Food Prices Rise
31/05/11 10:57 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
The BBC reports that food prices will rise 180% over the next 20 years. They've already risen 20% over the last 10 years. Much of the rise in food prices will result from global warming: less farm land, more frequent storms that destroy farmland, greater heat, etc. Of course, the people most affected by this will be the poor who already suffer greatly.
While I often promoted local communities and small farms on this blog as a means to greater freedom and agency, the response to global warming must extend out beyond the local communities: the global community must come together to frame policy that can mitigate the effects of global warming and especially limit the cost to the poor. On this point, I would side with Benedict XVI's call in Caritas in Veritate over Alasdair MacIntyre's trumpeting of the local community.
However, whatever set of policies the global community decides upon, those policies must be ones that support strong local communities, local markets, and local jobs. This is not an either or situation. We must have strong planning at the global stage that supports local communities.
The world has been talking about global warming for decades now. It is time to do something, and each of us have one primary responsibility: to stop supporting legislators who either do not believe in global warming or who work against legislation to combat global warming.
The clock is ticking!
While I often promoted local communities and small farms on this blog as a means to greater freedom and agency, the response to global warming must extend out beyond the local communities: the global community must come together to frame policy that can mitigate the effects of global warming and especially limit the cost to the poor. On this point, I would side with Benedict XVI's call in Caritas in Veritate over Alasdair MacIntyre's trumpeting of the local community.
However, whatever set of policies the global community decides upon, those policies must be ones that support strong local communities, local markets, and local jobs. This is not an either or situation. We must have strong planning at the global stage that supports local communities.
The world has been talking about global warming for decades now. It is time to do something, and each of us have one primary responsibility: to stop supporting legislators who either do not believe in global warming or who work against legislation to combat global warming.
The clock is ticking!
Comments
Two = 1
26/05/11 12:53 Filed in: social justice
Two news items today should open our eyes to the fact that the so-called two-party system in the United States is really one-party: the party of corporate capitalism. Consider that the House passed a budget of almost $700 billion for the defense budget as reported on NPR. A different article on Wired explains why Senator Wyden (D- Oregon) wants to re-examine the Patriot Act. Turns out this hastily put together bill has language that allows the government a wide-range of privacy-invasive actions that have nothing to do with terrorism, like gathering data on a number of citizens from their phone records or internet usage. Both parties voted for both of these bills!
A "national" government is not really the best for true democracy, for the fulfillment of human beings. A "national" government bought and paid for by corporate interests has no interest in changing to benefit you and me. And the two-party system that continues to fight in the press really is playing a holding motion to keep us distracted while they pass whatever legislation they want to pass that has little to nothing to do with our safety or our well-being and which may, in fact, prove detrimental to our well-being.
While I have promoted local communities and local governments over and over on this blog, I also want to point out that, while our options at the national level are limited, we do have some. The first and primary option is to elect people from outside the two-party system of corporate democrats and corporate republicans.
A "national" government is not really the best for true democracy, for the fulfillment of human beings. A "national" government bought and paid for by corporate interests has no interest in changing to benefit you and me. And the two-party system that continues to fight in the press really is playing a holding motion to keep us distracted while they pass whatever legislation they want to pass that has little to nothing to do with our safety or our well-being and which may, in fact, prove detrimental to our well-being.
While I have promoted local communities and local governments over and over on this blog, I also want to point out that, while our options at the national level are limited, we do have some. The first and primary option is to elect people from outside the two-party system of corporate democrats and corporate republicans.
Obama's Address to Birtish Parliament
25/05/11 11:07 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
In his speech before the British Parliament, President Obama said that the time for America and Britain to be leaders of the world is now, and that the leadership begins with economic leadership.
"Adam Smith's central insight remains true today: there is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women. That is what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester."
This remark mirrors the one he made in his state of the nation speech after being trammeled in the mid-term elections by Republicans. It signifies a move to the center, or supposed center.
Yet, as I wrote then, this really misunderstands what is required for prosperity at this point. What is a free enterprise? Is it laissez-faire capitalism, which is what libertarians and so-called republicans want? If so, then free enterprise is not very center. And is it true that free enterprise "unleashes the full potential of individual men and women"? Clearly not, if what we mean is laissez-faire capitalism. Rather, a free market at the local level of community provides the best means for unleashing the full potential of men and women. It also constitutes the best means for building communities which prove necessary for the development of individual men and women.
Notice, that later in the speech, President Obama states
"And so part of our common tradition has expressed itself in a conviction that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security - health-care if you get sick; unemployment insurance if you lose your job; a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work."
This tradition of providing for the basic needs of a citizen represents a true move toward recognizing the dignity of each and every human individual by providing a network of security for their individual pursuit of the good. What defines someone as center or left is the level and extent of those security measures. What must be of central importance, however, is the good of the individual's flourishing, which can only happen within a supportive community. That fact means, that human flourishing requires local communities centered on participatory democratic discussion of the common good, free markets, strong schools, and interactions between churches, clubs, and local government.
Obama is right to claim that
"the successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies - that it's possible to grow without polluting; that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces, and from the investments it makes in its people and infrastructure."
These goals are worthy goals and ones which require national and international governance and treaties. The local community must be autonomous and free from market coercions that send jobs out of the community, but they must also be held to standards that protect the global environment and maintains infrastructure for trans-communal communication.
Obama is right in many of his ideas, but I caution once more against his too easy embrace of libertarian language and his seemingly lack of distinction between the goals he espouses and the methods to attain them.
"Adam Smith's central insight remains true today: there is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women. That is what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester."
This remark mirrors the one he made in his state of the nation speech after being trammeled in the mid-term elections by Republicans. It signifies a move to the center, or supposed center.
Yet, as I wrote then, this really misunderstands what is required for prosperity at this point. What is a free enterprise? Is it laissez-faire capitalism, which is what libertarians and so-called republicans want? If so, then free enterprise is not very center. And is it true that free enterprise "unleashes the full potential of individual men and women"? Clearly not, if what we mean is laissez-faire capitalism. Rather, a free market at the local level of community provides the best means for unleashing the full potential of men and women. It also constitutes the best means for building communities which prove necessary for the development of individual men and women.
Notice, that later in the speech, President Obama states
"And so part of our common tradition has expressed itself in a conviction that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security - health-care if you get sick; unemployment insurance if you lose your job; a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work."
This tradition of providing for the basic needs of a citizen represents a true move toward recognizing the dignity of each and every human individual by providing a network of security for their individual pursuit of the good. What defines someone as center or left is the level and extent of those security measures. What must be of central importance, however, is the good of the individual's flourishing, which can only happen within a supportive community. That fact means, that human flourishing requires local communities centered on participatory democratic discussion of the common good, free markets, strong schools, and interactions between churches, clubs, and local government.
Obama is right to claim that
"the successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies - that it's possible to grow without polluting; that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces, and from the investments it makes in its people and infrastructure."
These goals are worthy goals and ones which require national and international governance and treaties. The local community must be autonomous and free from market coercions that send jobs out of the community, but they must also be held to standards that protect the global environment and maintains infrastructure for trans-communal communication.
Obama is right in many of his ideas, but I caution once more against his too easy embrace of libertarian language and his seemingly lack of distinction between the goals he espouses and the methods to attain them.
Questioning Our Computer Competence
24/05/11 15:03 Filed in: Human Nature | social justice
Douglas Rushkoff, on Think out Loud today, defended his view that we need to program or be programmed when it comes to computer technology. He had lots of interesting things to say about agency. In particular, he wanted to point out that, the less we know about the technology we use, the more likely we are to be programmed by it -- that is, that it will shape the way we make decisions or even think about what kind of decisions we can make without our knowing.
Rushkoff is not defending some luddite thesis here. He's making a clear point that we should carefully consider. He gave the example of a person using facebook. The person thinks that she is a customer of facebook, and the facebook is there to serve her interests. In fact, however, the person does not pay facebook. Advertisers and companies pay facebook so that they can market to the person using facebook. Thus, if we don't really understand what facebook is -- a means for marketers to reach potential consumers -- then we will more easily be tricked into making decisions we might have more control over under false pretenses.
We should not, also, dismiss this too easily as a case of false consciousness. We can have false beliefs about different things we use. Often, marketers work by causing us to believe false things about the products they market. We may even see through the marketing ploy -- do we really believe that drinking a certain beer will make us favorable to the hot members of the sex to which we are attracted? Yet, marketing and advertising work, and it often works because we are not careful about what we understand about the product.
Rushkoff is extending this idea to computers, computer technology, and new media. I think rightly so. Our lives are often constrained in ways we don't even bother to recogize. Take, for instance, the now famous debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Because of the way that Kennedy knew how to use the media for presentation, he easily was seen to have won the debate. The more the technology changes so fast that we cannot keep up with it, the more likely we are to fall to the influence of those who know how to use it. Another more practical example is birth: how does living in a technological society make us think about pregnant bodies? About birth?
So, the warning is simple: beware how you use technology? Ask questions to open up moments of agency? Here, we are our best defenders: asking questions and teaching our children to ask questions. Without questions, we might as well live in a brave new world.
Rushkoff is not defending some luddite thesis here. He's making a clear point that we should carefully consider. He gave the example of a person using facebook. The person thinks that she is a customer of facebook, and the facebook is there to serve her interests. In fact, however, the person does not pay facebook. Advertisers and companies pay facebook so that they can market to the person using facebook. Thus, if we don't really understand what facebook is -- a means for marketers to reach potential consumers -- then we will more easily be tricked into making decisions we might have more control over under false pretenses.
We should not, also, dismiss this too easily as a case of false consciousness. We can have false beliefs about different things we use. Often, marketers work by causing us to believe false things about the products they market. We may even see through the marketing ploy -- do we really believe that drinking a certain beer will make us favorable to the hot members of the sex to which we are attracted? Yet, marketing and advertising work, and it often works because we are not careful about what we understand about the product.
Rushkoff is extending this idea to computers, computer technology, and new media. I think rightly so. Our lives are often constrained in ways we don't even bother to recogize. Take, for instance, the now famous debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Because of the way that Kennedy knew how to use the media for presentation, he easily was seen to have won the debate. The more the technology changes so fast that we cannot keep up with it, the more likely we are to fall to the influence of those who know how to use it. Another more practical example is birth: how does living in a technological society make us think about pregnant bodies? About birth?
So, the warning is simple: beware how you use technology? Ask questions to open up moments of agency? Here, we are our best defenders: asking questions and teaching our children to ask questions. Without questions, we might as well live in a brave new world.
Philosophy is Dead, Long Live Philosophy
23/05/11 11:03 Filed in: Human Nature
The Telegraph reported that Stephen Hawking, the author of a Brief History of Time, told an audience that philosophy is dead. Hawking is quoted as saying
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead."
Why does Hawking make this claim? Because philosophers have not kept up with the findings of science, particularly of physics.
If we parse his comments, he seems to be confusing a few questions. He is confusing answers to "why are we here?" and "where do we come from?" with questions about "how are we here?" and "how did we come to here?" As Mary Midgley has said, most recently in The Solitary Self, he is confusing knowledge with wisdom and wonder.
Of course, Hawking's comments have stirred the bee's nest of philosophers. Most notably, Christopher Norris addresses Hawkings's views on the Philosophy Now website. Norris argues that scientists still need philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, because they provide clarity on terms like falsifiability and truth, and philosophers of science have rejected the Quinean-type relativism that marred 20th century philosophy of science.
Insofar as it goes, Norris' argument is fine. But notice that, despite warning against those philosophers who have given away too much by agreeing with some of Quine's theses, Norris also gives away too much. Where Hawking says that philosophy is dead, Norris focuses only on the philosophy of science and logic. Unfortunately, philosophers of the 20th century in the Anglo-speaking world have tended to focus on questions in epistemology and philosophy of science, thereby killing off almost any relevance philosophy as a whole has for the everyday person. But focusing on technical terminology and questions that pertain only to those doing science, philosophers have abandoned the root of the philosophical enterprise in the Ancient Greeks: trying to understand ourselves and learning how to live a good life.
If we take this broader picture of philosophy, then neither Hawking's comments nor Norris' rebuttal to Hawking have anything to say about philosophy. Or, insofar as they say anything about philosophy, they give a firm warning to those of us in the field to stop being so narrow in our discussions and to make philosophy more relevant. The more that people see philosophy as meaningless in their lives, the easier it will be for administrators to gut philosophy programs, as they have already done at London Metropolitan University.
Or perhaps I should say, if philosophy is dead, it's because philosophers have killed it themselves. It is up to us to resurrect it by giving it a much more meaningful role in human life. Hopefully this blog does that just a little.
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead."
Why does Hawking make this claim? Because philosophers have not kept up with the findings of science, particularly of physics.
If we parse his comments, he seems to be confusing a few questions. He is confusing answers to "why are we here?" and "where do we come from?" with questions about "how are we here?" and "how did we come to here?" As Mary Midgley has said, most recently in The Solitary Self, he is confusing knowledge with wisdom and wonder.
Of course, Hawking's comments have stirred the bee's nest of philosophers. Most notably, Christopher Norris addresses Hawkings's views on the Philosophy Now website. Norris argues that scientists still need philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, because they provide clarity on terms like falsifiability and truth, and philosophers of science have rejected the Quinean-type relativism that marred 20th century philosophy of science.
Insofar as it goes, Norris' argument is fine. But notice that, despite warning against those philosophers who have given away too much by agreeing with some of Quine's theses, Norris also gives away too much. Where Hawking says that philosophy is dead, Norris focuses only on the philosophy of science and logic. Unfortunately, philosophers of the 20th century in the Anglo-speaking world have tended to focus on questions in epistemology and philosophy of science, thereby killing off almost any relevance philosophy as a whole has for the everyday person. But focusing on technical terminology and questions that pertain only to those doing science, philosophers have abandoned the root of the philosophical enterprise in the Ancient Greeks: trying to understand ourselves and learning how to live a good life.
If we take this broader picture of philosophy, then neither Hawking's comments nor Norris' rebuttal to Hawking have anything to say about philosophy. Or, insofar as they say anything about philosophy, they give a firm warning to those of us in the field to stop being so narrow in our discussions and to make philosophy more relevant. The more that people see philosophy as meaningless in their lives, the easier it will be for administrators to gut philosophy programs, as they have already done at London Metropolitan University.
Or perhaps I should say, if philosophy is dead, it's because philosophers have killed it themselves. It is up to us to resurrect it by giving it a much more meaningful role in human life. Hopefully this blog does that just a little.
Faith and Darwin
18/05/11 12:23 Filed in: Human Nature
Many people, especially of the religious persuasion, believe Darwin was an atheist. In fact, Darwin denied this. He wrote in a letter
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.
In fact, Darwin gave some credence to the design argument for God's existence:
Another source of conviction in the existence of Do ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe ... as the result of blind chance.
We should be more careful, then, in what we attribute to Darwin as a belief. While he was not an atheist, Darwin was not a believer either. He called himself an agnostic, which, according to Thomas Huxley who coined the term, means that one asserts the "human inability to solve, by strictly rational argumentation, theistic or theological matters."
Of course, people of faith will say that faith begins just where rational argumentation ends. That is, the whole point of having faith is to believe in something we cannot determine by a rational means.
This attitude diverges from that of St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. For Thomas, we have inductive proof of God's existence through several means, one of which is Darwin's design argument. For Thomas, however, these arguments can only tell us that God exists; they cannot tell us who God is -- we need faith and revelation to do that. Moreover, because the arguments for God's existence are inductive, they do not lead to absolute certainty. There is, then, room for agnosticism within the Thomistic framework. Of course, Thomas would look at this askance and would go on to say that, even without reason, one should believe in God through faith.
Darwin was unwilling to make that leap. Yet, his unwillingness was not anti-religious or fanatical the way that many think. Indeed, his study of evolution opens up new possibilities of faith as well as new ways of understanding God's creativity.
It is faith and reason which helps us to understand how we fit into that evolved world as evolved creatures subject to God's design and grace.
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God.
In fact, Darwin gave some credence to the design argument for God's existence:
Another source of conviction in the existence of Do ... follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe ... as the result of blind chance.
We should be more careful, then, in what we attribute to Darwin as a belief. While he was not an atheist, Darwin was not a believer either. He called himself an agnostic, which, according to Thomas Huxley who coined the term, means that one asserts the "human inability to solve, by strictly rational argumentation, theistic or theological matters."
Of course, people of faith will say that faith begins just where rational argumentation ends. That is, the whole point of having faith is to believe in something we cannot determine by a rational means.
This attitude diverges from that of St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. For Thomas, we have inductive proof of God's existence through several means, one of which is Darwin's design argument. For Thomas, however, these arguments can only tell us that God exists; they cannot tell us who God is -- we need faith and revelation to do that. Moreover, because the arguments for God's existence are inductive, they do not lead to absolute certainty. There is, then, room for agnosticism within the Thomistic framework. Of course, Thomas would look at this askance and would go on to say that, even without reason, one should believe in God through faith.
Darwin was unwilling to make that leap. Yet, his unwillingness was not anti-religious or fanatical the way that many think. Indeed, his study of evolution opens up new possibilities of faith as well as new ways of understanding God's creativity.
It is faith and reason which helps us to understand how we fit into that evolved world as evolved creatures subject to God's design and grace.
Priest Movie Review Part 2
17/05/11 12:31 Filed in: Popular Culture
This is the second movie review of the movie Priest directed by Scott Charles Stewart is based on the graphic novel written by Hyung Min-woo. I posted the first one on Monday 16 May 2011. In the first review, I discussed Priest as a critique of the Catholic Church hierarchy over the sex abuse scandal. In this critique, I want to focus on the movie as a dystopia.
A dystopia is the reverse of a utopia: where a utopia is a paradise, a dystopia is hell. Generally speaking, a piece of dystopian literature takes one or two facets of human life and magnifies it to highlight the way it disrupts and destroys human life. (Noticeably: someone's dystopia can often be another's utopia: consider Plato's republic.)
If we view Priest as a dystopian movie, not just for the Catholic Church, but for the wider society, what do we see?
Immediately we recognize a particular view of the role of religion in politics. During the vampire wars, the Church in the movie defended the people, particularly by training priests and sending them out to destroy those who would destroy human life. At the time of the movie, though, religion has become a tool of control: to defy the church is to defy God.
Thus, Priest is a critique of the power of religion as a means of control in life, and, in this case, I imagine of the Christian right and other forms of fundamentalism. This topic is a familiar one with dystopian literature (for instance, V for Vendetta).
Seen through this lens, then, Priest shows us what can happen if we rely to heavily on fundamentalist religion to protect us from terrorists. The vampires would be terrorists and the church an example of some fundamental group. If we cede too much control to the fundamentalist group, not only will we lose any freedom, but we will also be unprotected from those terrorists.
Interestingly enough, the movie never explains why the church decided to put the remaining vampires on reservations rather than eradicating them altogether. Of course, the point might be so that there is always the threat of vampires that can be used to keep the populace in line. This too is a common theme among dystopian literature: one way to ensure control of a populace is to give them a common enemy outside the state to fear: Brave New World. 1984, Brazil, and many other pieces of dystopian literature and movies share this theme. And it is one we should be constantly vigilant for. We've seen repeatedly the attempt to remove freedoms in the name of security.
Seen through this lens, then, it's unclear that Priest adds anything to the dystopian genre. We know about the power of fundamentalism and about the hidden enemy. But, the threat is real enough that, as a reminder of the possibility of this dystopia, the movie serves a useful purpose. While the movie is violent, the gore remains minimal particularly by today's cinema standards. The acting is so-so, except for Karl Urban (Star Trek) who plays a wonderful Black Hat. The movie is filmed well. I saw it in 3-D. Though not as spectacular as Avatar, the cinematography proved rewarding.
Would I recommend that everyone rush out to see the movie? No. I'd recommend checking out the graphic novel first, or reading some other piece of dystopian literature or watching a different dystopian film (Avatar, Bladerunner, Children of Men) first. But for an afternoon or evening's entertainment, the film is worth seeing and enjoyable.
A dystopia is the reverse of a utopia: where a utopia is a paradise, a dystopia is hell. Generally speaking, a piece of dystopian literature takes one or two facets of human life and magnifies it to highlight the way it disrupts and destroys human life. (Noticeably: someone's dystopia can often be another's utopia: consider Plato's republic.)
If we view Priest as a dystopian movie, not just for the Catholic Church, but for the wider society, what do we see?
Immediately we recognize a particular view of the role of religion in politics. During the vampire wars, the Church in the movie defended the people, particularly by training priests and sending them out to destroy those who would destroy human life. At the time of the movie, though, religion has become a tool of control: to defy the church is to defy God.
Thus, Priest is a critique of the power of religion as a means of control in life, and, in this case, I imagine of the Christian right and other forms of fundamentalism. This topic is a familiar one with dystopian literature (for instance, V for Vendetta).
Seen through this lens, then, Priest shows us what can happen if we rely to heavily on fundamentalist religion to protect us from terrorists. The vampires would be terrorists and the church an example of some fundamental group. If we cede too much control to the fundamentalist group, not only will we lose any freedom, but we will also be unprotected from those terrorists.
Interestingly enough, the movie never explains why the church decided to put the remaining vampires on reservations rather than eradicating them altogether. Of course, the point might be so that there is always the threat of vampires that can be used to keep the populace in line. This too is a common theme among dystopian literature: one way to ensure control of a populace is to give them a common enemy outside the state to fear: Brave New World. 1984, Brazil, and many other pieces of dystopian literature and movies share this theme. And it is one we should be constantly vigilant for. We've seen repeatedly the attempt to remove freedoms in the name of security.
Seen through this lens, then, it's unclear that Priest adds anything to the dystopian genre. We know about the power of fundamentalism and about the hidden enemy. But, the threat is real enough that, as a reminder of the possibility of this dystopia, the movie serves a useful purpose. While the movie is violent, the gore remains minimal particularly by today's cinema standards. The acting is so-so, except for Karl Urban (Star Trek) who plays a wonderful Black Hat. The movie is filmed well. I saw it in 3-D. Though not as spectacular as Avatar, the cinematography proved rewarding.
Would I recommend that everyone rush out to see the movie? No. I'd recommend checking out the graphic novel first, or reading some other piece of dystopian literature or watching a different dystopian film (Avatar, Bladerunner, Children of Men) first. But for an afternoon or evening's entertainment, the film is worth seeing and enjoyable.
Priest -- Movie Review Part 1
16/05/11 10:33 Filed in: Popular Culture | Catholic Church
The movie Priest directed by Scott Charles Stewart is based on the graphic novel written by Hyung Min-woo. I have not read the graphic novel, so my comments here are based strictly on the movie. (I do want to read the graphic novel now that I've seen the movie.)
The basic plotline is this: the world is divided between vampires and human beings. The war was going poorly for the human beings, until a group of human individuals with superior strength and speed arrived on the scene. They were organized by the church as priests and fought back against the vampire menace. After the war, vampires were relegated to reservations and priests were disbanded and lived meager lives in a society unwilling to accept them. Until, the (illicit) daughter of one priest is kidnapped by vampires and he sets out on a rogue mission to gain her back. The church hierarchy opposes his mission and sends others after him. What you have here is an action movie with two power groups in a dystopian world in which human beings are secluded in dark cities controlled by the church.
It doesn't take much to see that the church in the movie represents any general church but specifically the Catholic church. Further, the monsignors, who control the city and the priests, represent the hierarchy of the Catholic church -- bishops, cardinals, and pop. One central conflict of the story, then, is that between the everyday priest who fights for the people and the hierarchy.
If one sees that basic conflict, it isn't a leap, I think, to see that one issue the movie plays with is that of a hierarchy that tries to hide a secret -- that vampires are still out there ready to destroy us. The fact that the vampires kidnap a young girl calls to mind the Church abuse scandals -- even though it is a girl that is kidnapped. The fact that the rogue priest is her father should call to mind that priests are often seen as the father of the members of their flock. So, we can see a blatant criticism of the Catholic church hiding the bad guys -- those who abuse children -- from the rest of the world and willing to condemn any priest who exposes them.
Except two problems emerge here: first, it's not clear that there's any evidence that the Catholic church actually threatened sanctions against a priest willing to expose the dark secret of sexual abuse. Certainly, the hierarchy did not pursue and condemn the abusive ministers enough and they switched them from one parish to another -- here we see the reservation of the vampires in the film -- but I'm not aware of any priests that were threatened for revealing the scandal.
The second problem is with the movie itself: it's unclear to what extent the monsignors in the movie are aware of the vampires and to what extent they sanction vampire activity outside of the cities. Does the monsignor really believe there is no vampire threat or is he just trying to keep people from anarchy by hiding the threat? The reason this proves relevant is that the monsignor would have to actively be hiding something he knew existed in order for it to mirror what happened in the Catholic Church abuse scandal. Perhaps the graphic novel makes this clearer, but the movie does not.
Which brings me to a criticism of the movie: the movie seems torn between being an action movie with little concern for plot thread or motive and being a thinking person's movie that looks at motives and power struggles. While the movie hints at certain things concerning motives for the monsignor, it does not make clear what the monsignors believe or know and what their motivations are in denying the vampire threat which has clearly surfaced. So it is hard to assess the value of the movie as a dystopian piece focused on the real world.
I will have more to say about this in part 2 of the review tomorrow. In that, I will examine the movie, not from the lens of the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandal, but from the lens of the wider society.
The basic plotline is this: the world is divided between vampires and human beings. The war was going poorly for the human beings, until a group of human individuals with superior strength and speed arrived on the scene. They were organized by the church as priests and fought back against the vampire menace. After the war, vampires were relegated to reservations and priests were disbanded and lived meager lives in a society unwilling to accept them. Until, the (illicit) daughter of one priest is kidnapped by vampires and he sets out on a rogue mission to gain her back. The church hierarchy opposes his mission and sends others after him. What you have here is an action movie with two power groups in a dystopian world in which human beings are secluded in dark cities controlled by the church.
It doesn't take much to see that the church in the movie represents any general church but specifically the Catholic church. Further, the monsignors, who control the city and the priests, represent the hierarchy of the Catholic church -- bishops, cardinals, and pop. One central conflict of the story, then, is that between the everyday priest who fights for the people and the hierarchy.
If one sees that basic conflict, it isn't a leap, I think, to see that one issue the movie plays with is that of a hierarchy that tries to hide a secret -- that vampires are still out there ready to destroy us. The fact that the vampires kidnap a young girl calls to mind the Church abuse scandals -- even though it is a girl that is kidnapped. The fact that the rogue priest is her father should call to mind that priests are often seen as the father of the members of their flock. So, we can see a blatant criticism of the Catholic church hiding the bad guys -- those who abuse children -- from the rest of the world and willing to condemn any priest who exposes them.
Except two problems emerge here: first, it's not clear that there's any evidence that the Catholic church actually threatened sanctions against a priest willing to expose the dark secret of sexual abuse. Certainly, the hierarchy did not pursue and condemn the abusive ministers enough and they switched them from one parish to another -- here we see the reservation of the vampires in the film -- but I'm not aware of any priests that were threatened for revealing the scandal.
The second problem is with the movie itself: it's unclear to what extent the monsignors in the movie are aware of the vampires and to what extent they sanction vampire activity outside of the cities. Does the monsignor really believe there is no vampire threat or is he just trying to keep people from anarchy by hiding the threat? The reason this proves relevant is that the monsignor would have to actively be hiding something he knew existed in order for it to mirror what happened in the Catholic Church abuse scandal. Perhaps the graphic novel makes this clearer, but the movie does not.
Which brings me to a criticism of the movie: the movie seems torn between being an action movie with little concern for plot thread or motive and being a thinking person's movie that looks at motives and power struggles. While the movie hints at certain things concerning motives for the monsignor, it does not make clear what the monsignors believe or know and what their motivations are in denying the vampire threat which has clearly surfaced. So it is hard to assess the value of the movie as a dystopian piece focused on the real world.
I will have more to say about this in part 2 of the review tomorrow. In that, I will examine the movie, not from the lens of the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandal, but from the lens of the wider society.
Rurum Novarum 120
14/05/11 20:16 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | Catholic Church | sunday reflections | social justice
On 15 May 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued Rerum Novarum, On New Things, or, sometimes translated, On the Condition of Labor. It's the 120th anniversary of that letter. The letter marked the new era of Catholic Social Teaching, and led to such encyclicals as Hope and Joy, On Human Work, and Love in Truth. Rerum Novarum laid out the key themes of Catholic Social Teaching in the contemporary period: a concern for the poor in a world divided between free-market capitalism and state capitalism, a recognition of the right to work, health care, and education, the need for labor unions, and the need to embrace peace with justice.
We should keep these ideas in mind, for the problems of Leo XIII saw have not disappeared. In our current recessionary economy, we see attacks on labor, on unions, on health care, and on the right to work. We see rhetoric that says that those who are unemployed are lazy and need to take responsibility for themselves. And we see continual attacks on social programs that provide not even the bare minimum standard of living.
What Rerum Novarum calls us to remember is that Jesus Christ came to minister to the poor and that we all have a responsibility to care for the least of those among us. This means, first and foremost, recognizing that in the modern world, governments must step in to provide security for the least well off in society. This government must secure the social right to property while maintaining the ability of people to satisfy their needs and live a good life.
Let's take this opportunity to dedicate ourselves to that goal.
We should keep these ideas in mind, for the problems of Leo XIII saw have not disappeared. In our current recessionary economy, we see attacks on labor, on unions, on health care, and on the right to work. We see rhetoric that says that those who are unemployed are lazy and need to take responsibility for themselves. And we see continual attacks on social programs that provide not even the bare minimum standard of living.
What Rerum Novarum calls us to remember is that Jesus Christ came to minister to the poor and that we all have a responsibility to care for the least of those among us. This means, first and foremost, recognizing that in the modern world, governments must step in to provide security for the least well off in society. This government must secure the social right to property while maintaining the ability of people to satisfy their needs and live a good life.
Let's take this opportunity to dedicate ourselves to that goal.
Laziness
13/05/11 10:21 Filed in: Human Nature | social justice
Laziness is learned behavior.
The other day, I was at the coffee shop when a grandmother and her 7 year old granddaughter came in. The grandmother was meeting a friend. The granddaughter picked out a decent puzzle and started working it. I watched her for a little bit because she was so entranced by what she was doing. It brought to mind the old Zen idea of mindfulness: wash the dishes when you're washing the dishes. Or, work the puzzle when you are working the puzzle.
Have you ever watched young children play. They are completely invested in their play. They may be making something from their imagination that will never work and involves saran wrap and aluminum foil and cardboard. But they are completely immersed in their activity -- in their work.
So, you see, we are born workers -- co-creators with God in the words of John Paul II.
So whence laziness?
We learn it.
Laziness is an outgrowth of a natural need ... the need for rest. In our contemporary, fast-paced, gratification culture, rest can take many forms, from watching television to doing puzzles. Our play can take many forms as well, and we can get caught up in entertainment -- from playing baseball to playing on the Wii.
The problem can be two-fold, then.
Either we get so addicted to our rest that we forget to work again or we get so destroyed in our creative capacities that we have nothing to take us away from our rest and play. The first problem is one that has been with people since the beginnings of civilization. When human beings first developed the capacity to rest, there was always the possibility -- as there is with any human activity -- to take it too far. And some few people who could did. But, for the most part, human beings are naturally industrious. We see this in children.
The second problem is a symptom of our modern lives. Capitalism destroys human creativity by denying us those activities which most engage our human capacities. Making money, as Aristotle noted, is not a human activity. Being engaged in the common good, raising families, and otherwise being in a practice are human activities because they exercise our most fundamental human powers. Capitalism must destroy this drive, for, given the real choice between doing something that increases the person I am or sitting around playing Wii, most human beings would, unless trained otherwise, choose the former.
A society like that of WALL-E is constructed from our basest nature. And it is one that results from corporate, consumer capitalism.
If this is true, and every time I see a child play I know it is, then we have to think about laziness in a way differently than we have. Yes, no one has a right to be lazy, and I am not justifying laziness. What I am saying is, laziness is a symptom of the system we have created. If we really want justice in the world, then the best thing to do is destroy the current system for one more human.
The other day, I was at the coffee shop when a grandmother and her 7 year old granddaughter came in. The grandmother was meeting a friend. The granddaughter picked out a decent puzzle and started working it. I watched her for a little bit because she was so entranced by what she was doing. It brought to mind the old Zen idea of mindfulness: wash the dishes when you're washing the dishes. Or, work the puzzle when you are working the puzzle.
Have you ever watched young children play. They are completely invested in their play. They may be making something from their imagination that will never work and involves saran wrap and aluminum foil and cardboard. But they are completely immersed in their activity -- in their work.
So, you see, we are born workers -- co-creators with God in the words of John Paul II.
So whence laziness?
We learn it.
Laziness is an outgrowth of a natural need ... the need for rest. In our contemporary, fast-paced, gratification culture, rest can take many forms, from watching television to doing puzzles. Our play can take many forms as well, and we can get caught up in entertainment -- from playing baseball to playing on the Wii.
The problem can be two-fold, then.
Either we get so addicted to our rest that we forget to work again or we get so destroyed in our creative capacities that we have nothing to take us away from our rest and play. The first problem is one that has been with people since the beginnings of civilization. When human beings first developed the capacity to rest, there was always the possibility -- as there is with any human activity -- to take it too far. And some few people who could did. But, for the most part, human beings are naturally industrious. We see this in children.
The second problem is a symptom of our modern lives. Capitalism destroys human creativity by denying us those activities which most engage our human capacities. Making money, as Aristotle noted, is not a human activity. Being engaged in the common good, raising families, and otherwise being in a practice are human activities because they exercise our most fundamental human powers. Capitalism must destroy this drive, for, given the real choice between doing something that increases the person I am or sitting around playing Wii, most human beings would, unless trained otherwise, choose the former.
A society like that of WALL-E is constructed from our basest nature. And it is one that results from corporate, consumer capitalism.
If this is true, and every time I see a child play I know it is, then we have to think about laziness in a way differently than we have. Yes, no one has a right to be lazy, and I am not justifying laziness. What I am saying is, laziness is a symptom of the system we have created. If we really want justice in the world, then the best thing to do is destroy the current system for one more human.
Distribution of Wealth
12/05/11 10:38 Filed in: social justice
William Deresiewicz's article, which I commented on the other day, is filled with some interesting insights. Among these is the following:
As for shared governance, it is nothing other than one of the longest-standing goals of the left: employee control of the workplace. Yes, professors have it better than a lot of other workers, including a lot of others in the academy. But the answer, for the less advantaged, is to organize against the employers who’ve created the situation, not drag down the relatively privileged workers who aren’t yet suffering as badly: to level up, in other words, not down.
Today, it seems that people are attacking some people for having it good. For example, as I listened to a discussion about education yesterday on Think Out Loud, one speaker kept saying that teachers need to invest more in their retirement and health care costs. But the only justification for this claim is that the budget is tight and money has to come from somewhere. Why should it be from those who teach our children? We have to be able to answer that question before we can justify any such action.
The question we need to ask is, Why can't everyone have the same benefits that these teachers do? Why can't everyone have health care and retirement benefits?
Rather than attacking those who have just a little more than we do, we need to reconsider how we distribute wealth in society. The first step here is to actually recognize that we -- as a society -- distribute wealth. It is our laws and our systems which allow some people to get rich and others to be poor. We need to stop seeing these systems and laws as something outside of us and recognize that we have control over them and can design them to distribute wealth how we see as fair and just.
Which brings us to the second step: to recognize that wealth does not belong to one person as part of his or her person. This is a conceit that we've inherited from John Locke. We have a choice, though, between Locke's defense of private property and Thomas' defense of private property. For Locke, property is justified on two grounds: we have a property in our selves and the earth is unlimited in resources. The first ground is questionable, while the second we know to be completely false.
Thomas, on the other hand, says that property is justified only insofar as it benefits the common good.
So, once more, we recognize that discussion of the common good is necessary for a just society. But this is something I already said when I claimed that we have to be able to answer questions about the distribution of wealth in society.
As for shared governance, it is nothing other than one of the longest-standing goals of the left: employee control of the workplace. Yes, professors have it better than a lot of other workers, including a lot of others in the academy. But the answer, for the less advantaged, is to organize against the employers who’ve created the situation, not drag down the relatively privileged workers who aren’t yet suffering as badly: to level up, in other words, not down.
Today, it seems that people are attacking some people for having it good. For example, as I listened to a discussion about education yesterday on Think Out Loud, one speaker kept saying that teachers need to invest more in their retirement and health care costs. But the only justification for this claim is that the budget is tight and money has to come from somewhere. Why should it be from those who teach our children? We have to be able to answer that question before we can justify any such action.
The question we need to ask is, Why can't everyone have the same benefits that these teachers do? Why can't everyone have health care and retirement benefits?
Rather than attacking those who have just a little more than we do, we need to reconsider how we distribute wealth in society. The first step here is to actually recognize that we -- as a society -- distribute wealth. It is our laws and our systems which allow some people to get rich and others to be poor. We need to stop seeing these systems and laws as something outside of us and recognize that we have control over them and can design them to distribute wealth how we see as fair and just.
Which brings us to the second step: to recognize that wealth does not belong to one person as part of his or her person. This is a conceit that we've inherited from John Locke. We have a choice, though, between Locke's defense of private property and Thomas' defense of private property. For Locke, property is justified on two grounds: we have a property in our selves and the earth is unlimited in resources. The first ground is questionable, while the second we know to be completely false.
Thomas, on the other hand, says that property is justified only insofar as it benefits the common good.
So, once more, we recognize that discussion of the common good is necessary for a just society. But this is something I already said when I claimed that we have to be able to answer questions about the distribution of wealth in society.
Koch University
11/05/11 11:28 Filed in: social justice | Education
In a recent article, we discover how far universities are becoming corporations -- this time more blatantly. The Koch brothers have donated money to the economics department at Florida State University -- nothing unusual about that. What is unusual is that the donation comes with a rider: the Koch brothers formed the committee which chooses new hires and can veto any person proposed as a new hire. This rider violates centuries of tradition and academic freedom and further makes universities that much more indebted to corporations.
All of this moves, of course, result from the decreasing spending by the government on education at all levels. I wrote the other day about universities and institutions. An institution has the responsibility to gather external goods to support the practice, which includes finding a supply of money. As the federal government withdraws funds, the institutional aspect of higher education must replace that source of money. Now we see a direct selling of autonomy at the department level to a corporation intent on promoting its idea of government across the United States.
Faculty at the university must resist this move. Students must resist this move. People across the US must resist this move.
The more we sell-out on education, the more we sell the very possibility of democracy.
All of this moves, of course, result from the decreasing spending by the government on education at all levels. I wrote the other day about universities and institutions. An institution has the responsibility to gather external goods to support the practice, which includes finding a supply of money. As the federal government withdraws funds, the institutional aspect of higher education must replace that source of money. Now we see a direct selling of autonomy at the department level to a corporation intent on promoting its idea of government across the United States.
Faculty at the university must resist this move. Students must resist this move. People across the US must resist this move.
The more we sell-out on education, the more we sell the very possibility of democracy.
Universities as Institutions
10/05/11 11:41 Filed in: social justice
In a recent article in The Nation, William Deresiewicz wrote
What we have seen instead over the past forty years, in addition to the raising of a reserve army of contingent labor, is a kind of administrative elephantiasis, an explosion in the number of people working at colleges and universities who aren’t faculty, full-time or part-time, of any kind. From 1976 to 2001, the number of nonfaculty professionals ballooned nearly 240 percent, growing more than three times as fast as the faculty. Coaching staffs and salaries have grown without limit; athletic departments are virtually separate colleges within universities now, competing (successfully) with academics. The size of presidential salaries—more than $1 million in several dozen cases—has become notorious. Nor is it only the presidents; the next six most highly paid administrative officers at Yale averaged over $430,000 in 2007. As Gaye Tuchman explains in Wannabe U (2009), a case study in the sorrows of academic corporatization, deans, provosts and presidents are no longer professors who cycle through administrative duties and then return to teaching and research. Instead, they have become a separate stratum of managerial careerists, jumping from job to job and organization to organization like any other executive: isolated from the faculty and its values, loyal to an ethos of short-term expansion, and trading in the business blather of measurability, revenue streams, mission statements and the like. They do not have the long-term health of their institutions at heart. They want to pump up the stock price (i.e., U.S. News and World Report ranking) and move on to the next fat post.
What Deresiewicz points to here is the colonization of the practices of higher education by institutional bureaucracy. MacIntyre points to this problem in After Virtue when he discusses the nature of practices. Practices comprise activities with their own internal goods; institutions are structure by which external goods (like money and prestige) are gained to support the practice. What can happen, however, is that the institution’s pursuit of external goods can subvert the pursuit of the internal goods of the practice/s. Bureaucracy breads itself and can soon overwhelm a practice, as has happened in higher education as well as elementary and secondary education.
The primary task of educators and everyday citizens is to resist this bureaucratization: to stop the growth both of the number of administrators in schools and the salaries these administrators earn. This must be a concerted political effort by everyone.
And it's not just higher education that we must worry about. Bureaucracy dominates our lives at all levels now. It's a cancer that is destroying our very society and which prevents seeking the common good.
If we want to leave a better world for our children, we must turn our attention to this fight now.
What we have seen instead over the past forty years, in addition to the raising of a reserve army of contingent labor, is a kind of administrative elephantiasis, an explosion in the number of people working at colleges and universities who aren’t faculty, full-time or part-time, of any kind. From 1976 to 2001, the number of nonfaculty professionals ballooned nearly 240 percent, growing more than three times as fast as the faculty. Coaching staffs and salaries have grown without limit; athletic departments are virtually separate colleges within universities now, competing (successfully) with academics. The size of presidential salaries—more than $1 million in several dozen cases—has become notorious. Nor is it only the presidents; the next six most highly paid administrative officers at Yale averaged over $430,000 in 2007. As Gaye Tuchman explains in Wannabe U (2009), a case study in the sorrows of academic corporatization, deans, provosts and presidents are no longer professors who cycle through administrative duties and then return to teaching and research. Instead, they have become a separate stratum of managerial careerists, jumping from job to job and organization to organization like any other executive: isolated from the faculty and its values, loyal to an ethos of short-term expansion, and trading in the business blather of measurability, revenue streams, mission statements and the like. They do not have the long-term health of their institutions at heart. They want to pump up the stock price (i.e., U.S. News and World Report ranking) and move on to the next fat post.
What Deresiewicz points to here is the colonization of the practices of higher education by institutional bureaucracy. MacIntyre points to this problem in After Virtue when he discusses the nature of practices. Practices comprise activities with their own internal goods; institutions are structure by which external goods (like money and prestige) are gained to support the practice. What can happen, however, is that the institution’s pursuit of external goods can subvert the pursuit of the internal goods of the practice/s. Bureaucracy breads itself and can soon overwhelm a practice, as has happened in higher education as well as elementary and secondary education.
The primary task of educators and everyday citizens is to resist this bureaucratization: to stop the growth both of the number of administrators in schools and the salaries these administrators earn. This must be a concerted political effort by everyone.
And it's not just higher education that we must worry about. Bureaucracy dominates our lives at all levels now. It's a cancer that is destroying our very society and which prevents seeking the common good.
If we want to leave a better world for our children, we must turn our attention to this fight now.
Cut to Oregon Families
03/05/11 10:49 Filed in: social justice
As reported on Think out Loud today, Oregon is considering a cut to their assistance to low-income families with children. This assistance goes to those people with income less than 40% of the poverty level (about $600/month) who have children. It would mean that Oregon gave less money for less time than any other state.
Why?
To fill a budget deficit.
Let’s just be honest here: families are suffering. Now, more than any other time than during the great depression, more families are suffering more! Yet, Oregon wants to cut assistance to these low-income families.
What happens then?
Families become homeless.
Children are put into foster care (which, by the way, costs more than assisting families).
Lives are destroyed.
I know people on the right, people in the middle, and even some people on the left will say, Why don’t they get jobs? They’re lazy, and we can’t afford to take care of lazy people, now more than ever.
Laziness might be an issue for a small portion of people, but it is not an issue for children. And for the most part, people want to work.
We know, however, that jobs have disappeared. Instead of facing that issue -- that real world problem which government at the federal, state, and local level should address -- we blame the people who have lost jobs.
And who loses?
Children.
Which means we’ve failed one of our most important -- if not the most important -- duties of human beings -- of living creatures.
Why?
To fill a budget deficit.
Let’s just be honest here: families are suffering. Now, more than any other time than during the great depression, more families are suffering more! Yet, Oregon wants to cut assistance to these low-income families.
What happens then?
Families become homeless.
Children are put into foster care (which, by the way, costs more than assisting families).
Lives are destroyed.
I know people on the right, people in the middle, and even some people on the left will say, Why don’t they get jobs? They’re lazy, and we can’t afford to take care of lazy people, now more than ever.
Laziness might be an issue for a small portion of people, but it is not an issue for children. And for the most part, people want to work.
We know, however, that jobs have disappeared. Instead of facing that issue -- that real world problem which government at the federal, state, and local level should address -- we blame the people who have lost jobs.
And who loses?
Children.
Which means we’ve failed one of our most important -- if not the most important -- duties of human beings -- of living creatures.
Osama Bin Laden's Death
02/05/11 10:18 Filed in: social justice
We’ve all heard the news. I watched President Obama announce it on television on Sunday, May 1st. Osama bin Laden has been killed by US forces in a raid deep in Pakistani territory. People celebrated outside the White House last night as the President made his announcement. A facebook page had 100,000+ likes within an hour and continued to grow. Others “rejoiced” at bin Laden’s death.
Rejoiced?
What is there to rejoice? The end of life? The end of terror?
We do need to pause for a moment and thank God that someone who committed such atrocities can no longer commit those atrocities. We need to pray for bin Laden’s soul. We need to pray for those whom he harmed and their loved ones.
Yet, we should never celebrate death except as a gateway to new life.
And we do not see new life right now.
In his announcement, President Obama said we have not yet defeated terror, that we still had much work to do.
He is, unfortunately, right in many ways. Yet, what does his announcement mean: it means that we are still indebted to a military-industrial system which structures the way that we interact with others across the globe and within our own nation. It means that we cannot yet lay aside the sword. It means that we will not cut the expenditure to the military which alone takes one third of our national budget. One third we are unwilling to cut while we continue to cut the need for the poor, the homeless, the old, the unemployed, the needy.
Yes, it is a good thing that Osama bin Laden can harm us no more, though I suspect his memory will harm us. I hope that we do not rue the day when we made a martyr of one of the worst terrorists of all time.
But it is a sad day, when we cannot lay aside the sword.
Rejoiced?
What is there to rejoice? The end of life? The end of terror?
We do need to pause for a moment and thank God that someone who committed such atrocities can no longer commit those atrocities. We need to pray for bin Laden’s soul. We need to pray for those whom he harmed and their loved ones.
Yet, we should never celebrate death except as a gateway to new life.
And we do not see new life right now.
In his announcement, President Obama said we have not yet defeated terror, that we still had much work to do.
He is, unfortunately, right in many ways. Yet, what does his announcement mean: it means that we are still indebted to a military-industrial system which structures the way that we interact with others across the globe and within our own nation. It means that we cannot yet lay aside the sword. It means that we will not cut the expenditure to the military which alone takes one third of our national budget. One third we are unwilling to cut while we continue to cut the need for the poor, the homeless, the old, the unemployed, the needy.
Yes, it is a good thing that Osama bin Laden can harm us no more, though I suspect his memory will harm us. I hope that we do not rue the day when we made a martyr of one of the worst terrorists of all time.
But it is a sad day, when we cannot lay aside the sword.