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.
04 April 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen, Our Saviors...
Sales of children's books printed before 1985 banned in the US.
Several months ago, George Will warned us of the danger of ADD legislation--sweeping, emotionally driven reform through nebulous legislation that calls for action without careful thought of structure or consequences. That we leave up to the experts--the bureaucrats. And they apply desktop logic (not business or common sense) to the problem and, voila! China toy scare (which affected how many people?) and we pass legistlation in hysterical fear and...now you are safe from beautiful heirloom collectible golden-age children's books which cause no harm to anyone and it is a tragedy to destroy!
These are the bureaucrats who will save us from media-fed panics. Now, hey presto, let's expand their power to the administration our economy. This, folks, is why ordinary people who work for a living are scared of bureaucrats with controlling governmental interest in the private sector. They tamper with what they do not understand to the ominous chant of THE GREATER GOOD.
(Hat Tip to Fearsome Comrade, Fellow of the Boar's Head Tavern.)
23 March 2009
This Should Be Splashed On The Headlines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7958039.stm
Tourists in Iraq! Of course, good news about Bush's war doesn't make the headlines.
Tourists in Iraq! Of course, good news about Bush's war doesn't make the headlines.
clever
a humorous and interesting note, by an Orthodox Priest, discussesing the King James Version of the Bible, and some sly translation therein.
[emphasis added]
"First, in order to make the argument for the King James, those who believe in that text make an argument for Holy Tradition. That is, the argument is not simply that the Textus Receptus is a manuscript that survived entire and supposedly unchanged. Read the sites and you will see that the argument goes further and claims that the Holy Spirit preserved this particular version to ensure the purity of God’s word. As you can imagine, I have no problem with arguments from Holy Tradition. I love arguments from Holy Tradition. I agree that the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church the Truth that was passed down from the Apostles. I simply do not agree that the Textus Receptus is part of that Holy Tradition, though the Bible itself is. But, I find it humorous that fundamentalists argue from Holy Tradition about a particular Greek text while denying that God could have preserved anything else by his Holy Spirit. In fact, the King James only people are, in just about every case, radically against any type of tradition, liturgy, church structure, etc. That is, in every case but this one...
Third, the original King James version is quite helpful in making an argument for Holy Tradition because its translation of a certain Greek word is more honest and more consistent than in several modern Protestant English translations. That Greek word is paradosis. If you look it up, it is the word commonly translated “tradition.” Except for one verse, the King James faithfully translates it “tradition.” That one exception is corrected in the New King James version. But, in several modern Protestant versions, there is an unfaithful switcheroo pulled. In them, the word paradosis is translated as “tradition” only when either Our Lord Jesus or one of the apostles is speaking against the practice. If they speak positively of the practice, then paradosis is translated as anything but “tradition.” Let me give you a couple of examples:
King James Version
2 Thessalonians 2:15 — Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
New King James Version
1 Corinthians 11:2 — Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
Compare with the New International Version
1 Corinthians 11:2 — I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 — So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.
Compare with The Message
2 Thessalonians 2: 15 — Keep a tight grip on what you were taught, whether in personal conversation or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you.
You see, one good way to destroy Orthodox and Catholic arguments about Holy Tradition is simply to deliberately mistranslate a word when it is found in a context that could give “aid and comfort” to the people with whom you disagree. Nevertheless, I find it humorous that the Bible most often used by hard-core KJV-only people contains translations that are accurate with respect to Holy Tradition and help us make our case."
[emphasis added]
21 March 2009
The Ruins of Detroit
This house is quite similar to one that Josh Bedford and I did the electrical work on during a pretty sweet renovation project. It started a lifelong desire to own a big old house with a turret and a vaulted ceiling in the third story. And a spiral staircase.
18 March 2009
Progress
This from an old post on "A Cool, Wet Place," illustrating an excellent point--nothing equalizes communities like firearms. They are the ONLY weapon that does not discriminate on the basis of upper body strength, weight, and reach. They are the only option for people too diminutive, undernourished or outnumbered to put up a resistance to injustice. Disarming the helpless is the first step in commanding and controlling them with fear.
[emphasis mine]
"The presence of armaments fundamentally changes the relationship of the rulers to the ruled."
That's why I'm pissed off at our President's administration for destroying perfectly good brass cartridges at cost to the government instead of letting civilians re-use them for peaceful, legal target shooting. He's making it clear that he doesn't think Americans should be trusted with firearms. Once you disarm a country, those communities of shooters that are necessary for the fostering of knowledge and practice that makes for civilian marksmanship disappear. And they don't come back easily when you need them. You effectively remove a set of survival mechanisms from your society's gene pool. You end up with a society of individuals who are just a little more helpless, just a little more reliant on expensive and unreliable specialists for their own survival. They are just a little more domesticated and a little less free--closer to sheep and farther from mountain goat. That might come back to haunt your children when their America is less prosperous and secure than it is today.
" "[Young, educated Afghan woman] Ms. Ellaha's younger sister, who had been pledged [to marry] another cousin, was facing the same treatment. After a week of being tied up, the two sisters agreed to marry their cousins. "So we went home," Ms. Ellaha added, "and escaped."
"The two sisters moved into a cheap guesthouse as they prepared to flee Afghanistan. But their family learned where they were hiding, and the police came to arrest them."
"The police subjected Ms. Ellaha to a mandatory virginity test. Fortunately, her hymen was intact, or she would have faced a prison sentence."
