I see that my niece has started a blog. Welcome to the blogosphere, Em!

It’s a Hunter Thompson day in the blogosphere. Tim Blair
has a good media round-up. Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• Callimachus of Done With Mirrors
  has posted his own reflections on Bush’s European trip.
• Gateway Pundit
  is all over the St. Louis Peace Convention.
• There are a couple of interesting posts about diet today. Joanne Jacobs says kids need meat.
  And razib over at Gene Expression has a post
  on how the peculiar configuration of human teeth evolved.
• I see that South Knox Bubba
  doesn’t think much of Presidents Day, either.
• There’s a post from one of the true princes of the blogosphere, Joe Katzman of Winds of Change
  on when and how to break posting rules.

That’s the lot.

John Raitt, star of Broadway, movies, and television, has died at 88:

Stage and Screen legend John Raitt, who made his Broadway debut playing Billy Bigelow in Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Carousel, passed away today at his home in California from complications due to pneumonia. Raitt had just celebrated his 88th birthday in January.

Born in Santa Ana, California, Raitt began performing professionally with the Los Angeles Civic Light Opera and was shortly thereafter signed to a contract with MGM, where he appeared in Flight Command, Billy the Kid and Ziegfeld Girl.

Raitt made his Broadway debut playing Billy Bigelow in Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Carousel singing such world reknown songs as “If I Loved You” and “Soliloquy.” He went on to appear on Broadway and in national companies of Oklahoma, Annie Get Your Gun, The Pajama Game, Zorba, Kismet, Shenandoah, The Music Man, A Joyful Noise and Man of La Mancha, among many others during his 40 plus year career. Raitt also appeared on the big screen in both The Pajama Game and Annie Get Your Gun, among others.

Most people only know him as the father of pop and blues singer Bonnie Raitt but John Raitt was one of the greatest of Broadway stars. He had the entire package: looks, magnificent voice, acting ability, and that indefineable thing—stage presence.

He got his real start on the stage when he replaced the legendary Alfred Drake as Curly in the national company of Oklahoma. He went on to create the part of the tormented Billy Bigelow in Carousel and Sid Sorokin in Pajama Game. His Soliloquy from Carousel was incomparable in its energy, verve, and poignancy.

Another great, great star has gone to meet the Starkeeper. Rest in peace, John.

In the 18^th century it became the custom for young British aristocrats to undertake what was dubbed “The Grand Tour”. This was a tour of European capitols particularly in Italy and France to complete their educations by learning something of art, architecture, history, and geography at first hand. It also had social aspects—the young gentleman would meet his equals overseas and form business and political contacts that could be very useful in later life. There was also a dimension of kicking off the traces in The Grand Tour and quite a bit of drinking, gambling, and general debauchery could also be involved.

By the 19^th century The Grand Tour had become a custom for young men of means on both sides of the Atlantic. The custom persisted somewhat into the 20^th century. My dad took a year off after completing law school in 1936 and undertook a Grand Tour. I’ll tell you about that some other time.

Now President Bush has undertaken a Grand Tour of his own. Marc Schulman of American Future has re-produced Mr. Bush’s itinerary (gleaned from The Washington Post). What does Bush expect from his Grand Tour and what can we expect? Marc has also done a good job of rounding-up punditry from both sides of the Atlantic on the subject. The consensus seems to be that this trip is necessary but not sufficient, a desireable extending of the olive branch, etc., etc.

I think this is a mis-reading of the situation.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it would be splendid if the successive “charm offensives” by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and, now, President Bush would usher in a new strengthening of trans-Atlantic relationships and bring the French, Germans, and other EU members as willing partners in Bush’s Grand Strategy. But I don’t think it’s going to happen and I don’t think that either Bush or his advisors are naive enough to believe that it will.

Look at things from a French or German perspective. Chirac and Schroeder’s anti-American obstructionist stances are politically popular with their respective peoples. The French and Germans don’t believe that they have any enemies against whom a military response would be useful or effective. They’re decreasing their military expenditures (as a proportion of GDP) correspondingly. These two factors taken together mean that they have neither the will nor the ability to make material contributions.

The de-militarization of the two major Continental powers will have implications. Not only will they be less willing to participate in military action, they will be less able to do so, and less able to respond quickly to issues that require a rapid response with a trained and disciplined force whether for military or any other purposes as we have seen in the aftermath of the recent Sumatran earthquake and the following tsunami.

Add to the inability to project force or aid beyond their borders the decreasing proportion of European output as a proportion of world GDP, the demographic problems on the horizon for Europe, and the implications of those demographic issues on productivity and I think it’s pretty obvious: Europe just isn’t that important any more and isn’t likely to get much more important soon.

So why has Bush gone to Europe? I think there are three reasons. First, half a loaf is better than none. Anything that Europe can bring to the party will be gratefully received. Second, when the French and Germans stiff him (as they undoubtedly will), they will look churlish. This won’t go un-noted in New Europe. For New (or Old) Europeans who aren’t predisposed to despise anything American this may be a very important trip particularly if, as some have predicted, the European Union collapses within 15 years.

But Bush is a politician and the third and, in my opinion, most significant reason for Mr. Bush’s Grand Tour must certainly be for domestic political consumption. What might the domestic political considerations for this trip be? He may be trying to demonstrate that he’s doing his utmost on the diplomatic front. This should strengthen his hand for whatever actions are required as future events unfold. And there’s a lot of unfolding going on.

Well, I wish Mr. Bush well on his Grand Tour. And I sincerely hope he enjoys himself as much as his 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th century predecessors did.

In a barbarous country they have elaborate speeches; in a civilized country they have elaborate conduct.
Confucius

I don’t believe in Presidents Day. If you want to know why you just need to look at the dictionary definition of “denature”:

1 : DEHUMANIZE
2 : to deprive of natural qualities : change the nature of: as a : to make (alcohol) unfit for drinking (as by adding an obnoxious substance) without impairing usefulness for other purposes b : to modify the molecular structure of (as a protein or DNA) especially by heat, acid, alkali, or ultraviolet radiation so as to destroy or diminish some of the original properties and especially the specific biological activity
intransitive senses : to become denatured

Presidents Day is a not just an artificial holiday; it’s a denatured holiday. What are the traditional practices, customs, and beliefs associated with Presidents Day? Are there Presidents Day dishes?

Not all of the federal holidays are such flaccid, ersatz things. The Fourth of July commemorates our nation’s birth. When we celebrate it we remember the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It’s not an accident that two of the architects of our nation (Jefferson and Adams) struggled with all of their might—literally on their death-beds—to reach the fiftieth anniversary of that day. And, having reached that anniversary and satisfied that the child of their minds and hands would survive, they allowed themselves to die. Can you imagine anyone striving with all of their mights to live to see Presidents Day? I mean Presidents Day per se?

And on the Fourth of July we gather with friends and fellow-citizens to watch fireworks and parades, picnic, and party. Because those are natural human responses.

Labor Day is an artificial holiday—it was just made up and doesn’t commemorate any particular event. But it, too, is a natural holiday with customs and traditions in which we gather with friends, family, and co-workers.

Since there have been human beings we have come together in groups formed by blood ties, custom, language, and ritual. We aren’t cats—solitary hunters who come together for play and sex. Much as anarchists and libertarians might like to pretend that we are. We aren’t ants or bees—creatures who by nature live in large groups with strict hierarchies and pre-ordained life roles, the bulk of us in uniform equality. Much as the collectivists among us might like to pretend we are. And we aren’t eagles—pairs mated for life who form a corporation against the rest of the world to hunt and raise our young.

Much as we resemble them we aren’t dogs, either. Our natural social structure is the pack but it’s a pack pushed beyond the extended blood ties of the wolf pack and united by bonds of custom and ritual. We need our rituals. They keep our societies together. And we need those societies for real human happiness.

If you believe that we actually commemorate anything on Presidents Day, let me ask you: do you believe that Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter are as worthy of remembering and celebrating as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln? Or Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt? I thought not.

And on Presidents Day we’ll go our separate ways with no rituals to unite us. An aimless, pointless bookkeeping day.

So I’ll be remembering George Washington tomorrow, the anniversary of his birth. I’ll post my reflections on him then. And the myths and rituals that make us human.

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

• Check out this post on the blogosphere from Tim Blair. Iain
  Duncan Smith, Kos, and the second gunman.
• Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine reports on exchange of correspondence with Bill Keller of
  the New York Times.
• TMLutas considers the ICC (International Criminal Court).
• Juan Cole of Informed Comment leaps to the defense of the United States’s policies in Iraq. Well, sort of:
  

  It is absolutely outrageous that Chalabi blames US policies for the guerrilla war. He was the one who pushed for punitive policies toward the ex-Baathists and for dissolving the Iraqi military, and he and his Neoconservative cronies in the Pentagon bear a great deal of the responsibility for the mess in Iraq today.

  He goes on to criticize American media figures for “trying to dump the Iraq story”.
  Dr. Cole, the problem is that the American media figures don’t care about Iraq or the Iraqis.

• Read this post from Kim du Toit.
  Also this one and this one.
• The legal theory lexicon continues at Legal Theory Blog.
  This time the subject is public and private goods.
• Get the David Adesnik tour of Charlottesville.
• Shrinkette explains the Instawife’s
  5:00am weigh-in.

That’s the lot.

David Gergen had an interesting commentary on CBS Sunday Morning this morning on blogs and the blogosphere. He mentioned three by name: Instapundit, The Daily Kos, and Little Green Footballs.

Gergen’s conclusions were that blogging is citizen journalism and performs a valuable oversight function on professional journalism (which I agree with) but that there’s a danger of witchhunting and hounding good people unfairly to their destruction—he believes Eason Jordan has been treated unjustly (which I don’t agree with).

If Mr. Gergen believes that the danger of witchhunts and unfair hounding is limited to the blogosphere, apparently he doesn’t read the editorial pages of the New York Times. And that’s what blogs are, by the way—op-eds. Believe them, don’t believe them—it’s up to you.

But, as I pointed out yesterday in my post Bump, Set, Spike, blogs didn’t remove Eason Jordan from his job—either he or CNN management did that. Blogs just fielded his attack and kept the ball up in the air.

American Digest’s movie reviewer, Jeremiah Lewis, has posted his predictions for the Academy Awards this year. I haven’t seen any of the nominated pictures this year (odd for someone who’s as great a movie buff as I am) so I can’t comment intelligently on who will, won’t, should, or shouldn’t win.

Over the years I have noticed a kind of mob behavior dynamics in the Academy’s behavior. So I suspect that if it’s a Ray year, Ray will win a bunch of awards, if it’s an Aviator year Aviator will come away with several statuettes, etc. Based on the trailers I’ve seen and the commentary I’ve heard despite the fact that he’s sort of sentimental favorite (since he’s one of the acknowledgedly-great directors who’s never taken home the gold), this will not be Scorsese’s year. Sort of like the old Bob Hope quip: “Welcome to the Academy Awards or as it’s called in my house, Passover”.

I suspect it may be a Million Dollar Baby year.

Public school teachers abusing children:

• Debra LaFave
• Pamela Turner
• Mary Kay Letourneau
• Richard Plass
• Robert Sperlik, Jr.
• Chris Lizotte
• Michael Neyhart
• Ernest Dominguez

Homeschooled children abused by their parents, guardians, or some other person in whose care they were left:

• Nissa and Kent Warren
• Mary Rowles – Note on this one: the stories all mention homeschooling, and glide rapidly over the fact that Rowles is apparently a lesbian: some of the abuse was by her (female) partner. I don’t think that lesbianism has anything to do with the abuse, but it’s interesting that the politically-correct unusual condition (lesbianism) is ignored while the politically-incorrect unusual condition (homeschooling) is made prominent.
• Andrea Yates
• Deanna Laney
• John and Linda Dollar

It should be noted that not all of the above cases are complete, and in not all cases have I been able to find a guilty verdict or plea. That is true of both lists.

The point of this is not to say that more kids are abused at home or more kids are abused at school. Given the relative populations, it is almost certain that more kids are abused by teachers than by parents who homeschool. But that is a misleading statistic. What matters is the rate at which abuse happens in both environments, and the truth is that there is so much hysteria around the subject – from all sides – that all that gets through is anecdote. Serious research on the topic does not appear to exist.

However, it should be immediately clear that it is facetious to argue that homeschooling promotes child abuse, and that children are safe in public schools. Neither conclusion is warranted from the available evidence. The sad fact is that some people are monsters, and some monsters homeschool children, and some monsters are public school teachers.

Demagoguery on this, like the cartoon I led off with, is simply disgusting; political point scoring on the backs of children is appalling. Oh, well, it doesn’t take a genius to draw a bad cartoon, and apparently it doesn’t even require a talent for drawing to get it published.