Thoughts on a New Book about "Romantic" Science

"Romantic Science." What an interesting idea. Expounded upon in "The Age of Wonder" by Richard Holmes, and in this book review. (I have reserved the hardcover from my local library.)

The reviewer, Michael Knox Beran, sums up the spirit of Romantic Science; a rebellion against the crude mechanism of the 18th century:

"The wonder revealed by science is not, finally, severable from the mind of the wonderer. Holmes cites Richard Feynman’s belief that science is “driven by a continual dialogue between skeptical enquiry and the sense of inexplicable mystery,” and that if either is permitted to get the upper hand, “true science” will be “destroyed.”

"Even as he studies the outer world, the Romantic scientist is preoccupied with the secret of his inward existence. Banks observing the customs of the Tahitians, Davy on laughing gas, Mary Shelley wondering “in what sense Frankenstein’s ‘Creature’ would be human”: all remained perplexed by the mysteriousness of man. What laws govern his being? How do changing conditions affect his nature? Is he a creature created on purpose or a mere material accident?

"If Enlightenment thinkers built on the metaphor of the well-ordered machine, the Romantics sought to understand the spark that makes a thing live, whether it be a human being, a work of art, or a nation-state."

I very much identify with the spirit of this science, in which the primary mystery is always "man's inward existence." I discovered a similar spirit in the Confessions of St. Augustine. I have a sense of confusion and wonder about myself, and as I look within I cannot fathom what I am (See the Confessions' "On Memory" for a taste.) Look to the world, and things are even more mysterious. (See the Confessions' "On Time").

While this spurred Augustine to a sense of awe and reverence for the creator of such mystery, I must confess that I am more prone to grumbling. Steeped as I am at this point in my life in the notion of efficiency of process, I express much frustration with, and to God instead. I am pondering writing a cranky book entitled, "Life: The End User Experience."

This is also why Descartes, a later student of Augustine, fascinates me. As a person, he seemed more troubled by mystery, and wished to obliterate it. (Was he stymied by his own embarrassments and failures?) Hence, the rise of what we are talking about here, in reaction to the mechanistic natural philosophy of Descartes, and others like him.

However, the last paragraph quoted above also points to the dangers of Romantic Science: Its vitalism prepared the way for myths of living states, such as Nazi Germany. While Lincoln did not go so far, even as he read the Romantics, Bismarck and the rest of the Germans did.

Thankfully, my own crankiness will not lead me to posit a living spirit in a country, which I would then, perhaps, feel a need to save. I will leave that to more optimistic types. Personally, I believe the mechanical "checks and balances" of our society, referenced by Michael Knox Beran in this review, are falling apart, and that this machine called the United States is piling up fatal political defects. I may be wrong, and I pray that I am wrong, but I don't see the machine lasting long.

But so long as man's sense of his own mystery lives, new experiments in liberty will come forward.

Random Thoughts for the Week or So

Yesterday the Atlantic Yards project sold a ton of bonds to finance a new arena in Brooklyn for the awful New Jersey Nets, and possibly the awful New York Islanders. I will not attend a game at that venue, ever, because its creation is, whether our jurist intelligentsia wish to admit it or not, an abuse of the power of eminent domain. A taking of property from private land- and home-owners for the benefit of a few politically connected developers and athletes. Not to mention buffoons like Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and similar self-aggrandizing, "visionary" politicians (using other people's money.) "Economic development" by the government is an illusion. The same abuse of economic development was justified to revitalize the area now occupied by the politically connected New York Times -- struggling to stay alive. The government has no crystal ball to tell which businesses will "revitalize" an area and which won't. This is a lie, and yet another movement away from the unique founding principles of our country.

***

Everything that can be said about Tiger Woods' moral implosion has been said. And more. As an average golfer and a confused person, I am no doubt tempted like everyone else to experience schadenfreude over Tiger. His super human golf skills didn't irk me nearly as much as his apparent mythic self-knowledge, springing forth from the womb with a driver in his hand knowing he was to dominate professional golf worldwide. I don't know from one golf swing to the next who I am. As it turns out, neither did Tiger. We see a young man who, while facing the rigors of his father Earl Woods' disciplined approach to golf and life, never really had anything he loved denied to him that would bring him closer to himself. With a billion dollars in his pocket and access to women nearly every moment he was off the golf course and away from his apparently troubled marriage, he consumed in mass quantities, taking whatever was there with no regrets. Until now, when he departs, reportedly, on a mythic journey to Sweden; a descent to a Nordic netherworld, to find out who he truly is. There will be more arc to Tiger than just his swing, there will be an arc to his character. On the next phase of the journey, I wish him, his wife and family well, whatever they choose.

***

As I watch the Tiger Woods saga unfold in the media, I wonder, seriously: who "owns" marriage? Marriage, defended and praised by clergy, politicians and pundits, is an inexhaustible resource for moral back patting. Yet, who among marriage's "defenders" will take responsibility for marriage's defects? If marriage were a product, with a near 50 percent divorce rate and untold frustration and difficulty in so-called happy marriages, would anyone bring it to market? So, while individuals own their own happiness, who, if anyone, has the onus to fix marriage as an institution?

***

Among political conservatives, there is strain of thinking espoused by Edmund Burke that holds that the "wisdom" of our institutions can be difficult to justify to "rationalists," armed with their destructive, deconstructive metaphysics. I find this thinking increasingly troubling. Does this mean that marriage shall remain forever elusive, its defects and suffering and scandals to the children we love so much, acceptable, because of its barely expressible, non-rational wisdom?

***

In the churches, the barest resources exist to understand and control the defects of marriage. In my church, a weak, almost comically embarrassing "Pre-Cana" conference might be followed years later by a patch-up "Marriage Encounter." And what else?

***

The New York Post will inform its readers about this apparent scandal against marriage by publishing picture after picture and detail after detail about Tiger Woods liaisons. So will many other "conservative" tabloids, magazines and television shows. All so we can cluck about marriage, with a few cheap thrills thrown in. The Rupert Murdoch formula.

***

As I ponder both practical politics, and the myths I teach my students this semester, such as the founding American myth of Daniel Boone, I am becoming increasingly conscious of how unique our times are historically. First, there is nowhere else to go for the sake of an idea. No westward expansion through "virgin" territory to create a new world. What does that mean for our increasingly aging world? Secondly, myth- and ritual-based communities are breaking down in the face of an explosion of media technology. Culture is becoming increasingly heterogeneous and consumer-driven. If ritual and myth played a central role in establishing a person's identity, what will the new world of "chosen" identity look like?

***

With our massive, unscientific, undisciplined incursions of government debt, increasing political polarization and disgraceful lack of statesmanship in Washington -- if you agree legislation is an emergency measure, should you really hold out until you extract your slice of pork? -- I think it is quite possible to say that the United States might not exist in its current form in 100 years. There seem to be too many people in the political class who believe and act in a way that assumes that the Republic is immortal.

Kickstarter for Creative Project Funding

Here's an interesting way to fund new creative projects: Kickstarter.com. In conjunction with Amazon.com, they provide a platform for you to do promotion of and collect funds for your creative projects. You supply promotional samples of your projects, and the offers for donors at various levels of support. I like it.

Some Great Readings on the Problem of Evil

The New Atlantis has just posted a very interesting article from their latest issue about Charles Darwin's personal sensitivity to the problem of evil and suffering in nature, and how it influenced his views on evolution. It is entitled "Darwin's World of Pain and Wonder." Excellent. I recommend it highly.

It calls to mind an excellent book I read on the same subject not long ago, entitled "Darwin's God" by Cornelius Hunter, about which I wrote some thoughts at the time.

Another very interesting article on evil I found via Wikipedia. It is by a Catholic theologian, explaining the theodicies, or defenses of God against evil and suffering, offered by Saints Augustine and Ireneaus. I found it interesting because it acknowledges how many puzzling issues remain for the believer even today. Of course, the author attempts to resolve some of those problems in his theory of "salvation." Which I will continue reading with interest.

Is this the Next Generation of Mobile Computing?

This is an amazing vision of the future. It will make owning the iPhone seem quaint.

No Need to Violate the First Amendment When You Have Industrial Policy

Just a bit more on the Charles Krauthammer piece mentioned in my previous post. Mr. Krauthammer makes a couple of points. One is about Madisonian norms.

But even more importantly, and what makes his piece so trenchant, is that he is exposing a subtle way to suppress and control the media without explicitly violating the Constitution. It's called industrial policy.

Threaten a network and you are also sending signals to other who might get in the way of a political agenda.

To potential advertisers: we control a lot of money, contracts and life support in bad times. Don't advertise on networks where we find stories unfavorable to our political agenda.

To media rivals: don't follow the disfavored media outlet or we'll do the same to you that we're doing to them.

This is the change we've been waiting for? Co-opting the NEA, ACORN and other government-funded groups for political propaganda purposes? And cutting the financial legs out of the free press if it interferes with our "revolution?"

How very Hugo Chavez-like of Mr. Obama.

On Obama Thuggishness toward Dissenters

Charles Krauthammer is one of Washington's most intelligent and respected opinion journalists. He makes an important point in this piece. President Obama and his thuggish administration, in trying to delegitimize political dissenters (Fox News, Chamber of Commerce, Insurance Companies, etc.) and in fact intimidate them into silence by threats, is ignoring the Madisonian traditions of our country.

You know, the traditions that say we must respectfully tolerate dissent.

The traditions that differentiate us from countries such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, whom Mr. Obama has such cordial relations with, but who all intimidate, prosecute and even murder dissenters as enemies of the state, Allah, or the revolution.

Mr. Obama is showing himself to not only fail at all of his promised open-minded and open-dooredness. He is showing himself to be diametrically opposed to it.

Can a person with such a vaunted opinion of himself and his mandate to "fundamentally reform America" be trusted to respect dissent, or even the Constitution itself should his project be threatened by political failure?

When he attempts to exclude Fox News from a press event, as took place this week, how long before, Hugo Chavez-like, he finds some reason to shut down Fox News entirely?

Is this intolerant behavior the "change we've been waiting for?"

Waxing Poetic about Logic. Really.

Last night I gave a lecture to my three Dowling College students (yes, three), about the importance of logic and critical thinking.

I am perhaps the only person I know who can get excited about this subject.

Perhaps I can capture some of that magic here.

Logic was one of those remarkable gifts given us by Aristotle, the great observer of nature, who found and captured patterns in everything, from the heavens, to state constitutions, to thought itself.

In stepping back, even from thinking itself, to observe its patterns, we are able to control thinking, and expand its power. (We also discover deep mysteries in it, and paradoxes. More on that below.)

If we observe the syllogism: "All mebops are ziggly. Zanthor is a mebop. Therefore, Zanthor is ziggly" we understand the power of logic. No, seriously.

Why? Because we recognize that logic illuminates aspects of thought that move beyond questions of truth.

First, this nonsense example shows that thought has a flow. From premises to conclusions. We feel impelled to draw a certain kind of conclusion, even in this example about something we have no experience of, because of that flow. From here Aristotle would catalog way in which thought flows properly and improperly. ("Validity")

Secondly, that flow is supported by our ability to say "if this were true." An awareness of this aspect of thinking is important because it is the basis of hypothetical or imaginative thinking. Once we recognize the flow of thought, and its roots in saying "if this were true" of the premises, we become self-consciously aware of our ability to turn on and off the truth of statements or claims about reality.

Combine that with the idea of the flow of thought, and we become aware of what might follow when we combine new thoughts or truths together. That ability to see the implications is powerful.

(I often use the example of Steve Jobs, whose own logical skills allowed him to consider what it would mean for the world if it were true that there were personal computers. Even as many others, such as the bankers who rejected him, could not consider the possibility, stuck as they were in the logic that supported only the current uses of the mainframe.)

Michael Gelb's books on genius, such as "How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci" and "Discover Your Genius," opened my eyes to thinking of logic this way, as he argues that genius is not mere intuition, but a powerful combination of intuitive, imaginative thinking with deep analytical skills, uniting both sides of the brain. Geniuses had to be conscious of the assumptions of their current pursuits, so as to transcend them.

Hearkening back to the dialectic of his teacher, Plato, Aristotle's description of thought as moving from premises and conclusions also makes us aware of the need to examine the truth of our premises; themselves the conclusions of some rudimentary previous "arguments" in our minds. Hence, for example, how did we come to believe that "all mebops are ziggly"?

We begin to recognize that all thought is built on previous thought. Even as we also see that those previous thoughts disappear into the mysterious depths of our memory and our senses. Only a small portion of our thought "flow" or process is available to us at the conscious level. A riddle.

One can see here the groundwork for everything from Augustine's awe-inducing reflections "On Memory" in the Confessions, to Descartes' consideration of the Evil Genius, to Freud's theories of the Unconscious.

From these kinds of mysteries, people might be inclined to conclude that thought disintegrates into impenetrable irrationality. However, despite that mysterious disappearance of prior thought into the depths of the senses and unconscious, I still believe Aristotle's gift of logic remains inherently progressive.

Only by recognizing one's premises and those of others can one move toward any kind of consensus at all. (Or any act of forward-thinking genius, as I noted above.)

We continue even today to strive via the dialectic in psychology, art, and other disciplines to draw our experiences from the depths, into conscious awareness.

We learn to examine prior premises, even our own, for the larger purpose of understanding, expression, and yes, even reaching agreement.

How about Re-Engineering our Distrusted Media?

So CNN reports alleged racist "quotes" Rush Limbaugh made without fact-checking them. But it does fact check a parody done by Saturday Night Live about President Obama. Public trust of the media is at all time lows, because of bias and shoddy reporting like this.

Meanwhile, my and many other local newspapers are dying for lack of readership.

How would an engineer solve this problem? Or an entrepreneur? I asked myself these questions this morning as I looked over the tabloid rack at the local supermarket.

How about if the media began doing what engineers and entrepreneurs do all the time? As I am trying to do with my own small business ventures on the model of The E-Myth Revisited, by Michael Gerber.

That is, put processes in place to standardize where there is variation, and remove "bias" surprises, so that the media consumer knows more of what to expect.

How?

These days, a self-policing "ombudsmen" reporting on the media outlet itself is about as far as many media outlets go. And that weekly or monthly cleanup comes usually too late for our rapid fire news cycle. And, quite frankly, such people and stories are boring.

How about making the processes by which stories are written more transparent to the consumer? How about posting them in a wiki, for ongoing modification, and maybe even public comment, or task-taking when the story goes awry. And linking to them in each and every story written for additional comment?

For example, a captured process might say, if a story is about X controversy (abortion, taxes, government spending), then the following must be included.

You get the idea. The first tries and "captures" of these processes in a media team wiki, for example, will be halting and have mistakes. But think about what it would mean if CNN, or Fox News or MSNBC created processes that the public could compare the stories against, for quality and consistency!

If we allow "advocacy journalism" on television or in print, another process could describe how it should be clearly delineated to the consumer at the beginning.

I think that would improve the quality of journalism, restore public confidence, and also sharpen the discussion in areas where "opinion" is tolerable.

Given the lousy shape of the media, I'm surprised it has not been done already.

Commentary on a Recent Viral Video Defense of Religion

Some of my Facebook friends are passing around the video below. It's an interesting defense of religious belief, going viral on the Internet. It's good to see that not only the atheists like social media.



The argument made by the young Albert Einstein in this video is one taken directly, although in less scientific form, from St. Augustine, its original author.

Simply put, evil is not "real" but rather the absence or "privation" of goodness.

Augustine made this argument against the Manicheans, who held that evil was an equal and opposing force to good. If so, Augustine reasoned, then man has no free will, being caught up simply in the war of two opposites. A convenient deterministic theory for escaping responsibility.

An elaboration of this argument is made in a modern context by author Jean Bethke Elshtain in a talk given at GooglePlex, entitled, "Harry Potter, St. Augustine and the Confrontation with Evil." In it, she elaborates on the idea of evil as a parasitic form of non-being, using the examples of the Nazis and Voldermort from Harry Potter." It's a very interesting talk, parts of which I show my philosophy students every year.




Interestingly in the first video, however, the young Einstein makes a "reductionist" argument against his instructor. He cites darkness as the absence of light, not a reality itself at the subatomic level. The same for cold, which is the absence of heat, which is subatomic activity.

However, if one were to rely on the subatomic level, what would we say about love? Is it a reality at that level, or something else?

There are risks to denying realities that man experiences at his own level. That is why Einstein's instructor is onto something, and why the argument for atheism persists. Because just like our experience of love, we experience cold, or darkness, or myriad other evils at our own, not the subatomic level.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about this very same point. And about my concerns with the limits of Augustine's argument.

I sometimes think Augustine's argument is stretched too far from its original purposes.

If one proposes that evil is a lack or privation, then it is merely a zero or non-being. There is nothing to see in it, only to ponder the mystery, as Ms. Elshtain does, of its parasitical nature.

But what if one looks at the myriad manifestations of evil in the world? The privations of so many goods, that yield so many different and disturbing forms of evil, at our human level, not the metaphysical or the subatomic.

This is the gist of the black comic points made in first video in the comic series "Mr. Deity," which I truly enjoy, even as it disturbs me greatly. The episode is entitled "Mr. Deity and the Evil."



God is questioned as to why he wants SO MANY evils. Now, one could argue that God simply wanted to create so many goods. And each good must, by God's own plan face its own potentially horrifying privation. Granted, privation is the absence of good. I've got that.

But at another level, you must consider the black comic point above. What the heck is the plan for history when there is so much evil that seems to be driving it? Just think of the Nazis, for example. Or child abuse. Or cancer. History is moved greatly by the reality of evil. Privation is everywhere. Pervasive.

Collectively, we are resilient in the face of it no doubt. But I do not believe, as I noted in a previous post, that one can dismiss an individual's being scandalized by the experience of it, as Michael Novak has done at times, as a "morose" concern with it.

I have no answer to the comic point raised above. Except to recall the point made by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, which scandalized me in graduate school. (II-II, Q. 19, Article 11. "Whether Fear Remains in Heaven.")

Aquinas argued that even in a state of beatitude in Heaven, man would still feel fear of God. This entire passage is contained in a section on "The Gift of Fear" contained in a larger treatise on "Hope." (I think this section bears re-reading on my part, for sure.)

I don't think Aquinas would be willing to call God "dark." But when one considers the prominent role of evil and suffering in the world, and even the scandalous and almost fetishistic obsession among Christians with evil and suffering, one can't help but feel disturbed. By them, and by God's apparent "plan" for "sacred history," so-called.

Is it in any way inefficient? If so, what does that say about the nature of God?

It certainly disturbs atheists, especially when they read the gleeful way in which Christians were willing to see them in a state of eternal damnation for their annoying lack of faith. Today, we have far more empathy and understanding of our fellow man, and should reject co-dependency with them, for their and our own sake. And recognize that their concerns are our own.

A Weekend with a Theme

I entered this past weekend with one thought. "This is the anniversary of my mother's death." I don't know what I expected of this anniversary. There is nothing about a 22nd anniversary that should mark it as special.

What's more, as I have noted in other places in this blog, I believe I have long since outgrown the religious habit of seeking signs; a habit that bound me closely to my mother in my youth. So, why would I expect this kind of anniversary to yield any thoughts of significance?

During my mother's illness, I sought signs more than ever, and thought I found them. I saw them everywhere. My mother would be OK. I only felt betrayed when they did not bear out.

In the years that have followed, my advanced education and teaching of critical thinking has taught me too much about confirmation biases and other quirks of the mind to allow myself to get so carried way again. Better to wander with no "signs" at all, I have thought, and see what happens. Reality has other ways to hit you in the head.

But perhaps this weekend, I still wanted something. Perhaps I am still a child who wants something from his mother. Perhaps also, the lingering effects of baptism are not so easily washed away. And the foolishness of religious sign-seeking is permanently embedded in me.

As I awoke this morning, one thought occurred to me. Whatever I thought I sought from this anniversary, I may have received. More on that after this necessary explanation.

My mother died 22 years ago from a brain tumor. Her death was traumatic to our family. She was the center of it. A source of strength. In the days that followed my father did not do very well, and things looked very shaky for all of us. Somehow, though, we managed to survive.

Her death also seriously shook my religious faith for the first time. In way that never recovered, thanks also to reinforcement from the events of 9/11 and a few years of natural disasters that followed, and other, deeper personal crises.

All of which revolved around hopes and dreams being snuffed out. My mother had just turned 48 when she died. The last of her children would soon go to school. And my mother would be free, finally, to pursue dreams she had put on hold for many years.

Her potential would go unfulfilled.

When I saw the infamous photo of the man falling to his death on 9/11, upside down, I meditated on what his hopes for the future were that morning, before he found himself in that nightmare. The same could be said for the water-swept dead bodies in the photos of "The Tsunami" and Hurricane Katrina.

I have always been an actualization person. I want very much to grow. I value the desire to grow in others highly. It inspires me and attracts me.

I have suffered as an idealist in Fortune 1000 to Fortune 100 corporations for 7 years now. I have learned many things about growth there, and grown enormously during that time. But I found those places did not really create the cultures they preached about. And it frustrated me terribly.

I despise statism for many reasons, but perhaps most importantly, because it shackles the natural growth potential of human beings.

I have come to learn over the course of my life that personal growth is highly important to me. And I continue to think about how it is frustrated quite often in life. And I wonder how a God can make that part of his plan, for his inherently forward-looking creatures.

***

I find myself in perhaps the toughest situation of my professional career. Out of work for now seven months, I have struggled like never before to understand my marketability, and myself. I have made unprecedented, expensive investments of time and energy in myself and my own career. And I am, for whatever reason, struggling to show for it.

Not in personal growth. I have learned a great deal about myself. I have valuable clarity about a number of important issues.

But in more tangible ways, things are very tough now. I won't be able to get by much longer at all. Things could become very bad, as winter approaches. And that will affect the "growth" of possibilities for the four shining stars of my life, my beloved children. Thoughts of their suffering, and restricted possibilities in life have haunted me in recent weeks.

***

My weekend began on Friday night with an unexpected phone call from my sister Susan. She had a baby just a few weeks ago. We don't often talk on the phone. Now would seem to be even less opportune for her. And yet, she just wanted to say hello, and to offer encouragement, and financial help if necessary. I was deeply touched by her call. It carried me for hours and hours after with a bit of hope.

On Saturday, I had many plans to continue my networking, my job search, and the daunting plans to build my own business. But I felt exhausted. The thought of continuing with all this effort for yet another, fruitless day, where there was only I and no RO on the I was not appealing.

My two sons roped me into the "Rocky Marathon." I would watch one with them perhaps. I didn't think they would watch the first Rocky movie for long. Too much Paulie and Adrian and not enough slugging in the ring. But, to my great surprise, they did watch. Along with Rocky II, III and even part of IV. With me right along with them. My plans would go to hell for Saturday, and I felt better. I also appreciated Sylvester Stallone's screenwriting like I had not before. Recognizing adult themes of suffering, and hope, and redemption like I had not as a kid, when I saw these movies for the first time.

Sunday morning, I returned from church, which I left earlier than ever in my life, to find the boys ponying up their own money to watch "Rocky Balboa" on demand. OK, another Rocky movie. I'll bite again. And more admiration for Stallone, especially when he, playing a "has been" in the movie, lectures his son about the importance of getting up again after being knocked down.

Sunday afternoon we took the kids to Sunken Meadow State Park, where the kids just swam. I took their pictures along the rocky beach, confident that some day we would all look back on those photos fondly. And I forgot nearly all of my worries.

And then, Sunday evening, when everyone was asleep, I read a small pamphlet from the Five O'clock Club, which talked about the daunting challenges of the new economy, as well as the great rewards that would follow if workers would only take charge of their own careers. New growth, new flexibility and constant change in response. But all built around a vision that comes from deep inside, which, when acted upon, can be deeply satisfying.

And then, oddly, a chance encounter with Joel Osteen on my television. A man who combines religious preaching with a gospel of self-help and success. I respect his conviction, but I don't accept uncritically his assertions. To me, they often lack evidence.

By strange coincidence however, this night, I found him repeating the same theme I heard from Rocky Balboa earlier in the day. When life knocks you down, he said with his trademark squint and a smile, you have to keep getting up. He cited his friend stricken three times with cancer, and other anecdotes. What can you say to that? It's not an argument. To me it simply seemed self-evident. What else can you do, unless you want to lay down and die?

In the silence of Sunday evening, I found myself wondering why some people choose to look at the good anecdote, the hopeful one, and not the bad one, as I often do. Why is our world half beautiful and half horrible? Which makes you more of a fool? Despair? Or hope?

As I awoke this morning, I realized that my entire weekend, which went nothing as planned, was filled with themes of hope. From start to finish.

An anniversary gift from my mother? Perhaps.

Confirmation bias? Perhaps.

Article: What Would Reagan Do About Torture?

Steve Chapman, writing in Reason magazine, sums up feelings I have long had about the debate over so-called "enhanced interrogation methods" practiced by the CIA against Al-Qaeda suspects.

Political conservatives, including those at the Wall Street Journal and my old employer, National Review, have been far too uncritical of these methods and the people who practiced them.

Partly they do this for political reasons, it seems to me. Because in a political prize fight with the left, fought for current advantage, they are rooting for their old warrior Dick Cheney. Who is flat out wrong about this issue.

Partly they and Cheney make this case because they are all uncritical about the underlying moral principle they are embracing. Which Chapman notes, is "the ends justify the means."

Chapman makes two important points, which I would like to elaborate on.

The first is that no less than Ronald Reagan denounced torture and supported legislation banning it.

From Chapman:

"He would get an argument from Ronald Reagan, who signed an international ban on torture, which made no allowances for grave security threats. 'No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture,' it says.


"Reagan undoubtedly knew what modern conservatives forget—that once you rationalize torture, there is no logical place to stop. If threatening a prisoner with a power drill is permissible, why not drilling holes in him? If choking is OK, why not strangulation? If threatening to kill a detainee's children passes muster, why not actually killing them? If 30 wall slams don't do the job, why not 100?"


Reagan's moral logic was unambiguously clear. The ends never justify the means.

What would conservatives say to that?

Perhaps they might argue that Reagan had the luxury of saying such things because he was not faced with "an immediate threat."

Perhaps. But I find, as I noted in a previous post, a disturbing eagerness for some conservatives to adopt the morally liminal persona of Col. Nathan R. Jessup. Perhaps in a need to feel culturally "important." To make a patriotic contribution.

Jessup, you may recall, is a character in the play and film "A Few Good Men" who is both proud, and tortured by his existence in a morally liminal space from the rest of society:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. "

The morally arrogant Jessup embraces ends-justify-the-means thinking to "save lives." In so doing he inflates his own sense of importance as a kind of morally liminal superman who lives on the boundaries of society.

Yet, when he returns to civilization, to a world of laws, he finds himself, paradoxically, disoriented in being charged with a crime for ordering the death of someone under his command.

Why do societies have laws at all? Just laws. To protect people from those who think they can do good and "save lives" or other morally righteous things by trampling over what man possesses from God and nature." In other words, law itself is a rebuke to utilitarianism.

If some conservatives do not seek to "conserve" the idea that the ends do not justify the means, or that there are, in the same vein, limits on the power of the king rooted in nature itself (Magna Carta anyone?) then they stand for the conservation of nothing.

I have long thought about this debate, and even the so-called "conservative" position on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Toykyo and the total war assault on Dresden, that the right has adopted utilitarian ethics in direct contradiction of all that they stand for otherwise.

Reagan may have had his own moments of "utility" emanating from his perceptions of immediate threats. That is a longer debate.

But in a choice between Reagan conservatism, or today's regnant "Nathan R. Jessup conservatism" on this issue, I have always been a Reagan conservative.

The second point Chapman makes is a good one, and more philosophically subtle, but supports the first and needs to be looked at more carefully.

The CIA Inspector General's report on these methods, Chapman notes, came to no conclusion about the "effectiveness" of their use, because, as the author of the report noted, you cannot. The reasoning is utilitarian, which is inherently shaky in its attempts to calculate the long term benefits of any act, since you have no alternative to future to test it against.

As no less a conservative than Hadley Arkes, a contributor to National Review and other conservative journals, noted in his book "First Things" "The effects of Ceaser crossing the Rubicon are never all in."

Which sums up perfectly the philosophical criticism of utilitarian reasoning. Only by selectively looking at the "effects" of such actions as atomic bombings, waterboading and more, can you say that they "worked."

Worked for whom, and for how long?

Leftists are wrong about many things, and far too eager to attack America. They also embrace their own utilitarian reasoning when their "emergencies" seem to justify them. They would break down the rule of law just as quickly, if not more so, than libertarian-minded rightists.

But their criticism and reminders about what "works" here are useful. They are not automatically wrong to see utilitarian acts in war as inherently generative of, if I may borrow a term from another field, "codependent" responses. Or, as the CIA calls it: "blowback."

More concretely, President Barack Obama is wrong about so many things, and I find his policy positions dangerous. That is worth emphasizing.

But his being wrong about those things is not a good reason to stop up our ears and reject outright the argument that emanates from his mouth that America will be hurt by acts like these. To reject an argument because we reject a person or persons politically is anecdotal and illogical folly.

Only by selectively looking at torture from the perspective of an American public relations campaign can one say it worked, while ignoring all the things that may yet happen as a result: in generating more terrorists, or destroying the American brand abroad, which leads to easy rationalizations of acts of terrorism and total war against America.

Maybe not in ways that are immediately tangible, but America can be hurt by ends-justify-the-means acts.

Consider this possibility. We are rightfully outraged against the attacks of September 11th. They violate all known moral principles of just war and are repugnant.

But they are, without a doubt, some of the unintended consequences of all acts of total war that preceded and the selective calculations they entailed. Including Truman dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Acts of terrorism against America are acts of total war against a country which in the minds of the fanatics of Al-Qaeda has is collectively "guilty" and has embraced total war itself.

They are wrong about this of course. Collective guilt is morally impossible, except in the minds of fanatics.

"America" has not embraced total war. Even if, as bin-Laden argued, all Americans pay taxes to support the American government.

All Americans live today in a country which is the way it is because of all of its previous choices.

The mistake, made by Osama bin Laden, and Dick Cheney, is that all Americans see it as Jessup's blanket, which we embrace, or in the minds of Cheney, should embrace.

But we do not all embrace it that way. Many Americans have supported total war. Many Americans have not.

What makes a country "innocent" in this regard is that its morality is not determined by the choices of some in power. Even if those in power are supported by a majority.

It is precisely in the room under its laws for moral and political deliberation that all countries are "innocent." And even where there is no room for such deliberation, in totalitarian regimes, a vast majority of the people under such regimes remain "innocent" and deserving of the protection emanating from venerable rules of just war thinking.

Because government exists for the protection of individuals, not groups.

Finally, a personal note, which might provide some political insight.

Growing up as a Roman Catholic, in a Reagan Democrat household, I believed in moral certainties. They were the blanket I embraced, and seemed to provide a simple, straightforward path to self-discovery, self-awareness, individuation or whatever else you might call it.

As I learned only later in my teaching of the venerable myths of all of mankind, liminality and disorientation must follow.

Adulthood did follow, where I experienced the codependent and tribal behavior of politics, 9/11, natural disasters, and my own personal experiences of evil, and tragedy and all the confusing inclinations of my own complex and sinful mind.

At the root of all this confusion is the Creator. The comforting God of my childhood is now perhaps the primary source of my disorientation. I find myself questioning everything about him, and the tangled pattern of his world.

Why the need for emergencies, and moral liminality? Why so much scandal, and confusion? Why is there no simple path in life, where one can relax about oneself and one's choices?

During this time of confusion, I cling instinctively to the principle articulated above, as a last vestige of hope in the Creator himself. The ends do not justify the means.

Because if there are no praiseworthy paths written into the nature of things on behalf of individuals to follow to get where they must be, there is no Creator.

If there are only "circumstances," from which elites help us escape at times, but for no greater purpose for the individuals who do escape; if there is only escape, there is no ultimate "arrival." Life is reduced to mere escape, for as long as possible, and nothing more.

Yes, as Thomas More says in the play, "A Man for All Seasons," "our natural business lies in escaping." Of man serving God "in the tangle of his mind."

But that is individual man, not collective man, or some individual mind making tangled calculations on behalf of the collective. It is an individual act of escaping real evil and choosing real goods.

I find myself disoriented at this point in my life about many things, but not about this one principle. It is the last wall between me, and nihilism.

Logically related to this, is something that has always stayed with me from the Gospels: Jesus, when confronted by individual sinners, never treated them with contempt. It is as if he recognized that even in their sin, there was at some point also personal confusion and disorientation. That all of life entails this disorientation. Jesus forgave them, as a way of righting them again, and encouraged them to keep moving forward.

Perhaps at this time, the proper answer to this political fight is to reflect more on the principles in question, and how individuals in our government have fallen short of right action, during a time when confusion is easily possible. Confusion which lessens, but does not eliminate guilt.

The correct answer is to pardon those involved in our government who were confused. And to move forward.

Improvisation One Hundred Years Later

When I was a teenager learning about music from my bass teacher, who was an ardent fan of Charlie Parker and Lennie Tristano, the notion of improvisation intimidated me immensely. After listening intently to these guys on vinyl, and observing my teacher's raptured looks, I thought to myself, "how does one choose?"

Being far away from technical mastery of my instrument didn't help. Licks were not yet embedded in my consciousness, even as my teacher urged me to "play what you hear." I didn't as yet hear much of anything.

Yet, if that genius was intimidating, what would a brilliant improvisational genius look like today, or even years from now, given all the tools that are available to us thanks to the likes of the late Les Paul (multitrack recording and editing) and Robert Moog (synthesis)?

Our ability to alter the parameters of sound extend to timbre, waveforms and more. Things the great Parker and Tristano did not have to calculate in their amazing minds.

What will the next great musical "genius" show us? (There are so many geniuses running around, perhaps there will not be a "one" or "two" greats.)

DJ's and remixers stir my imagination. (See the Pandora Musicology Series Episode below for a description of but the smallest of sampling thinking.) Because they are fluent in thinking about the alteration of musical parameters, quite often in live settings. Granted some electronic dance music is highly repetitve. Granted also, the audience is not always paying attention to the nuances, because they are dancing instead.

But some live performances with sound remixing are truly amazing. How do these artists' minds work? What exactly is their "instrument?" How do they "play what they hear" when what they can hear is literally the entire panopoly of what they have heard before in not just music (vinyl, CDs and MP3s) but what they have found in life (movie clips, sounds of nature, the human voice and more.)

How far could a contemporary Charlie Parker go in improvising sound?

And why stop with sound?

More on that in the next post.

From Pandora:


The three members of hip hop group V.E.R.A. Clique, one producer/beatmaker (Dan Craig) and two MCs (Anderson Ray and Macsen Apollo) join producer/beatmaker Johnny Igaz to talk about sampling. We look at hardware vs. software sampling, hear how different drum tones are layered to make for fuller hits, and dissect a sampled production. Craig and Igaz both work here at Pandora as well. (11 mins.)

That link above is to V.E.R.A. Clique's site, but this one is to their Pandora artist profile.

View Original Article

A Simple Philosophy to Help Mankind

I am a recovering political junkie. I don't like the controversy of politics, or how crazy it makes people. I prefer not to wade into political controversy when there is very little chance of winning. I have learned a lot of hard lessons about this activity over the years and I try to stay on the wagon.

But now, when wild charges are being lobbed around about why people don't want so much government spending and debt and intervention into various sectors of the economy, we see some people, our leaders in government, engaged in the most outrageous ad hominem attacks and demonization against anyone who disagrees with them and their wild, self-serving activities.

I don't like being called a member of some conspiracy or a hateful person simply because I don't have faith in government's (read: mediocre, headline-chasing politicians) ability to save us from ourselves.

Embedded below is a very simple, powerful statement of facts about our current government programs. And a clear articulation of why markets work to improve the general well being of humanity and government does not.

There is no hate in this. There is no "code" or conspiracy. There is nothing here that well-intentioned progressives can take umbrage at. (Although, they will never give me the same credit of good intentions if I say that I truly believe the market, not government, is the best way to make life better for my fellow man.)

For the self-righteous progressive, people who articulate the cause of freedom can never be taken at face value. Why? Because to do so would require the hard work and risk to one's own righteous self-image of having to address real arguments and real facts like those articulated by Judge Napolitano below.

This Week with the Band: Takeaways

We played a great gig the other night at Kappler's Bar and Hotel in Patchogue. A quaint and clean place as bars go, literally just south of the railroad tracks.

Takeaways from this week's performance with the band:

• I am much more comfortable playing and singing out in clubs than before. People were three feet away from me and it didn't bother me a bit.
• My amp can sound fine, and so can everybody else's. But we have to have a dedicated sound person out there covering our mix. Can't rely on just the goodwill of our musician friends.The mix was good, but some anomalies arose.
  
• The crowd loved our uptempo numbers. In a short set like that, don't drop down that energy with something more obscure and slower, like we did right in the middle of the set this time.
• There are so many wonderful, talented folks out there, doing just what we did. Getting together under the auspices of our promoter/host to perform because we love it. Some of the attendees blew me away with their singing and playing ability, and inspired me to work harder at both.

Our next gig is Saturday, August 8th, at Bartini in Babylon. (bartinibar.com). Another short warm up set. More lessons to be learned. More nice people to meet.

Another Fun Musical Discovery: Bonobo

Pandora.com just keeps making my musical life better. Another great sonic revelation for me is DJ and remixer Bonobo. (The flute can be so cool.)

Here's a wonderful sample from YouTube.

A Meditation on Life's Absurdity is No Place for Politics

I'm a sucker for meditation on life's mysteries and meaning. In fact, I think of myself lately as a "logos-holic."

So why wouldn't I like the new, much-talked-about production of Exit the King, starring Geoffrey Rush? Particularly given my turn toward existentialism of late, and its cutting meditations on life's absurdities, as well as Rush's acclaimed performance?

Heather MacDonald notes the power of the play, but bemoans the politically didactic production.

I think a fair-minded person would agree that if I approach of work a literature deeply concerned about my own mortality, the fleeting nature of my desire and the falling away of all that is within me, the last thing I care about is George W. Bush, as cast member Susan Sarandon and the show's producer do; attempting to shoehorn it into this great work.

Why are they not denounced as philistines then by the theater community? I don't know.

But perhaps I'll search Amazon for another production of this masterpiece.

Thanks anyway, Broadway.

Out of Suffering Comes Beauty: Górecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs

Tonight, due to the sadness of a long-suffering friend, I find myself reflecting very much on the troubles of this life.

To console myself somewhat, I turn to one of the most hauntingly beautiful pieces of music I have ever heard, inspired by great human suffering.

This classical music video is taken from the second movement of Henryk Górecki's Symphony No. 3. The vocals are sung with incredible passion by Dawn Upshaw.

Górecki has maintained that the overall work is about the ties between mother and child. (One might add to that the qualifier "broken by war.")

However, the second movement particularly was inspired by a prayer to the Virgin Mary scribbled by an 18-year old girl, Helena Wanda Blazusiakowna, on a Gestapo cell wall in the Polish town of Zakopane. She would later die there.

This particular piece of the symphony is often associated with Holocaust memorials, and was even performed at Auschwitz for a documentary film.

It is still one of my favorite pieces of music.

As I listen to it, I wonder what is it about suffering that draws beauty, even sometimes incredible, ethereal beauty such as this, into this world. And, why does it have to be that way?

I love teaching. It teaches me things. No matter if the material is old or new, I always learn something about a thinker, an idea, or myself.

This semester has been no different. I've had the new opportunity to teach Western Philosophy II, covering everyone from Descartes to Nietzsche. And learning so much in the process.

I find myself thinking a lot about the views of Soren Kierkegaard lately. I have not studied him much in my career. Yet, my thinking was like his during important times in my life.

Independently of Kierkegaard, but now with additional support in reading him, I find myself thinking about life in what I would call "existentialist" terms. As opposed to "sentimentalist" terms. Whether anyone will recognize this distinction the way I do I don't know. But what it means for me is that life is not uncomplicated by desire (sentimentality.) Life is defined by the frustration of desire more so, I think, than it's fulfillment.

But, start with Kierkegaard's views about the man who says confidently that he will come to a friend's dinner, only to be struck and killed by a falling tile that very same day. Kierkegaard's story to illustrate the fragility of life, our inability to speak with any confidence about the future, and our need to recognize the mystery of our existence, strikes me deeply. My own "tile" falling was the Falling Man at the World Trade Center. I meditated for months after the events of 9-11 on how those people that day went to work that morning thinking all about the future.

Those meditations reawakened in me and caused me to interpret anew my own mother's death at 48. She wanted a certain kind of future for herself, after many years of sacrificing for her children and husband. Yet, none of that came true for her.

What is desire then, which is future oriented? What is its function in God's world, which is fragile and contingent?

When desire is part of love, we say it comes from God. At least the first time, when you get married. After that, it's on its own.

What about desire for health, growth, self-development and success? Does that come from God? Even as it resides in the mind of the dying? At what point is it no longer "from God?"

What if we lose desire that "comes from God?" Is that possible?

Kierkegaard was puzzled by human desire. Yet, he tried ultimately to validate all of it through faith in God. Even faith in "impossible" things. He illustrates this in the story in Fear and Trembling of the common man who falls in love with a princess he can never possess. Yet, he will hold on to this impossibility through faith in God, in whom nothing is impossible. Of course, that faith no longer requires even the presence of the object of desire. The princess can go her way.

I interpret that story to say that the point is that the desire is held in faith as legitimate, despite its worldly impossibility and absurdity. Is Kierkegaard then validating desire in a Platonic fashion? The world can never fulfill the desire, but what we long for will find fulfillment nevertheless? Somehow?

Shades of C.S. Lewis's A Grief Observed, which I read repeatedly in high school. Lewis puzzles over the death of his beloved wife, in the face of a all loving God. He draws the conclusion that he will not simply get back what he once had. He will get back something much more deeply satisfying than what he previously had.

Shades of Thomas Aquinas as well, who holds that in the afterlife, the beatific vision provides first the intimate knowledge of God as first cause (an intellectual satisfaction) but all things thereafter that we "desire" are fulfilled as a secondary effect. See my previous post on that here.

Why is desire secondary, here and in the hereafter?

Free Physics Lectures Online

Ooh, boy! Only I can get excited about this. But a friend and former colleague with a science background sent me this link to the public lectures of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Subjects covered include natural laws and probability, Einstein, the Big Bang and more. For those moments in life when one's thinking drifts towards pure contemplation of ultimate causes.

No Exit for Three Idiots

The news today is that the new axis powers continue their "cooperation." Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad. The political murderer, the "president for life" and the Holocaust denier.

Hosting each others' ships and planes, and talking about "technology transfers."

These three dearly deserve each other. Just like the three characters in Jean Paul Sartre's "No Exit."

Who will screw whom in the end is anyone's guess. But character is destiny.

The Hidden Heroism of the Soul

I'm dashing off a quick thought this morning before class, based upon my experiences of recent days down at Robert Moses beach.

Why is it that so many people wander to the beach, or the mountains, a lake or the woods for solace?

What is it about landscapes and horizons that connects with us? I don't know.

But it has occurred to me recently that when I walk across a woods, or along an empty shoreline, that I am looking within life itself. And seeing my own soul. These natural, beautiful places point within, to deep and vast vistas of internal human drama.

And I wonder, like the physical landscapes created by all the force and violence of nature, can all that beauty of a windswept soul remain hidden forever? Will all that wonder, and desire to be seen and understood, be lost to history?

Or, is there something in nature, and in the order of things that demands that those vast landscapes too will be revealed someday, for all to contemplate and share in wonder?

Adding a Dark Layer to Prayer?

I can't explain exactly why, but I have had a hard time praying for quite some time. It's because my view of God is so much darker than before.

I still hang on to the belief going back to the Book of Job that God's ways are not my ways. There seems no other way to explain it all, short of atheism.

But in the past I would have thought of God as an unknowing bull in the china shop of my life. He just goes about his business, never mind the damage. (That's a theologically unsound view by the way, even if it seems to explain life. Because God is supposed to be all knowing.)

Okay then. Add in my life experience (and inner doubts) and there is new dark context to this belief about God's ways. God's ways seem to do more than just ignore my ways. The all knowing being, I think now, must also surely know that He adds pain to my way. That "His ways" frustrate me sometimes. The he makes a mockery of my projecting myself into the future, simply because of what He "allows."

* * *

Lately, a thought has occurred to me about a new dimension that should be part of my prayer. I don't know why, since it seems masochistic. But, it seems when I pray for something in my life, I should meditate on all the people in the world suffering similar experiences to my own. And acknowledge that it would be manifestly unfair of me to expect any kind of relief when God allows, and has allowed for centuries, so many others to experience the same pains and losses without relief.

(Is God making this obvious to me, or is it Satan whispering it in my ear?)

The act of asking, considered in this light, is ridiculous. Why should I expect any help? I shouldn't.

And yet, I always do. Why?

Music's Blessing: It Can't Be Misunderstood

A week or so ago, I posted a "tweet" to Twitter (gosh, I hate even saying that) suggesting that Music and the Mind by Anthony Storr was interesting, but contained no major revelation for me.

I wish to recant that statement (tweet - ugh). Storr recounted an observation by the author Marcel Proust that in the absence of language, which is inherently problematic due to its ambiguity, vagueness, etc. music might have provided an effective way for mankind to communicate.

I have been thinking about this idea for about a week now, and wishing it were true. Music provides me with such solace. But language always fails me in explaining myself. It is subject to misinterpretation. (That is probably why I have always been so enamored of the "principle of charity" in interpretation. In fact, I wrote about it in my other blog.)

I have often imagined that heaven is a place where musical celebration would take place all the time. Perhaps, if Proust is right, it is the very essence of the afterlife. Works for me.

Thoughts on Completing "No One Sees God" by Michael Novak

Following up on the promise made in a previous post, I have finished Michael Novak's "No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers." Finally. It's a worthwhile, if somewhat slow read for people like me, who are struggling to understand the darker sides of life and religious faith.

Some concerns to start: The book meanders (Novak acknowledges this) and begins with a pious tone before polemics. Not a good way to start the book in my estimation. You lose the unbeliever. But that is not likely to be the reading audience of this book, I think.

In the current atmosphere of aggressively polemical atheism and constant exposure to the reality of evil through the mass media, I would have preferred that Novak begin the work in a more direct, logical format. Some more trivial arguments (such as that Christians report having more satisfying sex than atheists) could have been left out.

Additionally, Novak is such a happy warrior for faith that he may not recognize how his pious tone fails with non-believers. Overall, the book feels like it is written, especially in the beginning, for those who are already highly conversant with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That aside, there are things to recommend the book. Including some provocative ideas. Here are a few random highlights for me:

Platonism: It is powerfully evident that Novak relies heavily on Platonic "eros" or constant striving for truth as a fundamental drive in the universe, one which explains science itself. Having taught such eros for many years now at local colleges, I can say that it is intoxicating and makes one interested in seeking the terminal point of all knowledge and levels of being. However, one must have a certain cast of mind to accept this argument, and Novak could have done some more work to explain that eros, in Plato's divided line, his reliance on mathematical forms as the spur to his own ideas, etc. This might have been helpful in adding significance to his argument.

God the Novelist. Often times Novak refers to God as an author-like figure, with a taste for drama. Indeed. This idea bothers me (it seems insouciant about evil) and provokes me. I have found myself slipping into my usual meditations on evil and suffering and rather than thinking of God as uncaring, this idea makes me think of God as deeply involved in the unfolding of the story. But, it also makes me think of God as somewhat bipolar, who is likely to "allow" crazy things to you just for his own kicks of a good story. This is an idea I am thinking about a lot lately.

Secularism Crumbling. In the concluding chapters of the book, Novak provides a valuable overview of the origins of "secularism" in Christianity. He notes the tensions which have arisen within modern, militant secularism, challenged from within by the likes of Nietzsche, Derrida, etc. And, the risks that secularism taken to its nihilist extremes might energize fascism. Additionally, I was unfamiliar with many of Irving Kristol's arguments against secularism and will be sure to look into those more.

Constructive Dialogue. When I attended Fordham University for my graduate philosophy degree, Jurgen Habermas's name was much bandied about. I had other concerns at the time, but Novak has stoked my interest, insofar as Habermas, not a believer, is yet an active proponent of dialogue with belief, and recognizes that certain important concepts within the unbeliever's lexicon are heavily dependent upon their religious origins. This struck me as a jumping off point of a Socratic dialogue between belief and unbelief, where certain key terms seen darkly must have their meaning clarified by a healthy metaphysical answer. Additionally fascinating to learn, the acknowledgments of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) in dialogue with Habermas about the "toxicity" that religion can generate, and how it must be purified in dialogue with the secular.

The Two Faces of Belief. Darkness within faith is not the product of reading the "wrong books." Such as when I have read and taught David Hume, for example. Novak calls for a healthy respect for and dialogue with atheism because we see in atheists another side of ourselves. If we are honest. From Novak's appendix of favorite "dark" biblical passages, to the Via Negativa of the Pseudo-Dionysios to the Dark Night of John of the Cross, there are strains of darkness within religious faith. We need more such resources in a modern form. And I felt a certain sense of relief at reading Novak's acknowledgments of this aspect of faith and his call for an open discussion of it.

Perhaps we will yet see progress in our lifetimes.

A Few Thoughts on Kate Winslet

A few thoughts this weekend for the Long Island Sentinel on Kate Winslet's win at the Academy Awards.

Despite the views expressed by Hollywood elites like Winslet and husband Sam Mendes about the unfeeling life of the suburbs, their choice of projects might say something about their own feel for life, morality and aesthetics.

Bill Moyers? Really?

I had heard the story about Bill Moyers trying to dig up dirt on Jack Valenti's sexual orientation when he worked in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. But apparently there's a whole lot more dirty tricks in Moyers' past than I had ever known. Wow.

The picture to the right is Moyers back in the day. One could run an interesting caption contest on what he is hearing. Feel free to add your suggestions in the comments.

P.S. I met Jack Valenti back when I worked at National Review. He struck me as a dapper, somewhat Napoleonic figure, what with his square jaw and deep booming Texas voice compensating somewhat for a diminutive stature. If this was his mien consistently through his life, then it seems to me only the politically obsessed, such as J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ and Moyers could have projected onto him that he was hiding something about himself.

Sentinel Interview with Steve Levy

Interesting interview with Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, a Democrat, one of Long Island's most fiscally responsible and emotionally intelligent politicians; often spoken of as a candidate for higher office.

I've known Steve Levy for a number of years in my experience as a columnist for Newsday. While I don't agree with everything Steve stands for, there is no doubt that we could use more elected officials of his character and sense of responsibility to the electorate.

A Baseball Contribution, and Some Additional Thoughts

Another contribution to the Long Island Sentinel, this time about my desire to skip the baseball season this year.

It's just going to be another unpleasant season, with the steroid mania, and all the rest. I spent the last several years obsessing over the Yankees chances, only to be disappointed. Add in the controversy, and I don't need it.

Not to mention, professional sporting events are ridiculously overpriced. In the golden days of baseball, tickets were relatively cheap, and baseball was a rite of family bonding. Now, the world is much more heterogeneous, and offers so many more choices of what to do. Why waste so much time when there are so many other ways to develop oneself, rather than idolize those who will eventually disappoint you?

Chavez a Lifer: Venezuela's a Goner

We are living in strange, dangerous times. With yesterday's news that Hugo Chavez can have his job for life, it's time to short Venezuela. Latin America should prepare for refugees.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to emasculate itself with massive deficit spending, and the promise of more interventionist regulation and spending to come.

The world, it seems, is on a path to fiscal instability and the increasing politicization of economies. Willingly, through the popular vote.

Madness.

Newsweek Not the Best Source of Economic Advice

Bias and economic illiteracy continue to rule in the mainstream news media, as Daniel Gross at Newsweek has put forth a stupid argument against tax cuts.

Gross's entire argument is predicated on the notion that tax cuts won't stimulate immediate consumption - contrary to conservative claims. A college professor may feel especially "flush" and buy books, Gross argues, but an average worker, in today's unique economic climate of fear, will not.

Putting aside the specious claim that today's climate is uniquely fearful, compared to say the days of the Carter Administration, Gross's argument is a straw man. It has nothing to do with the arguments that conservatives have been making on behalf of permanent, marginal tax rate cuts to create incentives to entrepreneurship and investment, which in turn creates new, good paying jobs.

It's never been about spurring consumption among the average worker. Newsweek is not the best source to get your economic policy guidance, I would suggest.

Did David Letterman Deliberately Abuse a Mentally Unstable Joaquin Phoenix?

Was David Letterman really the aggrieved party in his odd interview with Joaquin Phoenix? (Phoenix, who everyone knew from media reports, might be suffering from mental illness?) It seems to me that Letterman was somewhat prepared for what he got, and was equally ready to mock someone who could be mentally ill. (Even if it was a a "put on," as has been suggested, does David Letterman have a responsibility to his audience not to appear to be abusing the mentally ill? I never liked Brother Theodore on Letterman for the same reason.)

You lost me for good Dave, and I've been a fan from the beginning.

Should Letterman or Sean Hannity or the View really have had on Rod Blagojevich? It seems to me that our media heroes deserve some scorn sometime for the things they bring before us.

More Sully, less exploitation please.

AP Fact Checks Obama's "No Pork" and Other Fibs

Helpful piece today from the AP in response to what can only be described as brazen untruths told by President Barack Obama about his stimulus bill and his administration.

The campaign may be over, but the campaign mode is not. But it seems now the media are not so wowed by Obama and are beginning to question his tactics more seriously. A good development, if a little late.

Today's Contribution to the Long Island Sentinel

Another modest contribution today to the Long Island Sentinel, this time about Sam Tanenhaus's argument that "conservatism is dead."

I don't think so. I agree that America is not full of conservative true believers. Nor is it full of liberal true believers. There are many people who don't pay attention (which seems to me a sane approach to politics.)

But when people's backs are against the wall, and the porky stimulus god fails, and the economy worsens because of endless meddling (not that I am wishing for that, but there is something about adversity that will concentrate the mind), I think, with some discipline on the part of the Republican Party, conservatism can make a comeback. Here's to the midterms in 2010. Don't blow it this time GOP, with a return to your stupid, big spending ways.

Real Leaders Needed to Combat Forthcoming Inflation, or Stagflation

Make no mistake, with the Fed printing money like mad, inflation will return. George Melloan explains why it could also be a return to "stagflation."

The question that is particularly acute, especially after the disgraceful performance of Congress on the disgusting, irresponsible stimulus pork barrel bill, is are there any real "statesmen" in Congress, or in the government at all for that matter.

Leaders, who who will call the government and the country to account for its wishful fantasies that cheap money and spending by government on just about any stupid thing (Keynesian stimulus - a great excuse for pork) will solve all of our problems. America needs true courageous leaders in government, more than ever.