Sunday, November 3, 2013

Fixing California: The Green Gentry’s Class Warfare. By Joel Kotkin.

Fixing California: The Green Gentry’s Class Warfare. By Joel Kotkin. New Geography, October 28, 2013. Also at JoelKotkin.com.

The Rise of Tory America. By Joel Kotkin. NJBR, March 25, 2013. With related articles.

Joel Kotkin Vs. California’s Green Gentry. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 6, 2013.


Kotkin:

Historically, progressives were seen as partisans for the people, eager to help the working and middle classes achieve upward mobility even at expense of the ultrarich. But in California, and much of the country, progressivism has morphed into a political movement that, more often than not, effectively squelches the aspirations of the majority, in large part to serve the interests of the wealthiest.
 
Primarily, this modern-day program of class warfare is carried out under the banner of green politics. The environmental movement has always been primarily dominated by the wealthy, and overwhelmingly white, donors and activists. But in the past, early progressives focused on such useful things as public parks and open space that enhance the lives of the middle and working classes. Today, green politics seem to be focused primarily on making life worse for these same people.
 
In this sense, today’s green progressives, notes historian Fred Siegel, are most akin to late 19th century Tory radicals such as William Wordsworth, William Morris and John Ruskin, who objected to the ecological devastation of modern capitalism, and sought to preserve the glories of the British countryside. In the process, they also opposed the “leveling” effects of a market economy that sometimes allowed the less-educated, less well-bred to supplant the old aristocracies with their supposedly more enlightened tastes.
 
The green gentry today often refer not to sentiment but science — notably climate change — to advance their agenda. But their effect on the lower orders is much the same. Particularly damaging are steps to impose mandates for renewable energy that have made electricity prices in California among the highest in the nation and others that make building the single-family housing preferred by most Californians either impossible or, anywhere remotely close to the coast, absurdly expensive.
 
The gentry, of course, care little about artificially inflated housing prices in large part because they already own theirs — often the very large type they wish to curtail. But the story is less sanguine for minorities and the poor, who now must compete for space with middle-class families traditionally able to buy homes. Renters are particularly hard hit; according to one recent study, 39 percent of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, as do 35 percent in the San Francisco metro area — well above the national rate of 24 percent.
 
Similarly, high energy prices may not be much of a problem for the affluent gentry most heavily concentrated along the coast, where a temperate climate reduces the need for air-conditioning. In contrast, most working- and middle-class Californians who live further inland, where summers can often be extremely hot, and often dread their monthly energy bills.
 
The gentry are also spared the consequences of policies that hit activities — manufacturing, logistics, agriculture, oil and gas — most directly impacted by higher energy prices. People with inherited money or Stanford degrees have not suffered much because since 2001 the state has created roughly half the number of mid-skilled jobs — those that generally require two years of training after high-school — as quickly as the national average and one-tenth as fast as similar jobs in archrival Texas.
 
In the past, greens and industry battled over such matters, which led often to reasonable compromises preserving our valuable natural resources while allowing for broad-based economic expansion. During good economic times, the regulatory vise tended to tighten, as people worried more about the quality of their environment and less about jobs. But when things got tough — as in the early 1990s — efforts were made to loosen up in order to produce desperately needed economic growth.
 
But in today’s gentry-dominated era, traditional industries are increasingly outspent and out maneuvered by the gentry and their allies. Even amid tough times in much of the state since the 2007 recession — we are still down nearly a half-million jobs — the gentry, and their allies, have been able to tighten regulations. Attempts even by Gov. Jerry Brown to reform the California Environmental Quality Act have floundered due in part to fierce gentry and green opposition.
 
The green gentry’s power has been enhanced by changes in the state’s legendary tech sector. Traditional tech firms — manufacturers such as Intel and Hewlett-Packard — shared common concerns about infrastructure and energy costs with other industries. But today tech manufacturing has shrunk, and much of the action in the tech world has shifted away from building things, dependent on energy, to software-dominated social media, whose primary profits increasingly stem from selling off the private information of users. Servers critical to these operations — the one potential energy drain — can easily be placed in Utah, Oregon or Washington where energy costs are far lower.
 
Even more critical, billionaires such as Google’s Eric Schmidt, hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer and venture firms like Kleiner Perkins have developed an economic stake in “green” energy policies. These interests have sought out cozy deals on renewable energy ventures dependent on regulations mandating their use and guaranteeing their prices.
 
Most of these gentry no doubt think what they are doing is noble. Few concern themselves with the impact these policies have on more traditional industries, and the large numbers of working- and middle-class people dependent on them. Like their Tory predecessors, they are blithely unconcerned about the role these policies are playing in accelerating California’s devolution into an ever more feudal society, divided between the ultrarich and a rapidly shrinking middle class.
 
Ironically, the biggest losers in this shift are the very ethnic minorities who also constitute a reliable voter block for Democratic greens. Even amid the current Silicon Valley boom, incomes for local Hispanics and African-Americans, who together account for one-third of the population, have actually declined — 18 percent for blacks and 5 percent for Latinos between 2009 and 2011, prompting one local booster to admit that “Silicon Valley is two valleys. There is a valley of haves, and a valley of have-nots.”
 
