Bill's Notes

Andrew Sullivan has the following post:

Derbyshire banned: ...

Schnauzers, open and proud, are a subversive force — subversive, that is, of any institution in which they become entrenched... There is no reason why an individual Schnauzer might not be a good and honorable dog, any more than there is any reason why an individual cat might not be a liar and a thief. In matters social and organizational, though, the sum is often greater than the parts, and it is not the one we should focus on, but the many. This, unfortunately, is a very difficult thing to get people to do in a highly individualistic culture like ours. "What about Joe? He's a Schnauzer, but a finer dog you could never wish to meet." Sure, we all know Joe; but his case tells us nothing about the probable behavior of an organization whose higher levels are 30, or 50, or 60 percent Schnauzerish... Long-time readers of National Review may recall Robert Conquest's three laws of politics, of which the second was: "Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing." (Conquest actually offered the Church of England as an example of this law in action.) I should like to hypothesize a fourth law, which I am going to call Derbyshire's Law. Any organization that admits frank and open Schnauzers into its higher levels will sooner or later abandon its original purpose and give itself over to propagating and celebrating the Schnauzerish ethos, and to excluding cats and denigrating squirrels.

Can you believe how much he hates schnauzers?

Go read his entry and see for yourself. For shame.

Sad.

The Episcopal Church needs reorganization in the worst way. See Midwest Conservative Journal here.

Chris L. at Work in Progress sends his readers to this illuminating essay, "Christ and Nothing" by a gentlemen named David Hart.

It's a fascinating look at the impact of Christian thought on the development of Western Civilization, and how Christianity invented the modern man who has now turned to desolate nihilism.

Here's his thesis. (I have added paragraphing for easier reading online.)

We live in an age whose chief moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty of personal volition, the power of each of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess; our culturally most persuasive models of human freedom are unambiguously voluntarist and, in a rather debased and degraded way, Promethean; the will, we believe, is sovereign because unpremised, free because spontaneous, and this is the highest good.

And a society that believes this must, at least implicitly, embrace and subtly advocate a very particular moral metaphysics: the unreality of any "value" higher than choice, or of any transcendent Good ordering desire towards a higher end. Desire is free to propose, seize, accept or reject, want or not want--but not to obey. Society must thus be secured against the intrusions of the Good, or of God, so that its citizens may determine their own lives by the choices they make from a universe of morally indifferent but variably desirable ends, unencumbered by any prior grammar of obligation or value (in America, we call this the "wall of separation").

Hence the liberties that permit one to purchase lavender bed clothes, to gaze fervently at pornography, to become a Unitarian, to market popular celebrations of brutal violence, or to destroy one's unborn child are all equally intrinsically "good" because all are expressions of an inalienable freedom of choice.

But, of course, if the will determines itself only in and through such choices, free from any prevenient natural order, then it too is in itself nothing. And so, at the end of modernity, each of us who is true to the times stands facing not God, or the gods, or the Good beyond beings, but an abyss, over which presides the empty, inviolable authority of the individual will, whose impulses and decisions are their own moral index.

What struck me is not so much "those other bastards sharing America with me" as "Man, that's me." Readers know that I professes to follow Christ (I believe Christ decides ultimately who has followed him or not). Still, this idea of personal choice is so seductive, and I lived by it for so long prior to my conversion, that getting this out of my head is very difficult. I'm going to pray for a while on these ideas. Turn it over to God.

Cox and Forkum have a great, great editorial cartoon. I'm a little late on this one, but here's the link.

As Instapundit would say, heh.

Also was reminded of a classic Russian joke.

Two Russian peasants, Ivan and Boris, were dirt poor and in exactly the same situation in life except Boris had a goat. One day a magical person of some kind offers Ivan one wish and he could have anything he wanted. Ivan answers, "I want that Boris' goat should die."

Heh again.

I'm glad you asked how Industrial Blog rates with the Gender Genie. Would I come out manly, super-masculine, or downright zip-thud priapic?

Well, I tossed the ... er, longest entry I could find into the machine (you're supposed to use entries of longer than 500 words). Turned out to be the fast-read, actionable advice column to the Red Sox and Cubs: "Five Keys to Winning."

Here's the result:

Female Score: 703
Male Score: 1658

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

The gender genie even seemed a little frightened by the results and nervously offered to up the score. I told him to relax and not worry about it.

Hit tip: Spoons. His score was also pretty good.

I've had no coffee for four days. Cold turkey — no caffeine whatsoever. It's weight loss related -- I find it easier to control my appetite without heavy doses of caffeine.

Anyway, suddenly this afternoon this nagging sadness starts to weigh on me. Suddenly I'm really sad and wanted to tell everyone about it. Suddenly, I needed reassurance. Now this surprised me because the whole thing seemed physical, if you can understand that. I wasn't depressed for any reason, I just felt depressed.

So I googled caffeine withdrawal — sure enough, one sign is light depression. Whew! I have no time a major depressive episode. So as soon as the withdrawal is complete, I'll be back to my effusive, ebullient, effervescent self. Heigh ho.

Our host Chris has an interesting essay over at Work in Progress on Hamlet. Chris argues that Hamlet's tragic flaw is not indecisiveness, but bloody-minded hatred. The salient paragraph in Chris' essay:

Now, the fact that the visitation takes place in Act I scene 5 and the revenge takes place in Act V Scene 2 is, I believe, generally the foundation of the belief in Hamlet's indecisiveness. Yet, if one looks at the play, Hamlet first, after hearing that his uncle murdered his father set about to verify it. Once he had it verified, he set about to kill his uncle in revenge. The point where he failed to act when he "should" have came at this point; he had the opportunity to kill his uncle but did not want to do it while his uncle was praying. His father was killed when asleep and thus not recently confessed (hence the full burden of his sins fell on this shoulders upon his death). Hamlet wanted to kill his uncle in the same way, to make his revenge more complete. Hamlet thus erred in trying to play God — it was not his business to worry about Claudius' soul, merely to take his life. However, this was not an indecisive act, it was an act of hatred. If one is really concerned with tragic flaws, this would be Hamlet's real tragic flaw: he gave in to hatred. He certainly suffered for it.

My response: I think Chris makes a good point. Hamlet does act decisively at times, and certainly he gives in to hate when he refuses to kill his uncle during prayer.

Only thing is, I don't really buy the tragic flaw theory. I can't really explain why, but I just don't buy it. There is no ONE thing ... MacBeth is ambitious, yes, but he's also a bloody-minded pagan with poor choices in women and listens to witches. Hamlet is indecisive, impetuous, and a genius struggling with a tough moral decision. Othello is poor in his choice of counselors, and allows his jealousy and his murderous rage to get the best of him.

Brutus is ambitious, yes, but something more — Brutus is an arrogant inside player who is full of himself and has an inflexible mind — he has an opportunity to change things, but won't simply because he can't think creatively. Antony is a manipulative meretricious sack of shit and suffers from poor choices in women.

And this gets me into a root-cause argument — and I don't believe in root causes.... more of a convergence of factors in a specific time that result in something unhappy. The root cause of everything is the big bang.

I used to write a lot of safety-related stuff, and saw that in almost every case it's people who break two safety rules who get hurt or killed. (One exception is electricity--which has a zero tolerance attitude about mistakes.) Usually someone disables a hand-guard, then reaches into the machine. Or someone doesn't tag out a machine, then goes into the blades to clear something away and someone else doesn't check the machine is clear, then flips a switch.

Or as someone wise once said, when committing a crime, never break any law other than the one you're breaking. Want to get away from a crime scene? Drive the speed limit in a car with registered license plates.

FWIW.

I like Jay Nordlinger of National Review. But this comment on the Marlins celebration on the mound at Yankee Stadium is either wicked irony or simply the most hypocritical statement ever uttered in human history.

May I start with something disgustingly old-fashioned? When the Marlins beat the Yankees in the final game of the World Series — on the Yankees' field — they mobbed each other and exulted. I view this, believe it or not, as an example of the coarsening of the culture. They didn't shake the other team's hand. They didn't save their mobbing and exulting for . . . later, like in the clubhouse. They donned those ridiculous new T-shirts and hats. There was no sense that the other team — and its many thousands of fans, there gathered — had lost. It was just: me, me, me. To hell with anyone else present.
And, Cotton Mather that I am, I think that stank.

Say this for golf: When Tiger wins, he takes off his hat and shakes his opponent's hand (also his opponent's caddy's hand). Granted, each sport has its own traditions . . . but still.

Nordlinger deserves the benefit of the doubt. But still ...

You are Lamentations.


Which book of the Bible are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

The Marlins have never lost a post-season series and are the only Major League team you can say that about.

They've won six straight.

Granted, this is a little unfair to the Arizona Diamondbacks, who have already been to the playoffs a bunch of times and won a World Series, all since 1998. But the Diamondbacks have been beaten a couple of times.

The Marlins are certainly the most successful new franchise since the American League was founded. Their two World Series titles compares as follow:

* More than the Phillies (1) managed in 120 years of existence.
* As many as the Cubs, White Sox, Indians (2) managed in more than 100 years of existence.
* As many as the Mets and Blue Jays expansion franchises (2) managed in twice the time.

And if you want to talk the post-segregation league only (after 1948), the Marlins have now won as many or more than 22 franchises: Indians (48), Giants (54), Braves (57, 95) Twins (87, 91), Angels (02), Royals (85), Diamondbacks (01), Phillies (80), Mets (69, 86), Tigers (68, 84), Blue Jays (92, 93); Red Sox, Cubs and White (none post-segregation); and the eight franchises who have yet to win a World Series: Astros, Rangers, Expos, Padres, Brewers, Mariners, Rockies, Devil Rays.

The Marlins are right on the heels, post-segregation league again, of catching the following franchises: Orioles (66, 70, 83), Cardinals (64, 67, 82), Reds (75, 76, 90), and Pirates (60, 71, 79).

And they're halfway to catching the third most-successful post-segregation franchise, the A's (72, 73, 74, 89).

Note: The second most successful post-segregation franchise is the Dodgers, with six titles (55, 59, 63, 65, 81, 88). The team unmentioned has won the remaining 15 titles (49-54, 56, 58, 61-62, 77-78, 96, 98-00).

Heh. God plays a joke on us all.

Josh Beckett, a career 19-19 pitcher, throws a five-hit complete-game shutout in Yankee Stadium to finish off the series. Fit 'em for his brass ones.

Give the Marlins credit. They finished off the Phillies in a late series to steal the Wild Card at the last second. Then they knocked off the Giants, Cubs and Yankees — all by winning the last three games of the series. Outstanding, gutsy play.

Still, all in all, me and just about everyone else would've preferred a Cubs-Red Sox World Series.

My hope is this Yankee loss is like the 1981 World Series, where the Dodgers not only knocked off the Yankees to take the title, but the Yankees went into tail-spin for a dozen years.