Theory v. Practice

Theory without practice is dead. Practice without theory is deadly.

Moral Decay

A Ioved one recently posted a comment about the root cause of school shootings being the moral failure of our culture.

My first thought after reading his post was "Yes! Our culture has rejected its Judeo-Christian values and Greco-Roman rationalism and so this is what we get."

I think that is true (e.g. cultures throughout history have declined following a period of decadence in which the values that established and nurtured society were abandoned), but if we look at where this started in the West, it was with those of us who were entrusted with passing on these  systems of belief and thought.  My own nominalism and licentiousness are far more responsible for "moral decay" than the most stridently atheist monologue Bill Maher has to offer. 

Legalism is equally wrong, especially when applied to others and in particular when applied to people without faith. (It would make no sense for a rabbi to be concerned that I'm not keeping kosher, right?).  But many of us have rejected the notion of self discipline born out of love and gratitude towards God for what He's done for us.  If we can, by His grace, bring ourselves to the point where we as Christians are concerned first and foremost with loving God and loving our neighbors, with real zeal, we would be sowing the seeds of cultural transformation we long for.

Quote from Arthur James Balfour

"So it is with those persons who claim to show by their example that naturalism is practically consistent with the maintenance of ethical ideals with which naturalism has no natural affinity. Their spiritual life is parasitic: it is sheltered by convictions which belong, not to them, but to the society of which they form a part; it is nourished by processes in which they take no share. And when those convictions decay, and those processes come to an end, the alien life which they have maintained can scarce be expected to outlast them" 

Quote from Edmund A. Opitz

This quote, I believe, accurately traces the source of our present economic injustices not to the talking points of the Republicans or Democrats, but to the seed of greediness that each human heart is sown with. Which raises the uncomfortable question: What am I cultivating?

"The market is a universal human institution; trade and barter is as old as mankind. Wherever the human community exists there is a division of labor and a swapping of goods. So long as mankind survives on this planet there will be markets, and this will be true even under authoritarian regimes. The market, yesterday, today, and forever; but not the market economy. The market economy is a contingent thing; it has come into being in certain areas of the globe at certain periods and chunks of it now disappear daily before our eyes. There’s no miracle of parthenogenesis by which the market can give birth to the market economy all by itself; the market does not institutionalize itself as the market economy without help from moral values and the law.
We live on a planet where almost everything is scarce relative to human demand, and therefore we must economize. To 'economize' means to conserve scarce resources, which we do by attempting to diminish inputs while maximizing outputs. In other words, the more-for-less mentality is built into economic action, and that’s the danger. Unless this frame of mind is counterbalanced by noneconomic forces, the more-for-less attitude degenerates into the something-for-nothing mentality—as has happened to us. When a nation is permeated by the something-for-nothing spirit it will invariably set up a corresponding power structure designed to transfer wealth legally from producers to pressure groups."

Edmund A. Opitz

TS Eliot Quote on Democracy

This quote will rankle some, and I don't post it standing from any moral high ground.  Rather, I believe it succinctly captures why the last 16+ years of global warfare in the name of spreading democracy has been, and is, a Fool's errand.

“The term ‘democracy’ … does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike—it can be easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God... you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.”  

-T.S. Elliot

Quote from MLK Jr.'s Nobel Acceptance Speech

'I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him.'

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Tolerance

"...only a genuine commitment to the truth makes tolerance possible. Assent to the truth must be done freely and with genuine understanding; it can be encouraged and rewarded, but it cannot be coerced. Tolerance for error is therefore not an endorsement of falsehood itself—for we do not, strictly speaking, tolerate what is false—it is a respect for the dignity of the knowing person, whom we do tolerate.

...tolerance is intelligible only with some presumed and shared understanding of the true and the good. After all, we do not tolerate what we think is true or good. We tolerate what we think is wrong or even bad—and, again, we do so out of a special respect for the truth and how it is known and loved by rational beings."

-Matthew Rose

"Real" Men

Slightly tongue-in-cheek post of the day:

"Real Men 'X'"

All I need to do is replace the 'X' with something I already do, an attribute I already possess, or a virtue I'd like others to know I'm chock-a-block with, and...Voila! Ego stroked, nagging sense of inferiority ameliorated, and membership in the elusive group of "Real Men" firmly established!

This morning I think 'X' equals ' practice cynicism' for me...

The Fruit of our Labors

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/01/weaponized-narrative-new-battlespace/134284/

Brad Allenby has written an interesting and thought-provoking article over at Defense One, about the 'weaponization' of narratives.  Here are my somewhat disjointed musings on it...

In brief, Allenby asserts that the speed of information exchange has overwhelmed the ability of cultures, institutions, and people to process this information and has caused many to retreat into one of two corners:  Nationalism or Fundamentalism.  From these simplified views of the world, individuals are more vulnerable to 'weaponized' narratives: Fake news tailored to leverage existing belief frameworks in order to manipulate one's behavior.

It's an easy enough thesis to understand, and accurate with respect to the purposes of  Fake News,  but it misses the mark on several points:

• While Allenby is correct that weaponized narratives offer "ringfenced belief communities...cheap passage through a complex world...at the cost of rational understanding", he fails to establish how this is in any way a new phenomenon, or any different than past propaganda efforts.

• Allenby's unspoken, yet clear assumption is that a secular globalist worldview is *the* correct view, and therefore not subject to weaponization.  In fact, ANY unquestioningly held belief leads to vulnerability on the part of the believer.  Even a fundamental and deeply held belief has to be questioned to determine if its assumptions are true and its rationale is logical.

• Allenby misses the point in stating that we're departing from an "Enlightenment" meme, namely, that there is such a thing as truth.  In fact, postmodernism and the "post-fact" culture that has recently emerged is the culmination of, not a departure from, Enlightenment principles.  The subtle, yet critical, elevation of reason above truth that occurred during the Enlightenment has led inescapably to the current view that each individual “makes their own truth”.

• Allenby completely skips the real factors that make individuals vulnerable to weaponized narratives: lack of truthfulness in underlying claims or "facts", and an unwillingness to think logically about the truth and its implications.

• Indeed, Allenby infers that narrative *is* truth and only when it's weaponized does narrative become problematic.  I would counter that while narratives of fiction can be used to communicate general truths (i.e. stories with a moral), narratives composed of hand-selected 'facts' are simply rhetorical tools when used to make specific points (e.g. hand selected sets of facts which paint a political candidate in a certain light while excluding information that might undermine the narrative).

Leaving Allenby behind for a moment, if the lack of truthfulness and the exercise of reason are indeed the source of our vulnerability to weaponized narratives, several questions come to mind:

• What has led us to the current state in which truth is not valued and reason is not exercised?

• What, if any, role has the systematic "dumbing down" of American education and culture played in bringing us to the present state of public discourse?

• What role has political correctness, which stifles the free exchange of ideas - even repugnant ones - played in stunting discourse and driving people into clans of like-minded folks?

This last bullet is where Allenby's attention should be focused, but perhaps this would lead him down the path of questioning his own beliefs?

Silly Facts

When it comes to current events, it seems we live in a world drawn into three camps: "us", "them", and "not going to talk about anything other than cat videos for fear of being forced into one of the first two camps".   Facts (or at least the notion of an objective reality that may not conform to my preconceived notions/meta-narrative) and the messy nuances of life have no place in this world.

Take the ACA hubbub.  The narrative is Trump is trying to illegally kill the ACA.  Like him or not, this isn't accurate.

By way of explanation, under the ACA people whose household income falls between 100 and 400 percent of the poverty level qualify for two kinds of financial assistance.

The first is a tax credit to reduce insurance premiums, authorized under ACA Section 1401. The ACA supports these premium reductions with a permanent appropriation built into the law.

The second is a reduction in cost-sharing, under ACA Section 1402.  Unlike the premium reductions, these are not funded via tax credits but by direct reimbursements to insurance companies.  Also unlike the premium reductions, Congress did not pass an approprations bill to accompany this article of the ACA.

Why?  Congress didn't want to pass a law that essentially cuts checks to Big Healthcare Companies.  So the Obama administration appropriated the funds.  This isn't legal, as appropration of funds is only allowed by the House of Representatives.

Whether one is for or against the ACA, the reality is Congress needs to act to preserve it due to the fact that they relied on the illegal appropriation of funds by the executive branch to make the ACA viable.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HofR-challenge-to-ACA-DCt-5-12-16.pdf

Well said Mr. Rowe / Preach it Smokey

From a recent "Mike Rowe's "Off The Wall"" Facebook post:

"Last week, in your comments about the NFL, you made several references to “black people.” As a woman of color, I’ll remind you that the correct term is “African-American,” as I’m sure you know. You do good work with your foundation, but if you want to be heard by everyone, maybe you should speak more respectfully."

Carla Jamison

Hi Carla

If a black person tells me that they would like to be referred to as an “African-American,” I’m happy to address them as such. Doing otherwise would be rude. Likewise, if a white person asks me to call them “Irish-American,” or “Polish-American,” I’ll try to accommodate them as well. However - if someone attempts to enlighten me on the preferences of all black people or all white people, my antenna go up. Why? Because I'm not convinced a person’s true identity has anything to do with the color of their skin, the content of the DNA, or the country of their ancestors.

As a fan of biography, I’m curious to know more about my own history, as well as the history of others. But as a fan of The United States, I place no relevance whatsoever on the amount of German blood coursing through my veins, or the amount of African blood coursing through yours. I'm interested in what you believe, Clara, but I don't consider your ethnicity when evaluating the merits of your arguments. In other words, your heritage is interesting, but knowing where you came from has nothing to do with where you’ll wind up, or what kind of person you really are.

I could write a few thousand words on the evils of the hyphen, and its role in identity-politics. But I doubt I could say it better than Smokey Robinson did in a Def Poetry Jam seven years ago. If I were King of the World, this would be required viewing in every single high-school – starting tomorrow. The language is salty, but the sentiment is precisely what America needs to hear - no matter where you're from...

Have a great weekend.
Mike

https://youtu.be/iIkNsj6cDGc

What am I?

"Aristotle said I am a rational animal. I say I am an angel with an incredible capacity for beer."

Brennan Manning

Terrorism?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451098/antifa-terrorism-designation-not-accurate

Couldn't agree more with Mr. Goldberg. A snippet that sums up his thesis:

"The groundswell behind the label “terrorist” for Antifa is a call to blur that distinction. Although treating American radicals and vigilantes the way we treat foreign members of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda might play well in certain corners of the populist Right these days, serious conservatives should be very skeptical about granting the federal government new police powers, which could be used to other ends in future administrations.

Elevating Antifa to the category of terrorist organization would fuel the worst trends in our politics. It would entice President Trump to indulge his strongman shtick, and it would give Antifa the stature it clearly craves. It would also likely accelerate vigilante violence among the white nationalists. Launching a federal crusade against domestic enemies would only fuel the fallacy that anyone Antifa attacks is a fascist. We should fight crime, whatever guise it takes, on the local level — as the founders intended."

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue

Sorry Uncle Milty

Another area where Friedman and I diverge.  I think  his major philosophical blind spot was the existence of human nature, which allowed him to be a proponent of things like this.  I'm tempted by it myself (and would cash any check they sent my way, just like I take my interest deduction), but think it would be a disaster.

https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070

Violence generally begets violence

Interesting article.  What's most disturbing is the third paragraph in the snippet below.  I would contend, dear author, that promoting arson is definitely on the "intolerance" side of the "advocacy/intolerance" divide.  Perhaps an emotional college sophomore could be forgiven for not knowing the difference, but a writer for the New York times should.

In the end, violence will be met with violence until an orderly stasis is reached, or violence will lead to order without resistance - a state we will recognize to be tyranny. 

I would encourage everyone one fomenting for violence to read their history (not burn it) to find out what those swept into power through violence do to those who swept them in. They are ALWAYS the first to go because a mindless mob, fueled only by discontent and hate, is a weapon that can be wielded by anyone seeking to oust the current regime.

Meet the New Boss. Same as The Old Boss.

From the Times:

"That can play out in every aspect of student life, as William Gu, an Asian-American who writes for The Claremont Independent, found out after some of his articles showed up on conservative news sites. He received Facebook messages accusing him of “threatening marginalized communities” and was told at a party that “people are uncomfortable with you being here, please leave.”

Mr. Gu, a sophomore, said each incoming class “is getting progressively more radical.” He recalled a panel discussion during orientation at which a student said, “We should burn down Pomona” because “elite colleges represented white supremacist patriarchy.” Mr. Gu found the idea absurd. “You are going to a $60,000-a-year school and you’re either there because your parents are wealthy or the school has given you a full ride and you are saying it’s a dangerous environment for you,” he said. “There is a strange sense of entitlement.”

It can be hard to separate intense advocacy from intolerance, particularly for students who, Dr. Plaza said, arrive “empowered to feel they should have their say.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/education/edlife/protests-claremont-college-student-demands.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=AugustMC810mcdt%3D2017-08&subid=AugustMC810&ad-keywords=AudDevGate

North Korea

North Korea may gamble incorrectly and provoke a war. Let's hope not. 

That said, the jumbled thinking (ignorance?) of the author is staggering.  Yes - let's apply the template Reagan used to defeat The Soviet Union in the 80's to fight NK/China in the teens. 

Because just like China, the Soviet Union was a major trading partner of America's. And just as with China, we had tremendous cross-national investment in each other's economies. And just like the Soviet Union, China has set up dozens of satellite nations with the express purpose of wiping out the West and completely dominating the world through the global expansion of communism.  Not...

The author's reference to Chinese "adventurism" in the body of water they border reveals the hubristic foundation of his thinking.  How would an American read an article from a Chinese author that referred to "American adventurism in the Gulf of Mexico"? How about if it was literally called " The South US Sea"?

China is indeed our #1 external existential threat, but they are - ironically - winning the same way we beat the Soviets: economically. 

Pulling back in Asia, while not relinquishing our naval, air, or space superiority, would force China to deal with the reality of their aspirations: Increased tensions with their neighbors and shouldering  the cost of mitigating those tensions in a multi-lateral fashion. 

This is not to mention saving the billions spent by Americans subsidizing South Korea and Japan's economies by serving as the guarantors of their freedom (freeing those nation's to subsidize their economies in the form of lower taxes). If one doesn't see how that affects the price of electronics from Asia, U.S. employment in the manufacturing sector, and the Federal Debt, well...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/10/how-ronald-reagan-would-have-handled-north-korea-commentary.html

Please....

I know this article is supposed to make my blood boil with self righteous indignation, but...please.  Some clerk at an Indiana Walmart put a sign up in the wrong place.  It was clearly a mistake or prank, not some attempt to suggest kids initiate a massacre. 

What is concerning is the fact many folks are quick to interpret such innocuous things through a lens of offense and puff up with outrage.  The truly chilling thing is the underlying belief that they "know what was really meant" by each trigger.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/10/walmart-apologizes-for-own-school-year-like-hero-gun-display-sign.html

Joy

“The pagan set out, with admirable sense, to enjoy himself. By the end of his civilization he had discovered that a man cannot enjoy himself and continue to enjoy anything else.”

G.K. Chesterton

And Yet Someone Saw the Whole

“In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant, so often quoted in the interests of religious agnosticism, the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of the truth. The story is constantly told in order to neutralize the affirmation of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king, and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world’s religions are only groping after. It embodies the claim to know the full reality which relativizes all the claims of the religions and philosophies.”

-Lesslie Newbigin