Can We Handle Information?

Constitution day just passed on the 17^th of September. I suppose not many people noticed the day, just as I suppose not many people notice the Constitution itself. One student at a Modesto, California Junior College attempted to pass out copies of the Constitution, but he was quickly stopped by campus officials, according to news reports and the video above. (1) And so life goes on in our safe and insulated little world.

What is disturbing about the incident at an institution of higher learning is what it tells us about our society. When an administrator such as the one in the video has an entire binder full of regulations regarding speech and the dissemination of information, we should scratch our heads and wonder why. Is it because we are not capable of handling opinions that differ from ours? Is it because we cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood on our own? Is it because we cannot say “no thank you” when someone tries to hand us a pamphlet? Such nanny laws sound like a concerned parent telling a young child: “don't talk to strangers!” But are adults on a college campus children? (Ok, ok, maybe they do seem like it much of the time.) The anonymous creators of the binder full of rules apparently think so. Apparently they are trying to protect us from ideas that come from unofficial sources. “Trust your professors and trust your textbooks, but flee the intellectual snares of all others,” they seem to say. And it doesn't matter how historically, politically, and philosophically relevant something may be. Nay, even if it is one of the most important political documents in human history, it should not reach your ears if it does not come from an officially approved source.

No doubt lots of garbage is kept out of circulation this way, but I can't help thinking that I would rather be the one to decide if it is garbage or not. It is not just that I think copies of the Constitution should be passed out: if someone were passing out copies of the Communist Manifesto I would certainly take one, even though I profoundly disagree with it. A college campus, not to mention our society in general, is a place where we should be allowed to hear other people's ideas. Treat adults like children for long enough and they just might become children, or worse, imbeciles.

1 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/19/california-college-bars-student-from-handing-out-copies-constitution/

Not to Itemize but to Generalize

Michael J. Lewis, in an article on architecture entitled The Decline of American Monuments and Memorials, gives his opinion of why American art is uncomfortable with itself and unable to approach coherent greatness. Speaking of both the plastic arts and the written, he says:

"Allegory requires an imaginative act, and is literary, whereas our culture is uncomfortable with figurative language. This began around 1977, the moment the language censors began to attack phrases like “Man does not live on bread alone,” asking “What about women?” A painful literalism set in, which is hostile to figurative language in speech and to abstract allegory in art. Nowadays we tend to think literally rather than literarily, which explains why Frederick Hart had to portray the American military experience in Vietnam by means of three men of three distinct races—and why a women’s memorial was subsequently added. [Even though to the 58,000 male soldiers killed there were only 7 women killed.] The fear of leaving someone or something out is hostile to the allegorical impulse, which seeks not to itemize but to generalize, and to speak not specific truths but great truths. It is not surprising that a culture ill at ease with the notion of absolute truth would find it very difficult to make monuments that show urgency and conviction."

HT: Hillsdale College Imprimis

The Roots of an Evil Regime

Periodically over the last few months I've been dipping into a most fascinating historical exploration. I am in no hurry to finish it, which is why I am only on page 231 of William Shirer's massive 1200+ page Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. Despite my slowness, it is an intriguing read.

Here I learned of the almost comic “Beer Hall Putsch” where a young and fiery Hitler burst onto the view of Germany brandishing a pistol at a large beer hall and calling for a revolution in Germany. Bluffing that three government leaders he held hostage were in support of his putsch, Hitler garnered enough public support to throw the city of Munich into confusion. The next morning Hitler—still brandishing his pistol—marched through the streets of Munich with three thousand followers at his back.

But this revolution of November 1923 fell into the cracks of the pavement after a firefight with the police. Hitler fled as the rest of his Nazi cohorts scattered across the countryside and across Europe to avoid arrest. Most of them, including Hitler, were unable to avoid arrest, but Hitler turned even this dismal turn of events into a speaking platform for his movement. And after nine months in prison he was back on the street, feverishly polishing off the tarnish from his image.

While Hitler gave up his revolutionary aspirations after his arrest and imprisonment, his rise to absolute power was not entirely legal, and certainly not peaceful, although it was done with the consent of the German people. Hitler realized he must overthrow the German Republic from within so he began winning over the voting populace to the Nazi party. It was a long and seemingly impossible road for the once ridiculed Austrian Vagabond; yet ultimately, the blame for Hitler's rise to power rests with the German people. Even a year and a half after his appointment as Chancellor, when Hitler illegally combined the office of Chancellor and President into one Fuehrer, the German people were given one last chance to remove someone whose words and actions had clearly been leading the nation towards totalitarianism. William Shirer writes of Hitler's final grab for power:

“That the 'law' was illegal also made little difference in a Germany where the former Austrian corporal had now become the law itself. That it was illegal was obvious... But what mattered the law now? ...And the German people? On August 19 [1934], some 95 per cent of those who had registered went to the polls, and 90 per cent, more than thirty-eight million of them, voted approval of Hitlers usurpation of complete power” (229-230).

Shirer goes on in astonishment to note:

“the overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of their culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation... a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed and held down by an unscrupulous and brutal dictatorship. On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country” (231).

And what were the origins of this new “hope” and “faith in the future?” Much of it came from the writings of a neurotic Englishman named Houston Chamberlain, also known as “the father of Nazism.” Chamberlain, made no secret that he believed his once influential writings and thoughts were inspired from outside of himself by demons. Chamberlain looked on his writings with admiration, sometimes “unable to recognize them as his own work, because they surpassed his expectations” (105). Shirer writes:

“Once, in 1896, when he was returning from Italy, the presence of a demon became so forceful that he got off the train at Gardone, shut himself up in a hotel room for eight days and, abandoning some work on music that he had contemplated, wrote feverishly on a biological thesis until he had the germ of the theme that would dominate all of his later works: race and history” (105).

Needless to say, Chamberlain's views about the Aryans were not just racist, but also “shoddy” and preposterous (105-107); nevertheless, the early Nazi press heralded his writings as the “gospel of the Nazi movement” (109).

Seeing the outcome of such a hate-filled and racist “gospel” at the foundation of a government should make us thankful that the “gospel” at the foundation of the American government was, believe it or not, the Gospel; the good news of Jesus coming to reconcile man with God, and man with man. (For example, the most cited author of the American Founders was the apostle Paul.) As can be seen, an era so dark in the world's history, as the Nazi era was, did not come about through benign neighborly love. Its roots were demonic and its trunk a rejection of Jesus' command to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York, Simon and Schuster. 1960

Education Servilus and Education Liberalis

“Ancient education was divided into two categories: (1) education for slaves (education servilus), which was restricted to teaching the slaves to do a particular job, to contribute to the economic system, and to conform to the demands of the society that enslaved them; and (2) education for the free (education liberalis), which equipped students of the Greek democracy and the Roman Republic to be free citizens who could come up with the ideas, knowledge, creativity, leadership, and virtues necessary for self-governance and the pursuit of excellence.

Today’s dominant approaches to education, both in the public schools and in the universities, are essentially a revival of the education for slaves. To be sure, those with 'successful careers' may be well-paid, but they still think and act like slaves.” --Gene Edward Veith

In a society so enthralled by the economy and making money we should not be surprised by this. Echoing our preoccupation in his inaugural address, President Obama affirmed, "we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age." A new age of slavery.

HT: Redeemedreader.com

Not Surprised

 The hostage standoff at the Discovery Channel building in Maryland should not come as any surprise. James Jay Lee wants to "save the planet" after watching An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore and reading extremist environmental books. But we should not think it is only extremists who want to stop all human population growth and consider babies a blight on mother nature. In a blog post from December 2009, I wrote about this very indoctrination going on wholesale in American colleges. This is an excerpt:

"Convince people that the earth is overpopulated and they will freely give up their right to reproduce; convince people that humanity is a parasite sucking life out of “mother earth” and they will rejoice when whole segments of this parasite are “eliminated” through holocaust, euthanasia, or abortion."

We reap what we sow. The only thing that is surprising is that more wackos indoctrinated in our schools haven't done something similar yet.

Walking Into Chaos

Here is a copy of my letter to the editor of the Record Searchlight published last Sunday.

Consider the reasoning behind Judge Walker's ruling on gay marriage: his ruling argues that morality can no longer be the basis of our legal system. But if the moral law—what philosophers and the authors of the Constitution called “natural law”—is no longer the basis of society's laws, what is? The will of the majority? Clearly not, since Walker overturned the vote of the majority. There is only one other option: the will of a small elite like Walker who get to dictate what we can and cannot do on an ever-changing basis. Is any current law now exempt from challenge? Laws against polygamy, prostitution, animal cruelty, destroying the environment—even the idea at the heart of secular government: preserving the existence of human society—are all based on a standard of right and wrong. Recognition of a supreme moral law is the only rational anchor for society's laws.

California Ballot Measures 2010

As promised, here are some reasons for voting on the Propositions in the California ballot June 8. As always, be an informed voter and chime in with any pros and cons I may have missed.

Yes on Proposition 13. This measure is about a matter so trivial it is hard to fathom how enough signatures were collected to put in on the ballot. It eliminates tax assessments on buildings that have been retrofitted for earthquakes. In theory it could be a tax cut but as the Record Searchlight points out: “in practice county assessors don’t tax seismic retrofits anyway, according to the legislative analysis of the bill” (redding.com).

No on Proposition 14. While there is a certain idealism in doing away with political parties, this measure is somewhat frightening. “The proposal will require that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters meeting in a runoff” (ballotpedia.org). My question is: why even have a primary? Why not just hold the election and give it to the top vote getter since this is basically what this measure does? Consider: if two Republicans or two Democrats get the top votes in such a primary it means there will only be two Republicans or two Democrats to vote for in the general election. Since California is dominantly Democrat it is more likely to be two Democrats. And what about third parties? Say goodbye, they won't even be an option on the ballot in the general election. Not surprisingly, all six ballot-qualified political parties in California oppose Prop. 14.

No on Proposition 15. If passed this measure would overturn a longstanding ban on using taxpayer money to publicly fund candidates (specifically Secretary of State but potentially any candidate). It also charges all lobbyists groups $350 dollars a year, money which will go into a newly created campaign fund. I just don't see why the government should be funding every Joe Blow who begs, borrows, or steals 7,500 signatures and $5 donations. But it is complicated so see ballotpedia.org for this and all the other measures.

No on Proposition 16. Follow the money trail... PG&E doesn't want their monopoly challenged so they have given $41 million in support of this measure. While it sounds good that the voters get to vote, is it really necessary? A 2/3rds majority just so a local government (i.e. a city) can set up their own power grid and not pay PG&E? If the city of Redding is any bellweather, Redding Electric Utility rates in the city are cheaper than that provided by PG&E in the surrounding area. I would rather see more power companies than less. I am being a bipartisan voter, however, since Prop 16 is supported by the Republican party and opposed by the Democratic party.

Yes on Proposition 17. This measure allows auto insurance companies to give discounts to new customers with a good insurance history. It rewards the responsible, although critics say it could also penalize the irresponsible and young. The bottom line is that it does away with an arbitrary government regulation forced on the auto insurance business in 1988. And that is a good thing.

California Primary 2010

This year's Republican primary ballot for the state of California has quite a long list of candidates and I was a bit intimidated by it. Since other people probably have questions also I thought I would list some of the people I feel are best qualified. If you are not from California you can stop reading now. If you are not a registered Republican you can read or not read as you choose. If you know something about a candidate, either one I've mentioned or any I've overlooked, please leave a comment and tell us what's wrong or right about him or her. The candidates I've listed seem like the best choice to me now but I may still change my mind if future evidence paints them in a different light than my research into their bios has led me to believe.

Governor:
Realistically there are only two Republican candidates for this office: Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. While an alternative such as the evangelical Christian Ken Miller from San Francisco may be an entertaining diversion, he has no possibility of winning even his home city (er, especially his home city!). The Big Two have many similarities: both supported abortion in the past and now (supposedly) have changed their minds. Both have supported Democrat candidates like Al Gore (Poizner) Boxer (Whitman) and John Kerry (Poizner and Whitman). For a look at their similarities see here. When it comes down to a choice between these similar candidates, I side with the one least tainted by politics: Meg Whitman. She can't be accused of being a career politician, heck, she barely even voted in the past! Meg Whitman has extensive experience as a businesswoman which is what this state needs to balance budgets. She also opposes California's cap and trade bill AB 32. And frankly, she's running an effective advertising campaign against Poizner, making herself sound good.

Lieutenant Governor:
Scott Levitt bills himself as a solid conservative. A practicing attorney, Levitt is quoted on Wikipedia as saying: “there is not a revenue problem in the United States of America, and there is certainly not a revenue problem in the richest state…California. There is an absolute spending crisis.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Levitt#cite_note-6 Levitt is for a leaner government which means less state employees and less bureaucracy. He opposes climate change legislation that will hurt the economy such as California's AB 32. And you've got to like a guy who calls the government, “a hundred armed creature... tentacles stretched into every facet of business and personal life.” http://www.levittforlg.com/?page_id=6

Secretary of State:
Orly Taitz is a colorful person who is entertaining to read about. A Moldavian-born Jew, she lived in Israel before moving to to the US and gaining citizenship in 1992. Bill O'Reilly called her a “nut” for her outspoken lawsuits in the Obama “birther” conspiracy movement. I predict she has little change of winning a general election, although, in addition to 5 languages, I think her varied background and law experience makes her qualified for a job like Secretary of State. Her only opponent, Damon Dunn, was a NFL player who registered as a Democrat in Florida in 1999.

Attorney General:
John Eastman. This man's credentials are in Constitutional law, a big plus over typical “lawyers.” He has worked with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and served as dean of Chapman University Law School. His campaign website http://www.eastmanforag.com/ portrays him as a conservative with a strong respect for the Constitution. Some of his published journal article are at SSRN. all of the titles look interesting, although I haven't yet read any, including one entitled: “We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being”

Insurance Commissioner:
All of the candidates but Fitzgerald are termed out assemblymen looking for a new job. Fitzgerald has not done much campaigning so it seems that Mike Villines is the best choice. Villines has been active working on budgets with Schwarzenegger and supports health savings accounts. He has made some serious concessions to the left in past and current offices, but he is a politician in California after all. http://www.mikevillines.com/

United States Senator:
Chuck DeVore sounds like a solid choice. Termed out of the State assembly where he has been serving, DeVore worked with the Reagan administration early on in his career. He has supported traditional and nuclear energy for California as well as being tough on taxes.
Carly Fiorina is another option. She has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, possibly because they worked together during the McCain campaign when Fiorina defended Palin as a speaker and economic advisor for McCain. She also chaired the Republican National Committee's fund-raising efforts.
Tom Campbell is out for defending same-sex marriage and voting “no” on Prop. 8 in 2008. http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/24/ending-marriage-discrimination

United States House of Representatives, 2nd District:
Incumbent Wally Herger.

State Senator, 4th District:
Incumbent Doug LaMalfa

State Assembly, 2nd District:
Charlie Schaupp http://www.charlieschaupp.com/, a Marine Lieutenant Colonel, is pro-life, an NRA member, and has a history of family farming. Jim Nielsen is... well, the incumbent... Neither one sounds terrible, in fact they both sound pretty good. It might be worth while to vote for Schaupp just because he is not a career politician like Nielsen. What do you think?

State Board of Equalization, 2nd District:
Barbara Alby is acting board-member due to Bill Leonard's favorable resignation in March 2010. On her website she promises: “I will fight all tax increases.” However, George Runner may be the best choice for this position thanks to his support of the Tea Party and his promises to fight all taxes and challenge the status quo in Sacramento. http://www.georgerunner.com/ Runner at last check had a significant campaign contribution lead.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction:
Henry Williams Jr. was a homeschooling father for 12 years, as well as a history teacher at Simpson University for 2 years. According to his bio page, 3 children have graduated while a fourth is attending a public school. He enjoys the snow at Mt Shasta. A local?! Why haven't I heard of this guy before? http://www.williamsforstatesuperintendent.com/henry_p.html

But wait, Diane Lenning for Superintendent sounds good too! She wrote a book defending the American Republic in which she encourages everyone to MEMORIZE the US Constitution. See the book at Christian publisher Xulon Press. This is a hard choice, any thoughts about these two?

Be informed. Chime in with additional pertinent information on these candidates. Before the election I plan to post about the ballot measures and some local Shasta county elections.

The Future of the Family?

A few days ago I saw a quote from the Washington Post that keeps revolving in my mind.

“Once a country adopts an old-age pension system, it creates an implicit bias against raising children.... One of the natural reasons for raising children is not just because you like kids, but to take care of yourself in old age. Once a country gives everybody access to everyone else's kids' money [in the form of Social Security and Medicare], it undermines the natural economic incentive to raise kids.”

Building on this idea, I think we can construct a broader argument by positing that when the government becomes the dominant caregiver at any age the traditional role of the family as primary social support system is undermined. Who needs a wife, husband, mother, father, child, when a surrogate entitlement program works just as well? Why put up with messy relationships when a clinical dispensary provides everything that the members of a family once provided? Are we close to an Orwellian future society where the family is outmoded and government becomes more than just Big Brother but also a big impersonal family?

Making Light of Oppression

Taking a cue from President Barack Obama, who encourages those who watch Glenn Beck and Fox News to vary their diet with the views of “the other side,” I decided to read a news blog that one of Obama's own advisors on religion and politics maintains. Rev. Jim Wallis's blog is called Sojourners: Faith, Politics, Culture. A large number of contributors write on it, including some Emerging Church familiars, most notably, Brian MacLaren. So perhaps this can hardly be called “the other side.”

If I must take a side, however, it would be strongly against a certain contributor's post entitled: Pedagogy of the Oppressor: Arizona's Ethnic Studies Ban. The author, Cezar Baldelomar, first points out that the US forcibly took the land that comprises California, Arizona, and Texas, and therefore illegal immigrants have a right to be there. In his words, “current immigrants... were once the rightful owners of the very territory they are now trying to enter.” But the focus of his article and the focus of my disagreement is not over this somewhat angry side note. The decline of “ethnic studies” in Arizona is what elicits his strongest barbs because Arizona is trying to make light (pun intended) of its “oppression” towards minorities. He quotes the Arizona Schools Superintendent Tom Horne as saying: “We should be teaching these kids that this is the land of opportunity. If they work hard, then they can achieve their dreams. And not teach them that they are oppressed.” But in Baldelomar's view they are “oppressed” and need to be reminded that they are. I believe our President also said he would welcome more “oppression studies.”

It is hard for someone like me who is rediscovering western classical education to be enamored of “ethnic oppression studies.” No pun intended this time, but the idea is foreign to me. Nor can I understand why Mr. Baldelomar (who is a graduate student at the prestigious Harvard Divinity School) thinks he is oppressed. Identifying with his fellow sufferers he exclaims that oppression “is our reality!” Is it really a reality or just an overactive imagination? I can think of one good reason to eliminate “ethnic studies” from schools and it doesn't even have to do with improving grades in important subjects. It is to erase the lingering thought that, “ethnic studies... confirm for minority students what we have been feeling all along, namely, that we were, are, and will be victims of oppression.” Prophesy is a dangerous business because sometimes the prophesy is self-fulfilling. Mr. Baldelomar believes he always will be a victim; maybe he is right... but he should give others a chance to think more highly of themselves. I hope this blog post is not mistaken for a form of oppression against a poor, suffering Harvard student.

America's Best and Brightest

The following are some quotes I compiled from classmates in my Environmental Science class. In the beginning I expected this to be one of my dullest classes, but, quite the contrary, this class won the prize for most entertaining, albeit, unintentionally. My only regret is that I didn't start saving quotes until halfway through so the list is shorter than it otherwise could have been. Some of these sayings are funny, some are sad, some are totally incoherent, but as one student in my Ancient World Literature class remarked: “Truth is, those sayings are quite true.”

[Editors note: Names have been changed to protect the guilty.]

“This section of the book was interesting to me. I have never studied California in depth and did not know that California was once underwater.” --Stephanie S.

“Whether it be the heat and fiery licks of lightning that strike the Earth, or the simmering butt of a cigarette; wildfires are disastrous and continue to devastate based on our actions. I am convinced that lightning and other weather-related causes of fire are effected directly by our fuel emissions (which cause global warming and the ozone layer to deteriorate) and our lack of preservation for forests (chopping down trees for paper, fuel, etc.). So I think it is quite clear what needs to be done in order to improve the health of the Western U.S.’s forests, albeit it may not be the most favored.” --Joy M.

“These two issues are related to each other because. They both happen in the "forest." Also you always see how there are so many Wild fires going on around the unites states on t.v. In the papers everything that has advertisement. I' ve heard a lot of reports in southern California. because winds down there can cause a wild fire to go out of control. These wild forest fires can damage the health of the forest as well. And of the natural environment. For the forest to get healthier we will have to cut back on cutting the forests down. So much for the fact that they are going a way at a rapid rate. Also i believe everyone needs to drastically cut back on there driving. Because the emissions in the air can cause a lot of damage. Did you all know if everyone in the world would not drive for one year our world would get healthy again? its so true look it up i just love this stuff so much:) i pray that everyone can save this world thank you best regards Bill...” --Bill C.

“Some people of the U.S. are saying we dont impact the economy's [could he mean “ecology”?] damage? Let me tell you the people in this country are so greedy that I don’t think that they will care if the planet would blow up tomorrow? This country is so wealthy and powerful that why would any one want to take an extra look at the climate lol except for inviromental scientists lmao! Some examples of what humans are doing to impact the climate are driving cars, using a lot of electricity, using air conditioners, burning coal, terring sown ecosystems, and just destroying the planet damn people! We cant guarantee other countries would follow alone go until we reached a breaking point and the precious planet is gone watch the movie pandorum look how messed up we are on destroying such a beautiful world!” --Bill C.

“there are many types of mining activites that are just killing our precise earth its just to messed up for this to be taking place lol because we need our planet to survie anything lol i say everyone joinning together to comabat this crisis and say you quit in the name of law like back in the sixtys or 70's (hippie) are lol let earth water and frie free hahah thats right the activitys are coal gold copper and many many more this poor earth needs our hope. ps this has been an amazing couple chapters!!! love them.” --Bill C. [p.p.s. This has been an even more amazing couple sentences! Although I cannot say I love them.]

[What follows is a complete and unabridged post in an online forum. I repeat, no editing has been done, this is the entire post.]

“this weeks chapter was interesting:) haha cnt wait tell halloween:D what is every doing for then? hmmm????? well have a happy holidays lol.” --Bill C.

[Not surprisingly, Global Warming propaganda had effectively indoctrinated all but two students in my class. So effectively, in fact, that not just any pollution is destroying our planet, it is "American pollution." Never mind that Less Developed Countries do not use or develop clean technology as the US does.]

“The desolation of ice bergs in the arctic regions, and the horrendous uprisal of hurricanes, tsunamis, and floods, are all natural disasters that are becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pollution. American pollution.” --Faith R.

[Quote from real student in my class]

“The earth will never come to a balance without a catastrophic event, which has happened in the past. People have become the termites, so to say, of the earth. We will destroy the earth from the inside out until it collapses, like a house made of wood.” – Euphoria L.

[Quote from real scientist in US Senate report]

"Many people believe there is a difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2. There is no difference. Carbon dioxide is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is a natural, vital part of biological life. Ants, termites and decaying foliage account for the formation of most of the CO2. There are more than a quadrillion ants and termites." --Chemist Frank Britton (http://epw.senate.gov/ pg 208)

Hope you enjoyed!

Propaganda In College and Society: Part 2

In my last post we examined some of the most disturbing ideological positions in a college science textbook called Visualizing Environmental Science. In this post I will continue giving examples of the propaganda it contains along with some other observations and random quotes from the text. There is no particular order since I wrote these down over the course of an entire semester as I first came across them. Some of these examples have serious and disturbing ideological underpinnings, others were perhaps intended to be serious but are quite funny, so read with a lighter heart.

What does the book say about evolution? Surely here we can get the hard facts of science without any controversial politicization. “Our immensely complex and multi-dimensional brains evolved precisely because we interacted with growing things, weather patterns, and other animals” (41). Unfortunately, we aren't going to continue evolving because, “the world we have created screens us from all that. The sophisticated devices we imagined and manufactured—such as televisions, computers, and automobiles—now define our world” (41). So if you want to continue evolving you need more interactions with “weather”! Next time there is a thunderstorm get away from everything man-made and go stand on the top of a high hill. I guarantee a little natural electrical stimulus in the form of lightning will help your mind evolve!

On page 28 a large picture shows a “typical” American family of four with all their possessions grouped around them on the street in front of their house in order to show the “large amount of natural resources” they consume. Standing in the midst of this opulence, the mother of the family is prominently seen holding a large family Bible, opened to a picture of Jesus with hands raised. What this picture is meant to suggest I have no idea but no doubt a tree was cut down to supply paper for that huge Bible! These religious fanatics (from Texas, no less!) are part of the problem and should make major changes to their “consumption patterns and lifestyles” (28). The first change, if I might suggest it, would be to get rid of that useless Bible with its “environmentally disruptive” command to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

According to the current paradigm, people are starving from overpopulation and the earth cannot sustain many more people. So... to remedy the situation in Florida, “State and federal governments are working on... the conversion of some agricultural land to marshes... Restoration will take more than 20 years and cost $8 billion” (124). Convert farmland to swamp... no wonder the models all predict that the earth won't be able to sustain any more people. If all farmland is converted into swamp at massive cost to taxpayers not one person will have enough to eat.

“Different groups propose different solutions for resolving the world's food problems, including controlling population growth, promoting the economic development of countries that do not produce adequate food, and correcting the inequitable distribution of resources” (Berg 340). We can only laud the book for giving fair representation to all (well, at least some) of the possible solutions; unfortunately, the first, which deals with world population, is clearly not a solution even by the standards of the text since just two sentences earlier it points out that current agricultural output is sufficient to feed everyone on the planet (Berg 340). In addition, everyone knows that even in the past when population was reckoned in millions not billions, huge numbers of people went hungry. The second solution is at least a valid possibility. The third solution about correcting the unequal distribution of resources is also a valid possibility that has been trumpeted for a long time by Marxist theorists. Socialism, according to a Marx or Trotsky can only be successful on a global scale through the redistribution of all resources. It is interesting that in a discussion of political solutions to world hunger the authors of the book fail to mention the competing political theory that democratic capitalism could reduce world hunger. Perhaps some mention of the theory that since hunger is greater in autocracies and warlord or communist controlled governments what is really needed is freedom to produce food and security to keep it and sell it. Or as Frances Lappe succinctly puts it: “Hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food but a scarcity of democracy” (www.smallplanet.org).

Then there is the stab into psychology and philosophy as if physical science and politics were not scope enough for a science textbook. Sounding like Thoreau meditating on the bank of Waldon Pond, the authors assert: “Wild areas—forest-covered mountains, rolling prairies, barren deserts, and other undeveloped areas—are important to the human spirit. We can escape the tensions of the civilized world by retreating, even temporarily, to the solitude of natural areas” (313). Now, I happen to agree with this statement and what it tells us about the universal human condition; however, I find it out of place in a “science” text of this nature, especially in the context of encouraging the creation and permanent management of more public lands by the federal government. In what almost sounds like an endorsement of religion the text claims that, “organisms not only contribute to human survival and physical comfort, they provide recreation, inspiration, and spiritual solace” (365).

“Slightly more than one-half of US forest are privately owned... Many private owners are under economic pressure to subdivide the land and develop tracts for housing or shopping malls, as they seek ways to recoup their high property taxes.” (322) You got the high property taxes right... but “shopping malls”? How many shopping malls are being built in the middle of the forest? Or again when talking about rangeland the text laments: “...two thirds are privately owned. Much of the private rangeland is under increasing pressure from developers, who want to subdivide the land into lots for homes and condominiums” (325). Seriously, how many condos are being planned on the rangeland of Kansas?

Deforestation. The word can freeze the blood and send an acid rain of sadness and anger pounding on the roof of the mind. Ai! Ai! O forest, where art thou? No doubt logging companies in North America trying to supply lumber to bloated consumer economies like the US account for most of the world's deforestation. Well... not really. Despite the other environmental flaws of the developed world, deforestation is not one of them. We have to give credit to the book for making the unpopular claim that, “Most of the world's deforestation is currently taking place in Africa and South America” (318). Total forests in Europe and Asia have actually grown recently (319). In less developed nations trees are cut down for fuel or slash-and-burn agriculture is practiced. If we want to stop deforestation we need to improve the energy and food supply of Less Developed Countries.

“Most Species facing extinction today are endangered because of the destruction, fragmentation, or degradation of habitats by human activities. We demolish or alter habitats when we build roads, parking lots, bridges and buildings; clears forests to grow crops or graze domestic animals; and log forest for timber. We drain marshes to build on aquatic habitats, thus converting them to terrestrial ones, and we flood terrestrial habitats when we build dams. Exploration for and mining of minerals, including fossil fuels, disrupt the land and destroy habitats. Habitats are altered by outdoor recreation, including off-road vehicles, hiking off-trail, golfing, skiing, and camping” (370).

If you don't feel guilty about that round of golf or ski trip there is something wrong with you. And whatever you do, don't dare wander around in the woods “off-trail” like some modern-day John Muir because that will drive an entire species to extinction!

But, if you read very attentively “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free:” “the effects of many interactions between the environment and humans are unknown or difficult to predict, we generally don't know if corrective actions should be taken before our scientific understanding is more complete” (14). A strangely contradictory admission from those preaching to people everywhere to repent of their evil ways because the time is short and the imminent destruction of the Earth is near.

“The involvement of governments in childbearing and child rearing is well established” (174). Yeah, what next? “They” are already in our bedrooms and our nurseries.

One last funny and off the wall excerpt from the text:
“Contraceptive use is strongly linked to lower TFRs [Total fertility rates]” (172). No kidding! Who would have guessed!?


Linda Berg and Mary Hager, Visualizing Environmental Science. John Wiley and Sons Publishers-National Geographic Society, 2007.

Propaganda in College and Society: Part 1

Visualizing Environmental Science is a textbook used in colleges all over the country in Environmental Science classes. Printed by Wiley Publishers in cooperation with National Geographic, one would assume this book deals with environmental topics like water and air and soil. And indeed it does, to a limited extent. But what it also does is make some pointed political and ethical statements. Embedded in the opening paragraphs the authors make what could be considered the thesis for the book: “Earth's central environmental problem, which links all others together, is that there are many people, and the number, both in North America and world-wide, continues to grow” (Berg and Hager 4). While the imprecision of this statement may cause some English teachers to smile condescendingly, the message is clear enough: people are a “problem” that needs to be reduced or eliminated. Yes, that's right, the same basic premise used by Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to eliminate “socially undesirable” elements of society like the Jews. Only, in this case, the environment--not race or ideology--is used as the justification; all of humanity is the problem and not just one small political or racial minority group.

Consider some of the other ideas that the book puts forth in explicit and implicit terms. This one also deals with population: “A single child born in a highly developed country such as the United States causes a greater impact on the environment and on resource depletion than perhaps 20 children born in a developing country” (9). The obvious conclusion the authors want us readers to reach is that having children is a planet destroying evil. Every child you have is twenty times worse than a child in a Less Developed Country. One is tempted to ask how accurate this statistic is: perhaps it is only 10 children? Perhaps 5? The end of chapter summary has this question for students: “Criticize the following statement: 'population growth in developing countries is of much more concern than is population growth in highly developed countries'” (23). We know what the answer is since we read the text. Children in developed countries are twenty times worse than in Less Developed Countries. Knowing this fact, how could anyone in the United States or Europe dare to have children: it would be immoral!

Turning from the evil of children to the evil of other groups within society, the authors ask this question: “Which groups in society are responsible for the greatest environmental disruption? How can we alter the activities of these environmentally disruptive groups? It will take years to address such questions, but the answers should help decision-makers in business and government formulate policies that will alter consumption patterns in an environmentally responsible way.” (11-12) Clearly, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and Republicans are “environmentally disruptive groups” since they are the ones logging forests, manufacturing cars, and encouraging oil drilling. They need to be stopped by whatever means possible. They are the global enemies.

Perhaps anticipating objections to these positions, the authors dismiss ethical and political counter-arguments by pointing out that, “several areas of human endeavor are not scientific. Ethical principles often have a religious foundation, and political principles reflect social systems” (15). The implication is that because these disciplines are not “scientific” they are somehow of inferior importance and, should a conflict ever occur between them, “science” should always have the final say. But in the surrounding paragraphs the authors take pains to assert the universal postmodern “fact” that even science can never “prove” anything (17). “there is no absolute certainty or universal agreement about anything in science... scientists never claim to know the final answer about anything” (15). “There is no absolute truth in science, only varying degrees of uncertainty” (18). When it comes to some of their ideas, that could be a comforting thought, because it means there might be a possibility of deterring them from plunging humanity into further misery by returning us to the technological conditions of the third-world in order to “save the planet.”

I can hear outraged voices: “nobody wants to return to the conditions of the third world!” Are you sure? On page 36 the authors bemoan the “very unequal distribution of the world's resources” (36). Rather than attempt to raise the living standard of the entire world to that of the 19% who live in industrialized nations, the solution put forth in the text is to lower the living standard of highly developed nations. Backward thinking? Decide for yourself: “Such poverty, along with the enormous pressures of human population growth and consumption rates, are global problems that can't be solved without modifying the standard of living enjoyed in highly developed nations” (36 emphasis mine). Clearly there is an agenda here that seeks to strip away the comfort and security Western nations have provided for themselves. The promotion of socialism is also unmistakable. Invoking an undefined morality (Marx's perhaps?), the text states bluntly that, “everyone must have a reasonable share of earth's productivity” (36).

Far from being a small side issue taken out of context, the evil of the Developed World is a major theme of Visualizing Environmental Science. “Perhaps the single most important lesson you will learn in this text is that those who live in highly developed countries are at the core of the problems facing the global environment today. Highly developed countries consume a disproportionate share of resources and must reduce their levels of consumption” (40). Of course this comes right out of the thinking of environmental idol Paul Ehrlich who in the 1970s said: “Most people do not recognize that, at least in rich nations, economic growth is the disease, not the cure.” (as quoted in Gerdes) How shall we reduce our consumption? The text is quick to point out that the UN could help: “The strengthening of the United Nations as an effective force for global sustainability would contribute greatly to the creation of a sustainable, healthy, peaceful, and prosperous world” (40).

Clearly, from what we have seen, the authors (or the publishers, or both) have a political agenda that includes curbing the world's population, instituting socialism, and giving trans-national organizations like the United Nations legislative authority over national governments. For such a social revolution to take place extensive propaganda must be used. The text itself gives an illustration of the type of propaganda that can be used. Large-scale public health risks are minimal, to paraphrase the example I have chosen from page 72, yet they are often hyped-up by the media. The authors of Visualizing Environmental Science admit that, “these stories are more sensational then factual” (72). Nevertheless, instead of trying to correct and educate by presenting the true facts without the sensationalism, they welcome this misinformation for its usefulness as propaganda. According to the authors, “these stories serve an important role in getting the regulatory wheels of the government moving to protect us as much as possible from the dangers of our technological and industrialized world” (72, emphasis mine).

Using science or psuedo-science as a weapon of propaganda is a powerful means of waging ideological battle. Few people are bold enough or have knowledge enough to defend themselves against “science” or “experts” who tell them what to believe. Convince people that the earth is overpopulated and they will freely give up their right to reproduce; convince people that humanity is a parasite sucking life out of “mother earth” and they will rejoice when whole segments of this parasite are “eliminated” through holocaust, euthanasia, or abortion. Convince them that they are in imminent danger from rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures, and rising seas, and they will give up their money, give up their comforts, and, ultimately, give up their freedom. In the name of “protecting the environment” they will give up protecting all their rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

See also: http://bibliologicalbibblebabble.blogspot.com/2009/12/propaganda-in-college-and-society-part_29.html

Berg, Linda and Hager, Mary. Visualizing Environmental Science. John Wiley and Sons Publishers-National Geographic Society, 2007.

Gerdes, Louise I. “Overpopulation Does Not Threaten the Environment or Humanity.” Opposing Viewpoints: Humanity's Future. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.

Ayn Rand On Healthcare

Ayn Rand, writing some 50 years ago in her masterpiece of political philosophy—Atlas Shrugged—makes some uncannily astute observations about the future of American society. While only a weak sampling of the profundity found in other passages of this epic novel of a nation's devolution into senility, the following quotation on health-care is timely in light of the issues facing the US. The heroine of the novel asks the greatest surgeon living why he suddenly quit his practice and went into hiding.

“I quit when medicine was placed under state control, some time ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation?... the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.' [...They] proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims... Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't.” --Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged. New York, Signet Classics. 40^th edition 1957. pg. 692

"Sorry, We're Closing"

As readers of this blog know, I occasionally venture to read something of a higher intellectual calibre than trashy 19th century novels. When this happens I am often pleasantly satisfied with how I have used my reading hours. When I bought The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom for 20 cents and began reading it I had this pleasant feeling. The Closing of the American Mind gives an overview of the philosophies and ideas that have influenced modern American intellectual life. Such influences as Marxism, Freudianism, egalitarianism, and democracy, among others, are all mentioned for their role in shaping education and the current thought processes in academia.

From the very beginning my pencil was streaking across the pages, trying to preserve in this way all the best thoughts and ideas. Looking back, I see that my system of underlining has a serious problem: too much of the book has been underlined for any sort of quick reference to be effective. Nevertheless I scanned back through the first 80 pages and saw a host of excellent quotes, just a few of which I couldn't resist copying here. The next 300 pages will have to wait for another time.

“History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative” (39).

“To deny the possibility of knowing good and bad is to suppress true openness” (40).

“No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life.... The point is to propagandize acceptance of different ways, and indifference to their real content is as good a means as any. It was not necessarily the best of times in America when Catholics and Protestant were suspicious of and hated one another; but at least they were taking their beliefs seriously” (34-35).

The dreariness of the family's spiritual landscape passes belief... The delicate fabric of the civilization into which the successive generations are woven has unraveled, and children are raised, not educated... The parents must have knowledge of what has happened in the past, and the prescriptions for what ought to be, in order to resist the philistinism or the wickedness of the present. Ritual and ceremony are now often said to be necessary for the family, and they are now lacking. The family, however, has to be a sacred unity believing in the permanence of what it teaches, if its ritual and ceremony are to express and transmit the wonder of the moral law” (57).

“The moral education that is today supposed to be the great responsibility of the family cannot exist if it cannot present to the imagination of the young a vision of a moral cosmos and of the rewards and punishments for good and evil, sublime speeches that accompany and interpret deeds, protagonists and antagonists in the drama of moral choice” (60).

“What poor substitutes for real diversity are the rainbows of dyed hair and other external differences that tell the observer nothing about what is inside” (64).

"Lack of education simply results in students' seeking for enlightenment wherever it is readily available, without being able to distinguish between the sublime and trash, insight and propaganda” (64).

“The failure to read good books both enfeebles the vision and strengthens our most fatal tendency—the belief that the here and now is all there is” (64).

“Students have powerful images of what a perfect body is and pursue it incessantly. But deprived of literary guidance, they no longer have any image of a perfect soul, and hence do not long to have one. They do not even imagine that there is such a thing” (67).

Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, New York. A Touchstone Book, Simon and Schuster inc. 1988

The Aura Around Marcus Aurelius

An emperor, a general, a philosopher; someone who has been described as “modest, unselfish, high-minded, and with the highest sense of duty.”1 Not many people fit this description. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius may be the only one. Born in A.D. 121, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was adopted by Emperor Antoninus so that he could succeed him as ruler of the Roman Empire. He was called one of “the good emperors.” The reason for this epithet can be seen in his philosophical memoir, Meditations.

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations were written, in a way, for himself. He addresses himself and gives himself encouragement and advice. The Meditations are “the private thoughts of a man communing with his own soul.”2 These private thoughts, however, are far from the sappy or sentimental ramblings of a diary. They are instead filled with calm reflections on man's place in the universe and how to live a virtuous, serene life. In consequence, the Meditations would appeal to any civic-minded Roman.

The document would also appeal to any Stoic. Marcus Aurelius is one of the most famous and oft quoted Stoic philosophers. The Meditations are a philosophical exploration of the principles of Stoicism. The topics covered are varied and are not really organized in any particular order. Some general categories covered are: living in harmony with nature, reason, duty, morality, and patience. For a Stoic, everything in nature is interconnected so it is important to live in harmony with it. Nature for Marcus Aurelius has a larger meaning than just physical things, it includes: “one universe made up of all things, one god who pervades all things, one substance, one law, one reason common to all intelligent beings, and one truth.”3

This interconnected order is the sum total of the universe for a Stoic. For them, and for Marcus Aurelius, the universe operates smoothly like a vast machine. All things go as planned. There are no accidents. “Everything which happens has been apportioned and spun out to you.”4 Because they believe reason is universal in humans and that there is “one law” and “one truth,” Stoics believe in certain norms of behavior from humans. While evil, too, has been fated to exist, the best way to live is according to “reason and Justice”5 Reason makes it clear what a person should, and should not, do.

The emphasis on moral laws was characteristic of Stoics in the Roman Empire. Marcus Aurelius places the foundation of a moral law on reason. This “natural law” is common to all people because—as Marcus Aurelius explains it--“If our intellectual part is common, the reason also, because of which we are rational beings, is common: if this is so, common also is the reason which commands us what to do, and what not to do; if this is so, there is a common law also.”6 This “common law” was important for a Roman because they had a high regard for law and order in society. People are social beings but when they live together they need some form of governance. If universal laws could be arrived at then all people in the world could live together in peace. Under a common law, “we are fellow-citizens; if this is so, we are members of some political community; if this is so, the world is in a manner a state. For of what other common political community will any one say that the whole human race are members?”7 The Roman Empire that spanned much of the known world in the time of Marcus Aurelius was the outgrowth of this philosophy put into practice.

Within Roman society--with its firm insistence on law and order--was the complementary emphasis on duty. Marcus Aurelius admonishes to, “every moment think steadily as a Roman and a man to do what you have in hand with perfect and simple dignity.”8 He goes on to say that “if you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you... if you hold to this, expecting nothing, fearing nothing, but satisfied with your present activity according to nature, and with heroic truth in every word and sound which you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man who is able to prevent this.”9 In fact, this quote embodies the core of Stoicism; the idea that if a person does his or her duty, nothing should disturb or cause unhappiness.

Marcus Aurelius would have much to say about the hectic American lifestyle if he were alive today. Living a simple life of duty is his ideal. The easiest way to achieve tranquility is to keep a free schedule10 “For the greater part of what we say and do being unnecessary, if a man takes this away, he will have more leisure and less uneasiness. Accordingly, on every occasion a man should ask himself, is this one of the unnecessary things?”11

Although Marcus Aurelius was a hardened soldier inured to brutality and also known for persecuting Christians, this aspect of his life is not shown in the Meditations. For a pagan without divine revelation, he has a sharp perception of reality. From reading his Meditations alone it is very easy to see why he was called a “good emperor.” The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are filled with commonsense advice. His commonsense came from exercising his reason. With a right reason, he believed, would come happiness and the ability to cope with anything life threw in his way. He gives this challenge: “have you reason? I have.--Why then not use it?12

Notes

1. Donald S. Gochberg. Classics of Western Thought: The Ancient World. (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Fourth ed. 1988) 511

2. Marcus Aurelius, Thoughts. Classics of Western Thought: The Ancient World. Ed Donald S. Gochberg. (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Fourth ed. 1988) 510

3. Ibid. 511

4. Ibid. 516

5. Ibid. 516

6. Ibid. 512

7. Ibid. 512

8. Ibid. 513

9. Ibid. 514

10. Ibid. 515

11. Ibid. 515

12. Ibid. 513

Writer's Block

I should be writing an essay right now. Needless to say, I'm not. The subject is Jean Jacques Rousseau's views on passion vs. reason. No, I don't have a clue how to write five to eight pages on this topic. I have begun by rereading some of his Confessions. What's this? It appears Rousseau himself struggled with putting words on paper. He admits, “My ideas arrange themselves in my head with almost incredible difficulty... Hence comes the extreme difficulty which I find in writing. My manuscripts, scratched, smeared, muddled and almost illegible, bear witness to the trouble they have cost me.” (671). Unable to sit down and write impromptu, he instead slowly mulled things over in his head, often for days. “I write in my brain; one may judge how slowly, especially in the case of a man utterly without verbal memory and who has never been able to learn six lines by heart in his life. Many of my periods have been turned and turned again five or six nights in my head before they were fit to be set down on paper” (672). Letters were even worse for Rousseau. He says that “such occupation is a perfect torture to me. I cannot write a letter on the most trifling subject, which does not cost me hours of fatigue” (672).

Well, I suppose I'm not alone after all. Still, if anyone has resources to recommend on Rousseau's flight from reason into the land of feelings, I still have a few more days before this paper is due. I'm tired of feeling like I can't write this and instead want a reason to hope I can write an intelligent essay.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, Confessions. The Norton Anthology of World Literature: 1650-1800: Volume D. Ed. Sarah Lawall and Maynard Mack. 2nd ed. W.W. Norton Company, 2002.

Jan. 22

Jan. 22 is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade I was reminded while perusing some blogs. On Geneveith.com I found this quote from Mother Teresa.

“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.”

I just read a short biography on Thomas Jefferson, so I see the irony particularly strong of a nation that presumably holds to the self-evident truth that all have the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Today it would seem that the liberty and happiness of some is more important than the life of others.

Unhappy Weakness For Russian Literature

He would sit like a post for six hours at a stretch, perspiring and straining his utmost to keep awake and smile. On reaching home he would groan…over their benefactor’s unhappy weakness for Russian literature (370-71).

Usually in our world things come to nothing, but this will end in something; it’s bound to, it’s bound to! (219).

The subject…who could make it out? It was a sort of description of certain impressions and reminiscences. But of what? And about what? Though the leading intellectuals of the province did their utmost during the first half of the reading, they could make nothing of it, and they listened to the second part simply out of politeness (486).

Maybe you can see where this is leading…. C.S.Lewis remarked that the plots of some stories in abstract “would be completely worthless—not only worthless as a representation of the book in question, but worthless in itself; dull beyond bearing; unreadable” (Lewis 41). Very likely someone will add that some stories themselves are dull beyond bearing. Though I want to agree, something makes me hesitantly demur in the case of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel The Possessed. Although the 700 hundred pages seem to go (in the words of one song) “on and on, forever,” there are occasional passages of gripping intensity.

But the merit of Dostoevsky's book would be small indeed if plot and narrative were the only criteria to judge it by. No, if it has merit it lies in other areas, particularly in its prophetic analysis of Communism and Nihilism. I am no philosopher so probably much of Dostoevsky’s exploration of the rising ideological trends in Russia at the end of the 19^th century passed well above my head. Yet even admitting this there were some passages so plain they could not be missed.

Communism is scoffed at today and terms like McCarthyism applied to the occasional warning against it, yet Communism was (and still is) a huge disaster for humanity. Being already a fan of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and through him knowing the inhuman practical reality of that ideology, I was fascinated to discover Dostoevsky, almost 50 years before the revolution in Russia, wrote a novel with the aim of exposing Communism in its infancy.

In the person of Pyotr Stepanovitch all the revolting aspects of nihilistic Communism are embodied. In a frantic, feverish speech (why do all Dostoevsky characters make long feverish speeches?) Pyotr Stepanovitch outlines his goals:

Everyone belongs to all and all to everyone. All are slaves and equal in their slavery…to begin with, the level of education, science, and talents is lowered. A high level of education and science is only possible for great intellects and they are not wanted. The great intellects have always seized the power and been despots. Great intellects cannot help being despots and they’ve always done more harm than good. They will be banished or put to death. Cicero will have his tongue cut out, Copernicus will have his eyes put out, Shakespeare will be stoned—that’s Shigalovism. Slaves are bound to be equal. There has never been either freedom or equality without despotism, but in the herd there is bound to be equality, and that’s Shigalovism! Ha ha ha! Do you think it strange? (424-25).

With a shockingly modern parallel in American society’s moral uncertainty and upheaval, one of Pyotr Stepanovitch’s co-conspirators confesses at the end of the book that,

it was with the idea of systematically destroying society and all principles; with the idea of nonplussing everyone…and then, when society was tottering, sick and out of joint, cynical and skeptical, though filled with an intense eagerness for self-preservation and for some guiding idea, suddenly to seize it in their hands, raising the standard of revolt (680).

With profound insight Dostoevsky has the social engineer Shigalov declare:

I am perplexed by my own data and my conclusion is a direct contradiction of the original idea with which I started. Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism (409).

Dostoevsky, Feodor. The Possessed. The Modern Library Inc. Random House, 1963.

Lewis, C.S. An Experiment In Criticism. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Canto ed. 2006.

Do We Have Common Sense?

That’s the question my sister and I asked after our teacher assigned us Thomas Paine’s inflammatory Common Sense treatise. In the end we had to admit that no, we didn’t have it. So we went to the internet and found it. To bad the other kind of common sense isn’t that easy to get a hold of. We’re still looking…

Common Sense is one of those writings that most people have head of but few have actually read (come to think of it, a lot of books are that way). Common sense is one of those things that most people have heard about but few have actually used (did I just repeat myself?). As inaudible groans passed from desk to desk in our classroom, I secretly felt elated. Paine is not perhaps the sort of writer I would normally read in my free time but as an assignment I felt sure I would enjoy the experience. And I wasn’t wrong.

Pain is pretty easy to get through (oops, I mean Paine). It was written for the common man and sold something like 120,000 copies. (Our teacher said that each copy was reads by about ten people but I don’t know where she got that statistic). The pamphlet is only about 50 pages so in theory it could be read in one sitting. In fact, it took me two and I felt hurried during both. There is a lot to think about.

Supposedly, Common Sense was like gasoline thrown on the newly kindled fire of American independence. Already stirred by British injustice and heavy-handedness, they only needed a philosophical base to build their complaints against the English government on.

Paine argues that if all men are created equal, no men should be elevated above others. “The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings and the Christian world has improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of Sacred Majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling.”

Although primarily arguing on the basis of reason and nature (“Does not nature teach us that the more simple anything is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered.”) Paine takes the story of 1 Samuel 8 where the Israelites asked for a king to be like the other nations, as a clear indication that God does not think kings to be the best governors of men. He allowed them to have one but tried to warn them it was a curse. For a king will “take your sons and make them serve…He will take your daughters…He will take the best of your fields and vineyards…He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage…He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become slaves” (1 Sam. 8:11-17). Also, Paine points out, the succession is not hereditary as the removal of Saul proves.

From this general condemnation of kings he moves to the unjustness of the present king of England, King George III. He mocks the English Constitution as being powerless to stop the King, saying that it is the “constitution” of the English people, not the “Constitution” of the English government that has kept her free so long.

Moving to the practical and economic benefits of independence, Paine assures his readers that trade would be increased and expansion to the west made possible; and a free America would not be in danger from Britain’s enemies, France and Spain. All around it would be a good deal. And I can not help but agree that it has been a good deal for over 225 years, let’s hope it continues to be for at least as much again.

After the first publication, Paine added an appendix addressed to some Quakers who wrote against breaking ties with Britain. The letter, while trying to be courteous, comes across as a little condescending and chides the Quakers for their pamphlet, saying that by defending the British they are meddling in government affairs even though they claim they are not. To the argument that it is God who sets up and deposes kings, Paine very sensibly asks in return who or what God uses to bring about his will on earth. Is it not men? He asks. If the English throne came into existence through war and backstabbing why defend it as being specially ordained of God? But then in a hilarious Chestertonian stroke he says: “We neither mean to set up nor to put down [kings], neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them.”