Stones Cry Out

Patriotic dissent?  That’s so last year.

Eight months into Barack Obama’s presidency, as criticism of his administration seems to reach new levels of volume and intensity each week, the whispers among some of his allies are growing louder: That those who loathe the nation’s first African-American president, and especially those who would deny his citizenship, are driven at least in part by racism.

It’s a feeling that’s acutely felt among those supporters of Obama who are themselves minorities. Conversations with Democrats at an otherwise upbeat Democratic National Committee fall gathering here, an event largely devoted to party housekeeping, reflected a growing anger at what many see as a troubling effort to delegitimize Obama’s hold on the office.

“As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when asked in an interview in between sessions how much of the more extreme anger at Obama is based upon his race. “And we think it’s very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it.”

It’s not like we didn’t see this coming, but it highlights a serious double-standard among Democrats.  Apparently, only they can dissent properly.  Criticism of them?  Well, there are clearly nefarious undertones going on.

1. In favor of auto-expire in legislation.
2. Mr Sullivan’s case considered, more here. The real issue.
3. One view of the Mr Wilson address outcry kerfuffle.
4. Philosophy, well, there you go.
5. Pretty pretty.
6. Some conservative links.
7. A stacked deck.
8. Notes from the tea party. More here and here. And as seen from the other side of the world.
9. MMA and the gospel, and a question asked.
10. Of Bangles and bikes (doing “bike like an Egyptian”).
11. Moving toward a 1 liter (that is 1 liter/100km) car.
12. On our economic woes.
13. Untruth in advertising (although it might be noted that it if you take “stoned” literally instead of a figure for execution, it might be true).
14. Self as illusion, modern science and religion.

I had been working on a lengthy post responding to the President’s health care speech and then ran across this column by Shikha Dalmia that makes my case better than I could so I’ll just encourage you to read it instead.

This summer, as regular readers of this blog likely know, I took a spirituality class this summer. The reading was extensive and there were no papers or written work to submit during the class. As a final effort however, we have been asked to produce a short paper (which is below the fold) listing some short quotes from the readings that had personal relevance along with short remarks about that included quote. And so we begin. Read the rest of this entry

From FoxNews (HT: Belmont Club),

The Obama administration is rethinking its course recommendations for students ahead of President Obama’s address to the the nation’s schoolchildren next week, rewriting its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to “help the president.”

(emphasis added)

From Hope & Change parents,

You’re certainly free to consider me paranoid. And I’m free to consider you naive.

In 1993, the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center occurred. In our complacency we could not conceive of the successful attempt, until it came to fruition.

Complacency equals Jeff Cooper’s Condition White, being unaware and unprepared.

Do not forget, and do not be complacent.

1. Market watch on carbon credits.
2. Some middle of the road observations on Obama’s health address.
3. And finally, from a libertarian.
4. And some from the right.
5. A reporter fails to use some highly technical research tools, i.e., google.
6. Eve-teasing, India and bloggers.
7. Protests and response in Minsk. (note I used google translate Russian -> English)
8. And a student address in Michigan from 1988 recalled. (note I used google translate Russian -> English here too)
9. Looking at prosecutorial abuse.
10. half full/empty and cinema.
11. Education and psychology.
12. On the elimination of waste and fraud as a gambit.
13. Moscow and Kyiv.
14. Sir Thomas and Mr Kennedy.
15. Abiogenic oil, the significance of which would imply that there might exist large untapped (deeper) oil reserves.
16. Two explanations for economists recent failures.
17. Mr Carter notices an ACORN expose.
18. The “short arm” of the law.

The The Notorious ŒV offers a bland suggestion that the left remains sympathetic to keeping The Unlearned Lessons Of the Twentieth Century yet unlearned. Having finished the class (except for a final paper which I plan to write this weekend) now I have the chance to return to reading Chantal Delsol’s two books that have been translated into English (the first linked above). The second, which actually was published first, is titled Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in a Uncertain World. In the forward by the series editor, an surprising fact is asserted. The secular left and liberalism has had a little known assault which has been highly successful in the debate between left and right in the field of translation. They have managed to give the impression that outside of the Anglo-American world leftist thinkers are the dominant default. In turn, the Continent has been assailed in the main by liberal authors from the Americas, badly skewing our impressions of the status of the other. He gives a list of about a dozen or so French, South American, Italian, and German conservative thinkers and writers, each heard in their language but not translated. Chantal Delsol is another of these individuals. The editor notes the obvious, that one would have considered a distinguished influential woman political scientist/political philosopher (and in a field in which women are not just a little rare) would be a thing that feminists would celebrate. Yet, because her political philosophy is not left leaning … wham. No translations. No celebrations. No recognition (except perhaps a tacit nod to hypocrisy).

Ms Delsol is writing about the failed aspirations of the majority in the last century. She terms our age late modernity to strike a chord with late antiquity. For the last two centuries the progressive vision has been to stamp out poverty, injustice, war, disease and arrive at a radiant future. Even today, the left wing in American thinks that, yes, if only we pass this next reform (healthcare) then there will be no people dying for lack of care in America. There are two results to that sort of thinking. First, since, even if that passes, people will still be dying, injustice, poverty and disease will remain … yet another major reform will be critically required. And second eventually many will become disillusioned. Ms Delsol begins her book with an image of an Icarus who actually manages to survive. And asks, “he falls back into the labyrinth, where he finds himself horribly bruised but still alive. And let us try to imagine what goes on in his life after having thought himself capable of attaining the sun, the supreme good. How will he get over his disappointment?”

There are some who think that the mistakes of the past century to solve those problems were technical. That Icarus just “didn’t” get it right, like the hopey/changey Obamanoids who think that just if “smart people” get to make the right “wonky” decisions then the sun will be attained. Asymmetrical information problems are not the least of their errors. The problems go deeper. Others are less optimistic, instead having an existential crises. Having rejected the foundational beliefs of the prior age and embarking on ambitious projects to save the world, finding that it is not a tenable project, leaves many in the late modernity grasping for alternatives.

In the upcoming weeks, one of the recurring themes will be to raise and discuss the points and arguments raised by Ms Delsol in her two books noted above, starting with Icarus Fallen. I’d encourage you to get them from a library and skim or read them yourselves (of failing that, tip me a few dimes and buy it with the provided links). It would at the very least enliven the discussion.

But good examples of what, exactly?

From Mike Ramirez (click for a larger version):

1. Well, Ms Paglia ruffled the ‘sphere, but signifying … what?
2. Incentives essential … not essential. Hint: the former is right, knuckleheads on the Administration notwithstanding.
3. Nose surgery patterns.
4. That green jobs fella.
5. Has anyone defended Mr Obama’s Honduras policy?
6. For the Muslim in Egypt.
7. A book reviewed, the 10,000 year explosion.
8. Hmmm. That should help Congress tank their popularity even more.
9. A problem for Mr Obama’s credibility. Why would anyone believe anything that man says any longer? Has he done anything at all that he said he would if it wasn’t also to his advantage?
10. Problems with the public option.
11. This brings to mind my favorite frog saying, “Eat a live frog first thing every morning, it will be the worst thing all day for both of you.”
12. Watching the top court.
13. A new site for media bias analysis.
14. Literature … one for the ages.
15. Imagine that, going into politics for personal greed and aggrandizement.

As planned, President Obama gave his speech to schoolchildren nationwide, on September 8th.

And as was widely reported, many parent’s (and conservative pundits) across the country expressed concern for the event.

And, as I expected, many people, liberal and conservative alike, are now gleefully reporting that President Obama’s speech was all about education and nothing about indoctrinating our children into Socialism (e.g., here and here).

Of course, these writers completely miss the point!

No one in their right mind would ever have considered pledging to serve Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush, the two other presidents, we’ve been reminded, who also gave speeches to schoolchildren across the nation. Yet, since last year, we have had to wallow through incessant hero worshiping genuflections to the one who brings his historic presidency to fruition, embarking upon a worldwide tour, delivering orations worthy of all the grandeur of our long lost savior returned, at last, to unite our land, our people, our globe. This cult of Obama is just that, sending tingling chills up people’s legs and causing others to liken him to “god”. Shouldn’t such adoration bestowed upon an elected leader at least give one, especially the Christian, cause for concern?

Others of us, the blind ones, have missed it completely, not unlike Aunt Eunice, who never gets the jokes at the family get-togethers. We could only see a pro-abortion Senator, with barely a measurable amount of negligible service, unpublished in the legal journals, who had previously organized… communities.

But I venture towards reality.

Needless to say, since his inauguration, we have watched Obama attempt to make good on his promise to “spread the wealth around”, what with his trillion dollar economic extravaganza and plans for government run healthcare, expanding the federal government’s reach into the private sector.

The man is socialist through and through, and desires to increase the role of government in our lives.

So when he decides to speak to the children of America, I’m not expecting him to try and win the war; but I am on alert, and wary of each battle.

Christians: pray for President Obama

1. Bicycle thief gets his.
2. As we keep giving more and more power to government … hmmmm.
3. A Liberal wakes up (HT: Mr Leiter)
4. That notion as a trend noted here.
5. Two voices now being heard.
6. Mr Bernanke’s influences.
7. Count me as interested.
8. More DS-9 discussion and alas it still hasn’t gotten to the dollar theatre so I haven’t seen it yet … but I will.
9. Old Testament ethics.
10. On healthcare, Ms McArdle notes, ” Health care reform has not survived the worst Republicans can throw at it.  It’s survived–barely–the opening volley.”
11. On that same topic, this will be discussed ad infinitum (or ad nasueam).
12. On Anathem a short discussion, which book launguishes on my floor waiting for me to get ’round toit.
13. Upping the ante.
14. A cup of cold water.
15. In the “ask not what” theme.
16. For myself, I don’t think he gets it. I suggest that Mr Obama being himself a radical progressive is just playing to type.
17. Smoke, mirrors, and the gospel.
18. Ms Parks and the Christian life, a hint.

David at (as?) the Thirsty Theologian writes on sex (while married) and the Puritans. I had written an mid-length reply to our short conversation on that, which got lost. Or so I thought … as my reply did in fact show up (as I check later as I write this). To clarify what is being discussed here.

• David’s post is about how the Puritans have been misread by history (as is so common in history) the “conventional wisdom” regarding the Puritan attitude toward sex has it backwards. That is, that Puritans enthusiastically encouraged and celebrated sex within marriage. I think this is right and is right. That is to say, I think that it is correct that the historical reading has it wrong and that celebration of sex within marriage is the right attitude. I would only temper that with what Fr. Isaiah taught this summer, that as marriage continues into old age the (Orthodox) expectation is that the seeking of dispassion by the married couple will lead ultimately to celibacy within marriage.
• David starts (as well) pointing out Augustine, who he feels is highly regarded (?) within the Reformed community, felt that celibacy was a higher calling … and that this was wrong. David feels that Sola Scriptura is the only criteria by which normative Christian behaviour is to be measured.

David in his last exchange writes:

Since you claim to agree with the patristic tradition because it agrees with scripture, then you’re not really going counter to my statement dismissing tradition “if scripture says something else,” are you? We just disagree about what scripture says. So, if the fathers could really argue the superiority of celibacy from scripture, you should be able to do the same.

And on this I wish to write a little more. The full argument for the superiority of the monastic life and celibacy in particular from Scripture is derivative, for indeed the New Testament itself (obviously) does not lay out anything like the monastic example or teachings like St. John Cassian, St. Basil the Great, or St. John Climacus. So how did this conclusion come about. For this I think the key point is not to specifically single out celibacy or any other particular other monastic practice but the general practice of apatheia (dispassion) within the ascetic life (to which we are all called but the monastics single out as their primary focus in life). The writers noted just previously all assumed the necessity of apatheia. Apatheia in Christian writings and teaching is found as early as in Clement (AD 30-100) Stromata. At Clement’s time gnosticism and stoic influences were readily apparent, but by the time of those noted above that had long since gone through the wringer and the non-Christian influence weeded out. Take for example the later writer, Evagrius, and look at his work Praktikos. The Protestant claim is that this writing does not follow Scripture, yet scan the opening pages of the Praktikos, you will not find references to Scripture a rare thing. He uses Scripture to support and explain why dispassion is necessary and how to come by it. Once you have accepted dispassion as necessary to the Christian life … celibacy as a higher calling and exceptional way of life is unavoidable. Look at any of the early Christian writers. These writings form and explain Christian tradition and, lo, they are in fact heavily if not “solely” dependent on Scripture for inspiration.

My friends at Stand to Reason, a Christian apologetics organization, like to use the catchphrase, “Truth is not ice cream.” It’s their way of sparking people’s thought processes about relativism within our culture. Essentially, they’re illustrating the difference subjective and objective truth. While we can have various subjective opinions about our best flavor of ice cream, such opinions have no bearing on the veracity of the objective truth about the healing properties of medicine.

But what about the state of being human? Does yours or my status, as that of being a living human being, rest on the subjective whim of other human beings?

In the late 1990s I was selected for jury duty and questioned regarding a murder case. The defendant was accused of battery against a woman – a pregnant woman. She survived, but her unborn child died. Thus, the murder case was regarding the death of her unborn child. During the juror interview process I expressed astonishment that we have laws that allow for an unborn child to be killed through abortion, yet also have laws which allow for the prosecution of those that kill an unborn child. It seems to me that such a combination of laws presents us with a logical contradiction, namely, that an unborn child is, at the same time, both a human being and not a human being. In such an ice cream world of thought, we end up seeing that whether or not someone is considered to have been murdered depends entirely on whether or not said someone is considered to be a human being.

So… who’s in charge of determining the humanity of the unborn?

The quandary of this contradiction, and its implications, can be seen in a couple of posts at the New Mexico Independent (see here and here). One may also want to refer to a list of the 36 states which have Fetal Homicide Laws.

What is truly scary to see, in the two posts referenced above, is not the inconsistency with which pro-abortion advocates apply their compassion but how, when faced with the quandary, inadvertently (it is hoped) venture into the realm of creating second class humans. From Santa Fe man accused of killing pregnant girlfriend has high-powered legal help, regarding the fetal homicide laws,

Such laws are strongly supported by anti-abortion groups and opposed by many in the pro-choice camp, who say they are part of a long-term plan to establish rights for fetuses—at the expense of rights for women—and overturn the right to an abortion guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

Thus we are expected to refrain from establishing rights for the unborn in order to retain the right of women to kill their unborn? A civilized society can only accept such a proposition if, in fact, the unborn are not human.

The apologists at Stand to Reason have another saying they use, with regards to abortion, which comes to the point quite succinctly:  If the unborn child is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary; and if the unborn child is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

1. Philosophy and (as a cure for?) politics. Judging from the nature of the philosophical disputes in the rule of Justinian, I’d offer that philosophy will not be the cure.
2. Truth in advertising … fail!
3. Carbon (fiber) and the auto.
4. Well that’s a theme I’ve offered on more than one occasion.
5. More DS-9 discussions.
6. On the President’s kiddie speech. Another view here.
7. Crazy (and highly skilled) climber.
8. Revolt!!!
9. Afghanistan and their cash crop.
10. Czars (and Czarinas … although I can’t spot any women’s names on that list) … odd that.
11. He says “cynical panderer” like that’s a bad thing. Hasn’t he noticed the national stage, that’s all we have in the beltway, no?
12. Christianity … making life meaningless.
13. Exactly right on healthcare … or in my words, you’re just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic if you don’t address the supply problem.
14. Nature and nurture.