Positive Liberty

The story behind Ross Bagdasarian, better known as David Seville, and his place in American popular culture on the basis of two novelty songs is almost certainly a better story than Alvin and the Chipmunks. But it needs to be said that Alvin and the Chipmunks, even under the nearly insurmountable handicap of a Jason Lee lead part, does not suck. Parents could do worse than sit with their younger children through 90 minutes of this formulaic but nonetheless largely inoffensive and amusing bit of holiday fluff. “Inoffensive and amusing fluff” is, come to think of it, a pretty good description of the soon to be 50 year old chipmunk, um, franchise.

The delightful irony of Alvin and the Chipmunks (an irony which CV hastens to add does not detract from its entertainment value for children) is the conceit of a pop songwriter who hates the commercial superficiality of his day job as an advertising exec and whose, um art — you know, lyrics like “Me, I want a hula-hoop!” played back at a tape speed 50% faster than its recorded speed — is more important than any exploitative marketing or product franchising potential. After all, it’s one thing to discover three talking chipmunks capable of singing harmony and whipping up a little holiday ditty for them, quite another to package and book them as the latest boy band, admittedly a big step down for rodents, on a world tour. Oh, and while we’re on the topic of exploitative capitalism and crass commercialism, CV encourages readers who see the film to try to count the number of Cuisinart™ products strewn about ‘Seville’s’ kitchen. CV suspects there weren’t any bathroom scenes because Cuisinart™ doesn’t make hair dryers or electric toothbrushes.

Okay, so a crassly commercial Hollywood movie about how terrible crass commercialism is may be longer in the tooth than a rat on a liquid diet, but what the hell? It’s mostly good clean fun, and even if the updated songs are far lamer than the originals (especially in the case of Witch Doctor), there’s something almost timelessly endearing about all this silliness. Well, maybe not timelessly, but long lasting enough that not only Bagdasarian père but also Bagdasarian fils has managed to make a nice piece of change. Alvin and the Chipmunks has grossed $142 million so far; not a bad return on a business that started with a $190 variable speed tape recorder.

Via Boing Boing lots of sites have linked to my post on Robert Reed. Some of them found this which recounts Sherwood Schwartz’s take on Reed: Continue Reading »

Filed under Why We Can’t Just All Get Along: National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg’s soon-to-be-released Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is generating scorn and ridicule from some of my libertarian friends and colleagues and praise from others (you all know who you are). Having not read the book, I couldn’t say. Just playing the odds, however, I doubt it’s nearly as good as Goldberg’s friends are claiming nor, for that matter, nearly as bad as his political foes claim.

Regardless of whatever Goldberg, himself, claims about the history of the Left in American politics, libertarians have long held that the Left and the Right as traditionally (mis)understood share more than they may care to admit. As Santayana almost said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to be influenced by Hegel. Once upon a time not really all that long ago, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was Europe’s most influential philosopher, and the title quote is (perhaps unfairly plucked) from his Philosophy of History. His legacy, especially in Germany, led to what was once called Right Hegelianism and Left Hegelianism and, you guessed it, the Left Hegelians won the day. While it is perhaps unfair to claim that Right Hegelianism was to Fascism what Left Hegelianism was to Marxism, the collectivist, statist perspective of 20th century Leftist political thought bears the same idealist legacy. Indeed, that statist, collectivist (and therefore anti-individualist, anti-libertarian) legacy runs back to the philosophical origin of idealism, itself; that is, to Platonism.

It would be nice to think that the libertarian exodus from the Republican Right (whether or not it includes Mr. Goldberg) constitutes some sort of significant realignment in American politics away from collectivism. But there is precious little evidence to that effect. None of the viable Democratic or Republican presidential candidates shows the slightest inclination toward claiming that the principal problem in American society is its own government. To be sure, they argue whether state power is being used wisely or properly (read: “as it would be used if they were in charge”), but that is a far cry from claiming that the problem is structural or that the solution requires more than a bit of tinkering here and there with checks and balances and such nonsense. Until either the Liberal Left or the Conservative Right abandon their fundamental, irrational faith commitment to the State, the difference between the two remains largely illusory.

On Vivian Campbell, his former guitarist who now plays for Def Leppard.

Like a lot of great rockers, Dio has somewhat of an attitude. But he is one of the greats. In his mid-60s, he still has his voice! I’d much rather see him with Sabbath live than Ozzy because Dio as a superior vocalist (from a purely technical sense) tends to give more professional performances in his old age (Ozzy tends to “phone in” his performances).

Ozzy has produced some great music — and the formula that’s made him millions is 1) having a cool sounding voice, even if not great from a technical sense; 2) having an ear for good songs and good performers; 3) surrounding himself those great musicians who write and perform great songs for him (notably Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, Bob Daisley, Randy Rhodes and Zakk Wylde); and 4) having a very shrewd business sense that comes from his wife. He’s not a musical genius and has hardly written any of the songs for which he is notable. It’s ironic; not writing his songs contributed to Osbourne’s longevity. Most songwriters, for instance Paul McCartney, have only so many great songs in them. If you constantly rely on other folks for your songs, have the eye and ear to seek them out and the $$ to attract them, you can almost guarantee not running out of decent material.

Back to Dio. Here is a great performance he did with Deep Purple and an Orchestra, Sitting in a Dream.

And for the Christians who read my work, here is Dio singing about Jesus. He did that for Kansas’ Kerry Livgren after Livgren became a born-again Christian and released an inspirational solo album. Not an official video.

Interesting column by David Ignatius of the Washington Post entitled Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists, What Jefferson and Adams Might Tell Mitt Romney.

Here is the first paragraph:

A bracing text for this Christmas week is the famous correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Their letters are a reminder that the Founders were men of the Enlightenment — supreme rationalists who would have found the religiosity of much of our modern political life quite abhorrent.

Here is the last paragraph:

One theme in this year’s political campaign has been whether the United States will move from the faith-based policies the Bush administration has celebrated to a more rationalist and secular approach. In this debate, religious conservatives like to stress their connection to the Founders and to the republic’s birth as “one nation under God.” But a rereading of the Adams-Jefferson letters is a reminder that in this debate, the Founders — as men of the Enlightenment — would surely have sided with the party of Reason.

For the middle, read the whole thing.

And also read Ramesh Ponnuru’s critique, the valid part with which I agree is that one can be a rationalist — that is one who believes in discovering Truth chiefly through reason — and still be devoutly religious, something that Ignatius’ column doesn’t really challenge. Yet Ponnuru goes further and asserts such rationalism is not incompatible with traditional Christian dogma. And he points to a few books written by Robert P. George, and one written by himself. Ponnuru, George, John Finnis, and others operating in the tradition of Aquinas are devout, traditional, conservative Christians who accept the natural law which defines as what man discovers from reason unaided by scripture.

These rubrics of “reason” and “nature” originated with the pagan philosopher Aristotle, were incorporated into Christendom by Aquinas, and then were embraced by Enlightenment philosophers whose religious beliefs varied from the conventionally religious to the mildly heterodox, to out and out mockers of Christianity. America was indeed founded chiefly under the rubrics of “nature” and “reason” and what’s distinctive about such rationalism is that it views man’s reason as penultimate. Whether such rationalism perfectly complements tradtional Christianity, is “the Devil’s Whore,” or something in between is the subject of a lively and fascinating debate. But man’s reason is the chief device under which America’s Founders believed they constructed America’s civil order.

Given that the historical record shows little connection between the principles of the Constitution and the principles of the Bible, what about the oft-cited study by Donald S. Lutz that supposedly shows the Bible as the most cited source from the Founding era? Lutz is a reputable scholar and the “Christian America” crowd have shamelessly misrepresented his study. Chris Rodda has the goods. She writes:

Of all the findings in Lutz’s study ignored by Barton and the NCBCPS, however, none are as important as those found in the section of his article entitled “The Pattern of Citations from 1787 to 1788.” As seen in the earlier chart, Lutz broke down the number of citations by decade. In addition to this, he singled out the writings from 1787 and 1788, and then further separated these writings into those written by Federalists and those by Anti-federalists. Lutz found few biblical citations during these two years, and, very interestingly, not a single one in any of the Federalist writings. The following is from what Lutz wrote about this two year period in which the Constitution was written and debated in the press.

Quoting Lutz, this passage from the original study destroys the conclusion the Christian America crowd draws from his work:

The Bible’s prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalists’ inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.

About America’s “Christian” Foundations. Conservative websites such as Townhall, American Vision, and WorldNetDaily promote or sell this book, written in 1864, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States … By Benjamin Franklin Morris, which supposedly settled the fact of American government’s Christian heritage before the secularists came along and stole that history by revising it. I’m sure many have bought the book (which, given that it’s in the public domain, they didn’t have to; they could have legally downloaded it for free); but probably few have read it.

History, like science, given both involve acquiring knowledge, tends to improve with time and experience. Seriously, this is like appealing to a science book written in 1864 to settle a factual matter. I haven’t even scratched the surface of this book and have found it riddled with factual errors. The book immediately begins citing the phony quotations most notably associated with David Barton and it sources many of the myths for which serious historians ridicule the “Christian Nation” crowd.

