Home

  • Knowing the Facts and How You Look at the Facts Isn't the Same, @crampell

    Washington Post columnist and fellow Palm Beach Day Academy alum Catherine Rampell hits on the “facts” during her hometown address:

    Rampell, who focuses on data-driven journalism, said she is worried about Trump’s stance on federal agencies such as the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. She said his attitude toward analytics has ranged from “indifference” to “contempt,” noting Trump has called the unemployment rate a hoax and made budget cuts to the Census Bureau.

    “It really bodes ill for a lot of people because numbers, good data, that’s how we know how to hold our public officials accountable, how to tell whether their policies are doing a good job and how to make good business decisions,” Rampell said.

    This is a classic fallacy of our time: we have the data, therefore we know what it means and how to solve the problems it presents.  A good example of that is income inequality: it’s gotten worse under just about every president in my adult lifetime (and her entire lifetime) including Barack Obama.  And there’s been a great deal of hand-wringing about this.  One would think that he, of all people, would have reversed that trend, but he didn’t.  Perhaps the interest in achieving that goal isn’t as strong in a Palm Beacher like Rampell (and others at the top) as it is with those whose income has actually gone down.

    The result of this in our electoral system was two candidates–Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump–who built their candidacies on basically the same problems, but looked at their solution entirely differently.  Had the Democrats not been as fixated on Hillary Clinton as they were, a race between the two of them would have been exciting, to say the least.  (The one we had was exciting enough…)

    Climate change is another one of those “facts” problems.  All other things being equal, the earth will warm with an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: therefore, we must replace our fossil-fuel based energy generation with only “renewable” sources.  Another intramural problem: another fellow Day Academy alum, Kerry Emanuel, and two others did a piece a while back supporting nuclear power, which would make the replacement of fossil fuels a much more rapid process.  And isn’t time of the essence here?  (Speaking of intramurals, wonder if Rampell is a Pelican or a Flamingo…)

    One other note: Donald Trump’s disdain for the unemployment rate is probably based on the fact that it doesn’t include those who have given up seeking employment and left the labour force.  That’s a legitimate problem; it masked that exodus all during Obama’s presidency.  His response, in part, was to expand the disability program and attempt to pension off the victims of economic change.  And that, truth to tell, was partly successful.

  • The Creation of Men and Angels: The creation of the second sex

    This is one in a series from Bossuet’s Elevations on the Mysteries. The previous post is here. More information on the Bossuet Project is here.

    In producing the other animals, God created the two sexes together; And the formation of the second is a singularity of the creation of man.

    How useful it was for man to be introduced into this paradise of delights, into a vast land which God had placed in his power, and in the midst of four great rivers, the rich waters of which brought treasures. Moreover, it was under a sky so pure that, without being obscured yet by the thick clouds which cover our own, and produce storms, a mild heat rose from the earth, which was distilled in the dew and which watered the earth and all its plants? Man was alone and the only one of all animals, for he saw all the others shared and paired in two sexes, and, the Scriptures say, there was only the man who did not found help like him. Solitary, without company, without conversation, without sweetness, without hope of posterity; and not knowing to whom to leave or with whom to share this great inheritance and so many good things which God had given him, he lived tranquilly, abandoned to his providence, without asking anything. And God himself, not wanting to leave any fault in his work, said these words: It is not good that man should be alone, let us give him a help who is like him.

    Perhaps he will form the second sex as he had formed the first? No; He wants to give the world, in both sexes, the image of the most perfect unity, and the future symbol of the great mystery of Jesus Christ. That is why he draws the woman from the man himself, and the form of a superfluous rib which he had purposely put in his side. But to show that this was a great mystery, and that it was necessary to look with purer eyes than the corporeal, the woman is produced in an ecstasy of Adam. And it was by a spirit of prophecy that he knew the whole design of so fine a work. The Lord God sent Adam a sleep; a sleep, say all the saints, which was a rapture and the most perfect of all ecstasies: and God took Adam’s place, and filled it with flesh. Do not ask God why, wishing to draw from the man the companion he gave him, he took a bone rather than flesh; For if he had taken flesh, one might have asked why he would have taken flesh rather than a bone. Neither do we ask him what he added to the side of Adam, to form a perfect body. Matter is not missing to him, and, however that may be, this bone softens in his hands. It was from this hardness that he wished to form those delicate and tender members, in which, in innocent nature, nothing should be imagined that was as pure as it was beautiful. Women have only to remember their origin, and, without praising their delicacy too much, think, after all, that they come from a supernumerary bone, in which there was no beauty except that which God wished to put there.

    My God, what vain speeches I foresee in readers at the account of this mystery! But while I tell them of a great and mysterious work of God, that they enter into a serious mind, and, if possible, in some sentiment of that admirable ecstasy of Adam, during which he built up Adam’s wife, in order to make us see in the woman something grand and magnificent, and as an admirable edifice in which there was grace, majesty, admirable proportions, and as much utility as ornament.

    The woman thus formed is presented from the hand of God to the first man who, seeing in his ecstasy what God was doing, said, “This is the bone of my bones and the flesh of my flesh.” It will be called virago, because it is made of man, and “man will leave his father and mother, and he will be united to his wife.” One can believe by this word that God had formed the woman of a bone clothed in flesh, and that only bone is named as prevalent in this formation. Whatever may be the case, without stopping at any more curious questions, and observing only in one word what appears in the sacred text, let us consider in spirit this mysterious bride, that is, the holy Church drawn up, and as torn from the sacred side of the new Adam during his ecstasy, and formed, so to speak, by this wound, the whole consistency of which is in the bones and flesh of Jesus Christ, which is incorporated by the mystery of the Incarnation and that of the Eucharist, which is an admirable extension of it. He leaves everything in order to be united to him: he leaves his father, whom he had in heaven, and his mother the synagogue from which he came forth after the flesh, in order to attach himself to his wife, gathered from among the Gentiles. It is we who are this bride; It is we who live by the bones and flesh of Jesus Christ, by the two great mysteries we have just seen. It is we who are, as St. Peter says, this spiritual edifice and the living temple of the Lord, built in spirit from the time of the formation of Eve, our mother, and from the beginning of the world. Let us consider in the name of Eve, who signifies the mother of the living, and the Church, the mother of the true rivers, and the blessed Mary, the true mother of the living, who bore us all with Jesus Christ whom she conceived by the law. O man! This is what is shown to you in the creation of woman, in order to prevent by this seriousness all the frivolous thoughts which pass in the minds of men to the remembrance of the two sexes, since only sin has corrupted the institution. Let us return to our origin, let us respect the work of God and his original design; let us take away the thoughts of the flesh and the blood, and do not plunge us into this mud, while in the narrative we have just heard God takes so much care to draw us out of it.

  • The Perils of Repealing the Johnson Amendment

    One of Donald Trump’s promises to the Evangelical community–and one which he’s gotten much enthusiasm about in return–is his promise to repeal the so-called “Johnson Amendment,” the provision in the tax code which prohibits 503(c)3 tax-exempt organisations–and that includes churches–from explicitly endorsing candidates for public office.  I say “explicitly” because churches on both sides of the political–and racial–spectrum have been implicitly doing this for a long time.  And the polarisation of our society has only made this easier.

    It’s for that reason that I think the real impact of this will not be as widespread as people think.  Whether it is beneficial is another story.  One thing that this country has been “about” is that freedom is something to be used responsibly.  If and when this restriction comes out of the tax code, our ministers will have some serious choices to make.  Based on my experience with our ministers, this may not work out as anticipated.

    Most ministers of the Gospel are called, trained and set forth to lead their congregations or, to use Our Lord’s pastoral analogy, feed the sheep.  The interests of the sheep are for the most part local: raising a family, doing the work to make a living, and being a part of their community.  The gifts and skills of the ministers, which admittedly vary, are geared towards that kind of life pursuit.  That’s especially true with Evangelical churches, with their focus on the salvation experience and (hopefully) the later spiritual growth.

