Really, really bad news for health care reform

From Jim Geraghty:

Campaign Spot on National Review Online

And some prayer music

From the Blind Boys of Alabama.

Extraordinary

Apparently, Open Source Audio has recently archived and published a January 1, 1939, wire recording of Peter Maurin reading one of his Easy Essays. An amazing, thrilling and inspirational bit of Catholic history.

Huckabee in the lead

A new Rasmussen poll of likely Republican candidates shows Mike in the lead among several candidates. It doesn't mean a lot at this point, but it is interesting. Actually, it bears out the truism that the likely winner in a political race will be the person with the most "likeable" bearing and personality--the "warmest". I'm certain that this has been a factor in many of the elections in the "media age"--since 1960. Still pictures and words favor the appearance of maturity and wisdom. Voice and video favor an image of sympathy, personal warmth, sincerity and a degree of charisma.

We'll see....

On the Doctrine of the Soul

A friend related a story about when she and her sister were much younger. As their mother was taking a rare nap, her sister, a toddler at the time, went up to mom, carefully pulled up the lid of one of mom's eyes, and asked, "Mommy, are you in there?"

Who could explain it better?

A Fragment on Michael Jackson

In spite of millions of words, one small thought I haven't seen yet: How unhappy must a person be, who spent his last hours, days, months, and perhaps even years, begging for more pain-killers.

It's obvious that it wasn't for the thrills....

Universal or Parochial? An interesting study on the roots of moral reasoning.

There's a lot of talk today about how moral reasoning is a product either of genetics (sociobiology, etc.) or of cultural/social forces. The point is that we don't like the idea that people actually reason to universals or are capable of reasoning away or apart from the group's consensus. It appears from this Science News article that the debate may still remain open.

Why to read, and how to do it.

Richard Weaver is one of those Dangerous Writers. It's important to be careful and discerning as we make our way through his work. Plato, Nietzsche, Walter Kaufmann, Leo Strauss are among those authors who are perceptive and profound in their observations of human thought and culture. Here is a lengthy passage from the concluding chapter of Visions of Order, where he discusses human learning. (His idiom is mid-20th century, so please overlook the non-PC terminology, like "man".)

Now while man has many times claimed goodness arising from a divine connection and while he is given to erecting codes of ethics, he has committed the most abominable crimes and has visited every kind of suffering upon his fellows for an infinite variety of alleged reasons. He is passionate and unstable, sot that very little is required to set him on the warpath, even against his kith and kin. Most fearful of all to contemplate is his great power of self-deception. He often does things for reasons that are obscure to him, and undoubtedly many a person has led an entire life in ignorance of the mainspring of his own actions.

These things being so, nothing could be more proper to man than the study of himself, and it is important that this should be the deepest, freest and most imaginative that the most gifted individuals are capable of making. It should be a continuing, earnest examination of human life, with all its moods, impulses, choices of means, failures and successes, miseries and happinesses shown in concrete representation. The indispensable requirement, both for the creation and enjoyment of literature thus conceived, is a receptivity to the real image of man. The practical problem is how to restore that receptivity in the face of a barbarism nourished by the scientistic fallacies discussed earlier.

A simple illustration may make this clearer. Every teacher of experience knows that there is a type of student who resents the very idea of studying literature. This student hangs back or is even defiant because he senses that the study of literature demands a certain kind of intellectual and emotional response. We might say that it demands a sign of consent, almost like some religious sacraments. It requires of every man that he suppress at least part of his native barbarism and enter into rapport with the realm of value. The easier and more natural thing for him to do is to regard the work of literature with mingled contempt and truculence. For literature, at the same time it pleases those who accept it, imposes obligations; one does not enter into it and leave scot-free. In that important respect literature is further comparable with religion; it is not supposed to make us merely comfortable. This the wary barbarian (even in the form of the reluctant student) senses, and he may decide to persist in an obdurate barbarism. It is part of the barbarian's self-protection to reject cultivation. He may repel all influences that would mollify the attitude that keeps him narrow and destructive. Putting this in a figurative way, one might assert that men are not ready for literature until they have been "Christianized." By this I refer to the establishment of that "prejudice" Blackmur speaks of in Language as Gesture. They must give initial assent to certain propositions about man and the world. In no age are all men equally ready to give this assent, and in our age there are new active forces to persuade them against giving it. The barbarian's picture of the world is founded upon the simple adulation of force, direct ways of satisfying appetite, and generally the absence of any idea about human destiny. (Of course not all peoples who have been called barbarians fit this description.) When the barbarian is asked to respect things which rebuke, refine, and control these ideas, he is being asked to change his way of life. Hence the problem of conversion arises, which in the modern setting will have to be away from the idealization of physical comfort, from the view of life as the mere play of physical matter, and from the shortcutting of those processes around which cultured man weaves patterns of significance. It must be to a conversion to an awareness of the ethical and religious drama of every moment.

What's really scary?

The radio news said this morning that the President feels that opponents of the health plan are using scare tactics to persuade people that this is not good legislation. If the bill is scary in itself, then the opponents are merely discussing facts. If the facts are scary, then the bill should not be considered for passage by the Congress. I hear facts in the arguments of the opponents. I hear a lot of avoidance and double-talk, and more than enough scare tactic, from the President.

The '09 Astros

To all outward appearances, this would seem to be a team heading nowhere, and doing that in the most discouraging possible fashion. However, if they could get healthy in the next 10 days to two weeks and not suffer too much slippage in their inept division's standings in the meanwhile, there is always the hope that a good winning stretch in their last 30 games or so will slide them very close to the division lead.

I know, it's a dream.

On the government health care debate--

I have not heard good answers to two issues:

[1] No one has given a definitive answer to the question of what would happen to a patient like one of my family members. He's 85 and in otherwise very robust health, but some weeks ago was diagnosed with an early stage lymphoma in the neighborhood of his sciatic nerve. Now his physician and the cancer specialist both agree and insist that, treated assertively, this is a very remediable condition, and he should have a normal quality of life once the tumor is reduced and eliminated. They've started some chemo treatments, and he has already responded very well. The question is whether, under the government plan, elderly persons like this will receive treatment at all. I have heard this asked a couple of times in interviews of administration officials and their fellow-travelers, and the answers are either to the effect that the respondent does not know this provision of the plan or that they can't talk about specific cases. That bothers me. What if I'm in that position one day?

[2] There is also a lot of temporizing and avoidance of the pro-life question. I don't want my tax money used to extinguish the very human lives of the unborn.

Until I have satisfactory answers to the above, I'm against that legislation from beginning to end. We can't put these issues in the hands of the eugenicists.

The saddest thing ...

...about the funeral service I attended yesterday was the small coffin. As a teacher, I've been to a number of funerals of teens and young adults. There is a certain logic to most of these--it's either a catastrophic illness or some risky or extreme behavior. You wouldn't call them senseless in spite of the pain.

In this case, it was the death of a four year-old, from some unexplained cause. The parents have been in the midst of a very unpleasant divorce. The parents had separated and the children were with mom. Ostensibly, the child went to bed one evening, and never awakened. I don't know the story, but there was certainly some tension at the funeral. Mom was not present, and the story was that there is a cloud of suspicion over the child's death, which authorities are pursuing. No one knows anything for sure.

The celebrant spoke in his brief homily about a phrase from the liturgy--"the sure and certain hope of the resurrection." This addresses the situation most fittingly. In the first place, our faith is that the kingdom of heaven welcomes its newest soul with open arms and in God's love and comfort. Our prayers have value in carrying the young spirit to the bosom of the Maker. Secondly, we are reminded that our world is not paradise. We, God's people, do horrible things. These things are not just the outpourings of aberrant, sick individuals but belong to us as the human family. All are called to repentance and sorrow, even though specific moral guilt may not fall on all. By the same token, all are called to hope--repentance is pointless without a hope of forgiveness and renewal of life, "a sure and certain hope of the resurrection." This is what enables us to abide the sadness.

Janus? Is that you?

President Barack Obama signed a law that explicitly bans federal funding of any “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death” only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the killing of new human embryos.

Goodness--words mean nothing with him. To adapt an O'Reilly-ism: is he the bloviator-in-chief?

He's got to be kidding.

"Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now."

After spending two months telling us how dire things are, now he wants us to believe it's just hunky-dory, just like that? This demonstrates one of two things, or both: (a) he thinks the public are fools; (b) he has no clue what he's talking about. Take your pick.

By the way, the stock market, after moving further south in response to a series of words from the President and the Treasury Dude, has moved north for three days. Why? Bernanke spoke. It's apparently no harder than that.

One more thing: Mr. Geithner DOES look like the palest guy at the dude ranch--the one who needs a seat belt for his saddle.

So, where's the money going?

Two investment principles that people are following with their money right now:

1. Put the money where it's safe--minimize risk;
2. Put the money where the government has little or no access to it--taxes WILL rise.

So, it's no wonder the markets continue to slalom. Folks are stuffing their mattresses.

Of course, the nasty side of that will come when inflation hits. Then, the mattress-stuffers will be caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place unless they've stumbled into assets that appreciate pretty dynamically. But now, and as long as the current president and congress have sway, apparently no risk is a good risk.

My, what thin skins!

This White House crew, including their boss, have the thinnest skins in memory, and lack the shame to hide that fact in public. Like the old coach said to his excessively-celebrating athlete following a score: "Act like you've been there before."

See here: Gibbs takes gloves off to challenge reporters, hosts who cross Obama.

And of course, the ever-even-handed Mrs. Pelosi just loves freedom of political speech, as well: Speaker Pelosi Backs Senate Amendment to Regulate Talk Radio.

Miscellaneous

**The new Time Magazine (3/2/09) has "Best Actress" Kate Winslet on the cover. Shall we speculate a little? Why the putative Excellent Actress and not also the Actor? I'm sure they have their editorial preferences. Here's one theory: The reason there isn't an Actor is that they'd have to put You-Know-Who on the cover, again. Is it possible they couldn't bring themselves to do it?

**Stupid question of the week: Will the Illinois senatorial/office-peddling scandals ever end?

Most humbly, a prediction

First, check out today's headlines from CNS news--

Obama’s Stimulus Will Cause 'Lower Wages' for American Workers, Says Congressional Budget Office

Only 23 Percent of Stimulus Will be Spent This Fiscal Year, Congressional Budget Office Finds

Now, to me this bailout doesn't sound like very sound policy for relief that will be noticeable any time soon. It seems that the more effective help will more likely come from (a) last year's bailout distribution for financial institutions and (b) separate bills now being targeted at financers and troubled home owners. So, what, aside from the tax cuts, is the stimulus package for?

My guess: the ambiguity and corruption in that bill signed Tuesday during Mr. Obama's junket to Denver will cause much of the funding to be tied up in litigation and subject to criminal probes for a decade. (Hopefully) some of the folks who stand to gain the most and who voted for it will lose their offices as a result.

Here's a link to the Congressional Budget Office report: CBO analysis.

See?

I made a comment some time back about Marxist-style rhetoric. It is the view that words are little more than political manipulation. See Professor Bradley Schiller, writing in Opinion Journal:

"Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies."

A Presidents' Day Thought

Historian Richard Norton Smith: Great presidents not only speak to us--they speak for us.

Shame and more shame.

Shame on these people--specifically, the president and the congress. The stimulus the country needs should address priorities, not all this senseless growth of government spending. Here are the clear priorities: provide relief in the housing mortgage sector--people genuinely need some intervention here; get the banks lending again--otherwise, what was the original TARP for?; provide people with quick cash through a fast tax rebate and/or substantial tax cuts. These actions would be LESS COSTLY and far more effective than this "generational theft," as several parties have called it. The nation will be limping from this ineffective indebtedness for many years. Actually, if all they did was to help with the problematic mortgages--which were encouraged by the government in the first place--the neediest and hardest-hit would benefit directly, and the economy would start itself in short order. I hate to call people fools, but this train is heading for the cliff.

Current Reading

An amazing novel of "dystopian philosophical fiction:" Anathem, by Neal Stephenson. I'm about halfway through. If you make an effort to "translate" the other-world vocabulary, you can follow (or teach) much of the history of philosophy, especially philosophy of religion. It's about faith and reason, sacred and secular, clerical and lay, all turned inside-out, on a post-apocalyptic, suspiciously earth-like planet called "Arbre". In this journey epic, an intrepid fellowship navigates its way through a world that is not only physically hostile, but intellectually cannibalistic.

The Philosopher

A competent philosopher is one who reads slowly and writes very carefully.

"When you're down. and feeling sad ..."

Pope Benedict's Epiphany homily discusses the importance of pursuing the vision of the Kingdom, no matter the discouragements. A teacher takes comfort in this paragraph:

“There is no shadow, however dark, that can dim the light of Christ. For this reason believers in Christ never lose hope vis-à-vis the great social and economic crisis troubling humanity today, the destructive hatred and violence that continue to shed blood in many regions of the world and man’s selfishness and pretensions to be his own god, which leads sometimes to dangerous distortions of God’s design about life and the human dignity in matter of the family and the harmony of creation. As I wrote in the already mentioned Spe salvi Encyclical, our efforts to free human life and the world from poisons and pollution that could destroy the present and the future retains its value and meaning, ‘even if we outwardly achieve nothing or seem powerless in the face of overwhelming hostile forces,’ because ‘it is the great hope based upon God's promises that gives us courage and directs our action in good times and bad’(n. 35).”...

"The most moral army . . .

. . . in the world."

See here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022466.php

I don't doubt the basic truth of this proposition for a second. As I write this, however, I hear some Palestinian representative on the Houston news talking about "a very large scale massacre." Of course, he had to look at his shoes as he said that.