For instance on page 520 Morris repeats Parson Mason Weems’ fraudulent account of Washington’s “Christian” death. (For the real story see the following).

Great as he was in life, he was also great in death. He had fought the good fight, and death to him had no terrors.” His death was worthy of his Christian faith and character. ” I die hard,” said he; “but I am not afraid to die. I should have been glad, had it pleased God, to die a little easier; but I doubt not it is for my good. ‘Tis well! Father of mercies, take me to thyself.” On his dying bed lay an open Bible, the book of God, which he had read in the family circle and in his private devotions, and in the light of its heavenly truths his great soul passed, doubtless, into the light and immortality of heaven.

From what I’ve been able to garner, this book’s historiography is laughable.

This post features commentary by Dr. Gregg Frazer on the Bible as an intellectual source of republicanism. I’d count the Bible/Christian principles as one source of many from which America’s Founders believed man’s reason could select the “rational” parts. But it was by no means the chief source. Pagan Greco-Roman principles, the interest in which had been recently rekindled during the Renaissance, received far more attention in the Federalist Papers. Given Christianity is compatible with a variety of different political systems, Christianity is arguably perfectly compatible with republicanism. But the principles of republicanism are for the most part a-biblical.

The fact that some parts of the Declaration and/or Constitution are not in conflict with verses in the Bible does not mean that the Bible was the source. This is especially important when — as in the case of the Declaration and the Constitution — the authors claim other sources, but do not claim the Bible as a source!

In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson identifies his sources for the Declaration’s principles. He names as sources: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and (Algernon) Sidney — he does not mention the Bible. Then again, the terminology in the Declaration is not specifically Christian — or even biblical, with the exception of “Creator.” The term “providence” is never used of God in the Bible, nor are “nature’s God” or “Supreme Judge of the world” ever used in the Bible.

In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources — but no Scripture verses.

In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution’s principles, either — one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word “God” is used twice — and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. “Almighty” is used twice and “providence” three times — but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned.

As for freedom and liberty in the Bible, it is always SPIRITUAL freedom/liberty — as a look at the verses you’ve listed IN CONTEXT shows. That is NOT to say that political liberty is an anti-biblical concept — it’s just not a biblical one. Arguing that it is a “Calvinist” concept does not make it a biblical one, either. The “disciples” of Calvin did not write inspired revelation.

The key Founders (J. Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, & G. Morris) — those most responsible for the founding documents — were religious, but not Christians. They believed that religion was essential to produce the morality that a free society required, but that any religion would suffice. Their religious belief was a mixture of Protestantism, natural religion, and rationalism — with rationalism as the trump card and decisive factor. They retained elements of Christianity, but rejected the elements of Christianity (and of natural religion) that they considered irrational. However: of the ten CORE beliefs of Christianity (those shared by all of the major Protestant denominations of the day (and by the Catholics), they held to only one (or two, in some cases). Their belief system was, as I have termed it, theistic rationalism.

If the view of Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin that any/all religions were valid paths to God and that any/all religions would suffice to produce the morality needed was a “minority opinion” among the Founders, why were they chosen to write the philosophical (you say religious) document (Declaration)?

The following reproduces a post on John Adams’ religion after I got the Adams-Jefferson correspondence where there is a plethora of evidence of John Adams’ religious heterodoxy, that indeed he and Jefferson were virtually agreed on God’s attributes. And, surprisingly, it was not “Deism” that was the driver of their creed but a warmer faith whose elements included unitarianism, universalism, rationalism, and syncretism, one that believed in a God who intervened in man’s affairs and to whom men ought to pray and oft-presented itself under the auspices of “Christianity.” This has led to the “Christian Nation” crowd easily taking quotations out of context which seem to demonstrate Adams and Jefferson were “Christians”; but if this is “Christianity” (arguably it is not) it certainly isn’t “Christianity” as evangelicals or Catholics understand that term. According to Jefferson, Adams et al. all good men are “Christians,” no matter what faith they profess. Accordingly, these men found “Christianity” in such places as Hinduism and pagan-Greco-Romanism. A set of laws supposedly revealed by Athena 600 years before Christ qualified as “Christian” according to their creed.

After a post about one pedantic gay conservative (Allan Bloom), here is another, on Robert Reed. Reed was a self described 1950s style conservative and a trained Shakespearean actor. After reading his memo, now you know how it felt to be Sherwood Schwartz in the 1970s.

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m on mental vacation as well as physical. But in the meantime I might as well feature some good old posts that would otherwise be lost in the scroll. This one got me my first link from Andrew Sullivan and it was on Allan Bloom and Alan Keyes. The context of the post was Keyes referred to Mary Cheney as a “selfish hedonist” for being a lesbian. I pointed out that Keyes’ own intellectual mentor was homosexual. This was before it came out that Keyes’ own daughter was lesbian. Perhaps God is trying to send Keyes a message which apparently he hasn’t yet gotten.

