I recently read Joe Queenan's mostly good--but not, alas, astonishing--One for the Books, which has had the unfortunate result of leaving me quite depressed. I'd like to put together a review, but in the interim, I offer several thoughts.
First, books, like every other good and noble thing in our wretched civilization, are dying, Infernal electronic readers, which Queenan admirably rails against, are taking over in what remains of our now mostly illiterate culture. He's a self-confessed Luddite, but he's also only a few thousand books from his death bed, whereas I remain similarly entrenched in my opposition to technology with, fortunately, hopefully, a much larger number of books ahead of me. I cannot be certain that I shall be able to get them, either, which provides the rationalization for the otherwise indefensible rate at which I acquire books.
Second, readers are probably not any better than everyone else. I confess to looking down on those who read less than me, though, since this is most everyone, I immediately feel awful for giving into the sin of intellectual pride. I know more than I would have were I not a voracious devourer of books, but I cannot say that I am a better person for it. Moreover, in exchange, I find the world outside of books--which is to say, the real world--that much less interesting. The unfortunate result is that I then read more books, and deal ever more precariously with the vastly overrated real world.
Third, readers are impressed strongly with the sense of their own mortality. Queenan measures his life by the number of books he has read. I've not quite come to that, but I am aware that I will not be able to read everything I hope to read before I slip this mortal coil. This results in a nature that tends toward the macabre, but I do not think that it can be helped.
So I suppose what we have learned is that while it is difficult to explain why spending all one's free time reading is a productive usage of that time, there's no way that we readers would alter our habits in the slightest. It's entirely possible that we have been afflicted with some horrible disease, but as it is less harmful, surely, than drugs and alcohol, we shall be left alone for the time being. Which is precisely what we desire.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
The foreign policy of fools
Tonight is the third and final presidential debate, the topic of which is foreign policy. Had the Republicans nominated Ron Paul--or the Democrats, Dennis Kucinich--we might well see an actual debate. Actually, if Paul was running against Kucinich, we wouldn't see many fireworks, but at least the heads of Bill Kristol and Max Boot might explode.
As it stands, both Obama and Romney are interventionists, to put it mildly. While the President has drawn down some of the armed forces from Iraq, he increased the number of soldiers in Afghanistan. Twelve years later, we're still mired in that graveyard of empires. One would think that this would be a position on which the president could be challenged. Yet the Republicans, in their boundless stupidity, have nominated a hawk who thinks that Obama was wrong in deescalating the war in Iraq. The President's Nobel Peace Prize remains an immense joke, but in this race, he is actually the peace candidate.
Consider: the President recognizes the power of the executive branch to assassinate American citizens. Romney, no doubt looking forward to using this power for himself, has yet to raise an objection to such a grotesque violation of our basic human rights. If the American people are fortunate, perhaps this will be discussed in tonight's debate, but even if the moderator mentions this policy, we will be wholly unable to do a thing to alter it.
Instead of substantial debate over a very important topic, we'll be compelled to endure a tedious discussion over precisely how much leadership--and what kind--will best ensure that we may continue to meddle in the Middle East without experiencing too much blowback.
The American people are tired of war. We should never forget that warfare has a significant moral dimension; the bombs we drop extinguish lives, a large percentage of which belonged to civilians, innocent of the crimes perpetrated by our enemies. Regrettably, too many Americans are inured to the death and destruction that resides thousands of miles away. Surely our leaders would tell us if they were responsible for the death of innocents.
However, the costs of war hit home in other ways. The government is not in the habit of increasing taxes in order to help fund its bloated military, now bogged down in wars that will cost, when all is said and done, several trillion dollars. Instead, the dollar is debased. As a result, food and gas prices continue to rise. Americans must sacrifice for the good of our benevolent government.
We're not going to hear about this in tonight's debate, but what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex is an immense drain on the nation's economy. Precious resources go to produce weapons of destruction which we unleash on the world. From the purvey of a defense contractor, war means more contracts. But while these welfare queens make fistfuls of cash due to the fact that we spend more money on the military than every other country in the world combined, the Americans who do not work for the bloated warfare sector become poorer.
A country of responsible citizens wouldn't tolerate military pork in an age of austerity. But history is replete with examples of bankrupt nations going to war, in part to distract its citizenry from trouble at home. The depressing fact about tonight is that Obama is likelier to declare war on Iran than he is to offer real cuts to what is deceptively called defense. Even more depressingly, the President is probably the lesser evil in this horrible race to the bottom.
As it stands, both Obama and Romney are interventionists, to put it mildly. While the President has drawn down some of the armed forces from Iraq, he increased the number of soldiers in Afghanistan. Twelve years later, we're still mired in that graveyard of empires. One would think that this would be a position on which the president could be challenged. Yet the Republicans, in their boundless stupidity, have nominated a hawk who thinks that Obama was wrong in deescalating the war in Iraq. The President's Nobel Peace Prize remains an immense joke, but in this race, he is actually the peace candidate.
