In Life At the Bottom, Theodore Dalrymple provides several anecdotes about Muslim marriage in Great Britain, including the following:
A sixteen-year-old Muslim girl was referred to me because she had started to wet the bed at night. She was accompanied by her father, an unskilled factory worker of Pakistani origin, and was beautifully dressed in satins and chiffon, her ankles and wrists covered with gold bangles and bracelets. Her father was reluctant to let me speak to her on her own but at my insistence eventually permitted me to do so.
I realized at once that she was both highly intelligent and deeply unhappy. Because of my experience in such cases, it took little time to discover the source of her unhappiness.
Her father had decided that she was to marry in a couple of months' time a man-a cousin-of whom she knew nothing.
She, on the other hand, wished to continue her education, to study English literature at university and eventually to become a journalist. Although she controlled herself well-in the circumstances, heroically-there was absolutely no mistaking the passionate intensity of her wishes or of her despair. Her father, though, knew nothing of them: she had never dared tell him, because he was likely then to lock her in the house and forbid her ever to leave, except under close escort. As far as he was concerned, education, career, or choice of husbands was not for girls.
The chance of this changing in a West with-out backbone is zero. Dalrymple notes the acquiescence of his country.
In my quarter of the city there are private-detective agencies that specialize in locating immigrant girls who have run away from their husbands or parents. Once they are found, they are likely to be kidnapped by relatives or vigilantes-an experience which several of my patients have lived through. It is surprising how little reaction bundling someone off the street and driving away with him or her in a car causes nowadays-people do not wish to involve themselves in problems not their own. And the police are generally less than vigorous in their investigation of such cases, for fear of being criticized as racist.
Theodore Dalrymple, Life At The Bottom
Monday, February 19, 2007
Marriage in the Islamic World
Over at NRO, Kurtz has an important series on marriage in the Islamic world and the role of marriage in prevent cultural and religious changes. Kurtz’s first article is a fairly technical background examining endogamy, exogamy and cousin marriage. In the second article, Kurtz argues that patrilineal, parallel cousin marriage (the tradition of men marrying their father’s brother daughter) dominates Islamic marriage. The marriage reinforces Islamic culture and prevents assimilation into the West. Kurtz states that cousin marriage is supported by “full-body veiling, the seclusion of women, forced marriage, honor killing.” ‘The loyalties of women who marry within their own family lines remain undivided.”
Cousin marriage isn’t mandatory or prescribed by the Koran. However, cousin marriage is a long and powerful tradition possibly extending even before the caliphate. Kurtz suggest that because of the patrilineal, parallel cousin marriage, Islamic culture has a self sealing character that won’t be change by the usual bromides of economics, politics or exposure to the West. He concludes:
If we want to change any of this, it will be impossible to restrict ourselves to the study of religious Islam. The “self-sealing” character of Islam is part and parcel of a broader and more deeply rooted social pattern. And parallel-cousin marriage is more than just an interesting but minor illustration of that broader theme. If there’s a “self-sealing” tendency in Muslim social life, cousin marriage is the velcro. In contemporary Europe, perhaps even more than in the Middle East, cousin marriage is at the core of a complex of factors blocking assimilation and driving the war on terror.
Cousin marriage isn’t mandatory or prescribed by the Koran. However, cousin marriage is a long and powerful tradition possibly extending even before the caliphate. Kurtz suggest that because of the patrilineal, parallel cousin marriage, Islamic culture has a self sealing character that won’t be change by the usual bromides of economics, politics or exposure to the West. He concludes:
If we want to change any of this, it will be impossible to restrict ourselves to the study of religious Islam. The “self-sealing” character of Islam is part and parcel of a broader and more deeply rooted social pattern. And parallel-cousin marriage is more than just an interesting but minor illustration of that broader theme. If there’s a “self-sealing” tendency in Muslim social life, cousin marriage is the velcro. In contemporary Europe, perhaps even more than in the Middle East, cousin marriage is at the core of a complex of factors blocking assimilation and driving the war on terror.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Reductio Ad Hitlerum
People are pretty quick to call others Nazi’s or invoke the specter of slavery. Usually, the invocations are simply a modern form of name calling.
Protester: Bush is Hitler.
Why?
Protester: He got us into a war.
So is Lincoln Hitler? Roosevelt?
On the other hand, the Nazi’s were real people. Germany was the most advanced scientific society of it’s time. The German’s arguments for eugenics and racial hygiene were well accepted in the world community. Therefore, German experience has lessons for us. Unfortunately, attempts to inappropriately smear people with the Nazi label shuts down dialogue; and, when the Nazi reference is appropriate, people only see it as a smear.
I was in a dialogue with someone promoting eugenics. I had pointed out the past experience in the world with eugenics which included Nazi Germany. However, I also mentioned the American experience (unknown by most) as well as Germany. True to his progressive nature, a man beyond history, he poo pooed any reference to the past. After all he was too good and modern to make those mistakes even if he didn’t know what those mistakes were or realize that he was voicing the same old ideas which he now deemed cutting edge.
Over at Second Hand Smoke, Smith posts some thoughts about Nazi comparisons and includes some comments from a 1949 article in the New England Journal of medicine, by Dr. Alexander who served with the U.S. Office of Chief Counsel for War Crimes at Nuremberg. Alexander’s comments from the NEJM are well worth reading.
Protester: Bush is Hitler.
Why?
Protester: He got us into a war.
So is Lincoln Hitler? Roosevelt?
On the other hand, the Nazi’s were real people. Germany was the most advanced scientific society of it’s time. The German’s arguments for eugenics and racial hygiene were well accepted in the world community. Therefore, German experience has lessons for us. Unfortunately, attempts to inappropriately smear people with the Nazi label shuts down dialogue; and, when the Nazi reference is appropriate, people only see it as a smear.
I was in a dialogue with someone promoting eugenics. I had pointed out the past experience in the world with eugenics which included Nazi Germany. However, I also mentioned the American experience (unknown by most) as well as Germany. True to his progressive nature, a man beyond history, he poo pooed any reference to the past. After all he was too good and modern to make those mistakes even if he didn’t know what those mistakes were or realize that he was voicing the same old ideas which he now deemed cutting edge.
Over at Second Hand Smoke, Smith posts some thoughts about Nazi comparisons and includes some comments from a 1949 article in the New England Journal of medicine, by Dr. Alexander who served with the U.S. Office of Chief Counsel for War Crimes at Nuremberg. Alexander’s comments from the NEJM are well worth reading.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Giving Til It Kills
The risks of egg "donation" are not insignificant.
From the Telegraph HT; Wesley Smith
Women who donate their eggs for research are at risk from life-threatening side effects, scientists warn in a new study.
They say that the powerful drugs given to the volunteers to help increase the number of eggs they produce can cause paralysis, limb amputation and even death.
Among all women undergoing infertility treatment, one in 10 will suffer milder forms of the adverse reaction called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) while 1 per cent are at risk of life-threatening blood disorders, the scientists found.
Gita Nargund, the head of reproductive medicine at St George's Hospital, London, has campaigned for the use of alternative treatments to the strong hormones used to stimulate women's ovaries to produce more than the one egg normally released in each monthly cycle.
She said that, in addition to those reported in the Italian study, there have been two deaths from OHSS in the UK, and a further death of a woman during an egg collection procedure in Leicester last year.
"The risks of this procedure must be taken into account," she said. "It is not like blood donation and we have to ask ourselves if it's really necessary. If we are recruiting donors for anything, it is important that what we are doing is as safe as possible."
From the Telegraph HT; Wesley Smith
Women who donate their eggs for research are at risk from life-threatening side effects, scientists warn in a new study.
They say that the powerful drugs given to the volunteers to help increase the number of eggs they produce can cause paralysis, limb amputation and even death.
Among all women undergoing infertility treatment, one in 10 will suffer milder forms of the adverse reaction called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) while 1 per cent are at risk of life-threatening blood disorders, the scientists found.
Gita Nargund, the head of reproductive medicine at St George's Hospital, London, has campaigned for the use of alternative treatments to the strong hormones used to stimulate women's ovaries to produce more than the one egg normally released in each monthly cycle.
She said that, in addition to those reported in the Italian study, there have been two deaths from OHSS in the UK, and a further death of a woman during an egg collection procedure in Leicester last year.
"The risks of this procedure must be taken into account," she said. "It is not like blood donation and we have to ask ourselves if it's really necessary. If we are recruiting donors for anything, it is important that what we are doing is as safe as possible."
Turning Women into Hens
The Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government regulator of this highly sensitive area, is expected to approve the policy when it meets on Wednesday. At present, clinics are not allowed to accept eggs donated for scientific research unless they are a byproduct of either IVF treatment or sterilisation. Campaigners for change say that this has led to a chronic shortage of eggs for scientific use.
'The sum of £250 would still be enough of an inducement for women from eastern Europe, for example, to come to Britain to sell their eggs. That's clearly turning eggs into an object of trade and that's disturbing. Once the principle of egg donation for research is established, it will become harder to prohibit paid egg donation.'
How’s this for bureaucratic thinking. We’ll make it low enough so people would not want to sell their eggs but the purpose of the policy is to get eggs. Why allow any reimbursement at all other than travel expenses[GG].
At present, a woman can donate her eggs, either to help another woman while both of them are undergoing IVF treatment in return for a discount on the cost of her own fertility programme, or as an altruistic gesture to a close relative or friend. Any discount could be worth several thousand pounds.
So, the government is opening up the egg market to a cheap Eastern European supply.
Thanks to Wesley Smith
'The sum of £250 would still be enough of an inducement for women from eastern Europe, for example, to come to Britain to sell their eggs. That's clearly turning eggs into an object of trade and that's disturbing. Once the principle of egg donation for research is established, it will become harder to prohibit paid egg donation.'
How’s this for bureaucratic thinking. We’ll make it low enough so people would not want to sell their eggs but the purpose of the policy is to get eggs. Why allow any reimbursement at all other than travel expenses[GG].
At present, a woman can donate her eggs, either to help another woman while both of them are undergoing IVF treatment in return for a discount on the cost of her own fertility programme, or as an altruistic gesture to a close relative or friend. Any discount could be worth several thousand pounds.
So, the government is opening up the egg market to a cheap Eastern European supply.
Thanks to Wesley Smith
Drug Idolatry
The Cult of Pharmacology
This is a new book recently reviewed in JAMA.
'//-->
Among the countless forces that shape attitudes toward drugs, science is arguably the least influential. Although irrationality pervades people's use of all substances, from herbal preparations to antibiotics, a singular foolishness imbues the views of mind-altering ones.
The most troublesome upshot of society's unreasonable approach to drugs is the war on drugs. As Richard DeGrandpre points out in The Cult of Pharmacology, the war on drugs is fueled by misconceptions about the nature of addiction, the danger of prohibited drugs, and the best ways to limit the damage that these drugs do inflict. Most worrisome of all, this war has already been lost several times.
The book's basic message is that certain drugs are demonized and others embraced not on the basis of a drug's pharmacological actions or what it actually does mentally or physically but because of the meanings attached to it. What the author calls "angel drugs"—those, like antidepressants, that are considered legitimate and beneficial—are a lot worse than people think, and demon drugs, like cocaine and heroin, he contends, are not actually so bad.
The book's other major point—and the one giving rise to its title—is that the "cult of pharmacology" or "pharmacologicalism" is at the root of misconceptions about drugs and society's wrongheaded drug policies. DeGrandpre never clearly defines these terms, but they seem to refer to the beliefs that drugs are uniquely powerful and that their effects come from their pharmacological activity alone. The Cult of Pharmacology states again and again that insufficient attention is paid to context, expectation, and meaning. For example, he asserts that nicotine is not the culprit behind addiction to cigarettes, but rather other attributes of smoking are—the anticipation, the smoking context, and what smokers expect to happen when they quit. As "evidence," the author points to the fact that not everyone on nicotine replacement stops smoking.
Science may not be influential but scientist are influential and often push the foolishness. This isn’t particularly original but such books usually don’t get a lot of press. Despite the media’s love of controversy, the press avoids certain subjects. Surprisingly, last month, the book was also reviewed by the Prozac Man, Dr. Peter Kramer in the Washington Post
Why isn't Nicorette gum a street drug? The Food and Drug Administration considers nicotine highly addictive. Tobacco companies seem to share this view when they manipulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes. But the gum, which packs a goodly dose of nicotine, appeals to almost no one. While we're at it, if nicotine dependence is what stands in the way of quitting, why do patched smokers -- their brains well-supplied with the substance -- still crave the next drag?
The anti-tobacco folks have reduced all the pleasures of tobacco to nicotine. However, tase has always been an important factor in smoking as well as the sensual experience of smoking. I’ve ordered nicotine gum for many folks. Either they quit or don’t quit smoking. They never switch to just taking the gum even though they may get the gum for free[GG].
If these questions have an answer, it is that addiction is not a simple matter of chemical and receptor. Habit, ritual, social context and the means of delivery all affect how the brain processes a drug and how we experience it. As a result, drug research is replete with paradox.
Of course, the addiction folks constantly preach this. It’s not so much that drug research is replete with paradox. The research seems paradoxical only if you approach drug abuse with a strictly materialist perspective.
Kramer who is a cheer leader for pharmacology is critical of the author’s arguments[GG]:
We need to develop a humane approach to street-drug use. We need more independent testing of prescription drugs. But to hold these views does not require the belief that America has been hijacked by a cabal of doctors, politicians and entrepreneurs. DeGrandpre's attack comes from a libertarian posture, anti-business but even more anti-government. There's an element of the personal hobby-horse here as well: Pharmacologicalism conveys state power more effectively than communism or national socialism? Isn't it likelier that -- the undeniable flaws of capitalism and democracy notwithstanding -- we're muddling along, trying to make what sense we can of medications, licit and banned, that are ever better attuned to the workings of those admittedly complex organs, our brains? ·
This is a new book recently reviewed in JAMA.
'//-->
Among the countless forces that shape attitudes toward drugs, science is arguably the least influential. Although irrationality pervades people's use of all substances, from herbal preparations to antibiotics, a singular foolishness imbues the views of mind-altering ones.
The most troublesome upshot of society's unreasonable approach to drugs is the war on drugs. As Richard DeGrandpre points out in The Cult of Pharmacology, the war on drugs is fueled by misconceptions about the nature of addiction, the danger of prohibited drugs, and the best ways to limit the damage that these drugs do inflict. Most worrisome of all, this war has already been lost several times.
The book's basic message is that certain drugs are demonized and others embraced not on the basis of a drug's pharmacological actions or what it actually does mentally or physically but because of the meanings attached to it. What the author calls "angel drugs"—those, like antidepressants, that are considered legitimate and beneficial—are a lot worse than people think, and demon drugs, like cocaine and heroin, he contends, are not actually so bad.
The book's other major point—and the one giving rise to its title—is that the "cult of pharmacology" or "pharmacologicalism" is at the root of misconceptions about drugs and society's wrongheaded drug policies. DeGrandpre never clearly defines these terms, but they seem to refer to the beliefs that drugs are uniquely powerful and that their effects come from their pharmacological activity alone. The Cult of Pharmacology states again and again that insufficient attention is paid to context, expectation, and meaning. For example, he asserts that nicotine is not the culprit behind addiction to cigarettes, but rather other attributes of smoking are—the anticipation, the smoking context, and what smokers expect to happen when they quit. As "evidence," the author points to the fact that not everyone on nicotine replacement stops smoking.
Science may not be influential but scientist are influential and often push the foolishness. This isn’t particularly original but such books usually don’t get a lot of press. Despite the media’s love of controversy, the press avoids certain subjects. Surprisingly, last month, the book was also reviewed by the Prozac Man, Dr. Peter Kramer in the Washington Post
Why isn't Nicorette gum a street drug? The Food and Drug Administration considers nicotine highly addictive. Tobacco companies seem to share this view when they manipulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes. But the gum, which packs a goodly dose of nicotine, appeals to almost no one. While we're at it, if nicotine dependence is what stands in the way of quitting, why do patched smokers -- their brains well-supplied with the substance -- still crave the next drag?
The anti-tobacco folks have reduced all the pleasures of tobacco to nicotine. However, tase has always been an important factor in smoking as well as the sensual experience of smoking. I’ve ordered nicotine gum for many folks. Either they quit or don’t quit smoking. They never switch to just taking the gum even though they may get the gum for free[GG].
If these questions have an answer, it is that addiction is not a simple matter of chemical and receptor. Habit, ritual, social context and the means of delivery all affect how the brain processes a drug and how we experience it. As a result, drug research is replete with paradox.
Of course, the addiction folks constantly preach this. It’s not so much that drug research is replete with paradox. The research seems paradoxical only if you approach drug abuse with a strictly materialist perspective.
Kramer who is a cheer leader for pharmacology is critical of the author’s arguments[GG]:
We need to develop a humane approach to street-drug use. We need more independent testing of prescription drugs. But to hold these views does not require the belief that America has been hijacked by a cabal of doctors, politicians and entrepreneurs. DeGrandpre's attack comes from a libertarian posture, anti-business but even more anti-government. There's an element of the personal hobby-horse here as well: Pharmacologicalism conveys state power more effectively than communism or national socialism? Isn't it likelier that -- the undeniable flaws of capitalism and democracy notwithstanding -- we're muddling along, trying to make what sense we can of medications, licit and banned, that are ever better attuned to the workings of those admittedly complex organs, our brains? ·
Monday, February 12, 2007
What Progressives Want
A friend of mine has adopted progressive politics as his new religion and posted these tenets of faith :
Republicans are able to distill their ideas down into a couple of key words or phrases. Democrats seem to get tongue-tied in a cacophony of noises that seems to resemble an epileptic seizure when we are asked the same thing. Here is a list of five basic principles which I think cover most of the Democratic, liberal, progressive thinking Americans believe in. I hope this catches on.
Stronger America
Prosperity for All
Better Future
Effective Government
Mutual Responsibility
Aren’t these somewhat clichéd. Are there any serious political movements at least openly pushing for a weaker America or worse future or ineffective government? I don’t see where these statements provide a clear policy, compared to the Republican position of low taxes.
Stronger America: Increase military spending
Prosperity for All: More Free Trade
Better Future: We would be lucky to make it to the level of the past in some areas (for eg education)
Effective Government: Fascism also promised an effective government. Didn’t Mussolini make the trains run on time.
Mutual Responsibility: If everyone is responsible then no one is responsible
Compare this to Russell Kirk’s conservative principles:
Ten Conservative Principles (1993)
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
The full essay can be found here.
Republicans are able to distill their ideas down into a couple of key words or phrases. Democrats seem to get tongue-tied in a cacophony of noises that seems to resemble an epileptic seizure when we are asked the same thing. Here is a list of five basic principles which I think cover most of the Democratic, liberal, progressive thinking Americans believe in. I hope this catches on.
Stronger America
Prosperity for All
Better Future
Effective Government
Mutual Responsibility
Aren’t these somewhat clichéd. Are there any serious political movements at least openly pushing for a weaker America or worse future or ineffective government? I don’t see where these statements provide a clear policy, compared to the Republican position of low taxes.
Stronger America: Increase military spending
Prosperity for All: More Free Trade
Better Future: We would be lucky to make it to the level of the past in some areas (for eg education)
Effective Government: Fascism also promised an effective government. Didn’t Mussolini make the trains run on time.
Mutual Responsibility: If everyone is responsible then no one is responsible
Compare this to Russell Kirk’s conservative principles:
Ten Conservative Principles (1993)
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
The full essay can be found here.
Lincoln's BirthDay
Here's an article about Lincoln's history of depression. Happy Birthday Abe!
Abe Lincoln's surprising strength
On the Great Emancipator’s birthday the question of his depression deserves more than a 30-second, feel-good pitch from CBS Cares.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did Beethoven, Lincoln and Hemingway have in common? According to CBS television star, Mandy Patinkin, all three had depression.
During the month when Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) is honoured, CBS Cares will run a destigmatisation campaign about mental illness using Honest Abe, now Sad Abe. Despite Presidents’ Day being celebrated this month, Lincoln’s name may become more associated with depression than Emancipation.
http://www.mercatornet.com/
Abe Lincoln's surprising strength
On the Great Emancipator’s birthday the question of his depression deserves more than a 30-second, feel-good pitch from CBS Cares.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did Beethoven, Lincoln and Hemingway have in common? According to CBS television star, Mandy Patinkin, all three had depression.
During the month when Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) is honoured, CBS Cares will run a destigmatisation campaign about mental illness using Honest Abe, now Sad Abe. Despite Presidents’ Day being celebrated this month, Lincoln’s name may become more associated with depression than Emancipation.
Shenk’s Lincoln restores sanity and hope to our present notions about depression. The story of Lincoln and his troubled mind doesn’t follow any script, treatment algorithm or predictable outcomes. Lincoln’s Melancholy provides both surprising answers and true inspiration.
http://www.mercatornet.com/
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Language of Beauty
There is a great website featuring the works of the philosopher/apologist Peter Kreeft. The site includes over 30 audio lectures from Dr. Kreeft. Below is a lecture on the significance of beautiful language illustrated by Tolkien’s writings. Any great literature should cause wonder. The Lord of the Rings and Simarillion certainly qualify. The Simarillion is part of my yearly rotation.
Kreeft states that we are in the third age of philosophy. He states that the first age ended in Metaphysical denial of universals, nominalism. The second age ended in Epistemogical denial of concepts, Hume and empiricism. The third age has ended in the denial of language, our ability to communicate with each other, deconstructionism. Each step is an attack against thought.
Language of Beauty
Kreeft states that we are in the third age of philosophy. He states that the first age ended in Metaphysical denial of universals, nominalism. The second age ended in Epistemogical denial of concepts, Hume and empiricism. The third age has ended in the denial of language, our ability to communicate with each other, deconstructionism. Each step is an attack against thought.
Language of Beauty
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Maintaing our outrage against Hitler
From First Things:
After printing an evenhanded op-ed on neurology and the paranormal (registration required), the New York Times carries a curious story about science and free will. “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force,” says neurological researcher Mark Hallett. “People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.”
And as for the social and moral consequences of denying free will, the Times found scientists prepared to accept them, as unpleasant as they may be. Harvard’s Dr. Wegner says: “We worry that explaining evil condones it. We have to maintain our outrage at Hitler. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a theory of evil in advance that could keep him from coming to power?” That would be nice. But Wegner never explains how the denial of free will would eliminate Hitlers. For that matter, he can’t say why we should maintain outrage at the evil of Hitler. In the absence of free will, “evil” and “outrage” are emptied of all normative content; they become only preprogrammed brain responses to stimuli.
If Hitler had no free will then isn’t maintaining our outrage against Hitler like the primitive shaking his fist angrily at the sky?
After printing an evenhanded op-ed on neurology and the paranormal (registration required), the New York Times carries a curious story about science and free will. “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force,” says neurological researcher Mark Hallett. “People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.”
And as for the social and moral consequences of denying free will, the Times found scientists prepared to accept them, as unpleasant as they may be. Harvard’s Dr. Wegner says: “We worry that explaining evil condones it. We have to maintain our outrage at Hitler. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a theory of evil in advance that could keep him from coming to power?” That would be nice. But Wegner never explains how the denial of free will would eliminate Hitlers. For that matter, he can’t say why we should maintain outrage at the evil of Hitler. In the absence of free will, “evil” and “outrage” are emptied of all normative content; they become only preprogrammed brain responses to stimuli.
If Hitler had no free will then isn’t maintaining our outrage against Hitler like the primitive shaking his fist angrily at the sky?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Utopian Narcissism
What is especially disturbing about the political Left is that they seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition. Instead, they tend to see the problems of the world as due to other people not being as wise or as noble as themselves.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
Modern Liberation
Some people seem to think that we live in more "liberated" times, when all that has happened is that one set of taboos has been replaced by another and more intolerantly enforced set of taboos.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
All The King's Men
Saw the new version of All the Kings Men with Sean Penn, Jude Law and Kate Winslet. The film was a colossal bore. I hated the over dramatic sound track. The main message seemed to be that there is no good, all politicians are corrupt; and you’re better off with your crook in office. I came across a review in Crisis Magazine and this interesting tidbit.
In 1949, John Wayne turned down the original role of Stark, writing a heated letter to his agent explaining why. Wayne felt that the script “smears the machinery of government for no purpose of humor or enlightenment” and “degrades all relationships,” being rife with “drunken mothers; conniving fathers; double-crossing sweethearts; bad, bad, rich people, and bad, bad, poor people.” To Wayne, the film demeaned not only the American system of government but “the American way of life.” These are very serious accusations that apply to the novel as well. Does the story of these two cynical men who fall deeper and deeper into nihilism—living in a world in which, as Stark explains, there’s no morality and “you just make it up as you go along”—have anything useful to say about corruption, apathy, betrayal, or cynicism? Not really, and this is the real problem at the source of Zaillian’s failed script and film.
In 1949, John Wayne turned down the original role of Stark, writing a heated letter to his agent explaining why. Wayne felt that the script “smears the machinery of government for no purpose of humor or enlightenment” and “degrades all relationships,” being rife with “drunken mothers; conniving fathers; double-crossing sweethearts; bad, bad, rich people, and bad, bad, poor people.” To Wayne, the film demeaned not only the American system of government but “the American way of life.” These are very serious accusations that apply to the novel as well. Does the story of these two cynical men who fall deeper and deeper into nihilism—living in a world in which, as Stark explains, there’s no morality and “you just make it up as you go along”—have anything useful to say about corruption, apathy, betrayal, or cynicism? Not really, and this is the real problem at the source of Zaillian’s failed script and film.
Friday, January 12, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth
The argument for significant man made global warming has always rested on stridency and alarmist what if thinking than sound reasoning. The most common response to critics of global warming are ad hominems and genetics (fallacy). The genetic fallacy and ad hominems spares one from actually answering any arguments.
I haven’t seen Gore’s documentary yet. I have seen Gore on shows contemptuously dismissing any critic of global warning. The Claremont blog recently mentioned Gore’s video.
According to Gore, there is no credible criticism of manmade global-warming, in scientific journals (none) or out (bogus). Opposition is based either on ignorance, apathy or selfish motives, such as those of the oil and gas companies who employ writers and speakers to divert attention from the "inconvenient truth."
In truth, Gore and his movie reflect the very characteristics which he deplores in his critics: appeal to authority, closed-mindedness and impatience with criticism.
I only mention it now as a point about rhetoric. Science does attempt to respond to critics and seeks out critics. That’s the point of science. Say what you may about Gore, but don’t call his rants scientific.
I haven’t seen Gore’s documentary yet. I have seen Gore on shows contemptuously dismissing any critic of global warning. The Claremont blog recently mentioned Gore’s video.
According to Gore, there is no credible criticism of manmade global-warming, in scientific journals (none) or out (bogus). Opposition is based either on ignorance, apathy or selfish motives, such as those of the oil and gas companies who employ writers and speakers to divert attention from the "inconvenient truth."
In truth, Gore and his movie reflect the very characteristics which he deplores in his critics: appeal to authority, closed-mindedness and impatience with criticism.
I only mention it now as a point about rhetoric. Science does attempt to respond to critics and seeks out critics. That’s the point of science. Say what you may about Gore, but don’t call his rants scientific.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese
As a grad of Emory in 1983, Ms. Fox-Genovese was a familiar name. In later life, after she established Women’s studies at Emory she became known for her reproach of the feminist movement. Here is a highlight from the New York Times Orbituary:
Ms. Fox-Genovese, who in her early work supported abortion, though with reservations, would in later years equate it with murder. She would also argue publicly that the women’s movement had been disastrous, and extol the virtues of traditional marriage and family.
In interviews and in her writings, Ms. Fox-Genovese ascribed her political transformation in part to her growing embrace of religion. Reared in a household of secular intellectuals, she converted to Roman Catholicism in 1995.
Touchstone Magazine’s Mere Comments provided a good overview of the woman they called. Lioness.
She has told the story of her conversion in an article in the April 2000 issue of First Things (where she also was a contributing editor), and a reading of that account is a necessary starting place for assessing the background to her change. But anyone who followed the track of her published work knows that the change was not nearly as great as it might have seemed. Looking backward at her pilgrimage, one can say that for Betsey, Marxism and feminism, although clearly heresies, were the kind of heresies that point one toward the truth. For like all heresies, they contained an important piece of the truth, a piece that can be built upon once it is freed from association with falsehood.
May the Lioness be at peace with the Lamb.
Ms. Fox-Genovese, who in her early work supported abortion, though with reservations, would in later years equate it with murder. She would also argue publicly that the women’s movement had been disastrous, and extol the virtues of traditional marriage and family.
In interviews and in her writings, Ms. Fox-Genovese ascribed her political transformation in part to her growing embrace of religion. Reared in a household of secular intellectuals, she converted to Roman Catholicism in 1995.
Touchstone Magazine’s Mere Comments provided a good overview of the woman they called. Lioness.
She has told the story of her conversion in an article in the April 2000 issue of First Things (where she also was a contributing editor), and a reading of that account is a necessary starting place for assessing the background to her change. But anyone who followed the track of her published work knows that the change was not nearly as great as it might have seemed. Looking backward at her pilgrimage, one can say that for Betsey, Marxism and feminism, although clearly heresies, were the kind of heresies that point one toward the truth. For like all heresies, they contained an important piece of the truth, a piece that can be built upon once it is freed from association with falsehood.
May the Lioness be at peace with the Lamb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)