From Decadence to Dawn

A lesson from our past; a possibility for our future…

I am reading for a second time the book by Jacques Barzun, “From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present, 500 years of Western Cultural Life.”  I am scarcely qualified to describe the depth and breadth of this volume – some background of the book and author will have to suffice:

Highly regarded here and abroad for some thirty works of cultural history and criticism, master historian Jacques Barzun has now set down in one continuous narrative the sum of his discoveries and conclusions about the whole of Western culture since 1500.

This book does not represent a passing fancy, but a summary of a lifetime’s work; Barzun was over 90 years old when it was published in 2000. 

Over seven decades, Barzun wrote and edited more than forty books touching on an unusually broad range of subjects, including science and medicine, psychiatry from Robert Burton through William James to modern methods, and art, and classical music; he was one of the all-time authorities on Hector Berlioz.

At 84 years of age, he began writing his swan song, to which he devoted the better part of the 1990s. The resulting book of more than 800 pages, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present, reveals a vast erudition and brilliance undimmed by advanced age. Historians, literary critics, and popular reviewers all lauded From Dawn to Decadence as a sweeping and powerful survey of modern Western history…

I can only add: almost every sentence in the book bears witness to the depth of one who has studied a subject for seventy years. 

As mentioned, I am reading the book now for the second time – the first time being several years ago.  I feel much better prepared to at least somewhat understand minor portions of the topics about which Barzun writes.  I will likely write a few posts based on the book, and otherwise use some cites from the book here and there in my writing.

But first, I – like Barzun – will take a detour.  Despite the title and time range Barzun offers (he begins his story with Martin Luther), he devotes a few pages of the book to the Middle Ages, a period of history upon which I have written a good deal.  He indicates that history is not as neatly divided or defined as the labels we place upon times and places – Europe did not turn a distinct chapter at the moment Luther tacked his complaints on the church door.  Additionally, he offers that the popular perception of the Middle Ages is faulty; much of what is attributed to the modern age has its roots in this so-called dark period.

Certainly you have noticed that the title of this post has it backwards – this is not the title of Barzun’s master work, you shout.  You are correct.  And with the background work out of the way, I will get to the point. 

A Return to Proportionality

I return to this subject, initially addressed in my post here, and prompted by a post by Robert Wenzel and EPJ.  I have had reason to think more about this subject, and thought it best to try to organize (and therefore test) my thoughts on digital paper.

I have been thinking about this on and off in the few weeks since the original post, but more recently due to further dialogue with “Autolykos” in the comments.  There were also other comments in that thread that are deserving of exploration.

As background: in Wenzel’s original post, he cites Rothbard from “The Ethics of Liberty”:

The victim, then, has the right to exact punishment up to the proportional amount as determined by the extent of the crime...The proportionate level of punishment sets the right of the victim, the permissible upper bound of punishment...

Wenzel replies:

But, even if we go along with the idea that proportionality should be the remedy, and I am far from sure we should, I ask, who is to determine this so-called proportionality? One thing that Austrian school economics teaches us is that all valuation is subjective.

Wenzel suggests that Macy’s can execute a shoplifter if it so chooses.  

Now, to dive further in….

Rothbard, in the above, introduces “punishment.”  In the comments, Brett Middleton (June 5, 2014 at 10:14 AM) writes:

The problem I'm having is with the whole idea of "punishment" or "retribution" to begin with, since this seems to go beyond the idea of restitution for harm done. Restitution must be proportional to the damage by definition, and the only argument needed to preserve proportionality is on how to properly value that damage. Is a libertarian really entitled to more than being made whole? Is it possible to set a value on punishment to include it in the restitution due? Me, I'd rather have the stolen property or its value back (along with a bit for time and effort dealing with the theft), since punishment doesn't put any merchandise back on the shelf.

In response to one of my comments, Autolykos (June 19, 2014 at 9:35 AM) adds:

My concern is justice, not deterrence.

Rothbard, at least in the cited section, specifically wrote of “punishment.”  However, Brett Middleton and Autolykos introduce several other possible purposes / reactions to the original crime.  Let’s look at definitions of these several terms, and in each case some further terms that must be defined.  In each case, I selected what I felt to be the definition(s) that best fit the topic at hand:

Punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.

Penalty: a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule; a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation; something that is forfeited, as a sum of money.

Retribution: requital according to merits or deserts, especially for evil.

Requital: a retaliation for a wrong, injury, etc.; something given or done as repayment, reward, punishment, etc., in return.

               Retaliation: return of like for like; reprisal.

Reprisal: (in warfare) retaliation against an enemy, for injuries received, by the infliction of equal or greater injuries; the action or practice of using force, short of war, against another nation, to secure redress of a grievance

Restitution: reparation made by giving an equivalent or compensation for loss, damage, or injury caused; indemnification; the restoration of property or rights previously taken away, conveyed, or surrendered; restoration to the former or original state or position.

Reparation: the making of amends for wrong or injury done: reparation for an injustice; Usually, reparations.  Compensation in money, material, labor, etc., payable by a defeated country to another country or to an individual for loss suffered during or as a result of war; restoration to good condition.

Indemnification: the act of indemnifying

               Indemnify: to compensate for damage or loss sustained, expense incurred, etc.

Restoration: a return of something to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition.

Justice: the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Deserved: justly or rightly earned; merited

Deterrence: the act of deterring

               Deter: to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding

I think I have captured them all.  Take a look again at the list; these all came up in a few comments in an obscure blog (mine).  As response to an aggression, several possibilities have been presented: punishment, retribution, restitution, justice, deterrence.  I further defined these with an additional ten terms.

Water, Water Everywhere…

Have you ever seen a picture of the earth from space?  It’s pretty blue – a lot of liquid.  That stuff is called “water.”  Something God made sure there would be plenty of – perhaps more abundant than any other resource on the planet, except, maybe, air.

Well, you wouldn’t know it if you lived in the western United States, facing a panic due to a catastrophic drought.  Yes, catastrophic.  (Go back to that satellite image of the earth….)  

Guess who is in charge of water on that little blue ball?

Las Vegas may be toast – for those who have never been there, it is in the middle of an inhospitable desert, so 8 months of the year it really is toast.  But now it is serious:

“The situation is as bad as you can imagine,” said Tim Barnett, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “It’s just going to be screwed. And relatively quickly. Unless it can find a way to get more water from somewhere Las Vegas is out of business. Yet they’re still building, which is stupid.”

Perhaps someone will suggest a market price for water.

Las Vegas gets its water from Lake Mead:

It is located 25 miles outside the city and supplies 90 per cent of its water. But over the last decade, as Las Vegas’s population has grown by 400,000 to two million, Lake Mead has slowly been drained of four trillion gallons of water and is now well under half full. Mr Barnett predicts it may be a “dead pool” that provides no water by about 2036.

A 25% population increase over ten years – a calamity; why, that’s about 2% per year compounded growth.  Overwhelming.  No wonder the lake is running dry – who could ever meet an increased demand for their product, at a catastrophic growth rate of 2%?

Perhaps someone can suggest a market price for water?

Nope, a government boondoggle instead – a giant straw in the lake:

That rescue project is costing $817 million and is currently expected to be complete by late 2015, but it is not viewed as a long-term solution.

Eight hundred million isn’t a long term solution – maybe it will buy another year or two.  Have I mentioned that someone might consider a market price for water?

Las Vegas also wants to build a separate $15.5 billion pipeline that would pump 27 billion gallons of groundwater a year from an aquifer 260 miles away in rural Nevada.

Fifteen billion dollars, I guess instead of a market price for water.

“The drought is like a slow spreading cancer across the desert. It’s not like a tornado or a tsunami, bang. The effects are playing out over decades. And as the water situation becomes more dire we are going to start having to talk about the removal of people (from Las Vegas).”

Removing people (by force?), instead of a market price for water?

Most of that water is used to sprinkle golf courses, parks and lawns so the water authority has declared war on grass, paying homeowners to remove it from their gardens at the rate of $1.50 per square foot.

Paying to remove grass, instead of a market price for water.

One proposal is for landlocked Nevada to pay billions of dollars to build solar-powered desalination plants in the Pacific off Mexico, taking Mexico’s share of Colorado River water in exchange.

Billions of dollars, instead of a market price for water.

You think Nevada is nutty?  Get a load of California:

California is dealing with its own three-year drought, possibly its worst in half a millennium, which Governor Jerry Brown has described as “epochal”.

A three-year drought is “epochal.”  I guess Jerry hasn’t read the Old Testament.  Three years….

Go look at that picture of the earth again; see all the water?  That’s what God gave us.  Seventy-five percent or so of the earth’s surface is covered in it, yet there isn’t enough to sustain a 2% annual growth rate of people in Nevada.

Perhaps someone might suggest a market price for water.

First Ever! bionic mosquito Interview

No, I didn’t interview myself.

Recently I was interviewed by the “Political Badger.”  For those interested, the Q&A can be found here.

Paul Craig Roberts: The Elite Don’t Want War

Well, that’s not exactly what he writes, but his commentary supports this conclusion.

When it comes to economic and financial assessments, Paul Craig Roberts and I don’t often see eye-to-eye (not that he would notice or care) – he describes the financial problems well, but then goes on to outline his own central-planning solution.  However, on foreign policy and empire, I often find myself in agreement with him. 

He has written a piece posted today at LRC, entitled “Can Putin’s Diplomacy Prevail Over Washington’s Coercion?”  I offer a few quotes from his post that resonate well with or otherwise compliment my view of where we (7 billion of us) stand at this moment.

To summarize my view (at least the portions relevant to PCR’s commentary and this post): the puppet-masters have concluded that the US government has grown too big (and dangerous) for its britches.  While this decision comes with the unfortunate (for the elite) consequence of slowing down or even stepping back from their desires of a centralized, one-world, state, it comes with the benefit of avoiding the risk of a global nuclear holocaust – one that even the elite have no means to survive (don’t tell me about bunkers until you have a solution for the day after…or the next 300 years).

So, here goes:

…President Putin has asked the Russian legislature to repeal the authorization to use force that was granted in order to protect residents of former Russian territories that are currently part of Ukraine…

Putin has placed his future and that of his country on a bet that Russian diplomacy can prevail over Washington’s bribes, threats, blackmail, and coercion. Putin is appealing to Western Europeans. Putin is saying, “I am not the problem. Russia is not the problem. We are reasonable. We are ignoring Washington’s provocations. We want to work things out and to find a peaceful solution.”

Putin’s hope for diplomacy over force rests on Germany and France. Both countries face Europe’s budget and employment woes, and both countries have significant economic relations with Russia. German business interests are a counterweight to the weak Merkel government’s subservience to Washington. Washington has stupidly angered the French by trying to steal $10 billion from France’s largest bank.

I have written often about the possibility of the coming alliance amongst Germany, Russia, China, and maybe even Japan and Australia.  Events daily demonstrate baby-steps in this direction.  Roberts suggests that Putin is betting that Germany and France will ultimately consider the self-interest of their own countries (in the language of national politics), respectively.  Sooner or later they will, as there is no salvation via an “ally” whose primary economic strength lies in exporting funny digits on a banker’s computer screen.

If his bet is a bad one and Europe fails not only Russia but itself and the rest of the world by accommodating Washington’s drive for world hegemony, Russia and China will have to submit to Washington’s hegemony or be prepared for war.

There are a few more places left for proxy wars, I guess – Africa?  South America?  The pickins are slim.  But is there anymore appetite in the west?  Is there the financial capability?  Is there the military capability to “win”?  Events of the last several years seem to indicate “no.”

As neither side can afford to lose the war, the war would be nuclear.

Eventually it will – on purpose (if not to “do” means to “die,” how might political and military leaders act?) or by accident (trigger fingers get itchy when the rhetoric gets hot; there are enough reported such near-miss incidents during the cold war to not dismiss this possibility).

As scientists have made clear, life on earth would cease, regardless of whether Washington’s ABM shield works.

This includes the elite.  No way out, unless they have a plan to get a few hundred million of us (in order to support the lifestyle they enjoy today) and all of their toys and beaches to Mars.

This is why I oppose Washington’s policies and speak out against the arrogance and hubris that define Washington today. The most likely outcome of Washington’s pursuit of world hegemony is the extinction of life on earth.

Yup.  This is why the elite are pulling the leash.  Unless there is no such thing as the elite….

New Majority Leader Signals Major Shift in Republic Party

After Eric Cantor’s defeat in the primary to an upstart, apparently Tea-Party type, the Republican members in the House decided to heed the lessons from such a high-profile defeat.  They selected, as new majority leader one Kevin McCarthy, from the hinterlands of California.

Do you want a hint at the shift?  Check out the picture.

Bowe Knows…

Humor me while I reminisce about the old days and one of the most remarkable athletes I have ever seen in any sport (no, not him, or him…how old do you think I am?).  Bo Jackson.  Baseball or (American) football, he was outstanding in both sports – he could have been an all-time Hall-of-Fame candidate if not for blowing out his hip and further subsequent complications.

One of the more memorable episodes of the flash of light that was Bo Jackson was a series of commercials by Nike, “Bo Knows” (if you like a heavy guitar, listen to Bo Diddley on this commercial).  In this series, the cross-training abilities of Bo are explored in numerous sports.  Bo knows them all (well, Gretzky doesn’t think so).

I know none of you come here to read about such things.  I take this opportunity to reminisce on the simpler, pre-911 days of my youth – or, let’s say, my less-aged.  The topic, as you have likely surmised from the title of this post, is Bowe Bergdahl and the controversy surrounding his release.

I will begin by stating that I have no idea of the truth of the circumstances behind his capture or release; behind any actions he may or may not have taken.  None of it.  The story is a controlled one.  But the controversy – even outrage – is based on the narrative provided, and it is this narrative that I will examine.

The feigned controversy is in regards to the trading for terrorists:

Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said he was "extremely troubled" and that "This fundamental shift in U.S. policy signals to terrorists around the world a greater incentive to take U.S. hostages". This sentiment was repeated by Congressmen Buck McKeon and James Inhofe, who released a joint statement saying that terrorists now have a "strong incentive" to capture more soldiers.

Pretty laughable.  Like they didn’t have reason already?  Actually, this might preclude the reason they have to kill US soldiers, and capture them instead.  You would think this is a good thing.

What is the real reason for the hostility – hostility in the politicians, the media, and much of the public?  It is because Bowe knows (at least reportedly)….

Bowe knows the truth behind the US government’s foreign interventions:

The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. [sic]

A soldier “ashamed to be an american” is a sin worse than death – what does this say to the countless millions who stand cheering and weeping when returning soldiers are paraded at sporting events, or when the fighter planes fly overhead at parades?  If the soldiers are ashamed, what does this say for those doing the worshipping?  Are they dupes?  No, better to be hostile.