I have been arguing since he was nominated that we need to get behind McCain. The reasons I gave are documented very well elsewhere, so I won't go into them again.And they don't matter in this context. What is interesting is that, after I started supporting  McCain, many, both in the comments here and in the comments on various articles, attacked me for selling out my principles, accusing me of being a liberal, and all other manner of insults, arguing that supporting McCain was tantamount to abandoning the conservative cause.

And in the months since I have seen the McCain opponents get ever more extreme. Admittedly, their numbers have dwindled, as Obama has shown his true colors and sensible Republicans have decided a moderate conservative is still much better than an outright liberal.But it has done nothing to moderate the McCain opponents. If anything, this shrinking fringe movement has become ever more radical, criticizing McCain even when he moves tot he right. Even his efforts to reconcile with the conservatives are seen as "tricks" to sell us on his liberal agenda. They have gone so far as to claim Obama is more conservative than McCain and that McCain will do more harm than Obama.

But what makes me feel a bit more optimistic, besides the rapidly dwindling numbers of those opposed to McCain, are the many conservatives who are finally speaking up and telling those attacking McCain that they are essentially campaigning for Obama. Where, in the past, conservatives were cowed by those claiming greater patriotism for opposing "the RINO McShame", now conservatives are starting to speak up and tell the McCain critics that they are a bigger threat than McCain could ever be.

Considering that Obama is losing even his liberal base, and definitely has no grip on the center, seeing the conservatives rallying behind McCain, even if reluctantly, convinces me more than ever that we might see another Mondale-sized defeat.

I was reading comments on an article about the Almighty Allah being busted for drug possession (yes, that's the guy's name), when I came across the single strangest post ever:

One more thing "OLD SCHOOL TOO" I am a gay, out of the closet male planning to marry in Ma in Sept now that we've got the same sex mariage law passed. I do think that you conservatives don't understand the world issues as they exist today, but I have to agree, I would rather have 8 more years of Bush than the anti christ who is the democratic nominee. I am a die hard democrat that would vote for Carter again in a Martha's Vinyard minute but I just can't go Obama!
Please Hillary, Take back the nomination, we need you now more than ever!!!!!

I was going to post it without comments, but I have to say, if Obama can't even win over gay, out of the closet, going to be married, new England Carter fans, then what chance does the man have?

Oh, and the funniest comment has to be this simple one: "Police be upon him". Too droll for words.

I have often said that Fox News, viewed objectively is more of a centrist network than a right-wing network, that only the fact that our other media are so far to the left makes it seem Fox is right wing. I have pointed to the fact that Fox regularly interviews left-wing politicians and activists, in fact gives more air time tot he left than any mainstream network gives tot he right. They also have outright leftists such as Alana Colmes, as well as left-center individuals such as Geraldo Reivera and Greta Van Sustern, as well as more centrist-populist types such as Bill O'Rielly. (I know many think he is on the right, but if you actually listen to his beliefs, he is far more favorable to big government and government intervention than any conservative.)

However, I think I have finally come across the proof that Fox is far from being the mouthpiece of conservatism many claim it to be. Fox, along with all the rest of the media, went along with burying news of John Edwards' illegitimate child, and even of the affair itself, until Edwards came forward and confessed (to the affair, not to lying and hiding said affair). Were Fox the right wing bastion it is supposed to be, would they have sat on such a story for so long?

Inspired by Senator Robert "No Longer the Grand Cyclops, Really" Byrd's "Letter to a New President", Obama called a press conference to admit to his own failings. He opened by discussing Byrd's inspirational book, particularly a passage Fox News describes this way:

As an object lesson, Byrd points to an April 2004 news conference in which Bush could not answer a question about what mistakes, if any, he had made while in office.

Moved by that section, Obama, reading from the teleprompter with great feeling admitted to his own worst shortcoming:

I think my biggest mistake may have been being far too wonderful. I mean, I am so wonderful that many other people give up trying, as they know they could never be as wonderful as me. So I plan to be humble and try to tone down my greatness to give others a chance. But, when your as good as I am, it is just hard to be anything less than perfect.

He followed up by smiling and adding "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."

After the three hour standing ovation from the impartial press died down, Obama pried several over enthusiastic reporters from his leg and left the podium without another word.

Of course, this is parody, but, honestly, does Byrd, who is supporting Obama, really think a President Obama will in any way admit to even one mistake? The man can't even take a tough question in a debate without demanding an apology from the moderators. And this si the man Byrd thinks will improve on the "horrible" Bush administration?

Those who strongly oppose McCain often argue that four years of Obama could not do irreparable damage. Perhaps in terms of the US they are right, though I am not convinced. On the other hand, just as 4 years of Carter ended up giving away the Panama Canal and establishing a theocratic Iran, I have often argued that four years of Obama in our current volatile situation can do more harm than eight years of Clinton with his military reductions and deployment of "peace keeping forces" spreading us thin all over the world. (Not to mention establishing a  Moslem criminal gang, the KLF as de facto government in Kossovo.)

