Pay Raises

TAPPED and MyDD are mentioning Congressional salary, raises, and why it’s silly that we pay the legislative branch so little. One of the commentators depicts an interesting point.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2005/12/27/18428/723/10#10

With this topic, people should just expect a feingold plug... so here it is:

One of the very few such spoilsports is Senator Russell Feingold, a liberal Wisconsin Democrat who for several years has introduced an amendment to stop the pay raise, and each time has seen his amendment tabled -- i.e., killed without being debated and voted on -- by a lopsided Senate majority.

"I object to the process," he said during a phone conversation last week. "This automatic, stealth pay-raise system is absolutely wrong. Especially now, when we're running the biggest deficits in US history, when so many people are out of work -- I find it startling that Congress would feel comfortable voting itself a pay raise."

And what kind of reaction does he get from his colleagues when he offers his amendment?

"It's not my most popular moment," Feingold concedes. "I get the coldest stares." Some senators try to reason with him. "They tell me about their kids' tuition. Or they say, 'Don't you think you're worth more money?' " He tells them that if they think they deserve an increase, they should be willing to vote for one.

Feingold puts his own money where his mouth is, refusing any increase in pay during each six-year senatorial term. Though he is perhaps the least affluent member of the Senate, he has returned more than $50,000 to the Treasury over the past 11 years. Meanwhile, multimillionaire senators like Ted Kennedy, Jon Corzine, and Majority Leader Bill Frist vote to table Feingold's amendment and preserve the annual stealth pay raise.

Which is why pay raises won’t happen. It’s so incredibly easy for any congresscritter to say they are fighting against DC fat cats and vote against pay raises. Given that most of their expenses are handled by independent wealth or campaign related expenses, the money they get from Congress is trivial. A cheesy press release to the folks back home is worth far more than the extra $50,000 in salary (or at least voting for it).

It’s possible that this discourages lower-class representatives or better talent, or more likely encourages corruption. The State of Texas has had a really interesting history of paying its representatives very little and making them dependent on large donors for a decent lifestyle (Read Caro’s Lyndon Johnson biography). In Britain, a law that meant MP’s would actually be paid was a big deal to the nascent labor movement.

In this day and age, Senators can become so incredibly wealthy (especially once you consider future expected earnings as a lobbyist) that it’s probably trivial and returning to a $1 would no longer have a noticeable effect. In comparison, the wages of Congressional staff, or the bureaucrats who are all tied to the same pay scale, is probably more relevant and does more to distort the quality of our government. However, the wider you propose to spread this pay raise, then the more expensive it will be. By following the free-market, Congress has simply found a way to staff its offices and agencies fully with as little money as possible – the free market does not care much about the quality or background biases of this staff.

Anyway, as Feingold’s comments demonstrate, this is all wankery since such bills are extremely unlikely to get passed. Liberals should just keep in mind that reducing Congressional salary does not “save the People money” but rather “guarantees Joe Union Six-Pack can’t even consider running for office.” And I find this type of populist demagoguery on the same level as Hillary’s recent anti-flag-burning amendment.

FISA

There’s been a decent amount of posting about how the Democrats, by even getting angry at the FISA scandal, are taking Republican bait ( Ross, PPI, etc). The idea is that to the public you can never be viewed as “too extreme on National Security”. If there was graft or stupidity sure, but simply breaking some civil liberties in order to find Osama bin Laden will always… well not be appreciated, but at least won’t hurt you in the long run. It’s the theory of costly signals – you say something that appears harmful to you (such as illegal wiretaps), but when people wonder what side you are on, there is never any doubt. It simply means that when the next election comes around, people will still think of Republicans as the party of more national security, any attempts to make equivalence on the issue by Democrats will be ruined, and since people always want more national security, they’ll vote Republican. This isn’t to say the whole scandal is a Republican ploy, but just rather that people on both the right and left are saying Democrats (for their sake) should shut up.

The presumption here lies in thinking National Security is always the trump suit. Running explicitly on dove-ishness doesn’t win elections, no, but if the American people always valued strong national security over everything else, then we’d already be an authoritarian state. Americans know the important of moderation, and they also value civil liberties. It is the responsibility of our leaders to demonstrate when there is a cost-benefit calculation that needs to be made. If the public wishes, the President could start doing constitutionally questionable activities without asking the authorization of Congress or informing the public, because our enemy is just that dangerous. Or the public could wish otherwise. The important thing for Democrats and their media-representatives to do is present the costs and benefits of this situation, and allow the public’s wish for civil liberties and checks and balances to assert itself.

In short: as the landscape stands, this scandal isn't helpful to the Democrats, but the point of this scandal is to change the landscape.

Ohio Senate Race Watch

Sherrod Brown is becoming the most likely winner of a Democratic primary in the Ohio Senate Race. How unfortunate then, that he voted for the ANWR provision in the most recent House of Representatives vote. On background, the House Defense budget bill had ANWR oil drilling thrown in at the last minute (as a clear violation of budget procedure of course), and Democrats were put at risk of voting for ANWR or voting against money the troops need. It’s a pretty nasty thing to do that completely subverts democracy, but whatever, this is what politics is about.

I even understand a representative who is in a close race in a moderate state voting for it, especially when the real hope for defeat of ANWR lies in the Senate. But what disturbs me is his response given to the http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1135247827222690.xml&coll=2&thispage=2>Cleveland Plains Dealer ‘Brown, asked why he didn’t make a protest vote against the military-ANWR bill, said, “I don’t do protest votes when soldiers’ lives are at stake.”’

I’m happy getting someone elected to balance Ohio’s representation, on moderate compromise votes, that’s great. But using the enemies rhetoric to rationalize it and provide more ammunition for attacking the Democrats who were willing to stand up to this abuse of power, is something I really rather not see in the Senate. Any Democrat who cringes whenever they see Joe Lieberman come on TV and bash anyone who questions the President, should keep a closer eye on Brown too.

Ohio Senate Race Watch

Sherrod Brown is becoming the most likely winner of a Democratic primary in the Ohio Senate Race. How unfortunate then, that he voted for the ANWR provision in the most recent House of Representatives vote. On background, the House Defense budget bill had ANWR oil drilling thrown in at the last minute (as a clear violation of budget procedure of course), and Democrats were put at risk of voting for ANWR or voting against money the troops need. It’s a pretty nasty thing to do that completely subverts democracy, but whatever, this is what politics is about.

I even understand a representative who is in a close race in a moderate state voting for it, especially when the real hope for defeat of ANWR lies in the Senate. But what disturbs me is his response given to the http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1135247827222690.xml&coll=2&thispage=2

>Cleveland Plains Dealer ‘Brown, asked why he didn’t make a protest vote against the military-ANWR bill, said, “I don’t do protest votes when soldiers’ lives are at stake.”’

I’m happy getting someone elected to balance Ohio’s representation, on moderate compromise votes, that’s great. But using the enemies rhetoric to rationalize it and provide more ammunition for attacking the Democrats who were willing to stand up to this abuse of power, is something I really rather not see in the Senate. Any Democrat who cringes whenever they see Joe Lieberman come on TV and bash anyone who questions the President, should keep a closer eye on Brown too.

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Crooked Timber listing the various rhetorical devices used to cover up this scandal.

Yglesias describes how this is the sort of thing you get when all you ever need in an argument is “my motivations are pure”.

Shrug. All I can feel is once again ire at people who trust in the limits set by legalisms. If the people of the country feel torture and indiscriminate wire-tapping is wrong, we should at least try to elect people who actually feel that it is wrong too, not hope they are kept in check by dead pieces of paper.

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Good posts on FISA scandal:

Crooked Timber listing the various rhetorical devices used to cover up this scandal.

Yglesias describes how this is the sort of thing you get when all you ever need in an argument is “my motivations are pure”.

Shrug. All I can feel is once again ire at people who trust in the limits set by legalisms. If the people of the country feel torture and indiscriminate wire-tapping is wrong, we should at least try to elect people who actually feel that it is wrong too, not hope they are kept in check by dead pieces of paper.

War on Christmas-tide

Sullivan is taking a break, and has two center-right bloggers covering for him. I really don’t get why so many people respect Douthat, but that being said, the first posts are good. Especially endearing to see all these intellectual right-wing dismissals of the War-on-Christmas stuff. It’s very reminiscent of all the intellectual right-wingers who doubted Bush in 2004 and felt he had veered too far from true conservatism. They’re riding the bull, but I don’t think they are in control. Gay Marriage won 2004, not Iraq policy, and in this case there is probably good reason the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world continue harping on the War on Christmas even as their elite columnists and whatnot know it’s silly demagoguery.

