About Me

Name: Zentrist
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Language is the House of Being

Way back in 1974 we proctors went on a weekend retreat at the dean of students' lake house.  There the school's chaplain suggested that we change our name from "proctor" to "resident assistant."  At this time, I was reading Heidegger already.  But I didn't make the connection:  words do indeed, as our President reminds us frequently, "matter."  Words matter an awful lot.  From that weekend on, for quite some time, we/they were no longer "proctors" with the "baggage" (of too much authority) that that old-fashioned word carried.  At the time, it made no difference to me.  I got a good deal on the dorm room as a result of being chosen "resident advisor" or whatever.  This was just part of working one's way through a private school.
 
LANGUAGE IS THE HOUSE OF BEING.  This then popular philosophical slogan has become "reality."  Or maybe I should say, in our current context, something surreal--what with the excesses of political correctness and all.
 
Ideas indeed have consequences.  This intensive study of language began in ancient Greece among other places.  "What is 'justice'?" asked Socrates and his various and sundry interlocutors.  So, words like Justice and Freedom and Responsibility--certain words matter more than others.
 
Proctor, doctor, crocker.  They all matter.  But some matter more than others--especially at a time like this.
 
In a very recent homily, Pope Benedict put it this way:  "...there is an even deeper meaning that is not immediately perceptible.  In the passage from the Acts of the Apostles it is said that Jesus was 'lifted up' (v. 9) and then it says 'taken up' (v. 11).  The event is not described as a journey on high but rather as an action of the power of God who introduces Jesus into the space of closeness to the Divine."  (Google Vatican, Holy See, Pope Benedict, Homilies, May 24, 2009.)
 
Needless to say, Pope Benedict is steeped in all aspects of theology; also worth noting:  this man has clearly read Bultmann among many others influenced by Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger, to mention only a few giants in the field.
 
The homily (on the Ascension) continues this way:  "The presence of the cloud that 'took him out of their sight' (v. 9), recalls a very ancient image of Old Testament theology and integrates the account of the ascension into the history of God with Israel, from the cloud of Sinai and above the tent of the Covenant in the desert, to the luminous cloud on the mountain of the Transfiguration". 
 
This is not exactly a "strict constructionist" or "Straussian" reading of the text.  But it strikes me as an original reading.  More, the sense of tradition in this interpretation really opens up the text, for me at least, in an inspiring new way. 
 
This really remarkable homily continues as follows:  "To present the Lord wrapped in clouds calls to mind once and for all the same mystery expressed in the symbolism of the phrase, 'seated at the right hand of God'.  In Christ ascended into Heaven, the human being has entered into intimacy with God in a new and unheard-of way; man henceforth finds room in God forever.  'Heaven':  this word Heaven does not indicate a place above the stars but something far more daring and sublime:  it indicates Christ himself, the divine Person who welcomes humanity fully and for ever, the One in whom God and man are inseparably united for ever."
 
And now our Holy Father seems to speak directly to the trademark phrase of Martin Heidegger, "being-in-the-world."  His Holiness says: 
MAN'S BEING IN GOD, THIS IS HEAVEN.
 
"And we draw close to Heaven, indeed, we enter Heaven to the extent that we draw close to Jesus and enter into communion with him.  For this reason today's Solemnity of the Ascension invites us to be in profound communion with the dead and Risen Jesus, invisibly present in the life of each one of us."
 
I haven't finished reading the homily yet, but the Pope goes on to speak of this Mystery in terms of Serenity and Joy and Enthusiasm--not so much because we are still gazing up into the sky, but because we've been given a mission to witness, each in his or her own way...I repeat, we've been given a mission to witness to the things that mattered--that we have seen and heard.  Most importantly, we've been given the means to get closer to God--through Christ.  And all of this is mediated, in our case, in the amazing English language. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Understanding the Text

Take the Constitution:  Our job, we are told, is to "understand the Law, read or interpret the law--as the Founders intended it to be read and interpreted."  It is, by this dogma, the author's "intention" that is the be all and end all.  Oh, and, by the way, if you are not on board with this "strict contructionist" method of reading and interpreting, then you're like...the most recent bogeyman, Sonia Sotomayor.  The stupidity of this partisan game is really getting old.  The radicals on the right are now promoting the ridiculous idea that this outstanding judge is going to "legislate from the bench" with her "feelings and preferences" as opposed to...the Law.  With all due respect, she would not have passed the bar exam had she not learned something about THE LAW--and how it works!  Not only did she pass it, she is now what Dick Morris called THE TRUCK.  And this truck, barring something amazing, is headed for the Supreme Court.  It is not going to be stopped.  Nor should it be stopped.
 
This is almost personal with me.  I had a very dogmatic teacher in college who insisted that "you have to understand the author, the text, as it understands itself."  You've got to come to terms with the author's "intention."  Fine--as a first step.
 
But you go on from there. 
 
And, thank goodness, our American History has...gone on from there.  And thank God--our literary criticism has also gone on from there.  Finally, as we will see in the confirmation hearings, "understanding the text" is much more than this code language, "strict construction."  This absurdity of a term has come to mean, for example, "affirmative action in all cases is bad." 
 
As for the case involving Mr. Ricci, the New England fireman, I'm now told that Ms. Sotomayor's approach was or would be that "precedent" is in play.  If so, "preferences" are so far from this that we are talking about a different galaxy.  And yet the media is buzzing about this "radical," Judge Sotomayor, who puts her feelings into her rulings--over against the tried and true ways in which legal decisions are actually arrived at. 
 
And in the highest court of the land, legal precedent will be part and parcel of any decision-making.  Due process, moreover, will obviously be in the mix.  This idea that even the most radical lawyer can arbitrarily impose his or her "feelings"--this is "just politics," and politics of the very worst kind in my opinion.  More of the same.  More of the stuff that Barack Obama ran against and, thank heavens, is now trying to do something about! 
 
As Chris Matthews said the other night on Charlie Rose, "My gut is very conservative on certain issues."  He mentioned issues like national security and patriotism and personal responsibility.  To read a book like Rudy's, on leadership, and agree with most of it--well, that makes one a "conservative."  Having said that, I must say that I simply cannot abide the "thinking" that attacks the obvious excellence of a John Roberts, a Sam Alito--or a Sonia Sotomayor.  Both Biden and Obama had the right, maybe even the duty, to disagree with Roberts and Alito on certain things.  But they were wrong in their approach to the extent that they let "partisanship" color their overall judgment regarding excellence.  I watched Biden's encounter with Roberts.  Talk about a mismatch!  But again, that's "politics," a politics I find utterly disgusting.  And now we get to get nauseated over the "politics" vis-a-vis another excellent nominee, the great lady from NYC. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Bush vs Gore, Olson vs Boies

In two separate interviews today/tonight, on CNN, the surprising team of Ted Olson and David Boies (remember Florida, 2000?) argued passionately for the legalization of gay marriage.  "State by state is fine," said Mr. Boies.  However, he went on to argue that an incremental approach to the issue is not fair to those who should be enjoying, now, the same rights as "everyone else." 
 
Olson, so far from falling back on the technical and the merely legal, argued with great simplicity--and therefore with amazing power--that equality, justice, human rights and human decency are all at stake here.  Under the Constitution, both legal giants amazingly said, gay people already have the same right as everyone else to "marry the person they love."  In short, federal law, Constitutional law (equal protection under Law), guarantees the right to homosexual marriage.  And again, this should not be merely a matter of the legal.  Nor should it be a left versus right or Dem versus Republican deal.  We are talking about a fundamental human right, in fact, one could infer, a universal human right--to the extent that the Constitution sort of depends on the language of the Declaration (universal human rights, universal human freedom and universal human equality). 
 
All of this was amazing to me.
 
I have to say, I've gotten off the fence on this issue.  I dare say, if you had seen these two and had listened carefully to what they had to say, you might have been as convinced as I am now--that they are right!
 
When a person likes me changes his mind or gets "off the fence" on an issue as important as this one, well, it's a "shaking of the foundations."
 
Folks, get used to it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Chris Matthews and the Gothic

Former altar boy Chris Matthews is thinking about a memoir on the "gothic" aspects of his Catholic upbringing.  One example he gave tonight, on Charlie Rose, was the apparently "gothic" memory of serving, as an altar boy, at the nearby institution (in PA) for the mentally ill.  Another memory shooting out of his volcanic mind, tonight, was serving the funeral mass for a family or part of a family that met an untimely and tragic end.  Well, this recovering alcoholic (and Matthews is one too) and recovering Catholic can relate!   But Chris, did you ever tell your AA story in a mental institution?  That is my "claim to fame."  It also occurs to me just now that Matthews indeed "tells his story in a mental institution" every weeknight on Hardball.  On balance, I think the influence he has on the mental health of America is a good one, albeit close--at times.  (He interrupts his interlocutors far too often; hardball does not have to be THAT rude and obnoxious.) 
 
