About Me

Name: Zentrist
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

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

A Closet Catholic

President Barack Obama, with his global-sounding name, appears to be a closet Catholic.  Not a strict, orthodox Catholic, mind you, but a Roman Catholic nonetheless.  Nevermind that his middle name is Hussein, which name honors his Muslim  and Asian roots as well.  Our leader indeed is cosmopolitan:  cosmos equals "order" as opposed to chaos; "polis," in Greek, means the city.  Therefore, one could say, cosmopolitan means "citizen of order," or "citizen for the whole unity."  I do know this:  millions of good Catholics, including not a few bishops, voted for Barack Hussein Obama.  How can this be, when Catholicism is the faith that, above all, under the leadership of Pope John Paul the Great, defends life before birth?  One explanation might be that millions of practicing Catholics have a serious moral blind spot in their souls.  Another might be that the life issue involves not just life before birth but life after birth as well.  Both sides of the metaphysical and physical line are equally important.  Many Catholics, not all, love Barack Obama.  Many bishops, not all, love him and voted for him.  You cannot tell me that a bishop from PA I know did not vote for the man. 
 
Yet another explanation for the data on Catholics-for-Obama has to do with the issue(s) of so-called social justice.  Affirmative action (see Buchanan's article of today), the death penalty, "spreading the wealth around," immigration, education, the environment and health care:  Catholics are exceedingly passionate about these life issues.  Many liberal Catholics are also equally passionate about the life before birth issue.  So, I ask, Is Barack Hussein Obama a "closet Catholic"? 
 
I'm not trying to stir the pot or anything. 
 
p.s.  How about Doug Kmiec for the Supreme Court? 
 
Another postscript:  Not all Catholics are on the same page, just as not all Dems are on the same page.  For example, leading Catholic intellectual and historian, philosopher and biographer of Pope John Paul II...not to mention political philosopher...is a hero of mine, George Weigel.  Weigel stood and still stands, as far as I know,  with the Bush Adm on Iraq, on torture, on the death penalty and on supply-side economics, just to name a few life issues. 
 
As for me, I admit to having a "blind spot."  The only thing that has made me whole is old age and Mercy,  not my sinful will and willful blind spots.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Economic Lunacy

I have another confession to make:  I've never read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."  I once had a crush on a girl who was reading it, but it was not strong enough to induce me to dip in.  Instead, I dove into "The Electric Koolaid Acid Test" by Tom Wolf.  After all, I grew up in the sixties, not the fifties.  But all this blog wants to say, really, is that I hope Steve Moore is wrong and not right, because if he is right, the new budget is going to exacerbate our problems in an exponential way.  "We are living" Atlas Shrugged as we speak, said one guru.  The office of the Presidency has become The Circumlocution Office that Dickens writes about in "Little Dorrit" and which office may have inspired Ayn Rand with all her benevolent-sounding names for the new society, the one in which everyone was finally equal. 
 
Tonight on CNN, Stephen Moore again sounded the libertarian alarm about all the spending, the bailouts, the enabling, the stimulating...THE ECONOMIC LUNACY. 
 
So then, I tuned into KERA, public television and The News Hour.  A Harvard Professor, Dean Baker and Steve Bartlett are discussing the STRESS TEST.  It was hard for me to make head or tails of this discussion.  I kept thinking back to the year 1978 when I actually met and shook hands with Steve Bartlett--at the local "Young Republicans Club."  We were all there to attend the stump speech of a hard-driving, successful, Hispanic entrepreneur  who was running for President.  Bartlett has not even aged, a sign of clean--and prosperous--living.  And a good make-up artist.  Anyhow, one thing did make sense as I watched this show.  The banks are apparently now going to have to make do.  They are not going to be taken over by the government.  They are being watched by the feds.  They will have to just deal with the toxic assets and sort of make their money the old fashioned way, that is, by earning it.  Or did I misunderstand?!  Bartlett--I guess he's still one of the few surviving Republicans--was not using this forum as an opportunity to bash our President or his philosophy of money.  Of course, I did not see the whole thing; the discussion had a narrow focus:  What's up with Geithner and the bank situation?  What's up with TARP?  Why are the banks now wanting to "give back" the bailout money?! 
 
As I said, I cannot make head or tail of such talk. 
 
So, please pray for me, and all the poor schmucks like me. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Charen, Gerson, Hume and Krugman

It is no accident that a "centrist" like yours truly gravitates to articles and comments given by folks like Mona Charen, Mike Gerson and Brit Hume.  It was instructive to learn on Townhall.com this week that both Charen and Gerson had been speechwriters for the late, great Jack Kemp.  Birds of a feather and "great minds gravitate to each other" and all those sayings...are true. 
 
Vanity aside, the recession we face is sobering, and then some.  The great Brit Hume, now an "op-ed" commentator on cable TV, shared the other day that he "has doubts" whether the approach the Obama Team is taking (and the country with it) will work.  One might well share these doubts!  And yet, the Obama administration is not Paul Krugman enough for the Nobel Prize winning economist, as we read in this morning's paper.  This morning, both Gerson and Krugman are talking both implicitly and explicitly about "years of deflation and stagflation."  But, as Brit Hume also pointed out the other day, "both philosophies cannot be right" (not an exact quote).  Jack Kemp's ideas cannot be "right," on the one hand, and Paul Krugman's ideas also correct, on the other.  So, the seeking lay person, like me, is left to wonder, Who is telling the truth?  I mean, Who really knows "for sure" what to do?  We are now getting some extremely educated guesses, backed by some tentatively positive "numbers" showing a degree or nuance of "growth" and "recovery." 
 
"On Charen, Gerson, Hume and Krugman."  Actually, it's all about me.  But, not really.  I'm not alone in a bubble.   There are millions of folks out here who really don't know what is the best approach to take.  But there are exponentially more people who are dead certain.  From their perspective, Obama is just flat wrong and we are doomed.  Or at least, more debt than is necessary will have been piled up for us, our kids and grandkids.  From Krugman's perspective, the economic theories of Reagan, Kemp, Freidman and Laffer are just plain wrong and harmful--damaging to us, our children and grandchildren to boot.  "It is tragic," as Art Laffer said yesterday on the Cavuto cable TV show.  Whom do we believe?  Laffer and Stephen Moore and Daniel Hannan and Gerson--or Krugman and Friedman and Keynes and Larry Summers and Jared Bernstein?   A long time ago, Jimmy Carter said, "I will never lie to you."  I believed him and in him and voted for him--I thought he was "tougher" than the soft-seeming Gerald Ford.  Recently, President Carter said words to this effect, "The economy will be getting better towards the end of the year."  Was this wishful thinking?  I want to feel I can trust men of real character and integrity, men like Jimmy Carter--and I mean that. 
 
Then the liberals seem to disagree among themselves.  It is almost as if Krugman is taking issue with the recent article written by Thomas Friedman, the one where he argues that our lust for "more" is going to kill us all, all 6.3 billion of us.  Let me not exaggerate:  Our rapacious desire for "more stuff," commercial "necessities," will gradually stifle economic growth while destroying the planet, he seemed to say.  In the Dallas News this morning, Krugman of the New York Times seems to take issue with Friedman.  Seems to. 
 
Krugman argues that if we are going to not have years and years "of deflation and stagflation," whatever that is, we need to "buy more stuff" (not an exact quote--just an interpretation).  Furthermore, according to the Nobel Prize winner, Obama needs to push for even more stimulus, more of Keynes, less of Friedman (Milton).  I'm really out on a limb here because I don't know beans about economics, and I fear that no one really does.  After all, the conservative experts like Phil Gramm predicted that Clinton's approach would put the economy into the ditch. Yet, as Laffer pointed out on Cavuto, Clinton "did some good."  The question on the kitchen table today, is, Will Obama and the Dems do us some good, with the paltry stimulus somehow making it possible for all the little boats to rise up in a "rising tide" of growth?   THAT is the question.   President Clinton, we need you still today.
 
As Hamlet went on to suggest, we are all facing "a sea of troubles." 
 
To sum up, Thomas Friedman wants "less is more" as a viable philosophy and practice--let's do "cap and trade."  Dr. Krugman, for his part, suffering from "the anxiety of influence," argues with great strength and simplicity that we need a Philosophy of More!  Not less stimulus, more!  Not less bank intervention, More!  In the meantime, Bernanke observes that, well, all this is going to take a while, but we are on the right track--and the numbers are beginning to prove this point. 
 
Is it any wonder that ordinary people are beginning to collapse, left and right? 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Obama Impresses

I am one "centrist" trying desperately to justify in my own mind how Obama could be doing what he is doing.  It flies in the face of every fiscally conservative bone in my body.  Here is the best I've come up with to date.
 
Without a list of examples to "prove" my point, let me just assert that there are probably precedents for Obama's request that we be patient--for indeed our own experience tells us that "a journey of a thousand miles begins with that first step."  Clearly, Obama and his advisors have thought this thing through.  Their numbers don't add up, but in general the "plan" appears to be an intellectually plausible one. Moreover, the collective wisdom of the American people, thus far, has said, "OK--let's go for it."  And we might well say that.  I mean, we voted for the guy.  As he reminds us, we knew what he said he was gonna do.  Now, he is doing it.  As Daniel Hannan writes in a recent blog, democracies get the leadership they deserve. 
 
My bottom line point is that Obama is correct when he reminds us that hard (monumental) things require sacrifice.  We know this from experience.  Marriage requires a lot of hard work; working one's way through school while bringing up a family requires nothing short of heroic virtue;  just paying the bills on time requires enormous discipline and self-abnegation.  "Nothing worthwhile is easy," a now deceased teacher once said.  But I never dreamed that an American president would actually call upon the nation in these "soft" times...to really sacrifice. 
 
"Woodrow Wilson is a president about whom not enough bad can be said."  So opines, in more or less those words, Dr. Michael Scheuer, in his recentmost book, "Marching Toward Hell."  Idealism of that kind, for Scheuer, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, the Realist School of Foreign Policy...Idealism of that kind--for Nietzsche--is beneath contempt.  (Well, for Nietzsche, liberalism was beneath contempt; it smacked of mediocrity.)
 
Nonetheless, Obama's "idealism" impresses.  I am not yet totally convinced that it is lacking in Realism.  There are too many ranters on the conservative side, and too many rational-sounding apologists on the Obama side.  Are these exceptional defenders of the Administration dreaming?  Or do they in fact have reason to believe that these plans will more or less work out as planned? 
 
The Clinton Machine, once upon a time, had "reason to believe" that their plans for success would "work out as planned."  But "events" had other ideas.  One big event that came along and stayed put was the amazing Barack Obama backed up by an extraordinary team that gravitated to him.  David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Rahm Emannuel, Paul Volker, Warren Buffet, Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, etc. 
 
Nor has the factor of "events" been eliminated.  This is what worries me and just about everbody with a thinking pulse.  Just as "events" screwed Hillary and McCain, so "events" will probably screw Obama.  Obama was the adversary and now he will encounter his own adversary--"events."  What Hamlet called "a sea of troubles."
 
That is, unless his Midas Touch continues on. 
 
Today's readings included something from Nietzche's "Human, All Too Human."  He talks about the "genius."  In reality, says Nietzsche, the "genius" is really a fortunate, gifted man who is and always has been, "day and night," a "craftsman."  Nietzsche did not see himself as a "divinely inspired" man.  He saw himself as a "craftsman."  If you read his biographies, you will see what he means by this.  The "artist," be he or she a politician, a writer or a musician--builds upon the fortunate gifts with practice, continuous, "day and night"...practice.  He gives as an example the "short story writer."  Such an artist is no "genius."  I suppose, not even a Nathaniel Hawthorne.   Rather, a budding Hawthorne or Flannery O'Conner is one who started with "two page stories," max, written with blood, sweat and tears, no, not tears in Nietzsche.  The point is, one builds upon the gifts--and works continuously at the art.  Until something is ready to "appear."  One has carefully observed "a thousand" different human "types."  (Was he thinking of Shakespeare or Goethe?)  And one writes, alas, "with no unnecessary words."  You do this in obscurity "for ten years," which I take it is how long it took Nietzsche. 
 
It took Obama, too, ten years for him to develop his craft.  At the "town-hall-gymnasium" meeting the other day, not to mention the extraordinary press conference, he made it look easy.  But what we didn't see was the "ten years" of determined, disciplined, self-confident and always-thinking, always pushing PRACTICE.  Practice with people (he really does not like people that much, and neither do I).  Otherwise, he would not have been able to do what he has done.  And practice at the art of American Politics.  Even as a boy, he IMAGINED THIS. 
 
Someone first had to imagine...fire, the wheel, strong arrows, gunpowder, print, jets and nuclear weapons. 
 
Someone first had to imagine..."cap and trade," "millions of green jobs," "living within one's means," "sound infrastructure," "sound banks," an honest market system not based on false "bubbles." 
 
The imagining of these things is not Obama's forte.  His real strength is manifold:  sound intelligence; common sense (believe it or not); "well spoken"; integrity-in-context; deep-down faith and hope and desire to help others ("I'd die on a cross for mankind--it's people I cannot stand," said a character in Dostoevsky).  (Obama's roots appear to be not so much African as Russian.) 
 
Secretary Gates pointed out recently that the American Tradition, "speak softly, but carry a big stick," still obtains.  President Obama is going around the world.  His popularity around the world, as Mark Shields pointed out Friday night, is "off the charts." Yet, as Gates reiterated, "people know we still have that big stick." 
 
In my opinion, they should respect President Barack Obama.  I'm convinced he respects them and will continue to do so. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

David Souter and Marcel Proust

Pete Williams quipped in his discussion tonight with Gwen Ifil that Judge Souter might well be looking forward, back on the New England farm, to "reading Thoreau."  That might be so.  But as I recall Mr. Souter also has a taste, or at one point indulged a curiosity--for  Marcel Proust.  One summer, off from school, the young student-intellectual read the entire "Remembrance of Things Past," if that is the correct translation.  If this is a true story, or even if it is not, I compliment the great man for his taste in literature and politics.  I admire his courageous devotion to lifelong learning.  Not just casual magazine reading, although this can be edifying, but a serious passion for truly great minds and great books.  The leisure that the "professional student" seems bound and determined to pursue--is nothing more and nothing less than what Joseph Pieper called, "The Basis of Culture."  Souter will do us all more good by reading, thinking, meditating and speaking.  Oh yes, and writing!  If he is so inclined, and I strongly suspect he will be.  I, for one, look forward to reading that highly intellectual yet New Hampshire down-to-earth book. 
 
So, if any kind of "statement" was being made by David Souter, and I doubt that, it might be this:  There is something to be said for the European way of doing things.  By that, I mean:  over there, people are not quite so OBSESSED with being busy, with making money, with working, constantly working--hardly a vacation or only a very short one in sight.  Many over there, unlike too many, far too many over here--know how to live.  I compliment David Souter for the example he is setting in KNOWING HOW TO LIVE. 
 
In that sense, the statement Souter is making is that, ironically, he winds up being extraordinarily PRO-LIFE.  I envy Souter also for this:  He will be closer to my healthy and wholesome friends in Vermont, the monks up in the hills who live the most beautiful life imaginable, the cloistered, contemplative life.   
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thoughts on Machiavelli

Before Machiavelli, some random thoughts before work, starting with the color pink.  I notice that Townhall.com and President Obama have something in common:  both have recently noticed, as it were, the Pink Movement.  Barack, subtly, but very deliberately, at a recent "townhall meeting."  He with great awareness and alertness called on "the lady in pink."  They--Townhall.com--well, look at today's home page.  It's a lesson in the values held dear by the Code Pink Movement led by Medea, I believe that's her name but I apologize if it's not.
 
By the way, I share some or all of those principles.  But I've long ago given to Good Will my lone pink dress shirt.  Back in the eighties, it was a "bold statement" for a man to wear a pink shirt.  At least, one "workshop" participant, I myself, was struck when DEVELOPING CAPABLE PEOPLE's Stephen Glenn came to lead us one morning in a bright and shiny pink dress shirt.  I promptly went out and bought one for myself so that I, too, could make a statement about 1) my secure masculinity and 2) my sympathy for whatever pink stood for. 
 
Now, about the press conference two nights ago.  The best question came from a New York Times reporter, Zeliny I believe.  He asked the president, What was the single most 1) surprising 2) troubling 3) enchanting 4) disappointing, I believe..."thing" the President had encountered since being in office?  The way Barack handled this intriguing question showed why most people like him and want him to do well.  There is no way I can reproduce here, with stale words, what actually took place.  It was one of those "little-noticed" eternal moments, not world-historic, mind you, but nonetheless noticed. 
 
The question about Obama's "enchantment" was not altogether out of left field.  We may recall Barack's answer to a another good personal question some weeks ago:  The POTUS said that one of the things he missed most about ordinary life was the ability to just "go out."  For example, he missed being able to just "go out for a walk" in order, perhaps, "to see a sunset."  That was just one of many examples he gave.  Indeed, it was not that long ago that Obama, for all I know, actually drove his own car.  One year ago, most people in the world had never even heard of Barack Obama. 
 