I didn't provide a link to this because after two weeks of being online, NYT content morphs into pay-per-view. It's from Kristof's 10/6/04 column "Beaten Afghan Brides." You can tell it's good from the dateline "Kabul, Afghanistan" whereas I'm betting if most of the other columnists were honest, they would have datelines like, "Sitting At Home, In My Underwear."
But back to the substance of the article. I have an idea that might provide women in poor, lawless, fundamentalist countries with a measure of security and equality. It would be cheap to implement, have immediate effect, and be applicable in a wide range of cultures:
Give women guns.
I say this as a registered Democrat, an Ivy League graduate, an idolizer of reason and culture, and a vegetarian. Reform of civil society, enforcement of human rights, separation of church from state; these are all great things. But of greater imminence to women in poor countries is the terribly pressing need to NOT BE BEATEN, RAPED OR MURDERED. And since police are usually doormats for whatever stone age tribalism is closest at hand, I say again: Give women guns. They don't have to form an army or even be very good shots. Yet all the same, the presence of armaments fundamentally changes the relationship of the rulers to the ruled."
[emphasis mine]
"The presence of armaments fundamentally changes the relationship of the rulers to the ruled."
That's why I'm pissed off at our President's administration for destroying perfectly good brass cartridges at cost to the government instead of letting civilians re-use them for peaceful, legal target shooting. He's making it clear that he doesn't think Americans should be trusted with firearms. Once you disarm a country, those communities of shooters that are necessary for the fostering of knowledge and practice that makes for civilian marksmanship disappear. And they don't come back easily when you need them. You effectively remove a set of survival mechanisms from your society's gene pool. You end up with a society of individuals who are just a little more helpless, just a little more reliant on expensive and unreliable specialists for their own survival. They are just a little more domesticated and a little less free--closer to sheep and farther from mountain goat. That might come back to haunt your children when their America is less prosperous and secure than it is today.
08 March 2009
Some Viewing
The Wire totally had me at "Hello:"
"This America, man!"
This looks like a pretty sweet movie (thanks Ethan Zuckerman). You've got guys rapping about keeping governors accountable and being involved in the political process in Dakar, Senegal. (Hey! I got friends from Dakar!)
African Underground: Democracy in Dakar - Episode # 1 from Nomadic Wax on Vimeo.
Also, Dave Matthews goes to Senegal:
I didn't realize til I saw this video that Dave is the amazing piano savant from this episode of House. Now that I see Dave Matthews not acting like an idiot savant...I kinda see how he played the role so well?
"This America, man!"
This looks like a pretty sweet movie (thanks Ethan Zuckerman). You've got guys rapping about keeping governors accountable and being involved in the political process in Dakar, Senegal. (Hey! I got friends from Dakar!)
African Underground: Democracy in Dakar - Episode # 1 from Nomadic Wax on Vimeo.
Also, Dave Matthews goes to Senegal:
I didn't realize til I saw this video that Dave is the amazing piano savant from this episode of House. Now that I see Dave Matthews not acting like an idiot savant...I kinda see how he played the role so well?
05 March 2009
So's you all know...
Here's a little update from the late shift.
It's closing on my 26th birthday, which is a little scary. Last year around this time, I was gearing up for Officer's Candidate School. Part of that gearing up process was a high-intensity running schedule, during which I sustained bilateral (that's both-side-ical in medical jargon) lower leg injuries due mostly to bad shoes and an idiotic determination to "run through the pain." After months of trying to treat shin splints through all sorts of techniques and resting and physical therapy, it's finally been confirmed by X-Ray that I sustained at least one stress fracture, in my right tibia. I went in for a bone scan last week to see if there were any more. Still waiting for the results on that. I have an appointment with an orthopedist to see if I'll ever be able to get back on my feet.
And, in the meantime, I've thoroughly enjoyed plugging myself back into life here at Houghton. I'm working with the volunteer rescue squad again, hosting game nights on Wednesdays with an exciting variety of local guys, and getting psyched for another riding season (the snow is almost completely gone now!). At some point, I'll put some feet on a new career search (ideas, anyone?), but for the meantime, taking an EMT refresher course, applying for another part-time job in emergency dispatch, and making more trips back home to Michigan is keeping me busy enough.
Thought of the day, from the Fellows of the Boar's Head Tavern:
“Living in the age of sensation, we think that if we don’t feel something, there can be no authenticity in doing it. But the wisdom of God says something different, namely, that we can act ourselves into a new way of feeling much quicker than we can feel ourselves into a new way of acting. Worship is an act which develops feelings for God, not a feeling for God which is expressed in an act of worship. When we obey the command to praise God in worship, our deep, essential need to be in relationship with God is nurtured.” -Eugene Peterson
It's closing on my 26th birthday, which is a little scary. Last year around this time, I was gearing up for Officer's Candidate School. Part of that gearing up process was a high-intensity running schedule, during which I sustained bilateral (that's both-side-ical in medical jargon) lower leg injuries due mostly to bad shoes and an idiotic determination to "run through the pain." After months of trying to treat shin splints through all sorts of techniques and resting and physical therapy, it's finally been confirmed by X-Ray that I sustained at least one stress fracture, in my right tibia. I went in for a bone scan last week to see if there were any more. Still waiting for the results on that. I have an appointment with an orthopedist to see if I'll ever be able to get back on my feet.
And, in the meantime, I've thoroughly enjoyed plugging myself back into life here at Houghton. I'm working with the volunteer rescue squad again, hosting game nights on Wednesdays with an exciting variety of local guys, and getting psyched for another riding season (the snow is almost completely gone now!). At some point, I'll put some feet on a new career search (ideas, anyone?), but for the meantime, taking an EMT refresher course, applying for another part-time job in emergency dispatch, and making more trips back home to Michigan is keeping me busy enough.
Thought of the day, from the Fellows of the Boar's Head Tavern:
“Living in the age of sensation, we think that if we don’t feel something, there can be no authenticity in doing it. But the wisdom of God says something different, namely, that we can act ourselves into a new way of feeling much quicker than we can feel ourselves into a new way of acting. Worship is an act which develops feelings for God, not a feeling for God which is expressed in an act of worship. When we obey the command to praise God in worship, our deep, essential need to be in relationship with God is nurtured.” -Eugene Peterson
16 February 2009
books! books! books!
From Pete Jones, the BBC's top 100 books. You're supposed to see how many you have read--I'm guessing Kat and Gustav are going to crush me here...unless I get to count extra points for having read the Lord of the Rings more than ten times. My addition is a one-word adjective describing how worthwhile I felt the reading experience to have been.
1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien (X) excellent
2. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen (X) muddled, boring, and pointless
3. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman ( )
4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams (X) brilliant and hilarious
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling ( )
6. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee ( ) liked the movie? :)
7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne (X) cool
8. Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell ( ) But I have read, with awe, Brave New World
9. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis (X) excellent
10. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë ( ) loathed the movie?
11. Catch-22, Joseph Heller ( )
12. Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë ( ) seriously?
13. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks ( ) never heard of it.
14. Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier ( ) I'm guessing this is in the Bronte vein...
15. The Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger ( ) no, but Franny + Zooey was awesome!
16. The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame (X) "there is nothing quite so worth doing as simply messing about in boats."
17. Great Expectations, Charles Dickens (x) abridged version with pictures was pretty cool as a kid....
18. Little Women, Louisa May Alcott (X) blechh. thanks, mom...
19. Captain Corelli's Mandolin, Louis de Bernieres ( )
20. War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy ( )
21. Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell ( )
22. Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, JK Rowling ( )
23. Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, JK Rowling ( ) seriously? JRR only gets on of his trilogy? Where's the Silmarillion, huh?
24. Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, JK Rowling ( )
25. The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien (X) whatever, Rowling, Tolkein should totally be the top five.
26. Tess Of The D'Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy ( )
27. Middlemarch, George Eliot ( )
28. A Prayer For Owen Meany, John Irving ( )
29. The Grapes Of Wrath, John Steinbeck ( )
30. Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll (X)
31. The Story Of Tracy Beaker, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
32. One Hundred Years Of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez ( )
33. The Pillars Of The Earth, Ken Follett ( )
34. David Copperfield, Charles Dickens (x) abridged--pretty cool
35. Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl (X) pretty cool
36. Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson (X) great childhood memory!
37. A Town Like Alice, Nevil Shute ( )
38. Persuasion, Jane Austen ( )
39. Dune, Frank Herbert (X) I'm so glad this is on here...great book!
40. Emma, Jane Austen ( )
41. Anne Of Green Gables, LM Montgomery (X) unfortunately, yes, I have read this.
42. Watership Down, Richard Adams ( )
43. The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald (X) didn't really get it...well written, though.
44. The Count Of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas (x) abridged with pictures was awesome as a child!
45. Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh ( )
46. Animal Farm, George Orwell (X) vaguely remember it being pretty cool.
47. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens (X) great book...but the Muppets do it better :)
48. Far From The Madding Crowd, Thomas Hardy ( )
49. Goodnight Mister Tom, Michelle Magorian ( )
50. The Shell Seekers, Rosamunde Pilcher ( )
51. The Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett ( )
52. Of Mice And Men, John Steinbeck ( )
53. The Stand, Stephen King ( )
54. Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy ( )
55. A Suitable Boy, Vikram Seth ( )
56. The BFG, Roald Dahl ( )
57. Swallows And Amazons, Arthur Ransome ( )
58. Black Beauty, Anna Sewell (X) This book was awesome as a kid. And really sad...
59. Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer ( )
60. Crime And Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky ( )
61. Noughts And Crosses, Malorie Blackman ( )
62. Memoirs Of A Geisha, Arthur Golden (X) was rather good, until it ended abruptly and uncharacteristically fairy-talish.
63. A Tale Of Two Cities, Charles Dickens (X) absolutely loved it. best ending line ever: "It is a better thing I do, than I have ever done before...It is a better rest I go to, than any I have ever known."
64. The Thorn Birds, Colleen McCollough ( )
65. Mort, Terry Pratchett ( ) I so need to buy more Pratchett...
66. The Magic Faraway Tree, Enid Blyton ( )
67. The Magus, John Fowles ( )
68. Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman ( ) have to buy this one soon...
69. Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett ( ) so glad he's on here!
70. Lord Of The Flies, William Golding ( )
71. Perfume, Patrick Süskind ( )
72. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell ( )
73. Night Watch, Terry Pratchett (X) the man's a genius.
74. Matilda, Roald Dahl ( )
75. Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding ( )
76. The Secret History, Donna Tartt ( )
77. The Woman In White, Wilkie Collins ( )
78. Ulysses, James Joyce ( )
79. Bleak House, Charles Dickens ( )
80. Double Act, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
81. The Twits, Roald Dahl ( )
82. I Capture The Castle, Dodie Smith ( )
83. Holes, Louis Sachar ( )
84. Gormenghast, Mervyn Peake ( )
85. The God Of Small Things, Arundhati Roy ( )
86. Vicky Angel, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
87. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley (X) was incredible...my introduction to all things distopian and apocalyptic. as a child. which might explain how messed up I am...
88. Cold Comfort Farm, Stella Gibbons ( )
89. Magician, Raymond E Feist ( )
90. On The Road, Jack Kerouac ( )
91. The Godfather, Mario Puzo ( ) the movie is amazing...
92. The Clan Of The Cave Bear, Jean M Auel ( )
93. The Colour Of Magic, Terry Pratchett (X) An excellent disciple of Douglass Adams
94. The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho ( )
95. Katherine, Anya Seton ( )
96. Kane And Abel, Jeffrey Archer ( )
97. Love In The Time Of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez ( )
98. Girls In Love, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
99. The Princess Diaries, Meg Cabot ( )
100. Midnight's Children, Salman Rushdie ( )
Yeah, that one word adjective thing didn't last very long. If anybody has any Tolstsoy or Dostoevsky, I'll loan you Pratchett for 'em. :) I also have to mention number 101, one of my all time favorite books: Three Men in a Boat, by Jerome K. Jerome. And then, by corollary, one that should have made the list: To Say Nothing of the Dog, by Connie Willis. And, of course, if the entire world had more hardcore Christians in it, The Poisonwood Bible would have been up there as well.
1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien (X) excellent
2. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen (X) muddled, boring, and pointless
3. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman ( )
4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams (X) brilliant and hilarious
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling ( )
6. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee ( ) liked the movie? :)
7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne (X) cool
8. Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell ( ) But I have read, with awe, Brave New World
9. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis (X) excellent
10. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë ( ) loathed the movie?
11. Catch-22, Joseph Heller ( )
12. Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë ( ) seriously?
13. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks ( ) never heard of it.
14. Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier ( ) I'm guessing this is in the Bronte vein...
15. The Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger ( ) no, but Franny + Zooey was awesome!
16. The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame (X) "there is nothing quite so worth doing as simply messing about in boats."
17. Great Expectations, Charles Dickens (x) abridged version with pictures was pretty cool as a kid....
18. Little Women, Louisa May Alcott (X) blechh. thanks, mom...
19. Captain Corelli's Mandolin, Louis de Bernieres ( )
20. War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy ( )
21. Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell ( )
22. Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, JK Rowling ( )
23. Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, JK Rowling ( ) seriously? JRR only gets on of his trilogy? Where's the Silmarillion, huh?
24. Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, JK Rowling ( )
25. The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien (X) whatever, Rowling, Tolkein should totally be the top five.
26. Tess Of The D'Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy ( )
27. Middlemarch, George Eliot ( )
28. A Prayer For Owen Meany, John Irving ( )
29. The Grapes Of Wrath, John Steinbeck ( )
30. Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll (X)
31. The Story Of Tracy Beaker, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
32. One Hundred Years Of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez ( )
33. The Pillars Of The Earth, Ken Follett ( )
34. David Copperfield, Charles Dickens (x) abridged--pretty cool
35. Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl (X) pretty cool
36. Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson (X) great childhood memory!
37. A Town Like Alice, Nevil Shute ( )
38. Persuasion, Jane Austen ( )
39. Dune, Frank Herbert (X) I'm so glad this is on here...great book!
40. Emma, Jane Austen ( )
41. Anne Of Green Gables, LM Montgomery (X) unfortunately, yes, I have read this.
42. Watership Down, Richard Adams ( )
43. The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald (X) didn't really get it...well written, though.
44. The Count Of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas (x) abridged with pictures was awesome as a child!
45. Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh ( )
46. Animal Farm, George Orwell (X) vaguely remember it being pretty cool.
47. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens (X) great book...but the Muppets do it better :)
48. Far From The Madding Crowd, Thomas Hardy ( )
49. Goodnight Mister Tom, Michelle Magorian ( )
50. The Shell Seekers, Rosamunde Pilcher ( )
51. The Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett ( )
52. Of Mice And Men, John Steinbeck ( )
53. The Stand, Stephen King ( )
54. Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy ( )
55. A Suitable Boy, Vikram Seth ( )
56. The BFG, Roald Dahl ( )
57. Swallows And Amazons, Arthur Ransome ( )
58. Black Beauty, Anna Sewell (X) This book was awesome as a kid. And really sad...
59. Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer ( )
60. Crime And Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky ( )
61. Noughts And Crosses, Malorie Blackman ( )
62. Memoirs Of A Geisha, Arthur Golden (X) was rather good, until it ended abruptly and uncharacteristically fairy-talish.
63. A Tale Of Two Cities, Charles Dickens (X) absolutely loved it. best ending line ever: "It is a better thing I do, than I have ever done before...It is a better rest I go to, than any I have ever known."
64. The Thorn Birds, Colleen McCollough ( )
65. Mort, Terry Pratchett ( ) I so need to buy more Pratchett...
66. The Magic Faraway Tree, Enid Blyton ( )
67. The Magus, John Fowles ( )
68. Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman ( ) have to buy this one soon...
69. Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett ( ) so glad he's on here!
70. Lord Of The Flies, William Golding ( )
71. Perfume, Patrick Süskind ( )
72. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell ( )
73. Night Watch, Terry Pratchett (X) the man's a genius.
74. Matilda, Roald Dahl ( )
75. Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding ( )
76. The Secret History, Donna Tartt ( )
77. The Woman In White, Wilkie Collins ( )
78. Ulysses, James Joyce ( )
79. Bleak House, Charles Dickens ( )
80. Double Act, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
81. The Twits, Roald Dahl ( )
82. I Capture The Castle, Dodie Smith ( )
83. Holes, Louis Sachar ( )
84. Gormenghast, Mervyn Peake ( )
85. The God Of Small Things, Arundhati Roy ( )
86. Vicky Angel, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
87. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley (X) was incredible...my introduction to all things distopian and apocalyptic. as a child. which might explain how messed up I am...
88. Cold Comfort Farm, Stella Gibbons ( )
89. Magician, Raymond E Feist ( )
90. On The Road, Jack Kerouac ( )
91. The Godfather, Mario Puzo ( ) the movie is amazing...
92. The Clan Of The Cave Bear, Jean M Auel ( )
93. The Colour Of Magic, Terry Pratchett (X) An excellent disciple of Douglass Adams
94. The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho ( )
95. Katherine, Anya Seton ( )
96. Kane And Abel, Jeffrey Archer ( )
97. Love In The Time Of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez ( )
98. Girls In Love, Jacqueline Wilson ( )
99. The Princess Diaries, Meg Cabot ( )
100. Midnight's Children, Salman Rushdie ( )
Yeah, that one word adjective thing didn't last very long. If anybody has any Tolstsoy or Dostoevsky, I'll loan you Pratchett for 'em. :) I also have to mention number 101, one of my all time favorite books: Three Men in a Boat, by Jerome K. Jerome. And then, by corollary, one that should have made the list: To Say Nothing of the Dog, by Connie Willis. And, of course, if the entire world had more hardcore Christians in it, The Poisonwood Bible would have been up there as well.
04 February 2009
On Irony, Cynicism, and Good Cheer
-An excellent essay on earnest vs. comic irony, and the effect of their adoption on the human soul.
-And why not read some Chesterton? Wine, and Solemnity or Comedy?
As a Christian, I spent years sweating over the salvation of souls, mine and others', without a really clear concept (short of going to heaven and being perfected someday) of what was being saved and what that salvation entailed. I just thought it meant that I would sin less and draw closer to God--so that's what I focused on.
One can, of course, do this and still be a miserable human being, quite lonely, merely by keeping all neighbors at a safe distance from one's true self, avoiding all unmanageable temptation, being devoted and dutiful, and having an utterly flavorless, controlled and moral life where one takes no unmanageable risks of love or hate and generally is a hermit fixated with making sure the goats give milk and the crops produce and nothing wrong or sinful has been done. Mostly at the cost of never confronting any aspect of one's self that cannot be predicted and controlled, stifling unfiltered desires and creativity, and generally losing your zest for life. And...your soul while you're at it.
All while having dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's" on the standard Christ's Plan of Salvation. And never having touched the sheer terror of loving his neighbor or himself.
So your soul can be a miserable, pathological wreck...but saved? Is this what it's saved to?
Now I find it very important to think long and hard about my soul and the vitality thereof. What is it? What are its pathologies? What is it supposed to look like? Can the things that are obviously bad about my soul, my unique yet ever-changing personality, be made right? What, indeed, are the processes of saving a soul?
---
"But neither nature nor wine nor anything else can be enjoyed if we have the wrong attitude towards happiness, and Omar (or Fitzgerald) did have the wrong attitude towards happiness. He and those he has influenced do not see that if we are to be truly gay, we must believe that there is some eternal gaiety in the nature of things. We cannot enjoy thoroughly even a pas-de-quatre at a subscription dance unless we believe that the stars are dancing to the same tune. No one can be really hilarious but the serious man. “Wine,” says the Scripture, “maketh glad the heart of man,” but only of the man who has a heart." --G.K., Heretics, Chapter VII.
-And why not read some Chesterton? Wine, and Solemnity or Comedy?
As a Christian, I spent years sweating over the salvation of souls, mine and others', without a really clear concept (short of going to heaven and being perfected someday) of what was being saved and what that salvation entailed. I just thought it meant that I would sin less and draw closer to God--so that's what I focused on.
One can, of course, do this and still be a miserable human being, quite lonely, merely by keeping all neighbors at a safe distance from one's true self, avoiding all unmanageable temptation, being devoted and dutiful, and having an utterly flavorless, controlled and moral life where one takes no unmanageable risks of love or hate and generally is a hermit fixated with making sure the goats give milk and the crops produce and nothing wrong or sinful has been done. Mostly at the cost of never confronting any aspect of one's self that cannot be predicted and controlled, stifling unfiltered desires and creativity, and generally losing your zest for life. And...your soul while you're at it.
All while having dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's" on the standard Christ's Plan of Salvation. And never having touched the sheer terror of loving his neighbor or himself.
So your soul can be a miserable, pathological wreck...but saved? Is this what it's saved to?
Now I find it very important to think long and hard about my soul and the vitality thereof. What is it? What are its pathologies? What is it supposed to look like? Can the things that are obviously bad about my soul, my unique yet ever-changing personality, be made right? What, indeed, are the processes of saving a soul?
---
"But neither nature nor wine nor anything else can be enjoyed if we have the wrong attitude towards happiness, and Omar (or Fitzgerald) did have the wrong attitude towards happiness. He and those he has influenced do not see that if we are to be truly gay, we must believe that there is some eternal gaiety in the nature of things. We cannot enjoy thoroughly even a pas-de-quatre at a subscription dance unless we believe that the stars are dancing to the same tune. No one can be really hilarious but the serious man. “Wine,” says the Scripture, “maketh glad the heart of man,” but only of the man who has a heart." --G.K., Heretics, Chapter VII.
02 February 2009
The Fate of a Civilization Rests...
on how it channels the ambitions of its citizens. Is it more honorable, profitable, and celebrated to work hard and produce something of value, thus adding to the economy, and to serve your society by giving back to the community through civic virtue and service--or is it honorable, profitable, and rewarding to carve out a niche for yourself whereby you benefit economically and socially from access to political power? In short, will your best and brightest be pioneering research and expanding business and participating in the arts and politics in a fashion that generates wealth and culture, or will they be pursuing power, prestige and wealth through earmarks, lobbying, regulation, monopolies, political careers, and, in short, rent-seeking behaviors?
Does your society encourage Mugabe-style acquisition of wealth and prestige through political means, to the detriment of your economy, or does it restrain and curtail the ambitions of your ambitious citizens in such a manner as to benefit the entire society? Or at least protect that society from the aims of the ambitious and well-connected?
That's the synopsis of a conversation Paul Christensen and I had recently, of which I was reminded by this article declaring a shift in culture and power from New York City to Washington, D.C. All hail the "diplomatocracy."
I find it amusing that academia is considered a meritocracy. If academia is meritocratic, it is only in that it awards the academically adept...not necessarily the guys you want running things. There's a reason the maintenance shed guys don't have PhD's--it makes you too well-read and contemplative to be useful in a crisis. Now, hopefully my non-PhD plumber managed to fix my water heater this time. I need a shower.
Does your society encourage Mugabe-style acquisition of wealth and prestige through political means, to the detriment of your economy, or does it restrain and curtail the ambitions of your ambitious citizens in such a manner as to benefit the entire society? Or at least protect that society from the aims of the ambitious and well-connected?
That's the synopsis of a conversation Paul Christensen and I had recently, of which I was reminded by this article declaring a shift in culture and power from New York City to Washington, D.C. All hail the "diplomatocracy."
I find it amusing that academia is considered a meritocracy. If academia is meritocratic, it is only in that it awards the academically adept...not necessarily the guys you want running things. There's a reason the maintenance shed guys don't have PhD's--it makes you too well-read and contemplative to be useful in a crisis. Now, hopefully my non-PhD plumber managed to fix my water heater this time. I need a shower.
Sundries
So, I read a two-line blip in TIME yesterday:
"$34,023: Amount of self-employment taxes Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed to pay on time from 2001 to 2004. The Senate confirmed him anyway, 60 to 34."
Well, hey, it's a time of trouble and crisis, and he's no doubt a smart guy, and President Obama wants him to help right our country, so expediency and better judgement once more trump tradition, and, I don't know, the law. Whatever, they know what they're doing, they're in charge!
The difference between our country and your average African governance cesspot used to be the Rule of Law. So what is it now?
Hey, also, this is cool:
(h/t clusterflock)
Which leads me to my final point--the chief difficulty with good governance in the states is that it takes so much time. William F. Buckley pointed out last year that we don't require anything more of our politicians than weak sentiment enshrined as law, instead of carefully thought out, highly descriptive legislation. We are, as a nation, routinely legislating "shoulds" that are then left up to professional bureaucrats to interpret and then apply in the form of crafting institutions and policy. How many of us have read the bailout package? How many of us know where to go to read the bailout package? No. I certainly haven't. Who has the time? There are a myriad of other, more entertaining things to do with my time. As long as it's titled "Stimulus Package," and discussed as such in sixty-second soundbites, we assume that's what it's supposed to do. If it works, we will praise President Obama, and if it fails, we will vilify...someone...and then demand change...in the form of someone else...who we will then ignore until he screws up or makes us angry. I mean, that's how we got into two wars and started torturing people without any form of due process and nationalized our banking system...all under a "conservative" "pro-business" president.
Yeah, the nation that used to celebrate heroes who would die rather than dishonor their country now cowers behind some sort of possible terrorism justification. "Who knows how many acts of terror would be committed if we didn't make some mistakes or violate our ethical boundaries in the pursuit of our enemies." Oh, I don't know, but I'd rather have terrorist attacks on our soil than commit our country to policies that violate our national morality. Our country will not fail if a few thousand citizens die horribly, or we lose an entire city to an epic disaster. We certainly made it through Hurricane Katrina without any abatement of our growth economy. And in an economic recession, dudes can still whip out cool YouTube content via their own creativity. The American dream can survive terrorist attacks--what it cannot survive is the death of it's commitment to human rights, liberties, and the rule of law that protects them.
"$34,023: Amount of self-employment taxes Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed to pay on time from 2001 to 2004. The Senate confirmed him anyway, 60 to 34."
Well, hey, it's a time of trouble and crisis, and he's no doubt a smart guy, and President Obama wants him to help right our country, so expediency and better judgement once more trump tradition, and, I don't know, the law. Whatever, they know what they're doing, they're in charge!
