About Me

Name: Zentrist
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Speaking of Obedience

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

On Buchanan, Charen and Cal Thomas

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

On Barone, Gerson and Parker

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

THE NOBLE LIE

"The truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."  This, reportedly, from Winston Churchill, a wartime leader of note.  And Winston had studied his classics, apparently, especially Plato, who argues that a certain amount of "noble" deception must be used in order to govern well.  Most ordinary people are not capable of following high-falutin, egghead "reasoning" or theory.  They need a story, a narrative.  The "old school" curriculum provided (and still does today!) this "fiction."  In pagan times, you would be fighting for "your ancestors."  In other words, for religious and therefore noble reasons.  (See Plato's version of a Noble Lie for political/wartime purposes in his "Republic".) 
 
It is not that much different in our time.  The President has to come up with a narrative that will be easily understood by the people.  And Bush's narrative certainly worked in my case!  "If we don't go into Iraq, we might wind up being vaporized by a nuclear explosion." Noble or not, this is a compelling "narrative." 
 
Now comes Obama's "narrative," as brilliantly pointed out recently by Charles Krauthammer.  Our prez is nothing if not a good, no, an excellent student (of leaders past--though Charles does not focus on this).  According to Charles, Obama has crafted a narrative for us:  Energy, Health Care and Education, Yes!  Our Recovery Act is all about correcting the mistakes of our past in these three areas.  Our neglect of adequate spending in education, health care and energy is part and parcel of the economic crisis we face.  Well, this non sequiter, to put it nicely, does not convince Krauthammer or very many conservatives--or even Independents or Democrats.  And I've not mentioned our investors in the Stock Market! 
 
"This is what all presidents do," according to Krauthammer, that is, they all fudge the numbers to make the case for their budgets.  However, according to Charles, they do not resort to such a huge deception as the one Obama appears to be attempting.  The President is making it look as if our increasingly desperate economic realities can only be solved, long term, by these inordinate "investments."  In the meantime, the zombie bank situation, with its poisoned assets,  threatens to really ruin our lives, bigtime.  Not just inflation, but something more worrisome, looms.  It is this very worry and fear and angst that Obama is tapping into:  "never let a really good crisis go to waste" has been the mantra of the enthusiasts, as Edmund Burke would call them.  (Burke would also condemn their "abtract reasoning," their "metaphysical thinking.")  Would that Burke were here today, to appear on Larry King Live or Hardball or Hannity's America.  Would he, on O'Reilly's show, try to "spin" the facts and the true reality of the situation?  For it is this very "spin," that Bill O'Reilly deplores, that Churchill and Bush and now Obama--do not all great leaders have to make a case for the emergency they face?  Students of History:  Has any great leader ever just laid out the case he needs to make with precedents informed by reason and prudence?  Perhaps Lincoln, during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.  As for pre-liberal times, pre-modern history--well, leadership was oftentimes the "my way or the highway" dictum.  Come to think of it, that is the "way" of the tyrant, of tyranny, period. 
*************************************************************
But even Lincoln used a kind of "civil religion" to make his case.  Students of the Gettysburg Address point up the imagery in the speech as decisive.  Admirers of Lincoln, like Harry Jaffa, argue that our 16th president invoked the Declaration--and then filled his speeches with unsurpassed rhetoric--argumentation in the classical sense of the word, not the Bill O'Reilly sense of the word--to build a reasonable case for each step taken prior to, during, and near the close of the Civil War.  Lincoln would die before the last shots were fired, a martyr for the cause of the new Civil Religion he created (in a manner that would make Fritz Nietzsche proud, proud of Abe's "creativity" if not of his liberalism). 
 
Yes indeed, the greatest statesmen are nothing if not cunning.  Look at Churchill, at Lincoln, at Bush/Cheney--and now Obama.  Our president has been reading the life of Lincoln, who, like Churchill, like GWB, used a crisis in order to mobilize action (be it movement of troops or legislation or a new, world-historical idea).  This maxim is worth repeating:  Never let a great crisis go to waste.  Seize the moment!  After all, FDR seized the day in a most world-historical way--after Pearl Harbor.  Would we have listened to Churchill prior to this catastrophe? 
*****************************
Well, why not be utterly bold and utterly audacious?  Now!  What better time? (As Jack Cafferty argues in his new book, it is "Now or Never.")  It is sad but true, for example, that we do not correct an extremely dangerous road or intersection until a tragedy--or twelve--has occurred.  Better late than never.  But why couldn't reason and plain common sense have been applied before the horrific loss of life?  You and I both could have predicted what was going to happen.    But the "rationale" for action was not yet urgent enough.  Other exigencies were much more important. One needed to prioritize.  But now, in the aftermath of this calamity, something will be done.  And what made the difference?  Was it logic?  No.  It was the photographs--of the twisted metal and human remains. 
 
So, the noble lie is necessary.  The prudent thing just ain't gonna happen (before the real emergency) without something very persuasive.  I mean--extraordinarily persuasive and convincing...to the run-of-the-mill voter or citizen.  The only problem is, many voters are getting increasingly worried, notwithstanding Obama's 70% approval rating.  Furthermore, there is this.  In this morning's column, Pat Buchanan writes alarmingly, even for him, of what might be called, in our homeland, Southwestistan...to match the alarming Londonistan evolving in Europe.  In other words, the whole idea of America First is increasingly coming under attack by a variety of social and political and world-historical problems and issues.  According to intelligence sources, moreover (not Pat), our number one potential threat may be the Pakistan-linked extremists coming here to "visit relatives" or some such scheme. 
 
Well, now I ask you, Is not some sort of "approach" to these homeland security issues advisable?  Would it have been prudent for President Bush to lay out for all of us, in a nationally televised speech, in February of 2003...I ask you...Would it have been prudent for Bush and Company to give all of us the egghead arguments for invasion?  I mean, for example, the idea that a democracy in Iraq gives us leverage against Iran, etc?  Would the people have been able to grasp such a Weekly Standard type of logic and argumentation?  The "domino theory" of democratizing the Middle East?  (First Iraq, then all the rest of the regimes roll over, right into our "way of life".)  No.  Better to use Collin Powell and the Power Point Presentation.  Now THIS will be convincing--and it was!  And indeed, that magnificent presentation now appears to us, many of us, as a Noble Lie.  "The truth is so precious..." That is, the "truth" about the Americanization of the Middle East, this "truth" is so precious that it must be "surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." 
 
In conclusion, Obama is like the others.  Like Lincoln, he is using events (and his preternatural literary genius)  to really transform America; Like FDR, he is really seizing the moment to put America back to work (and win a just war at the same time); like GW Bush, he is avoiding the real issue (perhaps, Afghanistan...or at present, THE BANKS!)...in order to REBUILD AMERICA...for THE LONG TERM.
 
President Obama, says Charles Krauthammer, is sort of "spinning" the real facts of the case (our financial crisis) in order to REALLY MAKE HISTORY...and in the process help people out.  Well, Mr. Krauthammer does not really put it in quite that way.
 
That was my own personal spin.  God bless Barack Obama.  God Bless America.  And God Bless ARRA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  This legislation is going to need all the help, human and providential, that it can possibly get. 
 
And now if you really want to get yourself good and depressed, after reading Krauthammer, Buchanan and a few others, read Gerson's recent writings on the Obama Budget and the Abyss the Republicans are near. 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why is She on Townhall.com?

Why is Kalthleen Parker on Townhall.com?  That is the question one blogger politely asks.  "I can get all the progressive mush I want on TV," he or she goes on to say.
 
All I want to say right now is THANK YOU.  Thanks to Townhall, thanks to one of the greatest places ever (America), and thanks to that blogger for asking the question.  Because, in fact, it is all about asking those questions!
 
A special thanks, as well, to our troops.  Daddy served in the Marines, went to China.  I regret I did not go to Nam.  Well, not really.  In any case, our soldiers deserve our support--that should go without saying. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THREE GOOD IDEAS

The incredibly bad world depression that we face--each of us is at the Crossroad.  That's the place where the devil will tempt us to...blame others, find scapegoats, metaphorically lynch people.  I read here and there that, around the world, the all-too-human tendency to scapegoat is on the rise.  Even the administration is doing it to a certain extent.  How could it not do it, at this point of crisis, to a certain degree?
 
I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.  Jesus the Worker said, "I and the Father are One."  For those of us who count Christ our brother, this is a mind-boggling statement.  If Jesus is our brother, our friend, then in time, if not now, we too will be one with God the Creator.  Those who have truly been born again know what I'm talking about.  Those who use the ways and means given us, to get closer to God--know what I'm talking about.  Now, can this knowledge or faith in the Higher Power assist us in the present crisis?  "I and the Father are One."  Our association with Christ, our day to day friendship with Him, means that we, too, can say, "I and the Father are one."  This belief is utterly unique in the universe of various religions.  This faith has given the world, among other gifts, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Closer to home, this Christian religion has given me the gift of grace, the gift of faith, in the roundabout way of AA.  Prior to my personal recovery, my life reflected the values, at times, of someone who, deep down, does not respect himself or others.  This lack of personal dignity and respect, for oneself and others, in thoughts, words and deeds--well...it was not helpful.  It was not constructive.  To use the new age lingo, self-actualization in the highest sense was not going to happen.  We speak today of winners and losers.  The real loser is a person who has no clue who she is.  According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, each and every human being is special.  We all have work to do, an apostolate.  And when we do this work to the very best of our ability, our reasonable best, we are doing SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL FOR GOD. 
 
