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.

I hate the DOD bloggers roundtable

Got 50 minutes of overtime today finishing up an 8-minute Defense Department bloggers roundtable. A typical roundtable consists of a military official being interviewed by a moderator, who then opens up the phone lines to military-focused bloggers. Though I've gotten pretty good at Iraqi geography, names, et cetera, this one was difficult. I also mispelled Shi'a (as S'hia) throughout my portion and luckily caught it before I sent out the whole thing. Today was the latest I've ever stayed because of my own work.

I had vegan for dinner tonight with my sister. My breakfast was an egg and cheese sandwich and my lunch was a small coffee. The vegan food was shaped and textured to be like meat and was actually satisfying. To stay consistent with dinner, I'm drinking a vegan bock as I blog.

I'm halfway through a lecture I downloaded by an Orthodox monk saying Christ is the fulfillment of the Tao. It's pretty interesting, as it's not promoting religious Taoism or Buddhism or pluralism but saying that Lao Tzu's writing was very much consistent and a foreshadowing of Christian revelation, much in the same way that many of the Greeks appear to have foreshadowed many aspects of Christianity. He even claims that much of Greek and Chinese thought paralleled much of the time in history, even though the thinkers would not have had contact with one another. Especially interesting was the fact that the idea of "nothingness" in Eastern thought doesn't actually mean "nothingness" in the sense it's often translated into Western ideas by top philosophers of religion like Ray Comfort.

During the Q&A he said that he considered Thomas Merton a tragic figure who had lost his faith. I had thought Merton had said right before he died that his experiences in the East had not caused him to reject any part of his Catholic faith and actually strengthened it, and that he was content, but perhaps the speaker knows a lot more about this than I. For the sake of my overflowing shelves, it would be helpful to find out Merton wasn't worth reading, but I'm not going to make any quick judgments yet, and I'd prefer thinking he was having fellowship with God.

If anyone is interesting in perusing the lecture, the link is here.

That's all I've got for right now. I'll try to do something lighter tomorrow eve.

New beginnings? Too cliche. You know what I think about those...

For no particular reason except that I havent been writing and need to write (transcribing is not writing), I am returning to the blogosphere. Before anyone criticizes my lack of apostrophes, I must tell you that hitting the apostrophe key on my keyboard activates the search function, which interrupts my writing and stifles my creative nectars. Most likely Ill just do my blogging with Chrome from now on.

What should one expect from this blog? Look forward to ill-informed pontifications on all sorts of philisophical and theological matters, food and drink reviews, comments on the opinion makers Ive heard at work, thoughts on visual and acoustic media Ive sensed of late, perhaps a picture of an Obama motorcade, an amusing ad or license plate, et cetera. Who knows?

Tonight wont be a big writing night, but rest assured that I will be "intentional" about my blogging, i.e., I will do my best to make note of and remember the astute observations that occur constantly throughout my day, in order that I may enlighten the reader and spur on humanity's inevitable progress toward world peace, universal conciousness/health care (almost the same thing), the rapture, et cetera.

I leave you with an image of the White House in spring, taken during my lunch break. (The picture was supposed to be at the bottom of the screen, but Im not going to fix it.)

Excerpts from The Dispossessed

Page 86
"... No heat was furnished when the outside temperature went above 55 degrees Fahrenheit. It was not that Abbenay was short of power, not with her wind heating; but the principle of organic economy was too essential to the functioning of society not to affect ethics and aesthetics profoundly. "Excess is excrement," Odo wrote in the Analogy. "Excrement retained in the body is a poison."

Page 103
"So they had bargained, he and Sabul, bargained like profiteers. It had not been a battle, but a sale. You give me this and I'll give you that. Refuse me and I'll refuse you. Sold? Sold! Shevek's career, like the existence of his society, depended on the continuance of a fundamental, unadmitted profit contract. Not a relationship of mutual aid and solidarity, but an exploitative relationship; not organic, but mechanical. Can true function arise from basic dysfunction?"

Page 115
"The whole experience had been so bewildering to him that he put it out of mind as soon as possible, but he had dreams about it for months afterwards, nightmares. Saemtenevia Prospect was two miles long, and it was a solid mass of people, traffic, and things: things to buy, things for sale ... everything either useless to begin with or ornamented so as to disguise its use; acres of luxuries, acres of excrement.

"And the strangest thing about the nightmare street was that none of the millions of things for sale were made there. They were only sold there. Where were the workshops, the factories, where were the farmers, the craftsmen, the miners, the weavers, the chemists, the carvers, the dyers, the designers, the machinists, where were the hands of the people who made? Out of sight, somewhere else. Behind walls. All the people in all the shops were either buyers or sellers. They had no relation to the things but that of possession."

Is "Someone" not an Evangelical?

Contained below is a portion from Dr. Richard Land's blog entry 'Why I'm not signing the 'Evangelical Manifesto'. The text below can be read in its entirety here. (Any bolded or italicized text is my own emphasis).

Dr. Land:

"What are my problems with the statement? Let us begin with a basic, foundational theological question. The Manifesto affirms that “Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.” That is surely true, but it is also hopefully true of all the many followers of Jesus who would never call themselves, or desire to be called, Evangelicals.

The Manifesto then enunciates several beliefs that Evangelicals “have prized above all” and that they “consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus and therefore foundational for us.” The Manifesto then asserts that “the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life ‘from above.’”

When I read that statement I say, “Amen.” Then I ask myself, “Why ‘foundational for us’ instead of ending with ‘foundational’? And why ‘our acceptance’ rather than ‘the only ground for acceptance by God’?”

Could this be an attempt to qualify the most basic of all evangelical foundational beliefs, Jesus’ assertion that “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)? I could not help but notice that when the Manifesto quoted this verse several paragraphs earlier in the document, the drafters omitted the last half of the verse: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Why?

Is this just verbal imprecision, or is it something more? I know the majority of the drafters and the original signees, and I know that they are “exclusivists” — people who believe that for all men everywhere there is only salvation in personal faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16). However, I know at least one original signee to be a non-exclusivist. The question must be asked, and asked clearly and directly — does An Evangelical Manifesto believe that salvation for all men everywhere is through personal faith in Jesus and only Jesus?

Further, can someone believe something other than “exclusivism” concerning salvation and still be an evangelical? This evangelical’s answer to that question is, and always will be, “No!”"

-----------------

I must first note two things: First, that I respect and understand where this writer is coming from; and also that I respect that Dr. Land chose not to actually name the person he considered a Non-Exclusivist.

I'm assuming that the "original signees" Dr. Land is referring to is, or includes, the Steering Committee, which is comprised of Timothy George, Os Guinness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, Jesse Miranda, David Neff, Richard Ohman, Larry Ross and Dallas Willard. Given Dr. Land's definition of a Non-Exclusivist, I would say at least one person on this list fits that definition (though I must mention I only know the general beliefs of two of the men on the Steering Committee).

Anyone who reads this and knows me is probably also aware of who is probably being called a Non-Exclusivist. So my questions are:

1. Is there a clear definition of what an Evangelical is?

A lot of Reformed and Mainline Protestants might not consider themselves Evangelicals, while there are actually some Catholics who call themselves by that name. I would generally define the term Evangelical as referring to people who would identify with the basic tenets of "The Fundamentals", and who identify with the basic tenets of a modern conservative Protestant domination, such as the need for personal conversion, the Bible as the highest authority, etc.

2. (a.) If an Evangelical cannot be a Non-Exclusivist, can any Christian be a Non-Exclusivist (as defined by Dr. Land),

(b.) or have such persons passed from difference of opinion into heresy?

I don't know what the history of interpretations has been on this matter, but I guess there has probably been debate on it previous to the last couple weeks.

3. If I'm right about who that "Someone" is, should Someone be referred to as an Evangelical?

My answers would be: 1, Kinda; 2(a.), Yes; 2(b.), No; 3, Yes, if they are willing to still be called by that title.

Anyone else have an opinion?

Concerning the Internet, Researching Nazi Occultism, and the Online edition of the Liberty Champion

Two semesters ago I was given a history assignment, with the goal of researching a historical event/period using only the internet. The topic my group chose was "WWII" (a very specific and narrow topic). Every group member got to choose their own subcategory. I chose Nazi Occultism.

I'm not sure what the lesson of that online-only assignment was, but it did teach me that there is a lot of crap on the Internet. The number of 10+ year old geocity, earthlink, and homestead sites concerning Nazi Occultism, Historical-Revisionism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Religionism, Anti-Evolutionism, and a number of other poorly-cited subjects -- many of them defined in the negative -- was astounding.

And the text was always finely paired with an appropriate aesthetic, with many of the early-day web publishers employing such techniques as colored backgrounds, multi-colored text, multiple fonts on the same page, non-working hyperlinks, and lots of animated gifs, often in columns or rows.

While I think our project ended up being a poor excuse for a history presentation, I think it did achieve her other goal: teaching students that if you only have one resource for real research, it should not be the Internet.

On a similar note, let me quickly address some issues I recently found on the Online edition of the Liberty Champion.

Whoever is the site's webmaster is poorly qualified. They do not know how to integrate their stories online without random HTML code showing up. The stories that don't have HTML paragraph breaks have no paragraph breaks. And don't forget the spelling errors; I found the following ones by searching under headlines alone: (Ashville is Asheville; Fadford is Radford; elecrtic is electric, etc).

For such errors a website is the most forgiving format, as it can be edited at any time -- Even The Washington Post sometimes has errors, but they are always corrected within an hour or so. If the text online is the exact same as the print copy's, most of the Liberty Champion staff need to reexamine their career goals.

MS

Morgan Stanley chief says global credit crisis may be waning reports Bloomberg News and the AP.

Keypoints:

- "I don't know if this is the bottom or close to the bottom, but at some point it will be wise to invest there," - John Mack, Chief Executive of Morgan Stanley.

- "The bank wrote down billions of dollars worth of securities linked to risky subprime mortgages and other debt since last year."

- "... the firm's overall compensation and benefits expenses rose 18 percent in 2007 even though revenue dropped 6 percent."

------------------------------------------

I'm holding my breath on all that. I can imagine things "righting themselves" in the short-term. Long term is another story.

Blurbs

It's come to my own attention that it's been a long while since I've been able to come up with a particular topic of which I could comment on at length. This is probably due to a number of things, such as too much blog reading, too much multitasking, being employed in a data-entry job, being out of an academic environment, being in less contact with people who are thoughtful, not caring to write things purely for my own pleasure, etc.

While knowledge is a good within itself, I feel it needs to be applied, or it is loses a lot of its value (or at least appears to). So, I find myself in a bind that I'm learning quite a bit, considering my current circumstances, but with little room for application. Hopefully my non-paid employment situation will help solve this problem.

Realizing that I didn't fall asleep until at least 2:30 am (which is extremely late for me now), and that I did wake up at 7:20am, I'm tired now. Later I might be able to focus on a topic of which to write later on, but not for the moment.

Future topics I should write on:
-Connection between Childhood's End and Evangelion, (and Ghost in the Shell)and if Clarke really believed in all that modern mysticism.
-What will be the biggest issues for the next president.
-Why no president, without overriding the Constitution 10x more than any previous president, will be able to fix America in four, eight, or twelve years (for if Obama is the next FDR).
-Why any president who does override the Constitution that much will probably contribute to ever-growing number of "alarmist" media to contain "The End of" in their title, with this book being titled The End of America.
(Update: I just found out there already is a The End of America, which "is a harbinger of an age that may finally see the patriarchal realm of political discourse usurped.")
-Figuring out how much oil is being used to create alternative energy; figuring out if any alternative energy is being used to create alternative energy; figuring out how much of the problems are infrastructure-related, etc.
-Thinking the government should take all the money they plan on investing in alternative energy and instead invest it in the "Modern Amish" (Amish who own washing machines), since that is probably the real direction of where we are heading.

What's been going on?

A bunch of little things.

I'm working at BIA Financial Network. It consists of typing data into a data base. I gather data by phone, and by internet. I also sit at the front desk as an "administrative assistant" from approximately 1:30 - 2:40 everyday, which means I answer the phone, and read news and stuff.

I'm riding my bike more, reading more fiction, and getting more sun (in that order). I'm now a "2" instead of a "1" on the numerical skin pigmentation chart.

I start my internship in about one month. It will be with the communication department of the USCIRF, and it's the first time I'm actually applying Academic Information in the work environment. It's going to be good, except that I need to get on the ball and prepare for it, as I have not done any AP style writing in about a year.

Things sold include a weight rack; model gun; AC adapter; various SNES games. Current profits: around $250 - 300 -- my mom has made $1200, so far. And don't forget extra space, no extra mercury in my water from thrown away electronics, and less drugstore.com boxes.

That's all I got to say for now.

Whiting while having Write Ale.

I am by no means an economist. I recently acquired a Bachelor's of Arts in Communications with a specialization in Journalism. This basically means that I know how to write, kind of. I know how to write in "AP Style," and in the "inverted pyramid style -- a form of writing specifically designed for the Civil War that, for various reasons, has become the format of choice for "hard print news." There are reasons this format is appropriate at times, but it is not ideal. That the inverted pyramid style is the pinnacle of our current Media -- as far as depth and quality is concerned -- is unfortunate. What's more unfortunate is that television news or no news is what most people are using to make their decisions. That and commercials.

So, back to the economy.

I am not an economist. I have no idea how our current fiscal situation is going to play out. I know that energy prices are rising, which translates as all prices going up on basically everything. The value of the dollar is turning to crap. Recently I've seen mainstream newspaper business section openly question fundamental questions, like if globalized capitalism is actually a good idea, or if centralized banks are a good idea. There have basically been three propositions/solutions that I've heard that people are offering to fix the economy.

#1: The economy is fundamentally sound. The market goes in trends, so it will fix itself. We will go through a short period of "slow growth," but it won't be a recession, because we don't curse in this house.

#2: Have a super-strong, effective centralized government that "gets things done." I almost have sympathy for a short-term socialism that would make some policies to take on the various companies that need regulating. The only thing is that one of the main reasons so many of these companies have taken over the market is because the government subsidizes them. Also the fact that I don't have confidence that the kind of regulations we will probably get will really address our fundamental issues.

#3: Move away from globalized capitalism. I've actually heard some mainstream new sources mention this. They never go as far to define what such a change would look like, or how we would shift into such a different environment.

We will probably get #2, which is an appropriate pun.

Eggs and Skepticism

"... Against all this the philosophy of St. Thomas stands founded on the universal common conviction that eggs are eggs. The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming; the Berkeleian may hold that poached eggs only exist as a dream exists; since it is quite as easy to call the dream the cause of the eggs as the eggs the cause of the dream; the Pragmatist may believe that we get the best out of scrambled egos by forgetting that they ever were eggs, and only remembering the scramble. But no pupil of St. Thomas needs to addle his brains in order adequately to addle his eggs; to put his head at any peculiar angle in looking at eggs, or squinting at eggs, or winking the other eye in order to see a new simplification of eggs. The Thomist stands in the broad daylight of the brotherhood of men, in their common consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or mere practical assumptions; but things attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God.

Thus, even those who appreciate the metaphysical depth of Thomism in other matters have expressed surprise that he does not deal at all with what many now think the main metaphysical question; whether we can prove that the primary act of recognition of any reality is real. The answer is that St. Thomas recognised instantly, what so many modern sceptics have begun to suspect rather laboriously; that a man must either answer that question in the affirmative, or else never answer any question, never ask any question, never even exist intellectually, to answer or to ask. I suppose it is true in a sense that a man can be a fundamental sceptic, but he cannot be anything else; certainly not even a defender of fundamental scepticism. If a man feels that all the movements of his own mind are meaningless, then his mind is meaningless, and he is meaningless; and it does not mean anything to attempt to discover his meaning. Most fundamental sceptics appear to survive, because they are not consistently sceptical and not at all fundamental. They will first deny everything and then admit something, if for the sake of argument - or often rather of attack without argument. I saw an almost startling example of this essential frivolity in the professor of final scepticism, in a paper the other day. A man wrote to say that he accepted nothing but Solipsism, and added that he had often wondered it was not a more common philosophy. Now Solipsism simply means that a man believes in his own existence, but not in anybody or anything else. And it never struck this simple sophist, that if his philosophy was true, there obviously were no other philosophers to profess it.

To this question "Is there anything?" St. Thomas begins by answering "Yes"; if he began by answering "No", it would not be the beginning, but the end. That is what some of us call common sense. Either there is no philosophy, no philosophers, no thinkers, no thought, no anything; or else there is a real bridge between the mind and reality. But he is actually less exacting than many thinkers, much less so than most rationalist and materialist thinkers, as to what that first step involves; he is content, as we shall see, to say that it involves the recognition of Ens or Being as something definitely beyond ourselves. Ens is Ens: Eggs are eggs, and it is not tenable that all eggs were found in a mare's nest."

Thomas Aquinas, by G. K. C.

Why a pumpkin keeps on being a pumpkin (The Blatchford Controversies)

Mr. Blatchford has summed up all that is important in his whole position in three sentences. They are perfectly honest and clear. Nor are they any the less honest and clear because the first two of them are falsehoods and the third is a fallacy. He says "The Christian denies the miracles of the Mahommedan. The Mahommedan denies the miracles of the Christian. The Rationalist denies all miracles alike."

The historical error in the first two remarks I will deal with shortly. I confine myself for the moment to the courageous admission of Mr. Blatchford that the Rationalist denies all miracles alike. He does not question them. He does not pretend to be agnostic about them. He does not suspend his judgment until they shall be proved. He denies them.

Faced with this astounding dogma I asked Mr. Blatchford why he thought miracles would not occur. He replied that the Universe was governed by laws. Obviously this answer is of no use whatever. For we cannot call a thing impossible because the world is governed by laws, unless we know what laws. Does Mr. Blatchford know all about all the laws in the Universe? And if he does not know about the laws how can he possibly know anything about the exceptions?

For, obviously, the mere fact that a thing happens seldom, under odd circumstances and with no explanation within our knowledge, is no proof that it is against natural law. That would apply to the Siamese twins, or to a new comet, or to radium three years ago.

The philosophical case against miracles is somewhat easily dealt with. There is no philosophical case against miracles. There are such things as the laws of Nature rationally speaking. What everybodyknows is this only. That there is repetition in nature. What everybody knows is that pumpkins produce pumpkins. What nobody knows is why they should not produce elephants and giraffes.

There is one philosophical question about miracles and only one. Many able modern Rationalists cannot apparently even get it into their heads. The poorest lad at Oxford in the Middle Ages would have understood it. (Note. As the last sentence will seem
strange in our "enlightened" age I may explain that under "the cruel reign of mediaeval superstition," poor lads were educated at Oxford to a most reckless extent. Thank God, we live in better days.)

The question of miracles is merely this. Do you know why a pumpkin goes on being a pumpkin? If you do not, you cannot possibly tell whether a pumpkin could turn into a coach or couldn't. That is all.

All the other scientific expressions you are in the habit of using at breakfast are words and winds. You say "It is a law of nature that pumpkins should remain pumpkins." That only means that pumpkins generally do remain pumpkins, which is obvious; it does not say why. You say "Experience is against it." That only means, "I have known many pumpkins intimately and none of them turned into coaches."

There was a great Irish Rationalist of this school (possibly related to Mr. Lecky), who when he was told that a witness had seen him commit murder said that he could bring a hundred witnesses who had not seen him commit it.

You say "The modern world is against it." That means that a mob of men in London and Birmingham, and Chicago, in a thoroughly pumpkiny state of mind, cannot work miracles by faith.

You say "Science is against it." That means that so long as pumpkins are pumpkins their conduct is pumpkiny, and bears no resemblance to the conduct of a coach. That is fairly obvious.
What Christianity says is merely this. That this repetition in Nature has its origin not in a thing resembling a law but a thing resembling a will. Of course its phase of a Heavenly Father is drawn from an earthly father. Quite equally Mr. Blatchford's phase of a universal law is a metaphor from an Act of Parliament. But Christianity holds that the world and its repetition came by will or Love as children are begotten by a father, and therefore that other and different things might come by it. Briefly, it believes that a God who could do anything so extraordinary as making pumpkins go on being pumpkins, is like the prophet, Habbakuk, . If you do not think it extraordinary that a pumpkin is always a pumpkin, think again. You have not yet even begun philosophy. You have not even seen a pumpkin.

The historic case against miracles is also rather simple. It consists of calling miracles impossible, then saying that no one but a fool believes impossibilities: then declaring that there is no wise evidence on behalf of the miraculous. The whole trick is done by means of leaning alternately on the philosophical and historical objection. If we say miracles are theoretically possible, they say, "Yes, but there is no evidence for them." When we take all the records of the human race and say, "Here is your evidence," they say, "But these people were superstitious, they believed in impossible things."

The real question is whether our little Oxford Street civilisation is certain to be right and the rest of the world certain to be wrong. Mr. Blatchford thinks that the materialism of nineteenth century Westerns is one of their noble discoveries. I think it is as dull as their coats, as dirty as their streets, as ugly as their trousers, and as stupid as their industrial system.

Mr. Blatchford himself, however, has summed up perfectly his pathetic faith in modern civilisation. He has written a very amusing description of how difficult it would be to persuade an English judge in a modern law court of the truth of the Resurrection. Of course he is quite right; it would be impossible.

But it does not seem to occur to him that we Christians may not have such an extravagant reverence for English judges as is felt by Mr. Blatchford himself.
The experiences of the Founder of Christianity have perhaps left us in a vague doubt of the infallibility of courts of law. I know quite well that nothing would induce a British judge to believe that a man had risen from the dead. But then I know quite as well that a very little while ago nothing would have induced a British judge to believe that a Socialist could be a good man. A judge would refuse to believe in new spiritual wonders. But this would not be because he was a judge, but because he was, besides being a judge, an English gentleman, a modern Rationalist, and something of an old fool.

And Mr. Blatchford is quite wrong in supposing that the Christian and the Moslem deny each other's miracles. No religion that thinks itself true bothers about the miracles of another religion. It denies the doctrines of the religion; it denies its morals; but it never thinks it worth while to deny its signs and wonders.

And why not? Because these things some men have always thought possible. Because any wandering gipsy may have Psychical powers. Because the general existence of a world of spirits and of strange mental powers is a part of the common sense of all mankind. The Pharisees did not dispute the miracles of Christ; they said they were worked by devilry. The Christians did not dispute the miracles of Mahomed. They said they were worked by devilry. The Roman world did not deny the possibility that Christ was a God. It was far too enlightened for that.

In so far as the Church did (chiefly during the corrupt and sceptical eighteenth century) urge miracles as a reason for belief, her fault is evident: but it is not what Mr. Blatchford supposes. It is not that she asked men to believe anything so incredible; it is that she asked men to be converted by anything so commonplace.

What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God - the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about
Christianity.

Forethought in action; Read the Holy Scriptures

We ought not to believe every saying or suggestion but ought warily and patiently to ponder the matter with reference to God. But alas, such is our weakness, that we often believe and speak evil of others rather than good! Good men do not easily give credit to every tale; for they know that human infirmity is prone to evil (Gen. 8:21) , and very subject to offend in words (James 3:2) .

It is great wisdom not to stand obstinately in your own conceits. It belongs also to this same wisdom not to believe everything you hear, or to pour into the ears of others (Prov. 17:9) what you have heard of believed. Consult with a man who is wise and conscientious and seek to be instructed by one better than yourself, rather than to follow your own inventions (Prov. 12:15) .

A good life makes a man wise according to God (Prov. 15:33) , and gives him experience in many things (Eccles. 1:16) . The humbler a man is in himself, and the more resigned to God, the more prudent will he be in all things, and the more at peace.

-------------

Truth is to be sought for in the Holy Scriptures, not eloquence. Holy Scripture ought to be read with the same spirit wherewith it was written (Rom. 15:4) . We should rather search after profit in the Scriptures than subtilty of speech.

We ought to read devout and simple books as willingly as the high and profound. Let not the authority of the writer offend you, whether he be of great or small learning; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read (1 Cor. 2:4) . Search not who spoke this or that, but mark what is spoken. Men pass away, but "the truth of the Lord endureth forever" (Ps. 117:2) . God speaks to us in sundry ways, without respect to persons (Rom. 2:11; 10:12) .

Our own curiousity often hinders us in the reading of the Scriptures, when we desire to understand and discuss that which we should instead pass over. If you desire to reap profit, read with humility, simplicity, and faithfulness; nor ever desire the reputation of learning. Inqiure willingly, and hear with silence the words of holy men. Let not the teachings of the elders displease you, for they are not recounted without cause (Eccles. 12:9) .

- Thomas of Kempis

Doctrine of Truth

Blessed is the man whom thou . . . teachest . . . out of thy law (Ps. 94:12) , not by figures and words that pass away, but as it is in itself. Our own opinion and our own sense often deceive us, and they discern but little.

What avails great cailing and disputing about dark and hidden things (Eccles. 3:9-11) , concerning which we shall not be reproved in the Judgment because we knew them not? It is great folly to neglect the things that are profitable and necessary, and to give our minds to things curious and hurtful: Eyes have they, but see they not (Ps. 115:5; Mark 8:18) . And what have we to do with genus and species? He to whom the eternal Word speaks is set free from many opinions. From that one Word are all things and all things speak; and this is the beginning, which also speaks to us. No man without that understands or judges rightly. He to whom all things are one, and who draws all things to one, and see all things in one, can be steadfast in heart, and peaceable repose in God.

O God, who are the truth, make me one with Thee in continual love! I am weary often to read and hear many things. In Thee is all that I desire and long for. Let all teachers hold their peace; let all creatures be silent in Thy sight; speak to me alone.

The more a man is at one within himself, and becomes single in heart, so much the more and higher things does he understand without labor; for he receives the light of understanding from above (Luke 10:21) . A pure, sincere, and stable spirit is not distracted in a multitude of affairs, for it works all to the honor of God, and inwardly strives to be at rest from all self-seeking. Who hinders and troubles you more than the unmortified affections of your own heart? A good and devout man prepares beforehand the works which he is to do before the world. Neither do they draw him according to the desires of a sinful inclination, but he himself orders them according to the decision of right reason. Who has a harder struggle than he who labors to conquer himself? This ought to be our endeavor to conquer ourselves, and daily to wax stronger than ourselves, and to make some progress for good.

All perfection in this life has some imperfection bound up in it; and no knowledge of ours is without some darkness. A humble knowledge of self is a surer way to God than a deep search after learning. Yet learning is not to be blamed, nor the mere knowledge of anything whatsoever, for knowledge is good, considered in itself, and ordained by God; but a good conscience and a virtuous life are always to be preferred before it. But because many endeavor rather to know that to live well, therefore they are often deceived, and reap either none, or scanty fruit.

Oh, if men bestowed as much labor in the rooting out of vices and planting of virtues as they do in proposing questions, there would neither be such evils and slanders in the world, nor so much looseness among us.

Truly, when the day of judgment comes, we shall not be examined as to what we have read, but what we have done (Matt. 25) ; not how well we have spoken, but how we have lived.

Where are now all those masters and doctors with whom you were well acquainted while they lived and flourished in learning? Now others possess their livings, and perhaps scarecely ever think of them. In their lifetime they seemed to be somewhat, but now they are not spoken of. How quickly the glory of the world passes away (Eccles. 2:11) !

Oh, that their lives had been answerable to their learning! Then had their study and reading been to good purpose. How many perish by reason of vain learning (Titus 1:10, 11) in this world, who take little care of the serving of God! And because they rather choose to be great than humble, therefore they come to naught in their imaginations (Rom. 1:21) .

He is truly great, who is great in love. He is truly great who is little in himself, and who makes no account of any height of honor (Matt. 23:11) . He is truly wise who accounts all earthly things "but dung, that [he] may win Christ" (Phil. 3:8) . And he is truly very learned who does the will of God and forsakes his own will.

- Thomas of Kempis