Month: October 2007

A reader writes:

Your video featuring the boss who smashes a computer because of the reference to porn recalled to mind a passage from Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols (the essay entitled "Morality as Anti-Nature"), that I think you’ll find worth reading and reflecting upon.  The essay is worth reading in whole, but here’s a part of it:

The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its "cure," is castratism. It never asks: "How can one spiritualize, beautify, deify a craving?" It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation (of Nietzsche sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice, of vengefulness). But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.   

The same means in the fight against a craving–castration, extirpation–is instinctively chosen by those who are too weak-willed, too degenerate, to be able to impose moderation on themselves; by those who are so constituted that they require La Trappe, to use a figure of speech, or (without any figure of speech) some kind of definitive declaration of hostility, a cleft between themselves and the passion. Radical means are indispensable only for the degenerate; the weakness of the will–or, to speak more definitely, the inability not to respond to a stimulus–is itself merely another form of degeneration. The radical hostility, the deadly hostility against sensuality, is always a symptom to reflect on: it entitles us to suppositions concerning the total state of one who is excessive in this manner.

Viewed through this lens, the entire current era of American cultural politics — the Christianist era — could be seen and understood as a squeal of weakness: weakness reflected in the overwhelming urge to deprive others of choices and options, the weakness reflected in political bullying and in the impulse to create an all-powerful executive, the weakness reflected in the recourse to torture, the weakness reflected in refusal to engage in the unglamorous arm-twisting of diplomacy.
It’s all very sad, but America right now seems like nothing so much as a very insecure adolescent.

Idahoans seem to hang out in restrooms a little too long … or not use them at all.

The public tires of campaign news.

A scientist who does not deny climate change insists that we are verging on hysteria about it. Even the Arctic shifts have been seen before:

We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster. But during the famous medieval warming period–A.D. 750 to 1230 or so–the Vikings found the warmer northern climate to their advantage.

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie addressed this in his book "Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000," perhaps the greatest book about climate change before the onset of modern concerns with global warming. He wrote that Erik the Red "took advantage of a sea relatively free of ice to sail due west from Iceland to reach Greenland. . . . Two and a half centuries later, at the height of the climatic and demographic fortunes of the northern settlers, a bishopric of Greenland was founded at Gardar in 1126."

Ladurie pointed out that "it is reasonable to think of the Vikings as unconsciously taking advantage of this [referring to the warming of the Middle Ages] to colonize the most northern and inclement of their conquests, Iceland and Greenland." Good thing that Erik the Red didn’t have Al Gore or his climatologists as his advisers.

 

This is not an argument against moving toward non-carbon energy. That’s worth doing anyway. It’s an argument for a little more calm.

"This is where a conservative starts. If we are all humans, then we each have a beginning and an end; and each of us has a different beginning and end. We see the world from where we are, and our understanding of the universe is intrinsically rooted in a time and place. We can do all we can to increase our knowledge and gain deeper and deeper insight. We can read history and philosophy; we can travel; we can ask questions of young and old; we can debate; we can pray; we can grow through the pain and amusement of daily life. But we will never fully or completely transcend where we are. And even if we could, such transcendence would render us unintelligible to those still earth-bound.

There are so many stories in human history that relate this truth about humanness, and so many parables and analogies… All tell us that tragedy or comedy are intrinsic to the human story. God, after all, can be neither comic nor tragic. He is beyond such categories. As humans, we can merely sense the existence of a higher truth, a greater coherence than ourselves, but we cannot see it face to face. We cannot fully capture it and remain human. And yet we cannot fully escape its lure either. This is either funny or sad, and humans stagger from one option to the other. Neither beasts nor angels, we live in twilight, and we are unsure whether it is a prelude to morning or night," – The Conservative Soul, Chapter Five, now out in paperback.

And why the hell not:

It’s a series of implantable surgical steel, titanium, or medical plastic that’s placed under the skin. The tattoo can then be read via touch. Subdermal implants are nothing new, but using them to create body art for the visually impaired is an interesting idea. Klara Jirkova thinks the implants could be used in the divet between thumb and pointer finger, so when people shake hands they can "read" each other’s names and info.

More here.

A reader writes:

I cannot agree with your reader’s comments about Stewart and Colbert regarding how they purportedly discourage participation in the political process. I am only 24, and I care immensely about politics.  I’m horrified at the direction of this country, and the willingness of our politicians (either through zeal or fear) to cast aside that which makes us American in the name of "saving" America.

It was pretty difficult to wake up the day after Election Day 2004, and it hasn’t gotten much better since then.  But I take solace that, as I fall asleep every night, those two guys can make me laugh about it.  It keeps me sane.

Too many people who were too concerned about this country between 1965 and 1975 cast aside their dreams for cynicism, or strict adherence to right wing "Truth," or both.  (See Thomas, Clarence).  Colbert and Stewart prevent a whole generation from doing that.

Oh, and also, the idea that getting news from Stewart is somehow less legitimate than getting news from, say, Fox News Channel is ridiculous.  Both sources are jokes.  Only one of them makes me laugh.

Another writes:

You said:

"I am aware that my ilk is parodied relentlessly on the Daily Show. But somehow I think Jon Stewart will not be quite as exercised when we’re shilling for Hillary."

I disagree for two reasons.  First, Stewart et. al. seem to me to be pragmatists before partisans.  I think they want sensible government, not liberal government.  More than the rich or the religious, they loathe hypocrites and people who put themselves before the country.

Second, and this is the big one, they are successful people who want to remain successful.  The moment they start pulling punches on the Dems, they simultaneously stop being as funny and lose a lot of credibility.  They stand to lose a lot of their audience, and that’s bad business.  I think they have already had meetings on this, and I’m betting they came out saying "let’s give ’em hell."  As a person who doubts he would ever vote republican, I can tell you that I’d lose interest if they don’t.

Althouse:

So, Hillary, just go on the Ellen show.

Because I really don’t know how to bleed brakes or patch a radiator hose. A webby check-list for manliness and self-sufficiency has gotten nerds exercised across the blogosphere.