Consider our Puritan ancestors.  The dividing line between nature and grace did not exist.  People naturally went about their business knowing, KNOWING, that life was worth living.  Their business, whatever it may have been, was a noble one.  (Those who went into work that was dishonest or questionable in its helpfulness...that was their decision.)  Nature, as a standard for a life worth living, was a given; the grace that rained down upon the Things of God was also a given.  In practical terms, the Puritan of the 17th or even of the secularized 19th century was driven to do very special, very important things.  One's work was not just a job.  Ben Franklin, for example, did not believe that money was the be all and end all.  Like our contemporary hero, John McCain, Franklin of the 18th century, the time of our Founding Fathers, worked for himself, to be sure.  But he also worked for what Aristotle calls the Noble and the Just.  (Kaloskaigathon, if memory serves.) His interest was not just in making money.  He considered himself, as people in recovery finally learn--A PART OF, not apart from.  Too many of us, myself included at times, think that we are "different."  And indeed we act that way.  We go our own way.  We forget that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.  As our Holy Father reminds us, we slip into a mindset.  It is a mindset that is "locked up inside itself."  Or, as one speaker (the superintendent) at a high school graduation reminded the graduates, one has to "compete" in what amounts to a jungle.  It is every boy and girl for himself or herself.  The goal is the "survival of the fittest." 
 
It would terribly ironic--and tragic, too--if one of the unintended results of Christendom was that every boy and girl grew up thinking that he or she was a little god or godess--with a small "g."  But that is precisely what has happened.  Christendom has "empowered" us.  We are all little gods and godesses, strutting around.  Or so it would seem.
 
We need to return to a strict constuctionist interpretation of the Bible.  I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.  To follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ--well, that is a pretty tall order.  One crazy-like-a-fox philosopher opined that that there was only one Christian, and that he died on a cross.  In a sense, I believe, Nietzsche was right.  Mahatma Gandhi was right when asked what he thought about the Christian religion.  To paraphrase, he said he thought that it was true; and that "they should try it."  Think about it.  Do YOU want to raise certain questions at work--with appropriate wisdom of course--about certain practices there?  Do YOU want to be, really be, a Christian?  Do I?  I don't know.  It's much easier to "go along to get along."  The bottom line here is that to really practice the faith means that we have to suffer the consequences of our righteousness.  One big example comes to mind:  We might not get re-elected.
 
To really do the right thing means, you might not get re-elected.
 
When we are "in Christ," when we receive the Eucharist in the state of grace--as opposed to unworthy states--we are empowered in a more noble, a more exalted sense.  When we are "in Christ," we have united ourselves to Christ.  We have become or are on our way to becoming a saint.  Then, the next day, when the alarm goes off, we have to get up and do it all over again.  And that obnoxious customer makes you want to spit in her face!  (Well, if you're really in Christ, that particular limbic response is no longer really there.)  So, you get the idea.  Virtue has become habitual, as gradually it became for the apostles and the saints.  In a pagan or classical sense, virtue has become a good habit.  I think we saw this in the performance of Barack Obama during the long, hard campaign.  I don't argue that he is a living saint, although I think that's a possibility as it is for all of us.  I do say that "you shall know them by their fruits."  Love is--and looks--kind, patient, persevering, forgiving, merciful, etc.  Our country's new ARRA (sounds like aura), the Recovery Act, is merciful--or is it?  Certainly it intends to be.  We will see.  Already it looks like people are getting more upbeat.  Everybody Loves Barack!
 
The second idea for this blog-comment is the story of the Prodigal Son, in Luke I believe.  As a citizen today, I can relate to the worries of the older son, the one who wondered what the F was going on.  Here he was, doing everything right, and what is his reward?  He is invited to a big party for the b_____d who went off and had a good time with no thought whatsoever of tomorrow.  That would be the Prodigal Son, the s.o.b.  Now, if we believe we are now or are potentially in some way "one with the Father" as a result of Christ's words (he called us brother, so we're in the same family as the Trinity)...if we we believe it and act like it everyday with a certain consistency, then what?  If we live in a place where nature and grace are one thing, where we work hard everyday, doing quality, useful and honest work for the Glory of God, then what?  If our one-with-God philosophy is not New Age but truly Catholic, truly Orthodox, then what?  Then...we have to show it.  We have to stop cussing the Prodigal Son, as I did recently.  (I went so far, in my anger, as to call the whole story "a bunch of bull";  I want people to be held accountable for their unethical and immoral and indecent behavior!) No, we can't go there.  We can't cuss him out.  Like the Father in the story of the Prodigal Son, we have to show mercy; we have to forgive over and over and over again, not just theoretically, but in practice.  In the situations we find ourselves in, sometimes unexpectedly.  That's when we show our true colors. 
 
The third idea comes from Saint Paul and Galatians (3:27).  This is one of the more intellectually demanding, morally demanding and spiritually demanding teachings anywhere, anytime.  It says that "in Christ" we are no longer, in effect, men or women, Jews or Gentiles, slaves or free.  Rather, we are meant to be, we are meant to strive for...Unity.  In my own personal American journey I came to take this seriously.  Furthermore, in my own return to consistent morals (after a long spell of doubt, drinking, laxity and vacillation and "wandering") I came to take Saint Paul seriously and the whole Bible seriously. 
 
We have in Shakespeare's "The Comedy of Errors" a kind of commentary on Galatians (3:27).  We find there married couples, families at work.  Travels to far off places also occur there and the Story is told.  We find families literally at sea.  They have "lost everything," even their family members.  It is a crisis that makes our own look like a fairy tale in comparison.  Except for this:  we know all too well about dysfunctional families--and so did Shakespeare.  Shakespeare did not invent the Dysfunctional Family.  The Bible did.  But I use the Bard here because...I can.  He's a smart guy.  We need guys and gals to be smart and moral and decent and honest.  He's a good guy.  A good example.  Better than Hemingway, for whom life was not worth living.
 
Shakespeare's "The Comedy of Errors," I forgot to tell you, is a farce.  Furthermore, as the title implies, it is a comedy.  That means it has a happy ending, a very happy ending.  We Americans love a good story with a happy ending.  Unless we have a mind and heart like Lincoln's we're not going to spend much time reading "Macbeth."  The "Comedy of Errors," like "Meet the Beatles," contains in an explosive way all that is to come, sentimentality and reality, kindness and cruelty, dysfunction and recovery. 
 
For today's blog, my third idea is Recovery, something near and dear to my heart.  I don't really have time to explain all this, and explanations will not be that useful anyway.  Suffice it to say that we have, so to speak, Recovery in the Air.  There is an Aura of Recovery in the Land.  The excesses of drinking and womanizing and spending on trinkets that Shakespeare talks about...I think we all probably know someone who has had such problems.  The lying, the cheating, the stealing...Lord knows, we've done some of that ourselves.  In his Inaugural speech, Barack pointed up our "collective failures."  Unbelievable.  And we loved him for it!  Barack sent a message to us and to the world (not unlike the message Saint Paul sent to us and to the world):  it is time to start respecting ourselves (by living decently) and others (by not responding in kind).  In Shakespeare we see the masters beating on the slaves.  We see threats of excruciating torture (by Doctor Pinch).  And boy, do we see misunderstandings.  People are listening, but still, they are not understanding correctly a single word of what the other is saying.  People are locked up inside their own little world--it's a foreshadowing of the kafkaesque, of "The Trial," almost. 
 
But the denouement is really special.  The Recovery happens.  It happens!
 
Those who were literally lost and at sea are found. Those who, through wllfulness and Original Sin were in error, are given therapy and counseling (by the nun, the abbess, Emelia who, in the end, is re-united with her husband whom she lost at sea, her man, Aegeon).  Their children, too, undergo a kind of recovery program under the preternatural guidance of someone who has suffered and learned, Aemilia. All this dysfunction is couched, of course, in preternatural dramatic art.  But the school of hard knocks it points to is nonetheless real and worthy of serious study and comment.  At the end of the play, Recovery and Reconciliation happens, almost in accordance with the Script of Galatians 3:27.  The twin slaves are re-united and emancipated.  Looking forward to marriage, they revel in their newfound freedom and dignity.  The twin brothers, separated by the calamity of shipwreck, are re-united.  In a sense, their nationalities, Greek and Italian, are also re-united.  Consider the symbolism therein.  Thus, outside the door of Mother Superior's convent, Recovery and Redemption and Reconciliation occurs, almost miraculously.   To review, at the end, man and woman, parent and child, master and servant, even nation and nation, culture and culture--are brought together, inspired in this world-historical art, by one passage from the Bible. 
 
Again, in review, as we feel the stress of our inherent dysfunction exacerbated by circumstances somewhat beyond our control--it is well to go back to the basics of the Good Book and the good books.  Jesus teaches us, first of all, by uniting himself with the world, with human beings.  The Greatest Story Ever Told is about our Journey...not some remote, mystical journey, but about the getting-up-in-the-morning.  It's about the sound of the alarm clock.  It's about the current sound of Alarm.  What will we do, and how will we go about it?  THAT is the question. 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A NATION OF COWARDS?

Attorney General Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" headline invites some "experience, strength and hope," as we like to say in AA.  Or more simply and honestly put, the comment invites some spur of the moment commentary. 
 
In the break room where I work, one guy in particular lets us all know that he knows that he is black (along with tens of thousands of others in our company).  He does this in a way that some (like me) find friendly and humorous; others (we are VERY diverse) slightly offensive, perhaps; still others more or less indifferent.  Our company prides itself on its "family" feeling, atmosphere and traditions.  Otherwise, this likable, Christian man, might not get away with it.  But everyone knows "the guy from New Orleans," let's say.  And most everyone loves him, I'm sure.  Today, one female oldtimer, a jaded-looking creature if ever there was one, replied to this "I'm black...." talk with, "So this is a black thing?"  Of course, she is white.  But tone is everything.  He had not offended her; and she did not offend him.  This little exchange has probably happened before.  There was no real tension in the air as far as I was concerned. 
 
Him:  J, don't leave.
 
Me:  I can't leave--I've got two hours to go.
 
Him:  Bummer.
 
Me:  I got your back.
 
Him:  I know that's right. 
 
Him (to a black co-worker):  Call me if you get in jail.
 
Him (at the employee restaurant):  Can you give me some free ice cream?
 
MY POINT:  He takes the stereotypes (crime, entitlement, laziness) and "has some fun" with them.
 
SUBTEXT:  In my view, he does present a bit of a "mask" to us, hiding old pain or present pain, but much healing has happened and is happening as we speak. 
 
FACT:  The boss over our six-figure manager is himself a black professional with well over a six-figure salary; our human resources district manager is a Ph.d. black professional female; a huge percentage of our our (less well-to-do) managers are people of color.
 
I guess my question, not to Mr. Holder, whose real point I don't know because I did not read anything about this but the headline...my comment, I should say, on this "nation of cowards" headline is, Why rock the boat when things are working so well, at least in our workplace? 
****************************************************************************************************
 
Patrick J. Buchanan remarked in his commentary that we were all insulted by this excerpt from Mr. Holder's speech or remark.  I did not feel the insult.  It goes without saying that, in certain areas of life, I'm a bona fide coward--like public speaking, for example.
 
For this writer, the issue that comes to the fore is the role of prejudice in philosophy.  Philosophy of course seeks to overcome prejudice--or does it?  Not in the work of the great German, Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002).  My interest in this man goes back to a course in grad school during which he gave a series of talks and classroom seminars.  I also managed to have dinner with him and others at a Dallas restaurant, in 1976.  A big deal for me at the time--and a special memory for all of us, I'm sure, today.
 
Last night I reviewed my Gadamer at a resource just discovered:  SEP, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Here, you'll find an excellent summary of Gadamer's thought, easily digestible in a couple of sittings or even one.  All those years ago, Gadamer revealed to us that he was, or was brought up, Lutheran.  Nothing I've experienced about him would contadict that fact.  Furthermore, he was the consummate gentleman; his character, not just his intellect, impressed a very diverse faculty, staff and student body. 
 
His theme of philosophical hermeneutics speaks to the issue I'm drawing out of the Holder hullaballoo:  the issue of prejudice.  And what is hermeneutics?  In a word, Interpretation.  For Gadamer (who studied directly under Heidegger) prejudice as explained in "Truth and Method" is part and parcel of the act of Understanding.  Think about it.  We bring to any encounter (with Christ, with books, with articles, with persons, ideas, conversations, etc) certain givens:  our English-American language; our personal history and background of achievements or lack thereof; our mindsets or beliefs or prejudices.  In short, we bring to any encounter whatsoever our unique selves, people with problems, promise and personality--we bring it all to each and every "encounter" or "exchange."  In dialogue with the British philosopher of history, R. G. Collingwood, Gadamer argues, as I recall, that "prejudice" is part of the "fore-understanding" that we bring to the text (or the event or whatever).  To make a long story short, Gadamer advises us to admit our prejudice, once we become aware of it.  (This awareness emerges in any number of ways, for example, reading, encounters, conversations, works of art, the Bible, our Constitution or tradition of law, etc.)  I recall, for example, Gadamer's off-hand remark that "Germany has always been pre-Revolutionary," meaning that Germany's take on the French Revolution was not the same, nor is it today the same, as the French "take" on the French Revolution.  In other words, and I interpret here--I do not really quote the man--"I, Gadamer, hold certain traditions, certain outlooks on life, sacred."  We can also reasonbably infer that Gadamer did not blindly follow any tradition, but rather "appropriated" it or applied it, using (we know) what he had learned (especially from Aristotle's concept of Prudence). 
 
For Gadamer, prejudice (as a set of beliefs about  man and world) comes into "play" (and naturally and legitimtely so) during "conversation."  And conversation, for Gadamer, is the paradigm of all understanding.  The conversations that Socrates engaged in must have been, for Gadamer, in some sense models.  An authentic conversation implies a rare set of skills:  but mainly listening skills. 
 
An effective "talk" about a political issue, therefore, would include honest briefing on both sides about the core beliefs brought to the "table."  At this point, by "prejudice," I mean not so much racial prejudice, which still exists, but political prejudice--we tend to be, each of us, either liberal or conservative or some place in-between, say, "centrist."  A good conversation, then, would involve openness on the part of both "sides."  Admitting "where one is coming from" can be most useful (it helped Obama become President--he tells his story in his first book).  One comes from a family, as did Obama--a white mother and an African father.  By talking openly about his roots, Obama began the process of "initiating a dialogue" with the American people.  I've not yet read "Dreams of My Father," by Barack Obama, but I'd bet that this autobiography "reads" America in terms of the author's unique history--a history of noteworthy achievement in the context of, yes, racial prejudice.  It is not over yet.  And that may have been Holder's point.  I don't really know.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HOLDER AND GADAMER

There is positive value in prejudice--this is the thought of Lutheran philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer. 
 
At a time when Rush and Company are soul-searching,  ideas and philosophy are screaming to be noticed.  The great (Lutheran) philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer, can help out in this mess, especially vis-a-vis the Eric Holder "issue"--the issue of race relations and prejudice.  More on this, soon.  For now, readers are encouraged to consider:  Prejudice is not a bad thing; rather, it is an essential thing, a natural and normal thing.  But it is only the starting point for dialogue and understanding...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WE ARE NOT QUITTERS

Our greatest President, (arguably) Abraham Lincoln, fought mightily to do what he thought was right--with hardly a thought about his chances for re-election.
 
Following in his footsteps, both consciously and perhaps unconsciously, Barack Obama has apparently set a course that he knows puts at risk his chances for re-election.  Tonight, with Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris compared Obama and Clinton in terms of their attitudes towards the rich.  Both want to use them, but in different ways.  The bottom line, however--and this is interesting--is that, unlike Clinton, Obama is not willing to sacrifice his soul to get re-elected.  By now, this difference between the two, this difference in their characters, should be obvious.  And we are only about thirty-five days into the Obama Presidency. 
 
David Gergen remarked on the unprecedented ambition of Obama's plans.  Bernie Goldberg remarks on the uncanny love affair that President Obama has had and will likely continue to have with the American people.  Bernie is not as sure as Bill O'Reilly that the folks will "turn against" Obama if their need for instant gratification is not satisfied yesterday.  "Slobbering" is the adjective that Goldberg uses in his book to describe this unprecedented love affair.  A very keen observer, Goldberg is in a position to know, and I hope he is right and O'Reilly is wrong.  I also hope Dick Morris is right, namely, that Obama's ambition has been such that he cares so much about the justice of his various causes--our causes, by the way--that he has bravely put his career (or second term) right out there on the line.  If Morris's analysis is correct, I can only sing the praises of our Glorious President, who turns out to be not so much a politics-as-usual kind of guy, but rather a serious, determined, history-conscious kind of guy.  How any president, any high-profile leader in our time could fail to be conscious of the fact that history is watching as never before is beyond me.  What you say and do today will be judged at some point in the not-too-distant future.  Your actions will be praised or criticized that very evening or the next morning, but only the most prescient will have gotten it right in historical hindsight.  The pressure is on. 
 
And just what does "history" consist of?  Good question.  There are pundits, and then there are pundits; there are journalists, and then there are journalists; finally, there are historians and writers and then there are historians and writers.  In time, I believe, the really high quality stuff, the surpassing talents and hearts and minds--these noble artists set the standards.  For English speakers, Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," his "Henry the Fifth," set a certain standard.  We can count on the fact that lesser talents, but no less ambitious observers and creative writers, are watching what is going on.  (Is Oliver Stone a kind of Shakespeare for our time?  How about Ron Howard or Spiegelberg?)
 
If someone is lying for a short term gain, his work will not be remembered.  If, on the other hand, a man or a woman goes out on a limb, not recklessly but because the times "require" it,  that action, and its long term results, will be observed and noted.  President Obama has been criticized for being, of all things, truthful.  I commend him for being truthful, and I bet history will appreciate his noble words and deeds. 
 
