From Inhabitatio Dei, via the Boar's Head Tavern:
"A bit harsh perhaps, but coming from a background of being highly socialized into Christianity, and knowing full well the kind of irrational protectionist mentality that persists in the church about the young people “falling away” if they are allowed to actually experience the world, I think there’s a good point in here somewhere.
"If we think the church can only be sustained through concerted social and psychological manipulation of our children, then the church isn’t worth preserving. After all, if we don’t really believe that the church lives by the power of the gospel to call people out of the world, we’ve lost the gospel altogether.
“[Much of the church] fears that if the young person, especially in adolescence, is permitted to become acquainted with the world and its lures, he is sure to be lost. This prediction is, in all its intended realism, a lack of faith and a surrender to determinism. If the Gospel cannot call people out of the world, it is no Gospel. If what we preach to our young people cannot call them out of the world, then we must ask ourselves if what we are preaching is the Gospel. If placing people in a context of choice where it is possible to choose the wrong is unwise, then God himself made the first mistake when he created Adam and the worst mistake when he let people kill his Son. At the bottom of it all, this pessimism means placing oneself fully on the level of the world. It means agreeing with the world that all human development is determined by physical and psychological necessities; agreeing with the world that Christian faith is a matter of behavior patterns and of truths to be passed on; agreeing with the world that there is no miracle of resurrection, no miracle of faith, no Holy Spirit.”
----John Howard Yoder, “Christian Education: Doctrinal Orientation,” in Concern for Education, Forthcoming from Cascade Books.
18 July 2009
16 June 2009
09 June 2009
One More Reason to Love the Swedes
They have a Pirate Party that has a seat in their national legislature.
Also, here are some interesting things to read:
There's an interesting balance with all this webbyness we live in. If my facebook identity is too well known, it's not private enough to express myself freely. If it's not well known enough, I lose out on the benefit of having people to express myself to. If I maintain anonymity at my blog, I can say whatever I want without fear of professional or personal repercussions...but I can't use it to share cool photos and exciting news with my friends.
So self-presentation on the internet can be an either/or thing. Do you want a professional face, or a private one? Do you want lots of readers and good conversation, or do you want a more personal experience? Or do you have the time to manage two different blogs, two different facebook lives, etc, etc...
Anonymitiy in blogging became an issue for this guy when he was "outed" by someone he had criticized in his blog. He lays down the personal and professional reasons he had wanted to remain anonymous.
Blogging as a "way of news" was interestingly portrayed in a good, and underappreciated movie recently released called "State of Play." It's got Russel Crowe and Rachael MacAdams (Oh, and that Affleck dude). Go watch it. It's even got Jason Bateman in it. There are some structural incentives to blogging and the new wave of public discourse that is the Internet...and some dude has an interesting blog post that's worth reading. About the flaws of blogging and reading blog posts. Appreciate both the irony and the good points here, at the Front Porch Republic. He has a word of caution about the ease with which an internet life encourages us to be narcissistic, detached and lazy.
Also, here are some interesting things to read:
There's an interesting balance with all this webbyness we live in. If my facebook identity is too well known, it's not private enough to express myself freely. If it's not well known enough, I lose out on the benefit of having people to express myself to. If I maintain anonymity at my blog, I can say whatever I want without fear of professional or personal repercussions...but I can't use it to share cool photos and exciting news with my friends.
So self-presentation on the internet can be an either/or thing. Do you want a professional face, or a private one? Do you want lots of readers and good conversation, or do you want a more personal experience? Or do you have the time to manage two different blogs, two different facebook lives, etc, etc...
Anonymitiy in blogging became an issue for this guy when he was "outed" by someone he had criticized in his blog. He lays down the personal and professional reasons he had wanted to remain anonymous.
Blogging as a "way of news" was interestingly portrayed in a good, and underappreciated movie recently released called "State of Play." It's got Russel Crowe and Rachael MacAdams (Oh, and that Affleck dude). Go watch it. It's even got Jason Bateman in it. There are some structural incentives to blogging and the new wave of public discourse that is the Internet...and some dude has an interesting blog post that's worth reading. About the flaws of blogging and reading blog posts. Appreciate both the irony and the good points here, at the Front Porch Republic. He has a word of caution about the ease with which an internet life encourages us to be narcissistic, detached and lazy.
18 May 2009
Stanley Fish of the New York Times responds to the Internet Atheists
(who seem as wild-eyed and camelhair-clothed as internet Calvinists)
here. h/t the Boar's Head Tavern.
Quote from such:
"So to sum up, the epistemological critique of religion — it is an inferior way of knowing — is the flip side of a naïve and untenable positivism. And the critique of religion’s content — it’s cotton-candy fluff — is the product of incredible ignorance."
here. h/t the Boar's Head Tavern.
Quote from such:
"So to sum up, the epistemological critique of religion — it is an inferior way of knowing — is the flip side of a naïve and untenable positivism. And the critique of religion’s content — it’s cotton-candy fluff — is the product of incredible ignorance."
11 May 2009
Hmmmm....
I saw a comment on a youtube video today, to the effect that what we're viewing in the bailouts is not socialism (government ownership/control of large portions of the economy) but rather capitalism gone horribly wrong: large corporations leveraging their significance to the economy in order to faciliatate "the largest transfer of public funds to private organizations in the history of our fair nation."
It's a different train of thought than the one I usually follow, with government involvement in the private sector leading to corruption, stagnation of creativity, etc. This line of logic begins with greedy capitalists paying attention to the motto of the Clinton years--"It's the economy, stupid." Our elected representatives, since the Reagan yeasr and probably before, are being elected on whether or not they can promise prosperity.
I've seen people engage in sick attention-seeking behaviors where they will use the threat of self-injury, or suicidal statements, or claim to have been assaulted or raped in order to get attention and feel significant. They hold themselves and their health hostage against the good will of their friends/the emergency medical system and demand that people drop everything and take care of them. In essence, the theory is, "If you don't give me what I want, I'll hurt me, and that will make you feel guilty and everyone will feel sad and you don't want that! So give me what I want!"
The capitalist at the top of a sinking corporation, however, is a little more clear minded. "Help me," he says to the elected official, "or I'll sink your economy AND your political career. Help me help you, Bob! Give me nice fat loan that no bank in their right mind would sign on..."
I was reminded today of a simple statement: government = the power to coerce obedience. But economic power is coercive too. An increase in governmental powers is a de facto increase in the governors' coercive influence over citizens. But governments do not posess a monopoly on coercion. Any relative concentration of power is inherently a relative potential for coercion.
I like to use this example: everyone has their price. For some, it's high, for some, it's ridiculously low...but it's probably graphable on a bell curve. It would take a lot for me to prostitute myself (and I'm talking like, hostages' lives on the line) but some will do the job for ten bucks or a quick fix or affirmation and attention. There's a market with an average price for corruption.
So let's say Joe Citizen is a salaryman--it isn't worth the (rough guess of the average) couple of thousand dollars it would take to convince the mayor to pass some legislation favoring him in a land dispute with his neighbor. But let's say the same Joe Citizen is a business owner who stands to gain a few thousand dollars per year in business if he gets preferential treatment from the town legislation or the zoning board. Whatever expenses he incurs in obtaining the coercive services of the state, whether through straight cash, services rendered, quid-quo-pro favors or socialization are simply business investments that--if he refuses--will put him at a competitive disadvantage with those who will. So there's the rub--when an unjust businessmen competes with a just businessman, the just one loses. Hence most of the Old Testament.
So that's why we have this fantastic legal system in our country. If you split power between the exectuve, legislative and judicial, you increase the number of people you have to influence, and hence the cost of obtaining legitimate coercive power. This is clever institutional planning--it is exponentially harder to influence fifteen people than it is to influence one, and the chance of one of those people being incorruptible is way higher than if you have just one king. Concentrated power, says Mr Reagan, is the enemy of liberty.
But we don't just have a separation of powers--the rule of many kings. We have made these kings accountable servants. And not servants of the public, or the majority--but servants of the law. Lex rex, the Latins like to say--"The Law is King." We live under the protection of the rule of law (fast forward to 2:05 for a moving tribute to the rule of law...) What a great system of government, that so effectively empowers the meek and lowly and protects them from the sway of the powerful and rich!
Unfortunately, it's not perfect if you have a situation in which the welfare of the community rests in the hands of a few powerful people. If there's just one or two factories in a town, their owners are pretty important people--they control, partially, the hopes and future of the entire town. Everyone, from grocer to librarian to plumber to homebuilder to IT specialist to gas station attendant, relies on the profits of that factory flowing through the hands of its owners and workers. So they have a lot of influence in town politics.
If you run the metaphor further up the food chain, you end up with Michigan--it's a three factory town. If the three automakers do well, the economy prospers, and the elected officials are safe and the populace is happy. And the factory owners know this--they know that the economic welfare of an entire state rests on their shoulders, and they do multi-billion dollar business with a clear incentive to work closely with state and local governments to ensure that they make lots and lots of money. The business is large enough where the costs of corruption are relatively minor. The only check on their power is public will, the integrity and pride of public servants, and the hope that such servants can see far enough ahead to preserve the interests of future generations, rather than making short-term, politically expedient decisions. Of course, if you pit a just politician against an unjust politician, and the public will is not robust and wise--all of the just politicians will be run out of business.
This is what I hear when I hear the words, "too big to fail:" I hear, "I own you. You are dependent on me, and you have to do what I want. You are going to pay for my problems, because you can't stomach the pain of being free and you won't make a difficult decision and make us all suffer for my problems. So you're going to work for me."
I hear a bigger, sicker, and more twisted version of some messed-up girl with a knife to her wrist for the thirtieth time that year, leveraging the kindness of others because she cannot imagine a world in which she is not the most important thing. Human nature at its finest, unrestrained by the rule of law, prudence, or the public will.
It's a different train of thought than the one I usually follow, with government involvement in the private sector leading to corruption, stagnation of creativity, etc. This line of logic begins with greedy capitalists paying attention to the motto of the Clinton years--"It's the economy, stupid." Our elected representatives, since the Reagan yeasr and probably before, are being elected on whether or not they can promise prosperity.
I've seen people engage in sick attention-seeking behaviors where they will use the threat of self-injury, or suicidal statements, or claim to have been assaulted or raped in order to get attention and feel significant. They hold themselves and their health hostage against the good will of their friends/the emergency medical system and demand that people drop everything and take care of them. In essence, the theory is, "If you don't give me what I want, I'll hurt me, and that will make you feel guilty and everyone will feel sad and you don't want that! So give me what I want!"
The capitalist at the top of a sinking corporation, however, is a little more clear minded. "Help me," he says to the elected official, "or I'll sink your economy AND your political career. Help me help you, Bob! Give me nice fat loan that no bank in their right mind would sign on..."
I was reminded today of a simple statement: government = the power to coerce obedience. But economic power is coercive too. An increase in governmental powers is a de facto increase in the governors' coercive influence over citizens. But governments do not posess a monopoly on coercion. Any relative concentration of power is inherently a relative potential for coercion.
I like to use this example: everyone has their price. For some, it's high, for some, it's ridiculously low...but it's probably graphable on a bell curve. It would take a lot for me to prostitute myself (and I'm talking like, hostages' lives on the line) but some will do the job for ten bucks or a quick fix or affirmation and attention. There's a market with an average price for corruption.
So let's say Joe Citizen is a salaryman--it isn't worth the (rough guess of the average) couple of thousand dollars it would take to convince the mayor to pass some legislation favoring him in a land dispute with his neighbor. But let's say the same Joe Citizen is a business owner who stands to gain a few thousand dollars per year in business if he gets preferential treatment from the town legislation or the zoning board. Whatever expenses he incurs in obtaining the coercive services of the state, whether through straight cash, services rendered, quid-quo-pro favors or socialization are simply business investments that--if he refuses--will put him at a competitive disadvantage with those who will. So there's the rub--when an unjust businessmen competes with a just businessman, the just one loses. Hence most of the Old Testament.
So that's why we have this fantastic legal system in our country. If you split power between the exectuve, legislative and judicial, you increase the number of people you have to influence, and hence the cost of obtaining legitimate coercive power. This is clever institutional planning--it is exponentially harder to influence fifteen people than it is to influence one, and the chance of one of those people being incorruptible is way higher than if you have just one king. Concentrated power, says Mr Reagan, is the enemy of liberty.
But we don't just have a separation of powers--the rule of many kings. We have made these kings accountable servants. And not servants of the public, or the majority--but servants of the law. Lex rex, the Latins like to say--"The Law is King." We live under the protection of the rule of law (fast forward to 2:05 for a moving tribute to the rule of law...) What a great system of government, that so effectively empowers the meek and lowly and protects them from the sway of the powerful and rich!
Unfortunately, it's not perfect if you have a situation in which the welfare of the community rests in the hands of a few powerful people. If there's just one or two factories in a town, their owners are pretty important people--they control, partially, the hopes and future of the entire town. Everyone, from grocer to librarian to plumber to homebuilder to IT specialist to gas station attendant, relies on the profits of that factory flowing through the hands of its owners and workers. So they have a lot of influence in town politics.
If you run the metaphor further up the food chain, you end up with Michigan--it's a three factory town. If the three automakers do well, the economy prospers, and the elected officials are safe and the populace is happy. And the factory owners know this--they know that the economic welfare of an entire state rests on their shoulders, and they do multi-billion dollar business with a clear incentive to work closely with state and local governments to ensure that they make lots and lots of money. The business is large enough where the costs of corruption are relatively minor. The only check on their power is public will, the integrity and pride of public servants, and the hope that such servants can see far enough ahead to preserve the interests of future generations, rather than making short-term, politically expedient decisions. Of course, if you pit a just politician against an unjust politician, and the public will is not robust and wise--all of the just politicians will be run out of business.
This is what I hear when I hear the words, "too big to fail:" I hear, "I own you. You are dependent on me, and you have to do what I want. You are going to pay for my problems, because you can't stomach the pain of being free and you won't make a difficult decision and make us all suffer for my problems. So you're going to work for me."
I hear a bigger, sicker, and more twisted version of some messed-up girl with a knife to her wrist for the thirtieth time that year, leveraging the kindness of others because she cannot imagine a world in which she is not the most important thing. Human nature at its finest, unrestrained by the rule of law, prudence, or the public will.
10 May 2009
24 April 2009
Bela Fleck takes his banjo to West and East Africa
Which is awesome.
In a completely unrelated note, this baby seems to have mastered the art of pentecostal preaching. I mean, this kid's good...he's got the timing down, tonalities, dramatic pause, and an excellent fist shake. Kid's got a future!
In other news, this FBI Supervisory Special Agent talks about the effectiveness of torture in interrogation.
I have recently been informed that in New York, even if you are found not guilty of a traffic violation, you still owe the State of New York an 85$ mandatory fine for the privelege of being tried in their courts. Is this true? I don't know. But if it is (and I will found out later next week in traffic court), I find it insulting, shocking, disturbing, and entirely a perversion of the justice system. And it opens the door wide for corruption and tyrrany.
Speaking of which, after a recent discussion of the selective nature of the ACLU's defense of civil liberty, I have decided to coin a new phrase. Remember the five-point Calvinist? Well, get yourselves ready for the ten-point civil libertarian. I hold firmly to all ten.
Every one of these amendments is carefully crafted to make sure that those who govern cannot exercise arbitrary, coercive, or intimidating power over their citizens. These are not lofty ideals enshrined in law--these are very practical ground rules set up by fellows who clearly have first-hand experience with corrupt and tyrannical rulers. They read like a summary of the Despot's Handbook of Power Consolidation: harassment by arbitrary search and seizure, secret trials in faraway jurisdictions without legal counsel or the ability to compel witnesses, detainment and prosecution without public accountability or a sympathetic home audience, cruel and unusual punishments, punitive bail, a monopoly on weapons and violence, restrictions on the freedom of speech, press, and public assembly...they had experienced all this and they said, no more! Get it right! You shall not treat your citizens as subjects, and you shall not be able to intimidate, bully, or coerce them with your power! You shall be held accountable!
So in the spirit of that, should we allow our government to access our phone records, read our email or tap our phone lines without warrants? Shall we give the government power to institute roadblocks and search our cars without probable cause and a sworn, specific affidavit? Shall we let our government have the power to interfere with our business decisions and contracts? Shall we let them have the power to decide which businesses are funded from the public coffer, and which are left to compete unfairly due to lack of political connections? Shall we let our government hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, and subject them to torture? How much do you want your rulers to be able to hold over your head when it comes time to dissent?
Hmm...all this from a post with a banjo and a preaching baby.
In a completely unrelated note, this baby seems to have mastered the art of pentecostal preaching. I mean, this kid's good...he's got the timing down, tonalities, dramatic pause, and an excellent fist shake. Kid's got a future!
In other news, this FBI Supervisory Special Agent talks about the effectiveness of torture in interrogation.
I have recently been informed that in New York, even if you are found not guilty of a traffic violation, you still owe the State of New York an 85$ mandatory fine for the privelege of being tried in their courts. Is this true? I don't know. But if it is (and I will found out later next week in traffic court), I find it insulting, shocking, disturbing, and entirely a perversion of the justice system. And it opens the door wide for corruption and tyrrany.
Speaking of which, after a recent discussion of the selective nature of the ACLU's defense of civil liberty, I have decided to coin a new phrase. Remember the five-point Calvinist? Well, get yourselves ready for the ten-point civil libertarian. I hold firmly to all ten.
Every one of these amendments is carefully crafted to make sure that those who govern cannot exercise arbitrary, coercive, or intimidating power over their citizens. These are not lofty ideals enshrined in law--these are very practical ground rules set up by fellows who clearly have first-hand experience with corrupt and tyrannical rulers. They read like a summary of the Despot's Handbook of Power Consolidation: harassment by arbitrary search and seizure, secret trials in faraway jurisdictions without legal counsel or the ability to compel witnesses, detainment and prosecution without public accountability or a sympathetic home audience, cruel and unusual punishments, punitive bail, a monopoly on weapons and violence, restrictions on the freedom of speech, press, and public assembly...they had experienced all this and they said, no more! Get it right! You shall not treat your citizens as subjects, and you shall not be able to intimidate, bully, or coerce them with your power! You shall be held accountable!
So in the spirit of that, should we allow our government to access our phone records, read our email or tap our phone lines without warrants? Shall we give the government power to institute roadblocks and search our cars without probable cause and a sworn, specific affidavit? Shall we let our government have the power to interfere with our business decisions and contracts? Shall we let them have the power to decide which businesses are funded from the public coffer, and which are left to compete unfairly due to lack of political connections? Shall we let our government hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, and subject them to torture? How much do you want your rulers to be able to hold over your head when it comes time to dissent?
Hmm...all this from a post with a banjo and a preaching baby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