So, "Mr. President, what has been the most enchanting thing you've experienced since being in office?"  Not a "spontaneous" person, not like our vice president, Mr. Obama paused with a sense of irony and intensely thoughtful calculation.  I was a little disappointed in his answer.  Disappointed, but not surprised.  The "most enchanting" thing, he said, was actually not enchanting.  The mood for "sunsets" has long since passed.  Rather, the most enchanted moments were really the most awesome moments of Gratitude. 
 
And what, in particular, is our President especially grateful for?  It is not something "pink."  It is our courageous and competent military. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Thomas Friedman and Allan Greenspan

First, I have a confession to make:  I've never been very interested in "the environment" except as a factor in the philosophy of man.  (Freedom and Determinism--that perennial conundrum.)  In spring of 1970, a good friend tried his best to get me to help him organize the local Earth Day.  I said, not only no, but hell no.  The thirty-ninth anniversary of that original Earth Day was celebrated just a couple weeks ago on El Rushbo's radio show.  Rush taught me a few things I didn't know.  The founder of Earth Day wound up killing his wife and being defended in court by Arlen Specter.  But today, that is neither here nor there.
 
Since 1986 I've been driving a four-cylinder Toyota pick-up; until recently I've been "recycling" zilch; I continue to eat meat, tonight at Arby's; we use window units to save on electricity, but I've refused the offers from Green Mountain Electric; also in 1986 I quit drinking alcohol and have stayed sober (for the most part) ever since--wait a minute:  What does THAT have to do with our topic?
 
What is our topic?
 
Thomas Friedman's recent article which appeared this morning in the newspaper.  "Obama's green team is superb--now he just has to lead the way."  The paper provided that title.  Friedman provides a speech that he thinks Obama ought to give:
 
"My fellow Americans, I want to speak to you about a new economic law.  You've heard of Moore's Law in information  technology.  I'd like to speak to you about the 'Law of More' in energy technology.  Americans, Indians, Chinese, Africans, we all want more--more comfort in our homes, more mobility in our lives, more technologies with which to innovate.  But there is only one way all 6.3 billion of us can have more and not make this an unlivable planet, and that is by living our lives and running our businesses in more sustainable ways and properly accounting for it.
 
"Right now, we're paying a huge price--a tax--for everyone trying to achieve more in an unsustainable way.  But the 'More Tax' is not imposed by the U. S. government.  It is a tax imposed by the market and will continue rising indefinitely as more and more people want more and more stuff.  It will steadily drive up gasoline prices, home heating prices and factory electricity prices.
 
"My proposal is that today we fix a durable price on carbon-based fossil fuels, but set it to begin only in 2011, after we're out of this recession.  Every home builder, air-conditioning manufacturer, gasoline refiner, car maker will know that it's coming and will, I believe, immediately look for ways to profit from and invest in more energy-efficient systems.  Yes, the cost of gasoline or kilowatt-hours will rise in the short term.  But in the long term, your actual bills and expenses will go down because your car, applicances and factory will become steadily more productive. 
 
"So those are our choices--an escalating 'More Tax' forever or a 'Carbon Tax Cut' forever, which is what you'll get from establishing a carbon price signal that shapes the market in favor of American interests and not those of our adversaries and competitors.  If you're with me, write your member of Congress and senator today."
 
Now, for your convenience, if you write the old-fashioned way, here is the address of your representative and senator:
     Hon. Congressman ___________
     The U. S. Congress
     Washington, D. C.  20515
 
     Hon. Senator _____________
     The U. S. Senate
     Washington, D.C.  20510
 
As for Allan Greenspan, he's green, too.  A New York Times columnist you might not necessarily trust.  But an Allan Greenspan--Let's put it this way.  After watching the interview of Greenspan that came with the publication of one of his recent books, perhaps his recentmost book, I was convinced that Al Gore is right and Sean Hannity is wrong on the Green Movement.  This hack, me, is now officially green.  Why?  both Thomas Friedman and Allan Greenspan, not to mention the Pope and the bulk of trustworthy data...data means A LOT to Dr. Greenspan...but don't take my word or anyone else's:  Find out for yourself!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From Newton, Iowa to Fox High School

The symbolism here is irresistible.  By "chance," President Obama landed about a week ago in Newton, a great town I'm sure but an even greater symbol--of the Age of Obama--for this new age is about progress or change, innovation and "making things," science and technology.  What better symbol for each of these ideas than Isaac Newton, the inventor (along with others) of "classical" physics?  In this sense, the Obama Team knew what it was doing right down to the little detail of the name of the town to visit. 
 
 Newton, ironicallly a very Godly and religious man, stands for Modernity and Enlightenment.   His "modern ideas" have unfolded before our historical eyes in the pages of a history of "growth" and "progress" culminating in the disaster of World War I.  At which point, survivors began to question the value of such a "march" of "history" and "progress."  Indeed as a scientific civilization we've continued to perform deeds of technological innovation, for example, "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."  This idea of progress and innovation will not go away.  Truth be told, I'm personally grateful to Newton and Company for modern, pain-free medicine and dentistry.  The impact that "Newton's Ideas" have had on our President is obvious.  Obama has referred to the "nation that put a man on the moon," its potential for even greater achievement.  Indeed.  No Descartes (calculus), no Leibniz (math of  oval orbits), no Newton (mathematical physics)--NO MOON MISSION.   Now, to jump ahead some twenty years from now, we hope with Obama that we can look back and say of our time, "That was when we began to get serious about education, energy and health care."  Again, I'm with the President, but I'm worried about the "FOX" part of the equation.  Why did Obama et. al. choose a school whose name is "Fox"?  I'm not being cute here.  I think even the names of places chosen to visit are chosen with care.  These names are great material, at any rate, for writers--or should I say fools?--like me.
 
Very briefly:  To me, Fox High School clearly points up at least the unconscious way in which (FOX)  people like Sean Hannity and Charles Krauthammer and Bill O'Reilly are being "dialogued" with.  There is this dialogue going on between Obama, who takes it all in, and his more visible adversaries.  And the President has been and continues to be proactive about it.  He will "speak to" the issues--whatever they might happen to be.  In fact, so determined is this POTUS not to sweep anything under the rug--he will even "as it turns out" visit a public high school called Fox High School.  I don't think Obama is trying to be cute.  I think he is planting seeds, so to speak.  When you recognize someone, acknowledge their existence, even shake their hands--you honor him or her.  To look at people that way is to look out for them, to be concerned about their authentic well being. 
 
President Obama is a great coach.  I happened to see recently Charlie Rose's interview with "Coach K" of Duke.  Coach K teaches his players, his staff, his family and anyone listening.  He sees the potential, the "gold standard" inside.  He has a knack for e-ducating, for "drawing out" that incredible potential. 
 
It occurs to me that Obama is also good at educating people.  I compliment him; as an educator I compliment President Obama for the nice compliment he gave to the sharp fourth-grader who turned up somehow at Fox High School.  He complimented her for the "poise" with which she "articulated" an "excellent" question. 
 
Finally, about that FOX symbol.  After World War I, conservatives and liberals alike began to wonder:  We've made so much Progress in technology...what with the sophisticated weapons and even "flying machines."  Our thinkers have begun to imagine a new kind of politics, one based on this amazing scientific model.  But now this technology married to our "morals" has exploded in our face.
 
So much for History married to Technology.  So much for the "enlightenment."  Millions and millions dead and mutilated.
 
The challenge that Fox News and its more or less disenchanted philosophy, its "conservativism,"  bring to Obama, is:  How can we prevent yet another historical catastrophe? 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joy to the World

After hearing the good news of Senator Specter's conversion, I found myself silently singing, "Joy to the World," by Three Dog Night:  "Joy to the world...all the boys and girls...Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea--Joy to you and me!"
 
I think maybe this Audacity of Hope Thing is really catching on, and the louder OReilly/Hannity get, the more joyful the outcomes--for centrists like me.  Talk about obnoxious.  OReilly can be insufferable!  O well, you can't argue with his ratings.  But you can argue with his opinions and those of people who share them, for example the idea that we all ought to be flag-waving patriots no matter what our governement is doing.  If you did not like what the Bush-Cheney regime was doing, you had a right not to wave your flag.  If you feel violated almost by what the Obama Adm is doing, you have a right not to display openly your "patriotism."  I am grateful to Townhall.com for the forum, the opportunity, on occasion, to speak my mind. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dear President Obama

Dear President Obama:  Have you read Charles Krauthammer's article this morning?  I read it with my coffee.  I continue to support you, but I wonder how long what Fred Barnes has called your "misdirection" is going to hold up.  Last night on O'Reilly, you got a really great endorsement from none other than the Ubermensch Himself, Donald Trump.  Trump is growing on me.  His endorsement or moral support, if you will, matters--and not just to me.
 
But Krauthammer's article, incisive as usual, really peels off the various and sundry layers of "spin."  Sooner or later, you, the POTUS, will have to really level with us.  Actually, you already have levelled with those of us who are really listening, like me.  You've said, "If this was gonna be easy, we'd already have done it."  All of us, rich and poor alike, are going to have to make sacrifices.  No other president in our history has ever spoken to us as you are speaking to us now.  Maybe it's because, only a few short years ago, you were still driving your own car and not being chauffered around.  Only a few months ago, really, you were still doing the dishes with that DAWN detergent I saw in a photo.  At any rate, the way you speak shows you've not been in some hermetically sealed bubble of self-protection.  You've been as the philosopher says, a "being-in-the-world."
 
As such, as you admit, you watch the cable TV "once in a while."  And you read articles like Krauthammer's.  All I can say is, keep levelling with us; keep doing what you're doing (while taking a break every now and then); and if the "numbers" really don't add up, as Charles claims, and they probably don't--because he is honest...then go ahead and address that issue, too. 
 
As a poor person, for my part, I'm willing to pitch in in any way I possibly can.  For one thing, I'm bound and determined to improve my diet, reducing fats and sugars, so that I won't need that much health care in the first place!  Also, when the end does come for me, I'd hope that our system is such that "death with dignity" is available, and some autonomy is available to the dying man or woman.  I"m talking about the very end. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Torture: Athens, Jerusalem, Rome and NYC

The biblical side of the American character would seem to be without question against torture--I mean, cruel, bloody, barbaric torture of the kind that is associated with names like Attila the Hun or Machiavelli.  The Shining City on A Hill, as Shepard Smith said yesterday so passionately, DOES NOT TORTURE.  He slammed his fist on the table and used the f word.   
 
But the Machiavellians or neocons, led by Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, early on gave a defense of torture in their magazine, The Weekly Standard.  Krauthammer's article appeared in or around the year, 2003.  Krauthammer was not defending excruciating, bloody torture in the sense of say, pulling out the fingernails.  Or cutting off a finger.  But if American lives could be saved, waterboarding at worst and other techniques as well--could be justified.  I recall that we used loud music against Noriega, when he was hiding from us. Sorry, this was not really torture.  (And, it was a very different situation.)
 
At any rate, the Athenian side of our national psyche, the inner-Thucydides or Alcibiades--would certainly make the case for some kind of torture in certain very extreme circumstances.  Actually, our Puritan ancestors, unless I'm wrong, countenanced torture and used it.  I'm thinking of their horrible death penalties.  One also recalls what I'll call... The Confinement. 
 
As for the Roman influence on our country, by that I mean its legacy of laws, deliberation, reason and debate, prudence and traditions.  The Roman citizen, at least, enjoyed certain "human rights."  Of course, the slaves did not.  In our case, the Islamists--would not.  In fact, whether shameful or not--they did not "enjoy" human rights.  From now on, however, new laws will be in play and will, we hear, be enforced. 
 
The NYC in the title is synechdoche for Contemporary America.  But in my opinion Fox News' Shepard Smith was not necessarily voicing the opinion of the majority of Americans--especially in our frame of mind after 9/11.
 
I must say, this whole debate has got me thinking or re-thinking the issue.  Apparently, President Obama, too, has been re-thinking the issue in terms of how to approach it.  On the one hand, he wants to have his own lawyers confident that they can give him their best advice without someday having to hire a lawyer!   The torture, such as it was, was legal.  I repeat, it was legal.  Hence, when President Bush said, "we don't torture," he believed he was telling the truth and that his administration had the law on its side. 
 
On the other hand, President Obama wants to set an example for the world:  That shining city on a hill, albeit one among others equally enlightened.  I'd like to compliment our President, at all events, for keeping an open mind on this important subject.  Bill O'Reilly's opinion has no doubt swayed many, many Americans.  (He agrees with the neocons, the American Machiavellians.)  Fox News's Shepard Smith's opinion, too, has no doubt swayed many of us.  I've listened to both sides till I'm blue in the face.  I ask myself, What would Lincoln do?  Or, What would Gandhi do?  As for what Obama himself would do--he's been influenced by both Lincoln and Gandhi--it's a moot point.  The man has already outlawed the practice of torture.  Or, maybe I should say, he has retrieved certain laws already existing laws.
 
But if a bomb goes off tomorrow in a big city, with threats of more to come, What would we, as a nation, then, do?  I seriously doubt that we would be particularly exceptional.  Within the context of our own laws, precedents and traditions, we would go about the business of defending ourselves.  Whether that flame of American Exceptionalism would continue to burn even under those circumstances remains to be seen.   The same country, I might add,  that gave us Bach, Schelling and Goethe also gave us a Civilization Gone Mad. 
 
This mass insanity happened just a few years before I was born, and it could happen again.  As a world civilization, we've made great progress in science and technology, but we have gone utterly backwards in terms of morals.  Personally, I stand with Barack Obama.  Incidentally, on this point, I agree with Donald Trump, who gave moral support to Obama this evening during an interview.  Way to go, Mr. Trump!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Learning Changes Us

"Learning changes us; it does what all nourishment does which also does not merely 'preserve'--as physiologists know.  But at the bottom of us, really 'deep down,' there is, of course, something unteachable, some granite of spiritual 'fatum,' (fate), of predetermined decision and answer to predetermined selected questions" (Nietzsche, #231 BGE). 
 
Reading on in this controversial text, one finds a footnote, "see Freud."  My take on this is that the first three years of our lives are critical.  Educators and psychologists and pastors have known this, and enlightened politicians (like Ross Perot) have repeated it, publicly.  It is therefore no secret anymore.  Developing capable people means "nourishing" our young people.  The question is, as we receive our billions in government-education handouts and giveaways:  What is the appropriate way to "develop capable people"? 
 
I'd like to compliment the Bush Family, especially, with Barbara Bush on my mind from last night's interview with Gretta:  literacy, universal literacy, is our ongoing noble goal and constant aspiration.  I don't have time to list all the efforts and accomplishments of the Bushes and their in-laws when it comes to Reading, especially. 
 
Those first three years of life, however, when the conditions for aptitude in reading are being determined, are also critical.  I don't know if he is still around, but I'd like to compliment H. Stephen Glenn for his Jimmy Carter-inspired movement of the eighties and beyond, DEVELOPING CAPABLE PEOPLE. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Cal Thomas and Susan Boyle

I'd like to compliment Cal Thomas for his magnificent piece on the beautiful and talented Susan Boyle. 
 
Indeed, Brit's got all kinds of talent--and beauty.  Only about two weeks ago, I'd never heard of the Great One--I predict--Daniel Hannan.  Here is another extraordinary talent, this one in the arena of politics and literature.  Made fun of by some of his co-workers in government, I think Mr. Hannan has really risen to the occasion.  In fact, he had already done so, and known about it, long before his You Tube presentation brought him to our attention.  Otherwise, he would not have been able to perform as he did on American cable tv.  His performance, just a few "sound bites," really, was brilliant.  All the moreso for the gift of naturalness, the apparent ease with which he pulled it off.  I guess we have to remember that the place where the Beatles started out was Liverpool, England. 
 
But getting back to the spiritually-inclined Mr. Thomas, What was his point about the "pretty woman," Susan Boyle?  I believe it was that we have all been created in the image and likeness of the Higher Power.  Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens--all of us on the spectrum from belief to unbelief are beneficiaries of the ancient, sacred texts.  Without these great books behind us--divinely inspired or not--our current world-wide orthodoxy of humanism would be the exception and not the rule.  And without this orthodoxy, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights would not exist.  Chances are, we would have little or nothing to aspire to.  As things are now, though, we have a prayer. 
 
I'd also like to compliment the strong moral leadership--itself a thing of beauty--of President Barack Obama.  Standing on the shoulders of giants like Ramakrishna, Vivekenanda, Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandella, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Jimmy Carter--Barack yesterday preached that we are called to moral greatness not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.  I've not heard such beautiful words in quite a long time. 
 
The great singers, indeed, can make our eyes well with tears. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive