After 9/11, everyone was up in arms about the vicious attack on America that killed 3,000 people. At the time, America's abortion clinics killed 3,000 children every 48 hours. Democrats, then and now, routinely ignore the violence of abortion. The MSM refused to point out that abortionists were as violent every day as Muslim terrorists. No one wanted to hear that second fact. It didn't fit the popular meme.
When a white cop shot a black perpetrator in Ferguson, the cities rioted. Despite the outrage, we know that, in this country, most blacks are actually killed by other blacks. In fact, 6% of the population (black men between the ages of 16 and 30) commit 50% of the murders in the United States. The victims of these violent young black men are almost always other young black men between the ages of 16 and 30. Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the black community. No one wants to hear that second fact. It doesn't fit the popular meme.
95% of black voters are Democrats, which means half of America's murders are committed by Democrats. No one wants to hear that. It doesn't fit the popular meme.
Islam is, according to Democrats, a religion of peace. 95% of the world's conflicts involve Muslim combatants on one or both sides. In 2015 alone, 450 of the year's 452 suicide terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims. Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the Muslim community. No one wants to hear those facts. It doesn't fit the popular meme.
Homosexuals have higher rates of addiction in every category of addiction you can name, including interpersonal violence. The homosexual community is very violent: they beat each other up. A lot. In fact, much of Islam's violence can arguably be traced back to Islam's essentially homosexual orientation. As with the blacks and Muslims, Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the homosexual community. No one wants to hear this. The facts don't fit the popular memes.
Homosexuals make up 1-2% of the American population. 69% of America's mass murderers have been homosexual. Everyone routinely ignores this. No one wants to hear this. The facts don't fit the popular memes
Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, and a Muslim. He was also a regular at the homosexual bar, Pulse. Omar had an active profile on a homosexual dating app. In fact, reliable reports indicate he was homosexual. His ex-wife agrees that he was. The mass murder he committed, ending in suicide-by-cop, matches everything we know about how Democrats, Muslims and homosexuals act.
Today, people are blaming Christians and guns for the mass murder committed by a homosexual Muslim. Many will focus on the fact that he was a Muslim. They will claim he was inspired by ISIS. No one will mention that he was just one more in a long line of homosexual mass murderers.
No one wants to hear this.
The facts don't fit the popular memes.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Monday, June 13, 2016
Ronald Reagan's favorite Founding Father: Thomas Paine
In explaining Reagan's fondness for quoting Paine, Duggan notes that Reagan's brand of conservatism was remarkably untraditional in its rhetoric. In several different contexts, Reagan quoted Paine's stirring line, "We have the power to begin the world anew" -- a very untraditional sentiment. Reagan embraced Paine's idea that human beings can liberate themselves from corrupt and oppressive structures in order to create a new order of liberty and individualism. While Reagan appealed to voters of a more traditionalist perspective, he was no disciple of Russell Kirk & even less a disciple of Edmund Burke. Behind Reagan's conservativism was a streak of radicalism that is underappreciated both by many current conservatives who tend to be overly hagiographic when speaking of the former president & many modern progressives who ignorantly demonize him.
It is a fascinating twist of history that the most radical American revolutionary, Thomas Paine, serves as a primary philosophical influence on the most successful conservative president of the 20th century. Any attempt to understand Ronald Reagan must take into account the influence of Thomas Paine on his work. And any attempt to appreciate Thomas Paine's influence on America must look to the impact his work had on the ideas, rhetoric & program of Ronald Reagan.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Bruce Frohnen on why the Benedict Option isn't an option
The constitutional law scholar and lawyer explains why he thinks that the Benedict Option is doomed to failure:
Leaders of this society will not leave Christians alone if we simply surrender the public square to them. And they will deny they are persecuting anyone for simply applying the law to revoke tax exemptions, force the hiring of nonbelievers, and even jail those who fail to abide by laws they consider eminently reasonable, fair, and just. More is demanded of us than mere quiet. We are being commanded to celebrate what Saint John Paul the Great so rightly termed a Culture of Death. This culture denies God. It treats children as disposable, marriage as a mere public expression of current emotional attachments, and faith as meanings we posit for ourselves. It cannot long abide those whose very existence testifies to the shallow, self-involved, and fundamentally empty nature of its false vision of reality.As the saying goes, read it all: There is No Benedict Option.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Thursday, June 09, 2016
Rape Version of "Suicide By Cop"
You know, most people are familiar with "suicide by cop", wherein someone with mental problems sets themselves up as a danger to others, hoping that the cops will kill them. They aren't personally able to pull the trigger on themselves, so they goad others into killing them.
None of this, of course, justifies the rape, anymore than it would be justified for police to deliberately kill a known suicidal victim. We already know sado-masochistic pursuits are popular among those with low self-esteem:
Just as the majority of cop shootings are justified, so the majority of rape claims are valid. But not every shooting, not every rape claim, is as black-and-white as the involved parties claim. Is there such a thing as "rape by bystander"? It does not seem unreasonable to say that there is.
