Here and there
A lovely collection of year-end thoughts by John Derbyshire, including comments on punctutation, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and the power of words. Thoroughly good stuff.
After I wrote this post last week on the rising tide of bad language, I noticed that John McWhorter wrote this logical but depressing article for the Washington Post. I hate to admit it, but he is probably right in saying: to resist using a particular vulgarity on television stands not as a conviction inherent to our national fabric, but as an emotional sentiment brandished by a minority. Rob and Laura's quaintness in our eyes reveals that the counterculture has become our warp and woof. We seek as narrow a gulf as possible between public show and private reality. To us, the sentiment Bono expressed with his "f -- -- ing brilliant" channels an individuality, humility and even warmth that no formal translation such as "truly amazing" could. It channels exactly the "get real" essence that makes it seem odd to us that when Laura is carrying Richie she must be referred to as "expecting" because of a sense that "pregnant" is too vulgar.
This "get real" mentality reminds me of my courtesy and civility post way back in November. The more "authentic" we get, the uglier and courser our language and behavior becomes.
So it's "Florence" and not "Dotty?" What difference does it really matter? Clearly Princess Anne is one of the most derelict dog owners around, raising not one but two bull terriers that attack children and other dogs.
And a nice post by Enoch Soames on the British writer George Gissing, who died December 28th, 1903, 100 years ago this past Sunday. Russell Kirk called Gissing a natural Tory.
Which brings me, finally, to this article from the latest issue of Smithsonian, about the descendents of American Loyalists now in Canada. They still don the British garb, celebrate George III's birthday, and look with suspicion at the U.S. Said one, Loyalists still view the United States as a dysfunctional family we just had to leave. Ouch.
Vituperative but thoughtful observations on history, politics, religion, and society.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Devilishly funny list of contemporary carols by John Derbyshire.
A crime! Call out Scotland Yard! One of the Queen's corgis was mauled by Princess Anne's bull terriers and had to be put down. As a corgi owner and afficionado of long standing, I urge a public investigation.
Christmas CDs were donated to a Scottish hospital to raise the spirits of patients. But they were not distributed because they might offend non-Christians. No joke.
A very merry Christmas to you all.
A crime! Call out Scotland Yard! One of the Queen's corgis was mauled by Princess Anne's bull terriers and had to be put down. As a corgi owner and afficionado of long standing, I urge a public investigation.
Christmas CDs were donated to a Scottish hospital to raise the spirits of patients. But they were not distributed because they might offend non-Christians. No joke.
A very merry Christmas to you all.
Watch your language
I hear it all the time walking across campus. Whether it is about the weather, food, drink, friends, family, tests, or whatever, students continually use the same two or three curse words to explain everything about their daily life. The irony of college students, who have before them in classes and libraries (I hope) the richness of Western Civilization's centuries of literature, philosophy, and politics, using the same gutter curse-word to express a multitude of feelings and situations is clear and depressing.
And I have brought this up in classes before, hoping to either shame or make them think about how silly and limiting their speech really is. According to this site, the average educated person uses 2,000 different words in a week, but I am sure, listening to people every week, it must be in the hundreds for the average college student. My spiel goes something like this: The English language is magnificently large and complicated, one of the largest and richest in the world, encompassing over 3 million words. And yet you use, on average, the same 500 words your whole life to express a bewildering variety of moods, situations, problems, and joys. Not only that, you use the same curse word over and over again to express dozens of situations: the weather is [bleep], I feel like [bleep], you look like [bleep], I did [bleep] on that test, last night's dinner was [bleep], and so on and so forth. It gets a laugh but who knows if they take it to heart.
I say all this because a column and editorial in recent days have bemoaned the widening use of the four-letter curse on television. Interesting how Hollywood always excuses its various programs and movies advocating this or that cause because it has the responsibility to lead public opinion, yet at the same time it claims to reflect real life and give us all manner of violence, bad taste, and foul language. The sum total of this, as pop culture makes clear, is that the model Hollywood American is a foul-mouthed liberal. With the college students I hear, they have succeeded in half that quest.
I hear it all the time walking across campus. Whether it is about the weather, food, drink, friends, family, tests, or whatever, students continually use the same two or three curse words to explain everything about their daily life. The irony of college students, who have before them in classes and libraries (I hope) the richness of Western Civilization's centuries of literature, philosophy, and politics, using the same gutter curse-word to express a multitude of feelings and situations is clear and depressing.
And I have brought this up in classes before, hoping to either shame or make them think about how silly and limiting their speech really is. According to this site, the average educated person uses 2,000 different words in a week, but I am sure, listening to people every week, it must be in the hundreds for the average college student. My spiel goes something like this: The English language is magnificently large and complicated, one of the largest and richest in the world, encompassing over 3 million words. And yet you use, on average, the same 500 words your whole life to express a bewildering variety of moods, situations, problems, and joys. Not only that, you use the same curse word over and over again to express dozens of situations: the weather is [bleep], I feel like [bleep], you look like [bleep], I did [bleep] on that test, last night's dinner was [bleep], and so on and so forth. It gets a laugh but who knows if they take it to heart.
I say all this because a column and editorial in recent days have bemoaned the widening use of the four-letter curse on television. Interesting how Hollywood always excuses its various programs and movies advocating this or that cause because it has the responsibility to lead public opinion, yet at the same time it claims to reflect real life and give us all manner of violence, bad taste, and foul language. The sum total of this, as pop culture makes clear, is that the model Hollywood American is a foul-mouthed liberal. With the college students I hear, they have succeeded in half that quest.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
The Tyranny of Self-Expression
Driving around recently, lost in my thoughts and therefore often missing turns, I was thinking how much of modern American life is framed in the language of individual self-expression rather than any common good. Everything, everything, is explained in terms of individual preference: politics, religion, culture, social relationships, buying and selling. Preference implies that none of the alternatives are better than any other. In short, all of life is simply a marketplace, a cafeteria, a flea market -- pick and choose what you like. Turn on the television and a sea of self-expression (and the advocacy thereof) washes over you: football players who celebrate to express their happiness (team, opposition, and spirit of the game be damned), soda advertisements that preach "be you" (apparently "it tastes good" is simply not good enough; it has to express the self to be really good), car commercials with a woman who constantly changes her outfits saying "change is good, right?" (to which I always say, no -- I'd like to give that woman the flu and then ask her how the change from health to illness has been). If it is true that Americans are united by an "idea" (a thesis I am not tempted to agree with), that idea is an ironic one: we all agree to disagree on what constitutes the good life, and in order to avoid any conflict let's make everything an individual preference. In short, we are all together in making different choices. This sounds like something written on the side of Orwell's Animal Farm barn.
This came to mind again reading a rather chilling article by Philip Turner in the November First Things. Speaking of the Anglican/Episcoplian crisis of Gene Robinson, he warns rather ominously that the problem is not simply with the ECUSA: The Robinson election in fact serves to highlight challenges that all American churches currently face, be they Catholic, Orthodox, "mainstream" Protestant, Evangelical, or Charismatic. I speak of the subversion of Christian belief and practice by the logic of autonomous individualism, and the churches' transformation into simulacra. Make no mistake: what has happened in ECUSA is not a problem limited to a once (overly) proud denomination. Rather, it provides an exemplary case study of the subversion and transformation that, in one way or another, threatens all American denominations today. What makes one so cold when reading these lines is the double threat. Not only are all denominations threatened by this, the threat is at the heart of American culture itself -- it is the American way of life.
Turner says you can see the insidious working of this liberal social economy on the ECUSA as early as the 1960s. Protest theology, calls for "local options" on various church policies, and a total lack of central control progressively eroded the moral coherence of the church, so that today the Anglican Church represents nothing more than a vague "God is inclusive" ideology. Everything is expressed in terms of preferences. Within a liberal social economy, the notion of moral agency gives particular significance to issues of sexual preference and sexual satisfaction, since such a society's members think of themselves not as inhabitants of a pre-established moral order but as individuals who are utterly unique, as selves that have particular personal histories and needs, and as persons who have rights that allow them to express their individuality and pursue their personal well-being. For moral agents who think of themselves as individuals, selves, and persons, sexuality becomes, along with money, both a marker of identity and a primary way of expressing the preferences that define identity.
It is precisely this sexualized notion of moral agency and personal identity that makes the Robinson election so predictable. Here is a unique individual, who is a self with a particular history, and a person with a right to express his preferences and put his talents to work in the social world he inhabits. To deny him that right on the basis of sexual preference is to deny his personal identity. This notion of moral agency also makes understandable why the issues of abortion and euthanasia take their place alongside self-chosen sexual expression as centers of moral controversy both within the churches and without. At the heart of each of these arguments lies the characterization of moral agents as individuals, selves, and persons who have the right to pursue their own preferences, whatever they may be.
Turner rightfully charges the inclusivity liberals with idolatry, of thinking of the self first, of the creation of a God made in our own image. We no longer mold ourselves in the image of the Other, we mold the Other in the image of our selves. And how to fight this tendency? Is it the invasion of a new heresy, new trends in thinking? Hardly. What makes it so disturbing and difficult is that it finds its source in the American way of life. In the culture wars that rage over abortion, euthanasia, and sexuality, defenders of more traditional Christian teaching and practice often miss the fact that they must confront American culture on a deeper level than any of these specific issues. If they are to be effective, they must take on the very way in which Americans think of themselves as moral agents.
Preference, idolatry, self-expression. Not to sound like Pat Buchanan, but traditionalist Christianity faces a culture war and an intellectual fight against how Americans think about themselves, their community, and their souls. And in the current environment, when both grocery shopping and church-going use the logic of individual preference, that is a mighty tough battle. How many times have I heard people use the well-worn phrase there are many paths up the mountain? I always reply, yes, but most of them lead off a cliff.
Driving around recently, lost in my thoughts and therefore often missing turns, I was thinking how much of modern American life is framed in the language of individual self-expression rather than any common good. Everything, everything, is explained in terms of individual preference: politics, religion, culture, social relationships, buying and selling. Preference implies that none of the alternatives are better than any other. In short, all of life is simply a marketplace, a cafeteria, a flea market -- pick and choose what you like. Turn on the television and a sea of self-expression (and the advocacy thereof) washes over you: football players who celebrate to express their happiness (team, opposition, and spirit of the game be damned), soda advertisements that preach "be you" (apparently "it tastes good" is simply not good enough; it has to express the self to be really good), car commercials with a woman who constantly changes her outfits saying "change is good, right?" (to which I always say, no -- I'd like to give that woman the flu and then ask her how the change from health to illness has been). If it is true that Americans are united by an "idea" (a thesis I am not tempted to agree with), that idea is an ironic one: we all agree to disagree on what constitutes the good life, and in order to avoid any conflict let's make everything an individual preference. In short, we are all together in making different choices. This sounds like something written on the side of Orwell's Animal Farm barn.
This came to mind again reading a rather chilling article by Philip Turner in the November First Things. Speaking of the Anglican/Episcoplian crisis of Gene Robinson, he warns rather ominously that the problem is not simply with the ECUSA: The Robinson election in fact serves to highlight challenges that all American churches currently face, be they Catholic, Orthodox, "mainstream" Protestant, Evangelical, or Charismatic. I speak of the subversion of Christian belief and practice by the logic of autonomous individualism, and the churches' transformation into simulacra. Make no mistake: what has happened in ECUSA is not a problem limited to a once (overly) proud denomination. Rather, it provides an exemplary case study of the subversion and transformation that, in one way or another, threatens all American denominations today. What makes one so cold when reading these lines is the double threat. Not only are all denominations threatened by this, the threat is at the heart of American culture itself -- it is the American way of life.
Turner says you can see the insidious working of this liberal social economy on the ECUSA as early as the 1960s. Protest theology, calls for "local options" on various church policies, and a total lack of central control progressively eroded the moral coherence of the church, so that today the Anglican Church represents nothing more than a vague "God is inclusive" ideology. Everything is expressed in terms of preferences. Within a liberal social economy, the notion of moral agency gives particular significance to issues of sexual preference and sexual satisfaction, since such a society's members think of themselves not as inhabitants of a pre-established moral order but as individuals who are utterly unique, as selves that have particular personal histories and needs, and as persons who have rights that allow them to express their individuality and pursue their personal well-being. For moral agents who think of themselves as individuals, selves, and persons, sexuality becomes, along with money, both a marker of identity and a primary way of expressing the preferences that define identity.
It is precisely this sexualized notion of moral agency and personal identity that makes the Robinson election so predictable. Here is a unique individual, who is a self with a particular history, and a person with a right to express his preferences and put his talents to work in the social world he inhabits. To deny him that right on the basis of sexual preference is to deny his personal identity. This notion of moral agency also makes understandable why the issues of abortion and euthanasia take their place alongside self-chosen sexual expression as centers of moral controversy both within the churches and without. At the heart of each of these arguments lies the characterization of moral agents as individuals, selves, and persons who have the right to pursue their own preferences, whatever they may be.
Turner rightfully charges the inclusivity liberals with idolatry, of thinking of the self first, of the creation of a God made in our own image. We no longer mold ourselves in the image of the Other, we mold the Other in the image of our selves. And how to fight this tendency? Is it the invasion of a new heresy, new trends in thinking? Hardly. What makes it so disturbing and difficult is that it finds its source in the American way of life. In the culture wars that rage over abortion, euthanasia, and sexuality, defenders of more traditional Christian teaching and practice often miss the fact that they must confront American culture on a deeper level than any of these specific issues. If they are to be effective, they must take on the very way in which Americans think of themselves as moral agents.
Preference, idolatry, self-expression. Not to sound like Pat Buchanan, but traditionalist Christianity faces a culture war and an intellectual fight against how Americans think about themselves, their community, and their souls. And in the current environment, when both grocery shopping and church-going use the logic of individual preference, that is a mighty tough battle. How many times have I heard people use the well-worn phrase there are many paths up the mountain? I always reply, yes, but most of them lead off a cliff.
Monday, December 22, 2003
Finally something worth reading in the NY Times
A standing ovation to this piece in the NY Times, which discusses the tragic abuse of the once noble standing ovation. Hear, hear! This past weekend, a friend and I went to a performance of the Messiah. It was a competent performance, but no more. Nonetheless at the end, people throughout the hall rocketed to their feet like frightened quail, making the standing ovation the most energetic part of the performance.
A standing ovation to this piece in the NY Times, which discusses the tragic abuse of the once noble standing ovation. Hear, hear! This past weekend, a friend and I went to a performance of the Messiah. It was a competent performance, but no more. Nonetheless at the end, people throughout the hall rocketed to their feet like frightened quail, making the standing ovation the most energetic part of the performance.
Making the rounds
The Edinburgh Evening News rightfully ponders the pointlessness of modern celebrity -- apparently someone named Nell McAndrew visited the troops in Kuwait but found the camp accommodations icky and wanted to stay back at her Kuwait City hotel. Says the News: Nell is a perfect example of the celebrity monsters we have created. Whole TV series have been artfully woven around discovering why so many sad people all over Britain make heroes and heroines out of other sad people whose greatest ambition is to live their dysfunctional lives in the glare of publicity ... As the troops pointed out she can't sing, dance or tell jokes so exactly how she was planning to entertain them and boost their morale I can't imagine. But Nell didn't put herself up there in the glossy mags, at the showbiz parties and on the celebrity circuit - we did. I use the word "we" loosely because I have never, except for work-related reasons, bought a copy of Hello-type magazines or cared for one minute what the people in them wore or how they decorated their "lovely homes" (usually with ghastly drapery and cheap, faux, curly-legged, French furniture). Why does anyone else care? Exactly. Why in the wide world does anyone care?
Feeling charitable? William Dennis on NRO says how about giving to old dame alma mater? He must have went to school a long time ago. Here is how he describes college nostalgia: Perhaps right now you are wondering whether you should cut the college another check on top of the already generous donations you have made over the years. After all, you had a terrific time there as an undergraduate. You worked hard and played hard in college, and got the foundation for a professional life that has taken you far. There you met your soul mate for life. You still follow the football team and go to class reunions. And you are flattered by all the invitations from the college president to serve on advisory councils for this and that, and to take the alumni cruise to the Greek islands. Why, you even have fond memories of several old professors, long gone from the scene, who tried to lead you through the intricacies of the Federalist Papers, Shakespeare, Aristotle, and Edward Gibbon.
Pray tell, what school was this and when? Ok, let's break this down against my own experience lo' those 10+ years ago at a good Catholic liberal arts school. (1.) Well, I did enjoy myself, worked and played reasonably hard, and made friendships that endure to this day. (2.) Undergraduate education did not lay the foundation of my professional life as a professor, other than liking certain profs I had and today emulating their style and approach. The curriculum was frankly unsatisfying and I could often be found browsing in the library reading books I should have been learning in class. How odd that I teach American history, yet I never took an undergraduate American history class. (3.) I met my wife in grad school. (4.) We didn't have a football team (a pathetic fact that makes me envious of those who actually follow college sports -- I was always say, why bother?) and I have yet to go to a class reunion. (4.) The college president won't be asking for my input any time soon, and I can't afford any school sponsored trips -- do they even have them? (5.) I did read the Federalist Papers at college, but not Shakespeare, Aristotle, or Gibbon -- can you believe that?
For all this, I have never given money to my alma mater because I am frankly afraid of what they will do with it. At the last Homecoming I attended (what, eight years ago?), the library had a display of gay and lesbian literature for the alums to admire. Maybe this is why I didn't read Shakespeare -- maybe I'll donate a collected volume of his plays. Although, I'd probably find it at the annual book sale soon after.
Maybe Scrooge was right. Here is the classic defense of that idea. And here is another, spiced with an appalling contemporary story, on NRO.
And how the Christmas season will be celebrated by New Hampshire Episcopalians. Who ever would have thought some would flee to Massachusetts for spiritual succor?
The Edinburgh Evening News rightfully ponders the pointlessness of modern celebrity -- apparently someone named Nell McAndrew visited the troops in Kuwait but found the camp accommodations icky and wanted to stay back at her Kuwait City hotel. Says the News: Nell is a perfect example of the celebrity monsters we have created. Whole TV series have been artfully woven around discovering why so many sad people all over Britain make heroes and heroines out of other sad people whose greatest ambition is to live their dysfunctional lives in the glare of publicity ... As the troops pointed out she can't sing, dance or tell jokes so exactly how she was planning to entertain them and boost their morale I can't imagine. But Nell didn't put herself up there in the glossy mags, at the showbiz parties and on the celebrity circuit - we did. I use the word "we" loosely because I have never, except for work-related reasons, bought a copy of Hello-type magazines or cared for one minute what the people in them wore or how they decorated their "lovely homes" (usually with ghastly drapery and cheap, faux, curly-legged, French furniture). Why does anyone else care? Exactly. Why in the wide world does anyone care?
Feeling charitable? William Dennis on NRO says how about giving to old dame alma mater? He must have went to school a long time ago. Here is how he describes college nostalgia: Perhaps right now you are wondering whether you should cut the college another check on top of the already generous donations you have made over the years. After all, you had a terrific time there as an undergraduate. You worked hard and played hard in college, and got the foundation for a professional life that has taken you far. There you met your soul mate for life. You still follow the football team and go to class reunions. And you are flattered by all the invitations from the college president to serve on advisory councils for this and that, and to take the alumni cruise to the Greek islands. Why, you even have fond memories of several old professors, long gone from the scene, who tried to lead you through the intricacies of the Federalist Papers, Shakespeare, Aristotle, and Edward Gibbon.
Pray tell, what school was this and when? Ok, let's break this down against my own experience lo' those 10+ years ago at a good Catholic liberal arts school. (1.) Well, I did enjoy myself, worked and played reasonably hard, and made friendships that endure to this day. (2.) Undergraduate education did not lay the foundation of my professional life as a professor, other than liking certain profs I had and today emulating their style and approach. The curriculum was frankly unsatisfying and I could often be found browsing in the library reading books I should have been learning in class. How odd that I teach American history, yet I never took an undergraduate American history class. (3.) I met my wife in grad school. (4.) We didn't have a football team (a pathetic fact that makes me envious of those who actually follow college sports -- I was always say, why bother?) and I have yet to go to a class reunion. (4.) The college president won't be asking for my input any time soon, and I can't afford any school sponsored trips -- do they even have them? (5.) I did read the Federalist Papers at college, but not Shakespeare, Aristotle, or Gibbon -- can you believe that?
For all this, I have never given money to my alma mater because I am frankly afraid of what they will do with it. At the last Homecoming I attended (what, eight years ago?), the library had a display of gay and lesbian literature for the alums to admire. Maybe this is why I didn't read Shakespeare -- maybe I'll donate a collected volume of his plays. Although, I'd probably find it at the annual book sale soon after.
Maybe Scrooge was right. Here is the classic defense of that idea. And here is another, spiced with an appalling contemporary story, on NRO.
And how the Christmas season will be celebrated by New Hampshire Episcopalians. Who ever would have thought some would flee to Massachusetts for spiritual succor?
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Lewis and Tolkien
While sipping chardonnay last night, I watched the PBS retrospective on C.S. Lewis and thought it well done if brief. While sipping brandy directly after, I watched the PBS retrospective on Tolkien and came away less impressed (with the show, not the brandy). How odd, I thought, that the Lewis documentary rightly emphasized the centrality of Christianity in his fiction, while the Tolkien peice did not. Instead, viewers were given a map overview of Middle Earth and a plot description of the trilogy, spiced in between with fantasy illustrations and commentary. I kept thinking, these are like Star Trek convention people, who dress up like the characters and decorate their homes with comic book art -- there is more than just hobbits and orcs here. There is a message. Do they understand?
While sipping chardonnay last night, I watched the PBS retrospective on C.S. Lewis and thought it well done if brief. While sipping brandy directly after, I watched the PBS retrospective on Tolkien and came away less impressed (with the show, not the brandy). How odd, I thought, that the Lewis documentary rightly emphasized the centrality of Christianity in his fiction, while the Tolkien peice did not. Instead, viewers were given a map overview of Middle Earth and a plot description of the trilogy, spiced in between with fantasy illustrations and commentary. I kept thinking, these are like Star Trek convention people, who dress up like the characters and decorate their homes with comic book art -- there is more than just hobbits and orcs here. There is a message. Do they understand?
Saturday, December 20, 2003
A Tudor from beyond?
When a fire door was continually left open at Hampton Court Palace, security guards went to the closed circuit tv for answers. And what did they see? Who is this strange, pale-faced, Tudor ghost?
When a fire door was continually left open at Hampton Court Palace, security guards went to the closed circuit tv for answers. And what did they see? Who is this strange, pale-faced, Tudor ghost?
Friday, December 19, 2003
Disturbing Trends
What is it with all the sudden press on the state of the English Christmas? I'm a proud "'murican" as some say up in the homeland, and yet all day long I've been deluged by information about the current state of Christmas festivities in England. Is this punishment for going to an Anglo-Catholic service this morning? Does the LCMS hierachy have a direct line to God after all?
At any rate, if I'm going to be tortured, everyone else should be too. So here's Mark Steyn on Christmas movies, English style and an article in the NY Times on the horrors of English Christmas dinner. At some point during the Christmas season, I will write an impassioned defense of the plum pudding and mincemeat, but not today.
What is it with all the sudden press on the state of the English Christmas? I'm a proud "'murican" as some say up in the homeland, and yet all day long I've been deluged by information about the current state of Christmas festivities in England. Is this punishment for going to an Anglo-Catholic service this morning? Does the LCMS hierachy have a direct line to God after all?
At any rate, if I'm going to be tortured, everyone else should be too. So here's Mark Steyn on Christmas movies, English style and an article in the NY Times on the horrors of English Christmas dinner. At some point during the Christmas season, I will write an impassioned defense of the plum pudding and mincemeat, but not today.
There's an awful lots of nuts in the EU, but only a few in Brazil
Gracious. After that last round of posts, one would think this blog was run by historians...oh wait.
As the sole non-historian among we three non kings of Orient or any other place, I feel compelled to open the window and let in some damaging UV rays and some bracing bleak Midwinter's air before the good Doctor succumbs to more history of the day action. (However, as my education in poetry depended heavily upon 1920's poetry texts, I did appreciate the shout out for John Greenleaf Whittier, direct descendant of Legolas through the distaff line.)
In this festive season, I direct your attention to this short piece in the Daily Telegraph, "EU Bans Christmas". The only thing that assures me that this is a parody is that the EU did not issue directives against the Christmas pudding, which, as all readers of Dickens know, is traditionally decorated with flammable objects, such as sprigs of holly, and then is set ablaze with high proof alcohol, or against the Christmas cracker, which contains gunpowder that could doubtless be used for nefarious purposes, much less that glorious creation, the Tischbombe. Believe me; no bureaucrat could pass up the opportunity to ban a Tischbombe. Of course judging from all reports, if the EU were so rash as to ban the Tischbombe, Denmark would leave the EU immediately. And need I mention the practice of real candles on Christmas trees? I think it safe to conclude therefore that the piece is parody, for the moment at least.
But Great Britain labours under another Christmas Cheer Crusher, a declining supply of Brazil nuts. Now, I know several people who would opine that what the world needs to make it a better place is fewer Brazil nuts. They will be happy to know that the EU, in its continuing quest to abolish death from its borders, has adopted their position. The EU has demanded that all Brazil nuts be tested to ensure that their aflatoxin levels are less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts.
Of course, no self respecting Brazil nut would be caught with less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts. They grow in Brazil in the jungle for goodness sake. Has anyone noticed that the laws of Nature are particularly stark in jungles? If the Brazil nut tree wishes to propagate, it has to protect its wee seed (True, its fruit weighs 3 pounds, but to Bertholletia Excelsa that's wee.) from being eaten it needs to stuff it full of insecticides hence the high levels of aflatoxin, Nature's own Sevin. Thus, unaware of the dire necessity of having to comply with an EU directive, the Brazil Nut tree keeps producing aflatoxin laden nuts.
This recalcitrance upon the part of the Brazil nut, riots in Bolivia, and a below average harvest have brought about a Brazil nut shortage. Not only has this caused panic among Three Musketeers devotees, but it has come as a blow to the English people who apparently view the over consumption of Brazil nuts as a key part of the Christmas celebrations. (I have no idea why the Brazil nut has attained this mythic status. Surely the noble English walnut should occupy this position, but no doubt Wiccans have established a link between Brazil nuts and ancient Celtic solstice rituals, and that was that.) As chestnuts roasting over the open fire are to we Yanks, who sadly no longer have chestnuts and have to import them from Europe, so apparently are Brazil nuts to the English Christmas psyche. Thus, panic sweeps the nation at the notion of a shortage and the gloom only increases. Bah, Humbug.
But for the truly festive, I always says it is hard to surpass the joie de vive of an Eagles fan. True, I embrace the Negadelphia theory. (If the Eagles lose to the Redskins, however, I'm going to have to do some Visigoth through Thrace rampaging of my own, right down K Street.) Nonetheless, I say, "Fly, Eagles, fly! "
Gracious. After that last round of posts, one would think this blog was run by historians...oh wait.
As the sole non-historian among we three non kings of Orient or any other place, I feel compelled to open the window and let in some damaging UV rays and some bracing bleak Midwinter's air before the good Doctor succumbs to more history of the day action. (However, as my education in poetry depended heavily upon 1920's poetry texts, I did appreciate the shout out for John Greenleaf Whittier, direct descendant of Legolas through the distaff line.)
In this festive season, I direct your attention to this short piece in the Daily Telegraph, "EU Bans Christmas". The only thing that assures me that this is a parody is that the EU did not issue directives against the Christmas pudding, which, as all readers of Dickens know, is traditionally decorated with flammable objects, such as sprigs of holly, and then is set ablaze with high proof alcohol, or against the Christmas cracker, which contains gunpowder that could doubtless be used for nefarious purposes, much less that glorious creation, the Tischbombe. Believe me; no bureaucrat could pass up the opportunity to ban a Tischbombe. Of course judging from all reports, if the EU were so rash as to ban the Tischbombe, Denmark would leave the EU immediately. And need I mention the practice of real candles on Christmas trees? I think it safe to conclude therefore that the piece is parody, for the moment at least.
But Great Britain labours under another Christmas Cheer Crusher, a declining supply of Brazil nuts. Now, I know several people who would opine that what the world needs to make it a better place is fewer Brazil nuts. They will be happy to know that the EU, in its continuing quest to abolish death from its borders, has adopted their position. The EU has demanded that all Brazil nuts be tested to ensure that their aflatoxin levels are less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts.
Of course, no self respecting Brazil nut would be caught with less than four milligrams of toxin per kilogram of nuts. They grow in Brazil in the jungle for goodness sake. Has anyone noticed that the laws of Nature are particularly stark in jungles? If the Brazil nut tree wishes to propagate, it has to protect its wee seed (True, its fruit weighs 3 pounds, but to Bertholletia Excelsa that's wee.) from being eaten it needs to stuff it full of insecticides hence the high levels of aflatoxin, Nature's own Sevin. Thus, unaware of the dire necessity of having to comply with an EU directive, the Brazil Nut tree keeps producing aflatoxin laden nuts.
This recalcitrance upon the part of the Brazil nut, riots in Bolivia, and a below average harvest have brought about a Brazil nut shortage. Not only has this caused panic among Three Musketeers devotees, but it has come as a blow to the English people who apparently view the over consumption of Brazil nuts as a key part of the Christmas celebrations. (I have no idea why the Brazil nut has attained this mythic status. Surely the noble English walnut should occupy this position, but no doubt Wiccans have established a link between Brazil nuts and ancient Celtic solstice rituals, and that was that.) As chestnuts roasting over the open fire are to we Yanks, who sadly no longer have chestnuts and have to import them from Europe, so apparently are Brazil nuts to the English Christmas psyche. Thus, panic sweeps the nation at the notion of a shortage and the gloom only increases. Bah, Humbug.
But for the truly festive, I always says it is hard to surpass the joie de vive of an Eagles fan. True, I embrace the Negadelphia theory. (If the Eagles lose to the Redskins, however, I'm going to have to do some Visigoth through Thrace rampaging of my own, right down K Street.) Nonetheless, I say, "Fly, Eagles, fly! "
Thursday, December 18, 2003
An archduke and an American priest
I hope this doesn't sound like some "today in history" site, but two more birthdays of note today. On this day in 1863, the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was born, only becoming heir when Franz Joseph's only son Rudolf killed himself. A.J.P. Taylor wrote unkindly of Ferdinand, Violent, reactionary, and autocratic, Francis Ferdinand combined a crazy insistence on dynastic power with a marriage to a woman of non-royal blood, in breach of dynastic rules. Clericalism dominated his political schemes ... Francis Ferdinand was one of the worst products of the Habsburg House: reactionary, clerical, brutal and overbearing, he was also often insane. He lacked even the pessimism and hesitation which had made Francis Joseph a tolerable ruler. Ironic that it wasn't Ferdinand's autocratic and aggressive policies that caused WW1, but his assassination before even ascending to the throne in June 1914.
The more likable and temperate Isaac Hecker, Catholic priest and founder of the Paulists, was born on this day in 1819. The son of a New York flour merchant, Hecker was a good Jacksonian Democrat, drawn to Brook Farm (and surrounded by an sea of Whigs -- he and Hawthorne were the exceptions), and finally to Roman Catholicism. Originally a Redemptorist, he asked the Pope to found a distinctly American band of missionary priests, the Paulists. Hecker started with optimism -- everyone loves the truth and is seeking it out with sincerity and would embrace it if he could only see clearly -- and sought to educate Americans on the necessity of Catholic religious life and the compatibility of faith and reason. The more a civilization solicits the exercise of man's intelligence and enlarges the field for the action of his free will, the broader will be the basis it offers for sanctity, he wrote. Ignorance and weakness are the negation of life.
I hope this doesn't sound like some "today in history" site, but two more birthdays of note today. On this day in 1863, the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was born, only becoming heir when Franz Joseph's only son Rudolf killed himself. A.J.P. Taylor wrote unkindly of Ferdinand, Violent, reactionary, and autocratic, Francis Ferdinand combined a crazy insistence on dynastic power with a marriage to a woman of non-royal blood, in breach of dynastic rules. Clericalism dominated his political schemes ... Francis Ferdinand was one of the worst products of the Habsburg House: reactionary, clerical, brutal and overbearing, he was also often insane. He lacked even the pessimism and hesitation which had made Francis Joseph a tolerable ruler. Ironic that it wasn't Ferdinand's autocratic and aggressive policies that caused WW1, but his assassination before even ascending to the throne in June 1914.
The more likable and temperate Isaac Hecker, Catholic priest and founder of the Paulists, was born on this day in 1819. The son of a New York flour merchant, Hecker was a good Jacksonian Democrat, drawn to Brook Farm (and surrounded by an sea of Whigs -- he and Hawthorne were the exceptions), and finally to Roman Catholicism. Originally a Redemptorist, he asked the Pope to found a distinctly American band of missionary priests, the Paulists. Hecker started with optimism -- everyone loves the truth and is seeking it out with sincerity and would embrace it if he could only see clearly -- and sought to educate Americans on the necessity of Catholic religious life and the compatibility of faith and reason. The more a civilization solicits the exercise of man's intelligence and enlarges the field for the action of his free will, the broader will be the basis it offers for sanctity, he wrote. Ignorance and weakness are the negation of life.
New England Gothic
Tuesday marked the birthday of the architect Ralph Adams Cram, the pride of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, born in 1863. When we think of American college campuses, the image of gothic-style buildings, wrapped in ivy, often comes to mind. In large part, we have Cram to thank for that. An anti-modern medievalist (architecture's version of Henry Adams), horrified at the "impulse toward individualism" he detected in post-1500 Western Civilization, he helped design many of the buildings at Princeton, West Point, and Sweet Briar College. He wrote in The Gothic Quest (1907) that since 1500, history has been a record of just principles driven to excess; of liberty changing into license; of license changing into anarchy; of revolution and counter-revolution; and through it all has run the slow but determined success of the less worthy cause, until at last the old tendencies have won their goal, and life has become a riot of individualism.
In the end, Cram turned against democracy itself, becoming that oddity of oddities, an American monarchist more at home in Catholic cathedrals than the meeting house of his youth. The high gods we had revered and before whom we had made sacrifice of so much of the best we had, show thin and impotent, or vanish in the flame of disaster, he wrote in 1936. Political and social democracy, with their plausible devices and panaceas; popular sovereignty, the Protestant religion of the masses; the technological triumphs that were to emancipate labor and redeem the world; all the multiple manifestations of a free and democratic society fail of their predicted issue, and we find ourselves lapped in confusion and numb with disappointment and chagrin.
Yesterday was the birthday of the oft forgotten Quaker poet, John Greenleaf Whittier. Pick up an American literature textbook from 1920 and Whittier figures prominently; try today and Whittier is seldom there. His abolitionist politics made him an anathema to many, North and South, prior to the Civil War. But time soothes all wounds, and he became a figure of nostalgic affection for many postbellum Americans hungering after a simpler (if largely imaginary) antebellum life. Snowbound sealed his fame, and few poems read better on a cold, snowy winter's night, corgi at your feet, wine at your side (the Quaker might disapprove), sitting in front of a fire.
Shut in from all the world without,
We sat the clean-winged hearth about,
Content to let the north-wind roar
In baffled rage at pane and door,
While the red logs before us beat
The frost-line back with tropic heat;
And ever, when a louder blast
Shook beam and rafter as it passed,
The merrier up its roaring draught
The great throat of the chimney laughed;
The house-dog on his paws outspread
Laid to the fire his drowsy head,
The cat's dark silhouette on the wall
A couchant tiger's seemed to fall;
And, for the winter fireside meet,
Between the andirons' straddling feet,
The mug of cider simmered slow,
The apples sputtered in a row,
And, close at hand, the basket stood
With nuts from brown October's wood.
He died in 1892, in Hampton Falls, the town of Cram's birth.
Tuesday marked the birthday of the architect Ralph Adams Cram, the pride of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, born in 1863. When we think of American college campuses, the image of gothic-style buildings, wrapped in ivy, often comes to mind. In large part, we have Cram to thank for that. An anti-modern medievalist (architecture's version of Henry Adams), horrified at the "impulse toward individualism" he detected in post-1500 Western Civilization, he helped design many of the buildings at Princeton, West Point, and Sweet Briar College. He wrote in The Gothic Quest (1907) that since 1500, history has been a record of just principles driven to excess; of liberty changing into license; of license changing into anarchy; of revolution and counter-revolution; and through it all has run the slow but determined success of the less worthy cause, until at last the old tendencies have won their goal, and life has become a riot of individualism.
In the end, Cram turned against democracy itself, becoming that oddity of oddities, an American monarchist more at home in Catholic cathedrals than the meeting house of his youth. The high gods we had revered and before whom we had made sacrifice of so much of the best we had, show thin and impotent, or vanish in the flame of disaster, he wrote in 1936. Political and social democracy, with their plausible devices and panaceas; popular sovereignty, the Protestant religion of the masses; the technological triumphs that were to emancipate labor and redeem the world; all the multiple manifestations of a free and democratic society fail of their predicted issue, and we find ourselves lapped in confusion and numb with disappointment and chagrin.
Yesterday was the birthday of the oft forgotten Quaker poet, John Greenleaf Whittier. Pick up an American literature textbook from 1920 and Whittier figures prominently; try today and Whittier is seldom there. His abolitionist politics made him an anathema to many, North and South, prior to the Civil War. But time soothes all wounds, and he became a figure of nostalgic affection for many postbellum Americans hungering after a simpler (if largely imaginary) antebellum life. Snowbound sealed his fame, and few poems read better on a cold, snowy winter's night, corgi at your feet, wine at your side (the Quaker might disapprove), sitting in front of a fire.
Shut in from all the world without,
We sat the clean-winged hearth about,
Content to let the north-wind roar
In baffled rage at pane and door,
While the red logs before us beat
The frost-line back with tropic heat;
And ever, when a louder blast
Shook beam and rafter as it passed,
The merrier up its roaring draught
The great throat of the chimney laughed;
The house-dog on his paws outspread
Laid to the fire his drowsy head,
The cat's dark silhouette on the wall
A couchant tiger's seemed to fall;
And, for the winter fireside meet,
Between the andirons' straddling feet,
The mug of cider simmered slow,
The apples sputtered in a row,
And, close at hand, the basket stood
With nuts from brown October's wood.
He died in 1892, in Hampton Falls, the town of Cram's birth.
More from Dr. Potomac
Dr. Potomac, a Washington Insider, recently sent this email through the electronic transom of Dr. Curmudgeon & Co. on Sunday, just after the announcement of Saddam's capture. He'll be musing on the political consequences of that incident next week, no doubt:
"In re: the capture of Saddam Hussein, which guarantees months of favorable media coverage concerning the dictator's human rights abuses not to mention a treasure trove of information about the WMD program, his relationship to bin Laden and a variety of other subjects, three questions:
1) Could Al Gore's sense of timing be any worse?
2) What is the opening bell quote in the Howard Dean for Presidential Futures Market?
3) With Saddam in hand, the economy surging and prescription drugs off the table, what exactly is the Democratic presidential platform in 2004 irrespective of the standard bearer?
Those seeking an explanation for Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean need to consider the banal along with the baroque. The focus this week in DC has largely been on the baroque, how the endorsement is part of a crafty, long-term strategy to block Hillary Clinton from the 2004 nomination and position Gore either for a second run (in the event Dean loses) or to secure for himself appointment as Secretary of State should Dean unseat W.
These rationales fail to account for the most salient feature of Al Gore's post-2000 personality: his permanent state of rage. At the event with Dean in Harlem, Gore looked like nothing so much as one of the rage virus zombies from "28 Days Later", complete with the flopping hair, glistening skin and dilated pupils. Seen from this perspective, Gore endorsed Dean because Dean is the one candidate in the race who says he is as angry about the outcome of the 2000 election as Al Gore himself. There's a certain logical inversion in Gore's psychological perception, of course. Without the Florida recount, the 5-4 Supreme Court that ratified W's electoral college victory, and subsequent alienation of the lower reaches of the Democratic base, Dean would not be surging to the nomination right now. Dean didn't create the briar patch but he can hardly regret finding himself in it.
The deepening infantilism of the Democratic party is a short-term political boon for the Republicans, and one that virtually guarantees a big W victory in 2004 and significant gains in the Senate. (I leave the House aside since high-tech gerrymanders limit the number of seats either side is likely to win through elections. Off-year gerrymandering in Texas and Colorado holds out some hope for some Republican gains.) As many have noted, however, the foundering of the Democratic party is not in the long-term interests of the country or the Republican party. An effective two-party system requires, well, two parties -- not one party and a loose confederation of angry children. A heavy weight champ doesn't stay in shape sparing with a 98-pound weakling.
Exhibit A in this phenomenon is the alarming way Democrats have mishandled the failure of pre-war intelligence in Iraq. No matter how much Republicans would like to wish it away, the absence of significant chemical, biological weapons programs in Iraq is deeply troubling with potentially fatal consequences if left unaddressed. The problems for the U.S. are deepened immeasurably when the Democrats fail to identify correctly the core issue. The fact is that the intelligence failure was as broad and deep as it could possibly get. No one, including Hans Blix and Dominique de Villepin, was in disagreement over the fact that Iraq had and was developing further its WMD programs. It was the one absolute given of the pre-war debate. The argument was over how to disarm Saddam and how long to wait before taking military action. Rather than asking the mature political question, "How did the intelligence services misjudge this so badly and how can this kind of failure be avoided in the future?" Democrats, in infant mode, reduce a critical issue to an accusation that George W. Bush lied. Meanwhile, George Tenent stays on as CIA director and what should be an emergency overhaul of our intelligences services lags.
For heaven's sake, Democrats, grow up! You owe it to your country."
Dr. Potomac, a Washington Insider, recently sent this email through the electronic transom of Dr. Curmudgeon & Co. on Sunday, just after the announcement of Saddam's capture. He'll be musing on the political consequences of that incident next week, no doubt:
"In re: the capture of Saddam Hussein, which guarantees months of favorable media coverage concerning the dictator's human rights abuses not to mention a treasure trove of information about the WMD program, his relationship to bin Laden and a variety of other subjects, three questions:
1) Could Al Gore's sense of timing be any worse?
2) What is the opening bell quote in the Howard Dean for Presidential Futures Market?
3) With Saddam in hand, the economy surging and prescription drugs off the table, what exactly is the Democratic presidential platform in 2004 irrespective of the standard bearer?
Those seeking an explanation for Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean need to consider the banal along with the baroque. The focus this week in DC has largely been on the baroque, how the endorsement is part of a crafty, long-term strategy to block Hillary Clinton from the 2004 nomination and position Gore either for a second run (in the event Dean loses) or to secure for himself appointment as Secretary of State should Dean unseat W.
These rationales fail to account for the most salient feature of Al Gore's post-2000 personality: his permanent state of rage. At the event with Dean in Harlem, Gore looked like nothing so much as one of the rage virus zombies from "28 Days Later", complete with the flopping hair, glistening skin and dilated pupils. Seen from this perspective, Gore endorsed Dean because Dean is the one candidate in the race who says he is as angry about the outcome of the 2000 election as Al Gore himself. There's a certain logical inversion in Gore's psychological perception, of course. Without the Florida recount, the 5-4 Supreme Court that ratified W's electoral college victory, and subsequent alienation of the lower reaches of the Democratic base, Dean would not be surging to the nomination right now. Dean didn't create the briar patch but he can hardly regret finding himself in it.
The deepening infantilism of the Democratic party is a short-term political boon for the Republicans, and one that virtually guarantees a big W victory in 2004 and significant gains in the Senate. (I leave the House aside since high-tech gerrymanders limit the number of seats either side is likely to win through elections. Off-year gerrymandering in Texas and Colorado holds out some hope for some Republican gains.) As many have noted, however, the foundering of the Democratic party is not in the long-term interests of the country or the Republican party. An effective two-party system requires, well, two parties -- not one party and a loose confederation of angry children. A heavy weight champ doesn't stay in shape sparing with a 98-pound weakling.
Exhibit A in this phenomenon is the alarming way Democrats have mishandled the failure of pre-war intelligence in Iraq. No matter how much Republicans would like to wish it away, the absence of significant chemical, biological weapons programs in Iraq is deeply troubling with potentially fatal consequences if left unaddressed. The problems for the U.S. are deepened immeasurably when the Democrats fail to identify correctly the core issue. The fact is that the intelligence failure was as broad and deep as it could possibly get. No one, including Hans Blix and Dominique de Villepin, was in disagreement over the fact that Iraq had and was developing further its WMD programs. It was the one absolute given of the pre-war debate. The argument was over how to disarm Saddam and how long to wait before taking military action. Rather than asking the mature political question, "How did the intelligence services misjudge this so badly and how can this kind of failure be avoided in the future?" Democrats, in infant mode, reduce a critical issue to an accusation that George W. Bush lied. Meanwhile, George Tenent stays on as CIA director and what should be an emergency overhaul of our intelligences services lags.
For heaven's sake, Democrats, grow up! You owe it to your country."
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Apologies for not posting since last week, but finals are upon me and I am up to my neck in correcting. More detailed posts will follow this weekend.
Did you notice, however (he says, hinting that future posts will mention this) that several significant birthdays, all deserving extended comment, will pass by us December 16-18? Yesterday was the birthday of George Santayana and Ralph Adams Cram (two good New Englanders, God bless) and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (a protest by smugglers, ugh). Today is the birthday of John Greenleaf Whittier and Rev. Thomas Starr King (two more more good New Englanders, although Whittier's politics get up my nose). Tomorrow is the birthday of Saki, Father Isaac Hecker, and Franz Ferdinand. Quite a crew.
Lots of mighty good posts there! Culture, politics, religion. (Sigh) More correcting.
Did you notice, however (he says, hinting that future posts will mention this) that several significant birthdays, all deserving extended comment, will pass by us December 16-18? Yesterday was the birthday of George Santayana and Ralph Adams Cram (two good New Englanders, God bless) and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (a protest by smugglers, ugh). Today is the birthday of John Greenleaf Whittier and Rev. Thomas Starr King (two more more good New Englanders, although Whittier's politics get up my nose). Tomorrow is the birthday of Saki, Father Isaac Hecker, and Franz Ferdinand. Quite a crew.
Lots of mighty good posts there! Culture, politics, religion. (Sigh) More correcting.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Intelligence Experts Among Us My goodness, who needs the CIA when you have op-ed columnists, cable news readers and the rest of the panoply of the 24-7 news culture? Consider Richard Cohen, Washington Post op-ed columnist, who today informs us that there was no way Saddam could have been running the insurgency from the bottom of his spider hole. In fairness to Richard, he did not come up with that lame brain-dead point all by himself...he's kind of borrowing it from lots of other people in the last news-cycle. That should make him feel better, because it's only plagiarism that keeps him from being a complete idiot.
I mean, what do these people think? (I know, they don't, but still.) That Saddam was spending all his time in a hole for the last six months? Cohen, obviously a trained counterintelligence analyst, says that since he only had two people with him, he obviously wasn't in charge of much. Maybe, Richard, his usual entourage of 60 would attract too much attention. Richard, who is not only a Skilled Counterintelligence Operative but quite the Comic, observes that the $750,000 found with Saddam is just what Paris Hilton uses in a Rodeo Drive shopping spree. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's about 1% of what was removed in cash from the Iraqi national bank before the 3rd Infantry entered Baghdad...some of which has been recovered. And considering the somewhat, ah, low standard of living in Saddam's Iraq, I think that would pay for a lot of hits on American troops...though of course it might not pick up too many Gucci's or Armani's, which is quite the comparison, Richard, you kill me.
Richard, Richard...first think, then write. Right now you are just writing. And the same to all your media friends.
Knowing something before you think is also a good idea. Try it by reading something other than the wire service.
I mean, what do these people think? (I know, they don't, but still.) That Saddam was spending all his time in a hole for the last six months? Cohen, obviously a trained counterintelligence analyst, says that since he only had two people with him, he obviously wasn't in charge of much. Maybe, Richard, his usual entourage of 60 would attract too much attention. Richard, who is not only a Skilled Counterintelligence Operative but quite the Comic, observes that the $750,000 found with Saddam is just what Paris Hilton uses in a Rodeo Drive shopping spree. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's about 1% of what was removed in cash from the Iraqi national bank before the 3rd Infantry entered Baghdad...some of which has been recovered. And considering the somewhat, ah, low standard of living in Saddam's Iraq, I think that would pay for a lot of hits on American troops...though of course it might not pick up too many Gucci's or Armani's, which is quite the comparison, Richard, you kill me.
Richard, Richard...first think, then write. Right now you are just writing. And the same to all your media friends.
Knowing something before you think is also a good idea. Try it by reading something other than the wire service.
Friday, December 12, 2003
A nice essay for the bibliophiles among us -- the British Library is selling off 2.5 million books via Amazon? Might have to investigate that.
And be careful how loud you play your bagpipes. They could be impounded.
And be careful how loud you play your bagpipes. They could be impounded.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Has anyone noticed that this week is the 315th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution, or at least the beginning of it? This week in 1688, King James II, the last Catholic and last Stuart King of England, fled London for France as William of Orange advanced from Torbay. The BBC has some interesting pages giving the basic history.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
A short but direct article by Peter Hitchens this week, claiming that Tony Blair is the most left-wing English leader since Oliver Cromwell.
There hasn't been such a Left-wing government since Oliver Cromwell died. The anti-English bias, the tyranny of political correctness, the semi-Marxist assault on the constitution, the project to tax the middle class out of existence, the unstoppable creation of non-jobs for Labour supporters in the public sector, the frenzied egalitarianism and promotion of dependency on the State - all will continue as before.
Will the Tory Party then finally realise what it is up against and stop trying to copy New Labour? Will the Labour Left realise how pleased they ought to be? Will the British people realise the danger they are in? I can only hope so.
Coincidentally, today is the birthday of Cromwell's secretary, John Milton, born on this day in 1608.
There hasn't been such a Left-wing government since Oliver Cromwell died. The anti-English bias, the tyranny of political correctness, the semi-Marxist assault on the constitution, the project to tax the middle class out of existence, the unstoppable creation of non-jobs for Labour supporters in the public sector, the frenzied egalitarianism and promotion of dependency on the State - all will continue as before.
Will the Tory Party then finally realise what it is up against and stop trying to copy New Labour? Will the Labour Left realise how pleased they ought to be? Will the British people realise the danger they are in? I can only hope so.
Coincidentally, today is the birthday of Cromwell's secretary, John Milton, born on this day in 1608.
In defense of being mulish
Stephen Bayley, author the Dictionary of Idiocy, opines in the Telegraph that only the opinionated, the original thinkers, the contrarians are worth listening to. The rest are just followers and fuddy-duddys, treading well-worn and boring paths of knowledge and unoriginal opinion. May I throw a wrench in the works? Three things come to mind.
We must be careful not to confuse eccentricity with originality. One has its basis in spite and difference for difference sake, the other in making a contribution to thought. Perhaps my favorite political thinker (right up there with Hume, Burke, and assorted others), the perspicacious James Fitzjames Stephen, warned that if John Stuart Mill's preference for "mere variety" in thought and action were followed, the world would be a silly ugly place. If this advice were followed, we should have as many little oddities in manner and behavior as we have people who wish to pass for men of genius. Eccentricity is far more often a mark of weakness than a mark of strength. Weakness wishes, as a rule, to attract attention by trifling distinctions, and strength wishes to avoid it. Originality consists in thinking for yourself, not in thinking differently from other people. That seems an important distinction, separately out mere difference from solid, original thought. And can you have an original thought that bulwarks established things? Can you have a conservative or reactionary genius?
Further, should society blandly smile and accept original opinions? One could certainly argue that the social stigma attached to uttering new ideas is burdensome and uncomfortable, but could we also say it is absolutely necessary? We judge the truthfulness and goodness of new ideas by putting them through hell, a sort of intellectual Darwinism. Stephen continues: Till a man has carefully formed his opinions on these subjects, thought them out, assured himself of their value, and decided to take the risk of proclaiming them, the strong probability is that they are not much worth having. Speculation on government, morals, and religion is a matter of vital importance, and not mere food for curiosity. Curiosity, no doubt, is generally the motive which leads a man to study them; but, till he has formed opinions on them for which he is prepared to fight, there is no hardship in his being compelled by social intolerance to keep them to himself and to those who sympathise with him. Thus we have the odd dance of opposites. On one hand, we have original ideas born of curiosity and the quest for knowledge and wisdom; on the other, we have the social pressure and intellectual criticism persecuting the original thought to test its meddle. In truth, unless we are intolerant of the original idea, how do we know its worth?
On this question, Jacques Barzun even goes so far as to bemoan the death of the philistine in modern life. Surely it took courage of the best mulish sort to make the same protest, generation after generation, on seeing each new school of 19C art and literature produced and derided, then accepted, and at last exhalted and lodged at public expense in museums, libraries, and concert halls. But they slowly died away by the 1920s, transformed into a new breed of trimmers and cowards. Intolerance is no longer tolerated. Shame on you for being shameful. Yet, without a dab of the philisitine in us, how will we separate the bad from the good?
Finally, we should also be on guard against mere "open-mindedness," one of my least favorite phrases. I detest it when, in the heat of discussion and debate, someone retorts "well, try to be open-minded." To be open-minded is very often to be empty-headed. It is better to be narrow-minded than to have no mind, said Evelyn Waugh, to hold limited and rigid principles than none at all. That is the danger which faces so many people today -- to have no considered opinions on any subject, to put up with what is wasteful and harmful with the excuse that there is 'good in everything' -- which in most cases means an inability to distinguish between good and bad. You must begin with some frame of reference, with some structure based on the best that has been thought and written previous to your time. This allows you to judge original ideas and see their value or worthlessness.
Bayley notes, Opinions flourish only in periods or cultures without a dominant religion. A medieval monk in his Cluniac abbey or a contemporary mullah in his mosque and, indeed, a fine Victorian gentleman, had little use for original opinions. The collective opinions of religion are inflexible dogma, not interesting expressions of private thought. The best opinions are contrarian, not conformist, although that is in itself a matter of opinion. It is this irreverent quality that attracted Flaubert, the perpetual adolescent. And it was for the same reason that the Duke of Wellington disapproved of his soldiers cheering because this was very nearly an expression of a personal opinion and, by suggestion, insubordination or even mutiny. Is this true? Interesting expressions of private thought have more value than collective opinions based upon thousands of years of experience and habit? I recall one semester, having a particularly unruly and outspoken class (many with very strong opinions indeed), telling them if this was a ship and I was the captain, I'd throw half of you overboard for insubordination and insolence. I'll stick with the Iron Duke.
Stephen Bayley, author the Dictionary of Idiocy, opines in the Telegraph that only the opinionated, the original thinkers, the contrarians are worth listening to. The rest are just followers and fuddy-duddys, treading well-worn and boring paths of knowledge and unoriginal opinion. May I throw a wrench in the works? Three things come to mind.
We must be careful not to confuse eccentricity with originality. One has its basis in spite and difference for difference sake, the other in making a contribution to thought. Perhaps my favorite political thinker (right up there with Hume, Burke, and assorted others), the perspicacious James Fitzjames Stephen, warned that if John Stuart Mill's preference for "mere variety" in thought and action were followed, the world would be a silly ugly place. If this advice were followed, we should have as many little oddities in manner and behavior as we have people who wish to pass for men of genius. Eccentricity is far more often a mark of weakness than a mark of strength. Weakness wishes, as a rule, to attract attention by trifling distinctions, and strength wishes to avoid it. Originality consists in thinking for yourself, not in thinking differently from other people. That seems an important distinction, separately out mere difference from solid, original thought. And can you have an original thought that bulwarks established things? Can you have a conservative or reactionary genius?
Further, should society blandly smile and accept original opinions? One could certainly argue that the social stigma attached to uttering new ideas is burdensome and uncomfortable, but could we also say it is absolutely necessary? We judge the truthfulness and goodness of new ideas by putting them through hell, a sort of intellectual Darwinism. Stephen continues: Till a man has carefully formed his opinions on these subjects, thought them out, assured himself of their value, and decided to take the risk of proclaiming them, the strong probability is that they are not much worth having. Speculation on government, morals, and religion is a matter of vital importance, and not mere food for curiosity. Curiosity, no doubt, is generally the motive which leads a man to study them; but, till he has formed opinions on them for which he is prepared to fight, there is no hardship in his being compelled by social intolerance to keep them to himself and to those who sympathise with him. Thus we have the odd dance of opposites. On one hand, we have original ideas born of curiosity and the quest for knowledge and wisdom; on the other, we have the social pressure and intellectual criticism persecuting the original thought to test its meddle. In truth, unless we are intolerant of the original idea, how do we know its worth?
On this question, Jacques Barzun even goes so far as to bemoan the death of the philistine in modern life. Surely it took courage of the best mulish sort to make the same protest, generation after generation, on seeing each new school of 19C art and literature produced and derided, then accepted, and at last exhalted and lodged at public expense in museums, libraries, and concert halls. But they slowly died away by the 1920s, transformed into a new breed of trimmers and cowards. Intolerance is no longer tolerated. Shame on you for being shameful. Yet, without a dab of the philisitine in us, how will we separate the bad from the good?
Finally, we should also be on guard against mere "open-mindedness," one of my least favorite phrases. I detest it when, in the heat of discussion and debate, someone retorts "well, try to be open-minded." To be open-minded is very often to be empty-headed. It is better to be narrow-minded than to have no mind, said Evelyn Waugh, to hold limited and rigid principles than none at all. That is the danger which faces so many people today -- to have no considered opinions on any subject, to put up with what is wasteful and harmful with the excuse that there is 'good in everything' -- which in most cases means an inability to distinguish between good and bad. You must begin with some frame of reference, with some structure based on the best that has been thought and written previous to your time. This allows you to judge original ideas and see their value or worthlessness.
Bayley notes, Opinions flourish only in periods or cultures without a dominant religion. A medieval monk in his Cluniac abbey or a contemporary mullah in his mosque and, indeed, a fine Victorian gentleman, had little use for original opinions. The collective opinions of religion are inflexible dogma, not interesting expressions of private thought. The best opinions are contrarian, not conformist, although that is in itself a matter of opinion. It is this irreverent quality that attracted Flaubert, the perpetual adolescent. And it was for the same reason that the Duke of Wellington disapproved of his soldiers cheering because this was very nearly an expression of a personal opinion and, by suggestion, insubordination or even mutiny. Is this true? Interesting expressions of private thought have more value than collective opinions based upon thousands of years of experience and habit? I recall one semester, having a particularly unruly and outspoken class (many with very strong opinions indeed), telling them if this was a ship and I was the captain, I'd throw half of you overboard for insubordination and insolence. I'll stick with the Iron Duke.
Monday, December 08, 2003
Horace
As an instructor in a Great Texts program, the Doc can be relied upon to note such important things as Horace's birthday. As a man who has tried as many Latin courses as the majority of Americans have tried diets, I think it only right that I post Horace's most famous ode in the language in what he done wrote it.
Tu ne quaesieris - scire nefas - quem mihi, quem tibi
finem di dederint, Leuconoë, nec Babylonios
temptaris numeros. ut melius, quicquid erit, pati!
seu plures hiemes, seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,
quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare
Tyrhenum. Sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevi
spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida
aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
It comes courtesy of the Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy homepage, where you can consult their rather questionable translation. But since I wouldn't dream of attempting my own translation, I should probably not say too much about that. Just enjoy the roll and taste of the Latin.
As an instructor in a Great Texts program, the Doc can be relied upon to note such important things as Horace's birthday. As a man who has tried as many Latin courses as the majority of Americans have tried diets, I think it only right that I post Horace's most famous ode in the language in what he done wrote it.
Tu ne quaesieris - scire nefas - quem mihi, quem tibi
finem di dederint, Leuconoë, nec Babylonios
temptaris numeros. ut melius, quicquid erit, pati!
seu plures hiemes, seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,
quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare
Tyrhenum. Sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevi
spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida
aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
It comes courtesy of the Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy homepage, where you can consult their rather questionable translation. But since I wouldn't dream of attempting my own translation, I should probably not say too much about that. Just enjoy the roll and taste of the Latin.
A few things
Busy digging out from two feet of snow and juggling a hectic end-of-semester confluence of correcting exams and papers, I haven't posted very much. Let's remedy that.
Here is a book review on a new rather critical biography of James K. Polk, one of my blog compatriot's favorite presidents. Apparently, the author, William Dusinberre, tackles Polk for being a slaveholder first rather than a true American nationalist, more concerned for securing the prosperity of the "lords of the lash" than the long-term interests of the country. Even further, sayeth the review, Dismissing warnings about racial chaos, proposals for colonization, and appeals to "Southern Honor" as nothing more than demagoguery, Dusinberre argues that Polk and his Democratic comrades should have backed off on demands for the right to take slavery into the territories, abandoned efforts to secure more slave states, and stressed to Southern voters the distinction between the abolitionists--who had relatively little popular following in the free states--and the mass of Northerners, who opposed slavery's extension but agreed that the federal government could not affect the institution within individual states. Masters then could have continued to reap the benefits of their slaves' labor until the cotton economy finally became unprofitable; at that point, the Southern states could have moved toward gradual emancipation.
I, of course, applaud this thesis. Was it not Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan who did the very thing in the 1850s, stout northern Democrats desperately standing the middle ground, consistently arguing that abolition was not the prevalent northern viewpoint, that, good or ill, slavery was the creature of individual states, that pressing the issue further (from either direction, expansion or contraction) would lead to a fratricidal war? Could we say, in fact, that Polk's actions made Pierce and Buchanan's Unionism in the 1850s a long-shot indeed? I await the inevitable rejoinder.
In an age where few adults can recite even the basic facts of national history, Western Civilization, or human accomplishment, here is a truly stupid idea: reducing the voting age to 16. Prithee, if the goal of voting is quality decision-making, how does this improve the franchise? Here is how one British Liberal Democrat justifies the extension: Denying 16-year-olds the vote because some consider them politically immature is trite nonsense. If 16-year-olds can marry, have children of their own, pay taxes and join the Army, why should they not be able to vote for the Government they want. Oh my. Could not we swing this statement around and ask, have you considered that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to marry, should be shamed by political, social, cultural, and religious leaders for even considering children at such an immature age, and should be excluded from the Army unless Devon is invaded by Huns? Are you saying the ability to procreate (my dog can do this too) gives them the ability to make sound political decisions? Shouldn't the government, at the least the responsible members, be more interested in qualitative improvement of the franchise rather than quantitative expansion?
And today is the birthday of the poet Horace, born on this day in 65 B.C.
Alas, our scars and fratricides
shame us. What has this hard generation
balked at, what iniquity left
undone? From what have our youth
refrained through fear of the Gods?
What altars spared? Fortuna, reforge
against the Arabs and Massagetae
on new anvils our blunted swords.
Busy digging out from two feet of snow and juggling a hectic end-of-semester confluence of correcting exams and papers, I haven't posted very much. Let's remedy that.
Here is a book review on a new rather critical biography of James K. Polk, one of my blog compatriot's favorite presidents. Apparently, the author, William Dusinberre, tackles Polk for being a slaveholder first rather than a true American nationalist, more concerned for securing the prosperity of the "lords of the lash" than the long-term interests of the country. Even further, sayeth the review, Dismissing warnings about racial chaos, proposals for colonization, and appeals to "Southern Honor" as nothing more than demagoguery, Dusinberre argues that Polk and his Democratic comrades should have backed off on demands for the right to take slavery into the territories, abandoned efforts to secure more slave states, and stressed to Southern voters the distinction between the abolitionists--who had relatively little popular following in the free states--and the mass of Northerners, who opposed slavery's extension but agreed that the federal government could not affect the institution within individual states. Masters then could have continued to reap the benefits of their slaves' labor until the cotton economy finally became unprofitable; at that point, the Southern states could have moved toward gradual emancipation.
I, of course, applaud this thesis. Was it not Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan who did the very thing in the 1850s, stout northern Democrats desperately standing the middle ground, consistently arguing that abolition was not the prevalent northern viewpoint, that, good or ill, slavery was the creature of individual states, that pressing the issue further (from either direction, expansion or contraction) would lead to a fratricidal war? Could we say, in fact, that Polk's actions made Pierce and Buchanan's Unionism in the 1850s a long-shot indeed? I await the inevitable rejoinder.
In an age where few adults can recite even the basic facts of national history, Western Civilization, or human accomplishment, here is a truly stupid idea: reducing the voting age to 16. Prithee, if the goal of voting is quality decision-making, how does this improve the franchise? Here is how one British Liberal Democrat justifies the extension: Denying 16-year-olds the vote because some consider them politically immature is trite nonsense. If 16-year-olds can marry, have children of their own, pay taxes and join the Army, why should they not be able to vote for the Government they want. Oh my. Could not we swing this statement around and ask, have you considered that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to marry, should be shamed by political, social, cultural, and religious leaders for even considering children at such an immature age, and should be excluded from the Army unless Devon is invaded by Huns? Are you saying the ability to procreate (my dog can do this too) gives them the ability to make sound political decisions? Shouldn't the government, at the least the responsible members, be more interested in qualitative improvement of the franchise rather than quantitative expansion?
And today is the birthday of the poet Horace, born on this day in 65 B.C.
Alas, our scars and fratricides
shame us. What has this hard generation
balked at, what iniquity left
undone? From what have our youth
refrained through fear of the Gods?
What altars spared? Fortuna, reforge
against the Arabs and Massagetae
on new anvils our blunted swords.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Profound silliness from eminent historian: Watch Edmund Morgan slobber over Gore Vidal's jackboots, if you have the stomach for it. It contains such pungent admiring sighs as "Vidal is an unreconstructed son of the South"; says of allegations by Vidal that FDR encouraged the attack on Pearl Harbor and Truman began the Cold War that "Though he advances none of them without evidence, he delivers them with the certitude we too easily associate with the paranoia"; and concludes that Vidal's latest rant feels as if "Vidal had us with him in easy chairs by the fireside, as he chats about familiar friends and the things they have done."
Oh, buh-ruh-thaaaaahhh. For someone who admires Morgan as much as I do, it is an appalling farrago. Tautologies, special pleading, Uriah Heepish blather, fawning admiration--it is miserable stuff coming from the man who is probably the Greatest Living American Historian. He still is, I guess; but just barely.
Oh, buh-ruh-thaaaaahhh. For someone who admires Morgan as much as I do, it is an appalling farrago. Tautologies, special pleading, Uriah Heepish blather, fawning admiration--it is miserable stuff coming from the man who is probably the Greatest Living American Historian. He still is, I guess; but just barely.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Partitioning Iraq?!?!
Over at Parapundit, a lot of time is being given to Steven Sailer's arguments in favour of partitioning Iraq.
Oh dear, is all I have to say to that idea. I mean, I know the Doc's favorite (former) Oxonian, Niall Ferguson, argues that America needs to realize that the burden of Empire is now resting upon its shoulders. But do we have to do so by copying some of the Old Empire's worst idea?
It all reminds me of a superb episode of Yes, Prime Minister, "A Victory for Democracy", in the course of which the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs opines that they should have partitioned an island currently embroiled in civil war; after all, he says, that was invariably the Imperial policy, as seen in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine. But didn't that lead to decades of warfare in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine, asks Sir Humphrey, the Cabinet Secretary? Yes, it did, agrees the Permanent Secretary, but that meant they had no time to invade other countries.
If we are going to have an Pax Americana, could we do so by implementing a few American-tested ideas, like federalism? It even worked for the Swiss.
Over at Parapundit, a lot of time is being given to Steven Sailer's arguments in favour of partitioning Iraq.
Oh dear, is all I have to say to that idea. I mean, I know the Doc's favorite (former) Oxonian, Niall Ferguson, argues that America needs to realize that the burden of Empire is now resting upon its shoulders. But do we have to do so by copying some of the Old Empire's worst idea?
It all reminds me of a superb episode of Yes, Prime Minister, "A Victory for Democracy", in the course of which the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs opines that they should have partitioned an island currently embroiled in civil war; after all, he says, that was invariably the Imperial policy, as seen in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine. But didn't that lead to decades of warfare in India, Cyprus, Ireland and Palestine, asks Sir Humphrey, the Cabinet Secretary? Yes, it did, agrees the Permanent Secretary, but that meant they had no time to invade other countries.
If we are going to have an Pax Americana, could we do so by implementing a few American-tested ideas, like federalism? It even worked for the Swiss.
He wasn't an Oxford don, but Saintsbury did live a rather long life, 88 robust years. And if he wasn't reading, writing, or lecturing at Edinburgh (surely a city almost as charming as Oxford, although it's been over 20 years since I was there), he was drinking. I have yet to get a copy of his Notes on a Cellar-Book, but it's on my list. Here is a short snippet I just found, with Doctor Saintsbury speaking of beer: In the year 1875, when I was resident at Elgin, I and a friend now dead, the Procurator-Fiscal of the district, devoted the May “Sacrament holidays,” which were then still kept in those remote parts, to a walking tour up the Findhorn and across to Loch Ness and Glen Urquhart. At the Freeburn Inn on the first-named river we found some beer of singular excellence: and, asking the damsel who waited on us about it, were informed that a cask of Bass had been put in during the previous October, but, owing to a sudden break in the weather and the departure of all visitors, had never been tapped till our arrival.
Oh my, to be there on that trip. Here is the complete link.
Oh my, to be there on that trip. Here is the complete link.
Saintsbury? His family must have dropped the T and started a grocery store.
Hmmmm...Christmas at Sainsbury's. Makes me almost nostalgic for Oxford.
Speaking of Oxford, there's a fascinating little piece in The Economist on how an Oxford lifestyle makes you live four years longer.
YOU work on the subject that most interests you, mostly at your own pace. The surroundings are beautiful, the colleagues stimulating. You take gentle exercise; there is excellent food and drink. A long-dead philanthropist pays for it all. That, more or less, was the lifestyle of Oxbridge dons for most of the past century. Now a research paper has shown that there is a practical benefit: four years on your life.
Well, why not? Your average Oxford don drinks more wine than a Frenchman, that's for sure. There's plenty of exercise as you gently bicycle hither and yon in all weathers. Free room and board...what's not to like?
Of course that can't be said of the lifestyle of the American academic. Boozeless, no exercise unless you go to a gym, and then it's just one more thing on a busy schedule, committee meetings, publish or perish...that must shorten the life expectancy.
Hmmmm...Christmas at Sainsbury's. Makes me almost nostalgic for Oxford.
Speaking of Oxford, there's a fascinating little piece in The Economist on how an Oxford lifestyle makes you live four years longer.
YOU work on the subject that most interests you, mostly at your own pace. The surroundings are beautiful, the colleagues stimulating. You take gentle exercise; there is excellent food and drink. A long-dead philanthropist pays for it all. That, more or less, was the lifestyle of Oxbridge dons for most of the past century. Now a research paper has shown that there is a practical benefit: four years on your life.
Well, why not? Your average Oxford don drinks more wine than a Frenchman, that's for sure. There's plenty of exercise as you gently bicycle hither and yon in all weathers. Free room and board...what's not to like?
Of course that can't be said of the lifestyle of the American academic. Boozeless, no exercise unless you go to a gym, and then it's just one more thing on a busy schedule, committee meetings, publish or perish...that must shorten the life expectancy.
Back from the Land of the Cleves, unscathed, a little plumper.
Peter Hitchens' on-target column about the death of traditional marriage in Britain is here. What is most interesting is the total lack of religion in his article; there is no use of Christianity in his case. It is a naturalistic case, based (1.) on the necessity of traditional marriage to soothe savage man, (2.) on the historical case for traditional marriage, aka, those things that stand the test of time show their value by their perseverance, (3.) on the value of traditional marriage to raising socially adept children the rest of us have to live with later on, and (4.) on the importance of the family as a check against state power. This is a simple yet powerful case for the social utility (based upon history) of traditional marriage.
Many thanks to Enoch Soames for his lovely profile of the great George Saintsbury, a master curmudgeon of the last century. I read his first Scrap-Book this fall and found it thoroughly entertaining; I may draw from it occasionally for blog ammo. His comments on education are interesting, being opposed to universal education and the concept of a "right" to education, which he calls educational fetish-worship. He writes, Education (no matter of what kind it be) in any of the usual senses can 'develop' nothing that is not there already, and can rather doubtfully develop some things that are. Indeed, complete 'letting alone' -- if it were possible -- would probably be the best 'developer' [of children] ... If you let a child alone and he burns himself, he will, unless he is an utter idiot, almost certainly dread the fire: that result is by no means so certain to follow if you indoctrinate him with theories of combustion and of lesion of the epidermis.
Now if those aren't the words of a curmudgeon -- he was called the biggest Tory in England at one point -- nothing is.
Peter Hitchens' on-target column about the death of traditional marriage in Britain is here. What is most interesting is the total lack of religion in his article; there is no use of Christianity in his case. It is a naturalistic case, based (1.) on the necessity of traditional marriage to soothe savage man, (2.) on the historical case for traditional marriage, aka, those things that stand the test of time show their value by their perseverance, (3.) on the value of traditional marriage to raising socially adept children the rest of us have to live with later on, and (4.) on the importance of the family as a check against state power. This is a simple yet powerful case for the social utility (based upon history) of traditional marriage.
Many thanks to Enoch Soames for his lovely profile of the great George Saintsbury, a master curmudgeon of the last century. I read his first Scrap-Book this fall and found it thoroughly entertaining; I may draw from it occasionally for blog ammo. His comments on education are interesting, being opposed to universal education and the concept of a "right" to education, which he calls educational fetish-worship. He writes, Education (no matter of what kind it be) in any of the usual senses can 'develop' nothing that is not there already, and can rather doubtfully develop some things that are. Indeed, complete 'letting alone' -- if it were possible -- would probably be the best 'developer' [of children] ... If you let a child alone and he burns himself, he will, unless he is an utter idiot, almost certainly dread the fire: that result is by no means so certain to follow if you indoctrinate him with theories of combustion and of lesion of the epidermis.
Now if those aren't the words of a curmudgeon -- he was called the biggest Tory in England at one point -- nothing is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)