Elizabeth Warren's Business Buddies

The hat tip goes to Washington Examiner for this Politico piece on Warren's pork habits. Excerpt:

Warren has fought to stop the Army from shifting funds away from a Massachusetts-built communications network to pay for unanticipated costs associated with the war in Afghanistan. She’s lobbied for problem-plagued General Dynamics-made tactical radios. And she’s pledged to protect Westover Air Reserve Base from the budget ax — all while saying she supports “targeted” cuts elsewhere.

It’s a delicate dance in a state where defense giant Raytheon is one of the largest employers and brings in billions of dollars each year in federal contracts.

The freshman Democrat from Massachusetts insists she’s not running for president, despite a movement to draft her. But if she did — and took on front-runner Hillary Clinton — she’d likely face scrutiny over the way she’s balanced her populist views with her sometimes-penchant for pursuing the well-worn practice of pork-barrel politics.

Warren didn’t respond to questions as she walked to a vote in the Capitol, and an aide referred POLITICO to the senator’s spokeswoman, Lacey Rose, who also didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment. But the half-dozen industry insiders who were interviewed painted a picture of a senator who’s willing to advocate for local defense firms but has no relationship with the industry on a national level.

Hmmmm... Raytheon named their popular missile after a native American weapon. So maybe that is the attraction for Fauxcahontas?

Here's what I'm eating. Please send money!

I don't know if anyone noticed, but I had kind of stopped posting on Rod Dreher's incessant nuttiness. I outsourced that job to Keith who is just as insightful, and more entertaining. But Oengus linked to a new post which seems to be an attempt to entice readers to contribute to his magazine by showing them some food which he is eating. Whiskey, tango, fruitcake.



Anymore I skim these things, make an observation and let the rest of you help pick the plate clean. So here's the first comment which made me laugh.

Nick says:
December 19, 2013 at 3:57 pm

Rod, I love your blog. Read it every day. I’d be happy to contribute to your success. But the last time I gave money to TAC in response to one of these donation campaigns, it turned around and published that asinine Jon Huntsman piece on gay “marriage,” one of the worst paean’s to secular humanism and free market idolatry I’ve ever had the misfortune to read.

Since then, I have come to question whether there is really any intellectual coherence at TAC.

I’d like to give to support you, but I’m just not sure what else I’d be giving to. Maybe I should just send you a check personally.

[NFR: No, don't -- send it to the magazine. I didn't like the Jon Huntsman piece either, but I'm glad I work for a magazine that publishes stuff like that. Surely you get more than your fair share of the opposite viewpoint from this blog, yes? Anyway, thanks so much for your support. -- RD]

Observations.

Dreher proclaims that TAC is broadly libertarian, but when regular readers use phrases like free market idolatry you have to wonder what kind of libertarianism they're talking about.

Nick's offer to pay Dreher directly comports with the fact that he pulls at least half the load of web-hits at TAC as we reported earlier.

Nick complains about intellectual incoherence, and Rod gives him more incoherence with his "I didn't like the Jon Huntsman piece either, but I'm glad I work for a magazine that publishes stuff like that." Huh? What if there was a piece extolling the virtues of Wal-mart like George Will did many moons ago? Or something supporting the Iraq War effort? Would any writer at TAC be glad to work for a magazine that publishes "stuff like that"? Of course not. It looks from here like the main support for TAC's existence is taking positions contrary to mainstream conservatives. So they have basically cobbled together a coalition of groups who are at complete odds on some big issues. Thus the resounding dissonance to just about everyone except other hardline contrarians. And they are often short of disposable cash.

TAC probably had to pay their writers this month since it's the Christmas season, so they are groping for sugar daddies. But, man, what a pose. "No, I'm not ideological. I did compose a 10-point manifesto for my first book. But I'm not ideological. I have a sausage wrap, but no ideology. And who really needs coherence anyway?"

I know why Rod had to write this post. It's his alternative to pulling some kind of cheesy stunt like holding up a cardboard sign which says "Will blog for food."

Another Man's Statesmanship

I had promised J-Carp and some others a month ago when this David Brooks piece came out that I would be blogging on it. Part of the reason it has taken me awhile is that I wanted the perfect approach to address what is so laughable about what appears on the surface to be a narration of someone's illness and death from an aggressive form of cancer. I think I found the approach in the article in the fifth paragraph.

Dreher, one of the country’s most interesting bloggers, captured Ruthie’s illness in real time. “It’s so beautiful to see it’s almost painful,” he wrote the night of the [fund-raising] concert, “and so unreal in its generosity that you think it must have been a movie.”

There are two images here and the second one, the likening of the experience to a movie, is worth exploring. Brooks's article is sort of like the review of that movie, but I always preferred TV Guide blurbs to reviews, both to write and to read. Here's my blurb:

Rocked by his sister's sudden death, a struggling writer moves back to the small Southern town of his youth replete with strange and eccentric characters.

That's more of a first impression, I'll admit, and blurbs do little to convey anything but the most general of themes. I'll leave it to others to come up with a title for this blockbuster along with the casting, the front graphic for the Bluray box, etc.

Another aspect of film is changing a story to ensure correspondence of the content to the targeted audience. This is a family drama, I assume, about at least somewhat religious people, so I'm thinking that the character of the one-legged stripper would be either greatly moderated to a more standard floozy of the Violet Bick variety or simply left on the floor of the cutting room.

I think this character would have to be considered by the screen writers and not simply ignored since she is mentioned by the protagonist of the film in, not one, but four separate blog posts. This was all at the time of his sister's funeral. Do you know what the word obsession means, boys and girls? Then he brings it up again in November in a Sunday opinion article for the Dallas Morning News which I'm pretty sure gets more readership than the American Conservative, lest anyone miss it who follows Rod Dreher slightly like Pikkumatti. Here's the pertinent excerpt:

After Ruthie died, I was drinking beer (again) with her friends. Somebody brought up the one-legged stripper at the redneck bar just over the state line in Mississippi. Holy Flannery O’Connor, I thought, this is too good to be true. Then someone pulled his BlackBerry out and showed us all a photo of the half-naked woman, hanging off the pole, rocking that one leg.

“Yeah, I’d heard about her,” an old man said. “Ol’ Terry, he went up there one time and asked for a lap dance. Her leg come off. He was kind of surprised by that.”

I listened to this and thought: Why, exactly, am I living outside the South?

Stop reading for a moment and think about that. Let it sink in.

Yeah, good ol' Terry.

I didn't realize that in the south that a man can indulge in pornography, and as long as the woman providing you with her services is crippled, all is forgiven. Charity, right? Neat.

There is a link on that page that reads Rod Dreher: Reliving the sacrifice of Christ, through modern-day martyrs. This writer claims to represent Christianity as well as Conservatism. Are the modern day Christian martyrs into lap dances?

I mentioned that a movie was the second image from that paragraph. The first image is brought up by Brooks when he writes "Dreher, one of the country’s most interesting bloggers, captured Ruthie’s illness in real time." It was initially the word captured which captured my attention. For some reason I thought about the famous incident where a tiger attacked Roy Horn of Siegfried and Roy fame. I would argue that things roaming wild and free in the world may be captured and used for a good purpose, but I would also argue that parading those things around in front of large crowds might not be a good purpose. In fact, it could be ultimately dangerous to the one holding the leash although, for a time, the captor may become materially enriched by the parading.

This is probably a good point at which to mention that the title of this blog post was taken from a quote by Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist who is mentioned at the end of Brooks's piece. You may want to Google it for the full quote. The insinuation is made that Friedman is not "communitarian" like the two hundred or so readers of The American Conservative. I guess he wasn't known for his backyard cookouts or play-by-play accounts of the illnesses of family members.

To me, everything in this whole episode reaffirms the incoherence of the reactionary alternative "conservatisms" which have been advanced by quasi-intellectuals in recent decades. Crunchy Conservatism is the poster boy for these, and falls apart upon close examination as fast as James Brown's most famous lyric. You preach about a locally grown diet, but you publicly rejoice when le Beaujolais Nouveau est arrivé. You prattle about getting away from technology and big business, but then coo about listening to Diana Krall on your iPod while your wife has a C-section. You lament the skankification of Miley Cyrus, yet you obsessively mention a one-legged stripper in close conjunction to the funeral of your sister. And relative to that topic, you express your anxiousness to move back close to where you can drink beer with buddies who carry around pictures of her engaged in her art.

This is the very essence of incoherence and to me bears no resemblance to Christianity or conservatism. Why would anyone take this man seriously on his pet religious topics when he fails to set a good example on the most basics virtues? Especially given that there is so much available to read elsewhere? Would a good Pagan or a good Jew talk about the glories of a strip joint which posted the sign "Tits for Tots" at Christmas?? I hope all the Catholic bloggers and others who had oodles or praise for Rod Dreher when Crunchy Conservatism came out are feeling more and more uncomfortable about ever having defended and endorsed this guy. Sure, no one is perfect and we should judge a man by the totality of his actions. But in this man's case, I see the totality getting darker and darker.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Fun Facts about John Templeton

From John Templeton's wikipedia page:

Templeton became a billionaire by pioneering the use of globally diversified mutual funds. His Templeton Growth, Ltd. (investment fund), established in 1954, was among the first who invested in Japan in the middle of the 1960s.[8] He is noted for buying 100 shares of each company for less than $1 ($15 in current dollar terms) a share in 1939 and making many times the money back in a 4 year period. In 2006 he was listed in a 7-way tie for 129th place on the Sunday Times Rich List. He rejected technical analysis for stock trading, preferring instead to use fundamental analysis. Money magazine in 1999 called him "arguably the greatest global stock picker of the century”. He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1968, thus avoiding U.S. income taxes. He had dual naturalized Bahamian and British citizenship and lived in the Bahamas.

A regular St. Benedict, John T was.

Templeton attributed much of his success to his ability to maintain an elevated mood, avoid anxiety and stay disciplined.

No pessimism for Mr. T!

Uninterested in consumerism, he drove his own car[.]

Hey! Just like me! I'm completely uninterested in "consumerism", whatever meaning the word possesses currently in the coffee klatcheries. Plus—as unbelievable as it might sound to you—I drive my own automobile! (Yeah, I know... but it turned out that the car-jacking was just a phase and I didn't even need the therapy sessions.)

As a member of the Presbyterian Church, Templeton was dedicated to his faith. However, Templeton remained open to the benefits and values of other faiths. Commenting on his commitment to what he called spiritual progress, “But why shouldn't I try to learn more? Why shouldn't I go to Hindu services? Why shouldn't I go to Muslim services? If you are not egotistical, you will welcome the opportunity to learn more." Similarly, one of the major goals of the Templeton Foundation is to proliferate the monetary support of spiritual discoveries. The Templeton Foundation encourages research into "big questions" by awarding philanthropic aide to institutions and people who pursue the answers to such questions through "explorations into the laws of nature and the universe, to questions on the nature of love, gratitude, forgiveness, and creativity."

Did this guy invent Beliefnet? Read this excerpt from a Slate piece entitled "God's Venture Capitalist", then you tell me:

The octogenarian Templeton has always been a devout Christian. (His own faith marries the strict Presbyterianism of his childhood with a sunny Norman Vincent Peale-y optimism.) But his genius as a philanthropist is secular: He brings capitalist hucksterism to religious charity. Templeton has transformed philanthropy into marketing, his own name into a brand. His earliest venture set the tone. In 1972, he inaugurated the annual Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion to remedy the Nobel Foundation's omission of religion. His brilliant stroke was to brag that his prize would be worth more than the Nobel, thus ensuring lavish press coverage. The first award went to Mother Teresa (six years before her Nobel Peace Prize. He has raised the prize's profile by awarding it to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Billy Graham, and Watergate-burglar-turned-minister Charles Colson. (The Templeton Prize helped its founder win a knighthood in 1987. In the '60s, Templeton had moved to the Bahamas--a tax haven--abandoned his U.S. citizenship, and become a British subject.)

So much for rootedness. But sounds like a good chap for a billionaire. And I'm sure he liked granola, even though he didn't wear a beard.


Obviously his philanthropic spirit still reaches out from the grave to help those in dire need. And we can all follow his example by driving our own cars and studying Hinduism, even if we don't possess the moral superiority, the chutzpah or the financial independence necessary to renounce our U.S. citizenship.

Bill Donohue Exposes Michael Moore's Inconsistency

You need a pretty sharp implement to cut through the blubber of Film Industrialist Michael Moore. Bill Donohue's incisive writing does the trick.

Capitalism has been kind to Moore. He lives in a waterfront mansion with a private beach, one that is so lily-white that not a single black person lives there. This is not by accident. Though he exclaimed in his film “Stupid White Men” that he plans to “hire only black people,” author Peter Schweizer found that of the 134 producers, editors, cinematographers, composers and production coordinators that Moore hired, only three were black.

Moore says it is anti-Christian not to divide the pie fairly. So what would that make him? Oh, yes, he does contribute to soup kitchens. Too bad he doesn’t actually employ the poor—then he could shelve the Campbell’s. In 2002, his charitable donations amounted to $36,000. Sounds like a lot until we learn that he made eight figures that year. One more thing: he ran his donations through his private foundation, a capitalist-created scheme designed to protect fat cats from paying their fair share of taxes.

The next time a social justice Christian brags about his commitment to the poor, ask him to open his own books. Transparency is so beautiful.

For a little review on the famed business magnate's portfolio, here's something from the Newsmax archive courtesy of Peter Schweizer which showcase Moore's investments in big oil, big pharma and big defense contracting.

Jeff Miller nails what stinks about the Notre Dame protester arrests

In a plea to Notre Dame to drop the charges against those protesting the honoring of pro-abortion President Obama at a Catholic University, Jeff Miller elucidates the primary incongruity about the arrests.

What gets me about the arrest of the pro-lifers is a couple of things. One Fr. Jenkins decided he could give his own interpretation on what the Bishops said regarding honoring pro-abortion politicians. He has not followed the provisions in Church documents such as Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Yet when it comes to a Notre Dame law in regards to protests - that is hard and fast dogma with no mercy or change possible. Dialog is so much talked about, but making allowances for pro-lifers to peacefully protest is another story. The way that these protesters were treated is sad beyond belief. Handcuffing a elderly priest for the crime of protesting what 80 some bishops said should never have allowed is a sad indictment. Really what should have happened is that the protests should have been given permission in the first place.

I really can't put this any better. The incident demonstrates a strict adherence to "laws of men" alongside a calculated laxity with regard to those in the church with teaching authority, and that's putting Fr. Jenkins's contortions in the best light possible. It's more likely that Jenkins is being a typical liberal which implies any of his liberality is selectively applied. It's also extremely stupid on Jenkins's part. People are going to remember the maltreatment of an octagenarian priest long after they've forgotten the President's why-can't-we-all-get-along speech.