The hits just keep on coming.

Some doctors want to figure out a way to take eggs from aborted girls and use them to impregnate sterile women.

My favorite part of the article is this statement from some doctors who decided to look into the ethics of such a procedure:

"After a public consultation, we decided that it would be difficult for any child to come to terms with being created using aborted foetal material because of prevailing social attitudes."

That's priceless. I like the subtle move to turn revulsion at this idea into "prevailing social attitudes." In what sort of society, pray tell, would we find a person so callous that he is perfectly content to hear that his mother was killed off before she ever had the chance to take her first breath.

This is a particularly sticky situation for advocates of abortion. It's a bit hard to deny personhood to a creature with the ability to procreate (albeit in a very odd way). Plus, how do you justify the girl's death to her son or daughter if she was healthy enough to pass on her genes?

If this isn't enough for you, check out these stomach-turning rituals that women are now using to somehow cleanse themselves of the decision to abort their children. There's so much guilt here, and yet such a phony attempt to push it aside using the rhetoric of potential life and what it, let's face it, really stupid and shallow symbolism.

(Both links via Catholic and Enjoying It)

This is so typical.

Why is every criticism of Israel turned into anti-Semitism. It's disingenuous, evasive, and cowardly to respond to valid questions with the bigotry card.

The disaster that is California politics.

If I may paraphrase Reagan: if California has a budget deficit of $38 billion it's not that she's taxing too little, but rather that she's spending too much.

Some quotes by the 20th century's greatest (and best) president, Ronald Reagan.

Let us hope that another with such political courage and soundness of thought makes his presence felt on the world's stage. The sooner the better.

Tolkien remembered.

(Via Lew Rockwell)

I appreciate the piety, but there are so many awe-inspiring miracles out there that aren't so dubious. Why don't people flock to, and publicize, those?

Care for an example? Read this.

If there are any genuine miracles out there, this is it. It is predictable and regular (takes place every Orthodox Easter), and anyone willing to make the trip to Jerusalem can see it. I would like to see at least once before I die.

I also think it is quite interesting that only the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem has the authority to call upon the Holy Fire. Muslim invaders have tried and failed. The Latin Patriarch (installed around the time of the Fourth Crusade and the first Fall of Constantinople) also cannot perform the miracle. It's a pleasant shot in the arm for one's faith.

Very good piece on homosexuality by John Derbyshire of National Review. A quote:

In this sense, the problem is not homosexuals or homosexuality. I am sure that God loves homosexuals and has a purpose for them. (I even think that their prowess in the "caring professions" offers some clue as to what that purpose might be.) The problem is the sexual revolution. The problem is hedonism. The problem is the preening vanity and selfishness of "coming out," of parading private inclinations, of a kind that repel normal people, as if those inclinations were, all by themselves, marks of authenticity and virtue, of suffering and oppression. A large part of the problem, too, is "heterophobia" — the dislike, mistrust, and contempt which many homosexuals feel towards normal people.

(I found this on the Orthodoxy Today site).

Good grief.

Well, maybe this quiz has a point...

(Quiz via Zorak)

You're France!

Most people think you're snobby, but it's really just that
you're better than everyone else.  At least you're more loyal to the real
language, the fine arts, and the fine wines than anyone else.  You aren't
worth beans in a fight, unless you're really short, but you're so good at other
things that it usually doesn't matter.  Some of your finest works were
intended to be short-term projects.
Take the Country Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid

A very thought-provoking series of essays on the unfortunate Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

I imagine I'll blog on these issues soon enough. I've had religious questions on the brain lately, which have distracted me from my promised posts on politics (say that three times fast), which will come eventually.

The NYC public school system is a failure? You don't say!

The Court has ordered the government to come up with a blueprint to fix the problem by next summer. Well, I have one word that will do the job:

PRIVATIZATION!

The argument against private schools on the basis of expense if wrong. If we get rid of public education, we all save lots of tax money, which parents can then use to fund their children's education. Further, because of the naturally high demand for education, owners of schools will be compelled to offer reasonable tuition rates.

The computer market is a wonderful example. Demand for the machines is incredibly high, yet prices keep dropping while computing power keeps increasing. Manufacturers realize that the money is in selling more machines at a low price, not in selling a few machines at a high price. Similarly, school administrators will air on the side of reasonable tuition. If they don't, they will go out of business, because parents will turn to the school that gives them more value for their dollar.

Further, the private sector has already shown its better at education than public schools. What are more and more kids enrolled in state-funded schools doing? They're signing up for private programs that teach them to read, write, etc. (things public schools are increasingly unable to do).

Private schools can also do something unheard of in public education: teach sound values. Tired of schools that not only fail to teach kids the basic but cram a liberal agenda down their throats (I can't even count the times I've heard of school sponsored gay days programs and the like)? Wouldn't it be nice to have a place to send your kids where they not only learn for a change, but do so in a decent environment?

If only there was a way to take advantage of this opportunity in New York to do something good for the City's school-going children...

A pizza place hired a homeless man to hold a sign.

Interesting idea. Don't miss the quote by the guy who wants these homeless people to be paid minimum wage. Doesn't he realize that, if the minimum wage was in effect, no homeless people would be hired at all.

A review of The Passion, the much-maligned upcoming Mel Gibson movie about Christ's Passion. It sounds very good. I will certainly go see it.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It; see, I can be ecumenical).

Here's Cacciaguida on the Lawrence sodomy laws case.

Glad to know civilization is alive and well.

Barbarians.

A good alternative to a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, courtesy of Congressman Ron Paul.

It's a shame that more federal officials don't think like him.

Oh my.

Scroll down to the end of the article for an extra special quote that will make you gag.

Also, read Former-President Clinton's thoughts on affirmative action. I agree that we need better schools for urban and otherwise poorer kids; I disagree that spending is the issue.

At least Clinton can imagine a world without affirmative action, something increasingly few have the mental dexterity to do it seems.

Too bad more people aren't honest enough to focus on the real trouble facing this country (a poor education system); instead, politicians gain votes by supporting the panaceas of affirmative action and other nonsense.

Interesting essay on the strong link between homosexuality and pedophilia. A bit disgusting, though, by its very nature

I really resent the constant references to ancient Greece. It seems the gay movement makes more appeals to that time in history than any other group (sad commentary on the state of civilization, isn't it?).

Here's an article debunking the "common knowledge" that homosexuality was a regular and accepted part of ancient Greek civilization.

I hate taking the bus, or the subway for that matter.

Here's a situation I find myself encountering way too often (this morning, for instance):

I take my seat on the bus, and lazily rub the sleep from my eyes. It's way too early, and I hope I can at least have a comfortable ride to work.

My shoulders are fairly wide, so I tend to overhang a bit into the next seat.

Anyway, I'm sitting there and some very large woman lumbers towards me (I really do encounter more morbidly obese women than men). She decides to sit next to me. So, she begins to slide in towards the seat adjacent to me. In the process, her extra-wide posterior comes to a momentary stop on my shoulder.

Like a running back stiff-arming through a defensive line, the woman's downward momentum drives through my shoulder. She ends up sitting comfortable, while one of my shoulders is now lower than the other.

I really hate public transportation.

Last night, while watching the local CBS evening news, I was shocked to see a story about Manhattan residents complaining about the recent wave of construction in the city.

Most people are not aware of this, but the real estate business is literally keeping the US economy from sinking. Yes, construction sights can be a little noisy and dirty, but wait until the shiny new building opens for business. Plus, think of how many steelworkers, etc. have honest work in the meantime.

What really got to me, though, was that one NYC Councilwoman suggested that the real issue was planning. She is upset that so many projects are going on simultaneously.

So are we to create a new local or federal bureaucracy dedicated to keeping an eye on construction sites and making sure that only a certain number are open at any given time?

Balderdash. Waves of construction happen for a reason: there is a demand for new real estate. Staggering permits would only slow down economic progress, which the US and NY especially need nowadays.

I hate stupidity combined with a proclivity to support more regulation (or do I repeat myself?). This is exactly like horse buggy owners asking the government to intervene because too many jobs were being lost to those new fangled autos (I doubt this actually happened, though given today's political climate it certainly would).

I saw a very fun show on the Discovery Channel last night, on Greek fire.

Besides being very cool (what's not to love about jets of billowing flame directed against enemy ships?) it was a very timely invention, one that saved the Byzantine Empire from the first jihad in the eight and ninth centuries (yes, jihad is that old; Mohammed and his immediate successors were the first to prosecute holy wars, it's not a modern perversion of that great religion of peace).

Were it not for Greek fire, Muslims would have swept into Europe, and Christianity would have effectively died. Italy could not have had long without a Constantinople to defend her (and should the Muslims have encountered resistance they would not have stopped as they did at Poitiers; they would have worked harder for the Mediterranean than they did for more northern territories).

It really is a shame that Byzantium fell at all. Chronicles from the West spoke very highly of the state of education among the Byzantines (one traveler remarked that when he went to the barber he debated the Trinity and that when he went to the butcher he debated the Incarnation; sophisticated philosophical/theological dialogue was apparently quite widespread).

The balance between Church and state was also quite sophisticated (it neither went too far in the direction of the state controlling the Church, nor did the Church acquire too much temporal power as in the West; both spheres remained powerful and interrelated).

Byzantium never fostered the diseased strains of thought that prospered in the West: it never had an Enlightenment, and it never had a Reformation.

Who knows how history would have turned out had Tuesday May 29th, 1453 been just another regular day in Constantinople?

This is so disgusting.

Scroll down to the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson's comments on Justice Clarence Thomas. Is it inclusive and tolerant to say that conservative blacks "aren't my kind?"

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post today. Blackness, as these liberals understand it anyway, leaves no room for ideological heterodoxy. If you aren't a loyal Democrat you are somehow not an authentic black person.

Get in line, and check your individual will at the door. Dissent will not be tolerated.

Why is it that, so often, conservatives are just liberals by another name?

Rather than fight against the ever-expanding power of the state in order to uphold the action of individual actors, families, and communities "conservatives" clamor for new federal laws outlawing this and prohibiting that. When the Republican Party accepted the Religious Right and left libertarianism by the wayside, they accepted a group just as zealous to legislate, and destroy everything that makes conservatism wonderful, as the most extreme liberals.

Yup, and I am a monarchist. I will explain why a king would be much more libertarian than a Congress, and why monarchy may be the West's only hope.

But that will have to wait.

By the way, I use the word libertarian in a very narrow way, not in the social-libertarian-let's-destroy-the-foundations-of-civilization kind of way. I mean the community-is-prior-to-the-state kind of way.

The Supremes have spoken; by a vote of 5-4 the Court upheld affirmative action as a valid variable in admissions.

Once again, the justices stopped short of supporting quotas, arguing that giving preference to under-represented groups is alright, though.

Just what does that mean, exactly? How do we define a group as being under-represented? Presumably, we have some idea of the ideal number that group should consist of; we have some idea of the cut-off point that divides under- from sufficiently-represented groups.

That is not a quota...how?

Distinctions between affirmative action and racial quotas are garbled and deceptive.

There was a time when hard work was valued in itself. There was a time when groups that were discriminated against fought back and clawed their way to the top. Look at Jews, the Irish, Greeks, Russians, Chinese, the list goes on. All were discriminated against (yes, white people discriminate against white people; and, Orientals have the same problem as blacks in that they are clearly and obviously physically different than whites and cannot hide by simply changing their names) and yet all are quite successful nowadays.

Why? Because success was never a right. Because these groups did not feel the need to have a nanny state intercede for them and force the nation to accept them. They worked for what they earned.

Yes, blacks do work for what they earn as well, but affirmative action negates that effort. Thanks to the system created to overcome discrimination, seeing a black man or a woman (or whatever under-represented group the government is helping out) in a university library or corporate boardroom cannot help but prompt the question "does he really deserve to be here, or is he just here because the law says he should?"

Instead of judging people as individuals, affirmative action forces society to see people as part of yet another under-represented racial/ethnic/whatever group.

Yet not only does it rob people of their individual dignity; it robs these groups of their self-respect. What affirmative action says, in a nutshell, is "you are impotent; you cannot succeed on your own; you need the law to help you succeed where you would otherwise fail; let mommy get that for you."

How patronizing.

Apologies for the lack of posts lately. I've been at home, wasting away with a fever of 103, headaches, upset stomach, you name it.

In short: worst sickness ever.

At least I got to play a little Vice City. Fun game.

I came across this interesting exchange in an article at Orthodoxy Today:

"A number of years ago, a woman called on the writer, stating that she had become pregnant much against her wishes, and earnestly desired that an abortion should be produced. The following conversation ensued:—

“Why do you desire the destruction of your unborn infant?”

“Because I already have three children, which are as many as I can properly care for; besides, my health is poor, and I do not feel that I can do justice to what children I now have.”

“Your chief reason, then, is that you do not wish more children?”

“Yes.”

“On this account you are willing to take the life of this unborn babe?”

“I must get rid of it.”

“I understand that you have already borne three children, and that you do not think you are able to care for more. Four children are, you think, one too many, and so you are willing to destroy one. Why not destroy one of those already born?”

“Oh, that would be murder!”

“It certainly would, but no more murder than it would be to kill this unborn infant. Indeed, the little one you are carrying in your womb has greater claims upon you than the little ones at home, by virtue of its entire dependence and helplessness. It is just as much your child as those whose faces are familiar to you, and whom you love.”

That's a very good point. Isn't it odd that on the one hand human helplessness justifies exorbitant social welfare programs to ameliorate the suffering of the poor and the disabled and those who generally cannot scrape by on their own. However, an extreme form of that helplessness in the form of an unborn child is precisely the reason many give to justify extinguishing that life.

Honestly, those who make claims about the dependency of the unborn on their respective mothers should take a look around. All people till at least the age of fifteen are helpless in their own way: physically, to the extent that the young cannot make a living for themselves, and psychologically because the complexity of our societies takes years to comprehend, let alone master. Try finding another creature with as long a childhood as humans enjoy.

Abortion proponents make a fundamental mistake, confusing essences and accidents. For some reason they want to claim that physical size, development, etc. are all determinative of one's humanity. How is that any different than Hitler claiming that those with hooked noses or those doomed to spend life in a wheelchair are fit to be destroyed?

As I type I'm listening to the new Metallica album, St. Anger.

Despite the objections of some, I think it's actually a pretty good album. I'll be brief until I have time to write a more substantial review, but in a nutshell St. Anger is a lot more authentic that Metallica's last few albums. While Reload and such (I almost feel bad about linking to such a bad album) seemed to be centered around a formulaic commercial appeal, St. Anger actually has a deep and heartfelt emotional dimension. One of the overriding themes of this new work is that anger "sets one free." Free, I think, of the commercial box Metallica has been in for so long.

Still, this lacks the polish and sophistication of Metallica's earlier work (like Ride the Lightning, which could be my favorite album of theirs). Plus, guitarist Kirk Hammett has refused to do solos, arguing that he doesn't need to prove he can pull a blistering guitar solo off anymore. What? Should Beethoven have stopped after the 5th, or the 3rd for that matter (Eroica is a lot of fun). That's such a lame shank attitude.

Regardless, the sound has a pretty good instrumental quality to it. I'd like Metallica to compose another thoroughly instrumental piece (no words at all, like Orion or To Live is to Die; few bands out there could pull that off, it's hard to hold a listener's attention for nine minutes if you can't rely on cheap repetitive riffs), though to do that Kirk will have to stop being such a fool.

Based on this album, I have high hopes for their next one (should it materialize). If Metallica can take the intensity of St. Anger and channel it more thoroughly, they will be able to make music that will rival their classic material.

Socialism's creeping down...

People are now seriously considering e-mail and internet taxes. Here's an interesting article with some counterarguments.

I was watching a show on MTV yesterday on the soon-to-be-released movie, Hulk. This is just the latest in a series of super hero themed movies.

I used to read comic books as a kid (I stopped after the notorious death of Superman; that really annoyed me). I still appreciate the concept of a super hero: the larger than life character that stands up for truth and justice.

However, who we turn into super heroes today is quite interesting. Ancient super heroes, the heroes of mythology, actually had a foundation in truth. Check out this page and look over Plutarch's biography of Theseus (in it he mentioned Hercules, another classical hero; Plutarch wrote a biography of the latter but it didn't survive). Also, I recall reading in the papers a few years ago that archeologists found evidence that points to the real Odin, who we should all know is the chief god in the Norse pantheon (Norse mythology is really cool, by the way; read some if you haven't already; as a kid I read the same Norse mythology book at least once a summer; I think it was this book here, but without looking at the cover I can't be sure).

It strikes me as odd that our super heroes nowadays are rarely human. They're mutants. Punisher and Batman are rare exceptions, but other than those two I can't think of a single super hero that doesn't have some sort of genetic twist or odd ability.

I'm not quite sure why that is. Perhaps it's due to our technocentric/utopian/transhumanist leanings. Perhaps it's due to ethical and cultural relativism (we no longer concern ourselves with the perfection of man qua man, since people increasingly don't believe in such a concept, so why set up models of men who approach perfection?). Perhaps it's due to the fact that blood is no longer seen as being important (each nation had its own heroes that were viewed as ancestors of a sort).

The question is doubly perplexing because we Americans do have modern day heroes (the subjects of tall tales). However, we just don't talk about them anymore. I remember reading about Davie Crocket (Disney had a series dedicated to him in the 60s; my dad showed me reruns of it growing up) and something Henry (I forget his first name, the guy who worked on railways and raced a rail machine), yet those who've grown up since I did in the 80s haven't been exposed to these latter-day heroes.

The Founding Fathers seemed to be on the verge of being made heroes for some time (in the tradition of Lycurgus or Solon), yet that's been fading as best I can tell. Perhaps we've reached the point where popular memory has faded enough such that they can finally make the jump to mythos. Either that or people just don't care about the American founding or its principles anymore (which is more likely).

Any thoughts?

Islam, religion of peace (via Cacciaguida).

Following in Zorak's footsteps, I got my own scam e-mail. I'm tempted to respond and mess with this Mr. Zingawa.

ATTN: sir/madam,
I am a member of the contract award committee,federal ministry
of
petroleum and
resources,Nigeria. I am in search of an agent to assist us in
transfer
of

(USD35m)and subsequent investment in properties in your country,
you
will be required to
(1) Assist in the transfer of the said sum

(2) Advise on lucrative area for investment
(3) Assist us in purchase of properties.
(4) send me your banking details,home address and private
telephone/fax
number

If you decide to render your service to us in this regard, 15% of
the
total

sum of the above will be for you, and 10% for any expenses
incured
during the process.

Please if you are interested kindly sent an email to me so that i
can
give you the modalities.
Alternative Email:(martzing3@caramail.com)
Yours faithfully,

MARTIN ZINGAWA
Fax:234 1 7599389.

"It is in this sense that the statement 'being that can be understood is language' is to be read. It does not mean that one who understands has an absolute mastery over being but, on the contrary, that being is not experienced where something can be constructed by us and is to that extent conceived; it is experienced where what is happening can merely be understood."

-Hans-Georg Gadamer

I was also watching C-SPAN this morning (which I often do; it's fun to hear the crazy people call in and rant on and on about their wacky theories), and saw a woman who heads a group dedicated to the preservation of Social Security and Medicate. As a sophomore I rebutted a congresswoman at a Yale Political Union debate (I forget who) who was defending those programs, and to this day I've yet to hear a good counter-argument to my points.

First of all, when Social Security was created few people lived to the retirement age at which you could start receiving your benefits. That's why it was such a light burden of tax payers: old people had plenty of young people around to support them. As time passed, the number of old people grew, leading us to the situation we're at now. The program will go bankrupt very quickly because people don't pay into their own personal accounts, they're paying for the previous generation. If there are ever too many old people relative to the workers still paying into Social Security (we're getting there), the system falls apart.

Plus, centralized benefit plans like this cannot work, period (here's a good essay on universal health care from mises.org; this is an issue which is fast becoming a campaign topic for Democratic presidential hopefuls). There are plenty of articles out there about the mess that the Canadian health care industry has become. Why is that whenever a rich foreigner gets sick he always comes to America for health care despite the universal systems that might be in place in his own country?

People need to have a health dose of faith in the free market. Look at computers, and how the market has allowed them to get ever cheaper despite the fact that computers are better and faster than ever. Look at ebay, which is wildly popular and a center for good and responsible transactions despite the fact that it's unregulated. People can usually manage just fine when they're left to their own devices. It's about time people realized that.

While getting ready for work this morning (with the TV on, of course) I stumbled across an infomercial for some new motivational speaker/pseudo-guru. The ad featured clips of him lecturing large crowds and a voice over that praised his wisdom and inspirational ability or something.

The kicker is that this guy was spouting common sayings, that's it. He was walking around on stage telling people that "the best way to know how your spouse will treat you in the future is to see how he treats his parents now." I've heard that, and the other words that came out of his mouth, hundreds of times. Have we become so alienated from the past that a guy can bottle what people used to hear from their parents and grandparents and actually sell it to an eager public? It's positively shameful that folk sayings and common colloquialisms no longer belong to the folk and the common people, but are now yet another fad product people buy over the telephone.

Another article via Marcus. Here's a brief excerpt (you can find the article here):

"BUT THIS intellectual victory for the dynamic duo didn't resolve the tension between them. Democracy presumes and enshrines equality. Capitalism not only presumes but requires and produces inequality. How can you have a society based on equality and inequality at the same time? The classic answer is that democracy and capitalism should reign in their own separate “spheres” (philosopher Michael Walzer’s term). As citizens, we are all equal. As players in the economy, we enjoy differing rewards depending on our efforts, talents, or luck."

I haven't read the rest yet, but this paragraph speaks for itself. I don't know if the author doesn't realize that he's using the word "equality" in two very different context or if he's like most people and doesn't understand democracy.

Democracy does presuppose equality, but it's one of the dignity of all citizens (Christianity took care of that back in the days of kings and queens better than democracy does nowadays, but anyway...). Capitalism only presupposes an inequality of outcome, but even then it is geared towards the collective improvement of man's physical well-being. Sure, we still have rich and poor people in the 21st century. However, the poorest American still lives better than kings did just a few centuries ago.

Thanks to Marcus Tullius Cicero for blogging about some new findings relating child smoking to movie viewing (I had seen this report on the news last week, but forgot to blog about it).

This just seems so unscientific. There's one variable here that nobody has taken into account. If someone is smoking in a movie, chances are that it doesn't have a PG rating. These 10-14 year olds are probably watching movies with an R rating, stuff that's a bit too mature for them at their age. The sorts of kids that usually watch such movies do so unsupervised (it's rare that kids watch these movies with their parents, though some do). In other words, these kids aren't more likely to smoke because they watch movies where smoking takes place. They're more likely to smoke because of the lack of structure in their homes, because their parents give them the freedom at a very young age to go out and do what they like. I knew quite a few kids like that growing up, and most didn't end up very well.

Of course, that is the question of modernity. How do we, in the face of undesirable change, return to a simpler and truer time?

Tolkien maintains that we never really can return. His characters say over and over that a new Age is dawning, that Middle-Earth will never be the same again.

This is an important and difficult question for people like me, especially, who would like to see a lot of the past three or four centuries (if not more) repudiated and must resist the temptation to turn romantic and simply turn back the clock. Though certain ages ought be overcome, they must be recognized as having existed and as having influenced current understandings of existence. It is a difficult task to achieve a new synthesis, because of the detached way people have learned to view their own times (see my post on VH-1 and the 80s), but it must be done.

With all this in mind I started Truth and Method today. Gadamer seeks to answer these hermeneutic questions of historical consciousness and a understanding in and of time. It should be tough to follow, but it should be fun. I have been thinking about these questions for a long time now, and I found that I lacked the philosophical vocabulary to prode deeply enough, so hopefully Gadamer will be of service.

I just finished reading The Lord of the Rings yesterday. It is a great novel, one of my all-time favorites. It's a wonderful study of human psychology (both its strengths and weaknesses) and human society. The struggle of each character who encounters The One Ring is gripping; their pain and weakness before its temptation really hits home for those who have ever reflected on the experience of sin. The implausible victory of some characters over the will of the Ring is impressive, while the failure of others is equally disturbing to read about.

The political dimension was also fascinating. It's an overtly monarchist book, which I can appreciate wholeheartedly. The theme of the relationship between the mechanics of government with the society it oversees is wonderfully illustrated and embodied in the person of the restored King who, once he assumes power, rules with a merciful hand because his realm is his, because he loves his realm and his subjects as they love him.

The Lord of the Rings is not an argument against power, but it does show corrupt forms of rule. The characters of Sauron and Saruman are prime examples: when the War of the Ring finally begins they show a complete disregard for the lives of their men/orcs and consider them expendable resources to be used in the quest for power. Aragorn the King was literally born for the throne; as such his conception of himself rested on his subjects and their well-being. That is why so many thinkers have compared a monarchy to a family; just as a father is unlikely to harm his family because he is defined in them and through them, so is a king unlikely to harm his subjects because he is defined in them and through them. Compare this to Sauron and Saruman, who define themselves through their own personal lust for power.

There is a very interesting communal/traditional/libertarian theme running through the novel. The final chapters, where Frodo and his fellow hobbits return to the Shire, illustrate this theme. Whereas the Shire was once governed by influence (the young respected the old, and all respected the ways of their fathers and the authority of a few Shiriffs) the hobbits returned to see their home governed by agents of Sauron. Their purpose was to the squeeze the Shire, to take from it as much as they could. These evil men achieved their purpose by drafting an ever-increasing code of draconian laws (it reminds of that old saying by, I think, Tacitus, that the more laws a government has the more corrupt it has become, or something to that effect). The living relationship that the hobbits had with their past was destroyed. It was precisely that respect for tradition that was their only guarantor of peace and prosperity.

That is what Aragorn the King represents. Human tradition lives in him and his line. Though he defended his kingdom with his sword Narsil (or Anduril) he did not rule by it, as only a true king would.

Congratulations to the New Jersey Devils for winning yet another Stanley Cup. I'm an Islander fan, it's true, but the Devils were the most local team in the Finals, so I had to root for them. Plus, I'm a huge fan of Martin Brodeur (I predicted a 4-0 win in Game 7, and it would have been so had Turner Stevenson not prematurely celebrated a goal; the puck danced along the red line and was swept away as he skated by, celebrating a goal that wasn't).

Even though Mighty Ducks' goalie Jean-Sebastian Giguere won the Conn Smythe trophy as the playoffs' Most Valuable Player, Brodeur showed how great he is by registering his third shutout of the series. Giguere deserved the honor, as the Ducks would not have made it to the Finals without him, but Brodeur proved that he's the best goalie in hockey; the fact that he recorded a shutout in Game 7 after being pulled during Game 6 (a miserable Devil's loss) shows true championship form.

It should be said that the Ducks did a lot for hockey in California. The last (and first) time California hockey got such a shot in the arm was when Wayne Gretzky led the LA Kings to the Finals in 1993). The fact that this team can now be mentioned in the same sentence as "Stanley Cup" and "Wayne Gretzky" is no small achievement.

Fun little essay (alright, it's quite big actually) on Christianity and political liberalism.

From the mises.org blog, a little blurb on a job Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had as a youngster, and how far the dollar has depreciated since then (due in large part to the Fed itself).

My trip to Gracie Mansion yesterday was pretty fun. This Sunday is the annual Puerto Rican Day parade, and it was last night that the mayor formally issued the proclamation recognizing the day. If got to have my picture taken with the mayor; it was very sterile, assembly line fashion, a brief smile and shake of the hand and then you were sent on your way. Chi Chi Rodriguez was there, and will be the parade's Grand Marshall. I've seen way too many of his late night infomercials for those magnetic bracelets he sells.

I'm not sure how much I approve of the concept of national days being officially recognized. I don't attend any parades, not even the annual Greek Independence Day parade. Though community pride and loyalty is valuable, the rhetoric and attitude I felt (and generally feel during such events) is very segregationist. I don't approve of the use of Spanish coming from the mayor's podium, because it's inherently directed to a small audience (though one getting bigger all the time; about 40% of the kids in New York City's public schools are of Mexican or Central or South American descent). I wish people could strike a better balance and remain true to their roots in a way that didn't seem (on its surface anyway) to contradict loyalty to America.

That said I had a nice time and met some very good people. Afterwards my godfather and I went to dinner with a friend of his, a very nice old man who told me stories about his youth and how he worked hard to make it here in America. When I inquired about the Masonic ring on his left pinkie finger, he promised to tell me about the misunderstanding that had developed between the Masons and the Catholic Church and how the rift was healing. He assured me that the Masons aren't the anti-Christians they are rumored to be, and that he finds them to be a good bunch of guys. I've heard so many negative things that I'll be glad to hear another take from one in the organization.

I told him that I belonged to a similar group, an undergraduate debate society. He's heard of us (which surprised me) and had nothing but nice things to say about the group and its strength and influence.

Today the nation remembers the brave men who fell during the invasion of Normandy.

Today another name was added to the terrible register of the dead. My maternal grandmother passed away this morning at around 4:30. She was a wonderful woman, largely responsible for raising me as a child (along with my grandfather) while my parents were struggling at work trying to make ends meet. A little more than ten years ago, if memory serves, she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and slowly drifted away. She was in a nursing home for the past few years (my grandfather lived with us for a while before he died of cancer in 1993; it was then that my grandmother started getting worse, so we tried to have her live with us, but since my parents were away at work all day it made things rather complicated; they hired a stay at home nurse for the daytime, but none of them could be trusted, as we soon found out, and so my parents decided she'd be better off at a nursing home, though the workers there weren't that much better). She was in the hospital for the past few months, her brain so mangled by the disease that all she could do was lie in bed and moan incoherently. I visited her once during spring break, and that was difficult enough. My mother visited her constantly; she has a depth of strength I'll never have.

I wish I could remember my grandmother better (along with my grandfather, for that matter). Looking back I have just a few memories of her, and even those are very general. I remember her drawer full of candy (after immigrating to America she developed a bit of a sweet tooth), and how she was always giving me lollipops and those little striped candy cane mints. I remember her cooking: it was always meat and potatoes for me. I have more memories of my grandfather, but that's because my father talked about him quite a bit after he died.

So now my father and his two parents are gone. All that remains from that immediate family is my uncle. Yet I can't help but think that, regardless, that family is gone entirely. My uncle was born in America, and never really experienced the life that the rest of his family knew. He doesn't have the same sort of connection with the people and culture, nor does he have the same sort of mastery of the old stories my father and grandparents knew. An entire history, a wealth of stories and anecdotes about my family is now gone forever. I guess the tie was really severed when my father passed back in January, since my grandmother was in no condition to communicate with us for some time now, but the realization didn't occur to me until I heard the news this morning.

I knew I'd never be able to trace my family back through time with the same sort of accuracy of others, but there were a lot of stories that my father had promised to tell me that he never had a chance to, and now I'll certainly never hear them. It's such an empty feeling, to be so painfully aware of the chasm that exists between yourself and all the years and people that have led up to you. My family's land was stolen by the Turks during the invasion of Cyprus, and those who were the last to live there are now passed. The knowledge of an entire bloodline and its significance is now lost forever, apart from the little I can recall if I search my mind hard enough (I've already told friends about the odd visions and such that are hereditary on my father's side). Plus, the line is now mine to continue (I was my parents' first child, my father was his parents' first child, and so forth as far back as my grandfather could count).

I humbly ask those who are so inclined to offer up prayers for my father and his parents today.

A good take on the newly passed ban of partial-birth abortions from quite an extraordinary guy, Congressman Ron Paul, a hardcore libertarian that actually gets elected...and then reelected!

I'm heading over to Gracie Mansion this evening for a bit of a soiree with Mayor Bloomberg and, I expect, Governor Pataki. I'll do my best to hold my tongue about these fascist smoking prohibitions that have lately come into fashion.

If memory serves the last time smoking was banned in New York was during the ill-conceived temperance movement of the late 19th century. Back then the underpinning of such measures was Puritanical religious fervor. Nowadays the underpinning is equally puritanical, yet the God of the Old and New Testaments has been replaced with the golden calf of health. I really hate the extremist health crazes that have been festering since the 1980s. If we're to ban anything it should be tofu and other such privations of the good.

I'm all for being healthy, certainly. However, it is wrong to exalt human life and health as the highest good. There are other concerns that are more pressing (virtue, anyone?). The mania about dieting and denying oneself any product that has even the slightest chance of hurting one physically is just the other side of the proclivity to support the distribution of condoms in schools, for instance (it doesn't matter what people do as long as they don't hurt their bodies in the process).

What's worse is that such movements coopt the universality of morality while doing away with its constraints. Today's exhortations to eat healthy and never smoke bear the same moral weight for many people as "though shalt honor thy father and thy mother" used to. Health is more than just a lifestyle for people. Weekly trips to church have been replaced with trips to the gym. The call to constant vigilance against temptation and evil has been replaced with a call to seek out the man disgusting enough to put a hamburger to his lips. A few days ago I walking with a group of friends, some of whom were smoking. We came to a stop in front of a rather mouth-watering bakery and looked into its windows. The people who were standing by the door talking immediately fled. One turned around and gave us a very dirty look, the sort you'd expect Hester Prynne to receive while wearing her scarlet "A." Generally speaking the difference between traditional morality and this new form is that old understandings took human nature and free will into account. Righteous actions were good only insofar as one chose to do them. No man could be coerced to do the good. The only good pressure to apply to the non-believer was shame. When it comes to matters of the body, though, and a group of fanatics who have set up the human form as their new Form of the Good, their materialist worldview does not prevent them from using the coercive power of the state to blur the distinction between public and private in the hopes of achieving the perfection they seek. (If you need a bit of reading and want to explore the issue of public and private space check out Hanna Arendt's Human Condition).

This is a very interesting article criticizing the Patriarch of Constantinople for not having his priorities straight. It's a feeling I've long had, though unfortunately never really looked into. Now that I do look over the Patriarchate's official website I do notice that pressing social and theological issues (everything from abortion to reunion with the Catholics) are ignored while plenty of speeches and interviews concerning environmentalism are linked to.

I recall hearing that the appointment of new Patriarchs is contingent on the approval of the Turkish government (sadly, Constantinople has had a heathen presence for some time now). Perhaps this is a proof of sorts.

A few nights ago a friend was telling me of how he despises John Kennedy for setting the precedent that no man who respects his Faith and his Pope can ever be President of these United States (his status as a Catholic was a big issue, and when asked Kennedy said he would put America above the Pope). We Orthodox have can sympathize, though our problems seem to be of a different sort.

What is the Matrix? Apparently a lot closer than we might have thought.

DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is working on a new project called Lifelog. The idea is to create a wearable computer that will assimilate all of your experiences and help you analyze and remember them. Check out the Washington Times, and DARPA's own website.

Spooky.

While flipping through the channels after work yesterday I made my way over to VH-1 and found one of their new "I Love the 80s" programs. Seeing shows like that is quite frustrating. They are symptomatic of a very damaging sort of historicism, akin to the blind sight of the Enlightenment. Just as Enlightenment thinkers "dared to know" and attempted to shake off the shackles of old prejudice that they might see the world for what it really is (when in fact their actions were like a cataract that slowly develops till it chokes out all rays of light), these current attempts at understanding the past are doomed to fail. Shows like "I Love the 80s" give us two options for understanding the past: it is either a laughable blunder to be treated as a kitschy plaything and ultimately forgotten, and even rebelled against; or it is an iconic exemplar viewed through the dim light of romanticism, a "classic" to be forever reproduced.

For the sake of grounding myself in examples while sticking to the VH-1 theme, I'll stick to music. A favorite example of forgettable musical is 80s hair metal. That label of forgettableness proved destructive; its label as a fad only prompted later fads. Hair metal prompted the flannel and whininess that was grunge and Generation X. Of course that all proved short lived, fashion- and music-wise.

On the flip-side there's this annoying recent 70s wave of music (the White Stripes and the Vines and other stuff I can't stand). It's so dreadfully imitative.

It is this lack of understanding of history as a continuum and our own times and selves and points sliding along the line that is behind our poor treatment of the elderly and other such inter-generational problems.

I'm presently finishing up the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy and will soon move to Gadamer's Truth and Method. The Old Oligarch sent me a few chapters last summer which I read and enjoyed, but now feel like tackling the whole thing.

So when am I going to make time to study for the LSATs?

Too bad the only choices are decades from this century. (Quiz via the Old Oligarch).





what decade does your personality live in?


quiz brought to you by lady interference, ltd

Figures. (Quiz via Zorak).


You are Neo, from "The Matrix." You
display a perfect fusion of heroism and
compassion.


What Matrix Persona Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla