President Obama, in his Valentines Day radio address, attributed to John F. Kennedy the stirring admonition "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men. Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks."
President Kennedy, in turn, borrowed from 19th century Episcopal Bishop Phillips Brooks, in his sermon "Going up to Jerusalem", based on Luke 18:31.
Spend 15 minutes and read the sermon. (The specific passage is here.)
The sermon is more stirring in its entirety. Brooks speaks to fatalism, destiny, and character in the context of every man's "going up to Jerusalem." Here are a few of the passages that I read and re-read in awe:
"The wonders of life are not in deeds, but in characters."
"... we can easily picture to ourselves a human nature which might have been created so that it never should think about the future, but should get all its inspiration out of present things. But that is not our human nature. It always must look forward. The thing which it hopes to become is already a power and decides the thing it is."
"... men who asked, what was the best thing which any man in just those circumstances might set himself to do? These are the men before whom there rises by-and-by a dream, which later gathers itself into a hope, and at last solidifies into an achievement."
"It was not wonderful that Shakespeare should [write Hamlet]. The wonder is that he should be Shakespeare; but, he being Shakespeare, Hamlet is no miracle."
"As Jesus goes up to that Jerusalem, He goes because He is He, and Jerusalem is Jerusalem... When He came there and the cross seized and held him, character and circumstances had perfectly met in their complete result. The Saviour-hood and the world's need of being saved had come together, and here was salvation."
"If your Jerusalem really is your sacred city, there is certainly a cross in it. What then? Shall you flinch and draw back? Shall you ask for yourself another life? 0 no, not another life, but another self. Ask to be born again."
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
the one, the many, the ridiculous
In this morning's commentary on MarketPlace Morning Report, Robert Reich argues against tax cuts and for bigger stimulus spending, saying
"... most people who receive a tax cut don't spend all of it. They use part of it to pay down their debts or they save it. Most of us did one or the other last spring with that tax rebate. Now from the standpoint of any particular individual, paying down debts or saving may be smart behavior -- even commendable.
"But what's intelligent for an individual does not necessarily translate into what's good for the economy as a whole. "
Personally commendable behavior isn't good for everyone? Even though skipping lunch at McD's might be personally commendable, and saving money and reducing my weight, cholesterol and salt intake might be good for me, I should continue to Super Size because both McDonald's and the health care system need my dollars?
I can see the advertising now: "Every dollar you spend with us translates to two dollars for the fast food worker, weight loss and health care industries." (McD's advertising firm: use my email address and PayPal me the royalties. I want my piece of the Super Size Stimulus.)
Enough.
I'm not in favor of a tax cut, at least not in the "stimulus" sense. I'm also not in favor of a big spending plan fueled by earnings borrowed from the next three generations. This pernicious regurgitation that we can only correct the sins of the past by perpetuating them has no basis in historical fact or rational thought.
Time for a reality check. Common sense. The Protestant work ethic, with its attendant values of thrift, savings, and planning for the future. Or Ghandi: "be the change you want to see in the world." If the change you want to see is economic stability, begin at home.
Spend less.
Save more.
Don't borrow.
"Spending our way to prosperity" obstructs the recovery it claims to seek.
In 1934, writing about America’s Great Depression in his preface to the English edition of “The Theory of Money and Credit”, Von Mises wrote:
“The remarkable thing in the present situation is not the fact that we have just passed through a period of credit expansion that has been followed by a period of depression, but the way in which governments have been and are reacting to these circumstances. The universal endeavor has been ... to employ public resources ... to bolster up undertakings that would otherwise have succumbed to the crisis, and ... to give an artificial stimulus to economic life by public works schemes. This has had the consequence of eliminating just those forces which in previous times of depression ... paved the way for recovery."
It didn't work for FDR, it didn't cure the Great Depression, and it won't cure todays' economic situation.
Spending and credit are personal and policy addictions. Addictions aren't cured by feeding them, unless you expand the definition of 'cure' to include 'kill the patient'.
Spend less.
Save more.
Don't borrow.
Be the change you want to see.
"... most people who receive a tax cut don't spend all of it. They use part of it to pay down their debts or they save it. Most of us did one or the other last spring with that tax rebate. Now from the standpoint of any particular individual, paying down debts or saving may be smart behavior -- even commendable.
"But what's intelligent for an individual does not necessarily translate into what's good for the economy as a whole. "
Personally commendable behavior isn't good for everyone? Even though skipping lunch at McD's might be personally commendable, and saving money and reducing my weight, cholesterol and salt intake might be good for me, I should continue to Super Size because both McDonald's and the health care system need my dollars?
I can see the advertising now: "Every dollar you spend with us translates to two dollars for the fast food worker, weight loss and health care industries." (McD's advertising firm: use my email address and PayPal me the royalties. I want my piece of the Super Size Stimulus.)
Enough.
I'm not in favor of a tax cut, at least not in the "stimulus" sense. I'm also not in favor of a big spending plan fueled by earnings borrowed from the next three generations. This pernicious regurgitation that we can only correct the sins of the past by perpetuating them has no basis in historical fact or rational thought.
Time for a reality check. Common sense. The Protestant work ethic, with its attendant values of thrift, savings, and planning for the future. Or Ghandi: "be the change you want to see in the world." If the change you want to see is economic stability, begin at home.
Spend less.
Save more.
Don't borrow.
"Spending our way to prosperity" obstructs the recovery it claims to seek.
In 1934, writing about America’s Great Depression in his preface to the English edition of “The Theory of Money and Credit”, Von Mises wrote:
“The remarkable thing in the present situation is not the fact that we have just passed through a period of credit expansion that has been followed by a period of depression, but the way in which governments have been and are reacting to these circumstances. The universal endeavor has been ... to employ public resources ... to bolster up undertakings that would otherwise have succumbed to the crisis, and ... to give an artificial stimulus to economic life by public works schemes. This has had the consequence of eliminating just those forces which in previous times of depression ... paved the way for recovery."
It didn't work for FDR, it didn't cure the Great Depression, and it won't cure todays' economic situation.
Spending and credit are personal and policy addictions. Addictions aren't cured by feeding them, unless you expand the definition of 'cure' to include 'kill the patient'.
Spend less.
Save more.
Don't borrow.
Be the change you want to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)