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.
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.
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.
This is why many in the Pro-Life movement, including myself, find it more accurate to refer to these groups as "Pro-Abortion".
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.
Go Saints.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
On Partisanship and Politics
I watched the whole State of the Union Address last night - all 80 minutes of it. Here’s my thoughts:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
On Local Culture
For 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.
Here's a little story:
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How to? Another post.
Here's a little story:
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How to? Another post.
Friday, January 22, 2010
On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
In the immortal words of St. Josemaria Escriva, "Esto vir!" Be a Man!
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
On Opposing Gay Marriage
I 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.
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.
I find that the best way of defending my point of view is by simply being myself. Doing so is simple, yet difficult.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's the optimism. Optimism exists in the face of challenges, otherwise it is platitudinous.
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.
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.
I find that the best way of defending my point of view is by simply being myself. Doing so is simple, yet difficult.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's the optimism. Optimism exists in the face of challenges, otherwise it is platitudinous.
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.
Friday, October 30, 2009
On the Anglican Reunion
I 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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
On Michael Moore and Distributism
So, 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.
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.
For those of you who don't know what Distributism is, look here.
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.
This puts me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Michael Moore.
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.
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 here. These folks seem very Distributist in their thinking, but with distinct differences.
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.
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.
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.
I think that Moore, et al 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.
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.
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.
For those of you who don't know what Distributism is, look here.
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.
This puts me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Michael Moore.
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.
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 here. These folks seem very Distributist in their thinking, but with distinct differences.
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.
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.
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.
I think that Moore, et al 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.
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.
Friday, October 09, 2009
On World Consensus
"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..."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'...
-Nobel Committee on the selection of President Obama for the Peace Prize
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?
Chuckle Worthy
"There was a time, long before Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, when Alex P. Keaton was the only conservative on TV."
This very funny line comes from an article on the creator of Family Ties, Gary David Goldberg.
This very funny line comes from an article on the creator of Family Ties, Gary David Goldberg.
On Obama and Nobel
There 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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
Thursday, October 08, 2009
On Levi Johnston
This kid is such a dope. 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.
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.
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.
Polanski and Misplaced Outrage
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.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.
The article can be read here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/10/roman-polanski-hollywood-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-outrage.
Friday, September 04, 2009
On Healthcare
I'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
On Distributism
I'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.
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 undue 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.
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.
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!
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 Small is Beautiful: '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.
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.
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.
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 undue 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.
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.
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!
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 Small is Beautiful: '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.
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.
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.
Friday, June 12, 2009
On New Babies
Hey, my wife gave birth to our first two children on Tuesday. It was pretty cool, you wanna hear about it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
On Tolerance
I'm a very bad husband. I can tell by the questions I am getting today:
Most people accept cultural norms as the highest expression of truth, with little or no question. Cultural conditioning over the last twenty years (or so) has dictated that child-bearing is a burden that has been unjustly borne by women - and the solution is absolute 50/50 sharing of responsibilities. Deviations from this model are unacceptable. Thinking otherwise is unthinkable.
We're like an army of automatons designed to act sensitive - disregarding the fact that sensitivity demands understanding. Never mind the particulars - you will be sensitive or you will be harangued into conformance. 'Bee-boo-bop-boo-beep. Insensitivity detected; insensitivity detected.'
The irony is that most of these same people reject serious religious belief on the grounds that they are far too refined to believe something simply because they are told. We're all individuals, we think for ourselves, you see.
The challenge is responding politely to such idiocy. The easiest course seems to be pleading ignorance: "What do you mean 'Why am I at work'? Where else would I be?" or "My wife told me to go to work and make some money - I wasn't adding any value at the hospital."
Welcome to the land of culturally programmed tolerance - where we all play a part and miss the point.
What are you doing here?The puzzling thing is the certainty of my interrogators. They are certain that something must be wrong. My wife gave birth yesterday and I'm at work today. The math is simple: I'm a chauvinist bastard.
Your wife gave birth yesterday and you're at work? Are you still married?
Why don't you take the rest of the week off?
Most people accept cultural norms as the highest expression of truth, with little or no question. Cultural conditioning over the last twenty years (or so) has dictated that child-bearing is a burden that has been unjustly borne by women - and the solution is absolute 50/50 sharing of responsibilities. Deviations from this model are unacceptable. Thinking otherwise is unthinkable.
We're like an army of automatons designed to act sensitive - disregarding the fact that sensitivity demands understanding. Never mind the particulars - you will be sensitive or you will be harangued into conformance. 'Bee-boo-bop-boo-beep. Insensitivity detected; insensitivity detected.'
The irony is that most of these same people reject serious religious belief on the grounds that they are far too refined to believe something simply because they are told. We're all individuals, we think for ourselves, you see.
The challenge is responding politely to such idiocy. The easiest course seems to be pleading ignorance: "What do you mean 'Why am I at work'? Where else would I be?" or "My wife told me to go to work and make some money - I wasn't adding any value at the hospital."
Welcome to the land of culturally programmed tolerance - where we all play a part and miss the point.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
On the New Terminator
I saw Terminator Salvation with my lovely wife on Saturday night. Loved it.First, from the perspective of a simple action movie, it was spectacular. The special effects were well done, and they weren't so affected that you couldn't make out any of the action, a la Transformers. It really kept us on the edge of our collective seat. It's really a theatre movie, as well, as in it should be seen in the theatre. There are some super-sized robots and expolosions in this one. When a giant automaton would plunge its metallic foot downward the theatre would reverberate with the impact. Good stuff.
Second, the story was compelling and intersting. Many reviewers have commented that Christian Bale's performance was lacklustre. Throughout the whole movie he speaks in this hoarse whisper that is supposed to imply some sense of intensity. It ain't workin, dude. But the secondary plot involving a next-generation Terminator struggling with his identity is engaging, to say the least.
The appeal of the Terminator series has always been the man vs. machine agitus, which seems to strike a deep chord of dread in most post-moderns. Ever since Arnold tossed around the chick in the first Terminator movie to the sound of her 1980s pop music, we have thought "Oh, shit. He's so cold." We have a grave fear, one that is justifiable, of the limits of technology and its power to destroy us.
Well, this next installment of the Terminator franchise taps into this theme some more and pits the Machine (Skynet) against the Man (Marcus) - the result is the victory of the human spirit. The movie is a true fable that demonstrates the value of humanity, which is, in the end, its human-ness. This movie is, in the best sense, pro-life.
The end sucks, though. They added some shit so that they could go up to Terminator 32 and make a franchise. Try to ignore it.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Chesterton at 135
Late Victorian era novelist and essayist Gilbert Keith Chesterton would have been 135 today, had he been exempt from bodily decay. He was not, so it is up to us remaining to carry the torch of his legacy. And, oh, what a legacy. Some gems:
- "An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." - On Running After Ones Hat, All Things Considered, 1908
- "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - The Speaker, 12/15/00
- "By experts in poverty I do not mean sociologists, but poor men." - ILN, 3/25/11
- "I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid." - ILN 6-3-22
- "A man imagines a happy marriage as a marriage of love; even if he makes fun of marriages that are without love, or feels sorry for lovers who are without marriage." - Chaucer
Chesterton excelled at creating the rules for the debate by identifying the underlying epistemological assumptions. He understood that most idealogies are fueled by those who are absolutely certain of one thing. Often, this same certainty blinded them to every other fact. He was a generalist in the very best sense of the word: someone who looked at the big picture and really wanted people (other than himself) to be happy. This is far more difficult than it sounds.
If you've never read Chesterton, I can't recommend him enough. His most famous book, Orthodoxy, can be difficult to plow through, but it's worth the effort. His essays and novels are available online, for free, here. You can also see some of his short fiction, of which the Father Brown Mysteries were the most noted.
Happy birthday, GKC. May God grant us many more.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Nordlinger on Graciousness
Here's a quote from an article by Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online:
The rest of the article is here.
...I’d like to glance back at President Obama’s Notre Dame speech. You remember: abortion. A big-deal speech and occasion.Obama was given credit far and wide for being gracious. He was serene, civil, understanding. He called for lowered voices and mutual respect. His message, in effect, was “Can’t we all get along?” (which is Rodney King’s line, I realize).
Fine, fine. But it’s easy to be gracious when you are getting your way, 100 percent. Abortion-on-demand is high in the saddle. Partial-birth abortion. Federal funding. Everything. Embryo-destructive research, to boot. The pro-choice side has everything, and the pro-life side has not a crumb.
(As I usually do, I use each side’s preferred label. Please don’t write me. Thanks!)
Again, when you get things 100 percent your way, it’s easy to say, “Okay, let’s all be cool now.” The likes of Obama tell pro-lifers, “You get nothing — zero — but if you’ll just not bitch about it, we will be gracious toward you. You don’t want to be disruptive, do you? We don’t want raised voices, do we?”
Obama’s peace is something like submission — the submission of his opponents.
Apparently, the president is cutting health-care workers some slack, if they oppose abortion. This is the area known as “provider conscience.” You don’t have to participate in an abortion if you don’t want to. And Obama gets great credit for cutting these people some slack.
But, to me, it’s a little like saying, in pre-abolition times, “I know you have this moral hang-up and all. You don’t have to whip them yourselves, you know.”
I will say once more: It’s easy to be gracious — and to call for calm and mutual respect — when you get your way, 100 percent. Try being gracious when you have to give a little, or even lose. That is something harder, and deserves more credit.
The rest of the article is here.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Movie Review: Burn After Reading
I watched this movie Saturday night with my wife and another couple. My wife and I are big fans of the Cohens, and were looking forward to the movie despite the scattershot reviews.
I would say that it is a good movie, if not terribly entertaining. The Cohens seem to be exploring the meaningless-ness of life theme that they started developing in No Country for Old Men. In No Country fate was arbitrarily determined by a homicidal madman. In Burn After Reading, the determinant of fate is a CIA beaurocrat who bases life and death decisions on the amount of paperwork invovled.
It is hard to create a conventional story based on a nihilistic viewpoint. If your aim is to show that nothing really matters, denoumont is out the window. This was true in No Country and it is true in Burn After Reading. The former was more entertaining because there were, in a sense, 'good guys' who you wished to see survive and who struggled against the menacing automaton, Anton Chigurh. In Burn After Reading the characters, although realistic, are nonetheless personally preposterous. You really can't like any of them, although they are too stupid to dislike. They are almost like pawns in a game moving inexorably towards their doom, which is perhaps the whole point.
A complaint: it seems that graphic sex scenes are now de rigeur in 'artsy' movies. To the point where the rating explanation is 'suggested sexuality' when the image is of a sweaty man, heaving and grunting over a woman while both are clothed only in bed sheets. It's really slightly more than suggested, which implies some imagination is required.
So, as I said, it's a good movie if not entertaining. If you read the review and it sounds interesting, I would suggest it (minus the heaving). But if you're looking for a few laughs, look elsewhere.
I would say that it is a good movie, if not terribly entertaining. The Cohens seem to be exploring the meaningless-ness of life theme that they started developing in No Country for Old Men. In No Country fate was arbitrarily determined by a homicidal madman. In Burn After Reading, the determinant of fate is a CIA beaurocrat who bases life and death decisions on the amount of paperwork invovled.
It is hard to create a conventional story based on a nihilistic viewpoint. If your aim is to show that nothing really matters, denoumont is out the window. This was true in No Country and it is true in Burn After Reading. The former was more entertaining because there were, in a sense, 'good guys' who you wished to see survive and who struggled against the menacing automaton, Anton Chigurh. In Burn After Reading the characters, although realistic, are nonetheless personally preposterous. You really can't like any of them, although they are too stupid to dislike. They are almost like pawns in a game moving inexorably towards their doom, which is perhaps the whole point.
A complaint: it seems that graphic sex scenes are now de rigeur in 'artsy' movies. To the point where the rating explanation is 'suggested sexuality' when the image is of a sweaty man, heaving and grunting over a woman while both are clothed only in bed sheets. It's really slightly more than suggested, which implies some imagination is required.
So, as I said, it's a good movie if not entertaining. If you read the review and it sounds interesting, I would suggest it (minus the heaving). But if you're looking for a few laughs, look elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)