22/01: Whither the Supreme Court?
Powerline has this post on a recent Supreme Court decision on the Exclusionary Rule. In the majority decision (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) the Court held that the exclusionary rule should apply only where its deterrent effect on police misbehavior outweighs the substantial cost it imposes in letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free. In other words, the effect of the decision is to limit the amount of evidence that can be excluded from trial on technical grounds. The majority of justices decided that the primary goal of a criminal trial is to find the truth. The minority opinion held that the exclusionary rule should receive a "majestic" interpretation, and gave evidence of a fundamental distrust of the police.
What sort of nominees can we expect from Obama? What sort of nominees can we expect Pelosi to prefer?
The Senate Republicans better grow backbone.
What sort of nominees can we expect from Obama? What sort of nominees can we expect Pelosi to prefer?
The Senate Republicans better grow backbone.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Don't miss reading Martian Mariner's recent post on Heath Ledger's posthumous win for his portrayal of The Joker. In his post, Mariner reflects on the difficulty of making Good interesting in fiction.
Mariner reminded me of Simone Weil's reflections on this problem. From her Notebooks:
Literature and Morality. Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating. Therefore "imaginative literature" is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art--and only genius can do that.
Her longest sustained attention to this problem is found in the essay "Morality and Literature." Here is the opening paragraph:
Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way around. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.
This problem attaches to fiction itself intrinsically, she asserts. This is because there are necessities and impossibilities in reality which do not obtain in fiction, any more than the law of gravity to which we are subject controls what is represented in a picture. In other words, precisely because fiction is separated from truth and its necessity it cannot make good interesting and is able to make evil attractive. (For Weil "fiction" is bigger than literature and includes most of our memory, hopes and dreams, etc. unless we are unflinchingly attached to truth.)
A genius, in his maturity, she thought, can overcome this limit of fiction, because the mature genius is able to write truth. Such genius is rare. In the West she lists
This sense of gravity, which only genius can impart, is found in the drama of Aeschylus and Sophocles, in certain plays of Shakespeare, in Racine's Phedre alone among French tragedies, in several comedies of Moliere, in the Grand Testament of Villon. There, good and evil appear in their truth.
She held writers (I don't think she ever considered movies) to the standard of truth. From her essay "The Responsibility of Writers":
Writers do not have to be professors of morals, but they do have to express the human condition. And nothing concerns human life so essentially, for every man at every moment, as good and evil. When literature becomes indifferent to the opposition of good and evil it betrays its function and forfeits all claim to to excellence.
Perhaps the power of The Dark Knight comes from its attention to the reality of good and evil, even if the writers and director lacked the genius to make good more interesting than evil.
Mariner reminded me of Simone Weil's reflections on this problem. From her Notebooks:
Literature and Morality. Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating. Therefore "imaginative literature" is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art--and only genius can do that.
Her longest sustained attention to this problem is found in the essay "Morality and Literature." Here is the opening paragraph:
Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way around. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.
This problem attaches to fiction itself intrinsically, she asserts. This is because there are necessities and impossibilities in reality which do not obtain in fiction, any more than the law of gravity to which we are subject controls what is represented in a picture. In other words, precisely because fiction is separated from truth and its necessity it cannot make good interesting and is able to make evil attractive. (For Weil "fiction" is bigger than literature and includes most of our memory, hopes and dreams, etc. unless we are unflinchingly attached to truth.)
A genius, in his maturity, she thought, can overcome this limit of fiction, because the mature genius is able to write truth. Such genius is rare. In the West she lists
This sense of gravity, which only genius can impart, is found in the drama of Aeschylus and Sophocles, in certain plays of Shakespeare, in Racine's Phedre alone among French tragedies, in several comedies of Moliere, in the Grand Testament of Villon. There, good and evil appear in their truth.
She held writers (I don't think she ever considered movies) to the standard of truth. From her essay "The Responsibility of Writers":
Writers do not have to be professors of morals, but they do have to express the human condition. And nothing concerns human life so essentially, for every man at every moment, as good and evil. When literature becomes indifferent to the opposition of good and evil it betrays its function and forfeits all claim to to excellence.
Perhaps the power of The Dark Knight comes from its attention to the reality of good and evil, even if the writers and director lacked the genius to make good more interesting than evil.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Best analysis of Obama's Inauguration Speech anywhere in the media.
This is funny right here. I don't care who you are.
This is funny right here. I don't care who you are.
I recently watched The Dark Knight, which is simply a fascinating movie. Also recently, Heath Ledger was posthumously awarded a Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. I have no doubt that Ledger was a brilliant actor; the depth of roles he played with subtle skill attests to his talent and hard work.
However, if he were able to make an acceptance speech, I think he would have to thank the evil nature of the character of the Joker right after he thanked his folks and the director.
Blaise Pascal once wrote that "Evil is easy, and has infinite forms; good is almost unique." The Joker was, in a sense, easy - he embodied a particular type of evil, the evil of unchecked, merciless chaos. He was also a tempting evil - the greatest tragedy in the film is that the Joker is able to corrupt the "White Knight", Harvey Dent. Batman bends, but does not break, under similar temptation. But even though he carries out sophisticated plans in pursuit of his corrupting aims, Ledger's Joker seems constantly unhinged and capable of anything -- except for good.
Batman IS capable of good. In a sense, he is capable of no evil, although he breaks societal norms to do his good. And so, compared to the Joker, Batman seems pretty boring.
And Batman is actually a pretty complex hero, capable of doubt and able to empathize with the criminal mind. This separates him from a character who is more gooder in a way -- Superman. Superman is downright boring. We always know what he's going to do: The Right Thing, as defined by Truth, Justice, and the American Way. The evil minds have all of the originality in the Superman series. When more good guys are needed, they're just variations on the theme - Wonder Woman, Superboy, etc. They're as predictable as Superman.
Don't get me wrong, I like Superman, for that very reason. But it's easy to see why the acting award goes to the bad guy.
Post Script: An interesting research puzzle for someone would be to determine if there have been more "good" characters to win acting awards or "evil" characters, or if there has been a trend toward one or the other. Or, if during times of national crisis, one type gets the nod over the other, etc.
However, if he were able to make an acceptance speech, I think he would have to thank the evil nature of the character of the Joker right after he thanked his folks and the director.
Blaise Pascal once wrote that "Evil is easy, and has infinite forms; good is almost unique." The Joker was, in a sense, easy - he embodied a particular type of evil, the evil of unchecked, merciless chaos. He was also a tempting evil - the greatest tragedy in the film is that the Joker is able to corrupt the "White Knight", Harvey Dent. Batman bends, but does not break, under similar temptation. But even though he carries out sophisticated plans in pursuit of his corrupting aims, Ledger's Joker seems constantly unhinged and capable of anything -- except for good.
Batman IS capable of good. In a sense, he is capable of no evil, although he breaks societal norms to do his good. And so, compared to the Joker, Batman seems pretty boring.
And Batman is actually a pretty complex hero, capable of doubt and able to empathize with the criminal mind. This separates him from a character who is more gooder in a way -- Superman. Superman is downright boring. We always know what he's going to do: The Right Thing, as defined by Truth, Justice, and the American Way. The evil minds have all of the originality in the Superman series. When more good guys are needed, they're just variations on the theme - Wonder Woman, Superboy, etc. They're as predictable as Superman.
Don't get me wrong, I like Superman, for that very reason. But it's easy to see why the acting award goes to the bad guy.
Post Script: An interesting research puzzle for someone would be to determine if there have been more "good" characters to win acting awards or "evil" characters, or if there has been a trend toward one or the other. Or, if during times of national crisis, one type gets the nod over the other, etc.
January is the month for National Sanctity of Life Day, the month of Roe v Wade. It is a day to remember those killed by abortion, and to pledge ourselves to lives that affirm the rights and importance of other human beings, including the unborn.
News links.
Here is the text of President Bush's Proclamation of January 18 as the 2009 Sanctity of Life Day.
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.
The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.
America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.
The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
GEORGE W. BUSH
President Bush has been consistently pro-life in regard to abortion, including fetal tissue research.
Obama? I assume we will see the lifting of restrictions on federal money for abortions CNN story, , loss of protection for those health care providers opposed to abotion and lifting of federal funding restriction of fetal tissue research Bishops' Concern, less emphasis on abstinence, nomination of judges who will in no way threaten Roe v Wade, opposition to parental notification laws, and cessation of support for the Born Alive legislation.
Obama's record on abortion is appalling. He did not oppose killing infants who survived partial-birth abortions.
News links.
Here is the text of President Bush's Proclamation of January 18 as the 2009 Sanctity of Life Day.
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.
The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.
America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.
The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
GEORGE W. BUSH
President Bush has been consistently pro-life in regard to abortion, including fetal tissue research.
Obama? I assume we will see the lifting of restrictions on federal money for abortions CNN story, , loss of protection for those health care providers opposed to abotion and lifting of federal funding restriction of fetal tissue research Bishops' Concern, less emphasis on abstinence, nomination of judges who will in no way threaten Roe v Wade, opposition to parental notification laws, and cessation of support for the Born Alive legislation.
Obama's record on abortion is appalling. He did not oppose killing infants who survived partial-birth abortions.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Instapundit links to an article in The Times of India concerning a recent speech by the Dalai Lama. The article cocludes
He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.
This quote is starting to circulate in the blogosphere, but before we get too excited, check out this summary of the speech from the official website of the Dalai Lama
Responding to a question on the application of non-violence in tackling terror, the Dalai Lama said hope lay in preventing it in the future. He said those indulging in terrorist acts could not be termed mad people as some were very educated. He said such people harboured strong ill-feeling and hatred due to many reasons, some of which could be centuries old.
Referring to 9/11, the Dalai Lama said he told President George Bush that while he regarded the U.S. President as a nice person, he stood opposed to Mr. Bush’s policies. He said he had suggested to Mr. Bush that instead of spending billion of dollars in launching the war, the world would have been a much different place had these funds been utilised to spread education and health care.
Preventing terrorism for the Dalai Lama appears to be a matter of raising children who do not hate.
He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.
This quote is starting to circulate in the blogosphere, but before we get too excited, check out this summary of the speech from the official website of the Dalai Lama
Responding to a question on the application of non-violence in tackling terror, the Dalai Lama said hope lay in preventing it in the future. He said those indulging in terrorist acts could not be termed mad people as some were very educated. He said such people harboured strong ill-feeling and hatred due to many reasons, some of which could be centuries old.
Referring to 9/11, the Dalai Lama said he told President George Bush that while he regarded the U.S. President as a nice person, he stood opposed to Mr. Bush’s policies. He said he had suggested to Mr. Bush that instead of spending billion of dollars in launching the war, the world would have been a much different place had these funds been utilised to spread education and health care.
Preventing terrorism for the Dalai Lama appears to be a matter of raising children who do not hate.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
All the Barak hype "I'm the new Lincoln" really grates on me. I am reminded of 1Kings20:11
"Let not him that girds on his armor boast himself as he that puts it off"
Or, in the TXVB (Texas Version of the Bible),
Don't brag climbing into the saddle like your're climbing down.
"Let not him that girds on his armor boast himself as he that puts it off"
Or, in the TXVB (Texas Version of the Bible),
Don't brag climbing into the saddle like your're climbing down.
From The Sun (UK) linked from Drudge:
At least 40 al-Qaeda fanatics died horribly after being struck down with the disease that devastated Europe in the Middle Ages.
Full Story.
My rejoicing is tempered by a question: Any possibility that Al Qaeda might include The Plague among its bioweapons or their development?
At least 40 al-Qaeda fanatics died horribly after being struck down with the disease that devastated Europe in the Middle Ages.
Full Story.
My rejoicing is tempered by a question: Any possibility that Al Qaeda might include The Plague among its bioweapons or their development?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
In honor of the inauguration, I continue to ask what skills are needed for a successful presidency. In the first post I examined the presidency of James K. Polk and drew from his success these lessons: 1. make rational decisions, 2. don't be afraid of unpopularity with your own party, 3. keep focused on rational goals. Farmer suggested that qualities 1 and perhaps 3 could be summarized as having a keen grasp of the possible.
Abraham Lincoln has been on my mind the last few days. (I wonder why.) Many, many things can be said about his strengths as president, but I will focus on three.
First, he recognized the greatest challenge facing his presidency--the secession of several Southern states--and the imperative for his office--to reestablish the Union. From this imperative he never wavered, in spite of the cost of the war, and the opposition of the Copperheads.
Second, he was able to communicate his goal for the conflict, even as that goal evolved and gained complexity. Lincoln articulated his war aims in terms of the nation's founding ideals, as in the Gettysburg Address.
Third, Lincoln recognized that history was bigger than he or the Federal Government. Though he rejected the church (and the politics) of his father Thomas, in the end he understood that the Sovereign God of his father was at work in the war. This belief strengthened his resolve, and kept him from identifying the cause of the Union was absolute good. See his Second Innaugural Address.
From Lincoln: recognize the greatest challenge and hold to the imperative it generates, communicate goals as they evolve in a way that ties them in with our national story, and acknowledge that there is a purpose in history that transcends our own plans.
Abraham Lincoln has been on my mind the last few days. (I wonder why.) Many, many things can be said about his strengths as president, but I will focus on three.
First, he recognized the greatest challenge facing his presidency--the secession of several Southern states--and the imperative for his office--to reestablish the Union. From this imperative he never wavered, in spite of the cost of the war, and the opposition of the Copperheads.
Second, he was able to communicate his goal for the conflict, even as that goal evolved and gained complexity. Lincoln articulated his war aims in terms of the nation's founding ideals, as in the Gettysburg Address.
Third, Lincoln recognized that history was bigger than he or the Federal Government. Though he rejected the church (and the politics) of his father Thomas, in the end he understood that the Sovereign God of his father was at work in the war. This belief strengthened his resolve, and kept him from identifying the cause of the Union was absolute good. See his Second Innaugural Address.
From Lincoln: recognize the greatest challenge and hold to the imperative it generates, communicate goals as they evolve in a way that ties them in with our national story, and acknowledge that there is a purpose in history that transcends our own plans.
18/01: Free Speech is Dying
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Christopher Hitchens writes in Vanity Fair to tell the truth about free speech in the West: it is dying because those who should be its champions fear violent Islam.
Read the essay.
These are among the things that have happened, and have become depressingly taken for granted, since the fatwa of the ayatollah. We live now in a climate where every publisher and editor and politician has to weigh in advance the possibility of violent Muslim reprisal.
Most readers are aware that Ray Bradbury's 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451 concerns the burning of books. What you may not know, unless you have read it, is that Bradbury's future society began to burn books after it was granted that everyone has a right not to be offended.
Read the essay.
These are among the things that have happened, and have become depressingly taken for granted, since the fatwa of the ayatollah. We live now in a climate where every publisher and editor and politician has to weigh in advance the possibility of violent Muslim reprisal.
Most readers are aware that Ray Bradbury's 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451 concerns the burning of books. What you may not know, unless you have read it, is that Bradbury's future society began to burn books after it was granted that everyone has a right not to be offended.