Consider: the President recognizes the power of the executive branch to assassinate American citizens. Romney, no doubt looking forward to using this power for himself, has yet to raise an objection to such a grotesque violation of our basic human rights. If the American people are fortunate, perhaps this will be discussed in tonight's debate, but even if the moderator mentions this policy, we will be wholly unable to do a thing to alter it.
Instead of substantial debate over a very important topic, we'll be compelled to endure a tedious discussion over precisely how much leadership--and what kind--will best ensure that we may continue to meddle in the Middle East without experiencing too much blowback.
The American people are tired of war. We should never forget that warfare has a significant moral dimension; the bombs we drop extinguish lives, a large percentage of which belonged to civilians, innocent of the crimes perpetrated by our enemies. Regrettably, too many Americans are inured to the death and destruction that resides thousands of miles away. Surely our leaders would tell us if they were responsible for the death of innocents.
However, the costs of war hit home in other ways. The government is not in the habit of increasing taxes in order to help fund its bloated military, now bogged down in wars that will cost, when all is said and done, several trillion dollars. Instead, the dollar is debased. As a result, food and gas prices continue to rise. Americans must sacrifice for the good of our benevolent government.
We're not going to hear about this in tonight's debate, but what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex is an immense drain on the nation's economy. Precious resources go to produce weapons of destruction which we unleash on the world. From the purvey of a defense contractor, war means more contracts. But while these welfare queens make fistfuls of cash due to the fact that we spend more money on the military than every other country in the world combined, the Americans who do not work for the bloated warfare sector become poorer.
A country of responsible citizens wouldn't tolerate military pork in an age of austerity. But history is replete with examples of bankrupt nations going to war, in part to distract its citizenry from trouble at home. The depressing fact about tonight is that Obama is likelier to declare war on Iran than he is to offer real cuts to what is deceptively called defense. Even more depressingly, the President is probably the lesser evil in this horrible race to the bottom.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Brooks and Henry on feminism
John Quincey Adams's grandson Henry is famous in his own right, most notably for two of his books, Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres as well as The Education of Henry Adams. Adams was known for being melancholic about the future of the American experiment, and while this attitude is commoner now, it was quite irregular for a man who lived and wrote towards the close of the nineteenth century.
At present, I'm reading The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma, which is ostensibly written by Henry Adams. Actually, his brother Brooks wrote a piece about Henry which comprises more than a third of the book. It is with this introductory piece that I plan on dealing, as it contains a number of perceptive observations concerning the problems inherent in feminism.
The quote is from an essay of Henry's which is printed in full later in the book; the rest is Brooks:
"The mere act of reproduction, which seems to have been the most absorbing and passionate purpose of primitive instinct, concerns history not at all." ...Certainly it does not concern the modern feminist, who repudiates such an instinct as unworthy of a civilized and educated modern woman, and by so doing announces herself as incapable of performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind.
These astounding sentences were first published in 1919. The brothers Adams were well ahead of their time, though perhaps not as much as we might think. The Great Depression and the Second World War postponed the sexual revolution which had begun during the Roaring Twenties. It was only after a return to peace and an increase in prosperity that the revolution could pick up where it had left off decades before.
More importantly, Brooks Adams hones in on the essential flaw in the feminist dogma; its devotees abdicate responsibility when it comes to "performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind." Civilization is completely capable of surviving, and even thriving, without female doctors or lawyers. It cannot do so, however, if its women refuse to become mothers. It is no less true for being oft repeated: demographics is destiny. It would be difficult to suggest a more idiotic policy than encouraging the best and brightest women to pursue careers at the expense of becoming mothers, leaving such horror to the unwed underclass. I half suspect future historians may believe that the vastly underrated film Idiocracy is actually a documentary.
Later on, Brooks takes up his theme again:
Since the great industrial capitalistic movement began throughout the modern world toward 1830, the modern feminist has sought to put the woman upon a basis of legal at which she would be enabled, as it was thought, to become the economic competitor of man. At length, after nearly a century as one of the effects of the recent war, she seems to have succeeded in her ambition. So far as possible the great sexual instinct has been weakened or suppressed. So far as possible it is now ignored systematically in our education. Woman is ashamed of her sex and imitates the man. And the results are manifest enough to alarm the most optimistic and confiding. The effect has been to turn enormous numbers of women into the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor, but far worse, in substance to destroy the influence of woman in modern civilization, save in so far as her enfranchisement tends to degrade the democratic level of intelligence. The woman as the cement of society the head of the family and the centre of cohesion has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. She has become a wandering isolated unit rather a dispersive than a collective force.
There's a lot to unpack here, but we'll give it a shot. First, as Brooks notes, granting women legal equality with men was not an insignificant and helpful gesture, but the base on which all else was built. This is important, because while there are numerous critics of feminism, few seem to realize the drastic actions which would be necessary to undo the damage. It is not enough to simply suggest that more women stay home with their children. And, in actuality, seeing how these things tend to over-correct, women fifty years hence may well look bad fondly at the freedom afforded to their predecessors living in the times of Adams.
Women's movements tend to occur in times of economic growth, if not decadence. I'd like to do more research to confirm this in, say, Imperial Rome or Renaissance Italy, so for now it remains a tentative hypothesis. Yet Adams observes that what was brought forth in a time of prosperity resulted in women degrading themselves to work in "the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor." We would need to update this rhetoric to more accurately reflect the way things are today, but as a piece of historical data, it's an arresting observation.
The snide swipe at the degradation "of the democratic level of intelligence" is too amusing to pass over. I earnestly await the movement which seeks to limit the suffrage. But then again, I'm hoping we can deprecate democracy in favor of hereditary monarchy, rendering such limitations superfluous.
Lastly, contrary to feminist rhetoric, traditionalists or anti-feminists do not hate women: we contend that women's liberation has been bad for men as well as women, and certainly for society at large. This point is made fairly clearly by Henry Adams in his book on the Middle Ages: but there is much dignity in women who pursue a vocation as a mother. No doubt there are women who would fit awkwardly, if at all, into the institution of marriage. But this was no excuse to treat the exception as a rule.
In summary, feminism was a bad idea one hundred years ago, and it is a bad idea now. Adams doesn't even mention, because he could not know, that feminism would pile up a body count that would make Hitler envious. That feminism will endure in the short run is as certain as that its infertile philosophy dooms it in the long. It would be pleasant to think that we could restore something from just before Adams time, but I think it likelier that sexual relations in the future will proceed along pagan lines. And no, feminists, that will not be pleasant, not in the slightest.
At present, I'm reading The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma, which is ostensibly written by Henry Adams. Actually, his brother Brooks wrote a piece about Henry which comprises more than a third of the book. It is with this introductory piece that I plan on dealing, as it contains a number of perceptive observations concerning the problems inherent in feminism.
The quote is from an essay of Henry's which is printed in full later in the book; the rest is Brooks:
"The mere act of reproduction, which seems to have been the most absorbing and passionate purpose of primitive instinct, concerns history not at all." ...Certainly it does not concern the modern feminist, who repudiates such an instinct as unworthy of a civilized and educated modern woman, and by so doing announces herself as incapable of performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind.
These astounding sentences were first published in 1919. The brothers Adams were well ahead of their time, though perhaps not as much as we might think. The Great Depression and the Second World War postponed the sexual revolution which had begun during the Roaring Twenties. It was only after a return to peace and an increase in prosperity that the revolution could pick up where it had left off decades before.
More importantly, Brooks Adams hones in on the essential flaw in the feminist dogma; its devotees abdicate responsibility when it comes to "performing the only function in modern society which has the least vital importance to mankind." Civilization is completely capable of surviving, and even thriving, without female doctors or lawyers. It cannot do so, however, if its women refuse to become mothers. It is no less true for being oft repeated: demographics is destiny. It would be difficult to suggest a more idiotic policy than encouraging the best and brightest women to pursue careers at the expense of becoming mothers, leaving such horror to the unwed underclass. I half suspect future historians may believe that the vastly underrated film Idiocracy is actually a documentary.
Later on, Brooks takes up his theme again:
Since the great industrial capitalistic movement began throughout the modern world toward 1830, the modern feminist has sought to put the woman upon a basis of legal at which she would be enabled, as it was thought, to become the economic competitor of man. At length, after nearly a century as one of the effects of the recent war, she seems to have succeeded in her ambition. So far as possible the great sexual instinct has been weakened or suppressed. So far as possible it is now ignored systematically in our education. Woman is ashamed of her sex and imitates the man. And the results are manifest enough to alarm the most optimistic and confiding. The effect has been to turn enormous numbers of women into the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor, but far worse, in substance to destroy the influence of woman in modern civilization, save in so far as her enfranchisement tends to degrade the democratic level of intelligence. The woman as the cement of society the head of the family and the centre of cohesion has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. She has become a wandering isolated unit rather a dispersive than a collective force.
There's a lot to unpack here, but we'll give it a shot. First, as Brooks notes, granting women legal equality with men was not an insignificant and helpful gesture, but the base on which all else was built. This is important, because while there are numerous critics of feminism, few seem to realize the drastic actions which would be necessary to undo the damage. It is not enough to simply suggest that more women stay home with their children. And, in actuality, seeing how these things tend to over-correct, women fifty years hence may well look bad fondly at the freedom afforded to their predecessors living in the times of Adams.
Women's movements tend to occur in times of economic growth, if not decadence. I'd like to do more research to confirm this in, say, Imperial Rome or Renaissance Italy, so for now it remains a tentative hypothesis. Yet Adams observes that what was brought forth in a time of prosperity resulted in women degrading themselves to work in "the ranks of the lower paid classes of labor." We would need to update this rhetoric to more accurately reflect the way things are today, but as a piece of historical data, it's an arresting observation.
The snide swipe at the degradation "of the democratic level of intelligence" is too amusing to pass over. I earnestly await the movement which seeks to limit the suffrage. But then again, I'm hoping we can deprecate democracy in favor of hereditary monarchy, rendering such limitations superfluous.
Lastly, contrary to feminist rhetoric, traditionalists or anti-feminists do not hate women: we contend that women's liberation has been bad for men as well as women, and certainly for society at large. This point is made fairly clearly by Henry Adams in his book on the Middle Ages: but there is much dignity in women who pursue a vocation as a mother. No doubt there are women who would fit awkwardly, if at all, into the institution of marriage. But this was no excuse to treat the exception as a rule.
In summary, feminism was a bad idea one hundred years ago, and it is a bad idea now. Adams doesn't even mention, because he could not know, that feminism would pile up a body count that would make Hitler envious. That feminism will endure in the short run is as certain as that its infertile philosophy dooms it in the long. It would be pleasant to think that we could restore something from just before Adams time, but I think it likelier that sexual relations in the future will proceed along pagan lines. And no, feminists, that will not be pleasant, not in the slightest.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Of mole hills
The world's laziest blogger--copyright applied for--is back. Like millions of other Americans, I watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night. The near unanimous verdict, with which I concur, was that Romney won by looking and sounding presidential, while President Obama lost by appearing tired and flat. I have nothing to add to this.
However, I do want to take a look at Romney's insistence that he would cut funding to PBS. For while the challenger was better prepared than the empty suit our President appeared to be, there remains a deep lack of seriousness that pervades and perverts our presidential politics.
PBS accounts for just .012% of the federal budget. It's true that it makes little to no sense to fund something so inconsequential at a time when the nation is bankrupt. At the same time, PBS's paltry nature makes it one of the best uses of our taxpayer money: I'd much rather subsidize Sesame Street than be compelled to pay for the bombs that rain down on Pakistanis.
I remain convinced that our debt is, or rather, ought to be, the most important issue in this election. Obama seems to have no idea how we are to balance our budget. Yet, for all his talk about how it is immoral to pass debt along to our children, Romney's pollyannish plan is to simply grow our way out of debt. Obama is in no position to ask, but I wish someone would find out what Romney plans to do if the economy remains stagnant well into his first term. At that point, will he try to cut funding for other programs? Will he reconsider his plans to increase military spending?
Or will we continue to bicker over Big Bird?
However, I do want to take a look at Romney's insistence that he would cut funding to PBS. For while the challenger was better prepared than the empty suit our President appeared to be, there remains a deep lack of seriousness that pervades and perverts our presidential politics.
PBS accounts for just .012% of the federal budget. It's true that it makes little to no sense to fund something so inconsequential at a time when the nation is bankrupt. At the same time, PBS's paltry nature makes it one of the best uses of our taxpayer money: I'd much rather subsidize Sesame Street than be compelled to pay for the bombs that rain down on Pakistanis.
I remain convinced that our debt is, or rather, ought to be, the most important issue in this election. Obama seems to have no idea how we are to balance our budget. Yet, for all his talk about how it is immoral to pass debt along to our children, Romney's pollyannish plan is to simply grow our way out of debt. Obama is in no position to ask, but I wish someone would find out what Romney plans to do if the economy remains stagnant well into his first term. At that point, will he try to cut funding for other programs? Will he reconsider his plans to increase military spending?
Or will we continue to bicker over Big Bird?
Monday, September 10, 2012
The new normal
Victor David Hanson has a sound and discouraging piece over at PJMedia:
I’ve witnessed two of the most radical developments in my lifetime the last four years — changes far greater than those brought on by the massive new increases in the national debt, the soaring gas costs, the radical decrease in average family income, the insolvent Medicare and Social Security trajectories, or the flat housing market.
One is the fact of less than 1% interest rates on most savings (well below the rate of inflation), and the other is an epidemic of 20-something unemployment. All that is the new normal.
These two changes, as he notes, are linked. Since older Americans cannot expect to draw reasonable return on investment, rather than retire, they remain in the workforce. For many, this is a sound decision: it is more difficult to re-enter the job market at a later date. Unless one is content to place one's money in a stock market increasingly dominated by robot traders, working provides the best way of ensuring a reliable stream of income. There is a price for this decision, aside from delayed retirement, and it is being paid by younger workers, who were expecting to take the jobs of retirees. Instead, even recent graduates must live at home or work jobs for which they would have been qualified upon graduating high school.
Interest rates have been kept low to help the struggling economy. The theory is that lower rates of interest will spur investment, thereby causing economic growth. This would be a reasonable supposition if Americans weren't in debt up to their eyeballs. Indeed, the only economic actors that are taking on debt are the Federal Government and students, who must take out loans to afford a college education, so that they may go back to living with their parents while working in the service industry. The irony is as obvious as it is crushing: the Federal Reserve's policy has made getting a job more difficult, though there are plenty of McJobs available.
VDH continues:
I don’t know where this all leads. The aging baby boomers are not going to have the retirements that they envisioned, and their children are not going to have the good jobs their baby-boomer parents enjoyed.
Neither do I. But as long as we're in this miserable predicament, we have time for one last observation, courtesy of Roissy: this is the grim reality of a low-trust society. Students need cheap loans to pay for education; parents need a return on investment so that they can retire. In a high-trust society, the solution would be obvious: the youth would take out loans from their elders and pay them back with a modicum of interest. Instead, as VDH observes, students take out loans at oppressive rates of interest while their elders, if they are savers, get miserly interest payments. The banks are making a pretty penny off of this carry trade, at the expense of everyone else. Which, come to think of it, nicely defines the new normal.
I’ve witnessed two of the most radical developments in my lifetime the last four years — changes far greater than those brought on by the massive new increases in the national debt, the soaring gas costs, the radical decrease in average family income, the insolvent Medicare and Social Security trajectories, or the flat housing market.
One is the fact of less than 1% interest rates on most savings (well below the rate of inflation), and the other is an epidemic of 20-something unemployment. All that is the new normal.
These two changes, as he notes, are linked. Since older Americans cannot expect to draw reasonable return on investment, rather than retire, they remain in the workforce. For many, this is a sound decision: it is more difficult to re-enter the job market at a later date. Unless one is content to place one's money in a stock market increasingly dominated by robot traders, working provides the best way of ensuring a reliable stream of income. There is a price for this decision, aside from delayed retirement, and it is being paid by younger workers, who were expecting to take the jobs of retirees. Instead, even recent graduates must live at home or work jobs for which they would have been qualified upon graduating high school.
Interest rates have been kept low to help the struggling economy. The theory is that lower rates of interest will spur investment, thereby causing economic growth. This would be a reasonable supposition if Americans weren't in debt up to their eyeballs. Indeed, the only economic actors that are taking on debt are the Federal Government and students, who must take out loans to afford a college education, so that they may go back to living with their parents while working in the service industry. The irony is as obvious as it is crushing: the Federal Reserve's policy has made getting a job more difficult, though there are plenty of McJobs available.
VDH continues:
I don’t know where this all leads. The aging baby boomers are not going to have the retirements that they envisioned, and their children are not going to have the good jobs their baby-boomer parents enjoyed.
Neither do I. But as long as we're in this miserable predicament, we have time for one last observation, courtesy of Roissy: this is the grim reality of a low-trust society. Students need cheap loans to pay for education; parents need a return on investment so that they can retire. In a high-trust society, the solution would be obvious: the youth would take out loans from their elders and pay them back with a modicum of interest. Instead, as VDH observes, students take out loans at oppressive rates of interest while their elders, if they are savers, get miserly interest payments. The banks are making a pretty penny off of this carry trade, at the expense of everyone else. Which, come to think of it, nicely defines the new normal.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Martin on celibacy
While watching HBO's Game of Thrones, something caught my attention which I had someone missed when I had previously read George R. R. Martin's book of the same name. What follows is from the book--my thanks to someone on a forum for typing it up for me to use:
“Jon, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night’s Watch take no wives and father no children?” Maester Aemon asked...
“So they will not love,” the old man answered, “for love is the bane of honor, the death of duty.”
...The old man seemed to sense his doubts. “Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?”
Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. “He would do whatever was right,” he said . . . ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. “No matter what.”
“Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman’s love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms . . . or the memory of a brother’s smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.
I'm not certain that Martin had the Catholic priesthood in mind when he wrote this, though he may very well have. It certainly fits. The reason the Church insists that her priests be unmarried is not altogether different from those given by Maester Aemon; or, for that matter, those given by the Apostle Paul: "I should like you to have your minds free from all worry. The unmarried man gives his mind to the Lord's affairs and to how he can please the Lord; but the man who is married gives his mind to the affairs of this world and to how he can please his wife, and he is divided in mind."
In our first world comfort, we tend to forget that elsewhere, even now, priests are being persecuted. They require much grace from God to resist the temptation to neglect their duty and honor in order to save their very lives. But because they are unmarried, and without children, they will not be compelled to choose between these and the lives of their loved ones. This is no small thing, as fans of Martin's series well know.
“Jon, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night’s Watch take no wives and father no children?” Maester Aemon asked...
“So they will not love,” the old man answered, “for love is the bane of honor, the death of duty.”
...The old man seemed to sense his doubts. “Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?”
Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. “He would do whatever was right,” he said . . . ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. “No matter what.”
“Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman’s love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms . . . or the memory of a brother’s smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.
I'm not certain that Martin had the Catholic priesthood in mind when he wrote this, though he may very well have. It certainly fits. The reason the Church insists that her priests be unmarried is not altogether different from those given by Maester Aemon; or, for that matter, those given by the Apostle Paul: "I should like you to have your minds free from all worry. The unmarried man gives his mind to the Lord's affairs and to how he can please the Lord; but the man who is married gives his mind to the affairs of this world and to how he can please his wife, and he is divided in mind."
In our first world comfort, we tend to forget that elsewhere, even now, priests are being persecuted. They require much grace from God to resist the temptation to neglect their duty and honor in order to save their very lives. But because they are unmarried, and without children, they will not be compelled to choose between these and the lives of their loved ones. This is no small thing, as fans of Martin's series well know.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
The Indispensable Family
Thirteen years ago, William E. May
wrote the book: Marriage: The Rock on Which the Family Is Built.
Three years ago, Ignatius Press published a second edition, which
includes a new introduction, as well as two additional chapters, one
which delves into John Paul II's Catechesis on the Theology of the
Body, and another, which covers Pope Benedict XVI's Teaching on
Marriage and Family Life. These are much welcome additions to an
already fine book.
Many of the arguments we have about divorce, or whether or not gays ought to be allowed to marry, start at the wrong end. Marriage and the family are primary, and must be discussed first, which May wisely does. Thus in his first chapter, he offers fourteen basic moral criterion for families with supporting argument. For instance: “the family must be rooted in the marriage of one man and one woman”; “children... are to be begotten in the loving embrace of husband and wife”; “spouses ought not... impede procreation”; “Church and State must both honor the primary right of parents as educators of their children and cooperate with them in this educative task”; “society must support the sanctity of the marriage bond if men are to be fathers to their children.”
Many of the arguments we have about divorce, or whether or not gays ought to be allowed to marry, start at the wrong end. Marriage and the family are primary, and must be discussed first, which May wisely does. Thus in his first chapter, he offers fourteen basic moral criterion for families with supporting argument. For instance: “the family must be rooted in the marriage of one man and one woman”; “children... are to be begotten in the loving embrace of husband and wife”; “spouses ought not... impede procreation”; “Church and State must both honor the primary right of parents as educators of their children and cooperate with them in this educative task”; “society must support the sanctity of the marriage bond if men are to be fathers to their children.”
The second chapter builds on this,
exploring the complementarity of male and female. In our age of
triumphalist feminism, it is verboten to suggest that men and women
are different, and--worse--that this difference is intrinsic and
natural. Yet as Chesterton remarked, “Fallacies do not cease to be
fallacies because they become fashions.” May takes this difference
as a given, and indeed, illustrative, for it tells us something both
about mankind as well as the God who made us. Our design is such
that husband and wife participate in procreation, bringing new life
to the world through an act of love. May quotes the philosopher
Robert E. Joyce who notes that men: “give in a receiving sort of
way” while women “receive in a giving sort of way.” One mild
complaint, these wonderful phrases are used too frequently throughout
the text, reducing their potency.
Another chapter is devoted to examining Pope Paul VI's prophetic utterances in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet somehow May's defense here is a bit underwhelming. He accurately explains that the late pope was correct about the consequences of detaching, or rather, attempting to detach, sex from reproduction. Still, the critics were so disastrously wrong that one wishes May would hammer the point home with a bit more force. The mainstreaming of contraception has been so thorough that the idea that sex has a natural end is not so much considered outdated as simply ludicrous.
Another chapter is devoted to examining Pope Paul VI's prophetic utterances in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet somehow May's defense here is a bit underwhelming. He accurately explains that the late pope was correct about the consequences of detaching, or rather, attempting to detach, sex from reproduction. Still, the critics were so disastrously wrong that one wishes May would hammer the point home with a bit more force. The mainstreaming of contraception has been so thorough that the idea that sex has a natural end is not so much considered outdated as simply ludicrous.
In making his arguments about
marriage, May uses a variety of sources. He relies heavily on
Catholic references: philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St.
Augustine, encyclicals, the Catechism, and so forth. This allows him
to make the Catholic case thoroughly. Unfortunately, this reduces
the appeal of his book to a secular audience. Revelation undoubtedly
guides the Church's understanding of marriage; hence she has elevated
it to a sacrament. Yet marriage antedates the Church. If the author
plans a third edition, I would like to see him to sketch an argument
in defense of marriage that relies on secular sources.
Still, until Catholics adhere to their own Church's teaching, there is more work to be done. May's book provides a well structured look at the family and the role it must play in society. For as Pope John Paul II observed, “As the family goes, so goes the world.”
Still, until Catholics adhere to their own Church's teaching, there is more work to be done. May's book provides a well structured look at the family and the role it must play in society. For as Pope John Paul II observed, “As the family goes, so goes the world.”
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Paul Ryan
The respective tickets for the 2012 presidential election are now set: Obama-Biden will attempt to defend their title against Romney-Ryan. No word as yet as to the availability of Butter Bean for the undercard.
Nominating a vice president makes sense, insofar as one must provide a reasonable form of succession in the event of the president's demise. Yet it strikes me that most of the talk about the vice president is overwrought. Sometimes, the vice president wields considerable influence: many of W's policies emanated from the office of Cheney. Other times, vice presidents seem to do very little. Can anyone discern what Biden has done for the last three years, save for serve up gaffes to the media? The role played by the vice president, then, would seem to suggest more about the strength of the president, or the lack thereof.
Nonetheless, I should probably offer my thoughts on Paul Ryan. Conservatives seem rather happy with the pick. For some reason, Ryan is a darling of the Tea Party, so this pick proves, not that Romney is a cynical and unprincipled political opportunist, but that he is really a conservative. There are an assortment of flaws with this narrative, the most important of which is that Paul Ryan isn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Here's a look at some of his votes.
Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
Paul Ryan on Education
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
What a sterling record. And that's before we get to foreign policy views, where he's essentially a loyal neo-conservative.
The hilarious part about the degraded state of political discourse is not that otherwise intelligent people will be duped into believing that Paul Ryan is a fiscal hawk, despite all evidence to the contrary. It's that the case will be made by the political opposition. Romney and Ryan are middle of the road types, who, if they can be prevented from bombing Iran, will do nothing to alter the size and scope of government. But if that's the case, why would anyone vote for Obama? So a new narrative must be constructed, one in which the Republicans are actually going to cut government programs. Would that it were so.
The Ryan pick changes nothing. If you like running huge deficits and bailing out banks, vote for either party. It doesn't matter which.
Nominating a vice president makes sense, insofar as one must provide a reasonable form of succession in the event of the president's demise. Yet it strikes me that most of the talk about the vice president is overwrought. Sometimes, the vice president wields considerable influence: many of W's policies emanated from the office of Cheney. Other times, vice presidents seem to do very little. Can anyone discern what Biden has done for the last three years, save for serve up gaffes to the media? The role played by the vice president, then, would seem to suggest more about the strength of the president, or the lack thereof.
Nonetheless, I should probably offer my thoughts on Paul Ryan. Conservatives seem rather happy with the pick. For some reason, Ryan is a darling of the Tea Party, so this pick proves, not that Romney is a cynical and unprincipled political opportunist, but that he is really a conservative. There are an assortment of flaws with this narrative, the most important of which is that Paul Ryan isn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Here's a look at some of his votes.
Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
Paul Ryan on Education
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
What a sterling record. And that's before we get to foreign policy views, where he's essentially a loyal neo-conservative.
The hilarious part about the degraded state of political discourse is not that otherwise intelligent people will be duped into believing that Paul Ryan is a fiscal hawk, despite all evidence to the contrary. It's that the case will be made by the political opposition. Romney and Ryan are middle of the road types, who, if they can be prevented from bombing Iran, will do nothing to alter the size and scope of government. But if that's the case, why would anyone vote for Obama? So a new narrative must be constructed, one in which the Republicans are actually going to cut government programs. Would that it were so.
The Ryan pick changes nothing. If you like running huge deficits and bailing out banks, vote for either party. It doesn't matter which.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
About those gays
There always seem to be a handful of issues that distract us and engage far more attention from us than prudence merits. The political right falls into this trap when it exerts energy lambasting non-starters such as the National Endowment for the Arts. Yes, it's idiotic that the government sends money to Mapplethorpe and similar degenerates, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter very much.
So it is with homosexuality, and our endless arguments over whether or not those predisposed to prefer their own sex ought to be allowed to couple legally. At most, gays represent 10% of the species; these are Kinsey's numbers, and must be considered the absolute high-end estimate. In actuality, this figure ought be granted no more credence than early estimates of those "relaxed" at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition--at least before Henry Kamen's pioneering revision. Gays account for a much smaller portion of the population.
My guess is that we are squabbling over something that directly effects three to five percent of the population. Of course, we all know a gay person, and are therefore appalled and offended that they can't get married and have little test tube children, etc. The point remains.
Hence we defenders of tradition must occasionally enter this sorry arena, to give battle to our foes. We do this with little enthusiasm, partially because we do not really care, and partially because whether or not we decide to alter the centuries old definition of marriage, we know that the zeitgeist will overwhelm us. Merely entering the arena, is, indeed, a sign of caring too much about what others do, and therefore, a priori evidence of--what else?--suppressed homosexuality. This despite the fact that many of us are content to let the sodomites bugger each other as they please, little good it may do them.
Yet, at root, the argument against gay marriage is a simple one. Men and women are different; we are not interchangeable. Yes, there are marriages in which the husband is out every night, cheating on his wife, or the wife sits in her room dead drunk. And yes, in these particular circumstances, two nice gay men or two lesbians would undoubtedly provide a better home. But this is to confuse particulars with the thing as it was designed, as it ought to be. The degraded state of contemporary marriage is such than any number of curious arrangements are to be preferred in certain instances. Some marriages are so wretched that one could replace one of the partners with a vacuum to salubrious effect. There may even be, for all I know, a way to defend dropping an infant off at day-care. But that is a case against the marriage as it is, which is to say, it a criticism that recognizes the ideal and laments the way in which the particular instance falls short of that ideal. It is not a point against it.
In a way, this is all the fault of heterosexuals for botching marriage up so badly that two people, whatever their sex, would be preferable to the all too common broken home. Yet it is also--and here, perhaps, things finally becoming somewhat important--a reflection of our inability to think about things clearly. Nothing in the modern climate of hookups, cohabitation and easy divorce altered the essential difference--and complementariness--of the sexes. The way babies are formed in nature, if not in our brave new labs, is still the best way for children to be raised: by the mother and father who together formed and birthed them.
Such an elementary truth, apparently, has need of defenders. But as it is written into the very fabric of our being, we will soon return to it--or perish.
So it is with homosexuality, and our endless arguments over whether or not those predisposed to prefer their own sex ought to be allowed to couple legally. At most, gays represent 10% of the species; these are Kinsey's numbers, and must be considered the absolute high-end estimate. In actuality, this figure ought be granted no more credence than early estimates of those "relaxed" at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition--at least before Henry Kamen's pioneering revision. Gays account for a much smaller portion of the population.
My guess is that we are squabbling over something that directly effects three to five percent of the population. Of course, we all know a gay person, and are therefore appalled and offended that they can't get married and have little test tube children, etc. The point remains.
Hence we defenders of tradition must occasionally enter this sorry arena, to give battle to our foes. We do this with little enthusiasm, partially because we do not really care, and partially because whether or not we decide to alter the centuries old definition of marriage, we know that the zeitgeist will overwhelm us. Merely entering the arena, is, indeed, a sign of caring too much about what others do, and therefore, a priori evidence of--what else?--suppressed homosexuality. This despite the fact that many of us are content to let the sodomites bugger each other as they please, little good it may do them.
Yet, at root, the argument against gay marriage is a simple one. Men and women are different; we are not interchangeable. Yes, there are marriages in which the husband is out every night, cheating on his wife, or the wife sits in her room dead drunk. And yes, in these particular circumstances, two nice gay men or two lesbians would undoubtedly provide a better home. But this is to confuse particulars with the thing as it was designed, as it ought to be. The degraded state of contemporary marriage is such than any number of curious arrangements are to be preferred in certain instances. Some marriages are so wretched that one could replace one of the partners with a vacuum to salubrious effect. There may even be, for all I know, a way to defend dropping an infant off at day-care. But that is a case against the marriage as it is, which is to say, it a criticism that recognizes the ideal and laments the way in which the particular instance falls short of that ideal. It is not a point against it.
In a way, this is all the fault of heterosexuals for botching marriage up so badly that two people, whatever their sex, would be preferable to the all too common broken home. Yet it is also--and here, perhaps, things finally becoming somewhat important--a reflection of our inability to think about things clearly. Nothing in the modern climate of hookups, cohabitation and easy divorce altered the essential difference--and complementariness--of the sexes. The way babies are formed in nature, if not in our brave new labs, is still the best way for children to be raised: by the mother and father who together formed and birthed them.
Such an elementary truth, apparently, has need of defenders. But as it is written into the very fabric of our being, we will soon return to it--or perish.
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Sigh
Dear oh dear, an entire month with nary a blog post. I could blame all of my friends for getting married this summer, but in addition to being uncharitable, even if I were less busy, I'd be just as reluctant to write.
The political situation is too depressing to dwell on. Obama hasn't the foggiest idea of how to right the economic ship, but Romney is likewise ignorant, and possibly even more loathsome. There isn't anything about him which is genuine; at least Barry likes golf and basketball, which makes him nominally relatable. Romney likes... power, and reading opinion polls to determine what he should say so as to obtain his favorite thing. He also likes Israel, which is fine, but chickenhawk overcompensation tends to lead to wars, so I'd prefer he leave the Jews to themselves.
Eventually, Congress will have to figure out what to do about the pending tax increases, and squabble until the last possible moment before raising the debt ceiling again. But until that happens, Washington is boring, boring, boring. So one watches the market to see if the ECB or the Fed will print the money to fix everyone's problems for the eleventh time in the last four years.
Back to the books I suppose.
The political situation is too depressing to dwell on. Obama hasn't the foggiest idea of how to right the economic ship, but Romney is likewise ignorant, and possibly even more loathsome. There isn't anything about him which is genuine; at least Barry likes golf and basketball, which makes him nominally relatable. Romney likes... power, and reading opinion polls to determine what he should say so as to obtain his favorite thing. He also likes Israel, which is fine, but chickenhawk overcompensation tends to lead to wars, so I'd prefer he leave the Jews to themselves.
Eventually, Congress will have to figure out what to do about the pending tax increases, and squabble until the last possible moment before raising the debt ceiling again. But until that happens, Washington is boring, boring, boring. So one watches the market to see if the ECB or the Fed will print the money to fix everyone's problems for the eleventh time in the last four years.
Back to the books I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)