The categories of transgression and innocence, purity and stain, have now effectively migrated from the mainline churches into the universities and from thence into the Democratic Party, which is now the political wing of the universities. To say the same thing in a different manner, the universities are now the theological wing of the Democratic Party. Together, they disseminate the political theology of identity politics....He has some theological recommendations. Perhaps it is right to say that only God can forgive such sins, and thus that eliminating a God who can forgive also eliminates the possibility of forgiveness. Then what? Romans 12:19 (like Deut. 32) assigned vengeance to the Lord God alone. Without the God to own it, vengeance flies free; and without the God to forgive and to instruct us to forgive each other, vengeance is all that's left.
Christian realism, however, is not enough. Identity politics understands the original sin of the white heterosexual male to implicate all that he has touched, not least of which is the nation, which is taken to be a construction of his that is responsible for the great wars of the twentieth century; colonialism in Africa, the Middle East, South America, and South Asia; and slavery in America....
Identity politics recognizes irredeemable sin, but seeks an immanent resolution to the problem, namely, purging all that the white heterosexual male has constructed—including the nation. Not by the sacrifice of Jesus do we achieve redemption, but rather through the renunciation of the nation and its irredeemable stain. That is why citizens in Europe and in America are clamoring for the EU or for global governance. In the world identity politics constructs, there is no other way for their stain to be removed.
Christian realism has nothing to say about this now ascendant frame of mind.... God’s salvific plan of the world of nations is his to disclose, in a providential history that man cannot grasp in advance. Identity politics finds this to be a filthy delusion. The Christian God, the nations he authorizes, and his so-called providential history are the invention of the white heterosexual male who himself and all that he has invented must be purged so that the world may be made pure.
A Protestant Heresy
Joshua Mitchell argues that identity politics is a species of heresy:
Pesky strings on that money
The University of Missouri faces a moral dilemma.
Unfortunately, the university was dumb enough to generate internal memoranda admitting that it was trying to circumvent the donor's intent, explaining that “the Austrian School of Economics is quite controversial ... [w]e didn’t want to wade into that controversy, so we focused on some Austrian tenets that are compatible with what we do in our business school.” That's pretty close to “a dedicated and articulate disciple of the Ludwig von Mises (Austrian) School of Economics,” right? Presumably they scrounged up a few guys who at least agreed with the Austrians on one or two basic economic principles on a good day when no pressing social justice issues intervened.
Somehow, this didn't satisfy Hillsdale College, which recently lost patience and filed a lawsuit arguing that no “disciple” of Austrian economics was ever hired, let alone a dedicated or articulate one. No doubt the university will give up now and hand the donation over to Hillsdale. Again, just kidding.
In 2002, the university received a $5 million bequest . . . to fund six professorships at the Trulaske College of Business to be filled by devotees of free market economics.
[The will included] a unique enforcement provision. Mizzou would be required to certify every four years to the satisfaction of Hillsdale College that each professorship had been filled by “a dedicated and articulate disciple of the Ludwig von Mises (Austrian) School of Economics.” The remaining funds would revert to Hillsdale in the event that this requirement was not met.But the university obviously doesn't approve of Austrian economics. You might suppose, therefore, that its moral dilemma was whether it was justified in taking the money. Just kidding. Of course they took the money. The moral dilemma was their concern that "acceding to [the donor's] request would consign the school to being 'held hostage by a particular ideology.'" Ideology is wrong, at least when it's the wrong ideology. The university stands foursquare against it.
Unfortunately, the university was dumb enough to generate internal memoranda admitting that it was trying to circumvent the donor's intent, explaining that “the Austrian School of Economics is quite controversial ... [w]e didn’t want to wade into that controversy, so we focused on some Austrian tenets that are compatible with what we do in our business school.” That's pretty close to “a dedicated and articulate disciple of the Ludwig von Mises (Austrian) School of Economics,” right? Presumably they scrounged up a few guys who at least agreed with the Austrians on one or two basic economic principles on a good day when no pressing social justice issues intervened.
Somehow, this didn't satisfy Hillsdale College, which recently lost patience and filed a lawsuit arguing that no “disciple” of Austrian economics was ever hired, let alone a dedicated or articulate one. No doubt the university will give up now and hand the donation over to Hillsdale. Again, just kidding.
Racism problem worse than I dreamed
Until today I had no idea front-door cams were racist:
I notice the linked AP article didn't even try to explain the race-barrier angle, because frankly that line of reasoning won't bear close scrutiny.
Critics complain that the systems turn neighborhoods into places of constant surveillance and create suspicion that falls heavier on minorities. . . . Critics also say Ring, a subsidiary of Amazon, appears to be marketing its cameras by stirring up fear of crime at a time when it’s decreasing. . . . “Amazon is profiting off of fear,” said Chris Gilliard, an English professor at Michigan’s Macomb Community College and a prominent critic of Ring and other technology that he says can reinforce race barriers. Part of the strategy seems to be selling the cameras “where the fear of crime is more real than the actual existence of crime.”Thanks, Prof. Gillard, but I think I'll make up my own mind how secure my front door is. Do front-door lock manufacturers profit off fear? If so, bully for them. Ditto vaccine and airbag manufacturers.
I notice the linked AP article didn't even try to explain the race-barrier angle, because frankly that line of reasoning won't bear close scrutiny.
Son of Scalia
Here's some good news: With Acosta out as Labor Secretary, his second-in-command, a workmanlike conservative with a good reputation, will be acting secretary. In the meantime, President Trump has nominated Eugene Scalia, son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, to take the helm.
Scalia runs the labor/employment law department at Gibson Dunn, one of the few law firms with a national reputation, and the only top-shelf D.C. law firm I know of, that includes a number of serious and credible conservative partners. Scalia worked for Attorney General Barr during that gentleman's first stint at the Department of Justice, and must have gotten a thumbs-up from him.
Scalia runs the labor/employment law department at Gibson Dunn, one of the few law firms with a national reputation, and the only top-shelf D.C. law firm I know of, that includes a number of serious and credible conservative partners. Scalia worked for Attorney General Barr during that gentleman's first stint at the Department of Justice, and must have gotten a thumbs-up from him.
A Heroic Cleric
Another good story from CNN.
The US government is honoring an 83-year-old Muslim cleric who hid 262 Christians in his home and mosque during an attack in central Nigeria.
Imam Abubakar Abdullahi, along with four religious leaders from Sudan, Iraq, Brazil and Cyprus, were awarded the 2019 the International Religious Freedom Award, which is given to advocates of religious freedom.
Abdullahi was recognized for providing shelter for hundreds of Christians fleeing attacks from Muslim herdsmen who had launched coordinated attacks on Christian farmers in 10 villages in the Barkin Ladi area of Plateau State on June 23, 2018, the award organizers said in a statement.
"How the Soviets Won the Space Race for Equality"
I swear, these people are beyond parody.
Happy 50th landing anniversary to a real hero of humanity, Buzz Aldrin, whose mission flew in the face of all godless Communists. "In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine curled slowly and gracefully up the side of the cup. It was interesting to think that the very first liquid ever poured on the moon, and the first food eaten there, were communion elements."
UPDATE:
A self-described 'maths geek' has been answering the NYT piece for two days. She has quite a few good stories to tell.
Happy 50th landing anniversary to a real hero of humanity, Buzz Aldrin, whose mission flew in the face of all godless Communists. "In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine curled slowly and gracefully up the side of the cup. It was interesting to think that the very first liquid ever poured on the moon, and the first food eaten there, were communion elements."
UPDATE:
A self-described 'maths geek' has been answering the NYT piece for two days. She has quite a few good stories to tell.
Norse American History News
A new layer for archaeologists to explore has been discovered at L’Anse aux Meadows.
The colony was thought to be short-lived, but a new find may extend the length of its occupancy.There's more.
While taking sediment cores from a nearby peat bog to help study the ancient environment, archaeologist Paul Ledger and his colleagues discovered a previously unknown chapter in the story of L’Anse aux Meadows. Buried about 35cm (14 inches) beneath the modern surface, they found signs of an ancient occupancy: a layer of trampled mud littered with woodworking debris, charcoal, and the remains of plants and insects.
Based on its depth and the insect species present, the layer looks like similar surfaces from the edges of Viking Age Norse settlements in Greenland and Iceland. But organic material from the layer radiocarbon dated to the late 1100s or early 1200s, long after the Norse were thought to have left Newfoundland for good.
Artifacts like a bronze cloak pin, a soapstone spindle piece, iron nails, and rivets make it clear who lived in the eight Icelandic-style turf shelters at L’Anse aux Meadows. Stone tools at the site suggest that indigenous North Americans, probably ancestors of the Beothuk and Dorset people, also lived or visited here. L’Anse aux Meadows may be the first place where Europeans and indigenous Americans interacted, and those interactions may have happened off and on for as long as 195 years.
A Surprising Senator in Arizona
I had concerns about Senator Sinema, compared with the fighter pilot she was running against. But she's representing the interests of her state fairly well, all things considered.
War of Words
Almost all Democrats, but also a majority of Republicans, think heated rhetoric in our politics may provoke violence. Empirical evidence supports this. There was a terrorist attack last week in Tacoma in which a prominent American politician's heated language was cited verbatim by the attacker. As Instapundit's site points out regularly, that wasn't the first time.
So far the rhetoric hasn't cooled, but perhaps it will.
So far the rhetoric hasn't cooled, but perhaps it will.
Greenwashing
Vodkapundit defines "greenwashing" as sweeping your environmental impacts under someone else's rug.
Decades ago during the first PG&E bankruptcy, you may recall some fantastic spikes in California power prices and widespread brownouts. The spikes were widely attributed to shady Enron behavior but actually resulted, I believe, from California's insistence on squeezing down its paltry collection of interstate transmission corridors, while undermining domestic power production, until it was practically begging for a supply-demand crisis. The California PUC helped things along by refusing PG&E's increasingly urgent requests to be allowed to buy long-term price-hedging contracts to smooth over the confidently predicted price spikes. That would be unfair to consumers, if power prices declined, as the PUC apparently expected in the brave new world.
As you might imagine, California has not in the interim been taken over by bureaucrats with a firmer grasp of market principles. Time to tee the system up for a bigger and better replay!
Are you tired of paying too little for clean-burning energy that reduces carbon emissions? Then has Berkeley got a deal for you!
On Tuesday, the City Council approved a new ordinance forbidding any new low-rise residences from using natural gas: It's all-electric or nothin', baby. Councilwoman Kate Harrison, who sponsored the measure, told the Chronicle that "It’s an enormous issue" and "When we think about pollution and climate-change issues, we tend to think about factories and cars, but all buildings are producing greenhouse gas."
And more than a few local politicians, too.Discerning readers already were aware that gas heat is much more efficient than electric heat, but California now imports 33% of its electricity, so there's less need to think about what has to be burned (Nevada coal) or killed (Oregon salmon) to produce it out there in non-Cali-land.
Decades ago during the first PG&E bankruptcy, you may recall some fantastic spikes in California power prices and widespread brownouts. The spikes were widely attributed to shady Enron behavior but actually resulted, I believe, from California's insistence on squeezing down its paltry collection of interstate transmission corridors, while undermining domestic power production, until it was practically begging for a supply-demand crisis. The California PUC helped things along by refusing PG&E's increasingly urgent requests to be allowed to buy long-term price-hedging contracts to smooth over the confidently predicted price spikes. That would be unfair to consumers, if power prices declined, as the PUC apparently expected in the brave new world.
As you might imagine, California has not in the interim been taken over by bureaucrats with a firmer grasp of market principles. Time to tee the system up for a bigger and better replay!
Is he really that hard to understand?
This Inside Hook article sums up Trump's style as "don't start no *$^%, won't be no *$^%."
Weird numbers
Sometimes I wonder if people who answer polls are rolling dice or making up answers at random. I'm slightly encouraged that more people are discounting the "Trump is a racist" story that blares out of nearly every mainstream media outlet several times a day. It's more dispiriting to find such a stark partisan divide on the issue, but I'm getting used to that.
What's more bizarre is that as many as 16% of self-avowed Republicans could be brought to say that any criticism by a white politician of the political views of a politician "of color" is per se racist. As Glenn Reynolds says, it leads one to assume that 16% of Republican respondents simply didn't understand the question. For 16% of self-described independents and 32% of Democrats to answer that way could be chalked up to muddle-headedness or partisan mania, but what kind of Republican subscribes to such a theory? Not just that some criticism of a person of one race by a person of another might turn out, on closer inspection, to be racist, but that "all" of it is? What part of the Republican platform would appeal to someone with such a mindset?
What's more bizarre is that as many as 16% of self-avowed Republicans could be brought to say that any criticism by a white politician of the political views of a politician "of color" is per se racist. As Glenn Reynolds says, it leads one to assume that 16% of Republican respondents simply didn't understand the question. For 16% of self-described independents and 32% of Democrats to answer that way could be chalked up to muddle-headedness or partisan mania, but what kind of Republican subscribes to such a theory? Not just that some criticism of a person of one race by a person of another might turn out, on closer inspection, to be racist, but that "all" of it is? What part of the Republican platform would appeal to someone with such a mindset?
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 47% of all ‘Likely U.S. Voters’ think Trump is a racist, down slightly from 50% in January 2018. Slightly more (49%) disagree and say his opponents are accusing him of racism only for political gain, up from 43% in the earlier survey,” said a pre-release analysis of the poll posted at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Other features in the analysis:
The partisan division of opinion couldn’t be any clearer. While 80% of Democrats believe the president is a racist, 85% of Republicans think the racism charges by his opponents are politically motivated. Voters not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided on the question. Thirty-two percent (32%) of Democrats, however, say it’s racist for any white politician to criticize the political views of a politician of color. That’s a view shared by just 16% of both GOP and unaffiliated voters.
Aristotle's Ethics: What Is a Happy Life?
I had not intended to take this long in posting, but family is visiting and we're catching up and seeing the sights.
Lesson 3 in the series is about happiness, but not the emotional, fleeting sort. Rather, Aristotle discusses what it means to have a happy lifetime, from beginning to end.
I have never given a great deal of thought to what makes a happy lifetime -- not just this moment, day, month, year, decade, but lifetime.
What makes a full, happy life of seven or eight decades? And are there general principles to achieve this that apply to everyone?
Aristotle claims there are. Prof. Arnn claims that it has only been in the last couple of centuries that people have started thinking that there aren't, that a happy life can be a completely individual thing and that the principles that create a happy life for one may create a miserable life for another.
What do you think? Are there general principles for a happy lifetime that apply to everyone? If so, what are they?
Lesson 3 in the series is about happiness, but not the emotional, fleeting sort. Rather, Aristotle discusses what it means to have a happy lifetime, from beginning to end.
I have never given a great deal of thought to what makes a happy lifetime -- not just this moment, day, month, year, decade, but lifetime.
What makes a full, happy life of seven or eight decades? And are there general principles to achieve this that apply to everyone?
Aristotle claims there are. Prof. Arnn claims that it has only been in the last couple of centuries that people have started thinking that there aren't, that a happy life can be a completely individual thing and that the principles that create a happy life for one may create a miserable life for another.
What do you think? Are there general principles for a happy lifetime that apply to everyone? If so, what are they?
"Muscle Dysmorphia"
There are two responses to this, one more humorous than the other.
Of course, all things done by young men are chiefly about attaining the attention of young women, gay men excepted but with a similar substitute motivation. They strive for the ideal because that's how you attain the attentions when you're young, before your blood cools and you learn to really appreciate the other aspects of human love. If this is what you present to them, it's what they'll go for -- provided, that is, that it's a plausible thing that young women really do seem to like. If you try to convince them that the real ideal male body is squishy and flabby and fat, they'll notice quickly enough that you're full of it when the girls don't take notice of their physique.
But ask any young man who has begun lifting for a while if the girls have started to notice him. He'll blush behind his downy mustache, nod, and perhaps say a few shy words to affirm it.
So that's why young men are doing it. But the bigger response is: What's wrong with it?
Ok, illegal supplements, dangerous drugs, damage to the body, granted. Those things work in terms of attaining size and 'cut,' but they make it so easy that you fail at developing the real virtues that come from the hard work to get there. They substitute ease of success for both virtue and health. So don't do those things.
All the same, a man can go a long way on this road -- enough to enter the top 1% of human strength -- without reference to such things. If you get focused on having the perfectly sculpted body, you'll make some basic errors that will lead you away from what it takes to have the strongest body. To whit:
That's accurate. Bodybuilding will make you look (somewhat) like Arnold; but if you want to be strong, you'll want to look more like Halfthor. So, in terms of attaining the maximum virtue of functional human strength, Bodybuilding is less effective than Powerlifting, and Powerlifting is less effective than Strongman. (Which has a thriving women's division, by the way.)
By all means get strong. Why not?
The idealised male body has become bigger, bulkier and harder to achieve. So what drives a generation of young men to the all-consuming, often dangerous pursuit of perfection?What do you think?
Of course, all things done by young men are chiefly about attaining the attention of young women, gay men excepted but with a similar substitute motivation. They strive for the ideal because that's how you attain the attentions when you're young, before your blood cools and you learn to really appreciate the other aspects of human love. If this is what you present to them, it's what they'll go for -- provided, that is, that it's a plausible thing that young women really do seem to like. If you try to convince them that the real ideal male body is squishy and flabby and fat, they'll notice quickly enough that you're full of it when the girls don't take notice of their physique.
But ask any young man who has begun lifting for a while if the girls have started to notice him. He'll blush behind his downy mustache, nod, and perhaps say a few shy words to affirm it.
So that's why young men are doing it. But the bigger response is: What's wrong with it?
Ok, illegal supplements, dangerous drugs, damage to the body, granted. Those things work in terms of attaining size and 'cut,' but they make it so easy that you fail at developing the real virtues that come from the hard work to get there. They substitute ease of success for both virtue and health. So don't do those things.
All the same, a man can go a long way on this road -- enough to enter the top 1% of human strength -- without reference to such things. If you get focused on having the perfectly sculpted body, you'll make some basic errors that will lead you away from what it takes to have the strongest body. To whit:
That's accurate. Bodybuilding will make you look (somewhat) like Arnold; but if you want to be strong, you'll want to look more like Halfthor. So, in terms of attaining the maximum virtue of functional human strength, Bodybuilding is less effective than Powerlifting, and Powerlifting is less effective than Strongman. (Which has a thriving women's division, by the way.)
By all means get strong. Why not?
Strong Enough for a Man, But Made for a Woman
This is all very clever, but what's going to stop him from sitting in the woman's seat? Not the block in the middle, if he should merely sit with his legs even further apart over the edges of the stool.
Actually, both stools look entirely uncomfortable -- but making people uncomfortable is, I gather, the telos of high feminist architecture.
Actually, both stools look entirely uncomfortable -- but making people uncomfortable is, I gather, the telos of high feminist architecture.
You Can't Have the Gadsden Flag, Commies
Nor the Culpeper Flag, nor the Navy Jack, and especially you may not have the Flag of the Veterans Exempt. Nor the Betsy Ross flag.
The Confederate flag, fine. The rest of them you're just going to have to learn to live with.
The Confederate flag, fine. The rest of them you're just going to have to learn to live with.
A Debacle in the House
So, last week the tension in the Democratic Party was that Nancy Pelosi stood accused of being a kind-of racist because she was always putting down what has come to be called "the Squad," or, as Squad-leader AOC puts it, 'freshmen women of color.' Speaker Pelosi pulled out all the stops in self-defense against this career-destroying claim, up to and including the Congressional Black Caucus and Maureen Dowd in the Sunday New York Times.
As of yesterday, it appeared that President Trump had decided to rescue Speaker Pelosi by giving her an ample chance to turn the charge around against him, and show staunch support for 'the Squad.' Yesterday afternoon, however, 'the Squad' called for the President to be impeached (for an ill-considered exercise of his First Amendment rights, I suppose, which is apparently either a high crime or a misdemeanor these days; although one of them mentioned Russia Collusion, as if that were still a live issue that might lead to impeachment somehow). Speaker Pelosi risked another split with the four by insisting on a toothless resolution instead, arguing that impeachment would fail in the Senate and the President would claim vindication.
The idea was this was the safe bet, and she could peel off some Republicans and have a symbolic victory at no cost -- assuming 'the Squad' didn't keep raising a fuss about how she didn't impeach.
Instead, what happened was that she used language that violated rules going back to Thomas Jefferson; the Parliamentarian sided with a challenge to that language from Rep. Doug Collins (my old representative, actually, from Georgia's Mighty 9th Congressional District); Pelosi then left the floor in violation of the rules; the chairman abandoned the chair rather than accept the ruling that she was guilty; the next chairman did accept it, so the House voted to reject applying the rule and keep her remarks on the record; and then the House voted to exempt her from any punishment for breaking the rule, even though the punishment was purely symbolic.
So now, not only did they not get the show of Republicans joining them to shame the President, they damaged the cause of impeachment. Now, if they ever do impeach, the Senate Republicans can simply point to this as a clear precedent for how things are done these days. If they'd made Pelosi accept the token symbol of a punishment, they could have claimed the high ground for applying the rules to their own elected party leader. Now, they've set a clear standard that those with the power to do so shall set the rules aside to protect their party leader (even when there's really nothing at stake in applying the rules). They've deprived themselves of a huge rhetorical advantage, making a successful impeachment and removal of the President far less likely than it already was.
The floor of the House is a smoking ruin this afternoon.
As of yesterday, it appeared that President Trump had decided to rescue Speaker Pelosi by giving her an ample chance to turn the charge around against him, and show staunch support for 'the Squad.' Yesterday afternoon, however, 'the Squad' called for the President to be impeached (for an ill-considered exercise of his First Amendment rights, I suppose, which is apparently either a high crime or a misdemeanor these days; although one of them mentioned Russia Collusion, as if that were still a live issue that might lead to impeachment somehow). Speaker Pelosi risked another split with the four by insisting on a toothless resolution instead, arguing that impeachment would fail in the Senate and the President would claim vindication.
The idea was this was the safe bet, and she could peel off some Republicans and have a symbolic victory at no cost -- assuming 'the Squad' didn't keep raising a fuss about how she didn't impeach.
Instead, what happened was that she used language that violated rules going back to Thomas Jefferson; the Parliamentarian sided with a challenge to that language from Rep. Doug Collins (my old representative, actually, from Georgia's Mighty 9th Congressional District); Pelosi then left the floor in violation of the rules; the chairman abandoned the chair rather than accept the ruling that she was guilty; the next chairman did accept it, so the House voted to reject applying the rule and keep her remarks on the record; and then the House voted to exempt her from any punishment for breaking the rule, even though the punishment was purely symbolic.
So now, not only did they not get the show of Republicans joining them to shame the President, they damaged the cause of impeachment. Now, if they ever do impeach, the Senate Republicans can simply point to this as a clear precedent for how things are done these days. If they'd made Pelosi accept the token symbol of a punishment, they could have claimed the high ground for applying the rules to their own elected party leader. Now, they've set a clear standard that those with the power to do so shall set the rules aside to protect their party leader (even when there's really nothing at stake in applying the rules). They've deprived themselves of a huge rhetorical advantage, making a successful impeachment and removal of the President far less likely than it already was.
The floor of the House is a smoking ruin this afternoon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)