Translate

lunes, 4 de agosto de 2014

If politics is a war by other means, then books often serve as the artillery: “the defining challenge of our time.”


Mr. Piketty's big book of Marxiness


One: Piketty’s charge

If politics is a war by other means, then books often serve as the artillery. Take Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life, the foundational text of modern American liberalism. Its publication in 1909 was heralded as a revelation, when in fact it was more a synthesis of notions that had been floating around in the political ether for a decade. Theodore Roosevelt loved it. “I do not know when I have read a book which I felt profited me as much,” T.R. wrote to Croly. “I shall use your ideas freely in speeches I intend to make. I know you won’t object to my doing so, because, my dear sir, I can see that your purpose is to do your share in any way for the betterment of our national life.” But what Roosevelt loved most was that Croly was saying exactly what T.R. wanted to hear.

Christopher Lasch noted that “Croly did not so much influence Roosevelt as read into his career an intellectual coherence which Roosevelt then adopted as his own view of things.” Others found Croly similarly useful. Walter Lippmann dubbed him the “first important political philosopher” of the 20th century. Felix Frankfurter hailed The Promise of American Life as the “most powerful single contribution to progressive thinking.” Like Ferris Bueller, leaping in front of the parade and pretending he was leading it, Croly got out in front of an idea whose time had come.

This happens every decade or so. Writers as varied as the economic historians Charles and Mary Beard, the public intellectual Walter Lippmann, the economists Friedrich Hayek and John Kenneth Galbraith, the sociologist David Riesman, the legal scholar Charles A. Reich, the biologist Paul Ehrlich, the philosopher Allan Bloom, the historian of international relations Paul Kennedy, and political scientist Francis Fukuyama all captured sociological lightning in a bottle by publishing bestselling books that imposed some coherence on the national anxieties and ambitions of their moment in time.

Revisiting many of these works can lead to bewilderment. What on earth could all the fuss have been about? Reich’s The Greening of America is a miserable mess, replete with hippy-dippy nonsense and messianic gobbledygook that might have made some sense in 1970 but seems hilariously dated now. Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd divided people into psycho-sociological categories—inner-directed, tradition-directed, other-directed—that almost seem parodic today. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944) holds up much better, but unlike his other works, its significance is more sociological than analytical. Similarly, the analysis in Galbraith’s The Affluent Society (1958) is more valuable as an insight into the hubris of what would become Great Society liberalism than as a serious empirical guide to political economy. As for The Promise of American Life itself, it is a strange and tedious read, though fortunately for Croly’s reputation, few people actually read it anymore.

It remains to be seen what history will make of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which was released in America in April. But it was so perfectly timed that it joined the ranks of those lightning-in-a-bottle books even before its publication. Piketty purports to offer a “general theory of capitalism,” in the words of the economist Tyler Cowen. His theory is that capitalism inherently leads to ever-widening income inequality that can be addressed only through heavy taxes on accumulated wealth. In December 2013, President Obama prepared the intellectual battlefield for Piketty by declaring that income inequality was now “the defining challenge of our time.” As the enormous and dense tome finally settled in at the top of the charts, Hillary Clinton previewed a presidential campaign stump speech of sorts, which largely focused on Piketty’s core theme: inequality. Even the pope got in on the act. Adding a religious dimension to Piketty’s theories on Twitter, he declared in late April that “inequality is the root of social evil” and called for “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State.”

In short, Capital in the Twenty-First Century provides some coherence to an idea whose time has come. And for those who already agreed with its thesis from reading the introduction, it has become not so much The Promise of American Life but the Democracy in America of our time. Indeed, no doubt because Piketty is French, the comparisons to Alexis de Tocqueville have been ubiquitous. In the words of Yale’s Jacob Hacker and Berkeley’s Paul Piereson: “Like Tocqueville, Piketty has given us a new image of ourselves.” They add: “This time, it’s one we should resist, not welcome.”

According to Boris Kachka of New York magazine, “One hundred and eighty years after Alexis de Tocqueville came back to France with the news that he’d found true égalité in America, his countryman has arrived on our shores to deliver the opposite news.”

Taken literally, the comparison between the two writers is ridiculous.


..............


Read more: www.aei.org

Il Vaticano può aiutare a salvare anime da Planned Parenthood nel 2014.


ECCO COME!


In occasione dei viaggi che compio in tutto il mondo per metter in guardia dai mali della contraccezione e dell’aborto, diversi sacerdoti e Vescovi mi hanno espresso la medesimaconvinzione: “Riusciamo a farci capire dai giovani sul problema dell’aborto, ma li stiamo perdendosul tema dei rapporti sessuali rispetto a Planned Parenthood”. La Federazione Internazionale Planned Parenthood (International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF) da molto tempo rappresenta una forza nella comunità internazionale. La sua affiliata americana fu fondata da Margaret Sanger nel 1916. Sanger sviluppò un'attività istituzionale internazionale nel 1952 — con quartiere generale a Londra, in Inghilterra.

IPPF ha sempre concentrato i propri sforzi per propagandare rapporti sessuali disinibiti, controllo delle nascite e aborto. Così facendo, si è trovata in disaccordo con molte confessioni religiose nel mondo. Lo scopo di questo breve saggio è semplicemente quello di documentare alcuni esempi della filosofia sottostante a Planned Parenthood, le azioni che ha intrapreso per imporre la propria visione al resto del mondo e ciò che il Vaticano può far da subito per impedire che aggredisca i nostri giovani.

Come TIME magazine1 ha fatto notare nel 1993, il futurista e storico H.G. Wells predisse nel 1931: “Quando la storia della nostra civiltà sarà scritta, sarà una storia biologica e Margaret Sanger sarà la sua eroina… Il movimento che ha iniziato crescerà fino a divenire, nei prossimi cento anni, il più influente di tutti i tempi”.

L'obiettivo di questa breve pubblicazione consiste nel richiamare l’attenzione dell'opinione pubblica sul tremendo potere d'influenza che Planned Parenthood ha conquistato e continua a conquistare nel mondo, invitando la Chiesa Cattolica a porsi formalmente contro questo male, chiamandolo per nome.

Per provare con adeguata documentazione l'attività satanica compiuta da Planned Parenthood si dovrebbero riempire molti libri. Il nostro intento non è tuttavia quello di soffermarci su ogni dettaglio.

Descriveremo invece brevemente i principi contro Dio espressi da quest’organizzazione; 
  • come Planned Parenthood definisca la gerarchia della Chiesa Cattolica Romana il suo più grande nemico; 
  • i suoi effetti devastanti sulla nostra società e sulla nostra Chiesa; 
  • come molti vescovi nel mondo l'abbiano pubblicamente condannata; 
  • e come, nonostante la condanna dei singoli vescovi, i laici cattolici pensino ancora che Planned Parenthood sia una buona organizzazione.

Come ha detto l’Arcivescovo John Vlazny di Portland, Oregon un paio di anni fa:

“Sinceramente, molti di noi, Cattolici inclusi, sbagliano nel promuovere la causa della PPFA (Planned Parenthood Federation of America), non comprendendone l'approccio poggiato su false basi. Temo che molti dei nostri cattolici siano stati coinvolti dalla propaganda”. 

Oggi, il Vaticano ha l’opportunità di porre fine a questa situazione di confusione.

....

Leggi tutto: http://corrispondenzaromana.voxmail.it



domingo, 3 de agosto de 2014

"Atheism is by no means as easy as it looks," insists prolific author Eagleton


CULTURE AND THE DEATH OF GOD





KIRKUS REVIEW


"Atheism is by no means as easy as it looks," insists prolific author Eagleton (Literature/Univ. of Lancaster; Across the Pond: An Englishman's View of America, 2013, etc.).

Since the Enlightenment, philosophers have attempted to displace the perceived superstitions of religion as a basis for Western civilization and to replace them with secular reason, with limited success. In this rich, complex work, the author traces the course of this intellectual quest from 18th-century Germany through the Romantics and the writings of Matthew Arnold and Friedrich Nietzsche, who famously proclaimed the death of God, into a postmodern era of extreme relativism. One recurring problem has been the difficulty of translating academic theory into a viable popular culture, or as Eagleton puts it, "[n]o symbolic form in history has matched religion's ability to link the most exalted of truths to the daily existence of countless men and women." Consequently, "[r]eason must stoop to myth and image if it is to address the masses, but how is this not to be the ruin of it?" Another problem is the tendency of attempted surrogates for religion, such as nationalism, to take on mystical attributes, rites, saints and martyrs, indistinguishable from the characteristics of religion itself—the Almighty manages to return by the back door. Eagleton deftly explores the shifting relationships among reason, religion, culture, myth, art, tragedy and the modern sensibility of the absurd, all expressed with a dry wit and provocative epigrams. The book, however, is neither intended nor recommended for general readers. This wealth of content can only be contained in a slender volume by assuming that readers are already familiar with philosophers from Kant to Kierkegaard; without this background, it will prove slow going, though still rewarding.

Now that the West is colliding with a resurgent Islam for which God is very much alive, Eagleton’s insights are particularly timely.

Source: www.kirkusreviews.com

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

UNA CRÍTICA AL LAICISMO 
DESDE LA IZQUIERDA

por JOSEMARÍA CARABANTE

Terry Eagleton, catedrático de Teoría Cultural de la Universidad de Manchester, es conocido por su ideología marxista, pero ha sido también uno de los pensadores que con mayor lucidez ha destapado los prejuicios y errores del “nuevo ateísmo”.

Además se ha opuesto a la frivolización de lo religioso que supone la propuesta de religión laica del filósofo francés Alain de Botton.

Si para la polémica de los Ditchkins (como denominó a la pareja más famosa del ateísmo beligerante, Christopher Hitchens y Richard Dawkins), escribió Razón, fe y revolución (2012), en su nuevo libro, Culture and the Death of God (Yale University Press), expone el fracaso de las ideologías que buscaban desterrar lo religioso.

“Ninguna forma simbólica en la historia ha igualado la aptitud de la religión por relacionar las verdades más elevadas con la existencia cotidiana de incontables hombres y mujeres”

Un error de la izquierda

Como ocurre en su último libro publicado en castellano, Dulce violencia, puede sorprender que un pensador tan comprometido con la ideología marxista realce la importancia del cristianismo y lamente que la izquierda haya ridiculizado lo religioso. Sin embargo, el interés de Eagleton por lo religioso nació antes que sus convicciones políticas y que su vocación como teórico de la literatura.

Eagleton fue educado en el catolicismo y ya durante los años sesenta colaboró con Slant, una revista católica pero relacionada con el activismo de izquierdas, hoy desaparecida. Desde entonces, su trayectoria intelectual ha estado marcada por una peculiar visión teológica y política: su primera obra, por ejemplo, publicada en 1970, se titula Towards a New Left Theology. Con independencia de ello, Eagleton ha sido importante en el seno de la teoría literaria, pues ha criticado con dureza los postulados relativistas del posmodernismo.

Dios no tiene sustituto

En su último libro, Eagleton sostiene que tanto las invectivas de los ilustrados contra lo religioso, como los violentos agravios de Nietzsche o la atención a las funciones sociales de la religión, propia de las últimas décadas, se inscriben en una narrativa filosófica que no ha logrado encontrar alternativas mundanas ni a Dios ni al cristianismo, ni desterrar por completo el anhelo humano de lo sagrado. La razón a su juicio es sencilla: el Dios de los cristianos es insustituible.

.........

Chesterton’s Biography of Dickens " If democracy has disappointed you, do not think of it as a burst bubble, but at least as a broken heart, an old love-affair. "


From Chesterton’s Biography of Dickens



First let us sympathise, if only for an instant, with the hopes of the Dickens period, with that cheerful trouble of change. If democracy has disappointed you, do not think of it as a burst bubble, but at least as a broken heart, an old love-affair. Do not sneer at the time when the creed of humanity was on its honeymoon; treat it with the dreadful reverence that is due to youth. For you, perhaps, a drearier philosophy has covered and eclipsed the earth. The fierce poet of the Middle Ages wrote, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here," over the gates of the lower world. The emancipated poets of to-day have written it over the gates of this world. But if we are to understand the story which follows, we must erase that apocalyptic writing, if only for an hour. We must recreate the faith of our fathers, if only as an artistic atmosphere If, then, you are a pessimist, in reading this story, forego for a little the pleasures of pessimism. Dream for one mad moment that the grass is green. Unlearn that sinister learning that you think so clear; deny that deadly knowledge that you think you know. Surrender the very flower of your culture; give up the very jewel of your pride; abandon hopelessness, all ye who enter here.

– G. K. C. from Charles Dickens, Chapter I.




Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Charles Dickens
PART ONE

CHAPTER I
THE DICKENS PERIOD
CHAPTER II
THE BOYHOOD OF DICKENS
CHAPTER III
THE YOUTH OF DICKENS
CHAPTER IV
"THE PICKWICK PAPERS"
CHAPTER V
THE GREAT POPULARITY
CHAPTER VI
DICKENS AND AMERICA



PART TWO

CHAPTER VII
DICKENS AND CHRISTMAS
CHAPTER VIII
THE TIME OF TRANSITION
CHAPTER IX
LATER LIFE AND WORKS
CHAPTER X
THE GREAT DICKENS CHARACTERS
CHAPTER XI
ON THE ALLEGED OPTIMISM OF DICKENS
CHAPTER XII
A NOTE ON THE FUTURE OF DICKENS

Senate - Procedural changes impede the chamber’s traditional deliberative function


Destroying the Senate — and our liberties

By Orrin G. Hatch

Procedural changes impede the chamber’s traditional deliberative function

Americans hold the Senate in low esteem, but the situation is even worse than most understand. The Senate is dysfunctional today because its current leadership has acted to destroy the institution itself.

Job-approval ratings for Congress have been in the teens or single digits for more than three years. A poll last year found that Congress is less popular than head lice, root canals and traffic jams. The “good” news is that Congress is slightly more popular than playground bullies, telemarketers and North Korea.

Polls like these reflect concern over factors included in The Washington Times’ Futility Index, such as the time Congress spends in session or the number of votes taken and bills passed. By this measure, the Senate’s two least productive sessions since the 1940s occurred in just the past few years. We are simply not getting much done these days.

The House has passed 338 bills in the past year-and-a-half, some on subjects of great importance, that have become dead on arrival in the Senate. Far more serious, though, are changes the current leadership is making to the Senate’s design and structure that would prevent it from ever functioning as it should.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison identified the basic axiom that form follows function and wisely concluded that the Senate’s structure should be determined by “the ends to be served by it.”

The Senate was designed to play a particular role in a carefully designed system of government that is based on two related ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence:


..........................





For President Barack Obama, politics is about winning the disagreement, not building consensus.


The Obama way: litigation not leadership

By Thomas DelBeccaro


Litigation is the absence of an agreement. Most often, it represents the failure of parties to see eye-to-eye on the facts or their implications. Other times, it is the favored tactic of bullies attempting to stare down their opponents or using their superior position to wear them down. Decent politics is often like the former. During the Obama litigation presidency, it is strictly the latter.

For President Barack Obama, politics is about winning the disagreement, not building consensus. We know why. His career as a community organizer was not an effort to work with others but strictly to inflame like-minded partisans. He always won speaking to his own – no broad consensus or leadership skills needed there.

When he voted “present” in the Illinois legislature, he didn’t have to reach agreement with anyone, either. If fact, Mr. Obama has made a career of not reaching consensus with anyone. For his first act as President, he relied on the partisan House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a spending bill without a single concession to Republicans, let alone their approval. It was victory by force – not consensus or leadership.

Mr. Obama’s ObamaCare approach was no different. In the face of public opposition – not to mention Senator Scott Brown’s election victory – Mr. Obama again triumphed over disagreement. He didn’t need votes from the other side. He just needed the votes of those Democrats already present.

When it came to global warming laws, unable to win in Congress, Mr. Obama settled out of Congress and used the EPA to claim his victory.


.....


Read more: www.washingtontimes.com



The limits of “L.G.B.T.Q. plus” ...


To Androgyny and Beyond!



This article from the New York Times reports on the growing gender confusion in the younger generation. To summarize L.G.B.T (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender) is not broad enough to express people’s sexual proclivities. At a student meeting at one college someone stood up to express their (you’re not allowed to say ‘his’ or ‘her’ anymore) frustrations.
Santiago, a curly-haired freshman from Colombia, stood before the crowd. He and a friend had been pondering the limits of what he calls “L.G.B.T.Q. plus.”
“Why do only certain letters get to be in the full acronym?” he asked.
Then he rattled off a list of gender identities, many culled from Wikipedia. “We have our lesbians, our gays,” he said, before adding, “bisexual, transsexual, queer, homosexual, asexual.” He took a breath and continued. “Pansexual. Omnisexual. Trisexual. Agender. Bi-gender. Third gender. Transgender. Transvestite. Intersexual. Two-spirit. Hijra. Polyamorous.”
By now, the list had turned into free verse. He ended: “Undecided. Questioning. Other. Human.”
The room burst into applause.

Uh huh.

Well, call me old fashioned, but remember Humanae Vitae? The underlying teaching was a defense of the essentials of human sexuality. Basically “sex is for babies” and if you separate sex from babies all sorts of monstrous things will come about.

When sex becomes more about recreation than pro creation people become confused about what sex is for, and if they’re confused about what sex is for, then they soon become confused about what their sexual organs are for, and if they are confused about what their sexual organs are for they become confused about whether they are male or female.

The confusion is exacerbated by the breakdown of the family–which is where strong sexual identities are formed, and the breakdown of conventional marriage–where strong sexual identities are consolidated.

It is no wonder then, after fifty years of family and marriage breakdown–divorce, porn, promiscuity and all the rest–that many in a new generation of young people don’t know who they are or what they are.

This confusion is expressed very clearly by the young people in the article.
Britt Gilbert — a punky-looking freshman with a blond bob, chunky glasses and a rock band T-shirt — took the stage. She wanted to talk about the concept of “bi-gender.” “Does anyone want to share what they think it is?” Silence. She explained that being bi-gender is like manifesting both masculine and feminine personas, almost as if one had a “detachable penis.” “Some days I wake up and think, ‘Why am I in this body?’ ” she said. “Most days I wake up and think, ‘What was I thinking yesterday?’ ”

A professor at University of Southern California explains
“There’s a very different generation of people coming of age, with completely different conceptions of gender and sexuality,” said Jack Halberstam (formerly Judith), a transgender professor at the University of Southern California and the author, most recently, of “Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal.” “When you see terms like L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.,” Professor Halberstam added, “it’s because people are seeing all the things that fall out of the binary, and demanding that a name come into being.” And with a plethora of ever-expanding categories like “genderqueer” and “androgyne” to choose from, each with an online subculture, piecing together a gender identity can be as D.I.Y. as making a Pinterest board.
.....................


Read more: www.patheos.com