I see the feature’s playin’
The trailer’s at an end,
And I ain’t seen a worse film
Since I don’t know when.
I’m stuck inside the Bijou,
The theater’s showin’ Walk Hard,
And because I bought a ticket,
I feel just like a retard.

When I was just a student
My teacher told my, “Boy,
A writer must be honest
And try not to be coy.”
But sometimes at the Bijou
The movie stinks so much
That to make his case to readers
A critic needs a crutch.

I bet there’s nice folks readin’
In a Public Library
They’re probably enjoyin’
Being entertained for free.
But I know I’ve got to stay here
And watch this piece of trash
While the lame jokes keep a comin’
And that’s what burns my ass.

Well, when this movie’s over
And finally I’m free
I’ll head back to my office
And write a parody
That sucks almost as badly
As I think Walk Hard sucks.
Take a tip from Constant Viewer
And save your hard earned bucks.

My cyber-colleagues here have been busy addressing the faith or lack thereof of our (Founding) Fathers and about how American religious pluralism plays out in our varied observance, or lack thereof, of what were, once upon a time in a culture far, far away, understood to be primarily if not exclusively Christian holidays. That’s all well and good and I hope they get it all straightened out.

My personal beliefs (or lack thereof) of a religious, spiritual and/or transcendental basis are (1) complicated and (2) none of your business. I often like to quip that I am an Episcopalian which is mighty close to being a Christian (though farther all the time), but even that doesn’t commit me to whatever counts as Episcopalian or Anglican dogma (if there is such a thing, which I doubt). In any case, your spiritual mileage may vary.

This whole business of faith and reason is murky at best. I also like to quip that philosophy is a bit of a mug’s game, and I’m just the sort of mug to make that claim; but I will assert without arguing here that one of the signal philosophical achievements of the 20th century was progress in sorting out how truth assertions about empirical matters differ from truth assertions about purely formal or analytic assertions and especially how normative (ethical and aesthetic) and religious (and philosophical!) claims fall in some sort of ontological and epistemological twilight zone outside and yet related to both.

In the (holiday) spirit of attempting to muddle through the murk just a bit, my Christmas present to you is one of the classic articles of 20th century analytic philosophy, the late John Wisdom’s “Gods.” The article appears here “below the fold,” as it were and, I freely admit, without permission from Wisdom’s literary estate. Sadly, much of Wisdom’s work is out of print now and thus not readily available. Let it be known that I take full responsibility and hereby indemnify my co-bloggers in the event Professor Wisdom’s executors object, in which case I will, of course, promptly remove the article from this site.

Continue Reading »

I couldn’t believe my brother in law when he told me about this story, but he looked it up and showed it to me just now, and sure enough, it says what he says it says:

In March, New Times revealed the Florida Department of Corrections was housing sex offenders under an overpass near the county courthouse; the state responded by moving the men here. The reason: A 2005 county ordinance prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, so nearly the entire county has become off-limits to them.

The story was picked up by national media outlets, and for a few weeks the bridge was a source of widespread disbelief. Statements were made, resolutions were passed, letters were sent — but nothing changed. Since then, much to the relief of local politicians, no doubt, the situation seems to have quietly faded from public memory.

But the numbers kept growing. More than 30 men have been sent to live here in the intervening months. A few have since left — the majority of them arrested for minor violations of probation, two or three were able to move out, and two have disappeared. But most — as of press time, at least 20 — remain under the bridge, even though many have families willing to house them. Everyone agrees the situation under the Julia Tuttle has become untenable, but so far neither local politicians, nor the courts, nor the state legislature have been willing to do anything about it.

Anyone care to defend this policy?

Ed Brayton once again debunks the myth that the Ten Commandments are the basis of America’s civil law. To the contrary, under the old, pre-Enlightened order when Church & State were not separated, the Ten Commandments were part of the civil law in Western Christian societies, complete with laws meriting the death penalty for breaking the First Command or worshipping false gods or heresy in attempting to worship the “true” God.

Fast forward to America’s Founding, the organic law of which holds parts of the Ten Commandments could be part of the civil law (don’t steal, don’t kill), parts have nothing properly to do with the civil law (don’t worship false gods). Accordingly, Nature’s God grants men an unalienable right to break the First Commandment — arguably at least the first four — and rules announced in other parts of the Bible. If one believes in God granted unalienable rights as instructive of America’s Founding order, one must begin with the premise that Nature’s God grants men a right not just to do what the Bible forbids but that for which the Bible demands the death penalty (worship false gods).