Saturday, November 20, 2004Mr. Hewitt continues his anti-Target pitch, this time referring to a Belmont Club post on the notion of roots. Hewitt's point about the import of the Christmas season for American retail is well-taken. Living here in reality, I'm well aware that this is the make or break season for a lot of businesses large and small. But there is a big difference between acknowledging this obvious fact and declaring that a charity with a good mission and an active Christmas season fundraising drive is allowed to canvass anyplace where commercial activities related to Christmas take place. Christmas season also makes a lot of people lonely or anxious. Is the Salvation Army entitled to a slot outside the offices of psychiatrists and therapists who benefit from this fact? You might draw that conclusion from Hewitt:Turkeyblog suggests "a little gratitude" is in order for all the years that Target allowed the bell ringers to ring away out front. I counter: To what does Target --and all of retail America, really-- owe its robust fourth quarter this year and every year? Christmas gift giving, of course. Christmas gift giving, not holiday gift giving, and I make this point not to exclude my non-Christian friends and readers from from the season or the celebrations, but only to underscore Wretchard's point that roots matter. The roots of every significant thing need periodically to be recovered and studied.So... Target owes Jesus for dying on the cross so they could have X-mas sales... Okay, that's a bit crass. Let's reformulate: American businesses owe Christian charities because they profit from the commercialization of Christmas... Still doesn't feel quite right. Here's another shot: We all should give back of the bounty God provideth... Now you're talking! There's just one problem: Target does give back, in a variety of ways. Once upon a time, it donated space in front of its stores for fundraising. Now it doesn't give back in this one particular way. Does that nullify all its other giving? Who's to say? I'm not, I'll confess, a very sophisticated Christian. I was raised Congregationalist, and they're sort of a watered down version, or so I'm told. Our Christian education, in particular, was lacking. Oh, sure, we learned about Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior. And we learned about the importance of giving, including giving thanks. There was some bit about giving more than you were asked for. And we learned about the gifts of the Magi. But our education in giving sort of petered out there. We never found out what the world owed us that our good intentions might become good works. None of the Sunday school teachers even mentioned the obligation of the world and its constituent parts to smooth the path for our acts of righteousness. And given that, you can certainly imagine that we were never told how much was enough, how much was too little, and when we could or could not judge others for insufficient attention to our good cause. Nary a word! Those writing letters of censure, I'm sure, went to more serious churches. Places where you learned how much disapprobation to register if somebody only donated one can to the canned food drive or pledged less than 10% per annum. I hope they've got their info straight, because some of the opinions I'm seeing registered border on judgment of Target's chairman, rather than this decision, and according to our rule book that's generally a no-no. Forgive me if I go off on a self-declared tangent - as opposed to the numerous undeclared tangents above - and offer this worry: Doesn't this feel like the Jesse Jacksonization of Christian charity? I remember in the eighties seeing corporation after corporation declared to not really like Black people till they ponied up for the Reverend's pet causes. While the Salvation Army is infinitely better than Operation PUSH (could it possibly be worse?), the tactics and the language feel a little too familiar. If you're ticked that the bellringers aren't at Target, go to Wal-Mart. Write a polite letter to Target explaining your decision. But for God's sake, cool it with the vale of tears about all the people we could help if only we weren't so lazy that we needed a damn bucket out front with a bellringer to remember to care about the poor. Click here - it's the US site for the Salvation Army - and see what you can do to help if you're that worked up about it. In the meantime, remember that old gag, Jesus is the reason for the season. You know, the guy who gave us salvation - recognize the word? - i.e. riches in heaven, eternal life. This isn't about Target, isn't about the Salvation Army, isn't even about the poor. It's about a man who, 2000 years ago, decided that we were worth dying for. And so died for us. And damn lucky for us, the way most of us act. Even the best of us become prideful in our service, feel entitled in our righteousness. Let us rejoice that a better man has gone before us, a man who struggled for us unto death, even though in His infinite wisdom He surely knew that we, His flock, would be struggling over who got the choice real estate in front of Target in His name two millenia hence. 
posted by gbarto at 11:54 PM Virginia Postrel is suggesting John Tierney for Safire's successor as the Times' conservative, though he might be libertarian, more than conservative. Of course, one could say the same of Safire. What John Tierney is is sharp. Those of his columns that I've read usually hit the right notes (most referred by Virginia). His Best Case Survival Guide was cute throughout but quite to the point in those situations where there was the chance to get the jump on the priggish, the smarmy and other odious types. However, the best case for John Tierney is the company he keeps. Tierney is a longtime pal of the great Christopher Buckley. They even wrote a book together, God Is My Broker, the best send-up of Deepak Chopra and Peter Lynch ever written (you can buy it by clicking on the title at left). I'm not sure where the post-Safire question will come out, but I'm pretty sure, alas, that it won't be Tierney. The Times has made too much of a habit of being anything but cheering to readers like me to offer such a bright writer as the voice of conservatism, particularly since no one is allowed to be both more clever and more hip than the big Mo.
posted by gbarto at 1:10 AM Friday, November 19, 2004That's from Fox News. So, once again the international community sees a menace that may have or get WMDs. What to do? Well, I see the Iraqis are taking an increased role in Fallujah and in their own security. Is it time for Iraq to become a base of operations, however tenuous, as opposed to the center of the action? Glad I'm not in charge of making the call, particularly since no matter which call is made the media will be on the air five minutes after any action or decision to explain why it's all wrong, represents a blown opportunity and has unnecessarily imperiled a generation. Is Osirak an option? Read an article by Fallows in the latest Atlantic where they wargamed a very similar situation. The conclusion was to sit on the hands and whistle past the graveyard, though most of the authentic national security experts on the panel hit their highs during the Clinton years, when hand sitting and graveyard whistling were specialties.
posted by gbarto at 11:40 PM Instapundit points out this Dave Kopel post at the Volokh Conspiracy on Dr. Condoleeza Rice's Second Amendment views. Growing up in Birmingham, Alabama at a time when the law wasn't much protection for Blacks, owning your own gun was. Rice's father was among those who patrolled the neighborhood armed lest white vigilantes get the wrong idea. We need more politicians with this perspective on the citizen's right to defend himself or herself and a practical understanding of where we might wind up if we just count on the government to do it.
posted by gbarto at 11:23 PM Hugh Hewitt is right to assert that: The season we are on the cusp of celebrating is uniquely a religious season. It has its origin in the journey of a poor and homeless family who were given shelter, and in the entry of grace and mercy into human history in the form of Christ. The Salvation Army is uniquely a mission to the homeless and the poor --the lost and the least. They are not just another charity, and it is not just any old time of year.Still, just because a cause is worthy and the season seems right does not mean it is entitled to set up shop wherever and whenever it pleases. What's called for first is perhaps a little gratitude to Target for the years it allowed the Salvation Army. Earnest, heartfelt letters suggesting that their soldiers added something special this time of the year and that they'll be missed. Something, in short, that doesn't start Target off as the bad guy and make it into a war between the righteous and the whore of Babylon. If the Girl Scouts show up at your door and you're on a diet, do you want to start hearing that you no longer care about the welfare of young women? Going straight for the old boycott suggests that an organization with a solid track record can be declared sinister at any time for any cause regardless of what else it does. If Target's, or Wal-Mart's or any business' goodwill is this easily lost among those who support the Armies of Compassion, businesses will soon give up even trying. Here is a segment of the population, they can say to themselves, that is just too touchy. They take anything we've done for them in the past for granted and write us off the second they don't get their way. Having been involved in small and family businesses, it's been my experience that there are few groups which understand why or how you can make a donation or grant a favor to one local charity without kicking in for everything else that comes along. Nobody ever seems to say, "With all you've done for the Boy Scouts, we understand why you might be tapped out, so we'll try next door." Instead, businesses that pick and choose often face more hurt feelings than those that simply say, "Sorry, the owner does his charity stuff privately" and keep a lid on what that is or how much or where. For my money, Target has the right to choose what causes to support and by what means. Surely it's sad that the Salvation Army wasn't on their list this year, but backing them into a corner where business life is reduced to saying "yes" to every worthy cause or being declared Scrooge on the front pages sends a real clear message to businesses: You can't win. If you really love the Salvation Army, patronize stores that have their people outside. Write the organization a check. Speak in sorrow, rather than anger, about how you're going to Wal-Mart more and Target less this year because the bell-ringers really keep you in the spirit of things. But this "battle" is not revealing merely about Wal-Mart but about supporters of the Armies of Compassion. If the best your Christian compassion can come up with is sinister suspicions yielding to anger and denunciations when a company with a not-bad track record does something you don't like... when your choice of action is holy war, not an attempt to understand, forgive (if you feel forgiveness is needed) and voice a hope for better things next year... well, doesn't sound very Christian to me. Write a letter to Target. Tell them you'd love to see a great cause like the Salvation Army again paired with a great company like Target. Tell 'em how their support not just for the Salvation Army, but for other causes, has bucked up your appreciation for them over the years and you're sad about this hiccup in things. Let 'em know you've had good feelings for Target at the holidays but feel like something is missing. But e-mails starting "Re: You are Satan. I hope your corporation dies..." are rightly rejected as coming from people of little faith, tolerance, patience or compassion. I'd hope that good Christians in a lifelong struggle could do better than this as they face the vicissitudes of life.
posted by gbarto at 1:34 AM Wednesday, November 17, 2004K-Mart, Sears mergingSaid a spokesman, "Now consumers will be able to not shop at Sears and K-Mart simultaneously. It's a real boon."
posted by gbarto at 1:28 PM Tuesday, November 16, 2004So much for my SecState theories below. It will be, of course, Rice. As I've said, not a bad choice, but perhaps not the best choice. One good point: she definitely knows the President's strategy. And believes in it. After all, she created it. Hopefully, she'll be able to turn at least parts of the State Department to our team. Let's just hope she doesn't get lost at foggy bottom - her expertise is needed.A side note: As provost at Stanford, Rice had to organize well-meaning leftists with good intentions but questionable ideas for a common mission. Is this the training needed to lead State?
posted by gbarto at 8:12 AM Monday, November 15, 2004Cicero has interesting thoughts on Islamism and the culture wars. Among other things, he notes the silliness of comparing the relatively tame Christian fundamentalists and the Muslim variety. After all, as Wildiris (see here) noted the other day, Jesus built separation of church and state into our system, so there are limits on what power cand do and control. Christian free will set the stage for a lax system where people could decide for themselves whether to act in ways that would get them into heaven or not. Islamic submission, by contrast, makes God's will, not our acceptance of it and of salvation, paramount. Which should be leading the Hollywood left to say "hoo boy" every time they contemplate what these folks stand for. Which they would, were it not for the secret security they take from the knowledge that George W. Bush will protect their freedom to whine about oppression as well as the ladies' right to prance naked on the big screen as opposed to being required to don burqa and veil should an unrelated male be present.As per usual, Cicero draws wildly different conclusions from mine about where we go from here. We post, you decide...
posted by gbarto at 5:30 PM On picking the next Secretary of State: Diplomacy is war by other means. And war is diplomacy by other means. Both axioms are ripe for pilfering and both are critical for understanding what is called for in selecting a Secretary of State. Wags have long quipped that they'd like a Department of Peace instead of a Department of War. But the State Department filled that vacuum long ago, making it its mission to stop war anytime, anyplace at any cost. There have been a few periods though where the folks at the top got parts of the State Department working for the United States' interests, rather than fuzzy notions of global harmony. Two such periods were the institution of the Marshall plan and the peak of the Reagan Administration. In both cases, it was understood that advancing our interests and undermining the intrigue and perceived glamor of communism was necessary to the protection of the free world. Communism was fought to its surrender without shots being fired between the lead actors in the struggle. The military standoff served to dramatize for its leaders the impossibility of challenging us. But it's the culture war that prepared the terrain. Blue jeans and rock and roll undermined the idolatry of state as surely as our arms buildup undermined its potentialities. In the war against Islamism, the cultural component is even more important than it was in the fight against communism. Too many "enemy soldiers" are not worried about military inferiority because they're only in it to die anyway. Which means that while we suppress the worst of the militants with arms, this one can only be won in the hearts and minds of the people on the ground. That doesn't call for lots more aid. It doesn't call for understanding why they want to blow us up and seeking ways to feel their pain. It calls for America to get its marketing mentality on track and make it clear that Islamism is for passé losers. It's time to dust off "I'd like to buy the world a Coke..." and let it be known that a culture can't even survive, let alone thrive, if it doesn't understand the sex appeal of the crack of a pop-top lid opening and the foam bursting out, followed by the rush of caffeine and the burst of sugary energy. Pepsi? Coke? Take your pick. Starbucks in the morning. But if you don't get a drink in the morning till you're finished with the milking, well, that's just so totally uncool! The next Secretary of State will be, as all Secretaries of State are, America's second most important pitchman - or woman - after the President. One recalls Steve Forbes pushing Voice of America. He's the probably the wrong pitchman, but he got what was going on. We need someone with a similarly passionate belief in America. Someone who can wage war on the publicity front, reminding that our cause is just, our cause is true, our cause is... cool. There's a lot of talk about using the State Department post to reach out to the left. Bipartisan gesture and all that nonsense. If you want to just give up on State altogether - and some on the Right do - then why not? But State can be a valuable tool for us if we use it wisely. Which is why the only sane across the aisle appointment would be Joseph Lieberman, a guy who knows we're trying to do right even when we screw it up and would presumably be earnest in his pleading of our cause. Condi Rice is a pretty good choice, though she might be better at Defense. According to the Merc, though, she's ready to come back to Palo Alto now. Where she goes and what she wants depends on where she sees her career arc going. In the past, State was the prestige post, but today Defense might be the better stepping stone to the Vice-Presidency if Cheney resigns midterm, and depending on her intentions and events in Iraq, that could make 2008 really interesting. Still, Rice is a strategizer, rather than a seller, which is why she belongs at Defense. Bush could do something really unusual and interesting with this appointment (and I'm writing as fast as I can since this idea will surely be a few more electrons of science fiction within 48 hours): Pick a salesman or saleswoman to sell America. Forget about diplomats and pols schooled in making nice with other diplomats and pols. Let's get someone who has real experience selling what America's about. So... who sells America? Well, there are Schwarzenegger and Stallone (the first with a Kissinger accent to boot!) There are America boosters like Steve Forbes, though as I said I'm not sure I buy it. But if you really want someone experienced selling America, howzabout a guy whose company sold the sort of household appliances that defined the American middle class way of life? Or maybe somebody in transportation - helping Americans get around the country and America get around in the world. Or somebody who ran one of those financial businesses that helped small businesses grow and ordinary citizens purchase the trappings of modern American life. Or maybe, call me crazy, somebody who was involved in the entertainment industry - say, ran the most popular television network in the country... Okay, I don't know where he stands on Bush or the war, but wouldn't you love to turn on the television and see Jack Welch explaining to Dominique de Villepin why his latest idea just won't sell? Welch probably isn't the best choice. Nor are Schwarzenegger or Stallone. But a visionary appointment at State would show one thing - flair. Whether going for someone brash, someone bold, someone smooth or someone plainspoken, we need someone who can and will make the pitch and know that he's selling the real thing.
posted by gbarto at 4:09 PM A Good Soldier Departs I am pleased to have been part of a team that launched the global war against terror, liberated the Afghan and Iraqi people, brought the attention of the world to the problem of proliferation, reaffirmed our alliances, adjusted to the post-Cold War world and undertook major initiatives to deal with the problem of poverty and disease in the developing world. - Secretary of State Colin PowellEven after four years as Sec. of State, one thinks of him - or at least I do - as General Powell. While Powell had his differences with others in the administration, that summation of his legacy suggests he was singing from the same sheet of music as Bush, however much some fantasized otherwise. Indeed, Powell's differences with presidents from Bush to Clinton to Bush fils have usually been about how to get there, not where we wanted to go. This writer has had his thoughts about Powell over the years, some of them posted here. And I confess they weren't all charitable. Others whose opinions carried a lot more weight than mine have as well. But there's no doubting that Powell has put together an impressive record of service to his country. May private life treat him well.
posted by gbarto at 3:34 PM Sunday, November 14, 2004Wrong RacketSerena Williams says she might be more talented at designing than tennis What's next? Macramé My Way by John McEnroe?
posted by gbarto at 11:51 PM Here's the good news for the day (alluded to below): U.S. troops occupy entire city of Fallujah after 6 days of fighting; 38 U.S. casualties, more than 1,200 enemy fighters killed Our hearts go out to the families of the casualties, and indeed to all folks worrying about a loved one over there. Still, what has happened is pretty incredible. For all the talk of quagmires and catastrophes, it looks like taking on American troops is a decidedly losing proposition. And having experienced life under the insurgent "liberators" one hopes the populace will be open to our efforts and helpful in tracking down stragglers. In a way that perhaps they wouldn't have been a few months ago. It's still too early to tell, and there will always exist analyses explaining why we should have moved faster, harder, etc. But it looks like our approach will lay the groundwork for something useful and important - an understanding of what we're doing versus what the insurgents are doing and our relative intentions toward the lives and futures of the actual citizens of Iraq.
posted by gbarto at 11:29 PM Fallujah, etc According to the headlines, it looks like Fallujah's going a little better than expected and the general effort to clean up Iraq doesn't look nearly so dire now that there's no longer an election to be won on bad news from Iraq. Of course in war there's no telling how things will go from moment to moment. But inasumuch as we're doing something that has to be done, it is good that it is going better rather than worse. Though we'll leave it at that before we start quoting Yogi Berra.
posted by gbarto at 11:25 PM |
Archives
|
Old TurkeyBlog here.
