Philosophical Fragments
Christian and secular news and commentary that one Christian found important or entertaining this morning:
1. GOSPEL SKETCH. A nice illustration of the gospel (H/t Justin Taylor):
2. WE ARE THE PROBLEM WE’VE BEEN LAMENTING. Not as inspiring as the Obama slogan, but that’s basically the gist of Dennis Prager’s point here. Dennis Prager is a conservative radio host, so some may be inclined to dismiss him out of hand. Yet he has always been a different kind of radio host: most concerned with the timeless and the profound questions. He is asked, I believe, what are the great dangers facing America. He goes on to answer other questions as well, and it grows more partisan at that point (which does not, of course, mean it is wrong or unworthy of your time), but I find his answer to the first question most interesting:
3. FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISM. This is not a new perspective, but it seems to be hardening into a well-established standpoint among many:
“My objection to the new atheists isn’t that they’re atheists.
“It’s that they strike me as hypocrites, which is the charge they unfailingly level, with mixed justification, against the religious. In opposing religion in the manner they do, they betray themselves as possessing the traits they profess to loathe.
“They’re smug, dogmatic and mean-spirited. They trot out tired, half-truthful stereotypes, and they cherry-pick historical examples of religious wrongdoing while ignoring the innumerable instances in which the faithful have performed great acts of decency and charity.
“They pretend that all Christians are bigots prone to violence. They claim that Christians are by definition illogical bumpkins who mindlessly accept fairy tales.
“They act as if Thomas Merton and Bob Jones were of one cloth.
“It’s absurd, and it’s especially grating because it comes from people who flaunt what they consider to be their own relentless logic, superior intellect and brave candor.”
5. Turning to political manners, the cost of our Government-Sponsored Enterprieses, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are skyrocketing. Already bailed out with $145B, estimates show that they will need anywhere between $160B and $1T in order to be fully restored. Such are the costs of subsidizing an astronomical housing bubble through pressuring banks to give home loans to those who cannot afford them, at the same time as they failed effectively to regulate what happened to those loans as they were translated into complex financial instruments spread throughout the international economy. On the one hand the government gave the banks a forced incentive to issue more and more subprime loans, and on the other hand they took away the disincentive to recklessness, since they allowed the risks to be hidden and passed off. While some executives and investors and hedge fund managers made hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars from the racket, the American economy was shattered and the weakness spread through the global financial system.
If the expansion of Fannie and Freddie were a part of the problem, however, one has to wonder whether restoring them to what they were — and, indeed, making them even larger than they were before, and making the housing market even more dependent on them — is the wisest course to take. Perhaps the federal government should get out of the business of backing up home loans? Perhaps we should be wary that we now have more home loans and more money overall in the hands of even fewer GSE’s and banks than we had before?
6. YOU’RE ON CANDID CAMERA. I’m not a fan of ambush journalism, but I would guess that Congressman Etheridge is going to regret the thuggish way he behaved when he encountered some college students on a sidewalk in Washington.
7. MEDIA OF CHANGE. I don’t suppose it’s an accident that it is a Democratic administration that has determined to investigate ways to save the journalism industry as we know it. While conservative media organs are growing stronger, traditionally liberal bastions are crumbling piece by piece. I’m sure the Obama administration would want to reverse this course; they’ve already expressed an openness to a bailout for newspapers. Who can blame them? But the potential for conflicts of interest here is just off the charts.
A democracy does have a legitimate interest in the maintenance of a healthy media. Yet the problem is not that there is a dwindling news media. The problem is that there is a profusion of news media, and the news media has become more democratic in its own structure, empowering bloggers and independents and disempowering the traditional power centers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. The media landscape is changing dramatically, and while Democrats might like to prop up their supporters in New York, Washington and Boston, I think the American people would not buy it. Certainly right now, with control of the Congress (and the White House not too far off) up for grabs, no Democrat should be eager to propose flooding Pinch Sulzberger’s coffers with money. From the article:
“Much of the criticism came from the political right, which is not receptive to the notion of the government’s propping up news media organizations with higher taxes.
“The editorial page of The Washington Times pilloried the suggestions laid out in the report, writing in an editorial, “When it comes to the media, consumers lose most when government suppresses innovation in the name of ‘saving’ old business models.” The paper derided one proposal that would allow news organizations to charge news aggregator Web sites for using their content as a “Drudge tax.”
“Other criticism centered on what to many journalists is a glaring impropriety: allowing the government to meddle in the workings of a free press.
“Steven Brill, who ran a news media watchdog publication and is now developing a system for newspapers to charge readers for access online, said journalists should find it uncomfortable that the government is considering ways to subsidize their work.
“Mr. Brill, like others who have been following the commission’s work, doubts there will be any significant policy changes recommended, in large part because there is no public appetite for government intervention to save the news media.”
8. SEEKING THE STARS. Given the mountains of money we have been shoveling in every direction in recent years, it seems odd (especially in light of a Congressional ban on doing so) to take away the few billions that were set aside for the NASA program to return to the moon and develop the technology for a Mars mission. Bush launched the program in 2004. Is that the problem? That Bush proposed it? Is the problem that it would do nothing to burnish the Obama legacy? Or is it, sincerely, an attempt to cut back spending and focus on more immediate, terrestrial concerns? Hard to say.
A journey to Mars would be an absolutely extraordinary achievement. The benefits are difficult to assess in advance. There are the technological advances that always come from gathering the best and brightest and focusing them on practical physical problems. Yet there is also the inspiration of the citizenry. How many children were inspired to reach for the stars – literally and figuratively – when they saw the first orbiters hurtling through the night sky above them, and then saw the first moonwalkers stepping out of the lunar lander and taking that “giant step”?
Due to city light, fewer people see the stars today than in previous generations. One wonders about the effect of this, psychologically and spiritually. An encounter with the heavens in all their greatness and splendor has a way of relativizing our little concerns and obsessions on this third rock from the sun. I ask: help us reach for the stars, Mr. President.
9. VICTORY IN THE ROCKS. A sustainable victory for Afghanistan will likely require a more hopeful vision for its future than mere subsistence through narco-trafficking and government corruption. Perhaps this is the golden key. American experts have discovered a vast untapped wealth of mineral resources in Afghanistan, and mining companies will be lining up to make the investments necessary to draw out the lithium, gold, iron, copper and cobalt.
This has the potential to intensify turf battles and corruption within the Afghan government and between the central government and the Taliban, and the United States (given its extraordinary investment of blood and gold in the country) and China (given its extraordinary need for resources) are likely to do diplomatic battle over who gets to develop the resources. But it also has the capacity to put other concerns into perspective; when there’s so much money to be made, and such a future to be had for the country, perhaps people will be more likely to put aside their grievances and achieve that future together.
On the other hand, the United States diplomatic corps needs to get its act together in Afghanistan. The military is making progress, but the state department is not.
10. SLIPPERY ISSUE. I hate to harp on this, but if you still think there’s nothing the executive should have done differently in response to the oil spill crisis, you have to read this piece from (of all places!) Rolling Stone magazine.
11. THE PROOF IS IN THE…It’s hard to believe, given the 3000 pages of legislation, but much of the actual impact of the health care reform will come from the regulatory details as they are spelled out. Read more here.
12. A CONCLUDING IMAGE. The Boston Globe (again, of all places) has featured some of the most stunning photographs from the oil disaster in the gulf. This slideshow is worth your time. Below is one of the more profound images:
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In