I've recently finished reading Alan Sokal's Beyond the Hoax, which I was rather annoyed to find is a collection of works previously published (rendering it a hoax?) and am given to muse a bit about what the Sokal Hoax or the Sokal Affair as it's also been called tells us about science, philosophy, the "science wars" and other things. It may not be as big a deal as it once was among the cognoscenti, and postmodernism may be less a force than it was, but I think the Hoax retains some relevance in these dark times.
I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher. I'm not a literary critic or a social scientist either, nor am I an academic. So in some manner I'm probably not qualified to opine on the Hoax or anything related to it. If the dangers of pontificating regarding complicated matters of which one has little knowledge was what Sokal was trying to demonstrate, I think he did demonstrate those dangers, and so am entering into dangerous territory myself. But I think more was involved than a rather sharp reminder that our ignorance is most on display when we not only stray into such matters but take it upon ourselves to make claims regarding them in print.
Such reminders are useful and appropriate, I think. I've often found myself dismayed by what's called the philosophy of law when those writing in that area display a profound ignorance or even disregard of the actual practice of law. I tend to think that practicing law would inform any philosophy of law and am suspicious of philosophers of law who have not done so. But I recognize, grudgingly perhaps, that philosophy of law is something different from the practice of it.
Reading Sokal would probably do those who know nothing of physics and especially of quantum physics some good. Those who are not physicists often seem to have a tendency to indulge in fantastic inferences from the little they know of quantum physics, and there is no harm in putting a stop to such inference. But Sokal clearly feels he was out to accomplish more than this, or did accomplish more than this even if he did not set out to do so.
In Beyond the Hoax and elsewhere, Sokal identifies himself as a Leftist, and claims that the denizens of postmodernism and academics out to denigrate the sciences by asserting that, e.g., the findings of science are no better, no more correct, than the assorted myths of various cultures do us all a disservice. Those of the Left, according to Sokal, and progressives generally have advocated social programs and other efforts to better the lives of the downtrodden and in doing so have maintained that certain policies more effectively achieve this than others, and refer to empirical studies in doing so. When academics, historically important figures in liberal politics, go about claiming science and scientific reasoning is no more reliable than, say, dowsing, the entire agenda of the Left is endangered.
I sympathize with the view that efforts to denigrate science and reason and rationality generally are dangerous, glib and silly, though not because I'm of the Left. I think I understand Sokal's point in emphasizing his political leanings, however, as those called conservatives delight in exposing academia as a kind of fountainhead of relativism. For my part, I think those who engage in such efforts are disregarding what should be obvious--the successes of experimental science--primarily by being over impressed by the obvious, i.e. the fact that culture, customs, personalities, politics, money and other things influence the focus of the scientists and science.
The manner in which such things impact science is no doubt interesting and worthy of study. However, the fact that they do should surprise nobody, as all human conduct is so influenced. It doesn't follow, though, that all human conduct is similarly baseless, i.e. that one kind of conduct or thought is no better than another. Science and reason, and rational inquiry, are distinguished from other human conduct by the method employed by them in problem-solving and addressing questions, and this method has had significant success in solving problems and answering questions, to our great benefit.
To nonetheless argue that such success is insignificant in judging the worth of an approach, or that the success is mere coincidence, is senseless. What is it that drives certain people to insist that despite this success there's no good reason to prefer this method over mythology or other "narratives"? I can't accept that this can be attributed only to stupidity, or even laziness (rational thinking is hard, so attacking it as without merit can be comforting to those who would rather avoid the difficult).
We seem to have a depressing and I think bewildering tendency to maintain, sometimes regardless of what is in fact the case and what we accept to be the case if our conduct is any guide, that we can't really know what is the case; that everything is a matter of opinion, for example, or all is relative. Of course, we nonetheless act as if we know well enough what is appropriate, and how to conduct ourselves. We know what is important, we know what problems are when we encounter them; we try to resolve them intelligently if we have any wisdom. We purport to think X but we persistently do not act is if we think X. Oddly, we seem to feel that this is not disingenuous or false, or idiotic. Indeed, we seem to believe that this reflects a kind of sophistication, that thinking in this fashion distinguishes those who do from those of the "common herd."
C. S. Peirce was right. We should not pretend to doubt in philosophy (or in other areas) what we do not doubt in our hearts. When we do, we make fools of ourselves in more ways than one, as we are proud to be foolish.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Habemus Papam
We have a pope, yes. We will shortly have another, though barring the death of the current Pontifex Maximus he (there's no she, of course) will ascend (there can be no other word) to the Throne of St. Peter while his predecessor yet lives. As we all know by now, this is quite unusual in the long history of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The last time it took place was when there was more than one pope, which must have rendered things somewhat messy. What a time that must have been, with the highest priests excommunicating one another. Excommunication meant something then, but not perhaps as much as it did when a Holy Roman Emperor stood in the snow at Canossa, seeking penance.
That was just a Holy Roman Emperor, of course; the emperor of something neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire as has been famously said. It's hard to imagine a real emperor of the real Rome doing the same, even after Christianity so ruthlessly suppressed the pagan religions and divergent Christian creeds. It happens that the last time there was a resignation, or abdication, the Church was in its slow decline as a secular power. It's astonishing it still wields power of a sort even now.
That's what makes this interesting, I think. But there has also always been a fascination with the pope, the Vatican, and the huge male bureaucracy of the Church, which is in a sense a remnant of the Roman Empire itself. If it is a dead thing, it is shrouded in history. There is no institution quite like it. In a way, it is a ghost of the ancient West, but a restless ghost that actively haunts us.
Benedict's decision is probably wise. He's unquestionably old, and if he's sick as well, let him have his rest. John Paul II became a pitiable figure. Perhaps he felt that his deterioration would somehow inspire the world, but I think not. I've seen deterioration, and it is uninspiring.
It seems Europe has lost much of its religiosity. Catholicism in America is a strange thing. "Cafeteria Catholics" abound. There are few strident, militant, ecstatic or devoted Catholics here, Opus Dei notwithstanding. We love our conspiracy theories, of course, so there will always be those who read The Da Vinci Code or watch television shows devoted to some such things, but this is not an expression of the power of the Church. Those who proclaim the United States to be a Christian nation don't seem to be Catholics. But it seems the Church is still a growing thing in what's called the developing world. That is presumably where the focus of the Church should be, then, but it's difficult to believe the next pope will be of the developing world. If he is, that will be remarkable indeed. Nonetheless, if the future of the Church lies with those Catholics outside of Europe and North America, some acknowledgement of this will be necessary if the Church is to survive.
The Church has seen much and weathered a great deal over its long history. It will likely weather the horror of priestly abuse of children and the perpetuation of it for which the institution bears responsibility. There's not much it can do now, I think, in terms of opening its windows unless it does something like dispense with celibacy or allow women priests. Lately, we've seen forbearance of the saying of the Latin mass. Perhaps we'll see a resurgence of traditional Catholicism. I tend to think that the grasp of Rome will weaken, and the Church will become more localized, with congregations doing more and more of what they think is appropriate.
We should pay it some attention, though. While the Church in its infancy was influenced by the entire culture of the ancient Mediterranean, which may be said to have included that of the Near East and Egypt, as it grew and aged it became Latinized, a creature as it were of the Western empire and of the barbarian nations which replaced it. It extended its sway as Europe did. It became entirely Western in its goals and orientation. What we see of it in the future may well be part of the death throes of a purely Western civilization.
That was just a Holy Roman Emperor, of course; the emperor of something neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire as has been famously said. It's hard to imagine a real emperor of the real Rome doing the same, even after Christianity so ruthlessly suppressed the pagan religions and divergent Christian creeds. It happens that the last time there was a resignation, or abdication, the Church was in its slow decline as a secular power. It's astonishing it still wields power of a sort even now.
That's what makes this interesting, I think. But there has also always been a fascination with the pope, the Vatican, and the huge male bureaucracy of the Church, which is in a sense a remnant of the Roman Empire itself. If it is a dead thing, it is shrouded in history. There is no institution quite like it. In a way, it is a ghost of the ancient West, but a restless ghost that actively haunts us.
Benedict's decision is probably wise. He's unquestionably old, and if he's sick as well, let him have his rest. John Paul II became a pitiable figure. Perhaps he felt that his deterioration would somehow inspire the world, but I think not. I've seen deterioration, and it is uninspiring.
It seems Europe has lost much of its religiosity. Catholicism in America is a strange thing. "Cafeteria Catholics" abound. There are few strident, militant, ecstatic or devoted Catholics here, Opus Dei notwithstanding. We love our conspiracy theories, of course, so there will always be those who read The Da Vinci Code or watch television shows devoted to some such things, but this is not an expression of the power of the Church. Those who proclaim the United States to be a Christian nation don't seem to be Catholics. But it seems the Church is still a growing thing in what's called the developing world. That is presumably where the focus of the Church should be, then, but it's difficult to believe the next pope will be of the developing world. If he is, that will be remarkable indeed. Nonetheless, if the future of the Church lies with those Catholics outside of Europe and North America, some acknowledgement of this will be necessary if the Church is to survive.
The Church has seen much and weathered a great deal over its long history. It will likely weather the horror of priestly abuse of children and the perpetuation of it for which the institution bears responsibility. There's not much it can do now, I think, in terms of opening its windows unless it does something like dispense with celibacy or allow women priests. Lately, we've seen forbearance of the saying of the Latin mass. Perhaps we'll see a resurgence of traditional Catholicism. I tend to think that the grasp of Rome will weaken, and the Church will become more localized, with congregations doing more and more of what they think is appropriate.
We should pay it some attention, though. While the Church in its infancy was influenced by the entire culture of the ancient Mediterranean, which may be said to have included that of the Near East and Egypt, as it grew and aged it became Latinized, a creature as it were of the Western empire and of the barbarian nations which replaced it. It extended its sway as Europe did. It became entirely Western in its goals and orientation. What we see of it in the future may well be part of the death throes of a purely Western civilization.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Romancing the Drones
The title of this post is of course derived from the movie Romancing the Stone, "romancing" apparently being jewelers' jargon for preparing a stone for use in jewelry. "Preparing the Drones" seems an appropriate title for this post accordingly, though "romance" here may have other connotations as well. Drones seem to be the weapon of choice for our government these days, but there is no reason to think they are or must be the only choice in pursuing its policy regarding American citizens and others who are believed to pose a threat.
The "White Paper" of the Department of Justice regarding the circumstances in which American citizens may legally be killed without due process in foreign countries is a most interesting document. At the time this post is being typed, it can be found in toto through the good offices of NBC News, which has thoughtfully inserted its name and its stylized peacock feathers all over it, on every page, thereby assuring that we know it is, indeed, being provided by that organization, and also assuring that portions of it will be difficult to read.
To a lawyer, the document will be familiar in some sense, as lawyers even in the private sector regularly render legal opinions in the form of memoranda for clients and other lawyers. Its purpose is familiar enough as well. Lawyers are asked whether doing X would be legal, and if the issue is an important one, will intensely research and write a careful memo which states an opinion, normally qualified in various respects. That is, clearly, what happened in this case.
But to most lawyers, the content and the conclusion would be unfamiliar and to use a word which has been used to describe the opinion, "chilling."
The memorandum specifically refers to American citizens in foreign countries. I suppose it's reassuring in a way that the government feels citizens do not loose their status by venturing outside the boundaries of the U.S. I see nothing in the memo which would indicate its rationale is necessarily limited to circumstances in which this is the case, however, though a portion of the analysis assesses the implications of this fact, as the DOJ list as a consideration to be given in determining whether lethal action is appropriate the refusal of a foreign nation to cooperate. When capture is feasible, the DOJ feels lethal force would not be legal. Capture, presumably, would be. This presents due process issues as well, of course, but one would think that if the DOJ's opinion is that killing an American citizen without according due process rights is legal, capturing one would be as well.
An American citizen must be a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an "associated force" to be eligible, as it were, to be killed. The words "associated force" are intended to refer to "co-belligerents" as defined in the laws of war. As no war has been declared, this may give one pause, but the DOJ believes that the Congress has given the Executive authority in combating al-Qa'ida which is the equivalent of powers in wartime, and that's good enough as far as it is concerned.
An American citizen having this status must pose an "imminent threat", but the DOJ construes this broadly, in fact so much so that the word "imminent" seems to be redefined if not disregarded. For example, a citizen may be deemed an imminent threat and therefore subject to annihilation if he was involved in planning or participating in real imminent threats to the U.S. in the past, and there is no evidence that he has renounced or abandoned such activities. One has to wonder just what evidence would suffice.
It's difficult for someone even with my astounding abilities to summarize the entirety of the 16-page document in this post. The lawyers who prepared it are not fools, and the memo is peppered with references to the sanctity of life and the great significance of the rights of citizens, cautionary language and qualifications. But the fact is that the determinations which are to be made before killing a citizen is legal according to the DOJ are based on considerations which are general and not easily made in practice, the potential for error due to imprecise or inaccurate information is significant, and the discretion necessarily accorded to an official responsible to decide whether lethal action is appropriate will therefore be considerable.
There may be instances when such action is necessary and appropriate, and indeed I think it is difficult for those who deliberately refuse to exercise their due process rights to maintain that they must be given them nonetheless. They may be said to have waived them in that case, particularly where they have left the U.S. to avoid prosecution without seeking the assistance of a court. And, it's very difficult to mourn the passing of avowed terrorists.
But the DOJ has sanctioned the exercise by the government of a great deal of discretion indeed when it comes to deciding whether a citizen is to live or die, without providing for any kind of check or review by a court or by Congress. And though the memo addresses Americans in foreign countries, the rationale would seem to have application for those of us here, as well.
This document serves to exemplify the extent to which terror (or war) can render a government repressive. Unfortunately, it will also doubtless be seized upon by radical anti-government individuals and organizations as evidence the government is out to get them and, of course, their beloved guns. It will likely be used to prevent any action or efforts to obtain reasonable gun control.
It's said that a Roman citizen could on claiming himself to be one (civitas Romanus sum) be entitled to a hearing before the emperor regardless of the charge being made against him and wherever he was in the empire; a right exercised by St. Paul. The Empire was a brutal oligarchy/dictatorship, but also had a genuine respect for law and process, or at least the form of the law if not its substance--the Romans were great lawyers and jurists as well as soldiers, and their law still influences the Western world even now. This document reflects respect for the form of the law, but a tendency to disregard procedural and substantive due process rights in certain circumstances which are vaguely defined and which could be applied in other circumstances as well. This is a dangerous document and policy.
The "White Paper" of the Department of Justice regarding the circumstances in which American citizens may legally be killed without due process in foreign countries is a most interesting document. At the time this post is being typed, it can be found in toto through the good offices of NBC News, which has thoughtfully inserted its name and its stylized peacock feathers all over it, on every page, thereby assuring that we know it is, indeed, being provided by that organization, and also assuring that portions of it will be difficult to read.
To a lawyer, the document will be familiar in some sense, as lawyers even in the private sector regularly render legal opinions in the form of memoranda for clients and other lawyers. Its purpose is familiar enough as well. Lawyers are asked whether doing X would be legal, and if the issue is an important one, will intensely research and write a careful memo which states an opinion, normally qualified in various respects. That is, clearly, what happened in this case.
But to most lawyers, the content and the conclusion would be unfamiliar and to use a word which has been used to describe the opinion, "chilling."
The memorandum specifically refers to American citizens in foreign countries. I suppose it's reassuring in a way that the government feels citizens do not loose their status by venturing outside the boundaries of the U.S. I see nothing in the memo which would indicate its rationale is necessarily limited to circumstances in which this is the case, however, though a portion of the analysis assesses the implications of this fact, as the DOJ list as a consideration to be given in determining whether lethal action is appropriate the refusal of a foreign nation to cooperate. When capture is feasible, the DOJ feels lethal force would not be legal. Capture, presumably, would be. This presents due process issues as well, of course, but one would think that if the DOJ's opinion is that killing an American citizen without according due process rights is legal, capturing one would be as well.
An American citizen must be a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an "associated force" to be eligible, as it were, to be killed. The words "associated force" are intended to refer to "co-belligerents" as defined in the laws of war. As no war has been declared, this may give one pause, but the DOJ believes that the Congress has given the Executive authority in combating al-Qa'ida which is the equivalent of powers in wartime, and that's good enough as far as it is concerned.
An American citizen having this status must pose an "imminent threat", but the DOJ construes this broadly, in fact so much so that the word "imminent" seems to be redefined if not disregarded. For example, a citizen may be deemed an imminent threat and therefore subject to annihilation if he was involved in planning or participating in real imminent threats to the U.S. in the past, and there is no evidence that he has renounced or abandoned such activities. One has to wonder just what evidence would suffice.
It's difficult for someone even with my astounding abilities to summarize the entirety of the 16-page document in this post. The lawyers who prepared it are not fools, and the memo is peppered with references to the sanctity of life and the great significance of the rights of citizens, cautionary language and qualifications. But the fact is that the determinations which are to be made before killing a citizen is legal according to the DOJ are based on considerations which are general and not easily made in practice, the potential for error due to imprecise or inaccurate information is significant, and the discretion necessarily accorded to an official responsible to decide whether lethal action is appropriate will therefore be considerable.
There may be instances when such action is necessary and appropriate, and indeed I think it is difficult for those who deliberately refuse to exercise their due process rights to maintain that they must be given them nonetheless. They may be said to have waived them in that case, particularly where they have left the U.S. to avoid prosecution without seeking the assistance of a court. And, it's very difficult to mourn the passing of avowed terrorists.
But the DOJ has sanctioned the exercise by the government of a great deal of discretion indeed when it comes to deciding whether a citizen is to live or die, without providing for any kind of check or review by a court or by Congress. And though the memo addresses Americans in foreign countries, the rationale would seem to have application for those of us here, as well.
This document serves to exemplify the extent to which terror (or war) can render a government repressive. Unfortunately, it will also doubtless be seized upon by radical anti-government individuals and organizations as evidence the government is out to get them and, of course, their beloved guns. It will likely be used to prevent any action or efforts to obtain reasonable gun control.
It's said that a Roman citizen could on claiming himself to be one (civitas Romanus sum) be entitled to a hearing before the emperor regardless of the charge being made against him and wherever he was in the empire; a right exercised by St. Paul. The Empire was a brutal oligarchy/dictatorship, but also had a genuine respect for law and process, or at least the form of the law if not its substance--the Romans were great lawyers and jurists as well as soldiers, and their law still influences the Western world even now. This document reflects respect for the form of the law, but a tendency to disregard procedural and substantive due process rights in certain circumstances which are vaguely defined and which could be applied in other circumstances as well. This is a dangerous document and policy.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Lachs on Stoic Pragmatism
John Lachs has written an interesting book, Stoic Pragmatism, which I recently read with some satisfaction. I feel somewhat smug, in fact, as I've been describing myself in this blog and elsewhere as a stoic and pragmatist, or a neo-stoic and pragmatist, for some time now. It's gratifying to learn a professional philosopher thinks this union is conceivable and even desirable. Much as I'd like to, though, I suppose I can't legitimately claim to have inspired this book, and it's highly doubtful even that I'm the first to have thought these two schools of philosophy might function well together.
For my part, I've felt that stoicism provides a guide to how to live, and pragmatism a reasonable basis on which to approach traditional philosophical concerns involving metaphysics, epistemology and even ethics to the extent to which ethics is distinct from practical wisdom (which it seems to be and has been for quite some time).
If I understand Lachs, he (to simplify greatly) maintains that stoic acquiescence and pragmatic social activism should be merged, as it were, to create stoic pragmatism, which would not suffer from the excessive detachment of the one and the too exuberant tendency to struggle to rectify social problems which typifies the other. It's a kind of middle path between the two, which would allow for tranquility but would also provide for active engagement in the world.
I rather think stoicism manages to do both, but must admit that there are certain statements of the stoics which strike one as advocating not just intelligent indifference to what takes place, but disregard of them. The stoic sage can be portrayed as so apart from what takes place as to ignore even injustice which is immediately apparent. And stoicism has been referred to by some as a justification of the status quo. Again, I think this is a misreading, but can understand how a cursory review of stoic works can foster such an impression.
The latter part of the book seems to address matters which, to me, don't seem particularly relevant to stoic pragmatism, though they might be to pragmatism or the history of pragmatism. A great deal of it is devoted to a comparison of the philosophy of Royce and Santayana, which is interesting in and of itself, and may be an effort to define a theory of knowledge/theory of reality basis to stoic pragmatism. I'm probably just too dull to understand what Lachs is doing in this respect, but I even got the impression that the two halves of the book may have been separately written for different purposes, and then combined.
Regardless, it is a worthy book, and another indication that philosophy may be gradually returning to its original purpose, to define and refine the art of living. This can only be to our benefit, provided as always that it maintains a connection with the sometimes annoying "real world" and acknowledges our place in it.
For my part, I've felt that stoicism provides a guide to how to live, and pragmatism a reasonable basis on which to approach traditional philosophical concerns involving metaphysics, epistemology and even ethics to the extent to which ethics is distinct from practical wisdom (which it seems to be and has been for quite some time).
If I understand Lachs, he (to simplify greatly) maintains that stoic acquiescence and pragmatic social activism should be merged, as it were, to create stoic pragmatism, which would not suffer from the excessive detachment of the one and the too exuberant tendency to struggle to rectify social problems which typifies the other. It's a kind of middle path between the two, which would allow for tranquility but would also provide for active engagement in the world.
I rather think stoicism manages to do both, but must admit that there are certain statements of the stoics which strike one as advocating not just intelligent indifference to what takes place, but disregard of them. The stoic sage can be portrayed as so apart from what takes place as to ignore even injustice which is immediately apparent. And stoicism has been referred to by some as a justification of the status quo. Again, I think this is a misreading, but can understand how a cursory review of stoic works can foster such an impression.
The latter part of the book seems to address matters which, to me, don't seem particularly relevant to stoic pragmatism, though they might be to pragmatism or the history of pragmatism. A great deal of it is devoted to a comparison of the philosophy of Royce and Santayana, which is interesting in and of itself, and may be an effort to define a theory of knowledge/theory of reality basis to stoic pragmatism. I'm probably just too dull to understand what Lachs is doing in this respect, but I even got the impression that the two halves of the book may have been separately written for different purposes, and then combined.
Regardless, it is a worthy book, and another indication that philosophy may be gradually returning to its original purpose, to define and refine the art of living. This can only be to our benefit, provided as always that it maintains a connection with the sometimes annoying "real world" and acknowledges our place in it.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Auguring and the Inauguration
Perhaps in growing old I have lost whatever enthusiasm I possessed. Or perhaps it decreases as time passes, much like my testosterone if we are to believe those commercials which have, it seems, at least temporarily overshadowed those dealing with other aspects or other causes of that engrossing (giggle) topic, erectile dysfunction. But I must confess I thought the second inauguration of our President to be excessive, garish and even in some respects silly.
In the past, I've managed to avoid inaugurations, for the most part. They strike me generally as dull and unfortunate rituals. Get sworn in and get to work, I think, is the most appropriate way to proceed. We wasted enough money during the election process; why spend more now that it is over? I don't care, particularly, whether or not a Bible is used. An oath is an oath, regardless of where one's hand is placed. A person of honor will struggle to keep an oath, and will do so whether or not he/she fears God. In fact, doing so only because of the fear of God is an indication the maker of the oath is less than honorable.
This inauguration seemed unavoidable, though. I don't watch TV all that much, but it seemed ubiquitous if the TV I watched is any indication. Cable news channels appeared obsessive in their coverage, not merely of the events involved but in the preparation of those events, in speculation regarding the events, in explanation regarding the events, in commentary regarding the events. Pundits are the curse of our time, but they seemed especially exclamatory, hyperbolic even, as they rhapsodized and reacted. Now we involve ourselves in debates over whether Beyonce lip-synced our nation's anthem--which is, it must be admitted, difficult to sing. Alas, the circus is not yet over. Will it ever be?
Was it always like this? Am I more perceptive (or less oblivious, blissfully oblivious) now than I was during the rituals of the past? Did Hollywood and the divas of popular music figure so significantly in the commencement of the reigns of previous presidents?
The inaugural address has been cited as a kind of paean to liberal, secular government, but I find nothing particularly insightful or inciting in it. No doubt it is interesting that gays were mentioned in such an address for the first time. But to those like myself, it is desirable that government not involve itself in the sexual relations of consenting adults, and what is called "marriage" from the standpoint of the law is not and should not be anything sacred or mandated in heaven; it is merely another legal relationship which requires regulation. What it may be to certain of the religious is another issue, but that is not the realm of government. It is one of the inconsistencies of what passes for conservatism these days that conservatives demand that government affirmatively and aggressively regulate and legislate regarding social and religious conduct, and not allow people to do what they want to do, i.e., be free.
Everything truly is showbiz, it seems. It's not that in our time this is, or has become, the case more than it has in the past. I tend to deplore our tendency to compare ourselves to the Romans, but one of the many things they did was perfect the use of panem et circenses in the promotion of political popularity and population control. I think, though, that we, or those who are interested in manipulating us, are better able to make entertainment a dominant factor in our lives. Our technology is now such that all we do is given the appearance of entertainment (e.g., "reality shows") and functions as entertainment.
I know this may simply make me sound old, older indeed than I am (I've always seemed old, to many I know), but there is dignity in simplicity, and dignity is something we lack, particularly in our politics. This may be one of the reasons we have no respect for our politics or our politicians. I fear the more we cater to excess and treat politics as entertainment and the business of entertainers, the less significance we will attribute to our politics, and the worse off we will be.
In the past, I've managed to avoid inaugurations, for the most part. They strike me generally as dull and unfortunate rituals. Get sworn in and get to work, I think, is the most appropriate way to proceed. We wasted enough money during the election process; why spend more now that it is over? I don't care, particularly, whether or not a Bible is used. An oath is an oath, regardless of where one's hand is placed. A person of honor will struggle to keep an oath, and will do so whether or not he/she fears God. In fact, doing so only because of the fear of God is an indication the maker of the oath is less than honorable.
This inauguration seemed unavoidable, though. I don't watch TV all that much, but it seemed ubiquitous if the TV I watched is any indication. Cable news channels appeared obsessive in their coverage, not merely of the events involved but in the preparation of those events, in speculation regarding the events, in explanation regarding the events, in commentary regarding the events. Pundits are the curse of our time, but they seemed especially exclamatory, hyperbolic even, as they rhapsodized and reacted. Now we involve ourselves in debates over whether Beyonce lip-synced our nation's anthem--which is, it must be admitted, difficult to sing. Alas, the circus is not yet over. Will it ever be?
Was it always like this? Am I more perceptive (or less oblivious, blissfully oblivious) now than I was during the rituals of the past? Did Hollywood and the divas of popular music figure so significantly in the commencement of the reigns of previous presidents?
The inaugural address has been cited as a kind of paean to liberal, secular government, but I find nothing particularly insightful or inciting in it. No doubt it is interesting that gays were mentioned in such an address for the first time. But to those like myself, it is desirable that government not involve itself in the sexual relations of consenting adults, and what is called "marriage" from the standpoint of the law is not and should not be anything sacred or mandated in heaven; it is merely another legal relationship which requires regulation. What it may be to certain of the religious is another issue, but that is not the realm of government. It is one of the inconsistencies of what passes for conservatism these days that conservatives demand that government affirmatively and aggressively regulate and legislate regarding social and religious conduct, and not allow people to do what they want to do, i.e., be free.
Everything truly is showbiz, it seems. It's not that in our time this is, or has become, the case more than it has in the past. I tend to deplore our tendency to compare ourselves to the Romans, but one of the many things they did was perfect the use of panem et circenses in the promotion of political popularity and population control. I think, though, that we, or those who are interested in manipulating us, are better able to make entertainment a dominant factor in our lives. Our technology is now such that all we do is given the appearance of entertainment (e.g., "reality shows") and functions as entertainment.
I know this may simply make me sound old, older indeed than I am (I've always seemed old, to many I know), but there is dignity in simplicity, and dignity is something we lack, particularly in our politics. This may be one of the reasons we have no respect for our politics or our politicians. I fear the more we cater to excess and treat politics as entertainment and the business of entertainers, the less significance we will attribute to our politics, and the worse off we will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)