a little world music as recommended by the BBC

Heard some of this last Saturday or Sunday as I was falling asleep.

From Bulgaria. (Nerd reference: The sound strongly resembles the main theme to the Ghost in the Shell films. I suspect there's a connection.)

Update: Wikipedia confirms: "Kenji Kawai originally wanted to use Bulgarian folk singers, but was unable to find any, so he relied on the Japanese folk song choir he used earlier in the Ranma 1/2 anime. The song uses an ancient form of the Japanese language mixed with Bulgarian harmony and traditional Japanese notes."



From America



From Ethiopia.

What I saw in the American Conservative

An essay on Belloc and Obama in the American Conservative. Yes, I decided to subscribe.

A Brief History of Tuesday or Wednesday until now, and general pictures

About to head to bed. Summer starts sometime this week, but for me this week has been the most summerish week yet this year. I got two new books at Reston Used Books on Tuesday (or Wednesday): John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces and Essential McLuhan. I read McLuhan's whole interview with Playboy, which is contained in Essential McLuhan, the day I purchased it (it's quite a long interview for a magazine, especially one that I had considered to a put a stronger emphasis on images than the written word...), but I digress. It was a fascinating interview, and a couple points at the end cleared up some things I had wondered about.

Also, while in Reston I had the best coffee I've had in a while, purchased at a nondescript coffee shop in Lake Anne. I thought the cost a bit high at first, but I was given a hefty French press and empty cup for the price, which ended up filling the cup a little more than twice. Also, a dog slept inside the store, on a mat, which furthered my pleasure.

Saturday night was the first grill-out of 2010. It was had at Johan's townhome in the exurbs of Gainesville, Virginia. It went from roughly 4 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. While it was mostly held indoors, it still contained almost every ideal that can be asked for in a barbecue: Good company, great portions of meat, drink, and a rapid turn toward political philosophy late into the night, including such topics as the tea party, Israel, "socialism", et cetera. It was a good time, and it never got too heated and was generally enjoyable.

There are a couple other things worth mentioning, but I need to go to bed. Peace out..

An evening with Os Guinness at the Falls Church, or an evangelical critique of evangelicalism

Haven't written anything in here as of late because of the beautiful weather these last few days, being out of town and catching up with errands, etc. A few brief updates:

I rode my bike a good distance on Friday, going from Falls Church to Shirlington to National Airport to Union Station. I found a new and better path to Capitol City Brewery Shirlington, which, in my travels, is as significant as discovering the Northwest Passage.

I got a haircut.

I ate Chipotle with a homeless person who wanted to shine my shoes for money.

I had Palo Santo and Raging Bitch beers on cask, in specialty glassware, glassware that I got to keep with the purchase of the beers.

I had a couple good dinners with friends outside in great springesque weather

And today: Work, SuperChicken, Os Guinness.

I went straight to SuperChicken after work to have my usual: quarter chicken, beans, rice. I went all out and got a Mexican pineapple soda, which, as advertised, has real sugar, not corn syrup. I'm also amused by the fact that Mexico, a big corn producer in its own right, and a poorer country, nonetheless has higher quality and more natural sweeteners. Perhaps they are just more pre-modern.

I'm not going to write a whole bunch of what Guinness said tonight, number one because I'm not good at instantly digesting and representing such events, and because I've been listening to talk and typing since 9:30 this morning and need a break.

Os Guinness spoke about the crises in the Western Church. He spent a lot of time talking about modernity and globalization, as well as a lot of the usual stuff I've heard on Islam and secularism, though I will say he was refreshingly critical of the amount of nonsense within evangelicalism. He criticized a recent apologetics event he'd attended, saying their whole concern was with beating "the other" and winning arguments, and not caring a great deal for the souls with whom they're arguing. (Though I didn't think it as eloquently, this was the impression I got when I heard Alister McGrath (an Anglican) debate Christopher Hitchens.) Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who moderated the event, told me he had been disappointed with McGrath's performance, and I told him, when I was sharing a cab with him, that I thought McGrath was thinking more than about just about winning the debate. Perhaps I'm being too charitable and McGrath wasn't as good as I think, but I get a better feeling from him than, say, Dinesh D'Souza, who dated Ann Coulter at one time.

Guinness told more than a few good, dry jokes -- jokes that I couldn't do justice to here by typing them. Two of the jokes referenced his Guinness beer heritage, and one joke was actually a true story that incorporated Guinness -- the family and the stout -- St. Patrick's Cathedral and scripture. Needless to say, it was a good joke.

Since I don't have the will, strength or mind to write any of the substantial points Guinness made tonight, I'll just mention that I was pretty impressed with him. He criticism was evenhanded, noting nonsense where he found it but never overdoing it, and always saying our greatest concern should be with ourselves and not others. And he made a few good criticisms of the church growth movement, designed by Dr. Elmer Towns, M.A., Th.M., MRE, D.Min, as well as a few other heresies of the Religious Right.

Certain questions raised by the audience were asked by those who had not understood what he was saying, and obviously already had preconceived notions (who has those?), like "Why should we not be concerned about militant Islam at all?" But the majority of questions were thoughtful.

That's all for tonight. I'll be in Lynchburg this weekend, and it's looking to be a hot one, so I'm hoping to do some evening events with anyone in town. Holla at me.

Chesterton Tuesdays

From Orthodoxy:

"Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase,
it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets
tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness,
but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance,
in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy.
A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence,
of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they
are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated
and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up
person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people
are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is
strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says
every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening,
"Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that
makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately,
but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the
eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old,
and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may
not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical ENCORE. Heaven may
ENCORE the bird who laid an egg. If the human being conceives and
brings forth a human child instead of bringing forth a fish, or a bat,
or a griffin, the reason may not be that we are fixed in an animal
fate without life or purpose. It may be that our little tragedy
has touched the gods, that they admire it from their starry galleries,
and that at the end of every human drama man is called again and
again before the curtain. Repetition may go on for millions of years,
by mere choice, and at any instant it may stop. Man may stand on
the earth generation after generation, and yet each birth be his
positively last appearance."

Slavery in pagan times versus Christian times

From Bulfinch's Age of Fables:

"In memory of his [Saturn's] beneficent dominion, the feast of Saturnalia was held every year in the winter season. Then all public business was suspended, declaration of war and criminals executions were postponed, friends made presents to one another, and the slaves were indulged with great liberties. A feast was given them at which they sat at table, while their masters served them, to show the natural equality of men, and that all things belonged equally to all, in the reign of Saturn."


While I can't research further or write about it tonight, I read this and wanted to note that slavery appears to have been worse in America than in pagan Europe, as far as the dignity of the slave is concerned. There are probably various reasons for this, and there were obviously differences in harshness of practice both throughout Europe and America, depending on local custom, the individual slaveowner, etc. Nonetheless, I know of no such ritual in America where slaves were put ahead of their masters.

And slavery was in fact on the decline in Christian Europe from the fall of Rome until at least the end of the Middle Ages. Why did at least the first 1000 years of Christianity see a drastic reduction in slavery in Europe, only to see its revival later on? I'm sure empire had to do with it. But I suspect many undercurrents of thought helped contribute to desiring empire and exploration, so that's too simple an explanation.

And I don't think anyone back then had a concept of race, so racial inferiority couldn't have been a justification for changing opinions on the universal equality of men that was held even by the pagans and would have found a fuller defense in the Christian tradition.

Negative Obamaology

Anyone who honestly considers the available information on Obama and his year and a half in office must concede that Obama isn't a Muslim, a terrorist, "a Arab", a Communist or The Anti-Christ. Eliminating these definitions as applicable to our president still leaves one with much defining to do. I had initially wanted to give him some proper positive definitions, but I think some thoughtful rambling will bear more fruit.

Now, I must note that I find Obama more respectable than most Democrats in office right now. That might be due to my own naiveté. I imagine time will tell. And I don't hope that Obama fails for the sake of the Republicans gaining office; I hope that Obama will succeed, for America's sake, though my skepticism ranges from moderate to severe, depending on the issue. So I don't have it in for the man, as he has "the hardest job in the world."

Actually, that's not quite true. He has the job with the most responsibility in the world, or at least his responsibility has the most coverage of any job in the world. And I'm sure he works damn hard at his job. But there are jobs that must be at least equally difficult. And defining what makes a job difficult is difficult indeed, as one could have a weak body, or a weak mind, or a weak soul, and be placed in a job that others might not find difficult but that would be nearly impossible for certain individuals. I imagine Christopher Hitchens being forced to be a Pentecostal minister, for instance.

So despite the difficulties of the office of POTUS, which are indeed demanding in many ways, Obama is fit for his office, as he is a fine speaker, young and in good health and highly educated. Though his job can truly be said to be difficult, there are probably many jobs in D.C. as stressful, either because of the level of responsibility, the demands of the job relative to the worker, the inner life of the worker, et cetera.

But going back to the original point, Obama has fallen into being "anti-scientific", that is, he's making decisions that aren't based on what is clear in the light of reason: He is not putting his faith and reason in science, which is definitely sinful. Obama made a big point about how he and his administration would not be swayed by ideologies (you'd think someone with his intellectual background and capacity would know better) when things like the oil spill arose, because good science is the best solution for most problems, especially a problem like this.

Unfortunately, the oil spill, a scenario where Scientism would be totally in his zone, has taken a back seat to Big Oil Money and Bureaucracy, who did sports management and business in undergrad, respectively, and then got MBAs. The one time we could have used Scientism, that cold-hearted bastard who at least believes in something outside himself (even if it isn't something entirely good, or beautiful, or true), we now must rely on the culpable corporation's scientists, and the government officials with whom they fornicate frequently, to give us "data." (I put data in quotes because the data is inaccurate data, because it's not based on empiricism but in industrial capitalism.) Anyway, when there are independent scientists estimating that the oil spill is probably spewing out 17 times more oil than official estimates, the phrase "total debacle" feels more and more appropriate.

Obama isn't stupid, so I imagine he's aware of at least the general spirit and truth of my criticisms, or at least why one might have such criticisms. The question is, why isn't he doing anything? Does he disagree with my criticisms, or does he agree and is entirely impotent, despite him holding the highest political office in the world? I imagine it's some of both. I'd like to think and write more about that, but not tonight.

I can't compare Katrina to Deepwater Horizon, as they are entirely different disasters. Over a thousand are supposed to have died from Katrina, whereas 11 died in this incident. Both events caused massive physical destruction, but Katrina's destruction was terrible primarily in that it destroyed human life and society, whereas the oil spill is deadly to all life and will affect humans in ways more subtle, at least initially. Calling the oil spill "Obama's Katrina" was too easy and premature an analogy to make initially, but the more information that comes out about the BP oil spill, the more the label rings true.

How much should Obama be blamed for this event? Well, he is culpable in many ways. But most likely anyone electable would do roughly what he did. I fear that only the unelectable would be able or willing to do the right thing in an event like this. So Obama deserves his portion of the blame, but we shouldn't be absolutely surprised or scandalized, either. We also shouldn't ignore the facts, or, more likely, not know the facts due to willful ignorance. What we should do is something of which I'm not exactly sure, though I have some intuitions.