Conveniently Anonymous

Whether or not POLTICO's report of old accusations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain are true or not, not to mention substantial or not, remains to be seen.  But one thing about this latest episode of the elite media's timeless quest to destroy public figures who happen to be conservative is all too familiar.  That is, it springs from what are ultimately, and very conveniently, anonymous sources.

Of course, as the reporters who authored the story are quick to explain:

POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

What is it they say?  "How convenient."

For once, I wish a conservative thus confronted by some representative of the elite media with just such an embarrassing story, the source of which is unknown, unnameable, or ambiguous, would respond with something like this: "How much did you pay these women to say these things?  Look, I have a source, an anonymous source, who insists that you paid big money to these women to make these accusations.  Is it true?  Did you?  Well, did you?  When you reveal your sources, I'll reveal mine."

'Cause He's Got--Personality!

Terry Teachout pans a new biography of William F. Buckley, a biography that happens also to be a history of the modern conservative movement in America, by charging its author Carl T. Bogus with failing to notice, or at least notice enough, the most important thing about Buckley, that is, his singular charm.

Haven't read the book, so I can't say if Teachout's on the mark or overly harsh with his criticism.  But he does make a very important larger point nevertheless with the opening two sentences of his review:  "Historians rarely have much to say about the role of charm in public affairs. But it matters, and sometimes it matters a lot."

Indeed.

In fact, I would say that the greatest part of the explanation for Herman Cain's growing appeal as a candidate and subsequent rise in the polls is his charming personality.

Of course, we'll have to wait and see if his charm's enough to weather the storm now breaking, not to mention the many more that will come up if he survives this one.

Girl Talk

This Atlantic piece by Kate Bolick is currently much talked about.  I'll just link to it without comment.  Male chauvinist pig I'm sometimes accused of being, I'd only get myself into further trouble.

Was that a comment?

Infantilism, cont.

In the way that only he can, Mark Steyn reports on the state of Connecticut's "Diaper Need Awareness Day".

Only just the other day I mentioned that "infantilism" is fast supplanting "liberalism", "socialism", and even "communism" as the organizing principle of the Democrat Party.

Don't misunderstand, infantili-zation is always a direct consequence, even if it's not intended, of any and all collectivist ideologies.  What's new for the Democrats is that instead of hiding or trying to explain away the consequences of their principles in action, they're now embracing them openly, accepting them as a key part of a new ideology, infantil-ism.

They've decided, it would appear, that we Americans are at long last mature enough to handle it.  

"It" was in the Cards

Congratulations to the World Series Champion St. Louis Cardinals!

While it lacked the high drama of Thursday's game six, last night's final game victory sealed for them the championship nevertheless, ending a very unlikely run that began in earnest in what now seems like long ago late August.

Whatever "it" is, this year's Cardinals were the clear holders.

Fingers Crossed

The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged almost 340 points today on the news that European leaders brokered a deal that may avert, or at least forestall their own debt crisis.  Is the market's reaction to the news justified?

I have a theory about what the Dow, as well as all the other market indices, actually measure anymore.

In the long run, they always have been and still are fairly reliable measures of underlying economic reality.

But in the short run, it depends.  It depends on whether or not the economy is sound, fundamentally sound.  If it is, then the day-to-day swings in the market will remain relatively small.  But, if the economy is not sound, then the market will reflect that with wide and wild gyrations.  One day up 300 points, like today's Dow, tomorrow down a similar number, the next day steady as she goes.

There's really nothing new about this observation as market indicators have always been measures mostly of expectations, expectations about what actually is the state of the underlying economy.

What is new, and this is my theory, is that now market indicators include along with expectations an incalculable admixture of hope.  It's incalculable because hope is less rational than expectations.  It's possible to either per-suade or dis-suade someone about the reasonableness of their expectations with an appeal to a spreadsheet full of facts and figures.  Hope is different.

Hope has crept in alongside expectations over the last couple of generations as more and more common people have bought into the market through the advent of mutual funds and individual retirement plans of one sort or another.  For my father's generation, the stock market was something only rich or professional people had an interest in.  Today, by contrast, virtually everyone owns stock to one degree or another.

But while we own stock, we don't manage that interest in the same way rich or professional people of a generation and more ago did.  Instead, we just watch the market and, well, we hope.

Why has the market remained by any historical standard relatively high during these past few years of genuine economic turmoil?  Why does it leap at the chance to rebound on the slightest piece of good news, in this case, even news from across the Atlantic?

I think it is bouyed in large part by the presence of hope over expectations in a large number of investors.  No one wants to contemplate their future without a full and fat retirement account.  We've staked far too much on it and don't want to think too hard about what we will do if it comes up empty.  Unlike our forebears who quickly fled the banks when they got wind of bad economic news, we stay in the market come hell or high water and hope.

What else can we do?

 

But seriously...

...so long, that is, as we're talking about "infantilism".

James Taranto, in a Wall Street Journal column takes up the same theme, this time advanced by the President himself, introducing it in part with this report from ABC News:

"At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America." (my emphasis)

Did I read that right?  Please, please, tell me I didn't.