I'm not the only one.  I unite my "voice" with a resonant chorus of voices who continue to sing for him:  Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter; Chris Matthews; Colin Powell.  These legends are still alive and very conscious of history.  Would that each of us would continue to rise up, each in his or her own way, to insist that politicians in our democratic republic renounce the overwhelming temptation to go for the quick fix, the quick score.  President Obama appears accomplished at the art of renunciation, a noble and live-giving sacrifice. 
 
President Lincoln may well have had negative thoughts about his chances for another term.  Obama, too, has already, poignantly, suggested that his tenure may be a "one-term proposition."  You see, he actually LISTENED to those who encouraged him to "go for it," to go for the gold standard of reform, now, while the opportunity beckons.  Listening is one thing; actually doing something is quite another.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has been signed, sealed and delivered.  Yesterday on TV, I saw an ad inviting hurting homeowners to call a number to talk about re-financing.  Was this the real thing, or was this an exploitative outfit ?  At any rate, that's how fast things are moving, very fast!  Jimmy Carter predicts that we will begin to see a real difference in six months.  If so, would this mean that Obama has gone for the quick fix after all?  That an artificial bubble is being created with borrowed money?  We'll see. 
 
In due season, we will see the short-term outcomes and will vote "our pocketbooks" as usual, next time around.  But by then, these extremely controversial "investments in the future" will already have been made.  President Obama will have already done what he was called upon to do.  He will have responded to the "call."  As we say in AA and Al-Anon, "do what is in front of you to do, and leave the outcomes to the higher power."  Audacious is Obama's middle name.  No one can seriously question his courage and grace under pressure. 
 
Full disclosure:  I did not vote for Barack.  I wrote in Ron Paul.  But I've joined in with the Obama Bandwagon.  We Americans, right now, are in serious crisis, and no one but O'Reilly and friends are really brave enough to report the true facts.  The ephemeral stuff we get in the news is just that--ephemeral .  Now, granted, the editors do not want to "alarm people."  Well, President Obama has already alarmed this writer.  The newspapers and MSM need to catch up, as usual, with where many Americans are right now.  Worried, angry, neurotic, anxiety-ridden--their kids are crying in the stores.  And yet, there is also a sense of calm, of business as usual.  The "angry whopper" at Burger King is just another marketing cycle.  But this recession could easily last longer than eighteen months. 
 
The reason I'm on this incredible Obama Bandwagon is because I'm part and parcel of the "slobbering love affair" that the American people are having with a president who promises to be truly different, truly great.  We are now about one-third thru the first one hundred days.  What will the next 64 days be like?  Mr. President, just do your thing!  Lead!  We will follow!  Just be the complex person you are:  smart, tough, kind, compassionate, hard-nosed, pragmatic, idealistic, spontaneous and wise-- "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."  Be the greatest ever!
 
Another disclosure:  I've been tempted to quit, to give up.  "I'm not a fighter--I'm a lover."  But there may be something to be said for the hard-drinking Winston Churchill.  He exhorted his fellows and all mankind:  "Never give up...never, ever, ever, ever, ever give up." 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FREEDOM AND PHILOSOPHY

This, from an academic-type book on Eros or Love:  "And in propounding new teachings on the gods and the very structure of Being he arguably undertakes creation or ruling himself" ("Eros in Plato, Rousseau and Nietzsche:  The Politics of Infinity" by Laurence D. Cooper, 2008, p. 325).
 
Cooper is referring here to Plato, Plato's famous or infamous make-believe community, the one he invents in "The Republic."  Its the one you may remember:  in this "city" that exists only in Plato's mind and books, you have a strange utopia where nobody knows who his daddy is.  That way, everybody cares--not about his or her own family, for that no longer exists.  Rather, you care about politics and politics only.  Everybody is going to be a political junkie, bound and determined to preserve, conserve and fight for the STATE.  And woe be to anyone who gets any "ideas."
 
NEW TEACHINGS ON THE GODS:  Plato, according to Cooper, has "new teachings on the gods..."  Well, what were the old teachings on the gods?  I suppose those of Homer and Heraclitus, mainly.  My memory of the "Republic," Plato's masterpiece, is not that good.
 
For Homer, the gods were immortal, yes, but in other ways just like you and me, only moreso.  They were jealous, etc.  For Heraclitus, Being was Flux, not Eternity or Stillness/Unmovedness.  Plato comes in, now, and says, no, Being is the really real, the Source of everything else.  Being is what we, in our time, would call God.  The Creator God.  He created all that is "out of nothing."  Plato did not know about this god, but, according to some Christians, he "intuited" this God.  At any rate, according to Nietzsche Plato got it all wrong.  These "Forms" or "Ideas" that Plato talks about are illusions, things Plato just made up.  In this way, I suppose, Plato "undertakes creation and ruling himself" (Cooper, p. 325).  Now, "creation," I can see:  Plato "creates" a body of work.  But, "ruling"?  How so?  How is Plato a ruler in any sense of the word?  According to Nietzsche, Plato "rules" Western thinking for  millenia, for thousands of years.  Influential, yes.  But a "ruler"?  Only in this sense of being influential as perhaps no other human mind has been influential. 
 
NEW TEACHINGS ON...THE VERY STRUCTURE OF BEING:  For Plato, according to Nietzche, BEING, again, is a kind of nothingness.  Nothing is "there."  It is all invisible.  Plato's metaphor for Being is the sun.  And we pitiful thinkers are in a cave vis-a-vis this sun.  We want to know, "what is the source of what we see?"  To make a long story short (Nietzsche does this better than anyone) we really "don't care," as Chuck Schumer says.  We don't care much about anything.  But the philosopher, in touch with the light, does care.  he has compassion on us.  He will lead us, little by little, out into the light of day. 
 
Prior to Plato, stories and myths tried to teach people what was beautiful, good, true, healthy and noble.  Creations like Homer's "Iliad" and his "Odyssey" consituted the School that every free citizen went to.  There was no Socrates (Pat Buchanan) asking a lot of questions.  Yes, there were a few people who were too big for their britches, but they did not matter and if they went too far, poison was given to them.  Now enter Socrates or, in our time, someone who questions things.  For us, the new Socrates, the new Questioner, is Nietzsche, not Pat Buchanan, although Pat does make some very timely points. 
 
According to Cooper, Leo Strauss once said that he felt grateful to live in our time because it gave him the chance to witness this battle between Socrates/Plato and Nietzsche.  I'm also excited.
 
In one corner of the ring we have the ugly Socrates; in another, the beautiful Nietzsche.  Talk about irony.  Socrates is the very picture of Beauty.  Nietzsche's thoughts are nasty and ugly.  Very hard to stomach.
 
To review, Plato sets the stage for Christianity becoming the "opiate for the masses."  Something to calm us all down in the face of terror. 
 
Now Nietzsche waltzes in, and says "there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."  OUCH.
 
Fortunately, we have really capable scholars to help us sort out this mess.
 
Leo Strauss was one.  Actually, some say, he was a philosopher, not just a "classics scholar."  I don't know.
 
Martin Heidegger was another.  Now, this guy walked, talked, ate, drank and breathed the air of ...some kind of "philosophy."  He wrote a book called BEING AND TIME.
 
He tried to straighten it all out for us in this book, but he only confused us cognitive-impaired undergraduates.  Fortunately, there were some fairly bright orthodox Catholics on campus at that time.  They sat me down and worked on me.
 
But guess what?  Our Holy Father, as we speak, does not put that much stock in Thomistic thought, at least, not as much as he puts in Augustinian thought!  Saint Augustine rocks!
 
For our time, anyway.
 
In a thousand years, maybe, finally, Therese of Lisieux and Padre Pio and Josemaria Escriva--and Damian--will take hold.
 
We'll see.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CLINTON'S BLUE GUITAR

I could not make head or tail of the paintings in the background, but the guitar behind Larry King and Bill Clinton, during the Wednesday night interview, caught my eye and set my imagination wandering: The thirties and Robert Johnson in a Dallas recording studio; a street called "Rosedale" in Fort Worth immortalized by Johnson and then again by Eric Clapton in "Crossroads" (especially the Live Performance w/Cream, around 1967); a hit by the Moody Blues titled "Blue Guitar"; our "first black president," Bill Clinton, in the nineties...this free associating could go on ad infinitum.  What did the symbol-aware Clinton want to say with this strangely global-looking guitar.  It was a real instrument, not a painting.  Maybe Clinton expounded upon this ecumenical guitar--I don't know.  I watched only half the show.  At any rate, this global guitar fairly exploded on the screen with its symbolism.  I really don't know where to begin...
     This planet-earth-looking-guitar stands for the globalism that Clinton himself stands for, especially certain places on the Globe:  America, of course, the birthplace of jazz-blues.  Or was it Africa?  Ken Burns in his documentary pointed up New Orleans as the source of jazz--the city, the African-descended players using instruments left over from marching bands in the Civil War Era.   A lover of music, jazz too, Clinton the sax player looked right at home there in "the music room" of his Library in Little Rock.  Clinton chose this room as the setting for the Larry King Live interview....
     Well, all of that and more was the symbol intended and the symbol delivered.  I can't remember the lyrics from the Moody Blues song, "Blue Guitar," but I do remember fragments of the seventies.  Beginning in '72, it may have been Bill himself who intoduced McGovern to an October ralley in Dallas (Snyder Plaza).  Whoever it was, this hopeless October night--he spoke for thirty minutes, give or take.   
     To return to this Jungian symbol, the Blue Guitar is rhythm and blues, jazz, rock 'n roll, heavy metal and all the rest, including the universal appeal of the "classical" guitar. Not to mention hip-hop.  From Johnson to Elvis to Lennon and Hendrix--the latter's version of the Star Spangled Banner at Monterey comes to mind in our present context.  I was "for" these things back then and so was Clinton and so we many of us still are--within reason.  The Sexual Revolution, however, well, that has changed for a number of good reasons.  Anyhow, obviously, Bill was not trying to "sell" anyone the Revolution on Larry King Live.  Nonetheless, this guitar certainly invites commentary and I've seen none so far.
     So, this "decoration" in the background on Larry King Live, broadcast on CNN around the world:  "This is America," President Clinton seemed to want to say.  No, "this is the New World as transformed by America," he seemed to say, with the ocean-blue, the Mediterranean Blue Guitar gently weeping right there on the set.  (Not really weeping, but the color of this blue guitar was/is reminiscent of the color of our planet as seen from the space ship rocketing towards the moon.)
    That was yet another Symbol of America, and it deserves a paragraph of its own.  Maybe even an aphorism.  The Obama administration, by the way, wants to "return science to its rightful place" in our national life.  Indeed, we need "applied sociology and psychology" to the nth degree to make progress in math and science in our classrooms--but that's another issue. 
    Bill Clinton, the Elvis of Politics, recently ranked above both Bushes in the recent ranking of our list of POTUSes from One to Forty-three.  Forty-three, "W," came in about thirty-eight or so.  Clinton ranked about seventeen and Bush Sr. about nineteen.  But enough of these numbers and that particular theme.
    A Rennaisance Man for our time on a level similar to Jefferson for his time, Bill Clinton on Larry King was doing what he does best:  dazzling you with his "words of wisdom."  Bravely and wisely, I believe, he put in a good word for Obama's work to date.  We all need to get behind our president, one way or another in this critical time.  Then last night or so Jimmy Carter, too, said good things about the Recovery Plan, noting confidently that it will take about six months to start going into effect. 
     I can't get that guitar out of my mind.  Santana, Hendrix, Clapton, Jimmy Page, Justin Hayward and Chet Atkins, whose death brought tears of nostalgia to one particular "Prairie Home Companion."  The blue guitar, the blues guitar, the accoustic guitar...is a prairie home companion.  A friend in the great city of New Orleans.  The color blue stands for the planet; it stands for the blues and rock; it stands for the living oceans; it stands for itself--sometimes a guitar is just a guitar.  Yet, the ancient ancestor of the guitar, the lyre, was played, we are told, by the great Greek warrior, Achilleus, as he sat near his tent, near the set of Achaean ships, stationed near Troy (Today's Northwest Turkey), trying to decide what to do after the great humiliation.  Clinton and Achilles have something in common, too.  Both were humiliated; both have reputations for being, at times, angry men.  Angry for justice.  Let me hasten to add here that our Biblical David, too, played the lyre while he sang songs about the things of God.  Or so we believe.  So, this Blue Guitar, whether Bill  knew it or not, stretches all the way back to things Ancient Greek and things Biblical. 
    Finally, this statement Clinton was making, this neon guitar (almost)...speaks to the whole "ecumene," the whole inhabited earth.  That includes any Muslims who may have been watching or who may now hear about this famous guitar.  That guitar and all it stands for ain't goin anywhere.  The Library ain't goin anywhere.  Freedom aint goin anywhere....I doubt Clinton meant quite all this, but what the heck. 
    
********************************************************************************
 
February 21, 2009:  At work today (stocking the merchandise) I decided the real color of this interesting guitar in the Library, a president's library, is azure, the color that, according to Harold Bloom (see his early book on Shelley), symbolizes the English Romantic Movement, especially certain of Shelley's poems.  The "Witch of Atlas" may be one of those--I'm not sure.
 
Anyhow, AZURE, if memory serves me well, symbolizes, I guess, the realm of the imagination as opposed to the mindset of scientistic rationality.  AZURE, thus, is the color of hope--Obama's color.  I'm sorry I don't have a quotation from Shelley, something to bring this to life with.  Maybe some namedropping will help:  Walt Whitman, "Leaves of Grass," Bill's Gift to Monica.  (It's getting really thick in here right now, the compactness of all this name-symbolism--what these folks "stand for.")  You tell me; I don't know.
 
Clinton's outlook on life (according to his enemies, especially) is somewhat romantic and sentimental, i.e., quintessentially American insofar as we tend to see things through "rose-colored glasses."  Had he been less the Pollyanna, and more the Machiavellian, he might have gotten bin Laden. 
 
But I like this guy.  I love that picture:  Larry King, an incredible blue guitar--and President Bill Clinton, one of our genius presidents.  The Blue Guitar was yet another stroke of genius.
 
Bill I-want-you-to-listen-to-me Clinton has something to say to the "oikos," the "ecumene," the inhabited world.  That guitar said it all.  If I had to pick one word, that guitar would stand for Hope and the Man from Hope--that's more than one word. 
 
The Clinton Global Initiative is what the man is all about today.  The motto of the Jesuits (at the all boys school where I taught) is "men for others."  Clinton attended a Jesuit school, Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C.  Ergo, he is indeed "a man for others." Indeed, "Jesuit" might well be Bill's middle name, so like a modern, secular Jesuit is he. 
 
February 22, 2009:  I don't have, as I sit here, a single fact about that guitar.  Most of what is written above is just plain embarrassing.  But this is a comment, not a dissertation. 
 
BOTTOM LINES (hooorraaaaaaay):  Clinton appeared recently on Larry King Live from Little Rock at the President's Library Museum.  For backdrop material the two could have chosen 1) books  2) interesting architecture  3) intelligible or traditional paintings.
 
Instead, they or Clinton alone or SOMEONE--chose to "feature" in the background a very unique guitar.  Was Clinton close to a guitarist?  Offhand, can't think of one.  Was this one of Marley's guitars?  Did Bob Marley play guitar?  What, in pop culture or pop history, does Marley stand for?  What does Pat Donahue stand for?  Who are some other great living guitarists?  Vince Gill, Ricky Scaggs, Carlos Santana, Kevin Eubanks, Bruce Springsteen, countless others.  Now, Bill Clinton plays the sax--I forget which--not the guitar.  However, our 42nd president has been a lifelong aficionado of music, all kinds of music, from  Elvis to the Eagles to  blues/folk--whatever.  He knows the universality of the "language" of song--and dance.  He understands the overarching power of a symbol like a guitar.  For the ancients, especially the Greeks, music and education were two sides of the same coin.  Homer's "Iliad" was performed, most likely with some musical accompaniment.  Homer's hexameters themselves were intense "music" to the ears of the Greeks.  The verses were also the "core curriculum." Homer's "Iliad," his "Odyssey," taught the people about the human condition and the most important things in life:  death, honor, glory, virtues (courage in battle, wisdom, moderation), food, poetry and "history" and...family. 
 
Now, I'm going to shock you:  Homer was to the Greeks what Elvis was to America.  I'll repeat that in a different way:  Homer was to the ancients what Clinton is to post-modern America.  Bill Clinton's autobiography, titled, "My Life," is also the other side of the coin of another book, "My American Journey" (Colin Powell).  Someone said that Clinton was "our first black president," so bonded was he with African-Americans.  And he still is, by the way, in spite of everything.  The blue guitar comes down to this, therefore:  the blues and all it stands for (from the spirituals to Johnson to Mayall to Clapton and the Stones).  (By the way, John Mayall, I was the drunk who came backstage to shake your hand after you performed at the Music Hall in Dallas, February, 1970.) There's that and all that.  Furthermore, of course, there's the symbolism of the blues.  B.B. King.  Can't forget him and countless others.  The reality of the blues and the symbolism of this influential music pioneered by so many--Muddy Waters, Louis Armstrong, John Lee Hooker ("Trouble Blues," "Everybody Rockin," "Tupelo"), the black spirituals/gospel, Buddy Holly ("not fade away"), and finally, THE TRANSFORMATION in ELVIS.  But think of the impact, along with Elvis, of Buddy Holly on the Beatles (their name for one thing).  Think of the impact of Holly's death on folks who later would comprise the Hollies!  (It only now occurred to me, for heaven's sake.)  Think of the impact of the Beatles on World History.  Imagine. 
 
If that Blue Guitar stands for one thing, other than hope, it stands for the IMAGINATION over against, again, the mindset that reduces things to....THE BOTTOM LINE.  "Getting and spending we lay waste our powers," sang William Wordsworth.  For those who play and for those who listen, for those who do both (Lennon was "in heaven," he said, while listening to Elvis on the radio), the guitar is everthing--it is almost divine.  Without it and what it stands for, our crime rate, our suicide rate, our depression rate, etc., would be much, much higher than it is.  Without the music of the Beatles, I may not have made it to the age of twenty-three.  Without their hip-hop, some of the kids where I work may not make it to age 23.  If Bill Clinton stands for anything, it is for our kids "making it" to adulthood...and then "making it"...to whatever level they are capable of.  For Bill "our kids" are all the kids, all the youth.  The guitar was put there not just on the spur of the moment.  It was meant to be a pleasing something to draw people in, to get them out of themselves, to, in a sense , "save them," not their souls but their behinds.  Janis Joplin and Joe Cocker; Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix; Bruce and Jagger...at first, I couldn't stand Janis Joplin...but then after a while (about 33 years) her rough and troubled voice made sense to me.  The Blues made more sense to me.  The logic of it. 
 
