Sunday Night Journal, February 12, 2017
02/13/2017
For most of my adult life, until I was getting near fifty or so, I spent a lot of time thinking about What Was Wrong with Society and what Society ought to be like. I tended to assume that Society was fundamentally messed up and therefore must be fundamentally changed. When I was twenty this change was supposed to be in the direction of some sort of leftist dream, more or less utopian. When I was forty it was Chestertonian-distributist-agrarian. The magazine Caelum et Terra, in which I was heavily involved in the early-to-mid-1990s, was devoted in large part to that basic idea.
I always felt a little dishonest and hypocritical about that, though, because in my heart I didn't really have a great desire to move to the country, much less to attempt subsistence farming, and I didn't really think it was something that should be expected of most people. I had seen farming up close and didn't fall for the romantic picture held by a lot of Catholic intellectuals. I could have come into my family's medium-sized cattle-and-crops farm if I had wanted to, and sometimes I think I should have, but it would not have been a life that either Chesterton or Belloc would have much admired. An acquaintance who grew up on a family farm, asked why he hadn't stayed there, said "it was too much like work."
I was thinking about that recently when I read an essay by Joseph Epstein, "The Big O: the Reputation of George Orwell." It was published in The New Criterion in 1990, and, as a subscriber, I was made aware of it by an occasional email the magazine sends recommending things from its archives. The essay is excellent, but unfortunately is available only to subscribers. Anyway, this remark of Orwell's really struck me:
“All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham,” he wrote in his essay “Rudyard Kipling” (1942), “because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy.”
I'm afraid that is all too shrewdly accurate an assessment not only of left-wingers but of those Catholics who tend to idealize and romanticize Catholic cultures of the past. Let's face it: most of us have fairly easy and well-provisioned lives compared to almost all the people who have ever lived, and as much as we might see and deplore the various ills (spiritual, material, and psychological) that have accompanied it--life never gives us any gain without some countering loss--we don't really want to give up things like central heat and indoor plumbing and underground sewer systems. Not to mention a plentiful and reliable food supply. Not to mention a previously unknown degree of personal freedom. And window screens, something I often think of in this context, since I live in a very hot and buggy place.
By the time I started this blog in 2004 I had pretty much given up thinking about those What's Wrong With Society And How Do We Fix It questions. Yes, things are messed up. Yes, arguably the messed-up-ness stems directly from philosophical wrong turns taken several hundred years ago. And if you want to spend time analyzing that, by all means do so. If you want to spend time thinking about, for instance, how a Christian society ought to handle property ownership, or the question of lending money at interest, by all means do so. But I don't care anymore, not in a personal way, not in any sense that suggests the ills can be done away with and right order established in my lifetime or even my grandchildren's lifetimes. It's academic, in the dismissive sense: a matter of only abstract interest and no immediate import.
You might reply that this was once true of the abstruse philosophical errors that got us where we are, and that in the long run, they had a great deal of practical effect. Yes, that's true, and it's good that intelligent people are working on the problem. But it's like engineers on the Titanic discussing the flaws of its design, and how they might be corrected in future vessels, while the ship is filling with water.
Conservatives are often asked what they want to conserve. I myself, in a Caelum et Terra piece published some twenty-five years ago, wondered at what point a conservative would become so out of step with his society as to be a de facto revolutionary. I thought the time might be coming fairly soon. Well, things have gotten considerably worse, but I find that I have not only not become a revolutionary but am a rather desperate conservative.
What do I want to conserve? In a word, civilization. In a few more words, Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian Civilization. And more specifically, right here and right now, I want to preserve the Anglo-American system of constitutional government, which for a long time has been under suspicion and sometimes attack from the left. Now it's also being endangered--not really deliberately attacked, but threatened by foolish reactions--from the right as well. And the conflict between the two seems to be producing something like a national nervous breakdown.
The "fundamental transformation" promised and pursued by Obama produced a reaction, and put into the White House a man unqualified for and unsuited to the position. Now the reaction to that has some significant portion of the country in a state which can fairly be called hysteria. Fear and hate are at some kind of fever pitch in the opposition to Trump, and as always when that happens principles of abstract law begin to look like intolerable obstacles. A day or two after Trump's executive order on immigration was struck down by a court, in a conversation with a Trump opponent, I was talking about the danger of whipping up fear and hysteria. She replied that the order might not have been overturned if not for "what you refer to as 'whipping up hysteria'".
The implication there, that judges ought to respond to the popular passions of the moment, is shocking. But I'm afraid that a very large number of our citizens (if that word still has meaning) see the whole constitutional system that way. The vague view seems to be something like "The Constitution exists to promote good things. Therefore what is good is constitutional, and what is bad is unconstitutional. And my party decides what is good and bad."
I don't think about building a new society anymore. I only want to prevent the destruction of the foundations of the one we have. Fortunately there is a lot of inertia in the system.
*
Yeah, I know I need to avoid being hysterical about the hysteria.
*
Well, I'd like to think about something more pleasant now. Also from The New Criterion, the December '16 issue: Kyle Smith, reviewing a new musical which is a sort of rewrite of Holiday Inn, the 1942 Bing Crosby-Fred Astaire movie, writes:
When I say Holiday Inn is a musical feast for the family, I don’t mean bring small children: whether they’d be bored by such all-around excellence I have no idea, but I do know they can be entertained for a lot less than it costs to see a Broadway show. No, I mean bring the parents, even bring the in-laws, bring anyone who is wise enough to appreciate 1940s Hollywood stardust.
I rejoiced at that last bit, because I've come in my latter years to a great appreciation and affection for Hollywood stardust. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, for instance. Neo-neocon had a post last week about them, a bit of cheer-up in the midst of the political strife. As she says, they "generated more human happiness than many do-gooders." In case you don't want to click over and read her post--go ahead, it's short, but in case you don't--here's the video she chose to make her point.
I know there's no accounting for tastes and all, but I don't see how that can fail to make you smile.
*
It's Septuagesima Sunday. Here's Janet Cupo's post from last year on the occasion. I usually don't look forward to Lent. Ok, to be honest I usually have a slight dread of Lent. But this year for some reason I'm looking forward to it. I feel a greater than usual need for some kind of purification. My own sinfulness (actual and potential) is not noticeably greater or less than usual, but it feels like some kind of spiritual corruption in the environment is clinging to me, and I want to wash it off.
*
He wants you to serve him without joy, without feeling, with repugnance and revulsion of spirit. Such service gives you no satisfaction, but it pleases him; it is not according to your liking, but according to his.
Imagine that you are never going to be delivered of your anguish: what would you do? You would say to God: I am yours; if my miseries are agreeable to you, give me more and let them last longer. I have confidence in our Lord that this is what you would say; then you would stop thinking about the matter, at least you would stop struggling.
Well, do this now, and make friends with your trial, as though the two of you were always to live together. You will see that when you have stopped taking thought for your deliverance, God will think of it, and when you stop worrying, God will come swiftly to your help.
--St. Francis de Sales, via the January issue of Magnificat
*
Meanwhile, Mardi Gras parades have started. Friday we went with daughter and grandsons to see the Conde Cavaliers.
Somewhere along the line I told you that I had bought a bunch of old Christmas movies this year and you said let you know if there were any finds or something like that. One of them was Holiday Inn. I meant to ask if you were familiar with it.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/13/2017 at 09:52 AM
Yes, I've seen it and liked it and would be happy to see it again. I can't remember exactly how Christmas-y it is. Maybe I should wait till next December.
Posted by: Mac | 02/13/2017 at 10:38 AM
Well, it's about all the holidays, but ends with Christmas. It's where White Christmas comes from.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/13/2017 at 11:11 AM
Donald Trump is not particularly 'unqualified' for the office and he's far better prepared to hold a position as a public executive than was the man he replaced. In your lifetime we've had John Kennedy (no experience as an executive bar commanding a PT boat with a crew of a dozen or so), Lyndon Johnson (executive experience limited to a two year stint as a second echelon official of the WPA), Nixon (no executive experience), Ford (no executive experience), and Obama (no executive experience). Johnson knew a great deal about how to work Congress (and it mattered) as did Ford (though it did not matter in his case). Nixon's incompetence as an administrator is retrospectively manifest.
The institutions we have are already degenerate versions of themselves. It won't matter much if Trump acts extralegally. The appellate courts do that routinely, and need to be brought to heel.
See Thomas Sowell's work: the portside is driven by an aggressive self-congratulatory impulse and very few in its ambo advocate anything genuinely beneficial to aught but targets for patron-client relationships (at least on a scale more extensive than local bike share programs). This asininity goes all the way down. Rank and file Democrats talk rot, all the time and about everything. As for the starboard, its working politicians are vapid and aren't interested in much but cosmetic 'tax cuts' and passing some swag to their preferred clientele (see AM McConnell's machinations in favor of the ExIm Bank). A great deal of discourse among Republican voters is just pointless dyspepsia.
That's what the post-1938 cohorts have made of the political world bequeathed us nearly 60 years ago. And it's too bad. There's not much to be done about it.
Posted by: Art Deco | 02/13/2017 at 01:22 PM
Experience is not the only qualification.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/13/2017 at 01:52 PM
Experience is not the only qualification.
Your other qualifications are what? A history of good conduct? (Chuckles. See Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton). Accomplishment in pre-political occupations? (True in varying degrees of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and (one might argue) Bush II - not the rest). Vigorously principled? (True of Carter and Reagan, and, when he'd declared himself, Bush II).
Posted by: Art Deco | 02/13/2017 at 02:14 PM
Basic layman's knowledge of constitutional republic concepts; no more than one or two screws loose.
Posted by: Mac | 02/13/2017 at 02:44 PM
You ask a lot, Maclin.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/13/2017 at 03:21 PM
Basic layman's knowledge of constitutional republic concepts; no more than one or two screws loose.
I have not much reason to believe he has any screws loose. He says some strange things (positing RB Cruz as a participant in the Kennedy assassination was the strangest), but I suspect that's part of his performance. I'm not sure what 'basic laymen's knowledge' he lacks of 'constitutional concepts'. Appellate judges and law professors (including his predecessor) promote all manner of hooey and your basic laymen is hardly interested in respect for procedural norms. Some of those who are are hung up on twee controversies of one sort or another (e.g. that regarding Ted Cruz' eligibility or regarding the consequences of popular election of Senators). Others entertain scenarios wherein a future Supreme Court declares Social Security or paper money unconstitutional.
Posted by: Art Deco | 02/13/2017 at 03:33 PM
Well, there's not a whole lot of point to debating it, since neither of us has direct personal knowledge of his. Based on his campaign and general public statements, it looks to me as if he is indifferent to the Constitution, or maybe just ignorant of it. He appears to be a natural autocrat and to want to govern that way.
Posted by: Mac | 02/13/2017 at 06:24 PM
Very funny joke about controlling our hysteria about the hysteria. Here is my theory about the hysteria, specifically about 'Trump is Hitler'.
I do not mean to say this was a better thing than today, but it seems as if down to the 1950s Catholic ethics was very casuitrous and full of complex variegated hierarchies of rights and equally complex variegated lowerarchies of wrongs. There were very many shades of 'how far can you go' on any moral decision. That's how it seems to a layperson who has only read two or three books on ethics, and those under duress. Modern Catholic ethics is less legalistic, which is good, and more focused on God and Christ, which is excellent. One has the sense that its less complex and variegated.
I don't know if any religion retains this kind of complexity. I doubt if even the Theravada Buddhists still ponder over those shades and nuances of intentions and actions. Perhaps the Muslims do, but who knows.
There was a fair bit of complexity in those
days in Protestant ethics. I would say that Reinhold Niebuhr is a lot more complex than say Stanley Hauerwas. I don't mean better. I just mean more subtle and paradoxical.
You can see where this is going. We don't just lack this subtlety. We lack the basic objective norms behind it. We are not nihilists. A program like The Americans wouldn't make sense if people didn't know instinctively that its wrong for the KGB to recruit their agents' teenage children over the heads of the parents. Breaking Bad wouldn't make sense if we didn't know that Mr White had gone to the bad.
But publically, about the only shared moral judgement is 'Hitler was bad'. Its very crude and lacking in nuance. And there is not anything above or below it in terms of badness. Just 'Hitler was bad'.
So if Trump is bad - and most of us who read this blog do think so - what else are people without a complex hierarchical sense of rights and wrongs going to say except for 'Trump is Hitler' ?
Waaay back in the day I used to very much enjoy the works of Henri Nouwen. I remember in the one where he goes for a retreat at Gethsemane Abbey, he is told he needs to find an emotional middle ground. He has to stop swinging from one extreme to the other and try to live in an affective medium.
Posted by: Very Grumpy | 02/13/2017 at 07:39 PM
Well...you have a point. Though he's not just Hitler, he's also racist-sexist-homophobe. I mean, you're definitely right about the absence of any complex hierarchical sense of rights and wrongs. The difference that strikes me between your example of older Catholic ethical casuistry and contemporary less formal (I am becoming allergic to the word "rigid") approaches is that in the Catholic (and similar) instance there is a conscious development--people thinking hard about the problem, putting a lot of effort into thinking about different approaches (whether rightly or wrongly isn't important for your point). But in the political realm it's a collapse, an unwillingness to think deeply, just a response to tribal signals. Like soldiers seeing an enemy flag.
Posted by: Mac | 02/13/2017 at 10:11 PM
And thinking of it that way--response to an enemy flag--it's actually in a way rational. If you're an Allied soldier in Europe in 1944 and see men in German uniforms, you don't stop to reflect on their personal guilt or innocence, whether they had a choice about what they're doing, how culpable they are, or consider the possibility of having a dialog with them--it's just kill or be killed. It seems that's the political mentality now. Not literally, fortunately, at this point
Posted by: Mac | 02/13/2017 at 10:19 PM
My point is not so much about a lack of a sense of gray areas in ethics as it is about a lack of a sense of proportion
Posted by: Very Grumpy | 02/14/2017 at 03:48 AM
Yes, the "so-in-so is Hitler" thing does get old. I don't worry so much about trump being Hitler but only how much will our government begin to look like one which begins to take advantage of a certain populist surge in order to do things it is not supposed to. Of course I realize that this is all a matter of perspective and that you all feel the Obama gov't did just that, while I was happy with what they did. Our current fearless leader only seems Hitler-ish in that he is quite self-absorbed, takes all and any slights quite personally, and in dealing with these slights there is an undertone of threat considering his position. Of course seeming to concentrate on exclusion of people due to race and/or religion, seeming to want to undermine the press, seeming to want to undermine the judiciary (part of our checks and balances) does appear to set him apart from any other presidents in my lifetime (Nixon?). But also, and to his credit, he seems intent on fulfilling campaign promises. I cannot remember a president coming into office trying to do this! Guantanamo Bay is still a US facility, for instance. It is all interesting but disheartening. Not that any of you are taking notice, but I did turn off my Facebook account for the time being mainly because I am tired of being assaulted by "fake news" (memes?) from both sides. I just can't take it any more.
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 05:32 AM
Stu I agree with all you say about Trump. And I agree the fb negativity is too much
Posted by: Very Grumpy | 02/14/2017 at 05:48 AM
I had an email conversation with a friend last week, a conservative American history prof at a local college. He expressed his concern with Trump this way:
"I find Trump’s disruption—via cheap cynical ignorance—of basic democratic structures of justice and law so potentially destructive that it could undermine the possibility in the future of any kind of peaceable change rooted in law. In this sense I see Trump’s victory as a very high stakes pyrrhic victory. Whatever shreds of consensus about deliberative democracy made possible through some semblance of common rationality seems doomed. It just feels to me like Latin America—without the charm.
But maybe the institutions themselves will prevail, and we’ll have a renewed sense of the importance of civic education, among other things. Maybe we’ll get out, finally, of the STEM worship.
I do think the Democratic Party deserved this loss. And I’m relieved, as you are, that the SJW crew is disoriented. My fear is that Trump will just invite a larger counterattack, even more fierce. In some ways, nothing could be as predictable, especially after another generation passes on. Liberalism in the enlightened progressive vein isn’t going to go away, any more than the revanchist right will. Ain’t that America?"
I agree with him, but would add that I view the SJW crowd to be on the same level of potential threat culturally as DT is a potential threat politically. And of course the cultural tends to find its way into the political.
What is interesting (and frustrating) to me is that many of the conservative Catholic Trump-bashers, including several in my own immediate circle, seem to be far more critical of DT and his screw-ups than they have been of the hyperbolic reaction of the SJW's. These are mostly people who were 'never-Trumpers' before the election.
Posted by: Rob G | 02/14/2017 at 06:57 AM
Re sense of proportion: I see, yes, very true. And I think that has to do partly with a certain pleasure in freaking out when you know in your heart that you're not in any real danger. Only partly but it's in the mix. It feels good to scream about Trump so you have to keep him scream-worthy in your mind. Therefore like you say; he must be Hitler.
I pretty much agree with Stu, too. Except I think Obama was also a threat to separation of powers.
I've unfollowed several people on Fb who are pretty angry and persistent on politics. Don't dislike them, don't want to unfriend them, just don't want the constant irritating effect. It helped a lot.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 06:59 AM
I cross-posted with you, Rob. That's interesting, I'll say more later.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 07:15 AM
I never unfollowed people on fb before. I always enjoyed the multiple perspectives it gave. I have unfollowed about 50 people since the inauguration
Posted by: Very Grumpy | 02/14/2017 at 07:16 AM
heh.
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 08:03 AM
I'm the only guy in my group that's not on FB. My general sense is that it generates more heat than light, even though I do occasionally feel left out on some of the discussions, as the former back-and-forths we used to have regularly via email have mostly ceased.
I feel about FB the same way I feel about a smart phone: I won't bite the bullet until I absolutely have to (i.e., when other options are no longer available).
Posted by: Rob G | 02/14/2017 at 08:32 AM
What is SJW? I missed that somehow.
I got off facebook AND deleted my account. Ain't going back.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/14/2017 at 08:38 AM
SJW = Social Justice Warrior. The fanatical, mostly young lefties who feature in the campus horror stories about people being denounced for, for instance, having dreadlocks but not being black.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 08:46 AM
Social Justice Warrior? That's what urban dictionary states - someone who does not necessarily believe in the causes s/he is fighting "for".
I like the line about Latin America without the charm. :)
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 08:50 AM
I had unfollowed exactly two people before the inauguration, and in both cases it wasn't what they posted, it was the sheer volume. Dozens of posts a day. One of them was a left-wing fanatic, the other was a dog-and-cat fanatic. I can only deal with so many pictures of sad dogs and cats in shelters pleading to be adopted.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 08:50 AM
I pretty much agree with your friend, Rob. In particular I'm very concerned that the reaction will sweep away whatever good (from the conservative point of view) Trump manages to do. It may be that the only lasting good--and it would be considerable--would be his Supreme Court justice(s). Ginsburg will hang on until her last breath.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 08:55 AM
Of course seeming to concentrate on exclusion of people due to race and/or religion, seeming to want to undermine the press,
Would to God that somebody would undermine the press.
I may be wrong, but when I think of Hitler, I think of someone who was completely focused. Focused on the wrong thing, but focused. Trump seems to be kind of all over the place.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 09:27 AM
Speaking of Hitler, I love how Man in the High Castle shows the family life of the Smiths and doesn't present them as caricatures. If you have ever seen The Scarlet and the Black, you get that same look into the family life of the horrible Nazi that Christopher Plummer plays. After the war, Msgr. O'Flaherty visited him in prison and he converted.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 09:31 AM
Are you making fun of my dreadlocks, Janet?
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 09:31 AM
I you had them, Stu, I might have to.
You must not have been off Facebook long. You just liked something I posted really recently.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 09:45 AM
I have really pared my Facebook newsfeed down to my family and maybe 15 other people. I just don't have time to scroll through a lot of stuff, and heaven forbid if I click something because I really don't have time to read it. I really don't have time to be typing this. ;-).
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 09:47 AM
I've been hacked!! :O
I think I suspended it yesterday?
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 09:47 AM
If I never see another picture of a celebrity, politician, founding father, etc. with a quote attributed to them that they may or may not have uttered, being posted to support the point of view of the person posting it ... that would be really great!
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 09:51 AM
That would be great.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 10:06 AM
I'm going to have to try and remember to watch that.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 10:24 AM
I'm just sitting here thinking about Stu with dreadlocks and laughing.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 10:29 AM
I had an email conversation with a friend last week, a conservative American history prof at a local college. He expressed his concern with Trump this way:
"I find Trump’s disruption—via cheap cynical ignorance—of basic democratic structures of justice and law so potentially destructive that it could undermine the possibility in the future of any kind of peaceable change rooted in law. In this sense I see Trump’s victory as a very high stakes pyrrhic victory. Whatever shreds of consensus about deliberative democracy made possible through some semblance of common rationality seems doomed. It just feels to me like Latin America—without the charm.
Your history professor friend seems unawares that the horse left the barn several decades ago.
Posted by: Art Deco | 02/14/2017 at 11:48 AM
"Your history professor friend seems unawares that the horse left the barn several decades ago."
Well, we'll see if/when his essay on same shows up in First Things in a little bit. He's been in there before. Reno may balk at this one though. Time will tell.
Posted by: Rob G | 02/14/2017 at 12:04 PM
There are good grounds for believing that it's too late. One argument for Trump is that only someone with his honey-badger-don't-care personality and technique could provide the shake-up needed to make the government responsible again. But then "Trump" and "responsibility" don't really go together.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 12:28 PM
Janet: "when I think of Hitler, I think of someone who was completely focused. Focused on the wrong thing, but focused. Trump seems to be kind of all over the place."
Right, and true of the Nazis in general. Extremely focused, extremely organized, and therefore not the Trump phenomenon at all. I've been griping about the Trump-Nazi comparison all along. Whatever else he may be, Trump is not a Nazi. Partly that's because--and this is sort of in line with what VG was saying--so many people can't come up with anything except "Nazi" (and racist etc.) when they want to describe evil.
By the way, speaking of Facebook, I discovered the other day that I'd been unfriended by someone who marked Trump's victory by posting pictures of Holocaust victims. I hadn't argued with him, but I guess he saw something I said that made him angry.
Lots of people use "fascist" to mean any violent non-left-wing political movement. It doesn't seem to bother them that the only people actually engaged in organized street violence are anti-Trump.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 12:38 PM
I agree about the portrayal of the Smiths, btw.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 12:38 PM
Is the street violence really organized, Mac? When I was out marching against trump I had no intentions towards a violent outburst until I stumbled across an "anti-progressive" bakery and I just couldn't help throwing a brick through their window!
But I wouldn't call that organized.
Okay, I made all of that up. I need an outlet for creative humor and I can't find it in my job.
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 12:49 PM
"One argument for Trump is that only someone with his honey-badger-don't-care personality and technique could provide the shake-up needed to make the government responsible again."
Right, and I think the counter-argument was that he'd shake things up so much that they'd break altogether, since they were already brittle. It was the Trump as bull-in-the-china-shop idea.
Posted by: Rob G | 02/14/2017 at 12:56 PM
It seems I have a torn meniscius and the pain is not merely caused by the fracture
Posted by: Very Grumpy ! | 02/14/2017 at 01:07 PM
Well, as the wise Solomon said, "When it raineth, behold! it poureth."
Posted by: Rob G | 02/14/2017 at 01:13 PM
Torn anything sounds at least as bad as broken anything. Must be very painful. Hope it gets better.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 01:44 PM
it's also the "Flight 93" argument, Rob, as I'm sure you (and Art) know: certain death vs slight chance.
Stu, there seems to be a small element, the "black bloc", that's definitely organized for violence.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 01:47 PM
You all are so much more with it than me as to what's going on in the world! Today I learned about social justice warriors and black blocs. I'm still waiting to hear what STEM means...
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 01:54 PM
Science, Technology, Engineering, Math
(I think. Something like that anyway.)
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 02:13 PM
No wonder I didn't know, those subjects are far away from my interests. Thanks, Mac.
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 02:23 PM
I'm just going to put my dreadlock wig on and say OM for a while.
Posted by: Stu | 02/14/2017 at 02:24 PM
You have to reinstate your Facebook account and post a video.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 03:02 PM
You could sneak into his house and take a picture of him.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 03:12 PM
The first group of people I unfollowed, collectively, as a group, were the folks trying to get me to adopt shelter animals before they were euthanized. One woman used to put messages on my timeline about dogs with ten hr to live. Ive never seen such horrible emotional blackmail.
I feel the priority has to be The animals one already has. When I had cats my elderly cats would have simply hated the introduction of the dog. Now that I have a golden retriever he has a very sweet tempered fellow and He is simply afraid of rottweilers and large shelter dogs. I have a cat who is on sabbatical with her and she would hate it if another dog were introduced. She regards Olivier
As quite deplorable enough without the introduction of a whole basket full of them
The thing is with these animal people who work in shelters they simply cannot see that happiness of one's own animals has to take priority
Posted by: Very Grumpy ! | 02/14/2017 at 04:43 PM
Yeah, that's the kind of thing that first made me unfollow somebody. I could have put up with one every day or two but it would be a dozen a day. I think she's quit doing that now.
I'm more hard-hearted. Even if I had no animals I would not be adopting one. We're down to one dog (there were two), and the one left is not going to live that much longer, and he's not going to be replaced. The cat is younger and may outlive us.
I will however be at risk if I am widowed and someone tries to give me a beagle.
Sorry, Janet, that's too much trouble.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 05:38 PM
I was trying to figure out why I would try to give you a beagle. ;-)
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/14/2017 at 06:16 PM
Yeah, should have made that a separate comment.
Posted by: Mac | 02/14/2017 at 06:34 PM
"Let's face it: most of us have fairly easy and well-provisioned lives compared to almost all the people who have ever lived, and as much as we might see and deplore the various ills (spiritual, material, and psychological) that have accompanied it--life never gives us any gain without some countering loss--we don't really want to give up things like central heat and indoor plumbing and underground sewer systems."
I think that many of the people who think about these trade-offs try to work out which ones were legitimate/necessary and which ones weren't, and then offer their criticism accordingly. The problem is that if you're a progressive of either the left or right variety you necessarily believe that the compounded total of all these gains and losses must tend to the overall good, hence any critical examination of them is pointless.
The traditionalist/conservative looks at this and says, in effect, "Hold on a minute. Do we really have to take internet porn in order to have anesthetic dentistry and chlorinated water?"
These conversations are important because while the losses and gains continue unabated and always will, we shouldn't allow them simply to occur without examination, as if they're inevitable. The people who stand up and say "Hold on a minute" play an important role, even if sometimes they turn out to be cranks.
Posted by: Rob G | 02/17/2017 at 06:37 AM
Oh yeah, I agree completely. I say Godspeed to anyone who wants to put in the effort on that. I did it myself for a long time. It's largely what Caelum et Terra was about. Looks like the web site where some of it was archived is gone so I can't point you to anything. It's just not something I personally have a lot of interest in anymore.
To extend my engineers-on-the-Titanic metaphor: if they really know what went wrong and can get their information back to those who need it, that's great. It's just not going to keep the ship from sinking, and that's my concern now. I haven't quite given up on that.
Posted by: Mac | 02/17/2017 at 07:50 AM
That makes sense.
I just finished Tony Esolen's new book Out of the Ashes, which is an exercise in that very thing. He's somewhat more sanguine about the prognosis of the culture than I am, but his diagnoses are accurate and his ideas for rebuilding are well-considered and not too big to be unachievable.
Posted by: Rob G | 02/17/2017 at 08:04 AM
If Esolen can be sanguine at this point in his life it is remarkable. I wonder if this was published before his current woes began.
Have you read Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching? I thought that was great.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/17/2017 at 08:50 AM
I think we should all do what we can even if it isn't big and programmatic. One of the articles I wrote for C & T was about what can the individual do? If one followed my advice it wouldn't make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but it would make my life and the lives of my children and friends a little better at least.
I once read an article by William Michael of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy in which he scorned suburban gardeners who think they are making a difference by making salsa from their paltry crop of tomatoes and onions. I thought, "Now come on...isn't it better for the world and for them that they have a garden? Not everyone can live on the land." It certainly is better for my kids that we have a garden for them with which to have at least some connection to the soil. That kind of zealotry makes me sad.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/17/2017 at 08:53 AM
A case of the best being the enemy of the good.
The thing is, if your kids have actually grown vegetables, if they decide to move to the country they might actually succeed in feeding themselves whereas Bill and I would starve to death without Kroger.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/17/2017 at 08:57 AM
I think his current woes started pretty recently, so my guess is that it was.
A personal reason for my current lack of interest in that project is what I've seen of the fortunes of the orthodox Catholic renewal that flowered in the '80s under JPII and in significant part inspired by him. So many hopes have been dashed. When I see a young man named John Paul on Facebook preaching the pro-abortion or pro-homosexuality line I figure there are broken-hearted parents in the background.
Posted by: Mac | 02/17/2017 at 08:57 AM
"If Esolen can be sanguine at this point in his life it is remarkable."
He's certainly not sanguine about the present. He's just more hopeful about the future than I am. Whereas he believes there are some things that can be salvaged and rebuilt, I think we're pretty much sunk. But this doesn't mean I don't agree with his reclamation proposals. Like Mac, I'm very much a "brighten the corner where you are" guy, and I'm sure Esolen is as well.
Posted by: Rob G | 02/17/2017 at 09:18 AM
Maclin is a "brighten the corner where you are" guy?
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/17/2017 at 09:39 AM
"Maclin is a 'brighten the corner where you are' guy?" Hehe.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/17/2017 at 10:25 AM
No one can recover everything perfectly, but some people can recover some things for a time. Some people are recovering somethings, others other things. Then they get into a fight over whose recovered things are more important.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/17/2017 at 10:29 AM
~~Maclin is a "brighten the corner where you are" guy?~~
Yes! Isn't that how you'd interpret this?:
One of the articles I wrote for C & T was about what can the individual do? If one followed my advice it wouldn't make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but it would make my life and the lives of my children and friends a little better at least.
Posted by: Rob G | 02/17/2017 at 10:32 AM
That was me.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/17/2017 at 10:35 AM
As opposed to a "sitting in a corner swinging a big stick at people trying to get near you" guy?
Posted by: Stu | 02/17/2017 at 10:43 AM
Yeah, that was Robert and he definitely is that kind of person.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 02/17/2017 at 10:48 AM
My kids call me Mr. Sunshine.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/17/2017 at 11:01 AM
What is the emoji for irony?
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 02/17/2017 at 11:01 AM
See this.
Posted by: Mac | 02/17/2017 at 11:06 AM
"that was Robert and he definitely is that kind of person"
My error. I saw C&T and just assumed Mac.
Still, I don't think he'd disagree with the sentiment expressed!
Posted by: Rob G | 02/17/2017 at 11:18 AM
No, definitely not.
My link above btw was not a reply to Robert, just an effort to brighten everybody's corner.
Posted by: Mac | 02/17/2017 at 11:49 AM
I just didn't feel like it was enough to brighten mine only.
Posted by: Mac | 02/17/2017 at 12:01 PM
Didn't know exactly where to post this, but for those who missed Fences in the theatre it came out on DVD this week.
Posted by: Rob G | 03/16/2017 at 02:20 PM
Several of the Oscar nominated films came out this week, and a few more next I believe. Fences is on my short list!
Posted by: Stu | 03/16/2017 at 02:30 PM
"I once read an article by William Michael of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy in which he scorned suburban gardeners who think they are making a difference by making salsa from their paltry crop of tomatoes and onions. I thought, "Now come on...isn't it better for the world and for them that they have a garden? Not everyone can live on the land." It certainly is better for my kids that we have a garden for them with which to have at least some connection to the soil. That kind of zealotry makes me sad."
That is "Third Base Man" I spoke of here a number of years ago. Nobody is as good as him at anything. He scorns everyone. I would advise all to stay well away from him. I don't say this lightly.
Posted by: Louise | 03/16/2017 at 03:04 PM
Do you mean William Michael specifically, or just the type?
I had to refresh my memory about "Third Base Man":
http://lightondarkwater.typepad.com/lodw/2011/10/by-the-way-crisis-is-back.html
Posted by: Mac | 03/16/2017 at 05:44 PM
There has been conversation in so many places today that I am completely confused trying to unravel it.
This particular thread has led me on a wild goose chase that ended abruptly when I tried to follow a link from a comment on an older post to a comment that I made that Maclin referenced and found that it was on a post that no longer has its comments.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/16/2017 at 06:08 PM
Louise, I'm wondering if you are talking about the man that was so ugly to me on Facebook one time for no apparent reason.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/16/2017 at 06:09 PM
Things did get a little discombobulated there. I spent a few minutes looking for a particular comment on one thread before I realized it was on another thread even though it was related to the one thread. :-/
Posted by: Mac | 03/16/2017 at 08:19 PM
I've been trying to see if other languages have a word for discombobulated and so far I've only found French - confus, déconcerté, and Chinese - 搞乱.
I hope the Chinese shows up for other people. I may use that pictograph as my profile picture--once Paul tells me that it means what I think it means.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/17/2017 at 07:25 AM
Really, you should thank me for giving you an excuse to use such a wonderful word.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/17/2017 at 07:26 AM
Hmm. Actually I use it fairly often, probably most often about myself.
The pictograph does show up. But seems like you would have to know another language really well to know if there is *truly* a word for discombobulated. I mean, there are a lot of more or less synonyms in English, but none that has exactly the same flavor.
Posted by: Mac | 03/17/2017 at 07:49 AM
Not that I don't appreciate your thoughtfulness of course. :-;
Posted by: Mac | 03/17/2017 at 08:21 AM
It is truly it's own word. And thinking about it in relationship to the Arrival discussion, I'm thinking that maybe there are cultures that just wouldn't understand that concept, and so couldn't translate it.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/17/2017 at 08:41 AM
I would not be a good fit for that culture.
That reminds me: once when I was considering changing jobs and had applied to some place or other, a personnel person left a phone message saying that she would let me know if she "had a fit." My wife thought this was hilarious, but it took me a minute to see why, because I had gotten so used to corporate-speak.
Posted by: Mac | 03/17/2017 at 10:03 AM
Oh, your soul was in great danger at that point. ;-)
I try so hard not to let those phrases get into my vocabulary. If the words, "I reached out to them," in the current way of using that phrase, ever come out of my mouth or off my keyboard, I hope someone will reach out to smack some sense into me.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/17/2017 at 10:16 AM
I will make a mutual sense-smacking pact with you on that score.
Posted by: Mac | 03/17/2017 at 10:34 AM
Agreed.
Posted by: Janet | 03/17/2017 at 11:12 AM
I mean William Michael. Honestly, I struggled with my conscience because of the possibility of detraction, but I had decided some time ago that if he ever came up in conversation (particularly among home schoolers) I would probably be obliged to at least suggest caution.
Thanks for digging up the old thread. I'm going to review it.
Janet, was that a conversation I witnessed?
Posted by: Louise | 03/17/2017 at 03:57 PM
I should say that 2011 was the worst year of my life, and I pray I never have another that bad. Part of it was that a certain family member was causing me tremendous grief, was very manipulative etc (not a feature of my family normally). This particulat family member happens to be choleric (hence my mention of it on that old thread) and at the time, I thought that was part of the problem, whereas I know now it wasn't.
Also, I just want to thank everyone here, especially Maclin, for being the kind of people you are. In your own way you were a real help to me in that time. Thank you, I'm very fond of you all.
Posted by: Louise | 03/17/2017 at 04:06 PM
You're welcome. I'm glad we were able to help.
Posted by: Mac | 03/17/2017 at 05:50 PM
My Chinese never stretched to "discombobulated", but among the initial results on Google Images for "搞乱" are pictures of Trump, Gaddafi, and a 1970s Japanese TV series, called Monkey! in English, based on Journey to the West.
The two characters individually are do or make, and chaos or disorder, so I guess a closer fit in English would be "throw(n) into confusion".
Posted by: Paul | 03/19/2017 at 05:01 AM
"Thrown into confusion " is actually a very good definition. That element of being thrown is what's missing in synonyms like "confused ".
Posted by: Mac | 03/19/2017 at 09:41 AM