In case you ever wondered why Catholic and Orthodox Christians tend to celebrate Easter at different times, check this out. Go ahead, be ecumenical.

Take that safety Nazis.

That sounds about right (via Zorak).


You are Dogbert.
You are Dilbert's dog, but he's your bitch. You
play him around like a puppy. You consider
humans to be inferior and habor plans to take
over the world and enslave them.


Which Dilbert character are you ?
brought to you by Quizilla

I was just talking to a friend of mine, and he informed me that the television show Coach is now on Nick at Night.

It is very disturbing to think that a show I used to watch with my parents as a kid is now on a channel devoted to classic TV shows like, among other things, the Honeymooners. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Honeymooners. But that's a really old show, and I don't want the programs I watched regularly to be in that category yet. I haven't even graduated from college, slow down people. What's next, Newhart? Evening Shade?

I'm afraid I've been a little busy lately. I will soon finish my last post on the essence of nationhood, as well as deal with some other issues I've been mulling over (divorce, Lent and the relationship between soul and body, and some other things that seem to have slipped my mind at this hour).

Wait, this can't be right. Surely there's a different drink out there...(quiz via Zorak)

You are Turkish coffee. You are STRONG, BITTER,
and you peel paint off walls. Some people
adore you. Many find you a bit strong for
their taste.


What Kind of Coffee Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

To take up a question I first posed a few entries ago: what exactly the essence of a state is.

This is an interesting question and one that has actually become a lot harder to answer with time. Thank you Enlightenment.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. As I wrote in my earlier post, which started out as a discussion of Metallica's possibly glorious future, institutions have essences too. To take a look at America, specifically, people often speak about actions or beliefs as being "un-American." Few talk about the possibility of America itself becoming un-American.

The USA used to be quite unique in its use and maintenance of a written constitution, but it has set an example that is by now often emulated. That is our first clue when it comes to answering this question. Constitutions are important because they set out certain founding principles that define a nation. Certainly some wiggle-room is allowed. There is the practical matter of changing circumstance. It would have been un-American to have advocated a standing army early in the republic's history, but troops don't march from place to place in bright red uniforms firing musket balls anymore. If a modern country were to rely on a militia for its defense, it would be swallowed up faster than you could say blitzkrieg.

Other change is much more severe, and can qualify as contrary to a nation's identity. Were the Congress to ever pass a law that abolished freedom of religion, we could say that America wasn't really America anymore. If a country is created to defend certain liberties, and then acts against those same liberties, something rotten has happened.

Of course, this presents clear problems. In the case of a standing army, some of the founders would have argued that that is wholly un-American, now and forever, because creating a standing army creates a professional class of soldiers that stand apart from the citizenry, weakens a nation's understanding of civic virtue, gives the government an excess of power that it can then use to take people's liberties, etc. In the case of freedom of religion, the government already does deny that freedom from some people (if cannibalism is part of your religious heritage, sorry buddy).

In other words: First, a nation's evolution which at first glance looks like it is based on simple practical concerns can be a lot deeper and a lot more destructive. Second, some principles that a government is created to uphold simply cannot be upheld.

As a child I always wondered what exactly it meant to be an American. The way most people spoke about it it seemed like a such an expansive concept that ultimately became meaningless. Growing up my doubts lingered. Now I'm a monarchist who disagrees with plenty of this nation's economic and social policies, yet is perfectly willing to fight tooth and nail for this nation and its people. Where do I fit in? Clearly I reject some of the buzzwords that are used to describe America's purpose, like "democracy" and "rights," yet I'm probably more willing than most to serve and sacrifice myself for America and Americans.

The big trouble is that America is a product of the Enlightenment (it's certainly nothing compared to the debacle that was/is France after 1789; Reflections on the Revolution in France and the first couple of chapters of Democracy in America are very helpful in understanding the difference). The Enlightenment tried way too hard to reduce the world to rationality, and in the process killed reason (one more plug couldn't hurt: The Idea of Enlightenment: A Post-Mortem Study). Enlightenment thinkers tried to improve government and ended up undercutting it (I wonder if Eve will ever end up blogging about the prospect of keeping the good ideas that the Enlightenment has given us while ditching the bad; we briefly talked about this not too long ago and I wonder if she's made any progress since then).

Government must be something that is a reflection of, and intimately connected with, society. This is a natural human impulse that corresponds very well with the way we think about the world. Consider the way Americans think about their flag. It is a deep and powerful symbol that unites us with our fellow citizens, and we get very upset when it is shown disrespect. Government should have principles behind it, no argument there. However those principles only make sense if the importance of the people those principles apply to is first made crystal clear.

This is far from over, but this post has been long enough. Plus, I have to go. I'll continue this discussion of the power of symbol, the importance of society, the importance of a national narrative, and other related topics later.

I forgot to mention that the Yale Free Press's new issue has just been released. Check it out (it's a pdf file, though the link I've included is to the main YFP page, not the current issue).

Ah, sweet liberty.

Not only is Iraq free, but so am I. I had to pull three all-nighters this week (that's more academic all-nighters than I've ever pulled...combined) to hammer out three papers, one of which was a twenty page draft for a history seminar paper.

At least that's all taken care of. Now I can relax, and direct my mind to other things, like answering the questions I've posed to myself in previous bloggings.

I've also tried to add some links to some blogs my friends author. I'm a total computer illiterate, so I hope that works out all right.

It seems that the war is pretty much over.

Tonight during dinner, a group of anti-war students silently marched through Commons dining hall, their faces covered by black shawls. The one at the end of the procession held up a sign with "961" scrawled across it, a reference to the updated count of innocent Iraqi casualties.

It is unfortunate that such a protest would even seem necessary. The people of Iraq are ecstatic. A brutal dictator has finally fallen, and the Iraqi people are free. The same people who are cheering coalition forces and the very real prospects of a bright tomorrow are presumably the same people who have lost family and friends during Gulf War II. And yet they cheer anyway, because they realize that tyranny's days were counted, and that Saddam Hussein's time has just expired. Why can't more Americans realize that? Perhaps people should stop their stubborn and infantile opposition to all things connected to President Bush and his administration and try to understand just how wonderful this day is for children being born in Iraq right now, children that will never know what it is like to live under the regime of one of the twentieth century's greatest villains.

Congratulations to my New York Islanders, who smacked around the Ottawa Senators to win the first gave of that Stanley Cup Playoff series 3-0. Ottawa was the best team in the NHL this past season, but I think that the Islanders can win this series in seven games.

The Isles dominated in the faceoff circle, winning forty five and losing only twenty six. Goaltender Garth Snow was also brilliant between the pipes, stopping all twenty five shots he faced. This is exactly the momentum that the Isles need. They ended the regular season on a high note, and there are few shots in the arm less potent that shutting Ottawa out on their home ice.

The Islanders are a team rich with tradition. At the beginning of each home game the big screen will show a video montage of the team’s highlights, centering on their four consecutive Stanley Cup victories from 1980-1983. I get goose bumps every time I see that video.

It is this tradition that has sustained the Islanders for the past decade. The 90s were tough, with the Isles consistently coming up short and failing to make it to the playoffs. However, players and fans alike could not help but be heartened by looking up into the rafters of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and seeing four championship banners hanging proudly. Adjacent to these hang banners commemorating the retirements of the numbers of several former Islanders; I was at the Coliseum the night Clark Gilles’s number 9 was retired, and it was a sight to behold. Fathers leaned over to their sons and recounted stories about the golden years. Sons watched the banner slowly rise to the banners and wondered when they would see such sights as their fathers beheld. Fans reverently removed their hats in honor of the men who put their bodies on the line night after night in their pursuit of excellence and the immortality that comes with undying glory.

Last year the Isles made it to the playoffs for the first time since 1994 (where they were swept by the New York Rangers in the quarterfinals) and lost a heartbreaking series to the Toronto Maple Leafs in the seventh and decisive game. The New York Islanders now stand on the verge of adding to their already enviable list of achievements as a franchise. A new group of heroes stand ready in the wings, waiting for their turn to enter the Pantheon and join the ranks of the immortals.

We shall see.

I’m a student at a pretty liberal university. There have been a lot of bright yellow flyers floating around campus lately; in their latest instantiation "899" is starkly emblazoned in large black numerals on the yellow paper. The 899 stands for the number of Iraqi casualties that have resulted from errant bombs and missles used by coalition forces during Gulf War II. Students who oppose the war seize on such numbers and use them to argue that our war of liberation is just a callous attempt at an oil grab, civilian lives be damned. The anti-war right has seized on such numbers, as well as on the story of an Iraqi boy who was hurt by an errant missile; this piece by Joe Sobran is just one of the latest along these lines. Call it the straw that broke the camel’s back.

First off, the death or injury of any innocent person is wholly regrettable. Words cannot even begin to describe how horrible such events are. Yet such injustices were being perpetrated every day when Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq. Read this article on the torture chambers that coalition forces have been finding. Think about the warehouse full of human remains that coalition forces recently found (when I find the article I’ll link to it). When Saddam Hussein kills or hurts innocent Iraqis, he does so to shore up his power base and instill more fear into the hearts of the people. Most importantly, and most disturbingly, he kills so he can live to kill another day.

The deaths that coalition forces are responsible for, on the other hand, are very unfortunate accidents. Yes, we are in Iraq to eliminate a national security threat, but in doing so we are freeing an entire nation of subjugated people (those who think that our humanitarian intentions are just a ploy should realize that politics is a messy business; as a practical and factual matter states just cannot go around dealing with every humanitarian disaster that should arise, rather they need to be motivated by some pressing national interest, and if said interest corresponds to the righting of some broader injustice that's wonderful). The important difference between America and Saddam Hussein’s regime (and I really hate it when people try to talk about some sort of moral equivalency between President Bush and Dictator Hussein) is that when we kill innocent Iraqi civilians we don’t mean to. In fact, we do our best to avoid civilian deaths; the more people alive to enjoy the fruits of a free Iraq the better.

Honestly, compare Gulf War II to other wars fought with a similar goal in mind—the toppling of a regime. The amount of innocent blood that has been split has been miniscule compared to past wars. Coalition forces are not carpet bombing any cities, nor are they being cruel to civilians on the ground. For that we have technology and the current administration to thank (one of the most heartening developments about this war is the refusal of any official to refer to the civilian dead as “collateral damage,” a phrase I heard way too often in years and administrations past).

Pray for our troops (particularly those who have fallen), pray for the Iraqi people (particularly those who have been killed or injured), and pray for a just order to finally take hold in Iraq.

I should be reading Carl Schmitt right now, but I’ve decided to take a break and post my substantial blog entry.

For those who don’t know, Metallica will be releasing its newest album this summer, on June 10th. A review of the album, titled St. Anger, has been circulating, and can be found here. I for one hope sincerely hope that the review is real, and not just a hoax or an attempt to boost sales. Its basic message is that the new album will be raw and progressive, a far cry from some of the more pop-oriented and unoriginal material the band has been putting out since the Black Album. It gives hope to all of those that think Metallica has “sold out” in recent years. Maybe one can finally see them in concert and not cringe when the group plays its newest material.

When it comes to judging a band in this way, making the claim that a group has “sold out” or not, one has to deal with a lot more questions than may be originally apparent. After all, any band worth its salt must evolve its sound in some way; otherwise, rather than degenerate into a pop act derivative of the drivel currently polluting the air-waves, it will degenerate into a lame—and poor—imitation of its previous self.

But what constitutes “legitimate” evolution? With a band, that question is fairly easy to answer. Current Metallica—a Metallica that will hopefully be put to sleep with the release of St. Anger—differs from its older instantiation in that the band’s music shows an increasing lack of complexity and ingenuity, seemingly for the sake of creating a product more palatable to the general public. Hence, we see songs like The Unforgiven II, which fails miserably when compared to The Unforgiven, and I Disappear, off the soundtrack to Mission: Impossible 2. Metallica has lost a passion and energy that had originally put them at the forefront of metal. That said, they are still much better than most of the other rock music being presented lately, especially what has come to be called “new metal,” a whiny and bland musical style characterized by weak musical arrangements which sound alike, singers that sound alike, and lyrics built around an infantile lack of positive and manly assertiveness. If you have any doubts, think back to the riots that plagued the most recent Woodstock festival, where hordes of cry-baby Abercrombie & Fitch wearing pansies burned and looted the festival grounds because they had tummy aches. Now compare that to Metallica’s early days, where band members had to endure such extreme poverty they were often forced to feast on bologna-on-hand (literally a slice of bologna on one’s hand, which is what one does when one is too poor to afford bread) while channeling that frustration into a conquer-the-world mentality—the fuel for the musical revolution they ushered in.

This reminded me of a conversation I recently had with a friend of mine. What constitutes “legitimate” evolution when one is talking about a state? To phrase the issue in more concrete terms, can America ever become un-American?

The long discussion of Metallica should shed some light on the issue. The moral of the story is that institutions have essences, and that sometimes an institution can evolve in such a way as to contradict said essence. Of course, difficulties arise when attempting to discover the essence of a given polity. Not only does a polity transcend any single generation of men, but its constantly shifting position on the sliding scale of time necessitates change, often of a drastic kind, to ensure its survival. Though it is cliché to say it, politics is the art of the possible, and the world of possibility poses major problems for anyone with a politically traditionalist bent. It is a fine line that lies between a respect for tradition and an unfounded romanticism, a line I have often pole-vaulted over.

Such considerations must wait for another time. Mr. Schmitt sternly calls my name. Even world-conquerors are bound by their studies in youth.

It begins...

When Alexander was my age he was getting ready to end the Persian Wars once and for all and eliminate Greece's old enemy. Let us hope this humble endeavor may have as positive an outcome.