tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378317092024-03-07T00:42:40.949-05:00This Liberal Blog"We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing." - Abraham LincolnAF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-81145203340173846392012-08-06T12:51:00.003-04:002012-08-06T12:51:34.812-04:00On the Recent Sikh Temple ShootingI've always had much aloha for the Sikh people. Did you know that every male Sikh is surnamed "Singh", which means "the Lion" in Sanskrit, or that male Sikhs are required to carry a sword at all times? How cool is that?<br />
<br />
It was with great sorrow that I saw the recent coverage of the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Early reports were calling it "an act of domestic terrorism", whatever that meant. From recent coverage of shootings by the mainstream media, I was reluctant to buy the story that it was a case of religious or ethnic violence. Media accounts indicated that three priests were shot, which would indicate someone with a detailed knowledge of the facility and with Sikh ritual.<br />
<br />
But it turns out that the shooter was racially and culturally motivated - he was a dirtbag skinhead. And the likelihood is that these priests of God stepped in to defend their people, as good priests in every religion are commissioned to do.<br />
<br />
To me, the greatest commonality in all of these shootings is the isolation of the shooter. I don't think more laws are the answer. The recent mass shooting in Norway is an example of their ineffectiveness.<br />
<br />
But there did not appear to be anyone close enough to raise warnings about either this shooter, or the Aurora shooter - someone who would talked to people in authority about the potential danger, or to just talk to them about what a bad idea it was.<br />
<br />
It didn't used to be this way - social loners were more rare even thirty years ago, and they were not empowered to make decisions that would have this kind of impact. At least not as a rule.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-29554153128531287202012-08-03T14:03:00.000-04:002012-08-03T14:03:53.397-04:00What the Chik-Fil-A Thing is All AboutI noted a lot of antipathy, real or manufactured, to the Chik-Fil-A pheonomenon on Wednesday and later. From both sides of the aisle, so to speak. Someone said something to the effect of, "This isn't a real story. With all that's going on, why are we getting so excited about fast-food chicken?"<br />
<br />
Well, I'm here to tell ya'. Cause ya' see, I'm terribly excited by this. In fact, I just came back from my first trip to Chik-Fil-A. Today is Friday, two days after CFA Appreciation Day and the day of the supposed Homo-Kiss In. I didn't see any gay action at CFA at the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua, but the line for food was blocking the path to the rest of the food court.<br />
<br />
The chicken sandwich, while not revolutionary cuisine, was probably the best fast-food chicken I've ever had. Tasted very moist and fresh. The service was outstanding. The woman who took my order had a badge that said "Serving 11 Years". You don't see that too often in the fast-food biz.<br />
<br />
Why'd I go? To shove it up the ass of the liberal elites, so to speak.<br />
<br />
What folks don't seem to realize yet (and this is always the way) is that the Progressives have become the conservatives. The Chik-Fil-A Eat-In was a protest movement. The old boss would post signs that say "Hippies Need Not Apply". The new boss posts signs that say "Traditional Values Not Welcome". To the city elders of New York, Boston and Chicago - I say "shove it, sirs".<br />
<br />
Side story - I posted somewhere online about joining a prayer protest against the HHS Contraception Mandate. Someone online asked, "Do you think that's a good thing to do - holding signs and chanting about the evil government?" Can't you see some old-timer saying that to a hippy back in the 60s?<br />
<br />
I'll grant that it is a weird flip-flop. The salt-of-the-earth people rising in revolt against their effete-intellectual leadership. I think we're going through a bizarre cultural shift at present. The children of the sixties have become our new mainstream and the result is bizarre juxtapositions like Bruce Springsteen, arguably the richest man in New Jersey, singing songs about the evils of private property. And without irony, mind you. In total seriousness.<br />
<br />
Based on the Chik-Fil-A Inquisition, I will make two predictions:<br />
<ul>
<li>There will be a backlash against Progressives in general, and homosexuals in particular. Things like <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79031.html">this</a>, and <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/news/greek-triple-jumper-expelled-racist-tweet-140752189--spt.html">this</a>, and <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/obamas-domination-of-church-by-state/">this</a> are examples of folks using power to defend values that a lot of people just don't hold. As I've said before, hard economic times tend to make people more conservative, and I wonder if some of these folks are going to find the bottom dropping out on them. A Catholic friend used to say, "You know when all of this blows up, we're going to have to defend the homosexuals, right?" And it's true - I don't promote violence against anyone, but there's violence a' comin'.</li>
<li>The same-sex marriage debate isn't going anywhere. Folks that think that Alabama's rural populace is going to sit by while you redefine marriage in their state are sorely mistaken. To hear some people talk, you'd think that gay marriage is a fait accompli. Not by a long way, sonnybuck. Maybe if you live in Manhattan, or, let's say, 50 miles from the coast. There's a lot of red on that map.</li>
</ul>AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-33361626215993468452012-08-03T09:38:00.005-04:002012-08-03T09:38:58.693-04:00Gifs!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzxOEMcD8LMjPWnQzzaEdVLCSFTeAQcErDRTtNCSLBJIbVjs7fMgW-JM6E5q5_HXsa7_pyK5REixxD2SB3sf5z3DZLd-om4OYrQosy2IYR0JrFQMkoTtukN7nlHPPcQgOiHw4/s1600/cultfit-cat.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" eda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzxOEMcD8LMjPWnQzzaEdVLCSFTeAQcErDRTtNCSLBJIbVjs7fMgW-JM6E5q5_HXsa7_pyK5REixxD2SB3sf5z3DZLd-om4OYrQosy2IYR0JrFQMkoTtukN7nlHPPcQgOiHw4/s1600/cultfit-cat.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO9AxXzmsiHtzqbX75Z82sS9wiiUxqUfPcvsbpRGMmG_TuNuSoYlRP915MRbKlwkp25Ox6pgzK2kTSTyrYlGl3riOMtuB55oj-DZgQH_TZCUMy6ppX0kVl_BblWcZ0OYuIl6g/s1600/cultfit-clear.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" eda="true" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO9AxXzmsiHtzqbX75Z82sS9wiiUxqUfPcvsbpRGMmG_TuNuSoYlRP915MRbKlwkp25Ox6pgzK2kTSTyrYlGl3riOMtuB55oj-DZgQH_TZCUMy6ppX0kVl_BblWcZ0OYuIl6g/s320/cultfit-clear.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv9_XCx9fQx2Qcka2WFNgKX_7K1uNGD_neCbSVv1v2UsYQnBrX6EfiVKbhVUT8cTLv03SCcmTAWPMT2cWYMxf1QM_uXBf4h_ao8ghuottf5XUA9lLDLrNjbumyRX7X5iboX-Q/s1600/cultfit-leo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" eda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv9_XCx9fQx2Qcka2WFNgKX_7K1uNGD_neCbSVv1v2UsYQnBrX6EfiVKbhVUT8cTLv03SCcmTAWPMT2cWYMxf1QM_uXBf4h_ao8ghuottf5XUA9lLDLrNjbumyRX7X5iboX-Q/s1600/cultfit-leo.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-44892085277212013522012-08-03T09:31:00.002-04:002012-08-03T09:31:55.164-04:00This Made Me Laugh<a href="http://todayentertainment.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11038745-mike-tyson-says-seeing-brad-pitt-with-his-ex-turned-him-to-a-wet-noodle?lite">Mike Tyson says seeing Brad Pitt with his ex turned him to 'a wet noodle'</a>AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-4657361412404589562012-07-31T13:33:00.000-04:002012-07-31T13:33:05.553-04:00Of CrossFit and PersonalityThose in my life are aware that I've been "CrossFit Crazy" for about a year now. It's been a great thing for my overall health - I dropped about forty pounds last year and have kept it off. I've met a lot of fitness goals, etc.<br />
