Stones Cry Out

1. To start off, a little political satire.
2. N.T. Wright has a new book.
3. Men, women, and late-modernity.
4. Helping wrongdoers. Love thy neighbor?
5. Seeking Celts.
6. A quote on thinking about the unborn.
7. Texas doesn’t make sense to some.
8. Ms Pelosi bemused over Obama’s, well, lies.
9. The bombers will “always” get through.
10. Regarding the discussion over “hope/change” as lie … read the last paragraph, which puts it quite succinctly.
11. Ethics (rules) sinking the Democrats.
12. The three hierarchs and ecology.
13. Violation of some sort of separation of state and market.
14. The buck doesn’t stop in the white house apparently.
15. And to finish … a ski mask.

Commenter Boonton kindly and helpfully remarked that yesterday’s post was clear as mud. What follows is an attempt to clarify and expand on what I was trying to say.

In the book (Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More) that I was reading on the recent travels over break, I came across this passage (the first link is an Amazon book link, the second to a chapter provided on-line by the publisher … which you can likely also buy it from, but they won’t put any change in my tip-jar).

One of the central contradictions of socialism is a version of what Claude Lefort called a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between ideological enunciation (which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment) and ideological rule (manifest in the practical concerns of the modern state’s political authority). The paradox, that we will call “Lefort’s paradox,” lies in the fact that ideological rule must be “abstracted from any question concerning its origins,” thus remaining outside of ideological enunciation and, as a result, rendering that enunciation deficient. In other words, to fulfill its political function of reproducing power, the ideological discourse must claim to represent an “objective truth” that exists outside of it; however, the external nature of this “objective truth” renders the ideological discourse inherently lacking in the means to describe it in total, which can ultimately undermine this discourse’s legitimacy and the power that it supports.

First, order of business then is to unpack this a little. The Lefort paradox is sort of a political analogue to Gödel’s incompleteness. It is (the author and presumably Mr Lefort) an observed quality common to ideological regimes. What it claims is that there is a operational split between “enunciation” and “rule”. The enunciation comprises the principles and philosophical grounding that forms the basis of the regime. For example, the Soviet regime was based on Marxist principles and dogmas. The rule then is then the implementation. The point is once a regime is established those involved in the regime can no longer actively question and modify the enunciation.  The ancillary point is that as a result of this paradox ideological regimes are fundamentally unstable. They are rigid because of this separation and unable to adapt in a changing world and circumstance. The book noted above makes a direct connection with the instability of the Soviet state with this paradox. It is a feature of ideologically based regimes.

Now, there are those (particularly Marxists and others) who often claim the governing ideology of the Western democracies and specifically the US is an ideology of market capitalism. But the question of whether market capitalism is in fact an ideology or not (and I don’t think that it really is an ideology) is not one which is germane to this point. For I think that the state set up by the founders is non-ideological … or at least it should be but very often isn’t. Market capitalism or consumerism or whatever are not encapsulated and defined by or within the Constitution. The US Constitution and government does not assume or enshrine marketcapitalism or in fact any particular ideology.

What sorts of governments are non-ideological? A government which is defined by structural and/or procedural elements are non-ideologically defined. Many governments of many types in the past were of this sort, being defined by procedural elements and all of these have been far more long enduring that the flash in the pan 19th and 20th century ideological experiments. So, if one measure of a good government is sustainability and durability, then defining ones state procedurally and not ideologically would seem to be a good thing.

The government as Constitutionally set up (and as well by the Declaration that preceded it) is non-ideological and instead is procedural. It provides a framework within which ideologies can co-exist. The Constitution sets up regulations and restrictions on the federal government which are routinely ignored by Congress, the SCOTUS, and the President. But, the point is if they chose not to ignore the Constitution (for example all rights not enumerated in the Constitution are not available to the Federal government) then some states (or small municipalities if given that freedom) could in fact become socialist, technocratic, theocratic or whatever they chose. Marxism for example is on the whole compatible with the US Constitution. Laws and structures could be set up by the state to support the tenets and dogmas of Marxist polity within the framework of the Constitution.

However, given the instability of ideologically based states, it would follow that enshrining and establishing ideological law on a Federal basis should be regarded as problematic and therefore avoided.  For this makes the state susceptible to the Lefort paradox and the accompanying problems. In fact the founders foresaw that and provided us with the 10th Amendment reserving what rights and powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the States and the people. Alas, the time for the 10th arguably has come and gone, for de facto if not de jure this Constitutional provision has been repealed by rapacious erosion of the federal expansion/explosion in the 20th century.

Now, right and left, especially in the last decades have been becoming more and more ideologically separated and forceful. “Universal” healthcare is just the latest example (from the left) of this trend. Universal healthcare is ideologically motivated. It is part and parcel of a particular ideology.  Installing it on a federal/national level will enshrine ideology nationally. Now this statement will undoubtedly bring up a plethora of examples of federally mandated instantiation and promotion on ideological ideas and dogmas from the right. And yes, that’s right, this notion condemns those as well. And note, as well, an establishment of Universal healthcare violates the 10th Amendment, my right to not purchase healthcare is not one which is enumerated within the Constitution therefore it is reserved to the people.

So, if you’re for universal healthcare and specfically the bill being pushed in Congress now … you should be ashamed of yourself, it’s an un-Constitutional travesty (which is as well infected with the Lefort paradox) and furthermore ultimately it threatens the durability of the nation as constituted by the founders. If your response to that in turn is “so be it” recall that the corollary is “for only a short time.”

Well, up to a point, but it’s not the bugaboo that many people make of it.

Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

I don’t think it’s so much the actual spanking that does it, but it’s more the willingness on the part of parents to set limits on children not ready for complete freedom.  And at the other end of the spectrum, some parents have a hammer and consider everything a nail, all the way into adolescence.  The study’s author explains:

Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed, the Times of London reported. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

When the government tries to step in and take the role of the parent, it can make the same mistakes as some parents can, but on a much larger scale.  "All discipline is local", to mangle a Tip O’Neil catch phrase.

1. Anger management and more.
2. Well, those statistics mostly make sense if you consider that a grandmother from Iowa is just as big a threat as a foreign national from the Middle East. Of course when “they” figure that out, then they’ll jump to recruiting grandmothers from the heartland so profiling naturally is just stupid. And if you believe that ….
3. Problems with measuring growth.
4. Of art and work.
5. Two against torture (and the right), here and here.
6. A righteous leper.
7. Climate and lies.
8. Krugman skewered.
9. Nihilism. Yes, the “pressure” is off, but are you finding happiness?
10. Mortgages and the state.

More than likely, you’ve received the following notice (or some variation thereof) from your financial institution, mortgage company, credit card company, etc.

Acme Bank will begin processing our 2009 year end statements on January 2, 2010. All year end statements will be mailed on or before January 31, 2010. In an effort to be more eco-friendly in our approach to sending out year end statements, we will no longer provide the history on the year end statement.

“Eco-friendly”? Are they serious? What is so eco-friendly about cutting down on the amount of paper that they mail out each year? Paper, the last time I checked, was still a renewable resource.

And answer me this, eco-earth-day-proponents… If mailing out less paper is an example of being eco-friendly, then why do I still get junk mail, weekly ads tossed onto my driveway, flyers hung on my front door, and up to 18 different versions of the same Holiday (read: Christmas) catalog per merchant I do business with (plus another half dozen versions via the merchants I rarely do business with)?

It seems to me that sending out less paper has less to do with being eco-friendly than it does with saving printing costs, resource expenditures, and postage expenses.

This disingenuous view of being ecologically responsible was evidenced at my place of employment, recently, when a new initiative of daytime cleaning was implemented. The cleaning crews, normally dispatched in the evenings, when the office workers had gone home, now do their rounds during working hours. One of the driving reasons behind the initiative was that it was tremendously cost effective, since less money would be spent on utilities to support the cleaning crew at night. Another big “benefit”, we were told, was that such an initiative was environmentally friendly. As part of the marketing promotion for the policy change, we were even given plastic toy figures stamped with “Going Green” on them. Never mind the fact that the production of such items is, in itself, not a green activity.

So, the moral of the story is, in order to better sell an idea that minimizes your own company’s cost expenditures… simply stamp it GREEN.

In the book (Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More)I was reading on the recent travels over break, I came across this passage (the first link is an amazon book link, the second to a chapter provided on-line by the publisher … which you can likely also buy it from, but they won’t put any change in my tip-jar). 😀

One of the central contradictions of socialism is a version of what Claude Lefort called a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between ideological enunciation (which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment) and ideological rule (manifest in the practical concerns of the modern state’s political authority). The paradox, that we will call “Lefort’s paradox,” lies in the fact that ideological rule must be “abstracted from any question concerning its origins,” thus remaining outside of ideological enunciation and, as a result, rendering that enunciation deficient. In other words, to fulfill its political function of reproducing power, the ideological discourse must claim to represent an “objective truth” that exists outside of it; however, the external nature of this “objective truth” renders the ideological discourse inherently lacking in the means to describe it in total, which can ultimately undermine this discourse’s legitimacy and the power that it supports.

Now, there are intellectual currents that would claim the governing ideology of the Western democracies and specifically the US is market capitalism, which some shoehorn to fit the definition of a ideology. Yet, I think that the state set up by the founders is non-ideological … or at least it should be but very often isn’t.

The government as Constitutionally set up (and as well by the Declaration that preceded it) is, as I see it, non-ideological. It provides a framework within which ideologies can co-exist. The Constitution sets up regulations and restrictions on the federal government which are routinely ignored by Congress, the SCOTUS, and the President. But, the point is if they chose not to ignore the Constitution (for example all rights not enumerated in the Constitution are not available to the Federal government) then some states (or small municipalities if given that freedom) could in fact become socialist, technocratic, theocratic or whatever they chose.

Universal healthcare is an ideological construct. It makes ideological assumptions about choice and freedom and government responsibility which fit within a “ideological enunciation”. It’s implementation will be direct violence to the intent and content of the Constitution. The right for me to choose to have health insurance (or more specifically to not have the same) is not enumerated in the Constitution, therefore by the 10th amendment this is a right not permitted for Congress to abridge.

So, if you’re for universal healthcare and specfically the bill being pushed in Congress now … you should be ashamed of yourself, it’s an un-Constitutional travesty.

Today began quietly, with a beautiful sunrise lighting up a sky full of clouds with a deep, reddish glow.

No stomach growls until mid-morning, although I did have a bit of a caffeine-deprived headache (ahhh, coffee…). With this particular type of fast (I am doing) one abstains from meat, dairy products, and luxury foods. Luxury foods, in my case, would include sweets and products such as coffee. I’m limiting the amount of my intake for both breakfast and lunch, but have no restrictions with regards to the evening meal. Essentially, I can eat all the fruits, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains I want. As my pastor has said, although it might appear easy to engage in such a fast, after a couple of weeks you start to get pretty tired of carrot sticks!

Scripture reading today included the first few chapters of Luke. In meditating over the verses I was struck by the manner in which John the Baptist addressed Jesus the Christ. In our extroverted let’s-all-be-friends smiley culture, we many times run the risk of trivializing who Jesus is, and how we should relate to him. Yet here in Luke 3 we find John the Baptist, the one chosen to prepare the way for the Lord, explicitly state that he is unworthy to even untie the sandals of Jesus.

Prayer for today: Let us truly understand who you are, Lord Jesus, and the worship you are due.

1. Dem “merely Christian” Christians should “get out of the hall.”
2. An influential 19th century Russian Saint noted.
3. Canada and a cover-up.
4. State humor in Russia … a change noted.
5. Tick Tock.
6. Why some like higher taxes.
7. Mad (?) Hattery.
8. While I might question the opening statistic … an interesting point is made.
9. Not unrelated to the above, but from more philosophical stance.
10. Fundamentalism and danger.
11. Some advice for listening to a homily, much of which can be also applied to being attentive to rest of the liturgy as well.
12. A comparison made.
13. A birthday noted.
14. Eros crucified.
15. A thought experiment (#1?) on race.

And, hopefully, stay there.

Now, this is funny (HT: hellinahandbasket),

…it is simply not reasonable for a 19-year old punk to be plucked off the Iowa plains, given a prized appointment to Starfleet Academy, immediately promoted above all of his upper classmates, and then immediately commissioned as not only a junior officer, but a captain — and then given command of a major vessel. This is stupid and asinine, and was only written because it makes 14-year old girls swoon.

Star Trek might attract 14-year old girls, but it should not be written with that as its primary goal.

While I thought the movie was enjoyable, to a point, I was completely annoyed with the incessant reflections on the bridge of the Enterprise, and found the video-game-like battle scenes to be tiring after, say, 10 – 15 seconds. Critics claim that the standard Star Trek series / movies are dull banter. Well – yeah – what did you expect? It’s Star Trek!

In Matthew 6, Jesus speaks about believers engaging in three activities: giving to the needy, praying, and fasting. Note the grammatical structure of the following passages:

“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others.” – Matthew 6:2 ESV

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites.” – Matthew 6:5 ESV

“And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others.” – Matthew 6:16 ESV

Indeed, a common thread in the three verses is Jesus’ use of the word “when”. His assumption, it would seem, is that His followers would make it a practice to give to the needy, to pray, and… to fast.

While there are certainly instances where a Christ follower may conduct a fast in private, there also is Biblical precedent for declared, group fasts. The church I attend has embarked on a 21 day fast, the duration being modeled from the prophet Daniel’s fast (ref. Daniel 1), beginning today, 3 January 2010. The fast is a declared fast, yet the manner in which each church member partakes of the fast is dependent on physical limitation and / or desired commitment. Our pastor has chosen to engage in a liquid-only fast. As for myself and my wife, we will be partaking in a “Daniel Fast”, in which we abstain from meat and luxury foods.

The point of this period of fasting is, quite simply, to draw nearer to God – to enjoy the blessing of His presence – to remind yourself that it is He who is worthy of worship. By abstaining from certain foods, one then has the opportunity to delve deeper into prayer and the reading of God’s Word.

Over the course of the 21 days I hope to post progress reports of what transpires, including the downs – and ups.

As for today, lunch was a light salad, with nuts, and sliced fruit. Dinner will be vegetable soup… wonderful in its own right, yet a bit lacking when not paired with the usual fare.

Image – © A. R. Lopez

1. I realize I’m not engaging the main thrust of Mr Niven’s post by this remark … but it seems to me that the statement “but what she can’t say is that utilitarianism itself has problematic theoretical consequences” is not correct. For certainly one can in fact make that claim. Perhaps what he meant is that the person he is criticising didn’t establish that point and should have made such an argument (first).
2. Devilish details.
3. Palestine and right of return (HT: Mr Loziwick)
4. Confession … not done right.
5. New decade or not. One way to think about it is, that those claiming to that this is the new decade count “like programmers”, who dance the waltz (queue some Strauss) counting 0-1-2 … 0-1-2. Do you start counting at 0 or 1. If you start counting things at one then this is not the turn of the decade. If you’re a programmer and normally do start your counting at 0, just look at the for loop idiom in C, Java, or C++ … then go for it … celebrate the change of decade. Oh, that post mostly looks not at the decade/not-decade discussion but the important maths advances of the last 10 years.
6. Evil.
7. What adjective would you use for these guys?
8. Considering humor.
9. Death and taxes … and the consequences of tax law and death (and end-of-life care).
10. I am noticed in a salutary list. Thanks.
11. Terrorism and myth … well, at least, “and a fisking.”
12. A bigot speaks.
13. Terrorism and intelligence considered.
14. Questioning response times and what that might suggest about priorities.

1. VDH offers a prediction.
2. From the “every disaster in Iraq was good news department” comes a demonstration that the chattering/political classes are cut from the same cloth.
3. #2 of 12.
4. Impending big noise.
5. Color me unsurprised.
6. Werewolves in London, err, Constantinople.
7. Science or not?
8. Teaching.
9. Killing time in Afghanistan.
10. Belief replaced by meta-belief, which is not uncommon (mostly on the left). In part I think that explains their envy of those who have strongly held convictions. People will not sacrifice much for a meta-belief.
11. For the right sort …
12. The administration can’t use google?

Well, the TSA objective of making transportation safe is back on the front-burner. Now the TSA screening is a poor seive. It is a largely static target and is very costly, the largest cost of course is in the lost time that travellers endure in negotiating long security lines. Furthermore, it is likely that much of their efforts are counter-productive. For example, making box-cutters freely available and common on flights would make it harder, not easier, for a terrorist or terrorists to hijack a flight. The “rules” of engagement with those who would interfere with the operation and direction of airplane do not get time to negotiate or to “make demands” known like they might do in the 20th century. Once a person is identified as hostile (a prospective anti-martyr) that person is quickly neutralized by his fellow passengers. The age of passive passengers has past once the 9/11 event occurred.

However TSA has a purpose. It is visible and reactive. It can take the appearance of being the primary and front line defence in a strategy to identify and interdict prospective anti-martyrs. War and espionage (to which this anti-martyr interdiction campaign is related) is in part one of misdirection. To that end, the TSA screeners take a very public and obvious role. They (might) be the public and obvious strategy which is a counterfeit. If indeed the TSA plays such a role, we as the voting public will not know that for as soon as it is common and public knowledge that the TSA is a large noisy feint … then their will be an outcry to remove it and an alternate deception will be harder to enact. Read the rest of this entry

1. ABC falsified?
2. A contrary man.
3. Not Stalin’s Russia anymore.
4. Heh.
5. On free choice and reason.
6. College and cost.
7. I’m unclear on what Jeremiah or one of the 12 literary prophets might offer regarding that suggestion, but I suggest they might not remain silent.
8. Connecting the dots?
9. The fall of Rome (the Western Empire).
10. “Acting white” = “Applying yourself in academically”. Hmm.
11. Sea ice, 3 megayears ago.
12. PC silliness. Almost 30 years ago, our dorm had t-shirts with the slogan “Where men are men and sheep are nervous” … I wonder if that would pass muster today.
13. Mr Obama and the Doctor.
14. A man and his job, this day in history.
15. A challenge for the science bloggers.
16. Anger management.

Today the church remembered the “slaying of the holy infants”, a voice heard crying in Ramah. Today living in as we are in the period of late modernity in the shadow of the great ideological killings of the 20th century (and likely waiting in the lull before the great ideological murders and atrocities of the 21st) this remembrance has no little relevance to our life today.

A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.
– Matthew 2:18 –

Recently I viewed the Polish film-maker Andrzej Wajda’s film Katyn. Like the verse above (and unlike much of the remembrance of the atrocities of the 20th century) the focus is not on the event and the slaying but on the impact on the families and specifically the mothers (and women married to those ) who were killed.

This raises for me a question, to which I will not offer any answer. When we remember the slain would it be better for our remembrance to concentrate our attention not on the specific details of those slain and their particular lives but to focus instead our attention on Rachel, i.e., the mothers and wives of those slain. For example, in our recent US history, the 9/11 monument and memorials to not denote and focus on those who were killed but those who mourn and are left behind?