tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post6285921881934669319..comments2024-03-28T05:17:04.006-04:00Comments on southern orders: FROM THE HOLY FATHER'S LIPS VIA THE NATIONAL CHISMATIC REPORTER (NCR)Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73491588009167238152015-07-20T22:00:32.876-04:002015-07-20T22:00:32.876-04:00Anon 2,
Don't forget that all military action...Anon 2,<br /><br />Don't forget that all military action taken in the 20th century originated from Democrats. As far as the muslim conflicts go, I believe those are hard to avoid. They are going to keep coming. We are in a war with them whether we like it or not. I don't think it's unfair at all to place lots of blame on Clinton's sloppiness and corrupt character that left a simmering pot for George W. Also, I recall after 9/11 it wasn't rednecks screaming for blood it was New York liberals seeing red who were furious and thirsting for revenge. I knew it was a mistake for Bush to go to Iraq because the left would abandon him and start complaining about the war effort long before the job would be complete. Easy for me to say that now, but that is what I truly thought at the time and that's what did occur.<br /><br />I'm afraid that business ethics instruction is a weak replacement for sound religious foundation. Ethics will continue to decline as people turn their backs on religion. Hard to imagine that we can have business ethicists filling the character gap in a society that is largely atheistic and/or agnostic(which is where we are heading). After all where do they get their moral authority? They can't get it from a god they deny exists. I do recall reading that Pat Buchanan and Jack Kemp would argue about the power of market forces and Kemp was a devoted believer in the market being able to correct for bad human nature. Pat said; "You can't have a prosperous society and an immoral one." I agree with Pat. I like the topic for your conference very much. I do believe as rcg commented much earlier in this exchange that the moral basis for capitalism really is founded in the type of freedom that God grants to us. But we can't forget that He has a perfect justice system that delivers severe punishment. Humans need the same in an economy. I wish you much success with the conference. Funny thing is, I don't think you can leave our pope off the agenda given your subject matter, which would make him at least a 400lb gorilla in the room. <br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27237238246373672832015-07-20T13:29:46.196-04:002015-07-20T13:29:46.196-04:00Anon. Mike:
Thank you for your response.
I do n...Anon. Mike:<br /><br />Thank you for your response. <br /><br />I do not wish to give the incorrect impression. I do think academia is dominated by political liberals who invariably vote Democrat but liberals are not necessarily as bad as they are often made out to be (I am married to one although she is not an academic =)). For one thing, many of them are religious (although they would not accept the Church’s teaching on same sex marriage and contraception -- abortion is more complex I think). This said, one type of diversity we need more of is ideological diversity. I count among my close friends colleagues who vote Democrat and a couple who vote Republican as well as one or two who, like me, are independents and can go either way depending on our evaluation of the constellation of issues and the dynamics involved. I am tired of both parties and would dearly like the Republican Party to reinvent itself (or return to its older roots). Perhaps Brooks’ book will help point the way forward, at least domestically (Republican militarism foreign remains a big worry for me) I am picking up my copy later this afternoon.<br /><br />As to the lack of integrity in business, a central interest of mine is professionalism, ethics, and virtue in all the professions. I know that Business Schools do have courses in Ethics. One hopes they would “take” more but perhaps the competitive pressures are often too great? (I have also encountered some very ethical businesspeople, however, as have we all; but no argument from me about abusive practices in cable, phone, and health care) Also, I am currently working with a Business School colleague in organizing an international trade conference in Atlanta in October. This year he will be teaching a new course on “The Moral Basis of Capitalism” (or something like that). I would like to audit if at all possible. It should be very interesting. Perhaps we can Skype Francis in. =)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-59751594227679425802015-07-19T23:20:25.223-04:002015-07-19T23:20:25.223-04:00Anon 2
