Analyzing Slobs.

...real philistines are not those people incapable of recognizing beauty—they recognize it only too well, with a flair as infallible as that of the subtlest aesthete, but only to pounce on it and smother it before it can take root in their universal empire of ugliness. - Simon Leys

This quote from Leys appeared in the New Criterion article by Anthony Daniels, "At the Forest's Edge", which compares two views of the Slob Motif as put forth by Sigmund Freud and Jose Ortega y Gasset. Freud's model for the Slob is an individual whose aggressiveness is constrained by society and civilization; the frustration of this state then takes the form of self-destructive behavior. Freud asserts that this condition is more or less permanent with the presence of a society, given that aggressiveness is an inherent quality of human beings, and offers no remedy for the Slob, not even a neo-primitivism.

Gasset has a very different evolutionary theory of the Slob, or as he refers to him, the "mass-man". Daniels describes the Ortega's "mass man" as

...the man who has no transcendent purpose in life, who lives in an eternal present moment which he wants to make pleasurable in a gross and sensual way, who thinks that ever-increasing consumption is the end of life, who goes from distraction to distraction, who is prey to absurd fashions, who never thinks deeply and who, above all, has a venomous dislike of any other way of living but his own, which he instinctively feels as a reproach. He will not recognize his betters; he is perfectly satisfied to be as he is.

Mass man accepts no fundamental limits on his own life. Any limits that he may encounter are purely technical, to be removed by future advance. He believes that life is and ought to be a kind of existential supermarket, that an infinitude of choices is always before him, in which no choice restricts or ought ever to restrict what is possible in the future. Life for mass man is not a biography, but a series of moments, each unconnected with the next, and all deprived of larger meaning or purpose.

Mass man does not have to be poor or stupid. He can be both highly paid and highly intelligent, in a narrow way, and he can also be very highly educated, or at least trained; indeed, as knowledge accumulates, and as it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to master more than the very smallest portion of human knowledge, so connected thought (of the kind of which mass man is incapable becomes rarer and rarer. Mankind collectively knows more than ever before, says Ortega, but cultivated men grow fewer.

Ortega's description of the Slob fits well with the "Stupid by Design" paradigm that seems to enthrall many Americans, for example the rejection of education or the hostility toward western culture and values by invoking class or race (as in the anger directed at Bill Cosby). Another ingredient to Ortega's mass-man, or the Slob, is the lack of transcendent values for human life, i.e., laws of God or even humanistic properties derived from an Ethics. The lack of an ultimate accounting for one's conduct and behavior, be it standing before a Creator or in a final measure of one's eudaimonia, is completely liberating and empowering to the Slob.

Ortega's answer to the "mass-man" problem is chilling: apparently nationalism and fascism are excellent treatments, despite his disdain for them. These movements give Slobs the illusion of transcendent meaning, but can also serve justify the desires of his old life, as in excusing the excesses of ruling vanguards. We also add that particular religous fanaticisms, with strong components of separatism, persecution of "outsiders", and divine entitlements, can likewise infatuate the Slob. Islamism, Fundamentalist Christianity, Ecofundamentalism, and Neo-Ludditism are examples.

Suffering Fools.

Video and transcript of Mac's exchange with a self-entitled Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller*. Note the "why are you so angry?" cheap shot she makes. You'd think she'd be smart enough to understand that Mac's antibodies might be up against Times reporters, and just shut up and let the grown ups ask the questions.

A day after the assassination of JFK, a reporter asked Harry Truman to disclose the details of a private conversation between Truman and Lyndon Johnson that had just transpired. Truman served up a generous serving of condescension that the dimwitted reporter deserved. Mac dealt with Bumiller in a manner that she had earned.

*Bumiller posed the question, "Two and a half years later, do you (President Bush) feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?" Sheez - talk about third rater.

Winston, TR, and Mac.

This'll get your blood up!

A Shocking Confession.

We have a growing appreciation of Hillary Clinton. OK, from epsilon to two-times epsilon. But her determination to not surrender to Obamagagapalooza and make him earn the nomination is admirable. And in the process, the Obamafacade of a "new politics" begins to crack.

Captain's Quarters Into Drydock.

Another blogger joining the Hot Air ensemble.

Meanwhile, in Paris...

The riots in the south suburbs of Paris are turning into organized attacks against the police. The perpetrators appear to be the same gangs responsible for the 2005 riots (hat tip to LGF).

Germany's Leftist Tapeworm.

Malte Lehming writes in the WSJ about the nascent DDR-style Left in German politics. They are causing serious trouble in Western Europe's struggle against Islamofascism.

Adieu.

We will leave to Mr. Buckley himself to look back on a life well spent. Charlie Rose gives a wonderful farewell. Requiescat in Pace, Dear Sir.

William F. Buckley, 1925-2008.

He was the twentieth century's Conservator of the American Idea. In a century with precious few public intellectuals whose ideas shall endure, WFB was its flower. R.I.P.

Why Hillary Clinton is Floundering.

Because she is not a strong persuasive candidate. Next question?

Still No Substance.

E.J. Dionne writes in the Post about McCain's allegedy malfeasance with lobbyists (after discarding the Iseman story):

...But McCain's denials didn't stop at sex, and the story didn't, either. The same day the Times ran its account, The Post ran a story that stayed away from the "romantic" angle but reported (as the Times also had) that McCain had written two letters to the Federal Communications Commission, urging that it vote on the sale of a Pittsburgh television station to Paxson Communications, one of Iseman's clients.

The Post wrote: "At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson's corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company's jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach."

In denouncing the Times story, McCain's campaign denied that he had met with Lowell "Bud" Paxson, president of the firm. But Paxson later told The Post that he had met with McCain. More telling, Newsweek reported this weekend that McCain himself acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had met with Paxson.

As Newsweek wrote, "With his typically blunt, almost cheery way of admitting the sinfulness of man, including his own weaknesses, he acknowledged in the deposition that his relationship with Paxson . . . would 'absolutely' look corrupt to the ordinary voter."

And on Friday, The Post reported that while McCain may relish attacking lobbyists, many top officials of his campaign -- including Rick Davis, his campaign manager, and Charlie Black, his chief political adviser -- are themselves well-known lobbyists with long client lists...

Can we please be grown ups about lobbyists and lobbying? Fact: everybody lobbies - corporations, environmental, education, civil rights, and arts interest groups as well. It's a constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Fact: lobbyists are politically active people and all three major candidates have lobbyists working on their campaigns. Many, many, many interest groups give money to candidates, for example George Soros' support of Barack Obama. The essential question is: have these public officials exchanged political, monetary, or other favors for delivery of favorable legislation, regulation, etc.? In the case of McCain, the answer is, no matter how the media attempts to slice their baloney, is no. McCain wrote letters to the FCC asking for a ruling on a rule after an excessively long waiting period, but did not ask for a particular ruling. Also, have these public officials violated ethics rules or guidelines in their interaction with advocacy groups? The Times' original story indicates McCain did violate such a rule when a representative, but repaired the error when it was pointed out.

Dionne is asking for an appearance of purity well beyond the requirement that burdened Caesar's wife, and such a requirement will bring government to a screeching halt.

This Is Getting Creepy.

We mean it - no kidding.

The Moon on a Shoestring.

Google has teamed with the X-Prize Foundation to form "The Google Lunar X Prize" whose goal is the first NGO lunar exploration: "...[an] international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth". The prize: $30,000,000, about 4% of the cost of a single Shuttle launch. It's an interesting question: how much space, electronics, control, and computing technology is now generic and cheap enough to assemble into a Moon probe?

Meanwhile, NASA's Orion/Ares program continues a good pace.

A Prince of Earmark.

Michigan's very own Senator Carl Levin...Yowzers!

Presidential Pork Politics.

The Seattle Times reviews the candidates on earmarks: McCain against, Clinton for, Obama for and against.

Vials of Obama Speech Spittle on EBay!



Madeya look!

ABC 's Operation "Stain McCain".

ABC News' "The Blotter" blog has its own hit piece on John McCain, concerning the indictments of two volunteer officials of McCain state campaign committees. It even includes the snarky* comment,"Together, [the indictees] Renzi and Allen appear to put McCain in the lead of White House contenders with support from federally indicted officials." No substance, of course, but it might help Msrs. Ross and Surowicz, the Blotter's scribblers, to finally get on the A-list for cocktails parties.

*"snarky", snide and sarcastic; see any written material by Maureen Dowd.

Worse Than Wrong.

Many of the left-wing hacks point to the "on the record" source for the NYT's McCain smearticle, John Weaver, as the smoking gun that proves Mac's ethical and personal malfeasance. Here's Weaver's statement to the WaPo's "The Fix" political blog:

The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman. Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less. I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.

From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day --not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm.

Smoking gun or empty water pistol? These hacks know Weaver's statement but continue to spin the "on the record" source malarkey.

The Transcendent Moment of the Presidential Election of 2008.

Barack Obama blows his nose. Courtesy of those who brought you Pet Rocks.

Mac vs. Meatpackers.

Much ink has been spilled about this morning's New York Times article suggesting that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and that his decisions were influenced as chairman of a Senate committee on telecommunications. We can offer no comments that have not been said before. It's an article that is long on innuendo and short on evidence, and uses old and discredited history to indicate a pattern of behavioron the part of the senator. The authors appeared to leave out a great deal of evidence that contradicts their thesis, and failed to acknowledge that McCain did respond to many written questions submitted by the reporters during the prepartion of this article. Is it time for hard-hitting investigative reporting on investigative reporting?

Update: is the story a retread?