I read hundreds of blogs a day: posts, comments, the whole schmear. I may include posts I find interesting in my daily Catching My Eye feature. When a post deserves more commentary or analysis than seems reasonable for CME, I’ll cite it in a post of my own. And I do have favorite blogs.

I’m pretty stingy with my blogroll, though. It’s not just for blogs I link to, or blogs I agree with, or blogs I read, or even blogs that I enjoy. It’s for blogs that have such consistently high quality that I feel that some special recognition is in order. It’s not much of an award but it’s the most I have to offer—my respect.

I’ve been reading Joseph Marshall’s comments in various blogs (particularly Winds of Change) for some time now. He’s appeared to be slightly to the left of me politically and he’s certainly more of an activist than I am. I discovered his blog, A Straight Shot of Politics, not long ago and since then it’s been a daily read for me. For some reason, although it definitely caught my eye, I didn’t cite his post, Polio, a reflection on our shared childhood experience of polio vaccine, common societal purpose, and the changes in our society over the years.

I did cite his post, The Power of Prayer, a discussion of the role of prayer in Buddhism.

When I read his next exquisite post, The Laborer is Worthy of His Hire, a reflection on craftmanship, furniture-making, and changes in the American character, I realized that a link wouldn’t do it. So, welcome to my blogroll, Joseph! I look forward to going through your archives and discovering how we agree, how we disagree, and learning something along the way.

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• A Daily Briefing on Iran has a
  weekly briefing on Iran.
• Ann Althouse has a rundown of interesting
  things that people are saying about Christo’s latest project, The Gates (“wrapping” New York’s Central Park).
• Professional linguist Amritas reports on accentual discrimination.
• Val Prieto of Babalu Blog writes a eulogy for a street cat who came into
  their lives, they learned to love, went back to the street, and is now dead.
• I think I understand now why they call economics the dismal science. Bryan Caplan
  of EconLog recommends the movie Saw. Really.
  Meanwhile I promise not to get any economics advice from movie reviewers.
• According to comments I’ve read in various blogs, Roger L. Simon is doing well,
  is 100% gall-bladder free, and is expected to return home tomorrow. Doubt if he’ll
  feel much like blogging for a while. I’ll keep you posted.
• Tigerhawk wonders whether Iran
  is deterrable.
• VietPundit has become an ablogathist: he doubts
  the existence of Instapundit. VietPundit, if Instapundit did not exist, we would be forced to invent him.

That’s the lot.

On this day in 1754,
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, French diplomat, gourmet, and stateman was born. He was
also one of the greatest wisecrackers the world has ever known. Napoleon, no slouch himself
in this area, described him as “a piece of dung in a silk stocking”. Victor Hugo,
one of the greatest writers in any language, wrote of him:

He was a strange, redoubtable, and important personage; his name was Charles Maurice de Périgord; he was of noble descent, like Machiavelli, a priest like Gondi, unfrocked like Fouché, witty like Voltaire, and lame like the devil. It might be averred that everything in him was lame like himself,—the nobility which he had placed at the service of the Republic, the priesthood which he had dragged through the parade ground, then cast into the gutter, the marriage which he had broken off through a score of exposures and a voluntary separation, the understanding which he disgraced by acts of baseness.

Read all of this, by the way. It is touching, revealing, terrible. Hugo at his best.

Here’s a sample of some of Talleyrand’s mots:

“A court is an assembly of noble and distinguished beggars.”

“Love of glory can only create a great hero; contempt of glory creates a great man.”

“Merit, however inconsiderable, should be sought for and rewarded. Methods are the master of masters.”

“Mistrust first impulses; they are nearly always good.”

“Ones reputation is like a shadow, it is gigantic when it precedes you, and a pigmy in proportion when it follows.”

“She is such a good friend that she would throw all her acquaintances into the water for the pleasure of fishing them out again.”

“Since the masses are always eager to believe something, for their benefit nothing is so easy to arrange as facts.”

“Speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts.”

“The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence.”

“This is the beginning of the end.”

“To succeed in the world, it is much more necessary to possess the penetration to discern who is a fool, than to discover who is a clever man.”

“Too much sensibility creates unhappiness and too much insensibility creates crime.”

“War is much too serious a thing to be left to military men.”

“It is not an event, it is a piece of news.”

“You do not play then at whist, sir? Alas, what a sad old age you are preparing for yourself!”

“I know where there is more wisdom than is found in Napoleon, Voltaire, or all the ministers present and to come—in public opinion.”

and my favorite “This is worse than a crime, it’s a blunder.”

It occurs to me that Eason Jordan’s accusations that US forces targeted journalists in Iraq could become self-fulfilling prophecy (in fact, I wonder if that might not be what Jordan hoped for, given that it would substantially turn Americans against their troops’ actions in Iraq); that by pissing off the troops with a false accusation, Jordan might actually bring about journalists’ deaths at the hands of troops coming to see the press as the enemy. (Speculation kicked off by this at Expat Yank.)

Fortunately, our troops are too good to do that kind of thing without really extreme provocation. And I suspect our field commanders would ask the Iraqi government to order the press out of Iraq if journalists started to be that provocative. (I’m thinking things like actually taking part in enemy operations, or providing actionable intelligence to the enemy.)

Andrew Olmsted has an interesting post comparing the pressures to raise Federal spending with the pressures to restrain it. It’s a good analysis, missing only a few things (pretty much ancillary to, rather than central to, his point).

For example, the only political pressure that exists to lower spending is from the opposition party, which gets to do less of it. Thus, the Republicans are now the party of big Medicare spending increases, and the Democrats are the party that wants a “balanced” budget. (The scare quotes are because they don’t actually mean balanced the way normal people do.)

Also, it should be noted that the Founders understood this dynamic; it’s not new. Because the Crown had unlimited powers to tax, the Crown had unlimited powers to spend – well, limited only by the amount of money in the system. In other words, government power itself – to dissuade by means of laws, to compel or prevent by means of police powers, to wage war by means of creating a large standing army – all of these powers are essentially unlimited. And when the government asserts a power, it inherently diminishes the power either of other governments (in the case of war) or more likely its own citizens or subjects. So the unlimited power to tax leads to the unlimited power to do anything else, and the consequent limiting of non-governmental power. Note that in any nation where government has had this power and has faced a national emergency of sufficient magnitude, those governments have been universally willing to bankrupt the taxpayers both publicly and privately to get out of the crisis, or at least to avoid having the government officials consumed by it.

That power problem is why the original Constitution forbade direct taxation. Indirect taxation is avoidable: I can minimize my purchasing, and maximize my self-sufficiency, so minimizing sales taxes; I can refuse to sell anything, so avoiding other kinds of transaction taxes; I can refuse to import or export, so avoiding customs; and so on. I cannot refuse to have an income, or I would be destitute; so I cannot avoid income taxes. I can refuse to own property, but cannot refuse to have a place to live, so I cannot avoid directly or indirectly paying property taxes. If the government’s ability to obtain revenue is limited, government’s power is also limited.

Andrew mentions ways to increase the downward pressure on government spending – increased deficits require increased interest payments, which shrink the pool of money available to do anything else (of course, this is no help to the taxpayer, who has to actually pay the interest on the debt in addition to current needs); politicians could exercise self-restraint (laughably unlikely).

Andrew also mentions a way to reduce upward pressure: voters could refuse to elect or re-elect representatives and Senators who don’t control spending. This is a fanciful notion, given the incentives mentioned by Andrew for voters to prefer increased spending in detail, while opposing it in the aggregate.

Andrew neglects a couple of possibilities, worse than those he mentions. The economy could collapse, and the people be driven largely into destitution. The country could be so weakened by runaway spending as to lose the ability to defend itself (see, for example, most of Europe). The people could revolt over the level of taxation. People with wealth could flee the country, taking their wealth (and wealth creation) with them. People could cease generating wealth, or intentionally lower their income and productivity, to pay less in taxation (which is one mechanism that can lead to economic collapse, if the government doesn’t adjust in time; if they do adjust, it stops here, at stagnation).

I only mention these terrible outcomes because historically they are how runaway government spending has eventually been ended.

when you read something like this. How do you spell relief? Tsunami relief, that is. From The Boston Herald:

GALLE, Sri Lanka- At the main warehouse in Galle, mountains of cardboard boxes and suitcases ready to burst take up a quarter of the cavernous building.

Some are labeled “Aid for Tsunami Victims,” but their contents – winter jackets, expired cans of salmon, stiletto shoes, winter tents, thong panties and even Viagra – have left Sri Lankans scratching their heads.

Unprecedented aid poured in after the Dec. 26 tsunami, but some of those wanting to help were perhaps too eager, shipping items of no use in tropical Sri Lanka. And seven weeks after the disaster, no one knows what to do with some supplies piled up at government buildings, aid agencies and refugee camps.

[…]

“It’s clear that some people have sent clothes that are actually meant to be used as dusters,” said Himali Fernando, another aid official. “We don’t mean to be ungrateful, but it would be appreciated if people take a little more care before just unloading their basements and garages.”

An embarrassed Fernando said the black-and-pink thong underwear will not be offered to refugees. Nor would a spaghetti-strap, sequin-studded black evening dress. Still, she said, nothing will be thrown away. Warm clothing may be sent to shelters or to tea plantation workers in the hills, where the climate is cooler.

Among the most unlikely supplies sent in were six packs of Viagra from Australia, said Gandhi Saundararajan of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization.

Hat tip: Wizbang.

The United States has always been unusual in the world, in that we were founded on and are sustained by a belief in a central idea, rather than by ethnic or national characteristics. That idea was simply and beautifully put in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is this statement, and that natural consequences of truly acting on it, that sets America apart from the world. Because of this belief, we spent the first century and a quarter of our existence fighting against imperial monarchy and our own internal evils of slavery and, as we grew strong, our own temptation to imperialism. Because of this belief, we spent our next century and a quarter fighting fascism and communism and our own internal evils of segregation by race and gender. Because of this belief, we now fight the jihadis – not for nothing are they sometimes called “Islamo-fascists”. Because of this belief, we will end terrorism, and we will eventually end the other tyrannies current in today’s world – even if it takes another century and a quarter. Because of this belief, we will hold together as a nation no matter how divided we appear if you only look at narrow electoral issues.

That said, it should be noted that, so far as I can tell from my reading of history, at no time during this process was more than 1/3 of the country devotedly committed – no matter the price – to ending monarchy, or fascism, or communism, or slavery, or segregation, or islamism. It appears that we break down consistently into 1/3 supporters individual liberty against any threat, about 1/4 either against our taking action or actively in support of the oppression we are trying to end, and the rest basically in the middle sometimes supporting and sometimes opposing American actions, based on the specifics of the particular case at hand. This was true in the Revolution; in the wars against piracy and mercantilism (in the form of impressments) in the early 1800s; in the expansion into the American West and the wars of Texas independence and against Mexico; in the Civil War; in our half-hearted attempt at imperialism in the late 1800s (both against the Amerind tribes in the West and against Spain); in WWI; in WWII; and in the Cold War. It’s true today.

And as long as we strive to live up to the idea so beautifully expressed by Jefferson – that all people are created equal; that we each, individually, have the right to live a life securely, happily, and meaningful to ourselves; that government exist to provide us with an environment in which we can strive to meet those needs – as long as we strive to live up to this ideal, I really don’t fear for my children’s futures. (And I can be very sanguine about letting the other 2/3 claim a part of the victory they opposed or did not support, once the victory is won. After all, none of us were Royalists, and none of us supported the Communists. Right?)

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• A very nice post on prayer in Buddhism from Joseph Marshall of A Straight Shot of Politics.
• Gerard Vanderleun of American Digest tells us of The Laws of the Blogger (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling).
• Beldar has a lengthy commentary on Eason Jordan and
  Hugh Hewitt’s Blog.
• We really do need to remember the bombing of Dresden, which took place 60 years ago tomorrow.
  Crooked Timber posts.
• Here are what I think are two sides of the same story: Nelson Ascher of EuroPundits
  on Europe and the Left
  and an article from metrotimes on why
  America must lose the war (hat tip: Econopundit).
• Tom Maguire of Just One Minute
  has an excellent post on the Jeff Gannon story.
• hilzoy of Obsidian Wings is posting on St. Joseph of Cupertino. Really.
• pennywit has an interesting post on talking people out of terrorism. This looks to me like a good example of what Armed Liberal has called the war against bad philosophy. I wonder if there’s not a sort of Gresham’s Law involved: does bad philosophy drive out good philosophy?
• Professor Bainbridge notes that there may be a new, feature-length Wallace and Gromit film in the offing. Hurray! He goes on to whine about Golden Retrievers never having won at Westminster. I should point out that Samoyeds, the most beautiful of natural dog breeds, have never won, either.
• Why not go over to Amazon.com and buy one of Roger L. Simon’s mystery novels while he’s in the hospital having gall bladder surgery?
• The famous theatrical producer, David Belasco, said nearly 100 years ago “if you can’t
  put your idea on the back of your business card, you don’t have a clear idea”. I see that
  Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly agrees.
• There’s dog-blogging from Robin Burk over on Winds of Change.

That’s the lot.

Today is the birthday of one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln. I’d say he was the greatest of them all save Washington (I’ll have more to say about Washington on the 22^nd). There are plenty of web resources on Lincoln, his life, contributions, and so on. ¡No Pasarán! has a good selection of representative Lincoln quotes.

When I was a kid trips to the Lincoln sites were a commonplace. If you live in the Midwest, you owe it to yourself to visit New Salem and Springfield. Stand where he stood and see what he saw. It’ll do your heart good.

Although a man of no particular breeding or education he produced two of the greatest pieces of oratory in the English language: his Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address. I find that the Second Inaugural has particular resonance today:

Fellow-Countrymen:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

I am physically unable to read the last paragraph without bursting into tears. I’m convinced we’d be living in a better America if he had not been murdered. But, as his Secretary of War, Edward Stanton, said, now he belongs to the ages.

UPDATE: Big Trunk at Powerline has posted another great Lincoln speech with which you may not be familiar.

Previous posts that touch on Lincoln:

Show us your man
A—L
Five short quotes on America