Enlightenment

From Doug Saunders in today's Globe:

Europe once faced a genuine fundamentalist threat, in the face of a declining population. From 1345 to 1750, the continent's population barely grew, and the church, a murderous, terrorist, woman-hating force, seized considerable power. It was not Christian culture, but rather the opposition to this Christian threat, that made Europe great: The Enlightenment not only destroyed the church as a power, but also created the fertility boom.

Oh dear. Apparently Mr. Saunders has never heard of the bubonic plague. It's also a matter of some ambiguity to speak in menacing tones of "the church" during the Reformation period. One further wonders in what respect it "seized considerable power" between 1345 and 1750, since during that time the power of the Catholic Church declined considerably from its peak in the High Middle Ages, due especially to the increasing importance of the European nation-states. But I suppose those considerations add rather too much nuance for the broadsheets.

Palinated

We’re now in the final two months of this cruelly long presidential campaign, and I’ll certainly be happy when it’s over, if only because then it will force bloggers and the punditocracy to find something else, anything else, to write about. The campaign is so damned protracted that even the most interesting political commentary seem redundant. It’s still not too late for me to add to the chorus of redundancy, though, so a few thoughts.

First, the Sarah factor. I admit I was initially enthusiastic about the Palin pick, largely due to the fact that the conservative-leaning bloggers I read and respect (Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Noah Millman) were pretty enthusiastic about it. But since then she has done very little to confirm that it was a wise choice. I found her speech at the RNC to be disappointingly partisan and substance-free. Her interview with Charlie Gibson was painful to watch: there was scarcely a moment of frankness, and way too much repetition of talking points. She is clearly not ready for the national stage, let alone the vice presidency.

Andy is delighting in the media’s hyperventilating response to Palin, and there have certainly been vicious and unwarranted attacks against her and her family. But those have only tended to obscure what ought to be more pressing concerns. David Brooks sums up the case against Palin rather well:

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

Whatever else can be said about the McCain-Palin ticket, it is massively under-qualified. McCain’s lack of interest in policy specifics, particularly on economic matters, would be worrying at the best of times. And these are not the best of times. His brashness and militaristic approach to foreign policy is even more disturbing. Palin does nothing to shore up McCain’s weaknesses, except where it comes to public image. It seems possible that this year, victory for the Republicans might ultimately be worse for the party than defeat.

Blogger not found to be idiot-proof

Suddenly, the font on this blog is going wacky. I have no idea why. Perhaps it would help if I knew a little html. This is why confirmed technophobes should not be allowed to have blogs.

New Adventures

So I’ve started a new program at a new school in the States, and it’s a little more work than I’m used to, and that partly explains the lack of activity on this blog. Not that I was ever very serious about blogging. And that’s probably a good thing. Anyway, to the readers of this blog, I promise you both that I will put some posts up in the next week or so. Maybe even tonight.