I haven’t read the Southern Orders’ exchang...Anon 2<br />I haven’t read the Southern Orders’ exchanges on academia. I guess that most people would say that it’s dominated by liberals and seems like you might object to that. My personal experience would lead me to accept the consensus view. If schools and universities in the South have a better balance that’s good to hear. <br /> <br />Not much has changed for me in the investments world, but I’m not a good indicator. I’m a one man shop and remain mostly unaffected by Dodd Frank etc., that came about because of the 08/09 crash. I think the industry is struggling with attracting young talent while at the same time it’s starting to see some “creative destruction” caused by more automation. Online advisors are showing some traction in gaining market share. The fee structures to me have always been a little rich so having some competition come in that force organizations to do more for their clients while charging less is a very good development. I agree with the lack of integrity in business. I think most businesses are their own worst enemies when it comes to public perception. Whether it’s health care, investments or the sleazy phone and cable companies I think that many business practices create rightful resentment from customers. However I have no doubt that the pope’s recent contributions to the problem are doing more harm in trying to solve the problem in a way that has any chance of improving things.<br /><br />Mike<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-17533715794874199032015-07-19T15:37:12.596-04:002015-07-19T15:37:12.596-04:00My own experience of academia is not wide. I have ...My own experience of academia is not wide. I have been at Mercer University Law School for my entire teaching career and have had no great desire to move despite overtures (being of conservative disposition I greatly value mutual loyalty, something that sadly is disappearing rapidly as another victim of Schumpeter’s creative destruction; similarly, my father also worked for the same local government unit for his entire career), although I have collaborated with colleagues at other institutions of course as well as colleagues throughout my own university. (By the same token, I have been a member of the same parish for 35 years too, although I now attend Mass in another parish frequently, in significant part for physical reasons.) Acknowledging these limits on my information base, I do not recognize most of the negative characterizations of academia that appear on this Blog and elsewhere because they are not true to my own experience.<br /><br />I imagine you have seen some major challenges in your own field, especially after the financial collapse in 2008/09. Unfortunately the world of finance and economics is a bit of a closed book to me (it is one of my many limitations). I have a minimally adequate lay person’s knowledge I suppose but beyond that one might say it is all Greek to me (or perhaps one shouldn’t say that nowadays =)).Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56976463242773276402015-07-19T15:36:37.030-04:002015-07-19T15:36:37.030-04:00Anon. Mike:
As in many other professional fields ...Anon. Mike:<br /><br />As in many other professional fields the practice of law has become increasingly specialized as the world becomes more and more complex. For example, it is not possible to practice seriously in the area of immigration law or in the area of international trade without specializing. Even when I was practicing in the area of international trade in the late 70s, we specialized – in my case in European Community law or Common Market Law as it was known then. And when I consulted with an Atlanta immigration law firm in the late 80s and early 90s we specialized in Business Immigration Law (a specialty within a specialty if you will). Indeed, even “general practice” (to the extent it still exists) has become viewed as a specialty (compare family practice in medicine). There are benefits and costs to such specialization – greater and more honed expertise in the specialty versus loss of the big picture and the holistic sensibility, and the corollaries of those things. At my own Law School we try to give a good foundation for the practice of law in general (as opposed to the general practice of law) including a great emphasis on professionalism, as well as for the specialty in which a student is interested.<br /><br />I have never experienced any conflicts from mingling religion and law. As indicated on another thread, I have experienced some negativity when teaching Humane Vitae (from non-Catholic female students). That is certainly understandable, the Catholic Church being such an outlier on contraception (but everyone finds it illuminating to compare the different schools’ Shari‘a rules on artificial conception, abortion, and homosexuality with each other and with Catholic doctrine). More generally, I make it clear that the law of every civilization is rooted in a religious worldview, even if those roots are now mainly historical in the West (more current in the U.S. of course). I also make it clear that even in the West the religious voice has a deserved and legitimate place in the public square, separation of Church and State notwithstanding. Several of my colleagues (I would say about half) are religious and include Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and a Mormon (my Muslim colleagues are elsewhere in the university although we do have some Muslim students). And one of my colleagues has done important nationally recognized work on integrating one’s religious faith into one’s work as a lawyer. We are a strongly independent minded bunch so any attempt to discourage our inquiries in the classroom and in print (within decent limits of course) would not be received kindly. Furthermore, it would be an abdication of our academic responsibility and a disservice to our students, who are training for a profession in which clear reasoning is at premium, if we were to pull back on cultivating critical thinking skills; and it would be a disservice to them as persons if we did not honor all aspects of their being including their religious faith.<br /><br />(continued)Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-34949743814710624372015-07-19T09:00:18.779-04:002015-07-19T09:00:18.779-04:00Anon,
I'm an investment advisor. In 1985 I s...Anon,<br /><br />I'm an investment advisor. In 1985 I started out as a commercial banker working for a large Chicago bank. In 1999 I switched my discipline to investments when I was working for my third and last large banking organization and in 2003 I started my own practice. I enjoy what I do very much especially because it involves my two favorite areas of study, politics and economics. <br /><br />Your current field is extraordinarily specialized. Hopefully you don't run into any conflicts when you intermingle religious thought with the law. Academic freedom and latitude is usually granted for everything but this.<br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1062507076700142412015-07-19T01:12:56.380-04:002015-07-19T01:12:56.380-04:00P.S. The integrated course I taught until three ye...P.S. The integrated course I taught until three years ago focused on legal and other relevant developments in Western Civilization – a kind of Western Civ. course for lawyers if you will. I miss that course!<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-26949039180786463312015-07-18T21:58:20.333-04:002015-07-18T21:58:20.333-04:00Anon. Mike:
My teaching package has varied over 3...Anon. Mike:<br /><br />My teaching package has varied over 35 years of teaching.<br /><br />Currently I teach courses in the areas of U.S. Immigration Law and Comparative Law (currently Islamic Law in Comparative Perspective, using a book written by a Catholic, Raj Bhala, which explores the classical Sharī‘a and compares it with American Law and Roman Catholicism), as well as courses in our Law School Externship program (which has a public interest and professionalism focus). In 2015-16 I expect to be returning to the area of International Trade Law once again after almost 20 years away from it. Until three years ago I also taught a course that integrated legal history, normative jurisprudence, and comparative law. Sometimes in that course one of the books I used was Russell Kirk’s “Roots of American Order.” I tell my students that I regard myself as much a student of the law as a professor of it, and the day I think I have nothing left to learn is the day I need to retire. On that basis I may never retire because every day, despite always learning more, I become more convicted of my own ignorance. That’s probably more than you want to know, but thanks for asking.<br /><br />What is your own field?<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-5664340934572814022015-07-18T21:24:21.110-04:002015-07-18T21:24:21.110-04:00Anon2
David Brooks is a New York Times columnist a...Anon2<br />David Brooks is a New York Times columnist and a very unreliable guy when it comes to various positions. He's a justice Kennedy style conservative. I've seen him several times on PBS News Hour and other TV appearances and he's a moderate at best. Anymore, I pay little attention to what he says. I think I reflect the general attitudes of rednecks on this one. <br /><br />What I've noticed more of in the Republican party is the desire to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That's a position I detest. I could care less about pro-gay pro-abortion Republicans, as far as voting for them or giving them any support. <br /><br />I wish the pope was delivering a clear minded critique of these kind of individuals and way of thinking. If that's what he's trying to do then he's missing the target by about 3 light years. If that's what you think he's doing I hope you're right but I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests something quite different.<br /><br />What do you teach?<br /><br />Mike Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1647978722522574972015-07-18T19:45:38.083-04:002015-07-18T19:45:38.083-04:00George:
“Lacking a true understanding of that rea...George:<br /><br />“Lacking a true understanding of that reality, there was little hope of what they were trying to accomplish of succeeding.”<br /><br />On this we agree.<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44167735528931049912015-07-18T19:25:11.780-04:002015-07-18T19:25:11.780-04:00Anonymous2:
I have a different perspective on wha...Anonymous2:<br /><br />I have a different perspective on what has transpired in the Middle East under Mr Bush and then subsequently Mr Obama.There was a hope and expectation on the part of Mssrs. Bush and Mr Obama that what was accomplished in Eastern Europe under Mr. Reagan with the fall of the Iron Curtain and subsequent freedom of those peoples, could likewise be done in countries such as Iraq and Egypt. How much did it appear at the time that Tahrir Square seemed not unlike the streets of Prague during the Velvet revolution. Yet we know now that there was little similarity. There was a Foreign policy hubris and bravdo on the part of both Mr. Bush and Mr Obama that bore little semblance to what was the true reality of the situation in many of the countries of the Middle East. Lacking a true understanding of that reality, there was little hope of what they were trying to accomplish of succeeding.<br /><br />Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32621026332633169552015-07-18T15:49:34.976-04:002015-07-18T15:49:34.976-04:00Anon. Mike:
You may be correct that conservatives...Anon. Mike:<br /><br />You may be correct that conservatives have always stood for these things. The problem is they have been their own worst enemy (Brooks’s sentiments not mine – read the Introduction in “Look Inside” in the Amazon link I gave). That is why he has written the book. For example, he explains that some of his fellow conservatives still refuse to regard economic issues as moral issues (see pp. 15-16), That they inevitably are is a lesson that I invariably have to I try to get across to many of my own students as well.<br /><br />Why do you say David Brooks is not a conservative?<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-55588843709990952162015-07-18T15:48:11.718-04:002015-07-18T15:48:11.718-04:00George:
Well you might be right on the causation ...George:<br /><br />Well you might be right on the causation point. It is disputed. What cannot be disputed is that the neocons initially took credit for Libya and the “Arab Spring” more generally (it was due to the invasion of Iraq and Bush’s “freedom agenda” they said) until they got mugged by reality (again) and changed their tune, reverting to Obama attack mode. If you want references, I have them. Taking credit and denying them that credit was, I suppose, part of the usual politicking and one-upmanship that seems to be the standard fare in our corrupted politics. The most chilling aspect for me is that even though they have been mugged by reality (twice now) many of them still peddle the same failed approach and may influence Republican candidates for the 2016 election. Let’s not forget that their original agenda was to bring about regime change in Syria and Iran (presumably though further military action) after succeeding in Iraq.<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-92036901830634080792015-07-18T12:30:51.490-04:002015-07-18T12:30:51.490-04:00Anonymous
"Causation – No Iraq, no Libya (o...Anonymous<br /><br /> "Causation – No Iraq, no Libya (or Egypt for that matter);"<br /><br />Not related. Just like with Saddam in Iraq, it was bad move to take out Col. Khadaffi.<br />In fact, unlike Mr Bush, Pres. Obama had the benefit of hindsight. Again, what happened in Egypt(the so-called "Arab spring") was US interventionism of a different sort. Thankfully, it failed in a good way.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73649871218213951962015-07-17T23:46:23.704-04:002015-07-17T23:46:23.704-04:00In Brooks’ daring vision, this conservative moveme...In Brooks’ daring vision, this conservative movement fights poverty, promotes equal opportunity, celebrates earned success, and values spiritual enlightenment. It is an inclusive movement with a positive agenda to help people lead happier, more hopeful, and more satisfied lives.<br /><br />I like A. Brooks very much and have read many of his articles in the WSJ. The description of his book doesn't match our pope's vision. I'd encourage you to send him a copy before he brings his social justice tour to the USA. This description could have been written at anytime about almost any conservative policy book written the last 65 years. Conservatism has always stood for all these things - nothing new here. You're not suggesting based on this book that American conservatism is becoming similar to the pope's communitarian dreamland are you? <br /><br />PS David Brooks is no conservative. <br /><br /><br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54965206869238652612015-07-17T22:36:19.006-04:002015-07-17T22:36:19.006-04:00George:
Two thoughts about Libya because I am jus...George:<br /><br />Two thoughts about Libya because I am just not going to let the neocons off the hook: <br /><br />(1) Causation – No Iraq, no Libya (or Egypt for that magtter); <br /><br />(2) Comparison – they wanted to go even further than Obama and thought the U.S. should “lead from the front” not “lead from behind.” <br /><br />So, any way you cut it, destabilization has to be laid primarily at their doorstep.<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45006919119792364092015-07-17T21:21:07.287-04:002015-07-17T21:21:07.287-04:00P.S. I forgot the link for the first book:
http:/...P.S. I forgot the link for the first book:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062319752/#reader_0062319752<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27111853191931696522015-07-17T20:20:38.770-04:002015-07-17T20:20:38.770-04:00Serendipitously I just heard an interview on NPR’s...Serendipitously I just heard an interview on NPR’s “Marketplace” this evening with the author of a new book “The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America.” The author is Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. Although I suspect I will not agree with everything he says, it seems to be a very refreshing and welcome contribution to the conversation. Here is the blurb:<br /><br />“The prominent economist and president of the American Enterprise Institute—the leading intellectual think tank on the right—offers a bold new vision for conservatism as a movement for social and economic justice.<br /><br />In The Conservative Heart, Arthur C. Brooks contends that after years of focusing on economic growth and traditional social values, it is time for a new kind of conservatism—one that helps the vulnerable without mortgaging our children’s future. In Brooks’ daring vision, this conservative movement fights poverty, promotes equal opportunity, celebrates earned success, and values spiritual enlightenment. It is an inclusive movement with a positive agenda to help people lead happier, more hopeful, and more satisfied lives.<br /><br />One of the country’s leading scholars and policy thinkers, Brooks has considered these issues for decades. Drawing on years of research on the sources of happiness, he asserts that what people most need are four “institutions of meaning”—faith, family, community, and meaningful work. These are not only the foundations of personal wellbeing, but also the necessary means for building a better nation.<br /><br />Combining reporting, original research, and case studies, and free of vituperative politics, The Conservative Heart is an intelligent and compelling manifesto for renewal. Clear, well-reasoned, and accessible, it is a welcome new strategy for disconsolate conservatives looking for fresh, actionable ideas to address the serious problems confronting us today and to reclaim our future, and for politically independent citizens who believe that neither political party addresses their needs or concerns.”<br /><br />I have read the material in the “Look Inside” and will definitely be getting the book. Among other things, Brooks acknowledges the tremendous debt of conservatism to Russell Kirk and he also has entries in the index for Pope Francis. So he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. =)<br /><br />Another good book, by another very thoughtful conservative, David Brooks (are they related, I wonder), is “The Road to Character.” It is highly commended by Father Kavanaugh and is also on my list. This Brooks also emphasizes human flourishing, and focuses on the development of “eulogy virtues” and not just “resume virtues.”<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/dp/081299325X/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=7005924114&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_z662402ke_e<br /><br />I greatly appreciate the emphasis of both books on human flourishing and of the second book on virtues, both of which are central to my own professional work. <br /><br />I thought readers who do not yet know about these two books might be interested in them. In addition to Father Kavanaugh, is anyone familiar with either of these books?<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-59348825222946343112015-07-17T19:33:23.934-04:002015-07-17T19:33:23.934-04:00"What am I supposed to make of such a stateme..."What am I supposed to make of such a statement – that you think Kirk might be such a person or only that I may be such a person?"<br /> <br />> I said I hope that you are not. I want to make sure. There are many such as that who make the same arguments and have the same or similar positions as you and Mr Kirk.<br /><br />"Another full scale invasion by the United States, as advocated by some (the usual suspects actually) is not necessarily the answer."<br /><br />>That is not the answer. There need not be full scale invasion. There are so many other things that can be done. This includes much more humanitarian aid to the refugees.<br /><br />"What I do know is that if we had left Saddam in place (as we should have), then we would not be having this conversation. He was a counterweight to Iran and treated Christians relatively well (Tariq Aziz, his foreign minister, was Roman Catholic)."<br /><br />>The same could be said about Col Khaddafi, who our current President "took care of" thereby destabilizing the entire North Africa. We were lucky that the military took back control of Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood. By the way, did you know that there were over one-hundred thousand Christians residing in Libya under Mr Khaddafi? We know that after the downfall of the Libyan regime, all kinds of weapons found their way to other parts of the Middle East.<br /><br />Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70427789673198620842015-07-17T14:48:50.372-04:002015-07-17T14:48:50.372-04:00George:
I don’t think we really disagree about mu...George:<br /><br />I don’t think we really disagree about much here. However, I have been reacting to what seem to me to be unwarranted inferences about my positions. For example, when I cite the conservative Kirk’s proposition that conservatives should be wary of “those who fancy that foreign policy can be conducted with religious zeal on a basis of absolute rights and absolute wrongs” (which is, I submit, an accurate description of neo-conservative foreign policy under the Bush Administration) you say “I hope you are not one of those who hold that we are no better than say, Iran meddling in Syria and Lebanon or Russia meddling in the Ukraine.” What am I supposed to make of such a statement – that you think Kirk might be such a person or only that I may be such a person? Either way, as I pointed out, ascribing moral equivalence to the United States and to Iran and Russia does not follow from Kirk’s proposition. <br /><br />Yes, there is a moral obligation to come to the aid of Christians and others who are suffering in the Middle East. But the question is: How do we best do that? Kirk would say we should exercise prudence or practical wisdom, and I agree. Another full scale invasion by the United States, as advocated by some (the usual suspects actually) is not necessarily the answer. For one, it may even make matters far worse. I don’t know that, of course, and I suggest that none of us does. It is a matter of judgment for those who are privy to all relevant information. The same is true regarding the deal with Iran. What I do know is that if we had left Saddam in place (as we should have), then we would not be having this conversation. He was a counterweight to Iran and treated Christians relatively well (Tariq Aziz, his foreign minister, was Roman Catholic). But no, we just had to go and meddle didn’t we. After all we needed to bring the Middle East freedom and democracy; and it was going to be a “cakewalk”! Result: now we are faced with a horrible situation that is much more complicated and difficult to manage (assuming it is manageable at all) than it ever needed to be. Kirk must be spinning in his grave.<br /><br />I am glad we agree that corporations acting according to the logic of the free market do not get a free pass. We should both agree with Pope Francis (and Pope Benedict) then about the need to rein in their excesses and overweening emphasis on profit. Moreover, as you rightly point out, live unborn human beings trump animals. That is one reason Pope Francis is so canny. For if people cultivate the type of sensibility he is calling for, this must necessarily include the unborn. On his integral view of creation, it is not possible to care about the rainforest and suffering pigs and cows in factory farming (not to mention the exploited undocumented workers, at least in the U.S.) and then abort an unborn human being. Right now, many people on the left don’t seem to see an inconsistency. He wants to change that. So, I am very encouraged by the approach in his encyclical because it promises to reach well beyond the choir. As I have said before, reversing Roe v. Wade will not solve the problem. If we want abortions to reach zero, as I do, then much more is necessary. Hearts and minds must be changed, and they won’t be by screaming “baby murderer” at those who do not accept our premises.<br /><br />As for Dinesh, well, what can I say? You assume that I don’t have a favorable opinion of him. Perhaps you should know, then, that in one of my courses I used to use one of his books (I no longer teach the course in that configuration, however) and I still use a chapter from another in another course. I think a lot of Dinesh, but this does not mean that I take everything he says as Gospel. Even in the material I use I point out where I think he overstates his case. And, so far at least, I suspect he overstates his case in “America.” But, as I said, I am only part of the way through it.<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56404660741052584932015-07-16T21:33:04.876-04:002015-07-16T21:33:04.876-04:00Anon. Mike:
On the “communitarian economy” which ...Anon. Mike:<br /><br />On the “communitarian economy” which Pope said this in 2013? (clue; it wasn’t Francis):<br /><br />“In order to emerge from the present financial and economic crisis – which has engendered ever greater inequalities – we need people, groups and institutions which will promote life by fostering human creativity, in order to draw from the crisis itself an opportunity for discernment and for a new economic model. The predominant model of recent decades called for seeking maximum profit and consumption, on the basis of an individualistic and selfish mindset, aimed at considering individuals solely in terms of their ability to meet the demands of competitiveness. Yet, from another standpoint, true and lasting success is attained through the gift of ourselves, our intellectual abilities and our entrepreneurial skills, since a “liveable” or truly human economic development requires the principle of gratuitousness as an expression of fraternity and the logic of gift. Concretely, in economic activity, peacemakers are those who establish bonds of fairness and reciprocity with their colleagues, workers, clients and consumers. They engage in economic activity for the sake of the common good and they experience this commitment as something transcending their self-interest, for the benefit of present and future generations. Thus they work not only for themselves, but also to ensure for others a future and a dignified employment.”<br /><br />As for “Mother Earth,” he may not have ever used that particular expression but Pope Benedict was known, for good reason, as “The Green Pope.”<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51567949315107413332015-07-16T21:18:37.584-04:002015-07-16T21:18:37.584-04:00I think I must have forgotten to post this:
Anon....I think I must have forgotten to post this:<br /><br />Anon. Mike:<br /><br />“I have an above average level of information about personalities and historical figures in politics and economics but I've never heard of the experts that you are using.”<br /><br />Thank you for helping to make my point about how far modern American conservatism has drifted from its roots and how the conservative movement has been captured by imposters. You are not alone. In fact, I suspect there is hardly anyone today, including or perhaps especially so-called conservatives, who have heard of Kirk. So, this from Wikipedia:<br /><br />Russell Amos Kirk (October 19, 1918 in Plymouth, Michigan – April 29, 1994 in Mecosta, Michigan)[1] was an American political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post-World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief proponent of traditionalist conservatism.<br /><br />And here is the link to the Wikipedia article:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk<br /><br />As you can see, Kirk held to several basic conservative principles. Also, he rejected free market libertarianism and he rejected neo-conservatism. He was opposed to the Gulf War and “Republican militarism.” In my book, he was a true conservative.<br /><br />As for the Pope, have you considered that you may be looking at him (and the hammer and sickle crucifix) through your own prism instead of through his? Again, here is some key language from his speech (did you read all of it or only part?): “We do not love concepts or ideas; we love people…” As Kirk often pointed out, conservatism is not an ideology; indeed ideology is anathema to it.<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-71784995509564583932015-07-16T20:13:44.838-04:002015-07-16T20:13:44.838-04:00"And the fact that Obama may have made mistak..."And the fact that Obama may have made mistakes does not absolve the previous administration, especially when they were the ones who opened Pandora’s Box in the first place."<br />>Whose absolving the previous administration for what it is responsible for? Not I. We are where we are now with a different president, who I believe has a moral obligation to come to the aid of Christians and others who are suffering in the Middle East as of right now.<br /><br />"Again, it is a fallacy to suggest that just because some corporations might be supporting the kinds of matters you mention, then other corporations are beyond reproach and may not be challenged – for example, those engaged in factory farming practices, etc., etc."<br /><br />>My point was while others can attack and criticize corporations for such things as factory farming practices, conservatives can likewise attack them for other reasons. By the way,the right to live of unborn human beings trumps animal rights.<br /><br />It is interesting that you don't seem to have much of a favorable opinion of Dinesh d’Souza's views. At least, that is what I gather from your comment above. Mr d’Souza is a faithful and devoted Catholic who as far as anything I have read about him, does not in any way depart from any of the Church's teachings.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-28383222570456627852015-07-16T20:05:58.092-04:002015-07-16T20:05:58.092-04:00Anon. Mike:
“I have an above average level of inf...Anon. Mike:<br /><br />“I have an above average level of information about personalities and historical figures in politics and economics but I've never heard of the experts that you are using.”<br /><br />Thank you for helping to make my point about how far modern American conservatism has drifted from its roots and how the conservative movement has been captured by imposters. You are not alone. In fact, I suspect there is hardly anyone today, including or perhaps especially so-called conservatives, who have heard of Kirk. So, this from Wikipedia:<br /><br />Russell Amos Kirk (October 19, 1918 in Plymouth, Michigan – April 29, 1994 in Mecosta, Michigan)[1] was an American political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post-World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief proponent of traditionalist conservatism.<br /><br />And here is the link to the Wikipedia article:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk<br /><br />As you can see, Kirk held to several basic conservative principles. Also, he rejected free market libertarianism and he rejected neo-conservatism. He was opposed to the Gulf War and “Republican militarism.” In my book, he was a true conservative.<br /><br />As for the Pope, have you considered that you may be looking at him (and the hammer and sickle crucifix) through your own prism instead of through his? Again, here is some key language from his speech (did you read all of it or only part?): “We do not love concepts or ideas; we love people…” As Kirk often pointed out, conservatism is not an ideology; indeed ideology is anathema to it.<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2122685902439627252015-07-16T19:32:15.402-04:002015-07-16T19:32:15.402-04:00Anon 2:
I'm not sure how you draw your conclu...Anon 2:<br /><br />I'm not sure how you draw your conclusions, but I read George's comments about large corporations as a more broad brush indictment of their dishonesty. He didn't write anything about many corporations are beyond reproach, I think it was the opposite? I don't like big corporate America anymore than I like big gov't. I suppose that George has the same feeling? <br /><br />BTW: Mother Earth and communitarian economy are a couple of the pope's other favorite buzzwords. I think he's convincing me to abandon my Catholic faith and worship dirt.<br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com