Sadly, the opposition to these policies is very weak. The California Chamber of Commerce is a fading force and the state Republican Party has degenerated into a political rump. Business Democrats, tied to the traditional industrial and agricultural base, have become nearly extinct, as the social media oligarchs and other parts of the green gentry, along with the public employee lobby, increasingly dominate the party of the people. Some recent efforts to tighten the regulatory knot in Sacramento have been resisted, helped by the governor and assisted by the GOP, but the basic rule-making structure remains, and the government apparat remains highly committed to an ever more expansive planning regime.
 
Due to the rise of the green gentry, California is becoming divided between a largely white and Asian affluent coast, and a rapidly proletarianized, heavily Hispanic and African-American interior. Palo Alto and Malibu may thrive under the current green regime, and feel good about themselves in the process, but south Los Angeles, Oakland, Fresno and the Inland Empire are threatened with becoming vast favelas.
 
This may constitute an ideal green future — with lower emissions, population growth and family formation — for whose wealth and privilege allow them to place a bigger priority on nature than humanity. But it also means the effective end of the California dream that brought multitudes to our state, but who now may have to choose between permanent serfdom or leaving for less ideal, but more promising, pastures.


Michael Bloomberg: Society Will Be Demanding More Than the Average Person Can Learn.

Michael Bloomberg on the past and future of New York. Interviewed by Fareed Zakaria. GPS. CNN, November 3, 2013. Video at the Internet Archive. Bloomberg interview starts at clip 36:00.

In Conversation: Michael Bloomberg. By Chris Smith. New York Magazine, September 7, 2013.

Michael Bloomberg: Higher Education Demands More Resources. Video. Time, September 20, 2013. YouTube.




Tyler Cowen’s Future Shock: No More Average People. By Michael Barone. NJBR, October 8, 2013. With related articles.

Average Is Over. By Tyler Cowen. NJBR, September 7, 2013. With related articles and video.

Was America’s Prosperity an Accident of History? By Benjamin Wallace-Wells. NJBR, July 22, 2013. With related articles and videos.


Bloomberg/Zakaria Transcript:

ZAKARIA: How do you make a city thrive and survive in today’s economy?
 
With all the challenges that the economy has today, what do you think the key to the success of a city is?
 
BLOOMBERG: It has to be open to everyone. A very diverse population really makes a big difference. You have to have a raison d’etre. The city has got to have a spirit and a reason why people want to go there and live there.
 
And one of the problems with Washington, DC is everybody lives there, but they look out. They never think they're going to stay there for the rest of their lives. They’re always waiting to go home.
 
New York City or other great cities, people want to come there. And today, there are many people that are moving to New York City than leaving for the first time in decades. We have more tourists than ever before. More people have jobs than ever before.
 
And that creates a dynamic place where the best and the brightest want to be.
 
And if the best and the brightest want to be there, they’ll create and generate a tax base so that you can take care of the less fortunate.
 
But the real key – and it’s not a populist thing to say – not popular to say, because it’s not populist, but you have to have the wherewithal, those people who are willing to think out of the box try new things, start new businesses, take risks, if you're ever going to have a future.
 
Otherwise, you do the same thing. And if you do the same thing, we know where that ends, not prettily.
 
ZAKARIA: You’ve also talked about how it’s very important for a city like New York to have a bunch of very rich people so you could tax them . . .
 
BLOOMBERG: Sure. Sure.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
(CROSSTALK)
 
ZAKARIA: You are . . .
 
BLOOMBERG: A very small . . .
 
ZAKARIA: – unapologetic about that.
 
BLOOMBERG: No, very small – well, the fact of the matter is a very small percentage of the people pay the preponderance of the taxes. And if you don’t want the tax revenue, then you can lose those people. But if you want to have the ability to go and invest in infrastructure, invest in cultural institutions, have social programs that can really help people who are less fortunate, you have to have the dynamic drive, the people that are creative and the revenue. and that comes from people who do well. And in our city, the poor actually are a little bit better than the poor in other big cities. But the real reason for this great inequality, as people describe it, or gap in income, is we have been very successful in attracting the very, very wealthy. Those come here and they spend money and they create businesses.
 
And they can go elsewhere, as they are very mobile. They’re the one group that has the resources to go.
 
But interestingly enough, if you were to take the top 20 percent out and look at just the 80 percent that’s left, the income or net worth is 100 percent correlated to academic achievement. And more and more, we are going to be facing the fact that the demands for society are greater and perhaps greater than we can teach or the average person can learn.
 
And how that works out, I don’t know. But it is – it is clear that if you have a better education and if you can be more creative, you will do better. And if you don’t, then, unfortunately, well – you’re going to be struggling.
 
ZAKARIA: What are you worried about when you look at New York after Bloomberg?
 
What are you worried about being undone or a legacy that, you know, of government that will be perhaps eroded or atrophied?
 
What . . .
 
BLOOMBERG: Well, I think most of the things we've done, hopefully, if we’ve done a good job, will stay in place. Yesterday, I was in London. The weather was nice, so you think better of any city when the sun is shining. But London is a real competitor to New York.
 
And we’ve got to understand if I we were to stop improving, stop diversifying, stop investing, we will get pushed back and other places will take over. I was in Paris the day before and I had dinner with some people, all of whom talked about all their friends moving out of – out of Paris and out of France because the tax rates are so high.
 
Those are the people who are going to create the jobs and pay the taxes down the road.
 
You can’t – you can’t hold the waves from coming in. You’ve got to keep making your society open and you’ve got to keep providing opportunities.
 
But if you start to focus on equal results rather than equal opportunity, unfortunately, you start to dumb everything down. And if you do that, you’re going to get hopelessly left behind.


Plutocrats vs. Populists. By Chrystia Freeland.

Plutocrats vs. Populists. By Chrystia Freeland. New York Times, November 1, 2013.

Why is Chrystia Freeland leaving journalism to run for office? By Ezra Klein. Washington Post, August 16, 2013. Also here.

Retooling capitalism for the social good. By Chrystia Freeland. Reuters, July 19, 2013.

Mysteries of the middle class. By Chrystia Freeland. Reuters, June 28, 2013.

The Rise of the New Global Elite and the Crisis of the Middle Class. NJBR, February 14, 2013. Articles by Freeland and others.

Jeremy Lin, Superstar Economics, and the Culture of Aspiration. NJBR, February 19, 2013. Articles by Freeland and others.


Freeland (Plutocrats):

Plutocratic politics have much to recommend them. They are pure, smart and focused. But at a time when society as a whole is riven by an ever widening economic chasm, policy delivered from on high can get you only so far. Voters on both the right and the left are suspicious of whether the plutocrats and the technocrats they employ understand their real needs, and whether they truly have their best interests at heart. That rift means we should all brace ourselves for more extremist politics and a more rancorous political debate.
 
Where does that leave smart centrists with their clever, fact-based policies designed to fine-tune 21st century capitalism and make it work better for everyone?
 
Part of the problem is that no one has yet come up with a fully convincing answer to the question of how you harness the power of the technology revolution and globalization without hollowing out middle-class jobs. Liberal nanny-state paternalism, as it has been brilliantly described and practiced by Cass R. Sunstein and like-minded thinkers, can help, as can shoring up the welfare state. But neither is enough, and voters are smart enough to appreciate that. Even multiple nudges won’t make 21st-century capitalism work for everyone. Plutocrats, as well as the rest of us, need to rise to this larger challenge, to find solutions that work on the global scale at which business already operates.
 
The other task is to fully engage in retail, bottom-up politics — not just to sell those carefully thought-through, data-based technocratic solutions but to figure out what they should be in the first place. The Tea Party was able to steer the Republican Party away from its traditional country-club base because its anti-establishment rage resonated better with all of the grass-roots Republican voters who are part of the squeezed middle class. Mr. de Blasio will be the next mayor of New York because he built a constituency among those who are losing out and those who sympathize with them. Politics in the winner-take-all economy don’t have to be extremist and nasty, but they have to grow out of, and speak for, the 99 percent. The pop-up political movements that come so naturally to the plutocrats won’t be enough.


Law of the Jungle Not Good Enough. By Fareed Zakaria.

Law of the jungle not good enough. By Fareed Zakaria. GPS. CNN, November 2, 2013.

The Postmodern State and the World Order. By Robert Cooper. Demos, January 2000. Also here.

Re-ordering the World: The Long-Term Implications of September 11. Edited by Mark Leonard. The Foreign Policy Centre, March 2002. Also here.




Netanyahu: Palestinian Denial of Jews’ Right to Statehood Is Core of Conflict. By Herb Keinon.

Netanyahu: Palestinian denial of Jews’ right to statehood is core of conflict. By Herb Keinon. Jerusalem Post, November 3, 2013. YouTube.

The Balfour Declaration and the Holocaust. By Dmitry Shumsky. Haaretz, November 3, 2013.

Balfour Declaration crime against humanity. By Mohammed Mar’i. Saudi Gazette, November 3, 2013.


Keinon:

A day after the Palestinian Authority called the Balfour Declaration “a crime against humanity” and called upon Britain to apologize for it, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the Palestinian refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s right to a homeland is the root of the ongoing conflict.
 
The Balfour declaration, a letter written 96 years ago on November 2 by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild, called for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
 
“That declaration recognized the right of the Jewish people to its own homeland in Israel,” Netanyahu said Sunday at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting. “There is no doubt that international recognition of the Jewish people’s right to its own state in its historic homeland is important; the refusal to recognize us is the root of the conflict.”
 
Netanyahu said that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, they needed to recognize the Jewish people's right to a state in its homeland. This means that in a final status agreement they will need to relinquish their so-called right of return and all other claims on Israel, he added.
 
The Saudi Gazette reported that on Saturday, the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the Palestinian Ministry of Information issued a statement saying the Palestinian people were “paying the price of the biggest political crime in contemporary history,” and that the  declaration was “a mark of shame on humanity.”
 
The ministry said that the declaration “began the Zionists’ process of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from their homeland, which continues until today.”
 
It added that “Britain and the entire world must recognize the usurped Palestinian rights because everything that has befallen Palestine – it’s partition, the aggression, the suppression, the settlements, the arrests, the separation wall, the siege on Gaza, and the millions of Palestinians living in exile – was made possible because of the Balfour Declaration.”
 
The Palestinian Ministry of Information’s English website on Thursday wrote that Balfour Declaration “continues to serve as the bases for a racial discrimination system forcibly inflicted on Palestine and the Palestinians putting former South Africa Apartheid regime to shame.
 
“To add injury to the insult,” the statement continued, “many of the superpowers continue supporting the Israeli occupation to the cradle of Christianity and sacred shrines of Islam, an occupation disgraced with flagrant violations to human rights and democracy.” No mention was made of Israel's importance to Judaism.
 
Netanyahu did not refer to the Palestinian statement during his comments Sunday to the cabinet. He did stress, however, that any agreement with the Palestinians would necessitate the Jordan River remaining Israel’s “security border.” Israel’s demand that the IDF retain a security presence along the Jordan River is believed to be one of the major sticking points in the current negotiations with the Palestinians.
 
Netanyahu also related to Iran during his comments, saying the Islamic Republic continues calling for Israel's destruction. He pointed out that Monday marks the 34th anniversary to the Iranians taking over the US embassy in Teheran, a day marked in Iran as “Death to America Day.”
 
“This makes clear that what needs to be done is to continue the pressure on Iran,” he said. “The pressure is what brought them to the negotiations, and I am convinced that if the pressure is sustained, and not weakened, Iran will dismantle its military nuclear capability, but if the pressure is weakened, Iran will progress toward that goal.”
 
Netanyahu stressed that Israel was committed to preventing Iran from achieving their goal of nuclear weapons.




Gideon Levi: I Hate “Settlers,” and I’m Proud of It. By David Lev.

Gideon Levi: I Hate “Settlers,” and I’m Proud of It. By David Lev. Arutz Sheva 7, November 8, 2012.

Lev:

In an interview with business daily Globes, veteran Ha’aretz editor Gideon Levi talks about his feelings regarding Jews who have made their homes in Judea and Samaria. Bottom line: Levi hates them.
 
“It’s not just that they bother me. I actually have feelings of hatred towards them,” Levi proudly told Globes. “I am a very emotional person. They embarrass me, they mock me, they devalue me with the things they do, with their very presence.”
 
In the interview, Levi discussed his work as one of the most leftwing journalists at Israel’s leftwing daily, who has made a career of writing negative articles targeting Jews who embrace Zionism and the Land of Israel. “I was a good boy who did everything properly. In high school I was the most well-behaved kid in the world. But in my travels I began to write about the occupied territories and what I saw there,” said Levi, describing Judea and Samaria as some sort of far-off colony, instead of just a few miles away from his Tel Aviv home. “Over the years I have seen many terrible things, that have made me the journalist I am today.”
 
Levi said that, traveling through Judea and Samaria, that “something big” was happening – and he didn’t like it. “There was something dramatic and serious going on, and nobody was writing about it,” Levi said. “There grew up a phenomenon in Israel of sweeping things under the rug. Nobody was covering the occupation. Since I do not see myself as part of the choir and do not like to do what others do, I said to myself that if there is something major going on that no one else is covering, that is where I should be.”
 
Ironically, despite his protestations of anti-establishment independence, Levi has been employed for decades at Ha’aretz, the epitome of Israeli establishment journalism, and has won three European and international journalism awards.
 
And despite claims of being an objective journalist, Levi said that his attitude to Jews living in Judea and Samaria, and the way he writes about them, “is obviously a personal reaction. There are many things that I detest, and I do not hide it. I believe that they are immoral. There is no way I can find a way to communicate with them, to come to a meeting of the minds.”

Jewish and Democratic Is the Way for Israel. By Shaul Arieli.

Jewish and democratic is indeed the way. By Shaul Arieli. Haaretz, November 1, 2013.

Jewish and then democratic. By Roni Schocken. Haaretz, August 27, 2013.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Is the Tea Party Really All About Alger Hiss? By Walter Russell Mead.

Is the Tea Party Really All About Alger Hiss? By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 2, 2013.

How the Alger Hiss Case Explains the Tea Party. By Cass R. Sunstein. Bloomberg, October 29, 2013.

Mead:

The Tea Party is a huge intellectual problem for blue model liberals. It sprang up out of nowhere, it lacks a formal leadership structure, and despite many obituaries in the MSM, it remains a significant force in the Republican Party and in American politics as a whole. It is everything Occupy Wall Street hoped to become, and the MSM did everything possible to make OWS flourish. It was hailed as a movement of historic impact, the start of a global trend, one of those epochal developments after which nothing will ever be the same—and it guttered out ignominiously.
 
The Tea Party, on the other hand, has flourished despite non-stop efforts to smother it in the media. While its record is mixed and, from a Democratic point of view not all bad (arguably, without unqualified Tea Party-backed candidates, the GOP would now have control of the Senate), its persistence annoys. It is almost as if the MSM’s power to shape American politics is on the wane.
. . . .
 
This is a surprisingly lame ending to the piece. After all, if Chambers’ attack on the Ivy League “reflected an important strand in American culture,” then the Tea Party must have deeper roots than one half-forgotten cause célèbre. It’s also not clear what he means by the reference to false accusations against liberals for holding positions that they abhor. Is that what Sunstein thinks the Tea Party is about? That if those unfortunate and paranoid folks understood liberals better, they would oppose them less?
 
There are some tinfoil hat types out there who think that President Obama and his cohorts are hiding Qu’rans in the White House and looking to introduce both socialism and Sharia as soon as they can. Nut jobs on both the left and the right and all kinds of cranky positions in between are an enduring part of American politics. But if Sunstein thinks that this is the energy that powers the Tea Party, he is very far from understanding either this phenomenon or American politics as a whole.
 
The Tea Party is mostly something much more conventional: a libertarian, small government protest against the centralization of federal power, and a populist resentment of snooty Ivy League professors who think the common people aren’t very smart. We’ve had these movements in America ever since colonial times; when Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams’ re-election bid in 1828, the 19th century forerunners of the Tea Party were in full cry.
 
We aren’t seeing a right-leaning populist surge today because of Alger Hiss; we are seeing it because many Americans believe that President Obama’s liberal and technocratic agenda represents a threat to a way of life they value. We are seeing it because many Americans blame the establishment of both parties both for the financial crisis and for the vast transfer of resources to the wealthy that came after the crash. We are seeing it because whether you look at foreign or domestic policy, the technocratic suggestions of the Great and the Good have not been helping ordinary Americans much for the last 20 years.
 
Via Meadia isn’t a Tea Party house organ, and any tea parties at the stately Mead manor are more about Earl Grey than Ayn Rand. But we don’t think Tea Partiers are wrong to see President Obama’s political goals as fundamentally opposed to their own vision of what America should be. They aren’t angry because they are stupid, and deep disagreement with technocratic liberalism is not a mental disease.
 
Some zealous Tea Partiers put two and two together and get eight, giving the Obama administration and its liberal backers credit for more foresight and cunning than they possess. There were those in 1800 who thought that John Adams was planning to introduce a monarchy into the United States. There were those on the right who thought that Franklin Roosevelt was a socialist; there were those on the left who thought Ronald Reagan was a fascist and that Margaret Thatcher hated poor people. But to confound a major current of American politics with the lunatic fringe is not a recipe for healing the nation or even for helping your side put some points on the board. There are birthers in the Tea Party, but the Tea Party is not the voice of birtherism.
 
But Professor Sunstein does have a point. The Hiss case was not a cause of the Tea Party, or even of the anti-intellectual tradition in American politics that Richard Hofstader analyzed in the early 1960s. It was, however, a prominent manifestation of the class snobbery and intolerance that so often shapes elite liberal responses to political events and that so frequently fills so many Americans with loathing and disgust.
. . . .
 
Liberal apologists for Hiss do bear some significant responsibility for the virulent anti-Communism of Joseph McCarthy and his ilk. Seeing so many powerful liberals defend an obvious traitor and deny the possibility that Communists were active in the FDR and Truman administrations drove many people to embrace McCarthy and other overzealous investigators. Blacklists and anti-Communist hysteria (as opposed to rational and necessary anti-Communist vigilance) must be laid in part at the door of the vain and feckless liberals who let the country down in a critical time.
 
If Professor Sunstein is hoping to launch a broader conversation among liberals about ways their own missteps have contributed to American polarization, then I certainly wish him the best. But it’s important to remember that the kind of behavior so painfully on display in the Hiss era is still with us today; it was not all that long ago that those who doubted that President Obama’s plans for humanitarian intervention in Syria constituted a masterful plan for ending the mass death were dismissed as raving loons and partisan hacks.

Slaves as Burial Gifts in Viking Age Norway? By Elise Naumann et al.

Slaves as burial gifts in Viking Age Norway? Evidence from stable isotope and ancient DNA analyses. By Elise Naumann, Maja Krzewińska, Anders Götherström, and Gunilla Eriksson. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 41, No. 1 (January 2014). Also here.

Abstract:

Ten Viking Age individuals from the northern Norwegian site at Flakstad were analysed for δ13C, δ15N and ancient mitochondrial DNA fragments. The material derives from both single and multiple burials with individuals treated in different ways. The genetic analyses show that the individuals buried together were unlikely to be maternally related, and stable isotope analyses suggest different strata of society. It is, therefore, suggested that slaves may have been offered as grave gifts at Flakstad. A comparison with the remaining population from single graves shows that the presumed slaves had a diet similar to that of the common population, whereas the high status individuals in multiple graves had a diet different from both slaves and the common population. The results provide an insight into the subsistence of different social groups in a Viking Age society, exposing unexpected patterns of living conditions and food distribution.


Vikings Beheaded, Buried Slaves as “Grave Gifts,” New Study Suggests. By Meredith Bennett-Smith. The Huffington Post, November 1, 2013.

Viking Graves Yield Grisly Find: Sacrificed Slaves. By Tia Ghose. LiveScience, October 30, 2013.

Odd tale of headless Norse men: Slaves buried with masters. By Traci Watson. USA Today, September 24, 2013.


This Viking man, in his 20s, was buried with a headless woman,
who was in her 20s or 30s. Elise Naumann.



Friday, November 1, 2013

The Slow Death of American Defense. By Robert Kaplan.

The Slow Death of American Defense. By Robert Kaplan. Real Clear World, October 31, 2013.

Ralph Peters Makes the Case for Israel. By Susie Davidson.

Ralph Peters Makes the Case for Israel. By Susie Davidson. The Algemeiner, October 29, 2013. Also at JNS.org.

Davidson:

NEWTON, Mass.—One might refer to retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters as a military Renaissance man. The strategic analyst for Fox News has authored 29 books and novels, including “Cain at Gettysburg,” which earlier this year earned him the W.Y. Boyd Literary Award for Excellence in Military Fiction from the American Library Association.
 
A Pennsylvania native of Welsh and German descent and the son of a coal miner and unsuccessful businessman, Peters is also a vocal supporter of Israel whose career success has been colored by Jewish formative influences.
 
“I started reading about Maimonides and other Jewish figures,” he told JNS.org. “And when I was at Penn State [University] becoming a writer, Jewish teachers took extra time with me—they saw something.”
 
In an Oct. 23 briefing in Newton, Mass., organized by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) in memory of General Counsel David Wolf, Peters urged over 200 attendees to renew “the effort to make Israel’s case to the American people.”
 
“American soldiers have been out in the Iran and Iraq world, and for the last dozen years, they have heard Arabs say they have no problems with America, but just with Israel,” he told the crowd. “It starts sinking in. They start believing that Jews are using America. It's not epidemic, not virulently active, but it’s there—the question of ‘Why are we supporting Israel?’”
 
Peters said the 65,000-member CAMERA’s “work exposing dishonesty wherever it is found in the media is absolutely vital.”
 
The military expert’s talk was admittedly not one laden with solutions.
 
“I don’t have answers,” he said. “I’m just trying to lay out the problem—the smart people here have the answers. I don’t have a crystal ball. I have a military experience, a pretty good track record of analysis, but I may get it wrong, too.”
 
One thing Peters is certain of, though, is the need to protect Israel, which he linked closely to the West. “Israel geographically is in the Middle East,” he said. “But in every other respect, it is about 20 miles off the coast of Florida.”
 
Peters denounced those who associate Israel with Western imperialism.
 
“They were fighting with homemade weapons against tanks and modern arms,” he said of Israel’s battle for independence. “There are few David and Goliath stories in history that are so inspiring.”
 
Israel is hated because it is a success story, and its neighbors share humiliation over watching the Jewish state ascend from a collection of kibbutzim to what it is now, Peters said.
 
“Who started with less than the original Zionist settlers in Israel, not least of which the starving wretched refugees of the Holocaust?” Peters asked. “What did they have in 1947 and 1948, and look at what Israel is today. What a stunning triumph!”
 
The Arab world with great pride recalls its ancient empires, but since the invention of Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press in the mid-15th century, its lead in scientific thought was quashed when writing was unleashed and modern technology came to the fore.
 
“The Middle East today is about where Christianity was in the 12th and 13th centuries,” Peters said. “Now, they not only can’t build a competitive automobile, they can’t build a competitive bicycle. What you’ve got now is a Middle East that has failed catastrophically in every field of human endeavor—technology, productivity, the law.”
 
Peters asked the audience to go into a mall and see how many products are made in the Arab world.
 
“The hotels [in Arab countries] are even run by Europeans,” he said. “Israel is dealing with a civilization that has collapsed before our eyes.”
 
That civilization’s fate, Peters said, breeds resentment of Israel.
 
“It is inevitable that societies that are so broken for so long have grown jealous,” he said. “And jealousy is a powerful force that is ignored by the governments. It ruins the lives of nations and entire civilizations.”
 
“It’s so much more satisfying to blame Israel, the Jews, the U.S., than to look around at your devastated society,” Peters added.

Asked if there was any way to reverse the deep resentment felt by Arabs, Peters told JNS.org, “In order to give Arab societies a chance, you’ve got to put down terrorists. The best thing we can do is build our own society and treat them fairly, but we can’t pander.”
 
Apart from the Arab mindset, dysfunctional borders are a major contributor to Middle East instability, the military expert told the crowd.
 
“To understand the upheavals in Africa, the Middle East, and other areas, you have to understand where we are in history,” said Peters. “This genuinely matters. The borders of the Middle East were largely drawn at the Versailles Conference, amid arguments over who gets what. They only make sense if they’re drawn in Fontainebleau or in Europe somewhere, but not in the Middle East. They either pushed people together who didn’t want to be together, such as in Iraq, or pushed them apart, such as with the Kurds.”
 
European powers, “sometimes malform, sometimes deform, and sometimes reform the globe, for up to 500 years,” and their decisions “cannot be undone in one or two generations,” Peters explained.

But Peters believes that Arab radicals killing other Arab radicals is not necessarily a bad thing for the U.S. and Israel, since it means they aren’t killing Israelis and they aren’t killing Americans. Israel, he said, has more room to breathe with Egypt’s new military government than it did under the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi. Peters also does not fear Syria, which is in the midst of a bloody civil war under President Bashar al-Assad.
 
“What is the threat [posed by Syria] to the U.S. and Israel? A weak Assad, or a jihadi state next to Israel?” he asked.
 
Peters does worry that the U.S. is being manipulated by Iran, through its new apparent willingness to negotiate concessions on its nuclear program.
 
“It is not enough for the Iranians to smile and say nice things in Geneva,” he said, referring to recent nuclear talks with the West. “[Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani said he wanted to see change in three to six months, and our president missed a chance to say ‘great—then we expect it in three months.’ You’ve got to call their bluff.”
 
A political independent, Peters criticized each of the last two U.S. administrations.
 
“Obama prefers to focus on domestic politics. He doesn’t know these [foreign policy] things, and those around him don’t,” he said.
 
The George W. Bush administration, Peters said, was “also awfully naïve about the Middle East situation.”
 
Washington must understand the power of religion, he said.
 
“Think of the empires that have risen and fallen, the people who have disappeared from the face of the world—but the religions are still there,” Peters said. “The problem in Washington is willful ignorance.”
 
While hardcore Al-Qaeda types view death “as a promotion,” Washington officials dismiss their talk as merely a power trip, Peters explained.
 
“But religion has power,” he said. “[Osama] Bin Laden was well-educated. The greatest Al-Qaeda affiliates are brainy. Yet people from Harvard don’t blow themselves up for God’s will.”
 
Peters said many religious leaders of the past were not extremists as they are now.
 
“The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was not originally religious—their original credo was to wipe out Israel, but not wipe out Israel for Allah,” he said. “It happens when a very powerful, external culture, such as Rome in the Roman Empire, or the Western World with its explosive capabilities in the 1920s, poses a threat. And then when they fail at matching that, they default to religious extremism.”
 
Karen Epstein, director of events for CAMERA, said Peters in his talk “brought a rich historical overview and fresh insight into the daunting challenges facing the West and Israel.
 
“There are few analysts anywhere who can pull back and see the global tides the way he can, from the legacy of fallen empires and arbitrary colonial borders to the collapse of Arab regimes today,” she said.

Students Tuning Out Humanities Professors. By Walter Russell Mead.

Students Tuning Out Humanities Professors. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 1, 2013.

As Interest Fades in the Humanities, Colleges Worry. By Tamar Lewin. New York Times, October 30, 2013.

Humanities Committee Sounds an Alarm. By Jennifer Schuessler. NJBR, June 22, 2013. With related articles.

The Humanities and Common Sense. By Roger Berkowitz. NJBR, February 20, 2013 (originally in Via Meadia, August 10, 2012). With related articles.


Mead:

College students have been beating a path away from the humanities. Since the 1970s, the percentage of American college students majoring in humanities fields has been cut in half—to only seven percent—as students pursue degrees in programs like science and business. As a result, a number of colleges are shuttering their under-attended programs, which is in turn shooting anxiety through the professorial guild as humanities professors fret for their future. This anxiety is given clear voice in this New York Times piece:
“In the scholarly world, cognitive sciences has everybody’s ear right now, and everybody is thinking about how to relate to it,” said Louis Menand, a Harvard history professor. “How many people do you know who’ve read a book by an English professor in the past year? But everybody’s reading science books.”
 
Many distinguished humanities professors feel their status deflating. Anthony Grafton, a Princeton history professor who started that university’s humanities recruiting program, said he sometimes feels “like a newspaper comic strip character whose face is getting smaller and smaller.”
The humanities meltdown is a huge indictment of the academic fads and trends of the last generation. A serious liberal arts education in the humanities (which Via Meadia readers should remember that to us also includes a grounding in both math and science) is actually the most practical education for many students. Learning how to learn, how to communicate ideas effectively, how to assess complex situations and develop good strategies for addressing them, and strengthening your character and spiritual life: these are all more vital than ever before in the 21st century. 20th century French literary criticism, faddish race class and gender curriculums, jihads against the tradition canon because there are too many DWEMs (Dead White European Males) in it: those are less useful. Unfortunately, this is where too many professors in too many humanities departments focus too much of their energy, and students are beginning to tune them out.
 
Today’s humanities faculties that can’t build student enrollments are like people who can’t sell umbrellas during a rainstorm: great teachers teaching great books and great ideas are exactly what most students need. Unfortunately, too many people in the field in the last generation were interested in producing bad or indifferent teachers who taught dull and impenetrable books filled with tendentious and superficial ideas. And as for concepts like character and spiritual development, forget it. Fortunately, this seems to be changing among many younger faculty and grad students and there are grounds to hope that the humanities in America will regain some balance and poise.
 
In the meantime, the humanities are now reaping the natural and inevitable rewards of a generation in the wilderness: a deadly combination of student indifference and falling support among both donors and government legislators. The priests deserted the gods; the gods have deserted the temple.


Israeli City of Beit Shemesh Divided by Religion After Close Vote. By Aron Heller.

Israeli City Divided by Religion After Close Vote. By Aron Heller. AP. Real Clear World, October 31, 2013.

Being “Partly Jewish.” By Susan Katz Miller.

Being “Partly Jewish.” By Susan Katz Miller. New York Times, October 31, 2013.

If Jews Skip Synagogue and Christians Skip Church. Room for Debate. New York Times, October 27, 2013.

Partly Jewish? By Sara Debbie Gutfreund. Aish.com, November 3, 2013.

Now, a Kiss Isn’t Just a Kiss. By Jan Hoffman.

Now, a Kiss Isn’t Just a Kiss. By Jan Hoffman. New York Times, October 28, 2013.

Examining the Possible Functions of Kissing in Romantic Relationships. By Rafael Wlodarski and Robin I. M. Dunbar. Archives of Sexual Behavior, published online, October 11, 2013.

Abstract:

Recent research suggests that romantic kissing may be utilized in human sexual relationships to evaluate aspects of a potential mate’s suitability, to mediate feelings of attachment between pair-bonded individuals, or to facilitate arousal and initiate sexual relations. This study explored these potential functions of romantic kissing by examining attitudes towards the importance of kissing in the context of various human mating situations. The study involved an international online questionnaire, which was completed by 308 male and 594 female participants aged 18–63 years. Support was found for the hypothesis that kissing serves a useful mate-assessment function: women, high mate-value participants, and participants high in sociosexual orientation placed greater importance on kissing in romantic relationships and stated that an initial kiss was more likely to affect their attraction to a potential mate than did men, low-mate value participants or low sociosexual orientation participants. Kissing also seemed to be utilized in the mediation of pair-bond attachments: kissing was seen to be more important at established stages of relationships by low sociosexual participants, kissing was generally seen as more important in long-term relationship contexts (but particularly so by women), and kissing frequency was found to be related to relationship satisfaction. The findings of this research showed very little evidence to support the hypothesis that the primary function of kissing is to elevate levels of arousal.

Betty Everett: The Shoop Shoop Song (It’s in His Kiss). Video. YouTube. Also here.



The Saudis Are Mad? Tough! By Fareed Zakaria.

The Saudis Are Mad? Tough! By Fareed Zakaria. Time, November 11, 2013.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

We’re Not Fringe Kooks – We’re the Center! By Rush Limbaugh.

We’re Not Fringe Kooks – We’re the Center! By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, October 31, 2013.

Letters to Rush Revere and Liberty. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, October 31, 2013.

To Understand Obama and the Democrats, You Must Understand Liberal Ideology. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, October 30, 2013.

Katy Perry On the 180 That Saved Her Career.

Katy Perry On the 180 That Saved Her Career. Interviewed by Scott Simon. NPR, October 26, 2013.

Articles on the Katy Perry interview at: The Huffington Post; The Blaze; NY Daily News; Jezebel; The Frisky; The Inquisitr; The Atlantic.


SIMON: You’re so big among kids. You are, you know, to the 10-, 17-year-olds, I guess, what Bob Dylan was doing to, you know, a previous generation.
 
PERRY: I’ll take that comparison.
 
SIMON: Do you want to be something for them? Does it make you . . .
 
PERRY: Well, I think I like to be an inspiration. I think when you set out to be an artist, first and foremost – a musician, a rock ‘n’ roller – you don’t come with this kind of, like, hey, I also want to be a role model that, obviously, will let you down because I’m a human being. And a lot of people see me as a role model but I’d like to kind of turn that around and say I appreciate that but I’d like to be seen as an inspiration. Because a role model, I think, will fail you. I mean, I couldn’t tell kids when it’s time for them to try things or do things. I mean, that’s not my role. But, you know, it’s funny. I do see myself becoming this, whatever, inspiration out of default right now, ’cause it’s such a strange world. Like females in pop – everybody’s getting naked. I mean, I’ve been naked before but I don’t feel like I have to always get naked to be noticed. But it’s interesting to see . . .
 
SIMON: Are you talking about anyone in particular or we can fill in the blank?
 
PERRY: I’m not talking about anyone in particular. I’m talking about all of them. I mean, it’s like everybody’s so naked. It’s like put it away. We know you’ve got it. I got it too. I’ve taken it off for – I’ve taken it out here and there. And I’m not necessarily judging. I’m just saying sometimes it’s nice to play that card but also it’s nice to play other cards. And I know I have that sexy card in my deck but I don’t always have to use that card. And especially like with this new song called “Unconditionally” that’s on the record.


A Cultural Gulf Between Israel and Palestine. By Jonathan S. Tobin.

A Cultural Gulf Between Israel and Palestine. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, October 30, 2013.

Tobin:

Last night there was a big party in Ramallah. As the Times of Israel described it, the gathering at the Muqata, the Palestinian Authority’s government compound in the city, was festive as people gathered to welcome home 21 of the 26 convicted terrorist murderers who were set free by Israel this week as part of the deal that got the Palestinians to agree to peace talks. Loudspeakers blasted songs, friends and relatives of those released danced, and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas proudly held their hands aloft in a victory gesture.
 
By contrast, the mood in Israel was somber as the relatives of the people who had been killed by those treated as heroes in Ramallah mourned anew. The New York Times described the difference between the two reactions as “an emotional gulf” and that is, to some extent, certainly true. One group of people was happy as murderers went free while others wept. But the gulf here is more than emotional or merely, as the Times seemed to describe it, a difficult process that is part of the price Israel must pay for the chance of peace. In fact, the “emotional gulf” is indicative of a vast cultural divide between these two peoples that explains more about the absence of peace than any lecture about history, borders, or refugees. Simply put, so long as the Palestinians honor murderers, there is no reason to believe they are willing to end the conflict.
 
The accounts of the aftermath of the release sought to balance the embarrassing ceremony in Ramallah by highlighting the decision by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to allow the building of 1,500 apartments in Jerusalem. There’s no question that the move was motivated by a desire on Netanyahu’s part to pacify the anger felt by many of his supporters about the release of terrorists. Even members of his coalition called it cynical and they are probably right about that, even though they, like most Israelis, see nothing wrong with Israel building in 40-year-old Jewish neighborhoods in their capital that would remain in the Jewish state even if there were a peace treaty that created a Palestinian state. Some would have preferred a building freeze to the disgrace of allowing the killers out of jail and that, too, is understandable.
 
But the lesson here isn’t so much about whether Netanyahu is playing political games or the false charge that building in Jerusalem is any way an obstacle to peace. It is that the two peoples in this conflict seem to be driven by values that are not merely at odds but which represent a gulf between civilizations.
 
The focus of Palestinian nationalism is not on building up their putative state, making it a better place to live, or even in creating a political process that would allow them to express their views freely. None of that was on display in Ramallah as a “president” serving the ninth year of the four-year term to which he was elected did his utmost to identify his political fortunes with people who had stabbed, shot, and blown up Jews in cold blood. Abbas did so because the political culture of the Palestinians still venerates the shedding of blood as the essential bona fides of any patriot. That is why terrorists are Palestinian heroes rather than shameful remnants of a violent past that is supposedly finished. He successfully demanded the release of the killers because that is something that makes him more popular.

Among Israelis, there is a debate about the wisdom of West Bank settlements even though few dispute the right of their country to build in any part of their capital. But Israelis don’t treat that tiny minority of Jews who have committed acts of lawless violence against Arabs as heroes. They are punished, not cheered. Until the same is true of the Palestinians, peace is nowhere in sight.
 
 

Do Churches Alienate Intellectuals? By Stephen Mattson.

Do Churches Alienate Intellectuals? By Stephen Mattson. Sojourners, October 29, 2013.