While many admit that many middle eastern and central Asian states are threats, and perhaps even North Korea or China, several have disputed my claim that Russia is starting a new expansionist phase. Despite Russian efforts to meddle in Ukranian politics, many claim it is just saber rattling to save face. However, I would argue their intervention in Georgia this weekend gives lie to that. As they offer support for one breakaway province, and possibly a second, it seems clear to me they are intent to annex Georgia piecemeal, probably as a first step in restoring the old Soviet borders.

Not that it is likely they will succeed. At least not if the face stiff opposition. But with a president Obama where would such opposition arise? Certainly not from the effete peaceniks of Europe, and not from Barrack "talk them to death" Obama. So, who would stand up for all the small states that were once part of the USSR? Who would tell the Russian government to stop their drive to reestablish their old boundaries and assert their control over the old Soviet sphere?

So, once again, if you ask how much harm Obama could do, I have to respond with another question: How much did you enjoy the Cold War the first time around?

I have written before that the Democrats, while seeming to benefit from the favorable treatment the media gives them, actually suffer. Now I know there are a handful of Democrats who continue to argue that the press is unbiased, or even has a right-wing bias, but I think following the traveling Obama love-fest of the past weeks, no one could possibly argue that the pres sis not taking sides in the current election. Not that bias was well concealed before, but it is anything but hidden now.

And the bias has been to the Democrat's benefit for some time. As the media's presentation of issues tends to have a strong influence on the way the public sees these questions, the press' bias has helped the Democrat frame many political debates in terms favorable to them. And they have also used their friendship with the media to either downplay or completely bury unfavorable coverage. In short, the press' friendship has been quite a boon to politicians on the left.

But in three very significant ways, it has done them immeasurable harm.

First, the press failed to perform one of its most important roles in the primary season. Like a teenage girl struck with "love at first sight", the press saw Obama and fell head over heels, even admitting to feeling tingles up their thighs when he spoke. And like a love-struck teenager, they ended up with a dud. The press' role in primary season is an adversarial one. They are supposed to be digging into the background of each candidate, ask the tough questions in the debates, badger them in interviews, do everything that the opposition will come the general election campaign.

Why is this important? Because whether or not the press fulfills its function, the opposition party will. If the press does not attack as aggressively as they can, then the party will not know whether or not the candidate can withstand tough questions. It is better the candidate show his faults when the party can still pick another candidate than when they have already put him forward as the face of the party. Similarly, it is best if any scandals come out during the primaries. Not only does it give the party time to decide if the scandal makes him unelectable and select another candidate, but even if they do stick with him, a scandal aired in January is a lot less fresh in voters' minds come November than one raised in August.

But in this regard, the press has failed Obama and the Democrats. They refused to ask any but the softest of softball questions, the one time someone dared to ask even slightly challenging questions the outcry from the rest of the media forced them to apologize. And we are now seeing the consequences of this kid glove treatment. The "eloquent Obama" the press found so endearing is present only when before a teleprompter. When faced with difficult questions, Obama tends to sputter and delay before finally spitting out a clumsy, malformed answer. And when treated with less than total adoration, he can become rather snappy, making an even worse impression. The jovial, calm Obama exists only when the situation is entirely scripted, and the Democrats would have known that had the press done its job.

On the issues too, the press failed to properly question Obama. As early as the beginning of the year, many of use were pointing out that he spoke in platitudes without meaning, that he had no positions, and that even his official platform was devoid of content. Had the press been doing its job, it too would have been pointing this out and asking him to clarify where he stood. Instead, caught up in puppy love for the man, they let him get by without taking a firm stand on anything. And now, finally forced to take a stand, the Democrats are shocked at how inept the man is at Clinton-like "triangulation". Not only can he not successfully adopt a "nuanced' position which allows him to play to both sides, he can't even successfully convince a single group that he agrees with them. As he proves over and over that his forte is empty platitudes read from a teleprompter, the Democrats wonder how they failed to notice this earlier. The answer is, the press.

And the press failed in the realm of scandals as well. Rather than dig into Obama's past, they instead did all they could to bury the few controversial facts that some newspapers, bloggers and talk radio managed to dig up.They even ignored those controversies they knew about even before they were exposed by bloggers. For example, the problems with Rev. Wright were well known to the press long before it became public knowledge, yet the press said nothing about this until the alternative media forced them to acknowledge the issue. Had the press mentioned it sooner, perhaps the Pfleger and Wright issues would not have been so damaging. At least Obama would have been forewarned and not appointed them to his spiritual advisory committee. And had they been raised earlier, they would be much less prominent in the public memory than they are now. A scandal from last September is hard for an opponent to revive in September, one from march is not. The press really did not favors by burying these scandals for so long.

Even Obama was failed by the press. While their gentle handling did allow him to coast through the primary process, it was not as beneficial to him a sit may seem. Had he been confronted with tough questions and scathing investigations, perhaps Obama would have taken more time to prepare himself, and also learned to control his open annoyance at being questioned. By being coddled he was deprived of the opportunity to fine tune his message and to rehearse his handling of more confrontational questions. Instead he has come to expect the soft treatment he received from the press.

Nor did they fail only in the primaries. Even after Obama became the clear nominee, the press could not let go of their love affair. And so they replaced the 24 hour news cycle with the 24 hour Obama cycle, covering him like a visiting head of state or (more appropriately) a natural disaster. And this led to the two other problems the press has created for the candidate and the party.

The first reason this is a problem is that, despite his reputation for overwhelming charisma and eloquence, Obama is proving even less adept with extemporaneous speaking as our sitting president. And, while the press is refusing to use this to prove alleged stupidity as they did with Bush or Quayle, the constant coverage is catching these flubs, and bloggers with Tivo are making sure the public knows about every mistake, even when the media tries to conceal it. He may be quite good when reading ghostwritten material, but Obama is not very good at speaking off the cuff, and, unfortunately, when under a constant media spotlight, he is forced to speak extemporaneously more and more often, giving him lots of chances to put his foot in his eloquent mouth.

Ironically, John McCain's pathetic crumbs of coverage have kept him from making similar errors. Of course,t eh one time he does slip, the press choses to cover it as a sign of his senility, but the public can't help but notice that for every McCain "gaffe" there are dozens of worse errors by Obama. Which serves not only to make Obama look bad, but causes the public to think the press is far from objective in its coverage.

And that leads into the final, and biggest problem. By providing so much coverage, the press is allowing the public to burn out on Obama. The man may be a good speaker, but anyone, regardless of how much one likes him, becomes tiresome after a week of non-stop coverage. The press, caught up in school girl hero worship may never tire of Obama, but the rest of America does, and has. Even were he as great as he thinks he is, or as the press does, Obama would have worn out his welcome days ago. But as he is prone to belaboring the same half dozen empty rhetorical devices, he is even more tiresome, and the coverage even less welcome.

Nor is that all. The constant coverage is serving to highlight how little content there is in Obama's speeches. After seeing him recite the same vague statements for the hundredth time, the public is starting to wonder when he is going to actually get down to specifics and tell us what "change" means. He may promise "hope" but the public eventually wants to know what will bring them that "hope". And the longer he speaks without elaborating on his promises, the less faith the public has in him.

And the press too, is harming itself and its reputation. Already damaged by the support they gave to Dan Rather in his "false but accurate" forgery story, as well as the Jayson Blair fiasco, the press was already being accused of outright bias by most of the public. And their outright worship of  Obama is doing nothing to dispel this impression.By covering one candidate constantly while almost ignoring the other candidate, stopping only to periodically accuse him of being senile, or to point out he is speaking to ten at a German restaurant while Obama is enthralling the most Germans since Hitler, the press is giving the right all the ammunition it needs to prove once and for allt he clear bias of the media.

Then again, as I said throughout this essay, that bias is something of a mixed blessing. It may have helped hide scandals and push the left's agenda in the past, but it has also saddled the Democrats with a less than ideal candidate, and, through constant overexposure, made sure that the public is aware just how far from ideal he is. So, even though it is now clear to all but the biggest ideologues that the press is nothing more than an auxiliary of the Democrat party, it may not matter, as the friendship of the press may not be the boon everyone imagined it to be.

In other words, yes the press is owned by the Democrats, but let them keep it. I wouldn't want the Republicans to be the darlings of the media if it means being stuck with the next Barrack Obama as our nominee.

POSTSCRIPT

Rather than clutter the article with links, I will list all my related posts here:

Sycophantic Media and Lost Elections
"Nobody I Know Voted For Nixon"
Getting to Third Base With the Press
Does No One Blame Obama For Gaffes?
When Jaws Dies, Nobody Cries
A Question About the Obama Trip
Of Course
Had Bush Said it
I Cannot Believe It
A Quick Question on Current Events
How the Media Will Kill Obama
I Can't Say It Any Better
Better Late Than Never

I also have written many times about the ideological bias of the press. However, since there are so many, I will list only two of the most significant:

Some Thoughts on the Media
The Press Versus The Nation

Correction: Thanks to my typing being interrupted by both fireplace repairs and a three year old, a very silly typo made it's way into the title. I have now corrected it, but this was originally entitled "Sychomphanit Media...", which, as amusing as it sounds, doesn't really fit the contents.

I have just noticed a shocking comment from Obama's German speech:

The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These are now the walls that we must tear down.

Now, that sounds like harmless rhetoric, but it actually flies in the face of the Democratic position of the last eight years.

How so?

Recall when we invaded Iraq, the argument the Democrats (and the isolationists on the right) made against "nation building" was that the Iraqis simply "weren't ready" for Democracy. Now, if it is the official Democrat position that there are some poor benighted people out there who just don't deserve any better than a brutal dictator, how are we going to tear down these walls Obama sees?