And finally, what about Larry King?  The Third "person" in this sacred secular trinity.  Folks, I have news for you.  Though he doesn't know it fully, Larry King is a great man, a great American, and a great citizen of the world.  He was denounced, this Jew, denounced by Jews, for hosting President Ahmadinejad.  Did King "do the right thing"?  If he is living in a free country, I would say so.  He set an example--you talk to your enemies, unless you want one hundred years of war. 
 
FREEDOM AND OBEDIENCE.  This was part of the message Ahmadinejad gave the world  when last he spoke at the United Nations. The next day, Larry King had him on his show, for all the world to see.  I wish I had seen THIS interview.  My own position here is the "politically correct" one:  non-judgmental.  But for that part of the Iranian President's speech (which I heard, twice) which preached the two-sided "coin," FREEDOM AND OBEDIENCE, I have nothing but praise, for this is a REALITY.  As for the things Ahmadinejad "slipped in" to the latter parts of the speech, well, it could have been worse.  He said nothing, even though he had a huge audience and knew it, about "wiping Israel off the map." 
 
It would be nice if the Iranian leadership too, could someday come under the spell of this enchanted Blue Guitar.  During most of his speech to the United Nations, it was as if Ahmadinejad had been enchanted not only by the guitar, but by Apollo as well; not only by the good feelings of Dionysus, but by the rationality of the Sun God.  The man even spoke about the virtue of forgiveness, a virtue which I had thought was unique to Christianity.  I hope and pray that, with Hillary as a factor, "we can do business" with Iran and its Leader. 
 
Finally, with the incredible election on November Four, 2008, the dream represented in part by this fabulous guitar has come true.
 
In spite of everything, a dream of Bill Clinton's has come true.  "My Life," OUR LIFE, our future, has only just begun.  The guitar stands not just for the blue states, not just for the red states, and not just for the United States.  It stands for St. Peter's Basilica, for 10 Downing Street, for Wall Street and Main Street (including Rosedale, in Fort Worth); it stands for Hyde Park, for Highland Park, for Lee Park, and for Battery Park; it stands for the Colliseum, the Forum, the Parthenon, the Taj Mahal, the Flag, the United Nations, yes, but get this:  It stands for a few things that are singularly Western.  The unashamed Beauty of Women; the Tradition of Rule of Law; the standards of Bill Bennet, our Education Czar with his Book of Virtues; yes, for Janis Joplin and Bill Bennett and all that they stand for.       
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THY WILL BE DONE

Barack:  Lord, you gotta help me out here...
 
Lord:  I haven't gone anywhere.
 
Barack:  The folks are gettin down...
 
Lord:  I know;  I've been watching.
 
Barack:  You've told me over and over, "Listen...listen."
 
Lord:  Keep at it, Son.
 
Barack:  I came here to do your will, not mine.
 
Lord:  But you slipped.
 
Barack:  I'm sorry.
****************************************************
 
MORAL OF THE STORY
 
Sometimes it's hard to know exactly what to do, even if you have the best intentions in the world.  One silver lining in all this:  Hillary's doing a fantastic job!  The critics really don't know what to do either (except for maybe one or two--but raising the gasoline tax by fifty cents per gallon...)
 
BOTTOM LINE TODAY
 
We note that now even Alan Greenspan has joined the bi-partisan chorus of members who are singing the praises of (worse has come to worse) nationalizing the banks (has to be done once every hundred years).
 
Last night, on TV, the look on Ben Stein's face said it all:  What we've done, so far, does not make a lot of sense.  The arithmetic does not add up.  Plus, the unscrupulous will just take advantage of the bureaucrats, and us honest folks, by manipulating the government handouts--precisely to their greedy, immoral, disgusting advantage. 
 
It's time for non-stop utterance of the ancient Jesus Prayer, a tried and true "mantra":  OH LORD, JESUS CHRIST, SON OF THE LIVING GOD, HAVE MERCY ON US SINNERS. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SHAME CULTURE VERSUS GUILT CULTURE

Today on the way to the store I listened to a commentary on one of the great classics of our Western Literary Tradition, Homer's "Iliad."  To hear about heroes, ancient or modern, is always an inspiration.  I thought of our former president, George W. Bush, a hero for our time though we don't realize the extent of it just yet (in my theory, my work in progress--and I could be wrong).  Homer's heroes lived by the creed of glory and honor.  (See the Teaching Company, Elizabeth Vandiver.)  Homer's culture as depicted in the Iliad is a "shame culture."  Your self-esteem or worth as a human being and citizen is determined only by your reputation.  In the Iliad, the alpha male's (Achilles, numero uno) reputation is attacked by a rival, Agamemnon.  (Today, Agamemnon equals "the press.")  This particular "factor," Agamemnon, has taken Achilleus' honor and glory away.  In a wanton way, he, Agamemnon,  has "set out" to ruin, to humiliate the man thought to be The Best Warrior, Achilleus.  In a "shame culture" one is validated not by one's knowledge that one is a Child of God but by the booty one has, the prizes, the EXTERNAL STUFF, including anything and everything that "proves" that one is, so to speak, numero uno.  Cattle, armor, beautiful women, titles, the very summit of "reputation" for being the most courageous in battle--and the most effective--these "things," this external stuff and the "honor and glory" that are part and parcel of it...these admittedly and unabashedly materialistic and vanity-ridden "badges" and "trophies" constitue one's "timei," one's honor.  The Greek word, "cleos" goes along with this "timei."  CLEOS is what you wind up with after you are dead.  It is what people say about you; it is your reputation.  The glory that redounds to your name after you are dead and buried.  CLEOS  in this sense still obtains today, albeit in the context of a Christian Civilization that is practiced and believed only, well, as particular believers choose to live out its core beliefs.  CLEOS (perhaps "acclaim" comes from this root) is naturally going to be much on the mind of a man like Bill Clinton.  "Cleos" is about legacy.  It is about fame and history, the history books.  In a minute, I'll compare Bush and Clinton, briefly--but suggestively. 
 
According to our teacher, Dr. Vandiver, a GUILT CULTURE is quite different.  In a society ruled by this ethos, one is validated by "internal" things, not external stuff or trophies or reputation.  Sound familiar?  It is our Hebrew-Christian or biblically-influenced way of thinking about life.  I am validated not by my job or my title, not by my wife or my status, but by an interior sense of worth--the standard here is quite a leap.  I may be the farthest thing from an alpha-male, even physically.  (Charles Krauthammer is an alpha-male in our culture in spite of a serious physical disability; today, in our time, a fighter can be a general like Petraeus or a great fighter for justice and truth, like Krauthammer.) Again, in the  society based on a "culture of guilt," one's self-esteem does not depend on others.  Other than God or a strong sense of Self.  Our professor's dichotomy makes a kind of sense even to me.  When I hear about "guilt" I think of our human condition before a wholly transcendant God.  I think about original sin as explained by Reinhold Neibuhr.  One thinks on Heidegger's philosophy of "guilt."  One is responsible to oneself in a state of acute personal responsibility (Sartre's freedom?).  Does one, then, if the "shame culture" still lingers in the soul, commit suicide in certain circumstances?  Yes.  I mean, I know men who have killed themselves because, if I may, they could not let go of a tragic (and misguided in my view) sense of self-worth, a validation based on "stuff" in the Greek sense outlined above.  You take away their "stuff," be it a billion dollars or a worldly reputation, and they lose all hope.  A certain Homeric hero, Ajax, comes to mind in this regard.  After suffering humiliation and "dishonor" in this purely external sense, he kills himself.  Only the "honorable" suicide in the face of the military or social "dishonour" can "redeem" the disgraced warrior.  (I don't remember the details of this, but I remember the name, Ajax, and that is part of the point, REMEMBERING THE NAME.)
 
To summarize briefly (again, google The Teaching Company and Elizabeth Vandiver):  shame culture equals self-worth based on external things, including reputation; guilt culture equals self-worth based on interior knowledge of worth over against what people (or the "press") say.  (Full disclosure:  All this is very "convenient" for me personally because I am nobody, going "nowhere" in a worldly sense; but in the eyes of myself before the higher power, I am "saved."  What could be better than that?  Seriously.) 
 
More self-disclosure:  I am not immune to some serious remnants of this ancient "culture of shame."  Indeed, as William Faulkner once said, "the past is not dead yet; it ain't even past."  Our Homer, Faulkner (some of his stuff is epic in nature), teaches us that we still live out those "ancient history" ideas.  We still love our own "platoon," so to speak; we go from there to loving our own country; finally, if we continue to make progress, we go on to love "mankind."  I personally care very much about what people say about me, both now and after I'm dead; but I'm not going to kill myself, at this point, over the prospect of a negative or even a "humiliating" report.  If I commit suicide, it will be because I've lost, at least temporarily for some unknown reason, my Faith in God and my faith in the "theandros," the "manly god," that I believe I am becoming even as we speak. 
 
So, SHAME CULTURE versus GUILT CULTURE.  Before we turn to our recent presidents, let's just look for a minute at some popular alpha males.  Bill O'Reilly, a Catholic like me, comes especially to mind.  Why?  Because he is right now at the pinnacle of his very high profile career as a TV personality or celebrity.  Also, because, like Achilleus (we presume), he is not only a very large man but (in his youth) an accomplished athlete.  More importantly, he's a fighter.  An extremely accomplished and effective warrior, a "culture warrior."  It seems to me, moreover, he is way too caught up, for a Catholic, in the "cave" that Plato talks about in the "Republic."  (The "cave" is the place where you see the shadows of light, not the light itself.)  A really good Catholic or Christian or Jew or monotheist would not be excessively concerned, day in and day out, with things like "Elvis" or "John Wayne" or "The Beatles."  Rather, a really devout person of faith would be...more like Colbert, I suppose--he wouldn't take himself or this business too seriously.  Take away the money, the fame, the beautiful women (have you noticed O'Reilly's predilection for beauties...not a fault mind you...and they are brilliant beauties, which makes them even more gorgeous)....and what have you got?  Like Prospero in Shakespeare's "Tempest" you are left with "every third thought...of death."  My point is that O'Reilly, an admirable man, nonetheless has bought hook, line and sinker the "goods" of fame and fortune over against (perhaps) the greater goods of health (health of body, mind and spirit or soul).  To his credit, O'Reilly apparently loves his family and friends and country and, like a Greek hero, is most loyal to them.  Even more, his work is not all about him and the things he loves.  His work is quite generously for others.  This fact adds to his reputation--which remains excellent indeed.  However, I cannot abide certain segments of his show; and I particularly hate the way he interrupts serious commentary, preferring his own--or the "ratings," the shadows on the wall of the cave.  Not the Light, the abject shadows.
 
Shifting gears here.  Bill Clinton's religious faith is the only thing that keeps him, from the "classics" outlook or point of view--from crawling into some hole of shame.  I believe this "alpha-male's" Christian faith is part of what keeps him from killing himself after THE HUMILIATION.  I don't think that we mere mortals can imagine this humiliation.  To his sublime and transcendent credit, Clinton has, for the most part, kept his head high.  To his credit as well, his body language reflects at times an altogether appropriate sense of guilt--or even shame in the current standard English version of the term.  Yet, Clinton, compared, to Bush, exemplifies the old Greek shame culture described briefly above.  That is, "Boy Clinton," as one writer puts it, is not mature enough to have a deep, interior sense of self-worth.  Such a con-fidence, such a faith, is not "needy."  It does not concern itself too much with "legacy," with what "people are saying."  With CLEOS.  A better balance between other-worldly faith and this-worldly passion-for-good would be Jimmy Carter.  But I did not say I would bring him into this.  Suffice it to say, Carter, too, still believes or "lives out" both worlds, the SHAME CULTURE world and the GUILT CULTURE  world.  Almost by definition, any American president is an extremely ambitious person.  He or she will have desired honor and glory,  a "footnote" in history, as Clinton puts it at one point in his life (see David Maraniss, "First in His Class").  We note the humility, the Christian humility, of Clinton's choice of words:  a "footnote."  That was the word he chose to describe his ambition.  (I've got to resist, at this point, the profound temptation to discuss President Obama's world-historic ambition.)
 
All of this is by way of "brainstorming."  Comments deriving from a noontime drive to the store, during my lunch hour literally.  Again, I was listening to a CD.  A lecture on Homer's "The Iliad."  The contrast between a culture based on shame, the ancient Greek culture (paganism), on the one hand, and a culture based on "guilt," presumably an evolutionary leap beyond "shame" in this narrow sense, so defined:  your sense of self-esteem or self-worth here comes not from without, but rather "from within."  From the "atman" within?  From the "soul" within?  From the godhead within?  Professor Vandiver does not say.  But I haven't got to the end of the lectures, and I've not read the Iliad in over forty years!
 
But I've been thinking about W.  Our last prez.  If, by fate or chance, Bush had been a subscriber to the theory of Shame Culture so explained--then he would be in a very bad place about now.  He'd be depressed.  Why?  Because of what "everyone" almost is saying about him.  You have to admit it:  the press "pile on."  They, the lefties like Bill Maher, e.g., were merciless in their graphic attacks. 
 
Bush was unfazed.  George Bush knows who he is.  Yes, he's a warrior--even in the Greek sense.  His courage, truly, is a merit badge of honor.  Talk about "swimming upstream," as Sam Walton would say.  This president changed the course of the river.  Like someone out of Greek Mythology.  (Read Krauthammer's article in today's paper and included in Townhall.com.) 
 
And yes, by those ancient historical-epic standards, Bush is way down low, right now, in terms of so-called "honor," though even the lefties will have to admit that no one can take away two full terms of the American Presidency during a time of world-historic change.  And let me just assert:  the hype and buzz and press about Bush is roughly equal to the "quality of life" in Plato's cave--your are seeing the appearances, the unreal, not the real, not the Right Stuff itself.  I don't say Bush is a philosopher in the ancient Greek sense or in our sense.  But, interestingly, when asked in a debate with Gore whom he admired for "philosophy," Bush answered, "Christ."  He went on, "because he showed me a better way," or words to that effect.
 
And so as I made my way thru the traffic to Sam's Club to pick up my prescription of alprazolam...these illusions of grandeur brought on by a mere CD on ancient poetry...well, it was nice, for a few moments, to be a legend, as we say in AA, "in our own minds." 
 
To conclude on a serious note, I admire, as I sit here tonight, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.  I hope and pray and believe that Clinton has successfully come to terms with (conquered) his debilitating sexual addiction just as surely as Bush, long ago (but apparently without AA), came to terms with his beer addiction.  Let us all hope and pray that President Obama continue on the path of moderation and "modulation," as Georgie Anne Geyer insightfully put it, in, of course, the sayings of the "cave," this morning's newspaper's "op-ed" section.  And Lord, if it be your will, let me rise above this "cave" someday so as to see the Light of the Sun.  (History has gone and continues to go its merry way; Plato superceded Homer--and the Shame Culture "lost out" to the Guilt Culture of Christendom.  But, remember, "the past ain't dead yet; it ain't even past." Also remember:  personal responsibility is the name of the game.  Ancient Scapegoating is out; personal responsibility in its vareigated Meaning--is in.)
 
As for Barack, about whom I did not intend "analyzing," he does not seem to be as "needy" of applause as Clinton was and perhaps still is.  Indeed, he seems relatively aloof, relatively melancholy--like Lincoln.  The "school" he has been through seems similar to the "school" that Lincoln went through, the "school" of hard knocks.  Those teachings will no doubt come in handy in the hard times ahead.  And it will be fitting and proper if Obama factor in the history books, and what they will say, one thousand years from now. 
 
I refer my countless readers, right now, to the excellent article in this morning's Townhall.com, by Dr. Charles Krauthammer--on the importance of not losing Iraq, not forfeiting the victory in this "quiet revolution" we witnessed just the other day.  The Miracle of Baghdad abides and should continue to inspire "the ages." 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Political Freedom versus Spiritual Freedom

What would the maximum amount of political freedom look like?  But let's not be abstract about it.  Right now, in Russia, freedom of speech is not what it is here in America.  Political freedom is silenced in certain cases perceived by someone to be "extreme."  In our country, by contrast, the "extremes" of speech do not appear to be done away with.  Critics of the Russian regime have been silenced.  Not all, but some.  The point was made.  And here in America or in the West generally?  We Westerners enjoy an unprecedented amount of liberty in this narrow sense of "political" freedom. 
 
Spiritual freedom, on the other hand, obtains wherever it obtains.  What would the maximum amount of spritual freedom look like? 
 
Confucius; Buddha; Socrates; JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR; the community of saints: e.g.,  Peter and Paul and the Fathers; Augustine and Thomas; Francis of Assisi; Dominic; Ignatius the Founder of the Society of Jesus; Theresa and John; Therese of Lisieux; Edith Stein; Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei; Padre Pio and, I believe, John Paul the Great; G.K. Chesterton; Fulton J. Sheen.  As for living saints (in my opinion) who in God's plan have a "high profile":  Mother Angelica and our Holy Father.
 
Has a politician ever been a saint?  One giant comes immediately to mind:  Thomas More.  The saint as married man and family man AND statesman.  A more recent example comes to mind:  former president, Jimmy Carter. 
 
Wow.
 
And what about writer saints?  Literary geniuses who also pass the test in one way (say, officially, by the Vatican) or another:  Saint Therese of Lisieux (see her spiritual masterpiece, "The Story of a Soul"); Leo Tolstoy; Alexandr Solzhenitsyn; Josemaria Escriva (his very name fated him); Fulton J. Sheen (actually, he was a dramatic-rhetorical-pedagogical-apostolic preaching...genius).  Sheen was also a great fighter against communism (fortunately for us he was not executed for this) and, like Escriva, a great patriot. 
 
These lists teach us little.  But today we are desperate for living moral examples.  We have one in our courageous Holy Father, who spoke the truth at Regensburg.  We have an example of courage, of political and spiritual freedom both in our ex-president, George W. Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney.  (The rules during the just war are a little different, contrary to what the "enlightened" folks want to say; and I'm assuming, with the influential columnist Thomas Friedman, that the Iraq war appeared to be a just one.)  Nelson Mandella today is a giant of an example.  His stature is comparable to or even exceeds Mahatma Gandhi's.  I repeat and emphasize:  contrary to being what he is called, "the worst," Jimmy Carter is a moral giant.  He is among the very best of still living men of high profile or fame. 
 
Among journalists and TV "pundits," Alan Colmes strikes me as a person of remarkable moral strength and integrity.  A very high degree of spiritual freedom can be achieved by persons of faith or persons of no religious faith.  Again, look at Socrates or Buddha.  Mr. Colmes is not in that category, but his consistency of "belief," as it were, in the "secularization" of Salvation History...this persevering adherence to conscience shines and shines. 
 
Sharia Law as I understand it aspires to a very high level of spiritual freedom or several traditional aspects of such freedom:  morals and morality, especially chastity; piety towards God and neighbor; honesty with one's own; a certain purity of morals; high aspirations towards the "good life"; helping the needy; generosity towards the downtrodden.  Many of the Ten Commandments, one would think, are also standards for Sharia Law. 
 
Now, Christianity poses a question to the Law, be it Hebrew Scriptures or Sharia Law:  Are you truly free spiritually in your practice of these laws?  As for the maximum "amount" of spiritual freedom as Christians see it, the standard is the "encounter" with our Lord in the Scriptures, especially the sacred texts of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.  In the example of Jesus we find something new.  We continue to find something new especially in our own time:  news with regard to the status of women; news with regard to the status of slaves; news with regard to the status of each of us.  We are all equally "Children of God." (See Galatians 3:24ff.)  This is utterly mind-boggling and utterly remarkable.  In the Faith of our Fathers, remarkably, we find that we can drink alcohol (in moderation, of course); we can smoke cigarettes if we must (I'm told Saint Josemaria Escriva smoked); we can eat meat (unlike certain Hindus and Buddhists); we can listen to all kinds of music and go to movies; we can practice our faith or not at all; we must respect the "right" of others to practice their faith in what we hope and pray is a "mutual respect," part of what President Barack Obama was talking about in his First Inaugural. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kathleen Parker on Karmic Justice

Mrs Kathleen Parker's recent article says it all--right in the title, DO UNTO OTHERS.  She remarks with sublime insight that Barack's First Inaugural (God willing, there will be a Second Inaugural), both the speech and the event itself, point up a principle of the Perennial Philosophy:  to put it into my own words, OUR DECISIONS IN LIFE COME BACK TO HIT US RIGHT IN THE FACE.  In President Bush's case, he escaped his "karma."  The shoe aimed right at his face missed him--the first shoe just barely--an inch.  To follow up the logic here of karmic justice, Bush did not deserve this.  HIS WAR WAS JUST.  Had the war not been a just one, the shoe would indeed have hit the target and put out one of the President's eyes.  THAT, according to one argument, would have been "karmic justice."  These little "chance" events DO have meaning.  If you don't believe it, read Kathleen Parker's article of today, January 23, 2009.  I, too, had noticed the "justice" or "providential humor" of the Vice President's situation.  A more "rational" take would be that he had merely had an unfortunate accident, one, by the way, that I can personally relate to--as can a couple million American He-Men. 
     I want to be brief here.  After hitting bottom and going soberly to over a thousand AA and Al-Anon meetings, starting in May, 1986, I can testify that every word of Parker's article is true because every word of the Bible it is based upon is true.  Moreover, the Hindu Scriptures and the teachings of Vedanta (cf. Ramakrishna and his great disciple Swami Vivekenanda) underline these truths of the Perennial Wisdom.  (Not that the Bible and Perennial Philosophy/Neoplatonism are the same; they are not!)  However, the Bible does draw upon, if you will, the great wisdom of older traditions and not just the Hebrew Scriptures.  The Vedas are over six thousand years old, we are told.  In any event, the bottom line is that we do indeed reap what we sow.  And we more often than not do this in this very lifetime, nevermind the life to come.  Ask any recovering alcoholic or food aholic or sex aholic or gamblers anonymous success story.  He or she will tell you that there is something to this teaching of "good karma" and "bad karma."  Most journalists find this sort of thing their meat and potatoes.  Note the classic news article about the guy who gets shot on his way out of the husband's back door.  Note the delightful shame (from the media's point of view, not to mention Jay Leno's) pervading Bill Clinton's "story."  (Is he really still "in recovery" or is he fooling around with Caroline Kennedy or God knows who? )
     Enough of this sort of nonsense.  What does make sense is what the Master teaches in the New Testament.  I think it was He.  We do indeed, sooner or later, reap what we so.  JFK comes to mind.  Elvis.  Nixon.  Hitler.  Stunningly, everybody. 
 
President Obama appears to have the Midas Touch.  After watching his campaign, the TV documentary of his life in politics, the great win, the Inauguration, the National Prayer Service...beautiful things, works, people, places and things just gravitate to this man.  Poetry and Music fill the air with their transcendental magic.  What is being played out before our eyes is all of great literature, "the biggest fairy tale."  Clinton saw this coming.  So did Hannity.  They were utterly powerless to stop it, for all their Herculean and Machiavellian efforts.  The world has just witnessed another Milestone in Salvation History.  And if you don't believe in Salvation, then believe in man's dignity in the face of fate or destiny or the kind of divine providence that Lincoln came to in the end.  I believe Obama believes.  I sense that he has a reliable instinct about the gravity of his decisions vis-a-vis his own destiny in the history books.  I doubt he really believes in some "pie in the sky" heaven or some "fire and brimstone" hell where there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth."  But Karma?  Karmic Justice in the sense Kathleen Parker describes it (and she knows what she is talking about, as usual)?  Barack Obama sees this as clearly as does his former pastor, Reverend Wright, who, by the way, understood all about Karmic Justice.  The man knew what he was talking about when he said in the vernacular, "the chickens have come home to roost." The truth hurts, and the dogmatic, rigid, overly-ideological and oftentimes narrow-minded conservatives foamed at the mouth.  Like Julius Caesar, they had fits.  And Caesar, too, reaped what he had sown.  MLK.  We all do--or will--one way or another.  (The unfaithfulness, ironically, did Martin Luther King in.) 
 
But, what about Lincoln and this theory of Karmic Justice?  For the unreconstructed Southerners alive and well to this day--"he got what he deserved."  Indeed he did.  Like Julius Caesar, among other blessings, perhaps, Lincoln got not a nice retirement and a paragraph in the history books but rather a thousand libraries worth of books immortalizing his name in unsurpassed fame--for as long as America, no, the entire world, exists. Nor has his reputation suffered that much lately, with the encomiums far outnumbering the Mel Bradfords and Thomas DiLorenzos of this world.  And such folks, ironically, only add more jewels to the Crown. 
 
An immutable law of spiritual truth:  The Beatles summarized it well and I never noticed this till thirty years after the album came out:  "and in the end, the love you take/ is equal to/ the love you make."  Let me add one final, remarkable fact.  The Vatican recently (the 40th anniversary of the White Album) gave us all a statement exonerating the Beatles for their youthful "disrespect," John's rather.  I did not see the statement, but apparently, in typical saintly style, the wording made excuses for the wayward youth. 
 
John and George are (we hope) in "heaven."  They would say, "back to the Godhead."  Back Home. 
 
Come to think of it, Vedanta and some Hindu Wisdom claims that each and everyone is headed back Home, back to the Source or the Final Resting Place.  It's just that, some of us, are "taking our time." 
 
The way to speed up the process, indeed the way to take a wonderful shortcut, is to follow the lead of the likes of G.K. Chesterton and Tony Blair.  Join the Human Race in the Catholic Church.  Investigate the sacraments.  What have you got to lose?  Not much, not much at all is lost, by following this Way.  In fact, unspeakable Joy is the name of the game.  But as Obama said and as Charles Krauthammer reiterates in his magnificent article of today, Obama's "prose" in the Inaugural invites us all to work, sacrifice, service and virtue.  These "old" verities and actions and principles will take us, more directly, to our reunion with God and the saints.  Leisure, too, if properly understood (it is work), contrary to what Obama said, can take us Home to Heaven--even to a taste of it here on earth.
 
I thank Kathleen Parker and Charles Krauthammer and Michael Gerson and Pat Buchanan for giving this writer a foretaste of heaven in the taste of their delicious essays on Obama.  But these great writers stand on the shoulders of other "greats," people like Burke, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Twain, Dickens, Lincoln, Robert Louis Stevenson, Elliot, Hemingway, Vonnegut and Heller.  (I'd love to see their libraries.)  The writers of the American Renaissance are also without equal--except for the Russians--in World Lit.
 
Thank you, Barack, for "holding up the mirror (of ourselves) up to nature."  That is, for pointing up our "collective failures."  As Benjamin Franklin wisely said, "Honesty is the best policy."  As the great Kathleen Parker wisely says, do unto others so that what you reap in the end and even along the Way will be happy, joyous and free.  (That was the theme of the Annual AA State Convention in June of 1986:  HAPPY, JOYOUS AND FREE, in San Antonio, by the way.)  A special thanks to President Bush, who also sobered up in 1986.  He is now on a new plateau in Texas, a new kind of high, a natural high:  HAPPY, JOYOUS AND FREE.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive