<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/">
<title>The White Peril 白禍</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/</link>
<description></description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2008-07-04T13:07+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1215177383.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1212862201.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1211236084.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1208401607.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1207982094.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1207286738.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1205900671.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1205208015.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1198848985.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1198835572.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1215177383.shtml">
<title>独立記念日</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1215177383.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-04T13:07+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Happy Independence Day.  For the first time in a dozen years, I actually get to celebrate the Fourth of July here in America.  Very exciting.  I'll sort of miss the way we did the festivities in Japan--including a congratulatory drink from my British friends, which was always very touching--but overall I far prefer being home.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1212862201.shtml">
<title>Flavors of entanglement</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1212862201.shtml</link>
<description>Watching Hillary's camapaign suspension speech. I will always find her worldview and policies repellant, and she and Bill have run one of the tackiest public households in American politics. But she's...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-07T18:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Watching Hillary's camapaign suspension speech.  I will always find her worldview and policies repellant, and she and Bill have run one of the tackiest public households in American politics.  But she's grown a lot as a speaker.  She sounds sincere.  Her smile seems real.  She seems confident and forthright and relaxed and very American in the best way.<super>*</super>  (I'm kind of a sucker for that Gaboon viper combination of brown and teal for some reason, too.)  I don't like feeling contempt for people, and I feel much less contempt for her now than I did even just a few months ago.<br />
<br />
<super>*</super> Again, I'm talking about her demeanor.  That part about how we have individual liberties, but what's REALLY COOL is when we gather into collectives, made my flesh crawl.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
Faye Wattleton looks great!  (She's on the post mortem thing on CNN.)  However, it's a sign of the times that the first thing I thought when I saw her was, <i>She has a terrific surgeon!  She can't have gotten that referral through Planned Parenthood....</i>  But who knows?  Maybe she's had no work done and those long bangs are just a style.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
Mmmm...Bavarian Creme.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
I wish people would read more carefully.  It would eliminate so very much unnecessary unpleasantness from life.  A few days ago, Megan McArdle <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/technicolor.php">wrote</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Even if you don't like Barack Obama, I think you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man with a very good shot at the presidency. (I didn't support Clinton, but I would have been glad to know that we <i>could</i> nominate a woman--not that I'm saying this is the reason we <i>didn't</i> nominate her.)</blockquote><br />
<br />
Bill Quick at Daily Pundit <a href="http://dailypundit.com/?p=30801">replied</a> waspishly:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Megan is simply being racist here - it doesn't matter what Obama espouses, we should be happy because we nominated a black man. Should we be happy if the black man was Al Sharpton? Reverend Wright? Just because they are black?<br />
<br />
I understand what Megan is trying to get at - that nominating any black man without rioting in the streets or the media is a sign of some kind of national maturity, or the true state of racism in the US - not very strong - but happiness is not a word I’d use to describe my feelings about an Obama nomination.</blockquote><br />
<br />
"We should be happy because we nominated a black man" is at least within spitting distance of what McArdle wrote, and IIRC, she is, in fact, an Obama supporter.  But she wasn't talking about being happy with Obama as an individual candidate.  She was talking about being happy that, in the blink of a historical eye after the Civil Rights Act, we actually have a black presumptive presidential nominee in one of the two major parties.<br />
<br />
What's the problem with that?  I say this as a libertarian who supported and still supports the Iraq occupation and who lived in East Asia for twelve years.  The prospect of an Obama presidency scares the bejeezus out of me.  And even if his greenness didn't scare me, I'd be opposed to his political principles, such that one can divine them.  I think lots of his supporters have been cutting him slack that they would not cut for another candidate because they're eager to participate in the healing gesture of nominating a black candidate.  Yes, I do.<br />
<br />
However, he's the pioneer, and the progress made by pioneers tends to be rough.  Presidential politics is not a forum in which we're yet become accustomed to seeing black people (or, to a lesser extent, women).  Because we've just watched Obama and Clinton duke it out for the Democratic nomination, it's going to be easier for the first small-government, classical-liberal minority or woman candidate to be considered on policy merits rather than demographic "history-making."  I don't think that pointing that out makes anyone racist.<br />
<br />
So, good on Obama.  Now let's make sure--please--that he doesn't become president.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
I want to hug my air conditioner.  I want to give it a foot massage and a scalp massage and feed it peeled grapes from a silver salver and clasp its head to my chest and whisper that it's the only thing in this world that I can rely on to have my true happiness at heart.<br />
<br />
And it's only the beginning of June.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
I didn't post on the D-Day anniversary, but <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/06/remember_dday.html">Eric did</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1211236084.shtml">
<title>携帯電話</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1211236084.shtml</link>
<description>Eric discusses one of my pet peeves in this post, probably benefiting his blood pressure by not delving too deeply in:...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-19T22:05+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Eric discusses one of my pet peeves in <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/05/post_778.html">this post</a>, probably benefiting his blood pressure by not delving too deeply in:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I hate the way Sunday has become official morality day.<br />
<br />
I say this not in criticism of organized religion or morality in general, but because I don't like trickery, and I don't like the way Sundays have become the official day for media to play preacher and promote morality &mdash; especially the <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/11/bottling_and_se.html">newly manufactured morality</a> which appeals to the non-churchgoers with unacknowledged spiritual needs.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Fifteen years ago when I was in college, Camilla Paglia identified a certain kind of doctrinaire feminist as "desperate for a religion"; I assume from the way she discussed showily hip academic leftists and queer activists that she'd agree many of them have the same problems.  At the time, I was just leaving the church in which I'd been reared.  The idea that people would try to fulfill their spiritual cravings with trendoid politics struck me as weird.  I guess it still strikes me as weird, but now I'm used to it.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, it makes much social and political discourse extremely tiresome, and I really wish people would knock it off.  If you need shriving, by all means go to confession or send a tearful prayer heavenward.  Please don't inflict your ecstasies of guilt and dogmatism on me while I'm trying to make small talk with a glass of wine at a party.<br />
<br />
I realize that Eric's not really talking about polite conversation; he's talking more about opinion pages and other spaces for serious commentary, where more serious value judgments are to be expected.  I guess it would be nice if people whose scribblings are produced there could at least liberate themselves from formula a bit.<br />
<br />
Exhibit 1 is <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080518_One_Last_Thing__What_are_cell_phones_doing_to_our_society_.html">this op-ed</a> linked by Eric, which I unwittingly clicked through to.  In terms of finger-wagging social commentary, it has <i>everything</i>:  a crack analogy, an appeal to some think-tank expert whose qualifications aren't at all established, and compulsive genuflection to a supercilious Brit decrying the decline of civilization.  Since I've been making the transition from the cell-phone culture in to that here in the States, I've actually been thinking about these things quite a bit, and I think the writer (and his Brit) are full of it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Sociologists and communitarians are somewhat obsessed with the idea of public spaces - places where strangers necessarily bump up against one another and form community. When we talk on cell phones in public, we are, as Rosen points out, intentionally removing ourselves from the public space in a form of "radical disengagement" with the public sphere. We're participating in an activity that doesn't just exclude those around us, it imposes on them too - in effect declaring our neighbors to be less important than we are. Or worse: It's a little bit like telling them that they don't exist.<br />
<br />
Perhaps none of this is surprising. The sociologists Christian Licoppe and Jean-Philippe Heurtin have posited that modernity is constantly deinstitutionalizing personal bonds at every level. The effects of the cell phone are very much of a piece with their thesis. We have traded the rich tapestry of social cohesion - chatting with the cashier at the grocery store or with the fellow in the elevator - for these tiny, often useless, individual connections with those we already know.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Am I the only one who remembers life before cell phones?  If you don't, let me assure you that it was not a never-ending stream of chummy exchanges with new acquaintances--the grocery store clerk, the guy in the elevator, the woman you passed through the revolving doors on the way into the bank, and the janitor in the movie theater rest room--that left us all warmed to the core by our common humanity.  Besides, some of us were brought up traditionally and disliked being chatted up while we were quietly going about our business.  (Checking messages or the Internet on a cell phone is a wonderful deterrant in such cases.)  And as for those who have very private conversations very audibly in very public places, they were no less bearable when they were talking to their friends across the table in a crowded coffee house ten years ago.  Boors will find ways to use any communications medium boorishly; that's what they do.<br />
<br />
I've noticed no dearth of brisk-but-pleasant interactions between customers and salespeople or those sharing elevators since arriving back to New York.  Otherwise, I've seen few people practicing "radical disengagement" with public spaces, but a great many people who just want to find out which kind of milk their wives wanted them to pick up so they don't have to make another trip back to the grocery store (even if it means not giving their undivided attention to others who are contemplating the dairy case).  Most people will check their phone if it rings in the middle of an ongoing in-the-flesh conversation, but they're at least as likely to decide it can wait as to say, "Sorry--I really should take this."  Perhaps I just run in bizarre circles, but everyone I know seems to have figured out how to make the group with which he's physically spending time his first priority.<br />
<br />
One final thing:  I find the disdainful use of the word "deinstitutionalizing" unsettling.  Institutions are important, but one of the most precious things about our kind of society is that you get to choose those you want to belong to.  You don't have to stay in the church you were born into if you don't believe its doctrines, you don't have to become a member of your father's guild, you don't have to stay in your hometown and shoehorn yourself into a life that doesn't suit you.  You form your own associations if you wish.  If you find that disorienting and yearn for the simpler and more traditional life in which we all know our assigned places, why not leave the city and embed yourself in a small town somewhere?  Or find your spirituality and become a Buddhist or something?  If you can't control your cell phone and make it work for the kind of life you want to live, the problem is that you're neurotic, not that it's addictive.  Sheesh.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1208401607.shtml">
<title>Eeeeeven told the golden daaaaaffodilllll</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1208401607.shtml</link>
<description>Eric doesn't like being labeled, and not for the usual tiresome I'm-too-free-spirited-to-be-defined reasons:...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-17T03:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Eric doesn't like being <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/why_im_a_nottat.html">labeled</a>, and not for the usual tiresome I'm-too-free-spirited-to-be-defined reasons:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While I can say what I think about most things, experience shows that adopting any label invites conformity to it. (Especially criticism from those who claim it.)<br />
<br />
Once you say what you are, some a**hole will come along and say that you're not, because he is.<br />
<br />
Similarly, once you say what you aren't, some a**hole will come along and say that you are, because he <i>isn't</i>.</blockquote><br />
<br />
It's convenient that (small-<i>l</i>) "libertarian" suits me fine, because it tends not to set people off.  I like "classical liberal," but (today's left) liberals often seem to think you're trying to dress up as one of them while being a closet fascist.  ("Yeah, you're a liberal in the sense that, like, <i>Mill</i> would have meant it," someone sneered at me once.)  And while my positions on many issues align with what we now consider "conservatism," I'm not fundamentally a conservative.  (Well, I am when some gross guy is hitting on me.  Then I identify myself as a "conservative" in a clear, forceful tone and mention that I'm a registered Republican.  You movement conservatives don't mind the fib, do you?  It's to the end of preventing casual homosexual intercourse, after all.  And I really am a registered Republican.)<br />
<br />
The only problem with calling yourself a libertarian--besides, as Eric alludes to, being invited by supposed fellow travelers to engage in poker-faced debates over the most inane hypothetical situations imaginable--is that a lot of people don't understand that it doesn't mean "libertine" or "anarchist."  I can't count the number of times I've had to explain that no, I don't think all governing bodies should be dissolved so we can frolic naked in meadows all day and subsist on game and wild berries.  In general, though, even those who conclude I'm just a closet right-winger seem to give me a fair hearing without rancor.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
My buddy grabbed my arm the other night and asked whether I'd seen Julie Burchill's inevitable <a href="http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/celebrity/story/0,,2272092,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=users">column</a> about the new Madonna album yet.  He summarized it as "If I spent four hours a day at the gym, I'd look better than that bitch!"  Not too far wide of the mark:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Madonna is everywhere, reigning over the just and the unjust, friend and foe alike; loving her or hating her is as futile as loving or hating the rain, wind or snow - it'll happen anyway.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
If Madonna didn't devote her life to harassing us, what would she do with herself all day? Remember, this is a woman with so much time on her hands that she can spend four hours a day working out. I know I'm fat, but I have to say that if I spent four hours a day working out, I'd want to look a damn sight hotter than Madonna does; those vile veiny hands, that sad stringy neck - yuck!</blockquote><br />
<br />
Madonna has the sort of body that tends toward the plump/luscious side; you can see it in her early videos.  Endomorphs like that who diet and exercise themselves into having no body fat often end up with skin that has a weird stretched look.<br />
<br />
The rest of the column is the exact same thing Burchill writes whenever a Madonna record comes out, and it's as funny (and bawdy) as usual.<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
Surprise!  Hillary Clinton once <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html">said</a> something nasty behind closed doors about white, working-class Southerners (via <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/04/screw-em-hillary-said-about-working.html">Ann Althouse</a>):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.<br />
<br />
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."</blockquote><br />
<br />
And since some things never change, Clinton's spokesman responds with contempt when asked about the authenticity of the quotation:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>A spokesperson for Clinton said the quote was taken out of context and did not reflect her true political philosophy. "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made," said Jay Carson. "To be clear, that's not how she felt then and it's not how she feels now, and the proof is in how she has lived her life, the work she has done and the policies she has pushed and pursued over the last 35 years."<br />
<br />
Asked to produce a witness who would say that Clinton had been misquoted, Carson wrote: "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Remember the Clinton administration, when we were subjected to that kind of smear-and-spin routine almost daily when something or other threatened to blow up in the happy couple's faces?  We could be mere months from going back to it!<br />
<br />
Eric also <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/no_pain_no_gain.html">noticed</a> this story.  (He didn't say much about it, but, then, he had to go to New Jersey, so he had plenty of pain to contend with already.)<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
I don't think this post has enough parentheses.<br />
<!-- ping: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6493 -->]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1207982094.shtml">
<title>Abandoned luncheonette</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1207982094.shtml</link>
<description>[Added later: Or maybe I should have gone with "Your Imagination" as a title. "Love, Need, and Want You"? Maybe "When Will I See You Again"? "If You Don't Know Me...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-12T06:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<b>[Added later:</b>  Or maybe I should have gone with "Your Imagination" as a title.  "Love, Need, and Want You"?  Maybe "When Will I See You Again"?  "If You Don't Know Me by Now"?  "Hate on Me"?<b>]</b><br />
<br />
I have a lot of affection for my home state of Pennsylvania.  I grew up outside Allentown; my parents had the same house from the time they got married until I'd finished college.  Then they moved four miles down the road, where they still are.  My father was a plant worker for Bethlehem Steel while I was growing up, so there were a fair share of layoffs and lean years during the '80s.<br />
<br />
Even though Barack Obama has been <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/017761.php">trounced</a> already for his remarks about Pennsylvania, let me just add a bit.  (Note to <a href="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/04/i-was-born-in-a.html">Tom Maguire</a> about that headline, though:  John Mellencamp is from Indiana.  Keep your troglodyte-populated states straight!  Then, too, I should be grateful he didn't quote "Allentown" by Illybay Oeljay, which I have something of a <a href="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1180599862.shtml">hangup</a> about.)  <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html">This</a> is where the audio is, apparently, and the key paragraphs are these:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.<br />
<br />
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
I'm not sure it's possible to do justice to how retarded that is--and I say that as an overeducated, corporate, atheist, homosexual urbanite who's spent the last dozen years in Tokyo and is now happily returning to New York.<br />
<br />
The anti-trade part I <i>do</i> agree with.  I've had (mild) arguments with my father over protectionism for the steel industry, which simply gives the shaft to American workers and their families further down the supply chain.<br />
<br />
The rest is ridiculous.<br />
<br />
As far as guns go, my father wasn't big on hunting, but my uncles and cousins went regularly, and I don't think they were taking out their job-related frustrations on the deer.  Sport hunting is just one of those practices that the working class has in common with the aristocracy, and there are plenty of counties in the northern part of PA that are ideal for it.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, most rural areas are by definition somewhat less densely populated than Hyde Park, Chicago.  My mother has two handguns and takes shooting lessons because my father works nights quite a bit.  If someone broke into the house, she'd have to fend for herself until the township police arrived.  That's been a fact of life since long before manufacturing jobs started leaving.<br />
<br />
I also think it highly likely that commonwealth history has something to do with attitudes toward guns.  In Pennsylvania, at least in eastern Pennsylvania, you spend your childhood taking field trips to Valley Forge and Gettysburg.  In the borough where I grew up, there's a preserved cabin, now nearly three hundred years old, called the <a href="http://www.emmausmainstreet.com/ShelterHouse.htm">Shelter House</a>, where visiting schoolkids are lectured by their elders about the fragile existence of the first settlers as they carved out new lives in unknown territory.  The idea that life can be harsh and that you may have to defend yourself violently is not alien to anyone who stays awake through state history classes.<br />
<br />
By the way, you noticed that my hometown is called Emmaus, right?  My parents now live in Old Zionsville.  The second-largest city in the Lehigh Valley is Bethlehem.  There's a Bethel in Berks County.  Down toward Lancaster there's a town called Smyrna.  There's also this little hamlet in Pennsylvania called Philadelphia--have you heard of it?--the name of which is Greek for "city of brotherly love" and is a place mentioned in the Book of Revelation.<br />
<br />
That's, you know, in the Bible.  Seekers of religious freedom were numerous among Pennsylvania settlers.  William Penn was a Quaker whose beliefs had riled his father and the king.  In Pennsylvania Dutch country, we're famous for having Amish communities.  Lots of old Moravian and Lutheran churches, too.  A combination of religious fervor and tolerance is movingly woven into Pennsylvania history from day one, and people in small towns have been going to church regularly since long before the decline of the rust belt economy.  The insinuation that people just kind of started turning to religion to give them a sense of shallow comfort when the layoffs started is deeply offensive.  I rejected the theology I'd been brought up with years ago as an accurate explanation for the origins of the universe, but it's just plain low to take cheap shots against the faithful.<br />
<br />
Things like "antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment" are so vague it's hard to know what to make of them, but I will say that people tend to associate with those who are like them in New York and San Fracisco as much as they do in Reading.  And the small towns have been diversifying, slowly but surely.  It takes time for people to get used to one another, and everyone has prejudices that have to be discarded in the face of experience.  That's hardly some sort of distinguishing characteristic of Pennsylvania.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://classicalvalues.com/">Eric</a> doesn't have anything up about this yet, but when he does, it's sure to be fabulous.  In the interim, on a related topic, he's <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/post_731.html">posted</a> about Mayor Michael Nutter in Philadelphia, who's had the effrontery to <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20080411_Nutter_defiantly_signs_five_gun_laws.html">compare</a> himself to the Founding Fathers in signing gun control laws:  <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change," Nutter said as he signed the bills in front of a table of confiscated weapons outside the police evidence room in City Hall.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Jeff at Alphecca has also <a href="http://www.alphecca.com/?p=711">posted</a>.<br />
<!-- ping: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4989/28023972 --><br />
<br />
<b>Added on 19 April</b>:  Eric has <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/post_726.html">posted</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1207286738.shtml">
<title>候補者</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1207286738.shtml</link>
<description>James Kirchik is hardly a lockstep liberal, but in this post, I think he does actually make a typical liberal mistake in typical liberal fashion. His conclusion is this:...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-04T13:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[James Kirchik is hardly a lockstep liberal, but in <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mccain-according-to-the-world/">this post</a>, I think he does actually make a typical liberal mistake in typical liberal fashion.  His conclusion is this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>A top concern for voters in November will be a candidate's ability to raise American prestige. Rest assured that McCain will do just that.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Given its <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prestige">origins</a>, the word <i>prestige</i> sounds like a perfect fit for McCain to me.  That aside, I think Kirchik is wrong about most voters.  Most Americans don't care what people think in New York and San Francisco, for Pete's sake, let alone in Paris and Berlin.<br />
<br />
Or that's not entirely true.  As one commenter puts it (nonmilagno posting Apr 2, 2008 - 4:30 pm), "It's not necessary that Europeans like us. However, it is important that they realise we have common interests."  What worries Americans is not our lack of "prestige" but that we can't always rely on other Western countries to go to the mat for Western values.  I think that if a presidential candidate convincingly demonstrated that he or she could get governments of other democracies to see why the WOT affects them, too, voters would care.  But proportion of American voters who are hoping they'll be able to hold their heads higher among their European and Latin American friends at brunch on Sundays is small and very geographically restricted.<br />
<br />
Kirchik's argument about whether people care about rebuilding our reputation abroad is wrong on its own terms, but so is his assessment of how our reputation got where it is:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The truth is that much of contemporary anti-Americanism is a manifestation of disgust with George W. Bush as an individual and will immediately dissipate as soon as a new president — Democrat or Republican — enters the Oval Office in 2009. Yet also keep in mind that a similar degree of anti-American sentiment is inherent and may take a generation to disappear.  Yet also keep in mind that a similar degree of anti-American sentiment is inherent and may take a generation to disappear. French anti-Americanism, for instance, springs from economic inferiority and a lost empire, was flaunted as far back as 50 years ago when Charles de Gaulle was president and George W. Bush was but a little boy. Much of South America's anti-Americanism stems from 19th century American imperialism, something that no American president will be able to change.<br />
<br />
What the next president can do to reverse the popularity deficit is distinguish himself from the current administration's most unpopular policies. On this score, McCain already has much to his credit. He has long stood out for his proactive stance on global warming, his opposition to coercive interrogation practices of terrorism suspects, and his support for closing the prison on Guantanamo Bay, all things which anger people and governments overseas.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Given the hedging in that first paragraph, it's hard to pin down how much anti-Americanism Kirchik expects to disappear magically on Inauguration Day.  What proportion is attributable to anti-Bush sentiment?  I'd say less than he thinks.  Europeans and Asians loved the Clintons--they were lawyers with prestigious educations who talked a lot of big-government theory, which made them easy to identify with for a lot of elites there.  And yet there was still plenty of bitching about America.  Too prosperous, too confident militarily, too confident culturally, too friendly with Israel.  They might like to see us hobble our economy with some drastic policies to combat global warming and stuff, but I don't think the basic attitude is likely to change soon, no matter who's president.<br />
<br />
So I don't think Kirchik's argument in favor of McCain washes.  <a href="http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002747.html">Virginia Postrel</a> has an intriguing and more convincing <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200804u/obamas-glamour">analysis</a> of Barack Obama's glamour in <i>The Atlantic</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote> Obama's glamour gives him a powerful political advantage. But it also poses special problems for the candidate and, if he succeeds, for the country.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
To rely on illusions is to risk disillusionment. If Obama the dream candidate becomes Obama the real president, he'll be forced to pick sides, make compromises, and turn "hope" and "change" into policies some people like and some people don't. Or, like the movie star governor of California, he might choose instead to preserve his glamour by letting others set the agenda. Either way, his face won't make America's worries disappear, and his cool, polite manner won't eliminate political disagreements. Some of his supporters will feel disappointed, even betrayed. The result could be a backlash, heightened partisan conflict, and a failed presidency. George W. Bush ran as a uniter, and Jimmy Carter promised national renewal.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Anne Applebaum wrote a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/20/AR2007082001425.html">column</a> on a somewhat related issue last year.  The headline was "What Presidents Don't Know," and her point was that some learning on the job is inevitable.  Wonkish expertise and a ten-point plan for everything are less important than a realistic sense of what the candidate is getting into:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In fact, there may be some sorts of experience that are actually detrimental to a potential president. I worry, for example, about Hillary Clinton's much-vaunted travels as first lady: She came, she made carefully prepared speeches, she received polite applause. It won't be like that if she's president, and I hope she doesn't think it will be.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Other kinds of foreign connections could prove useful. Even aside from his specific beliefs, John McCain happens to be particularly good at speaking to (and arguing with) foreign audiences: The director of a German foundation recently complained to me that the U.S. presidential campaign was spoiling his transatlantic conferences because it meant McCain couldn't attend anymore. Meanwhile, Obama, with his African relatives and Indonesian childhood, would start his presidency riding an enormous wave of international goodwill. His differences from our current president -- he's young, black, with a more complicated background -- would win him a lot of points in a lot of places, whether or not he knows the name of the Pakistani president (and whether or not he would bomb that country, as he recently seemed to imply he would).</blockquote><br />
<br />
I remember vividly when Ann Althouse <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/08/obama-with-his-african-relatives-and.html">linked</a> Applebaum's column.  A lot of her commenters seemed to take the above passage as an out-and-out endorsement of Obama--which gave me pause, because I hadn't.  Applebaum seemed to me to be observing two things:  that any new president will have expectations and a default way of reacting to new information, and that how other world leaders respond will be an important part of that new information.  She appeared to be suggesting that Obama might be able to leverage his initial warm reception; Virginia says that his glamour won't be enough to save him if he gets into trouble but that he may have a realistic sense of its limits.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1205900671.shtml">
<title>Hook!</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1205900671.shtml</link>
<description>Yeah, I saw the latest McGreevey story, via Rondi, among others. Since I thought the guy was a parasitic jerk the moment the sentence "I am a gay American"...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-19T04:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Yeah, I saw the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/18/wscandal118.xml">latest McGreevey story</a>, via <a href="http://wonkitties.blogspot.com/2008/03/tack-tack-tacky.html">Rondi</a>, among others.  Since I thought the guy was a parasitic jerk the moment the sentence "I am a gay American" fell from his mealy political mouth, I can't say my estimation of him has changed.  And luckily, since I'm not tortured by constant exposure to American cable yak shows, I've been spared seeing Dina Matos McGreevey ham it up for the camera about how hurt and betrayed she was.  (This is not to say the hurt and feelings of betrayal aren't sincere, only that a seasoned politician's wife in the middle of negotiating a bitter divorce is naturally going to make sure her presentation of them is blocked, lighted, and cropped to present them in the fashion most flattering to her.  The probability of her delivering an unstudied outpouring of emotion is vanishingly low.)<br />
<br />
As if the happy couple weren't setting new lows for vulgar exhibitionism on their own, the former household staff has apparently now decided to join in.  The information itself is pretty shrug-worthy--you can see people having threesomes on <i>CSI:  Miami</i> at this point...though at least then, one of the participants usually ends up dead and thus incapable of yapping about it to the press years afterward.<br />
<br />
Anyway, it's the reasoning behind this guy's public statements that gets on my nerves:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mr Pedersen said he had only decided to come forward with his claims after seeing Mrs Matos McGreevey criticising Mr Spitzer's behaviour on television.<br />
<br />
"It's frustrating to hear her call Gov Spitzer a hypocrite when she's out there being as dishonest as anyone could be about her own life," he told the New York Post.<br />
<br />
"She's framed herself as a victim - yet she was a willing participant. She had complete control over what happened in her relationship."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Is it now acceptable to air personal secrets, supposedly held in trust with other parties, just because one happens to feel "frustrated" with one of them?  (Don't answer that.)  Ick.  Not that one should be shedding any tears for James McGreevey, of course:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>However, Mr McGreevey, 50, insisted his former driver's claims were true. He said in a statement that he and his wife needed to move forward in their relationship for the sake of their six-year-old daughter.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Ah, yes.  Nothing more salutary for the six-year-old daughter than to have Daddy appearing before the press to confirm that he and Mommy used to get naked with Driver on Friday nights.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1205208015.shtml">
<title>Client 9</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1205208015.shtml</link>
<description>While we were sleeping in East Asia, the Internets back home were humming with news of a new Eliot Spitzer scandal:...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-11T04:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[While we were sleeping in East Asia, the Internets back home were humming with news of a new Eliot Spitzer <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1">scandal</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>As recently as this past Valentine's Day, Feb. 13, Spitzer, who officials say is identified in a federal complaint as "Client 9," arranged for a prostitute "Kristen" to meet him in Washington, D.C.<br />
<br />
The woman met Client 9 at the Mayflower Hotel, room 871, "for her tryst," according to the complaint. Client 9 also is alleged to have paid for the woman's train tickets, cab fare, mini bar and room service, travel time and hotel.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Spitzer, who made his name by bringing high-profile cases against many of New York's financial giants, is likely to be prosecuted under a relatively obscure statute called "structuring," according to a Justice Department official.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Instapundit has, naturally, <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/016367.php">the</a> <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/016371.php">best</a> <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives2/016367.php">round-up</a> of links.<br />
<br />
I think of Spitzer exactly what you'd expect me to think as a libertarian:  he's repugnantly bossy and power-mad, and the showboating way he's strong-armed corporations into disgorging big settlements just ensures that higher costs will be shoved off on rank-and-file consumers.  Should he be driven out of office (it hasn't happened yet, of course) for the hypocrisy of visiting a prostitute after having <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html?ei=5087&em=&en=d0917c3b73427b6a&ex=1205294400&pagewanted=all">gotten</a> all high-minded about operators of a prostitution ring he'd busted as Attorney General, well, what goes around comes around:<br />
<br />
<blockquote> In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.<br />
<br />
"This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure," Mr. Spitzer said at the time. "It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Hypocrisy is an easy charge to throw around glibly.  We all fail to live up to our principles at times; that doesn't mean we aren't genuinely trying to.  It can be very difficult to determine whether someone's hypocrisy involves slipping up at weak moments despite good-faith efforts to behave or (worse, I think we'd all agree) cynically applying laws to others that he doesn't apply to himself.<br />
<br />
But it's hard to sympathize with Spitzer, for whom it's never been enough just to be sanctimonious.  No, he has to be bullying and high-handed about his ability to use whatever office he's holding to make life suck for whomever he's got in the crosshairs.  I assume we'll be listening to his "I'm so very sorry [that I got caught]" routine for a few days before we find out whether he'll be forced out of office for leaving the sort of communication trail he used to warn his enemies against.<br />
<br />
<b>Added later</b>:  Via <a href="http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/03/post_690.html#comments">Eric</a>, Arthur Silber is <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/03/as-ye-sow-so-shall-ye-reapbut-oh.html">suitably unsparing</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Prostitution involving consenting adults cannot defensibly be regarded as a crime. In that sense, Spitzer should never have been targeted at all for that alleged offense. But it is currently illegal, as all basically functioning adults are fully aware. [And whatever else might be said about him, Spitzer appears to be basically functioning. I'll be here all week.] Given Spitzer's unfathomable stupidity -- and in light of the fact that he is now the victim of the kinds of overreaching police state tactics that he himself has endlessly championed and utilized -- this can only be regarded as an instance of an especially objectionable, arrogant, overweening, power-mad, vicious son of a bitch himself getting exactly what he has been delightedly happy to dish out to others.</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1198848985.shtml">
<title>Spaing partners</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1198848985.shtml</link>
<description>Virginia Postrel links to a true story with the kind of happy ending that can literally make you cry: Afghans get a new industry that provides environmentally-sustainable work and...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-12-28T13:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Virginia Postrel <a href="http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002675.html">links</a> to a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/afghans">true story</a> with the kind of happy ending that can literally make you cry:  Afghans get a new industry that provides environmentally-sustainable work and brings cash into the economy...and affluent Americans get access to a broader array of fabulous beauty products!<br />
<br />
Anyone who writes to ask which part moved me more will be ignored.<br />
<br />
Of course, every narrative like this needs a villain to add drama and make our heroine's eventual triumph sweeter, and this story has a great one:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The letter I received from him a few days later confirmed my premonition. It requested a ream of further documentation, such as a breakdown of the raw-materials cost of a bar of soap and our financial accounts from previous years. “Maybe even more importantly,” the letter went on,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>we need to show the real raison d'etre for all of this. It's because there's real demand for your products. Demand is not your problem, Sarah, satisfying it is. You've already established a vibe in the market. You're selling in Manhattan and sundry other swanky places. You've had plenty of free publicity in media with the appropriate reach to capture the attention of the chattering class whose hands you're washing. The wind is now behind you and you've an opportunity to make a significant contribution to establishing Afghanistan as something other than a squalid state exporting only smack and terror. This is what USAID wants to hear.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Peppering this and subsequent communications were colloquialisms like "the first thing we've gotta make plain ..."<br />
<br />
I replied, providing the requested information, but also a statement of frustration. I was swiftly scolded for my tone: "unbusinesslike, unmannerly, and just plain unaesthetic."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Ick.  No one who uses <i>gotta</i> in a business context--who would, indeed, use <i>gotta</i> for any purpose other than transcribing soul lyrics--should be passing judgments on the aesthetic value of someone else's prose.  Especially when he himself appears never to have met a clich&eacute; he didn't like.  Guy should be sentenced to wash with Duane Reade soap ("Compare to Irish Spring!") for the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
Anyway, seriously, Sarah Chayes's piece confirms what you hear elsewhere about funding provided by big-guns organizations for entrepreneurship in developing countries--namely, that it has a way of vaporizing in the pipeline from the West to the target population.  It's a very good read.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://whiteperil.com/posts/1198835572.shtml">
<title>ブット暗殺</title>
<link>http://whiteperil.com/posts/1198835572.shtml</link>
<description>Tokyo has had the same reaction to the Bhutto assassination as the rest of the developed world:...</description>
<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-12-28T09:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Tokyo has <a href="http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/past/honbun.cfm?i=AT2M2703U%2027122007&g=MH&d=20071227">had</a> the same reaction to the Bhutto assassination as the rest of the developed world:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>On the night of 27 December, Minister of Foreign Affairs Masahiko Takamura spoke to the press corps about the assassination of former Prime Minister of Pakistan [Benazir] Bhutto:  "We had hoped that free and fair elections would be conducted; there aren't words to describe the heinousness of using violence to decide such matters."  At the same time, "We fervently hope that Pakistan will ride out this tragedy and [do us all the favor of] treading a path toward democratization.  Japan, too, wishes to support the democratization of Pakistan." <super>*</super></blockquote><br />
<br />
Rondi Adamson <a href="http://wonkitties.blogspot.com/2007/12/hitchens-on-bhuttos-death-and-legacy.html">cites</a> Christopher Hitchens's <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/fr/rss/">reaction</a> in Slate, in which he even-temperedly examines her strengths and weaknesses:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The sternest critic of Benazir Bhutto would not have been able to deny that she possessed an extraordinary degree of physical courage. When her father was lying in prison under sentence of death from Pakistan's military dictatorship in 1979, and other members of her family were trying to escape the country, she boldly flew back in.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The fact of the matter is that Benazir's undoubted courage had a certain fanaticism to it. She had the largest Electra complex of any female politician in modern history, entirely consecrated to the memory of her executed father, the charming and unscrupulous Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had once boasted that the people of Pakistan would eat grass before they would give up the struggle to acquire a nuclear weapon. (He was rather prescient there—the country now does have nukes, and millions of its inhabitants can barely feed themselves.) A nominal socialist, Zulfikar Bhutto was an autocratic opportunist, and this family tradition was carried on by the PPP, a supposedly populist party that never had a genuine internal election and was in fact—like quite a lot else in Pakistan—Bhutto family property.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
This is what makes her murder such a disaster. There is at least some reason to think that she had truly changed her mind, at least on the Taliban and al-Qaida, and was willing to help lead a battle against them. She had, according to some reports, severed the connection with her rather questionable husband. She was attempting to make the connection between lack of democracy in Pakistan and the rise of mullah-manipulated fanaticism.</blockquote><br />
<br />
That's just his view, of course, but it squares with what I remember from reports about her second tenure as prime minister:  Bhutto was politically progressive by study and reasoning but also had the reflexive sense of entitlement and privilege of the daughter of a super-elite family.  Her assassination is a tragedy in any case, but it's doubly unfortunate if she really was beginning to come around to harsh reality.<br />
<br />
<super>*</super>  Japanese readers who click through to the article will notice that I've translated もらう as if it were くれる.  That wasn't a slip--"we will humbly receive the favor of..." didn't quite seem to catch the mood here of dealing with an unstable nuclear power with Muslim radicals in the population.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>