Let's Pretend

Surprise, surprise. The New York Times reported that it is not only politicians at the local and national levels that can drive our cities and our country into bankruptcy. States can go bankrupt, too. And let’s face it: When they do, the federal government will bail them out just as they’ve rushed to prop up every other failure that bureaucrats deemed “too big to fail."

Policymakers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts . . .

'All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,' said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton Administration."[1]

All of a sudden? How this—the fact that state governments are spending like there is no tomorrow—could catch anybody by surprise is bewildering to me. But the most remarkable aspect of this article is its uncritical adoption of the view that is evidently held by the politicians that caused the problems: namely, that things are not what they are until they are spoken of.

For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. . .

It would be difficult to get a bill [addressing state bankruptcy] through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse.[1, emphasis mine.]

So, as long as nobody on Capitol Hill faces his problems—as long as everyone tacitly agrees to “tiptoe” past the mess and avoid talking about it—all is well? This is a glimpse into the nature of the welfare state. Because every policy flies in the face of reality, bureaucrats attempt to craft their own “reality” in the hopes that everyone plays along. (After all, it is absurd to think that “constitutional problems” represent an obstacle for most members of Congress.) The fact that The Times is complicit in this game of pretense is outrageous.

This brings to mind the scene in Atlas Shrugged in which Francisco D’Anconia confronts James Taggart, who is reluctantly shadowing Francisco at his (Taggart’s) wedding reception.

“What in hell do you think you’re saying?” Taggart cried furiously, seeing the tension on the faces around them.

“Be careful, James. If you try to pretend that you don’t understand me, I’m going to make it much clearer.”

“If you think it’s proper to utter such—”

“I think it’s funny. There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they’re afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that’s all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure, with all your laws and guns—just somebody naming the exact nature of what you’re doing?”[2]

NOTES

1. “Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens,” The New York Times, 20 Jan 2011,
“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=tha2&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1295614874-xYaH18gluchcvAIUS3ZkeQ”.

2. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Signet, 1996, orig. 1957), p. 377.

Mahler's Hammer

With a hat tip to Elaine Fine at Musical Assumptions, I found an interesting article by Gene De Lisa on the topic of the hammer blows in Mahler's Sixth Symphony. I love the Sixth Symphony (though the Second is my favorite) and never realized there was a big controversy about the finale--namely, should there be two hammer blows or three? Or . . . five?

Image of Gustav Mahler, from the Baltimore Sun

I suppose the issue would strike many as pedantic and academic, but Gene De Lisa condenses the tale into a few amusing and fascinating paragraphs. (At least, it was fascinating to me.)

I've been drawn to Mahler's music for as long as I remember. His symphonies are enormous--explosions of colors on impossibly large canvases. His songs are intimate, personal. He was the great opera conductor who never wrote an opera himself, yet there is something operatic about much of his work. His life was at a crossroads: By virtue of his music, he was at the threshold between the romantic and the modern; by virtue of his wife (Alma), he was at the intersection of music, art, and architecture (Klimt, Kokoschka, Gropius). This "hammer blow" vignette gives one a glimpse of Mahler's dedication to his craft, his feverish creativity, and unfortunately, the superstitions that haunted him. (Among those superstitions was the dread of composing a Ninth Symphony for fear of dying after completing it, as had happened to Beethoven and Bruckner before him. As it turned out, Mahler died after his Ninth after all, though some sketches of symphonic material were posthumously completed and called the "Tenth Symphony.")

Anyway, if the story doesn't grip you, there is an assortment of hammer blow videos at the end of the post that might! I've added another one below.

It Was Not Yet Clear

In case anyone needed a reminder of the effectiveness of “tolerance” and debate in the face of fanatic killers, the last couple of weeks in Pakistan have produced a few instructive examples for those who care to heed them. On Friday, a dozen gunmen, presumably Taliban, attacked the home of a fifty-year-old female police officer, killing her along with two sons, two daughters, and a daughter-in-law. On Thursday, two police officers were killed by a roadside bomb. On Wednesday, eighteen police officers and six civilians were blown up. And a couple of weeks ago, Salman Taseer, the outspoken liberal governor of Punjab Province, was assassinated, evoking memories of the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007. Taseer was murdered by his own elite security guard, who riddled him with bullets at close range.

If multiculturalism has demonstrated anything, it is that a feeble set of modern ideas--“tolerant,” “democratic,” explicitly anti-ideological, and denying the absolutism of values--is no match for a fanatic ideology bent on destruction. How does one seek appeasement and conciliation with fevered killers who want nothing more than martyrdom? What does it mean to be diplomatic--to “meet halfway”--thugs who wish to murder you because you are free and prosperous, because you think for yourself and speak your mind, because you do not bend your knee to their superstitions?

The weakness of today’s intellectuals can be seen in the reports of Taseer’s murder. This was no ordinary Pakistani official; Mr. Taseer was an outspoken opponent of the blasphemy laws that were put in place during the rule of Mohammad Zia ul-Haq in the 1980’s. A New York Times article noted:

[Taseer] recently took up a campaign to repeal Pakistan’s contentious blasphemy laws, which were passed under General Zia as a way to promote Islam and unite the country. The laws have been misused to convict minority Pakistanis as the Islamic forces unleashed by the general have gathered strength. The laws prescribe a mandatory death sentence for anyone convicted of insulting Islam.[1, emphasis mine.]

The blasphemy laws have been misused? How, in the minds of New York Times reporters, would laws that sentence people to death for insulting Islam be used properly? Would the Times be satisfied if, for instance, the Islamists had more “fairly” distributed the death sentence to non-minorities?

Later in the same article, the reporters demonstrate an astonishing refusal to connect the dots.

[Taseer’s] attacker was identified as Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, an elite-force security guard, who surrendered to the police immediately afterward and implied he had killed the governor because of his campaign to amend the blasphemy laws.

“I am a slave of the Prophet, and the punishment for one who commits blasphemy is death,” he told a television crew from Dunya TV that arrived at the scene shortly after the killing, according to Nasim, Zahra, the director of news at the channel.

It was not yet clear whether he had acted alone or on behalf of some extremist group.[1, again, emphasis mine.]

Not yet clear? What could possibly be more clear than the fact that the assassin acted on behalf of Islam? Perhaps this is what passes for unbiased reporting, but it is the very opposite of objectivity. No objective mind could observe the facts and refuse to judge that Islamic totalitarianism is the motivation, the justification, and the inspiration of not just this murder, but all the other acts of Muslim terrorists for the last thirty years.

As long as the western world continues to placate barbaric murders instead of identifying their nature and confronting them with unapologetic force, we will be threatened. I came across an article describing the stepped-up security of a former minister Sherry Rehman, who is also an outspoken critic of the blasphemy laws and now fears for her safety in the wake of Taseer’s assassination. “The number of policemen deputed to guard Rehman’s home in Karachi was increased,” the report said. [2] Considering the fact that Mr. Taseer was killed by his own guard, it is not obvious to me how increasing the number of Ms. Rehman’s guards makes her safer.

NOTES

1. Salman Masood and Carlotta Gall, “Killing of Governor Deepens Crisis in Pakistan,” The New York Times, 4 Jan 2011, “http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/world/asia/05pakistan.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2”.

2. “Pakistan increases security for former minister Sherry Rehman,” Daily News & Analysis India, 5 Jan 2011, “http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_pakistan-increases-security-for-former-minister-sherry-rehman_1490703”.

Bernanke's Assurances

I didn’t watch the program, but apparently Ben Bernanke appeared on 60 Minutes last night to assure the world that he knows what he is doing. He claimed “’100%’ confidence that he could prevent runaway inflation.”

And how will he do that?

“’We’ve been very, very clear that we will not allow inflation to rise above 2% or less,’ he said. ‘We could raise interest rates in 15 minutes if we have to. So, there really is no problem with raising rates, tightening monetary policy, slowing the economy, reducing inflation, at the appropriate time.’”[1, emphasis mine.]

First of all, I don’t believe for an instant the Fed will stop printing money under any circumstances. But even if we take Bernanke at his word, I am astonished at how brazen and “very, very clear” he is about his use of force and whim to destroy any semblance of a free economy. How can any businessman develop a new product, expand manufacturing facilities, and plan for the future, when the monetary czar actually boasts of his power to impose dictatorial fiat to change the playing field “in fifteen minutes”?

Rational individuals in a free country pursue long-term goals, with the coming years and decades in focus. The economic "stimulus" engineered by Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke discourages anyone from thinking into the future more than a quarter of an hour. And these are the guys who claim to be driving economic recovery! How can anyone miss the inconsistency?

Either Ben Bernanke is insane for thinking this message is actually an assurance . . . or he is crafty enough to know that a perpetually gullible American public will swallow the message whole.

NOTES

1. “Inflation Risk Is Low, Fed Says,” The Wall Street Journal, 6 Dec 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704493004576001792213292076.html.