Shlaes Reminds Us of the Cost of Government Arrogance

Excellent piece today by Amity Shlaes, disabusing us of our current New Deal nostalgia. Did you know, for example, that FDR set the price of gold daily at his breakfast table, based upon his own "lucky numbers?" (Shlaes' latest book, "The Forgotten Man" is up there on my reading list for '09.)

Make no mistake: Barack Obama, often compared to FDR on the basis of his nascent popularity and his big spending plans, has absolutely no idea how to fix the American economy. He and his administration minions will "experiment" and tinker like Roosevelt, because, like Roosevelt, they are supremely confident in their own competence.

Shlaes reminds us of the remarkable arrogance and folly of such an approach.

The answer to economic growth is simple. Get out of the way. Animal spirits in the marketplace create growth, not government. Government redistributes resources via coercion, which produces nothing at its best and destroys productive resources at its worst.

Sadly, it seems likely that we will have to suffer for at least 24 months, until the midterm Congressional elections, and perhaps more, if the Republican Party cannot rid itself of its pathetic, grasping leadership and return to its roots in classical free market economics and limited constitutional government.

Will Canada Show America the Way?

Great, educational piece by Theo Caldwell up there in the Great White North about Canada debating tax cuts and economic growth. The Canadians are pondering real solutions to economic woes, while America ponders the cult of Obama and his big-spending brain trust. Goh, Canada!

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Nothing More than a Slush Fund

In addition to the secretive manner in which the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money has been spent by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, we now have the possibility that the "vision thing"-challenged Bush Administration will use TARP for other bailouts, such as providing cash to the Big Three car makers.

Can anyone doubt now that TARP is -- and always was given its loose wording and its even looser execution -- nothing more than a political slush fund? And an expensive one at that. Future generations will paying one of the most expensive bills ever for one to two years worth of political gain for Washington politicians.

To break that "gain" down even further, this political slush fund allows the Democrats to derive marvelous benefits at low to no political cost, thanks to the Stupid Party.

Congressional Democrats vote for the auto bailout, but it gets killed in the Senate. Enter the eager to please President Bush, who has already accepted his abuse for the bank failures, very much the fault of Congressional Democrats. Now he stupidly pays the political cost with the rest of America for bailing out Detroit. We're sure the UAW will vote Republican next time around, right? (Michigan Representative Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican, after his fierce attacks on TARP, continues to disappoint with his rationalizations of using TARP or other bailouts to save Detroit.)

And then there is the persistently lucky Barack Obama, who is handed this expensive slush fund at no political cost to him as he takes office.

Didn't the cheerleaders in the financial press, such as the editors of the Wall Street Journal, see any of this coming? The lesson here: the business of America's government is not business. It is national defense, in the strict sense. The rest is subject to endless permutation, manipulation and stupidity.

Obedience, or Abuse in Mother Theresa's Order?

Years ago I would have listened to this fascinating interview between John Batchelor and former Missionary of Charity Collette Livermore and thought she was obviously "proud" and under the influence of dark forces. (Download Hour 3 from the web page, and begin the podcast at 19:25 for the interview.)

Now, after years of my own struggles with the human dimensions of Catholicism in particular cultural forms, I see Livermore on a journey of painful inquiry much like my own, over what is proper for Roman Catholicism.

Livermore made a commitment as a young girl to help the poor by joining Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity in India. But she could not stay on, due to the pain the order's superiors inflicted upon her.

As she recounts in the above radio interview, and in greater detail in her new book, Hope Endures, her efforts to help the poor were attacked for bureaucratic reasons, and for authoritarian ones. Her motives were portrayed constantly as being more prideful than charitable.

No one can know for sure. Not even her superiors, by the way.

This woman, now a secular doctor, strikes me as sincere and of good will. She was clearly stunned by her superiors' constant guessing at and demeaning her motives. One gets the sense that in this environment, authority became a license to abuse.

It's not an uncommon story. Rarely do the humans who inhabit saints' religious orders share the "charism" of the founder. The question Livermore raises however, is did these abusive individuals do their acts of uncharity with the approval of Mother Theresa? Because Mother Theresa felt such humiliation was a refuge from the greater problem of doubt?

Better to live in uncertainty about your own worth, than God's worth in your life?

The question is briefly touched upon in the interview. But I sense from it that there is no definitive answer, only speculation.

I'll leave it to the Church to decide how this story affects Mother Theresa's case for sainthood. From my perspective however, the ability to live with doubt, questioning, even being scandalized by evil in the world and the inscrutable nature of the First Cause's universe is all part of the essential struggle of faith and reason. One almost gets used to it as the background noise of a life in pursuit of God.

I can't speak for the ultimate conclusions of Livermore's book, which I will have to read. But, this interview angers me, because I care about religion, and don't like the idea that unjustified, unverifiable, and ultimately codependent acts of humiliation would be used as an answer to doubt.

Eminent Domain and the Struggling New York Times

Interesting story that the New York Times is mortgaging its new building in Manhattan to keep itself afloat.

What might be forgotten is that New York City officials used eminent domain to kick successful businesses out of that same space the Times building now occupies, in Manhattan's Theater District, in the name of "economic development."

Perhaps these officials assumed, aside from their own infallibility, that the New York Times would never be subject to economic difficulties, or would never go out of business.

But exactly what is the definition of "success" for economic development? If there is one, can the Times now be said to be hitting those targets?

The arrogance of central planners on display.

Photo used courtesy of Freefoto.com.

An Eloquent Editorial

Bravo to the editors of The New Criterion for an eloquent editorial regarding the gradual loss of freedom (or, rise of government paternalism) in the United States.

Excellent reading.

The problem is not the fault of any one party. It is the result of a "fatal conceit" by the ruling class in Washington and the States for decades that all things, from who should own homes to steroids in baseball, fall under their purview. Nothing escapes the scrutiny of our deeply "concerned," selfless politicians.

Reflections on Powerlessness

I often think about the fragility of life, and how truly powerless we are. This is the result of several events in my life, and the larger events of 9/11, Katrina, etc., which have completely altered my psyche in this regard. I think about economic powerlessness, powerlessness over the fate of my children, and much more.

Several videos I have come across on YouTube recently, about the temptation of Christ in the desert, have spurred me to think about my concerns with control and fear of powerlessness.

The video embedded below is a bit over stylized and interpretive, but it is a provocative presentation of Christ's choice to eschew power over the world.



Funny then, after seeing videos of this type, I watched just this week a PBS special about the creation of the Hebrew Bible.

Touching on the question of power, this series noted that the great book was completed during the Babylonian Captivity, at the lowest ebb and most powerless time of the Jewish people. And yet, it would unite the people of Israel, and eventually the Western World.

Is there anything more that we (I) can derive from these experiences of Israel's captive powerlessness and Jesus's chosen powerlessness? And, is it any different from other myths of renunciation and redemptive suffering?

My immediate temptation is to think that just the "right" embrace of one's powerlessness might actually empower you. But, how might one "embrace" that, and what kind of empowerment does it bring? Would it be the same experience as having no metaphysical anxiety at all? I sincerely doubt it.

Yet, beyond that, I don't know the answers. I just thought I would capture the questions. More to think on for another time.

Obama's Seeming Justice: Stunning Election Day News

Stunning story today in the Washington Times, as summarized beautifully by John Batchelor.

The FBI, at this hour, is involved in the investigation of Barack Obama's land deal with Tony Rezko. At issue: graft and lying on a Senate ethics form (a crime which took down Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.)

This on top of last week's revelation of a "restrictive covenant" on the property which suggests collaboration between the two, in contradiction of Obama's own statements to the press.

This may be the shortest presidency in modern history. And no doubt, it will rival Bill Clinton's, at an even earlier stage, for partisan warfare. Right out of the gate, can you say "failed presidency?"

Despite the surreal resistance of the Bush-Haters and the Obama-Philes to the facts, the corrupt Barack Obama is a living example of what the sophist Glaucon described in Plato's Republic over 2,000 years ago:

"So let the unjust make his unjust attempts in the right way, and lie hidden if he means to be great in his injustice (he who is found out is nobody): for the highest reach of injustice is: to be deemed just when you are not." -Glaucon, Book II, Republic.

Palin Commits a Gaffe on the First Amendement: Left Goes Whoopee!

Sarah Palin committed a clear gaffe in speaking about the First Amendment. However, judging by the reaction of the left-wing blogosphere, and other commentators, you would think she issued a full-blown policy prescription calling for the First Amendment to be repealed.

Just in case some did not see the manifest incoherence of the statement, law professor Jonathan Turley felt compelled to rebut Palin's "Palinprudence" (a paragraph) with four very impressive citations of jurisprudential giants.

Elsewhere, on the harder left, a stream of obscenities and ad feminem attacks have ensued. Clearly the gaffe had reinforced some already hardened positions against Palin and her intellectual abilities. (Never mind that Joe Biden has uttered a host of gaffes and has had more than one charge of plagiarism in his schooling and political career.)

Considering that McCain-Feingold specifically gave the Federal Election Commission the ability to restrict (a.k.a. suppress) "negative attacks" (a.k.a. "free speech") to so-called "media organizations", and Palin's statement about her fear for the future of free speech, it seems far more likely that her statement was a "rogue" one gone bad, about political incumbents (with help from their government-approved "media organization" friends) attempting to suppress any non-sanctioned "negativity."

In any case, Palin should clarify the meaning of her clearly incoherent remarks immediately, and Palin haters should throttle back on the obscenity-laced misogyny.

Review Revisits an Ancient (and Tired) Quarrel about Justice

In recent classes I have talked with my students about the sophist charge in Plato's Republic that all claims about the nature of justice are disguised power grabs.

Interesting then that Adam Kirsch should write a review on CityJournal.org about a new book by philosopher Raymond Geuss, "Philosophy and Real Politics," which makes claims similar to those of the sophists thousands of years ago.

I say similar, because as Kirsch notes, if only Geuss were as consistent as sophist Thrasymachus, who urges us to be "happily unjust," Geuss would avoid contradiction.

But, rather, neo-Marxist/Leninist Geuss adopts a moral stance against the exercise of "real power" that masquerades as Justice. Which in turn suggests he has insights into a purer form of Justice. The very kind of Justice pursued by Plato and other philosophers that Geuss attacks.

It's a common contradiction found in the arguments of today's critiquing radicals.

But there's more to it. Simply attacking alleged (economic) injustice won't do. Radicalism has to raise the spectre of Thrasymachan injustice in order to do a clever switch.

What is really intended is an attempt to invalidate a certain economic or social class's ability to speak truthfully or credibly about Justice.

In other words, the discussion was never really about the nature of Justice at all, but rather about who is fit to participate in the discussion.

An Expanded Reflection on the Afterlife

Thanks to my old friend Cris Rapp for an expanded reflection on my previous post about Facebook as a prefigurement of the afterlife.

Dueling Philosophical Movies

Following on dueling political documentaries by and against Michael Moore, now we see, dueling philosophical films?

"The God Who Wasn't There." vs. "Expelled." A good thing? This marks an interesting trend. I suppose it is good to see more philosophical subject matter in the public square, as filmmaking has become more democratic.

My only concern, which I can see in the trailers for many of these films, is to latch on the most extreme example of theism and atheism, in censorship and hate. And the most codependent behaviors, to become codependent in turn.

What's the answer? I don't know. The marketplace must decide.

But each film pulls its audience in some way into reactive behavior against extreme opponents. That is a problem. Are boring university seminars the only answer?

Obama's Whitewater, and the Evidence that He Lied

Another major revelation this week about the Tony Rezko and Barack Obama land deal. (a.k.a., Obama's Whitewater.)

At the time of the deal, Obama told the media that there was no deal, no coordination and no undue influence in Tony Rezko buying the adjacent lot to his own mansion. But GOPmom blog has uncovered evidence of a coordinated effort.

Heretofore unknown, and conveniently never mentioned by Obama, a restrictive covenant existed on the adjacent property, that would have made it not worth Rezko's time and effort to buy that property. A restrictive covenant that was conveniently dropped before the closing.

Now, thanks to some mysterious source, it's out there. (Has the second Clinton arrow flown?) (See also John Batchelor's interesting musings on the source of this discovery.)

What this suggests is coordination, among the numerous buying and selling parties in this deal, all of which is currently being investigated by prosecutors in Chicago as Rezko sings.

Despite the hatred of George W. Bush and Republican policy -- some of which is much deserved -- which blinds the public to the questions of ethics at hand, GOPmom blog drives home the salient point:

"According to numerous media reports, foreign nationals financed Rezko. The public must openly speculate about who holds undue influence over Senator Obama and how these people can influence domestic and foreign policy. This has nothing to do with dubious associations or even poor judgment. This is about political corruption in government. Unfortunately, Senator Obama’s actions should concern anyone who believes in a well-functioning government of the people, by the people and for the people."

It's time to care, Bush haters. Because, "the battle is won [or lost] before it is ever fought." The impeachment has begun before the election results are even in.

Great Lines from McCain Today

Great lines from John McCain on the campaign trail today:

"We've got Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder with us today, real working-class heroes who've had the courage to stand up and say that Barack Obama's tax and spend policies are not good for America. Not good for working class people who are trying to get ahead. Of course, now they are using Ohio's confidential data to dig into Joe's background. [Pause for boos.] Thank you for your courage gentlemen. I'm proud to have you on my side."

"And who does Barack Obama have on his side? Tony the Fixer, Jeremiah the Hater and Bill the Bomber!" [Loud applause]

Oh, actually, McCain didn't say that yet. But he should.

Feel free to use, Senator McCain.

The Wall Street Journal is Shocked at Bad Behavior

Today, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board is shocked, shocked to learn that businesses are lining up at the trough to get some of Henry Paulson's bank bailout plan money. A plan that the Wall Street Journal endorsed.

These are the risks of hurried government solutions to poorly defined problems. And the Wall Street Journal editorial board certainly should have known it would happen.

More to come, I fear. Much more.

One More Obama October Surprise This Week?

We got our October surprise for Barack Obama in the form of radio excerpts on YouTube. These were reportedly uncovered by "Naked Emperor News" a relatively unknown web site.

In the interview, Obama speaks rather candidly about his belief in the redistribution of income, possibly through the courts, but more likely through legislation. He cites the paradigm of "negative rights" as a failing in the American Republic.

I had expected this October surprise. But not from the Republicans. The news media are giving them too much credit by suggesting these are Republican tactics.

In fact, I would say that because the Republicans are too incompetent to mount true political attacks, expect a second October surprise later this week, but before Sunday. The true sources of the current surprise are waiting to see if the radio interview can carry a second or third news cycle.

But whenever this story loses momentum, a second arrow will fly. And it will come, as did the first, from the Clintons.

Who is more likely to know Boston and Chicago progressive radio, the GOP, or, say, someone in the circle of a Clintonista like Rahm Emmanuel (D., Illinois)?

If Hillary is going to be president, Obama must lose, so that she can face off against Sarah Palin on '12. That is the Clinton objective. Not a mere seat on the Supreme Court, which Hillary won't get. The Clintons do not leave things to the good will of their rivals.

When Sarah Palin was selected, the Clintons had an epiphany, which caused them to lick their chops all the more. Let Palin take the rest of the hits to break the glass ceiling. The environment will be much more conducive to a "tough woman" in '12. Especially after an aging president decides he can no longer continue and leaves it to his VP (Palin).

Note well: If you see the second arrow fly, you will know where it came from.

Barack Obama is Unfit to be President

Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review describes just another event that Barack Obama and that guy in his neighborhood Bill Ayers attended. It is absolutely telling.

A man who would glad-hand with such despicable characters to advance himself politically is not a person who would stand up for anything during a time of crisis. That is the great lesson that is missing during Obama-mania.

Barack Obama is a soulless, self-concerned hack, and completely unfit for the Presidency.

Do me a favor Obama supporters: You may hate Bush. I think he's a boob. McCain may be another pathetic, visionless creature of Washington. But please, Obama supporters, tell me you're holding your nose when voting for this guy, and that you are not really proud of someone who cozies up to the most radical, terror-loving, anti-Semitic kooks, just to advance his own pathetic political career.

Review Asks: Can Life Be Perfected?

Following up on the previous post, here's a timely and interesting review in City Journal by Theodore Dalrymple of new novels by Philip Roth and Ian McEwen. The title of the review is "Careful What You Wish For."

In it, Dalrymple notes:

"The idea that mankind might find life beautifully easy if only the right laws could be promulgated and the right social attitudes inculcated is a beguiling one. It suggests that dissatisfaction and frustration arise from error and malice, rather than from the inescapable and permanent separation between man’s desires and what the world can offer him. Difficulty, however, cannot be abolished; it is the condition of human life itself. We try to avert our eyes from this truth as we avert them from death itself."

Is Facebook a Prefigurement of the Afterlife?

Growing up Christian, one becomes familiar with the concept of "prefigurement." The Old Testament, for example, is said to contains signs that "prefigure" the coming of Jesus Christ. After Christ, Thomas Aquinas would argue that the glories of accomplishment in this world are but prefigurements of the extreme glory to be found in the kingdom of heaven.

You get the idea. One thing is the sign of something greater to come.

Implicit in much of this is the Platonic idea of the world as an imperfect reflection of some higher, transcendent super-good.

Any good of the world is subject to this same kind of argument.

I can't help but think about prefigurement, then, when contemplating the good of "ambient awareness" generated by social networking.

For some of us, at least, social media's capability to provide frequent updates on the status of our friends and acquaintances makes us happy. We are the open books who long for a deeper connection with others; to have our inner life heard and validated, and do likewise for others.

Will the afterlife be the ultimate form of ambient awareness?

According to Thomas Aquinas, yes, but only insofar as that is an "overflowing" result or side benefit of knowledge of God. Call Him the Ultimate "Friend." Once God has gratuitously "friended" you, all your other friendships are perfected. (The notion of such an "overflow" is explained in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, "Treatise on the Last End," Question 3.)

Here's why:

For Christians, no natural longing is ever the same after Plato. "Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee" is the most haunting line of Christianity - written by the neo-Platonist, Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine. Augustine posits that natural goods can never satisfy us. We seek the transcendent God. This is rooted in a long series of arguments from Plato, and finds stirring literary exposition in St. Augustine's "Confessions."

Thomas Aquinas would later explain this argument in great, although more boring, detail, borrowing also from Plato's student, Aristotle.

Following Aristotle, Aquinas argued that we seek knowledge through causes. However, knowledge of secondary causes (all the things of the world) is imperfect. There is always more to know.

Happiness consists primarily of knowledge of the First Cause, Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, a.k.a., Plato and Augustine's ultimate, transcendent good.

When we are granted Knowledge of the First Cause, God, by His sheer gift, it will provide beatific insight into all the other causes. This is sometimes called Thomas Aquinas's "intellectualist" vision of perfect happiness.

The reason it is called "intellectualist" is because it places happiness primarily in the exercise of reason, which is most essential to human beings. But, the overflow comes when all else that we experience as human beings is perfected by this primary form of knowledge.

Social media doesn't prove anything theological. It only underscores a human need, the solution to which is always moving into a better state thanks to science and technology. (Why we must exist in an imperfect state at all is a very unsatisfying mystery of religion.)

But once you read Plato, you are next inclined to ask whether social media and other solutions to the problem of life's imperfections can reach a state of "perfection." And if so, how? Christianity volunteers a compelling answer.

Image used under Creative Commons license courtesy of ewen and donabel.

Krugman Nobel Prize Covered with Balance and Imbalance

The New York Times' coverage of the Nobel Prize in economics to Paul Krugman is surprisingly balanced. As opposed to, say, the ridiculous piece on Bloomberg which is more about President Bush than Krugman. Or, the seemingly incoherent point of view on Marketwatch.

From G's to Gents: The White House Edition

A bunch of Chicago political G's are about to gain access to the ultimate crib: ACORN, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah White, Michael Pfleger, Rod Blogojevich, et al.

All thanks to Gent Barack Obama, and tens of millions of Americans who are ignoring Obama's associations and character. Much the way they did with Bill Clinton during his first presidential campaign. And for the same reasons -- a Republican president and party that are incompetent and grasping.

However, as John Batchelor notes, Chicago G and fixer Tony Rezko is spilling his guts about the Chicago machine's machinations to prosecutors.

During a time of unprecedented political and economic crisis, I suspect we are due for another "failed presidency."

"Every battle is won [or lost] before it is ever fought."

Book TV This Weekend: Michael Novak on Atheism and Belief

In a previous post I took a shot a theologian and philosopher Michael Novak for a simplistic dismissal of the phenomenon of unbelief, in his short article for First Things magazine.

Well, Mr. Novak has been up to a more substantive treatment of the issue apparently, as today I received an alert from Book TV on C-SPAN 2 regarding Novak's latest book, "No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers." A special program about the book will air this Sunday at 5 a.m. (no thanks) and 7 p.m. EST. More show information here.

The reviews from Amazon so far suggest Novak shows generosity to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al (a case of turning the other cheek perhaps?). However, as I noted in a previous post, few conservative thinkers, it seems to me, extend their "solidarity" to the generic unbeliever.

Why should they? If you think about it, all believers, when confronted by the reality of evil and suffering, go through moments of unbelief/doubt. Unless they are "fronting."

This common ground seems to be the subject of Novak's new book, which I will be sure to read. I will also be watching this program this weekend to hear more.

Confronting the Guitar Gods in My Basement

I've been playing the guitar for over 20 years. On and off. Sometimes highly motivated and sometimes not.

Lately, I responded to an ad on Craigslist and joined a band with a great bunch of guys.

We play a lot of classic and hard rock: Rolling Stones, Judas Priest, Stone Temple Pilots, Ramones, Tom Petty, etc. As we work up a set list of 30 songs, and prepare to play out live, I've never wanted to practice more. It makes a huge difference to have people around with similar passion, driving you forward as an "artist."

So, of late, I'm down in my basement, at all hours of the night, using a Korg Pandora PX4 to rock out into headphones without waking the family. It's an awesome device, with lots of effects, modeled speaker cabinets, drums and bass to accompany, in different keys and tempos if you want.

Now, I'm studying and playing the chord changes, and the solos of many great players. Mountain's "Mississippi Queen" has been assigned to me for the solo. I've got most of it down now. I don't care that some little kid on YouTube can play it already. Or, that there are fifty other kids there showcasing their Van Halen chops. I'm on my own journey.

I'm somewhere I've desperately wanted to be for many years. I played as a teenager and it was a great time. After that it was hard to meet normal human beings to practice with. So, I just listened intently for many years, and stared at all my transcription books, the jazz standards, the stack of lesson tapes with my old teacher who loved Larry Carlton and Sonny Rollins, and wondered.

I'd pick it up from time to time, but if you want to rock, you need a band. Finally, I made a move.

Now, I'm not only learning the songs, I'm also re-learning the brilliance of my beloved artists from a new point of view, that of technique. The subtlety of their musical phrases, the fingerings of the strings to get just the right sound - so easy to screw up! -- just adds to my appreciation of music I already love. And I want to keep learning until I'm 100.

Because of this, and because the band mates are a great group, all of my problems seem so much smaller. I leave every rehearsal feeling great. It's the kind of thing I read about in Julia Cameron's "The Artist's Way." Doing "creative" stuff, and being in a "creative community" is just something you have to do. And I've not done enough of it these many years.

I'm not going to let time pass like that any more, and I don't care if it leads me to perform in nursing homes and jails. That's not the point.

Many people who know me, my wife included, laugh somewhat incredulously at my enthusiasm. To look at me is not to think "rock and roll."

But, when I am alone, staring at the transcriptions, and noticing for example, how Leslie West takes a simple blues lick and turns it into an exquisitely fat, emotional guitar wail, and then I duplicate it, that knowledge is now deeply a part of me. And I know who I really am, and I don't care what anyone else thinks.

Photo used under Creative Commons license courtesy of Tres.

The Wall Street Journal Destroys Its Hard Won Credibility

For years I have read and applauded the Wall Street Journal's editorial page for warning of the dangers inherent in Fannie and Freddie, and the looming crisis. Events have proven their analysis of a politicized market for mortgages correct.

How ironic, and sad then, that these same editors should now double down their hard won credibility on Henry Paulson's massive attempt to re-politicize the marketplace for mortgages. We're not talking a modified Paulson plan. We're talking first ballot Paulson.

By all other responsible reporting in the free-market media, we know that a) every official in Washington is saying privately this "emergency measure" is a piece of garbage legislation, and b) they have no idea if it will work.

But hey, the Journal reasons, we need to "calm" the markets.

The "markets" are made up of moral agents; people, who now want to be bailed out for their recklessness. Whether or not it was encouraged by the government, that is the bottom line. If they can't "calm" themselves, perhaps they should find other lines of work.

The Journal, in my mind at least, has destroyed all of the credibility it has created over the years when it warned against Fannie and Freddie -- so badly is it now in the tank for, one can only reason, one of their own, Henry Paulson.

PATHETIC.

From Class: The Greeks' Ultimate Reality and the Abyss

The closing thoughts of last night's Dowling College class bear repeating.

When the Greek philosopher Anaximander posited the existence of an Apeiron, (the ageless, boundless and indeterminate ultimate reality) he looked past the whirlwind and "injustice" of change and sought something more.

Heraclitus despaired of the passage of time, with poetic reflections on life and death. And yet, he insisted, behind it all, had to be some "Logos." A fire that changed everything, but itself remained unchanged.

Parmenides used relentless logic to reason his way to the "One" ultimate reality - even if he destroyed motion and change in the process. Transcendent only by destruction, perhaps?

Aristotle looked beyond his own "common sense" philosophy of material things to talk about pure Form, the source of movement in the universe and pure "thought thinking itself," which all other forms at different levels of the natural order sought to imitate as best as their own natures would allow.

Contrast these thoughts with Nietzsche. Who, confronted with the whirlwind of change and contingency, embraced it by itself, in all its disorder. He looked into the abyss and saw nothing. God was not hiding behind change hoping we would notice. He was never there. Hence, Nietzsche elevated himself to the ultimate arbiter of truth in the universe. He became the One that "explains" the Many.

While I still think the Greek approach is superior and inevitable, and that Nietzsche's view is built on contradiction, I understand Nietzsche's sense of subjective isolation, and bring it up more in class.

Even if we too claim to see the Apeiron, the Logos, the One or the pure Form, we have to ask ourselves "How?" And, what follows from touching it with our minds? Even in a world in which there are millions of competing answers (including the suffocating comforts of divine revelation - more on that in a future post), attempting to draw our own conclusions leaves us very lonely.

BTW- Here's a remarkable documentary capturing the loneliness of Nietzsche. MC

Scientists: Earth May Be in a Special Place After All

Just when you've gotten used to the Copernican universe, they go and change back again to something anthropocentric. Sheesh!

A Bigger Bet on the Large Hadron Collider

Cribbing from the style of InstaPundit.com, I'm writing a short item here (rather than my usual long-winded ones) highlighting an interesting piece in First Things.

In it, physicist Stephen Barr suggests that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has to do more than discover the Higgs boson particle to be interesting. That's pretty much a given. Rather, it should also shed light on why the Higgs boson, in the Higgs wave, in the Higgs field, doesn't make life impossible. For Barr at least, to discover, via the LHC, some countervailing force to the Higgs stuff, if I may, provides support for an "anthropic" or human-life centered view of our little region of the multiverse. Hmm, can God be far behind?

P.S. To my students who might be visiting my blog. Please forgive yet another story about the LHC. I assure you I'm not a physics geek masquerading as a philosophy teacher.

The Comedian Who Died, Literally

Perhaps because the weather is getting cooler toward the end of summer, I find myself remembering my visit one cool evening to a small Christian coffee house in East Northport, N.Y., where, not long ago, I heard a comedian give witness to life after death.

Samantha's Li'l Bit of Heaven hosted my friend Lenny Horowitz, the only Jewish act on the bill on its regular comedy nights. He was the resident non-believer, and he got lots of mileage out of his outsider status. When he told jokes that challenged the audience's delicate sensibilities, they would shake their bags of pretzels in disapproval.

As I had done a few times before, I visited one evening for Comedy Night, to see Lenny perform, and decide whether or not I could overcome my stage fright and do 5 minutes.

I decided against it. Lenny did well. But he was not the closer that evening. Another comedian, named Mike, whom I also know well from the local circuit, stood up to do his act.

Mike did many of his old bits, sanitized from when he would perform them at Governor's Comedy Club in Levittown.

But the one thing I expected least was when Mike decided to close his act by testifying to this eminently receptive audience about the time he "died" and went to heaven. Mike's heart had stopped beating during a heart attack years before. How long it stopped I don't remember him recounting. But, as he said, he "died on the table" at the hospital.

During this time, he told the rapt audience, he experienced an incredibly friendly and peaceful presence. It showed him that his wife and all of his children would be healthy and happy. And that they would join him someday. Most interestingly to me, he also got a rather immediate explanation for all of the suffering in the world.

But, alas, he was revived. And he told the medical staff saving his life, "Let me go! Let me go!" because he wanted to be in heaven.

And from that day forward, he said, although he did not know why he was still here, he did not fear death, or anything else for that matter. He "knows" that he will be happy after death, and that all is well with the world.

Out of respect for the man's story, I should have simply remained silent. It was a deeply moving moment. But I couldn't resist the urge, once the show was over, to question him more.

I congratulated him on a great performance. And then, I asked, "You don't happen to remember the explanation for all that suffering, do you?"

"No," he said, shaking his head.

A few days later, the inspiration of his story faded.

Another One Page Refutation of Unbelief (Yawn)

I like the publication First Things. I respect the life's work of the theologian and philosopher Michael Novak. But, damn, and yawn, if I don't see simplistic, dismissive, curriculum vitae-padding arguments against unbelievers, like Novak's latest, too often in First Things and elsewhere on the Christian Right.

In a drive-by article, majestically titled "Atheism and Evil," Novak engages a friendly audience of First Things readers to quickly dismiss atheists and agnostics for their struggles with belief.

A good percentage of these unbelievers, according to a recent poll, have allowed the problem of evil to drive them away from the notion of a personal God. But, surprisingly, many of them cling to some notion of an ultimate force.

In the most insulting statement of the entire piece, Novak accuses all of them of possessing a "morose delectation" for the reality of evil. In other words, they should just get over their perverse hang-up with suffering. (Now break out the brandy.)

Novak reminds us, yawn, that Thomas Aquinas posited that evil was not a co-equal reality with good. Evil tends toward non-being rather than being. (Ah, how did millions of human beings miss that? It's all explained now!)

And, without the possibility of moral evil, the world could never reach its current heights of goodness.

Excuse me if I yawn, again. These arguments are repeated endlessly against modern unbelief like a Thomistic spell. And yet, unbelief doesn't seem to go away. Curious.

Of course, the reality of physical evil (hurricanes, cancers, etc.) is not addressed here. That would have required at least another page of strenuous quoting of the Church Fathers.

Or perhaps it is, encrusted within Novak's brief, metaphorical reference to the world as a "tapestry of human experience." Or in his sweeping notion that "[a]ll the stuff of a good story depends on creation being not just a world of iron logic and inflexible arithmetic, but also a world of immense crisscrossing variation and 'blooming, buzzing profusion.'”

There you have it. The whole thing, from Krakatoa to Katrina, is just another "good story," and "blooming, buzzing profusion." What?

I know that Michael Novak means better. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens' delectations have gotten too much under his skin.

But I think that if one were actually concerned with these issues, in a spirit of genuine solidarity with non-First Things subscribers, it might help to acknowledge the serious concerns of "unbelievers" -- and perhaps more "believers" than one might care to acknowledge -- with moral evil, physical evil, and even metaphysical evil -- where one grinds daily against the limits of one's own being.

In a media-mad world in which human beings are buffeted daily by images of untold suffering and cruelty, and even levels of human success and honor that they will never achieve, it will require more than a series of dusty syllogisms to ease the suffering and dissension caused by the "immense crisscrossing" within the human spirit of the problems of moral, natural and metaphysical evil.

Back to Teaching Philosophy

After a six-month hiatus from teaching, I will be back teaching at Dowling College this fall.

I have at least one evening section of Western Philosophy; an introductory course covering from the Pre-Socratics all the way to Idealism and Empiricism. A second course may run if there are enough students. That's the killer course, I think, which starts later in the semester and goes for 3:45 each meeting. Which is way too long. I have to do cartwheels to keep the students interested.

Even though I took a break, I love to teach. I just hate the apathy of some students.

I don't take it personally. I get enough compliments from students. I just hate the lost opportunities the students have to make connections from philosophy to the rest of their lives, and to gain almost indescribable insights.

Philosophy is the most important subject you can study. I'll prove it.

What is a Ph.D. degree anyway? You know, as in Ph.D. in economics, chemistry, psychology, etc.? It is, a doctor of philosophy degree. In economics, or chemistry? Why?

Because the degree signifies not only that you know a lot of stuff. It also signifies that you have been to the boundaries of your field and seen all the things that you do not know the answers to. The same way Socrates, the model philosopher, did when he said he was only wise because he knew that he did not know. The university is built around the Socratic/Platonic model of knowledge and ignorance.

You're not "smart" (wise) if you don't know that you don't know. I hope to convince some students of that this fall, and help them see the "hidden blessings" of it, as Socrates notes in Plato's Apology. Wish me luck.

On Supposedly Seeing Signs

Three times in the last two weeks friends have asked me whether I am going to return to stand up comedy. (For the record, I would like to. Just a matter, as always, of finding the time.)

When the second friend asked me, and I told her that she was the second person, she replied somewhat playfully, "See, it could be a sign."

I found myself surprised by my response, which was truthful, but so long as it remained publicly unspoken, more tentative: "I don't believe in signs anymore."

I have been pondering the implications of this, my belief, for some time now. (Note, this too, is a "belief.") A belief born of what I would call a personal backlash against my own pious self deceptions for many years.

Among these pious self deceptions: seeing signs about whom to date, what career to pursue, or even that my mother was not going to die of cancer at 48, as she did. (I saw signs for that on bumper stickers that happened to show up on cars at just the "right time." Her church friends saw other signs and gladly interpreted them for me both before and after her death.)

Does such a skeptical belief, born of dissatisfaction and sometimes even disgust with a particular culture's understanding of how God works in a particular time, and the wasted time it caused me, make me irreligious?

I would like to think not. I would like to think that I am looking for a more pure form of connection with the ultimate reality. And yet, I wonder, can one expect a pure intuition of the ultimate reality while living any kind of normal life? Is it really possible not to look for signs?

Maybe there are more pure "signs" than ambiguous bumper stickers seen at just the right time? For example, the beautiful face of a child. Is it a sign of God's love? Or, my persevering wife?

I have frequently wondered whether my new found semiotic deconstruction has a stopping point. Or, does it obliterate everything that is significant in my life -- everything that would mediate between me and the First Cause.

I have often wondered whether I can make decisions anymore, given this skepticism. Is any direction in life "important?" I have become deeply skeptical of having any "enthusiasms" about anything. This is very unlike what I used to be.

And yet, the strongest enthusiasm that I have is love. I shudder to think that I could part with the enthusiasm for my child. Yet, I shudder a little less to think that buying into the child as sign means I have to buy into the bumper sticker too.

Perhaps all signs that come forward to mediate must themselves be mediated and tested? But where does that stop (thank you, Charles Peirce), and what is to stop the self deception one would impose on any sign? Grace? (Which we often "discover" in signs.)

I don't know.

Dawkins Tweaked in New Music Video

I had to share this humorous little item from YouTube about Richard Dawkins - a very smart and very condescending man, leading a modern "posse" of pugnacious atheists.

Humor helps put things in perspective.