And now I have yet another confession to make:  I had to look up the word, "gothic."  Sure enough, some of the half-dozen definitions resonate with  the (current) gothic, as the KID IN BLACK.  Funny, how the meanings of words evolve over time--even while retaining some of the original.  Now, just in case Pope Benedict is reading this, and he could be, let me say this:  I actually went to Confession on Saturday and really needed to; the last one was in October.  So, I'm as clean as I can be; still VERY happily married, still sober (six years continuous, as of May 21), still using the means the Church gives us to sanctify ourselves even more.  I've also taught myself Pope John Paul's "Theology of the Body," and I practice this teaching as a happily married man.  Who would'v thunk it?
 
But I've digressed, as Catholics love to do, especially those born in the south.  The gothic indeed has to do with things Catholic--in terms of the architecture in France in the late middle ages:  the gothic cathedral, inside at least, is a stangely exalted and exotic place.  One is lifted to the sky even as one gravitates, in church darkness, to the earth.  Now, the dictionary I'm using is forty years old, which means it is excellent in terms of the etymologies given.  But nevermind the root meanings of "gothic."  Matthews could care less, and I could care less--at least right now.  The words I'm after are these:  rude, barbaric, bizarre; "attention to details"; grotesque. 
 
Some of these words pretty much define certain aspects of certain Catholic experiences.  One thinks of the Catholic southern writer, Flannery O'Conner--the so-called "grotesque" quality in her short story, her novel.  One thinks of James Joyce's unforgettable description of Hell in "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man."  It would be good to just share some of that, someday, on these pages.
 
Irregularity and "the horrible."  I had to look up those definitions one more time:  the "gothic novel" is what we normally think of.  I think of Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" for its "horrible" Heathcliffe, Heathcliff the Cruel.  Again, the barbaric, the rude, the irregular and the horrible.  Nowadays, Catholicism is, for better or for worse, slandered along these lines.  No doubt Chris Matthews, a movie fanatic, is thinking about things Catholic in light of some recent and current movies, not to mention, say, "Rosemary's Baby."  Grotesque is the word for that; "horrible" also fits nicely. 
 
And it is true that members of Opus Dei are encouraged to mortify themselves with some kind of physical torment to offer up. 
 
But all this so-called "gothic" is most assuredly a reduction, and a false one at that.  To me, Catholicism is about Bill Buckley, on the one hand, and Pope Benedict, on the other.  One former student of the pope described his fame in Germany as similar to William F. Buckley's fame, since the fifties, here in the States.  The American, now passed on, a great man but not a saint; the German, still living, a great man and, in my opinion, a living saint. 
 
After a dinner recently, a retired English professor, a convert, asked me if there wasn't maybe something "bipolar" about Catholicism.  I surely hemmed and hawed on that one.  There is something "bipolar" about being an American, be it Protestant, Catholic or Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist--but especially the Christian religions!  One is forever "manic" about heaven and the holy, forever "depressed" about "hell" and all the things we worry so needlessly about.   Good luck to Chris Matthews, at all events, on his Remembrance of Things Past.  And as for anyone thinking about aquiring one of the five or six major mental illnesses, let alone those already suffering  beyond words...let those of us inclined to do so--say a few Catholic prayers.  Or, just ad-lib with God. 
 
p.s.  Speaking of charlie rose, I'd like to compliment him and Christopher Buckley for the show of last week.  All these shows, just about, are wonderful.  But this one with Buckley was special, as special as Christopher Buckley.  I, for one, plan to read Buckley's memoir of "Mum and Pup."   And as for the balance of Rose's show tonight, I strongly recommend to just about anyone:  Reynold Price's "Kate Vaiden."  Based on this book alone, Price is indeed, as Rose called him to his face, "an American treasure." 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On the Notre Dame Speech

I am personally opposed to abortion, in most cases, due to several decisive influences in my spiritual journey.  My wife and I argue over the exceptions that I would allow.  I know that my position is not orthodox, but I've not yet been given the grace of believing "absolutes" of this nature or any nature.  Paul Tillich's great little book, "The Dynamics of Faith," has corrupted me, I guess.  In this book, the great theologian sings the praises of doubt.  Doubts are part of the fabric of faith.  We know that even Mother Theresa appeared to have some doubts--at least about whether she was really experiencing the "joy" of Christ on a daily, consistent basis.  But I'm not trying to use this saint to help support an argument for exeptions to absolute moral laws.  For her, there could could be no exceptions.  And she may have been right.  My wife is probably right, as well. 
 
The most impressive thing about President Obama's speech was the story he shared of a citizen, a pro-life person, who wrote Obama about the way words were used on the candidate's web site (or was it the White House web site?).  The speech is worth reading and re-reading.  Obama shares that the man made a good point.  The point had to do with the Obama-web-site.  "Right wing ideologues" was the offensive phrase--and we all know that for this president, words matter; we know this because, from time to time, he reminds us--just in case we forget.  For a campaign's web site, let alone a White House web site, to refer to the pro-life principle as a "right wing ideology" is clearly offensive--even to me.  (But only very slightly offensive, because I don't get offended overly easily.) 
 
President Obama took the matter to heart.  It was touching, to me, just how much he took the matter to heart.  And I believe our President.  I believe he was sincere.  He wound up agreeing with the writer's position that we ought to at least respect each other to the extent that we characterize each other's opinions in a true, not a false and distorting way.  So, Obama instructed the web masters to change the wording in such a way as to respect the fact that pro-lifers are not "right wing ideologues," but people who care about an important moral issue.  I've not personally verified any of this, but the message was classic Obama, and it was breathtaking for its originality.  Can you imagine Bush, or even Clinton, sharing such a letter?  Sharing it with the intention of demonstrating a certain humility?  Modeling a real and sincere humility?  A consistent pattern emerges here:  From the Convention Speech in which he made a name for himself (back in 2004) to this Notre Dame speech...Barack Obama has shown that he practices what he preaches.  The result, at least at this great university, Notre Dame (which means, Our Lady), was an overwhelmingly positve and glowing reception. 
 
"When I am weak, then I am strong," said Saint Paul.  President Obama seems to have taken these words of the New Testament to heart. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Polls and Political Courage

The first man who comes to mind is George W. Bush.  Right, wrong--or something "grey" and "in-between," our previous president proved his political courage by engaging Saddam Hussein in a war to prevent big problems down the road.  At that time, he easily could have led the country in quite a different direction.  Namely, he could have focussed on Afghanistan and let Saddam alone.  The energy he used to build up support for war there, in Iraq, could have been channeled into a laser-like concentration on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  Let's leave aside the question whether this would have been the thing to do.  Instead, let's ask, What would his poll numbers have looked like had he chosen not to invade Iraq?  My point is a mere intuition:  the president would not have suffered in the Gallup ratings had he failed to "conquer" Iraq, albeit for the people of that complicated place.  More to the point at issue:  the energy that was in fact used to start this epic-scale war has turned on itself--so much so that most people now think the effort was mistaken.  Or that the results have not been proportionate to the disturbing costs in blood and treasure.  We hear now that over 100,000 civilians have been killed, thus far, in this horrific campaign.  Yet, in spite of that fact, or in part because of it, what Bush and Cheney did took great poltical courage.  It is worth repeating in different words--it would have been much easier not to do this. 
 
Yet, they chose not only to do it, but to persevere in the most noble way, once the effort had been begun; and especially after "impending doom" began to rear its ugly head.  Not only that, Vice President Cheney continues to argue the case, and, by the way, not in an "angry" way, as our always-distorting press has said.  I've seen the interviews.  He is just stating the case, defending the Administration.  I've not seen any "anger."  Heroism, yes.  Anger, no.
 
Now, on an equally epic and perhaps tragic scale, President Obama is matching, in a way, the political courage evinced by George Bush and Dick Cheney.  Only in this case, the lives of millions of civilians could be at risk.  I mean, our grandchildren.  If the Steve Moores of the world, or let me pick on a former candidate of character, Steve Forbes--if these supply-siders are right, then the Obama budget is nothing more and nothing less than impending doom.  The health care plan is a disaster in the making.  The bailouts are going to land us in a catastrophe of world-historic proportions. 
******************************************************************************************************
The term, "political courage," was used today by Charles Krauthammer on the cable show, The Fox All Stars, my favorite program.  The great former psychiatrist answered the question he himself posed, Why haven't we curtailed oil consumption--instead of the way we've been doing it--by implementing his, and others', well-thought-out gasoline tax?  (See the Weekly Standard article on  this that appeared last year, during four-dollar-per-gallon months.)
 
His answer, which I agree with completely and how could anyone not?  "Because no one has the political courage to propose it." 
 
The lesson I draw from this pathetic state of affairs is perhaps an equally pathetic maxim:  IN DEMOCRACIES WE GET THE LEADERSHIP WE DESERVE. 
 
But I'm not going to leave it there because I still like and admire, encourage and pray for--our courageous president, Barack Hussein Obama. 
 
I would add only one more thing at this juncture.  No, two things.  First, I highly recommend anything Cal Thomas writes, but especially his very fair-minded article on the Notre Dame speech.  Second, having watched the video of this magnificent speech, I'm extremely proud to be a Catholic American, a member of the "gang" so beautifully represented by one of the greatest institutions of all time, Notre Dame University.  I say this as a believing, pope-admiring, admittedly aging and therefore not-so-passionate...Roman Catholic (see the recent article in Time on-line--on the Vatican's response to the Obama Phenomenon generally). 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hearth and Home

The fireplace behind the president and the prime minister was perfect.  It was, again, a perfect symbol for the moment.  For the hearth, no mere decoration, is an archetype, a perennial symbol of all the things we hold dear and cherish.  It is a universal reality and ideal, something that transcends class, race, religion and color.  The fire within the hearth, the center of the home both ancient and modern--represents the eternal verities, again, the things we humans value most.  I'm talking about all human beings and citizens, not just the Jews or Palestinians, Egyptians or Ethiopians, French people or Australians.   So, in this setting, Obama and Netanyahu broke bread together, so to speak.  With a universal symbol of religion behind them, they spoke of peace as the utltimate aspiration.  I also noticed a couple of works of art behind the great leaders:  a bust of Lincoln (universal equality of opportunity) and, I believe, a bust of Martin Luther King (great leader of non-violent resistance).  I'd like to thank Mrs. Obama and the entire staff for the extraordinary hospitality they provide our visitors.  It goes without saying that this House is extremely special in terms of its history, symbolism and tradition. 
 
As for the way to get from here to there, another presidential appearance comes to mind.  It was about a week ago.  Behind the microphone was a path or road made of asphalt, some green grass, some more greenery in bloom, and the White House.   Again, the background scenery was picture-perfect.  The POTUS came out on time--and he proceeded to walk on the grass.  He walked right on the lawn, almost as if to say--"we're gonna have to be willing to do things a little differently if we're gonna get from here to there."  That puritanical super-ego in the back of one's mind that always says, DO NOT WALK ON THE GRASS--was disregarded in this case.  And for good reason.  It was the most expedient way to get from the house to the microphone.  At the moment, I cannot recall that particular statement.  But the lone figure of the President, striding on the green grass to make his remarks, was striking. 
 
Today's presidential message is also fresh on my mind.  And again, if I'm not mistaken, the president walked on the grass, as if to say to us puritans and Catholics:  "It's gonna be okay."  But prior to that grand entrance, he made sure to seek out Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, as if to say, "This too, shall pass."  All this exorbitantly excessive sensationalism and hype that titillates us so:  It is all so much vanity, as we find that word in Ecclesiastes, throughout. 
 
President Obama reminded us and the world today that we use one-fourth of the world's oil supply.  We are not one quarter of the globe's population, not by a long shot.  So, we need to saddle up, buckle up rather--and do right by our fellow drivers and our own families.   
 
Nowadays, the "hearth and the home" are the Planet Earth.  I might add that President Obama prefaced his remarks of gratitude and encouragement by noting that "The sun is shining...because good things are happening."  I agree.  God bless our president, and God bless the USA and the entire Inhabited Earth.  Seeing such displays of hard work, good will and uncanny intelligence and intuition--makes one want to apologize for all the times when he has "gone negative," instead of seeking and finding the radiance and the beauty.    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Sundays

The tradition I'm partial to touts Sunday as The Day of The Lord.  President Obama alluded to Sundays, recently, with his very funny, self-deprecating humor:  "And on the seventy-third day, I will rest."
 
In his masterpiece, Joseph Ratzinger talks about the traditional significance, for Biblical believers, of Sunday.  The book is entitled, "The Spirit of Liturgy."  Or something close to that.
 
Anyway, what I took from this awesome text is that there is, traditionally, a profound connection between the sun coming up on THAT SUNDAY and what happened on Easter Sunday--the "Resurrection."  I've used quotes here because I want to downplay the physical imagery, as important as it is, and emphasize the spiritual importance.  Also, I have to punch a time clock in twenty-three minutes.
 
