About Me

Name: Zentrist
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Prager and Belief

Tonight, on Hannity's America, Dennis Prager opines that among liberals "there is a deep-seated belief."  According to Prager, whom I respect and listen to when I can, liberals believe that people "ought to be loved."  In particular, Americans ought to be loved all around the world.  This remark was apropos of Obama's trip, tomorrow, to Europe. 
     By contrast, it would appear, Prager's conservatism strongly believes that people ought to be respected, not necessarily loved.  Point well taken!  It is true, as came up in discussion, that Americans are in the business of buying love.  Even love.  Parents are guilty of this, guilty as hell.  You see it at the store.  Some parents just don't know how to do the job--unfortunately the majority of clueless parents.  Among these unfortunate parents is one mother who threatened to break her child's finger if didn't shut up.  (This poor kid did shut up.)
     And this child will grow up to be "free," to "flourish" if only he realizes that in America, unlike in Europe, one can "go for it," whatever "it" is.  And no matter what threatened or actual torture one received at the hands of a mom or a dad who herself or himself was abused as a child.  Somehow the deck is stacked against this child who heard just those words above coming from someone who might have actually been a mother. 
******************************************************************************************************
     Now, I don't believe Prager believes in this kind of "respect." This fear-tactic is just that, fear.  Prager was blessed.  This random child from the trailer park has not gotten off to a very promising start--through no fault of his own.  It is enough to make a person angry, no, boiling mad.
     Unless you believe that all is determined by chance.  By fate.  By the almighty, Necessity.
     According to this philosophy (not Prager's, for he is a believer), humans are not responsible for their actions.  You and I have been determined by fate, by circumstances beyond our control.  Consider the waterfall, say, the one we witness in that fantastic movie, "The Mission."  The onrushing of the water, with its multiple twists and turns, which look like a kind of "freedom"...such spontaneity is actually governed by immutable laws that can be described mathematically.  Each pulsing movement of, say, Niagra Falls, so far from being chaotic or having  a "mind of its own," is following the very strict script that Overarching Nature has provided it.  The "screenplay," again, has been written already.  Each waterdrop is ineluctably compelled to "play the part" that has been given to it and it alone.  Indeed, each one is doomed to continue its irrevocable downward spiral.  (I borrow the image, the philosophy, from Friedrich Nietzsche, especially his "Human, All Too Human" (1878) and "Beyond Good and Evil" (1886)  ).  Some "conservatives" do not believe in "freedom and dignity."  And such nihilism is part and parcel of their utter contempt for the democratic republic, almost the worst of all possible regimes.  What is especially nauseating about such "ways of life" is that they exalt the utterly contemptible, things like "public spirit, benevolence, consideration, industriousness, moderation, modesty, indulgence, and pity" ("Beyond Good and Evil," aphorism # 199, Kaufmann trans.).  Fortunately for us, most of our conservative talk show hosts do not hate our American way of life or the principles underneath free Europe's way of life.  For these "arche," these First Things, are the very ones that we ourselves believe in.  The bottom line is Liberty and Equality. 
     Now, where was I?  President Obama is going across the pond in order to ask the Europeans for their support.  Getting back to our starting point, I'd concede that Obama, like Clinton, enjoys the adulation.  But as Charles Krauthammer has observed, Obama is different.  Unlike Clinton, he does not need to be re-elected.  You see, he is a True Believer.  Clinton, by this light, was and is a false believer, one who is merely addicted.  One who is fundamentally lost.  President Obama is far from lost.  He knows exactly what he wants and it is not what Dick Morris tells him he needs to do to get re-elected!  As we saw in Clinton's case, Morris knows how to get presidents re-elected.  But Obama seems bound and determined to do everything in his power not to take into consideration the advice of Mr. Morris, genius or not.  Dick's next book is titled, we are told, "Catastrophe."
     By "catastrophe," Morris means, among other things, that Obama will not, in his view, be re-elected, Worse, he will have led this country into a certified, bona fide, cataclysm.  We will see. 
     Morris is not afraid to go out on a limb!  I'll give him that.  He could be wrong, and I think he must know that--given how many times during the last two years he has been wrong!
     The reason why his incredibly well-reasoned and uncannily intuitive and instinctive analyses sometimes do not play out--is Fate.  There are things beyond our control.  We are, all of us, in a way, hurtling down Niagra Falls in a barrel.  Whether we with our very best plans make it or not is not entirely up to us.  Just ask Hillary and Bill now that the campaign they put so much hope in came undone.  All the hope and planning and hard work and coming back, time after time, eventuated in terrible, tearful disappointment.  Something turned out to be more powerful than the celebrated "Clinton Machine."  This something was the man with a Dream and a proven record of Audacious Hope. 
     Now he is hitting a wall.
     Or, so it would appear. 
*******************************************************************************************************
     Personally, I was never threatened with having my fingers broken, "again," as this real-life mom threatened her three-year-old.  In public, no less.  But for whatever reason I came to believe that the glass was half-empty.  So, I kind of know where these "liberals" are coming from.  But not the ones who grew up believing that the glass was half-full, the elites.  (Not necessarily monetarily elite, but spiritually so.)  Yes, the glass, for me, became the bottle.  "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy," said the seasoned member of the support group!  I once heard at one of those teacher in-services that 96% of American families have had to bloom in some level or other of serious dysfunction.  That was in the 80s, however.  Now, the figure is probably 98%. 
     On his last day in office, after landing back in Midland, Texas, George Bush went to the microphone and used the pulpit one more time.  He did it beautifully and in a world-historic way, a way that befitted a world-historic Presidency.  He said Hello to everyone and then proceeded to offer thanks to his parents for giving him "unconditional love."  This was President Bush's  /Gettysburg Address/, so to speak.  Just a few words, but altogether memorable.    
    
    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Dickens' "Little Dorrit"

     The genius of Charles Dickens is matched by the people who put together "Little Dorrit" now showing on Masterpiece Theater (KERA, public television for North Texas).  My wife and I watched Part One of a five-part series (according to my better half) tonight--and apparently the show will continue Sunday nights to follow, on channel 13, at 8 P.M.  Long live such TV!  A few nights ago, it was "King Lear," starring Ian McKellan. 
 
     The themes encountered so far in this version of the novel (1857) seem tailor-made for our time:  the perennial issues of love and romance; debt, collectors, debtor's prison, freedom, redemption, pride and arrogance. 
     My ignorance will show here, but so be it.  How on earth could someone be in prison, have his family there with him, conceptions and giving birth included?!
     Be that as it may, Little Dorrit is the youngest child of William, the man in the "debtor's prison."  We learned about these prisons when we first read Dickens ("Great Expectations" in 8th or 9th grade), but not much...
     Arthur, falling for Amy Dorrit, that very youngest child, has just decided to come home from China.  Actually, he comes home first, then begins to fall for the Little Dorrit.  She describes herself as little, but very strong.  When we see her interact with her father, the incarcerated debtor, we have a glimpse of just how she got to be so strong.  "Remember you are a lady," he often tells her.
     One very poignant connection with our own time and situation occurs when little twenty-one-year-old Amy goes to apply for a job and gets it, first try!  Furthermore, while there at the job she meets this Arthur character (his mom hired her to help around the house). 
     Arthur appears to be a figure of Christ, a very noble and caring soul who has renounced his role in the family business. (Okay, maybe he's more like Saint Francis of Assisi.)  Anyway, he intends to "get a job."  His jaded mother, to put it mildly,  remarks that now he, Arthur her son (was he named after King Arthur?), will take the education she "gave him" and "use it somewhere else." 
     The most remarkable thing about this Arthur is that he wants Amy, true enough, but he also wants to help her and her troubled family.  He feels it his duty.  Why?  Something his dying father was trying unsuccessfully to tell him at the hour of his apoplectic, but quick, death.  Apparently it was "some wrong" done by "the family business" towards the Dorrit family.  An investigation of this theory ensues.
     An all-too-relevant connection to our own time now seems to have been on the mind of the people at KERA or Public Television generally.  BIG BUSINESS or at least a "business or corporate culture" is the bete noire, at least insofar as it takes advantage of the little guys.  In a way, though,  America itself is now in debtor's prison.  We are looked down upon, notwithstanding our shining new star of a president. 
     America is in need of redemption, first in the financial sense, then in the psychological sense. 
*****************************************************************************************************
     Thus far in the film, only the brother of William Dorrit has been redeemed--let out of prison--apparently by this very beautiful soul, this Arthur Clennam.  He has acted anonymously, "incognito."  In a compelling, romantic scene, Amy tells her new friend, Arthur, that if she knew who it was that helped in the release of her uncle, she would like to "kiss his hand."  Arthur replies in his typically modest, unprepossesing manner.  Of course, he does not disclose that it was he who paid the ransom or debt.  (Twenty shillings, I believe.)  At any rate, Arthur is not the only one who is interested in this very attractive Amy Dorritt.  The plot is complicated.
     I really cannot do justice tonight to the five-star quality of this story and film.  My wife and I have only seen Part One, and there is a great deal to try to sort out.  This story by Dickens is also a mystery story, a thriller in its own way.  What is the relationship between this well-to-do family represented by Arthur and this "hard times" family represented by Amy?  Who or what does Arthur "stand for," other than himself?  What really motivates him?  What is the PROBLEM with Arthur's cold, cold mother?  My wife has speculated that the real mother is the wife of the family butler!  We do know that Mrs. Clennam holds a deep and abiding resentment against her recently passed husband--for reasons unknown at this point.  Moreover, she takes out her grudge on her son.  What will become of this grand old invalid lady, her son and the beautiful young lady she has hired to do some sewing--remains to be seen. 
     It is wonderful how the very best, the most instructive entertainment, is also the least expensive...KERA, channel 13,  Sunday nights, 8 P.M.
     
 
    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congratulations to Newt Gingrich

The good news about Newt's conversion to Catholicism (soon to be official) came to me minutes ago via an article by Christopher Buckley.  Now, my wife tells me that this is old news, that it's been in certain Catholic papers for weeks!  But what a beautiful "news item" it is!  I'm thrilled for the former speaker of the House and (perhaps) future president!  This was clearly an arranged marriage, a "marriage made in heaven," Newt Gingrich and the Catholic Church of John Paul the Great and our current Holy Father, the former a saint in heaven, the latter a living saint.  (Just had to add those perspectives.)
 
It was an arranged marriage in the sense that God's benevolent providence has (perhaps) had something to do with it.  One might say it was predestined.  I would say it is an important moment in history.  For Gingrich personally, this Encounter probably matches or supercedes all the others.  The sacrament of Baptism is indeed an awesome way to encounter the Lord.  The water is reminiscent (and more) of the baptism of Jesus by John in the Jordan.  I wonder who will "witness" or "perform" the sacrament, which priest, that is.  In truth, it does not matter.
 
What matters is the special grace that will attend, especially for the soul of Dr. Gingrich.  At that moment, Gingrich will be united, sacramentally united--with Christ, with the Church and with the Communion of Saints.  The liturgy will literally pour out upon his person these special, indelible graces--this indelible mark upon the soul (if I remember well my Catechism).  Actually, Newt's original baptism if there was one, is still binding, as I understand it, as far as the Church is concerned.  Yet, this Easter Season Baptism will bring the grace to a hitherto unheard of level.  "The eye has not seen, and the ear has not heard..."  I think this is indeed an historic occasion in Salvation History.  We are all Children of God, but there is something special about this event in time.  Newt will be standing, in the temporal sense, upon the shoulders of giants, men like Malcom Muggeridge, Father John Neuhaus and Tony Blair.  Would that Christopher Buckley were still in the Church.
 
The great journalist, Bob Novak, is a convert (from a background of atheistic Judaism).  Among the many prominent cradle Catholics who occasionally speak about their faith in public are Chris Matthews, Nancy Pelosi, Bill O'Reilly, Rick Santorum. 
 
Other converts include Larry Kudlow and the man who was the best man at my wedding. 
 I've already mentioned controversial  (cradle) Catholic Speaker Pelosi (what a contrast between two speakers and two Catholics!).  John Kerry also comes to mind, of course.  Rudy Giuliani (probably not really pracicing).  Actor Jon Voight; attorney-talk show host Laura Ingraham; one heck of a major league pitcher (sorry I forget his name--St. Louis, I believe...or Philadelphia). 
 
A few years ago, a well-known (then) congressman from New York appeared on a cable TV show on Ash Wednesday--with the ashes still on his forehead!  Sorry, I cannot remember his name. His wife is also a dynamo of a politician.  By the way, at one end of the glorious spectrum of Catholics, names do not matter.  I'm referring to the Carthusians in Arlington, VT., among other places.  Their tombstones do not have names on them.  This outward sign is in perfect alignment with their apophatic or "negative theology."  They are semi-eremitical, that is, hermits--half the time of the day!  In the Green State, they are very green indeed with their Ben Franklin wood-burning stoves and windmill farms on the adjacent hills!  But the main point about them is their incredible humility and Olympian-heroic prayer life. 
 
Perhaps the greatest statesman-Catholic ever was Saint Thomas More of Henry the VIII's era.  In second place, maybe Zbigniew Bryzyzinski (pardon the spelling), Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State.  I don't know.  I'm shooting from the hip now.
 
Anyhow, the Church is (s)welling up with Joy now at the prospect of this momentous event coming up soon.  As for Buckley's article which pointed out some "issues" with Newt's background and the Church's all-too-easy annulments, let me quote another living saint, the great televangelist, Mother Angelica (Newt:  you must go to the Shrine in Hanceville, AL., if you haven't already):  "Come on in, the water's fine...and there's plenty of room for one more hypocrite!"
 
Uh, somehow my quote does not capture the beauty of this remark when I first heard it on EWTN...the beauty and the laughter. 
 
Congratulations in advance of your Baptism, Mr. Speaker!
 
(p.s.  Newt for President...God-willing...in 2012!)
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Peace in our Time

When we use words carelessly, saying that "war is coming," we can be catalysts for self-fulfilling prophecy.  Hillary, in her wisdom both political and maternal, would never say such a thing.  She is a statesman.  Obama, too, is the statesman par excellence for choosing Hillary to be Secretary of State.  I want to compliment both statesmen for the wise words Hillary used vis-a-vis the crisis in Mexico-US relations.  The idiot who said that "Mexico is not our problem" is pathetically, unspeakably mistaken.  As Hillary prudently said, Mexico's "problem" is our problem--even at the core, since we are the apparently stronger one.  America shares the responsibility for peace and peacefu relations, for words that can cause, and words that can prevent war.
 
Let us thank the Lord that we have a prez who understands just how powerful words are.  If literature matters, and it does, if articles matter, and they do, then even your choice of words--and mine, matter.  As we go about our activities this day, let us recall the teachings of the Bible:  words can destroy or words can build up.  What is your choice?  What will be my choice, today? 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Daniel Hannan, Obama and Jack Cafferty

The appearance tonight on Hannity's America of Member of European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, got me thinking again about Obama and Jack Cafferty.  Hannan, as Hannity pointed out, supported Obama over against McCain.  This he explained briefly yesterday on Cavuto (Hannity "didn't have time" to hear about it).  Mr. Hannan, who speaks Spanish and French better than I do American, argued that Obama appeared the better choice and that, today, the world is indeed hopeful that things will be better, from its perspective, under this man of "mixed blood."  Hannan specifically made reference to the power inherent in Obama's background, his "mixed blood."  This non-white aspect, combined, I take it, with Obama's preternatural gifts, made him the obvious choice over against the symbol of the Bush years, McCain.  Hannan may come across as a conservative, but he is not stupid.  He may have even preferred Ron Paul, whom he admired while on Cavuto, but his horizon is different from ours.  As I said, he's a politician-journalist-author-wit-philologist...the guy is a Rennaisance Man, for heaven's sake...who supported Obama in spite of Obama's manifest "socialism."  How could he?  Easy.  From his perspective (he knows modern European history exceptionally well), what THE WORLD needs at this juncture is Barack Obama. 
 
I guess we'll all have to wait until his next appearance on Hannity's America to hear more about why he wound up supporting Obama, why Daniel Hannan, who quoted Milton Friedman tonight on Hannity, supported our current prez.
 
Yesterday, on Cavuto, as I said, we only got a little snippet of an explanation.  But what we got certainly resonated with me, a person who has unspeakable contempt for both parties.  (See Doug MacKinnon's article on Townhall.com on the utter spinelessness of the Republicans.)  For my part, I'd like to hear a debate, maybe a "Lincoln-Douglass" type debate (with no Hannitys or Matthews or O'Reillys within a hundred miles of the event).  I'd like to hear the combined power of reason and instinct at work.  Mr Hannan versus....President Obama!  After all, Daniel Hannan was for Barack!  With Daniel Hannan, or someone like him, we would get a perspective quite different from the boring talking points emitted from our talking heads.  Yesterday, for example, Mr. Hannan, amazingly enough, had time with Neil Cavuto to share a story about a bank in New Zealand, I believe, that asked for a bailout.  The moral of the story was that we f__ed up bigtime by letting the special interests take control of our government.  By special interests, I mean the banking lobbyists, the clueless "leaders," and their equally clueless "advisors."  This is also what Daniel Hannan means.  Tonight, he shared briefly, in brilliant soundbites, a story about Zimbabwe.  Check it out, if you can, later this evening when and if the show re-runs.  Again, the moral of the story, and he has this gift, like Lincoln, and Reagan, for telling delightful and instructive stories--is that we are as we speak in the process of f-ing up our lives, bigtime.  I sure hope he is wrong and that the administration knows what it is doing.  It would not be wise to underestimate our President and his men and women.  The tape will show that Obama intends to "avoid massive debt."  I repeat, President Obama fully intends, with his approach, to "avoid massive debt."  Maybe it will work out in such a way that our country and the world will be better off seven or so years from now--"if this were easy," Barack says, we would have done it already.  Anyhow, Hannan has seized the opportunity to use his own megaphone, albeit in brilliant little sound bites (and a three minute speech to Gordon Brown).  I mean, he has really, really hit the bigtime now.  I for one would like to hear more of his first-hand experience about the health insurance in Great Brittain.  Then, in this "Lincoln-Douglass" style debate, I'd like to hear what President Obama has to say to rebutt the great gentleman's argument and experience.  Knowing the President as I do, I think he would enjoy the exchange of ideas with an "upstart crow" (that's an alllusion to the young Shakespeare).  Daniel Hannan is only thirty-seven years old.  Barack Obama is only forty-seven years old.  Both men represent the future of the world, at least we hope so!
 
This leads me to Jack Cafferty's appearance tonight on Larry King Live.  King predicts that Cafferty's new book, "Now or Never," will go even higher than his previous best-seller.
 
Cafferty's new book is about his hopes for the new president and his plans and his legislation.  It is "now or never," I take it, for America to realize its full potential.  For Jack, Obama "appeared at our doorstep" for a reason.  What that reason is, is not yet clear.  But, it's now or never (by the way, the title of a spine-tingling song by Elvis).
 
I've not read Cafferty's book, but I'm thinking about reading it, not because of what he says about our country under Obama and our nation's hopes and dreams under this spectacular new talent. 
 
I'm more interested in what Jack reveals about his personal story of recovery from alcoholism.  Twenty years without a drink--even after his beloved wife died, quite suddenly, recently.  He says he decided to open up about this battle and the "one day at a time" victory--because it sheds light on his "contrary" way of looking at life.  He even revealed quite openly his own unique style of commentary, a way of speaking that is, by his own confession, both "condescending" and, frequently, "cynical."  The book may connect this horizon on life with growing up in a dysfunctional, alcoholic home.  Well, to me, also a recovering (one day at a time) alchi, this experience just sounds like growing up in America. 
 
Anyhow, let the debate begin, the serious debate between Jack Cafferty's America and Sean Hannity's America.  While we are waiting, waiting for this possible verbal battle (a lofty one, like "Lincoln-Douglass"), we are witnessing one of the crucial episodes in World History.  We will witness in person, so to speak, the unfolding of the Obama Presidency.  Indeed we will be participating, in a sense, in that Great Experiment.  Jumbo thanks to Townhall.com!  Super-jumbo thanks to all the small business men and women in America!  As we've seen recently, they are not going to let a little taxation slow them down!  To imply that any president has the power to make them impotent is an insult to their intelligence, hard work and creativity, not mention extraordinary people skills. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The American Adam

Innocence versus Experience:  That dichotomy continues to characterize the American Experience.  Part of us (as shown in our lit) is still innocent, a lamb in the Garden.  Another part is seasoned to the point of disillusionment.  Let us hope, in these days of war and even more war to come, that our outstanding national security team, led by Obama, uses wisdom.  Let us all remember the experience of two great cities, Athens and Jerusalem.  Only now, the overarching context is the tension at the core of that Shining City on a Hill.  I mean, the New Jerusalem. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Daniel Hannan for President!

It is hard not to like President Obama, just as it was hard not to like President Bush--for me personally.  Bill Clinton, too, wanted to be admired and indeed continues to be admired and respected by millions, no, billions of people around the globe.  And this worldwide respect and appreciation is deserved on Clinton's part, just as it is deserved by another grey-haired man, Jimmy Carter. 
 
We only have one president at a time; I know that.  But I just wanted to share my enthusiasm for the plain-spoken Brit, Mr. Daniel Hannan, who, a UK citizen, can never be our prez.  But would that his principles of governing could be adopted by our current boss.  Our current servant, that is.  I've not seen the famous speech yet, but by chance I caught the interview this afternoon on Cavuto.  Perhaps this interview, too, can replayed, over and over and over again? 
 
Even better, perhaps this country could return to sanity someday?  According to Mr. Hannan, the world has a new respect for America as a result of the election of Barack Obama.  This is good news, reliable news, coming from a man such as Daniel Hannan.  But let us all consider what else Mr. Hannan had to say, today, on Cavuto.  "Only bankers and politicians" do not practice the sensible living that an ordinary, frugal family lives out from day to day.  Instead of good sense, these types think that the thing to do is to spend our way out of each and every problem that comes up asking for a solution.  I like this Daniel Hannan.  I hope he is prime minister some day.  His gravitation towards the man I wrote in, here in Texas (Ron Paul), makes him all the more attractive as a human being and citizen of the world. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On the Press Conference

President Obama indeed "looked tired" as Anderson Cooper remarked.  "He looked like he wanted to go home," said Dr. Bill Bennett--go home, that is, after a penetrating, grilling question from CNN's Ed Henry.  Bennett remarked on what he perceived to be a "flash of anger."  Mr. Bennett, that was not a flash of anger.
 
But yes, he did look tired.  However, he was for all of that his usual sharp self.  The words were there, and they were the well-chosen words he wanted.  "Because I want to know what I'm talking about before I speak."  This was his sharp-elbow reply to Ed Henry's stupid question about "why it took two days" for the administration to respond to something or other.  Henry was put in his place and the press was, at least for a moment, put in its place.  The press is full of itself, just like we are.  It--and we--need to be put in our place.
 
The most touching moment of the press conference occurred when Obama spoke of his intention to practice persistence.  Like FDR before him, he will adjust to existing circumstances.  I take it this way:  Obama will persist in his pragmatic, not ideological, attempts to "fix the economy."  But when an Ed Henry of CNN and a Chip Reed from MSM ask the tough, realistic questions about piling up debt on top of debt....I continue to hope--and despair at the same time.  Some awfully smart people, after all, are behind all this planning and legislating.  They know about the elections coming up.  Obama himself has spoken openly of the possibility that his tenure in office could well be a "one term proposition."  However, tonight, he referred to "seven years from now."  He sounded confident, to me, that he will run and be re-elected. 
 
Seven to nine trillion dollars in new debt?  And Dems are saying this?  We've already seen Evan Bayh ask some very tough questions about pork.  No doubt, Mr. Bayh will have more questions about the budget.  According to Obama tonight, that is all fine, to be expected.  What he knows however is that we are headed in the "right direction."  Energy, education, health care. 
********************************************************************************************************
The cautious part of my make-up tells me that sometimes doing nothing is the wise thing to do.  A veteran public school teacher, I've seen enough of "innovation."  I voted twice for Ross Perot, partly because he was not impressed, in Texas, with public school teaching and administration--what with all the "innovation" that amounted to absolutely nothing.  Nothing but money down the drain. 
 
On the other hand, the "hopeful" part of me wants to believe that a Nobel Prize educator and author like Paul Krugman knows what he is talking about!  That former Harvard President Dr. Larry Summers (and Jared Bernstein and Austan Goolsbee)...that these "best and brightest" KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. 
 
On TV, specifically on CNN today, both Bernstein and Goolsbee impress with their common sense and willingness to persist, persist in the way that Obama advocated tonight in the press conference.  What the entire team continues to argue, quite reasonably for all I know, is that we need to invest in education, health care and the environment in order to create the Ground for a long term, viable recovery.  But one would think that first you fix the economy!  Yet, common sense is not always the right approach.  Maybe "absurdity" is the really wise and prudent course of action when you're in really, really deep stuff.  Absurdity. 
 
President Obama is asking us all to hang in there with him.  If, in November of 2012 he is still running, I'll vote for him...if then it appears that he deserves to be re-elected. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Nine Eleven

Patrick J. Buchanan and Cal Thomas and George Will and Star Parker write alarmingly of the utter woe facing our suicidal country.  What we need--is another nine eleven.  I mean, we need a real wake up call.  President Obama is all about Unity.  Well, the unity he wants, the unity we all deep down want, just ain't gonna happen.  Only some kind of world-historic catastrophe will galvanize a country like ours.  I'm afraid I'm coming around to the conservative's way of thinking:  We should have let AIG and all the rest of it fail.  I repeat, we should have been men and women enough to admit our sins and begin the process of making amends and doing penance.   Only a rebirth of Biblical humility can save us.  And only a shocking dose of reality will "bring it on."  Let us all hope and pray for another nine eleven, something to unite each and every one of us.  Today, the goals of yesterday seem too easy, too laughable.  Back then, we were all talking about the high gas prices and the need for energy independence.  But in "this morning's paper," i.e., Townhall.com, I read that our country is in such deep darkness, at its core, that sooner or later China will suck us under its floorboard, so to speak.  (Such was the neighborhood I grew up in.)  To be sucked under the floorboard of a much bigger, much more powerful V-8 would be "of minimal enjoyment," an expression I learned from Dr. Kissinger.  If we're gonna "rebuild America," What will it take? 
 
Is the Obama budget the key to our future success?  Many of us urged the new president, a true believer if ever there was one, to take the long view of things, to come up with a ten year plan, no a twenty year plan.  Re-election be darned, if necessary--enough is enough.  We need new roads and bridges; we need decent, affordable health care; we need an effective education system; we need water!
 
Those aren't really luxuries.  They are necessities.  So, why are people getting so alarmed at our "spendthrift" ways?
 
Because, up to now, and still now, we are a society addicted to our little "pleasures of life."  Cheap gas; cheap Sony plasma TVs; exorbitantly high interest rates on the credit card debt--averaging 10k per family in this sick country.
 
Why did no one of note say something about all the "promotions" of new credit cards?  Even a fool like me could tell that this con game smelled fishy.
 
And I guess that was just the tip of the iceberg.
 
The Titanic has now hit the iceberg.
 
More and more of us are feeling, finally, that we are in over our heads, that we are sinking--financially, emotionally, culturally, even spiritually.
 
Personally, I am so mixed up.  One moment, I'm convinced:  WE MUST NATIONALIZE THE BANKS.  When Lindsey Graham and Arianna Huffington Post.com agree upon something, people should pay attention.
 
Then, I get up some fine, stormy morning and read George Will, Buchanan, Thomas, Parker(s)--and realize that the ship really could go down. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Comparing Bush and Obama

Two Christians, one liberal and one conservative:  two true believers, however.
 
Bush's extraordinarily bold decision to liberate Iraq has been matched by Obama's extraordinarily bold decision to liberate America.  Let us hope and pray that these two narratives continue to parallel each other.  I mean, President Bush, so far, has successfully liberated Iraq from tyranny.  The getting there, the achievement to this point, has been fraught with extreme difficulties.  President Obama's mission seems very similar in terms of the degree of difficulty.  He has realized some early success:  the stimulus plan went through.  Bush, too, was extremely successful early on.  The first steps of the Liberation were mighty deeds of "shock and awe." 
 
Obama has come along, now, and shocked us all.
 
Let us hope and pray that seven years from now we will look back on Obama's work and marvel--just as we look back and admire the "missionary" work accomplished by President Bush.  Of course, by then, both presidents will have enjoyed the help and prayer of countless friends, citizens and human beings. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Bush and Torture

First of all, there is torture and then there is torture.  The claim, "we do not torture," in this context, was absolutely true.  Get real, folks. 
 
But now let's just admit that waterboarding is indeed a form of torture, albeit a relatively mild one.  How did we reach this point?  Answer:  Ideas have consequences.
 
In his 1980s best-seller, Straussian philosopher Allan Bloom argued that Nietzsche's ideas contributed to the Sexual Revolution which, in turn, propelled the "closing of the American mind."  (By the way, the American mind is now opening back up again.) 
 
Well, that was an oversimplification on Bloom's part, but there was something to it:  As I finally actually read this philosopher of "evil" I can see that in places his text is just plain "dangerous."  Lots of places.  As Zarathustra or somebody said, "real men love two things, danger and play." 
 
Be that as it may, the best minds of the previous century imbibed Nietzsche in alchoholic quantities.  And indeed, as Bloom points out, we can see the results.  Bloom believed, and with good reason, that rock music is nothing more than a reflection of the pulsing pulsations of uninhibited sex.  Today we would have to add (with the success of hip-hop) violence.  And a very Nietzschean, that is misogynistic violence, at that.  I utterly loathe that music, just as my elders loathed the rock I loved--back in, say, 1969.  They called it "music," and I, in our time, call hip-hop "music."
 
I've digressed, but not too much.
 
The chaos and terrorism and anarchy of our time was in a way foreseen by Nietzsche.  Kafka's "The Trial" sort of fleshes out Nietzsche's scathing critique of our bourgouis, bureaucratic banality and impersonality.  I'm talking about the manifest absurdities that one encounters in our everyday living, in my case, for example, as a public school teacher.
******************************************************************************************************
President George W. Bush "went across the line" with his policy of "torture," so his critics keep saying.  I might agree with them; I might not.  That doesn't matter.  What could matter is the possibility that ideas indeed have consequences, as Allan Bloom suggested in his mighty philosophic best-seller of around 1987.  Lately, while reading Nietzsche, it appeared to me obvious Nietzsche profoundly influenced Bloom's best teacher, Professor Leo Strauss.
 
Strauss, in turn, profoundly influenced not only Bloom and countless others, but eminent "neocons" like Wolfowitz and Kristol, especially Bill and his co-workers at the Weekly Standard, e.g., Charles Krauthammer.  It was Krauthammer who made the Weekly Standard argument for torture in certain extraordinary cases involving serious national security threats.  It sounded reasonable to me at the time and still sounds like just plain common sense, albeit American-style.  For Dick Cheney and Bush, too--and Rumsfeld--some torture in certain cases is not only reasonable but downright urgent.  Readers should look back through the Weekly Standard articles of that time for Krauthammer's important statement. 
 
Now, the passage in Nietzsche that influenced Leo Strauss the most is as follows:  "The philosopher as WE understand him, we free spirits--as the man of the most comprehensive responsibility who has the CONSCIENCE for the over-all development of man--this philosopher will make use of religions for his project of cultivation and education, just as he will make use of whatever political and economic states are at hand" (Beyond Good and Evil, 1886, # 61, Kauffman edition). 
 
Next, the passage from the same aphorism that pertains to William Kristol, especially, is as follows:  "For the strong and independent who are prepared and predestined to command and in whom the reason and art of a governing race become incarnate, religion is one more means for overcoming resistances, for the ability to rule--as a bond that unites rulers and subjects and betrays and delivers the consciences  of the latter, that which is most concealed and intimate and would like to elude obedience, to the former" (this transgression can refer, for example, to torture).  (Again, aphorism # 61.)  The reader is invited to wrestle, as I did, with this difficult passage from the esoteric and exoteric philosopher. 
 
What follows in aphorism # 61 is extremely interesting in light of Wagner and Wagner wannabes; in light of the quasi-guru Rajneesh (who read everything, including Nietzsche); and in light of "scholars":  "That is how the Brahmins, for example understood things:  by means of a religious organization they gave themselves the power of nominating the kings of the people while they themselves kept and felt apart and outside, as men of higher and supra royal tasks."  Note well that the so-called neocons are, to a man and woman, extremely impressive scholars and thinkers. 
 
Here is the essence of Nietzsche (and Leo Strauss and Company):  "And if a few individuals of such noble descent are inclined through lofty spirituality to prefer a more withdrawn and contemplative life and reserve for themselves only the most subtle type of rule (over selected disciples or brothers in some order), then religion can even be used as a means for obtaining peace from the noise and exertion of CRUDER forms of government, and purity from the NECESSARY dirt of all politics" (aphorism #61, Beyond Good and Evil).
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Prayer and the Audacity of Hope

As a nation now, we've gone out on a limb, once again.  The audacity of President Obama is utterly unprecedented.  The intellectuals and the masses alike are beginning to wonder.  In his inaugural address, our prez invited us to remember the Revolution.  That image of the "blood in the snow" invites us all to go back even further, to Jamestown.  We were, originally, people of faith.  Not run-of-the-mill believers, but exceptionally pious zealots, almost.  Some of the Puritans, I've read, believed that the Word spoke directly to their hearts in a very unique way.  And American Exceptionalism was born.
 
We are different.
 
We are, it appears now, tragically different.
*******************************************************************************************************
My hope and prayer is that this "appearance" does not turn out to be the Reality.  In Townhall.com today, we find Tony Blankley speculating about the "what ifs."  His article implies that Obama has taken us out on an extremely dangerous journey, putting at risk not only his own career but the world's, I repeat, the world's financial health.  We now have what could be a calamity in the making.  To be fair, this impending doom was not of Obama's making.  History might show, someday, that the disaster was "bound to happen" due to events already underway prior to the fall of 2008 or the winter of 2009.  It may quote the line from the Inaugural Address about "our collective failures." 
 
But most of us, today, can do little but pray.  I really appreciated so many of the Townhall articles I've read thus far:  Shapiro, Parker, Murchison, Gerson, Williams, Blankley, Stossel...I'm looking forward to Larry King tonight.  President Bill Clinton will be on, again, after an appearance not three weeks ago.  At that time, he offered his support to Obama and Company.  President Jimmy Carter, too, has been very helpful in this way.  Yesterday, the signs were much more encouraging.  In any event, Mr. Tabor's article on prayer seems especially timely. 
 
The definition of prayer I like the best is Mother Angelica's, "ad-libbing with God."  Our Fathers and Hail Marys are good; but the intimacy of just opening up and asking the Lord, point blank, What am I supposed to do? works best if done in a state of grace.  I've grown to dislike intensely the long-winded "spontaneous" prayers of individuals who invite you and everyone at the table to hold hands.  The puritan in me resists.
 
The traditions of prayer probably go back some ten thousand years.  The Hindu Scriptures, I'm told, are some six thousand years old.  Oral traditions probably take us back to so-called "pre-historic" times.  The Hebrew Oral Traditions and Written Scriptures combined...these of course go back thousands of years.  Prior to my reversion to the faith of my youth, I experimented with some of these ancient traditions of prayer.  Some of these, today, have names:  Transcendental Meditation; the Buddhist "walking prayer"; the Hindu mantras and "aspirations"; the daylong prayers; the daylong meditations; fasting (I went 28 days with only distilled water--do not try at home). 
 
When asked about his prayer life, in an interview (published as "God and the World"), our Holy Father said that he starts each day with "a few" set prayers (meaning, I'd guess, perhaps the Apostle's Creed--see Ratzinger's amazing book, "Introduction to Christianity").  Benedict (not yet Benedict) at that time, around the year 2000, admitted that he usually does not say the entire rosary, but only "perhaps a decade."  He confessed that his mind is restless with, as I recall, the business at hand.  These days, I think, our Holy Father is probably saying the entire rosary.  I have to confess:  I don't say the rosary very often. 
 
Father John Corapi, a living saint in my opinion, a saint like Saint Augustine in certain ways, says that the rosary contains "the entire Gospel."  On this and other challenging spiritual insights, Google John Corapi or tune in to EWTN, Eternal Word Television Network. 
 
The public prayer offered by Pastor Rick Warren at the Inauguration was one of the most beautiful and stirring prayers I've ever heard.
 
The well-known Jesus Prayer, about which a gripping spiritual classic or two has been written, goes like this:  "Oh Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner."  That's it.
 
But that's not it.  According to one of the spiritual books mentioned above (was it titled, "A Pilgrim's Prayer"?), abundant living, countless special graces "accrue" to one who chants internally as it were--the Jesus Prayer ALL DAY LONG.  Think about it.  Think of all the things you WOULD NOT BE THINKING ABOUT. 
 
And just what is this Hail Mary that the great athlete, citizen and human being, Roger Staubach, made even more famous?  "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.  Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death.  Amen." 
 
Centering Prayer.  This "new fad" actually goes back to Early Christianity and some of the Fathers.  It was brought back by Thomas Merton and Basil Pennington, Cistercian monks both.  Actually, the basic structure of the prayer is ecumenical in the sense that it goes back several thousand years.  It is quite possible that Jesus himself practiced a version of this prayer when he went "up to the mountain to pray" for forty days and forty nights.  I've not read his new book yet, but Deepak Chopra knows a good deal about the traditions, or one tradition, that, in all probability, ground this prayer.  I've also studied aspects of this tradition.  One branch of this "school" is the Transcendental Meditation that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi brought to the United States in the fifties and sixties, etc.  Nor was he the only swami to come over with this ancient prayer tradition.  Swami Vivekenanda came to the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago (1893).  His speech there is still being talked about to this day.  After overcoming some serious stage fright, he proceeded to "blow away" the crowd.  His teacher, a nineteenth-century saint among Hindus, is considered a reincarnation of Krishna Himself.  Today in India, a certain Sai Baba may still be alive.  He, too, is considered a living saint, much as was our Western world's Padre Pio of Italy (died in 1968).  I should mention that the reputation in India of men like Swami Vivekenanda is right up there or beyond Gandhi's reputation.  At least, this is what I've read.  Another great Indian-born guru who taught prayer extensively in America was the author of a best-seller, "The Autobiography of a Yogi."  He founded here an institution called Self-Realization.  As far as I know, it is still around, still teaching--probably it comes up on Google.  I would not waste my time or yours on this if I did not believe that this "tradition of prayer" has some value.  These are not kooks.  They are authentic holy men and women.  If you don't believe me, I am told, go to India and visit some of the holy places. 
 
My experimentation with other prayer traditions never led me as far as the book I now have on my desk, just to round out this presentation ("The Holy Science" by Swami Sri Yukteswar, 1855-1936, Self-Realization Fellowship, Los Angeles, 1984).  Part of me still feels reverence for this great Hindu Tradition.  (Especially inasmuch as, in all probability, Jewish prophets had come to know parts of it.)  Here is a revealing quotation from the book jacket:  "Prophets of all lands and ages have succeeded in their God-quest," writes Paramahansa Yogananda in the foreward to THE HOLY SCIENCE.  "Entering a state of true illumination , nirbikalpa samadhi, these saints have realized the Supreme Reality behind all names and forms.  Their wisdom and spiritual counsel have become the scriptures of the world.  These, although outwardly different by reason of the variegated cloaks of words, are all expressions--some open and clear, others hidden or symbolic--of the same basic truths of Spirit." 
 
Well, all of this experimentation with oriental prayer traditions finally led me back, and then back again and again--to AA.  The Third Step of AA reads:  "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him."  Now, let's jump to the Eleventh Step:  "Sought through prayer and meditation to increase our conscious contact with God, praying only for the knowledge of His will for us, and the power to carry it out." 
 
As I said, my own soul-searching in the school of hard knocks led me back, finally, to the faith of my youth.  It is a faith that encourages, obviously, a lot of study, a great deal of serious spiritual reading, for example, one of our Holy Father's favorites, "The Confessions" of Saint Augustine.  (Don't take my word for it; read his Memoir, "Milestones," for his own words about the impact of Augustine.)  Off the top of my head, I'd also recommend as prompts to prayer the following:  our Holy Father's "The Spirit of Liturgy" and "The Salt of the Earth"; Saint Therese of Lisieux's classic "The Story of a Soul"; "Christ is Passing By," homilies by (now) Saint Josemaria Escriva, Sinag-Tala Publishers, 1974, Manila. 
 
Finally, I am not responsible for any heart attacks caused by this rambling excursion into "new age" thinking and its (serious) prayer traditions.  The fault lies solely with Kathleen Parker, who not too long ago wrote an article partly about the impact of Karma on Dick Cheney.  You see, even the conventions of contemporary American usage owe something to these practices of the millenia.  I'm old enough to remember Johnny Carson, on the West Coast, of course, doing a parody of the guru called "Karmac the Magnificent" or somesuch.  I can still see him and Ed McMahon stifling their Inner Joy.  Expressing it, rather.
 
Finally again, it was altogether fitting and proper that Obama's first photo-op after becoming prez was at a green company called, you guessed it, Namaste. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Speaking of Obedience

President Obama was at his best today talking about something he obviously knows a lot about--education.  It started when he was quite young and growing up, I think he said, in Indonesia.  How he could share a story like this without welling up with tears, I don't know.  Anyhow, he shared with a passion and eloquence that is rare even for him...of the time, the many times, many mornings, at 4:30 a.m., when his mother would wake him up to give him some extra prepping before school.  He admitted that he was not always extremely cheerful about this pre-dawn routine--and would occasionally drag his feet.  As a child, our POTUS complained, camplained about the hardships, etc.!  Then, President Obama said, "Then my mother would say, 'Look, buster, this is no picnic for me either.'"  The whole room came alive with laughter and joy at this delightful and intructive little story. 
 
President Obama:  Not all of us have made the time yet to read your books, especially the first one, which I'm told is the best.  We will make the time, God willing and the creek don't rise.  In the meantime, when you get the chance, do share, as you did today.  It's a win-win deal for everyone concerned. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Buchanan, Charen and Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas's defense of El Rushbo rings true:  Rush is much more than an entertainer.  Personal responsibility, strong national defence, lower taxes, social conservativism, limited government and moderate spending:  These are the principles.  Oh, and let's not forget free trade.  Today, again, I listened to this phenomenon of the right.  He sounds as if he is literally foaming at the mouth.  I say:  tone it down!
But then, Would the man that Al Franken despises really be El Rushbo?
 
Back to the future, indeed, for the Republicans!
 
One way to get there would be to follow Pat Buchanan, a man who has gotten my attention for a good year now.  Today, his fight--and I do mean a battle--is to rally the Republicans even more than Obama has united them.  BREAKING NEWS:  DEMOCRATS are joining the fight against Obama and Company.  Feingold, Bayh, Buffet...OK...they are not really "joining w/ Buchanan."  But they are, appropriately, asking questions and making suggestions, for example, VETO THE BILL. 
 
(Until I see a Larry Summers resignation...or something like it...I'm going to wait and see about all this.  I'm just blabbering right now.)
 
But the issue that Mona Charen brings up is a serious one.  Her article should be read right along with Buchanan's and Thomas's.  I'm talking about Responsibility.  Suffice it to say that President Obama is aware of this issue as it affects his own future.  To his credit, Barack has acknowledged that if the economy does not improve enough for folks to see the difference, then his tenure will be a "one term proposition."  On this point, his honesty and frankness have been utterly remarkable, unprecedented. 
 
Now, I'm following the news closely these days.  I've not heard a single twitter of, say, a Larry Summers resignation.  He is one of our very best ecomomic minds.  So far, he seems to be fine with what Barack and the Dems are doing. 
 
MORE BREAKING NEWS:  one of the banks has recently seen a profit.  Citi.
 
The stock market is rising as I type.  But we are told not to pay too much attention to it. 
**********************************************************************************************
The soul-searching going on among the Republicans and the conservatives should at least occasionally refer to the grandfather of modern conservativism, Edmund Burke. 
     "Burke's conception of the nature of man and society thus implies the notion of intellectual and moral perfection as a natural end or goal.
      Civil society, according to Burke, 'is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue; and in all
      perfection.'  Society has a purpose, and that purpose is nothing less than the perfection of man.  This teleological way of thinking
      manifests itself throughout Burke's social and political thought"  (Francis Canavan, S.J., "History of Political Philosophy," eds. Leo
      Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 1972; p.662).
 
Another random quotation, yet a happy and timely one (again Father Canavan, quoting Burke):
      "Politics have their own proper kind of reasoning, which is concrete and practical.  This is the true meaning of Burke's frequent
      denuciations of 'theory,' 'metaphysics,' and 'speculation.'  He did not wish to imply that political problems can be intelligently handled
      'without the guide and light of sound well-understood principles.' But although principles are necessary, they are not enough.  They
      must be applied to concrete reality by a type of practical reasoning which Burke called prudence" (p. 664). 
 
Let us hope and pray that Obama and Company know what they are doing!  Indeed, let us say a rosary that Obama himself dig down deep into his excellent character and come up with actions showing strong evidence of this very timely classical and Christian virtue of Prudence. 
     
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Barone, Gerson and Parker

     Kathleen Parker again hits it out of the park with her conversation with Matt Miller, author of /the tyranny of dead ideas./
 
The beer that Miller serves up has made me feel better for a few minutes--but how am I going to feel "in the morning"?  How are we all going to feel in about sixty-four days or eighty-eighty months?  Right now, I don't care.  It's as if I've had a six-pack, got a good buzz going, and let the chips fall where they may!
 
Problem is, Gerson had something also very intelligent to say about our future.  And today, I'm reading Barone's thoughts about Keynes and Animal Spirits.  The upshot of his take on Obama's tax plan is that forty and fifty percent rates are going to scare the business people we rely on to create growth.  Scare them and their money away from investing in the future, let alone the present.  Bottom line:  no "animal spirits," no economic growth.  Uh, you'll just have to read the articles!
 
By the way, I admire Barone's integrity, not to mention his utter lack of mindless partisanship. 
 
Now it's time to see what another kindred spirit (sometimes), George Will, has to say...Keeping in mind the still mind-boggling fact that not too long ago, President-elect Barack Obama said "yes" to, and proceeded to go to, the dinner invitation hosted by George Will and held at his Maryland home!  Also at that world-historical banquet (the likes of which we have not seen since Socrates went to the "Symposium,"):  Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and several other very famous writers and interlocutors and sophists. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »