Vox Popoli

I’d have provided a link to the full review, except I can’t find it now. When I do, I’ll place it here:

Summa Elvetica takes place in a fantasy world so detailed it might rival Lord of the Rings. Certainly, anyone in love with that trilogy will delight in this book…. Theodore Beale combines philosophy, traditional Christian teaching, demonology, and the paranormal powers of magic in all its forms, to render a story that’s rich with metaphor. The world is a fantasy based on the Roman Empire. The Christians are led by the Sanctiff, similar to the Pope. He has Michealine priests based on the tenets of St. Michael the Archangel – the Defender. Our hero, Marcus Valarius, must journey to the Elvish Kingdom to begin his investigation into the story premise – do elves have souls, and are they created beings of God?

The story is slowed down by the telling of historical tales on the journey to see the Elven High King. It reminded me of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Once there, however, Marcus is rapidly drawn into the controversy. His is a spiritual as well as a physical journey, and his actions and discoveries mirror those many of us have also had in our own quest for a relationship with God.

This book is multi-layered and should be read slowly and carefully to get the fullest experience. I found it rich in its concept, and Beale’s use of humanistic philosophy versus Christian teachings. For those who love their fantasy, as well as Biblical teaching, this book will be a feast.

It’s certainly going rather too far to compare Summa Elvetica to Lord of the Rings, but it is, as Tolkein once described his masterpiece, “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.” Still, it’s nice to hear that readers are enjoying the novel and even nicer to hear that it has inspired some of them to order the actual book.

And no, this doesn’t mean I’ve converted to Catholicism. But since I have vehemently criticized the way in which most modern fantasy authors insist in cramming modern sensibilities into their characters, it would have been bizarre to utilize a post-medieval Protestant perspective myself. Indeed, I probably went inadvertantly further that way than I’d intended.

Here’s the first SE review, in case you missed it.

As the financial elite is discovering, you can fight reality as long as you want, but it’s always going to beat down your illusions in the end:

The Journal of Applied Psychology has just published findings from a University of Florida study based on interviews with more than 12,000 men and women. Between 1979 and 2005, they were questioned regularly about how they viewed male and female roles – whether they believed a woman’s place was in the home, whether employing women led to more juvenile delinquency(!) and whether it was the woman’s job to take care of the home and family.

Sexist men, the scientists found, made an average of $8,500 (£4,600) a year more than men who viewed women as work-place equals. Meanwhile, feminists earned more than their more traditionally minded female colleagues (but not a great deal more – £800 a year, on average). And while there was only a small difference between the pay packets of “egalitarian” men and women, sexist men’s wages outstripped everyone else’s.

Surprised? Me neither. It’s one of those stories that, even without being corroborated by the figures, has the horrible ring of truth about it: we’ve all worked in an office where the sexist monster is (a) very good at his job and (b) gruesomely and guilt-inducingly attractive despite his antediluvian attitudes.

The truth is that “sexism” is merely one of the many excuses that the incompetent use to justify their failures. Nobody gets a fair shake, even those who have massive advantages usually know what it’s like to not get a chance. Does the fact that I was given an expensive education and a nice sports car by my parents mean that I don’t know what it’s like to be excluded from both sides of the mainstream media because I’m of the incorrect ideology and ethnicity? Does this mean it’s fair that most of the leading science fiction and fantasy publishers will never even look at my manuscripts while handing out three-book deals to people whose previous novels sold one-tenth as many as mine?

If you’re a loser of either sex, you complain about how everyone else is responsible for your failures, you come up with a label to justify them, and you wallow in the unfairness of it all. If you’re not, you just shrug, assess the situation, and take your best shot where you can. Life isn’t fair. There probably isn’t a single genuinely fair individual to be found anywhere in the world. So what? That’s the situation – what are you going to do about it? Change the world by force and government fiat? Yeah, that’s worked so very well so often in the past!

Since an amount of indifference to the opinions of others is extraordinarily helpful in successfully dealing with the travails of the world, it should come as no surprise that it is usually the self-centered jerks who do the best job of gritting their teeth, doing what needs to be done, and achieving their objectives. This isn’t just social science; it also has the benefit of being entirely logical. And why, one might well add, shouldn’t women be attracted to that?

Understand two things about the world you live in: 1. There is no equality. 2. Fairness is merely proper etiquette, it is not justice.

Is this bill better than the Paulson plan?
	Yes, Congress should pass it.
	Yes, but Congress shouldn’t pass it.
	No, Congress shouldn’t pass it.
	Who cares, guillotine the bastards!
pollcode.com free polls

As Congressman McCotter rightly pointed out, the bailoutrescue will not work. It isn’t even capable of working:

There are no atheists in the trenches, and no free-marketeers in Congress after a nearly 10% fall in stock prices. A chorus of erstwhile conservative voices led by the likes of Newt Gingrich, the Republican firebrand of the 1990s, now argues that the proposed $700 billion bailout package is flawed, but it is better to enact it than to do nothing. This simply is not true…. The trouble is that the banking system is insolvent; that is, it lacks sufficient capital to hold its existing portfolio of assets, let alone to make new loans. Its capital is dissolving as loan losses mount. Banks have written off nearly $600 billion of mortgages or securities backed by mortgages during the past year. Against this, they have raised $350 billion in new capital from investors. But investors believe that losses will continue to rise in the mortgage market – and that is before other asset classes begin to decay, including credit cards, and corporate loans….

Why anyone believes that the Treasury plan will prevent widespread economic misery is unclear. Assuming that the Treasury overpays for the so-called “troubled assets” it purchases from banks, it cannot overpay by too much. Let us suppose that it overpays by 20%. In this case, it would effectively give the banks a $140 billion boost. That is a small fraction of what they have written off already, and an even smaller fraction of what they must write off as American wealth continues to shrink. It will help the shareholders of a few big institutions, and that is about it. The banks need a good trillion dollars or so of new capital. The Paulson plan, unfair and indirect as it might be, cannot provide more than a small fraction of that amount.

Needless to say, it is the shareholders of a few big institutions – like one Henry Paulson, lately of Goldman Sachs – who are the driving force behind the bailoutrescue plan. “Conservatives” who supported either the previous plan or its expanded and revised form have done nothing but publicly demonstrate both naivete and economic ignorance.

Marcher Lord Press is now accepting orders for its three launch titles, one of which is my latest fictional concoction, a fantasy novel entitled Summa Elvetica: A Casuistry of the Elvish Controversy; you may order it directly from Marcher Lord’s online store. For the time being, the Marcher Lord store will be the only place the book will be available for sale.

If you’re not sure the novel will justify shelling out $12.99, if you can’t afford it, or if you are simply philosophically opposed to further contributing to the the lifestyle of a Lamborghini libertarian, then you can simply download the PDF of the complete manuscript instead. But regardless of how you elect to read the book, I hope you will consider giving it a whirl, as I believe I can guarantee that it will be one of the more unique fantasy novels published this year.

As I predicted, Washington and the wrinkled whores of Wall Street have chosen the Brussels option and are forcing a second vote this week on their attempted robberyrescue plan:

In a surprise move to resurrect President Bush’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, Senate leaders slated a vote on the measure for Wednesday – but added a tax cut plan already rejected by the House. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky unveiled the plan Tuesday.

The Senate plan would also raise federal deposit insurance limits to $250,000 from $100,000, as called for by the two presidential nominees only hours earlier…. The surprise move capped a day in which supporters of the imperiled multibillion-dollar economic rescue fought to bring it back to life, courting reluctant lawmakers with a variety of other sweeteners including the plan to reassure Americans their bank deposits are safe.

Surprise? How could anyone with a functioning brain possibly be surprised by this? I can’t imagine them making less than three straight attempts at it before they run out of time when the predicted apocalypse either fails to arrive, or, more likely, arrives in a manner which the “rescue” would obviously have done nothing to prevent.

Obviously, mere stakes won’t be enough for these revenants. First, the garlic clove in the mouth. Then the stake. Then, and only then, the chopper. Meanwhile, Dr. Doom is one of the many financially astute individuals to point out that the bailouts will in no way prevent economic contraction.

Of course, Faber is completely wrong. Because this brand new Paulsonbipartisan plan is a rescue of the American economy, not a bailout of Wall Street bankers like the previous one. They’re, like, two totally different things, even if they happen to look exactly the same to you, the unsophisticated American taxpayer.

If this is not the perfect metaphor for feminism, then I don’t know what is:

A young woman in Saudi Arabia who defied the ultra-conservative kingdom’s ban on women driving was injured when the car span out of control and plunged into a stream, a newspaper reported on Tuesday.

The unnamed woman in her 20s “stole” her brother’s car on Sunday, picked up a female friend and drove at high speed through a town in the Eastern Province before losing control of the vehicle, Al-Riyadh said. The car hit an electricity pole and plunged into an irrigation channel. Both the driver and her friend were taken to hospital in serious condition, the paper said.

Sometimes I look at an attractive young woman who is determined to change the world and prove that women are truly equal to men in every possible way the eyes of the law, in social access, and in opportunity, and it makes me feel as if I’m standing on the edge of a very high precipice with a beautiful kitten in my hands. She’s a brave little kitty, a courageous bundle of strength and independence, and her claws are sharp indeed. I cannot help but admire her as she bares her cute little fangs and meows her bold defiance of the uncaring world and all its unfairness and inequality.

Then I extend my arms out over the chasm, and I open my hands, and I cry: “Fly, little kitten, fly like the wind!”

John Hawkins of Right Wing News asks the nominally right-wing blogosphere four questions about the bailout:

1) Is the PRIMARY cause of this crisis…

A) Deregulation, market forces, and Wall Street?: 7% (4)

B) Government interference in the market?: 93% (56)

2) Do you support the bailout?

A) Yes: 29% (18)

B) No: 71% (44)

Interesting, when the nominally conservative commentariat appeared to support the bailout in similar percentages. No wonder conservatives are increasingly moving towards the blogs and away from their media-appointed champions who increasingly look like the PR specialists for the other side. I understand that the Democrats are largely to blame for the housing problem, but I really do not see how the economic situation can help McCain in any way.

After all, as that great conservative George Bush has declared, when people are hurting, the government has to act.

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter is a Michigan Republican who was the first member of the House of Representatives to publicly oppose Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan to spend $700 billion bailing out bankrupt Wall Street institutions. After the House of Representatives voted against the legislative proposal, the congressman called on President Bush to fire Paulson.

Congratulations on successfully shooting down the bill.

Well, we don’t view it as a victory here, it’s just the responsibility to get the job done for the American people.

What were your main reasons for opposing the Paulson plan, even in the revised form that you voted on today?

It’s not about me. I suppose this is a representative government. From the MINUTE the Paulson plan was introduced, the American people said no. And then as this administration foisted that proposal upon this Congress, the American people said no. And then as Congress, despite warnings from people like me, set an artificial deadline of midnight Sunday, the American people said no. And when the artificial deadline was met with a bad proposal, which was the Paulson proposal, the American people still said no. The only thing we can take out of this is that fortunately the Paulson proposal did not pass.

Now, Congress is going to act. It is going to act in a responsible and timely fashion on a piece of legislation that the American people know is fair to their interests and will help with this economic situation. In the final analysis, the Paulson plan fundamentally failed in that it wanted the American taxpayer to buy noxious, toxic assets out of the marketplace. You have to remove both the plan and Mr. Paulson from the process. I’ve asked the President to demand Mr. Paulson’s resignation and deputize someone else so that the Congress and the White House can get on with a plan the American people will accept.

Speaking of what the American people will accept, I took a poll of my readers and the Right Wing News took a poll of its readers. Only 15 percent of the Right Wing News readers supported the bailout, and only about one percent of my readers did. Are the administration and the other members of Congress who supported the bill unaware of the strength of public opposition to the plan or do they just not care?

I’ll let them speak for themselves, but I think that what you’re finding is the same thing other members of Congress are finding. First, there’s an argument that the American people don’t seem to understand what is happening if this bill failed. I think the opposite is true. The American people, from the MINUTE this Paulson bailout was announced, understood what it meant and they decided they did not like it. What happened was an arrogant administration forced it upon Congress and finally, finally, thanks to the U.S. House, the people’s voice was heard and obeyed. Now we can finally get down to the serious business of doing what is in the best interests of the American people.

What basic economic theory is operative in Congress right now?

Right now, the only thing that was operative, that was put in front of us, was Paulson’s plan, which was to buy those toxic assets at public expense. There are several other models out there that other nations have used far more often and far more successfully than the flawed model Paulson put in there for the Wall Street bailout. What we want is something that will spur private recapitalization so the money comes in off the sidelines where it’s parked, and also provides an appropriate government backstop that is necessary and just for the American people’s economic prosperity. Those are the two fundamental principles. As you can see, private recapitalization and appropriate government backstop that is just and fair to Americans, is an entirely different path than the one taken by Paulson with his first, only, last resort of a public bailout of Wall Street.

Conventional Keynesian theory, to which I do not subscribe–

Nor do I!

One of my readers went to high school with you. He told me that you’re Austrian-aware.

Roepke, I’m more of a Roepke guy. I don’t go as far as Von Mises. A humane economy, not an insane economy.

Fair enough. But the basic Keynesian model states that savings equals investment and there hasn’t been much savings in the American economy because interest rates have been so low for so long. Where is this private capitalization supposed to come from with artificially suppressed interest rates that in real terms may actually be negative?

I would actually go one step further because I think you’re getting very close to the same position I’m at. Savings are deferred consumption channeled into investment. What happens under the despicable Keynesian model, the disastrous Keynesian model, is this – savings start to reduce. And what the government does then is to pump expanded credit into the system. It creates investment inflation. This is exactly where we are and it’s called a bubble. And the market has endeavored, as it always does, to correct that investment inflation, so Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke wanted the taxpayers to inject $700 billion to keep the bubble inflated! And it’s not going to work!

What you have to do is get the private money to come in and look at the assets, start to clear that out through proper legislation to incentivize it, and then get an appropriate government backstop. Now, in the long term picture, it is all about reincentivizing American savings to increase that pool of capital here. It is also about attracting American capital that is parked offshore back for repatriation; the last time we did it there was over $300 billion that came back into the American economy. Benedict Arnold, as the Democrats have put it, Benedict Arnold cleaning up Wall Street. And then what you can also do is incentivize PRIVATE foreign investment to come back into the United States through appropriate legislation.

As opposed to the sovereign funds they’re currently relying on.

Right, the sovereign wealth funds I oppose. They’re government-run, and when the government of any nation, especially nations that are antithetical to the interests of the United States such as Communist China, when they come in and buy a private asset, it’s been nationalized. It’s been socialized! And when socialism is imported into the United States economy, the free market gets smaller and everyone’s liberty and prosperity is imperiled.

The dollar has lost 95.2 percent of its value to inflation since 1913, even by the official figures. From 1813 to 1907, its value actually increased 52 percent. Given the demonstrable failure of the Federal Reserve to either control inflation or maintain a stable financial system, why is there still such support for it in Congress?

I think that the argument that is made is probably because, as Roepke pointed out, people seem to think that inflationary periods are quite pleasurable until they realize that there’s a deflationary period to match it when the market corrects itself. Plus, the more government under the Keynes model has a role within people’s economic lives, the more important government is, the more powerful it is. In short, you’re asking people to refrain from using their publicly entrusted subservient positions, as members of Congress or members of the government, from interfering in a marketplace to make themselves popular for a short period of time.

Now, I’ve got time for one more. Give me your best shot.

There’s a lot of suspicion that Congress is going to go to the Brussels model and make you vote until you get it right. How are the House Republicans going to deal with that?

It is up to the American people. The American people have spoken clearly, and it is inc
umbent first and foremost upon this administration to admit that the American people have rejected the Paulson bailout model for our economic rescue. It is that simple! If the administration continues to push this forward, even if that bill passes against the wishes of the American People, nothing is going to be accomplished. Even by its proponents it is being sold as a short-term STABILIZATION measure that doesn’t address the root problems that we have.

The American people will not stand to be dictated to by an administration or by a Congress that is deaf to its expressed wishes. That’s why we are a free people and will remain so.

Zeno informs us that the family Bane has come up with a fitting tribute to the old Reaper’s Hairball:

The other night we gathered up about five guns and shot them off in honor of Bane. We took the empty shells from the ground and mailed them to someone in the family that loads ammo. When we get a small percentage of Bane’s ashes we are going to have them loaded into ammo and close family members will be welcome to keep a Bane Bullet. He would have loved that.

Banepowder bullets. What a brilliant idea!