Since that Day, reality as we know it has been changed for the better.  For starters, see Shakespeare.  Then, see last night's Larry King Live, which was all about the critical importance of underlining, so to speak, the value or principle of LOVE. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and the Conservatives

The rise and fall of Speaker Nancy Pelosi...this issue frankly bores me to tears.  Unless this crashing and burning, if it occurs even moreso than it has, affects Obama's agenda.  The success or failure of that agenda is not "boring."  It is the be all and end all.  We are, as a nation, at the Crossroad.  Which path will we take?  Well, we've already made our decision.  But President Obama, unlike the Speaker, is not a "super-partisan."  For that species, I have nothing but contempt.  And their comings and goings bore me to death.
 
But Speaker Pelosi now is unwittingly a factor in the crucial issue of the President's plans for this country.  There is a reason she became Speaker of the House.  She knows how to play the game.  She knows it so well that Obama's plans are tied up with her fate.  At least, it seems that way to me.
 
Now as for Obama and certain high profile conservatives, this is interesting.  An independent mind always fascinates.  Last night, O'Reilly defended Obama against those who would claim he is deliberately dismantling something good.  I agree with The Factor:  Obama is acting in good faith.  For this defense of the president, Dr. Hill, a frequent guest, actually thanked Bill O'Reilly.  And this exchange in general, overall, was very positive and good for the country.  Mike Gallagher, whom I respect and like--anyone who is a friend of Chris Wallace cannot be all bad--seems to take a much more Hannity-like approach to Barack.  I really don't like this.  And after a while, such same-old-talking-points rhetoric and ranting gets old.  This point leads me to something that pleased me greatly, impressed me to no end:  Krauthammer's praise for the President today on Fox All Stars. 
 
What Obama has been doing for our national security has indeed been praiseworthy.  So, I say:  KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On The Torture Debate: Case Closed

As of this morning's article by Charles Krauthammer, the case is closed.  We may continue to hear some noise, but the reasoning given by Krauthammer in my opinion is exceptionally powerful.  As strong as that given by, say, John Yoo himself, one of the more high profile Bush attorneys.  Krauthammer does justice to Natural Law even, which uses Aristotelian prudence in its deliberations.  At least, a case could be made.  (See or call Mr. George Weigel on that one.)  The article does justice to one citizen's standards, my own, which are orthodox Catholic and "classical," both--by classical I mean Aristotelian, mainly.
 
Every good pastor, including our Holy Father, knows that there are exceptions.  Read the catechism on, say, sexual morality.  Does that mean that you go hog wild?  Not only no, but...
 
Heck no!
 
The rest of the world must be wondering what these crazy Americans are fussing about!  From Britain to China, all this hype is, from their perspective, "interesting."  I'll say this:  It does make me even more proud to be an American citizen.  I'm proud of the left, to be sure; but I'm especially proud of the superior reasoning of Dr. Charles Krauthammer.  Indeed we Americans do not "torture," unless we absolutely have to.  And such cases are so rare as to be...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Cal Thomas, Tony Blankley and Diana West

Readers are encouraged to read these authors, their articles--and then pray or at least have "positve thoughts and vibes" about Pope Benedict's current mission, the visit to the Holy Land.  Things are heating up there; they are heating up in Pakistan/Afghanistan; we are all of us, it seems, on the edge of the abyss.  And most of us are not even privy to the really scary intelligence that lands on the president's desk every morning.  I don't know how he does it, but I believe that prayer helps.  I know that others believe that prayer is just a waste of time. 
 
President Obama is in a pressure cooker right now.  The King of Jordan has apparently turned up the heat.  If any of us are in denial, chances are, we will soon be out of it.  In the meantime, we have our jobs or our determination to find a job.  We have or ought to have a legal-pad list of things to be grateful for.  Not material things, although these in our country and in the West are especially nice.  What I'm really grateful for is just another day to be alive, to take it all in.  It is truly a magnificent spectacle.  If we happen to have a modicum of health, it is all the better. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Michael Barone, David Brooks and "What Works"

Okay guys, remember, Obama has come right out and said, over and over again, he's not about rigid, dogmatic formulas, but about "what works."  The man is not unreasonable.  Look at his decision to hold the security-damaging photos.  There is, I hope, a core of common sense in President Obama, a person you cannot help but admire and pray for.  Put yourself in his shoes.  You want to help all of America, not just this interest or that.  You are serious about national security--so you beef up our efforts to curtail the damage that can be done by extremists.  You continue to invite "the enemy" to the White House or call him up on the phone to consult.  I mean, say, a Republican.
 
You have been ambitious all your life.  You've been given a mission.  It is to be different, to do different; to talk different and to walk different.  You're different.  You've accepted this fate and embraced it and now is your chance.  What are you going to do?  All of a sudden slam the door on the people who helped you along the way?  I don't think so.  So give the guy a chance.  It's only been about a hundred days.  There are well over a thousand to go.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Faith and Family, Hicks and Prager

Today I really enjoyed reading Marybeth Hicks on her daughter's "standing out from the pack."  The word, "maverick," I don't think, was used in the article.  But Betsy appears to be a young maverick in the McCain mold.  More accurately put, she's a young person who has been allowed, encouraged...to think for herself.  Bravo!  I compliment Mrs. Hicks, her husband and the entire family.  From that article I went to one Ms. Hicks wrote on January 21, 2009.  In that article, older sister, Amy, is hoping Dad will run for president someday; that way, maybe she will get a chance to meet the Jonas Brothers.  I don't know much about these guys, but I'm positive they are of considerable interest.  Maybe I'll ask my step-son, or my wife--who likes some of the same stuff her nineteen-year-old likes.  Be that as it may, again, I want to sing the praises of the Hicks Family in general and Mrs. Hicks in particular for sharing just how it is one might go about providing a decent education for kids in our time. 
 
This leads right into an important part of Mr. Prager's show I listened to today.  One of the bad habits in our culture that is decidedly non-educational for our children--is the constant criticism going on between the parents.  One caller admitted that, after twenty-one years of marriage, this was still an occasional issue.  Listeners like me are thinking,  "I can in certain ways relate to this issue." 
 
A long time ago a teacher was discussing Shakespeare's "Coriolanus."  This particular Roman hero as portrayed in Shakespeare apparently grew up without the kind of example that Marybeth Hicks and her husband provide their children:  conversation and dialogue.  I'll never forget this professor's comments.  I plan to reread that great play.  I also plan to tune in to Dennis Prager, especially the Male-Female-Hour.  Talk about educational!  This is what it's all about!  Conversation.  Giving compliments, not harsh or even hateful criticisms. 
 
Our nineteen-year-old is not at home; but he is not at college either.  He's in what I'd call the School of Hard Knocks.  He's on his own.  That was his choice, but he really did not have that many other choices.  His father left when he was six or seven.  Dennis talked about the D-word, divorce.   I know that this is the hardest thing that anyone can go through.  And the kid(s) get the worst of it.
 
Thanks to the good examples set by the Hicks's, by Dennis Prager, and by my still-happily-married former teacher, maybe the D-word will never be an issue for some of us lucky souls.  But if it already has become a "been there and done that," I still recommend the Prager show, the Hicks column, and, what the heck, the Bard himself.  Starting with the "Comedy of Errors," he shows us precisely how NOT to have a marriage and a family.  That is, until the very end of that early comedy.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Buchanan, Nietzsche and Prager

"Bless me Father, for I have sinned...I have been reading an obscure, ancient and pagan philosopher, many, many times."  In reality, in an ever-older age, I've pretty much cleaned up my act--marriage and the sacraments can do wonders for a body.  To be sure, I'm currently overdue for Confession because I've not been going to Mass due to "work schedule," a lame excuse, actually, because one can make it up on a weekday if one is a nurse or something and has to work through the weekend.  But for reading Nietzsche there can be NO EXCUSES, as he himself might say, or Dr. Robert Solomon, RIP, a great American Nietzsche scholar might say.  No excuses, none.  As Sartre said, "one is responsible, one is free," or something like that.
 
Now, let's get down to business.  First, both at university and in grad school, Nietzsche was required reading with one course even named, "Rousseau and Nietzsche."  The liberal arts undergrad curriculum in my major had you reading "The Birth of Tragedy" and "On the Use and Abuse of History."  These essays were written in the 1870s, about a hundred years before we were required to read them--in the mid-seventies, over a third of a century ago.  Those of us who are boomers need to ponder that and think about our mortality and think about the horrors of the previous century--which took place shortly before, and shortly after, we were born.  The death camps, Hiroshima and Cambodia and Rwanda.  Say what you will, we are all responsible and there are no excuses.
 
But I agree with Pat Buchanan that we must continue to fight, each in his or her own way--especially, now, the Republicans.  I wish them well.  I won't join them just yet.  I haven't felt the pain yet.  One thing that Pat and Nietzsche (1844-1899) have in common is a deep distrust of liberalism, a contempt for mediocrity, and the virtue of praising what is noble and blaming what is ignoble.  There is this fire in Buchanan, this Nietzschean fire; it appears in the article published this morning, the one with the "fight" in the title.  I think Nietzsche must be dancing in his grave.  For he loved STRENGTH more than anything.  Strength for what, you might ask.  Strength for a certain "way of life."  Strength and vitality for a NOBLE REGIME, a noble and beautiful way of life.  Nietzsche, unlike Pat however, had an eternal contempt for liberal democracy.  And Nietzsche had an abiding respect and admiration for the Jews--for their strength of character and the fight within them.  He did not, though, love "parliaments" or "egalitarian democracies."  Again, the "softness" there was repugnant to him.  Today, Pat is calling for the antithesis of softness; he is calling for toughness, for the FIGHT--a smart fight, not a dumb one.  Whether Bush's fight was a smart one or an ill-advised one perhaps remains to be seen.  We may live to see the day in which Chris Matthews will be a strong ally of Bush-Cheney; Matthews and Cheney united, in "hardball," against the extremists, who have landed in America. 
 
As for the socialism and secularism that Prager talks about, needless to say, Friedrich Nietzsche shared an unspeakable contempt for this, especially the socialism.  But also, if you read carefully, the secularism.  For it was the faith of the Jews, as Nietzsche understood full well, that gave them their inner strength.  And inner strength and virtue and authentic manliness oftentimes manifest themselves, "appear on the stage," as martial valor.  Witness Bush and Cheney and Company.  Witness the inner strength of our Holy Father.
 
You turn the Cross upside down--and it becomes a sword. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thoughts On Greenberg On Richard Arnold

First, this article has to be among the best to come out today.  The subject matter pretty much guarantees that.  I'm convinced--and it's a shame this man was not put on the Supreme Court.  I only take issue with the idea that any Court nominee has ever been or ever will be "objective."  Or "impartial." 
 
Clearly, some readers are more rigorous, more "rational" than others.  Some are more in tune with the "standard of nature" than others and with "THE LAW" than others.  Nevertheless, in my opinion, this ideal of "objectivity" and "impartiality" is just that--an ideal. 
 
I believe that a careful reading of  Lincoln's papers or Roberts's opinions, or Alito's or Souter's or Arnold's will show:  Reason and "nature" were indeed "standards," but so were instincts, that is, powerful forces that always "push" the argument in the direction of an interest. The character of that interest is of the utmost importance.  There are no purely "legal phenomena," as the philosopher Nietzsche might say; rather, there are only interpretations of "legal phenomena."  Yes, this is "legal positivism."  Or perhaps even "legal relativism."  But there is an "on the other hand," as usual.  In my way of looking at this issue of "objectivity," the interpreter must try to be fair; that is, he or she must avoid an unrealistic Absolutism, on the one hand, and an equally unrealistic Relativism, on the other.  Both ideologies, it seems to me, spell TROUBLE. 
 
The trouble with the principle of "impartiality" praised by Paul Greenberg is that it assumes that human beings sit in judgment--as if they were sitting upon some celestial rock, utterly detached from the bodies we have, the air we breathe and the histories of lived experience that we bring to a "question."  To put it more incisively, the judge brings a certain amount of baggage with him into the decision.  He is not totally "free," not completely, one hundred percent "rational," like an angel or disembodied, non-historical, non-flesh-and-blood human.  I mean, look at Judge Judy or Judge Mathis or Judge Penny.  There is, played out before our eyes, a real justice, a very fair decision.  I would also say that, on Court TV, we see a kind of "impartiality."  However...
 
But we certainly also see the personality of the judge.  And that judge brings his or her LIVED EXPERIENCE into the courtroom.  Not his "light."  Not her abstract "metaphysics." 
 
That experience involves the "standard" of reason, nature, law, custom, tradition, rights, habits good and bad--and practice.  Now, what is the "standard" for "good," and what is the Standard for "bad"?  This standard or these standards, again, have to do with a combination of reason and instinct, prudence and custom and practice.  Judge Karen's experience as a whole--is something she brings with her into the courtroom.  It is something real and down-to-earth, not something that exists only "in her head." 
 
I'm reminded here of a great French philosopher as well, Maurice Merleau-Ponty.  Especially his masterpiece, "The Phenomenology of Perception."  In it, if memory serves me well, the great thinker implicitly cautions the "reader" of cases to steer a middle course between the Scylla of absolutism and the Charybdis of relativism.  Therein lies the tale--and the "truth." 
 
Or, as a wise school administrator once informed me, as I had to face the music about a certain dispute:  "The truth is probably somewhere in the middle." 
 
I'm not sure about that, but I'll leave it at that, anyway.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »