RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the 20 years or so since the term “public intellectual” became current, the members of this self-appointed club seem to have learned nothing from their failure to predict the collapse of communism or make sense of its aftermath. They didn’t see 9/11 coming, nor the 2008 financial crash, nor the Arab Spring. In the past two years they missed the emergence of Islamic State, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and, most recently, Brexit and the victory of Donald Trump.

Not all public intellectuals have been wrong about all these events, of course, but their consensus has been so misguided so often that the public they claim to enlighten might recall the biblical image of the blind leading the blind.

Frank Johnson, the late editor of the London Spectator, once asked: “What exactly is a public intellectual?” His answer was mischievous: “Is it the same principle as a public convenience? Excuse me, officer, I’ve been caught short conceptually. Could you direct me to the nearest public intellectual?”

The volume of essays “Public Intellectuals in the Global Arena: Professors or Pundits?” makes only tentative stabs at an answer. Michael C. Desch, the editor, quotes a number of definitions of which the best seems to me to predate the concept. Some 70 years ago, Lionel Trilling—one of the greatest examples of the species—lauded “the impulse to insist that the activity of politics be united with the imagination under the aspect of the mind.”

Alas, such an impulse is not much in evidence here. Rather, what we have is a collection of conference papers animated less by any concern for the commonweal than by the self-importance of the modern academy. The subtitle of the book indicates the narrowly institutionalized limits of the authors’ conception of the intellectual life. For them, a public intellectual is either a professor or a pundit, and very often a professorial pundit.

Yet most of the intellectuals in the history of Western civilization who would have met Trilling’s definition have been neither professors nor pundits. Many have been poets: From Dante to Goethe, from Homer to T.S. Eliot, poets have exercised a profound influence on political thought. That, after all, is why Plato sought to ban them in his “Republic.” Yet poets, and indeed men and women of letters in general, are conspicuous by their absence from this book.

The Diplos, the pundits, the headlines, the “calumnists”are all so upset. Imagine the gall of Donald Trump to appoint an ambassador to Israel who actually likes the country!

The title of the posting is actually amusing: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

How about that? “extraordinary ” and “plenipotentiary”…..

A note to those who “console” themselves by claiming that David Friedman’s policies will be completely subject to the will of Donald Trump:

definition of plenipotentiary –

a person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country.
2.having full power to take independent action.

They would obviously prefer plenipotentates like Martin Indyk who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1995 to 1997 and again from 2000 to 2001,who were strident critics of Israel and would use harsh threats to force Israeli concessions to every and all Palarab demands. In his own words : he boasted to the Washington Post (2-24-97) that he saw his job in Israel as similar to “a circus master” who “cracks the whip” in order to “get [the animals] to move around in an orderly fashion.”
That animus is truly extraordinary!
Hooray for Donald Trump!

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/12/german-muslim-politician-supports-introduction-of-sharia-law-in-europe/ A politician has controversially voiced her backing for Sharia law being introduced in Europe, calling it “absolutely comparable” with current legislation. Absolutely comparable in what way exactly? Sharia demands that married individuals who cheat be stoned to death. To me, that doesn’t seem very compatible with Germany law. After all, Germany has actually abolished the death penalty. And […]

In a time of rising global prosperity and newfangled technological wizardry, it’s easy to forget that, for virtually all of human history, living standards have been very low. Even so, there are those who respond to economic dynamism, and the accompanying volatility, by pining for the supposed stability of the past. Others look ahead and claim that economic progress is imperiled by bad policies or bad business practices. These weighty issues, among others, are taken up in two new books whose authors have divergent, though neatly complementary, views.

In “Progress,” the Swedish author Johan Norberg deploys reams of data to show just how much life has improved—especially over the past few decades but over the past couple of centuries as well. Each chapter is devoted to documenting progress in a single category, including food, sanitation, life expectancy, poverty, violence, the environment, literacy and equality.

In response to people who look fondly on the “good old days,” Mr. Norberg underscores just how grim they could be. Rampant disease, famine and violence routinely killed off millions. In the 14th century, the so-called Black Death wiped out a third of Europe’s population. Five hundred years later, cholera outbreaks throughout the world led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and even killed a U.S. president, James Polk. Out of the squalor of everyday life came an outlook best expressed by Thomas Malthus in 1779: “Premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.”

Set against such misery are the advances of the modern era. At the start of the 20th century, average life expectancy globally was just 31 years. Today it is 71. Every country in the world has seen improvements in infant and child mortality since 1950. The so-called Green Revolution has increased food supply and reduced famine in parts of the world where malnutrition and starvation had long seemed inevitable. Throughout the world, there’s less violence, more literacy and greater political freedom.

Will this progress continue? Mr. Norberg thinks so. He cautions that “progress is not automatic” but doesn’t elaborate. His otherwise persuasive narrative would have benefited from an exploration of future threats to well-being, or worrying trends, such as the dramatic increase in obesity rates—in the United States but also in other parts of the globe—or falling birthrates throughout the world (in China in particular).

Picking up where Mr. Norberg leaves off are Fredrik Erixon and Björn Weigel, two fellow Swedes who make a thought-provoking and refreshingly non-ideological argument that a bleak future lies ahead unless capitalism undergoes a shake-up. In “The Innovation Illusion” they argue that “there is too little breakthrough innovation . . . and the capitalist system that used to promote eccentricity and embrace ingenuity all too often produces mediocrity.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt