Happy Thanksgiving, America!

Cartoon by William Warren (via netrightdaily.com)

Well, er, seriously, Happy Thanksgiving to all of my American friends!

Give Perry a Chance

Rick Perry interviewed by Sean Hannity (November 16, 2011). A video with other videos inside it:

• The new campaign ad released by Rick Perry, rounding on Barack Obama for his “socialist” policies
• Rick Perry’s comments on a question about the Department of Energy asked by Scott Pelley at the November 12, 2011 Republican Presidential debate on CBS (in Sean Hannity’s opinion that was probably the funniest moment on the campaign trail):
  
  

  SCOTT PELLEY, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: Governor Perry, you advocate the elimination of the Department of Energy. If you eliminate the Department of Energy --
  PERRY: Glad you remembered it. (APPLAUSE)
  PELLEY: I have had some time to think about it, sir.
  PERRY: Me too. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

European Welfare States: Key Lessons for American Policymakers

In a mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation a student at the University of Milan speaks about her country’s economic troubles and explains how many European welfare states have been caught in a downward spiral of taxes, spending, and debt. Key lessons for policymakers seeking to avoid the inevitable fiscal crisis caused by the welfare state.

Dubya and History

Today my mood is not so very good, and that’s why, once again, I have decided to take the risk of losing some of my readers by writing this post. In fact, Dubya is a notoriously dangerous subject to write about, unless you speak not too well of him, of course! The truth is that I’ve just finished reading Dubya and Me (“Over the course of a quarter-century, a journalist witnessed the transformation of George W. Bush”), by Walt Harrington—who is now a journalism professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, after being a long-time staff writer for The Washington Post Magazine—and couldn’t wait to share this piece with you [HT: Camillo].

For instance, did you know about George W. Bush’s passion for reading history?

“So what is it about history that grabs you?” I ask.
“I’m fascinated by people,” Bush says, “and a lot of history is the study of individuals making a difference. … I haven’t really sat and tried to figure out why I was interested. All I can tell you is I have been for a long period of time.”
[…]
“When I got elected governor and president, history gave me a chance to study the decisions of my predecessors,” Bush says. As governor, he read The Raven, by Marquis James, a biography of Sam Houston, the father of Texas statehood. “I was fascinated by the story of Houston voting against secession, and reading a description of him basically being driven out of town by angry citizens. … My only point is that one lesson I learned, if they’re throwing garbage on Houston, arguably Texas’s most famous politician—Sam Houston Elementary School, where I went to school in Midland, was named for him!—if they’re throwing garbage on him, they can throw garbage on me.”

Bush remained calm and confident during his tumultuous presidency. Critics saw him as delusional; defenders saw him as self-assured. Bush believes that one of the most important stage requirements of the presidency is indeed never to signal weakness or self-doubt or confusion: “One of the things you learn about great leaders is that they never project the burdens of responsibility on others.” He remembers Richard Carwardine’s Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power (one of 14 Lincoln biographies Bush read while he was president), which recounts the 16th president’s perseverance through not only military defeat after defeat, stupefying troop casualties, and public ridicule, but also the death of his son Willie and the debilitating emotional turmoil of his wife.

“You’re not the only person that’s ever gone through hard things,” Bush says of the lessons he has learned from history. “In other words, can you imagine the signal I would have sent had I said, ‘Ah, why me? Why am I thrust in the middle of all this stuff?’ And they had kids on the front line of combat who were actually having to do all the work.”

“You faced some vicious personal attacks,” I say.

“I did. But so did Abraham Lincoln.” He recalls opening the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois. “There’s an exhibit, and the voices of opposition to Lincoln were being played. I said, ‘Wow!’ This guy, America’s—remember now, I got Lincoln’s portrait on the wall at the White House and I got a bust of Lincoln—and I hear the people calling him a baboon, just vicious.”

And when asked what he believes is the most important quality in great leaders…

“Willingness to stand on principle, the notion that public opinion changes back and forth and that you shouldn’t chase public opinion. … Lincoln had a set of principles that were important to him. ‘All men are created equal under God’ is the ultimate. It’s the ultimate principle for America’s freedom. … But Lincoln acted on it in a difficult political environment. People forget that he was in a very tough reelection campaign, and it wasn’t until Sherman makes it to Atlanta that his prospects brightened. Secondly, Lincoln had a strategic vision for the country. One of the great presidential decisions ever was to keep the country intact. … The question oftentimes in history is what would have happened if a different decision were made. We’d have been Europe.”

Furthermore, when asked about his principles, he says:

“One of them was ‘freedom is universal,’ which was unbelievably controversial for a period of time during my presidency, which, frankly, astonished me, given my reading of history.” He paraphrases his Second Inaugural: “We’ll resist tyranny at all times, all places, basically. Well, to me, you could say that was inspired by Lincoln. … Based upon the principle that deep in everybody’s soul is the desire to be free. And what’s interesting is, it’s playing out right now,” he says, referring to the populist uprisings in the Middle East.

And, to conclude, how will history judge his presidency?

“Some people walk up and say, ‘Oh, man, history is going to judge you well.’ And my quip is, ‘I’m not going to be around to see it.’ And to me, that’s one of the most important lessons you learn through history—you’re just not gonna be around to see it. … I’m confident of this: that those conclusions will be more objective with time than they could conceivably be now.”

Italy's New Government. Why It Is a Historic Opportunity For the Country

Italy's new government

There we go. Mario Monti has been officially sworn in as Italian premier. He has unveiled a new, technocratic cabinet—that is, made up of technocrats instead of career politicians—meant to steer Italy through its debt crisis.

Almost exactly one year ago, I half-seriously described the Italian political panorama as an epiphenomenon and a symptom of a wider global trend which I called Kali Yuga (“Age of Darkness”), that is the last of the four stages of development (Yugas) that the world goes through as part of the cycle of eras, as described in Hindu scriptures. Kali Yuga—as who has the slightest idea of what I’m talking about know—is an age characterized by spiritual degeneration, moral decline and decay, materialism, chaos and evil. Well then, perhaps now is a time in which Italy might switch from the darkness to the light. Seriously, the switch is within reach for the first time in years. And I am not just talking about the economy, namely about the need to bring the country out of the most acute phase of the financial crisis, and to win back the indispensable trust of investors and European institutions. I’m talking about the future of democracy as well, about the way we are as citizens, tax-payers, public servants, entrepreneurs, workers...

I mean, as everybody here knows, the country needs what we call a “liberal revolution” (“liberal” in the British sense, not in the current American sense!), that is, something that—since there is no Reagan or Thatcher over here—can be carried out only by a bipartisan government, by a “Grand coalition” in which the two largest political parties of opposing political ideologies unite in a coalition government—call it as you want: Große Koalition, national unity government, “technical government,” emergency government, whatever. In this sense—and not only in this sense, to be honest—the new Italian government, besides having to face a daunting challenge and a final redde rationem, is a historic opportunity for the country. And Prime Minister Mario Monti is without a doubt the right man, in the right place, at the right time. Add to this that what led to the fall of Berlusconi is also what forced the entire political establishment, opposition included, to give way to Monti, and this for the simple reason that there is no alternative, and that it would be foolish to hold elections while the country is under unrestrained attack by financial speculation. This makes Monti as invincible as his nickname, Super-Mario, suggests.

It is also to be said that, paradoxically, the political party which has clearly the most to lose—from an electoral point of view—in all of this is not the defeated center-right People of Freedom party, but the leftist Democratic Party, and this for rather obvious reasons. Let’s admit it: If the Democratic Party will be up to the task, if they won’t throw a monkey wrench in the works, they will amaze us all and far exceed our expectation. In other words, they will earn the gratitude of the entire nation.

How to Be Intellectually Honest About Berlusconi

Beppe Severgnini 

The piece by Beppe Severgnini—published in both today’s FT and Corriere della Sera—on Berlusconi’s fall would be a good one to explain to non-Italian readers how Italians feel about this rather historic event, were it not for the fact that it is incomplete. In fact Severgnini, who lists the reasons why Italians are happy about the end of Berlusconi’s reign, omits to mention why the hell they have tolerated him and his faults for so long. It’s a pity, really. And to think that Severgnini himself acknowledges that “We Italians may be emotional, but we are not stupid,” and that “We Italians may be careless at times, but we are sensible when we want to be” (because “In an emergency, we didn’t laugh it out with Silvio; we rushed to the emergency room of doctor Mario Monti”).

He should have related the above good qualities not only to the fall of Berlusconi, but also to his rise to and stay in power. What am I referring to? Well, as my most affectionate readers know, I’m referring to the lack of viable alternatives to Silvio, and this, of course, because of “the extraordinary virtues of the Italian Left,” which I’ve written about so many times (here is the latest example).

Why then did he tell only half the story, and arguably not even the most interesting half? Well, once again I’ll quote his own words: “Berlusconi told us only and always what we wanted to hear…” Just replace ‘Berlusconi’ with ‘Severgnini’ and ‘we’ with… Well, guess who!

Let Super-Mario Try (and Let's Keep Our Fingers Crossed)

Mario Monti

Joking about the speculation on his own future, Mario Monti, who—like his fellow countrymen Mario Draghi and Manchester City soccer player Mario Balotelli—is nicknamed “Super-Mario,”  said he had been questioned last Wednesday by a fellow passenger flying to Berlin from Milan as to whether he was on the right airplane. Once arrived in Berlin, speaking at a symposium to commemorate the late Lord Dahrendorf, former director of the London School of Economics, Monti engaged in a vigorous defense of the euro as a common European currency, praised Germany for exporting its focus on monetary and fiscal stability throughout the eurozone, paid tribute to the Franco-German partnership in Europe, and said that closer involvement of Italy would be in the common interest, “if Italy had not in the past few years completely expelled himself.” Italy, in his view, is still benefiting from being in the euro, “because the benefits of belonging are not just flows per month or per year but rather a legacy over time.” This country, he added, “is at the core of Europe. Politically and historically, Italy cannot ignore its responsibility as a founder member state of the European Union.” Yet, he concluded, “I will not deny we have enormous work to do.” This, in a nutshell, is his Weltanschauung, the “worldview”—sense of humor included—of the man who is going to become Italy’s prime minister.

A Yale-trained and widely respected economist, professor at Milan’s Bocconi University and former European Commissioner, Monti—like the new head of the ECB Mario Draghi!—has also worked as an international advisor to Goldman Sachs. “He has an international profile that no one can deny,” said Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who is one of his ardent fans. But his most prominent supporter is Giorgio Napolitano, Italy’s head of state, who appointed Mario Monti a senator for life on Wednesday, in a move widely interpreted by the Italian media as a sign he would ask him to try to form a government as soon as Berlusconi goes. Berlusconi, in turn, under pressure from markets and leading members of the People of Liberty party, who had warned him that they would not follow him in pushing for early elections, changed his position on Thursday on the possibility of supporting an emergency government led by Monti—the choice of investors, and Italy’s biggest opposition party, the Democratic party—and decided not to block him.

Mario Monti and Italy's head of state Giorgio Napolitano

As a result, the outcome will be a “national unity” (emergency) government headed by Monti, despite the opposition of Berlusconi’s key ally, the Northern League, of some prominent members of Berlusconi’s People of Freedom party, such as Welfare minister Maurizio Sacconi, and of influential opinion leaders, such as Giuliano Ferrara, editor of Il Foglio newspaper and one of Berlusconi’s most trusted advisors. Before that can happen, however, Italy’s two houses of parliament need to approve a massive economic package designed to cut public debt and stimulate growth. Once that happens—the Senate has already approved the package, with the abstention of the main opposition Democratic Party, and the House of Representatives is expected to approve it today—Berlusconi will resign, paving the way for the new government.

With that being said, we should discuss (at least) three important points. First, whether or not this whole thing is politically acceptable by the voters, who will be totally ignored by the political establishment. The answer is obviously no, but it’s far too easy to argue that, given the state of the economy and the failure of Berlusconi and his coalition, there is no viable alternative. Second, whether or not an interim government lead by this cool, calm and collected man, who couldn’t be more different from his predecessor, “will have the latitude to introduce sweeping reforms in a country that for decades has resisted change,” as the WSJ puts it. Of course, as the WSJ again puts it, much will depend on whether President Napolitano manages to convince a broad swath of Parliament to back the new government. But that, to be honest, doesn’t seem to be an impossible task. Third, whether or not (a government backed by) the Left will be up to the task. That’s the real issue that should worry everyone. And if you ask me what I think about this, I could sum it up in a sentence: I don’t really know, but I’m willing to hope for the best. And may God bless and keep us all. Amen.

Game Over for Berlusconi (Updated)

There is not very much to be said. In his own words:

After the approval of this finance law, which has amendments for everything which Europe has asked of us and which the Eurogroup has requested, I will resign, to allow the head of state to open consultations.
[…]
In the Senate, the center-right still has a good majority. However with the defection of seven members of the ruling majority today, the government does not have the majority we thought we had and so we have to take account of this situation realistically.

Now, for the country’s sake, let’s hope that the left doesn’t come into power again.

UPDATE: November 9, 2011 - 12:05 pm

The day after

Things are becoming clearer and clearer. In an interview with newspaper La Stampa today, Silvio Berlusconi confirmed that he will resign “as soon as the (budget) law is passed.” He also said that, since he believes “there is no other majority possible,” he sees “elections being held at the beginning of February.” In other words he said No to any form of transitional or national unity government—which the opposition and many on the markets favour. As Il Foglio newspaper puts it, “the Democratic Party (PD) wanted a scalp, they will have a war, instead.”

But the even more important news is that Berlusconi won’t run again for office, as he himself told La Stampa, and that PDL party secretary and former justice minister Angelino Alfano would be the center-right’s candidate for prime minister.

Notwithstanding this, however, Italian borrowing costs soar... See also here and here.

The Devil in the Details

Fresco No.20 in a cycle of the scenes chronicling the life and death of St. Francis
Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi

We all know what teachers always say—or, er, used to say—when they explain a difficult concept to students, and, in particular, when they try to make their pupils aware about the importance of distinguishing between main points and supporting details, or between major and minor details, or what may erroneously seem such: ‘The devil is in the details’ …

Good old motto! Even in the night in which all cows are black, that is to say in our own “postmodern” age—but this is quite another story. So what? Well, all of the above is just to introduce a very interesting news item which clearly exemplifies the importance of paying attention to details:

Art restorers have discovered the figure of a devil hidden in the clouds of one of the most famous frescos by Giotto in the Basilica of St Francis in Assisi, church officials said on Saturday.
The devil was hidden in the details of clouds at the top of fresco number 20 in the cycle of the scenes in the life and death of St Francis painted by Giotto in the 13th century.
The discovery was made by Italian art historian Chiara Frugoni. It shows a profile of a figure with a hooked nose, a sly smile, and dark horns hidden among the clouds in the panel of the scene depicting the death of St Francis.
The figure is difficult to see from the floor of the basilica but emerges clearly in close-up photography. Sergio Fusetti, the chief restorer of the basilica, said Giotto probably never wanted the image of the devil to be a main part of the fresco and may have painted it in among the clouds 'to have a bit of fun'.
The master may have painted it to spite someone he knew by portraying him as a devil in the painting, Fusetti said on the convent's website.
The artwork in the basilica in the convent where St Francis is buried was last restored after it was severely damaged by an earthquake in 1997. [Reuters]

A detail of the fresco in which the profiled face of a devil is seen 
REUTERS/Basilica of St Francis in Assisi/Handout 

However, apart from the pay-attention-to-details thing, there is the problem of finding out/understanding why the master may have hidden the profiled face of a devil with a hooked nose, a sly smile, and dark horns in the clouds of one of his most famous frescos in the Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi. Perhaps to spite someone he knew by portraying him as a devil and “to have a bit of fun,” as Sergio Fusetti said on the convent’s website? Well, maybe so, maybe not, it’s difficult to say, and I’m no expert on the matter. But then again, as far as I know, a painter who came after generations of “mere” manufacturers of symbols, illustrations, and allegories may have wanted to leave a cryptic message. On the other hand, many medieval cathedrals included gargoyles and chimeras—used as a representation of evil—the most famous examples of which are those of Notre Dame de Paris. Such representations were intended to objectivize—and distance ourselves from—the evil. And then again, even though Giotto has been called the father of Renaissance art, he was a man of the Middle Ages.

Click to enlarge

Here (on the right) is, as an example of what I’m talking about, a picture I took some years ago at the Sacra di San Michele, in Piedmont. It shows a big-headed monster (a devil?) which dominates one of the entrances of the monastery and which is making faces at someone. At whom, exactly? At the monks, of course.

The moral of the story might be, Not every monster/devil is evil, some are just misunderstood.

The Two Cities

Cain and Abel: The Earthly City and the Heavenly City
Anonymous Amanuensis ~ French National Library, Paris 

Surprisingly for me (but pleasantly so), my recent post about St. Augustine has been greatly appreciated by the readers of this blog. It is a credit to them, in my opinion. This, in turn, inspires me to write another one. But this time the subject is, so to speak, a bit less theological and a bit more political. In fact, the concept, or—which is the same thing—the theological doctrine of the Two Cities, the “City of God” and the “City of Earth,” is central in Augustine of Hippo’s political philosophy.

Yet, Augustine, who is remembered for bringing into philosophy from the Judeo-Christian tradition a sense of history and novelty which the Greeks and their philosophers had never had, doesn’t ever discuss the best form of government, instead he is interested in God’s role in history, in individuals and among nations and rulers.

As it had been in heaven, with the prideful revolt of the now fallen angels, so it was on earth. Thus, according to St. Augustine, the two-fold division of the universe into the Heavenly City and the Earthly City originated. The world in which we live is a mixture of the two cities, and here is the biggest challenge, because, in Augustine’s view, in the spiritual life of each individual Christian, there must be a balance between living an active Christian life, made up of societal involvement, and a contemplative life, that is to say, contemplation of God. But now let’s hand over to the bishop of Hippo himself. Here is how he describes the nature of the two cities (The City of God, Book XIV, Chapter 28):

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, You are my glory, and the lifter up of mine head. In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, I will love You, O Lord, my strength. And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,— that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride—they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. [Romans 1:21-25] But in the other city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, that God may be all in all. [1 Corinthians 15:28]

And in the Literal Commentary on Genesis (XI, 15,20) he writes:

These are the two loves: the first is holy, the second foul; the first is social, the second selfish; the first consults the common welfare for the sake of a celestial society, the second grasps at a selfish control of social affairs for the sake of arrogant domination; the first is submissive to God, the second tries to rival God; the first is quiet, the second restless; the first is peaceful, the second trouble-making; the first prefers truth to the praises of those who are in error, the second is greedy for praise, however it may be obtained; the first is friendly, the second envious; the first desires for its neighbor what it wishes for itself, the second desires to subjugate its neighbor; the first rules its neighbor for the good of its neighbor, the second for its own advantage; and these two loves produce a distinction among the angels: the first love belongs to the good angels, the second to the bad angels; and they also separate the two cities founded among the race of men, under the wonderful and ineffable Providence of God, administering and ordering all things that have been created: the first city is that of the just, the second is that of the wicked. Although they are now, during the course of time, intermingled, they shall be divided at the last judgment; the first, being joined by the good angels under its King, shall attain eternal life; the second, in union with the bad angels under its king, shall be sent into eternal fire. Perhaps, we shall treat, God willing, of these two cities more fully in another place.

To conclude (or to begin), not that I want to establish an explicit link between the above quoted passages and our own times, but nevertheless I suppose we had better learn the lesson Augustine taught some 1,600 years ago.

Why the Left Is Unfit to Lead Italy

Let’s go through our mistakes again, said Alessandro Baricco, the popular novelist and icon of the Italian left, speaking at a Democratic Party meeting in Florence last Saturday. And that’s what he did in a brief but passionate—and much applauded—speech which will be remembered for a long time to come. I couldn’t help translating a few lines of it into English:

One [mistake] is that we have always seen ourselves as working in defense of the weak and marginalized, as advocating for people who have no voice and are victims of social injustice. That’s a wonderful starting point, but I want to say this: that we, on behalf (and with the excuse) of that, have mainly set up a protection system, a system of privileges, for a part of this country—and a rather dark one—which seems to be held together by mediocrity and a certain inclination to servility. I don’t know how this happened, but it happened.

We thought, with regard to the defense of the weak, that we might achieve it only by somehow blocking the system on a stable net of rights and defenses. I, along with others, now know that the best thing you can do for the weak is to let him have a dynamic system, not a blocked one. It’s not true that risk hits the weak; risk is a chance for the weak. A blocked system blocks a country, blocks the economic growth, the enthusiasm, the hope, and the options of revenge. It blocks social mobility and capabilities. It is an asphyxial system, and the rich suffers from asphyxia, but not very much, while the poor dies from it. [IL FOGLIO, November 1, 2001, in Italian]

Alessandro Baricco

“Another mistake we have made,” says Baricco, is that “we couldn’t pronounce the words which were the names of the things.” One example for all: “We have never been able to pronounce the word meritocracy. “ Why on earth? “Because it is ugly.” Well, yeah actually. What else were we meant to think?

There is much of my own story and political views in these lines—I could write a book on Why-I-used-to-be-a-leftist-but-not-any-more—but that’s not the point. The point is that the Italian left—along with (if not more than) that of many other Western countries—is exactly as Baricco describes it, with its original sin and its deleterious effects throughout the history of this country. This, if we limit our field of vision to the near future of post-Berlusconi Italy, should lead us all to worry about the prospect of having the country being led by the left. After all, if there is one thing many Italians should fear more than the current government it is the available alternatives. And that’s what actually happens…

“We are in a situation where we are without a government, but also without an opposition, and that is the trouble of the Italian political system today,” said Sergio Fabbrini, Director of the Luiss School of Government and Professor of Political Science and International Relations at LUISS Guido Carli in Rome.
Mr. Fabbrini said that even with open opposition to Mr. Berlusconi from Confindustria, the Italian business lobby, the Roman Catholic Church and several major newspapers that have been calling for his resignation on almost a daily basis, “voters don’t trust the opposition.” Many Italians believe that they, too, would not be able to make the tough choices needed to pull Italy out of the cross hairs of the financial markets.
Mr. Berlusconi’s “strength is the weakness of his rivals,” he said. “This is a stalemate.” [NYT, October 27, 2011]

Good for him, bad for us. But then again, it wouldn’t be necessary to hand over the country to the left in order to get rid of Berlusconi, if only Silvio could realize that—if I may take the liberty of quoting John 11:50—it is expedient for us, that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. Yes, Italy first, if possible. But, hey, don’t misinterpret, long life to Berlusconi, and may God bless and protect Italy from its enemies (wherever they hide)!

“What Blessings Shall We Receive in That Kingdom…?”

Fra Angelico, All Saints (The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs)
National Gallery, London

Today, November 1st, the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast of All Saints, that is, the day in which Catholics commemorate all those who have attained the beatific vision in Heaven—the festival, however, was retained after the Reformation in the calendar of many other Christian confessions for its deep theological and spiritual meaning. This prompts me to quote a passage from St. Augustine The City of God (Book XXII, Chapter 24) which I have always found inspirational, and this, of course, because of its intrinsic worth, but also because of its many references to nature and its beauty. Something which, in my opinion, is suitable for this time of the year, too, in which we experience the beauty of fall foliage…

How can I tell of the rest of creation, with all its beauty and utility, which the divine goodness has given to man to please his eye and serve his purposes, condemned though he is, and hurled into these labors and miseries? Shall I speak of the manifold and various loveliness of sky, and earth, and sea; of the plentiful supply and wonderful qualities of the light; of sun, moon, and stars; of the shade of trees; of the colors and perfume of flowers; of the multitude of birds, all differing in plumage and in song; of the variety of animals, of which the smallest in size are often the most wonderful—the works of ants and bees astonishing us more than the huge bodies of whales? Shall I speak of the sea, which itself is so grand a spectacle, when it arrays itself as it were in vestures of various colors, now running through every shade of green, and again becoming purple or blue? Is it not delightful to look at it in storm, and experience the soothing complacency which it inspires, by suggesting that we ourselves are not tossed and shipwrecked? What shall I say of the numberless kinds of food to alleviate hunger, and the variety of seasonings to stimulate appetite which are scattered everywhere by nature, and for which we are not indebted to the art of cookery? How many natural appliances are there for preserving and restoring health! How grateful is the alternation of day and night! How pleasant the breezes that cool the air! How abundant the supply of clothing furnished us by trees and animals! Who can enumerate all the blessings we enjoy? If I were to attempt to detail and unfold only these few which I have indicated in the mass, such an enumeration would fill a volume. And all these are but the solace of the wretched and condemned, not the rewards of the blessed. What then shall these rewards be, if such be the blessings of a condemned state? What will He give to those whom He has predestined to life, who has given such things even to those whom He has predestined to death? What blessings will He in the blessed life shower upon those for whom, even in this state of misery, He has been willing that His only-begotten Son should endure such sufferings even to death? Thus the apostle reasons concerning those who are predestined to that kingdom: He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also give us all things? Romans 8:32 When this promise is fulfilled, what shall we be? What blessings shall we receive in that kingdom, since already we have received as the pledge of them Christ's dying? In what condition shall the spirit of man be, when it has no longer any vice at all; when it neither yields to any, nor is in bondage to any, nor has to make war against any, but is perfected, and enjoys undisturbed peace with itself? Shall it not then know all things with certainty, and without any labor or error, when unhindered and joyfully it drinks the wisdom of God at the fountain-head? What shall the body be, when it is in every respect subject to the spirit, from which it shall draw a life so sufficient, as to stand in need of no other nutriment? For it shall no longer be animal, but spiritual, having indeed the substance of flesh, but without any fleshly corruption.

~ First written for The Metaphysical Peregrine ~

A Defense of Nonsense

“ Our claim that nonsense is a new literature (we might almost say a new sense) would be quite indefensible if nonsense were nothing more than a mere aesthetic fancy. Nothing sublimely artistic has ever arisen out of mere art, any more than anything essentially reasonable has ever arisen out of the pure reason. There must always be a rich moral soil for any great aesthetic growth. The principle of art for art’s sake is a very good principle if it means that there is a vital distinction between the earth and the tree that has its roots in the earth; but it is a very bad principle if it means that the tree could grow just as well with its roots in the air. Every great literature has always been allegorical—allegorical of some view of the whole universe. The ‘Iliad’ is only great because all life is a battle, the ‘Odyssey’ because all life is a journey, the Book of Job because all life is a riddle. There is one attitude in which we think that all existence is summed up in the word ‘ghosts’; another, and somewhat better one, in which we think it is summed up in the words ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream.’ Even the vulgarest melodrama or detective story can be good if it expresses something of the delight in sinister possibilities—the healthy lust for darkness and terror which may come on us any night in walking down a dark lane. If, therefore, nonsense is really to be the literature of the future, it must have its own version of the Cosmos to offer; the world must not only be the tragic, romantic, and religious, it must be nonsensical also. And here we fancy that nonsense will, in a very unexpected way, come to the aid of the spiritual view of things. Religion has for centuries been trying to make men exult in the ‘wonders’ of creation, but it has forgotten that a thing cannot be completely wonderful so long as it remains sensible. So long as we regard a tree as an obvious thing, naturally and reasonably created for a giraffe to eat, we cannot properly wonder at it. It is when we consider it as a prodigious wave of the living soil sprawling up to the skies for no reason in particular that we take off our hats, to the astonishment of the park-keeper. Everything has in fact another side to it, like the moon, the patroness of nonsense. Viewed from that other side, a bird is a blossom broken loose from its chain of stalk, a man a quadruped begging on its hind legs, a house a gigantesque hat to cover a man from the sun, a chair an apparatus of four wooden legs for a cripple with only two.
This is the side of things which tends most truly to spiritual wonder. It is significant that in the greatest religious poem existent, the Book of Job, the argument which convinces the infidel is not (as has been represented by the merely rational religionism of the eighteenth century) a picture of the ordered beneficence of the Creation; but, on the contrary, a picture of the huge and undecipherable unreason of it. ‘Hast Thou sent the rain upon the desert where no man is?’ This simple sense of wonder at the shapes of things, and at their exuberant independence of our intellectual standards and our trivial definitions, is the basis of spirituality as it is the basis of nonsense. Nonsense and faith (strange as the conjunction may seem) are the two supreme symbolic assertions of the truth that to draw out the soul of things with a syllogism is as impossible as to draw out Leviathan with a hook. The well-meaning person who, by merely studying the logical side of things, has decided that ‘faith is nonsense,’ does not know how truly he speaks; later it may come back to him in the form that nonsense is faith. ”

~ Gilbert Keith Chesterton, The Defendant, 1902

How true! It is definitely impossible to draw out the soul of things with a syllogism. Do you remember Dante’s Paradiso (Canto X)?

O Thou insensate care of mortal men,
How inconclusive are the syllogisms
That make thee beat thy wings in downward flight!

Nonsense is therefore about as actually an instrument of the search for the ultimate truth as faith. Of course, as Chesterton pointed out elsewhere (“Child Psychology and Nonsense” in Illustrated London News, October 15, 1921), there are “two ways of dealing with nonsense in this world,”

One way is to put nonsense in the right place; as when people put nonsense into nursery rhymes. The other is to put nonsense in the wrong place; as when they put it into educational addresses, psychological criticisms, and complaints against nursery rhymes or other normal amusements of mankind.

And now, after making it clear that, somewhat unexpectedly, nursery rhymes and the Book of Job have something very important in common, let’s make “the well-meaning person” say that faith is nonsense—he does not actually know how truly he speaks…

Giovanni Di Paolo, Illustration of Dante's Paradiso (Canto X) 
The First Circle of the Twelve Teachers of Wisdom (British Library - London)

Living 'La Vita Bella' (and Other Stories)

Medieval Florence (miniature, Vatican Library)

Not Just the Weekly Grind: Last Week’s Roundup

1. Living “La Vita Bella.” Italians Leave Fears of Debt Crisis to Others
   
   After living with the problem for hundreds of years, most Italians don’t really worry. Not the way the other countries do. After all, no other country has such a long history of involvement in debt... That’s why no other country knows as much about getting in and out of debt. High debt levels and little growth have been part of the status quo in Italian budget policy, and the Italians have survived even more serious crises…
   
   

   After so many centuries, the secret door sticks a bit. But it still exists, hidden behind an image of Italy in the “Hall of Maps” of Florence’s Palazzo Vecchio. “Eccolo,” says Francesca, the custodian. “It happened here.”
   This is where it all began. Starting sometime in the mid-14th century, the leather-bound ledgers the city of Florence used to record its debts were kept hidden in this secret place. Someone in the city government had apparently hit upon the idea of using the citizens' money to fund the next military campaign. After Florence’s (supposedly certain) victory, the city would simply repay the debts—and with interest.
   The wealthy Florentines, who were required to buy their city’s debt securities, had their names recorded in the ledgers at Palazzo Vecchio. But, for them, paying up was still preferable to putting on their own suits of armor to defend the city. Besides, they could also sell these new debt securities to others.

   
   Yes, that’s where it all began. But this is just the beginning of a long Spiegel Online International article that is very much worth your time (interviews with the mayor of Florence and leading economists included).
   
   
2. Herman Cain Blames The Unemployed, GOP Debate Audience Cheers (VIDEO) 
   
   As everybody already knows Herman Cain recently criticized the Occupy Wall Street protesters, saying, “Don’t blame Wall Street. Don’t blame the big banks. If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.” As it was not enough, at Tuesday night’s CNN debate, he stood by his comments.
   In response, Ron Paul criticized Cain: “I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims. […] There’s a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can’t blame the victims. But we also have to point—I’d go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I’d go over to the Federal Reserve. They create the financial bubbles.”
   Now honestly, how can you disagree with that?
3. Cain's latest bizarre abortion comment
   
   

   Herman Cain took another shot at clarifying his abortion stance on Fox News today, but in the process only added to the confusion.
   Cain attempted to argue that when he said in a CNN interview earlier this week that the decision was ultimately up to the family, what he really meant was that it was up the family as to whether they wanted to break the law.
   “I do not think abortion should be legal in this country,” Cain said on Fox today. “Abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if a family made the decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision.”
   On its face, it's completely bizarre for a presidential candidate to say that families should decide whether they want to break the law, but either way, it's difficult to square with previous comments.

   
   I’ve got a headache coming on...
   
4. Why There’s No Way Cain Will Survive His Abortion Gaffe
   
   

   Herman is a smooth operator with the soul of a born salesman, but this time his silver tongue may have undone him. Tax plans can be written or unwritten. For people who think legalized abortion represents an ongoing American Holocaust, however, the correct position is always the same, and any wrinkle or nuance that complicates “No!” is just going to get the candidate in deep trouble.

   
   Not a minor affair...
   
5. Steve Forbes on Rick Perry’s Flat Tax Proposal: It’s the Best Tax Proposal Since Ronald Reagan (VIDEO)
   
   Things change. “Nothing endures but change” (Heraclitus).

Protests, Propaganda, Presidents

~ “LETTERS FROM AMERICA” - by The Metaphysical Peregrine

President Obama and the Democrats continue to blame America’s
economic woes on George Bush even though their Party controlled both houses of Congress for most of the 20^th century, with a couple years spread out here and there for the Republicans. The first two years of this administration Congress was controlled completely by the Democrats. Together they increased our debt by about $4 trillion dollars. Right now we are $15,000,000,000,000 in debt. That puts every man, woman and child in America $47,835 in debt. That doesn't include $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the things the Federal Government has taken off the books and say the States or someone has to pay for. They’re all in massive debt too, and unable to pay.

Obama did a big “pass this now” jobs bill. It didn’t pass the Democrat controlled Senate. A second try was made last week, and again it was not passed by the Democrat controlled Senate. Yet on the campaign trail promoting his jobs bill, he blamed the Republicans. Really and truly. The lowest sort of blame came from Vice President Joe Biden, who said not passing the bill would mean there would be an increase in rapes and murders, and it would be the Republican’s fault. Other leaders in the Democrat Party are repeating this disgusting lie and line. Shameless.

A couple months ago some college students and aging hippies got together to protest Wall Street and corporations. They are financed and organized by media outlets, unions and the socialist movement. They call themselves the 99%. They made some bad life choices, or are just lazy, and want the 1% to pay for it. The “Occupy Wall Street” protests popped up in several cities and have gotten massive positive coverage. There have been beatings, thefts, rape, public nudity and sexual activity, clashes with the police, violence and hundreds of arrests. People are defecating in public, including on police cars and the American flag. Pedophiles are exposing themselves to children. (What are kids doing there?) They wear the latest threads provided by corporations, using millions of dollars of the latest technology made by corporations. Now at the protest sites rats are breeding like, well, rats, and the health hazard is becoming extreme. The Left is anti-Semitic, and the signs along with anti-Jewish rants bear it out. It’s been a dirty little secret for years. It’s still being covered up by the Jurassic Press. Its racism bubbled up at the Portland protest when a black man was called a n****er by several of the protesters.

Support for these non-producers comes not only from the Main Steam Media, but elite socialists in the hated 1%. Russell Simmons is a multimillionaire that has several businesses, including a high interest credit card (how capitalist can you get), is a 1 per center that supports the movement. Fat cat propagandist Michael Moore, emphasis on fat, is worth several $million; as are the Obama’s, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Susan Sarandon and most of the Hollywood elites. If anything, why aren’t multimillionaire actors that make mostly bad movies, shelter their earnings to reduce their tax rate, being protested? They're in the 1%. Other supporters of the movement include the fascist Iranian government, Communist Party USA, Socialist Party of America, the Nazi Party of America; the Russian Kleptocrats lead by Putin, and the Democrat Party.

All the nastiness, hatred, violence, anti-Semitism, and racism is being glossed over by reporters in the Main Stream Media. Conversely, what’s reported about the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is they are racist and violent, even though there is no evidence of either. The only violence that occurred was when union thugs showed up at rally’s and town hall meetings and tried to start fights. TEA Party members and supporters met with elected "servants of the people" at town hall meetings, didn’t like what they heard, and went to the polls and voted many of them out; legally, nonviolently and constitutionally. The Wall Street protesters are advocating the destruction of our economic system and the overthrow of our constitutional republic to be replaced by a socialist state. About a third of them advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.

Going back to the top of this post, we have an incompetent president that was elected to the highest office in the land with no business or government executive experience. He's had an easy life of people just giving him everything he wanted. He was raised by communists and racists. He went to church that worshipped at the altar of racism and materialist Marxism, not the altar of God. His two self aggrandizing books are peppered with racist statements. He claimed to be a constitutional professor but was only a guest lecturer. He was editor of a college publication, but never wrote an article. He’s never released his grades like every president before him. (As an aside, the Press kept claiming John Kerry was smarter than GW Bush. Bush had higher grades, an advanced degree, and was a fighter pilot. Kerry ran a little boat on a river, a job that a chief petty officer could do.) Obama never had a job, never met a payroll, never governed a state, and never ran a business. In both state and US senates he mostly voted ‘present’.

Yet the theme presented by the Jurassic Press about the Republican candidates is that they are lacking and not ready for the presidency. There’s a fighter pilot governor in Rick Perry who's economic policies created a pro-business environment resulting in the creation of most of the jobs in the United States the past few years. A hugely successful businessman, a guy that pulled the winter Olympics out of certain failure into a success, and a governor in Mitt Romney. A successful lawyer and business woman in Michelle Bachman, and a successful businessman in Herman Cain. Newt Gringrich may be the smartest politician alive, and all the Left can do is personally attack him because they’re unable to successfully debate him. Yet all these people are less qualified than Obama? Look where that’s gotten us.  

Why Transhumanism’s Mission to Create Ubermenchen Children Is Coercive

Ronald Bailey, the science editor for “Reason” magazine, describes himself as a “libertarian transhumanist.” In his 2005 book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, he argues that, despite what he considers the vastly exaggerated concerns of opponents of biotechnology and stem cell research, the emerging biotech revolution will improve our lives and the future of our children—far from endangering human dignity, he says, the rapid progress in biotechnology will enable more of us to live flourishing lives free of disease, disability, and the threat of early death. Unfortunately, he argues,

We find ourselves in the remarkable position of having many of our leading intellectuals and policymakers arguing that their fellow citizens should be denied access to technologies they know will enable them and their families to live healthier, saner and longer lives…

Rather, in his opinion, patients should have the freedom to embrace or reject stem cell and biotech benefits based on their own personal or religious values. He recently returned to this topic, polemicizing with political scientist Peter Lawler, a member of President George W. Bush’s Council on Bioethics, who during a debate concerning the ethics of radical life extension at Wheaton College in Massachusetts last week, made the case that using technology to radically extend human life spans, and boost human intellectual, emotional, and physical capacities, will end in coercion. To which Bailey replied as follows:

I advocate a liberal tolerant approach: People who reject enhancements for themselves and their progeny are free to do so, whereas those who want to upgrade their mental and physical capacities are also free to do so.

Now, what can we say in response to this? Well, as for the term “liberal,” especially in the current meaning of the word (a political ideology of reform, often associated with left-leaning movements), I’d prefer not to comment. As for the term “tolerant,” well, there is much to be said about this… Here is how CBC (Center for Bioethics and Culture Network) Wesley J. Smith puts it:

How can I put it in a way that Bailey will understand? Assume scientists find a “religion” gene that expresses for people to experience intense faith. And say, a fundamentalist Christian, decides he wants to ensure his kid will be saved for eternity–and so he transhumanizes the kid to have the “faith” gene, thereby creating a strong propensity in his child to believe. Would Bailey say that child had not been coerced into being religious? I doubt it.

He might say–I don’t know–that engineering for faith should be forbidden. If so, he would be violating transhumanist libertarianism by constraining the “freedom” to post humanize children to only those enhancements with which he–or better stated, the power structure–approves. If not, he accepts the transhumanist core belief that in some sense children are mere sentient products, properly accessorized to please the desires and fulfill the wishes of their purchasers (or not, as in the classicGattaca scene embedded above).

Transhumanism has revived the pernicious idea of the ubermenchen in the hubristic belief that they have the wisdom to intelligently design human life beyond how we evolved, were created, or were designed by a greater force than ourselves. They don’t, and they forget that often our human imperfections bring out the best in people–and indeed help produce greatness. (Would Abraham Lincoln have been Abraham Lincoln without what may have been his congenital melancholia?) In any event, the eugenic implications of transhumanist ideology are more than frightening.

Game Over

The first photo (France Press/Philippe Desmazes)

Captured or killed, but the game is over aniway.

And, Sure, Sean Is an Honorable Man

Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez

Not Just the Weekly Grind: Last Week’s Roundup

1. Sean Penn Calls Tea Party the ‘Get the N-Word Out of the White House Party’ Which Wants to ‘Lynch’ Obama
   According to left-wing actor Sean Penn the Tea Party is motivated by racism. On CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight on Friday evening he said that an impediment to President Obama’s success is “what I call the ‘Get the N-word out of the White House party,’ the Tea Party.”  (Video and transcript included)
   
   This, of course, while Herman Cain tops polls of Republican primary voters. Yet Brutus Sean says—without citing any evidence, ça va sans dire—that “there’s a big bubble coming out of their heads saying, you know, ‘can we just lynch him?’” And, sure, he is an honourable man... 
2. Ann Coulter: Media ‘Will Lie About the Economy’ To Get Obama Reelected
   Conservative author Ann Coulter told Fox News’s Sean Hannity Friday evening that Obama, as bad as his numbers are right now, “will have the entire mainstream media bucking for him and they will lie about the economy. ‘Oh, it’s a turnaround, don’t stop him now.’” An easy prophecy? (Video and transcript included)
   
3. Why Herman Cain Can Win
   OK, Herman Cain isn’t the most likely person to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. That’s Mitt Romney. But, a new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released late Wednesday suggests that a path to victory does exist for him. How? Well, by singing! Er, no, just kidding of course (great video, though), read the above linked article to know exactly how. 
4. We Underestimate Occupy Wall Street to Our Own Peril
   
   

   By trying to minimize them we’re in fact doing exactly what these people did, and are still doing, when they try to portray us as Nazis, capitalist pigs, reactionaries, or assassins. If we try to portray them as something different, something un-American, I think we’ll lose every time because they have the media advantage. And gods forbid if the soldiers in that crowd make a showing, because it’s easy to criticize the hippies, but how do you criticize the soldiers as different? You can’t, really.
   What I think we need is a war of ideas, not one of belittlement. I think that’s the key to defeating Occupy Wall Street arguments, and we need to get started.

   
   What can I say? Very well said, indeed...
   

Tocqueville's American (and Cartesian) Democracy

Alexis de Tocqueville

Did you know about Tocqueville’s remarkable insight that the Americans are Cartesians without having read a word of Descartes? But “the Cartesian method is also the democratic method, and it’s that democratic method that keeps Americans from reading the words of philosophers — Descartes or anyone else.” Read this and much more in an introduction to Tocqueville (.pdf) and his “contribution to the American reconciliation of greatness and justice in a true understanding of human liberty,” by Peter A. Lawler (published in LO SGUARDO – RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA, N. 7, 2011 (III) – LIBERALISMO E DEMOCRAZIA). The author’s purpose is “to show the similarity between Tocqueville’s and Percy’s [the American Catholic novelist/philosopher Walker Percy] analysis of American disorientation, of a people confused by not knowing the whole truth about who they are and what they’re supposed to do.”

Via Postmodern Conservative.

Achtung, France!

[From the series, Who's the Next Domino to Fall?]

Top German economists are warning that French debt is likely to be downgraded in the months to come. In today's Spiegel Online International:

Ever since Europe's common currency crisis began erupting in earnest last year, two countries have been largely responsible for preventing a complete collapse of the euro zone: France and Germany. Without their support, Greece, Portugal and Ireland would have long since declared insolvency.

This year, though, with the euro crisis going from bad to worse, it is looking increasingly likely that France may not be able to emerge unscathed. Indeed, leading German economists on Monday told the website of financial daily Handelsblatt that French debt is likely to be downgraded in the months to come.