<br />
CrossFit is a pheonomonon that grabs hold of a lot more than the hour or so a day that a lot of us do it. It is something that gets into your way of thinking in a lot of good ways. It's about doing something all out - till you drop down from exhaustion. It can be doing an intense MetCon - or picking up clutter around the house. That sounds funny, but we all know how exhausting our day-to-day can be. Sometimes doing that "one more thing" feels like the thing that will break us. CrossFit is about preparing a mentality that we are always ready to do that one more thing.<br />
<br />
CrossFit is also a huge financial enterprise, and it is largely the brainchild of one man - Gregg Glassman. "Coach" as he is affectionately called (or "Couch", not so affectionately) is not much to look at himself. He's short, has a slight paunch, and walks with a limp. He says he spends more time promoting CrossFit than doing it. He can't be accused of pioneering anything new in fitness, but rather rolling the whole thing together and making into a "movement". And it is a movement.<br />
<br />
I've seen personally that Coach Glassman is willing to do some pretty, uh, well, frankly, he's willing to do some horrible things to protect the organization he has created. I've seen ths before in certain personality types - folks that are great at building a movement through the sheer force of their personality. These folks are able to move mountains to realize their dream, and seem capable of doing just about anything. Anything, that is, except ceding power and being vulnerable to the people that they love.<br />
<br />
The story is that Coach Glassman's ex-wife, Lauren, who he divorced two years ago, is planning to sell her 50 percent share of CrossFit, Inc. to a private equity firm for 20 million dollars. Coach Glassman is rallying the troops against this, but in many ways it seems like the denoumont of a story that involves all kinds of manipulation, betrayal, as well as huge piles of money.<br />
<br />
Some background can be found <a href="http://anthosandcrossfit.blogspot.com/">here</a> for interested parties.<br />
<br />
I've personally sworn off of anything related to corporate CrossFit after seeing the way "HQ", as it is known, deals with people who cross them. This includes frivilous lawsuits, character assasinations, sending anonymous letters to the workplaces of critical bloggers, and all kinds of general douchebaggery.<br />
<br />
I'm hoping that this corporate oversight provided by a professional equity investment firm would help bring Crossfit, Inc. from a vanity project run by a meglomaniac entraprenuer into a responsible, ethical, and valuable company. So I'm rooting for this sale, while the CrossFit community is rooting for the opposite. We'll see how it turns out.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-33097549239708898332012-07-30T17:30:00.000-04:002012-07-30T17:30:35.825-04:00Born Again VirginI liked this short fiction from Dappled Things:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dappledthings.org/1572/born-again-virgin/">http://dappledthings.org/1572/born-again-virgin/</a><br />
<br />
Some of the comments are fairly screwy - it's like they're written by myopic, underdeveloped, lonely adult children. Sigh. I guess it's hard being faithful today.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-34787140150665990532012-07-30T17:24:00.000-04:002012-07-30T17:24:21.890-04:00Return of the MackI've been blogging at the Worcester Telegram on a weekly basis, but I'm feelin' the need for more outlet. So I'm reviving this blog for short thoughts and other ideas that I want to put to pen on a more frequent basis. <br />
<br />
My T&G blog is located here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://cf.telegram.com/submissions/blogs.cfm?category=Locally Grown">http://cf.telegram.com/submissions/blogs.cfm?category=Locally Grown</a> <br />
<br />
No comment yet on themes, content, or frequency. I'm just gonna write when I feel like writin'.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-76913790939742223502010-03-10T15:17:00.003-05:002010-03-10T16:51:41.785-05:00On the Changes Children BringI've been thinking a lot lately about how much children change your life. I had a dream the other night that I lost one of my children and it's difficult to describe the panic that I felt. Sometimes a picture of my son makes me think, well, it makes me think terrible and touching things.<br /><br />Anyhow, what I would liek to do is demistify some of these changes for people without children, or even for people with children. There are some amazing changes that come with children, not without meaning.<br /><br />When the kids came, I wasn't overwhelmed. I was talking to my accountant, and he described his feelings on the day of his daughter's birth as 'a rush'. I didn't feel any rush. Due to complications, my wife was scheduled for a c-section about three months before the birth. We showed up at the hospital without any of the prototypical drama associated with births - it was like showing up for a normally scheduled appointment, which it was in fact. Once we were in the hospital, the attitude of the staff was so efficient and professional that worrying actually seemed out of place. I was worried about my wife, of course, but it was so far out of my control that I felt almost like I was getting in the way. They pulled each of my children out; my son silent and my daughter screaming, each covered with associated detritus and quickly spirited away by an overweight nurse to another room where they were... well, I have no idea what they did in the other room. I had no desire to cut anything, although I was very interested in looking, which they did not let me do. I was told to sit down when I tried to peak over the curtain.<br /><br />So later I was in a room with my wife, who was a little out of it due to the anasthesia, and my new children. The nurses, as they were throughout our stay, were helpful, senstitive, and on the spot. They seemed the most comfortable with the situation. I was kind of dumbfounded. I had been around kids for years, having five nephews and nieces by this time. I had been there. There was no rush, just completion. I was happy, but it was hardly unexpected that two children would appear. We had been to ultrasounds every month, we had talked about it almost constantly, we had planned, moved, and prepared for eight months. I was not shocked, nor was my wife (as far as I could tell).<br /><br />We brought them home - to their home, where they would live. That was a moment, but again, not unexpected. I read somewhere that what makes a family exceptional is that children intuitively understand that they are unconditionally accepted at home. My house would be the place where they would be received, always, forever. Like I said, it was a moment.<br /><br />Up to now, and for the next few months, the only emotion elicited by the kids was exhaustion - if that's a feeling. They were lots of work. I posted to Facebook at one point saying "I think I have this parenting thing figured out." What I meant was that it was just a lot of work and you have to keep working and hope your wife keeps supporting you. It was twins, and let me tell you, it's a lot of work with twins. But there was no whopping emotional feeling associated with caring for them. It was just work.<br /><br />One thing I noticed during this time was how much less I was thinking of myself. Many of the neuroses associated with the late teens and twenties I now attribute to having too much time and energy. Getting four hours of sleep a night for weeks on end, with a night off, then for weeks more, takes it outtaya. I was wishing that I was back in my twenties, with all of the associated youthful energy. One of the guys in our Multiples Birthing Class was 55 and having triplets. For goodness sake, I'm glad I wasn't him. In any case, you wanna stop thinking of yourself, have some kids. Or don't, I guess there's lots of people out there that are still crazy with kids. But I found it to expend a lot of energy leaving me with little time to think too much about myself.<br /><br />So now I think about who I would kill if something should happen to my kids and panic in dreams about losing them. It kind of snuck up on me. I don't know if I'm just dense, or what. Probably dense. But here I am, crazy about my kids and thinking about them often. Which isnt' so bad - it's another way to take the focus off myself, where it doesn't need to be.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-9038067663864899582010-02-09T09:19:00.003-05:002010-02-09T10:13:07.229-05:00On Women and PoliticsA progressive friend of mine who is a computer programmer once remarked that he sometimes felt like cultural mores were like pieces of code created by another programmer that he stumbled across while performing edits. They sometimes appeared useless, but he was hesitant to delete them for fear that they were performing some essential function in the program. I love this analogy, and I think it is apt.<br /><br />I bring this analogy up in this space, again, as it pertains to a topic that is on my mind a lot lately: women's suffrage. Believe it or not, there was a day and age in which the idea of women voting was thought ludicrous by both men and women. And it wasn't that long ago. A personal hero of mine, G.K. Chesterton, was distinctly opposed to women's suffrage. Of course, expressing this view now is enough to get you locked up in a sanitorium, or at least enough to get you ruefully ignored. Come to think of it, if you promoted the idea that women should not have the vote in a place like Northampton, MA, then I think you would have a very long day.<br /><br />Here's what I'm noticing: women are naturally more sympathetic than men, and tend towards leftist politics. They desire security above all else, and are naturally unwilling to be hard on those in naturally difficult circumstances. I suspect, and this is not a comprehensive analysis of the situation, that our drift to the left politically is directly aligned with women's suffrage. And I also highly doubt that abortion will ever be illegal in a republic with women's suffrage.<br /><br />Chesterton's difficulty with women's suffrage was that it created a division within the household. In the operation of the household, it was necessary to have a unity of action and sentiment. Men and women were forced to work together to a common end, and this was a good thing. Hopefully, a man's decisions were tempered by his wife's feelings and sympathy, and vice versa, her sentiments were tempered by his practicality and desire for action.<br /><br />What we have now is a society where the sympathetic sentiment and practicality are sundered. There is no longer unity of action.<br /><br />I think that this is the root of the 'politically correct' culture that we now currently live and breathe. There is this air of division, and in some places being 'masculine' is an exercise in cultural revolution. A witness to this is the Dodge Charger advertisement during the Super Bowl which trumpeted the car as "Man's Last Stand". Men feel cornered, but they also feel that acting like 'themselves' is somehow an act of violence. Men are not allowed to be men.<br /><br />I believe this has a larger effect on the culture, and its impact is especially felt in the collapse of Fatherhood in the United States.<br /><br />The solution? That's a subject for another post.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-45721221334302144842010-02-01T09:00:00.006-05:002010-02-01T11:07:12.758-05:00Movie Review: The Hurt LockerSo, I had The Hurt Locker on my Netflix list and then my neighbor foisted a stolen copy upon me. I felt bad - I didn't want to make a fuss with my neighbor about the illegal copy.<br /><br />Anyways, I was looking forward to seeing the movie. There was a lot of buzz. For example, a reviewer on the DVD box called it "one of the defining movies of the decade". Hey, now, you don't hear that very often.<br /><br />In broad strokes, the movie is about a team of soldiers in Iraq in 2004 whose job is to defuse Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). It's obviously a high-stress job. The movie, in part, is about the dichotomy between the daily adreneline rush active duty soldiers experience and the monotony of civilian life when they are not deployed. More on that later.<br /><br />The movie is a very good (it seems) depiction of the life of our soldiers in Iraq. It is interesting to me that so few of this type of movie have been made. It seems that most Iraq War movies are intended only to disparage either our government (c.f. George W. Bush) or, what's much worse, our soldiers. This movie doesn't put our soldiers on a pedastal, but nor does it tarnish their much deserved reputation for bravery and service.<br /><br />I'd be interested to hear a veteran's opinion of the authenticity of the movie's depiction of life for our soldiers in Iraq.<br /><br />I'm not sure how much of a cohesive 'theme' this movie has. I think, in large part, it is just asking you to experience the daily life of these men and to have some sympathy for what their service does to them mentally - especially in the near-daily brushes with death and violence. It's a worthy message.<br /><br />An unfortunate, and neither unexpected nor unrealistic, element of the movie is the contrast between the 'excitement' of active military duty and the 'boredom' of civilian life. Of course, it's more than just 'excitement' and 'boredom'. Soldiers of every nation go through something that can't really be related to anything in civilian life. Living your life under contstant threat of a violent death does something to you. On the other hand, it is also true that ordinary life is too often identified with a boring life. Ordinary life is not boring.<br /><br />Upon reflection, the movie may tell this story, too. Sometimes it's easier to face an IED than your wife. Courage comes in many forms, and is just as necessary in the ordinary events of life as it is in the extraordinary.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-39224865416342862282010-01-30T12:17:00.003-05:002010-01-30T12:41:48.673-05:00On the Myth of "Choice"So, in case you haven't heard, Focus on the Family has paid 2.5 million dollars for a spot during the Super Bowl that will tell the story of Pamela Tebow, who was encouraged to have a surgical abortion on account of pregnancy complications 23 years ago. She declined, and as a result we have Tim Tebow, Heisman Trophy winning quarterback for the University of Florida.<br /><br />Pro-abortion advocates are, predictably, in a kerfuffle. Most are objecting on the grounds that broadcast groups have agreed to avoid advertising related to 'controversial issues'. Others insist that airing controversial material during the Super Bowl will somehow ruin the 'universal spirit' of the event.<br /><br />There is an irony here that absolutely punctures the myth of 'Choice' with which these groups nearly always wrap themselves. The point is this: the ad is only about Ms. Tebow's choice. From all reports, it is not an idealogical attack on any political or social reality. It's only about one woman's "Choice". And the response of so-called "Pro-Choice" groups like NARAL and NOW is to seek to censor Ms. Tebow's story.<br /><br />This is why many in the Pro-Life movement, including myself, find it more accurate to refer to these groups as "Pro-Abortion".<br /><br />NARAL and NOW are free to run ads of their own, describing alternative choices. I have a feeling that they won't be as popular. Perhaps the time has come to bring the stories out into the open - they will be compelling. And I think it is the knowledge of how each 'choice' appears in context that scares the crap out of pro-aborts.<br /><br />Go Saints.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-86123544334400460952010-01-28T16:24:00.003-05:002010-01-28T16:30:18.368-05:00On Partisanship and Politics<p>I watched the whole State of the Union Address last night - all 80 minutes of it. Here’s my thoughts: </p><ul><li>It seemed really jocular. There were tons of laughs - and a lot of it was genuinely funny. But, really, time and a place. I haven’t watched a ton of these things, but it seemed kind of yukky to me, in the sense of yukking it on up.</li><li>He said some good stuff. I liked what he said about nuclear power plants. He threw in some stuff on American ingenuity and breaks for small business. He seemed to be really trying to reach out to the folks who shlocked it to him in Massachusetts last week. Hey, we can work this out, you know? </li><li>Some stuff I really didn’t like. When he kept crabbin’ about Republicans not playing nice, it seemed like total BS to me. It’s pretty clear to everyone that Barry O. has been trying to push through a far-left agenda, abetted by majorities in the House and Senate. What have Republicans had to go along with? Barry O.’s been acting like he didn’t need the Repubs for a while now, and then he starts talkin’ like the Republicans are some sticks in the mud for not going along. It’s like bitchin’ about somebody not coming to a party to which they weren’t invited. </li><li>I didn’t, at all, like the comment directed at the Supreme Court. You don’t like what the Supreme Court does? Tough shit. Even if nobody believes that the Supreme Court is above politics, they still are and should be treated as such. No president should ever go where he went last night in his comments about the court. Ever. Seriously, it’s inviting anarchy to even insinuate that the President may be questioning the Court’s decision in a case. </li></ul><p>In the end, it was clear that there really wasn’t any more information to be gathered from the speech. Barry’s playing like he’s chastened, but he’s like a bad basketball player giving a pass fake. It’s nothin’. He’s still cocky, but he doesn’t know that someone just stole his ball and is driving down to his hoop.<br /><br />So what does this have to do with religion and culture? I don’t know. I don’t think that larger government is good for American culture. I think it’s the road to whatever the opposite of culture is: homogeneity, institutionality, dependence. It’s bad, it’s bad.<br /><br />Wow, that all sounds really partisan. Am I a partisan? It seems like it’s hard to really be in the middle nowadays. What do you think?<br /><br />St. Josemaria talks about appreciating where people like President Obama are coming from: there’s plenty of injustice in the world and it’s a good thing to be discontented with it. But I guess there it is - I can appreciate it, but I still find it a bad approach. Barack Obama scares me a bit. He’s not moderate, and nor are his policies or approaches. I don’t like it...</p>AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-21757230917303087442010-01-26T10:31:00.005-05:002010-01-26T14:46:59.588-05:00On Local CultureFor a while now, the theme of 'Local Culture' has been in the front of my mind. My previous post alludes to the idea that the solution to 'life' issues is changing the culture before (or along with) changing the law.<br /><br />Here's a little story:<br /><br />About 150 years ago America was a white-bread, Protestant society - largely Anglo-Saxon in demographics and culture. Certainly all of the people that 'mattered' were WASPs. They passed the laws, they owned the newspapers, they were the leaders of industry, etc. They 'formed' the culture.<br /><br />About 100 years ago, an amalgam of European immigrants started pouring into the country. These people were invited to our shores to man the machines of industry owned by the existing Anglo-Saxon power brokers. At that time, many asked 'How will all these immigrants assimilate into our culture?' The answer was 'We don't know, but to grow as a nation we need these people. Otherwise we will be left behind.'<br /><br />So millions of immigrants, mostly but not exclusively European, poured into the United States. Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, French Canadians, and others set up cultural enclaves mostly in urban areas. The political, and cultural, clout of these enclaves was very limited in the larger community. These enclaves were insular, at least by modern standards. A friend once told me that when his French Canadian father, back in the 50s, wanted to marry an Irish girl his parents opposed the marriage saying, "Where will you go to Church?" Both families were Catholic, but participated in segregated French and Irish parishes.<br /><br />So, until about 50 years ago there were these separate cultural enclaves - Anglo-Saxon Protestants pulling the levers of power and others manning the machines of industry. What both enclaves had in common was an ethnic identity stretching back hundreds of years, if not more. Not that they had a common ethnic identity, but their separate identities were all, more or less, old.<br /><br />This shared ethnic identity created a cohesion and identity amongst these groups. It was the mechanism by which Faith was nurtured in these separate communities, in separate ways. These different cultures were also a deposit of cultural wisdom and 'rules' for living that helped individuals navigate the sometimes roiling seas of life. In a way, these groups were even a social service provider for themselves, either in the form of religious fraternities or beneficent organizations.<br /><br />Fifty years ago, the dams of these little enclaves began to burst - little Italian girls started to marry little WASP boys, or any of a thousand variations on these themes. These little girls and boys didn't quite understand why it mattered very much, but it really changed everything. An example: My great-grandfather ran an Italian bank in the early twentieth century. The sign over his bank read 'Italian Banker'. He could do that because it meant something to people that he was Italian - it made them want to do business with him. As these dams broke, this meant less.<br /><br />As the ethnic cultural environments began to fade, a vacuum was created. Some of the elements filling this vacuum were new human developments in and of themselves. Television replaced 'visiting' as the primary form of entertainment. Government became larger and took over some 'social welfare' needs. Business was transacted less on relationship, and was based more and more on short-term profit/loss calculations. Big business arose, and small family businesses declined.<br /><br />Other things were lost. Families were exposed to new challenges. Extended family networks broke down, having in the past been sustained by traditional cultural understandings of marriage, as well as by family members willing to assist in child rearing. Women went to work, creating a dual strain on themselves as 'provider' and 'nurturer'. In fact, the sexual revolution had numerous impacts on the family. The family became smaller, divorce became more common, and children were sexualized at a much younger age. Things got a little rough.<br /><br />In all of these developments, individuals were hurt by the lack of a larger social support system. This social support system was often nurtured by a common cultural framework, based on some type of 'local' identity, that is no longer there.<br /><br />So, what is the point of that giant story? Just this: that I think we'd all be a little, or a lot, better off if we had more of a common cultural identity. That's not terribly controversial, but I wonder if people really think that way. Is anyone trying to create a local culture, consciously? Does anyone think that being 'American' or a 'Massachutan' is something special? Is there anything that sweeps all of us up, into a common cultural bin? Right now, I don't think that there is. But there should be.<br /><br />How to? Another post.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-45212919426074771062010-01-22T14:03:00.002-05:002010-01-22T14:35:21.343-05:00On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade<p>Today is the 38th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws prohibiting abortion during the first and second trimester of pregnancy. I would like to offer a few recommendations, mostly for men, towards building a culture of life.<br /></p><ol><li>Be a man. All of my recommendations relate to this theme, but it is important to keep this principle at the forefront. It seems that many attacks on pro-abortion policies either are, or can be perceived as, anti-woman. We need to accept the principle that men are born to be leaders, and if this is the case then abortion is more than 50% our fault. We need to go after men for not being men, and be men ourselves.</li><li>Bind yourself. Get married, or make some other lifetime commitment of service, and live it out. Don't wait until your in your mid-thirties. This is a mistake. All of the energy and life that people in their twenties possess is meant to be directed towards a family (or some other difficult end). A lot of the difficulties that people in these age groups face are a result of excess energy that is supposed to be turned towards children that gets turned inward and makes us fret about ourselves.</li><li>Be a good husband, father, or priest. However you choose to bind yourself, do it well and never stop. Tell yourself that it is forever and learn to love it. Never, ever, let up. There is so much work involved in being married. It can be scary. A friend told me that one of the most courageous decisions a man can make is to get married. He was right. The next most courageous is having kids.</li><li>Put away the porn, now. If you're invovled in any way with pornography, you are hurting women. Being chaste is extremely challenging, and I'm not judging anyone for falling. But if you want to help build a culture of life, confess your faults to God and move on. Now.</li></ol><p>The common thread in all of this is courage. Being a good husband, father, brother, or friend is very hard work. One person can make a difference. If enough of us do these things, abortion would be a non-issue. I'm not speaking against lobbying the government, but it's a joke unless we're laying the cultural foundation.</p><p>In the immortal words of St. Josemaria Escriva, "Esto vir!" Be a Man!</p>AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-18149887027133200322009-11-04T14:21:00.003-05:002009-11-04T14:55:37.830-05:00On Opposing Gay MarriageI am becoming more comfortable with my role as a 'blue-state conservative'. I am used to measuring words, to the conversational confusion that ensues after a clueless liberal assumes political esprit de corps, to the downright rage that often ensues when I simply say what I think.<br /><br />Homosexual 'marriage' is an interesting case in point. For example, I am pleased with the outcome of the referendum in Maine that repealed a judicial mandate to legalize gay 'marriage'. But simply expressing that point of view could pose real danger to my social, and even professional, prestige.<br /><br />I find that the best way of defending my point of view is by simply being myself. Doing so is simple, yet difficult.<br /><br />As myself, I'm not out to bash anyone else's point of view. I'm not out to be negative. My views on gay marriage are positively informed, if challenging, and come from a sense of optimism about people. The difficulty is that conversations are often orchestrated to put defenders of marriage, well, on the defensive. Do you ever get the feeling that you are tenaciously clinging to your viewpoint (which makes perfect sense to you) while trying to defend yourself from the charges of being a bigot?<br /><br />I once had a conversation, albeit a one-sided one) with an acquaintance about gay marriage. It was on Facebook. By the second post, I was accused of defending 'bigoted views'. I defended myself, saying that those who know me would never think of me as a bigot. "Oh," went the reply "I never called you a bigot." Well, what do you call one who holds bigoted views? Etc.<br /><br />There is a spirit of manevolence in the pro-gay marriage folks. I hate to say it, but it is the natural result of defending a sinful behavior, and usually results from a desire to excuse either the pro-gay person's own behavior (homosexual or no) or that of someone they love. There is no common ground, no understanding. They really can't countenance opposing views, because if gay sex is wrong then other stuff may be wrong, too.<br /><br />It takes a good deal of pluck to defend tradtional views of marriage. You'll be accused of being everything that self-styled progressives despise: rigid, judgemental, holier-than-thou, etc. The irony is that each of these maledictions could be re-pasted on the forhead of the would-be crusader for gay 'rights'! Doubt it? Try having a conversation with them about it.<br /><br />The best defense of marriage is the family itself. Have a big family. Be happy. Be very happy. It's the best rememdy for what ails the culture. Raise your kids to respect themselves. Shower them with love. That's the positive. But don't be fooled - it ain't easy. It takes a lot of courage to get married. It takes even more to have kids. But it's worth it.<br /><br />That's the optimism. Optimism exists in the face of challenges, otherwise it is platitudinous.<br /><br />So, I'm happy about the results of yesterday's referendum on gay marriage in Maine. I'm not sure what it portends for our culture, but I'm willing to be optimistic. I'm also willing to stand up to the bullies. Someday they might thank you for it.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-10314672814262934682009-10-30T09:08:00.002-04:002009-10-30T09:46:39.833-04:00On the Anglican ReunionI have been following developments in the Anglican Church for some time now. I don't know if it is my British ancestry (my mother is a New England Yankee, raised Episcopalian), or if it is just my American cultural heritage - tied as it is at its root to British culture. I have always felt close to England, and interested in the fate of English-speaking Catholics.<br /><br />For those who need background, the Anglican Church is otherwise known as the Church of England, and was separated from the body of Christendom in the sixteenth century after the Pope refused to grant an annulment to Henry VIII of England. Since that time, the monarch is the head of the Church of England. Unlike many other European churches that came under the authority of the state, the Church of England retained many doctrines, practices, and beliefs that are considered 'Catholic'. There has always existed within the Church of England so-called 'Anglo-Catholics' who believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, go to confession, and honor Our Blessed Lady in special ways.<br /><br />In recent years the Anglican Communion (a network of church organizations associated with the Church of England and roughly coterminous with the former holdings of the British Empire) has been strained by what can only be called factions within the Church. Anglo-Catholics and some conservative Evangelicals have been at odds with more numerous so-called 'progressives' over issues such as women's ordination, the ordination of openly gay men, and gay 'marriage'.<br /><br />There is an irony, which I do not relish, in all this. Anglicans have hung tenaciously to their cultural faith for hundreds of years. The English are amongst the most culturally anti-Catholic nations in the world. Until fairly recently, the Pope was burned in effigy every November 5 on Guy Fawkes Day. The plight of faithful Anglicans has been to remain in their pews as the barque of Henry slowly sinks beneath the waves of Modernism. Their only life-line, the Catholic Church, was barred by the very same faithfulness that kept them in their pews.<br /><br />It has been a long decline, and many faithful Anglicans are finally fed up. Anglicans have divided over the above-mentioned issues, and have now formed breakaway provinces that hew to traditional mores. Some attempts at compromise have been tried - which have been like trying to reconcile the Key West Fantasy Parade and a Fatima Procession.<br /><br />So, after appeals from disenfranchised Anglicans, the Holy Father has taken the unprecedented step of welcoming a mass defection - allowing Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church pretty much as-is, with their parishes, their rites, their priests, and all. This is no slow rapprochement, marked by vacuous statements of Christian unity. The existing Catholic/Anglican ecumenical apparatus had been issuing decrees on shared doctrine, all while the Anglicans were blessing homosexual unions and marching forward in matters related to women's ordination.<br /><br />The Holy Father's decision has a gravitas that appears as a magnanimous supercision of cultural and intellectual cul de sacs. The Pope is the father of all Christians, and his concern is for his flock, and as a good shepherd he cares most for his sheep - not their errant custodians.<br /><br />Upon reflection, I think my love of the English Church comes from my love of English literature, and especially the literature of English Catholics. Newman, Faber, Chesterton, and Belloc have long had my heart - their struggles have been mine. Through their words, I can almost feel the chill wind that blew past Newman in the Birmingham Oratory.<br /><br />I am truly happy to hear of this reunion. I long to hear the Anglican use liturgy celebrated in a Catholic manner, to partake of the Eucharist in a rite long celebrated by my kinsmen. And I welcome another division of God's children to the Catholic fold - all the more because they are my mother's people.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-59112235335165307752009-10-13T08:27:00.002-04:002009-10-13T09:09:17.579-04:00On Michael Moore and DistributismSo, I was watching Wolf Blitzer the other day. He was interviewing Michael Moore, and it was one of YouTube's top video's of the day. So I said, "Hey, that looks interesting." So I start watching.<br /><br />You know what? Moore was sounding an awful lot like a Distributist. He was also identifying himself as a 'Christian'. He was saying things like, "I think the workplace should be more democratic" - that is right out of Chesterton or Belloc.<br /><br />For those of you who don't know what Distributism is, look <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism">here</a>.<br /><br />So, chances are that Moore is just co-opting the Christian moniker and cherry picking his favorite snippets of Christ's teaching. But, hey, isn't it interesting? There are lots of dopes who claim to be Christians, such as Bill Clinton who once claimed in front of a Southern Christian audience that Jesus was his personal Lord and Savior (and maybe He was, I'm just sayin' that Clinton's a dope). But the interesting thing about Moore is that he's not just appropriating Christianity, but Distributism.<br /><br />This puts me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Michael Moore.<br /><br />I have another acquaintance who happens to be a Marxist economist teaching at a local university. Can you believe it, in this day and age, a Marxist teaching at a respected university? I live in Massachusetts, so you can imagine. But anyways, he claims to be a Christian Marxist. I would normally say, "Sorry, buddy, you can't be both". And I do believe that you can't. But I give him a few minutes to explain, and what he's saying sounds like Distributism. I think, kind of a little bit, that he's just confused about terms, so he appropriates 'Marxist' to explain what he's thinking. I don't know.<br /><br />I've also, of late, fallen in with the 'Local First' movement, which advocates the patronage of small businesses to promote a healthy local economy. You can see some of their online material <a href="http://www.livingeconomies.org/">here</a>. These folks seem very Distributist in their thinking, but with distinct differences.<br /><br />I think one of the major points of departure between Mr. Moore, the Marxist Economist, the 'Local First' people, and true Distributists is the emphasis on the family.<br /><br />Here's a story: My wife's father's family grew up in a part of my city that is dominated by a local university - the same one that my Marxist friend teaches at, by coincidence. So anyways, this local university started buying up property during the seventies and eighties and became a de-facto landlord for the area. I suppose they wanted to ensure that there was adequate housing for students. However, as the population moved from being resident owners to renters, the neighborhood went into a steep decline. By removing local owners, the school had done considerable damage to the neighborhood.<br /><br />This little fable demonstrates the value of local ownership. But it also demonstrates that families are integral to stability and sustainability. There is nothing that gives one concern for a community like having kids who live there.<br /><br />I think that Moore, <em>et al</em> miss this point, almost on purpose. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It's obvious. But to be in favor of traditional family is to betray a whole bevy of liberal wish list items. The idea that the family is sustainable violates all kind of liberal orthodoxies that this crowd can't touch.<br /><br />So if you want real Distributism, you're gonna have to settle for Belloc, Chesterton, and other Christian writers who can swallow both halves of the Distributist concept. Sure, we shouldn't trust big corporations to be concerned about us. But we also can't trust those who work to sever every line of interpersonal responsibility in a search for self-centered fulfillment. We need those who would accept the burdens of relationship, and who wish to see the family thrive.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-31876902356355129682009-10-09T14:07:00.005-04:002009-10-09T14:20:25.969-04:00On World Consensus<blockquote>"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population..."<br /><br />-<em>Nobel Committee on the selection of President Obama for the Peace Prize</em> </blockquote>I wonder how they define 'the majority of the world's population'. Do they suppose that most people in the world agree with a gaggle of Norwegian bureaucrats? Do they think that all those good folks all (or even mostly) agree with Barack Obama? Just wonderin'...<br /><br />Do you suppose that it's just a tad hubristic to imagine that one speaks for the whole world, or that one knows what the majority of people think?AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-62509446465878629372009-10-09T13:31:00.001-04:002009-10-09T13:36:10.747-04:00Chuckle Worthy"There was a time, long before Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, when Alex P. Keaton was the only conservative on TV."<br /><br />This very funny line comes from an <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDcyNTdmYmYyOGZmNmNlYWY3NGNmNmE4OWEwNDRlY2Q=">article</a> on the creator of Family Ties, Gary David Goldberg.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-45591726891513990812009-10-09T11:11:00.004-04:002009-10-09T11:34:16.077-04:00On Obama and NobelThere are times when a certain slide in the former bulwarks of Western culture reveal the vast divide between the opposing poles of cultural thought in the West. Such a moment was this morning's announcement of Barack Obama as winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace.<br /><br />Americans released a collective 'huh?' at the news. The prestige of the Nobel had been slipping in recent years, but it had still held some cache as a universal prize. Nobel had been about things everyone could agree on - it was, to some extent, something everyone could point to and say "This is what is best about humanity."<br /><br />This morning's announcement was grinningly partisan - the opposite of universal. There can be no explanation for Obama's success other than an endorsement of a point of view cherished by the elites that pull the levers at Nobel. They say as much themselves, as President Obama has accomplished nary a minor success in the realm of international relations. Nobel has thrown their weight behind Obama as a political reality.<br /><br />My thoughts, on hearing the news, wandered to musings on the much-discussed erosion of Western cultural institutions. Thinkers whom I respect very much have described Western culture as in a state of quiet bloodletting - the form still stands while the substance is drained. Many of us think that the edifice is still intact, while its mortar is slowly being dissolved.<br /><br />The point is that Nobel used to stand for something. Awarding the Peace Prize to someone who has done nothing is a frank betrayal of its legacy. It quietly revealed itself, for a shocking moment, to be devoid of gravitas - a grinning zombie-version of its former self. What else that we lean on is ready to fall to dust?<br /><br />One of the best expressions of what I am talking about was spoken by a Jesuit at a conference at Assumption last year. I can't remember his name, but he was from Fordham. He said that the West is spending its cultural capital. An affluent heir can spend for quite a while - keeping up the appearance of affluence to all but those who can see the books. When the capital is gone, he is not only without means but without the foundation upon which those means were based.<br /><br />I can't help but feel that we are entering a new time. As von Balthasar said, "It can't go on much longer like this."AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-85767143201244899572009-10-08T11:16:00.003-04:002009-10-08T11:22:36.797-04:00On Levi JohnstonThis kid is such a <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifdVBfwnrGCTHTf1Tm-LlIMUaH1gD9B6HNOO0">dope</a>. Levi Johnston, nearing the crash-and-burn of his downward media spiral, will be posing for Playgirl magazine. The upside here is that he's being revealed as the dipshit that most common sense people have seen him to be for the last year or so, and that hopefully he will also out his celebrity enablers who used this young man as a tool in their virulent hatred of everything that Sarah Palin stands for.<br /><br />You see, it's OK to be a powerful woman as long as you're using your power to advance a certain credo. It's OK to be a single mom, unless you're from Alaska and your lifestyle is a convenient handle with which to pull down a conservative boogey-(wo)man. Hollywood is such a stinking pile of shit.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-77308337744338234282009-10-08T10:58:00.003-04:002009-10-08T11:07:47.843-04:00Polanski and Misplaced Outrage<blockquote>If the demand for sexual pleasure is so compelling that we can throw overboard moral principles that extend back to the very roots of our civilization, it is not clear why we would insist that it stop short and respect the consent of individuals. In short, sexual liberation conjured up a spirit of moral nihilism to liberate the unrestrained pursuit of pleasure, and it is not at all certain that such a spirit can be commanded to behave once it has been summoned.</blockquote>This is from an interesting article on the recent arrest of Roman Polanski and the subsequent reaction of both conservatives and Hollywood-types. The article is titled "Roman Polanski, Hollywood, and the Mystery of Missing Outrage". The author admits that one might feel pity for Polanski upon his arrest, but asks why is Hollywood's reaction not based on pity for the guilty but outrage at those who would do justice.<br /><br />The article can be read here: <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/10/roman-polanski-hollywood-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-outrage">http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/10/roman-polanski-hollywood-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-outrage</a>.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-36320244209959750402009-09-04T10:39:00.002-04:002009-09-04T11:03:46.996-04:00On HealthcareI've wanted to write about the healthcare debate - a truly rending process for Catholics who are torn between care of the poor and a healthy subsidiarity. Personally, I think it's going to be bad either way. Probably, it will be worse if Obama gets his way. <br /><br />I was talking to a friend the other day who owns a business in the Main South district of Worcester. He was talking about how "nonprofits control everything" in Main South. "They're great when it comes to helping out homeless people and drug addicts, but they don't understand business." For Main South to really rise from the muck of poverty and neglect in which it currently stands, it will take a healthy community - businesses, families, and institutions working together.<br /><br />I think that it is a healthy criticism of the social change championed by President Obama to say that it is of the 'nonprofit' type. It helps people by alleviating suffering and giving a helping hand, but it is not necessarily encouraging of the healthy structures that should normally be supporting a neighborhood - namely families and businesses. In my opinion, the government should intercede in extreme cases, and allow normal structures to work, well, normally.<br /><br />There was a time when healthcare was provided, free of charge, through the activities of charitable societies. In Catholic cultures, it was religious sisters that provided this care. In other cultures, charitable societies of lay women would provide care and compassion for the poor. This was a time of healthy community; not perfect, but people were more aware of the plight of their neighbor then compared to now.<br /><br />In many ways charitable societies were less effective than the modern healthcare industry, but in others they were more - moslty in matters of personal attention and concern. We are far from this model now, not for any lack of material wealth. We are simply poor in community. We don't reach out anymore to the stranger in our midst.<br /><br />I have a friend from Morocco. He says that in Morocco, the head of every family is expected to give away ten percent of his income every year. If they don't, there is a social stigma. I asked, "How do people know that someone has given away their ten percent?". He said, "People just know. Word get around." How refreshing.I have a friend from Morocco. He says that in Morocco, the head of every family is expected to give away ten percent of his income every year. If they don't, there is a social stigma. I asked, "How do people know that someone has given away their ten percent?". He said, "People just know. Word get around." How refreshing.<br /><br />I think that President Obama's healthcare plan is misguided in its compassion. It will reach out to more of the poor, and even to the marginally poor. In the long run, it will increase the numbers of those who depend upon the State for care, and it will do nothing to increase the bonds between us - it will do nothing to strengthen the 'normal' bonds upon which communities depend for health and survival.<br /><br />Communities take maintenance - you don't get something for nothing. Communities need to be organic - self-directing and maintaining. When help only comes from above, it is called Socialism. It is the death-knell for communities. The vitality of socialist countries is sapped as if by a cancer. They are eaten out from within. This is why subsidiarity is so important.<br /><br />Think of what we could do if we turned off the TV once a week and waited on an elderly neighbor. We'd probably lose a bunch of weight (and reduce our future healthcare burden) and learn a little something about the past. You and me. We could do it. Together, we can. We could beat 'em to it. Together, we can.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-41887825251560994782009-08-27T15:12:00.002-04:002009-08-27T15:49:04.107-04:00On DistributismI've been away for a while. I have some time - so I figured I would post. The thought is Distributism. What is Distributism? It is 'the economic theory that advocates the distribution of capital amongst as many persons as possible'. Some have called it a middle-way between capitalism and communism. Some have called it eminently unreasonable, and others have claimed just the opposite.<br /><br />The ideas behind (or underneath) Distributism are largely related to the medieval concept of usury. Usury, I think, should not be understood simply as charging interest on a loan, but rather as charging <em>undue</em> interest on a loan. The principle being that it is immoral to use your wealth as an unfair advantage over another. The problem is that our system function precisely on just that - the wealthy make their money by loaning it to the poor, or by financing enterprises that mine money from the poor without inviting their ownership or participation. G.K. Chesterton called our current economic system 'A Utopia of Usurers', as it seems perfectly created for them.<br /><br />Hillaire Belloc, another proponent of Distributism, spoke of the injustice committed to the poor in the form of rent. A renter has no foundation upon which to stand, nothing to call his own, and nowhere to hold his earnings. His wealth is simply absorbed by another without personal accumulation. This is the blessing of property - the ability to build and excel upon a foundation created by our own work. In too many ways, denizens of Western societies are 'renters', paying dividends for most of their lives to people they do not know, and who do not know them.<br /><br />What's to be done? Well, distribute! But hold on, how do we take stuff from those persnickety rich folks who have it all now? Great question! I don't know the answer!<br /><br />Here's what I can see now: the practical application of Distributism starts with people. I love the subtitle to E.F. Schumacher's book <em>Small is Beautiful</em>: 'Economics as if People Mattered'. We need to exercise our economic power as if people mattered. This means, for starters, shopping locally whenever possible. I take this as a given, the benefit of local economics. Some don't. It's worth a conversation.<br /><br />We need to think of our money as a sort of moral 'vote' for whatever business enterprise we invest it with, or purchase from. When we give someone money, we are in effect saying, "You deserve my money. I want you to thrive and keep doing what you are doing." We need to start voting for things that matter. Before long, we will live in a Distributist society.<br /><br />Sound funny? Think about it. We are told that, as far as money is concerned, selfishness is good. If you buy the cheapest product, you will have more stuff, and you will be happier. We can all see this isn't the case. Our money should be a tool for living, and we should use it to forge relationships with people we like, that we trust, and that we respect. Fight the power, chilluns. Don't be reduced to a consumer - there's more to life than that.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37831709.post-51667456516647547722009-06-12T15:59:00.006-04:002009-06-12T16:24:41.033-04:00On New BabiesHey, my wife gave birth to our first two children on Tuesday. It was pretty cool, you wanna hear about it?<br /><br />My wife (The Other Liberal) had a scheduled Cesaerian section, due to the orientation chosen by my son (one of two Little Liberals). For the last three months of her pregnancy he was in what is called the 'frank breach' position with his legs over his head and his butt down. They don't even consider turning such babies around - it's the knife.<br /><br />The operation went smoothly, at least from my point-of-view. They are, after all, professionals and do these things all the time. It was a well-oiled machine. No complications. My biggest complaint was the giant, mug-faced nurse who began our pre-op briefing by asking my wife "Are you getting your tubes tied?" No, but thanks for asking first.<br /><br />During the operation I was placed behind a curtain, from which my wife's head protruded at the bottom. After about ten minutes they pulled out my children. I tried peeking over the curtain once, but I was told to sit down with the commentary: "We don't need two patients". OK. I'll spare the details for everyone's sake.<br /><br />The Other Liberal was somewhat groggy coming out of the operating room. The Little Liberals were good - healthy, five fingers and toes on each appendage. All good.<br /><br />The staff were, overall, very good. We have had many more good nurses than bad (one is assigned to us at all times). One nurse was constantly putting my wife on edge with doomsday predictions. Let's just say that you should never utter the words "Oh, no" to a recently delivered woman on matters touching her newborn children. The words are just off limits. But, really, I have been consistently impressed with the demeanor and bearing of the nurses that we have worked with. Very impressive.<br /><br />On a side note, and I'm not sure I can really call this a complaint, I can see why health care costs are spiraling upwards. We were in a gigantic private room for five days. Very nice, but it can't be cheap. We were provided with everything we could possibly need, from food to clothing, to bedding, to tests on our car seats. Very nice, but obviously very expensive. Someone put the tally for a twin birth at $30,000. A far cry from the days when children were delivered at home, and women would recover there. I'm not saying it's bad, but probably two orders of magnitude more expensive than the bad-old-days.<br /><br />Last thing - most people describe watching the birth as a profound emotional experience. It was pretty cool, obviously. I saw my kids enter the world - the beginning, i.e. you can't get any earlier, the start. But what has been more profound in my experience is just sitting around in the hospital with my wife and kids, doing nothing. Man, that's something. I highly recommend it.AF Zamarrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01667548863397210215noreply@blogger.com0