 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
May 2007
Elsewhere on the WebVictor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers Victor Davis Hanson Archive on National Review OnlineTour Books
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
by Victor Hanson
Amazon.com’s Best of 2001 Many theories have been offered regarding why Western culture has spread so successfully across the world, with arguments ranging from genetics to superior technology to the creation of enlightened economic, moral, and political systems. In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan Hanson, for those who somehow have missed him until now, is a professor of Classics at California State and also is a part time farmer, both of which have contributed to his writing as a military historian. As a classicist, Hanson is well versed in the sources in their original Greek, and as a farmer he understands how agriculture affected the experience of the Greeks at war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson relates the life stories of his farmer neighbors, writing that their way of life will likely soon disappear, thanks in part to a federal system of agricultural subsidies that favors large-scale, industrial farm corporations over individual “yeomen.” This is a sobering and eye-opening book. by Victor Davis Hanson On first glance, The Soul of Battle appears to be three different books: biographies of two well-known generals—Sherman and Patton—and one who is virtually unknown today, the ancient Greek leader Epaminondas. Yet Victor Davis Hanson, a classics professor and author of The Western Way of War, makes a compelling connection between these three men. They were “eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by their own superiors” who led democratic armies on missions of freedom.
by Robert B. Strassler (Editor), Victor Davis Hanson (Introduction)
|
May 11, 2007 9:50 AM
The Moral LeftA World Away From Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and Al Gore Those Good, High Gas Prices? Makes us conserve? Ushers in the age of alternate fuels? There are some foolish things being written about the positives of the very real possibility that gas might reach $4 a gallon by mid-summer—or at least in some high-demand states like here in California (that suffers the double whammy of expensive refinery requirements, and opposes most material investment (reactors, refineries, pipelines, coastal drilling, new highways, new damns, etc) that contributes to preservation of the state’s elite yuppie lifestyle.) I was reading two such columns that were happy about the increased prices the other day—right before filling up in rural California. I collated the eight cars in the service station. There were four large 1980s pickups,—Dodge Rams, Fords, and one Toyota—two old Crown Vic-type gas guzzlers, and two used vans. All except me and one very poor looking white blue-collar painter in one of the pickups (I gathered that from the sprayer that seemed to have splattered his truck as much as what he works on), were Mexican aliens (no English) or Mexican-Americans. I would imagine (I talked to only two) other than the one housewife with four kids they were carpenters and landscape people filling up early (6 AM) on their way to work in Fresno. None of these vehicles could have gotten much more than 10 or 15 miles per gallon, given their size and age. Most of these commuters live in rural Selma or Sanger and must drive 50-60 miles to work and back each day. None of their gear I think would fit into a smaller truck. Or at least they had made the decision to buy a used clunker with size ($2-5000) rather than a newer, fuel efficient light truck ($20-25,000). The result is that at an extra buck-fifty, they might possibly pay as much as an extra $10 per day or $50 per week. I am not convinced in the short term that extra wages or payments will cover their additional expenses. I say all this for three simple reasons: (1) there are, of course, some benefits from high gas prices if it discourages consumption. But it would be far better to “achieve” (if that is what some want) $4 a gallon through taxes, rather than paying unstable regimes petrol bounties. (2) The carbon footprint and energy consumption of those that I saw at the gas station are far less than those of an Al Gore, Laurie David, or Sheryl Crow—or most who preach about the benefits of high gas. I would wager that none of the eight drivers lives in a house much more than 1200 square feet. None has ever been on a corporate jet (400 gallons an hour), or fly transcontinentally. (3) I grant that such elites mean well and that their activism may pressure some corporate bogeyman to insist on new technologies and more efficient engines. But in the meantime, I think the carbon-footprint movement and the alternate energy group are largely out of touch with most Americans, who unlike Europeans live in a large, wide-open country that in other respects is far more industrious and efficient than Europe. These workers belong to no European-style union, operate under no 35-hour work week protocols, enjoy no lifetime employment. They are the world’s most industrious laborers and we should be upset that high gas falls upon them inordinately. As Americans we should all take a pledge: that we promise to use one toilet paper square, to turn up the thermostat to 75 degrees this summer, and to borrow to buy a Prius, when Al Gore and John Edwards move back down to, say, 3,000 square feet, when Sheryl Crow vows never to ride in a private jet, and when Ms. David promises to stay away from energy-burning commercial jets to Europe. Right now I worry more about how Hector Rosales is going to pay the extra cost for his 1983 Ford 150 to get to north Fresno to mow lawns than Laurie David Gulfstreaming to her Martha Vineyard’s second home, while on break from her LA enclave. When inaugurated as your 44th President, I will usher in a new era in American foreign policy, where I listen and work with our allies. Therefore, I will urge the Europeans to increase their support for Nato operations in Afghanistan, as part of our new multilateral alliance. It’s time we quit telling them no, when they want to help. As part of this new attitude of compromise, I also look forward for European and United Nations initiatives about the stubborn problem of Iran’s possible nuclear proliferation. It is a moment not to lose, and we must allow the Europeans to become full-fledged partners with the United States; the days of shunning and discouraging their efforts to show us the way in Afghanistan and with Iran are over. After we withdraw from the quagmire of Iraq, we look forward to working again with the governments in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra that will emerge to manage their own affairs. The demonization of Iran and Syria is over, and it is critical that we enter into a serious dialogue with both, without either preconditions or prejudices, to hear their novel and constructive ideas about regional stability. I have said often that it was intolerable that George Bush took his eye off al Qaeda in Afghanistan when he went into Iraq; therefore, after seven years of a free pass, it is time to redirect our attention back to bin Laden and bring him to justice. Now with all our resources properly devoted to Afghanistan, I will apprise President Musharref that either his government delivers al Qaeda kingpins to US forces in Afghanistan or we will begin hot pursuit into nuclear Pakistan, by land and air, to apprehend him. It is time to repeal the Patriot Act, shut down Guantanamo, stop the intercepts of phone calls, and cease making the war on terrorists more dangerous to our lives than the terrorists themselves. In addition, for too long we have pressured our allies in Europe and our former friends in Russia with unilateral efforts at missile defense, a system that is unproven and provocative. Let’s stop this billion-dollar fiasco, get back on track with our partners, and quit making enemies out of former friends. Finally, American foreign policy has always been bipartisan and disagreements about it should stop at our shores. We are tired of the opposition party always by rote blocking an administration’s initiatives’ simply for the sake of gaining political power and leverage. The notion of proposed cut-offs, filibusters, private freelancing diplomacy with foreign heads of state—all that only divides us as a nation. I didn’t like it in the past, and won’t tolerate it in the future. We need to speak as one nation, and the President must remain that one decider in the conduct of our external relations.
Comments (21)Nathan :Mike M. :Victor, I am sure that you have noticed that just about everything we are exploring in the pursuit of energy independence, greenhouse gas reduction, etc. will drive up the cost of goods and services in this country. If your concern is that we will not share equally in the economic burden of achieving these ends, I am afraid that is an impossible goal. The rich among us are always going to have more disposable income to make the burden of bearing all those extra government imposed costs much easier. If your fear is that this new regime of green planning will change the class structure of our society (especially in California) by making it much harder for the working man (and woman) to make ends meet, I share that fear. But you must have observed (especially with respect to housing in California) that that process has been going on for some time. Have a good weekend. JM :essential vdh. Eventually America and Americans will have to chose. The more time it takes for the final correct choice--the higher the cost for both America and the Muslim community. In the final end the Muslim community will lose it all if we fail to chose as needed and if they (Muslims) are allowed to succeed by the current crop of left wing self serving idiots like HR Clinton. Bush, by not being able to articulate and generate support for what is sound action in the end will cause greater carnage. It is not his fault that the left wing fog is so dense while controlling the Dems and the MSM. He did his best which may not have been enough. In the final historical end it will be recognized that the "Bush doctrine" was correct. Had it been implemented by America with a toughness to insure its success the final hell would not have happened. Where have we seen this before. In the end it will be recognized that "Bush himself was to much of a politician to carry it off" In the end it will be recognized what the true impact was on American society by the fossilized remains of the communist subversion. A subversion of the unique American character. A Character that needed to be revived and salvaged to insure again American survival. The unique American character that is caught in the words of Thomas Sowell, Walter E Williams and Victor Hanson and others. The well and reservoir of strength exists in their writing. In the end it will not matter. It will not be a true war, the Muslims had their chance at that. It will be a killing off of Muslims that cannot live in a modern world unless in a cage. Their intractable deadly stupidity will insure their final killing. What Muslims are now giving, the killing and murdering of innocents they will reap back a 1000 times over by better men than they. Their deadly ideology will not be allowed to survive in humans that want to live. When it is over it will still be a modern world that had to turn primitive for a while to survive. It will be a world without the Muslim community as it is known today. It will be a better world. A better understanding of Human nature will exist---for a time---until the next Achilles heel. Blogengeezer :I am in 'awe' of you sir. Your totally 'Un'-common Sense, is refreshing in the BlabFest media of today. The 'AP feed' is just that. A 'Spoon feed' to the major media of the world. I have your link near the top in my blogspot, 'daflikkers' for that reason. I check the Asia Pacific and World news from time to time just to see if they all are still in 'Lockstep' with each other and our own media. Yup..always the exact same, no surprises there. Thank you sir for a reason to have hope. I also picked on the poor 'Prius' today. Talk about a 'Carbon footprint' check out the total story some time, Oh and don't forget the Battery. Fred L :I agree totally with your sentiments regarding foreign policy stopping at the water's edge. I only wish there were, indeed, some way we COULD be intolerant of the opposition party's opportunism in this regard. One of my Senators is Harry Reid. You may rest assured I will vote against him. But mine is only one vote (two, with my wife's). What we need is much more outrage and many of us count on you to keep us stirred up on that account. Thanks for your efforts to date; keep it up. Fred HerrMorgenholz : Nathan commented about the relative inelasticity of demand for petroleum. I would say that is true on the "consumer" end, but not so much in industry. Paul :I think until public transportation (or even privatized carpooling) becomes the norm, our gas consumption will be quite inelastic. It is either that, or we don't go to work. It really is that simple. J Mays :Sheryl Crow cares about the environment but apparently has no qualms about one of her songs being used for a Subaru commercial. brian w :"apprise President Musharref that either his government delivers al Qaeda kingpins to US forces in Afghanistan or we will begin hot pursuit..." Hopefully the next President will recognize more than just "US forces" are fighting al Qaeda (saying "NATO forces" would be good PR for the US)... M McCuen :That's how she gets her gas money! Richard Cook :JM- I do not think that it is possible to generate support from the American Public for the war. I understand what the stakes are,but, I also think the public does not want to know the truth. Avert the eyes now, bend the knee later... Anonymous :Also- People assume that once the public knows the "truth" about Radical Islam some kind of action will follow. That will not necessarily happen. Rufus :Pat :"I personally don't see the need for Al Gore to live in a giant mansion (especially in a place which would require so much energy use for air conditioning), but if you have a better way than flying transcontinentally for him to get around the world to deliver his lecture to raise awareness of climate change, I'm sure he'd like to hear it." I can think of numerous ways that Gore can deliver his message without flying transcontinentally. 1. He can write books about it. In fact, he has already done most of these things, and will undoubtedly continue to do them. It seems to me that he is delivering his message very effectively, in multiple ways. Why in Gaia's name does he also have to "get around the world" to deliver it in person? I can only think of one reason: because this allows him to enjoy the sort of world travel that most of us can only dream about. But instead of admitting that this travel is a luxury and an indulgence, he gets to present it to the world as virtuous labor in the service of a noble cause. "I don't feel that is a hipocrisy of the same kind as the rest you noted." Noted. But hypocrisy is exactly what it is, regardless of how you feel. Hogarth :if you have a better way than flying transcontinentally for him to get around the world to deliver his lecture to raise awareness of climate change, I'm sure he'd like to hear it. Delta, United, British Air, etc. rather than Gulfstream, Lear, Falcon, etc. You know, just like us little people do it. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater :Excellent post.. I agree that I'd rather see gas cost more due to taxes (which could offset tax cuts or EITC boosts) than to demand or profiteering. I'd also like to see the cost of mandatory liability insurance priced into every gallon so there will be no more uninsured drivers and people who drive less pay less for insurance than those who drive more (which is fairer IMO). Also, tax the costs of defending access to oil into the price of barrels of oil. And now that the price of ethanol inputs (corn, soybeans) are going up, can taxpayers please stop paying market price subsidies, or is this automatically done (do subsidies take effect as a price 'floor' that is now being exceeded by market forces)? K Hagar :Human nature!!!! K Hagar :Human nature!!!! C. Siegel :Once again, the conservatives have compassion for the individual, the liberals have compassion for the "class", which is useless but makes them feel better about themselves. al v :if i turn up the heat I will be wasting energy. right now the thermostat is set on 68 and the heat still comes on. Impacted Wisdom Truth :Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaPJM Political 8/27/08: Michelle Malkin & Co. Survive Denver–Plus A PJTV Preview! Pajamas TV Launches Live from DNC: Hillary the Angry Populist, Part II Live from DNC: Is Opposition to Obama in Denver Due to Racism?(Day 3) Live from DNC: It’s Zombietime! (Day 3) Big Labor Safeguards Its Big Stake in Obama BBC’s Terrorists in Need Live From DNC: Hillary Releases Her Delegates, Urges Unanimous Obama Vote
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
Gasoline demand is fairly inelastic, and higher prices cannot help to do much other than inoculate us against future price shocks as energy prices adjust to reflect their true cost and scarcity.
As to ushering in the age of alternative fuels—and I realise it's not you making this argument—the fuel high gas prices are most likely to lead to is an old one: coal. When gasoline becomes prohibitively expensive, unless we have significant renewable-energy infrastructure in place (which is unlikely, given climate policy everywhere, not just here in the US), industry will most probably regress to coal use for power, which is far more polluting.
On a personal note, my (middle-class) father recently traded in his minivan for a more fuel-efficient car based entirely on the higher cost of gas, though this is unrelated to your point that rising gas prices will not affect the consumption, only the quality of life, of the working and lower classes, especially in rural areas. But it does seem to have an effect on the consumption of the middle class.
I personally don't see the need for Al Gore to live in a giant mansion (especially in a place which would require so much energy use for air conditioning), but if you have a better way than flying transcontinentally for him to get around the world to deliver his lecture to raise awareness of climate change, I'm sure he'd like to hear it. I don't feel that is a hipocrisy of the same kind as the rest you noted.
I know a number of people these days (Gore included) attempt to buy their way out of the guilt of high carbon use by purchasing carbon credits with places that work on renewable energy projects. Of course, investing in future infrastructure to reduce carbon use is not even close to actually reducing carbon use here and now, but I suppose it's better than nothing.
May 11, 2007 01:37 PM