What iPads Did To My Family – Chuck’s Blog

Departure point: What iPads Did To My Family – Chuck’s Blog.

I’m a gadget guy. I occasionally feel oppressed by how many I have, and I cherish the gadget that can replace multiple other gadgets – such as my iPhone, f’rinstance, which for me pretty much replaced:

  1. Cell phone
  2. PDA or Pocket Calendar
  3. iPod
  4. E-Book reader
  5. Notebook computer (if just e-mail monitoring is needed)

But if a guy as tech-savvy as Chuck Hollis, with his tech-savvy family, can buy an iPad as a toy and then find his whole tech-savvy family waiting turns to use it, then I may have to regress, eventually, to iPhone and iPad instead of just iPhone.

Or maybe I could finally figure out how to use Skype?

Gushing wells and debt crises: epiphenomena of living beyond our means

Patrick Deneen, who is capable of even deeper stuff than this, today eloquently points out that two current crises — the Gulf oil spew and the Greek debt situation — are rooted in “our collective inability to live within our means”:

All accounts of the “spew” suggest that in our insatiable search for replacement of declining amounts of crude oilavailable in places where it’s relatively easier to bring it to the surface (i.e., on land), we are now increasingly forced to probe for oil in highly inhospitable places where the odds of just such disasters are substantially increased. Our national policy of “drill, baby, drill” in deep sea environments – endorsed alike by such political “opponents” as Sarah Palin and President Obama – can only be expected to result in growing numbers of such accidents, just as a nicotine addict can be expected to burn his fingers when he probes more deeply at the bottom of an ashtray for a butt that still might have something left to inhale.

The Greek debt crisis – what many “in the know” believe to be the first of several, and even many such national crises, likely to be replayed in some form in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, even England and possibly even the U.S. – is quite simply a consequence of a nation that has grown accustomed to living beyond its means for a long time, and which now believes itself entitled to that condition on a more or less permanent basis.

Just so. I have for a long, long time suspected that our prosperity was less a matter of divine favor and Puritan work ethic than it was of our occupying an unspoiled continent, abundant in resources, at a fortuitous historic juncture. I enjoy all the modern amenities, but try to cultivate an “easy come, easy go” attitude as I anticipate at least a gradual, and probably a screeching, halt to les bontemps. Those intuitions or premonitions were long on the back burner, but the rapid return of American insouciance after 9/11 was deeply disturbing and ominous.

The 2 x 4 failed to get our attention. The 4 x 8 failed, too. What will it take? Will we just blame the dirty-neck politicians — who we elected largely in proportion to their absurd promises of either endless prosperity (Red State) or metaphysical equality at high prosperity levels (Blue State) — or will we see the culprit in the mirror?

Thus these two crises are even more deeply connected than a glance at the newspaper might reveal, as the worldwide belief that we could live permanently beyond our means was literally fueled by our brief and exuberant burning of most of the world’s supply of “easy oil.” Over the half-century or so, the world has enjoyed seemingly unlimited economic “growth” whose source was most fundamentally a sea of accumulated sunlight that was never “ours,” but which we treated as the property of the living generation without regard for the effects of our massive addiction upon the substance for future generations. This accumulation of millenia – allowing us to live for a time under the impression that humans no longer were dependent upon or governed by the earth – was tapped over the course of 150 years at increasing rates that led to its greatest amount in the early 2000’s (and the stock market at its highest level), and then suddenly began its inevitable decline with $150/barrel oil and a predictable economic crash whose inevitability was discernible to anyone who knew that the age of growth was over, and that our debt could only be repaid (if at all) by a long and painful time of austerity. We are living through the aftershocks of a world pressed by limits to growth, and – addicted to that condition of permanent thoughtlessness, and having been told that the permanence pf growth was ensured by the solidity of industry and government alike – today demand increasing debt to make up for declining wealth. The worldwide deleveraging that we have sought to forestall by means of “stimuli” and financial chicanery will be all the more painful and dislocating with every day that we put off our reckoning.

The ancient Greeks were the source of a kind of wisdom about self-government that today’s Greeks – and the rest of the world – have forgotten, only after Europeans and Americans (especially) over the past several hundred years explicitly overturned their influence – particularly the legacy of that inheritance in Christendom. Bans against “usury” – now regarded as quaint and incomprehensible – were most fundamentally bans upon current generations stealing from future generations. Limits upon debt were established to prevent people from living beyond their means, to constrain their appetites to what was appropriate within the limits of the world. It is an ancient teaching that we are rediscovering not by dint of wisdom and a habituated capacity to embrace self-rule, but by dint of having no other choice.

Several nights ago, Wendell Berry spoke to a packed – overflowing – auditorium in the Arlington library. Some hope is to be found in the fact that the audience was overwhelmingly composed of young people, wanting to hear from that older man some words about what we are now to do. And he concluded a marvelous evening of reflections and thoughts with a response to a question about Oil and Limits with the reply that he was waiting – as we should all be waiting – for someone to tell us that “we’ve got to use less,” that someone must make a criticism of our “standard of living” and speak in terms of “limits and context.” The context of which he spoke explicitly was that nature was speaking – “very noisily” – to those who would listen, and that the “news from the world” was quite clear that we needed to begin speaking and living under self-imposed limits – or those limits that would be violently imposed upon us.

Amen.

Making Money

I’ve been intrigued, and troubled, by the concept that “banks literally lend money into existence” ever since I first heard it.

Today a very occasional contributor to Front Porch Republic lays out how it’s done and how the confluence of that and some other factors leaves the economy in great structural peril still. Better yet, he tells how we can get out of it with minimal pain – at least initially.

The contributor, Eric Zencey, is a novelist, essayist, and Visiting Associate Professor of Historical and Political Studies for Empire State College in Europe and New York. His writing in environmental history and political theory has been supported by grants from the Rockefeller, Guggenheim, and Bogliasco Foundations. Today’s essay is a glimpse into his forthcoming book The Other Road to Serfdom: Essays in Sustainable Democracy (University Press of New England, Fall 2011).

That banks lend money into existence is not necessarily a secret worthy of outrage. It is a conscious policy decision at the national level to loosen the federal grasp of a traditionally sovereign prerogative, seigniorage: the difference between the face value money and its cost of production; the profit that comes from creating money.

But outrageous or not, allowing banks into the game changes it pretty fundamentally, especially when the banks are backed by the FDIC is they get so far out there as to create a crisis of confidence and consequent “run on the bank.”

Zency lays it out well if you’re interested. It seems to me that this is a major factor in our manic-depressive economic mood swings.

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing preview

We don’t even have a nominee yet, but the posturing — academic and political — is shaping up, as signaled on the editorial page of today’s Washington Post.

In the right corner, weighing in with the mantra of “commitment to the text of the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers,” is senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

In the left corner, weighing in with the historical untenability of ascribing to the Founders any unified “original intent,” is Joseph J. Ellis, a Pulitzer Prize-winning professor of history at Mount Holyoke College.

Ellis is would win the match on points, but Sessions has a knockout punch: by and large, Americans agree with him, whether or not original intent is tenable historically.

It is perhaps probably significant that neither one speaks of abortion, the issue that, whether explicitly or encoded, has dominated confirmation hearings for decades. The current hot button issues for Sessions are political speech, guns, and eminent domain.

Is abortion the seed or the flower of Culture Wars?

The buzz about the new book Red Families, Blue Families continues with a conservative columnist I greatly respect, Maggie Gallagher.

Maggie, author of The Abolition of Marriage and a tireless advocate of traditional western marriage, thinks the culture wars start with different views about abortion and those different views ramify in earlier marriage versus later, out-of-wedlock birth rates, etc., rather than the latter ending in controversy over abortion (the quintessential Culture War issue).

It would be interesting in this regard to test how much the “red state, blue state” differences were shaping up before Roe v. Wade, and (if reliable data is available – very unlikely), how the blue states and red states stacked up on abortion rates, legal and illegal, before the Supreme Court basically gave us one, utterly permissive national abortion law.

Globalization + the Pill = Culture Wars

A very interesting post at FPR clued me in to a Jonathan Rauch article in National Journal, which in turn discusses a new book that essentially publishes a Grand Unification Theory of the origins of “Red” and “Blue” America.

I hesitate to summarize. Read either the Front Porch Republic piece or Rauch’s for a summary instead.

What this leaves me with is a couple of intuitions, none of which I’m remotely prepared to defend to the death:

  1. I have taken some solace that “Red America” is growing demographically while “Blue America” is at NPG. This new theory makes me think that teeming Red America will continue to work for Blue America and will continue to be relatively ineffectual in carrying out any red agenda.
  2. Any red agenda is already in trouble. Red America, relatively speaking, tramples on the values they profess and which, in their pulpits, they literally preach. Why? They’re spitting into a very, very strong headwind of sexuality and lower wages, and their early marriages, plus the newish necessity of both parents working, make musical beds a far more popular game in Red American than in Blue.
  3. What happens when the Trillion Dollar Ponzi Scheme collapses? Red America knows more about the practical arts like gardening, homebuilding, etc. than Blue America knows. Will Blue America be picking Red America’s asparagus in a few Springs?


Life Would Be Perfect If I Lived In That House

I have written before of the very, very serious business of glamor and glamorization. After its blog feed seemingly went dead for a while (it may have been my error – who knows?), Virginia Postrel is back online and, today, on dead tree with a Wall Street Journal review of “Life Would Be Perfect If I Lived In That House,” by Meghan Daum, who has followed the maxim “write what you know” in this book that, as Postrel notes, needs no subtitle.

Postrel helpfully introduces her WSJ essay at her blog as well. Here are the key links:

Watchers of HGTV, Food Channel and such take note.

In the works

I have several things going right now that are either time-consuming or interesting.

I’m reading David Bentley Hart’s book “Atheist Delusions,” which is, it seems to me, not just a deserved mocking of the inadequacies of the famous “New Atheist” authors, but a robust defense of the legacy of Christianity which, Hart would wager, none of the New Atheists would care to give up. It seems that Nietzche is just about the only atheist Hart takes seriously, because Nietzche alone dared savage Christianity for what it really is, while today’s pantywaists set up straw men, betraying either their dishonesty or their ignorance.

Not unrelated, but not by design either, I’m planning to re-listen to, and to outline, two Ancient Faith Radio “Illumined Heart” podcasts on “Living in the ruins of Christendom” that I essentially overlooked last fall when they came out. The blog post on them is begun, but not ready for prime time.