Baseball is continuity. Pitch to pitch. Inning to inning. Game to game. Series to series. Season to Season.
- Ernie Harwell
No, those are not the usual words with which Mr. Harwell used to inaugurate a new baseball season. Yet they serve as a reminder, in this first full season without him, that the game goes on. Even the great ones such as Ernie Harwell recognize and love that aspect of the game. It is always with us in a way in which the other major sports simply are not.
The 2011 season begins today. That continuity which he spoke about goes on. That triumph of Americana begins again. The first pitch will come today in many areas, tomorrow in others, but it comes. The Boys of Summer are here, and no doubt Ernie has the best seat in the house.
Play ball!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The War in Libya and American Politics
The old saying goes, "The more things change, the more they stay the same". It certainly seems to apply to President Barack Obama and the art of war.
Ronald Reagan was routinely criticized for his use of the military in areas of the world where we presumably had no interest. In that light it is fascinating to see the current Chief Executive railing against Libya. As John McCain said, Obama's policy with regards to that north African nation is simply that Gadhafi must go.
On the surface, that appears to be a much stronger attack on a foreign nation which has offered no real threat to us since, well, since President Reagan laid the smackdown on it back in the 1980s. Yet the media doesn't seem to mind Obama's warmongering. Why?
In part because it's a liberal leader rather than a prototypical right wing reactionary (in their minds) leading the way. But surely part of it lies in the fact that the only real area of American politics where the President holds a tremendous amount of sway is in foreign policy. Combine this with the fact that Obama and the Democrats are in trouble at home with the 2012 elections looming, and we see what is truly their inspiration: they want and need a foreign policy victory, especially one which is easily painted as being in support of freedom for the Libyan people, in order to shore up the chances of a better result for the Democrats and their President two Novembers from now.
We are not saying this is all the reason for their support of the Libyan rebels, but it is surely a huge factor in their rationale. In short, don't give the President too much credit. He's really only using Libya to fight his own political war stateside.
Ronald Reagan was routinely criticized for his use of the military in areas of the world where we presumably had no interest. In that light it is fascinating to see the current Chief Executive railing against Libya. As John McCain said, Obama's policy with regards to that north African nation is simply that Gadhafi must go.
On the surface, that appears to be a much stronger attack on a foreign nation which has offered no real threat to us since, well, since President Reagan laid the smackdown on it back in the 1980s. Yet the media doesn't seem to mind Obama's warmongering. Why?
In part because it's a liberal leader rather than a prototypical right wing reactionary (in their minds) leading the way. But surely part of it lies in the fact that the only real area of American politics where the President holds a tremendous amount of sway is in foreign policy. Combine this with the fact that Obama and the Democrats are in trouble at home with the 2012 elections looming, and we see what is truly their inspiration: they want and need a foreign policy victory, especially one which is easily painted as being in support of freedom for the Libyan people, in order to shore up the chances of a better result for the Democrats and their President two Novembers from now.
We are not saying this is all the reason for their support of the Libyan rebels, but it is surely a huge factor in their rationale. In short, don't give the President too much credit. He's really only using Libya to fight his own political war stateside.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
A Question on Global Warming
There are concerns being expressed by weather watchers that April could find many areas of the nation looking at recorded snowfalls. This isn't all that unusual; it was only about 6 years ago that Detroit had around 7 inches of snow on April 7th, and as we had up until late yesterday a winter storm watch for our neck of the woods. Indeed, snow flurries have occurred in the Motor City recently as late as the 22nd of April. Late snow just isn't big news around here.
Until you factor in that hobgoblin, global warming. If we are warming up too much, why are temperatures staying so low so far into the spring? To be sure, that is not the easiest question to address, as there are myriad factors involved in what creates our weather. But to hear the global warming crowd, there is only the one factor: us.
We recognize that there are rarely any nicely gradual changes in our climate, and that even presuming global warming to be true cannot mean that changes in our weather will occur on a steady, sliding scale. But again, that seems to be more of an argument against rather than for any kind of spectacular climate change. Why ought we assume that something on a scale almost unimaginable will happen when all credible evidence suggests that nature moves slowly, and sort of back and forth? It rocks, but doesn't roll.
Yes, there are convoluted explanations by the scare mongers which assert that these cold spells in fact support their point. Yet until we can see something straightforward and easily explainable, our money will be against them. It's the safe bet in light of their shrill tone.
Until you factor in that hobgoblin, global warming. If we are warming up too much, why are temperatures staying so low so far into the spring? To be sure, that is not the easiest question to address, as there are myriad factors involved in what creates our weather. But to hear the global warming crowd, there is only the one factor: us.
We recognize that there are rarely any nicely gradual changes in our climate, and that even presuming global warming to be true cannot mean that changes in our weather will occur on a steady, sliding scale. But again, that seems to be more of an argument against rather than for any kind of spectacular climate change. Why ought we assume that something on a scale almost unimaginable will happen when all credible evidence suggests that nature moves slowly, and sort of back and forth? It rocks, but doesn't roll.
Yes, there are convoluted explanations by the scare mongers which assert that these cold spells in fact support their point. Yet until we can see something straightforward and easily explainable, our money will be against them. It's the safe bet in light of their shrill tone.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Morals are not Consensual
One of the most pervasive while also one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of certain presumed freedoms is the one about consenting adults. Simply put, it makes moral a given action on the grounds that the folks involved are in agreement as to their joint participation. It is ultimately a wholly untenable position.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution for example is one key area where the adage is often used, it is something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, actual immorality.
This is not to say that a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution for example is one key area where the adage is often used, it is something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, actual immorality.
This is not to say that a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Sunday Musings
Vice President Joe Biden has warned that the Democrats could lose the Senate in the 2012 elections. Isn't that something we've known for several months now, though? With so many more Democratic seats up than Republican (by a count of 23-9) and five open seats, and as the GOP only has to win four seats to take the Upper House, it seems a slam dunk even if the economy rebounds drastically in the meantime. The best guess is that the Republicans will take over almost regardless of what happens between now and then. The only real question left for 2012 is whether the President gains another term.
There is significant debate within the GOP over funding for Planned Parenthood. This is something for which there should be no debate at all. What business does the government have in so directly shaping families? Particularly through a group which was started as a subtle way of preventing the growth of minorities and other presumed undesireables? What does it say about the liberal intelligensia when they have effectively demanded support for an organization which exists to eliminate targeted segments of the population?
Indeed, why aren't the liberals calling out Planned Parenthood on the question? They certainly don't mind dismissing our founders as racist despite the great good they have done for ourselves and in our history, yet they will not hold the same standard against the founders of an organization which supports them. Apparently, political souls are only skin deep. If you'll pardon both puns within that sentence.
Geraldine Ferraro has passed away at the age of 75. She deserves our prayers as any and of all of the dead should. For although there is much analysis of her political life, none of that should matter today. History will again take up her cause, such as it will, at a later date. For now, requiescat in pace.
There is significant debate within the GOP over funding for Planned Parenthood. This is something for which there should be no debate at all. What business does the government have in so directly shaping families? Particularly through a group which was started as a subtle way of preventing the growth of minorities and other presumed undesireables? What does it say about the liberal intelligensia when they have effectively demanded support for an organization which exists to eliminate targeted segments of the population?
Indeed, why aren't the liberals calling out Planned Parenthood on the question? They certainly don't mind dismissing our founders as racist despite the great good they have done for ourselves and in our history, yet they will not hold the same standard against the founders of an organization which supports them. Apparently, political souls are only skin deep. If you'll pardon both puns within that sentence.
Geraldine Ferraro has passed away at the age of 75. She deserves our prayers as any and of all of the dead should. For although there is much analysis of her political life, none of that should matter today. History will again take up her cause, such as it will, at a later date. For now, requiescat in pace.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
George Washington on Religious Perspective
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
- George Washington, from his Farewell Address
We have said many times that morality, indeed any issues of right and wrong, must have a God of some sort behind them. Without an objective norm to fall back on, any and all questions of good and evil, even issues of simple prudence, are nothing more than your word against mine. In such a case, problems would be resolved only through might makes right, whether at the hand of a single tyrant or that by the hand of that tired old saw consensus, which is but a name for the tyranny of the majority. We must do right because it is right on its own terms as instituted by the Creator of the natural law.
Consensus cannot make something right. Consensus is merely what the majority of the people at a given time happen to want and which they are able to subject the upon the minority through force; what we obliquely call the rule of law. Do we honestly believe that such is the best way to create good law and rational public policy?
Obviously it is not. We require a Supreme Being, a supreme and final Law, in order to do well and avoid evil. To those who object, which God?, we say, the one whom philosophy, not religion, insists is there. From that point we can safely speculate on how such a being would expect us to act. It is then when we start to cross into religious principle because at that point we begin to realize that people are special, that doing wrong against them is an evil in itself because it is an affront to their dignity as individuals. A dignity they have by virtue of their humanity, as given them by God. It does not come from them or anything they do.
So there is no reason to base morality and law on anything slippery such as convention, which can and will change as generations do. We need that eternal sense, that eternal reality, if we are to make a good society, and become good people. For any ideal of dignity must come from the religious ideal that everyone deserves proper respect. That cannot come from any simple human act. It can only come from above, overarching each individual. We recognize that and live accordingly, or we slowly perish.
- George Washington, from his Farewell Address
We have said many times that morality, indeed any issues of right and wrong, must have a God of some sort behind them. Without an objective norm to fall back on, any and all questions of good and evil, even issues of simple prudence, are nothing more than your word against mine. In such a case, problems would be resolved only through might makes right, whether at the hand of a single tyrant or that by the hand of that tired old saw consensus, which is but a name for the tyranny of the majority. We must do right because it is right on its own terms as instituted by the Creator of the natural law.
Consensus cannot make something right. Consensus is merely what the majority of the people at a given time happen to want and which they are able to subject the upon the minority through force; what we obliquely call the rule of law. Do we honestly believe that such is the best way to create good law and rational public policy?
Obviously it is not. We require a Supreme Being, a supreme and final Law, in order to do well and avoid evil. To those who object, which God?, we say, the one whom philosophy, not religion, insists is there. From that point we can safely speculate on how such a being would expect us to act. It is then when we start to cross into religious principle because at that point we begin to realize that people are special, that doing wrong against them is an evil in itself because it is an affront to their dignity as individuals. A dignity they have by virtue of their humanity, as given them by God. It does not come from them or anything they do.
So there is no reason to base morality and law on anything slippery such as convention, which can and will change as generations do. We need that eternal sense, that eternal reality, if we are to make a good society, and become good people. For any ideal of dignity must come from the religious ideal that everyone deserves proper respect. That cannot come from any simple human act. It can only come from above, overarching each individual. We recognize that and live accordingly, or we slowly perish.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Check Lanes for Drunk Driving
Something which we are seeing more and more often, at least here in Michigan but it seems safe to assume that it's happening in many areas of the country, are drunk driving check lanes. The idea is to capture drunk drivers before they can do any harm. On paper, it isn't a bad idea. Yet other ideas on paper, such as our Constitution, my well be at odds with it.
Why should anyone be pulled over merely to see if they are driving legally? Aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Aren't the authorities supposed to have reason to detain us, let alone inspect ourselves in our private vehicles (vehicles as private as our own homes, in moral if not legal fact) before they can take action against us? Why do we tolerate such violations of our basic rights?
Because we are fighting drunk driving? While drunk driving is of course reprehensible and irresponsible, to say the least, is it ultimately justifiable to allow anyone's rights to be ignored simply in a preemptive attempt to prevent crime? Isn't a crime supposed to happen, either in fact or in full view of law enforcement, before it can be addressed? As bad as drunk driving is, why should it get a free pass when questions of our civil liberties are involved?
We may be told that it is in part because driving is a privilege. Well, there's a bit of a moral issue with that. Why isn't driving seen a right as much as working freely within the job or housing markets? It is, you know. Any competent human being, one willing and able to follow the legitimate rules of the road, has the moral right to operate a car. As such, the state, no matter how many of its own rulings or assertions to the contrary, cannot prevent an otherwise free person from driving. It must allow anyone to drive for which there is no compelling reason to keep them from doing it.
From there it must presume, until there is compelling evidence otherwise, that that person is driving well and competently. Anything less is an infringement upon that guy's rights.
This is not to defend drunk driving, though we shall be accused of such. It is to defend law abiding citizens. Isn't that why we have laws to begin with? If so, then we must apply the true spirit and the rule of law properly and equally across the board, no matter how justified we may feel with allowing certain exemptions. If we are not doing that, then we have something worse than drunken drivers staring in our faces. We have nothing short of tyranny rambling towards us on the very roads we hold sacred.
Why should anyone be pulled over merely to see if they are driving legally? Aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Aren't the authorities supposed to have reason to detain us, let alone inspect ourselves in our private vehicles (vehicles as private as our own homes, in moral if not legal fact) before they can take action against us? Why do we tolerate such violations of our basic rights?
Because we are fighting drunk driving? While drunk driving is of course reprehensible and irresponsible, to say the least, is it ultimately justifiable to allow anyone's rights to be ignored simply in a preemptive attempt to prevent crime? Isn't a crime supposed to happen, either in fact or in full view of law enforcement, before it can be addressed? As bad as drunk driving is, why should it get a free pass when questions of our civil liberties are involved?
We may be told that it is in part because driving is a privilege. Well, there's a bit of a moral issue with that. Why isn't driving seen a right as much as working freely within the job or housing markets? It is, you know. Any competent human being, one willing and able to follow the legitimate rules of the road, has the moral right to operate a car. As such, the state, no matter how many of its own rulings or assertions to the contrary, cannot prevent an otherwise free person from driving. It must allow anyone to drive for which there is no compelling reason to keep them from doing it.
From there it must presume, until there is compelling evidence otherwise, that that person is driving well and competently. Anything less is an infringement upon that guy's rights.
This is not to defend drunk driving, though we shall be accused of such. It is to defend law abiding citizens. Isn't that why we have laws to begin with? If so, then we must apply the true spirit and the rule of law properly and equally across the board, no matter how justified we may feel with allowing certain exemptions. If we are not doing that, then we have something worse than drunken drivers staring in our faces. We have nothing short of tyranny rambling towards us on the very roads we hold sacred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
