the global economy were a 100-yard dash, the U.S. would start 23 yards behind its closest competitors because of health care that costs too much and delivers too little, a business group says in a report to be released Thursday. The report from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies, says America's health care system has become a liability in a global economy.

--"Report: Health care 'value Gap' hurts U.S.--Americans spend a lot more than top countries, but aren’t as healthy," msnbc.com (3/12/09)

One of the strongest, most credible voices in the business community is finally on board. Who knows why it took them so long to recognize that broad-based reform and access to the American healthcare system is not only in the best interest of the poor, infirm and unable, but increasingly young adults and the vast middle class who are without adequate health care; not only in the best interest of reducing the burden on taxpayers, but increasing the productivity of our economy; not only a social good, but as much a hallmark of civilization and societal accountability in the 21st century as public education; not only an answer to a distended, perpetually increasing cost for American business, but one absolutely critical to it's health and global competitiveness, perhaps even it's survival.

I could ask again, "How many times must we be told?" But could this powerful new voice weighing in represent our national tipping point? Can conservative politicians representing the interests of the medical industry continue their blinkered view and obstructionist pose in the light of this important constituency having moved in the constructive direction of reform?

Sometimes it is useful to consult the increasingly compelling studies and findings--the facts, if you will. From the msnbc.com article:

Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country. In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation. It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging. The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S. The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India.... Other countries spend less on health care and their workers are relatively healthier, the report said.

"What's important is that we measure and compare actual value — not just how much we spend on health care, but the performance we get back in return," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of the insurance company Cigna. "That's what this study
does, and the results are quite eye-opening."

The article reminds us that President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that the costs have now become unsustainable and the system must be overhauled. Are we ready as a country to do what it takes to carry out meaningful reform that provides basic heathcare to all Americans at a much lower overall cost to business and society? All we have to do is be open-minded enough, smart enough, disciplined enough, and committed enough to perform up to the standards of those very countries we have for so long looked down our noses at and considered so much less disciplined and productive than ours.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29641091/

Bernie Madoff's World

Among Bernard Madoff's many dupes were his closest friends, including two tycoons he loved as surrogate fathers: the late Norman F. Levy-whose girlfriend, supermodel Carmen Dell'Orefice, would lose her life savings-and the prominent philanthropist Carl J. Shapiro. Amid the sobs, screams, and curses in Aspen, Palm Beach, and New York, with victims sharing their stories, the author gets behind Madoff's affable façade, to reveal his most intimate betrayals.

--"Madoff's World" by Mark Seal, Vanity Fair (4/09)

This is an engaging, absolutely fascinating piece about the life and times of Bernie Madoff. How do you characterize such a person? What manner of psychopathology causes or allows a person to systematically loot and destroy his most intimate friends and thousands of others--and with no apparent sense of wrong done, guilt, or remorse. And certainly no sense of obligation for restitution. As fascinating as it is troubling.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/madoff200904

It's the Environment, Too (@#$%&+!)

The IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches. "Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change with poor nations and communities particularly at risk," the statement said.

--"Climate experts warn of 'irreversable' shifts," msnbc.com

How many times must we be told? Over how long a period of time? Yet, like children, we cannot be depended upon to exercise common sense and responsibility. Rather, we must always wait until our toys are damaged, our fingers burned, or more to the point, the rising tides of global warming lap up on our doorsteps. And then amid an enraged, flailing fit of resentful blame-mongering, we will point our stretched-out index fingers in every direction but our own. We could pray to be saved from the childish irresponsibility that seems so often the predictable response of our human nature. But all we do is find holes to stick our heads in.

Yet the evidence keeps washing into the holes of our refuge. From the msnbc.com article:

Hundreds of leading climate scientists wrapped up a three-day conference with a warning Thursday that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet."The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," a team of scientists wrote in a concluding statement.

It noted that policy-makers already have a range of tools to mitigate global warming. "But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to de-carbonize economies," it said.

And in these difficult economic times, President Obama's ability to see a unique opportunity to deal with the pressing need for healthcare reform and energy diversification finds support among some conference particpants:

Earlier Thursday, British economist Nicholas Stern, the author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, told the conference that the global recession presents an opportunity to build a more energy-efficient economy. "Coming out of this we have got to lay the foundations for a low-carbon growth, which is going to be like the railways, like the electricity, like the motorcars, this is going to be over the next two, three decades the big driver in investment," Stern said.

The conference leaders called out desperately for political leadership and action among the world's largest nations, and stressed the importance of a sense of immediacy in doing so. But why do I have the sense that the tone of desperation they felt necessary is the strongest, most dispiriting indicator that their message continues to fall largely on deaf ears? In my 2006 essay, "Cassandra's Tears," I addressed at length the larger politcal and human issues of global warming. It was on this note that I ended:

But if views are now changing, will they change fast enough? Leading voices and most people are starting to call for remedial action. It is surely time to agree on a plan, the course and scope of our action, and the need to effect it now. But if we continue to delay, or further allow delay, and those in authority fail to act or prescribe too little, who can we then blame? By then, all we can do, the only act of honesty left to us, is to look in the mirror with despair and resignation, and recognize in ourselves both the face of Apollo’s resentful self-interest and that of Cassandra’s tears.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29658424/

Harvard's Masters of the Apocalypse

In this piece from the Sunday Times (London), a recent Harvard MBA offers some interesting observations about the role of poorly prepared and questionably oriented MBAs--and particularly Harvard MBAs--in the financial market failures we now find ourselves suffering through.

But does he lay enough responsibility at the doorstep of the cultures of the institutions themselves--and human nature under such cultural pressures and such fabulous financial reward structures for "being creative" and "making it happen" in meeting financial goals? Wouldn't it help if those institutional cultures had more of a bias toward ethics and accountability? But, regrettably, many of them appear to feel their obligation to shareholders--and more importantly, perhaps, their self-interest--causes them to define their ethical responsibility and accountabilities only in terms of the most aggressive interpretations of the law, if they consider them seriously at all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article5821706.ece

A Conservative's Case Against Limbaugh

You may find this an interesting, challenging article if, over the last decade, you've become so alienated from the Republican party that you now prefer to be identified as an "independent," or even a Democrat--or even more so if you still uncomfortably hold onto a troubled Republican identity. This Newsweek article, "Why Rush is Wrong," by David Frum, a self-described conservative Republican and former speech writer for George W. Bush, addresses the vexing, broader questions about the identity and political future of the Republican party. The current self-appointed role and conceit of Rush Limbaugh serves only as a reference point for measuring the depth of the hole he believes the party is in.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279

The Limits of Merit & Choice

It's not a fabrication, a lie. It's just not the whole truth. And the part that's been omitted—or is it just ignored?—should provide the basis for us to consider providing better for those most in need. I'm speaking of our unwarranted overemphasis on personal merit and, as we've discussed elsewhere, freedom of choice.

It really does appeal to us, all of us. It panders to our self-esteem, our sense of self-determination and self-sufficiency, our self-congratulatory tendencies. We want to believe that we earned what we have—that we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, mapped out our plans, prepared ourselves, then worked hard, harder than the next guy, earning our way to our definition of success. And in a very real, experiential sense, it is true. (Most of us feel that's exactly what we've done!)

We also want to believe that it's not our fault if the next guy wasn't as ambitious, didn't prepare himself as well, didn't work as hard, wasn't as able. It's not our fault if he was too lazy or irresponsible, lacked discipline, character or interpersonal capability. It's not our fault if he wasn't intelligent, talented or savvy enough. It's not our fault if he was too different, unstable or disabled. We each get what we earn, what we deserve. (Isn't that right?)

And what of the poor, the competitive failures of whatever stripe? Why, they just suffer the natural consequences of their own failings and failure. And that's not our fault, either. How could it be? (So, why should it be our responsibility?)

Of course it's not your fault or mine—at least not most of the time. But most often, neither is it theirs. Notably, in a most real sense, we are no more the author of our successes than they are of their failures. Heresy, indeed! But let me briefly explain why, in more empirical terms, this is also true.

You understand the continuing discussion and research about nature and nurture, of course. We discussed it in Choices. You're familiar with the debate about how much of the way we are is the result of the genetic legacy of our parents and forbears, and how much is the result of the way we are conditioned and schooled, what we learn in our families, communities and cultures. What is not in doubt is that the combination of our genes, family, culture and education determines who we are, how we act, and the likely limits of our potential and achievements. And if most everyone still has some alternatives, some choices, those afforded the least able of our brethren, the least fortunate, are so many fewer and so much narrower, and their ability to act on them is so much less.

The irony is that we discuss it, make casual affirming observations about it in everyday life, even ponder it with personal satisfaction or dismay, but then go about our lives dealing with each other, making personal and organizational decisions and crafting public policy as though we didn't know it or didn't believe it. The truth is that the power and perceived importance of our public, cultural half-myths trump what we instinctively know and what science more resoundingly than ever confirms. The truth is inconvenient and unwelcome to our sense of independence, accomplishment and self worth. It can coexist only uncomfortably with those cultural values.

So, just how right, how defensible, then, is that laissez-faire foundation on which we stand? How fair or egalitarian, how ethical and moral, how humane and intelligent are our assumptions about getting what we earn or deserve? How even is the playing field, how just the result? Is it not true that there, but for the deal of the genetic cards, the spin of the birth-place roulette, go I—dross in the crucible of our competitive society, failed or failing, and much in need of the help and support of my community, my more fortunate brethren? Shouldn't the integrity of an accountable, civilized society demand a full understanding and honest acknowledgment of this reality? Wouldn't it then respond honestly, responsibly, and effectively to the needs of the innocent poor, infirm and unable? Wouldn't health care, education, and reasonable living conditions be their right as it would everyone's?

(My Christian faith informs me that we are each just who God intended us to be based on the dictates of our singular spiritual paths—and the genetic endowment and life circumstances that deliver us there. And more, that we have responsibilities and accountabilities for one another. That is the signal characteristic of faith community, and any real community.)

From my Cassandra's Tears essays
First written: July 2006
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007

The Newspaper is Dead?

Soon after Jefferson came to power, he, like Adams, developed doubts about the unbounded liberty of the press. Printers, Jefferson complained, just days after his election, “live by the zeal they can kindle, and the schisms they can create.” In his second Inaugural Address, Jefferson ranted against printers who had assaulted him with “the artillery of the press,” warning that he had given some thought to prosecuting them. During his beleaguered second term, Jefferson suggested that newspapers ought to be divided into four sections: Truths, Probabilities, Possibilities, and Lies. What Jefferson wanted for the nation under his governance was a “union of opinion.” But that, of course, can never be the aspiration of a democracy—a point that newspapers have been very good at making over the two centuries since.

Jill Lepore, "The day the newspaper died," The New Yorker (01.26.09)

I don't have to like or approve of what is written to staunchly defend the medium of the free press. In fact, there's lots that is written that gives me heartburn. I particularly don't like yellow journalism and the personal and political hatchet men that use the press in one form or another to unfairly, often untruthfully, denigrate or undermine those they don't like or whose ideas they find objectionable. I suppose we all feel that way about some elements of the press, don't we? Truth be known, many disapprove of just about anything that fails to approve or applaud who they are, what they do, and what they believe. That's the human condition, our human nature.

And yet, our indignant disapproval of some elements of the press is the best evidence that freedom of speech is alive and vibrantly afoot. For the heart of freedom is found in freedom of speech and, therefore, freedom of the press--no matter how untrue, threatening or harmful, how unseemly or offensive, it may sometimes seem to us to be.

In her New Yorker article, Jill Lepore explores the current preoccupation with the death watch over the American newspaper. And to provide some perspective, she offers an informative, illuminating look at the importance and struggles of the early American press, and how it was at least as opinionated--and often more purposely hurtful or harmful--as anything we might find in print today. In discussing the press in these times, she observes:

Most struggles, like most lives, are mess[y]. Newspapers aren’t always on the side of liberty. Not everyone agrees on what liberty means. Some struggles never end. [But] it’s not the newspaper that’s forever at risk of dying and needing to be raised from the grave. It’s the freedom of the press.

Its only natural to want silenced the liars and purveyors of the absurd, especially those we may consider destructive, even evil. We all have that instinct from time to time. (Although we often have different notions of who those people are, don't we?) If we need an example, the most unlikely might be our second president, John Adams, a strong, consistent advocate for freedom, including especially freedom of speech and of the press. Like Jefferson, he often spoke prominently and with strong opinions about freedom from the pages of the few fledgling newspapers of colonial America. But that same John Adams grew frustrated, angry, and greatly concerned over distorted or untrue allegations directed at him and his presidency by the opposition press.

He finally acceded to the recommendations of the federalists and signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts--which included provisions that effectively made defaming his administration a crime. It was perhaps the greatest mistake of his presidency--and certainly inconsistent with the characteristics of the free country and free speech that he had advocated as strongly as any of the revolutionary leaders. If John Adams can in times of weakness be led there, so can many of us.

Of course, the point is not the near death of newspapers in that fragile colonial period when the printers art withered under the weight of the King's stamp tax, or in the early years of the republic under the Aliens and Sedition Acts--although those are important, instructive examples. The point is that the press, the newspaper--freedom of speech, if you will--will find a way. And if trampled under foot, it will sprout and flourish again as soon as conditions allow. It is a force of human nature and an inseparable adjunct of freedom.

Moving back into the 21st century, if we may, we now engage the technological advances and frontier of the new print media: the internet news outlets and blogging. They further democratize and expand freedom of public speech, to be sure, but also provide an unnerving array of voices, topics and opinions--and with them an unnerving lack of organization, predictability, discipline and regulation. Many would say its all for the good; but predictably, many would say it is not. Lepore in The New Yorker:

"The newspaper is dead, long live the newspaper!” has lately become the incantation of advocates of e-journalism, who argue that the twenty-first-century death of the newspaper hardly merits a moment’s mourning, since it is no death at all but, rather, a rebirth....

The newspaper is dead. You can read all about it online, blog by blog, where the digital gloom over the death of an industry often veils, if thinly, a pallid glee. The Newspaper Death Watch, a Web site, even has a column titled “R.I.P.” Or, hold on, maybe the newspaper isn’t quite dead yet. At its funeral, wild-eyed mourners spy signs of life. The newspaper stirs!

The truth is that though readers of on-line news venues and blogs have grown exponentially, those on-line newspapers, especially the best reporters of news, have also enjoyed a growing and enthiusiastic readership--even among younger readers. An article in Time magazine, "How to Save Your Newspaper," by Walter Isaacson, makes this point clear, but also the reality that the on-line model has cost newpapers needed revenue, and as a result, many are failing. From the article:

Newspapers have more readers than ever. Their content, as well as that of newsmagazines and other producers of traditional journalism, is more popular than ever — even (in fact, especially) among young people.

The problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying. Instead, news organizations are merrily giving away their news. According to a Pew Research Center study, a tipping point occurred last year: more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them? Even an old print junkie like me has quit subscribing to the New York Times, because if it doesn't see fit to charge for its content, I'd feel like a fool paying for it.

This is not a business model that makes sense. Perhaps it appeared to when Web advertising was booming and every half-sentient publisher could pretend to be among the clan who "got it" by chanting the mantra that the ad-supported Web was "the future." But when Web advertising declined in the fourth quarter of 2008, free felt like the future of journalism only in the sense that a steep cliff is the future for a herd of lemmings.

Newspapers and magazines traditionally have had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising. The new [on-line] business model relies only on the last of these. That makes for a wobbly stool even when the one leg is strong. When it weakens — as countless publishers have seen happen as a result of the recession — the stool can't possibly stand.

Of course, as the article points out, the only way to save our newspapers--in print or on-line--is to understand we will eventually have to pay the reasonable cost of producing them. And given the choice of paying a modest amount for excellent reporting or accepting poor reporting and unrealiable blogging for free (which includes some of the most unreliable and misleading political writing in our history), most discriminating readers will quickly sign up for the more reliable, better-crafted product.

And many will also continue to prefer the tactile printed paper product--all the time, on Sundays, or occasionally. For some of us, at least some of the time, only the paper product will do.

The compelling ideas that newspapers feel the responsibility to express, the events they feel accountable to report, and the public demand for their presentation in print, will always find a way--whether on-line or on printed paper. And most likely both will find their place and serve their market. The mere issue of necessary adjustments to market pricing, finding their marginal point of pricing viability, is more a question of time than survival. And our personal sense of unease or objection to expanding yellow journalism, objectionable topics, unseemly or pandering reporting, is also just a question of time and discipline--the time it takes us to accept a broader range and more democratic expression of free speech, and the discipline it takes to tolerate expression of the objectionable in order to assure expression of everything that could possibly be true, important, or illuminating.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/01/26/090126crat_atlarge_lepore?currentPage=all
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html

Irreligious Nations Best Reflect Religous Values?

It is a great socio-religious irony — for lack of a better term — that when we consider the fundamental values and moral imperatives contained within the world's great religions, such as caring for the sick, the infirm, the elderly, the poor, the orphaned, the vulnerable; practicing mercy, charity, and goodwill toward one's fellow human beings; and fostering generosity, humility, honesty, and communal concern over individual egotism — those traditionally religious values are most successfully established, institutionalized, and put into practice at the societal level in the most irreligious nations in the world today.  

--Professor Phil Zuckerman, "The Virtues of Godlessness," The Chronicle Review.

It appears that two of the least religous countries in the world may most broadly and consistently reflect religious--certainly Christian--values in their societal behavior. The two countries are Sweden and Denmark. And this article by NYU's Professor Phil Zuckerman appears to relish the opportunity to advance that observation in all its irony. In support of his conclusion, he offers these three points in particular:

1. Many people assume that religion is what keeps people moral, that a society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity. But that doesn't seem to be the case for Scandinavians in those two countries. Although they may have relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary, and although these crime rates have been on the rise in recent decades, their overall rates of violent crime — including murder, aggravated assault, and rape — are among the lowest on earth. Yet the majority of Danes and Swedes do not believe that God is "up there," keeping diligent tabs on their behavior, slating the good for heaven and the wicked for hell. Most Danes and Swedes don't believe that sin permeates the world, and that only Jesus, the Son of God, who died for their sins, can serve as a remedy. In fact, most Danes and Swedes don't even believe in the notion of "sin." 

2. So the typical Dane or Swede doesn't believe all that much in God. And simultaneously, they don't commit much murder. But aren't they a dour, depressed lot, all the same? Not according to Ruut Veenhoven, professor emeritus of social conditions for human happiness at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Veenhoven is a leading authority on worldwide levels of happiness from country to country. He recently ranked 91 nations on an international happiness scale, basing his research on cumulative scores from numerous worldwide surveys. According to his calculations, the country that leads the globe — ranking No. 1 in terms of its residents' overall level of happiness — is little, peaceful, and relatively godless Denmark. 

3. Just to be perfectly clear here: I am not arguing that the admirably high level of societal health in Scandinavia is directly caused by the low levels of religiosity. Although one could certainly make such a case — arguing that a minimal focus on God and the afterlife, and a stronger focus on solving problems of daily life in a rational, secular manner have led to positive, successful societal outcomes in Scandinavia — that is not the argument I wish to develop here. Rather, I simply wish to soberly counter the widely touted assertion that without religion, society is doomed.

In truth, the good professor does offer some valid points and worthy considerations, which should give pause to those of us who are people of faith, whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or other faith traditions. And, while he concedes religion's positive contributions to most societies, his introduction observes that the more zealous and intrusive fundamentalist sects or organizations of all faiths have often been responsible for societal behavior that is least reflective of the highest teachings and expectations of those religions. But his point is broader, of course, incorporating the role and results of religious organizations and their inclination, too often, to reflect the worst qualities of humankind, and also implying that the ultimate responsibility lay at the doorstep of religion itself.

But he is remiss in failing to share more about earlier times when Sweden and Denmark were largely and happily confessing and practicing Christian peoples. And it would be interesting to know whether, in fact, they were any less moral, less happy, less socially responsible, or more violent then. I'm guessing they were not. I'm guessing that the values one sees reflected now are just the same values of their faith still carried on as societies, but without the same outward faith identity and faith community, without the same religious organizations.

Still, the question for reflection for all people of faith--certainly for all Christians--is this: what is it about some faith organizations and people, thier interpretations, applications or uses of faith principles, that causes them to reflect so little of the love, forgiveness, and humility, the compassion, charity and kindness that God calls us to? Why don't they reflect God's priority on serving the poor, the infirm, the unable? And why, instead, do they so often reflect self-righteousness, selfishness, judgment, unwelcome intrusiveness, and hubris, and so often co-opt those faith organizations and faith values to serve political or cultural goals?

The answers to those questions will help us better understand how so-called people of faith and faith institutions so often throughout history have been the authors of some of the least kind, most unforgiving, arrogant, hurtful, even violent and inhumane, behavior in the history of mankind--but also how those who seek identity and relationship in God can better love and serve Him, as they more earnestly love and serve their neighbors, those in need, and all humanity.

Wall Street's Entitlement Culture

But now, the Wall Street wunderkind is gaining similar notoriety. After he became head of Merrill Lynch in late 2007, he sped up bonuses to several executives before Bank of America Corp. bought the investment bank on Jan 1. He also spent $1.2 million decorating his Manhattan office, according to media reports, as Merrill hemorrhaged money — a decision that's invoking particular rage among Americans, including President Barack Obama. Thain left his post at Bank of America on Thursday after unexpectedly big losses at Merrill Lynch; the bonuses were a likely contributing factor in his departure.

Thain's actions exemplify how hard it is for the industry to wean itself off the hefty paychecks and spending the last decade brought — even as financial companies now rely on taxpayer dollars to stay in business.... But analysts say there's still a deeply ingrained culture of entitlement at financial companies. It's a mindset banks will have to work harder at changing as they come to grips with their failures, and as they face more scrutiny after accepting government help.

"You've always had this Wall Street ethic of, I'm going to push the rules as far as I can. That's been part of the culture," said R. Edward Freeman, academic director of the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics and Olsson Professor of Business Administration at University of Virginia's Darden School. And, Freeman added, the government for years gave Wall Street carte blanche....

Wall Street employees came to expect big compensation packages as their paychecks kept ballooning year after year. The difference between wages in finance and wages in other private sector industries was "excessively high" from the mid-1990s until 2006, according to a paper by New York University's Thomas Philippon and the University of Virginia's Ariell Reshef published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The last time the difference was similarly excessive was around 1930, they wrote — right after the stock market crash of 1929.

--Wall Street's entitlement culture - Economy in Turmoil (msnbc.com 1.24.09)

This article appeared on msnbc.com today. It shares a glimpse into the sense of presumption and entitlement, hubris and unaccountability, that has defined the professional lives and attitudes of investment bankers and others working on Wall Street for years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28817800/