The difference between our country and your average African governance cesspot used to be the Rule of Law. So what is it now?
Hey, also, this is cool:
(h/t clusterflock)
Which leads me to my final point--the chief difficulty with good governance in the states is that it takes so much time. William F. Buckley pointed out last year that we don't require anything more of our politicians than weak sentiment enshrined as law, instead of carefully thought out, highly descriptive legislation. We are, as a nation, routinely legislating "shoulds" that are then left up to professional bureaucrats to interpret and then apply in the form of crafting institutions and policy. How many of us have read the bailout package? How many of us know where to go to read the bailout package? No. I certainly haven't. Who has the time? There are a myriad of other, more entertaining things to do with my time. As long as it's titled "Stimulus Package," and discussed as such in sixty-second soundbites, we assume that's what it's supposed to do. If it works, we will praise President Obama, and if it fails, we will vilify...someone...and then demand change...in the form of someone else...who we will then ignore until he screws up or makes us angry. I mean, that's how we got into two wars and started torturing people without any form of due process and nationalized our banking system...all under a "conservative" "pro-business" president.
Yeah, the nation that used to celebrate heroes who would die rather than dishonor their country now cowers behind some sort of possible terrorism justification. "Who knows how many acts of terror would be committed if we didn't make some mistakes or violate our ethical boundaries in the pursuit of our enemies." Oh, I don't know, but I'd rather have terrorist attacks on our soil than commit our country to policies that violate our national morality. Our country will not fail if a few thousand citizens die horribly, or we lose an entire city to an epic disaster. We certainly made it through Hurricane Katrina without any abatement of our growth economy. And in an economic recession, dudes can still whip out cool YouTube content via their own creativity. The American dream can survive terrorist attacks--what it cannot survive is the death of it's commitment to human rights, liberties, and the rule of law that protects them.
01 February 2009
Ten Things I Love About Barack
1. He can talk in complete sentences in Midwestern English that make sense (this is not a racial comment, it's a reference to his predecessor).
2. He achieved public office (and went to an Ivy League School, for that matter) without politically influential family connections (see above), thus epitomizing the American dream.
3. Rather than taking his Ivy League degree and getting a highly-paying corporate management position, he got involved in community outreach and public service. (also, see above)
4. He has personally demonstrated an above-average level of civility and class in public discourse. (nope. I'm pretty much done trashing 43, that had absolutely nothing to do with him and everything to do with everyone else.)
5. He appears to be a loving husband to his wife and a loving father to his children.
6. He has quietly reminded the nation that tobacco is more than just a Republican special interest group or a mark of the unenlightened mind.
7. He is a prominent African American celebrity who also happens to be a Harvard-educated lawyer, was raised by a single mother and her parents, moved from school to school growing up, and is renowned for his community activism, ability to build bridges, and eloquent speechmaking. This is good for helping all Americans of all hues loosen their preconcieved notions and participate more creatively and productively in our economy and society.
8. As a new president with a clean slate and a mandate for change, he is capable of addressing diplomatic issues and international actions with a broader array of options than the previous president, who was tied down to commitments and actions chosen during the dark days after 9/11 and during the rise of the new phenomenon of globalized terrorism, and burdened by a lack of international goodwill. (gotta throw Bush a bone somewhere in here...it was a hell of a time to be a president)
9. He has a name with Arabic roots, and Hebrew and Swahili derivations, and a wide usage, all of which I am familiar with linguistically, thus providing me with an excellent way to impress pretty, enthusiastic Obama supporters in bars.
10. He has visited upon us a great mercy, by luring our pantsuited carpetbagger away from the Great State of New York. God bless ex-Senator Clinton...and keep her far away from here!
2. He achieved public office (and went to an Ivy League School, for that matter) without politically influential family connections (see above), thus epitomizing the American dream.
3. Rather than taking his Ivy League degree and getting a highly-paying corporate management position, he got involved in community outreach and public service. (also, see above)
4. He has personally demonstrated an above-average level of civility and class in public discourse. (nope. I'm pretty much done trashing 43, that had absolutely nothing to do with him and everything to do with everyone else.)
5. He appears to be a loving husband to his wife and a loving father to his children.
6. He has quietly reminded the nation that tobacco is more than just a Republican special interest group or a mark of the unenlightened mind.
7. He is a prominent African American celebrity who also happens to be a Harvard-educated lawyer, was raised by a single mother and her parents, moved from school to school growing up, and is renowned for his community activism, ability to build bridges, and eloquent speechmaking. This is good for helping all Americans of all hues loosen their preconcieved notions and participate more creatively and productively in our economy and society.
8. As a new president with a clean slate and a mandate for change, he is capable of addressing diplomatic issues and international actions with a broader array of options than the previous president, who was tied down to commitments and actions chosen during the dark days after 9/11 and during the rise of the new phenomenon of globalized terrorism, and burdened by a lack of international goodwill. (gotta throw Bush a bone somewhere in here...it was a hell of a time to be a president)
9. He has a name with Arabic roots, and Hebrew and Swahili derivations, and a wide usage, all of which I am familiar with linguistically, thus providing me with an excellent way to impress pretty, enthusiastic Obama supporters in bars.
10. He has visited upon us a great mercy, by luring our pantsuited carpetbagger away from the Great State of New York. God bless ex-Senator Clinton...and keep her far away from here!
31 January 2009
Glorious Pieces of Steaming Schlock from the Interweb
For your purview, gentle readers, I submit:
Josh Harris' brothers, Alex and Brett, have to win a lifetime achievement award for poorly chosen names. This is what happens when you take yourself just a little too seriously for just a little too long...you launch a conference tour on your gag-reflex-inducingly christened "rebelution" website to promote Christian teen countercultural virtue and you call it...
The Do Hard Things Tour. WIN! Michael Scott on line 1, what's that Michael? That's what who said? I can't hear you!
And, thanks to youtube, we have this wonderful example of, like, awesome. Her inflection is spot on! Brilliant! Perfect delivery! I so want to buy her DVDs! I'm sure this is the wave of the future! No more airports! I'm off to Tahiti, in the Spirit! Perfect solution for our economic AND environmental problems. God is soooooo neat, ya' know?
But now to what I'm really interested in. Dear self-professed President Obama enthusiasts...[cough, cough, Shaffners, ahem, Dierckses, hrmmmm, Perrine]...I'm hearing a stunning lack of commentary on...well...on this stunning piece of church-camp-esque adoration:
I mean...wow. These are all, I grant you, mostly good things, and the world will be varying degrees of a better place if they get around to doing them. That guy, for instance, pledging to "consider myself an American, not an African-American"--with total sincerity, I applaud that most excellent and important idea. And we're all glad that Diddy is turning his lights off, and that that other guy has enough money to buy a hybrid. Planting trees, and volunteering in the community are excellent, excellent things that we all should be doing, regardless of who the president is. Maybe it was taking it a bit far to have Ashton Kutcher utter the words dignity and respect in a serious venue, but, hey, the kid's got to grow up some time.
But look at the narrative focus: a renewed sense of hope, personal betterment, and a false sense of personal attachment to/identification with a faraway impersonal powerful figure (You Are Not Alone!? He's rich, powerful, successful, and highly educated--he's not really needing my sympathy!) That's either religious enthusiasm or a cult of personality, Idi Amin-style. Seriously--this is pretty schlocky for the iPod set. Where's the cynicism? C'mon, folks, I expect better of you than this. In all honesty, and I ask this of my liberal friends--because I know my conservative friends' views already--how would you respond to this if it was Charlton Heston promising to teach children marksmanship and gun safety?
So, my friends who voted for our new President--what do you think of this millennial euphoria sweeping across the nation? What is it, from whence does it come, how long will it last, and what will be the end of it? Please, email me, I'd like to hear what this looks like from your point of view. Everyone else, feel free, I suppose, to comment away about Hitler youth, socialism, the end times, the ongoing ministry of what is turning into the Harris dynasty, and how really, really, really awkward that extreme prophecy lady is for people who, well, believe in prophecy and the Holy Spirit and all that.
Josh Harris' brothers, Alex and Brett, have to win a lifetime achievement award for poorly chosen names. This is what happens when you take yourself just a little too seriously for just a little too long...you launch a conference tour on your gag-reflex-inducingly christened "rebelution" website to promote Christian teen countercultural virtue and you call it...
The Do Hard Things Tour. WIN! Michael Scott on line 1, what's that Michael? That's what who said? I can't hear you!
And, thanks to youtube, we have this wonderful example of, like, awesome. Her inflection is spot on! Brilliant! Perfect delivery! I so want to buy her DVDs! I'm sure this is the wave of the future! No more airports! I'm off to Tahiti, in the Spirit! Perfect solution for our economic AND environmental problems. God is soooooo neat, ya' know?
But now to what I'm really interested in. Dear self-professed President Obama enthusiasts...[cough, cough, Shaffners, ahem, Dierckses, hrmmmm, Perrine]...I'm hearing a stunning lack of commentary on...well...on this stunning piece of church-camp-esque adoration:
I mean...wow. These are all, I grant you, mostly good things, and the world will be varying degrees of a better place if they get around to doing them. That guy, for instance, pledging to "consider myself an American, not an African-American"--with total sincerity, I applaud that most excellent and important idea. And we're all glad that Diddy is turning his lights off, and that that other guy has enough money to buy a hybrid. Planting trees, and volunteering in the community are excellent, excellent things that we all should be doing, regardless of who the president is. Maybe it was taking it a bit far to have Ashton Kutcher utter the words dignity and respect in a serious venue, but, hey, the kid's got to grow up some time.
But look at the narrative focus: a renewed sense of hope, personal betterment, and a false sense of personal attachment to/identification with a faraway impersonal powerful figure (You Are Not Alone!? He's rich, powerful, successful, and highly educated--he's not really needing my sympathy!) That's either religious enthusiasm or a cult of personality, Idi Amin-style. Seriously--this is pretty schlocky for the iPod set. Where's the cynicism? C'mon, folks, I expect better of you than this. In all honesty, and I ask this of my liberal friends--because I know my conservative friends' views already--how would you respond to this if it was Charlton Heston promising to teach children marksmanship and gun safety?
So, my friends who voted for our new President--what do you think of this millennial euphoria sweeping across the nation? What is it, from whence does it come, how long will it last, and what will be the end of it? Please, email me, I'd like to hear what this looks like from your point of view. Everyone else, feel free, I suppose, to comment away about Hitler youth, socialism, the end times, the ongoing ministry of what is turning into the Harris dynasty, and how really, really, really awkward that extreme prophecy lady is for people who, well, believe in prophecy and the Holy Spirit and all that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
