Mixed Bag

Life of an image: Our headline of the week is “Icon given a fighting chance,” in 6/2/09 Chi Trib business section for lead-off hard-copy story.

Yes, and Obama couldn’t have said it better. In fact, he did, on 6/1, calling his plan “viable, achievable,” one “that will give this iconic American company a chance to rise again.”

As did NYTimes same day.

Huh. Polly want a cracker?

Death’s sting: We are in remission, cancerly speaking, from the day we are born, playwright Simon Gray wrote, brooding over friends Alan Bates and Harold Pinter, in The Last Cigarette.

Or: At birth we are sentenced to death. The medieval monk kept a skull on his desk as a reminder. “Memento mori,” the ancient Romans said.

But “I’m never going to die,” says the self-absorbed adolescent.

“I’m so happy,” Gerard Manley Hopkins told his mother on his Jesuit death bed.

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust . . . .

Remember, man, dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return. (Old-time religion admonition for Ash Wednesday, sometimes discarded in favor of “Have a nice day” or its liturgical equivalent.)

White cells down, says one day’s blood test. False alarm, the doc says after re-test. “Were you sick recently?” he asks, seeking explanation.  He’s a lifelong learner.

Never say die: In his last year, Simon Gray had his daily after-dinner smoke, “that lifelong enemy who even towards the very end never lets him down.”

He recalls playwright Harold Pinter’s “rages” as he faced death. Yes. Dylan Thomas advised, “Rage, rage against the dying of the light,” which was edited out of my 1971 book on prayer by my careful Catholic editor, who had it right but might have asked me first.

Rather cool assessment: Monsignor Darcy in This Side of Paradise (1920) is “intensely ritualistic, startlingly dramatic, loved the idea of God enough to be a celibate and rather liked his neighbor.” Italics added to this from p. 16 of the Dover edition, 1996.

Abortive: Talked to a man of the cloth the other day about abortion, he referred several times to people of whom he did not approve who opposed it. I recalled years ago being told to abandon my racial-justice thinking because Communists shared it. The argument sells or it doesn’t, regardless who embraces it.

He and others in a group also held in contempt the abortion-as-murder argument advanced by pro-lifers, to which my response would be, are you sure it’s not murder? If we’re not sure and do it anyway, what does that say about our respect for life?

Not much.

Self-something: Heritage Foundation’s “Morning Bell” has this well-chosen phrase for Obama’s repeated confessions of American guilt: It’s “a ritual exercise in self-loathing.”

The sort of thing he got used to hearing from his spiritual guide Jeremiah Wright, who required self-separation from the totality which is us.

Union-made: If you’re looking for a boycott protest, consider this, also from “Morning Bell”:

According to Rasmussen Reports, Only 26% of Americans believe nationalizing General Motors was a good idea and 17% say that Americans should protest the bailout by boycotting GM and refusing to buy its cars.

Well. Our own vehicle is a Geo Prizm, built for the 1994 season with a Toyota motor, which our man on Madison Street praises to the skies, at the same time manifesting utter disdain for whatever comes out of Detroit’s UAW shops. He fixes them all the time and should know.

So what? Obama won,didn’t he?  Wall St. Journal Political Diary on the (expensive) GM-takeover caper:

Usually this kind of funding for big projects has to go through the powerful appropriations committees in the House and Senate, but now the power of the purse has been commandeered by the executive branch. It isn’t executing the laws, it’s making the laws.

Phasing out

I have a theory that says sports announcers and players are doing most to mongrelize American English.  Consider this from one of my favorite players and see (if you can, by now) what else is wrong with this paragraph:

“He’s got almost 600 home runs so he’s done it a million times. He’s been up there so many times that I don’t think it phases him. The guy made a mistake and [White Sox designated hitter] Jim [Thome] hit it. The one thing about Jim if he gets the barrel on the ball it can go out to any part of the park. That’s why he’s got 550 homers,” said [White Sox catcher A.J.] Pierzynski.

It was Thome’s 550th.  The guy is good, and “almost 600”?  So what?  And “a million times”?  So what?  A.J. is pumped. 

But “I don’t think it phases him”?  Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s your Associated Press.

Later, from Reader Phil:

It didn’t faze me in the least.  I probably would have put a comma after Jim in the penultimate sentence.  I don’t know, you know, that I, you know, agree about, you know, sports, you know, English.  I am much more annoyed by cutesy words and phrases that spread like a flu virus…some go away and some stay…”at the end of the day”…”hopefully”…”sort of” (as in I was sort of talking to this sort of guy about this sort of problem that he’s trying to sort of solve….sort of a replacement for “uh”)…and the latest…”iconic” or “icon.”  Ah, who knows what will become of the language going forward.

The Shadow knows.

It’s the market, stupid

Don Boudreaux of George Mason U. offers a neat capsule pro-market statement, quoting Pietra Rivoli’s 2005 book The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy, as in this excerpt:

A system that ignores market signals, that provides no incentives, that subsidizes losers cannot be efficient in producing goods and services. Central planners will produce the wrong goods, use the wrong inputs, set the wrong prices, hire the wrong people, and ultimately produce shoddy products, and not enough of them, anyway.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (White House), the fixers are bound to decide they know all those things and can do it better.  They just know, that’s all. 

Da good guys, da bad guys generate “Heat”

Roger and me, we don’t always agree.  Once more, my hearties, to movie reviewing, this time of “Heat,” the 1995 remake of ‘30s public enemy #1 stuff — Muni and Cagney, move over.

“Heat,” shown last night on AMC, also gets to the human side of murder.  The Enemy, played by deNiro given an Irish name (!), is a lover of Amy the Judge, whom he does not force to stay with him as he heads for the lam, having created several widows while taking other people’s money.  Nice guy!  The Cop, played by Pacino, has a wife (his third), also quite fetching, aching to be loved, whom Pacino may split with for honorable reasons — married to his job and all that.

The rest of the policemen are kept fairly anonymous, including the dick played by Monk’s Captain Leland Stottlemeyer {Ted Levine}.  He is one of many officers of the law shot in hot blood (lots of it) in a huge city shootout and chase following The Bank Robbery.

During the robbery — a “score,” we hear several times from various good and bad guys, and that’s our main gonif-style patois for the night — the deNiro Irishman stands on a counter and reassures the dozens of customers that their money is safe because insured by the federal government: “It’s the bank’s money, not yours,” he announces from his FDIC script.

Earlier, we watched Pacino and deNiro talking lifestyles in a coffee shop — it was Pacino’s idea: he had pulled deN over on a city highway and suggested it.  From this conversation we realize that deN simply rejected the barbecue– and ball game-related life for the adventurous — hardly a dishonorable choice! — and Pacino had fallen in love with chasing bad guys — with two and a half shipwrecked marriages to prove it.

So it goes in Los Angeles, where the “PD” never sleeps and private lives take it on the chin.  Meanwhile, the plot sleeps.  It’s ragged.  That is to say, it has extremely sparse structure.  Its trademark is obfuscation.

This movie leads the viewer to think warmly of the acting abilities of various characters, while waiting for them to finish their scenes.  The viewer ends with commendations all around. 

Apart from the bludgeoning it provides by way of much shooting, much blood, and much heavy waiting for Things to Happen, it leaves him untouched, ungrabbed, and ready for bed.  That last is enough to recommend it.

And Roger?  He gave it an A-minus, offering this in re: the coffee shop conversation:

The scene concentrates the truth of “Heat,” which is that these cops and robbers need each other: They occupy the same space, sealed off from the mainstream of society, defined by its own rules.

They are enemies, but in a sense they are more intimate, more involved with each other than with those who are supposed to be their friends – their women, for example.

Blah, blah, blah: erzatz sociology-cum-glorification of schmucks by way of postmodern categorization.

Phew! Time for bed.

The root of our current difficulty

Affordable housing run amok:

A major lesson of Fan and Fred and the subprime fiasco is that no one benefits when we push families into homes they can’t afford. Yet that’s what Congress is doing once again as it relentlessly expands FHA lending with minimal oversight or taxpayer safeguards.

That’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored lending programs asking a mere 3.5% down, vs. 10% minimum on conventional loans — with 100% tax-paid guarantee on defaults. 

Which guarantee “means banks and mortgage lenders have no skin in the game,” observes WSJ.  No-skin means no risk, means wotthehell wotthehell, let’s do it, why not?  (If this devil-may-care approach was good enough for that cat mehitabel, it’s good enough for us.)

The VA housing program, to site another way of doing business,

has a default rate about half that of FHA loans, mainly because the VA provides only a 50% maximum guarantee. [italics added]

Thus providing “a market test that the loan shouldn’t be made.”

As for the downpayment, the FHA minimum was 20% when the agency opened in the 30s.  In the 60s it dropped to10%, in 1978 to 3% — raised to 3.5% last year.  The road to national meltdown was paved with good affordable–housing intentions.

Among which was the “bizarre initiative” in 2007 and since then to help the FHA “regain market share” as banks chose en masse to go elsewhere, namely to proliferating subprime lenders.  So now we have what WSJ calls “the federal subprime lending program.”

Wotthell, it’s save-the-agency time.  Damn the default rate, full speed ahead.

Go Bulls

This is so good, I simply pass it on (from John Falck commenting at WSJ’s Daily Fix):

I watched the Bulls-Celtics game with my up too late 5 year old son, who kept looking at the frequently tied scores and asking “what if nobody wins?”

As the overtimes kept coming my replies of “they keep playing until one team wins” started to sound a bit doubtful. “What if everyone fouls out?” was left unanswered.

I put him to bed during the third OT as he roused himself to say “tell me in the morning who won, if the game is over”.

I love it, I love it, I love it.

Of two good things, one is better?

I’ve been wondering about this conservative-libertarian divide and am happy to find this discussion of my man F.A. Hayek on the matter, as here:

The word “conservatism” is a vague term that covers a wide range of ideas. Hayek’s criticisms don’t necessarily apply to every version of conservative thought. A few of his arguments are totally dated, and some perhaps were invalid even back in 1960.

But several apply to various forms of conservatism that remain influential today. In particular, Hayek’s criticisms of conservative for their excessive aversion to change, their attachment to discretionary government power, their willingness to use state power to enforce “moral” values, and their tendency towards “strident nationalism” all retain considerable force.

“My man” in that I have found his stuff liberating in its calm, cool, and collectedness.  He’s the ultimate anti-fussbudget such as abounds in the leftist camp and turns up sometimes also among the right.

His Road to Serfdom is the Hayek intro, but Fatal Conceit: the Errors of Socialism is one to read right after it.

 

Bad info on Cornelia

This reference, at Many Books dot net, is common on the Internet, including at Wikipedia:

The Man in Lower Ten
by Mary Roberts Rinehart
English, published in 1909
65,298 words (180 pages)
No. 1 in the Cornelia Van Gorder series

But there’s no such character in this excellent mystery novel, also dated 1906 in Wikipedia and elsewhere. 

Caveat lector.

The day’s baddest news

Obama wants to fix “access to credit.”  Being from the government, he’s there to help.  Demurring politely, Congressman Scott Garrett (R.-NJ) explains the problem, closing with a politic sentence that has a key word missing:

I am a strong advocate for Access to Credit Reform, and I believe we need to ensure that government actions don’t cause greater problems in the marketplace and result in the restriction of credit availability for all consumers. [Italics added]

The key word is “but,” replacing “and” before “I believe.”

This is typical politic talk (he is a politico and has to negotiate) — downsizing the objection, refusing to give it the highlighting it deserves.  It comes after he has said what’s wrong with this foolish, if not execrable meddling by legislators.

This [reform] bill [to be considered next week] has the potential to reduce investment in the marketplace, increase rates and fees for all credit card holders, and restrict credit availability.

Problem: Legislative meddling drives out capital, further “tightening in marketplace liquidity,” and raises rates for all, “regardless of their level of credit risk.”

It can, he said — it will: why wouldn’t it? — make credit less available for all.  It’s supposed to protect borrowers with bad credit history, but it makes it harder for them and everyone else to get it.

Obama wants it, and that’s my most scarifying headline, in today’s Chi Trib:

President Barack Obama seeks crackdown on credit card rate, fee hikes: President wants crackdown on rate, fee hikes; industry defends practices as necessary

or, in hard copy, p-1, four columns, above fold:

Obama takes aim at ‘unfair’ credit card fees, practices: Industry likely to launch strong opposition

In the latter, Chi Trib leads with Wilma Erwin and her “surprise and anger” at the raised rate of her Discover Card and Thomas Charles Kenniff, who carries no balance but had his available credit “slashed nearly in half” by Bank of America.

Fie on those nasty lenders!  Make them lend at lower rates to help Wilma!  Make them lend more to Thomas Charles! 

So speaks Obama:

“There has to be strong and reliable protections for consumers, protections that ban unfair rate increases and forbid abusive fees and penalties,” Obama said after a White House meeting with credit card company executives. “The days of any-time, any-reason rate hikes and late-fee traps have to end.”

Can he be sued for abuse of power?  Maybe some well-financed court case that will tie up his lawyers and call witnesses to the stand.  Obama could call Wilma Erwin to the stand.  A jury of her peers could decide it.

A glimpse of president yet to come . . .

My Wednesday Journal column:

In early spring of 2013, the new U.S. president, Seumas McDoherty-O’Rahilly, was invited to give the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. He had run on an anti-hope-and-change platform, as had all other candidates, so toxic had these words become in the climate of cynicism that had developed when runaway governmental borrowing and spending plunged the nation into Jimmy Carter-style stagflation.

Etc.

Later: 

From Reader D: 

I believe I heard Rush say recently: Obama’s the only American president who “hates our country.”
 
That’s why he doesn’t flinch when a 2-bit dictator denounces us and insults us in his presence. In my opinion Obama buys the rhetoric, the same way he bought Jeremiah Wright’s venom against Amerika for 20 years. We’re in serious doo-doo.
 
Right.  He’s not shocked, having heard it all before.