At one time in my life I would bristle at the accusation that we Yanks were decadent. I no longer do, chiefly because, in too many ways, we are.
In these rough economic times that may appear an odd lament, yet I stand by it. What type of luxuries have we demanded in recent years? Things such as seat warmers in our cars. Seat warmers? The seat is the first thing that warms up when you get in your car, in a span of maybe five seconds. This is before we even get to remote starters; how much money do you have that you can burn gasoline simply so that your car is toasty warm the instant you get in it? This at a time when, I'll say it even at the risk of appearing liberal, there are too many people in the world without enough to eat, and even too many in our country without proper access to housing and medical care.
I am not naive. I realize that there is no direct correlation between add-ons to cars and someone in Haiti lacking good food. I will even readily concede that these luxuries do have the positive side benefit of keeping people in jobs. Further, I recognize that the problems elsewhere are not, as a rule, our fault. As P. J. O'Rourke for example explains so very well in his funny and enlightening book All the Trouble in the World, many of those problems are caused by the local government in question and not American selfishness. Still, I have to ask whether this sort of consumerism is what we ought to be promoting when there are folks who lack basic necessities. On their own merit, I have to wonder whether they are worthwhile uses of our time, effort, and cash.
In short, that something is doable doesn't mean that it's worth doing. That we can buy something doesn't mean it's worth the purchase. What we consider basic creature comforts may be little more than modern forms of let them eat cake. I believe we would do our souls well to mull that over when we make certain purchases or demands on our productive forces.
Who knows? We may actually find that what we want isn't what we need.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
We Can't the War on Terror
The war on terror is so important it seems that even the President is acknowledging its importance with a troop surge in Afghanistan. This comes along with his recent admittance in Oslo that there is evil in the world, a comment unheard of from a modern Democrat. But the worst thing about this fight is the glaring fact that, when all gets said and done, we cannot win the war on terror.
The simple fact is, like evil, there will always be new forces and people willing to do things to harm other people, and impair their movement. We need only see what happened in Detroit in the last few days to understand as much. We cannot, in the long run, win something so amorphous and intangible as a war on individual human action. So, what do we do?
We fight it anyway. Just like we fight other evils. Just like humanity has had to do since the dawn of time.
The sad fact is that, as there will always be Caesars, Napoleons, and Hitlers, there too will always be little criminals, little renegades who desire nothing more than calling attention to themselves and their ultimately petty causes solely because they want to. There will always be those who think in terms of violence only, and take what pleasure they can from it in ways and forms which more civilized folks can't comprehend. That is almost entirely why we have police forces, armies and navies, and neighborhood watch programs.
It is the nature of the beast, simple as that. And that is why we must be better people and oppose it at every turn. That is why our resolve must never waver and we must always pursue and eradicate what we can. That is why we must meet their force with greater force.
We should not be surprised when new threats come from the darkest corners of the world; they rise from the dankest basements of the human mind. Where we must offer surprise, it must in shining light on evil and causing it to wither. Take away the raw hatred and replace it with the undying truth: we are better than they. We will oppose them no matter what.
The simple fact is, like evil, there will always be new forces and people willing to do things to harm other people, and impair their movement. We need only see what happened in Detroit in the last few days to understand as much. We cannot, in the long run, win something so amorphous and intangible as a war on individual human action. So, what do we do?
We fight it anyway. Just like we fight other evils. Just like humanity has had to do since the dawn of time.
The sad fact is that, as there will always be Caesars, Napoleons, and Hitlers, there too will always be little criminals, little renegades who desire nothing more than calling attention to themselves and their ultimately petty causes solely because they want to. There will always be those who think in terms of violence only, and take what pleasure they can from it in ways and forms which more civilized folks can't comprehend. That is almost entirely why we have police forces, armies and navies, and neighborhood watch programs.
It is the nature of the beast, simple as that. And that is why we must be better people and oppose it at every turn. That is why our resolve must never waver and we must always pursue and eradicate what we can. That is why we must meet their force with greater force.
We should not be surprised when new threats come from the darkest corners of the world; they rise from the dankest basements of the human mind. Where we must offer surprise, it must in shining light on evil and causing it to wither. Take away the raw hatred and replace it with the undying truth: we are better than they. We will oppose them no matter what.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
C. S. Lewis
If it isn't obvious enough by now, I am a huge fan of Mr. C. S. Lewis. My wife found a copy of The Screwtape Letters at a garage sale almost 30 years ago, and I read and was hooked. As is my usual habit when I discover an author I like, I proceeded to seek out and read all of his books.
I haven't quite made it. Not being interested I have never read any of his books in his academic specialty, Medieval and Renaissance literature. And two of his books, Dymer and Spirits in Bondage, being published early on in his career and before his reconversion to Christianity, well, I haven't honestly looked very hard for them. I have read a passage from Dymer and it sounds interesting, though.
I cannot begin to tell you enough about a later edition of Screwtape which includes the addendum Screwtape Proposes a Toast. As it happens he was addressing American education, and was dead on in his assessment. I have used his arguments there quite often in my dealings with, ahem, modern educators.
The Abolition of Man may be the best work of nonfiction outside of the Bible. Mr. Lewis' defense of the doctrine of objective knowledge is far more fantastic and profound than the small book in which he delivers it. In short, I adore the man, and must credit him to a great degree in cementing my belief in God.
Yet there is a skeleton in the closet which most of his admirers, Catholic and Protestant alike, tend to downplay or ignore. And that is his refusal to make pronouncements about certain particulars of Christian doctrine. He asserts that he is not enough of a theologian to do so.
I am not aware that one must be a theologian in order to understand most theology. I understand, as a Catholic, that the consecrated host is really the Body of Christ. Lewis famously says in regards to this that Christ's directive is, take, eat, not take, understand. I say with all due respect that he rather begs the question. Why would God not want us to understand? Wouldn't we want that closer relationship with Him?
Much of it can be linked to the psychology of Mr. Lewis I'm sure. Dr. Joseph Pearce wrote a very good book called C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome which deals with the issue of why Lewis never became Catholic as he certainly was very close to it. Dr. Pearce's answer was, essentially, because of Lewis' background and his Ulster stubbornness (he was Northern Ireland).
I would have to agree. And I don't mean that without sympathy: sometimes, and I say this with absolutely no disrespect intended, invincible ignorance gets in our way. Lewis may not have had the capacity to take that next step; it's the same as I think of my dear paternal grandfather who, though he came to accept and respect my father's Catholicism, could not be expected to easily let go of his Southern Baptist background. Thankfully, God will accept us on those terms, if the situation is real and sincere, and not an intentional blindness.
That question used to plague me yet now I can accept it. But even in that light, we still must address our skeletons as honestly and openly as we can. C. S. Lewis did what he could with what he given, and had accomplished with it a far sight more than anything most of us have managed. So he perhaps could not take that last step towards full Christianity. How many of us can? It is an area in which we must be supremely grateful for God's mercy.
I haven't quite made it. Not being interested I have never read any of his books in his academic specialty, Medieval and Renaissance literature. And two of his books, Dymer and Spirits in Bondage, being published early on in his career and before his reconversion to Christianity, well, I haven't honestly looked very hard for them. I have read a passage from Dymer and it sounds interesting, though.
I cannot begin to tell you enough about a later edition of Screwtape which includes the addendum Screwtape Proposes a Toast. As it happens he was addressing American education, and was dead on in his assessment. I have used his arguments there quite often in my dealings with, ahem, modern educators.
The Abolition of Man may be the best work of nonfiction outside of the Bible. Mr. Lewis' defense of the doctrine of objective knowledge is far more fantastic and profound than the small book in which he delivers it. In short, I adore the man, and must credit him to a great degree in cementing my belief in God.
Yet there is a skeleton in the closet which most of his admirers, Catholic and Protestant alike, tend to downplay or ignore. And that is his refusal to make pronouncements about certain particulars of Christian doctrine. He asserts that he is not enough of a theologian to do so.
I am not aware that one must be a theologian in order to understand most theology. I understand, as a Catholic, that the consecrated host is really the Body of Christ. Lewis famously says in regards to this that Christ's directive is, take, eat, not take, understand. I say with all due respect that he rather begs the question. Why would God not want us to understand? Wouldn't we want that closer relationship with Him?
Much of it can be linked to the psychology of Mr. Lewis I'm sure. Dr. Joseph Pearce wrote a very good book called C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome which deals with the issue of why Lewis never became Catholic as he certainly was very close to it. Dr. Pearce's answer was, essentially, because of Lewis' background and his Ulster stubbornness (he was Northern Ireland).
I would have to agree. And I don't mean that without sympathy: sometimes, and I say this with absolutely no disrespect intended, invincible ignorance gets in our way. Lewis may not have had the capacity to take that next step; it's the same as I think of my dear paternal grandfather who, though he came to accept and respect my father's Catholicism, could not be expected to easily let go of his Southern Baptist background. Thankfully, God will accept us on those terms, if the situation is real and sincere, and not an intentional blindness.
That question used to plague me yet now I can accept it. But even in that light, we still must address our skeletons as honestly and openly as we can. C. S. Lewis did what he could with what he given, and had accomplished with it a far sight more than anything most of us have managed. So he perhaps could not take that last step towards full Christianity. How many of us can? It is an area in which we must be supremely grateful for God's mercy.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Merry Christmas!
Just wanted to be sure that I told everyone Merry Christmas! If I don't have too much egg nog on Christmas Eve, I'll expand upon this. Otherwise, Merry Christmas!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Far From Over
A week ago it looked as the the Senate was not going to pass any kind of health care reform bill. Now they've gone and done it, and our only hope of stopping this travesty lies in the upcoming conference committee in January.
Passing the measure along a complete and pure party line vote, it seems as though the Democrats are determined to force their will upon the American people. Whatever you think about the liberals, you have to give them credit: when they have the upper hand, they push for their goals. You never hear a liberal say something like, 'You know, we really should be more inclusive of the conservative thought.' Nosiree; they ram through what they want.
Don't be concerned about all the negotiation that went into this: it was all banter among themselves. When you get a strict party line vote, you haven't had any real negotiation, no actual compromise. What we have seen is a display of raw power at work. They did it because they wanted it done and could do it.
When we needed a Reagan, we got an Obama. Our grandchildren will pay dearly for this if we can't stop it. As likely as not, they will pay with an America unlike the America the Founders gave us. We are witnessing the tyranny of the majority rearing its ugly head, and there is no St George on the horizon.
Passing the measure along a complete and pure party line vote, it seems as though the Democrats are determined to force their will upon the American people. Whatever you think about the liberals, you have to give them credit: when they have the upper hand, they push for their goals. You never hear a liberal say something like, 'You know, we really should be more inclusive of the conservative thought.' Nosiree; they ram through what they want.
Don't be concerned about all the negotiation that went into this: it was all banter among themselves. When you get a strict party line vote, you haven't had any real negotiation, no actual compromise. What we have seen is a display of raw power at work. They did it because they wanted it done and could do it.
When we needed a Reagan, we got an Obama. Our grandchildren will pay dearly for this if we can't stop it. As likely as not, they will pay with an America unlike the America the Founders gave us. We are witnessing the tyranny of the majority rearing its ugly head, and there is no St George on the horizon.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
California knows Cancer
As if it isn't bad enough that the Federal Government has its hands in too many pies, now we have situations where one the states has taken it upon itself to get involved in enlightening the citizenry through badgering people about what it thinks important. It should be no surprise that that State is California.
While installing an in line ground fault interrupter on a piece of machinery, I found this warning wrapped around the cord:
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.
On what grounds do they force this warning? California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guideline states thus: “A person exposed to the chemical at the ‘no significant risk level’ for 70 years would not have more than a ‘one in 100,000’ chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.” Anything over that, say one extra case per 100,000 people over 70 years, means the tag has to be applied to the whatever it is at hand.
Doesn't this strike anyone as overkill? How am I supposed to feel about getting a scare that I have increased my chance of contracting cancer simply by putting a power cord on a machine? How do the people using equipment day after day react to the news that they are in such a slightly more hazardous situation than they could possibly have imagined? By what right does California think it can violate someone's comfort zone by insisting on a tag where no significant increase of contracting cancer exists?
We could dismiss it as simply the big dog of the nation throwing its weight around. But it's more than that: it serves as a reminder that government, any government, when its gets big enough feels it has the right to throw its weight around. California is darn near a nation unto itself anyway, and seeing as its infrastructure needs are well below what its citizens demand, one would think it would be more concerned with shoring up its physical plant than in promoting scare stories.
But, after all, its still a big brother government. What's not to love?
While installing an in line ground fault interrupter on a piece of machinery, I found this warning wrapped around the cord:
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.
On what grounds do they force this warning? California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guideline states thus: “A person exposed to the chemical at the ‘no significant risk level’ for 70 years would not have more than a ‘one in 100,000’ chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.” Anything over that, say one extra case per 100,000 people over 70 years, means the tag has to be applied to the whatever it is at hand.
Doesn't this strike anyone as overkill? How am I supposed to feel about getting a scare that I have increased my chance of contracting cancer simply by putting a power cord on a machine? How do the people using equipment day after day react to the news that they are in such a slightly more hazardous situation than they could possibly have imagined? By what right does California think it can violate someone's comfort zone by insisting on a tag where no significant increase of contracting cancer exists?
We could dismiss it as simply the big dog of the nation throwing its weight around. But it's more than that: it serves as a reminder that government, any government, when its gets big enough feels it has the right to throw its weight around. California is darn near a nation unto itself anyway, and seeing as its infrastructure needs are well below what its citizens demand, one would think it would be more concerned with shoring up its physical plant than in promoting scare stories.
But, after all, its still a big brother government. What's not to love?
Monday, December 21, 2009
Unconditional Love
We are often told that we are expected to love others unconditionally. It is a good and charitable approach to our relationships with God and man. But what does it really mean? How are we expected to use such a doctrine in our daily lives?
For starters, it surely means that we are to love everyone without reservation. We are called to love everyone as though they were ourselves, to paraphrase a great moral teacher. It is a difficult ideal; loving our enemies is not easy, and sometimes loving our friends and family is a challenge as well. Still, we are expected to overcome this obstacle, and find a way to open our hearts to all.
But there is a great misunderstanding to unconditional love, an error in its application which is at least arguably worse than failing to love everyone around us. Many people believe that unconditional love means loving others up to and including their faults. We are, according to this, meant to love others including their faults, and indeed often embracing them.
This cannot be a good and true interpretation of the standard. It cannot be a useful approach towards dealing with others. We can accept that we must love racists and sexists and criminals; but to love their faults? This is insanity on its face. Do we not want to see people become better people? Do we not want to see our children grow into mature adults? Then we should be instructing and cajoling and beseeching those around us, as they should towards us, to do better than they do, and to be better than they are.
When our children become drug addicts or alcoholics, we do what we can to change them. When our neighbors rob and injury others, we enforce laws to stop them. We can and should still love them, but that does not mean we are obliged to tolerate them.
It is more correct to say that unconditional love calls us to love those around us despite their faults. Because real love does not embrace error. It understands it as a part of us which ought to be altered, and wants to see us move away from the lesser aspects of our being and into better men, women, and children. If it does not want that, it is not love. It is something which facilitates bad behavior; it is a cancer of character.
For starters, it surely means that we are to love everyone without reservation. We are called to love everyone as though they were ourselves, to paraphrase a great moral teacher. It is a difficult ideal; loving our enemies is not easy, and sometimes loving our friends and family is a challenge as well. Still, we are expected to overcome this obstacle, and find a way to open our hearts to all.
But there is a great misunderstanding to unconditional love, an error in its application which is at least arguably worse than failing to love everyone around us. Many people believe that unconditional love means loving others up to and including their faults. We are, according to this, meant to love others including their faults, and indeed often embracing them.
This cannot be a good and true interpretation of the standard. It cannot be a useful approach towards dealing with others. We can accept that we must love racists and sexists and criminals; but to love their faults? This is insanity on its face. Do we not want to see people become better people? Do we not want to see our children grow into mature adults? Then we should be instructing and cajoling and beseeching those around us, as they should towards us, to do better than they do, and to be better than they are.
When our children become drug addicts or alcoholics, we do what we can to change them. When our neighbors rob and injury others, we enforce laws to stop them. We can and should still love them, but that does not mean we are obliged to tolerate them.
It is more correct to say that unconditional love calls us to love those around us despite their faults. Because real love does not embrace error. It understands it as a part of us which ought to be altered, and wants to see us move away from the lesser aspects of our being and into better men, women, and children. If it does not want that, it is not love. It is something which facilitates bad behavior; it is a cancer of character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