    To properly operate politically, however, requires a broader view of life.  That’s where the problem comes in.  Most of our ministers, by training and temperament, are unprepared to properly address the broader issues facing our society, and thus are unprepared to properly inform their congregations about how best to respond to those challenges.  As a result of this there are two mistakes our ministers make in addressing political issues that can significantly impact their congregations.

    On the left, we have those who basically “flip” the message of the Gospel, putting the broader social issues ahead of the personal ones.  That’s a major reason left-wing churches are in decline: they’re political all right, but they don’t address people’s life issues in a meaningful way.

    On the right, we have various forms of “prosperity teaching.”  At the core of prosperity teaching are two underlying assumptions.  The first is that Christianity is the “way up” in this world, and second that moving up is the principal goal of life.  Today we principally associate prosperity teaching with the likes of Paula White, who prayed at President Trump’s inauguration.  But we’ve had this before.  In the 1950’s and 1960’s the Episcopal Church experienced tremendous growth, basically by telling people that they had the nicest religion and that people could move up by becoming a part of it.  The taste of the two results is quite divergent, but the ultimate goal is the same.

    The danger of the left-wing mistake is obvious: declining churches.  The danger of the right is the same as Harry Reid’s doing away with the super-majority filibuster for nominees: if the political wind reverses, you’ve given yourself the shaft.  In both cases the reality of the Gospel is obscured by our desires of the moment.

    I think that political activity needs to be the province of the laity.  And I’ve heard Christian politicians show a stronger grasp on what the Gospel is all about than ministers about political issues.  To put our ministers in the “driver’s seat” of political activity is to cede yet another function of the laity, reducing the latter to passive consumers of the church’s product.  And we have enough of that unBiblical kind of thing going on as it is.

    As I said at the start, freedom is something that needs to be used wisely.  If you get it, be careful: you may end up losing it all if you blow it.

  • The Creation of Men and Angels: God puts man in paradise, and led to him all of the animals to name them

    This is one in a series from Bossuet’s Elevations on the Mysteries. The previous post is here. More information on the Bossuet Project is here.

    After forming man, God begins to make him feel what he is in the world by two memorable circumstances. One, he planted with his own hand a delicious garden called Paradise, where he had put together all the beauties of nature, to serve the pleasure of man, and by that raising him to God who filled him with so many good things. The other was to bring him all the animals as to him who is the master, in order to make him see that not only all the plants and all the fruits of the earth were his, but also all the animals which, by the nature of their movements, seemed less subject to his dominion.

    For Paradise, God ordained two things to man: one to cultivate it, the other, to keep it, (Genesis 2:15) that is to say, to preserve its beauty, which still belongs to cultivation. Besides, there was no enemy who could invade this tranquil and holy place: ut operaretur et custodiret illum. God taught man, by this figure, to guard himself, and to keep at the same time the place he has in Paradise. For cultivation, it was not this laborious cultivation that was the punishment of our sin, when we had to wrest from the sweat of our forehead, from the bosom of the earth, the fruit necessary for the preservation of our life. This cultivation was given to man for his exercise, it was that curious cultivation which grows fruits and flowers more for pleasure than for necessity. By this means, man ought to be instructed in the nature of lands and the genius of plants, their fruits, or their seeds. And he found at the same time the figure of the cultivation of virtues.

    By bringing animals to man, God makes him see that he is the master of them, as a master in his family who appoints his servants for the ease of command. Scripture, substantial and short in its expressions, indicates at the same time the beautiful knowledge given to man: since he could not have named animals without knowing their nature and differences, and then giving them Names according to the primitive roots of the language which God had taught him.

    It was then that he knew the marvels of the wisdom of God, in the appearance and shadow of wisdom, which appears in the natural industries of animals. Let us praise God with Adam, and consider for a moment all animal nature, as the object of our reason. Who has formed so many kinds of animals and so many species subordinate to these kinds; all these properties, all these movements, all these environments, all these nourishments, all these various forces, all these images of virtue, penetration, sagacity, and violence? Who made animals walk, crawl, slide? Who gave to birds and fish these natural oars, which make them split the waters and the airs? That which perhaps gave rise to their creator to produce them together, as animals of a similar design. The flight of birds appears to be a type of the ability to swim in a more subtle medium, like the ability of swimming in fishes. It is a type of flight in a thicker medium. The same author has made these conveniences and differences: he who gave the fish their sadness and, so to speak, their gloomy silence, gave the birds their songs so diverse, and put in their stomach and throat a kind of lyre and guitar, to announce, each in their own fashion, the beauties of their creator. Who would not admire the riches of his providence, which finds every animal, even a fly, even a worm, its proper nourishment, so that scarcity is not in any part of his family. But, on the contrary, abundance reigns everywhere, except now among men since sin introduced greed and avarice.

    By the second consideration, all animals are for the use of man, since they serve him to know and praise God. But besides this more universal usage, Adam knew peculiar properties in the animals, which gave them the means of helping by their ministry that whom God made their lord. O God! I have considered your works, and I have been frightened. What has become of this dominion which you have given us over animals? We no longer see among us but a small remnant, as a feeble memorial of our ancient power, and an unhappy remnant of our past fortune.

    Let us give thanks to God for all the goods he has left us in the aid of animals: let us accustom ourselves to praise him in everything. Let us praise him in the horse that carries us or drags us, in the sheep that dresses and feeds us, in the dog who is our guard and our hunter, in the ox that makes our plowing with us. Let us not forget the birds, since God has brought them to Adam like other animals, and still, tamed by our industry, they come to flatter our ears with their amiable music, untiring and perpetual singers, they seem to deserve the food we give them. If we praise animals in their labor, and, so to speak, in their occupations, let us not live uselessly. Let us earn our bread each in his exercise, since God has put it at this price since sin.

  • Facing Our Past Folly in Iran

    It’s next to impossible to get anyone in this country to face up to it, but Zero Hedge has done it:

    As for Iran, the CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies. As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister. If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over.

    They’re referring, of course, to Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was overthrown in 1953 by the CIA, egged on by the Brits.  He had nationalised BP as he felt (with good reason) that Iran wasn’t getting its fair share of oil revenues.  You get into a discussion with an Iranian about their history, and sooner or later his name will come up.

    And for me, of course, my family business could have sold equipment to an Iranian oil company, just as it did with Aramco, National Petroleum of the UAE, PDVSA, CNOOC, ENAP, Petrobras…and I could have gotten to know then in Tehran and not they having to come to me.

    Zero Hedge’s article on the subject of the ban deserves a full reading about all the other countries that were included–and those who weren’t.

  • We Won't Let Them Vote At All

    That’s what Snapchat’s offering to the world:

    Investors are furious at Snap’s decision to deny them a say in running the company when the owner of message app Snapchat launches one of the US’s largest tech initial public offerings.

    A dozen of the US’s biggest pension funds have sent a letter of objection to Snap, while one investment industry leader predicted its IPO could “open the floodgates” to similar governance arrangements at companies around the world.

    I am sure that many in our political system, surveying the result of the last election, quietly rue the day they gave anyone the vote.  Snapchat’s founders, however, are working to make that a reality in the corporate world, something which they are legally in their rights to do.  Whether the financial industry, through its various market organisations, will let them get away with it is another matter altogether.

    It’s fair to say that what voting “means” on a corporate level is different from what it is on a political one.  But having voting shares does have an impact on how publicly owned companies are run.  Usually removing voting rights from stock is compensated for by giving those stockholders “first dibs” on the success (and last dibs on the failure) of the company, as is the case with preferred stock.  (Bondholders are even above that if things go belly up.)

    Snapchat’s founders, however, have decided to give their common stockholders the worst of both worlds: no voting rights and back of the line treatment in the event Snapchat snaps.

    I still find it interesting that a social media company, which (along with its brethren such as Facebook and Twitter) have bred the “online trash fire” that social media has become with the last election, has decided to dispense with voting altogether.

    And I am sure that my mother, who was obsessed with the existence (and voting potential) of a non-family minority block in the stock of our family business, is cheering this on.

  • The Oilman Becomes Secretary of State

    The U.S. Senate, however, was unenthusiastic:

    The votes against Mr. Tillerson’s confirmation were the most in Senate history for a secretary of state, a reflection of Democratic unease with President Trump’s early foreign policy pronouncements that threaten to upend a multilateral approach that has guided United States presidents since World War II.

    I’ve said that you can be a great American and you can be good a foreign policy, but you can’t be both.  I think that Tillerson is the best shot we have at proving me wrong.  In addition to the left’s long-standing aversion to the oil industry, he breaks a lot of Cold War legacy conventional wisdom about many things, especially the Russians.

    A bigger problem will be his relationship with the department he now heads.  The State Department and the oil industry represent two different approaches to interfacing with the world around us, and the two don’t exactly admire each other.  OTOH I think he will be a steadying influence on the President, who respects his negotiating skills.

    One thing he will need to tackle is the vetting process for visas.  In addition to figuring out who is dangerous and who is not, it has been frightfully slow.  An Iranian friend of mine had his wife and newborn (American citizen) go back to Iran; it took eighteen months to get a return visa.  The intervention of our congressman and senator (Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee) were to no avail.  And this was  under the last administration.

  • The Creation of Men and Angels: Another admirable singularity of the creation of man: God forms him by His fingers, and The most excellent distinction of man's creation in that of his soul

    This is one in a series from Bossuet’s Elevations on the Mysteries. The previous post is here. More information on the Bossuet Project is here.

    Another admirable singularity of the creation of man: God forms him by His fingers

    “Let the earth produce grasses and plants. May the waters produce fish and birds. May the earth produce animals.” All animals are created by command, without saying that God put out his hand. But when he wants to form the human body, “he himself takes mud between his fingers,” and gives him his shape. God has neither fingers nor hands: God has not made the human body more than other animals, but he only shows us in the creation of man a special purpose and attention. This among the animals is the only one who is right: the one turned to the sky: the one which shines by a beautiful and unique situation, the natural inclination of rational nature to high things. It is from there where the singular beauty came to man of the face, eyes, the entire body. The other animals show more strength, more speed, lighter weight, and so forth: the excellence of beauty belongs to man, and that is a wonderful picture of God splashed on His face.

    The most excellent distinction of man’s creation in that of his soul

    Once more God formed the other animals in this way: “Let the earth, let the waters produce plants and animals,” and thus they received being and life. But God, after taking in his all-powerful hands the mud from which the human body was formed, it is not said that he took his soul from the same place; but it is said “that he breathed on his face a breath of life,” (Genesis 2:7) and that “this is how He was made a living soul.” God made each thing come out according to its principles: he produced from the land grassland and trees with animals who have no other life than a purely earthly and animal one, (Genesis 2:9) but the life of man is taken from another principle, which is God. This is what the breath of life means, which God draws from His mouth to animate the man. This which is made in the likeness of God does not come from material things; and this image is not hidden in these base elements to come out, as does a statue of marble or wood. The man has two principles: according to the body as it comes from the earth, according to the soul as it comes from God alone; and that is why Solomon said “while the body returns to the earth from which it was taken, the spirit returns to God who gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:7) It comes from God in this way, not that it is in God in substance, and comes from there as some have imagined; because these ideas are too coarse and tangible; but it is in God as his only principle and his sole cause, which is why one says that he gives it. Everything else is derived from the elements; because everything else is corporeal and earthly; that which one calls the spirits in animals, are only detached parts and a vapor of blood. Thus everything comes from the earth; but the rational soul made in the image of God is given to him, and can only come from this divine mouth.

    Alas! alas! “The man who has been placed in such a great honor,” so distinguished from animals by his creation, “was equalled to senseless beasts, and made like them.”

  • The Creation of Men and Angels: The dominion of God expressed in that of the soul over the body

    This is one in a series from Bossuet’s Elevations on the Mysteries. The previous post is here. More information on the Bossuet Project is here.

    The dominion of God expressed in that of the soul over the body

    We spend all our lives in continual miracles that we do not even notice. I have a body, and without knowing any of the organs of movement, I turn, I stir, I go wherever I want, just because I want to. I would stir a straw before me, it does not shake or shake itself in any way: I want to move my hand, my arm, my head, the other heavier parts, which I could hardly carry if they were detached. The whole mass of the body and the movements I command are done like they are on their own, I know nothing of the springs of this wonderful machine. I only know I want to stir myself this way or another, everything follows naturally: I articulate hundreds and hundreds of words heard or not heard, and I do so many known and unknown movements of the lips, tongue, throat, chest, head: I get up, I go down, I turn, I roll my eyes: I dilate and contract my pupils, as I want to see either up close or afar. Without knowing this movement, it happens, whether I want to look negligently or superficially, or determinately and attentively, or stare at some object. Who gave this dominion to my will, and how do I move equally what I know and what I do not know? I breathe without thinking and during sleep: and when I want to, or I hold my breath, or I hurry breathing, it naturally goes alone: it goes as well to my will, and yet I know neither expansion nor contraction of the lungs, or even if I have, I open, I tighten, I inhale, I exhale air with equal facility. To speak in a higher pitch, or louder, or higher, or lower, I still expand or contract another part in the throat, called the arterial trachea, even though I do not know that I have one: it is enough that I want to speak high or low, to the end that all is done by itself: in a moment, I make articulately and distinctly a thousand movements, of which I have no distinct knowledge, neither confusing them more often, since I do not know if I do or if it is done for me. But, O God! You know, and no one other than you can do what only you know. All of this is the result of the secret agreement which you have made between our wills and the movements of our bodies: and you have established this inviolable agreement, when you placed the soul in the body to govern. It is thus, not like a vessel which contains it, or like a house where it’s housed, nor in a place it stays. It is there by his dominion, by His presiding, so to speak, by his action As you are in us, you can not be far away, it is “by you we live, move and are.” (Acts 17:28) And you are of the same kind in the entire universe: above, in ruling; here, by stirring and making to come together in all its parts; below, in ruling, as Moses said, “with your eternal arms there is no God like God.” This divine man adds: “by his dominion, the magnificent winds blow here and there, and the clouds run in the sky.” (Deut. 33:25, 26) He said to the stars, walk; he spoke to the abyss and the whale; make this body submerged; he said to the waves, increase; he told the wind, blow and break into pieces these big masts; and everything follows his word. All naturally depends on the will: bodies and their movements naturally depend on a spirit and an all-powerful intelligence: God can give to the will, which he made in his own image, such dominion that pleases him; and thereby gives us the idea of his will, which moves all and does all.

    Let us give him the dominion which he gives us: and “in the place of making our members do iniquity,” because it is God who submits them to us, “let us use them,” as St. Paul says, “to his justice.”

  • The Similarity Between the Change of an American President and a Roman Emperor

    In the midst of the current upheaval, an interesting observation from Peter Salway’s Roman Britain (Oxford History of England).  In his discussion of the relationship between the Roman Emperor and his provincial governors, he says the following:

    It is easy to become so absorbed in the career of the hundreds of individuals whose appointments are known in great detail from the thousands of inscriptions surviving throughout the empire, that we assume ‘standard careers’ and forget that there was little to stop a capricious emperor from interfering with the system.  In some ways the death or fall of an emperor or his favourite adviser was not unlike a change of president in the United States, where vastly more appointments are a matter of party and indeed of one man and his personal advisers than in Britain today…Patronage ran through the Roman system from top to bottom, and Rome cannot be understood without grasping the fact.

    The Founders’ debt to democracy and Greece is well understood; less understood is their debt to Rome, and especially Republican Rome, which the Empire followed.  OTOH, it has been the Progressive ideal from Woodrow Wilson onward to replace this reality with a more “professional” system, as many countries in Europe (and some working on getting out) have done.  To attempt to superimpose a rule by bureaucrats on a system such as ours is unworkable; not grasping this has been one of the left’s many weaknesses, one which they may rue before too long.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started