Family and friends called the sheriff's department when Dillon, who doctors said had a total break with reality and a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal driving limit, started firing a gun in the house....Dillon's lawyers Richard Lubin and Jonathan Kaplan said recordings of the negotiations between deputies and Dillon reveal he repeatedly begged them to kill him.Given the recent events, I wonder if there may not be a similar "rape by bystander" motivation, wherein someone with self-destructive tendencies sets themselves up in a dangerous situation in the hopes that a bystander will act in a degrading way towards them, thus giving them the satisfaction of "independent" confirmation that they should be treated badly. Take the example of the Turner case:
Turner’s victim was unconscious when police found her, and she had no recollection of the assault. Her blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit for driving.The victim's own statements about the events that night, even in the opening paragraph, indicates she had low self-esteem and a fairly lousy personal body image. She tries to imply both that she was an experienced drinker AND that she "accidentally" got to a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit, which is an interesting juxtaposition from a self-image point of view. She clearly went to a party where she had no friends, felt out of place. Events proved that even her own sister was, at best, not keeping track of her welfare or her drunken state. This is how she ended up in a sexual encounter with a random stranger behind a dumpster in an alley by a frat house, so drunk that she can't even remember if she attempted to give consent before she passed out, as the drunken man insisted she did.
None of this, of course, justifies the rape, anymore than it would be justified for police to deliberately kill a known suicidal victim. We already know sado-masochistic pursuits are popular among those with low self-esteem:
some....want to be beaten because they have low self-esteem and think they deserve it. They are forlorn, absent and unresponsive during and after a scene, in this case, S & M ceases to be play and becomes pathological.We also know that being a rape victim can generate interest some people may find appealing.
Just as the majority of cop shootings are justified, so the majority of rape claims are valid. But not every shooting, not every rape claim, is as black-and-white as the involved parties claim. Is there such a thing as "rape by bystander"? It does not seem unreasonable to say that there is.
Wednesday, June 08, 2016
Harlow Giles Unger on Patrick Henry
When it comes to the Founding Fathers, most of the attention is paid to those who were major players in national politics, and in particular those who attained the presidency. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe get the lion's share of the glory in popular historical writing, while other major founders like Hamilton, Jay & Marshall receive significantly less attention by modern writers. At the bottom of the heap nowadays are those Founders who were important for a brief period on the national stage but who spent most of their political careers working at the state or local level. Names that were revered in the past, like Samuel Adams & Patrick Henry, simply don't get the kind of attention that they deserve given their historic impact on our nation's history. Harlow Giles Unger, an historian and former visiting fellow at Mount Vernon, has written a delightful biography that tries to rectify the lack of attention paid to Patriot leader and Virginia politician Patrick Henry. Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation (2010, paperback $14.38, GoogleBooks preview here) hits just the right note -- not too short, not too long -- and provides insightful glimpses into the life and work of one of the most important men who helped to bring about the creation of the American republic.
Unger provides a solid overview of the life of Henry, detailed but not too detailed for the general reader. While certainly not exhaustive, Unger's book delves into key events in Henry's life, explaining how the episodes discussed helped to shape Henry's work and approach to politics. Henry's commitment to liberty is explained within the context of Virginia's social and political climate, the prevalence of slavery and aristocracy in the Old Dominion, and the tension that existed between wealthy planters and hardscrabble farmers who were outside of the establishment of their day.
Unger demonstrates how Henry's opposition to what he viewed as oppressive royal government had roots that went back to Henry's earliest days as a backwoods lawyer, long before independence was even being discussed. In fact, Henry's commitment to liberty is the thread that Unger uses to explain his subject's political career -- his support for the Patriot cause, his opposition to the Constitution of 1789, his support of the Bill of Rights, and his eventual shift from the Republican movement to the Federalist Party at the end of his life. Henry's friendships and family life are explored as well, with particular attention paid to his legal career and his relationship with George Washington.
Unger demonstrates how Henry's opposition to what he viewed as oppressive royal government had roots that went back to Henry's earliest days as a backwoods lawyer, long before independence was even being discussed. In fact, Henry's commitment to liberty is the thread that Unger uses to explain his subject's political career -- his support for the Patriot cause, his opposition to the Constitution of 1789, his support of the Bill of Rights, and his eventual shift from the Republican movement to the Federalist Party at the end of his life. Henry's friendships and family life are explored as well, with particular attention paid to his legal career and his relationship with George Washington.
One aspect of the book that merits special interest regards the beginning of Henry's public life. Henry's first major legal case was an argument in defense of a group of farmers who had refused to pay the church tax to support the established Anglican Church of Virginia colony. Henry's opposition to what he saw as both a violation of religious liberty and the freedom of the people to be secure against oppressive taxation by distant imperial & colonial governments featured large in how Henry litigated the case. Unger quotes a part of Henry's closing argument, where the colonial lawyer provided an eloquent condemnation of the desire of the Anglican clergy to feast at the tax trough:
Do they manifest their zeal in the cause of religion and humanity by practicing the mild and benevolent precepts of the Gospel of Jesus? Do they feed the hungry and clothe the naked? Oh, no, gentlemen! Instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, these rapacious harpies world, were their powers equal to their will, snatch from the hearth of their honest parishioner his last hoe-cake, form the widow and her orphaned children their last milch cow! the last bed, nay, the last blanket from the lying-in woman!
Henry's opposition to government support of religious establishment would fade after the American Revolution, but prior to the split with the British, he viewed the Anglican Church as parasitic to the people. In his closing argument, Henry contended that the royal tax in support of the Anglican Church breached the king's duty to provide for the well-being of his people -- the poor were being dispossessed to aid the affluent clergy. This charge lead to cries of "treason," against Henry, much as his later calls for American independence would elicit the same cry.
Henry's approach to the question of public funding of religious bodies was part of a much deeper and sophisticated critique of government power. For Henry, liberty & the common good were intertwined principles, principles which in different contexts might lead to a shift in political positions in order to defend those underlying principles.
Henry's approach to the question of public funding of religious bodies was part of a much deeper and sophisticated critique of government power. For Henry, liberty & the common good were intertwined principles, principles which in different contexts might lead to a shift in political positions in order to defend those underlying principles.
It is that view by Henry that explains his shift, at the end of his life, to support the Federalist Party. Long a dedicated opponent of centralized power and a relentless critic of any step by which the federal government seemed to move beyond a limited scope, Henry was also committed to the United States as a single nation, not simply a collection of confederated republics. While an opponent of the ratification of the Constitution of 1789, Henry leaped to the charter's defense during Washington's administration, when local tax revolts were springing up in the frontier areas. Shocked at the political machinations of Jefferson & Madison, Henry moved to support Washington & the Federalists as the political culture of the 1790's grew increasingly polarized.
In 1799, after pleas from both John Marshall & a retired George Washington, a dying Patrick Henry ran for election to Congress, blasting Jefferson & Madison for their support for efforts to undermine national unity via the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. While Henry, as Unger explains, had been "a bitter opponent of the Constitution, it was the law of the land, and he was, above all, a law-abiding citizen."
In 1799, after pleas from both John Marshall & a retired George Washington, a dying Patrick Henry ran for election to Congress, blasting Jefferson & Madison for their support for efforts to undermine national unity via the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. While Henry, as Unger explains, had been "a bitter opponent of the Constitution, it was the law of the land, and he was, above all, a law-abiding citizen."
Unger's book on Henry is well worth its price. A fascinating study of one of the most important public men of the founding era, Unger's work is a fitting reintroduction to the life & work of a pivotal Patriot leader. Highly recommended.
Monday, June 06, 2016
How To Rape Yourself
A lot of people seem upset with the rape sentencing handed down in this instance. The argument is that the young man should have been much more harshly sentenced than he was.
Now, many commentators, such as the one below, have been pointing out that alcohol is the fuel that drives student-student campus rape:
The problem lies precisely in the argument that a drunk person cannot give consent. In this particular instance, the woman was so drunk (three times the legal limit) she remembers none of what happened. The only person who was there for the entire encounter, the young man, was also drunk. In short, neither is a very good witness to exactly what happened.
So, for the sake of argument, let us say she was conscious at the beginning of the encounter and attempted to give consent (failing, of course, because she was drunk). We don't know if she did because she was so drunk she doesn't remember anything. But, if she did attempt and fail, we have to remember that HE couldn't give consent to the sexual encounter EITHER because HE was ALSO drunk. So, according to the "drunk" rule, if they were having any kind of sexual interplay when both were conscious, they would - technically speaking - be raping each other.
That's bad enough, but it gets worse. Remember, according to the "too drunk to consent" rule, Person A cannot functionally form consent or intent. If Person B has sexual relations with A, it is rape, regardless of Person B's state of mind. Drunk or sober, it doesn't matter. We judge rape purely by A's ability to consent. B's intent and/or consent is irrelevant.
But, if Person A (whether male or female) is stipulated to be too drunk to give consent to someone else, arguably Person A is even too drunk to be able to consent to his/her own actions.
Put another way, if Person A is drunk, and therefore cannot be responsible for his/her actions towards Person B when B is conscious, why would the drunk A suddenly become responsible for his/her actions when B is no longer conscious? Perhaps B was never conscious to begin with - why would that change A's inability to consent to the sexual actions? Remember, Person B's state of mind is not relevant here. The rape of A revolves entirely around A's ability to consent.
As in the case of the young swimmer above, Person A is drunk, too drunk to even notice whether or not B is conscious. So drunk, in fact, that A cannot give consent to sex. Precisely because A is drunk, all sex is rape for Person A, because A cannot consent. Thus, by sexually interacting with B, A is being raped by B regardless of whether B is conscious because A cannot give consent for his/her own actions. Now, as the unconscious B is raping A via A's actions, it certainly may be the case that B is ALSO being raped by A via A's action, But because A is drunk, A is now in the peculiar position of raping himself or herself, using B as the conduit, simply by engaging in sexual action while drunk.
If we accept the "too drunk to consent" rule, then Person A is not responsible for the sex, even if Person A was the only one conscious and the only one acting. Which means the logic can be taken yet another step. In this situation, Person A's body is engaging in sexual conduct while his/her mind is unable to form the consent necessary for sex. You have heard of the victimless crime? This now becomes the perpetrator-less crime - everyone is getting raped, but no one is actually doing the raping.
This is where political correctness and the "too drunk" rule has taken us.
Now, many commentators, such as the one below, have been pointing out that alcohol is the fuel that drives student-student campus rape:
Yet columnist Scott Herhold had called earlier in the day for the judge to follow a probation recommendation for the county jail term rather than state prison. He noted Turner wrote probation authorities that he “would give anything to change what happened” and said he “can never forgive myself” for the incident.
“You don't have to buy Turner's story that he so was drunk himself that he did not realize she had passed out,” Herhold wrote. “But it's hard to review this case without concluding that it has roots in a culture of campus drinking, the unindicted co-conspirator here.”
Slate has even gone so far as to have a female columnist point out that college women wouldn't get so frequently raped if they didn't get so frequently drunk. None of this commentary sits well with the politically correct crowd.
The problem lies precisely in the argument that a drunk person cannot give consent. In this particular instance, the woman was so drunk (three times the legal limit) she remembers none of what happened. The only person who was there for the entire encounter, the young man, was also drunk. In short, neither is a very good witness to exactly what happened.
So, for the sake of argument, let us say she was conscious at the beginning of the encounter and attempted to give consent (failing, of course, because she was drunk). We don't know if she did because she was so drunk she doesn't remember anything. But, if she did attempt and fail, we have to remember that HE couldn't give consent to the sexual encounter EITHER because HE was ALSO drunk. So, according to the "drunk" rule, if they were having any kind of sexual interplay when both were conscious, they would - technically speaking - be raping each other.
That's bad enough, but it gets worse. Remember, according to the "too drunk to consent" rule, Person A cannot functionally form consent or intent. If Person B has sexual relations with A, it is rape, regardless of Person B's state of mind. Drunk or sober, it doesn't matter. We judge rape purely by A's ability to consent. B's intent and/or consent is irrelevant.
But, if Person A (whether male or female) is stipulated to be too drunk to give consent to someone else, arguably Person A is even too drunk to be able to consent to his/her own actions.
Put another way, if Person A is drunk, and therefore cannot be responsible for his/her actions towards Person B when B is conscious, why would the drunk A suddenly become responsible for his/her actions when B is no longer conscious? Perhaps B was never conscious to begin with - why would that change A's inability to consent to the sexual actions? Remember, Person B's state of mind is not relevant here. The rape of A revolves entirely around A's ability to consent.
As in the case of the young swimmer above, Person A is drunk, too drunk to even notice whether or not B is conscious. So drunk, in fact, that A cannot give consent to sex. Precisely because A is drunk, all sex is rape for Person A, because A cannot consent. Thus, by sexually interacting with B, A is being raped by B regardless of whether B is conscious because A cannot give consent for his/her own actions. Now, as the unconscious B is raping A via A's actions, it certainly may be the case that B is ALSO being raped by A via A's action, But because A is drunk, A is now in the peculiar position of raping himself or herself, using B as the conduit, simply by engaging in sexual action while drunk.
If we accept the "too drunk to consent" rule, then Person A is not responsible for the sex, even if Person A was the only one conscious and the only one acting. Which means the logic can be taken yet another step. In this situation, Person A's body is engaging in sexual conduct while his/her mind is unable to form the consent necessary for sex. You have heard of the victimless crime? This now becomes the perpetrator-less crime - everyone is getting raped, but no one is actually doing the raping.
This is where political correctness and the "too drunk" rule has taken us.
Sunday, June 05, 2016
Why the Benedict Option isn't an option
[Dreher has a FAQ webpage on the Benedict Option for those interested in reading about his proposal in more detail.]
Let's applaud Dreher for thinking constructively about how people of faith can cope with a situation where a thick understanding of religious liberty is undergoing rapid erosion within liberal frameworks of secular society. I think, though, that there is a linked set of real-world objections to the Benedict Option's viability. The first and most fundamental objection is the most direct: the Benedict Option assumes that those who take the option will be left alone by an antagonistic state seeking to impose values & practices that contravene the values & practices of a dedicated Benedict Option community.
As various recent court cases demonstrate, the current regnant leftist approach to culture war issues does not provide for private space where religious believers can live out their values & virtues without interference from state action. The Arlene's Flowers case from Washington State (where the State government seeks to punish an evangelical Christian florist who would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding) and the Little Sisters of the Poor case at the federal level (where the Obama administration first sought to force a Catholic community of vowed women religious to provide artificial contraception in their health insurance plan) are representative of this reality. So long as the left holds government power, its current ideology simply will not countenance leaving religious believers and communities alone. A strategic retreat by religious believers is unlikely to be possible as a result.
The second objection builds off the first. There is an assumption behind much of the talk about the Benedict Option that believers will be able to concentrate themselves into like-minded communities, either isolated communities or communities in cities & suburban areas. How many people can afford to uproot themselves to do this? Given the economics of the country right now, having religious believers decamp to live next to monasteries or in rural enclaves or in dedicated urban communities is unlikely to be a successful strategy. Further, even it was possible on a large scale, once believers attempt to create communities of scale that reflect traditionalist values, such communities won't be left alone.
Despite its flaws, the Benedict Option remains a serious proposal, and one that can provide perspective for traditionalists moving forward. Without robust institutions & clear principles, traditionalists & other conservatives will not be able to pass on their virtues & values in the face of hostile culture. Yet, the Benedict Option, unfortunately, fails to understand the moment. Given the hostility of the regnant liberalism of American elites, it is highly unlikely that the Benedict Option will be given space to allow traditionalists to flourish. Absent active political & economic engagement by traditionalists & other conservatives, efforts to protect the integrity of traditionalist institutions & private spaces will fail. Given the day, politics remains a necessary avenue of engagement. Unfortunately, as I will detail soon, in the political arena traditionalists & other conservatives are now facing a situation of fragmentation between conservative elite opinion and the positions of the working & lower middle classes that have been a key part of the conservative movement. These are interesting times.
Update:
Thanks to fellow New Reform Club blogger and lawyer extraordinaire Tim Kowal, who passed along this discussion from Dreher's FAQ page on the Benedict Option's concept of dedicated communities in some detail:
Do you really think you can just run away from the world and live off in a compound somewhere? Get real! No, I don’t think that at all. While I wouldn’t necessarily fault people who sought geographical isolation, that will be neither possible nor desirable for most of us. The early Church lived in cities, and formed its distinct life there. Most of the Ben Op communities that come to mind today are not radically isolated, in geography or otherwise, from the broader community. It’s simply nonsense to say that Ben Oppers want to hide from the world and live in some sort of fundamentalist enclave. Some do, and it’s not hard to find examples of how this sort of thing has gone bad. But that is not what we should aim for. In fact, I think it’s all too easy for people to paint the Benedict Option as utopian escapism so they can safely wall it off and not have to think about it.Tim noted that not only does this statement fail to address the problem of the Left not leaving traditionalists and conservatives alone, it prompts another objection to the Benedict Option, as Tim put it, that it "basically requires 'no-go zones'"—"self-policed communities that forcibly exclude outsiders." Not a viable or desirable outcome by any means.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Gordon Wood on Benjamin Franklin
One recent biography from the last 15 years stands out, though, both in its tone and its approach to Franklin: Gordon Wood's book The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (2005, paperback $14.19). A comprehensive yet reasonably-sized volume, Wood's book recounts Franklin's life through the lens of his shift from a dedicated proponent of the British Empire to one of the pivotal Founding Fathers of the American Republic.
Wood uses Franklin's intellectual and emotional journey from loyalist to revolutionary as a template for understanding Franklin's life and accomplishments. It is a fascinating way for Wood to approach his subject. Wood looks at Franklin's intellectual history through the prism of Franklin's various life experiences. From his extremely humble origins as a workingman printer's apprentice to the heights he reached as a diplomat and founding father, Franklin's shifts of opinion, of conviction and of purpose are not only well-documented by Wood, but perhaps most importantly, well-explained. Franklin is a remarkably difficult figure to understand for the most part. Part of this is due to his own practice of not revealing his own inner thoughts, part of it is due to the remarkable length of his career, a career that saw massive social, economic and political changes in Pennsylvania, the British Empire, and in the American nation.
Wood's approach to Franklin helps to clarify and make sense of much of Franklin's work, both as a businessman, diplomat and politician. While not every mystery about Franklin is resolved via Wood's approach, it does shed a great deal of light on the consistent aspects of Franklin's ideas, ideals and beliefs over time. Some examples of the topics that Wood explores and brings light to are:
- Franklin's early efforts -- prior to the French & Indian War -- to facilitate the creation of a Union of the English colonies in the New World.
- Franklin's devotion of the British Empire, grounded in a belief that the American colonists were full participants and members of that Empire.
- Franklin's initial loyalty to the King, and his happiness at the elevation of George III to the throne of the Empire.
- Franklin's growing disillusionment with the King & the Empire as it became increasingly clear that the British would never consent to the full equality of the colonists within the Empire.
- Franklin's diplomatic efforts in France as an outgrowth of his love of Europe.
In addition to exploring Franklin's life, Wood also devotes space to exploring Franklin's reputation, both during Franklin's own life but also after Franklin's death. As a result of Wood's approach, this is one of the most insightful and helpful books about Franklin that I've read in quite some time -- it may in fact be the best single-volume book about Franklin available in English. That is not to say that the book is perfect--Wood spends relatively little time discussing Franklin's religious beliefs and his discussion of Franklin's troubled family life is uneven and lacks the revelatory insight that Wood brings to bear on Franklin's professional history. That said, Wood's biography of Franklin is top notch and well worth a read. As the lazy days of summer appear on the horizon, this would be a great book for a July beach vacation or an August bank holiday.
Friday, June 03, 2016
Thursday, June 02, 2016
Peter Thiel and the post-modern “death squads” that hunt the truth.
Recently we learned that Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire, spent $10
million to fund a lawsuit against Gawker Media. He claimed he was doing this
because he was interested in the case, he believed the media has become too
intrusive, and he wanted to extract a measure of revenge for a previous story,
in 2007, which he claimed had disclosed his sexuality.
On the surface, we find what we want to see.
On the surface, it appears he has a case since Gawker media did publish
Terry Bollea’s (Hulk Hogan) sex-tap and they did publish the story about Mr Thiel’s
sexuality. If we look closer at the case, his story starts to fragment if not
dissolve. First, his sexuality was well known within the community.[1] To
put it bluntly, if Gawker heard about it, then it was common knowledge within the relevant communities by that point. Second, his belief in the public interest seem slight since
he selects cases where he can punish the media outlets who he finds
objectionable. Were he to be doing this on a public interest, rather than his private interest, he would
take cases against the giant media companies, such as 21st Century
Fox, NBC, CBS, or ABC instead of relatively small internet based news
organisation.
Lawsuits, suppressed news, and digital denial of service the new threats to truth
What he has done is to extract revenge against a company so that he can
silence them. More to the point, he wants to send a message or teach a lesson
to other journalists that if they write anything that he disagrees with or
finds personally offensive, he can launch an expensive legal assault either on
his own behalf or on the “victim’s” behalf. In effect, we are witnesses in
Silicon Valley the birth of a post-modern death squad. Whereas Putin uses
assassins, political thugs, or the judicial system to silence his political
opponents, Thiel has used a squad of lawyers for the same effect. What remains
to be seen is whether he supplements that legal hit squad with a technological
one that would harass and disrupt the computer systems, networks, and data of
media organisations and individual journalists.
In Silicon Valley the powerful take care of each other at the public and the law's expense.
We know that Facebook routinely
altered its “trending” list to remove stories from conservative political news
sources.[2] Mr
Thiel is on Facebook’s board of directors.[3] Who
can be assured that specific news sources or even journalists will not be
vetted from Facebook timelines at the request of Facebook friends like Mr
Thiel. If we consider that Google and Apple led a cartel of companies who
colluded to fix wages within Silicon Valley, it does seem possible that they
would cooperate against media targets this dislike or find overly intrusive in
their business affairs.[4] As
for targeting individual journalist, it is important to note that Steve Jobs
demanded that Google fire an employee and Google fired them.[5] Their
attitude to rules, morals, and ethics is not surprising. The powerful often
believe they should be beyond the rules and the Silicon Valley elite do not
like to be challenged nor held to account in ways that they cannot control.[6]
Or, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil for they write the
rules for themselves.
Does it matter who finances the lawsuit if the verdict is guilty? Yes it does.
Now some would argue that it does not matter who finances the case
against Gawker. The only question is whether they are guilty or innocent. Such
an approach appears deeply, almost dangerously, naïve if not disingenuous.[7] The issue has not been resolved since Gawker still has to appeal yet
they have already faced expensive legal bills to defend the case and their
appeal. The approach is naïve since it forgets what happened to Arthur
Anderson. They were found guilty of fraud for having shredded documents, which
lead to the company dissolving overnight. The reality, though, was that Arthur
Andersen won their appeal as the conviction was overturned and retrial ordered.
On June 15, 2002,
Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents
related to its audit of Enron, resulting in the Enron scandal. Although the conviction was later reversed
by the Supreme Court, the impact of the scandal combined with the findings of
criminal complicity ultimately destroyed the firm.[8]
[emphasis added]
The only problem was that the company was dead so there was nothing
left to sustain. The damage was done and we will never know if the charge would
have been sustained in a retrial.[9] Gawker,
and any media company, faces the same problem. By the time they appeal, the
damage is done and they cannot recover even if their case is overturned on
appeal.
Can you speak the truth if it upsets the powerful? Apparently not if you work in Silicon Valley.
What is at stake is the ability to speak the truth. Peter Thiel and
other technology billionaires want to destroy this ability.[10]
Thiel has no time for the possibility of truth. He is too powerful to allow the
truth to be spoken so if he says that X is not X but is to be said as Y, then
he expects, and will enforce, that X is Y or that X is not to be spoken of, it
will not be spoken of. In this desire, he is no different from any tyrant such
as Kim Jong-un who also wants to be “free” of the truth or anything that limits
his life. Hannah Arendt, in her essay Truth and Politics, warned of such a
threat.
…[N]o
human world destined to outlast the short life span of mortals within it will
ever be able to survive without men willing to do what Herodotus was the first
to undertake consciously – namely, λéγειν
τα éoντα, to say what is. No
permanence, no perseverance in existence, can even be conceived of without men
willing to testify to what is and appears to them because it is.[11]
[Emphasis added]
The same inability to tolerate the truth is displayed by Donald Trump.
Does it come as a surprise that Thiel supports Trump’s bid for the presidency? Even
though commentators may wish to agree with Thiel as they find Gawker and other
tabloid news sites as problematic and beneath their dignity, they have to
confront a terrible truth. The truth has become fragile in the digital domain
for it is not based on nature or the given; it only exists by what is created
within the digital domain in men’s’ minds.[12] She
was worried about the potential that a lie would rule us. There is no need to
lie or defend a lie, when you can create a “truth” and suppress anyone who
wants to tell the truth. In this development, what you are seeing, is a new
threat, the post-modern “death squads” who will kill the truth since anyone who
speaks it will be denied access, harried with lawsuits, and find they are attacked
by colleagues who do not wish to suffer their fate.
The public interest is being used to further a private interest and democracy is at stake
We may wish to believe that this is one public interest, the story and
the first amendment, against another, the rule of law. To focus on that level,
misses the role of power and the event’s future consequence. The law is only
reflecting what the wealthy can pursue in their private interest not in the
public interest. A public interest, as such is democratic and we know that Mr
Thiel does not like democracy.
“Most importantly,
I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”[13]
Our choice is whether we revise the laws to allow easier redress for
such stories, thus pre-empting such lawsuits, or we allow the powerful to
decide what is fit for print and in the public interest. In either case, Thiel
has achieved what he set out to do, he has made the press hesitant, fearful,
and deferential.
“Owen Thomas, the former
editor of Valleywag who wrote the article about Mr. Thiel, offered his side of
the story in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “As I’ve said before, I did
not ‘out’ Peter Thiel,” said Mr. Thomas, now business editor at The San
Francisco Chronicle. “I did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for
discussion beyond that circle. I
thought that attitude was retrograde and homophobic, and that informed my
reporting. I believe that he was out and not in the closet.” [emphasis added]
So far from being a question of outing him, the
article and the underlying issue was the approach within the community to
whether public figures need to be open about what is known within the
community. In that sense, it was less about an action to harm Thiel by
publishing his sexuality than an issue within the community of how high profile
figures within the community enjoy the benefits of the community without
bearing the responsibility they have from their public stature. If Mr Thiel wanted to extract revenge, perhaps he needed to assess his relationship with the community.
[7]
John Podhoretz betrays an almost libertarian belief that it does not matter
who funds it or the consequences of the context so long as the apparent logic
seems to fit. https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/735876265815769089
[11]
TRUTH AND POLITICS by Hannah Arendt Originally published in The New Yorker, February 25,
1967, and reprinted with minor changes in Between Past and Future (1968) and The Portable Hannah
Arendt edited by Peter Baier (2000) and Truth:Engagements Across Philosophical Traditions
edited by Medina and Wood (2005) https://idanlandau.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/arendt-truth-and-politics.pdf
p.1
“The modern age, which believes that truth is neither
given to nor disclosed to but produced by
the human mind.” p.2
The post-modern era has become one where it is not so
much that truth is only what is in men’s minds it is what is created or
presented digitally since it shapes and presents its own reality, as reality,
within which men can believe reality that contradicts this is distorted and not
the truth. One only has to see how the social media age allows lies to be told
and the truth suppressed easily. In effect, the digital domain becomes the new
cave beneath the cave for it is not simply in man’s mind, it is his “reality”
that shapes his mind that has become distorted.
The digital domain allows the truth to be changed
while nature, as given, cannot be changed.
Arendt ends her essay with a positive note and one we
have to remember was written before the social media age:
“Conceptually, we may call truth what we cannot
change; metaphorically, it is the ground on which we stand and the sky that
stretches above us.” p.19
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
Obama on "moral evolution," and the [oxy]moronity of "progressive historian"
These people wear me out.
Over at his fine blog The Way of Improvement Leads Home, John Fea asks
So back to my original question: I wonder if progressive historians tend to be more favorable to “change over time” than “continuity” when studying the past.
My response would be yes; precious few of "progressive historians"--the majority of "historians" these days--are aware they're proceeding from a set of philosophical assumptions that may or may not be true.
The core Enlightenment [for lack of a better term] assumption is a belief in human progress, if not the perfectibility of man himself. Thus President Obama spoke the other day of "moral evolution."
What is modernity? Rest assured, Barack Obama is a modern man. "Moral evolution?" Surely you kid, Mr. President.
We are a mere 80 years from the Japanese Empire's Rape of Nanking and 75 years from the Holocaust, which occurred in the cradle of modern philosophy [Kant, Hegel]. And we are but another 75 from perhaps the final breaths of Christendom in Europe.
To the classicist--and many Christians both Thomistic and Calvinistic--human nature is the only constant in human history, and the story is not good. As Zhou en-Lai apocryphally said of the French Revolution, "it's too soon to tell." So it is with modernity's theory of history:
The very possibility of "human progress" or "moral evolution" is far from self-evident; it's the modern conceit, but is an unproved assertion. If we take in the body count of the 20th century, "human progress" is so far a provably destructive fantasy.
For those of us who maintain that it was Christianity that was the engine of whatever human progress there has been, the moderns who consign it to the sidelines in favor of "reason" pose an implacable obstacle to the inquiry. [As we each have learned.] One need not accept Christianity's truth claims to give it primacy in "moral evolution," and that's why many "Christian historians" are turning to Christopher Dawson* these days for a little fortification.
The Lord of the Flies always stands ready to reclaim what is his.
__________________________
*"Drawing on St. Augustine, Dawson saw the conflict between the City of God and the City of Man
in every age, from the simple dualism between Christian civilization
and barbarism in the pages of Bede to the sharp inner tensions
seen in the writings of Pascal. Although recognizing its
divisiveness, Dawson had kind words for the reformers' zeal for
the Gospel, as it provided an impetus for a reinterpretation of
the Catholic faith that gave rise to the Baroque era and the great
works of the counterreformation.
In a passage evocative of contemporary problems, Dawson described
the fundamental challenge to Christian culture as "the revolt
against the moral process of Western culture and the dethronement
of the individual conscience from its dominant position at the
heart of the cultural process." The medieval insight concerning
the central importance of the rationality and freedom of the
individual personality, an insight that is a hallmark of Western
thought, is in danger of being overwhelmed by a re-absorption of
the individual person to a collective identity, whether it be
based upon nationality, ethnicity, or gender.
When Western society no longer emphasizes moral effort and
personal responsibility, Dawson questions the very survival of
civilization as Christendom has known it for a thousand years.
Modernity is not merely a return to a pre-Christian paradise, as
some New Age adherents would claim; rather, it is a sudden
wrenching of the course of history. Instead of a slow reversal of
the past millennium, Dawson says, "Neo-paganism jumps out of the
top-story window, and whether one jumps out of the right-hand
window or the left makes very little difference by the time one
reaches the pavement."
It was the Christian synthesis of freedom and community that made
modern democracy and political liberty possible, a relation that
was not well understood by the dominant Whig school of history in
his day nor by the various critical theories of our own..."
Over at his fine blog The Way of Improvement Leads Home, John Fea asks
So back to my original question: I wonder if progressive historians tend to be more favorable to “change over time” than “continuity” when studying the past.
My response would be yes; precious few of "progressive historians"--the majority of "historians" these days--are aware they're proceeding from a set of philosophical assumptions that may or may not be true.
The core Enlightenment [for lack of a better term] assumption is a belief in human progress, if not the perfectibility of man himself. Thus President Obama spoke the other day of "moral evolution."
What is modernity? Rest assured, Barack Obama is a modern man. "Moral evolution?" Surely you kid, Mr. President.
We are a mere 80 years from the Japanese Empire's Rape of Nanking and 75 years from the Holocaust, which occurred in the cradle of modern philosophy [Kant, Hegel]. And we are but another 75 from perhaps the final breaths of Christendom in Europe.
To the classicist--and many Christians both Thomistic and Calvinistic--human nature is the only constant in human history, and the story is not good. As Zhou en-Lai apocryphally said of the French Revolution, "it's too soon to tell." So it is with modernity's theory of history:
The very possibility of "human progress" or "moral evolution" is far from self-evident; it's the modern conceit, but is an unproved assertion. If we take in the body count of the 20th century, "human progress" is so far a provably destructive fantasy.
For those of us who maintain that it was Christianity that was the engine of whatever human progress there has been, the moderns who consign it to the sidelines in favor of "reason" pose an implacable obstacle to the inquiry. [As we each have learned.] One need not accept Christianity's truth claims to give it primacy in "moral evolution," and that's why many "Christian historians" are turning to Christopher Dawson* these days for a little fortification.
The Lord of the Flies always stands ready to reclaim what is his.
__________________________
*"Drawing on St. Augustine, Dawson saw the conflict between the City of God and the City of Man
in every age, from the simple dualism between Christian civilization
and barbarism in the pages of Bede to the sharp inner tensions
seen in the writings of Pascal. Although recognizing its
divisiveness, Dawson had kind words for the reformers' zeal for
the Gospel, as it provided an impetus for a reinterpretation of
the Catholic faith that gave rise to the Baroque era and the great
works of the counterreformation.
In a passage evocative of contemporary problems, Dawson described
the fundamental challenge to Christian culture as "the revolt
against the moral process of Western culture and the dethronement
of the individual conscience from its dominant position at the
heart of the cultural process." The medieval insight concerning
the central importance of the rationality and freedom of the
individual personality, an insight that is a hallmark of Western
thought, is in danger of being overwhelmed by a re-absorption of
the individual person to a collective identity, whether it be
based upon nationality, ethnicity, or gender.
When Western society no longer emphasizes moral effort and
personal responsibility, Dawson questions the very survival of
civilization as Christendom has known it for a thousand years.
Modernity is not merely a return to a pre-Christian paradise, as
some New Age adherents would claim; rather, it is a sudden
wrenching of the course of history. Instead of a slow reversal of
the past millennium, Dawson says, "Neo-paganism jumps out of the
top-story window, and whether one jumps out of the right-hand
window or the left makes very little difference by the time one
reaches the pavement."
It was the Christian synthesis of freedom and community that made
modern democracy and political liberty possible, a relation that
was not well understood by the dominant Whig school of history in
his day nor by the various critical theories of our own..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)