November 2009 Archives

Damon Linker is offended by one academic's highly public call to cast Martin Heidegger out of the canon because for a time he was fond of the Nazis ("a prolific, provincial Nazi hack"). Excerpt:

I'm a liberal democrat and a humanist who considers totalitarianism in general, and Nazism in particular, to be moral and political abominations. I believe in the truth of science, and I like many things about technological modernity. I accept logic as a valid means of determining many forms of truth. And I happily accept the vision of Being that has prevailed in the Western world since the time of the ancient Greeks. In other words, I'm not inclined to follow Heidegger in its efforts to prepare the way for a more "primordial" encounter with Being by subverting these and other aspects of our world. But what a breathtakingly exciting experience it is to be forced to think about and make a case for, rather than lazily accept as self-evident, our most fundamental assumptions about the world and ourselves!

Yes, exactly! That needed saying. Some version of it often does these days.

David Frum runs the numbers, and finds that interestingly enough, women especially dislike her. More:

If you like Palin - well go ahead. It's a free country. But quit saying that "the people" love Sarah Palin.

They don't. Actually, they quite dislike her. The longer they know her, the more they dislike her. And even more than they dislike her, they do not respect her. That reaction of dislike and disrespect is most concentrated among American women.

Anecdotally, the women I've discussed Palin with who dislike her the most are Republican women, who think the whole Palin thing is terribly condescending. FWIW.

More cheer from the New York Times:

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government's tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means.

But wait, don't forget the entitlements obligations tsunami about to overtake us starting in this next decade. If you haven't seen former US comptroller David Walker's presentation, take a look here. Among its startling pieces of data:

GAO's simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as

•Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or
•Raising federal taxes to two times today's level

Keep in mind that Walker gave that presentation in early 2008, before the Late Unpleasantness. The situation is now unquestionably much worse than his presentation indicated. It's hard to imagine what the next 20 to 40 years are going to bring economically and, in turn, socially, and what kind of prospects our children face trying to start their own families in such a chaotic situation. Patrick Deneen has read the Times report today, and has a few words of his own to add, including:

Brutal honesty requires us to acknowledge that only three options realistically confront us: 1. less government for more money; 2. inflation; and/or 3. default. Any of these will leave us poorer and more miserable. Which poison will we be forced to "choose"? What will be the public response? The populace has grown so accustomed to having it all - demanding low taxes and cradle-to-grave nannying, electing Republican tax-cutters while insisting on the continuation of every program. Let us stipulate that they will be ill-disposed to hearing the bad tidings. If "tea parties" are the order of the day when we still manage to keep this creaky and leaking boat afloat, what will be the reaction when we begin to sink? When it's discovered that, once again, there are too few lifeboats?

I think very few of us -- and I include myself in that number -- have really come to grips with what this country is going to face in the years to come. OK, Sharon Astyk has. I'll give you that. We're all going to end up on her farm, begging for goat squeezins, before it's all over.

You've probably heard that Rep. Patrick Kennedy went public with the news that his bishop, Thomas Tobin, "banned" him from receiving communion because of his abortion rights advocacy. Did you hear Bishop Tobin's response, though? Excerpt from that:

On February 21, 2007, I wrote to Congressman Kennedy stating: "In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, therefore, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so." My request came in light of the new statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that said, "If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definite teachings on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain." (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, December, 2006)

In the same letter I wrote to Congressman Kennedy, "I am writing to you personally and confidentially as a pastor addressing a member of his flock ... At the present time I have no need or intention to make this a public issue." I also indicated, "I am available to discuss this matter with you in person at any mutually convenient time and place. I would welcome the opportunity to do so."

Got that? It wasn't a ban, but a request, and one perfectly in line with the Church's teaching. And it was privately communicated by the bishop to Kennedy, who is under Bishop Tobin's spiritual authority, and explicitly issued as a confidential matter, so as not to make a public scandal of it. But it's Kennedy who chose to make a public issue of it, and by distorting the bishop's words.

Patrick Kennedy continues to be a most unimpressive figure, showing how the Kennedys have, in a single generation, gone from tragedy to farce. Kennedy has determined which sacrament means more to him, and I don't see why Bishop Tobin is obliged to facilitate the man's obstinate self-deception in what the Catholic Church teaches is literally a matter of the life and death of innocents.

Now, before you Kennedy defenders start decrying the evil Roman Catholic church throwing its political weight around, please account for the fact that if the bishops are to be silent when Catholic public officials take stands in violation of critically important church teachings, you are saying that Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans had no business excommunicating a handful of segregationist Louisiana Catholic politicians.

News from the People's Republic of California:

A 39-year-old Southern California man has been arrested for misdemeanor child annoyance after allegedly paying a teenager $31 to spit in his face. The Ventura County Sheriff's Department says Charles Hersel was arrested Wednesday in a sting operation at a mall in Thousand Oaks. He's free from jail pending a court hearing. A sheriff's statement says Westlake High School students claimed Hersel paid them to yell profanities, spit and slap him in the face. Several also claimed he offered them cash to urinate and defecate on him.

What an idiot. Doesn't he know that if got a blog with comments boxes, he could get that service -- or reasonable facsimile thereof -- for free? Heh heh.