Daily Archives: June 28, 2010

As usual, Walt is wrong

He claims that Maureen O’Hara is the most beautiful woman in the world. In fact, it is Sophia Loren.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

I understand inflation, but this new number for the GHS auditorium floors me

We’re approaching $30,000,000. The high school itself was built for $20 million in 1971 dollars. I was never much of a musician and so can’t opine on the crappy original auditorium but my brother Anthony was, and is a gifted musical genius and managed to produce at least one show in that place – he’s now Sony’s musical archivist – and friends of mine who graduated with me in 1971 went on to hugely successful careers : Jeff Bova, who has produced some of the best selling albums in music history, Bob Chiaramonte (now, “Clearmountain”) who I believe did records for Bob Dylan and the Greatful Dead. After my time there, Rob Mathes and Tim Janis also went on to terrific careers (check the links!). I haven’t followed graduates since Anthony’s class, but I’m sure, Greenwich being Greenwich, we’ve sent dozens of kids on to success in the music industry.

So where am I going with this? I don’t really know, but I guess I’m saying that the truly talented will prevail and the less talented among us probably don’t need a $30 million auditorium to tap dance in during the Senior Show.

UPDATE: Lots of great comments, but this one rings true:

Take the a line drawing of the auditorium,
give it to [Mark] Mariani
It will be up in 90 days with no changes.
Just add folding chairs.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Funny: BP’s pension fund doesn’t own any BP shares.

Apparently that’s per pension investing guidelines but as Business Insider notes, “there is no justice”.

Comments Off on Funny: BP’s pension fund doesn’t own any BP shares.

Filed under Uncategorized

Government spending’s effect

I’d be interested to see an analysis of what the late Robert Byrd’s diversion of federal money to West Virginia accomplished. It’s still one of our poorest states, but would it be even poorer without the billions of dollars Byrd nabbed as Appropriations Chairman?  I don’t pose this question facetiously: I’ve long wondered at the huge money poured into W. Virginia and its continued poverty, but I’ve never seen a study of whether it helped, hurt or did nothing at all.

I’m too old to return to school myself, but this would make for a pretty good doctoral thesis, I think.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Walter Lippmann – a thinker I’ve been ignorant of

This article by Paul Rahe is very interesting.
In 1932, thinking that there was no alternative, Lippmann voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But by 1937, when the shape of the Second New Deal had become clear, he had come to entertain grave misgivings. And at that point, in a book entitled An Inquiry into the Principles of the Good Society, he issued a damning judgment – which I quoted at length in my book Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, and which , I believe, we should all take to heart:

Although the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme, and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words. Their weapons are the coercive direction of the life and labor of mankind. Their doctrine is that disorder and misery can be overcome only by more and more compulsory organization. Their promise is that through the power of the state men can be made happy.

Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. They believe in what Mr. Stuart Chase accurately describes as “the overhead planning and control of economic activity.” This is the dogma which all the prevailing dogmas presuppose. This is the mold in which are cast the thought and action of the epoch. No other approach to the regulation of human affairs is seriously considered, or is even conceived as possible. The recently enfranchised masses and the leaders of thought who supply their ideas are almost completely under the spell of this dogma. Only a handful here and there, groups without influence, isolated and disregarded thinkers, continue to challenge it. For the premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states.

But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men. Though the progressives prefer to move gradually and with consideration, by persuading majorities to consent, the only instrument of progress in which they have faith is the coercive agency of government. They can, it would seem, imagine no alternative, nor can they remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion. For virtually all that now passes for progressivism in countries like England and the United States calls for increasing ascendancy of the state: always the cry is for more officials with more power over more and more of the activities of men.

Yet the assumptions of this whole movement are not so self-evident as they seem. They are, in fact, contrary to the assumptions bred in men by the whole long struggle to extricate conscience, intellect, labor, and personality from the bondage of prerogative, privilege, monopoly, authority. For more than two thousand years, since western men first began to think about the social order, the main preoccupation of political thinking has been to find a law which would be superior to arbitrary power. Men have sought it in custom, in the dictates of reason, in religious revelation, endeavoring always to set up some check upon the exercise of force. This is the meaning of the long debate about Natural Law. This is the meaning of a thousand years of struggle to bring the sovereign under a constitution, to establish for the individual and for voluntary associations of men rights which they can enforce against kings, barons, magnates, majorities, and mobs. This it eh meaning of the struggle to separate the church from the state, to emancipate conscience, learning, the arts, education, and commerce from the inquisitor, the censor, the monopolist, the policeman, and the hangman.

Conceivably the lessons of this history no longer have a meaning for us. Conceivably there has come into the world during this generation some new element which makes it necessary for us to undo the work of emancipation, to retrace the steps men have taken to limit the power of rulers, which compels us to believe that the way of enlightenment in affairs is now to be found by intensifying authority and enlarging its scope. But the burden of proof is upon those who reject the oecumenical tradition of the western world. It is for them to show that their cult of the Providential State is in truth the new revelation they think it is, and that it is not, as a few still believe, the gigantic heresy of an apostate generation.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized