Tellus liber sit...

Wow, so no one has posted in quite a long while. I don't want this place to die, so let's just think of something to discuss here, shall we?

Globalization. What do you all think about it? Collin and I discussed it a little bit at the Christmas party a few days ago, but would love to hear everyone's thoughts about it.

First, the abstract, "big idea" way in which I think about globalization is that its goal is to make the rest of the world more like the United States. This is, to me, unequivocally a good thing.

Second, the vast majority of people in the world benefit directly from globalization. You can take all the shots at Wal-mart you want, but they demonstrate all the positive aspects of globalization: lower prices for people here (especially low-income people) and a way for Third World workers to make money. Companies don't go overseas and engage in slave labor; they go overseas and offer people more money to work for them than they could make otherwise. Wal-mart may not pay typical American wages to workers in Honduras, but their jobs are keeping a lot of Latin Americans on their feet.

One complaint about globalization is that it causes America to lose jobs. Considering how many more jobs, even in manufacturing, we get from foreign companies than we lose to other countries, that's simply not true. Yes, America imports more than any other nation. Which nation is the world's biggest exporter? Also America. The fact is that America's going to have to stop artificially inflating the value of our labor; we have to curb labor unions and repeal environmental and minimum wage laws that force employers to pay workers more than their productivity would dictate. Right now, companies have to pay American workers more than they return in productivity; they still do it, for now, because American workers truly are much more productive than workers from other countries. But a market-based approach to making our workers more competitive is to bring our labor closer to its true market value by fighting labor unions.

The best strategy right now, I believe, is not simply to open up trade with everyone completely. America's exports and imports, not to mention our Treasury bonds, are important for every other country on the planet, and no one right no moreso than China. We should begin a new treaty organization that invites only those nations that abide by a certain code for humanitarianism and liberalism. Only nations that uphold freedom of religion, freedom of speech, guarantee fair trials, and so on can join. Nations that join will have complete free trade with us; nations that do not will have an embargo against them. This will be a powerful incentive for humanitarian and liberal nations to liberalize trade and for illiberal, cruel nations to improve their human rights.

Anyway, let me know what you think!

Sunday Morning Music

Hey guys, I'm back. And here's my discussion question:

What is the purpose of singing during a church service? I'm not criticizing singing during church, I'd just like to hear people's opinions about why we do it.

I, for example, would answer that singing is, as all things are, first of all supposed to constitute an act of worship. Secondly, it should teach; that is, the song should have some truth value and not be overly repetitive. Finally, I would say that although it's not wrong to feel something while you're singing, there is a definite problem with making feelings the main focus of any song. Recent trends in Christian music seem to favor fluff, repetition, and a desire to sound "modern" over any kind of deep truth content--David Crowder is a prime example of this problem. I think it promotes immature Christianity, and is a result of it. Trying to instill "feelings" of worship (as if worship were a feeling) is a good sign that you have no clue what real worship is all about.

Rest In Peace

I was thinking about the phrase "rest in peace." This phrase has always bothered me. In thinking about why it bothers me so much, this is what I wrote:

What does it mean to rest in peace? Does it mean an eternity of uninterrupted sleep? What useful purpose would that serve? Sleep is meant to refresh and revitalize us so that we can function properly when we're awake. As far as I'm concerned, I am asleep. For all of my life here on earth, I will be asleep.

Right now I rest in the peace I have in Jesus Christ. Once I reach Heaven, I can celebrate in the joy that I have in the Lord Most High. I do not intend on ever resting once I die. My plan is to sing, shout, and dance because my heart will be filled with utter joy. I will have a satisfaction that I will never experience here on earth, and I do not intend on taking that lying down.

Once I reach Heaven, my pain will be gone. Now that is something to rejoice over! I will no longer need rest because I will no longer be weary. I am weary right now. This is why I rest in the hope that I have in Jesus. But when I die, I will celebrate in the fact that my hardships are over, and my new life, the way it was meant to be, has begun.

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
Revelation 21:4

i got bored during linguistics this week... heh.

to consonants, a sonnet

a plethora of consonants abide
yet select few we boldly aspirate
the liquids, semi-vowels, a few glide
distinguished as we coarticulate

and then we come to basic allophones
which fill the classes of english phonemes
these unit sounds more frequently are known
in floods of sleeping modern linguist dreams

yet more to us the english language gives
this rhythmic noise, linguistically expressed
in affricates, the plosives, fricatives
oh, bursting air pulmonically egressed

i rest myself in consonantal bliss
as sounds pour out my facial orifice

An Excerpt from "Sense and Sensibility"

As I was reading Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen, I came across a passage that would have made me laugh out loud were it not for the fact that I was in the crowded hall laundry room. Although I did not write it myself, I thought that you, my intellectual friends, would greatly appreciate it.

"I think, Edward," said Mrs. Dashwood, as they were at breakfast the last morning, "you would be a happier man if you had any profession to engage your time and give an interest to your plans and actions. Some inconvenience to your friends, indeed, might result from it-you would not be able to give them as much of your time. But (with a smile) you would be materially benefitted in one particular at least-you would know where to go when you left them."

"I do assure you," he replied, "that I have long thought on this point as you think now. It has been, and is, and probably will always be, a heavy misfortune to me, that I have had no necessary business to engage me, no profession to give me employment, or afford me any thing like independence. But unfortunately my own nicety, and the nicety of my friends, have made me what I am, an idle, helpless being. We never could agree in our choice of a profession. I always preferred the church, as I still do. But that was not smart ehough for my family. They recommended the army. That was a great deal too smart for me. The law was allowed to be genteel enough: many young men, who had chambers in the Temple, made a very good appearance in the first circles, and drove about town in very knowing gigs [chic carriages]. But I had no inclination for the law, even in this less abstruse study of it, which my family approved. As for the navy, it had fashion on its side, but I was too old when the subject was first started to enter it; and, at length, as there was not necessity for my having any profession at all, as I might be as dashing and expensive without a red coat on my back as with one, idleness was pronounced on the whole to be the most advantageous and honourable, and a young man of eighteen is not in general so earnestly bent on being busy as to resist the solicitations of his friends to do nothing. I was therefore entered at Oxford, and have been properly idle ever since."

Seemingly Off-topic

I really like Jane's question and I would like to address it sometime. However, right now I am posting to ask you guys a question. It isn't for discussion per se, but it very well could be discussed anyhow. I am doing research for my work-study position (with College Ministries) on life groups in dormitories geared toward spiritual formation (like small groups). What are your campuses doing and is it effective? We currently have Life Groups which are formed according to dorms based largely on student leadership. We're trying to get ideas to spurr on the effectiveness of these groups, since they often peter out. Anyway, what does your college (or college ministry if you attend a non-Christian college as many of you do) have in place to facilitate spiritual growth? Any ideas would be fantastic. For intellectual discussion, what is the value of such ministries? Should they be mandatory or voluntary? How should they be encouraged?

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

so friends,

what is wisdom, and why are we to seek it?

An As Yet Untitled Story

I started writing this one night because I desperately wanted to have something to post on the blog that is fictional rather than political. It's just a rough draft, and keep in mind that I started writing it a one thirty in the morning. But what do you guys think?

As the dying man breathed out his final breath of air, David closed his friend’s eyes and remembered all that Michael had done for him. The two had been close friends since childhood. They met in middle school. David had always been shy, and people didn’t understand why he was so quiet. He usually preferred to be alone because he felt that no one would understand him if he tried talking to them. Why even try? He thought. They would just realize how boring and stupid I am. I have nothing to offer them. David continued to think this way until one winter day, a new kid showed up to school.
Michael was one of those kids that everyone wanted to have for a best friend. And for some reason that David never quite understood, Michael wanted David for a best friend. One day, David was sitting on a bench in a remote corner of the playground, reading a book. He hated recess. It suggested that everyone was supposed to have friends, and it served as a painful reminder to him that he didn’t have any. He tried to remain unnoticed, but it didn’t work. As he was reading, he suddenly became aware that someone was walking toward him.
“Watcha readin’?” the new boy asked.
“Don Quixote,” David replied, his eyes still focused on the words.
“Donkey what?”
“No, not donkey,” David explained impatiently, “Don Quixote.” He said it much more slowly this time. “It’s a classic. You should read it.”
“It’s really big. I’d rather see the movie. Do you want to come to my house and play snowball war after school today?”
David looked at the boy reproachfully. “Whatever that is, it sounds dangerous. Besides, I have homework to do. Don’t you?”
“Of course I do. But it can wait. Besides, if you don’t know what snowball war is, you’re really missing out. It’s awesome. But I can’t tell you. I’ll have to show you. So I’ll see you after school.” As soon as he said all this, Michael turned around and ran towards a group of guys playing snow football.
After school that day, David had the best time of his life. Michael opened his eyes to the world of snowball fighting. By the end of the day, each boy had a new best friend. They continued to be best friends throughout the rest of high school. Michael and David shared a friendship that was like no other. David encouraged Michael to do his homework more, and Michael taught David how to have fun and meet new people. Eventually the two began to rely on each other in much deeper ways. David realized he could talk to Michael when his grandmother died. Michael learned that he didn’t have to keep the hurt to himself when his parents got divorced. It was truly a friendship like no other.
Unfortunately, the two boys new that their one-of-a-kind friendship would soon change. Graduation was just around the corner, and the two were about to depart on separate adventures. Michael was going to college in Texas, and David was going to college in New York.

Brief ponderings, before Pizza

Friends,

Pizza is near, so accept this as the beginning of many thoughts.
I would like to begin a dialogue on the topic of the Superman stories, for anyone who knows them and is interested in such discussion. While pondering after seeing Superman Returns (or Superman V) in theatres, and recently re-watching the old I and II with Christopher Reeve, I noticed how much I enjoyed the story. In fact, I REALLY got into it (as I do with many things, get really excited after just being introduced to a new hobby or something, go overboard, three hours straight of being a fan, then lose dedication or come to my senses and say "All things in moderation, and that was definitely NOT a moderate three hours..."). During this period of fascination, however, I learned a terrible lot about the story. While it's quite interesting, I started collecting some slightly unnerving details:

-- Superman (Kal-El), the only son of Jor-El
-- sent by his father to save the human race from destruction and evil
-- evil often appears in the form of a highly educated Lex Luthor who uses technology for selfish purposes
-- Superman overcomes this evil with his super-strength and brute force (Luthor often says "mind over muscle", but apparently muscle wins over mind)
-- when Superman falls in love with Lois Lane, he takes her for flights around the world, saves her from every peril, and of course she falls in love with him; or is she in love with his strength?

I feel like I could write twelve papers or a comprehensive volume of books analyzing the stories. But to prevent me from doing such, please interject your thoughts in the form of comments to this post. Thus we can contain the discussion to one post rather than flood the main page.

Grave dictum!

Hey guys, this is just a general post reminding you all that this blog is not confined to political stuff, to philosophical stuff, or to any stuff in particular. It's just for y'all's writing, as proper Michiganders should say. So in order possibly to spur some more publishing by y'all, I shall post a paper I wrote for my philosophy class--Existententialism--last year.

Relativism and the Will to Power

by John David Breen

Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas have influenced philosophy for the last two hundred years. Few of these ideas are as vague or as difficult to fully understand as the doctrine of the Will to Power. The goal of this paper is to explain fully Nietzsche’s conception of the Will to Power using examples, as well as to show that this concept—as Nietzsche viewed it—is useful for the Naturalist, but not for the Supernaturalist or the Relativist.

Nietzsche conceived of the Will to Power as a desire inherent to all living creatures. For this reason, he tells us, plants thrive by taking nutrients from the ground and from the sun that could have been used by other plants, animals thrive by killing and eating other living creatures, and human beings thrive by subjugating or otherwise manipulating other living creatures, including other humans. Of course, using the phrase “Will to Power” implies that only those beings with a will can possess a Will to Power, and in any case only beings with a will—namely, human beings—are at all likely to read this paper, so this discussion will be restricted to the human realm.

The Will to Power naturally requires the truth of two propositions: first, that such a thing exists as a will, and second, that such a thing exists as power. As for the former, one can define a will as an entity that chooses. Such an idea requires the possibility of a choice, and as Nietzsche does not believe in freedom, one must assume he chose the wrong word; rather, let us use the word “desire” to signify Nietzsche’s meaning. The idea of power, on the other hand, becomes somewhat tricky. What sort of power does Nietzsche in fact mean? The best way to understand this is to delve into Nietzsche’s idea of the individual’s perspective, from which alone the Will to Power can be expressed. In the most basic terms, two things exist—the self, and the self’s environment. Power is best expressed as the level of control the self has over his environment, as opposed to control of the environment over the self.

Examples of the manifestation of the Will to Power abound in our modern world. Several can be found in politics. Here in the United States, our two political parties both exercise the Will to Power to guarantee the votes of citizens. The Democratic Party often favors redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor; the practical implications of this are obvious. First, the act of taxing the wealthy and powerful is an assertion of power by those in government over those most likely to have the capability of uprooting them. Second, by punishing an economic elite, the less-wealthy masses are aided in their own power struggle against this elite; as a result, the votes of the masses are secured for those who propose such policies. Third, by then distributing unearned money to the poor, the poor lose the incentive to develop their strengths and establish their independence; they become dependent on the money, and thus dependent on the Democrats who provide that money.

The Republicans, too, exercise the Will to Power in their policies. The favored tactic is to oppose change and favor regression, appealing to traditional Americans who feel as if progress has caused them to lose power. Another tactic is to appeal to the sense of safety desired by Americans and cast the Democratic Party as weak on national defense. Ultimately, the Republicans try to cause the populace to fear for the social institutions that make them comfortable, and proclaim themselves the defenders of those institutions.

Individual congressmen from both parties, moreover, use spending power to increase government spending on their own states and districts, and the older congressmen have more power to do so. Thus, those dependent on the economic activity generated by that spending are also dependent on their representatives, and will vote for him even if his policies are bad.

Beyond believing in the Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzsche was also an extreme relativist. His belief was that there is no distinction between appearance and reality—that whatever appears to us is reality. This concept presents great trouble for any philosophical theory, and Nietzsche’s concept of the Will to Power is no exception. Let us assume that his idea of extreme relativism is true. So, what is real for one person has no meaning for anyone else but that person. In this case, what is real for me is that God exists, and that I have a personal relationship with Him; and not only that, but He—not I—has changed my essential character. If all that appears to me is reality, then the Will to Power, for me, is an evil desire. If God exists, and I have the desire for ultimate power, then my desire is that I should replace the Ultimate Being of the universe; such a thing is not possible. This desire would run counter to reality, and thus prove itself dishonest.

Supernaturalism also presents great problems for the Will to Power. Supernaturalism may be defined as the belief that the universe is not a closed system; that Something or Someone exists outside of and above the natural world, and that that Being created the natural world. This presents the same problem as that of relativism, the only difference being that the Almighty in this scenario is real for everyone. Once again, the hierarchical order established by that Being would be upset by action resulting from a Will to Power, and thus would run counter to true reality. This does not mean, of course, that the Will to Power could face situations in which it could not exist; what it does mean is that Nietzsche’s idea—that the Will to Power is an essential part of humanity and therefore not something to fight against—is incorrect. Not only does the existence of an Almighty Being allow for the entrance of transcendent values to vilify the Will to Power, it also means that even if the Will to Power is a part of human character, that character can be changed—by the Almighty Being Himself. This is what Christianity teaches, in fact: that while all humans have the Will to Power—which is essentially evil because it calls for the subversion of the Insubvertible—God has made a way for human character to be changed.

The last philosophical school left to examine is that of the Naturalists, and here we find a much more comfortable home for the Will to Power under Nietzsche’s terms. Naturalism can best be defined as the belief that a natural world exists and that it is the same for everyone, but that it is a closed system—there is nothing beyond what it is possible to perceive. We find that this is largely what Nietzsche proposes: that there are no transcendent values, that men created the only values that exist, that all values in existence can be explained by natural phenomena. However, we find that it rejects one major point of Nietzsche’s thought: while he believes that appearance is the same as reality, Naturalism cannot possibly teach that. The Naturalist is forced to accept the proposition that because the universe is the same for everyone, and because people often have wrong and differing ideas, not all appearances are real.

Although the Will to Power is a feasible concept in one of the three possible perspectives of the universe, Nietzsche rejects this perspective for another. His perspective undermines his thinking; even this great philosopher’s ideas are not strong enough to walk on the deep and troubled waters of relativism.

Reflections at the Optometrist

While awaiting an available attendent at the Optometrist, I contemplated John's latest post. As is my tendency when considering issues of politics, I don't concentrate on the issue presented, but on the more general beliefs behind it. So I was drawn to consider the various aspects of foreign policy in general and "world-policing" in particular. I don't have a well-written essay presenting my ideas on this issue, all I have are questions.

My inclination is to be an isolationist and not be involved with any other countries. Total isolationism would inhibit freedom, however, in the area of trade. So, perhaps we can allow for free trade. What of helping other countries in need or defending helpless people against cruel dictators? When are we to interfere? Who are we to help? What if two groups are fighting and both want our help and helping either results in oppression? I know that John will have good reasons for foreign policy and I'm looking forward to hearing them.

Meum Opus Secundum

I would've titled this "A Reply to Tidball" for the Civil War reference, but that sounds a lot more adversarial than I really mean it. I also apologize for all the political content of my writing thus far, but I felt this second one was necessary. In any case...

Why The Future Depends on Republicans

By John David Breen

The question of whether political parties are good or bad is an old and a difficult one, but when thinking about the government, we must work with the system we have. One must work to find a practical way to the best outcome by dealing with the facts as they are.

Unfortunately, these days it is impossible to get away from working with political parties, for the reason that today’s Democratic party works in an extremely dictatorial way; Democratic senators and representatives are shunned if they refuse to toe the party line. Zell Miller-- the keynote speaker in 1992 at future president William Clinton’s nominating convention--became an outcast, wrote a book about his abandonment by the party, and gave the keynote address at George W. Bush’s nominating convention in 2004. Joe Lieberman, a three-term, well-respected senator from a solidly Democratic state, was ousted by a concerted Democrat primary effort—even though ninety percent of his votes in the Senate agreed with the Democratic Party line.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is made up of people from a very large number of ideologies, something not terribly evident to those of us who grew up in reliably conservative West Michigan. Who are some of the party’s major figures? George W. Bush, a self-described conservative who nevertheless insists on raising spending ever higher; John McCain, a man who has had nothing but hatred for the Religious Right throughout his entire political career; Rudy Giuliani, a pro-choice Republican. Arnold Schwarzenegger, no conservative he, gave a speech at the 2004 Republican convention. To say that the Republican Party has a single unifying ideology, an orthodoxy to be followed by all members at the risk of expulsion, would be a mistake.

There are many reasons why success in the War on Radical Islam is a necessity. The greatest is that Western culture, and all the benefits it has afforded the world, must survive in order that hope for prosperity in even the poorest of countries might not be extinguished by the heavy hand of Sharia law or Eastern-style collectivism. This threat appears on two fronts: the first, the prospect of the eventual imposition of these evils on us from outside, and the second, that of widespread disillusionment with liberalism and democracy if they are seen to stand in the way of society's self-defense.

In the face of the nearly successful effort to unify the Democratic party under one single, supreme, liberal orthodoxy, and considering the gravity of the times, it is simply imperative to the survival of the nation that the Republican party maintain control of the government; not because the Republican party is supreme, not because it alone has all the answers—although they do understand better the seriousness of our enemies—but because only by keeping the Democratic party out of power will we be able to face the dangers posed to this nation by radical Islam.

Meum opus primum...

Feel free to fire away!

Politics: A Frighteningly Distorted Worldview

by John Breen

As the election returns come in, it appears that Ned Lamont, the anti-war millionaire whose candidacy was sponsored by such people as Markos Moulitsas and George Soros, will defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary. The Democratic line will be that the dove’s nomination is proof that supporting immediate withdrawal is a winning electoral strategy, while Republicans will claim that there is no room in the Democratic party for dissent. Increasingly, conservatives are baffled by what they perceive as leftist capitulationism. There is a widening divide between the worldviews of the two groups, and the main question is why.

I believe the major problem is that today’s liberals have lost the ability to be practical, while Republicans are utterly so. The major evidence for this is the left-wing support of and argument for policies that would make sense were the world a vastly different place. Anti-war politicians argue that Bush has angered too many of our allies with his aggressive foreign policy; in 2004, John Kerry ran on the idea that America is stronger when her alliances are stronger.

The problem with this is that, like us, nations such as France and Germany, whom we have undoubtedly angered by many of our actions, use foreign policy to further their own interests. Sadly, these nations have concluded that their interests are furthered by aligning themselves with the interests of nations and organizations that are openly hostile to the United States. Excellent examples of this abound. There is proof now that Russia was training Iraqi operatives up to the day before the United States began military operations against Hussein’s regime. Germany and France both opposed the war; both also had extensive business dealings with that nation. The United Nations refused to validate the war; we now know that a great many United Nations officials, including Kofi Annan’s own son, illicitly reaped incredible profits from the Oil For Food program, the largest financial scandal in the history of the world, to the direct detriment of Iraq’s citizens.

Strong alliances are based on solidarity of purpose and on mutual goodwill; the statements of many prominent government officials in supposedly allied nations belie the existence of either. Democrats insist on gaining the support of those who have made clear their unwillingness to take meaningful steps to oppose those who wish us ill; this position is illogical and impractical, and all the more frightening when one considers that these same people believe themselves to be qualified to handle our nation’s security.

Were this the only liberal transgression against the laws of reality, they could be forgiven. Who among us does not wish to have strong alliances with those on whose support we have so often counted? Unfortunately, their disregard for reality runs much deeper than that. The current situation in Israel is a perfect example. Liberals want an immediate cease-fire and negotiation between the two sides, as has been standard practice in the Mideast for decades.

The problems with this argument ought to be obvious. Peace negotiation is only possible when both sides negotiate in good faith, when both sides abide by the terms of the agreements made, and when both sides are committed to achieving a lasting peace. Unfortunately, none of these are true in this situation: one of Hezbollah’s stated goals is the destruction of the state of Israel; the organization has been arming itself to prepare for their recently launched offensive for more than a decade, through many different negotiations and peace deals; the organization has shown time and again its disregard for any and all peace deals that have been made.

These things can also be said, to one degree or another, about Iran, Syria, Hamas, Fatah, and Saddam’s Iraq. We cannot reasonably hope, we cannot logically believe, that negotiation alone will accomplish anything when dealing with such people. Because they will not compromise, because they insist on Israel’s destruction and even on our destruction, we must either take steps to neutralize this threat, using methods up to and including military conflict, or wait until these threats become serious. The fact that one of our major political parties believes otherwise is, frankly, terrifying.

Coeptum Gloriosum

Greetings!

The summer is almost over, meaning that our meetings are close to their end. With those meetings will end our opportunities to talk about questions and ideas with each other--at least in person. For this reason, I have undertaken to provide a forum in which we can present pieces of writing for review by our fellow members--or even just members of the general public--and thus, at least intellectually, stay in touch with each other over the school year after we have dispersed across the Midwest.

Inklings, please feel free to post your work on this site, after I've enabled you to log on!

--John Breen