Of course, Obama's own behavior goes against his rhetoric as well. Nor do I mean only the militant racist pastor he claims to have failed to notice over 20 years. Even now he is still emphasizing differences instead of minimizing them, promising refunds to "working families", trying to draw lines between the "poor" who "need the money" and "the rich" who don't. Obama is still engaging in standard Democrat class envy while claiming to tear down walls.

So, the party which thinks there are some poor ignorant people over on other continents who just "aren't ready for Democracy" and the candidate who plays the class envy card every chance he gets, who creates scapegoats in "big oil" and "speculators", they are going to somehow tear down walls and bring us together?

I just don't see it.

POSTSCRIPT

The quote above came to my attention thanks to Tom Tancredo's article on Townhall today. However, the problems he finds with the comment are quite different than the problems I see. Not that I disagree with his analysis, I simply find it much more interesting that the Democrats are being so hypocritical in their rhetoric.

POSTSCRIPT II  

Actually, it is funny. The Democrats tend to sneer at non-European foreigners as ignorant and unable to govern themselves, eyt see themselves as caring internationalists. Of course, there is no contradiction, they tend to look down on everyone. Foreigners just a little more than the "masses" at home. They think in every case, the poor benighted masses should simply be managed by those who know better. So when they say the Iraqis "aren't ready for Democracy" they don't mean we shouldn't interfere, just that we should put them under the care of some benevolent, omnipotent state.

Of course, in the case of Iraq, they don't say as much, as opposing intervention is a tactical choice. While they would seem to support intervention, having done so in Bosnia, Kossovo, and Haiti, and endorsing it in Darfur and sometimes Tibet, they choose to argue for leaving Iraq in bondage as it helps in their struggle against the hated Bush administration.

The funniest argument has to be that Bush is engaged in "empire building" and spreading our troops all over the world, when those arguments much better describe Clinton's adventurism than Bush's rather precisely targeted actions against countries supporting those threatening our nation.

UPDATE

When replying to a comment, I was struck by one more hypocritical element. When eh speaks of religions and people coming together, Obama is effectively describing the assimilation-driven culture of this country that predominated until recently. By asking that everyone join in the common culture, it helped to break down barriers and make all equal. Nor did it destroy cultures, as simple things such as pizza parlors, Irish pubs and Chinese take out attest. American culture may not have adopted every practice and it may have simplified many cultures, but it did adopt what appealed form other cultures.

Rather than this unifying, even-handed approach, the Democrats support "multiculturalism" and the attendant victim culture and grievance mongering, which serves to make permanent old divisions as well as create new ones. Rather than breaking down walls, it is the policy of the Democrats to enshrine separations in the name of "diversity".

Which makes Obama's speech even more absurd.

I have written often about the political consequences of arrogance on the part of politicians and political theorists, but only recently have I started to discuss the pessimistic view of man which underlies that arrogance. Doubtless, some have heard me decry liberals as arrogant, or that they have a very negative view of man, and thought it was some effort to insult the left, but that is not the case. The fact is, many on both the left and right share the same negative view, and the consequences are the same. My discussions of how we view others are not intended to denigrate any political philosophy, but to illustrate one of the most important questions in political philosophy, a question which determines almost every other thought about politics.

The question to which I refer is really the foundation question of all political philosophy, it is the dichotomy political science professors love to illustrate by juxtaposing Burke and Locke. The question, simply put is whether man, left to his own devices, will generally succeed or fail. To put it slightly differently, is man competent to manage his own affairs, or does he need to be told what to do.

Now some will argue that the question as I present it is too black and white, there are positions in between. But I say otherwise. Whether or not you allow man is competent in some areas, once you admit that man needs to be told what to do in one area, the inescapable logic is that he can be told what to do in any area. So, a view of man as partially incompetent almost inevitably leads to the view of man as wholly incompetent.

Some others will dispute the validity of this question by creating a straw man on the Locke end of the spectrum, pretending that those who argue for competence believe there are no criminals, no antisocial types, and that the government should have no policing or military powers. That is just absurd. Those who believe man is generally competent do not deny that a minority of individuals can become criminals or sociopaths, nor that there can exist bad governments which coerce or persuade large numbers of their citizens into hostility against their fellow man. Nor do they deny that, even though generally competent, man can be convinced of incorrect beliefs which, for long periods of time, can send him in the wrong direction.

In short, a belief in competence is neither a belief in omniscience nor in the universal benevolence of man.

Having said all that, let us look at the question itself and see why I say it is the fundamental question of political philosophy.

There are simply put, two ways one can view people as a group, either our fellow citizens are mostly competent, capable of knowing their own desires, choosing their own actions, and should generally be treated as our equals, or they are not.  It does not matter whether we view them as wholly incompetent or incompetent in specific matters, whether we view them as stupid, or easily manipulated, or simply subject to the machinations of sinister forces, so long as we believe that other people are in some way incompetent, the outcome is the same.

And what is the outcome? If we view other people as incompetent,. either unable to know what they need, or unable to figure out how to reach it, or even that they simply can be easily mislead or distracted, provided people are not entirely competent, the conclusion must be that it is the purpose of the state to tell them how to behave.

On the other hand, if we assume that people are generally competent, and can organize their own affairs, then it makes no sense to have the government interfere. At best the government will produce the same solution they would, at greater cost, but more likely it will make them generally less happy.

What some fail to recognize is that the inverse of this is also true. If you argue for government interference in people's lives, then you are assuming, whether you admit it or not, that people are incompetent. If you say that there should be a minimum wage, for example, you are saying that people are too foolish to know that a job is not paying enough, that, but for the intervention of the state, they would accept too little pay for their work. You may not realize it, at least you may not want to admit it, but any interventionist philosophgy is based on nothing but the incompetence of the majority of humanity.

And why does this matter? Why do people try to deny that they think their fellows are incompetent?

Well, partly because it is quite arrogant to say that you know better than most of mankind. But, more important than that, because the other logical conclusion drawn from universal incompetence is even less popular. You see, if most people are incompetent, yet they need to be told what to do, then we have to assume that there is an elite who know what everyone else should be doing. And that leads, whether interventionists admit it or not, to the conclusion that the government should be an all powerful one, controlled by this elite. Those who are competent should be given unlimited power to make sure those who are incompetent don't harm themselves. There really is no other conclusion.

And that is the truth no one wants to face. Whenever someone proposes government controls, be they Democrat or Republican, socialist or communist, they are saying they oppose representative government. Now, I am sure those who argue for trade barriers or caps on loan rates don't think they are arguing for dictatorship, but they are. The logic is inescapable.

It is a simple progression. If the government needs to intervene, then people are not able to order their own affairs. However, as the state knows what to do, that means there must be SOME who are competent enough to know what the rest should be doing. But, in representative governments, the incompetent masses select the leaders, and, being incompetent, they are not likely to pick competent leaders. Since we need this competent elite to tell the rest what to do, lest the come to harm, we need to ensure the elite retains power. How else can we do that but some form of dictatorship of the elite?

I wrote before that representative government exists primarily to allow for the peaceful and orderly adjustment of political priorities,  and not because of the popular misperception that rational adults will eventually reach the right conclusions. There is no inevitability that, even with rational voters, a representative government will ever get it right. On the other hand, if we postulate an irrational electorate, there is every reason to oppose representative government. Irrational people vote for irrational reasons, so, provided there is an elite within the electorate who can better run things, there is every reason to establish an authoritarian, non-representative state.

And that is the conclusion interventionists don't want to face. No one wants to admit that the logical conclusion of their political philosophy is an all powerful political elite, ruling without the consent of the governed. But whether they face it or not, that is the logical conclusion.

The moment you stop seeing others as being your equals, the moment you think you know best, there is really no other outcome but a dictatorship of one form or another.

I was reading some articles in wikipedia when I came across what has to be the most dishonest and foolish defense ever. You can see it for yourself if you check out the article on "Ship of Fools" and the related "talk" page.

Now, let us start with something simple. The "ship of fools" is an allegory, a metaphor, a symbol, a fable, a lot of things, but it was never a concrete, historical reality. The reason is simple to see. Ships cost money, and in primitive times they were even more precious than now. It is that reason that only prominent vikings received ship burials. So, if you want to rid your town of lunatics and cretins, you would not waste a precious ship to do so, you would throw stones at them until they left. So, no one anywhere ever set their town idiots and madmen adrift in a ship.

Then along comes Michel Foucault, with whom I have countless objections*, and he makes a statement which VERY CLEARLY is based upon the idea that literal ships of fools not only existed, but were common throughout the middle ages. To wit, he said:

"Renaissance men developed a delightful, yet horrible way of dealing with their mad denizens: they were put on a ship and entrusted to mariners because folly, water, and sea, as everyone then "knew," had an affinity for each other. Thus, "Ship of Fools" crisscrossed the sea and canals of Europe with their comic and pathetic cargo of souls. Some of them found pleasure and even a cure in the changing surroundings, in the isolation of being cast off, while others withdrew further, became worse, or died alone and away from their families. The cities and villages which had thus rid themselves of their crazed and crazy, could now take pleasure in watching the exciting sideshow when a ship full of foreign lunatics would dock at their harbors."

Now, this strange statement, for obvious reasons, leads to many raising the objection that ships of fools were allegorical not real, and that anyone claiming to understand history should know that. IT not only paints Foucault as a gullible fool himself, but also a poor researcher, or maybe a man willing to twist the truth when it serves his purposes. Whether he was deluded, misled, or deceitful, it says nothing good about Foucault that eh wrote these words.

So, of course, just as the lit crit crowd came to the defense of DeMann when his Nazi collaboration was exposed in the 80's, our deconstructivist-friendly wikipedia contributors have to come to the defense of one of their "giants"**. And the defense is quite, um... I honestly don't know how to describe it. So I will just print it here:

Contension of Scholarship

I have read 'Rewritting the History of Madness' and agree with the above author that this book does address many of the concerns which they would like this subject to reflect, specifically, the contention about a certain statement which Michel Foucault made on the subject in his Madness and Civilization which seemed to say that these 'mythic vessels' did set sail, and could be seen drifting through the many rivers of Europe. This statement of Foucaults (I would like to reproduce it here but havent got the text at hand) is the primary source of contention in present histiographical dispute. I agree with the above author, if I understand his muddled speech correctly, that many of the criticisms raised by historians against Foucaults rereading and rewriting of this episode in European history are naive. Let me qualify what I mean. What seems to me, as an amateur Historian, to be happening here in this dispute (both the one surrounding foucaults work and the work of the above author) is a kind of confrontation between two very different styles of History. We may, provisionally, distinguish these two styles as History and Mythistory. I also agree that, as subtle as this confrontation is, it is important to recognise it and reflect it here (which is what I understand the above author as trying to say). What I dont see is this confrontation made clear in any texts written on the subject. It seems that this revision of history is still too close to use for us to get any kind of perspective upon it that would allow us to summerise it... \

As for the statement:

"Michel Foucault, who wrote Madness and Civilization, saw in the ship of fools a symbol of the consciousness of sin and evil alive in the medieval mindset and imaginative landscapes of the Renaissance"

I would certainly agree that this is the significance we are to accord this 'cultural motif'. It would be difficult to site sources, however, to establish this meaning clearly. The works the author cites by Erasmus and Brandt are certainly the best place to look.

All I can say for certain is that I will be interested to watch this subject unfold... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.233.124 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 April 2008

As far as I can tell, the point of this is that, while Foucault may appear to be saying ships of fools really existed, that is only because we are so stupid, and the really smart people know he was really, um, saying... Look! Over there! Lacan! (The sound of running feet and a door slamming.)

Honestly, is this what passes for scholarship these days? The "revision of history" is "too close" for us to understand? No, sorry, Foucault is an ideologue and a dogmatic pseudoscholar whose fame rests on being an irrationalist Frenchman, who wrote verbose arguments for introducing the denigration of reason  into literature and history, arguments that, thanks to both being written in French, convoluted, and absurdly verbose, passed for scholarship, and thus allowed those who were covertly belittling rationalism in their writing to start doing so openly.

Sorry, but the truth is this: Foucault wrote a statement which is provably false (and not for the first time). Doing so calls into question both his scholarship and the conclusions he based on such pseudohistory. And no amount of loose, vague verbiage will make that fact go away.

Sometimes, after reading writing like this, I realize that I was quite lucky there were no open GRE dates and I had to forgo my dream of a doctorate in history. It probably saved me from several years of intellectual torture.

-------------------------------------------------

* In the interest of disclosure, I am quite opposed to all the "Lit Crit" schools of modern literary interpretation, be they called deconstructivist, structuralist, post-structuralist, or what have you. The absurdly convoluted, politicized and self-absorbed theories of Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, deMan, Fish, and the rest are absolute nonsense in my opinion. However, even had someone I respected made the statement Foucault did, I would call them to task for it. My criticism has nothing to do with my dislike for Foucault and everything to do with the dishonesty of his defenders.

** When intellectual pygmies like Foucault and DeMann are giants in your field, it is time to find a new field.
 
--------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

My collection of books criticizing modern literary criticism are currently packed away following my move. Once I can dig them out, I will probably have more to say on this topic, as it is one I find quite interesting. And for those who do not see the relevance, I would point out that many who have made a name creating absurd interpretation of fiction have now set their sights on the law, architecture and other fields, which makes this abomination important, as the socialist, irrationalist absurdities of deconstructivism are breaking out of the realm of literature and taking over, not just the humanities, but law as well.

UPDATE

I realize the author of the Wikipedia comment is hardly the best of Foucault's defenders, his spelling alone should tell us that he is not the first line of academic protectors. Still, his argument, though not quite as eloquent as the professionals, is in essence the same as those offered by the academic writers defending Foucault, so it seems a fair representative.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this is yet another example of a rather biased article making its way onto wikipedia. Note how the criticisms are solely in the discussion pages, while the main page presents a seemingly approving description of Foucault's comment? That seems to fit very well with the Wikipedia I have criticized before.

Those interested in my criticism of Wikipedia can see my past essays here:

Stop Confusing Me With The Facts!
Mystery Quotes
Wikipedia?
The Failure of Wikipedia
Opinion Masquerading as Fact
Funny Numbers
What is Wrong with Wikipedia?
Endangered Species
Sterility of Formal Economics
Deceiving Themselves?
A Question About Language

Some are criticisms of content (a few which only very tangentially involve Wikipedia), some of style, and some of the methodology and the theory behind wikipedia. However, overall, I think the entire list gives a pretty comprehensive explanation of everything I find wrong with Wikipedia, both in theory and practice.

Sorry to my handful of regular readers, as the weather was a bit cooler today, so I took advantage of the nicer weather and got out of the house and away from the keyboard. And, as is traditional when I fail to post on the weekend, I am going to post a few snapshot of interest to no one but me. This time, a sort of photo travelogue of my family trip from Riva to Fell's Point.

First, the AndrewS. abode. Actually, it was taken a few days ago. And, strangely enough, that is not my car in the foreground:


Next, Julian pays for parking in Fells' Point (Baltimore), while yours truly watches (No, before anyone asks, I don't own a polka dot purse, that is a bag full of Julain's matchbox cars, and I am fishing coins out of a change purse my wife handed me. -- It is a silly question anyway, as I would never carry a polka dot purse with checked shorts.):


Julian with a creepy stuffed sea captain (a bit out of focus):


Julian in front of a mural, looking unfortunately like a nautical-themed mug shot:


Here are Julian and Paula, aka Mrs. AndrewS. (As always, she thinks they are bad photos of her):


And a one more of your humble author with Julian (the building which pretended to be a police station in Homicide is in the background):

And, finally, Julian passed out in his booster seat on the ride home:


That takes care of my "excuse me for not posting, here are some photos" obligation. Hopefully I will post something a bit later, after I rest a bit and play with all of Julian's new toys.

POSTSCRIPT

For those who have seen my earlier pictures of Julian, he does own other clothing. It is simply coincidence that he seems to be wearing that same crab shirt in all his non-beach photos.

One of my readers mentioned something in a comment that raised an interesting question. Could Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush for that matter, run for the office of Vice President?

The Constitution only requires that a Vice President be able to serve as President should the need arise. However, the 22nd Amendment does not appear to prevent Clinton or Bush from serving:

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Note the words in bold. "shall be elected to the office of President". That would seem to prevent Clinton or Bush form running for the office of president, but were they elected Vice President and the President then die, resign or be removed from office, they would not be elected to the office of President a third time, and would thus be able to serve.

I admit I haven't look into the question much, as it just came up, and there may be court rulings or scholarly articles on this topic, but from a simple reading of the plain language of the Constitution, it appears there really is no reason to disallow a Clinton or Bush Vice Presidency.

So, if anyone knows any more on this, please feel free to write a comment, I would love to know what has been written or said on this matter. I am sure that no one wants either Bush or Clinton on their ticket, nor is it likely anyone will in the foreseeable future. But it is still a very interesting question.

While replying to comments on my last pick for Obama's VP, I came up with an alternative.

Obama has a pretty strong following on the far left, but he has failed to really win over the center, and the chances of moderate Republicans rallying to him are slim. So, where can he pick up votes?

The answer is obvious. Where is McCain weakest? On the far right of the Republican party. Conservatives, isolationist libertarians, CFR conspiracy theorists*, and others are all much less than happy with McCain. So, while McCain is picking up centrist votes, both of independents and cross over Democrats, Obama's best bet is to run to his right.

Of course, Obama can't do this himself. People don't take him seriously when eh tries to appear as just a moderate Democrat, so running to the right of Lieberman is just out of the question.

So, how to do it?

Simple, put Ron Paul on the ticket as VP!

The advantages are probably even greater than from Byrd. First, Obama can go back to being solidly anti-war, as that will fit well with Paul's position. Second, it will allow him to pick up the anti-war libertarians and maybe a few of the other conservatives McCain has upset.

The final advantage is less obvious, but still quite real. In a sort of strange synergy, Obama will become the candidate of the tinfoil hat crowd. Obama himself, thanks to Wright's paranoid rants, is the candidate of left wing conspiracy theorists. From those who fear Haliburton is behind every event to those who think Israel is pulling all the strings to those who think the CIA imported crack or invented AIDS, Obama is their man. But, with Paul on the ticket, he will suddenly also become the candidate of those on the right of a conspiratorial bent.  Whatever his own beliefs, Paul was the candidate of nominally right wing conspiracy believers. From those who thought Haliburton was behind every event to those who think Israel... well, you get the picture. As conspiracies on the right and left tend to overlap to such a degree, it seems almost a natural combination. The kooks of the right and the nuts of the left, coming together to put Obama in the White House.

That makes it twice in one day I have come up with better VP picks than all of Obama's high paid search committee members. I really do need to start looking for a different job, don't I?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

* I really don't think of protectionists, those who fear CFR and the rampant isolationists as being on the right. Nor do I think of the white supremacists, antisemites, and "anti-Zionists" (meaning slightly covert antisemites) as being conservatives. But as they call themselves such, and many conservatives accept that designation, I use it for convenience.

I have noticed there is a tendency in the western world for a nation's birth rate to inversely vary with the degree of socialism. Nations which have cradle to grave government care tend to fall below the replacement birth rate, while nations which have avoid the worst of socialist pitfalls tend to stay at replacement levels or above.

While this is bad news for socialists, who tend to count on future generations to support the elderly, it does raise one question in my mind. Is there a reason these two number rise and fall together?

And then it struck me. Socialism, while pretending to be about caring and concern, really is a very selfish philosophy. Socialists may claim they want to care for the weakest among us, but by reducing emphasis on personal values, such as self-reliance and responsibility, the government instead teaches everyone that the only thing that matters is money, and the only important question is "What will it do for ME?"

Giving birth to a child, on the other hand, are the ultimate generous act. It is essentially committing yourself to giving up the enxt twenty or more years to the needs of another person. It represents the ultimate sacrifice, making yourself completely responsible for someone you don't even know yet.

Of course, socialist states try to blur this distinction, by making the state responsible for children, telling us it "takes a village", giving money to parents so they can be irresponsible despite their children, but it appears it doesn't work. Some irresponsible souls might pop out children without thinking, and some poor mothers whose income depends on rampant procreation might continue to have babies, but once the socialist me-first message sinks in, most citizens seem to take it to heart, and decide they can't be bothered to give up "the best years of their life" to someone else, even if it is their own child.

I'm sure many on the left will find fault with this argument, will say conservatives are the truly selfish ones and socialists are just peachy. But I have to say, numbers here in the US don't support their claims. Conservatives give more money. Conservatives give more time. And, excluding the poorest demographics, conservatives have more children. There is simply no way I can look at the numbers and conclude anything but that socialists, for all their talk of giving, tend to prefer that someone else do their giving for them.

POSTSCRIPT

I am sure someone will argue that liberals don't have children because of concerns about overpopulation, or because they want to give their children enough time or something similar. However, all of those sound more like smoke screens than real arguments.

I also realize some will dispute my initial premise and point to some socialized country with high birth rates, or a relatively free county (the US for example), with a relatively low birth rate. However, I would ask that they listen a bit more closely. I said it was a tendency, not an absolute rule. There are many pressures influencing birth rate. I simply pointed out one prominent one.

Well, I may revisit this question again, as it is a rather interesting topic. So check back to see where the argument goes in the future.

UPDATE

I forgot to mention the original inspiration for this essay. I read a Mark Steyn article on the economy of Canada which mentioned that Canada's birthrate ensured that they would import a majority of future workers, as they could not even maintain their own population with current birth rates. It didn't say much more, but it did start me thinking about all the socialist countries which are suffering form declining birthrates and growing unassimilated alien populations. And from that, the article above was born. But, as you can see form the inspiration, and my thoughts on it, the topic leads to a number of other issues, which I will likely write about in the future.

I think I found a perfect metaphor for modern art. I was reading reviews of the film All the Real Girls. Of course some arty types were gushing about what a "real" portrayal it was of "rural" youth and love. And some people from the south were complaining that they are being portrayed as idiots. And most were asking why anyone thinks it is a great movie when all the characters have trouble stringing together three words.

But the perfect review was the person who, in all sincerity, asked if it was a film about retarded people falling in love.

It is everything that is wrong with artists in a nutshell, the same thing that is wrong with liberals. They see themselves as great and feeling people trying to ask the big questions, find the big answers, and do the right thing. And they see everyone else as slightly retarded. It is why they feel the need to tell everyone what to do, why they feel that we need to have even simple things explained. And most of all it explains why both politicians and artists always have such a pessimistic view.

After all, if everyone in the world, except for a favored few, are just barely sentient, just barely conscious even, what could the outcome possibly be? No wonder liberals and artists are always predicting the worst.

I think I have figured out the best VP choice yet for Senator Obama. Obama has, in the minds of Democrats, two problems. First, he is seen as inexperienced. Second, he appears to be a bit naive. And third, covert racism will likely cost him some number of votes.

So, what to do?

Well, obviously he needs an experienced running mate who is free of the appearance of naivete and also, somehow, keeps him from losing votes to racism.

Which gives us one obvious answer: Senator Robert Byrd.

Byrd has been in politics since the dawn of time, casting his first votes using cuneiform, I believe. No one could possibly accuse him of inexperience. And with his habit of grabbing pork with both hands, as well as naming every object in West Virginia larger than a pebble after himself, no one would ever dream of calling Byrd naive.

Finally, thanks to his poorly concealed racism, history of Klan membership and habit of blurting out the "n-word" at random inappropriate times, Byrd will be the obvious choice for those suffering from hidden racism, helping to balance out racist opposition to Obama.

All of which makes me wonder, not for the first time, why candidates bother with search committees for running mates. With nothing more than a few minutes' thought I picked a candidate better than any even whispered as possible mates for Obama.

Perhaps I am in the wrong field.