Our Man in Brno

Newt vs. Mitt

2012-01-26T19:15:00.001+01:00

Newt vs. Mitt

Your humble correspondent is having a tough time this nominating season. A couple days ago, I was reading the comments section on one post in NRO's Corner, and a guy wrote "sometimes he's great, sometimes I'm worried he's going to announce his plan for windmills on Mars." There's only one candidate in this race who this comment can be about, and it's not the guy with Stepford Hair®.

Fast forward to today, and sure enough, we're going to have a moon base by the time Newt is 8 years into his hypothetical Presidency.
I actually really sympathize with the guy. He has probably 5 really amazing ideas every day, and 10 disastrous ones. If he kept his mouth shut and put all 15 on notecards and re-read them in the evening, he himself could figure out which ones were the 5 good ones. The problem is that he just sorta announces all 15 of them at once. I'm not opposed to a moon base; indeed, I think it's a long time coming, and heaven knows (!) if we don't, someone else will. Nevertheless, Newt's biggest problem is that things like this feed into a public perception that the guy is a little too much of a bombastic dreamer, and not quite enough of a statesman. The deal is that Newt is brilliant. Really. The problem is that he's also just occasionally, well, bonkers, and has a tendency to light fuses while sitting on the firecrackers.

On the other side of the ledger, we have The Perfect Republican, who seems to have every advantage.
Private sector experience? Check.
Executive experience? Check.
Ability to compromise with Democrats? Check.
Calm, collected demeanor? Check.
Nationwide name recognition? Check.

But then, there's the inconvenient fact that no one likes him, and he makes George H. W. Bush seem like a wild-eyed visionary of the first order. Even the (political) assets he has have become liabilities. He can't seem to justify what he did in finance capitalism, or explain why wealth and investment is a healthy thing in a market economy. His executive experience has become an albatross of the first order, and negates the best argument the GOP has against the current President. His ability to "compromise" with Democrats has come off like an unprincipled stance on every issue he touches, and the calm outlook has revealed an Obamesque technocrat, rather than a discerning leader. But hey, thanks for the Olympics. We're sure you'll win Utah.

Whether or not Governor Romney is or isn't these things, the fact of the matter remains that people are in no mood to wait to find out whether or not he really is ready to occupy the White House. They want solutions, they want them explained, and they want them now. Moreover, we still have no idea why Governor Romney is running. Every campaign needs a narrative, something that ties in with a coherent idea of what America is and what it should be. Governor Romney has not provided that; Speaker Gingrich has an idea, but it often comes off as schizophrenic and disjointed.

Sooner or later, we'll have to see a Romney "vision." And voters will have to be convinced that a Gingrich vision is something more like the USA they know and love, and less like a sci-fi novel, even one where we're the Good Guys. Both frontrunners (I think) see America as a wonderful, dynamic place -- a land of opportunity and a long tradition that rewards those who work hard, play by the rules, and combine modern life with our rich cultural heritage to leave something worthwhile for the next generation. Romney will have to articulate that; Gingrich will have to limit it to that. We have seen the Obama vision for America; can anybody offer a better one?

Required Reading for Monday

2012-01-23T11:02:00.001+01:00

John O'Sullivan, on the Euro crisis, corporatism, and sovereignty. Excellent post from Conservativehome.

Fight! Fight!

2012-01-12T20:08:00.001+01:00

This is a fascinating essay: Kundera vs. Havel, 1968, just after the tanks rolled in. Kundera comes down on the side of optimism, yet concerned about further rocking the boat because Czechoslovakia is a small nation; Havel, on the other hand, calls for a more active Czechoslovak society, pointing out that

Really: if we are going to persuade each other that a country that wanted to establish freedom of expression --something that is a commonplace in most of the civilized world --and that wanted to prevent the omnipotence of the secret police, stood as a result of this at the center of world history, then we will not seriously become anything but smug fakes, ridiculous in our provincial messianism! Freedom and the rule of law are the first preconditions of a normally and healthily functioning social organism, and if some state tries, after years of absence, to renew them, it is not doing anything historically immense, but simply trying to do away with its own abnormality, to normalize…

As they say, read the whole thing. The Havel quote is better, but Kundera's no fool either.

Important News

2011-12-10T17:17:00.001+01:00

For some people, Christmastime means one thing: Last Christmas by Wham!. Fortunately, and because Your Man in Brno is a rather polite person on this site, we will not say what kind of people these are. But Whamfans! were horrified to hear about George Michael's sudden onset of pneumonia and subsequent hospitalization just in time to dampen their holiday spirits. According to this report, however, it's only because of Czech chronic and not anything more serious.

Readers may now go back to whatever less important things they were doing.

Required Reading for the Day....

2011-12-06T19:09:00.001+01:00

is this piece by one Paul Goodman.

An interesting story....

2011-12-01T18:12:00.001+01:00

This little tidbit came across the wire today... turns out Czech Republic and Austria are going to redraw their borders a little bit.

There's about 60 acres of land on either side of the border the two countries want to swap, so that it's easier to control flooding. The Czech part is owned by three semi-independent state agencies (neither the article on the Czech side nor another article from ÖRF here says anything about who owns the Austrian part), and it appears that getting all the signatures on both sides of the border are mostly a formality. Still, while it's not so common to see European borders shift, we should keep in mind that anything can happen.

Update on Unintended Consequences

2011-11-14T18:31:00.001+01:00

In light of the record number of comments your reporter got on his relentless snow tire exposé (1, plus an email!) I felt compelled to follow up the previous post.

Both comments concerned the the possible rent-seeking or lobbying aspects of this story, but the problem is that I honestly don't think *anyone* lobbied for this. In the past, you still had to have snow tires as soon as it got cold, but there was never a dated that was declared "cold." So snow-tire manufacturers already had a captive market. The tire lobby can't possibly be THAT strong in CR, particularly vis-a-vis Škoda. As for the mechanics, I imagine they actually find the new law a pain in the ass, since their work probably is horrible that last week of October and zippo the first week after. Furthermore, mechanics in CR are usually small-business owners (Živnostníci), and small businesses are not generally well-represented by sector in Prague -- owners of small and family-run businesses in CR do have considerable clout, but generally more in terms of tax policy.

It just seems to me like there are a lot more Baptists than bootleggers for this legislation.

Unintended Consequences, Volume 23,497

2011-11-13T16:28:00.001+01:00

A recent article (3 November) in Mladá fronta Dnes (sorry, no link, and anyways it would be in Czech) points out that because of a new law, all cars must be outfitted with snow tires after November 1. This is causing headaches for Czech car manufacturers, because they have to drive the cars "a couple hundred meters" to the train station, after which they are transported to dealerships or distribution centers by train. Moreover, customers who buy cars between November and March have to have snow tires as soon as they roll off the lot. This means they have to buy snow tires directly from Škoda, (whose dealerships don't particularly want to double their tire inventories) or customers need to buy regular tires when the weather warms up. In any case, Škoda has now started to deliver cars by truck in the wintertime to manage this problem. This is more expensive, and it requires cars to be sorted at the factory (rather than at their staging ground near the train station in Vrchlabí) for domestic and foreign markets, some of which (like southern Italy) rarely see snow. The spokewoman for the Ministry of Transportation, Květa Kočová, explains that dealers can also "recommend the nearest mechanic that can change out tires," since "it's not a calamity." The other option is that buyers can "bring their snow tires with them [to the dealership] and change the tires themselves."

It's not a calamity, it's just a hassle for people who are affected by the law, and a reminder that the law is often a very blunt tool to change society.

Cool stuff from NDU

2011-11-10T17:06:00.001+01:00

The National Defense University (the one on Kounicova here in Brno, not the one on Buzzard Point) has developed a new simulator for troops.
You can "play" it on XBox.

The Wonders of Free Trade

2011-11-04T19:24:00.001+01:00

This news, from the Weekly Standard, should brighten the day for quite a few readers of this blog, although not necessarily all readers will rejoice for the same reasons.

Peter Schiff on a walkabout

2011-10-28T17:00:00.001+02:00

A friend of mine sent this video to me -- Peter Schiff as "one of the 1%" goes down to the OWS protest in NYC. It's a little long, and some of it is a little too much give and not enough take, but overall it's very interesting. Schiff points out at the very outset that "Capitalism means private profits and private losses." I think THIS is something that has to be talked about. It IS wrong (and, to be fair, the OWS kids have a point here) when they say that we shouldn't socialize the losses. That's NOT fair, and it's a salient point of agreement between the Tea Party Movement and OWS. The point of contention, therefore, seems to be what direction we should go -- socializing the profits, or privatizing the losses. The latter, of course, is preferable, but what is therefore critical is to set up a system whereby we reduce moral hazard and ensure that risk is commensurate with reward (or loss). This is Schiff's argument, and a few of his sparring partners (one of them is particularly good, and probably will be even better as he gets older) recognize this.
Schiff (perhaps in subtle reference to the Keynes-Hayek rap) describes business as "drinking the alcohol the government poured," and concludes that one of the main problems is government intervention, picking winners and losers based on cronyism or "social need," and Wall Street firms' natural desire to be among the "chosen." Bailouts are the ultimate example of making a loser into a winner, and the arbitrariness of these choices introduces a great deal of noise into market communication, which prevents the system from working properly. Furthermore, it creates a huge moral hazard to act recklessly and take on more risk than is perhaps prudent. If the bartender is irresponsibly buying rounds, it's not really surprising the bar goes wild.
Peter Schiff's only stumble was when dealing with the problem of "more freedom" back "some golden age" that a young black man asked about. Schiff would have done better to have read Clarence Thomas' speech on this matter, who pointed out that "it didn't seem quite that way to black people." Schiff notes there was "certainly more economic freedom" in the past, but could have really hit the ball out of the park if he had pointed out that segregation and other (often government-imposed) hurdles that limited the freedom of black people in the past were (rightly) brought down, and today's young people -- black, white, or otherwise -- have a right to the same economic freedom that (white) people had in the past. Other than that, it's clear that some people in the OWS movement have a legitimate grievance (which is shared by many of the Tea Partiers) while others, quite frankly, are a little slower on the upswing.

Steve Jobs

2011-10-24T00:10:00.001+02:00

This brief snippet from the Weekly Standard is interesting.

One of the special things about the passing of Steve Jobs is how articles about him, such as the one above, continue to appear, in contrast to most celebrities, politicians, artists, or captains of industry. After he died, obviously there was immediately a huge number of obituaries, profiles, "what next?" articles, and laundry lists of his contribution to society. But most of them focused on the Big Things. The little things, though, are also worth talking about too. It is impossible to imagine word processing without a choice in typefaces, and his commitment to the aesthetic as well as to the functional manifested itself in so many ways, we still need time to fully appreciate his departure. Some people are "details" people; some people have grand visions. Our culture tends to celebrate the grand vision -- it is one reason we are so enamored with the Presidency. We rarely see the amalgamation of vision and details in one person; we witnessed it in Mr. Jobs.

The Rubio Controversy

2011-10-23T02:36:00.001+02:00

This piece from the Washington Post seems to hint that Marco Rubio's parents weren't exactly who they say they were -- fleeing exiles from Castro's Communist regime, and instead seems to indicate that Marco Rubio, as a son, has not been completely forthright about his parents' heritage.

So let the conspiracies begin! I personally see the following possibilities:

1) There was a mixup at the State Department and some documents were screwed up.
2) Rubio is a sleazy politician who will say anything, including lying about his history, to win elections.
3) Rubio was told by his parents that he was a child of exiles, and he should be proud of it, even if they didn't tell their boy the full truth.
4) Rubio's parents looked at the nature of the visa regime, decided that applying for permanent residency was worth any extra hassle in case they decided to stay in the US in the future, and thus decided against applying for a long-term visa of a year or two (if that was even available at the time).

Let's quickly rule out No. 1, and let's assume No. 2 has only the kernel of truth typical for a US Senator. I'm sure that Rubio also dated the Homecoming Queen (in Canada -- it's nobody you know). As angry as he was after this article came out, it seems like he's not exactly willing to sweep the controversy under the rug, so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If more information comes to light, I'm sure the intrepid journalists at WaPo will be more than happy to enlighten the citizenry.

That brings us to Nos. 3 and 4, which are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
As someone who has lived abroad for the last 6 years, I am well aware of the choices one makes in these contexts. Issues such as taxes, health insurance, utility bills, or marriage all are affected by the type of residency permit one has when he lives in a foreign country, and the laws of the country at the time (which may change substantially over the course of the visa's duration, even if only a year or six months). I would not be in the least surprised if Marco's parents evaluated their situation and determined that in 1957, for Mario and Oriales Rubio, a green card was the most rational thing to apply for. Would it have seemed in 1957 that they still would have had the option to return to Cuba with a green card, perhaps as retirees or after making enough money to reinvest it back "home?" That seems rather plausible to me. Bear in mind that by all indications, they did absolutely nothing illegal or even unreasonable. They may have said, "hmmmm.... well, let's stay here for five years and make some money. Then we'll go back and raise a family like normal people. But we'll apply for green cards just in case we like it here, or we get really good jobs, or we discover a really cool Florida rock band." Two years in, the plan fell apart, and the all paths back to Cuba were closed when it became a Workers' Paradise.

And you can be damn sure they felt like exiles when they realized they could never go home.

If there are pickpockets in Osaka....

2011-09-25T23:48:00.001+02:00

here is where they should be hanging out.

Something that should put a smile on your face

2011-09-09T14:42:00.001+02:00

From Café Hayek:
Behold, the Office of the Repealer. "Office of the Repealer" is a wonderful title. I wonder who gets to be Chief of Repeals.

It seems like this could morph and take on an awful lot of the duties that an Ombudsman's Office would perform in Scandinavian nations, though the added nod to the concept of limited government and its long, proud tradition in the US will hopefully prevent it from becoming part of the very problem it hopes to solve. The function of the Ombudsman has traditionally been to help the citizen (or subject, as is more generally the case in Scandinavia) negotiate the bureaucracy and act as a sort of liaison. Even this might be helpful, though it may not be useful at the federal level, where it would almost certainly metastasize in malignant ways.

Nevertheless, this is a welcome advancement in US governing. May it be replicated until Grover Norquist can at least get one good night's sleep.

You know you've lost it....

2011-08-29T14:53:00.001+02:00

when even Iran is telling you it's time to reform.

Cops and Firemen

2011-08-27T23:32:00.001+02:00

When I was young, my dad had a friend who was a sheriff's deputy in my hometown. He was one of those guys who loved being a deputy, and was thoroughly law enforcement, and thoroughly Colorado. But I remember my dad and him talking about being a volunteer fireman (as my dad was) and being a cop -- which job was scarier, or more dangerous, or more you-gotta-be-nuts-to-do-that.

For my dad, the answer was obvious. Being a fireman was a far safer gig. Fire had rules that it had to obey. It was terrifying, sure, and its power over buildings and landscapes was enormous, but it really could only do one thing: burn. There was a logic to stopping it, and a clear, rational method to containing fire, and later putting it out. It required courage to face down burn when people were trapped in burning buildings, but again, there were steps to take, and precautions and insulations to reduce the danger. Fire never changes its mind about what it does. What scared my dad far more than a burning building or a burning hillside was "some junkie in his skivvies high on PCP on the roof of a building waving a gun around."