Let me break the War on Christmas down real easy. About 60-80% of the country is Christian, depending on how strict your definition of Christian is. If Christmas is a Christian holiday, then you can only sell Christmas trees to 70% of the people. If Christmas is a secular holiday though, then you can sell Christmas trees to everyone. Now if you sell Christmas trees (with a 70% chance of being Christian yourself), how are you going to describe Christmas?

It’s generally ignored how much cultural power our private corporations have in this country, because we generally trust the free-market to not do evil manipulative cultural things. When it is in their interest to generate a large cultural shift however, there should be no doubt that they are a force that can crush atheist university professors or fundamentalist Christian televangelists in one fell swoop.

I do find it rather interesting that self-styled populists like O’Reilly don’t take more opportunity to bash commercial institutions for their role in this as well. Sounds like a perfect double-shot to me.

Lastly, one nice description here:

The New Yorker is just a microcosm, but the larger reality is that while there isn't a war against Christmas, there is a significant chunk of this country - the most educated chunk, the chunk that runs the high-minded magazines and writes for the big newspapers and makes most of the movies (the sudden interest in the Christian market notwithstanding) and teaches at the major universities and generally controls the commanding heights of the culture - that doesn't much care for Christianity, at least if it's practiced seriously and its basic dogmas are left intact. This reality is what drives the siege mentality among many Christians, and the popularity of O'Reilly-style conspiracy theorizing - the awareness that our majority-Christian country is saddled, for some reason, with an elite that approaches religious belief with a mix of bemusement, ignorance, and fear.

Of course the other side, the secular elite, feels under siege as well - they're in the minority, they don't control the the government, they thought we were past all that Christianity stuff, and they can't quite understand why a twenty-first century educated class should have to put up with a bunch of benighted yahoos who buy tickets to The Passion of the Christ and elect Presidents like George W. Bush. (The Europeans don't have to deal with this kind of nonsense, after all . . .) So everybody feels disempowered, and everybody has a point - which is why the Christmas wars are fake, but the culture war is real.

Except of course, when those blue-state-elites are actually in the majority (2000 presidential, 2004 senatorial), but because they live in the wrong cluster of places, they still lose. That sort of thing adds to siege mentality, because it’s much harder to get more than 52% of the populace than it is to get more than 50%.

War on Christmas-tide

Sullivan is taking a break, and has two center-right bloggers covering for him. I really don’t get why so many people respect Douthat, but that being said, the first posts are good. Especially endearing to see all these intellectual right-wing dismissals of the War-on-Christmas stuff. It’s very reminiscent of all the intellectual right-wingers who doubted Bush in 2004 and felt he had veered too far from true conservatism. They’re riding the bull, but I don’t think they are in control. Gay Marriage won 2004, not Iraq policy, and in this case there is probably good reason the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world continue harping on the War on Christmas even as their elite columnists and whatnot know it’s silly demagoguery.

Let me break the War on Christmas down real easy. About 60-80% of the country is Christian, depending on how strict your definition of Christian is. If Christmas is a Christian holiday, then you can only sell Christmas trees to 70% of the people. If Christmas is a secular holiday though, then you can sell Christmas trees to everyone. Now if you sell Christmas trees (with a 70% chance of being Christian yourself), how are you going to describe Christmas?

It’s generally ignored how much cultural power our private corporations have in this country, because we generally trust the free-market to not do evil manipulative cultural things. When it is in their interest to generate a large cultural shift however, there should be no doubt that they are a force that can crush atheist university professors or fundamentalist Christian televangelists in one fell swoop.

I do find it rather interesting that self-styled populists like O’Reilly don’t take more opportunity to bash commercial institutions for their role in this as well. Sounds like a perfect double-shot to me.

Lastly, one nice description here:

The New Yorker is just a microcosm, but the larger reality is that while there isn't a war against Christmas, there is a significant chunk of this country - the most educated chunk, the chunk that runs the high-minded magazines and writes for the big newspapers and makes most of the movies (the sudden interest in the Christian market notwithstanding) and teaches at the major universities and generally controls the commanding heights of the culture - that doesn't much care for Christianity, at least if it's practiced seriously and its basic dogmas are left intact. This reality is what drives the siege mentality among many Christians, and the popularity of O'Reilly-style conspiracy theorizing - the awareness that our majority-Christian country is saddled, for some reason, with an elite that approaches religious belief with a mix of bemusement, ignorance, and fear.

Of course the other side, the secular elite, feels under siege as well - they're in the minority, they don't control the the government, they thought we were past all that Christianity stuff, and they can't quite understand why a twenty-first century educated class should have to put up with a bunch of benighted yahoos who buy tickets to The Passion of the Christ and elect Presidents like George W. Bush. (The Europeans don't have to deal with this kind of nonsense, after all . . .) So everybody feels disempowered, and everybody has a point - which is why the Christmas wars are fake, but the culture war is real.

Except of course, when those blue-state-elites are actually in the majority (2000 presidential, 2004 senatorial), but because they live in the wrong cluster of places, they still lose. That sort of thing adds to siege mentality, because it’s much harder to get more than 52% of the populace than it is to get more than 50%.

Nasty, Liberal, and Short

A somewhat liberal friend of mine commented that he reads NRO's the Corner because it's quick and to the point. "Liberals can't express themselves in anything less than three paragraphs, while most of the posts on the corner are two sentences."

Now they're much to be said for thoughtful commentary, and I personally want long and evidence-backed pieces. But I believe there's a lot of diversity in left-blogistan (including some liberal blogs I despise), and that style wise the right and left spheres can't be that different. But I thought about it for a couple hours, and couldn't recall any blogs I'd call "short", like Instapundit or the Corner.

So, can y'all help me here? Quickie liberal blogs, on the run.

CFR

Just using this TAPPED article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance.

A SCANDAL-RIDDEN WEEK. It hasn’t been a good week for Republican candidates, a surprising number of whom are now beset with some serious campaign finance scandals. Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, who has pressed for stricter campaign finance regulations and who has pledged not to accept any money from the Republican Party, is now under investigation for some questionable work done on her behalf by her chief of staff. In Oregon, election officials have launched an investigation into some serious discrepancies that have been found in the finance reports filed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix, who has also served as the state’s party chairman. One the more serious accusations that Mannix faces is the issue of a $45,000 loan that he made to his campaign that was later listed as a direct contribution. Conservative Jim Oberweis, who claims to be the best qualified candidate to clean up the Illinois state government, is refusing to return a $20,000 contribution from a businessman whose PACs are known to be campaign-finance violators. Meanwhile, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana has decided not to return donations given to him by the scandal-plagued lobbyist Jack Abramoff, because, well, the money is already gone. Mind you, all of these stories broke within the last week.

Perhaps these Republicans would be better off if they avoided fundraising in the first place and just followed the example set by former Democratic Senator William Proximire, who purportedly spent only $145.10 on his 1982 re-election bid which he won with 64 percent of the vote. Unlikely, but wouldn’t that be nice.

Just using this article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance. Large sums of money funding election campaigns make them more competitive, not less. Of course an incumbent could win when only spend $145 – and incumbent has so many other advantages after all. If every single campaign only that trivial advertising, the incumbent’s edge in Congress would solidify.

It’s a sad fact that American voters based on commercials and consultants, which require gobs of money, and not solely policy-positions and somber newspaper editorials. But once we accept that fact, and keeping in mind that it is desirable to have competitive elections for democracy to work, then we want both sides to be relatively equally armed.

The trouble of course is that while equal sums of money help a challenger more than an incumbent, it’s easier for an incumbent to get large sums of money (if you believe the appearance of corruption in modern culture). Those in power have a lot to offer that those out of power do not. But that’s where parties step in: they provide the money for candidates for no reason other than their sheer competitiveness. Presuming both parties have relatively equal money, party funds are a radically leveling factor between an incumbent Democrat and a challenging Republican, or vice-versa. And that leveling is necessary.

So you are presented with a choice, between the corruption necessary to get a lot of money, and the competitiveness that a lot of money brings.

CFR

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008652> Just using this TAPPED article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance:

A SCANDAL-RIDDEN WEEK. It hasn’t been a good week for Republican candidates, a surprising number of whom are now beset with some serious campaign finance scandals. Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, who has pressed for stricter campaign finance regulations and who has pledged not to accept any money from the Republican Party, is now under investigation for some questionable work done on her behalf by her chief of staff. In Oregon, election officials have launched an investigation into some serious discrepancies that have been found in the finance reports filed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix, who has also served as the state’s party chairman. One the more serious accusations that Mannix faces is the issue of a $45,000 loan that he made to his campaign that was later listed as a direct contribution. Conservative Jim Oberweis, who claims to be the best qualified candidate to clean up the Illinois state government, is refusing to return a $20,000 contribution from a businessman whose PACs are known to be campaign-finance violators. Meanwhile, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana has decided not to return donations given to him by the scandal-plagued lobbyist Jack Abramoff, because, well, the money is already gone. Mind you, all of these stories broke within the last week.

Perhaps these Republicans would be better off if they avoided fundraising in the first place and just followed the example set by former Democratic Senator William Proximire, who purportedly spent only $145.10 on his 1982 re-election bid which he won with 64 percent of the vote. Unlikely, but wouldn’t that be nice.

Just using this article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance. Large sums of money funding election campaigns make them more competitive, not less. Of course an incumbent could win when only spend $145 – and incumbent has so many other advantages after all. If every single campaign only that trivial advertising, the incumbent’s edge in Congress would solidify.

It’s a sad fact that American voters based on commercials and consultants, which require gobs of money, and not solely policy-positions and somber newspaper editorials. But once we accept that fact, and keeping in mind that it is desirable to have competitive elections for democracy to work, then we want both sides to be relatively equally armed.

The trouble of course is that while equal sums of money help a challenger more than an incumbent, it’s easier for an incumbent to get large sums of money (if you believe the appearance of corruption in modern culture). Those in power have a lot to offer that those out of power do not. But that’s where parties step in: they provide the money for candidates for no reason other than their sheer competitiveness. Presuming both parties have relatively equal money, party funds are a radically leveling factor between an incumbent Democrat and a challenging Republican, or vice-versa. And that leveling is necessary.

So you are presented with a choice, between the corruption necessary to get a lot of money, and the competitiveness that a lot of money brings.

CFR

> Just using this TAPPED article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance.

A SCANDAL-RIDDEN WEEK. It hasn’t been a good week for Republican candidates, a surprising number of whom are now beset with some serious campaign finance scandals. Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, who has pressed for stricter campaign finance regulations and who has pledged not to accept any money from the Republican Party, is now under investigation for some questionable work done on her behalf by her chief of staff. In Oregon, election officials have launched an investigation into some serious discrepancies that have been found in the finance reports filed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix, who has also served as the state’s party chairman. One the more serious accusations that Mannix faces is the issue of a $45,000 loan that he made to his campaign that was later listed as a direct contribution. Conservative Jim Oberweis, who claims to be the best qualified candidate to clean up the Illinois state government, is refusing to return a $20,000 contribution from a businessman whose PACs are known to be campaign-finance violators. Meanwhile, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana has decided not to return donations given to him by the scandal-plagued lobbyist Jack Abramoff, because, well, the money is already gone. Mind you, all of these stories broke within the last week.

Perhaps these Republicans would be better off if they avoided fundraising in the first place and just followed the example set by former Democratic Senator William Proximire, who purportedly spent only $145.10 on his 1982 re-election bid which he won with 64 percent of the vote. Unlikely, but wouldn’t that be nice.

Just using this article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance. Large sums of money funding election campaigns make them more competitive, not less. Of course an incumbent could win when only spend $145 – and incumbent has so many other advantages after all. If every single campaign only that trivial advertising, the incumbent’s edge in Congress would solidify.

It’s a sad fact that American voters based on commercials and consultants, which require gobs of money, and not solely policy-positions and somber newspaper editorials. But once we accept that fact, and keeping in mind that it is desirable to have competitive elections for democracy to work, then we want both sides to be relatively equally armed.

The trouble of course is that while equal sums of money help a challenger more than an incumbent, it’s easier for an incumbent to get large sums of money (if you believe the appearance of corruption in modern culture). Those in power have a lot to offer that those out of power do not. But that’s where parties step in: they provide the money for candidates for no reason other than their sheer competitiveness. Presuming both parties have relatively equal money, party funds are a radically leveling factor between an incumbent Democrat and a challenging Republican, or vice-versa. And that leveling is necessary.

So you are presented with a choice, between the corruption necessary to get a lot of money, and the competitiveness that a lot of money brings.

CFR

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/12/index.html#008652> Just using this TAPPED article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance.

A SCANDAL-RIDDEN WEEK. It hasn’t been a good week for Republican candidates, a surprising number of whom are now beset with some serious campaign finance scandals. Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, who has pressed for stricter campaign finance regulations and who has pledged not to accept any money from the Republican Party, is now under investigation for some questionable work done on her behalf by her chief of staff. In Oregon, election officials have launched an investigation into some serious discrepancies that have been found in the finance reports filed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix, who has also served as the state’s party chairman. One the more serious accusations that Mannix faces is the issue of a $45,000 loan that he made to his campaign that was later listed as a direct contribution. Conservative Jim Oberweis, who claims to be the best qualified candidate to clean up the Illinois state government, is refusing to return a $20,000 contribution from a businessman whose PACs are known to be campaign-finance violators. Meanwhile, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana has decided not to return donations given to him by the scandal-plagued lobbyist Jack Abramoff, because, well, the money is already gone. Mind you, all of these stories broke within the last week.

Perhaps these Republicans would be better off if they avoided fundraising in the first place and just followed the example set by former Democratic Senator William Proximire, who purportedly spent only $145.10 on his 1982 re-election bid which he won with 64 percent of the vote. Unlikely, but wouldn’t that be nice.

Just using this article to bring up a counter-intuitive point about campaign finance. Large sums of money funding election campaigns make them more competitive, not less. Of course an incumbent could win when only spend $145 – and incumbent has so many other advantages after all. If every single campaign only that trivial advertising, the incumbent’s edge in Congress would solidify.

It’s a sad fact that American voters based on commercials and consultants, which require gobs of money, and not solely policy-positions and somber newspaper editorials. But once we accept that fact, and keeping in mind that it is desirable to have competitive elections for democracy to work, then we want both sides to be relatively equally armed.

The trouble of course is that while equal sums of money help a challenger more than an incumbent, it’s easier for an incumbent to get large sums of money (if you believe the appearance of corruption in modern culture). Those in power have a lot to offer that those out of power do not. But that’s where parties step in: they provide the money for candidates for no reason other than their sheer competitiveness. Presuming both parties have relatively equal money, party funds are a radically leveling factor between an incumbent Democrat and a challenging Republican, or vice-versa. And that leveling is necessary.

So you are presented with a choice, between the corruption necessary to get a lot of money, and the competitiveness that a lot of money brings.

Gun Rights Story

Second Amendment fans are fond of telling how average home-owners protect their family and property with their constitutionally protected firearms. Just recently, one Cory Maye was woken in the middle of the night by a man busting through his bedroom door with no warning, and to protect his wife and daughter he shot the man dead.

Unfortunately for Cory, that man was a police officer, who was searching for drugs. Not on Cory of course, but belonging to his next door neighbor (who they had a search warrant for, but not for Cory). Cory had no criminal history, nor was there any reason to expect he was a threat.

Now the police officer is dead, and because of the poor performance of his character witnesses, Cory is on the hook for the death penalty.

What’s the problem here? Police departments who treat one class of criminal as if they require black-ops missions? A culture of fire-arms that creates the impression that we need to be prepared to shoot at any surprise? A legal system where a jury that feels you don’t respect your elders enough, can decide that you don’t deserve to live?

Anyway, it’s the celebre du jour, so I’m just spreading the news.

My Dear Wormwood

Your concern about your client’s popular work is entirely understandable, indeed even adorable. It would be quite worrisome for Our Master if the church was able to spread through these entertaining books and associated baubles., and every movie ticket sold for the Chronicles of Narnia was one less soul who would be joining us in the ever-after. But do you not think we have dealt with this before, an attempt by some mortal at combining religious indoctrination with commercial frenzy? The Church may have Man’s head and heart, but in every other motivation We have the advantage.

Kids enjoy reading these books about Aslan and faith, and parents approve? That’s wonderful. But who has time for a whole book these days? A movie with all the latest special effects and popular stars would be much more efficient, and much more lucrative for the people who are spreading this virus. Of course we only have two hours to keep these kids in the theaters, so make sure to get rid of meandering internal monologues about faith and love, and instead focus on shiny visuals that get the adrenalin soaring. When the kids go home they’ll want more, but a book costs $5 and could be borrowed from a friend. An interactive Video-Game however will keep the kids stimulated, can be sold at a profit many times greater, and will probably emphasize battles and violence instead of hope and growth.

If you know preachers are going to spread these books and try to create the gospel that way, then try to make sure the most polarizing preachers and opportunistic politicians are involved. No one’s going to take seriously even the most heartfelt and insightful message as long as it’s delivered by someone who goes on talk shows and engages in everyday political slander.

Not to mention this is only a mortal interpretation of The Enemy. It will have short-comings of style and theology that may be pointed out, which is the nature of our clients. Even if these are obvious or trivial things, make sure to fan the flames of controversy. Encourage some critics to raise a hue, and then encourage the publishers and their allies to treat any attack on the book as an attack on their lord Himself! Once they care more about defending their book then discussing how to better themselves, they are well on the path to idols and material obsession.

Your affectionate uncle

SCREWTAPE