Starting reading a book … but for now, the question is … should I continue? The book is Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World. Apparently, one of the books noted as a book our President has read recently. I think I may continue, but some of the errors spotted in a quick perusal at the start were annoying.

For example, Mr Zakaria notes in pointing out how commodity prices are getting higher because, apparently Malthusian shortages. One of his examples is Helium. He notes that Helium is the “second most abundant element” in the Universe … yet is a shortage. This is really ignorant. Helium is called helium because it is very very rare terrestrially. It was discovered via spectral analysis of solar radiation … because it is so rare on earth. It is basically only found in any quantity from oil wells.

I think the thesis that American’s dominance in all sphere’s is going to wane is uninteresting. The question is what to make of it. America will likely remain dominant at the “things at which we excell” and no longer be dominant in sphere’s in which we had been dominant by default.

As Mr Collier notes in the The Bottom Billion that of the 6 1/2 billion people on the globe, one billion are “very rich”, 4 1/2 billion are “getting rich very quickly” and one billion are stuck at the bottom. While his book concentrates on the billion which are stuck in poverty, the obvious logical consequence of the other 5 1/2 billion being rich or getting rich quicker is that influence of nations and economies will spread.

I think I’m going to skip or quickly skim (and try not get hung up on rhetorical simplification and overstatement) this book tomorrow night. I’ll hunt for some conclusions … because otherwise the book just a long winded statement of the obvious.

1. Where will they go?
2. Temperature and Li-ion batteries.
3. The press, still superficial and stupid. I suppose one might also consider … the audience?
4. A question. An answer.
5. Numbers, economy, and Zimbabwe.
6. Not impressed by marketing … although I think “drinkability” is the worst, sort of an intentional self-damning with faint praise.
7. Exactly on target.
8. So the stimulus bill will, “not contain any earmarks”, seeing that it ontologically is basically a huge earmark that makes no sense.
9. A RvW anniversary post.
10. So, in Mr Geithner’s case … does character matter?
11. Coptic beauty and a book.

Ed Darrell quoted this the other day, and I disparaged it. Mr Darrell gets exasperated when history is misquoted, misused or ignored. Which is ironic because this quote, ignores, misuses and offers a mistaken interpretation of history. The quote:

“In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America, where it became an enterprise.”

Shall we consider just a few ways in which this was wrong?

• There was no “church” when Jesus was performing his ministry prior to the resurrection. The church thing followed immediately after His Resurrection.
• Then the church moved to Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Rome, India and throughout the Mediterranean.
• The church was well established in Rome, recall Saints Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome well before Origen (a Alexandrian Copt) turned the tools of philosophy to the service of theology.
• Examine the early “Greek” church, and their early founders. St. Cyril and St. Athanasius … of Alexandria (Copts). The three Ecumenical Heirarchs, Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom … all Cappadocian, i.e., modern day Turkey (hint: not Greece). In fact, I have trouble identifying right off any prominent Greek Saints from Early Antiquity.
• Next actually examine the Eastern church which came out of “Greece”. It is known for its mysticism not its Aquinan/Aristotelian philosophical logic.
• The Christian church’s movement to Rome didn’t make it an institution. It made it a persecuted cult. Three centuries later, when “Rome” was supplanted by Constantinople as the capitol it became a state religion. It is dogma among modern political philosophers, who are amazingly ignorant of the next 1000 years of the Roman state, that state and religion don’t mix. They look at the Reformation and English history for their ideas on that. Conveniently ignoring any historical trends which don’t fit their preconceptions.

And that’s just a start.

A pet peeve. I saw somewhere a Holocaust Remembrance day is coming up. I also just saw A Boy in Striped Pajamas with my wife and youngest daughter. How is it that in the extermination camps 12 million were killed, of which over 6 million were Jews … yet in all the portrayals of the camps … they are populated by 100% Jewish populations?

That bugs me.

1. Well, what to do with illegal combatants. A deadline? It seems to me deadlines are a somewhat moveable feast.
2. Some thoughts on abortion.
3. The invisible dead. The global variant of the black on black violence of which nobody can speak?
4. Frankly my yearly fitness goals should really be a two year plan, but I’ll put it in ink. I’m hoping to ride a 58 minute 40k (I just barely broke the hour before my hiatus). That admission is spurred on by this.
5. Psychology and eBay bidding.
6. Girls in the springtime of their life.
7. Blaaaaasphemer!
8. The non-Islamic roots of our President’s moniker.
9. 1982’s economy and today. Until y’all start acting happy the beatings will continue.
10. Or the simpler explanation. He’s a crook.
11. In which Soviet failure to engender love of being ruled by Moscow is somehow relevant. Read the COIN manual.
12. One might as well wonder why the “don’t tread on me” state want’s to be tread upon.
13. Something else is going on here, doncha think?
14. Progress on an old simply stated but hard to make progress on problem.
15. In a word, blech.
16. Hmm.
17. A study running counter to the assumptions of those pushing progressive policies.
18. I don’t think they’ll notice.
19. What not to eat.

A while back I was considering the notion that angels and demons existed as intelligences operating at a different “level.” That is to say by analogy, if one considers an intelligent ant colony, then we are the ants to the the colonies demons and angels. That is to say, the demonic and angelic operate or interact with humanity as an emergent entity not so much as on an individual level.

Interesting idea or not, I’ve recently heard something that indicated that this idea is not new and in fact not in accordance to how these matters were viewed in early antiquity. Christian thinkers and writers in that period spoke of three realms. The angelic, the noetic, and the earthly. It seems clear to me that any emergent or other such behavior of humans would at best in the noetic realm … and a lot of it would be in the earthly.

That my idea is different does not make it a priori wrong. But it does give me pause, because these people who were thinking this, while not having the particular notions of emergent behavior did have the gist of it, in positing the noetic as a thing different from the earthly (which I take as the physical). That is to restate, smart people have different notions and it is clear that my notion is different. Especially inasmuch as I haven’t been thinking too long or hard about this, means I’m more likely wrong then they.

1. Looking at the beginning of Genesis.
2. Modern religious art from Moscow.
3. Pay them no mind … or not? Hamas tortures and kills members of Fatah.
4. Interesting poster, heh.
5. I’m assuming he knows that’s a Texas longhorn thing.
6. Part of a conversation on purgatory.
7. I have no idea what the problem is or why praying for Mr Obama’s family is racist.
8. Kind of what I was saying in last night’s post.
9. Prayers needed for Anastasia.
10. Difficulties faced by the corner marshal, I’ve done that job (at smaller races) and it’s difficult at times to cajole the people to keep the race (and themselves) safe.
11. A liberal unimpressed by liberal behavior.
12. Self-professed inaugural grinch?
13. David continues to relate his cancer journey.
14. Is it worse or just equally problematic?
15. Perhaps it should be said that “those who don’t know history, are bound to quote and say stupid things?” ‘Cause that quote is at best wrong, makes no sense, and means little.
16. Spiderman stops cars.
17. Two criticisms of Mr Obama’s speech yesterday. Here and here.
18. It remains to be seen if, as it seems, the current Administration co-opts for its own many of Bush’s strategies and policies. But if they do, it is highly unlikely that credit will be given where due.
19. Sometimes I wonder how the “don’t be consumers” cry comes together with “let’s all have gainful employment making stuff.”
20. PR and reality.
21. Obama -> Robert E. Lee or Lincoln?
22. Snow viewed from the South.
23. For uneasy nights?
24. End these cliches in fiction and cinema. Please.

1. One bar set, will it move? Is that where you set the bar?
2. Isn’t the answer, shame?
3. Standing with your dirty undergarments exposed.
4. Will the next major political battle be between left and far-left?
5. A societal rejection to reject or … “is Outrage!”
6. More bingo.
7. Culture, rejection of same, and failure to reject what should be rejected.
8. Academic follies.
9. Pro-life in tomorrow’s nation.
10. MLK, Aquinas and law.
11. The “not indicted” as refutation of connection.
12. No.
13. Still ahead of the bronze age.
14. On the simulator, flight 1549.
15. Change … or not.
16. Not $45 million … in excess or $170 million … and much of the money from Wall Street beneficiaries of bailout dough.

1. Ewww. I think the idea that there is “no law against it”, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be fired for doing it.
2. Well, there you go. A counter to Mr Warren being offered a chance to offer public prayer.
3. The other side of the sweatshop coin.
4. A good story from the desert.
5. On MLKj.
6. Standing against a classless society.
7. Identity vs conviction … and those standing convicted of a lack of conviction.
8. Failing to mention his graduate students … who likely did the real work?
9. Journalism and a question.
10. Troy Polamalu and taking one’s faith seriously.
11. Yet again, bias and the media.
12. History and a blogged discussion. The original. A dissenting view. Another response.
13. Suffering for purpose.
14. For those with BDS.
15. An Orthodox reading plan. Now I just need a Philokalia reading plan to put along side it. 🙂
16. Next year … how will Mr Obama treat with Sanctity of Life Sunday?
17. Heh.
18. Job and Galactica considered.
19. I concur.
20. Gosh another Ponzi found.
21. My daughter was there.
22. An odd road glyph.
23. Bad advice I think?

With this warning echoing on the web against amateur philosophizing. But that being noted, I will forge ahead nonetheless. Meta-ethics is that branch of ethics not describing normative ethics (how we act) but instead the means by which we do ethics. Two popular branches of ethical methodologies are deontology and consequentialism (of the latter, utilitiarianism is a particular example). It is my sense that virtue ethics via Aristotle and later supporters, while put forth some ancient Greeks, is less in favor today. Deontology, roughly speaking, is rule based ethics. Some time ago, I suggested that Christian ethics are neither of these. Christian ethics, described meta-ethically, I suggest are pneumatological.

Christian ethics is not deontological. Jesus time and time again speaks out against deontological Phariseeism, rejecting rigid, or perhaps even non-so-rigid, following of laws described and set down by man.

Christian ethics is not consequentialist. We don’t do our actions in order to “store up pennies in heaven” as it were. Salvation is not garnered via works of men.

What does this mean? In theology, pneumatology relates to the Holy Spirit. That is the Spirit, in the Trinitarian sense, is the center of Christian ethics. Why might we think of ethics for the Christian as pneumatological. As a Christian, to borrow a phrase from R.R. Reno, we are called to be “transparent” to Christ, that is to perform his will through us as if we were transparent. This is effected in the world, via the Spirit to inspire us as to how to do His will.

How might Pneumatological ethics work in practice? How does one discern the will of the Spirit. What has been said and laid out in Scripture and in our Tradition is one source for seeking guidance in this matter. But, for example, bio-ethics today is consistently throwing up questions and issues which are new to this age. How does one act in those cases. I’d suggest, prayer, fasting, being open to inspiration, and seeking advice from those who have more spiritual insight seem all likely possibilities.

Thoughts?

In some accounts of the Roman Empire, if memory serves (my dates might be off), between the 9^th and 10^th centuries historical accounts for the Empire don’t match. The Empire consistently shows a lot excess spending. Military ventures, building projects/public works, and other expenditures don’t match with the income. One proposal is that there was a “secret” gold mine, perhaps in Bulgaria or Romania that, until it went dry, served as the source of this public funds.

Today the only “secret gold mine” left to us in our age and to our states is to be found not in the financial sector. But instead in the abilities of our technological and scientific research to create avenues to wealth.

It’s really too bad that the educational system is so focused on multiculturalism and such matters and not on funneling the kids talented in science and maths into an environment in which they will flourish. Our gold mine is drying up. Will we share Constantinople’s fate? To be sacked by barbarians and ultimately the infidel?

1. Humor and the incoming President. If humor about the President is a duty of the loyal opposition, perhaps the uniformity of political alleigence of the comedy writers is problematic?
2. A “window” into pro-life in action.
3. This satirical piece makes an interesting point. If the “multiplier” idea is dumb … why isn’t it dumb when the Feds do it?
4. Atheist/Pagan and a little history.
5. Today in 1919.
6. A teen alternate history book, the Explosionist reviewed.
7. Does Shamsia Hsseini = Rosa Parks? Will the mainstream press notice … after Monday when they are allowed to care about reality again?
8. Plagarism discussed.
9. (faint?) Singular praise for Mr Bush from a Libertarian.
10. Or … perhaps akin to listening to atheists describe the faith experience and motivations.
11. Does that mean that Christians should shed self-control? After all, like St. Paul we would be servants (really slaves from the Greek) of Christ, no?
12. 3 miles?
13. Suspecting the enthusiasm … after all look how well that worked out the last time.
14. Of Cato the Elder.
15. Mil-tech geekery.
16. Mommmmmmaaaaaa.
17. Whence the outrage … bias perhaps?
18. Some more links.
19. Getting facts straight.
20. Fiction, truth and lies.
22. I do need that book.
23. One reason for the quantity of illegal aliens … Mexico’s problems.
24. “smart power” as stupid adspeak.
25. Verse + math.

I was recently reading about some protesters fasting in order to raise awareness for one cause or another.

It struck me that the secular left and the religious right have very different notions about fasting and its means and purpose. Read the rest of this entry

1. I for one have never been a member of a non-small church.
2. Of gymnastics in Belorus today.
3. War and life, and being consistent.
4. Here and there and Mumbai.
5. Kiddie soldiers and the ICC.
6. Are Jews closer to Islam in their beliefs?
7. Hints for blogging.
8. I got this book during the holidays … in a few weeks, I’m traveling again … I’m looking forward to reading it.
9. On that affirmative action thing.
10. Dostoevsky on the individual.
11. Focus for your tolerance.
12. Marx attribution faked. Why?
13. Gene Robinson’s multi-religion prayer considered (in advance of that actual prayer). Or a view of how real-life philosophers pare down the “stupid or evil” choice.
14. So who’d blink first?
15. It’s not just cold in Chicago it seems.
16. I was there this summer, but a hockey game … hmm.
17. Ms Paglia on Ms Couric.
18. I don’t really thing the idea of a postulant is all that new.
19. Memory eternal, a death noted.

Memory fails. Regarding Mr Geithner … what is the argument, not based on “red/blue” my-tearm only partisan teamsmanship, why Bush had two appointees shot down by the left, one for tax irregularities and another (Kerik?) for hiring a maid with improper papers. Was there one with tax issues too?

I spent three months as a private contractor. I paid my employer half of FICA … and did my taxes myself without a program (it was 1990).

What do you expect Mr Geithner’s apology will be base on. That he is stupid or evil (construing in this case, evil as criminal)?

Update: Zoe Baird, Clinton had the tax problems.