My dad's friend the sheriff's deputy could hardly disagree more. For him, fire -- the sheer vastness of it, with its awesome potential, its capacity for almost exponential growth -- was the most frightening circumstance imaginable. The aforementioned scantily-clad guy with the alternative lifestyle -- that guy, well, one really shouldn't say that the police could "reason" with someone like that, but there were ways of perhaps dealing with him in a way that minimized the dangers to himself and the immediate community. Again, for my dad's deputy friend, such situations could be dangerous, but they were ultimately all about dealing with relationships between people. Understand that, my dad's friend would say, and you can minimize, if not eliminate the danger. But while there may be a few basic recommendations, every situation is different, and intuition serves a much greater role.

I thought of this story while trying to work out some problems with social science, and its relationship to harder sciences. Firefighting, in many important respects, is a science. No one ever talks about the philosophy of firefighting. Occasional disagreements surface about priorities, techniques, and materials, but it is largely a practice of applied physics, and just as there are debates in the scientific community about solving a physical problem, we should not be surprised. It has hard and fast rules. If things get too cold, or the oxygen is removed, the fire will go out. And it won't tap you on the shoulder 15 years later asking why you put it in prison.

The role of a deputy is significantly different. Policing is a far, far, more controversial topic, and for good reason. Techniques are subject to a double test both of their morality as well as their effectiveness. When riots and looting take place, we can certainly imagine more efficacious methods of policing than we saw in London. And indeed, many people were calling for these methods. However, these calls were not opposed for their potential for success (everyone seemed to recognize that rubber bullets would go a long way toward decreasing the rioting), but on moral grounds -- it would be wrong to do so, even if it was effective.

The other difficulty in techniques concerns the n=1 problem. Every junkie on a rooftop is different, and there's no guidebook with a handy chapter on "junkies on rooftops" sitting on a shelf at the sheriff's office. Methodology is possible, but it frequently needs to be massaged, and is often completely counterproductive. There may be some techniques, some theories, such as the Broken Windows theory, or concepts of community policing, that can offer a certain framework of probabilistic order, but individual, on-the-spot cases do not always fit into a nice pat theory. The individual art of the deputy, and his often intuitive "feel" of the situation is often a critical component of a successful resolution to the problem. This leads to qualifying remarks and probability problems that would never be tolerated by the fireman, whose "feel" of a situation is based on a far different mental process.

When we look at the problems of society, we suffer from the same limitations as the sheriff's deputy. We can map out a few ideas, but insofar as we cannot always even agree on whether something is a problem or a solution, (high gun ownership rates; immigration, legal and illegal; embryonic stem-cell research) we certainly will develop different opinions about what to do about the topic. This means that we are almost immediately forced into a metaphysical debate first. From there, only if we have agreed on the desired solution can we even begin to examine the best possible way to deal with the problem, and even then, every case will be different. This means that our toolkit will be necessarily basic compared to the sophisticated instruments the hard sciences can use. We have no access to retardants and chemicals to control the blazes of human hearts. Maybe that's scary, maybe that's wonderful.

Qatar

2011-08-27T20:49:00.001+02:00

An excellent, informative, and interesting piece from Lee Smith writing for the Weekly Standard. Not particularly neo-connish, or left, or anything like that. Just a really good piece of analysis.

Ron Paul 2012

2011-08-22T18:12:00.001+02:00

As Jonah Goldberg noted four years ago around this time, "there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party..."

This blog is not a Paulnut blog, but your correspondent admits certain sympathies with the good doctor; Goldberg's column from four years ago holds up terrifyingly well. And it certainly seems outrageous that Congressman Paul is treated in the press the way he is -- this video of Jon Stewart from Mediaite hits the nail on the head.

Obama has a plan! What would Lord Keynes say?

2011-08-17T22:56:00.001+02:00

According to this Politico report from America's Heartland, President Obama will unveil a new plan to increase jobs and reduce the deficit that is "not a rehash of plans he has pitched for many weeks." Of course, he'll need a couple weeks to work out the kinks, so he's decided to announce it at the beginning of September.

Let's set aside the fact that most people have been wondering where this plan has been for the last two and a half years, and see what's really in it. We already know a little bit about it, as this Weekly Standard article notes. It includes the development of a private-public infrastructure bank (Keynesianism), tax hikes on the wealthy (is there ANY economist that thinks this is a good idea?), and patent reform (what?).

So we've got some warmed-over Keynes, a small-ball patent reform, and tax hikes on the wealthy. First off, let's give Keynes just a little bit of credit (intellectually). One reason the first stimulus didn't work was that it was always a handout to government unions and privileged groups who the President wanted to thank for his successful election. Not even Lord Keynes would have said it was a very effective economic (or political) strategy. He also would have bristled at the notion of tax hikes on corporations and wealthy individuals, at least with the economy in this state. Nevertheless, this new bank is straight out of any Keynesian textbook. It may be new, but innovative it is most definitely not.

The other problem is that Keynes never anticipated, and would indeed have been horrified by, the shocking levels of structural, long-term debt the the US has amassed in the form of entitlement programs. Keynes, for all that can be said against him, honestly believed that he was writing with an eye to saving capitalism. However, if we are to save capitalism these days, we need to know what the markets "feel." It may be that there are animal spirits, and the turn to a more psychological focus on how people react to market developments may be very helpful. But if Americans know the plan, but don't believe it, any multiplier will be gone. Moreover, the US still must focus on the long-term problems; Keynes never anticipated the idea of entitlement debt being almost 100%. He had seen the destruction of Europe, but never conceived that nations could run such debts for so long.

One of the biggest problems with Keynesian economics, therefore, is that Americans have moved beyond it both in theory, but also psychologically. If no one knows (or cares) that the government is running a deficit, deficit spending in a time of recession may work. The problem is that too many of the people who will end up paying for that spending tomorrow are nowadays saying to themselves, "well, we won't get fooled again!" If there was ever a multiplier, it evaporates with the knowledge that confiscatory tax policy will emerge in the future to compensate for deficit spending today. As a result, the animal spirits have crouched into survival-hibernation, rather than taking advantage of the sugar buzz.

News you can use

2011-08-15T19:08:00.001+02:00

It seems impossible that your correspondent could have overlooked this intriguing development, which undoubtedly will have a profound impact on yields and quality of barley. And if the barley becomes stronger, well, there's no telling what you could do with that!

Technological progress in the service of human wants and needs: it's beautiful!

Blogging from Zeeland....

2011-08-05T12:58:00.000+02:00

It's been beautiful here in Hoofdplaat, Netherlands. Your correspondent and his entourage have spent the last week here, enjoying the sights, drinking terrific Belgian beer, and eating lots of fish. But the world seems to keep moving. So briefly:
Required Reading:
This piece, from Andrew Stuttaford, is excellent.
Also from the Weekly Standard, this post is interesting. Some in the German media, such as ARD and Spiegel, are really working the "fundamentalist Christian" angle of the story -- bending over backwards to say "See? It's not just Islam! Christians are crazy too!"

Finally, in the Noah Webster department, here's a great feature on the Institute for the Czech Language, and its efforts to determine what's "really" Czech as the language increasingly imports English words, especially words dealing with technology and finance.

Mental activity should start to resume Tuesday or Wednesday, after Our Man in Brno is Actually in Brno.

Required Reading

2011-07-27T19:33:00.001+02:00

This piece, from the Claremont Review of Books, is well worth anyone's time. It's a story about a very special and enchanting man, who may not be what he seems.....

Why we have to stay

2011-07-26T17:36:00.001+02:00

Just a short post linking to Michael Yon's latest dispatch. Awful.

Oslo

2011-07-22T20:51:00.002+02:00

Breaking news out of Oslo -- a truck exploded outside of Parliament, killing 7 people; later on, a man dressed as a cop went into the summer camp for young Labor Party kids (the Prime Minister's Party) and opened fire. NYT has the details here. "Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or the Helpers of the Global Jihad, issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack."

One interesting passage from the Times:

"Earlier this month, Norwegian prosecutors filed a terrorism charge against Mullah Krekar, the Iraqi-born founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, who is accused of making death threats against the head of Norway's Conservative Party, Erna Solberg. Mr. Krekar co-founded Ansar al-Islam in 2001, but said a year later that he no longer led the group, which is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and United Nations.

Norwegian authorities have previously ordered his expulsion from the country, but the process was suspended amid concerns that he would face the death penalty in his home country."
Probably because he's the kind of guy who would blow up government buildings and send people out to shoot kids in a swimming pool.

UPDATE: Turns out it's a white guy -- "More like Norway's Oklahoma City than its World Trade Center," as one cop said.

Another Hubble Discovery!

2011-07-20T23:20:00.002+02:00

NASA keeps taking lots of pictures of crazy space stuff, and keeps discovering new things. For example, a fourth moon orbiting Pluto. As P.J. O'Rourke notes in the forthcoming issue of the Weekly Standard,

            Oh, maybe it's a waste of taxpayer money.
            But government wastes taxpayer money.
This is what government does. It can't
            be changed. Our earliest evidence of
            government, in the ruins of Babylon and
            Egypt, shows nothing but ziggurats and
            pyramids of wasted taxpayer money, the
            TARP funds and shovel-ready stimulus
            programs of their day. Let's waste taxpayer
            money putting that look [of wonder] back
            on [my son's] face.

It's not bullet-proof logic, but he does have a point.

I'm no expert....

2011-07-16T14:34:00.001+02:00

on the British media landscape, but Tim Montgomerie is, and his piece from Conservativehome earlier this week helps to put the British media scandal in perspective.

Requisite full disclosure, as they say: your humble correspondent is not in in the pay of Fox, or any News Inc. entity, though he would desperately love getting paid (lucratively!) by that firm (or any other) to write blog posts.

One thing that seems obvious is that the only thing journalists enjoy more than scandalizing and bringing down governments they don't like is scandalizing and bringing down their competitors. In a free media environment, this isn't particularly surprising, and is largely a benefit to society as a whole, as long as media pluralism continues to exist. A diversity of viewpoints and perspectives enables citizens to develop and craft their opinions based on what facts they find, and the relative importance of trade-offs, values, and conflicts that arise from these facts. Needless to say, if journalists are engaged in corrupting behavior, bribery, or blurring the line between the public and private, there are bound to be problems; however, free societies must judge for themselves the position at which this line is drawn, as well as what penalties society should mete out. (For example, in German newspapers, people accused of crimes as well as victims almost always given a pseudonym, unless they are already a public personality, such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn; in the UK, libel and slander laws are much stricter than those in the US.)

In light of this, two conclusions can be drawn: first off, News of the World had clearly overstepped the line which society had tacitly given it. The practices that it engaged in which were patently illegal must be punished; of this, Rupert Murdoch, as well as Rebekah Brooks certainly deserve a portion of the blame as higher-ups. The second conclusion, however, is more abstract, and concerns the role of the media in a free society. It is unsurprising for two companies to desire to destroy the other on the market; PCs and Apple will battle on every continent. Frequently, competition results in benefits for the consumers of that product, and information in particular is a product that can be easily and cheaply mined, refined, packaged, and sold. However, the BBC's extraordinarily comprehensive coverage of this seems more than a little unseemly. Clearly, Rupert Murdoch is a media threat to the established order, and particularly to the BBC, which represents a very different form of worldwide media empire. There can be little doubt of their natural antipathy. Nevertheless, the BBC, with 1) its market-dominating position in UK media, and more importantly 2) its level of state support gives it tools other news outlets simply do not and cannot possess. For the BBC, the UK is simply one battlefield in its war on Rupert Murdoch, who is a proxy for private media worldwide. And when private media, for all its faults, goes, what is left?

News of the World was a sleazy newspaper, obviously. It was sleazy even before it was corrupt, and unfortunately, that's also what made it so successful. But it certainly had no monopoly on sleaze in the UK, and indeed, many papers have long, proud histories of stalking the Royal Family, gruesomely describing the lurid details of murders, paying for photos of celebrities in compromising situations, slipping cash to the cops for tips, and ironically uncovering government waste and abuse using various unseemly tactics. (Perhaps MI6 will hire some of the out-of-work journalists from NotW that were smart enough to avoid getting caught!) Did Murdoch know the specifics? Probably not. Did he know the traditional formula for success in the UK newspaper industry? And if he did, who else does, and what are they going to cook up with that recipe?

Arizona

2011-07-15T20:02:00.001+02:00

Apparently some crazy shit is developing in the Arizona town of Quartzsite (pop. 3,600), with a mayor investigating corruption in the city's books, and finding that every year, $250,000 of the town's budget is being going to paychecks of unidentified people. The cops have declared a sort of "martial law" (though they obviously don't characterize it as such) and have roughed up some local activist. The mayor, who campaigned on cleaning up the corruption, has been suspended by the city council, and they are trying to recall him. Should be interesting to see how this develops.....

USA! USA!

2011-07-10T21:14:00.001+02:00

The USA women won a fantastic game against Brazil. Read about it here, and ignore the British use of funny pluralization and hyphenation.

Atlantis

2011-07-09T16:24:00.001+02:00

Today on the way to the faculty I walked past a language school advertising one of the numerous "work and travel" programs that are offered to young Czech students. The deal is that you sign up with one of these language schools (travel agencies also do this), they arrange a job for the student in the US or Australia or the UK or wherever, and then you get a little time at the end to travel around the country you just worked in. Lots of times the work is not particularly glamorous, but it's good pay by Czech standards, and you get to practice your English, see a new country, the usual.

Anyway, while walking past this particular language school I saw their poster for traveling through the US, with the usual things our country is famous for, and the things that non-Americans think of when they think of the USA. There were of course, the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, the beautiful California beaches, Times Square, the Capitol, and the beautiful Florida beaches too -- complete with space shuttle.

Whether we like it or not, we must lead. Soft Power matters when people in other countries say "I want that for my country someday," or "Gosh, that country can really do some special stuff!" Space exploration is one of these things. It's all well and good to have a nice big welfare state where nobody cheats and everybody is one big happy family. But it's not what makes one's country truly special, or admired. You can't put a welfare plan on a poster and it doesn't make schoolchildren dream.

There are definitely problems with the space program -- its bureaucracy has become horribly ossified, it sometimes seems to lack a vision, and it's terribly wasteful. But at the same time, it serves a purpose greater than many of the other ridiculous things that ooze out of Washington. And it's something that people around the world notice. And they notice it closing down too.

The Women's World Cup

2011-07-07T22:12:00.001+02:00

I'm writing this sitting in a bar (where else?) in the Vienna Airport watching Das Erste (how it's being beamed into Wien, I don't know) and waiting for the second half of the Australia-Norway game to start. The deal is that the Norwegian ladies (who have one star on their jerseys, from 1995, I believe) need a win to progress to the quarterfinals; the Aussies just need a tie. By the time I finish this post, the game will be over. [UPDATE: Australia won 2-1; they now face the Germans in the quarterfinals.]

In the five previous Women's World Cups, the USA has two titles, the Norwegians have the aforementioned one, and the deutsche Frauen have the last two, plus a home field advantage for this tournament. I was in the stadium for last night's Germany-France game; I gotta say I was impressed with how it went.

First off, they can play. At this level, it's a great show. It's definitely not as flashy as the Brazilian men with their crazy footwork or as rough as the athleticism of the US men's team, but it is also mercifully devoid of the diving and rolling that characterizes the World Cup in even years not divisible by four. I don't know if this is due to women's higher threshold of pain, their capacity for honesty, or their inability to exaggerate their emotions. In any case, it is a relief to watch a game without screaming "YOU PANSY!" at the TV.

If the play itself is comparable, it's like watching a men's game as though it was played on a slightly larger field -- beautiful passes and great timing are a greater advantage in the women's game, and the opportunity for breakaway counterattacks is higher. In this respect, it seems more like hockey or basketball, and it's truly exciting. Your writer and his entourage were treated to an evening with far more corner kicks and breakaways than was to be expected. (Indeed, the game also included a red card for the French goalkeeper, which was unusual in any circumstance, and that definitely spiced things up as well. But that was exceptional.)

So enough about the "Gee, can girls play?" question. Sure they can. What about the rest of it? Why is it that Norway, a country not known for its worldwide athletic prowess outside of curling and biathlon, is a perennial favorite? If we look at the sixteen teams, what does it say about those countries that are in, and those countries that aren't?

Obviously, there is a huge correlation between the "Westness" of a country and its likelihood of playing in this tournament, with the curious exception of North Korea -- a curious exception in many respects. But Japan is here, along with the Australians and the Kiwis, and NAFTA is here. France and Germany are representing Europe's southeast coast. There is actually an unusual correlation in that countries that have great women's soccer programs are also those that tend to do well in the Winter Olympics. Perhaps it's the old Weberian Protestantism, perhaps it's the cultural liberalism in which that flourishes, but to a large extent, cultural patterns seem to show a greater correlation for success than athletic tradition.

Perhaps the wild card in this respect is the traditional (men's) soccer powerhouse of Brazil. But it shouldn't really be surprising that a country of that size with that kind of history wouldn't have a few girls who tagged along with their big brothers and eventually (after no doubt being last picked!) earned some respect from the boys. And, boy, did they learn to play, too. [UPDATE: they play the USA in the next game. Should be interesting.]

So the tournament continues. Should be fun, and should be worth watching. And maybe even the US Ladies will add a third star to their jerseys.

George Ballas, RIP

2011-07-07T18:26:00.001+02:00

Don Boudreaux at Café Hayek reflects on the death of George Ballas, distinctly American hero.

George Weigel.....

2011-07-06T11:37:00.001+02:00

has an excellent column today. He writes in the context of New York's new gay-marriage law, but touches on many other aspects of the (sometimes antagonistic) relationship between the insatiable state and the rest of us. Allusions to Arendt, Kolakowski, and Revel doesn't hurt either.

For all the loyal readers out there, there will be a couple more posts soon, possibly even today. I have some thoughts on Fourth of July in exile, and the Women's World Cup, It's been a long week, and it's only Wednesday.

The Democracy of Design

2011-06-22T19:55:00.001+02:00

Your lowly and humble correspondent has been sitting on this piece from the Economist for about four and a half months, and realized that it was time to finally write something about it. (Other articles include this one from the NYT.)
In the Economist article, the ever-unnamed journalist discusses the bright and strange future of 3D printing. Having seen one of these clever devices in action at one of the universities here in Brno, it is a fascinating sight (if technology doesn't seem like magic, it's probably obsolete) and even the professors there admit that it's just the beginning of what it might mean for design and manufacturing. We should not particularly be surprised by this. Technology has given us such concepts as print-on-demand publishing as well, so that the investment costs of printing can be greatly reduced, facilitating the spread of niche markets for various publications. And we will continue to find out what options may lie in store for that (assuming people still occasionally want paper books).

In either case, the consensus from both articles is that we seem to be taking our first small steps away from traditional mass-produced industrial design. Where the market will run with this technique is up to the entrepreneurs, but it seems almost inevitable that "mass-customization" will become the norm. One can easily imagine the idea of Ikea having a "home furniture printer" whereby a few basic styles of chair can be displayed, while customers come in with the measurements of a room they would like to create. The sofa frame can be printed to fit any corner of a room in a matter of hours, along with some very tasteful (or tasteless!) plastic or alloy chairs, according to the height and, ahem, width demanded for each family member; fabrics can be calculated and cut accordingly.

What intrigues your writer most about this development is not the possible commercial benefits of mass customization (though they will certainly be numerous and amazing) but the effect we will see on the design of so many of our little plastic objects, and what it might mean for aesthetics. Want more bling or your cell phone, or a different color? Housings for all sorts of household products, from toasters to cell phones, dishes and kitchen goods, all these professionally designed products may one day be limited only by the imagination of the (amateur?) designer. If you desire a vegan black metal kitchen, for example, you would simply buy the "black" granules of plastic required, plug various values into the design software that comes standard with your toaster, and press print.

What would this democracy of design mean for us as a culture? The internet and cable TV have already led to certain splinterings and ever-more-specialized niches for our news and opinions; would we see people customizing their furniture the same way they customize their news? Will we judge our friends based on how good their designs are, or will we give them pre-designed toasters as wedding gifts? (Every married couple must receive at least one toaster at their wedding. It is a rule. I read it somewhere.)

I sincerely doubt that we would see the end of professional design; just because paint is easier for the average person to get now than it was in Michalangelo's day, it does not detract from his abilities, or those of our more modern painters. However, it is also clear that there is probably less consensus on aesthetics now than ever before in the Western world. We will almost certainly be shocked by some of our friends' terrible taste ("Honey, did you see their pink-and-green marbled plastic dishes?!?!") but we will also have more liberty to opt out of some of the more ridiculous design trends.

Perhaps none of this may come to pass, and the majority of us will continue to be content with the factory-made default PC housing, in its drab gray or forgettable silver. But it is also true that 3D printing may make our set of preferences a bit broader, and infuse a little more pluralism into one more aspect of our life. That, of course, is the design of democracy.

Daniel Hannan's observations on Belgium....

2011-06-16T13:12:00.001+02:00

are well worth a read.

Short version: Belgium hasn't had a government for a year. And the economy is growing faster than the state. There may be a few correlation/causation issues here (as Hannan himself points out) but all in all, it's not a bad place to be these days.

Ending Medicare, (or Mending It)

2011-06-06T15:31:00.001+02:00

This article from Andrew McCarthy is delightful in principle, but I think that I disagree. Here's why.

First off, I'd *love* to end Medicare. McCarthy is absolutely right on that. It's expensive and provides awful service in spite of that fact. And comparing it to a Ponzi scheme is harsh, but not terribly inaccurate. So I suppose my disagreement is more with style than with substance, or maybe more along the lines of what the German Greens talk about when they discuss the "Fundis" and the "Realos" (the fundamentalists and the realists). I think philosophically I'm a Fundi. Frankly, I really don't see a constitutional role for the government here anyway, much less when it's ridiculously wasteful and ineffective. In this respect, the overall irresponsibility of the political class on this is scandalous.

But I think McCarthy misses something when he points out that "'Incremental change,' said Medicare scholar Martha Derthick, 'has less potential for generating conflict than change that involves innovation in principle'" yet he fails to apply that to our side. It's undoubtedly true that if Republicans were to slash Medicare drastically, there would be a great deal of disruption in the health care market. If allowed to work for a couple years, these adjustments, I believe, would eventually even themselves out, and there are certainly things that a more robust plan could do to wean recipients off Medicare and insert them into alternatives. The thing is that they would never be allowed to "work for a couple years" -- Republicans would be absolutely hammered at the polls in subsequent elections, and anything that Democrats would replace it with would resort to the same salami-slicing that got us to this point in the first place. McCarthy's right that it's not courageous, but a few steps in the right direction might at least buy us some time and pave the way for further reforms. Politics sometimes has to be about the art of the possible, and what might be helpful would be someone on the Right offering a truly innovative plan to show just how conservative (insofar as that means "not radical") the Ryan Plan is. The Good Cop-Bad Cap routine is an old standby in politics; it seems like a terrific opportunity to use it here.

Required Reading

2011-05-07T14:21:00.001+02:00

This brief post from Café Hayek is excellent. I don't completely agree, but there's definitely a strong element of truth in Dr. Boudreaux's comparison of infomercials and politics.

Osama bin Laden

2011-05-05T00:25:00.001+02:00

Osama bin Laden is dead, and the world is a better place now that he is gone. The news was delivered to me Monday morning over my cheap Chinese radio, and I wasn't completely certain I had heard it correctly. (For the technical details, I'm sure Drudge will be a better source than this blog.) I was in a hurry for work, listening in the shower, in Czech, and only later did I get all caught up on the various details. It turns out they're trickling out bit by bit.

It feels, well, strange, and a little anticlimactic. I don't particularly feel terrific about it the way I feel like I'm supposed to. Obviously, I'm glad, and maybe if we captured him alive I would have the time to really work up the outrage. But Ramesh Ponnuru in this post beat me to fleshing out a lot of my own feelings (and Kathryn Jean Lopez offered some initial response here), and so when I heard the news, I smiled, and I was proud of the Americans who conducted the raid, but I didn't laugh, I didn't pump my fist, and I didn't announce it from the rooftop. I did keep a promise to Osama I made nine years ago and drank a couple glasses of Jack Daniel's. I was glad because I felt justice being served, but I also was reminded that justice is not always an easy thing, even if it is an obvious thing.

It seems more like we've adopted a more workmanlike attitude to the GWOT (am I still allowed to use this acronym?) than we had in October 2001, which I have mixed feelings about. I feel less and less the urgency of solving this problem this very week, today, immediately, and while I think we always knew this would be a long war, I wish it didn't feel sometimes like emptying the world's gutters and septic tanks. I don't say this to put down the men and women we have completing these odious yet necessary tasks, and heaven knows that there will be more great milestones which we will look back on as we see liberal, democratic, accountable government take root in the Middle East. But the friends we all still have in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere will continue to have many days of "just" "routine" "maintenance."

This has two aspects. First off, our fighting men and women have become more professional and effective in their tasks. We as a fighting nation are more capable of dispatching those who would use radical Islam to threaten our security, our interests, and our values. Your correspondent is no military expert, and it would be horribly presumptuous to supply all sorts of details. Nevertheless, it's not pretty, but we've learned a lot as a country, often terribly tragically, in the past ten years. We understand strategy as well as tactics better; it is critical that we persevere.

On the other hand, moving away from urgency and starting the Long War will be more difficult politically. We will be tempted occasionally to defer our responsibilities, perhaps out of misplaced compassion, or a naive faith in "the international community," or just the occasional exhaustion and frustration that comes from a protracted and sometimes seemingly thankless Sisyphean job. But it is critical that we persevere.

The very same day that Navy SEALs were dispensing justice in a remote village in Pakistan, Czech nationalists and neo-Nazis were rallying against those same universal freedoms bin Laden himself was working to destroy. They were surrounded by police, who were spaced between them and the protesters who came out to affirm those liberal values. The good news is that there were more protesters than neo-Nazis; it is critical that we persevere.

Wedded to Nuclear Power

2011-04-21T17:47:00.001+02:00

One happy Czech couple tied the knot last week at the Temelín Nuclear Power Plant near the German border a couple days ago.

As the article notes, 55% of Czech continue to support an increased nuclear power capacity, standing in stark contrast to their German neighbors to the north and west, where huge protests recently against nuclear power have rattled Angela Merkel's already frail government. The German press is deeply anti-nuclear as well, and it is interesting to compare Czech and German reports from the Fukushima crisis. Nevertheless, the article linked above points out that since Chancellor Merkel's moratorium on building of new nuclear plants, Czech energy exports to Germany have increased fivefold. The fact of that matter is that Germany, or any other nation, cannot run on good feelings and so-called "clean energy." But if they want to pay for other people's energy, so be it. What would be interesting, cynical, and wholly expected, as the article notes, is German efforts to make it more difficult for other nations (including those that aren't on the world's most active fault lines) to build their own nuclear plants and sell the power to Germany. This will obviously result in higher prices for energy for everyone, higher consumption of fossil fuels, and more subsidies to solar plants in cloudy nations.

So congratulations to the elementary school teacher and her new husband. May they live long, happy, warm, comfortable lives in the shadow of the cooling tower, and may those towers continue to keep them warm and comfortable, if not always happy.

Gagarin's Night

2011-04-14T17:05:00.001+02:00

50 years ago this week, Yuri Gagarin spent 108 minutes in orbit, and when he came down, he had one of the biggest smiles in the world. What's interesting about this particular landmark is the way it has been commemorated here in Brno. There was a parade-cum-performance by one of the local theaters down what used to be Gagarin Street (changed in 1990), and a play was performed later that evening. All in all, it was a fairly light-hearted, amusing event. People wore silly costumes and waited for the grand spaceman to take flight to the stars (using Brno's new rocket-shaped clock, obviously).

What was interesting was the fact that most of the participants were young people. The older generation, as one of my students explained, had "had enough Gagarin. It was always Gagarin as propaganda," Gagarin as a Hero of the Working Class, Gagarin as our Soviet brother. "After 1990, we never heard about him again, and I don't really mind." The younger generation certainly views him as a benign, or possibly ironic reminder of the past, but it's safe to say that his identification with socialist progress has been dialed down a bit.

It is not completely surprising that politics as well as time has changed the nature of the appreciation for Gagarin's legacy. (For an interesting article, click here.) As a symbol, he was certainly an "unpleasant shock" for the West, as one columnist put it yesterday in Mladá fronta Dnes; as a person, he was probably a relatively non-political person who just wanted to fly really fast airplanes. After his parachute landing in a field on the steppes of Russia, he flew experimental jets for the Russians until his MiG-15 crashed. There weren't that many places for a guy like that to get a normal job, and his daughter pointed out that after 1961, neither he nor his wife ever had a moment's peace.

"When they saw me in my space suit and the parachute dragging alongside as I walked, they started to back away in fear. I told them, 'Don't be afraid, I am a Soviet like you, who has descended from space and I must find a telephone to call Moscow!'"

For young people, he has become a spaceman, rather than a Communist. That's probably not such a bad thing, and it's likely that he himself would have wanted it.

Stuff to look at from Michael Yon

2011-04-10T21:56:00.001+02:00

The last two posts by Michael Yon are excellent. This one is simply excellent reporting, with some fantastic pics thrown in. The latest post is less writing, and more pictures, but also very good, especially at the end, when he links to his Gigapan site, which features an amazing interactive panorama of a citadel built by (we think) Alexander the Great. Well worth your time.

The perils of modern interdependency

2011-04-07T09:49:00.001+02:00

Apparently, Armenia lost internet for a few hours last week. The whole country.

Let's have a thought-experiment, shall we? We often discuss our dependency on commodities, particularly oil. But what about our dependency on timely (indeed, instantaneous) information? One of the nice things about our technology infrastructure is that its very nature is built in nodes and is decentralized. Nevertheless, there continue to be ways to threaten a significant portion of our information infrastructure (can we coin the expression "Infostructure?" Doesn't it sound modern and progressive?) through such things as electromagnetic pulses, attacks on our satellite systems, or cyberattacks. Protecting this infrastructure may be as important as any physical bridge or securing a supply of cheap and reliable energy.

Fortunately, the internet in the US (and in most of Europe) has back-ups, duplications, and special software to protect against this. But it never hurts to be reminded of our vulnerabilities.

A Bad Day of Fishing....

2011-03-31T11:45:00.001+02:00

.... is still better than a good day of work. And who cares what you catch?

This post is a good one too

2011-03-17T17:59:00.001+01:00

I second Yuval. As usual.

A fantastic post yesterday.....

2011-03-17T15:44:00.001+01:00

from Conservative Home. Andrew Lilico asks "when should a conservative support a revolution?" and outlines the rationale in a readable and clear essay. He examines a few disparate strands in the conservative canon, and weaves them together well. His answer, reasonable enough, comes down to "sometimes, and carefully," which is unsurprising of course, but the argumentation is fantastic.

O Blessèd Pilsner

2011-03-14T13:41:00.001+01:00

The Bishop of Pilsen is sending some Prazdroj to the Vatican. The beer will brew for the 40 (actually 46) days of Lent; it is apparently a gift from Pilsen for being a European City of Culture in 2015. Combine that with this particular Lenten sacrifice, and one could make an argument that avoiding beer is perhaps less pious than indulging in it!

A Story of Two Trains

2011-03-13T03:52:00.001+01:00

It is fitting, perhaps, that the great Jan Wiener and the great Arnošt Lustig went down to Sheol within a couple months of each other. Both were known and celebrated for their survival of an awful period of history, and were wise enough to realize that their continued examination of that time could profoundly influence successive generations to avoid making the mistakes of their era. It could not have been easy to carry that burden, to examine and reexamine the loss, tragedy, and heartbreak of it. It is like picking up and analyzing a hot coal, trying to determine why it glows. And the first time you encountered it was when it woke you up in your bed.

The fates of Jan Wiener and Arnošt Lustig can be perhaps traced to a story of two very different train rides. When Lustig was young, he was ushered into a cattle car bound for Theresienstadt outside of Prague; from there, he would be transported to a place whose very name sends shivers down spines and stands synonymous as the standard of the darkest of those dark times. Only the strongest could have gotten out there alive; Lustig did, only to be sent to Buchenwald, and it is bitter irony that a place like Buchenwald can be considered a place for survivors. The clicking of the rails underneath during his journeys ticked off seconds, minutes, days, lives, cultures. Jan Wiener's train ride was a little different. Upon realization that the Nazis had come to town, Mr. Wiener applied for an exit visa, vowing never to return to his native Czechoslovakia. Times were hard, and bureaucrats were scarce. A (Czech) functionary read his application and the things he intended to to take to Yugoslavia, which was consider safer.

"I'd like to take four shirts," explained a young Jan.
"You can take two."
"And I've got four pairs of shoes."
"Jew, you'll be lucky to wear out one! You can take the ones on your feet. We'll confiscate the rest anyway. You might as well pack light."

Wiener went to Yugoslavia with a small bag. From there, he started experiencing problems similar to those he was experiencing in Czechoslovakia. This time, however, he was denied an exit visa at all, and it was time to escape. His family told him to run; his father committed suicide. But how does one cross the frontier into Italy (hardly a sanctuary for people in his position)? Jan Wiener took the train too.

In Ljubljana, Wiener snuck into the train yard and identified the trains heading west. A ticket wouldn't really do any good. So he climbed under the carriage, and held on.

For 18 hours.

Under the toilet, where it was most secure, and there were the most handholds.

In Italy, he could go no longer; the dogs missed him at the border. Dogs can't smell you if you no longer smell human. He broke into an Italian's house, stole the man's rifle, and promised to send it back after the war. He did. But only after joining the RAF and raining bombs down on those who drove his father to suicide, scorched most of Europe, and drove boys like Lustig to the gas chambers.

For Lustig, the train was a rendez-vous with fate, death, injustice; for Wiener, a chance at revenge, life, justice. Neither deserved their train ride; both would hear the world's clicking rails, feel the rush of the air of the world's tunnels, and move to the rhythm of the world's wagons for the next 60 years.

Lustig and Wiener both returned to Czechoslovakia after the war. Lustig promptly joined the Communist Party (it gave him the opportunity to become a journalist) and Wiener went to jail (for opposing them). Eventually, both left for the USA, Wiener as a historian (who wrote a book on the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, but whose historical experise was more accurately captured in his lectures to students about the intricacies of fascist resistance and RAF tactics) and Lustig as 68'er (who quickly became a subtle critic of the regime in the 50s). Lustig withdrew his membership, and continued to look at the world as an ironic place where the default reaction was a smile and a joke to even the most horrible circumstance; Wiener was a harder man (your correspondent remembers once in Prague when he balanced himself on a pub's bar with his hands, his feet outstretched like a gymnast, perfectly prone, after three glasses of wine, at the age of 80) and even his handshake was a sign that this is a man who would fight and disagree and persevere.

These two men, so profoundly different in their experiences of that time and so different in their demeanor, help us recognize the density of human nature. Both were appalled, and rightly so, about their formative years. They managed it the way that they could. They were both idealists, and both realists. They both survived, and used all their resources at hand to do so. The denouement of this story has largely been written; they have given their lectures, written their books, fathered their children. We treasure, and we honor their memory. They have run their race; it is for us, in turn, to transfer their wisdom to our posterity. Let us hope we are up to the task. R.I.P.

If you only read one thing today.....

2011-03-10T12:47:00.001+01:00

it should be this piece from Conrad Black. Delicious.

Ron Paul

2011-03-06T16:20:00.001+01:00

A friend of mine sent me the video from Ron Paul's CPAC speech with the subject "Preaching to the Choir!" He then noted that at 16:20, Dr. Paul says that "government should never be able to do anything you can't do." There are definitely worse things in politics than Ron Paul. I don't agree with him on everything, and he's certainly not a bad guy to have keeping an eye on the Fed.

However, I don't completely agree with the sentiment that "government should never be able to do anything you can't do." After all, governments are instituted among men (and women!) precisely to take care of things that we can't do ourselves, like infrastructure, national security, and a slightly less biased justice system than we would have if we had some sort of blood-feud system like we see in less, ahem, progressive nations. There are certain things that government is "allowed" to do that we as citizens cannot. Some of these things, such as the proper use of eminent domain, or punishment of criminals, are indeed probably only valid in the context of the "public" holding some priority over the private citizen. Frankly, I don't think we want too much building of roads over people's property without a clear definition of the public interest; otherwise it would be a violation of property rights. Criminals are another case of this. For as much as we all love Charles Bronson, I think we can generally agree that vigilante justice is not an optimal situation for society, even for those criminals who "needed killin'." Indeed, it is precisely when government fails to do what we expect it to do that vigilantism arises. This is not the proper functioning of limited government; it is anarchy and ultimately leads to a less free population.

On the other hand, there are things the state does that perhaps it shouldn't be allowed to do, and to be fair, I think this is more what the good doctor is referring to. If you run up a massive debt and then coerce money from people, you're considered a shakedown artist. If the state does it, it's known as winning the future. If Bernie Madoff promises to pay pensions with money he gets from people who think that money will still be around for their retirement, he dies in jail; if the state does the same thing, we call it Social Security and build its founder a memorial.

So I think Dr. Paul needs to be a little careful when he paints with so broad a brush. Certainly, I see no philosophical reason other than a symbolism of unity for a monopoly on the money supply; those folded-up portraits in our pockets are everyday reminders of our collective identity as Americans. (N.B. Obviously, one of the goals of the €uro has been to facilitate this same feeling of common enterprise in Europe. The jury is still out on how this experiment is going.) Perhaps that is a partially valid justification for this monopoly. And a single currency certainly facilitates ease of trade by reducing transaction costs substantially. At the same time, precisely because Dr. Paul recognizes that the state (and the Federal Reserve) has the ability to intervene in the markets by using monetary policy, it has a huge advantage over private individuals in capital markets; moreover, these interventions inevitably create winners and losers, as inflation is quite simply a tax on those who prudently save their money, and reward those who are already in debt. This is a perverse logic, and Dr. Paul is correct to point out that it is unfair that the state can do this.

Arnošt Lustig, R.I.P.

2011-02-27T15:15:00.001+01:00

For the original version of this obituary in Czech, click here. It's from Mladá fronta Dnes. For the translation (sorry if it's inaccurate, I was in a hurry to publish it), just keep reading. I'll almost certainly have more thoughts on this later.

After a long fight with a malignant illness, author Lustig has died.

At the age of 84 Arnošt Lustig died the morning of the 26th in Prague; he was a journalist and author of books about the Holocaust, which he survived as a young man. For five years he battled a difficult illness.

When doctors told him that he had blood cancer, he might live to be around 80. But Arnošt Lustig didn't give the fight.

"I know well that cancer's a bitch, [Jiří] Dienstbier died two Saturdays ago, dying more and more, nobody knows what the tumor will do.... But I hope that I'll get better, I've got great doctors, like Dr. Kozák, he's a genius. I've gotten over everything in life so far, now I'll get over cancer too," he said in Magazín MF DNES in January.

That and his words speak for themselves, how the time of illness is hard. "This illness is stupid -- I take four steps and I have to lie down. I'm weak as a fly without wings, who wants to run around."

Arnošt Lustig succumbed to cancer. "He survived the concentration camps, but he didn't survive a malignant illness, which he fought for 5 years...." commented Markéta Mališová, the director of the Franz Kafka Society. Lustig was the honorary chairman of the board of the Society, and the Society's publishing house published many of his books.

The news also struck former President and playwright Václav Havel. "With a heavy heart I received the news of Arnošt's death. However, he is now free of his suffering and pain. I think of him, and of his characteristic smile and bottomless optimism.

"His optimism was beautifully contagious, and his will and vitality was always an encouragement. The Jewish community must hold dear to his spirit," said the head of the Jewish Community of Prague František Bányai.

According to Mališová, the writer had big plans to wire some books, visit Milan Kundera in Paris, go to Washington for a juicy lamb chop, and lead a discussion at a univeristy in Quebec.

Never Believed He Was a Great Writer

Arnošt Lustig was born in Prague on December 21, 1926. As a teenager have was sent to the ghetto in Theresienstadt and the concentration camps Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

His experiences from those times formed the focus of his work. two collection of narratives, Night and Hope (1957) and Diamonds of the Night (1958) debuted thereafter. Zdeněk Brynych made the film "Transport z ráje" [Transport from Paradise] from the first; Jan Němec's "Tma nemá stín" [Darkness Casts no Shadow] was from a piece in Diamonds of the Night.

Lustig's literary stories demonstrated the internal strength of man; this strength allows man to face humiliation and hold on to human dignity even in situations of horrible threats. Among his most famous works, the books Dita Saxová and Modlitba pro Kateřinu Horowitzovou [A Prayer for Kateřina Horowitzová] deal with this theme.

After the war, he studied journalism and and worked for various dailies and broadcasters; among other things, he covered the Israel-Arab War. Later, he became a reporter and director for Czechoslovak Broadcasting, the editor of the weekly Mladý svět [Young World], and was a scriptwriter at Barrandov Studios in Prague. In 1968 Lustig emigrated. He briefly lived in Israel, then in Yugoslavia, and in 1970 moved to the USA. He regularly returned to Czech Republic in the last 20 years.

"He felt at home everywhere, but in Prague the most," explained Mališová, noting that he loved life and lived it to the fullest to the very end. He never believed that he was a good writer. He was unconvinced by his many prizes, such as the the Lifetime Achievement Prize from the American Academy of Art and Fiction, the Franz Kafka Prize, and many others. He said it for 50 years," reminisced Mališová.

Lustig was nominated 14 times for the International Man Booker Prize, the international equivalent of the famed British literary awrd. In 2008 he was also awarded the Franz Kafka International Literary Award.

Second Place!

2011-02-22T14:36:00.000+01:00

Now in English.

Second Place

2011-02-18T16:43:00.002+01:00

I apologize to my legions of adoring fans about the current lack of blogging. Your correspondent has been traipsing around Popperland and its contested border with Kuhnia. So here is something to whet your appetite about Czech Republic (apropos of nothing).
Turns out Moldova drinks the most alcohol of any nation in the world, followed by the Czechs. Third are the Hungarians, and coming in at a very disappointing fourth place are the Russians. Read about it here.

Good luck!

UPDATE: This post previously indicated that "Moldavia" and NOT Moldova was the world #1. We apologize for any travel plans that may have been affected by this incorrect reading of the original text.

The "Doc Fix" in Czech Republic

2011-02-01T14:59:00.001+01:00

According to the helpful and diligent translators at the Prague Daily Monitor and at Česká pozice, doctors in the Czech Republic are starting to resign en masse due to low pay and poor conditions in Czech hospitals. The problem is a complicated one, but it has important lessons for any US health care reform effort.

Health insurance is guaranteed in the Czech Republic, and is considered a basic right. (Actually, they say that health care is a basic right, but can only be obtained if you have an insurance card from an EU-based insurer. It is difficult to pay cash for any treatment at a doctor's office, though possible at hospitals.) The majority of the population, 58%, is enrolled in the state-run All-General Health Insurance Company (and the vast majority of retirees, children and the handicapped), though it is also possible to obtain non-profit insurance similar to Blue Cross-Blue Shield. There is no way to buy private health insurance.

The doctor's Komora (this can be translated as "union" or "chamber," depending on your attitudes towards government employees, general practitioners, professional organizations, etc.) is right to criticize aspects of the Czech health system. Wages are relatively low, treatments do not necessarily correspond to costs, and demand outstrips supply, yet doctors are unable to adjust their rates.

According to the doctors' campaign of "Děkujeme, odcházíme," ("Thank you, we're leaving" -- the name reminds people of a early 2000s movement in Czech politics called "Thank you, please leave" that wanted new blood in politics, rather than the same old parties and same old politicians) the system is has many problems -- the group has identified 13 here.

First off, the system is (according to them) underfinanced: 7% of GDP (paid by the state) goes to health care, compared to an EU average of 10% (to say nothing of the amount the US pays). This results in low wages, poorer negotiations with drug companies, and poorer training. They point out that among OECD countries, only Poland, Mexico, and South Korea spend less.

But doctors are also frustrated with politicians in Czech Republic; the Minister of Health is the most frequently replaced minister in this country's history, precisely because of its controversial nature. This means that there is no reassurance that any reform in policy ever will be actually implemented; moreover, politicians themselves offer promises they cannot deliver on, and the health care sector has become the battlefield for an "ideological war." Additionally, the group complains of corruption in hospital maintenance and expansion by well-connected construction companies, and uncompensated overtime.

So what can we learn from the case of Czech doctors threatening to exit the system, hoping for greener pastures in Germany? First off, they have called for increased competition in the Czech health market, and argue against the once-size-fits-all plan (similar to Medicaid) that currently lowers levels of care, eliminates opportunities for people to pay extra for better care (and at the same time help to finance the system more completely), and instead more effectively tie costs to prices. The movement points out that a "doc fix" is no fix -- the system of government-provided health care itself is rotten, and the occasional reimbursement to doctors only relieves a symptom; it does nothing to cure the disease.

Additionally, they recognize that health care has become a political football and an area where politics is always inflaming the passions. This leads to demagoguery and the constant intervention of the state in people's personal decisions, and renders the concept of limited government unthinkable. It leads to a cycle of broken promises, a skeptical and cynical population, and frustrated doctors who cannot plan in the long term for themselves or for their patients.

Political connections in the health care system, indeed, may drive up costs and increase waste. As hospitals are managed and owned often by the state (or public universities, to be fair), politically connected construction firms will have an advantage in securing contracts for building and maintaining hospitals, and the state has considerably less incentive to make a decision based on fiscal responsibility. Conversely, independent hospitals have great incentive to use their resources wisely. Developing an independent hospital sector in Czech Republic would allow competition to work its price-lowering magic, while also increasing accountability. It would be a mistake to eliminate these sorts of innovations in hospital development in the US, which is also something to worry about.

Some Czech doctors are wary about the pitfalls of the Czech system; we would be wise to look to these pitfalls and avoid them while attempting our own reforms in the US.

I Misread This at First

2011-01-20T15:48:00.001+01:00

This article from Haaretz deals with the changes in the way the AK Party in Turkey is clamping down on alcohol in that country.

I was just a little confused at first about the Ankara Bar Association.....

Two Articles that Caught My Eye

2011-01-08T17:55:00.001+01:00

One reason the US tends to support the Israeli democracy over the various Arab thugocracies which surround it can be explained by these two contrasting articles. The first is here, where Prime Minister Netanyahu faced some fierce opposition to his handling of a forest fire that raged through parts of Israel. Apparently, this was a bit of a Katrina moment for the Israeli government, which was seen as trying to avoid responsibility for their handling of the fire.

The other article which came off the virtual wire is this one, wherein we read about the latest two conspiracy theories emanating out of various parts of the Arab world. Turns out those pesky Joooz are at it again, training the fauna of the Middle East to be Zionist fellow travelers. The most recent is a falcon, apparently sent from Tel Aviv University on either a routine migratory operation or (if you want the real truth that those wily hook-nosed beasts* are unwilling to give) a nefarious plot of espionage. Before that, of course, was the Zionist shark attacking tourists in Egypt.

The contrast of the two articles is jarring. On the one hand, we see Israeli citizens angry at, well, Israeli politicians. As a general rule, this is a healthy formula. You probably should be angry at your politicians, especially when they burn your home or burn your money. They are accountable in ways that Arab politicians simply do not have to be. It seems clear that the relatives of the 42 people who died in the fires are not planning to vote Likud in the next elections; but it is also clear that they have a choice. They are not inventing stories about how Fatah snuck in and set the fires; they are responding according to democratic custom, wherein those responsible for public services must explain their failures.

It is not important whether Bibi's handling of the fires was proper or poor to make this point, and your correspondent is in any case not well-read enough in Israeli domestic politics to evaluate the government's response to the situation. (I also haven't seen any reports from forest fire grievance groups that asked us to empathize with the angry fire, who was brought up in government housing by a single old flame working two jobs when she was knocked up by a bolt of lighting. But oh, the sparks that flew for a time!) Rightly or wrongly though, Netanyahu and his ministers are the accountable team. The shekel stops there.

On the other hand, a shark attack or a wayward bird on a scientific study are considered obvious links to the machinations of a foreign enemy. (Though seriously, if the falcon was a spy, would it really have "Tel Aviv University" on a tag on its leg? The Mossad can train a bird to fly into Saudi Arabia on a recon mission, but they aren't smart enough to keep the identifying marks off it?) When people have no responsible outlet (such as the democratic process) for their grievances, they latch on to scapegoats and conspiracies. If democracy is going to come to the Arab World, we're still in trouble if these are the people doing the voting. The democratizing process will be ugly, as it often has been.

* The Joooz, I mean, not the falcon-controlled press....

Motivations, Human Nature, Christmas, and Social Science

2011-01-02T17:09:00.002+01:00

The following essay has loads of organizational problems, I'm sure, but I've been thinking about some of this recently, and finally got a chance to put some of these thoughts on "paper." I hope that it's more-or-less clear.

Every year on the 26th of December, the church where I've attended Christmas Eve services holds a "swing" service, complete with swing versions of carols and non-traditional traditional music. It's a lot of fun, and the director of the music school that provides the swing orchestra is does a great job. They have a great soprano singing the some of the tunes, and the audience/congregation also gets a chance to sing along as well.

At the end of the service, they leave out an offering plate to help defray the school's expenses, as well as an offering plate for a Christian charity that helps poor people in Brazil. It's always a really good time, but it got me thinking about the multiple motivations we have for the things we do. Sure, the director of the music school as well as the soprano undoubtedly truly believe that they are honoring the Lord through their music, but they also derive joy from performing for a crowd -- and one that will pay them a little, to boot! Additionally, the congregation meets to worship, but we as congregants are also having a good time doing so.

The nature of voluntary action is one of complex motivations. Community bake sales to raise money for the family whose house burned down, or getting your friends together on a sunny Saturday in May to clean up a section of highway are likely relatively inefficient ways of solving these problems. Nevertheless, we continue to do them.

Some of this, it seems, may be linked to a sense of community: cleaning up the section of highway sucks when you're doing it alone, but with a handful of friends, it's exponentially more tolerable, and maybe even (I dare say) fun. The pleasure we derive from being outside on a nice day with friends, and knowing we're "doing the right thing" together helps to make our altruistic work a little less of a sacrifice (especially if someone buys us drinks that evening and puts our picture in the newspaper!) and a little more of a social outing. We're not bad as people for enjoying the publicity (and the drinks!), but we're maybe less altruistic than we were than if we were doing it alone, in the rain.

This essay by Russ Roberts (as well as the blog post here that links to this essay) started to pique my interest on these things. Our wants and desires are much easier to justify when we feel like we are doing something for some "greater good." It's not as though we are exactly selfish, but if our interests dovetail with the "right" thing to do, it undeniably facilitates our ability to do so. We like doing the right thing, especially if we personally benefit from doing so. To admit this is not to debase ourselves to animals, simply ex post rationalizing the chase after our carnal urges; rather, it demonstrates our difference from mere beasts, since we develop a code of ethics and conduct that allows us to choose the correct course. We are neither bestial, with only desires, nor angelic and altruistic. Our curse and our blessing is to thread this needle as human beings.

Our motivations, our incentives are more complex than we can grasp logically or arithmetically. One of the failures of social "science" is our inevitable inability to quantify this, and it is an error to implicitly assume that we can. In the course of studying civil organizations in this part of the world, I'm surprised by the professionalization of these organizations -- the people most involved in civil society are the ones being paid (often by governments or by the EU) to do so. Again, that's not to say that these people are "only in it for the money" (they're definitely not) but if there wasn't any money, it seems unlikely that there would be as many paid "volunteers" either. It makes it very difficult to unravel the motivations of these players as altruistic angels, or self-serving opportunists.

I remember a book from my childhood you could find in the basement in my church in Colorado called The Clown of God. It has a sort of Little Drummer Boy feel to it, about a spiritually impoverished juggler who has nothing but his colored balls and a desire to honor the Infant Jesus with a gift. So he juggles in an empty church before an altar for the Child. In the end, he discovers that the most altruistic feelings usually come in secret, and that God sees the purity or impurity of our motivations better than we do ourselves. This is why Christ instructs us, speaking in Matthew 6, to pray and donate to the poor in secret. Doing so provides a check on our bestial, acquisitive nature, and turns our moral compass back towards God. We can and should still enjoy a performance of Händel's Messiah, and it would be wrong to characterize Elvis' rendition of O Little Town of Bethlehem (to say nothing of his version of Take May Hand, Precious Lord!) as solely a profit-making enterprise of Colonel Tom Parker, but we should also recognize the twin aspects of our nature. It's unfortunately not a particularly scientific endeavor.

If you only read one thing today....

2010-11-30T17:28:00.001+01:00

...read this piece from a very upset Walter Russel Mead. It's a delicious distillate of righteous anger, caustic sarcasm, and piquant humor. A shot of literary slivovice on a cold winter's evening. Every sentence builds on the first, and he manages to call out everyone from John Kerry to the Economist to people with "Big Degrees from Name Schools!"

Wise(r) Use of Government Funds

2010-10-30T22:49:00.001+02:00

This link from NASA shows a spirit of Yankee Ingenuity which reinforces all the good stereotypes about NASA while attacking some of the bureaucratic impressions the agency has (justifiably) been saddled with. It discusses how two satellites, somewhat long in the tooth and short on power, were destined to become space junk, yet were given a new lease on life, and on exploring, by catapulting them into a new orbit -- the orbit of the moon. Originally designed as satellites to investigate how solar rays affect earth, their earth-centric orbits caused them to spend more and more time in the dark, unable to re-charge their batteries. Rather than give up, however, the cracks at NASA came up with a better idea: put them into another orbit! By use of some pretty fancy work along the earth-moon Lagrange line, our astronomers flung them away from earth, but let the moon catch 'em. Now the mission has gotten a brand-new shiny name (kinda like in the movie Air Force One when the rescue plane changes its callsign after Harrison Ford tosses Gary Oldman into the Caspian), and a new lease on life to see how solar rays affect the moon.

What's particularly heartwarming about this story is that it uses existing government resources to expand its scope of research. It seems hardly a day goes by where we don't hear about ridiculous government waste, or duplication, or agencies explaining that "if we only had more money, we could...." Here, we see the best sort of government management: when the administrators think about investment and loss, opportunities to get the most bang for the buck, rather than insuring they spend every last nickel to ensure the same budget next year, and taking opportunities when they come, rather than waiting for the window to close, shrugging their shoulders, and saying, "well, if we had only had more money."

That's not to say that NASA doesn't have its own stories of waste, like any bureaucracy. And undoubtedly NASA is unlikely to advertise the cost of any mission on its own website. But it seems like stories like this are an example of "good" government, rather than what is so often the opposite.

A Dirty Campaign

2010-10-29T23:49:00.001+02:00

...in 1800!

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/the-negative-campaign-of-1800

"John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character."
"Jefferson is the son of a half-breed Indian squaw raised on hoecakes, and Hamilton is a Creole bastard brat of a Scotch peddler."

Onion imitates life

2010-10-24T22:05:00.001+02:00

Onion article from October 18.

Reuters from October 14.

Catching Up.....

2010-10-23T19:47:00.001+02:00

Your correspondent has recently been busy with visitors and other obligations, but finally has a chance to resume the blog. So first I guess a couple links.... the first from the "nice" Václav and the second from the "naughty" Václav -- Presidents Havel and Klaus, respectively. First, this piece (co-written by Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu) exhorts the Chinese regime to free Liu Xiaobo, pointing out that the ugly and backwards dictatorship of ~~Burma~~ ~~Myanmar~~ Burma (I'm an optimist!) is the only nation in the world which has locked up a Nobel Prize recipient.* The second piece comes from President Klaus, discussing the global warmists' agenda in the Financial Post. Klaus points out that various interests benefit from the idea of a global warming "crisis," and many more have invested their reputations and careers in "proving" the crisis. Moreover, Klaus attacks both the self-interest of the messengers and the message itself -- indeed, he largely attacks the ideology in ethical, rather than strictly economic, terms. In other words, he deploys they same ethical arguments about humanity that the more impassioned and (dare I say) emotional warmists use. He finds that the manufactured crisis is not only an economic problem, but a human-freedom problem.

The contrasts between these two men is one that I continue to find fascinating here on this side of the Atlantic. If history repeats itself, then surely we still see the split between the Jeffersonians and the followers of Adams. Both represent aspects of modern (post-18th Century) liberal society, with fundamentally different ideas about the role of the state in society, and indeed, the compatibility of the needs of society and the needs of the individual. Many Czech friends seem to know too much about the two as human beings, and so the advantage of being a foreigner-philosopher is the ability to separate their individual personalities (Klaus' legendary arrogance, Havel's tactical shortcomings as President) from their greater Weltanschauung. It is hardly surprising that they cannot stand each other, yet one can find in both great abilities to contribute to the debate about the role of the individual in society.

Moving right along, this article is amazing. Turns out there's not just water on the moon, but maybe even silver, and a whole bunch of interesting gases. Colonize it and On To Mars!

More to come soon, I promise!

* By the way, this is, of course, not entirely true: Jay Nordlinger explains here. But Myanmar's is the only current regime. The others were National Socialist Germany (1935's Carl von Ossietzky), the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Sakharov in 1975), and the socialist regime of Poland (Wałęsa in 1983) were the others. Additionally, 1927 Laureate Ludwig Quidde was imprisoned by Kaiser Wilhelm in 1896. Thankfully, these other regimes are all consigned to the ash heap of history.

Greetings from Olomouc....

2010-10-21T01:38:00.001+02:00

This'll make you angry.

Sorry to my legions of adoring fans -- your correspondent has been busy with a presentation at a conference in Olomouc, the former capital and largest city of Moravia. (More on all of that -- the presentation, the conference, and Olomouc -- in the next few days.)

Liu Xiaobo

2010-10-08T14:48:00.001+02:00

Congratulations to Mr. Liu for his courage, his fortitude, and his humanity. Nice work this year, Nobel Committee.

James M. Buchanan...

2010-10-04T15:36:00.001+02:00

It's his 91st birthday today! Yay!

And Another Thing!

2010-10-03T22:38:00.001+02:00

This should be required reading (from Yuval, who rarely writes non-required reading) for anyone under the age of 35. (Your correspondent is 31, and terrified of the situation Dr. Levin describes).

Tag der Deutschen Einheit

2010-10-03T22:20:00.001+02:00

Today Germany celebrates the 20th anniversary of reunification, (see here for Spiegel's terrific collection of photos) and it's another opportunity to examine the process of unification, the concept of "Ostalgie," and determine what progress has been made and what still needs to happen for Germany to truly unite. Twenty years on, we can see that the former East is wealthier than before, yet problems such as left- and right-wing extremism continue to plague many cities in the former DDR. This is in part due to the relative lack of investment, and thus of jobs, in the east, which continues to suffer from considerably higher unemployment than that of the western Länder -- according to ARD, unemployment continues to be above 12% in all but one of the Länder of the former DDR (Thüringen sneaks in at 11.4%), while it remains below 9% in every West German Land except the city-state of Bremen. (See here for a great graphic showing the discrepancies 20 years on.)

The big speech this year was made by Christian Wulff, the Bundespräsident, in Bremen. Every year, the Day of German Unity is celebrated in a different city (as well as in Berlin). Wulff noted the importance of German unity extending to German Muslims, as well as to the citizens of the formerly SED-controlled part of Germany. (Nevertheless, the British Foreign Office and the American State Department issued warnings telling their respective subjects and citizens to "be vigilant" about terror attacks in Europe this week.) Yet he also noted that "those who disdain our country and our values must be resisted." Speigel described the speech as relatively non-controversial, but also somewhat forgettable -- a hit, but probably not even a stand-up double, much less a home run. Kanzlerin Merkel, on the other hand, focused more on those whose lives had been drastically changed by die Wende, and noted that many people over 50 in 1990 were often frustrated in their efforts to find work after 1989, and look at reunification with a bitter eye.

In the end, though, the victory of freedom over servitude and of democracy over dictatorship is something worth celebrating. The reunification process was not and still is not perfect, as Kanzlerin Merkel and former presidential candidate Joachim Gauck pointed out. Challenges remain for Germany's citizens, of West and East alike. Nevertheless, a unified Germany is an important symbol of what can be achieved, particularly with a sober attitude toward personal responsibility in the service of liberty.

"Is there a Conservative Tradition in America?"

2010-09-28T20:58:00.001+02:00

A little while ago today, this little item was forwarded to your semi-humble correspondent from an old friend, asking if any "true" conservative tradition existed in America. It's by Patrick Deneen (not this Patrick Deneen, unfortunately. That woulda been sah-weet!) but a professor at G-Town. Deneen argues that no real conservative tradition in the US exists, precisely because our founding was so radical and liberal (in the classical sense of the word), but we are sorta stuck with "classical" and "progressive" liberalism. This in turn means that while we in America toss around the label all the time, none of us really can claim it fairly. Thomas Sowell a few days ago also wrote about the dangers of labels, for what it's worth.

At first glance, it his hard not to concede that Deneen is right -- it does seem a bit contradictory to call "conservatives" exactly that. After all, we are a revolutionary nation, and conservatism is a decidedly non-revolutionary feeling. There really aren't too many loyalists anymore, hoping to get that awful George Washington off our money and get the Queen back on there, where she belongs. As I'm sure readers of this blog know, a guy named Hayek (you may have heard of him) wrote a really cool essay entitled "Why I am not a Conservative" and eventually described himself as an "old Whig." (Though I personally think that anyone who gives himself that moniker 150 years after the death of the Whig party obviously has some respect for tradition!) Another guy, James Buchanan (it's slightly less likely you've heard of him, but you should look him up too) ripped off Hayek and wrote "Why I, too, am not a Conservative," and came out at about the same place, describing himself as a classical liberal in the Hamiltonian sense. (And again, you find a guy who's quoting the ideas of a dude who's been dead for 200 years.)

What I personally find "conservative" in our current era is that we are asking for people to go back, and understand that there fundamentally is a Rousseau-type "civic religion" about our founding (though Rousseau himself would be mortified about America's, I believe). We had a code of laws that seemed to make us successful for many, many years, and preserving these laws *should* continue to benefit us in the future. The fact that yes, indeed, the revolutionaries were liberal at the time should not dissuade us from using the word "conservative" to describe them today.

Furthermore, I think that Deneen misreads Burke here. He points out that Burke found a few rather non-conservative things in the American Revolution, which is true enough as far as it goes. But it also must be borne in mind that Burke *supported* the actions of the guys we now call Founding Fathers. Some traditions, such as representation in the British Parliament, unequal taxation, and the abilities of local officials to handle local affairs (all of which were present in England at the time) were indeed being denied to the colonies. In other words, you could make an argument that precisely because those traditions *weren't* being upheld by the most enlightened nation at the time, the American Revolution was almost forced to happen. The American Revolution was as much about the extension of traditions as the severing of a cord.

Deneen's Straussian argument is a little better. When we talk about the "first wave of modernity" and the rise of thinkers like Hobbes, Locke and Machiavelli, we definitely see a shift from the conservatism of "the divine right of kings" to that of natural law. Nevertheless, this idea of natural law is for these three still very much anchored in the idea of original sin, and man's propensity to fail. It's Rousseau who -- in my personal opinion -- really becomes the first "modern" thinker, because he's the one who really starts to detach society from this anchor of human nature. This had, of course, disastrous results in Europe, as various Utopians forced their visions of the perfect society on the continent from Napoleon to Lenin to Hitler. Here it should be pointed out that the "divine right of kings" was a bit less, ahem, accepted on the Isles, particularly after around 1215. So one can almost say that modernity and the idea of limited government started then. It's hardly surprising that the first contractian philosophers were British. Maybe that means that Britain has a poorer history of conservatism than Germany (that's actually a very interesting argument, actually, come to think of it), but it doesn't mean that we Americans are essentially conservative-free.

Fast forward to 2010, and the people we know as conservatives in America today. Deneen writes about five guiding principles of the conservative movement today:

1. Commitment to limited government as laid out by the Founders in the Constitution;
2. Support for free markets;
3. Strong national defense;
4. Individual responsibility and a suspicion toward collectivism; and
5. Defense of traditional values, particularly support for family.

He argues that only one of these (#5) is a particularly conservative attribute. Of course, when he says that we in America basically only have two choices (Jonah Goldberg once described them as Vanilla Liberalism and French Vanilla Liberalism) it makes it very hard to say that anything is conservative. But I submit that a defense of traditional values, particularly that of the family, is precisely why we have the other four. I think that #1 and #4 are essentially the same -- I don't see how you can hope to cultivate individual responsibility with unlimited government. The reason we foster individual responsibility, however, is because we believe that the individual can do a better job taking care of his or her family than the state can. Supporting the family and supporting the individual as mutually reinforcing. The best way to promote this, in turn, is supporting the free market. We set up institutional arrangements so that while a family who goes poor receives compassionate assistance from the state, we realize that communities and individuals are often far more efficient and generous (and virtuous, if that has any conservative relevance at all!) than the welfare office is. And the best way to generate the wealth that enable charity to even happen is through the free market. This is why the Republican Party is at its best when it dons the mantle of fusionism -- demonstrating that we are moral because we see in our children the passing on of traditions, and at the same time enabling them to have the wherewithal to do that, which we need the free market for. Moreover, only the free market can allow us to keep and grow the bounty Providence has allowed us to attain. We would be foolish (and immoral) to take this splendid institution, the free market, and discard it for a collectivism that will consign our children to a future with fewer options for them. As for #3, well, I'm really not sure why national preservation of our values should even be considered a modern hyperindividualist distraction from "true" conservatism.

So I suppose that I disagree with Dr. Deneen. I don't think that he's completely off-base, just that time has allowed us to take up the name. It funny, because here in Czech Republic, and in Europe, frequently the Klausian-Thatcherite-Lockean tradition is sometimes written "liberal-conservative" as an adjective -- "ODS is a liberal-conservative party." For what it's worth, the party grouping that the ODS and the Tories belong to in the European Parliament is known as the "European Conservatives and Reformists." Is that contradictory or complementary? Or is it just complimentary?

A Great Article from The New Republic

2010-09-25T20:53:00.001+02:00

A recent article in The New Republic (tragically for subscribers only) discusses the re-Russification of Czech Republic, particularly Russia's focus on monopolizing the Czech natural gas market and the energy market generally.

The piece opens by discussing the prickly reputation of President Klaus, and moves on to point out some of the more "pro-Russian" moves he has made over the course of his presidency. It is a piece which carries the tone of "maybe alarm bells aren't ringing yet, but the yellow indicator lamps are starting to warm up." It chronicles particularly the Czech President's reticence to condemn the attack on Georgia and his decision to attend a summit in Moscow at a time that he was legally obligated to sign the Lisbon Treaty. The piece moves on to discuss Russian designs on energy markets in Czech Republic specifically and Central and Eastern Europe generally, and notes that the Russian state uses energy as a very, very, big hammer in its foreign policy toolkit, particularly with regard to Europe. Additionally, it notes the continued presence of Russian firms and managers in Prague, and the expensive villas in which they dwell. (Somehow the piece overlooks the resort city of Karlovy Vary, which is even more dominated by these things. Including the villas.)

Chief among these companies are Lukoil and Gazprom, and the piece then moves on to discuss the problems of endemic Czech corruption (not just by Russian firms, for better or for worse) and the recent investment moves by Russian companies to develop and refurbish gas lines and the nuclear power plant in Temelín, in South Bohemia. It chronicles the semi-Czech-state-owned power company of ČEZ and its lavish use of political contributions to the major political parties, and sums up the situation with quotes from the charismatic Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, the former head of the quickly-dying Green Party Martin Bursík, and of course, the Old Man himself, Václav Havel. Overall, it is a picture that reveals President Klaus as a considerably more accommodating president than Havel, an American administration that seems rather indifferent, and a Czech population that remains skeptical of Russia and politicians alike.

The piece is written very much as a warning for the US and its interests, and rightly so. However, it is perhaps hard to blame President Klaus entirely for his calculated orientation to Russian engagement. While it is true that Klaus is hardly a one-man engine of European integration, his reasons for this have little to do with his "warm" relationship with Russia and much more to do with his perceptions of the EU as a social-democratic monolith. Additionally, initial attempts by Czechs and other Central European nations to diversify their gas supply have been frequently stymied by other European nations, notably Germany, which values Russia as a long-term strategic partner. Finally, the corruption and influence of Russian state-run companies is something that cannot be cleaned up by Klaus alone, and while ending this problem could have the greatest effect on the independence (energy-wise, politics-wise, and business-wise) of the Czech Republic, it is the most difficult to tackle as well. And purging Prague of the STB would require a Batman-like effort. Unfortunately, every party would likely be rocked by scandal, and that may perhaps dissuade politicians from investigating.

On the EU level, the case for Russian engagement is strong. Member states on the Union's eastern flank are not the only ones reliant on cheap Russian gas, and while Norway pumps a lot of gas to Europe, it cannot solely supply the continent, and it can hardly be said that business interests in Düsseldorf and Essen have the security issues of Sofia and Kiev at heart, to say nothing of Parisian defense firms. Moreover, the EU needs Russian cooperation on other geopolitical topics, such as sanctions on Iran and working in the Quartet. Finally, western European nations frequently underestimate the influence Russia -- both as a modern state and as an ancient idea -- has on the security of their more eastern EU brethren. Particularly because EU actors are loath to see the world through the lens of power politics, they misjudge the intentions of their largest neighbor. ~~President~~ Prime Minister Putin is happy to oblige them.

Something Sad Happened on the Polish Roads

2010-09-14T10:47:00.001+02:00

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/51,80273,8318288.html?i=0

(This falls under the journal entry of things about beer. And Poland.)

A Great Political Ad

2010-09-13T16:43:00.001+02:00

Running against Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco district, Republican John Dennis probably isn't getting a lot of phone calls from Beltway reporters asking the pressures of a neck-and-neck race. But it's still worth it to campaign, highlight the issues, and mount at least some opposition to Pelosi in her own stomping grounds. So Dennis put together this ad. It's hilarious, but the best part is probably the fact that he draws attention to his "obligatory McCain-Feingold-incumbent-protection-mandated message" at the end.

To follow up on the previous post....

2010-09-12T19:59:00.001+02:00

The mayor of one of the parts of Brno (something akin to the wards of DC, or the arondissements of Paris -- here we call 'em městské částy) announced that the first families of "problematic" families have been denied welfare payments for their children's lact of school attendance. So here we go....

"Europe's Gypsy Problem"

2010-09-07T13:11:00.001+02:00

This past week, the Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg met with one of President Sarkozy's foreign policy advisors; he will meet with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, later this week. One of the big topics is nuclear power, but the more controversial issue concerns France's recent expulsion-repatriation of Roma, or gypsies, primarily from Bulgaria and Romania. The move was widely supported in France, though it is scandalous in the bien pensant human rights world. As John Derbyshire explains, (in an article for which this post is named) the "official" reason is that many Roma overstayed their French visas, though it is also clear that many became a burden on the unemployment and welfare systems. As Derb notes, these migrations to West Europe have increased in recent years, largely because of the much lower hurdles required for citizens of EU nations to travel freely within the EU. (Of course, Roma are not just moving to Western Europe; witness the struggles between Czech Republic and Canada over visas last year.)

The interesting thing about this development is the way in which the Central and Eastern European Roma have changed from a post-communist human rights problem, with western governments and advocacy organizations flagellating new EU member states for their treatment of gypsies (which, to be perfectly fair, was rather justified) to a European problem. A while back, the mayor of a Czech town proposed building a fence around a Roma ghetto. Needless to say, this was poorly received outside of the surrounding areas. But then the mayor called on the Minister of Human Rights at the time, Michal Kocáb, to "come and live here for while then." Eventually, the project was (rightly) canceled, but it expressed the frustration of local authorities in managing what another mayor referred to as "the un-integrate-ables." All the while, western governments were shocked at these developments.

Now, the free movement of people in Europe has inevitably led to the free movement of, well, everybody. This honestly and truly is a great thing for Europeans. However, it also means that some problems that were once confined to national borders have themselves been Europeanized. In some ways, this may not be a bad thing. If problems of Roma integration are diffused, best practices and educational schemes will perhaps develop more rapidly, and western European nations would have a slightly better handle on the problems new member states have with integrating all their citizens, guaranteeing them equality before the law and an environment of non-discrimination. It would also allow governments of European nations to be slightly more realistic about their abilities and limitations.

On the other hand, other incentives, such as those recently unveiled by the Czech Minister of Labor and the Minister of Education, would link welfare payments to school attendance, still would require state-based, rather than European-based solutions. Nevertheless, while many Roma move extensively, the majority do tend to stay where they're at, and so state-sponsored efforts would still be necessary. Moreover, the EU tends to issue these sorts of things in the form of relatively flexible "directives" that the member states tend to implement however they feel.

Derb ends his piece on a somewhat sour note, arguing that the gypsy population of Europe cannot integrate, simply because they have little "desire or aptitude" to do so. And indeed, it is a challenge. No matter what the human-rights activists say, it is more complex than just saying "stop being racist," and magically Roma and whiter Europeans will simply sit down around a campfire and sing Kumbaya. It is certainly true that some at least would like to have a better shot, however, and those are worth looking at.

Things aren't really looking up....

2010-09-07T07:55:00.001+02:00

in Sudan. This article is another one of those pesky reminders that an engaged America needs to keep its eye on the ball in a lot more places than just Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how President Obama reacts to the inevitable ugliness in Sudan, and how he will negotiate with, as the article points out, other parties in the region with skin in this game (read: China).

If we are lucky, perhaps a semi-peaceful, or at least non-genocidal, solution will emerge. But it will almost certainly not happen without some sort of international, ahem, persuasion.

Hogs

2010-09-05T17:26:00.001+02:00

http://www.christienmeindertsma.com/index.php?/books/pig-05049/
This lady, an artist from Holland, made a catalog of everything that any single pig might be used for. She found 185 things, ranging from schnitzel (unsurprising), to stents used in human hearts (somewhat more surprising). Much of this is due to the amazingly versatile characteristics of gelatin; this dynamite Spiegel article points out that beer, red wine, and even bread contain important swine-derived additives.

On first glance, this is a somewhat unnerving discovery. No one likes to be told that there's pig in his beer. (According to the Wikipedia article, gelatin is sometimes used in beer to make it "clearer.") On the other hand, this isn't a particularly surprising thing. When the shampoo lady comes on TV and tells you about all those great proteins that make your hair stronger, it's logical that the proteins had to come from somewhere (in this case, from the boiled hair of the pig). The fact of the matter is that we like having protein in our shampoo, we like having our bread dough even, and we like it when our porcelain (the name is just an etymological coincidence) has a special shiny translucence derived from the calcium phosphate in Wilbur's bones. A modern society, with its neverending quest to innovate and make any given product just a little better for everyday use, harnesses resources from wherever it may find them. That we have so much of this renewable grunting natural resource should not be cause for alarm; it is a way to point out that we simply have developed a way to channel even the most useless things into something, well, useful. And as our Spiegel correspondent points out, in this we are not so very different from the Indians.

However, I usually drink unfiltered beer.

For those of you with additional interest in this subject, here's an interview with Meindertsma.

This Reminds Me of College

2010-09-03T14:21:00.001+02:00

Somehow, during a beer festival in Pilsen (where they brew Pilsner Urquell), a huge statue of Václav Havel got stolen.

One can always say, "who would do such a thing?" but, well, probably the answer has something to do with drunk kids.

P.J. O'Rourke.....

2010-08-22T19:48:00.001+02:00

has a new article based on his intrepid experience in Afghanistan. He is now, of course, an expert.

Yuval's Five Books

2010-08-09T19:09:00.001+02:00

A while ago, per Matthew Continetti, you correspondent indulgently drew up a list of ten books that have a profound influence on him. I now discover that the ever-wise and always intriguing Yuval (I've decided that the Wunderkind from Hillsborough no longer needs a last name -- think "Cher" or "Pelé") has been published on the Five Books website, which I'm sure much be difficult for him since he reads five books a day, and limiting himself must be rather nightmarish. Yuval fleshes out his selections in erudite, comprehensive detail, but his conversation with Jonathan Rauch remains accessible.

Yuval's interpretation of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, and of Hayek generally, is undoubtedly somewhat provocative for some people, though rather spot on. It might have helped his argument if he had supplemented his interpretation with a few quotes from another of Hayek's more polemical works, Why I am Not a Conservative. Yuval only touches on this tangentially, when he points out that Hayek himself described himself as "an Old Whig."

All in all, it is well worth the time to read Yuval's analysis, and he whets the appetite with the books he proposes.

A VERY "Realpolitik" Analysis of the Global Warming Debate

2010-08-09T00:43:00.001+02:00

John Rosenthal, writing in the Weekly Standard, offers up this damning article on Germany's negotiations on various climate change agreements. In sum, he points out that one of the main rationales for using 1990 as a benchmark year for carbon emissions was that it gave European nations as well as Australia, a profound advantage. Why? Well, much of Germany's post-1990 carbon reduction is the result of shuttering extraordinarily filthy and inefficient East German industries. France, because the majority of its power is generated by nuclear reactors, is also well below any targets, and Australia, which signed on to Kyoto only after John Howard left, was allowed to use its 1990 brush-clearing exercises (basically, burning the Outback) as "emissions" in order to set its benchmark substantially higher than it would have been had the nation only measured its industrial emissions.
In sum, Rosenthal makes a compelling case both against Kyoto (and its Copenhagen successor), and the tactics of negotiation on all sides. Whether European leaders believe in their hearts that emissions lead to climate change is irrelevant to the fact that these treaties would be disproportionately devastating for the USA, and likely would have turned out much differently if they were negotiated with a view to the future, rather than cynically abusing the past.

David Cameron's New Gig

2010-08-06T15:01:00.002+02:00

This is a pretty childish post, but when I first saw this picture from Conservative Home, I couldn't help but think... mmmm, Philip Morris, now available intravenously! As it turns out, he's holding town meetings, and this represents a shift away from the typical activities of Prime Ministers, and according to the blog posting, is a smart tactic.

Tůma Throws his Hat in the Ring

2010-08-05T18:19:00.001+02:00

Zdeněk Tůma, the former head of the Czech National Bank (think of the US' National Reserve) has been persuaded by Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, one of the leaders of TOP 09, (a relatively new, market-oriented party) into running for the mayor of Prague. At first glimpse, he has a rather good chance. TOP 09 won only one kraj, or district, of the 13 in Czech Republic; the others were split by the Social Democrats (ČSSD) and the Civic Democrats (ODS). However, the one kraj that TOP 09 won was Prague.

The city is quite a bit wealthier than the rest Czech Republic, and for that reason has always been considered as a bastion of strength for ODS. However, massive and wasteful infrastructure projects and the widespread appearance of corruption has seriously weakened the party both internally and among voters. This accounted for the strong showing by TOP 09 in the previous elections, and Tůma, a well-respected figure among policy elites, could be a strong candidate. However, he has never held any elective office, and so his campaign skills are undoubtedly weak.

Nevertheless, if he campaigns without too many mistakes, he should be able to attract votes, particularly if TOP 09 agrees to support him internally. Moreover, in (relatively) recent polls, Czechs nationally seemed to prefer the technocratic approach to politics, as evidenced by the popularity of Jan Fischer's cabinet. (Part of this, of course, is due to Fischer's preference to avoid taking controversial positions, due to his peculiar ascendancy to the position of Prime Minister, as a compromise between ODS and ČSSD after an ODS-led government collapsed in a vote of no confidence.) Tůma was part of this technocratic leadership; indeed, according to the aktualne.cz article linked to above, he was not even a member of TOP 09 before Minister Schwarzenberg asked him about running.

If he wins (and we still have ample time to watch this race), this would further cement TOP 09's presence in Czech politics. The Mayoralty of Prague is a disproportionately influential position, much in the same way that Mayor Giuliani was as mayor of New York (even before 9/11). A banker, instead of a career politician, also furthers TOP 09's reputation as a serious, budget- and finance-oriented party. This will in turn further alienate some more left-oriented voters and voters in rural regions, who already are skeptical about the machinations of Prague politics, but could strengthen TOP 09's hand among professionals nationwide.

Another Newspaper Closing

2010-07-28T23:21:00.001+02:00

Much of the discussion about the "new media" involves the inability of the old "dinosaur" media types to change with their audience, and when the old newspapers seemed to grandstand about their importance while fewer and fewer people continued to actually buy their products, it was occasionally satisfying to see some of them get their comeuppance. Still, it is occasionally sad to see smaller and less influential publications fall by the wayside, and Americké listy surely must qualify as one of those. As Petr Bísek, the editor, noted, it's probably not surprising that the older readers read less and less, and the younger readers sought out alternative sources of information. Indeed, there is a bit of Czech blogging from America, (albeit less focused on the Czech- and Slovak-speaking population actually in America) and certainly it's likely that more and more young people going to the US from this corner of the world already have a handle on the English language upon arrival. And who knows, maybe something else will rise up out of the ashes.

Light Blogging

2010-07-28T18:32:00.001+02:00

Due to a relatively high number of visitors to Brno lately (you know who you are) which has in turn taken your correspondent to such environs as Rožnov pod Radhoštěm and Prague, blogging has been a little slow. This will only continue for the next few days, as I shall soon, for the first time ever, end up in the Netherlands for four days. So just a few links will have to suffice for now.

First off, the curious story of Luboš Bokštefl, who decided that "Super Size Me" was such a splendid idea, it should be transferred to the notoriously healthy environment of Czech pubs. Eating nothing but pub food for 30 days, he lost six kilos. Indeed.

Man targeted by aliens who drop meteorites on his house. He's either a prophet, a fraud, or just in a very strange spot.

Sigh. But is anyone surprised? I mean, don't you kind of expect Oliver Stone to say such things, in a way?

Finally, an excellent, fair, and lucid article about the Al Gore sexual assault story. From, of all places, The Nation!

The comment section is open. I think I'm at least as interesting as Arianna Huffington, and I'd like to believe that Starobrno Nation is as willing to contribute to the excitement! Hopefully next week blogging will resume at it's usual turtle pace, rather than the snail pace of the past week.

Legnica, or Liegnitz

2010-07-21T19:01:00.000+02:00

The next stop on our little tour was Legnica; the Germans knew this town as Liegnitz. Legnica in the past was a majority German-speaking town; only after 1945 did it become a Polish city. Like many cities in western and/or southern Poland, many of the Polish there are transplants from what is now Ukraine; when the 1945 borders were drawn up, parts of Poland became Ukraine or Belarus; parts of Germany became Poland. Poland "moved west." As a practical matter, it was easier to move Poles from the (former) east Poland to the (new) west Poland, rather than everybody moving a little west. So many Poles who now live in Legnica trace their family history not to Silesia, but to Ukraine. This is a little interesting, since the Polish Piast Dynasty buried the last of its issue here in 1675. (However, this Piast is still very much alive.)

This uprooting resulted in a city that underwent a bit of a personality change in the late '40s, which along with ideological, ahem, augmentations, created a very "new" old city. Liegnitz of the Nineteenth Century was a relatively wealthy city, in a relatively industrial region (before that word developed its negative connotation, when smokestacks and mines were a source of civic pride, rather than a provincial embarrassment), and as a result built gardens and parks. (Apparently, Germans had a thing for gardens.) The denizens of today's Legnica still wander through the in-some-places-overgrown Park Miejski, and many of the garden buildings are long gone, or or their way. Underneath the garden's weeds, there are places of beauty, and it is slowly being rehabilitated, and transformed.

The Riding School for noblemen's sons is also enjoying a renaissance in this quiet town. It unsurprisingly (due to the relative dearth of noblemen's sons and horsemen generally) has been transformed into a museum, which looks back to examine Legnica's incredible history and glimpses ahead, showcasing the most modern of its art. Things are gone, and they ain't coming back, but the town whispers its history, in a hushed German voice. Its future is decidedly Polish, but with open eyes to other places as well.

My traveling companion and I spoke with my dear Polish friend about the fact that many Germans come to Silesia on "memory tours," and asked if the same thing ever happened for Poles, wistfully dreaming about their return to their childhood on the steppes of Ukraine. He mentioned that it is slightly more common now, but for many, many years, it was forbidden to even discuss the possibility, and many of those Poles who could give their descendants a Polish-Ukrainian history lesson have been silenced by time. One wonders what the Poles -- and the Ukrainians -- have lost.

Buy a Calendar!

2010-07-18T17:38:00.001+02:00

This article from the Telegraph was recommended to me by one of my hundreds of stalwart readers, and it's good to see that the most important news from the Czech Republic has finally made its way into the mainstream press. As it turns out, the Public Affairs party now has their calendar for sale up on their website. Featuring their most attractive deput-ettes, and their "chief negotiator" (think Rahm Emmanuel in a tutu, but less creepy), the Telegraph article recounts many of the exciting aspects of the recent election.

I alluded to this calendar in "The Votes are In!" last month. You can of course buy it from the Věci veřejné website here. However, your correspondent is unsure about whether shipping to foreign addresses is available.

The best thing you'll read today....

2010-07-18T14:05:00.001+02:00

...comes from Kevin Williamson over on National Review's homepage. Williamson compellingly links homeschooling ("one of the few truly radical movements in America") with gun rights as examples of the ways free citizens defend themselves from the state as an undesirable Hobbesian Leviathan, and he then goes on to attack Leviathan on both ethical and instrumental grounds -- not only is Leviathan wrong, it is also impractical. Williamson points out that for many on the Left, there seems to be nothing between anarchy and Leviathan, and gives two excellent examples of people throwing their lot in with the awesome power of the state, in a sort of Hobbes-cum-Hegel perspective.

Long ago, I had a teacher here who made the provocative assertion that for a brief moment, anarchism (as an -ism) was ascendant in the hot debate over "correct" radical course to take (vis-a-vis socialism), particularly in Spain and France. His argument was that these anarchists were in favor of building "autonomous spaces" within the state, I suppose something akin to the Kibbutz movement in Israel. They rejected the concept of free individuals in a context of limited government, to be sure, precisely because they doubted the ability of individuals to stand against Leviathan. In other words, they felt the commune was the best method of blunting state power. But they did acknowledge that socialism paves the way to Leviathan, and sought to cut off these paths.

Of course, nowadays it is clear that the Hegelians and the socialists have dominated this internal debate of the Left for many years, but as Williamson notes, it is a false dilemma to choose between the Leviathan (even a semi-democratic one) and anarchy (in its more traditional sense). The concept of a free, independent citizen has been radical for 250 years, and will continue to be so.

Görlitz and/or Zgorzelec

2010-07-16T01:41:00.001+02:00

The small town, or rather towns, of Görlitz and Zgorzelec straddle the Neiße river on the German-Polish border, and was a historically important town in Oberlausitz. For the vast majority of its history, Görlitz was administered as a single city, generally by various Saxon or Prussian nobles. Like many medieval towns, it is full of legends about lazy smiths making deals with the devil (in this case disguised as a black knight) and how on cold nights you can still hear his hammer. (Our guide, an old friend of your correspondent's traveling companion, tells the story magnificently.) However, due to its relatively nonstrategic location, the town has a rich, and fairly well-preserved, downtown. Architectural sights ranging from Gothic to an immense, beautiful art-nouveau department store line the streets. Quinten Tarantino shot parts of Inglourious Basterds here, and upon arrival, the reasons are obvious.

The great tragedy of this beautiful corner of Europe is that many of these beautiful buildings lie empty, or nearly so. The department store is four stories high; now, only the foyer is being used as a perfume and cosmetics shop. A small town cannot expect Hollywood Nazi-kitsch every year (regardless of how wonderful that might be for the rest of us), and so despite the desires of these town's (dwindling) residents, Görlitz needs something a bit more tangible to get its economy rolling again. In this respect, it is a microcosm of the problems the former East Germany faces. (See here for an absolutely amazing must-read discussion on this phenomenon.) Home to the excellent Silesian Museum, which manages ably to alternate between the glorious and the mundane of the city's history, Görlitz will need more than a proud history and filmmakers to keep it afloat.

What's true of the German side is even more difficult for the poorer, less glamorous Polish side, though to be fair, lodging is cheaper and food is still excellent. Polish attention to restoration has not been extended to smaller towns as it has been in Wrocław or Kraków, and the communists, characteristically, built low-quality apartment buildings on the Polish side of the skyline, embarrassing the city below. The theme of these recent travels seems to be one of constant squandered potential, and a looming feeling of an inevitable impending decline. And it's sad, because as our guide (a transplant himself) pointed out, these towns would be great places to be. They are clean, well-administered, and attractive. In the case of Görlitz-Zgorzelec, it's a border town without all the typical downsides of that prejudiced term, and many opportunities, if only the market can be found for them.

On to Legnica, or Liegnitz!

The problem with your Congressman's pet project....

2010-07-15T21:50:00.001+02:00

is that it's just not awesome enough!
So says the Onion.

Of course, if you believe Keynes, it really wouldn't matter if we blew all the money on giant genetically-modified bats. I mean, we're talking some serious animal spirits here....

Bautzen, or Butyšin

2010-07-15T01:16:00.000+02:00

The small region of Oberlausitz in Saxony is the traditional home to the Sorbish, one of Germany's four "national minorities" with particular protections from the German government. (The others are Danes, Frisians, and Roma.) Bautzen is considered the cultural capital of this small (ca. 60,000) population, and it is a great little place. Unfortunately, your correspondent was on a very tight schedule, and could not spend the full time needed to appreciate this town. Nevertheless, it was fascinating to see. The signs in Oberlausitz are customarily bilingual; Sorbish appears to be a mix of Polish and Czech, and later in the trip a Polish friend of mine (who also speaks Czech) explained that the "sound" of the language strikes him as leaning toward Czech, but the grammar leans to Polish. Because of their minority status, they tended to be rather unenthusiastic about both the Nazis and the Communist East Germans, though with their relatively small number, it was difficult to put up a great deal of resistance. In any case, the town of Bautzen is home to Serbske Nowiny, published 5 days a week at a very reasonable € 0.30 per copy (pick one up next time you're in town), as well as a museum of Sorbish culture.

While going through Bautzen, one must also climb the "Reichenturm," a disturbingly crooked structure which probably should have had a foundation deeper than the foot or so of earth that it was set in. At some point in the '60s, the East German government injected concrete down the center of the tower to hold it more-or-less in place, which causes a certain amount of inconvenience while ascending the tower, but at lest it's still possible to ascend, so that's alright. St. Peter's Cathedral is also particularly interesting; it is a "Simultankirche," used by Catholics and Protestants alike. There are two altars, two groupings of pews, and even two organs, yet under one roof. A small 3-foot-high fence-like barrier (open for tourists) runs through the church. Apparently, the two religious communities drew up an agreement hundreds of years ago about who uses what and when, and it has been in place ever since.

In addition to this quiet town's interesting little churches and towers, however, a more somber, more monument to a more terrifying and less tolerant era can be found by walking east from the main square down Weigangstraße, where the East German Secret Police, the infamous Stasi, maintained one of their two largest prisons in the DDR. (The larger of the two is north of the main square.) Bautzen II is a prison that haunts. Its cramped cells and interrogation rooms, its bugged walls, its sick-green and ever-peeling-pale yellow paint jobs, all this testifies to the legacy of the DDR. The "diplomat's room," where foreign politicians came to inquire about the interned, has a low ceiling that cannot help but make one feel as though he himself will be crushed or broken by the unknown rooms above. The doors and bars squeak and grind. This is not a place to be re-educated. If you've made it here, there's no more you can be taught.

Yet still (and this is to the museum's credit), still the human spirit is given the chance to triumph. The letters written on cigarette papers and snuck out in a pocket have been returned to the site of their conception, this time as as history, rather than hope. The corner cell where a single man once cleverly spooned through the wall and sprinted dashed ran for a noble 11 days shows the repair job, but the fact that it IS a repair proves that someone fought back. Stories of men and women who perished and men and women who survived press up against the walls, and we learn their stories too. It is tragic and unjust and appalling, and we owe them a debt of gratitude and honor for ennobling humanity by their ultimate victory -- and ours -- over Bautzen II.

Scrappleface

2010-07-14T20:24:00.001+02:00

Bob Etheridge is a man of the people.
And this is one of the finest things Scrappleface has ever put together.

Great

2010-07-14T10:29:00.002+02:00

http://www.burststudio.com/kitten.html

Pointless, crude, and in rather poor taste. And simple to play.

Taking a Vacation through Saxony and Silesia, and Stalin v. Jackson

2010-07-13T20:27:00.001+02:00

There's been quite a bit to blog about this past week (Czechs finally agreeing to a government, Komorowski winning the Polish elections, Spain winning the World Cup, Germany cooking its citizens in trains), but I was busy with other things. What other things could be more important than a Civic Platform President in Poland, you ask? Well, a trip through Saxony and Silesia, beginning in Dresden and culminating in Wrocław, of course! So the next few blog posts will address your correspondent's impressions of these interesting lands. Perhaps this would have been accomplished sooner, but email access was rather limited and in any case, I was less-than-disposed to writing anyway.

Of course, this is not a completely content-free blog post, so feel free to ruminate on this, courtesy of Tagesschau. For those of you who have left your handy German-English phrasebook at home while you read this at work, the summary is this: not so many years ago, perhaps 50, the largest statue of Stalin outside the Soviet Union was erected in Prague. Not long after, Stalin became somewhat less popular, and his cult of personality went the way of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. The pedestal of the statue remained however, and a metronome was placed there in 1991, marking time.

Fast-forward to 2010 (Fast-forward? Do we even do that anymore in an age of digital video?). A small group of Praguers has now decided that the Letná Plain, and the pedestal area, would be the optimal place to place a monument to the late, great Michael Jackson. Jackson began his final European Tour not far from the site, and (according to the Wikipedia article, so it's gotta be true) even erected his own 35-foot-high statue there briefly in 1996. Apparently, some form of statue or a bust of MJ would be placed somewhere in the area, though it is unclear whether the metronome would have to be removed.

For reasons perfectly incomprehensible to your correspondent, some artists and citizens are opposed to this proposal. It seems like a natural place to place a memorial to the King of Pop. Or at least a memorial to the cult of personality.

George Will, Hungry for Answers

2010-06-30T13:48:00.001+02:00

This column from GFW (Hat-tip to Café Hayek) is one of the more interesting and easily digestible things in the papers today. (Are we still allowed to use that expression? In the papers? I haven't seen a real, physical, complete-with-crossword-and-classifieds copy of the Washington Post in a year!) Mr. Will looks up from the box scores just long enough to discover that there's a confirmation hearing on for the Supreme Court, and, being the inquisitive yet polite man that he is, realizes that he'd like to know just a little about the nominee. So he asks a few simple questions, which should be asked of most nominees, actually. Fortunately, it looks like a few of the questions are going to get asked in one form or another. For example, here's Sen. Coburn asking about what we're allowed to eat, borrowing from Will's first question. Hopefully other Senators will make their way through the list.

A Nation of Shopkeepers

2010-06-29T01:57:00.001+02:00

As a general rule, I find that people are not Euroskeptic because of big things, such as the awful Common Agriculture Policy, which redistributes millions, billions, of euros to non-sustainable endeavors, but because of little things.

Here's another little thing: it turns out that the European Commission wants to forbid the sale of "a dozen," well, whatever; in this case, it's eggs. Instead, the Commission argues that product should only be sold by weight, and that if a seller wants to sell something that is light and fluffy, like a bread roll, he should be penalized by the extravagant activity on the part of the yeast.

Your correspondent, for one, welcomes this seemingly ridiculous change, though is disappointed at the lack of vision by the European Commission. After all, we know that old hens (and less healthy hens, such as those without a 'free-range" designation) lay eggs with thinner shells. If we assume that eggs should be sold by weight, shouldn't we consumers also know the weight of the shell? After all, it's unfair to pay extra for slick deceptive packaging! And why shouldn't consumers reward those intrepid and honest businessmen who trade in eggs where you buy the yolk and the white, rather than the useless shell? Young hens and free-range hens are parasites on society and its ovarian needs!

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman notes that "Shopkeeping is a longstanding British tradition." Indeed. And any nation of shopkeepers ought to know when there is a greater good to be performed above their petty, archaic, and selfish ways.

USA! USA!

2010-06-23T19:25:00.001+02:00

So after a scoreless 91 minutes, and a potentially devastating 0-0 draw between the Americans and Algeria, the USA scores in the second minute of extra time, sending them into the next round and winning Group C.

Here's the video of the goal. It was a true coast-to-coast team effort, with the US goalkeeper, Tim Howard, quickly heaving the ball back up to the midfielder, where eventual hero Donovan brings it up, dumps it off to the attacker who centers it perfectly. Dempsey bangs it off the Algerian goalkeeper, who blocks the shot but the rebound ends up, well, in the crease if you want to use a hockey expression, and Landon Donovan in the last minutes of extra time boots Jabulani in.

After being denied a goal for the second time in two games, this time due to a controversial off-sides call, the game was kept tight. The US had many chances, but just couldn't seem to get the ball to touch the back of the net, and Algeria played hard as well, (though not as well, especially after the first 10 minutes).

The pub was happy -- no Algerians or Slovenes were present.

Good News for die Mannschaft

2010-06-23T18:41:00.001+02:00

Well, in the World Cup, the US is on to the round of 16, along with England. In fact, we won the group! We'll probably face Serbia, which should also be quite interesting. They are fast, talented, and have a good goalkeeper. Everything hangs on the Germany-Ghana and the Australia-Serbia games later tonight. As for our opponent, Paul the Octopus anticipates a German victory over the Ghanaians, and he's right 80% of the time. Indeed, he's two for two this year so far.

So there you go. Never let it be said that this blog isn't open-minded about cephalopod insights.

World Cup Notes

2010-06-16T00:27:00.001+02:00

This evening, perennial favorites Brazil, the guys most likely to make the beautiful game actually beautiful, walked onto the field with the upstart team from.... the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (and coach Kim Jong-hun doesn't like it when you call them Norks). The stage was set by the fact that one player, Jong Tae-se, cried during the Democratic People's Republic of Korea national anthem. Not being well-versed in the subtleties of Asian soccer, it cast a terrifying pall over the game. The outcome of the match was simply assumed, yet after the first half, neither the Brazilian nor the Korean Democratic People's Republic has scored. The word that English, ahem, football commentators use, "inspired," (or should I put the comma on the other side of the quotation marks, to really run with the joke?) was simply not frequently used. It seemed like the Brazilians were sitting and waiting for the perfect moment (which they found in the second half, on a goal that seemed to defy the laws of physics), while the Democratic Korean People's Republic aggressively did all they could to simply survive.

That terrifying pall loaded every decision and any analysis. Did the Brazilians relax in the first half, so as not to humiliate the People's Republic of Democratic Korea? They played so much better in the second half. Or maybe they just needed a chance to warm up against an inferior opponent in their first game. When Ri Jun-Il had the paramedics on the field as he stretched his hamstring, was it due to the 40°F in the South African winter, or was it a chance to escape? After the late goal by Ji Yun-nam, were Tae-se's sprints faster because of the chance of a draw, or because of his previous behavior? Emotions race ahead of rationality -- it's as though we were talking about something as inconsequential as sports!

In the end, the underdogs lost. But, uncommonly in the sport, no player from the Korean Republic of Democratic Republicans ever rolled around after a foul, looking for a sympathetic referee. It would be unseemly. There are good men north of the DMZ. Hopefully, some of them got a ticket to Johannesburg, and, if we are really lucky, there will be more stories to tell.

Juche on the Pitch

2010-06-15T20:20:00.001+02:00

15 minutes till we see Juche on the Soccer Field!
For those of you unaware, Juche is the sophisticated in-the-know term for autarkic socialist totalitarianism. If we wrote it with a hyphen and an "é" as in "Ju-Ché," would it be fashionable? Would we put it on T-shirts?

Initial Thoughts on the World Cup

2010-06-12T18:07:00.001+02:00

So, every four years there is a great big soccer tournament that almost the entire world gets fired up about (even North Korea is in it this year!), while Americans typically smile, yawn, forget about it entirely, or brag about how much they hate it. This year, the tournament is in South Africa, and the US has a chance to do ok -- probably not great, but ok, and might even make it to the elimination rounds, beyond the group stage. (We play England, Algeria, and Slovenia, and have to be at least second-best to advance.)

But what I find to be interesting is the number of people who have moved from the third category (forget about it entirely) to the first and fourth category (smile or brag about how much they hate it). It seems that in the American media there are more and more discussions about it than I remember from 2002. (I was in Germany for the 2006 Weltmeisterschaft, and that was insane, but I didn't read very much of anything at that time.)

Part of this, of course, is because we are playing England in the first game, which is far more interesting than last time around, when the US played Italy, Czech Republic, and Cameroon. If you ask the typical American to name a famous foreign soccer player who's still playing, I would imagine that respondents would answer "Beckham" 50% of the time. It doesn't matter how good Petr Čech or Gigi Buffon are in goal, they simply aren't household names in the US, even if Becks is best known for having silly hair and a Spice Girl wife. So the popularity of the English game contributes to it. Moreover, the ability to broadcast everything and everything on million-channel cable and satellite means that it's easier to find niche markets for any sport. If you want, you can watch hurling or Australian rules football or whatever. Even in the past four years, internet and satellite communication has advanced to the point where Americans can pay more attention to British elections for a lower "opportunity cost." So why not watch the best soccer players in the world if it's easy, especially if your kid is playing the game?

Of course, this "current of awareness" manifests itself numerous ways, and no one needs to be reminded of the problems Western societies face with respect to assimilating immigrants that continue to watch foreign TV, have Facebook friends in the old country (where it's not banned, at least), and avoid contact with their host country. But it also means that host nations with high immigration, like the US, also discover aspects of the rest of the world. While the US is hardly a hermit kingdom, we have been strongly resistant to soccer fever. The average Joe also has been only tangentially concerned with the domestic politics of other nations. Communication technologies, however, can turn us all into analysts of the election in Whereverstan. He can also watch youtube video of Landon Donovan, and get completely caught up on the highlights of his career in a matter of hours. So Americans learn about it. The native-born discover it more easily, and our immigrants bring their love of the sport to our shores, while assimilating less quickly.

The awareness, however, does not translate however into a loving embrace of what is called "the beautiful game." Certainly, this is often used ironically. Yesterday, for example, two games were played. The hosts, South Africa, tied 1-1 with the Mexicans, and the French, winners of the World Cup in 1998, played a full 90 minutes only to end with a 0-0 tie with Uruguay. Ties are not something we like. If you look at American sports, they are engineered to arrive at a result. Football plays a full overtime, baseball, basketball, and NASCAR cannot end in a tie, and NHL hockey rewards aggressive playing in overtime. Scoreless ties are anathema. Three hours of play yesterday yielded 2 goals, and no winners. so part of this is the structure of the sport, and our desire to see a winner, and to see some kind of accomplishment, to see, well, some kind of goal achieved. That is not to say the game cannot be beautiful. Indeed, that 0-0 tie had some spectacular plays, and the seconds of anticipation between the ball flying through the air to be redirected by some player's head into the back of the net or snatched out of the air waaay above the rim by a talented keeper is truly wonderful.

One last comment for now, for this is a long post, and I have to start grilling cheeseburgers. (Czech word for grilling: grilování. Now you know.) I think that it's interesting that some Americans make a point of hating this game. I know I sometimes do, precisely because it's a bit fun to watch the incomprehension on my friends' faces ("Duuuude, how could hate this??!?!" [Oh, yeah, by the way, the word dude has been successfully exported. You're all welcome.{If I get to these brackets, have I overdone a parenthetical reference?}]). I know there are many people who find baseball as interesting as watching paint dry, for example, yet I rarely read articles during spring training with headlines like "Here we go again. Another season of spitting and scratching." Soccer is still a "foreign" sport, and that's just got to contribute to some people's dislike of it. But I think most people are getting used to soccer as one more thing on our million channels, no more or less boring than Search for the Amazon Headhunters on National Geographic or Unseen on Gorovision. And hey, it still gives us an excuse to talk about how much Slovenia sucks, what with their delicious food, their pleasant climate, their nice people, and their beautiful castles, and how much the USA rocks! So cheer on our guys, forget about Churchill and the Special Relationship for a couple hours, pour out your Bass and get a Sam Adams, and make fun of their teeth. And manage the fact that soccer might be boring, but grandstanding about hating it makes you seem a little obnoxious.

Don't Forget to Vote....

2010-06-08T23:05:00.001+02:00

for the prettiest Deputy in the Czech Parliament! You have until the 20th!

http://ona.idnes.cz/ankety.asp?id=A20100607_jup_365

Gobar Gas

2010-06-08T15:13:00.001+02:00

Michael Yon is a former Special Forces ass-kicker who was embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan 1000 times or something. So he writes a lot about east Asia. But this article of his isn't (directly) about the war in Afghanistan -- it's about some really interesting (and relatively cheap) rural development techniques from Nepal.

This piece is about "Gobar Gas." It's not the most glamorous form of development aid, but it's extraordinarily practical and offers a lot of bang for the buck. (Of course, it's rare when the international aid flavor-of-the-month is the most cost-effective. Everybody wants expensive retrovirals, but no one wants to dig a well.) Essentially, it's methane-harvesting from poo. (I told you it wasn't all that glamorous.) For places with the proper environment and demand, the technique is a godsend. And as Yon notes, gobar gas is environmentally friendly, disproportionately benefits women and children, and bends the health care cost curve down! A Dutch organization is teaching villagers how to make a profit with it. About the only thing it doesn't do is revoke don't-ask-don't-tell. So it's got a little something for everyone.

And yeah, a comment about the relationship between harvesting poo and furthering the Left's policy agenda would be easy to make.