21/05: "Guvment"
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
Patrick Deneen offers another lifetime's worth of insight in a single post:
What is important, then, is not whether guvment is involved - it is finally to what end. And our current end is growth and expansion of the modern project of the human mastery of nature. When we debate over guvment involvement in the market, we obscure the nature of the debate - whether this is the appropriate or sole goal of a society. I would submit that it is a deeply flawed goal - sharing the view of Aristotle that a proper economy is cognizant of limits to moneymaking in the name of fundamental human goods of which prosperity is a part, but only a part.
Those goods include healthy and stable communities which are both formed by culture and in which cultures are maintained and preserved; a sound culture that inculcates central human virtues and that is ably passed on from one generation to the next; a culture that makes and keeps good families; a culture that inculcates the very virtues that will be necessary for a good, humane, and moral economy (one that avoids the abuses that we have recently seen in our financial markets); a culture that strongly emphasizes a sense of gratitude and obligation between generations; a culture that encourages stewardship, conservation and fidelity; and perhaps above all, a culture that reins in and chastens our eternal temptation toward Promethean or sinful self-aggrandizement, that teaches and enforces limits, that calls to our mind our flaws, and that does not allow us to lose sight of our fundamental condition of being dependent upon one another. A further good is our ability to act in concert with one another to achieve and maintain such a culture and polity - citizenship as shared and mutual governance, which goes far beyond our current conception of citizenship as suffrage.
Deneen also demonstrates how Americans' love-affair with untethered "Liberty!" often has unintended consequences. He then reminds us that another alternative tradition exists, manifest broadly in the West, including Aristotle and Aquinas, Burke and Chesterton, and in America, including the Antifederalists, Hawthorne and Melville, Orestes Brownson, Henry Adams, Jonathan Edwards, Santayana and Royce, the Southern Agrarians, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Christopher Lasch, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Wendell Berry.
Please read the whole thing here.
What is important, then, is not whether guvment is involved - it is finally to what end. And our current end is growth and expansion of the modern project of the human mastery of nature. When we debate over guvment involvement in the market, we obscure the nature of the debate - whether this is the appropriate or sole goal of a society. I would submit that it is a deeply flawed goal - sharing the view of Aristotle that a proper economy is cognizant of limits to moneymaking in the name of fundamental human goods of which prosperity is a part, but only a part.
Those goods include healthy and stable communities which are both formed by culture and in which cultures are maintained and preserved; a sound culture that inculcates central human virtues and that is ably passed on from one generation to the next; a culture that makes and keeps good families; a culture that inculcates the very virtues that will be necessary for a good, humane, and moral economy (one that avoids the abuses that we have recently seen in our financial markets); a culture that strongly emphasizes a sense of gratitude and obligation between generations; a culture that encourages stewardship, conservation and fidelity; and perhaps above all, a culture that reins in and chastens our eternal temptation toward Promethean or sinful self-aggrandizement, that teaches and enforces limits, that calls to our mind our flaws, and that does not allow us to lose sight of our fundamental condition of being dependent upon one another. A further good is our ability to act in concert with one another to achieve and maintain such a culture and polity - citizenship as shared and mutual governance, which goes far beyond our current conception of citizenship as suffrage.
Deneen also demonstrates how Americans' love-affair with untethered "Liberty!" often has unintended consequences. He then reminds us that another alternative tradition exists, manifest broadly in the West, including Aristotle and Aquinas, Burke and Chesterton, and in America, including the Antifederalists, Hawthorne and Melville, Orestes Brownson, Henry Adams, Jonathan Edwards, Santayana and Royce, the Southern Agrarians, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Christopher Lasch, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Wendell Berry.
Please read the whole thing here.
Newsweek has a story on "The complete list of the 1,300 top U.S. high schools."
Public schools are ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Mathews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2007 divided by the number of graduating seniors.
What this criteria measures, therefore, is the ratio of top college-bound seniors to the total number in their graduating class in each school. Notice that the results of the tests are not a factor, simply whether a student took one of the exams. In other words, the list is simply a ranking of the percentage of ambitious college-bound seniors in each school's graduating class.
Big deal.
(1) When I was a high-school classroom teacher, I figured my students could be divided into three groups: those bright hard-working kids I could take no credit for because they would learn in spite of me; those kids who for whatever reason could be reached by no one that year; and the large group in between whose learning or lack of it I could take credit or blame for. A better measure of school success, but hard to measure, would be how well a school does with this middle majority of its students--those whom the school has a direct impact upon their learning or not learning.
(2) This list accepts the falsehood that the real purpose of high school is to prepare students for college. Wrong. College is over-rated. I know the owner of a plumbing company in Lawton, Oklahoma. He anticipates a possible shortage of licensed plumbers in a decade or so. A licensed plumber starts work for his company at $20-25 per hour, based on experience. Getting a skill is important in life; getting a college degree may or may not be important. Vocational education matters also.
Public schools are ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Mathews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2007 divided by the number of graduating seniors.
What this criteria measures, therefore, is the ratio of top college-bound seniors to the total number in their graduating class in each school. Notice that the results of the tests are not a factor, simply whether a student took one of the exams. In other words, the list is simply a ranking of the percentage of ambitious college-bound seniors in each school's graduating class.
Big deal.
(1) When I was a high-school classroom teacher, I figured my students could be divided into three groups: those bright hard-working kids I could take no credit for because they would learn in spite of me; those kids who for whatever reason could be reached by no one that year; and the large group in between whose learning or lack of it I could take credit or blame for. A better measure of school success, but hard to measure, would be how well a school does with this middle majority of its students--those whom the school has a direct impact upon their learning or not learning.
(2) This list accepts the falsehood that the real purpose of high school is to prepare students for college. Wrong. College is over-rated. I know the owner of a plumbing company in Lawton, Oklahoma. He anticipates a possible shortage of licensed plumbers in a decade or so. A licensed plumber starts work for his company at $20-25 per hour, based on experience. Getting a skill is important in life; getting a college degree may or may not be important. Vocational education matters also.
20/05: In Praise of St. Dunstan
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Monday, May 19, was the Feast Day of St. Dunstan. Among his accomplishments was a political practice that is part of our heritage of British Liberty.
From Brits at Their Best: full post
In AD 973 Dunstan created a coronation ceremony for Edgar that is still used today. The people affirmed their willingness to acclaim him King; and he in turn swore an Oath to the people. The Coronation Oath that Edgar swore embodied the practical ideals of justice -
“First, that the church of God and the whole Christian people shall have true peace at all time by our judgment; second, that I will forbid extortion and all kinds of wrong-doing to all orders of men; third, that I will enjoin equity and mercy in all judgments.”
In this ceremony the King commits himself by sacred oath to perform justice. By this fact of public oath, the monarch can, at least in principle, be held accountable for his conduct in office. Absolute Monarchy, in its widest sense, is thereby forbidden. The King himself must hold to an external standard other than his own will.
Thank you, Saint Dunstan.
From Brits at Their Best: full post
In AD 973 Dunstan created a coronation ceremony for Edgar that is still used today. The people affirmed their willingness to acclaim him King; and he in turn swore an Oath to the people. The Coronation Oath that Edgar swore embodied the practical ideals of justice -
“First, that the church of God and the whole Christian people shall have true peace at all time by our judgment; second, that I will forbid extortion and all kinds of wrong-doing to all orders of men; third, that I will enjoin equity and mercy in all judgments.”
In this ceremony the King commits himself by sacred oath to perform justice. By this fact of public oath, the monarch can, at least in principle, be held accountable for his conduct in office. Absolute Monarchy, in its widest sense, is thereby forbidden. The King himself must hold to an external standard other than his own will.
Thank you, Saint Dunstan.
20/05: Human Depravity
Category: Christian Belief
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gateway Pundit has the story on the anti-refugee/immigrant rioting in South Africa. WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGES. The violence included burning people alive.
G.K. Chesterton once wrote that he could not understand liberal Christianity abandoning the Doctrine of Original Sin since it is the one empirically verifiable dogma.
When we see what people are capable of, we should take some lessons:
(1) We should watch ourselves. Chesterton has Father Brown say in one of his stories, that each of us has one murderer to watch and guard our whole lives--ourself.
(2) We should realize that liberty has more than one enemy. Chaos threatens freedom just as much as tyranny does.
(3) The mob is always to be feared; individual conscience submerged into the herd leads to bestial behavior.
(4) Conscience is formed by a variety of factors--family, society, religion. If the formative factors weaken, so does a sense of right and wrong.
G.K. Chesterton once wrote that he could not understand liberal Christianity abandoning the Doctrine of Original Sin since it is the one empirically verifiable dogma.
When we see what people are capable of, we should take some lessons:
(1) We should watch ourselves. Chesterton has Father Brown say in one of his stories, that each of us has one murderer to watch and guard our whole lives--ourself.
(2) We should realize that liberty has more than one enemy. Chaos threatens freedom just as much as tyranny does.
(3) The mob is always to be feared; individual conscience submerged into the herd leads to bestial behavior.
(4) Conscience is formed by a variety of factors--family, society, religion. If the formative factors weaken, so does a sense of right and wrong.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
My Problems with Obama: Part 1
I want my president to love our country. I don't want naive, blind, love that is unaware of our mistakes and problems. But I do want love of country.
I am not sure that Obama really loves America.
Item 1: Jeremiah Wright. I don't need to rehearse the pastor's well-known tirades against the U.S. Barak sat under his preaching for 20 years, has said and written about how influential Wright has been in his life, and first defended him when he was attacked by conservatives. The rest of us may have crazy uncles who say inflamatory things, but we do not get to choose our families. We do, however, get to choose our churches.
Item 2: Michelle Obama's remarks that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country. For the first time? Not when learning about the defeat of Nazi Germany and ending of the holocaust? Not when learning about abolitionists and social reformers? Not when learning about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which made possible the success of the NAACP lawyers and eventually Martin Luther King, Jr.? Not when looking at the generosity with which Americans have given to worthy causes over the decades? I don't agree with my wife on everything, but Michelle's attitude would have been a deal-breaker for me.
I want my president to love our country. I don't want naive, blind, love that is unaware of our mistakes and problems. But I do want love of country.
I am not sure that Obama really loves America.
Item 1: Jeremiah Wright. I don't need to rehearse the pastor's well-known tirades against the U.S. Barak sat under his preaching for 20 years, has said and written about how influential Wright has been in his life, and first defended him when he was attacked by conservatives. The rest of us may have crazy uncles who say inflamatory things, but we do not get to choose our families. We do, however, get to choose our churches.
Item 2: Michelle Obama's remarks that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country. For the first time? Not when learning about the defeat of Nazi Germany and ending of the holocaust? Not when learning about abolitionists and social reformers? Not when learning about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which made possible the success of the NAACP lawyers and eventually Martin Luther King, Jr.? Not when looking at the generosity with which Americans have given to worthy causes over the decades? I don't agree with my wife on everything, but Michelle's attitude would have been a deal-breaker for me.
Quoting Barack Obama (paraphrased--as his remarks are too rambling to make good copy):
"The GOP can say anything they want about me (that's what they do), but making Michelle an issue is unacceptable."
Three Things.
Number One:
The GOP can say anything they want about him? Really?
You mean the candidate with no middle name?
Ask Bill Clinton how acceptable it was to mention that Obama had posted Jesse Jackson-like numbers in South Carolina.
And the list literally goes on and on...
Let's be honest. The miniature strike zone on this candidate is unprecedented. Thanks to our collective jitters regarding race and a vigilant mainstream media intent on providing security, Obama enjoys around-the-clock political protection.
Number Two:
Shame on the opposition for trying to make this statement seem disdainful of America:
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Number Three:
Obama says:
"[F]or people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable."
Shame on the opposition for trying to take advantage of Obama's poor defenseless Princeton-educated, Harvard-lawyer wife. How ungentlemanly of the GOP to attack a member of the weaker sex.
Get Real fellows! Next thing you know Obama will be talking about his wife's cloth coat. And, as I always say, honey, you'd look great in anything.
You cannot send your hard-hitting, highly educated wife out on the trail as a fire-breathing political surrogate and then try to hide behind the chivalry card when things get a bit too hot.
Or maybe you can.
"The GOP can say anything they want about me (that's what they do), but making Michelle an issue is unacceptable."
Three Things.
Number One:
The GOP can say anything they want about him? Really?
You mean the candidate with no middle name?
Ask Bill Clinton how acceptable it was to mention that Obama had posted Jesse Jackson-like numbers in South Carolina.
And the list literally goes on and on...
Let's be honest. The miniature strike zone on this candidate is unprecedented. Thanks to our collective jitters regarding race and a vigilant mainstream media intent on providing security, Obama enjoys around-the-clock political protection.
Number Two:
Shame on the opposition for trying to make this statement seem disdainful of America:
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Number Three:
Obama says:
"[F]or people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable."
Shame on the opposition for trying to take advantage of Obama's poor defenseless Princeton-educated, Harvard-lawyer wife. How ungentlemanly of the GOP to attack a member of the weaker sex.
Get Real fellows! Next thing you know Obama will be talking about his wife's cloth coat. And, as I always say, honey, you'd look great in anything.
You cannot send your hard-hitting, highly educated wife out on the trail as a fire-breathing political surrogate and then try to hide behind the chivalry card when things get a bit too hot.
Or maybe you can.
17/05: We Are Not Alone
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Rott links to this Dutch-language video of Dutch troops conducting a live-fire exercise in Afghanistan.
17/05: God and Einstein
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
The AP has the report on the letter Albert Einstein wrote to Eric Gutkind in 1954 and recently sold at auction.
In it, Einstein said, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
“For me,” he added, “the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”
Oh, well, you can't be right about everything.
In it, Einstein said, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
“For me,” he added, “the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”
Oh, well, you can't be right about everything.
17/05: The Case For Conservatism
A trenchant quote from the Australian philosopher David Stove:
A primitive society is being devastated by a disease, so you bring modern medicine to bear, and wipe out the disease, only to find that by doing so you have brought on a population explosion. You introduce contraception to control population, and find that you have dismantled a whole culture. At home you legislate to relieve the distress of unmarried mothers, and find you have given a cash incentive to the production of illegitimate children. You guarantee a minimum wage, and find that you have extinguished, not only specific industries, but industry itself as a personal trait. You enable everyone to travel, and one result is, that there is nowhere left worth travelling to. And so on.
This is the oldest and the best argument for conservatism: the argument from the fact that our actions almost always have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences. It is an argument from so great and so mournful a fund of experience, that nothing can rationally outweigh it. Yet somehow, at any rate in societies like ours, this argument never is given its due weight. When what is called a “reform” proves to be, yet again, a cure worse than the disease, the assumption is always that what is needed is still more, and still more drastic, "reform."
A primitive society is being devastated by a disease, so you bring modern medicine to bear, and wipe out the disease, only to find that by doing so you have brought on a population explosion. You introduce contraception to control population, and find that you have dismantled a whole culture. At home you legislate to relieve the distress of unmarried mothers, and find you have given a cash incentive to the production of illegitimate children. You guarantee a minimum wage, and find that you have extinguished, not only specific industries, but industry itself as a personal trait. You enable everyone to travel, and one result is, that there is nowhere left worth travelling to. And so on.
This is the oldest and the best argument for conservatism: the argument from the fact that our actions almost always have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences. It is an argument from so great and so mournful a fund of experience, that nothing can rationally outweigh it. Yet somehow, at any rate in societies like ours, this argument never is given its due weight. When what is called a “reform” proves to be, yet again, a cure worse than the disease, the assumption is always that what is needed is still more, and still more drastic, "reform."
Wednesday night Martian Mariner and I went to see the movie Ironman. I confess a weakness for comic-book movies, probably the result of my passion for comic books as a boy. I would walk the ditches looking for pop bottles to redeem at 2 cents each; when I had 6 I could buy a comic, then 12 cents.
(In keeping with my conservative cred, we went to a theatre that shows first-run movies for $3.50 per ticket for all shows.)
He and I found the movie entertaining and well-done. The leads deserve applause for their performances. The special-effects worked, and did not overshadow the characters. Even the spoken Arabic was accurate and sounded like native-speakers, reports MM.
The basic plot: Robert Downey, Jr. (Stark) is an engineering genius who designs weapons; a playboy patriot who sees himself giving America the tools she needs to defeat her enemies. While in Afghanistan to demonstrate a new tactical missile, his convoy is ambushed and the attackers take him to a cave where he is held. During the ambush he noticed that the bad guys are using weapons manufactured by his company. He will be released, they promise, once he builds them the same missile. Helped by another prisoner, who tells him that Stark weapons have destroyed his village, he instead constructs a beweaponed suit in which he kills bad guys, destroys stockpiles of his company's weapons in the camp, and escapes. Once back home he holds a press conference in which he announces that his company will henceforth work for peaceful purposes, much to the annoyance of his business partner.
But, Stark has unfinished business, foiling the bad guys in Afghanistan who are using his company's weapons. He builds a new and improved suit, flies back, liberates a village, kills a number of bad guys, and destroys the weapons. Eventually he learns that his business partner has been selling weapons to both sides, leading to a showdown between the two of them, both in beweaponed suits. The good guy wins. (Thoughts below)
(In keeping with my conservative cred, we went to a theatre that shows first-run movies for $3.50 per ticket for all shows.)
He and I found the movie entertaining and well-done. The leads deserve applause for their performances. The special-effects worked, and did not overshadow the characters. Even the spoken Arabic was accurate and sounded like native-speakers, reports MM.
The basic plot: Robert Downey, Jr. (Stark) is an engineering genius who designs weapons; a playboy patriot who sees himself giving America the tools she needs to defeat her enemies. While in Afghanistan to demonstrate a new tactical missile, his convoy is ambushed and the attackers take him to a cave where he is held. During the ambush he noticed that the bad guys are using weapons manufactured by his company. He will be released, they promise, once he builds them the same missile. Helped by another prisoner, who tells him that Stark weapons have destroyed his village, he instead constructs a beweaponed suit in which he kills bad guys, destroys stockpiles of his company's weapons in the camp, and escapes. Once back home he holds a press conference in which he announces that his company will henceforth work for peaceful purposes, much to the annoyance of his business partner.
But, Stark has unfinished business, foiling the bad guys in Afghanistan who are using his company's weapons. He builds a new and improved suit, flies back, liberates a village, kills a number of bad guys, and destroys the weapons. Eventually he learns that his business partner has been selling weapons to both sides, leading to a showdown between the two of them, both in beweaponed suits. The good guy wins. (Thoughts below)
