Adam Smith penned Wealth of Nations prior to the colonial uprising in British North America. When the book was going to print, the First Continental Congress had just signed the Declaration of Indepence. On the surface, then, Smith's literary and economic endeavor had nothing to do with the War for American Independence. While certainly the leaders of the uprising could not have been influenced by Smith, certain concepts that Smith describes are certainly a cause of colonial discontent. One could argue that from an economic standpoint alone, the colonies were right to rebel.
Perhaps the most pertinent idea Smith promotes comes from Book 1 Chapter VII concerning monopolies and price. "The price of monopoly is upon every occasion, the highest that can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, is the lowest which can be taken...for any considerable time together". Smith had just finished explaining that when left alone, the market price of any good or service gravitates toward the natural price (which is the natural price one would get should they combine the costs of labor, land (resources) and profit). According to Smith's observations (and this is key...these are predictions, but observations on what truly happens in a market), market price is impacted by effectual demand and effectual supply. When left alone, demand and supply will cause the market price to alter from its "natural" state. The market price, then, always reflects the reality of demand, supply, and cost. Smith ensures the reader that a monopoly is different. Rather than naturally react to the effectual demand of the consumer, the monopolist ensures that supply remains low, to drive up demand and therefore price.
When we reflect on such a situation, we should be drawn immediately back to the situation in colonial North America. Smith observations on free competition and market forces could not influence British Parliamentary debates on colonial policy because they came to late. As early as the 1650s, Parliament began the process of regulating trade in the colonies severely. The Navigation Acts of 1660 mandated that only trade with British vessels was legal in the colonies. Thus colonial merchants couldn't sell their wares to French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, or any other foreign merchants. This greatly inhibited their ability to get a fair price for their wares. Likewise, colonists couldn't purchase foreign goods unless they were purchased from an English merchant (who came from England). This severely limited the ability of colonists to pay a decent price for almost anything. These acts are clearly monopolistic. A single entity (in this case, the government) is severely restricting supply and artificially regulating price well above its natural rate. Obviously, the colonists were bearing the brunt of such policies, while the lawmakers in Britain (most of whom had financial interests invested in these mercantile endeavors) benefited.
It is bad enough when one good or service is monopolized, but when every good or service is monopolized, conflict is bound to ensue. This atmosphere led to arguably the most well-known event in the pre-rebellion era: the Boston Tea Party. Parliament not only raised the price of tea, but forced all colonists to purchase their tea from one source: the East India Trading Co.. The Company had no significant holdings or presence in the North American colonies. Rather, to the East India Trading Co., the North American colonies were simply a market to manipulate. This incensed the colonial inhabitant of Boston, and thus, several men, dressed as American Indians, stormed the tea ship, and dumped the tea (still in its chests), overboard (there is some debate on whether the colonists were going to salvage the tea later, or if it was effectively ruined...that is of no concern here).
Consider the single phrase of Smith's: "The price of monopoly is upon every occasion, the highest that can be got." The colonists rightly recognized that their government was purposely limiting their ability to make a living, and purposefully limiting their ability to acquire necessities (and luxuries). It should have been obvious to the colonists that their government saw them not as individuals, but as mere means to an end. Parliament wasn't overly concerned with the lives of the people in their North American colonies; colonists were important only as long as they were consumers of British goods made available from British merchants. Could Parliament and the Crown really have expected anyless from the North American colonies?
Monday, December 27, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Getting a groove on.
Since the day after Thanksgiving, it is customary for us at the Aukema to start playing Christmas music. This year is no different. Maura and Nolan love the music, and Maura will dance and dance and dance to it, especially the music to the Nutcracker by Tchaikovsky (which she loves since she saw Barishnikov's version on video). Someone else decided it'd be fun to dance:
Putting Christ in Christmas: A Reflection
I was reading this piece and I began to reflect on my past, our present, and our future.
Growing up, I was surrounded by this ethos of "Sunday is the Lord's Day". The routine was simple: we got up, went to sunday school and church, came home and ate a big family dinner, and then by the evening, we essentially went our separate ways. This wasn't universal, however. Never do I recall any religious imperative to go to any church service on Sunday morning. We did it because thats what you did, being a good Christian family, that is what you did, go to church on Sunday. I can't say that I always wanted to, but we went. But not always. Of course there were illnesses and weather problems: there were also Sundays in which we were travelling and at least once when we were older I remember my parents saying that we just weren't going. This ethos was engrained into me that Sundays and holidays (like Christmas and Easter) were special, and should not be routine. It wasn't Sunday or a Holy-day unless we went to church. Christmas was a special phenomenon for us, because being Methodist, we had our Christmas Eve service (which was always well attended, even by my Reformed family members from across town) and in the morning we almost always went to Christmas Day service at the Reformed church my dad grew up in. My church had, at least for a while, a Midnight Service, which my parent would go to as well. As a kid, I hated going to church on Christmas Day because we'd open our presents, get to play with them for about 20 minutes, and then have to get ready for church. However, growing up this way has stuck with me.
By the time I had married, going to church on Christmas Day wasn't as common as it used to be. Thus, it was a no-brainer when Christina and I decided that for Christmas, we'd go to Mass on Christmas Eve so we'd have more time on Christmas Day to relax. Then we moved to Billtown, and started attending my wife's childhood parish, where the folk-group sings for the 4:30pm "Vigil" Mass. The church seats about 700, but on that day, there'd be almost 1000. It was unbearable, and truly, it was hardly reverent or edifying (especially since half the people near you would chat during the whole thing). Now, with our three kids, we go to the 8am Mass at our new parish, before we open presents, before we eat breakfast.
At the 8am Mass, we don't see very many people. I've heard that the 10:30am Mass isn't very crowded either. Many parishes, for a while anyway, would offer three Masses on Christmas: two Vigil Masses, and one on Christmas Day. This seems odd to me now, and it seemed odd to me as a kid. I remember thinking more than once, "Hey, if Christmas is so special, why don't we have church on Christmas Day?" Not that I minded...not having a service meant that I didn't have to go on Christmas Day...cool.
The Church allows people who attend Vigil Masses and Saturday anticipation Masses to have them count toward their Obligation. This isn't a bad thing, because unfortunately in today's day and age, not everyone can have off Sunday. Having a Saturday evening Mass is quite a necessity now. Likewise, one can't assume that everyone has off for Christmas, so a Christmas Eve Mass is likewise a necessity. However, just because it is a necessity, doesn't mean it should be the norm. In the article mentioned above, John Baldovin, S.J. says "People want to get it out of the way. They want to have the morning of Christmas for opening presents." Is this what Christmas is all about, presents?
Of course, with a hectic visiting and preparation schedule, a Vigil Mass can be appreciated. Consider the case of my wife's grandmother, who annually hosts a Christmas Dinner for all of her local kids and grandkids. She attends the 4:30pm Mass on Christmas Eve, which allows her to spend Christmas preparing for the dinner. There are also those families that spend lots of time traveling, who would be extremely put out to attend Mass in the morning.
But "Once you allow for vigil Masses, however," said Fr. Baldovin, "there may be a good question to ask: Is convenience the most important consideration?" What is the reason we go to Mass: to get it out of the way, or to actually celebrate the Incarnation? Is our schedule the most important thing in our Christmas planning?
My own personal take...after years of hustle and bustle on Christmas (from a kids' perspective)...is that if your Christmas morning can't fit in time for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, you've got it all wrong. When we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, we celebrate the real Reason for the Season: the Cross of our Salvation, the whole point of the Nativity. If that isn't your focus, you're focusing on the wrong thing...
Growing up, I was surrounded by this ethos of "Sunday is the Lord's Day". The routine was simple: we got up, went to sunday school and church, came home and ate a big family dinner, and then by the evening, we essentially went our separate ways. This wasn't universal, however. Never do I recall any religious imperative to go to any church service on Sunday morning. We did it because thats what you did, being a good Christian family, that is what you did, go to church on Sunday. I can't say that I always wanted to, but we went. But not always. Of course there were illnesses and weather problems: there were also Sundays in which we were travelling and at least once when we were older I remember my parents saying that we just weren't going. This ethos was engrained into me that Sundays and holidays (like Christmas and Easter) were special, and should not be routine. It wasn't Sunday or a Holy-day unless we went to church. Christmas was a special phenomenon for us, because being Methodist, we had our Christmas Eve service (which was always well attended, even by my Reformed family members from across town) and in the morning we almost always went to Christmas Day service at the Reformed church my dad grew up in. My church had, at least for a while, a Midnight Service, which my parent would go to as well. As a kid, I hated going to church on Christmas Day because we'd open our presents, get to play with them for about 20 minutes, and then have to get ready for church. However, growing up this way has stuck with me.
By the time I had married, going to church on Christmas Day wasn't as common as it used to be. Thus, it was a no-brainer when Christina and I decided that for Christmas, we'd go to Mass on Christmas Eve so we'd have more time on Christmas Day to relax. Then we moved to Billtown, and started attending my wife's childhood parish, where the folk-group sings for the 4:30pm "Vigil" Mass. The church seats about 700, but on that day, there'd be almost 1000. It was unbearable, and truly, it was hardly reverent or edifying (especially since half the people near you would chat during the whole thing). Now, with our three kids, we go to the 8am Mass at our new parish, before we open presents, before we eat breakfast.
At the 8am Mass, we don't see very many people. I've heard that the 10:30am Mass isn't very crowded either. Many parishes, for a while anyway, would offer three Masses on Christmas: two Vigil Masses, and one on Christmas Day. This seems odd to me now, and it seemed odd to me as a kid. I remember thinking more than once, "Hey, if Christmas is so special, why don't we have church on Christmas Day?" Not that I minded...not having a service meant that I didn't have to go on Christmas Day...cool.
The Church allows people who attend Vigil Masses and Saturday anticipation Masses to have them count toward their Obligation. This isn't a bad thing, because unfortunately in today's day and age, not everyone can have off Sunday. Having a Saturday evening Mass is quite a necessity now. Likewise, one can't assume that everyone has off for Christmas, so a Christmas Eve Mass is likewise a necessity. However, just because it is a necessity, doesn't mean it should be the norm. In the article mentioned above, John Baldovin, S.J. says "People want to get it out of the way. They want to have the morning of Christmas for opening presents." Is this what Christmas is all about, presents?
Of course, with a hectic visiting and preparation schedule, a Vigil Mass can be appreciated. Consider the case of my wife's grandmother, who annually hosts a Christmas Dinner for all of her local kids and grandkids. She attends the 4:30pm Mass on Christmas Eve, which allows her to spend Christmas preparing for the dinner. There are also those families that spend lots of time traveling, who would be extremely put out to attend Mass in the morning.
But "Once you allow for vigil Masses, however," said Fr. Baldovin, "there may be a good question to ask: Is convenience the most important consideration?" What is the reason we go to Mass: to get it out of the way, or to actually celebrate the Incarnation? Is our schedule the most important thing in our Christmas planning?
My own personal take...after years of hustle and bustle on Christmas (from a kids' perspective)...is that if your Christmas morning can't fit in time for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, you've got it all wrong. When we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, we celebrate the real Reason for the Season: the Cross of our Salvation, the whole point of the Nativity. If that isn't your focus, you're focusing on the wrong thing...
Wealth of Nations: Division of Labor and Motivation
Book I Chapter 1 of Wealth of Nations revolves around the concept of the division of labor. Smith goes to lengths to demonstrate that dividing labor into smaller, more simple tasks results in greater production, and when coupled with specialization, results in higher quality. He argues that when people are left to their own devices, they will use their specialized knowledge and skills cooperatively and everyone benefits. This reflects the more accurate view of humanity that man was created "good", and although we are fallen, we are still made in the image of God. However accurately Smith's ideas of the division of labor reflect human nature, Smith's picture of the division of labor does not completely mesh with human nature.
In his depiction of the efficiency of the division of labor, Smith mentions two phenomenon which would put a bitter taste in some one's mouth. For one, Smith refers to "making this business into some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life." I understand completely what Smith is referring to: taking a complex task (like making cabinets), and breaking it down into simpler operations. One person will be dedicated to running each operation, and that is all they are responsible for. But this is what that boils down to: instead of making the whole of the cabinet, one person is responsible for cutting the wood for the doors, another for assembling the doors, and another for assembling the whole thing. How can such an operation be good for the human person? Your sole means of employ is doing a single, simple task. While a worker may take pride in their work initially, how long before they begin to get bored with cutting wood, day in and day out? A dissatisfied worker is an unproductive or poor worker, so while the number of products produced increase, the quality will diminish, as the worker puts in his time and goes home.
Immediately preceding that phrase, Smith talks about a hypothetical country farmer who also weaves. He mentions that as a weaver, his farming hinders how much weaving gets done, and as a farmer, his weaving hinders his farm's functioning. Those are good points: a weaver who likes to work the ground and grow things hinders his ability to make a living from his trade. But what about the farmer who simply enjoys weaving, or the weaver who enjoys farming? Perhaps their excursions into "side activities" isn't really for economic production, but to do something they enjoy.
These two points go together. As the division of labor turns complex jobs into a series of simple tasks, there will be those laborers who maintain a "side profession" to maintain their happiness. It could be postulated that this is how craftsmen endure. There are still craftsmen who exist not for the profit, but for the pure enjoyment of the task. As an example, exploring the homes of Victorian America, one will find certain features that are all but extinct on modern houses. For example, it was customary for the porches of Victorian homes to be decorated with ginger breading, and the arches between rooms would have bent trim around them. Such practices require skill and time, to be sure, but even the domiciles of well-to-do Americans in the late 20th and 21st Centuries are lacking such examples of craftsmanship. However, there still exist craftsmen who operate solely for two motivations: their love of Victorian architecture and the their love of quality craftsmanship. Some, including a few I have talked to, are turned off by "assembly line production", and would rather put their own personal stamp on each piece they produce.
Herein lies another problem with Smith's depiction of the division of labor: Smith is focusing on the communal aspect, which is important because it is part of the human condition: humans are not simply individuals, but are part of a larger whole (or several larger wholes). However, humans are simply collective: they exist individually, and never can it be said that the whole is more important or greater than the individual. This focusing on the whole to the neglect of the individual is what brings up the problems noted above.
In his depiction of the efficiency of the division of labor, Smith mentions two phenomenon which would put a bitter taste in some one's mouth. For one, Smith refers to "making this business into some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life." I understand completely what Smith is referring to: taking a complex task (like making cabinets), and breaking it down into simpler operations. One person will be dedicated to running each operation, and that is all they are responsible for. But this is what that boils down to: instead of making the whole of the cabinet, one person is responsible for cutting the wood for the doors, another for assembling the doors, and another for assembling the whole thing. How can such an operation be good for the human person? Your sole means of employ is doing a single, simple task. While a worker may take pride in their work initially, how long before they begin to get bored with cutting wood, day in and day out? A dissatisfied worker is an unproductive or poor worker, so while the number of products produced increase, the quality will diminish, as the worker puts in his time and goes home.
Immediately preceding that phrase, Smith talks about a hypothetical country farmer who also weaves. He mentions that as a weaver, his farming hinders how much weaving gets done, and as a farmer, his weaving hinders his farm's functioning. Those are good points: a weaver who likes to work the ground and grow things hinders his ability to make a living from his trade. But what about the farmer who simply enjoys weaving, or the weaver who enjoys farming? Perhaps their excursions into "side activities" isn't really for economic production, but to do something they enjoy.
These two points go together. As the division of labor turns complex jobs into a series of simple tasks, there will be those laborers who maintain a "side profession" to maintain their happiness. It could be postulated that this is how craftsmen endure. There are still craftsmen who exist not for the profit, but for the pure enjoyment of the task. As an example, exploring the homes of Victorian America, one will find certain features that are all but extinct on modern houses. For example, it was customary for the porches of Victorian homes to be decorated with ginger breading, and the arches between rooms would have bent trim around them. Such practices require skill and time, to be sure, but even the domiciles of well-to-do Americans in the late 20th and 21st Centuries are lacking such examples of craftsmanship. However, there still exist craftsmen who operate solely for two motivations: their love of Victorian architecture and the their love of quality craftsmanship. Some, including a few I have talked to, are turned off by "assembly line production", and would rather put their own personal stamp on each piece they produce.
Herein lies another problem with Smith's depiction of the division of labor: Smith is focusing on the communal aspect, which is important because it is part of the human condition: humans are not simply individuals, but are part of a larger whole (or several larger wholes). However, humans are simply collective: they exist individually, and never can it be said that the whole is more important or greater than the individual. This focusing on the whole to the neglect of the individual is what brings up the problems noted above.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Family update!!!
On Saturday, I took Nolan and Colleen to the library. Maura couldn't go. It is customary for Nolan to get some stuffed puppets. When we got there, the first thing he wanted to do was to get a mouse puppet for Maura and a snake puppet for him. Of course, the first thing we always do is get books, then movies and music...then we do the other things. When the time came, Nolan went immediately in search of a mouse for Maura.
Fastforward to later. We get home and Nolan immediately searches Maura out, not even taking his coat off. He hands her the mouse and says, "Here Maura, I got you a mouse!". Maura responds with a "Thank you Nolan." I am watching this whole scene thinking nothing of it. Nolan has a tendancy to do that, so this is nothing new, right? Christina then informs me that the last time they went to the library, Maura desperately wanted a puppet, but Nolan had already got two (we only get two at a time...lest they get lost). Christina said she could get it next time. Turns out that Nolan remembered that and made sure to get the Maura.
What a kid!
Fastforward to later. We get home and Nolan immediately searches Maura out, not even taking his coat off. He hands her the mouse and says, "Here Maura, I got you a mouse!". Maura responds with a "Thank you Nolan." I am watching this whole scene thinking nothing of it. Nolan has a tendancy to do that, so this is nothing new, right? Christina then informs me that the last time they went to the library, Maura desperately wanted a puppet, but Nolan had already got two (we only get two at a time...lest they get lost). Christina said she could get it next time. Turns out that Nolan remembered that and made sure to get the Maura.
What a kid!
Christmas Thoughts
Every year, celebration of Christmas is different. About three years ago, I attended a 4pm Christmas Vigil Mass at St. Boniface. The 4pm Christmas Eve Mass is the Mass that the Folk-Group plays at. Despite the fact that such an ensemble is contrary to the spirit of the liturgy, and all but forbidden by Holy Church, I must admit that this particular group is very good at what they do. It is no surprise that that particular Mass is standing room only. It was during that Mass that I broke down and wept during the Consecration: more than half of the people there didn't really grasp 1) what was being celebrated, and 2) what was going on in front of them. That thought focused my Christmas celebration into the next few days.
Two years ago, I read in the Office of Readings, as well as in His Excellency Martino's Respect Life Sunday Pastoral Letter, about the dignity of the human person, and how, by virtue of the Incarnation, human dignity has been elevated. It was this thought that guided my Christmas preparations.
Last year, as DRF of Neumann, I was able to get into it a little more, and a little differently. Our textbook for the 10th Graders discussed bias in the Bible: the Bible was certainly biased: it tells Salvation History from God's perspective, and thus all of History is focused around the person of Jesus Christ. This was made even more poignant as I read a beautiful reflection written by one of my students (after Christmas, but during the Christmas season). Christmas was essentially the celebration of the whole crux of history. While the Paschal Triduum celebrates the salvific act that enables us to be with GOD, it is Christmas that celebrates the coming of GOD to earth in the Incarnation (which makes the Paschal Sacrifice possible).
This year, I am finding it incredibly hard. 2010 has been rife with struggles. From losing my job for no reason, not being able to get a job for over six months, and finally getting a job which has all but wrecked the family, it is tough to think about "the reason for the season". In the oilfield, there is no season. There is no time for family, no time for friends, no time for faith. There is work, work, work and sleep. Perhaps God will shine some light on us in 2011. We certainly need it.
Two years ago, I read in the Office of Readings, as well as in His Excellency Martino's Respect Life Sunday Pastoral Letter, about the dignity of the human person, and how, by virtue of the Incarnation, human dignity has been elevated. It was this thought that guided my Christmas preparations.
Last year, as DRF of Neumann, I was able to get into it a little more, and a little differently. Our textbook for the 10th Graders discussed bias in the Bible: the Bible was certainly biased: it tells Salvation History from God's perspective, and thus all of History is focused around the person of Jesus Christ. This was made even more poignant as I read a beautiful reflection written by one of my students (after Christmas, but during the Christmas season). Christmas was essentially the celebration of the whole crux of history. While the Paschal Triduum celebrates the salvific act that enables us to be with GOD, it is Christmas that celebrates the coming of GOD to earth in the Incarnation (which makes the Paschal Sacrifice possible).
This year, I am finding it incredibly hard. 2010 has been rife with struggles. From losing my job for no reason, not being able to get a job for over six months, and finally getting a job which has all but wrecked the family, it is tough to think about "the reason for the season". In the oilfield, there is no season. There is no time for family, no time for friends, no time for faith. There is work, work, work and sleep. Perhaps God will shine some light on us in 2011. We certainly need it.
Wealth of Nations: the Real Price of Things
In Chapter IV of Book I, Adam Smith discusses price. In the midst of his discussion, he states that the real price of any good or service is labor. This is an incredibly important statement and concession we must consider.
To begin, Smith equates how much a good or service really costs with how much time, energy, and work went into providing the good or service. For example, the real cost of a house is not necessarily the market price, which fluctuates from month to month and is linked to the value of the money denomination. Rather, the real price is the labor that went into preparing the land, obtaining and refining the supplies, manufacturing the windows, doors, etc, the designing and planning of the house, and finally the actual building of the house...including all the man-hours it took to construct it. Unlike monetary price which shifts, the cost in labor does not. It takes just as much labor to build a house now as it did a few years ago.
The question then arises: who cares? Smith concedes that finding a means to quantify the real cost (in terms of labor) is nigh impossible. That doesn't mean, though, that the notion can be discounted: just because something cannot be quantified or empirically noted does not mean it does not exist. The notion that there exists a real cost of something that can not be quantified reflects the notion that there exist certain things that are truly real, but not quite tangible. Such principles can include the concept of right and wrong. Just like we can haggle over monetary price based on our own proclivities, so can we haggle over right and wrong based on our own proclivities. However, such an analogy requires us to concede that no matter what monetary price we agree upon, there is still a real, absolute cost in terms of labor, which then means that no matter what we decided is right and wrong, there is still an absolute reality. In this regard, one can draw another conclusion: just like monetary prices should accurately reflect the REAL cost, so too must our actions reflect what is REALLY right. The farther our decisions are from reality, the worse the consequences.
The idea that the a good or service is really worth the labor it costs to provide also sheds light on the true nature of economic transactions. Despite the insinuations of Marx and Engels on the one end and Ayn Rand on the other, economic transactions are not about the material gain one obtains from them, but about the humans behind them. Like the nominal, or monetary value, economic transactions have a tangible consequence, something that people can materially relate too. Continuing the analogy, then, like the real value of a good or service, economic transactions have a real value, one that transcends the tangible and material.
Smith then, is proposing an economic model that, despite the discussions on money, and wealth, and material benefits, is essentially about humanity. This is contrary to the materialist aims of Marx, Engels, and Rand. As stated above, the farther our decisions (or attitudes) are from reality, the worse the consequences. Considering this, it is easy to see how the materialism of capitalists like Rand and communists like Engels and Marx can lead to extensive human suffering. Advocates of both views have trivialized the economic into simply the material. When this happens, humanity becomes nothing more than disposable capital, or exploitable resources.
To begin, Smith equates how much a good or service really costs with how much time, energy, and work went into providing the good or service. For example, the real cost of a house is not necessarily the market price, which fluctuates from month to month and is linked to the value of the money denomination. Rather, the real price is the labor that went into preparing the land, obtaining and refining the supplies, manufacturing the windows, doors, etc, the designing and planning of the house, and finally the actual building of the house...including all the man-hours it took to construct it. Unlike monetary price which shifts, the cost in labor does not. It takes just as much labor to build a house now as it did a few years ago.
The question then arises: who cares? Smith concedes that finding a means to quantify the real cost (in terms of labor) is nigh impossible. That doesn't mean, though, that the notion can be discounted: just because something cannot be quantified or empirically noted does not mean it does not exist. The notion that there exists a real cost of something that can not be quantified reflects the notion that there exist certain things that are truly real, but not quite tangible. Such principles can include the concept of right and wrong. Just like we can haggle over monetary price based on our own proclivities, so can we haggle over right and wrong based on our own proclivities. However, such an analogy requires us to concede that no matter what monetary price we agree upon, there is still a real, absolute cost in terms of labor, which then means that no matter what we decided is right and wrong, there is still an absolute reality. In this regard, one can draw another conclusion: just like monetary prices should accurately reflect the REAL cost, so too must our actions reflect what is REALLY right. The farther our decisions are from reality, the worse the consequences.
The idea that the a good or service is really worth the labor it costs to provide also sheds light on the true nature of economic transactions. Despite the insinuations of Marx and Engels on the one end and Ayn Rand on the other, economic transactions are not about the material gain one obtains from them, but about the humans behind them. Like the nominal, or monetary value, economic transactions have a tangible consequence, something that people can materially relate too. Continuing the analogy, then, like the real value of a good or service, economic transactions have a real value, one that transcends the tangible and material.
Smith then, is proposing an economic model that, despite the discussions on money, and wealth, and material benefits, is essentially about humanity. This is contrary to the materialist aims of Marx, Engels, and Rand. As stated above, the farther our decisions (or attitudes) are from reality, the worse the consequences. Considering this, it is easy to see how the materialism of capitalists like Rand and communists like Engels and Marx can lead to extensive human suffering. Advocates of both views have trivialized the economic into simply the material. When this happens, humanity becomes nothing more than disposable capital, or exploitable resources.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Family update
So, last week, I substitute taught for Christina, whose plans for Nolan went something like this: "Everything that Maura is doing, plus start blending letters and sounds." Dutifully getting through as much as I could prior to going to work, I sat down with Nolan to begin this whole blending thing. In about five minutes, we'd gone through the "-at", -"as", and "-ap" families, and put different consonants in front of them. With a little coaching, he got them all.
Fastforward to yesterday afternoon. After the normal greetings to one and all, I am greeting with this incredulous statement: "YOU DIDN'T TELL ME NOLAN CAN READ!!!!" So apparently during school, Christina sat down to do blending with him again. According to Christina, the interaction went something like this: "What's this word?" "Map." "What about this one? "Cap." "This one?" "Mat." The last one, apparently was given in the tone "Stop boring me and let me get back to playing with my dinosaurs which are eating playdough." There was no instruction necessary, he just did it...with the attitude that he could do it all along, so whats the big deal? This is the same kid who for months couldn't care less about writing his name and then all of a sudden with no practice just wrote it.
In the meantime, Maura, who thoroughly HATES handwriting was eager to write Cinderella loves Christmas! and Aurora is pretty. She did both beautifully, and unfortunately, she has better handwriting than I do. Oh, she'll be moving on to First Grade Math within the month, too.
And while that is going on, Colleen is cutting her first tooth. Apparently her teeth finally realized that they were needed, because, you see, she's been eating solid food since she was six months old...remember she skipped right over the whole processed babyfood thing.
Fastforward to yesterday afternoon. After the normal greetings to one and all, I am greeting with this incredulous statement: "YOU DIDN'T TELL ME NOLAN CAN READ!!!!" So apparently during school, Christina sat down to do blending with him again. According to Christina, the interaction went something like this: "What's this word?" "Map." "What about this one? "Cap." "This one?" "Mat." The last one, apparently was given in the tone "Stop boring me and let me get back to playing with my dinosaurs which are eating playdough." There was no instruction necessary, he just did it...with the attitude that he could do it all along, so whats the big deal? This is the same kid who for months couldn't care less about writing his name and then all of a sudden with no practice just wrote it.
In the meantime, Maura, who thoroughly HATES handwriting was eager to write Cinderella loves Christmas! and Aurora is pretty. She did both beautifully, and unfortunately, she has better handwriting than I do. Oh, she'll be moving on to First Grade Math within the month, too.
And while that is going on, Colleen is cutting her first tooth. Apparently her teeth finally realized that they were needed, because, you see, she's been eating solid food since she was six months old...remember she skipped right over the whole processed babyfood thing.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Reading is fundAmental: why homeschooling rocks
There are various reasons to homeschool versus sending your children to a public or non-public school. There is the obvious fact that in public and non-public schools, education takes a seat for socialization. Sometimes, that socialization isn't optimal. Of course, many people homeschool for religious reasons, and some don't trust their local public schools and can't afford a non-public school. Then there's Maura and Nolan.
Maura is nearly finished with her Kindergarten reading and math curricula. She is reading wonderfully, and is picking up new skills every day. We haven't been able to get her to read easy-readers on a regular basis, but wow, she's picking it up fast! She loves math, and is eager to learn more and more. Nolan isn't too far behind, however. While not yet reading, Christina has started him with blending letters to make new sounds. In addition, he's even beginning Maura's kindergarten math workbook.
Nolan and Maura are of course, different styles. Maura is easily distracted, while Nolan can focus on something he's got his little mind on for a while (that doesn't mean he sits still during that time, though). This creates a problem, because while Nolan is working on whatever he's working on, Maura is watching him. When you get them one-on-one, however, they are both very productive.
What is so neat about this arrangement is that we can move at a more natural pace, we allow them to learn at their own pace in a way that flows naturally. While we provide a structure to the learning process, we aren't pushing anything. Maura has always loved "school". She loved doing "letters/ABCs" with Christina before she went to school, and she even asks to do school now. Nolan, on the other hand, would be diagnosed with ADD already at 3. He's everywhere (including walking on the window sills). Get him one-on-one and he'll do great. We just started him on Maura's kindergarten math workbook, and he flew through the first unit...at 3. He loves it. The key is we are letting them work on their own pace. Nolan really isn't concerned with writing (he just recently wrote his name, with no practice and no prompting), and he is perfectly content for us to read to him.
As teacher, I've seen how the curriculum can drive education. What to teach, when to teach it is crucial to the modern school, but what isn't crucial is whether or not the individual children can handle it at that time. Homeschooling allows the child's needs to be met, not the school's or the state's.
Maura is nearly finished with her Kindergarten reading and math curricula. She is reading wonderfully, and is picking up new skills every day. We haven't been able to get her to read easy-readers on a regular basis, but wow, she's picking it up fast! She loves math, and is eager to learn more and more. Nolan isn't too far behind, however. While not yet reading, Christina has started him with blending letters to make new sounds. In addition, he's even beginning Maura's kindergarten math workbook.
Nolan and Maura are of course, different styles. Maura is easily distracted, while Nolan can focus on something he's got his little mind on for a while (that doesn't mean he sits still during that time, though). This creates a problem, because while Nolan is working on whatever he's working on, Maura is watching him. When you get them one-on-one, however, they are both very productive.
What is so neat about this arrangement is that we can move at a more natural pace, we allow them to learn at their own pace in a way that flows naturally. While we provide a structure to the learning process, we aren't pushing anything. Maura has always loved "school". She loved doing "letters/ABCs" with Christina before she went to school, and she even asks to do school now. Nolan, on the other hand, would be diagnosed with ADD already at 3. He's everywhere (including walking on the window sills). Get him one-on-one and he'll do great. We just started him on Maura's kindergarten math workbook, and he flew through the first unit...at 3. He loves it. The key is we are letting them work on their own pace. Nolan really isn't concerned with writing (he just recently wrote his name, with no practice and no prompting), and he is perfectly content for us to read to him.
As teacher, I've seen how the curriculum can drive education. What to teach, when to teach it is crucial to the modern school, but what isn't crucial is whether or not the individual children can handle it at that time. Homeschooling allows the child's needs to be met, not the school's or the state's.
The Ban and Subsequent Interpretations
I was reading through Msgr. Pope's reflections on atheists ads in the DC area here. I came across a comment concerning the Ban, in which God commanded the Israelites destroy the Amalekites, every man, woman, and child, including animals. The commenter didn't feel comfortable with ALMIGHTy GOD decreeing that an entire people be wiped out. I have two two different sets of thoughts on this, with ultimately the same conclusion.
Thought One
It wouldn't be the first time an entire group of people would be wiped out. We know of the Biblical stories of Soddom and Gomorrah, in which God rained down sulfur and brimstone and destroyed the evil cities. We also know of the mysterious disappearance of the colony of Roanoake Island, not to mention the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Legends abound about the civilization of Atlantis. In our modern world, we have seen the devestation wrought by such forces as tidal waves, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like (which are called on insurance claims "Acts of God"). We have no trouble attributing the destruction of cities or peoples to God directly (or indirectly through nature), but we throw up our hands and say "God couldn't have commanded the Israelites to wipe a group of people!"
Why not? Who are we to limit what God can and cannot do? The same commenter was loath to attribute "objective evil" to a command of God's, when according to that self-same logic, God was directly guilty of that same objective evil when He destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah. I would trust that God knew what He was doing, because HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD!! As the Psalmist says in Psalm 95: "It is He who made us and we are His."
Thought Two
The idea that the Ban was simply an Israelite misunderstanding on what God wanted is appealing, but ultimately, it is patently false. The theory goes something like this: for cultural reasons, miscommunication, or just plain stupidity, the Israelites misinterpreted God's command toward the Amalekites to mean complete and total annhilation. Sounds plausible, given the subsequent track record of the Israelites on obedience to ALMIGHTY GOD.
However, if this is indeed accurate, what of Saul's disobedience, when he does not follow the Ban, but instead chooses his own path? He is clearly reprimanded for lack of obedience. And what of God's command to "have no other gods before" Him, or "do not commit adultery"? I am sure that the Israelites just misunderstood what God meant when they set up Asherah poles...and consequently got overrun by Midians and the like in Judges. Oh, and David must have really, really, really, deep-down misunderstood that whole "do not commit adultery" thing when he slept with Bathsheba and killed her husband to cover it up!!! No. In both those cases, the Israelites and David repented of their disobedience.
These other cases show us that God's commands, when explicitly given in Scripture, are accurate, not misunderstood. The Israelites, David, and Saul all knew precisely what GOD had commanded, and chose to either obey or disobey. If Scripture is wrong in this regard, was it also wrong when God said "do not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill"? This is ultimate end to this argument, and I believe, the ultimate end to any attempt to "explain away" Scripture in this regard.
This is why I reject completely and totally the "Marcan Priority" arrangment of Gospel authorship, but that is a post for another day.
Thought One
It wouldn't be the first time an entire group of people would be wiped out. We know of the Biblical stories of Soddom and Gomorrah, in which God rained down sulfur and brimstone and destroyed the evil cities. We also know of the mysterious disappearance of the colony of Roanoake Island, not to mention the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Legends abound about the civilization of Atlantis. In our modern world, we have seen the devestation wrought by such forces as tidal waves, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like (which are called on insurance claims "Acts of God"). We have no trouble attributing the destruction of cities or peoples to God directly (or indirectly through nature), but we throw up our hands and say "God couldn't have commanded the Israelites to wipe a group of people!"
Why not? Who are we to limit what God can and cannot do? The same commenter was loath to attribute "objective evil" to a command of God's, when according to that self-same logic, God was directly guilty of that same objective evil when He destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah. I would trust that God knew what He was doing, because HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD!! As the Psalmist says in Psalm 95: "It is He who made us and we are His."
Thought Two
The idea that the Ban was simply an Israelite misunderstanding on what God wanted is appealing, but ultimately, it is patently false. The theory goes something like this: for cultural reasons, miscommunication, or just plain stupidity, the Israelites misinterpreted God's command toward the Amalekites to mean complete and total annhilation. Sounds plausible, given the subsequent track record of the Israelites on obedience to ALMIGHTY GOD.
However, if this is indeed accurate, what of Saul's disobedience, when he does not follow the Ban, but instead chooses his own path? He is clearly reprimanded for lack of obedience. And what of God's command to "have no other gods before" Him, or "do not commit adultery"? I am sure that the Israelites just misunderstood what God meant when they set up Asherah poles...and consequently got overrun by Midians and the like in Judges. Oh, and David must have really, really, really, deep-down misunderstood that whole "do not commit adultery" thing when he slept with Bathsheba and killed her husband to cover it up!!! No. In both those cases, the Israelites and David repented of their disobedience.
These other cases show us that God's commands, when explicitly given in Scripture, are accurate, not misunderstood. The Israelites, David, and Saul all knew precisely what GOD had commanded, and chose to either obey or disobey. If Scripture is wrong in this regard, was it also wrong when God said "do not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not kill"? This is ultimate end to this argument, and I believe, the ultimate end to any attempt to "explain away" Scripture in this regard.
This is why I reject completely and totally the "Marcan Priority" arrangment of Gospel authorship, but that is a post for another day.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wealth of Nations Division of Labor and Human Nature
Nature has a way of taking revenge on those who mess with it. For example, in Egypt and China, for millenia the major rivers of these nations have seasonally flooded, creating flood basins that were incredibly rich in soil and provided the people a consistent source of food. In the 20th Century, "modern" leaders attempted to control nature by building dams. Now, those countries are in crisis, most notably Egypt, because the people haven't stopped farming on the banks of the rivers, but the rivers aren't providing the soil they once did. Thus food supplies are diminishing. Thus, it can be stated that when humans work with nature (including natural moral law), their endeavors will have a greater rate of success than when they attempt to change or control nature. Using this maxim, then, when we undertake actions that are inline with human nature, we can be reasonably assured that our endeavors will be relatively successful.
In the introduction to the volume of Wealth of Nations I am reading, the editor says that Smith's economic theories reflected a concept of man that was foreign to the "longstanding traditions of absolutism and trancendentalism with their view of human beings as inherently wayward, sinful and therefore in constant need of strong secular and ecclesiasiastical authority." I am almost instantly drawn to Jean Calvin's depiction of man as "totally depraved" and Martin Luther's assumption that we are as dung-heaps when the editor claims this. Certainly he is not referring to the millenia-old cry of Pope St. Leo the Great: "Christians, remember your dignity!" St. Leo based his exhortation on two facts: man is created in the image and likeness of God, and God chose to become fully man. According to St. Leo's logic (which is indicative of the Christian Tradition, up until the time of Luther), God is inherently Good, and if we are made in the image and likeness of that which is Good, we cannot be inherently bad (which is what Luther and Calvin claim). In addition, God chose to become one of us, thus raising our fallen dignity even more. What is at issue here is an accurate understanding of human nature. Are humans totally depraved, as Adam Smith's contemporaries believed, or are they inherently good, as Adam Smith presupposed?
Remember that Smith "calls it as he sees it." His depiction of the fruits of division of labor is not simply philosophical or speculative, but through observation. Through these observations, he is keenly aware that when "manufatures" are broken into simpler tasks (which are then called peculiar businesses), the quantity and quality of everything that is produced increases tremendously. He uses several easy examples, for instance, a smith is used to making many things out of iron. However, due to circumstances, many smiths excel at making, say, hammers, but don't make many nails. If asked to make nails, they could do it, but their nail production, because of a lack of experience, would make say a couple hundred in a day. Another smith, due to circumstances, has extensive experience in making nails, and indeed has it down to a science, and therefore makes a couple thousand a day. Smith argues that if we simply let the hammer-producing smith make hammers and the nail producing smith make nails, there are more hammers and more nails to go around than if every smith had to make both items. This is an easy observation to make, and is, quite simply, common sense. What is most compelling for our purposes, here and now, is the implication this has for human nature.
Smith goes from simple manufacturing to philosophy, and from philosophy to the rest of society. He says, "Each individual becomes an expert in his own peculiar branch [of philosophy], more work is done on the whole, and the quantity of science is increased by it." So, if division of labor and specialization can work for industry, it stands to reason, then, that it would work for other things as well: arts, sciences, politics, even religion. St. Paul talks about the different roles and different gifts that the Faithful have. In his body analogy, he makes it quite clear that when each member of the Church assumes the responsibilities of his/her roles/gifts, then the Body as a whole is made stronger, and Christ is glorified. This is akin to what Smith is saying, and he says it explicitly at the end of Book I Chapter 1: when everyone completes their specialized tasks in a cooperative manner, everyone benefits, from the peasant to the prince. Smith is not simply referring to material benefits here, but to arts, sciences, architecture, etc. The principal of using one's gifts in a cooperative manner (as opposed to purely selfish manner) means that society as a whole benefits.
Smith's admonition that people could, on their own devices and without coercion by the state or the ecclesiatical authority, work together for the betterment of all harkened back to the view of mankind held by St. Leo the Great and St. Anselm. His observation that people will cooperate on their own volition (without coercion by the state or church) is directly opposite to the contemporary practice of creating government-sponsored monopolies (which restrict free cooperation among individuals). This is why, I believe that the English and Americans were able to quite quickly create wealthy societies without the use of government sponsored monopolies. Their economic policies were based on an accurate understanding of human nature, and because of that, they succeeded. When we contrast the economic policies of say, Spain, with those of 19th Century England, we see some remarkable differences. While Spain was a Catholic nation, and as such was no stranger to Pope Leo the Great's understanding of humanity, its political structure embraced the ideas of Hobbes and the de facto his assumptions of human nature, especially when it came to non-Catholics and natives in their colonies. By 1830, England's national wealth far surpassed that of Spain's.
When the Reformers assumptions of a totally depraved and dung-heap humanity are put into action, people are oppressed, and, at least economically, people's standard of living are poor. When Catholic assumptions of an inherently good, but fallen humanity are put into action, people are free, and at least economically, people's standard of living are higher. If we accept the earlier postulation that adherence to nature will reflect in "success", then we can assume that Calvin's and Luther's assumptions of mankind are flawed, and while Smith's (and by extension, those of St. Leo the Great) assumptions are more accurate.
In the introduction to the volume of Wealth of Nations I am reading, the editor says that Smith's economic theories reflected a concept of man that was foreign to the "longstanding traditions of absolutism and trancendentalism with their view of human beings as inherently wayward, sinful and therefore in constant need of strong secular and ecclesiasiastical authority." I am almost instantly drawn to Jean Calvin's depiction of man as "totally depraved" and Martin Luther's assumption that we are as dung-heaps when the editor claims this. Certainly he is not referring to the millenia-old cry of Pope St. Leo the Great: "Christians, remember your dignity!" St. Leo based his exhortation on two facts: man is created in the image and likeness of God, and God chose to become fully man. According to St. Leo's logic (which is indicative of the Christian Tradition, up until the time of Luther), God is inherently Good, and if we are made in the image and likeness of that which is Good, we cannot be inherently bad (which is what Luther and Calvin claim). In addition, God chose to become one of us, thus raising our fallen dignity even more. What is at issue here is an accurate understanding of human nature. Are humans totally depraved, as Adam Smith's contemporaries believed, or are they inherently good, as Adam Smith presupposed?
Remember that Smith "calls it as he sees it." His depiction of the fruits of division of labor is not simply philosophical or speculative, but through observation. Through these observations, he is keenly aware that when "manufatures" are broken into simpler tasks (which are then called peculiar businesses), the quantity and quality of everything that is produced increases tremendously. He uses several easy examples, for instance, a smith is used to making many things out of iron. However, due to circumstances, many smiths excel at making, say, hammers, but don't make many nails. If asked to make nails, they could do it, but their nail production, because of a lack of experience, would make say a couple hundred in a day. Another smith, due to circumstances, has extensive experience in making nails, and indeed has it down to a science, and therefore makes a couple thousand a day. Smith argues that if we simply let the hammer-producing smith make hammers and the nail producing smith make nails, there are more hammers and more nails to go around than if every smith had to make both items. This is an easy observation to make, and is, quite simply, common sense. What is most compelling for our purposes, here and now, is the implication this has for human nature.
Smith goes from simple manufacturing to philosophy, and from philosophy to the rest of society. He says, "Each individual becomes an expert in his own peculiar branch [of philosophy], more work is done on the whole, and the quantity of science is increased by it." So, if division of labor and specialization can work for industry, it stands to reason, then, that it would work for other things as well: arts, sciences, politics, even religion. St. Paul talks about the different roles and different gifts that the Faithful have. In his body analogy, he makes it quite clear that when each member of the Church assumes the responsibilities of his/her roles/gifts, then the Body as a whole is made stronger, and Christ is glorified. This is akin to what Smith is saying, and he says it explicitly at the end of Book I Chapter 1: when everyone completes their specialized tasks in a cooperative manner, everyone benefits, from the peasant to the prince. Smith is not simply referring to material benefits here, but to arts, sciences, architecture, etc. The principal of using one's gifts in a cooperative manner (as opposed to purely selfish manner) means that society as a whole benefits.
Smith's admonition that people could, on their own devices and without coercion by the state or the ecclesiatical authority, work together for the betterment of all harkened back to the view of mankind held by St. Leo the Great and St. Anselm. His observation that people will cooperate on their own volition (without coercion by the state or church) is directly opposite to the contemporary practice of creating government-sponsored monopolies (which restrict free cooperation among individuals). This is why, I believe that the English and Americans were able to quite quickly create wealthy societies without the use of government sponsored monopolies. Their economic policies were based on an accurate understanding of human nature, and because of that, they succeeded. When we contrast the economic policies of say, Spain, with those of 19th Century England, we see some remarkable differences. While Spain was a Catholic nation, and as such was no stranger to Pope Leo the Great's understanding of humanity, its political structure embraced the ideas of Hobbes and the de facto his assumptions of human nature, especially when it came to non-Catholics and natives in their colonies. By 1830, England's national wealth far surpassed that of Spain's.
When the Reformers assumptions of a totally depraved and dung-heap humanity are put into action, people are oppressed, and, at least economically, people's standard of living are poor. When Catholic assumptions of an inherently good, but fallen humanity are put into action, people are free, and at least economically, people's standard of living are higher. If we accept the earlier postulation that adherence to nature will reflect in "success", then we can assume that Calvin's and Luther's assumptions of mankind are flawed, and while Smith's (and by extension, those of St. Leo the Great) assumptions are more accurate.
The Commonplace Book
If you took the time to read the children's book series A Series of Unfortunate Events (which I recommend, by the way, if for anything else, it is a pleasantly humorous series), you would have come across the term "commonplace book". In the series, it is a collection of things that a certain individual had learned and when they had learned it. This practice harkens back to educational practices of the late 1700s, in which a student, while reading selected texts chosen by his mentor, would construct essays concerning themes they discovered or thought about while reading. This commonplace book would be read by the mentor, and the two would discuss the themes mentioned in the text and the commonplace book.
In schools today, teachers assign journals, which in part harkens back to this practice of a commonplace book. However, these journals are not spontaneous on the part of the student, like commonplace books were. Commonplace books were meant to be read, and meant to be discussed, and reflected what the student was learning during their reading.
This is where I come in. I have undertaken to begin reading several classic texts that I have always wanted to read, but never did. Of course, while reading such works, I will learn something and think about things. When this happens, the best thing is to write it down. So, as I muddle through these classics, I will use this blog as my commonplace book.
In schools today, teachers assign journals, which in part harkens back to this practice of a commonplace book. However, these journals are not spontaneous on the part of the student, like commonplace books were. Commonplace books were meant to be read, and meant to be discussed, and reflected what the student was learning during their reading.
This is where I come in. I have undertaken to begin reading several classic texts that I have always wanted to read, but never did. Of course, while reading such works, I will learn something and think about things. When this happens, the best thing is to write it down. So, as I muddle through these classics, I will use this blog as my commonplace book.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Sometimes "conventional wisdom" is neither conventional, nor wisdom
I have been following the whole "Pope approves condoms story" and I came across the phrase "conventional wisdom" somewhere in one of the articles. If I recall, the author was attempting to say something like "everyone knows that condom use prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS". But does it really? Is the "conventional wisdom" actually wisdom at all, or is it our wishful thinking, hoping to convince ourself of a desired outcome so we can have "it" our way?
In America education, the definite "conventional wisdom" is that the more money you throw at schools, the better they will educate their students. This is categorically false. According to some, those countries that produce more educated kids spend less on education than we do. More locally, however, is the staggering case of Washington, DC schools. Almost every year, DC schools spend more money per student than any other district in the nation...and its students still underperform. There are a lot of factors in how a school educates its students. Money isn't really that high on the list. All you need to do is look at Catholic schools, which on average spend $2-3K less per student than their public counter parts, and whose students routinely perform at levels equal to or higher than public schools students (I won't even get into homeschooling, where families spend many, many times less with better results). However, its easy for us to say that schools need alot more money, because throwing money at a problem is easier than buckling down and actually fixing it.
Similarly, conventional wisdom is that the government must somehow be the impetus behind making sure that everyone has healthcare. On paper, it sounds great. You know, "free" health care, that everyone can get, insured by the government. But that is not the reality. As is evident in the UK and other government health-care systems, care is rationed due to lack of resources (be they financial resources or medical resources). In practice, not every one is covered. On this end, I remember sitting through one of my pointless grad classes, in which the professor (no conservative, that one) proceded to ask us what the biggest tragedy over Princess Diana's death was. I was about to raise my hand and say "A real humanitarian, Mother Theresa, was overlooked because of Diana's death", when he answered his own question: it took the ambulence--in downtown Paris--three hours to reach the scene of the accident because of all the red-tape. He then went on to say that if it happened in NYC, she'd have been in the hosptial in 20 minutes, and would have lived. It is easy for us to say let the government fix it, because then we don't have to actually think about what to do. It just doesn't work that way.
In a related example, in 2009, the Holy Father went to Africa, and on the plane trip there, he made some discouraging remarks concerning condoms (I believe he said that they actually made the AIDS problem worse). The press lambasted him on it the entire trip (never mind that the Africans rejoiced at his messages and he was roundly hailed as a hero in all the countries he went to). What was missed in the one sided conversation were actually pieces of information: the only country in Africa with and AIDS epidemic that has seen some improvement is Uganda, which adopted an abstinence and fidelity based education system, which was hugely successful. Contrast that with the other nations, which have used an internationally-sponsored condom-based approach. These nations have seen their AIDS rates increase, despite handing out prophylactics like they were food. How is this happening when "conventional wisdom" shows that condoms stop the spread of diseases? Well, as Professor Rhonheimer (a Catholic priest who is an expert in moral theology) points out, the perception that the risk is mitigated leads people to engage in more risky behavior could lead some people to engage in more risky behavior, negating the "benefits" of the condom. This would make matters worse. So, why is condom use to prevent illness such "conventional wisdom"? Just like prior examples, condom use is the easy way out. It is much harder to have to abstain from your lusts than give in. Thus, we need to find a way to overcome that problem (not getting HIV/AIDS while still giving in to your lusts).
What do all these examples have in common? To me it is simple: the proponents of these tidbits of "wisdom" have failed to look at human nature. Government largess creates ample possibilities for bribery, theft, kickbacks, and pork-barrel spending that grossly inflate the amount spent on any given program. This is true in education and government-run health-care. The same is true with the whole condom thing. You can't tell me that some guy is going to get this piece of latex with the promise "you won't get a girl knocked-up, or get HIV, 99% sure" and not say "I best be responsible in how I use this amazing piece of human ingenuity". No, human nature says that he'll indulge in his every lustful desire, because he can (and not get punished for it).
What is ultimately ironic about these bits of "conventional wisdom" is that they are relatively new in origin: prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish proverbist once wrote: money is the root of all evil. Governments before the 1800s never took it upon themselves to do the job of local entities, because it was obvious that private entities were more effective, a concept that St. Thomas Aquinas called "subsidiarity", but which in reality goes back to Augustine and possibly Plato or Aristotle. From the time of Constantine, "conventional wisdom" held that all forms of contraception, including barrier methods, were evil because they encouraged intrinsically evil behaviors (like fornication, adultery, and homosexuality). There is nothing "conventional" about them.
In America education, the definite "conventional wisdom" is that the more money you throw at schools, the better they will educate their students. This is categorically false. According to some, those countries that produce more educated kids spend less on education than we do. More locally, however, is the staggering case of Washington, DC schools. Almost every year, DC schools spend more money per student than any other district in the nation...and its students still underperform. There are a lot of factors in how a school educates its students. Money isn't really that high on the list. All you need to do is look at Catholic schools, which on average spend $2-3K less per student than their public counter parts, and whose students routinely perform at levels equal to or higher than public schools students (I won't even get into homeschooling, where families spend many, many times less with better results). However, its easy for us to say that schools need alot more money, because throwing money at a problem is easier than buckling down and actually fixing it.
Similarly, conventional wisdom is that the government must somehow be the impetus behind making sure that everyone has healthcare. On paper, it sounds great. You know, "free" health care, that everyone can get, insured by the government. But that is not the reality. As is evident in the UK and other government health-care systems, care is rationed due to lack of resources (be they financial resources or medical resources). In practice, not every one is covered. On this end, I remember sitting through one of my pointless grad classes, in which the professor (no conservative, that one) proceded to ask us what the biggest tragedy over Princess Diana's death was. I was about to raise my hand and say "A real humanitarian, Mother Theresa, was overlooked because of Diana's death", when he answered his own question: it took the ambulence--in downtown Paris--three hours to reach the scene of the accident because of all the red-tape. He then went on to say that if it happened in NYC, she'd have been in the hosptial in 20 minutes, and would have lived. It is easy for us to say let the government fix it, because then we don't have to actually think about what to do. It just doesn't work that way.
In a related example, in 2009, the Holy Father went to Africa, and on the plane trip there, he made some discouraging remarks concerning condoms (I believe he said that they actually made the AIDS problem worse). The press lambasted him on it the entire trip (never mind that the Africans rejoiced at his messages and he was roundly hailed as a hero in all the countries he went to). What was missed in the one sided conversation were actually pieces of information: the only country in Africa with and AIDS epidemic that has seen some improvement is Uganda, which adopted an abstinence and fidelity based education system, which was hugely successful. Contrast that with the other nations, which have used an internationally-sponsored condom-based approach. These nations have seen their AIDS rates increase, despite handing out prophylactics like they were food. How is this happening when "conventional wisdom" shows that condoms stop the spread of diseases? Well, as Professor Rhonheimer (a Catholic priest who is an expert in moral theology) points out, the perception that the risk is mitigated leads people to engage in more risky behavior could lead some people to engage in more risky behavior, negating the "benefits" of the condom. This would make matters worse. So, why is condom use to prevent illness such "conventional wisdom"? Just like prior examples, condom use is the easy way out. It is much harder to have to abstain from your lusts than give in. Thus, we need to find a way to overcome that problem (not getting HIV/AIDS while still giving in to your lusts).
What do all these examples have in common? To me it is simple: the proponents of these tidbits of "wisdom" have failed to look at human nature. Government largess creates ample possibilities for bribery, theft, kickbacks, and pork-barrel spending that grossly inflate the amount spent on any given program. This is true in education and government-run health-care. The same is true with the whole condom thing. You can't tell me that some guy is going to get this piece of latex with the promise "you won't get a girl knocked-up, or get HIV, 99% sure" and not say "I best be responsible in how I use this amazing piece of human ingenuity". No, human nature says that he'll indulge in his every lustful desire, because he can (and not get punished for it).
What is ultimately ironic about these bits of "conventional wisdom" is that they are relatively new in origin: prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish proverbist once wrote: money is the root of all evil. Governments before the 1800s never took it upon themselves to do the job of local entities, because it was obvious that private entities were more effective, a concept that St. Thomas Aquinas called "subsidiarity", but which in reality goes back to Augustine and possibly Plato or Aristotle. From the time of Constantine, "conventional wisdom" held that all forms of contraception, including barrier methods, were evil because they encouraged intrinsically evil behaviors (like fornication, adultery, and homosexuality). There is nothing "conventional" about them.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Why I can't stand Mark Shea
I don't know why I do it to myself. Perhaps I hope that it won't be as infuriating as it always is. Anyway, I did it again. I saw an article penned by Mark Shea, and read it.
I guess what infuriates me about Mark Shea's writing style is the words he chooses to not only make his point but also get to it. In the article referrenced above, Mr. Shea's supposed argument was that its asinine for Conservative Catholics to think that someone's pro-life stance absolves them from their ideological errors, while its asinine for Liberal Catholics to assume that someone's opposition to the Iraq War absolve them from their ideological errors. At least that what he says in the comments. The article, however, is not about that.
Its quite clear that Mr. Shea is against the war in Iraq. In fact, his writings have been laced with invective and insinuations that now, whatever happens in Iraq is murder (you see, because Mr. Shea says its unjust, then not only is it objectively unjust, but therefore, now it is murderous). Thus, he can equate support for abortion with support for an unjust war. Moreso, however, is his harping about those on the Catholic Right disregarding the "voice of the Church" on the war (and this is, I think the main point he is trying to make). He equates statements made by John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB with the "voice of the Church". There are several problems with these things.
First, his article cites three pieces as the "voice of the Church": an address the Holy Father (John Paul II) gave to the Diplomatic Corps, Cardinal Ratzinger's speech after receiving the Trieste Liberal Award, and the US Council of Catholic Bishops (at least their website). On the surface, those sound like pretty formidable forces to reckon with. So I checked them out.
The Holy Father, it turns out, is against war. Of course, the Holy Father says nothing concerning the Iraq War, but simply says that war is bad, and we should avoid it all costs. His speech is directed at giving his diplomats marching orders: what policies and attitudes they are to press for as diplomats for the sovereign state (the Vatican) they represent. The mere venue means that this speech is an issue of state, not an issue of Church (you see, even the Vatican can separate Church and state...although its hard). To use this speech as evidence of the "voice of the Church" is riduculous.
The article on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's address was actually counter-productive to Mr. Shea's point(s). Mr. Shea cites the statement by the Cardinal that "preemptive war is not in the Catechism" and links us to the article from which he got the statement. It is as if he didn't even read the article. The very next line is "One cannot simply say the Catechism does not legitimize the war." So while the Catechism doens't mention preemptive war, it also doesn't rule it out either. This is not was Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. He wants us to hear that the Cardinal thinks that because preemptive war isn't in the Catechism it is immoral, but that is not what the Cardinal said. In addition, the Cardinal did say that it was hard to justify unilateral war under the present circumstances...and then goes on to say that it should be the UN's decision. According to the article, the Cardinal wasn't concerned about the invasion of Iraq in and of itself, but the unilateral invasion of Iraq. The article's lede even makes this abundantly clear...Mr. Shea just failed to notify his readers. Likewise, the Cardinal said that policy issues weren't his specialty, inferring that he leaves matters like war up to the states. This is not what Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. , as it is antithetical to his point.
Finally he cites the USCCB's Iraq statements. These statements firstly include the "unilateral" myth again (26 nations does not "unilateral" make). Then the bishops go on to say that "Based on the facts that are known...it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq." They have a point: based on the facts that the public knew from the Mainstream Media, one could conceivably have a hard time justifying invading Iraq. This opens the door for the possibility that the public didn't really know the whole story, perhaps the media wasn't giving us all the information (like the fact that Saddam had actually asked bin Laden to station himself in Iraq, but bin Laden refused the offer). This, of the three, is the most useful for his purposes...but it still isn't a tight match.
That however, is not my only beef with Mr. Shea. Another one is his clain that Conservative Catholics will hold moral proclamations of the Magesterium to be true (when according to him, the Magesterium hasn't defined any moral teachings as infallible), but call issues like torture and war "prudential decisions". Firstly, Mr. Shea, who supposedly knows Catholic doctrine well, misses the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary Magesterium. Those moral teachings that he talks about have been constantly proclaimed by popes, bishops, and councils, thus making them part of the ordinary Magesterium, and thus infallible (according to Lumen gentium and the Catechism). This makes those teachings binding on the faithful (at least in terms of obedience, if not assent). The two popes' opposition to the Iraq War is not on the same plane as these moral teachings (indeed, one could argue that their statements are not part of the Magesterium). Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a letter to the US bishops in 2004 that support for abortion is not the same as support for a war that could be unjust. One could support a war that is unjust (despite what Church leaders have said about the war), while one could never support abortion.
Maybe one day, I'll stop reading Mark Shea. It'll save us all agony.
I guess what infuriates me about Mark Shea's writing style is the words he chooses to not only make his point but also get to it. In the article referrenced above, Mr. Shea's supposed argument was that its asinine for Conservative Catholics to think that someone's pro-life stance absolves them from their ideological errors, while its asinine for Liberal Catholics to assume that someone's opposition to the Iraq War absolve them from their ideological errors. At least that what he says in the comments. The article, however, is not about that.
Its quite clear that Mr. Shea is against the war in Iraq. In fact, his writings have been laced with invective and insinuations that now, whatever happens in Iraq is murder (you see, because Mr. Shea says its unjust, then not only is it objectively unjust, but therefore, now it is murderous). Thus, he can equate support for abortion with support for an unjust war. Moreso, however, is his harping about those on the Catholic Right disregarding the "voice of the Church" on the war (and this is, I think the main point he is trying to make). He equates statements made by John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB with the "voice of the Church". There are several problems with these things.
First, his article cites three pieces as the "voice of the Church": an address the Holy Father (John Paul II) gave to the Diplomatic Corps, Cardinal Ratzinger's speech after receiving the Trieste Liberal Award, and the US Council of Catholic Bishops (at least their website). On the surface, those sound like pretty formidable forces to reckon with. So I checked them out.
The Holy Father, it turns out, is against war. Of course, the Holy Father says nothing concerning the Iraq War, but simply says that war is bad, and we should avoid it all costs. His speech is directed at giving his diplomats marching orders: what policies and attitudes they are to press for as diplomats for the sovereign state (the Vatican) they represent. The mere venue means that this speech is an issue of state, not an issue of Church (you see, even the Vatican can separate Church and state...although its hard). To use this speech as evidence of the "voice of the Church" is riduculous.
The article on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's address was actually counter-productive to Mr. Shea's point(s). Mr. Shea cites the statement by the Cardinal that "preemptive war is not in the Catechism" and links us to the article from which he got the statement. It is as if he didn't even read the article. The very next line is "One cannot simply say the Catechism does not legitimize the war." So while the Catechism doens't mention preemptive war, it also doesn't rule it out either. This is not was Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. He wants us to hear that the Cardinal thinks that because preemptive war isn't in the Catechism it is immoral, but that is not what the Cardinal said. In addition, the Cardinal did say that it was hard to justify unilateral war under the present circumstances...and then goes on to say that it should be the UN's decision. According to the article, the Cardinal wasn't concerned about the invasion of Iraq in and of itself, but the unilateral invasion of Iraq. The article's lede even makes this abundantly clear...Mr. Shea just failed to notify his readers. Likewise, the Cardinal said that policy issues weren't his specialty, inferring that he leaves matters like war up to the states. This is not what Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. , as it is antithetical to his point.
Finally he cites the USCCB's Iraq statements. These statements firstly include the "unilateral" myth again (26 nations does not "unilateral" make). Then the bishops go on to say that "Based on the facts that are known...it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq." They have a point: based on the facts that the public knew from the Mainstream Media, one could conceivably have a hard time justifying invading Iraq. This opens the door for the possibility that the public didn't really know the whole story, perhaps the media wasn't giving us all the information (like the fact that Saddam had actually asked bin Laden to station himself in Iraq, but bin Laden refused the offer). This, of the three, is the most useful for his purposes...but it still isn't a tight match.
That however, is not my only beef with Mr. Shea. Another one is his clain that Conservative Catholics will hold moral proclamations of the Magesterium to be true (when according to him, the Magesterium hasn't defined any moral teachings as infallible), but call issues like torture and war "prudential decisions". Firstly, Mr. Shea, who supposedly knows Catholic doctrine well, misses the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary Magesterium. Those moral teachings that he talks about have been constantly proclaimed by popes, bishops, and councils, thus making them part of the ordinary Magesterium, and thus infallible (according to Lumen gentium and the Catechism). This makes those teachings binding on the faithful (at least in terms of obedience, if not assent). The two popes' opposition to the Iraq War is not on the same plane as these moral teachings (indeed, one could argue that their statements are not part of the Magesterium). Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a letter to the US bishops in 2004 that support for abortion is not the same as support for a war that could be unjust. One could support a war that is unjust (despite what Church leaders have said about the war), while one could never support abortion.
Maybe one day, I'll stop reading Mark Shea. It'll save us all agony.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
You--a disease to be irradicated
I just read this, by Diogenes over at Catholic Culture. Obamacare is supposed to, now, cover contraceptives as "preventative medicine". As Diogenese points out, "preventatvie medicine" prevents diseases and illnesses. Contraception prevents babies, and according to ob/gyns, contraception is preventative medicine. What contraception prevents is new life. So, using this logic:
1. " Preventative medicine" prevents disease.
2. Contraception prevents new life
3. Contracepion = "preventative medicine"
**4 GIVEN 1 and 2, and IF 3, THEN new life=disease.**
So, Obama and his flunkies, especially formerScreacher Speaker of the House and Sen. Boxer, view new life as a disease.
This actually makes perfect sense. Consider China, a socialist country. China's government strictly controls and "cares for" its populace. This is a huge burden. So, how do you lessen the burden? Reduce the number of dependants you have...its not that difficult. China's abuse of humanity is perfectly consistent with the atheistic socialism of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Obama. If Government is responsible for people, it wants as little people as possible to take care of. There are two ways of doing that: killing what you've already got (naturally or artificially), or making sure nothing new comes your way. In either case, life is the enemy, pure and simple.
Each of us were babies. Obama now thinks of each person, especially babies, not only as "punishments", but also diseases, diseases to be irradicated. This is why he pushes for state funded abortion, this is why he pushes for state funded contraception.
With a thought process like this, it makes it really difficult to believe the President when he says he's a Christian (although I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt). After all, GOD created life, it was HE that blew Life into our dusty bodies. By rejecting Life, we reject GOD. By rejecting GOD, can we really consider ourselves "Christian"?
1. " Preventative medicine" prevents disease.
2. Contraception prevents new life
3. Contracepion = "preventative medicine"
**4 GIVEN 1 and 2, and IF 3, THEN new life=disease.**
So, Obama and his flunkies, especially former
This actually makes perfect sense. Consider China, a socialist country. China's government strictly controls and "cares for" its populace. This is a huge burden. So, how do you lessen the burden? Reduce the number of dependants you have...its not that difficult. China's abuse of humanity is perfectly consistent with the atheistic socialism of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Obama. If Government is responsible for people, it wants as little people as possible to take care of. There are two ways of doing that: killing what you've already got (naturally or artificially), or making sure nothing new comes your way. In either case, life is the enemy, pure and simple.
Each of us were babies. Obama now thinks of each person, especially babies, not only as "punishments", but also diseases, diseases to be irradicated. This is why he pushes for state funded abortion, this is why he pushes for state funded contraception.
With a thought process like this, it makes it really difficult to believe the President when he says he's a Christian (although I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt). After all, GOD created life, it was HE that blew Life into our dusty bodies. By rejecting Life, we reject GOD. By rejecting GOD, can we really consider ourselves "Christian"?
Monday, November 1, 2010
Blog II
Often, I get the urge to write religiously themed items. So, I've decided not to burden you involuntarily with them and thus created the RottinApologist.
Head on over to see what I've written. Who knows, it might be interesting.
Head on over to see what I've written. Who knows, it might be interesting.
Friday, October 29, 2010
So, why are we using the New American Bible, anyway?
I walked into the local Catholic bookstore yesterday, and was asked by the proprietor what to expect when the corrected translation is put into full-scale use next Advent. "Someone said the Scripture readings would be different." "Unfortunately," said I, "we are stuck with the New American Bible."
Unless we are using the Vulgate or the Duoay-Rheims (I'd even say the KJV, but that is decidedly anti-Catholic, so that won't do either), each modern translation has its ups and downs. More literal texts, like the Revised Standard (or Duoay-Rheims), in their attempts at maintaining integrity to the original, have sequences that are hard to follow, and thus turn people off. More dynamic texts, the the Good News, or the Word, take liberties with the original in an effort to make the text sound "fresh" and "relevent". In these texts, it is hard to seriously determine what the Sacred Authors said, and much is actually the translators' interpretations (not necessarily what the Holy Spirit intended the human authors to record). In addition, many contemporary versions have kowtowed to feminazis and communists by gender-neutralizing language and dumbing-down certain sections that deal with sexual morality. The NAB fits in here.
Now, certainly, the NAB has its qualities. Often it reads smoothly, and when compared to other versions, you can tell the translators tried to keep with the original over "improving" what the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write. However, in terms of sexual morality, the NAB gets a big, fat "F". For starters, it has completely and totally removed the term "fornication", common in all translations prior to the 1960s, which means pre-marital sexual activity. Now, one could substitute "pre-maritial sexual activity" for "fornication", but not for "enlightened" translators after the 1960s! No, such prudish ideas must be purged from our out-moded mindset. Nevermind that the originals still include fornication, or never mind that the Vulgate still includes fornication.
That is one major failing of the NAB. Another major failing is the translations of the Psalms. Using the Grail Psalmody for the Liturgy of the Hours is so marvelous! You can actually feel the emotion behind the psalmists words, and that helps you pray them. You can't really do that with the NAB.
But there is another, more compelling reason to abandon the NAB completely: its editors contradict defined Catholic teaching in more than a few places and undermine the Bible as the Word of God. One glaring example is in the Genesis account of the Great Deluge. Unlike other translations, which offer study points and clarifications in "Study Bible" versions, every single NAB I have ever seen has the same exact footnotes for the same exact verses. Here is what the footnote says about the Deluge: "Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the Gilgamesh epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it."
So, according to the Know-it-alls who translated the NAB, the Flood never really happened, but the writers of Genesis heard about it from the Gilgamesh epic and thought it cool, so they included it. Just like the account of the Tower of Babel. Of that account, the editors opine, "This story, based on traditions about the temple towers, or ziggurats, or Babylonia...". This account, too, is not based on, you know, the Inspiration of the Third Person of the Godhead, but on some stories about Babylonia.
What is assumed here is assumed in the New Testament when these note-makers refer to "Q" and other such nonsense: rather than use the text as it is as a reference point, we make up reference points with which to compare the Bible. No longer do we say "Wow! The Gilgamesh epic mentions a flood, just like the Bible. A flood must have happened, then!" Now we say, "Early Mesopotamian extant literary forms, of which the Gilgamesh epic is predominant, include a reference to a mythological 'flood'. The authors of the stories in Genesis obviously used that tale to give credibility to their own mythologies." This sort of thinking is to be expected from secular humanists like Richard Dawkinsand Rowan Williams. But from EDITORS OF BIBLES?!?!
It is true that Fathers like Augustine have quite clearly warned us that not everything in Genesis is to be taken to have happened exactly the way it is written. Clearly, the order of the Creation seems to show something of a thematic as opposed to chronological element to it. But that doesn't mean we automatically assume that these accounts are simply mythological stories that sound cute. Could it possibly be that the flood actually did happen (and the Gilgamesh epic recorded Mesopotamia's take on it)? Could it possibly be that the Tower of Babel account isn't drawn from the ziggurats, but the ziggurats are a left-over from that ill-fated attempt? Why is the default setting that the Bible is wrong?
Unless we are using the Vulgate or the Duoay-Rheims (I'd even say the KJV, but that is decidedly anti-Catholic, so that won't do either), each modern translation has its ups and downs. More literal texts, like the Revised Standard (or Duoay-Rheims), in their attempts at maintaining integrity to the original, have sequences that are hard to follow, and thus turn people off. More dynamic texts, the the Good News, or the Word, take liberties with the original in an effort to make the text sound "fresh" and "relevent". In these texts, it is hard to seriously determine what the Sacred Authors said, and much is actually the translators' interpretations (not necessarily what the Holy Spirit intended the human authors to record). In addition, many contemporary versions have kowtowed to feminazis and communists by gender-neutralizing language and dumbing-down certain sections that deal with sexual morality. The NAB fits in here.
Now, certainly, the NAB has its qualities. Often it reads smoothly, and when compared to other versions, you can tell the translators tried to keep with the original over "improving" what the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write. However, in terms of sexual morality, the NAB gets a big, fat "F". For starters, it has completely and totally removed the term "fornication", common in all translations prior to the 1960s, which means pre-marital sexual activity. Now, one could substitute "pre-maritial sexual activity" for "fornication", but not for "enlightened" translators after the 1960s! No, such prudish ideas must be purged from our out-moded mindset. Nevermind that the originals still include fornication, or never mind that the Vulgate still includes fornication.
That is one major failing of the NAB. Another major failing is the translations of the Psalms. Using the Grail Psalmody for the Liturgy of the Hours is so marvelous! You can actually feel the emotion behind the psalmists words, and that helps you pray them. You can't really do that with the NAB.
But there is another, more compelling reason to abandon the NAB completely: its editors contradict defined Catholic teaching in more than a few places and undermine the Bible as the Word of God. One glaring example is in the Genesis account of the Great Deluge. Unlike other translations, which offer study points and clarifications in "Study Bible" versions, every single NAB I have ever seen has the same exact footnotes for the same exact verses. Here is what the footnote says about the Deluge: "Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the Gilgamesh epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it."
So, according to the Know-it-alls who translated the NAB, the Flood never really happened, but the writers of Genesis heard about it from the Gilgamesh epic and thought it cool, so they included it. Just like the account of the Tower of Babel. Of that account, the editors opine, "This story, based on traditions about the temple towers, or ziggurats, or Babylonia...". This account, too, is not based on, you know, the Inspiration of the Third Person of the Godhead, but on some stories about Babylonia.
What is assumed here is assumed in the New Testament when these note-makers refer to "Q" and other such nonsense: rather than use the text as it is as a reference point, we make up reference points with which to compare the Bible. No longer do we say "Wow! The Gilgamesh epic mentions a flood, just like the Bible. A flood must have happened, then!" Now we say, "Early Mesopotamian extant literary forms, of which the Gilgamesh epic is predominant, include a reference to a mythological 'flood'. The authors of the stories in Genesis obviously used that tale to give credibility to their own mythologies." This sort of thinking is to be expected from secular humanists like Richard Dawkins
It is true that Fathers like Augustine have quite clearly warned us that not everything in Genesis is to be taken to have happened exactly the way it is written. Clearly, the order of the Creation seems to show something of a thematic as opposed to chronological element to it. But that doesn't mean we automatically assume that these accounts are simply mythological stories that sound cute. Could it possibly be that the flood actually did happen (and the Gilgamesh epic recorded Mesopotamia's take on it)? Could it possibly be that the Tower of Babel account isn't drawn from the ziggurats, but the ziggurats are a left-over from that ill-fated attempt? Why is the default setting that the Bible is wrong?
Friday, October 22, 2010
"It's your brain. You need that a lot."
The quote is from Cleveland Browns center Alex Mack, in reference to Steelers linebacker James Harrison's style of play. Sure, as Mr. Mack points out "You need that alot", but the question is, do people really use it? The answer of course, is "no".
1) The Sun-Gazette (our local newspaper) recently ran a front-page article on hydraulic fracturing in the natural gas industry, repeating the same old canard: fracturing pollutes the water supply, and those horrible, evil chemicals are just going to destroy humanity. Firstly, the article states that " industry assertions that no groundwater contamination has ever occurred during the fracking process refers only 'to just what happens a mile or two under the ground.'" This is an asanine claim because the individual isn't using his brain (do progressives ever use their brains?). The only time fracturing fluids would ever contaminate groundwater is through massive spillage and direct access to the water table. While there have been spills, according to the DEP, a great majority of those spills haven't leached into the water supply because those spills have either been contained or cleaned up prior to seapage into the ground. At any rate, to substantially contaminate the water supply as has been claimed (to be clear, any contamination is bad, but these people are claiming whole-scale contamination, not that which results from occasional spills that don't make it to rivers and streams).
As for infecting the water supply in the water table...there is a reason why fracturing is needed in shale formations. For one, the well itself is completely impermeable to outside fluids (be they gas or liquid) because the well is comprised of solid metal casing encased in a thick (4-6") layer of cement to support the casing. This creates a situation where any fluid is not able to enter or exit the well-bore. Thus, each frac begins with a perf stage, in which an explosive charge is detonated in a meticulously planned location to perforate the casing, the cement, and the formation. Then, the frac begins, as water and hydrochloric acid (found in your stomach) are pumped down the well-bore at extremely high pressures (avg 7000psi in the Marcellus formation, higher in other places) to extend the perfs in the formation. If the resulting fractures were left un-propped after the water leaves, the fracture would close; to prevent this, premeable substances (called proppants), like sand, bauxite, and man-made items like ceramic-coated sand, are pumped down-hole at carefully designed rates (arrived at using meticulously studied geological information) to prop the fracture open. Only after the fracturing process are the fluids that are trapped in the formation going to reach the surface. Because the fractures themselves are a good mile or so from the water table, and the formation is impermeable, those fluids are never going to reach the water table (if they did, there'd be no need to drill, because the natrual gas would be leaching into the water supply on its own, without the help of the natural gas industry). The only other way that frac fluids would enter the water supply is through a poorly constructed casing or a poor cement job. If this were the case, then the water from the water table would enter into the well-bore prior to the frac job even starting. The company overseeing the drilling and completion would recognize this problem, and take corrective action prior to fraccing, because such a problem could destroy the whole well. Thus, it is quite impossible for frac fluids to enter the water table, whatever the nay-sayers say.
Detractors hold that since the common use of hydraulic fracturing, methane in well water supplies has become more common. This is a disengenuous statement. The hydraulic fracturing process was first put into widespread use in the '50s. So what these guys are saying is that since 1950, we have seen ghastly amounts of well-water with methane, as a direct result of frac jobs. The problem is, no one really checks water supplies until after frac operations have started or have finished. Methane gas is naturally occuring in coal seams, not shale formations (again, see above concerning the permeability of shale). Coal is more permeable than shale (being softer), and thus, the methane will seap into the water supply on its own, without the help of fraccing. However, this is major problem with the claim: has the well-water been test prior to drilling operations, or has the enviromentalist hype surrounding fracturing so wound people as to blind them to objective information? I vote for the latter.
This brings up the second issue with fracturing: the "mysterious" and deadly chemicals that no one knows about because Big Oil doesn't want anyone to know they are destroying the world one well at a time. The same article says this: "The state Department of Environmental Protection recently released on its website a list of chemicals used industry-wide in the process. Range Resources became the first gas exploration company to divulge the chemicals it uses." This is a bunch of balloney, pure and simple. First, the DEP has had the list up for over a year. Second, as required by federal Right to Know legislation, each and every chemical that is used by any institution has to be listed (including cleaning agents, soaps, and the like), and a Material Safety Data Sheet must be easily accessible for the public, OSHA, and employees. Not only must it be easily accessible, but it must be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS when you walk into the offices of the facility. MSDS binders are bright yellow, and there is usually a sign above them that says "Right to Know" information. Even chemicals that are not hazardous require MSDS. All one needs to do is to contact the fracturing company and ask for a list of the chemicals they use...by law, they have to give them the list. In this regard, fracturing companies are no more mysterious than schools, factories or even government buildings are. It is just the environmentalists creating false negative hype. Of course, there is the issue of the health hazards from the chemicals. Every company is different, so the lists of chemicals in use will vary. Some will use peanut oil when possible, but others will opt for diesel fuel (which is decidedly more hazardous than peanut oil).
Of course, I don't expect people actually concerned about the environment to get the whole story. That would mean that facts and reason would trump emotion. And every one knows that George W Bush and Dick Cheney had ties to Halliburton and the rest of Big Oil. That means that everything about Big Oil is evil, because, you know, Bush and Cheney were utterly evil (at least, that is what Barack Obama and the Democrats say, as well as the New York Times, so seeing as the current President would never lie to get votes--whereas his predecessor did nothing but lie and cover up all he did--we have to trust him, right?)
1) The Sun-Gazette (our local newspaper) recently ran a front-page article on hydraulic fracturing in the natural gas industry, repeating the same old canard: fracturing pollutes the water supply, and those horrible, evil chemicals are just going to destroy humanity. Firstly, the article states that " industry assertions that no groundwater contamination has ever occurred during the fracking process refers only 'to just what happens a mile or two under the ground.'" This is an asanine claim because the individual isn't using his brain (do progressives ever use their brains?). The only time fracturing fluids would ever contaminate groundwater is through massive spillage and direct access to the water table. While there have been spills, according to the DEP, a great majority of those spills haven't leached into the water supply because those spills have either been contained or cleaned up prior to seapage into the ground. At any rate, to substantially contaminate the water supply as has been claimed (to be clear, any contamination is bad, but these people are claiming whole-scale contamination, not that which results from occasional spills that don't make it to rivers and streams).
As for infecting the water supply in the water table...there is a reason why fracturing is needed in shale formations. For one, the well itself is completely impermeable to outside fluids (be they gas or liquid) because the well is comprised of solid metal casing encased in a thick (4-6") layer of cement to support the casing. This creates a situation where any fluid is not able to enter or exit the well-bore. Thus, each frac begins with a perf stage, in which an explosive charge is detonated in a meticulously planned location to perforate the casing, the cement, and the formation. Then, the frac begins, as water and hydrochloric acid (found in your stomach) are pumped down the well-bore at extremely high pressures (avg 7000psi in the Marcellus formation, higher in other places) to extend the perfs in the formation. If the resulting fractures were left un-propped after the water leaves, the fracture would close; to prevent this, premeable substances (called proppants), like sand, bauxite, and man-made items like ceramic-coated sand, are pumped down-hole at carefully designed rates (arrived at using meticulously studied geological information) to prop the fracture open. Only after the fracturing process are the fluids that are trapped in the formation going to reach the surface. Because the fractures themselves are a good mile or so from the water table, and the formation is impermeable, those fluids are never going to reach the water table (if they did, there'd be no need to drill, because the natrual gas would be leaching into the water supply on its own, without the help of the natural gas industry). The only other way that frac fluids would enter the water supply is through a poorly constructed casing or a poor cement job. If this were the case, then the water from the water table would enter into the well-bore prior to the frac job even starting. The company overseeing the drilling and completion would recognize this problem, and take corrective action prior to fraccing, because such a problem could destroy the whole well. Thus, it is quite impossible for frac fluids to enter the water table, whatever the nay-sayers say.
Detractors hold that since the common use of hydraulic fracturing, methane in well water supplies has become more common. This is a disengenuous statement. The hydraulic fracturing process was first put into widespread use in the '50s. So what these guys are saying is that since 1950, we have seen ghastly amounts of well-water with methane, as a direct result of frac jobs. The problem is, no one really checks water supplies until after frac operations have started or have finished. Methane gas is naturally occuring in coal seams, not shale formations (again, see above concerning the permeability of shale). Coal is more permeable than shale (being softer), and thus, the methane will seap into the water supply on its own, without the help of fraccing. However, this is major problem with the claim: has the well-water been test prior to drilling operations, or has the enviromentalist hype surrounding fracturing so wound people as to blind them to objective information? I vote for the latter.
This brings up the second issue with fracturing: the "mysterious" and deadly chemicals that no one knows about because Big Oil doesn't want anyone to know they are destroying the world one well at a time. The same article says this: "The state Department of Environmental Protection recently released on its website a list of chemicals used industry-wide in the process. Range Resources became the first gas exploration company to divulge the chemicals it uses." This is a bunch of balloney, pure and simple. First, the DEP has had the list up for over a year. Second, as required by federal Right to Know legislation, each and every chemical that is used by any institution has to be listed (including cleaning agents, soaps, and the like), and a Material Safety Data Sheet must be easily accessible for the public, OSHA, and employees. Not only must it be easily accessible, but it must be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS when you walk into the offices of the facility. MSDS binders are bright yellow, and there is usually a sign above them that says "Right to Know" information. Even chemicals that are not hazardous require MSDS. All one needs to do is to contact the fracturing company and ask for a list of the chemicals they use...by law, they have to give them the list. In this regard, fracturing companies are no more mysterious than schools, factories or even government buildings are. It is just the environmentalists creating false negative hype. Of course, there is the issue of the health hazards from the chemicals. Every company is different, so the lists of chemicals in use will vary. Some will use peanut oil when possible, but others will opt for diesel fuel (which is decidedly more hazardous than peanut oil).
Of course, I don't expect people actually concerned about the environment to get the whole story. That would mean that facts and reason would trump emotion. And every one knows that George W Bush and Dick Cheney had ties to Halliburton and the rest of Big Oil. That means that everything about Big Oil is evil, because, you know, Bush and Cheney were utterly evil (at least, that is what Barack Obama and the Democrats say, as well as the New York Times, so seeing as the current President would never lie to get votes--whereas his predecessor did nothing but lie and cover up all he did--we have to trust him, right?)
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Reading is fundemental
When we started this whole homeschooling thing, it was with not a little trepidation. Maura was at the top of her class while in school, (not hard for Pre-K3 when she's four), and if she'd gone back to school, she'd be in Pre-K4 because we didn't want her to be developmentally behind when she got to be in the upper grades, which is the predominant situation in moving kids ahead. So, our plan with homeschooling was to start her out in Pre-K material...but when we got it, Maura had already mastered it all. So we decided to move on to Kindergarten stuff.
For the past three weeks, Maura and mom have been working on blending sounds. Last week, Maura showed me a book she made and she read it to me. It was simple, two-three word sentences, but still. She did another one on Monday, and is super excited. She's supposed to do one a week, as recommended by the curriculum; however, she's so into it, that she'd like to do one a day. At this rate, she'll finish the Kindergarten curriculum by Christmas, and will be ready for first grade material. On the otherhand, she's rather bored with piano.
Nolan is, well, Nolan. He likes learning, just not sitting still. On Monday, I walked into the school room to find Nolan walking on the window sill. The nonchalantness of his demeanor and the ease of his getting down told me that this is not an uncommon occurrance (indeed Christina told me he does it almost everyday). However, give him a book of mazes and puzzles, and he will sit for over an hour...he loves figuring them out. He also loves playing piano, and Christina tells me he is her best student (which is true because they both played a small piece, and he breezed through it).
For the past three weeks, Maura and mom have been working on blending sounds. Last week, Maura showed me a book she made and she read it to me. It was simple, two-three word sentences, but still. She did another one on Monday, and is super excited. She's supposed to do one a week, as recommended by the curriculum; however, she's so into it, that she'd like to do one a day. At this rate, she'll finish the Kindergarten curriculum by Christmas, and will be ready for first grade material. On the otherhand, she's rather bored with piano.
Nolan is, well, Nolan. He likes learning, just not sitting still. On Monday, I walked into the school room to find Nolan walking on the window sill. The nonchalantness of his demeanor and the ease of his getting down told me that this is not an uncommon occurrance (indeed Christina told me he does it almost everyday). However, give him a book of mazes and puzzles, and he will sit for over an hour...he loves figuring them out. He also loves playing piano, and Christina tells me he is her best student (which is true because they both played a small piece, and he breezed through it).
Thursday, October 14, 2010
They grow up so fast
This morning, before work, Christina gave me Kid 3 to hold while she got some bags from the van. Being busy myself, I put the 9mo. rug-rat on the ground, and within seconds, she was on the fourth step, showing no signs of stopping...with a bug huge smile on her face. She just started crawling about three weeks ago, and now she's on her way upstairs.
She's gonna be trouble...with a big huge smile on her face the whole time.
She's gonna be trouble...with a big huge smile on her face the whole time.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The wisdom of my wife
Here is Central PA, we are in the midst of a natural gas boom. Wells are being drilled at a dizzying pace, and it seems that everywhere you turn you see a service truck with TX license plates. Of course there are supporters and detractors from the effort.
The detractors are essentially in three camps: the politicians from non-Marcellus Shale regions camp, the "Texans took my job" camp, and the environmental/health-nazi camp. The funny thing is that these detractors all repeat the same canards over and over over.
My wife has an affinity for the environment, but unlike some people, she is at least reasonable. The latest nugget from my wife on environmentalists who want to throw us back into the stone age: "Natural gas is clean burning, efficient, and found in the US. Why not drill for it? Someone's landscape is going to have to suffer to get it, so these guys are hypocrits. They whine and complain about OUR environment, but couldn't care less about Texas or West Virgnia. If natural gas is so clean, these people should be supporting it!"
The detractors are essentially in three camps: the politicians from non-Marcellus Shale regions camp, the "Texans took my job" camp, and the environmental/health-nazi camp. The funny thing is that these detractors all repeat the same canards over and over over.
My wife has an affinity for the environment, but unlike some people, she is at least reasonable. The latest nugget from my wife on environmentalists who want to throw us back into the stone age: "Natural gas is clean burning, efficient, and found in the US. Why not drill for it? Someone's landscape is going to have to suffer to get it, so these guys are hypocrits. They whine and complain about OUR environment, but couldn't care less about Texas or West Virgnia. If natural gas is so clean, these people should be supporting it!"
Monday, October 11, 2010
Eminem ain't too bright
Just read this:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100803.html
So, Marshall Mathers won't swear in front of his kids, and regards the use of certain words as degrading to the human person ("How would I sound as a person..."). Yet, he counts his profanity as part of his "art form".
Please. He must really think his daughters aren't that birght if he thinks that him not swearing at home will impact them more than his superfluous language as Eminem. Then, he blames parents for allowing kids to immitate the language he uses in his "songs". What???
So, let me see. He swears with no inhibition on his albums, and then blames the parents for his listeners mimicking what they hear? Sounds like those brilliant idiots who hand out condoms to teenagers and then blame the parents for teenage pregnancy, or those politicians who claim, like our fearless president and his cabinet (not to mention "Sr." Keehan) that federal funding of abortion will not increase the number of babies killed per year.
Yep, our public schools are working well.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100803.html
So, Marshall Mathers won't swear in front of his kids, and regards the use of certain words as degrading to the human person ("How would I sound as a person..."). Yet, he counts his profanity as part of his "art form".
Please. He must really think his daughters aren't that birght if he thinks that him not swearing at home will impact them more than his superfluous language as Eminem. Then, he blames parents for allowing kids to immitate the language he uses in his "songs". What???
So, let me see. He swears with no inhibition on his albums, and then blames the parents for his listeners mimicking what they hear? Sounds like those brilliant idiots who hand out condoms to teenagers and then blame the parents for teenage pregnancy, or those politicians who claim, like our fearless president and his cabinet (not to mention "Sr." Keehan) that federal funding of abortion will not increase the number of babies killed per year.
Yep, our public schools are working well.
Liturgical Progress
Huge Breakthrough:
Father Bechtel recognizes that versus populum celebration is an inovation and not traditional nor historical. Go figure.
Now, if we could get the liturgical-dance-nazis in the Chancery to see that, we'd be getting somewhere.
Father Bechtel recognizes that versus populum celebration is an inovation and not traditional nor historical. Go figure.
Now, if we could get the liturgical-dance-nazis in the Chancery to see that, we'd be getting somewhere.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Its amazing what the Truth will do...
Just finished reading this:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345026?eng=y
So lets recount what has happened in the ecumenical sphere since April of 2005.
In Regensburg, Pope Benedict, in a speech on faith and reason, mentions the irrationality of Islam's history of forced conversions. There is much anger and bile thrown his way...and then 142 Muslim scholars write a letter to the Holy Father seeking dialogue. When the dialogue begins, the Holy Father is clear that it will only focus on religious liberty, and the concept of human rights (a clear slap in the face for Muslim belief that non-Muslims are to be persecuted and for the Muslim treatment of women)...talks begin.
Sept 14, 2007--The Holy Father issues Summorum pontificum, which allows for a relative freedom to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. Of course, liberal Catholics throw a hissy, and claim that it impedes ecumenical "progress". The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow lauded the move. Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople even presided at a Vespers service.
The Holy Father then removed the excommunications that were levied on four bishops that were illicitly ordained by Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre in 1980 (this was hijacked by the moronic statements of perpetual malcontent, His Excellency Richard Williamson...just because you are elected to succeed the apostles doesn't mean you are graced with intelligence). He was lambasted by the media, but...doctrinal talks between the Holy See and the SSPX began in earnest (where there had been none before). [NOTE: the SSPX, or Society of St. Pius X was begun in response to the implementaions of the Second Vatican Council, which were in contrast--at least to members of the Society. The Society retained the older form of the Sacraments and rejected some of the documents of the Council, but not the authority of the Holy Father. The commencement of doctrinal talks to lift the suspension of faculties by Society priests is a huge step forward for Christian Unity].
When the Anglican Communion debated itself in circles, and finally agreed that female bishop and openly gay priests were within the whole of Christian tradition, the Vatican called a spade a spade, and denounced the "decision". Then, he goes ahead and issues Anglicanorum ceotibus, which creates a means for entire parishes of Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church (in response to a large contingent of Traditional Anglicans in the vein of the Oxford Movement).
A couple of weeks ago, the Holy Father went to England, and at the joint prayer service at Westminster Abbey, he wore a stole of Leo XIII, the pope who declared all orders of the Anglicans to be utterly null and invalid, and thusly received John Henry Newman into the Catholic Church. Indeed, that entire visit was one of a reminder that he is the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ. The result? Huge crowds (considering that the UK is hugely secular) and a large contingent of Anglicans who have verbally stated they want to convert to Catholicism.
In the article mentioned above, we learn that the Orthodox were a bit put off by Benedict's dropping of the title Patriarch of the West (inferring that somehow, the office of the papacy is above the Patriarchs), and yet they continue to develop and discuss the theology and historicity of Petrine supremacy.
My point? Rather than take a concession, or state that we're all the same, which has been done for the last 40 years, this Holy Father tells it like it is...and the result is fruitful ecumenism. Gee, whoda thunk telling the Truth would yield fruitful results?
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345026?eng=y
So lets recount what has happened in the ecumenical sphere since April of 2005.
In Regensburg, Pope Benedict, in a speech on faith and reason, mentions the irrationality of Islam's history of forced conversions. There is much anger and bile thrown his way...and then 142 Muslim scholars write a letter to the Holy Father seeking dialogue. When the dialogue begins, the Holy Father is clear that it will only focus on religious liberty, and the concept of human rights (a clear slap in the face for Muslim belief that non-Muslims are to be persecuted and for the Muslim treatment of women)...talks begin.
Sept 14, 2007--The Holy Father issues Summorum pontificum, which allows for a relative freedom to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. Of course, liberal Catholics throw a hissy, and claim that it impedes ecumenical "progress". The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow lauded the move. Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople even presided at a Vespers service.
The Holy Father then removed the excommunications that were levied on four bishops that were illicitly ordained by Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre in 1980 (this was hijacked by the moronic statements of perpetual malcontent, His Excellency Richard Williamson...just because you are elected to succeed the apostles doesn't mean you are graced with intelligence). He was lambasted by the media, but...doctrinal talks between the Holy See and the SSPX began in earnest (where there had been none before). [NOTE: the SSPX, or Society of St. Pius X was begun in response to the implementaions of the Second Vatican Council, which were in contrast--at least to members of the Society. The Society retained the older form of the Sacraments and rejected some of the documents of the Council, but not the authority of the Holy Father. The commencement of doctrinal talks to lift the suspension of faculties by Society priests is a huge step forward for Christian Unity].
When the Anglican Communion debated itself in circles, and finally agreed that female bishop and openly gay priests were within the whole of Christian tradition, the Vatican called a spade a spade, and denounced the "decision". Then, he goes ahead and issues Anglicanorum ceotibus, which creates a means for entire parishes of Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church (in response to a large contingent of Traditional Anglicans in the vein of the Oxford Movement).
A couple of weeks ago, the Holy Father went to England, and at the joint prayer service at Westminster Abbey, he wore a stole of Leo XIII, the pope who declared all orders of the Anglicans to be utterly null and invalid, and thusly received John Henry Newman into the Catholic Church. Indeed, that entire visit was one of a reminder that he is the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ. The result? Huge crowds (considering that the UK is hugely secular) and a large contingent of Anglicans who have verbally stated they want to convert to Catholicism.
In the article mentioned above, we learn that the Orthodox were a bit put off by Benedict's dropping of the title Patriarch of the West (inferring that somehow, the office of the papacy is above the Patriarchs), and yet they continue to develop and discuss the theology and historicity of Petrine supremacy.
My point? Rather than take a concession, or state that we're all the same, which has been done for the last 40 years, this Holy Father tells it like it is...and the result is fruitful ecumenism. Gee, whoda thunk telling the Truth would yield fruitful results?
Texas is different
At 5:00am this morning our new boss, fresh from Texas, stopped by the yard on his way to the well we are fraccing. While waiting for mechanics to arrive to fix his broken headlight, he and I start talking about stuff.
A few topics that were broached: the incompetence of PA's governor, the incompetence of our President, his former chief of staff (who now has no place to live), and the vice president, and the ridiculousness of state and local income taxes (which he argues are the result of corrupt unions bargaining with equally corrupt Democratic politicians).
I like this guy.
A few topics that were broached: the incompetence of PA's governor, the incompetence of our President, his former chief of staff (who now has no place to live), and the vice president, and the ridiculousness of state and local income taxes (which he argues are the result of corrupt unions bargaining with equally corrupt Democratic politicians).
I like this guy.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Family update
Colleen is getting cuter every day, and has been crawling for the last two-three weeks. She is still sociable and full of smiles. We started her on baby food. No likey. Then, on a whim we gave her Cheerios. Mucho likey. After about a week, she's getting really good at eating them. So, next we tried fruits, bananas and apples. Not so much. Then, we gave her some thawed mixed vegetables...she likes them almost as much as Cheerios. This leaves us with a rather substantial amount of baby-food bananas in our pantry. The debate is whether we hold on to them for later, or Christina and I eat them...I'm arguing for eating them. Baby-food bananas are like desert.
Maura's dance lessons appear to be going well. It appears that interestingly enough, she really, really wants to dance (you know, because that what all Princesses do), so she listens to everything the teacher says and then tries to get the rest of the class to listen. I just wish she'd listen to us that well at home. Maura has been doing pre-1st grade work in school, and if she keeps going at this pace, she'll be doing 1st grade work by the end of the calendar year. She's doing blending, and has recognized words like "hit" and "mat" while looking at books. She is also learning about money and time.
Nolan is showing us how smart he is. It is really, really hard to get my head around the fact that he is only 3 years old. Sometimes, he acts like he's older than Maura (who acts older than her age would indicate). His imagination and inquisitiveness are amazing. He loves to learn, and if he could just sit still, he'd be doing Maura's work in school. The kid has working vocabulary of a 5-6 year old, and when compared with other 3 year-olds, you'd think he's 4 or 5. This makes it hard when trying to discipline him: when he acts so much like his older sister, you try to reason with him, but its like talking to wall. Perhaps that is why he still runs along the back of the couch, in spite of our constant pleas to the contrary.
Maura's dance lessons appear to be going well. It appears that interestingly enough, she really, really wants to dance (you know, because that what all Princesses do), so she listens to everything the teacher says and then tries to get the rest of the class to listen. I just wish she'd listen to us that well at home. Maura has been doing pre-1st grade work in school, and if she keeps going at this pace, she'll be doing 1st grade work by the end of the calendar year. She's doing blending, and has recognized words like "hit" and "mat" while looking at books. She is also learning about money and time.
Nolan is showing us how smart he is. It is really, really hard to get my head around the fact that he is only 3 years old. Sometimes, he acts like he's older than Maura (who acts older than her age would indicate). His imagination and inquisitiveness are amazing. He loves to learn, and if he could just sit still, he'd be doing Maura's work in school. The kid has working vocabulary of a 5-6 year old, and when compared with other 3 year-olds, you'd think he's 4 or 5. This makes it hard when trying to discipline him: when he acts so much like his older sister, you try to reason with him, but its like talking to wall. Perhaps that is why he still runs along the back of the couch, in spite of our constant pleas to the contrary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)