Stuff I've Been Digging

1. U2's new record, No Line On The Horizon. Surprisingly, the most popular rock band in the world continues to make really good music. Longtime U2 producers Eno and Lanois share writing credits on the album, and their presence can certainly be felt over the whole thing, which overall feels much more cohesive than their last few efforts. Their signature heart-on-sleeve bombast survives, the band continuing to be self-aware enough to avoid pretension despite high ambition. One of my favorite things about U2 is the fact that they continually push themselves artistically, and this record has a great, adventurous feel to it. It's honest, intimate, and (best of all) fun to listen to.

2. Steven Hawking's A Brief History of Time. I found a used hardcover copy in excellent condition for a dollar at the library, and I couldn't refuse it. I'm in no position to comment on the science, but the entertainment value of the work is very high. Hawking's claim early in the book that it contains only one equation (E = MC^2) isn't exactly true--there are several equations which are merely expressed in english, rather than mathematical notation--but it's no matter, the book is great for a non-scientist such as I, and I think he makes the subject matter as easy to comprehend as any discussion of infinity can be. My only quam so far (I've not finished it yet) is that he insists on saying "million million" instead of "trillion." Was the word just less commonly used when the book was written? I don't know.

3. Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm kind of a closet Trekkie, which I guess means that I enjoy Star Trek in what I would define as some form of moderation. I certainly don't indulge in the excesses of Trek geekness, such as reading fan fiction, contributing to the expansive Star Trek wiki, or pretending that Star Trek IV was anything other than a festering turd of a film. In any case, I really liked this show growing up (it was one of the few TV shows my family watched). Recently, the wife (who is less ashamed of her affection for Star Trek than I am, claims to like Star Trek IV, and has even read some fan fiction) and I borrowed the first season of TNG from my parents, and have been enjoying it's hilarious late '80s campiness, generally with the exception of the much-hated Wesley Crusher. It's also surprising how little the production value of network television increased between the medium's inception and the advent of DVD. Particularly in the first season, TNG doesn't really look any better (for that matter, it isn't any better written) than its late '60s predecessor. My favorite running joke of the whole thing is that in the world of the show, human society has advanced beyond material want, and yet they haven't figured out that seat belts might be a really good idea.

That's all I've got for now. I would write about something more interesting, if only I could think of it. TTFN! Ta Ta For Now!

In Which We Provide A Brief Discussion of Book Titles

A friend and I have both decided (at his suggestion) to tackle and discuss E.F. Schumacher's Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Conveniently, I already had two copies on my shelf, gifts from two different family members, who apparently upon learning that I'd decided to study economics began to fear for the state of my soul. Both copies of the book have since then sat on my shelf these past few years, with nothing but their somewhat garish cover art with which to occupy themselves, and my occasional changes in domicile to alter their location. It isn't as though I never meant to read them, mind you (though I always thought I'd read just one of them; there's no sense in going overboard), but there has always been a seemingly endless supply of books that I would rather read first. Whenever it caught my eye (as two identical books next to each other on a shelf can do) I would always say to myself, as my Grandmother is fond of saying, I wish I wanted to do that. I should mention that I don't really know what the book is about, and that I generally like reading about economics (after all, I have a degree in it). I'm not even remotely familiar with its author. No, the book's only sin, aside from the aforementioned artwork on its jacket, for which it had been relegated to its current perdition, was its title. It's subtitle, to be exact (that's the part the comes after the colon).

You see, from where I sit, economics is about people. It's a social science, after all: a study of people. The book doesn't do itself any favors in my estimation by starting with what appears to be a false premise, namely that people don't matter to economics in general. You may as well put a book on my shelf entitled If Only All Irish-Americans Weren't Sociopaths. Sure, it has a certain ring to it, but it doesn't pose itself to be taken seriously, at least as a work of nonfiction.

In any case, after a week of prodding from my friend, I've decided to read it. It's only about three hundred pages; it shouldn't take all that long, anyways. It may end up being good, I don't know. They say that you can't judge a book by it's cover, but I generally think that to be false. In a given lifetime, you just haven't got time to read everything. I read pretty slowly, so for me this is even more true than for many people. Assuming that you value reading at all (not everyone does), you have to choose what to read somehow, and a cover (ideally, at least) tells you something about the book. In this case, if Small Is Beautiful ends up being good, then its cover is guilty of spreading misinformation about it.

By the way, the friend I mentioned is John, the author of Basebology, and one of this blog's only regular commentors. For all I know, he's the only person who'll ever read this post, for that matter. When we've finished the book (assuming that the world doesn't end first, of course), I may try to get a few money quotes from him to put up on this space, which will probably be easier than formulating my own thoughts about it. Who knows? He may even be able to relate the book's contents to our national pastime.

Ah, The Proverbial Low-Hanging Fruit!

For some reason, I can't let this one go. David Zax has a little column out there on the inter-nets which asks:

"What if [the Kevin Costner movie Waterworld] were an eco-parable whose message was ahead of its time?"

With all due respect to Mr. Zax and his correct use of the subjunctive, that's a pretty big "what if." He goes on:

[H]as Waterworld's moment finally arrived? The movie opens with an image of the globe as we know it slowly being swallowed by blue while a narrator explains that in the future, "the polar ice caps have melted, covering the world with water." Something similar, if less dramatic, is happening right now on Earth. Global warming is causing seas to rise (though the polar ice caps have little to do with it). In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected a sea-level rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100. While that might not seem like much, it could be enough to make a low-lying island untenable: Recently, the Maldives' new president announced his intention to buy land to relocate his entire nation if necessary.

Ok, for starters: the president of the Maldives can rest easy; Sting took care of that one. If you'd like to send him a "thank you" card, he can be reached at the following address:

Sting
England (probably)
Earth, Solar System (again, probably)

I'm pretty sure that will reach him. Now, where was I? Oh, right. Zax. Waterworld. Those of you who have been fortunate enough never to have seen this film only need to know that it's set in a future in which the earth (yes, our earth) has been covered by several thousand feet of water, presumably due to Global Warming. It's really unclear where Global Warming came up with all the water necessary to do this, but it's a wily foe. The film stars Kevin Costner, who in the film has evolved gills and (more remarkably) the ability to keep a straight face while portraying a man who has evolved gills. What have you got to say about it, Zax?

The first thing we see our hero do in the film is recycle: The Mariner (as Costner's character is known) has a device that transforms his urine into potable water, which he shares with a small potted lime tree. Even when in a bind, the Mariner insists on piloting his three-hulled catamaran solely with a renewable resource, wind.

The Mariner's enemies are the aptly named Smokers, pirates who chain-smoke ancient cigarettes and favor gas-guzzling biplanes and jet skis. Their leader, the militaristic Deacon (a manic Dennis Hopper), is staunchly anti-science, declaring that God made "both man and fish, and no combination thereof. He does not abide the notion of evolution!" The car that he wheels around his supertanker sports a "NUKE THE WHALES" bumper sticker, and he worships "Saint Joe" Hazelwood, pilot of the Exxon Valdez. An enemy of sustainable living—he heads something called the Church of Eternal Growth—he is obsessed with finding the mythical Dryland, which he plans to rape as soon as he gets his hands on it: "If there's a river we'll dam it, and if there's a tree we'll ram it," he sermonizes to his flock.

This is a pretty apt description of what's going on, so I have to conclude that Zax and I are talking about the same movie. The funny part is that he's using the above paragraph to make his case that it is a good movie, while I'm making the exact opposite contention. It's an awful movie. If you could go to prison for making a bad movie, Kostner never would have been free to make Swing Vote, unless it were filmed in the cell in which he'd be serving 136 consecutive life sentences, one for each minute of Waterworld. It is that bad.

Mr. Zax appears to be claiming that this is a good film because the above-described villains are a pretty clever characterization of Republicans. Don't you get it? They worship a dead guy, love chain-smoking, violence, and (most of all) pollution, and they don't believe in evolution! Ho ho ho! Zing. Nail, head, etc.

His central thesis here is that this was all somehow missed when the movie came out, since it was back in the hedonistic nineties, before everyone got hip to what was goin' down on Environment Street. I'm forced to conclude that David Zax is younger than I am.

You see, back in the 'nineties we had Republicans just like the ones we have today, and we also had environmentalists (though at the time all they would talk about was a supposed hole in the Ozone Layer), and we also had preachy science fiction films, most of which were better than Waterworld. The film wasn't ahead of its time, Dave. If anything, it missed the 'Mad Max' bus by a good decade.

Attempts have been made to give global warming a face—the polar bear, New Orleans—and eco-thrillers like The Day After Tomorrow have imagined what sudden climate change might look like. But the task of making people care about the future is tougher. And few things can make the future more vivid than a good science fiction movie. Is Waterworld such a film?

No. It is not.

[D]espite being a better movie than most people remember, Waterworld has its limitations as an eco-parable. It doesn't begin, as does The Day After Tomorrow, with a standoff between a climate scientist and a Cheney-esque symbol of corporate greed, nor does it issue an implicit ultimatum, as did last year's remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still (in which Keanu Reeves played an alien sent to Earth to assess whether humans could change their planet-abusing ways or whether they should simply be exterminated).

Wow. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Zax for doing his part to keep the "Dick Cheney as a buzzword for anything evil" meme going. Thanks, Zax. Thax. Also, is that really what the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still was about? Because in the original film, the aliens showed up to warn humans not to bring our waring ways into space with us, because if we did, we'd have this guy to contend with:
Yes, if you are wondering, it is an awesome film (by the way, I stole that picture from here). Like Waterworld, it was preachy science fiction, but it was anti-war, which is actually, like, a real problem, man.

In the end, what stymies the environmentalist who would tease a message out of Waterworld is this: It isn't grim enough. When the protagonists aren't in the middle of a swashbuckling set piece, they're patiently coping and demonstrating hope. "We'll just start over again," says that old inventor good-naturedly after his city is sacked. The film ends happily with the discovery of Dryland (Mount Everest, it turns out), an abundant paradise with cascading fresh water and galloping wild horses.

Dude, I'm trying to tell you: the message is there. On the surface. You don't have to tease the message out of the film, because anyone who is foolish enough to watch the movie will get it's corny message right in the first few corny seconds of the awful thing.

Sigh. Where am I going with this? I don't even know. If you've stuck with me through this whole thing, waiting for some kind of punchline, I haven't got one. Let me try to sum all this up, just to have it make some kind of sense:

-Don't watch Waterworld. No, not even ironically.
-Don't watch the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.
-Watch the original The Day The Earth Stood Still. It's awesome. Also, I'm pretty sure that Gort, the nine-foot, faceless robot could act the pants off of Keanu Reaves.
-On a related note, I would totally watch Bill & Gort's Excellent Adventure.
-David Zax has a funny last name, and I've been writing this whole time picturing someone who looks like this dude.

That is all. I'm sorry. I promise that my next post will be shorter.

It Seems That There Are Times When It Is Disadvantageous To Have The Name Of Your Airline Written On The Side Of Your Plane

Who knew?

I should mention that I did not take this picture, but that someone named Janis Krums did, and that I found it here. I will take it down as soon as Mr. Krums, or someone representing him, asks me to do so, at dcous at hotmail dot com.

It's A New Year, They Tell Me (I'll Believe It When I see It)

Christmas is over, at least to the extent that it ever is. I mean, it isn't as if God's about to un-send His Only Son into (out of?) the world. Still, the Christmas tree, the glow from which only a short while ago brought so much cheer is now clutter in the living room, soon to be clutter in the back of the closet. I suppose you're now back to whatever it was you were doing before, having returned any unwanted gifts for cold, hard store credit only. Sorry. It was a wonderful Yuletide for me, though perhaps the first one for me which I found genuinely exhausting. Oh well, worse fates could befall a man, to be sure. I suppose that since this is my first post of the year, I should tell you that I've resolved to improve myself and my behavior in some significant and tangible way, and I have, but if I were to tell you how it would be written on the inter-nets forever, and I'd never be able to get away with abandoning my resolve. Perhaps by not telling you now, I've already decided to abandon it at some point in the future, which is really the same as listening to the sound of your own footsteps instead of paying attention to where they're taking you, and perhaps it's to no such place as to which one should go, if you see my meaning. Perhaps I haven't got one. Bundle up out there, it's a cold one.

I Know, I Promised To Stop Writing About Jane Austen

However, this is just about the funniest thing I've read all year. This beats all film adaptations of the book by a long shot. It's the definitive version of Pride and Prejudice. I daresay it would be impossible to improve upon it.

Hat Tip: Marginal Revolution.

Christmas In America

I overheard this little cultural artifact in the grocery store's PA system over the weekend:

All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names
They wouldn't let poor Rudolph play in any reindeer games
'Till one foggy Christmas Eve, Santa came to say:

*crrt... SHAWNA, LINE TWO! SHAWNA, LINE TWO! ...crrt*

Then how the reindeer loved him as they shouted out with glee
'Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer, you'll go down in history!'

The timing was absolutely flawless.

Ok, So I Finished Reading Pride and Prejudice.

Happy December to all, and welcome to my second consecutive blog post about the magnum opus of all Chick Lit, Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. While the future is as unforeseen by me as by any other, I trust it shall also be the last. I got some insightful comments on my last post on the topic, and (intentionally, I might add) engaged multiple people in discussion about this book over the holiday weekend, and I shall attempt to bring all of the wisdom I've gleaned from such endeavors to bear in my final pronouncements on the novel, though I don't know why I should bother. As with most things I write, if you like you may happily discard my thoughts if they disagree with your own, secure in the knowledge that I am not as smart as you are. Now then, on with it!

My first conclusion upon the completion of the book, and I have yet to controvert it, was that it's not a very "serious" book, nor is it trying to be one. This counteracted, for the most part, my disappointment. You may disagree with me here, but at least some of the persons with whom I discussed the book generally agreed with me on this point: it's just a fun yarn. It's just a love story. If that's all you're looking for (and there's nothing wrong with reading just a love story), you're in for a good read. The prose style is very enjoyable, and you may experience that warm internal glow at the conclusion of the novel that comes with knowing that the good characters all received their just rewards (in this case, marriage to one another), and that the bad characters were likewise paid their due (also marriage to one another). That's it. The book sets out to introduce to you its setting, endear you to one group of characters and acquaint you with less fondness with another group of characters, tell you the reason they all can't be blissfully happy together, and then have their innate goodness (and money) overcome whatever that reason may be. Fin. It's a warm, fuzzy kind of a book. It doesn't challenge anything, or make you think too hard, even for a moment, about anything.

It has been suggested to me that the story depicts some form of feminine liberation, though perhaps diluted to be more acceptable to the general public at the time it was written. If what I've already said above has not convinced you of my own beliefs in the matter, let me say explicitly that I do not believe this to be the case. Elizabeth Bennet is not a standard bearer. She does not change, nor does she attempt to change the male-centered dynamic which dominates the social structures present in the book. She just learns to play ball, and wins. The novel ends when she realizes how stupid she was to refuse the advances of the incredibly rich guy, because at first he wasn't especially charming. The point at which she begins to see him in a different light is when she takes a tour of his gigantic mansion. After that, she wants nothing more than to be the instrument of the issuance of his progeny. If you're looking for symbols of liberated femininity in Pride and Prejudice, you'll have to content yourself with the contrasting figures of Charlotte Lucas and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (really), and they don't get much dialog. Overall, as I said before, I don't believe Austen to think very highly of her sex. The whole of the novel contains only two likable females, the two eldest Bennet sisters. They are exceptions to an otherwise steadfast rule.

In the end, while I suppose that I'm glad that I tried, I didn't really like the book. In my first post I suggested that nothing happens in the book, a comment for which I was rebuked most heartily by my wife, among others. Allow me now the luxury of editing my own words, by affixing them with qualifiers: Nothing happens in this book that I find particularly interesting. It is an adventure story, where the sorts of exciting events that take place are new neighbors coming to town (and leaving it again), dinner parties, dances, and the occasional, can't-put-the-book-down moment where the protagonist's best friend marries an absolute fool. If this is the sort of excitement you're looking for, then dive in. You'll like it, and why shouldn't you? It's The Three Musketeers for women. For myself, I couldn't stand it. I began to enjoy the book when Lydia unexpectedly elopes with the villainous Wickham (though he barely deserves the term), and then felt cheated (and really quite bitter) when everything ends up so neatly sewn up in the end. All of the main characters were a fool about something in their turn, and in the end, with no harm caused by any of their follies, they go on their merry ways. Wealth and goodwill easily surmount all obstacles to happiness. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, it's just not the sort of thing I enjoy. I also, in a rare instance of sticking up for myself, assert that there's nothing wrong with me for not liking it.

I've tried not to let my own biases cloud my judgment too much in my reading of the book, though I'm afraid that their continued influence is considerable. Given what I've said about what I suppose the novel's aim to be, I can't gripe too much about it, save to say that I still think Austen spends far too much type on her more obnoxious characters. While the book would suffer from the absence of such characters, the amount of attention they're given by the author hurts it almost as much, if not more. If you're the last human being who has not read this book (I was among the last), go watch one of the shorter film versions (trust me), and if you think you could stand a few hundred pages of that, this might be the book for you. If you're stuck with the six-hour version, well, then you don't need to bother with the book at all. Ciao!

When Do I Get To The Good Part?

Unemployment has re-introduced to my daily routine, for the first time since early adolescence, the ritual of breakfast. Lindsey still has no time for it, and I hope that I can soon discard my discovery in favor of gainful employment, but for the past several mornings I've enjoyed having a short time set aside to drink coffee, eat toast, and collect my thoughts over a work of fiction. That said, for the life of me I've been unable to ascertain the cause of the enduring popularity of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. I've been subjected to various films of the thing over the years, and been bored out of my mind. I've been derided even by male friends for not wanting anything to do with what, supposedly, is one of the greatest works of fiction in the English language. And so I pose the question to you, my (possibly only) reader: what is supposed to be so good about this book? I'm about halfway through this thing, and am determined to finish it, but it's really hard, because nothing happens. It's always been sold to me (or so I thought) as this terrific love story, but the characters are (forgive me) really pretty shallowly drawn, and the thing seems to have been constructed originally as some sort of social commentary with a love story as the main plot vehicle. I'm probably reading this thing totally wrong, but what I'm getting out of it primarily is that Jane Austen hated a) the rigid middle-to-upper-class social structure of her time, and b) women. The book is, so far, more than a little unkind to the fairer sex. Maybe that's the point? That the social structure of the time turned women into a conniving mass of mercenary vixens, intent on getting their hooks into some unfortunate (though rich) fop of a man, so that the rest of their days can be lived out in an endless string of dinner parties, card games, and social dances. That's one of my hypotheses. There also seems to be a lot of discussion of preconceived notions ("prejudices," as one might say), and their influence on decisions. I guess that would gel more with the title. Whatever the point of the thing (I'll get back to you when I finish it), Austen spends entirely too much time on characters about whom it is absolutely painful to read. The absolute stupidity of these characters defies disbelief. My third (and favorite) hypothesis is that this is actually a work of Science Fiction, about robots that have been programed to destroy the human soul. I'm sorry about the rant, here. I know that many, many people love this book, and can name all of the characters and houses featured therein, and recite their favorite passages from memory. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, really. Otherwise, I wouldn't be reading the book in the first place. I already know the story. I'm not expecting it to suddenly be full of interesting things, like sex, violence, revenge, fear, guilt, redemption, or even passion, but wow. What am I supposed to be looking for here? Am I just supposed to like this because it's British, and I get to read about places (that aren't subdivisions in Southeast Michigan) called Derbyshire and Pemberly, and to hear London simply called "town?" I don't even know. As always I welcome any comments, as I suspect that I've offended someone's sensibilities, and must now submit to a snarky, yet nonetheless righteous defense of such a hallowed tome. I want to like this thing; I really do.

Either way, I'll try to put up some final thoughts when I finish the book, which (as I said) I'm determined to do.

"You might have to think of how you got started sitting in your little room..."

Hello again, friend! How've you been? Thanksgiving is approaching, and I'm thankful for the possibility of seeing family, and perhaps friends returning from out-of-town. I'm looking for a job these days, an employment which I've found less rewarding (in more ways than one) than actually having a job, but so it goes. I have too many friends who are also looking for work to feel that my own situation is either hopeless or terribly unique, and I derive some comfort from that. Everyone goes through this at some point, and most of them seem to get through it none the worse for wear. I've also been very encouraged in my prayer times of late, and feel that the Lord has some means of making me useful to someone, and He's never disappointed me before. Still, any prayers are greatly appreciated.
I just got back from a weekend hunting trip with a group of some of my oldest friends, which was terrific. As much as we've all changed and grown over the years, it was amazing how much like stepping into a time machine it was to get us all together in the woods, away from our wives and jobs and day-to-day lives. It was, in many ways, like being twelve again.
In another way, it was much better: the process of growing up has only increased my admiration for the friends I've had since childhood, as they have all turned into truly admirable men. I shall perhaps put a few pictures of me in orange and holding a gun up here, when I'm able to get them off of the digital camera.

Wrapping Things Up

Greg Mankiw has an excellent NYT op-ed, with advice for the new President Elect. My favorite part:

"[E]ven if the laws of arithmetic are ignored during campaigns, they become a real constraint when making actual policy."

As a bonus, see if you can spot Mankiw's trademark humorous (and shameless) self-promotion.

This blog will now return to our regularly-scheduled programming of stream-of-consciousness nonsense, rants about technology, and creepy adulation of Neil Diamond.

Before The Riots Start

Anne Appelbaum has a short list of things that are very likely true about elections here. I will now be turning off my computer, and avoiding listening to the radio, or watching television, or reading anything besides books and my own résumé, until at least tomorrow. If you have any more thoughts to contribute to the discussion of a few posts ago, please feel free to do so. I've greatly enjoyed reading all of your posts, and should you post any more I shall attempt to respond to them tomorrow.

Now I just have to lock my door and put the fire department on speed dial, before Ann Arborites take to the streets and party like they live in East Lansing (which is to say, very badly).

The Best Two Sentences I Read Today

From Tyler Cowen:

"In other words, both voting and not voting are motivated by the thought that you are better than other people. I am glad that we have an entire day devoted to this very important concept."

Happy "I'm better than you" day!

A Keep In The Vote Update

Nay, a veritable Keep In The Vote manifesto, written in 2006 by Harvard Professor and rock star of the blogosphere Greg Mankiw, who is also (I can't resist pointing out) my friend on facebook.

Dean's Response

Here's Dean's response to my email from this morning:

Cous,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As you (probably) know, I completely agree with you on the fact that I want no abortions to happen, period, but I hesitate to align with a "pro-life" candidate for the following reasons:

1. Studies have shown that abortions haven't decreased under a Republican White House/Congress combo, abortions are strongly affected by economic situations, and I'm not convinced most Republican candidates really intend to work tirelessly to defend the child in the womb. Sure, it's easy to drop a sound byte here or there, but I have to admit that I don't know what the Republicans I campaigned for in Hillsdale have done to decrease the number of abortions.

2. Overturning RvW would put it back in the state's hands. Which is strange to me considering that those trying to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment want the moral enforcement in the hands of the feds, not the states. But I digress...

I think overturning RvW, which probably couldn't happen for 15-20 years considering they've tried 5 times already, would create a big mess. Then we'd be back to dealing with young girls hopping buses to California or whatever other states kept abortion illegal.

The bottom line for me is that abortion is a "no big deal" to a ton of people in America. That is unsettling for me. But Christian voters, like with many issues, just wake up on election day, pull the lever for the pro-lifer, and go back to hibernation for another 2/4 years. Or they stand on the road with a sign that says "choose life." Neat. My struggle with all of this is that I knew two girls in high school, both of whom got kicked out/disowned by their "Christian" families. One ended up having an abortion because she had no where to turn (her church had thrown her out too) and the other was taken in by a family and allowed to raise her baby alongside/with her adoptive family.

I think this goes to a lack of understanding among Christians and especially a lack of willingness to get their hands dirty. "I can love Jesus by holding this sign on the street, but having to take someone into my own home? I can't make that kind of sacrifice!"

It's my belief that the only way Christians will change the world is by truly, seriously, loving their neighbor.

Blessings,

Dean

Civil comments are, as always, more than welcome.

On A More Serious Note

Given the usual quality of the content on this page, I can't blame anyone not inclined to take me or my views seriously. That said, Dean has been leading an excellent discussion on his blog (particularly here) on the problem that pro-lifers face in the political sphere, and this morning he sent me the following email:

Cous,
 
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this article? http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2389
 
This man, Douglas Kmiec, seems to be a reputable Catholic, but I could  
be wrong.
 
Dean

I encourage you to read the linked article, as well as a summary of Archbishop Chaput's (personal) views here. My (perhaps overly lengthy) response is as follows:

Dean,

Thanks for the email. I've enjoyed the lively and intelligent discussions you've led on your blog on this issue, as well.

The question of how a pro-life Catholic such as myself must vote has been on my mind a great deal of late, as you can well imagine. It is, as you noted, a very difficult problem, and trying to break it down to its essential elements has been of great interest to me. The two essential components of the dilemma, as I see them are:

1. The absolutist dynamic of the two-party system. The two major parties are, at this point, very entrenched groups of ideally separate ideologies and constituencies. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to vote (for example) in favor of higher environmental standards or more welfare programs without implicitly or explicitly also voting in favor of abortion.

2. The moral severity of abortion. It's nearly impossible to conceive of a greater moral evil in the modern world than abortion if it is, as pro-life advocates (such as myself) claim, the extinguishing of a human life. The incredible global scope of abortion, combined with its increased social acceptability over the past few decades exacerbate the problem greatly. If one reasonably believes that by his or her vote they may diminish the number of abortions in the world, there is a moral imperative to do so, even at the expense of lesser (though noble) concerns.

There are, of course, other components to the problem, but I believe the above to be the principals. This issue has come up to a greater degree in the current political climate, I believe, because of the immense popularity of Senator Obama and the desire of many Catholics (among many others) to transcend the current divisive political climate and difficult economic times by supporting a fresh and seemingly open-minded candidate. This is also (I believe) largely due to a high level of dissatisfaction among pro-lifers and various other stripes of social conservatives with the Bush administration's general disenfranchisement of their primary concerns in favor of foreign wars, among other things.

I'm afraid that I can only offer my own views on the matter, based primarily on my understanding of Church teachings, and also on my own conscience and reflections. I do my best to be logically and morally consistent in my thoughts and actions, but it goes without saying that my intellect is limited, and my actions can easily be clouded by my own pride and biases. That said, I'll proceed.

Obviously, the main contention of Kmiec's (and others I've encountered recently) in favor of Obama is that Obama's proposed policies will alleviate poverty, and therefore result in fewer abortions and a more moral world than we would have under McCain, whose pro-life stance is based upon a "top-down" strategy of eliminating abortion gradually through changing the law.

My personal problems with this contention are as follows:

1. It smacks of Liberation Theology in its reliance on government as the primary means of social improvement. This is a view to which I do not personally ascribe, largely because I believe that it is used by Catholics (and others) as a means of not accepting personal responsibility for our neighbors. "If only we had better government," the saying goes, "we would live in a better world." I don't believe that this view is realistic, nor do I believe it to be an accurate interpretation of the ministry of Christ. When our Lord ate with tax collectors and sinners, He did not instruct the tax collectors to organize socially to lower taxes, or to tax only the rich and give it to the poor. He called them instead to personal conversion, to sell all of their belongings and to give the money to the poor, and to follow Him. I do not believe that voting for politicians who say they'll help the poor is the same as helping the poor, nor does it alleviate our responsibility to do so. I myself cannot claim total innocence in this regard.

2. The jury is still out on whether or not, in general, welfare problems alleviate poverty in the long run. I do not believe they do. I admit my bias here as a student of economics who generally aligns with the Supply Side, but either way it is foolish on its face to simply accept that a proposed plan to help the poor will actually do so. In any case, countries that have a higher level of social safety net do not have a significantly lower incidence of abortions than the united states, regardless of poverty rates. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html - see Table 1) I should note that there are significant cultural and social factors contributing to abortion rates, but I don't have any quantified research on them. In general, it should be noted that abortion is more acceptable in developed countries than in the developing world.

3. Obama is, himself, strongly pro-abortion. If this is not the case, he should do something about those television and radio commercials I've been hearing, generated by his own campaign, in which he proclaims himself to be so. If his proposed programs will end up decreasing the number of abortions (which I contend they will not), it will be by accident. If I have to choose between the guy who says he'll do everything he can to keep abortion as available as possible and the guy who says he'll work to combat the legality of abortion, even if he's not likely to do very much on that front, I'm going to have to vote for the latter, if only to try to keep things from getting worse.

The bottom line is that the anti-abortion movement has been concentrating too much of our energies on the political front, without working hard enough to change the hearts and minds of those around us. The pro-abortion movement has had overwhelming success (despite what you'll hear from them) because they first made abortion legal with Roe v. Wade in 1973, and have since then had a downhill battle against the anti-abortion movement, while abortion has gradually become more socially acceptable. We need to focus our efforts on changing minds and convincing individuals that human life at all stages is worth preserving.

There is no easy answer, and there is no perfect solution to be found behind the ballot box curtain.That said, I don't believe that we can in good conscience give up in the political fight against abortion, which is what a vote for an openly and proudly pro-abortion candidate amounts to.

Cous

I'll have Dean's response up in just a few minutes. As you might well suspect, I'm posting this correspondence in the interest of honest, open discussion. You'll note that Dean and I reach radically differing conclusions on a few points. I tend to think of myself as either cynical or pragmatic, but in the end, he reveals me to be more of an idealist than I had previously thought.

So please, feel free to participate in the discussion, either here or on Dean's site. You are (of course) welcome to offer opinions that differ, however strongly, to either Dean's or my own. All I ask is that you be civil.

Another Keep In The Vote Update

Wait. This dude kisses babies? Shit. Forget all that other stuff I said, everyone. Looks like you should vote after all!

...

...

No, no you should not.

A Keep In The Vote Update

Courtesy of the great Gordon Tullock, with a nice lesson in Economics thrown in there, as well. The video is well worth a quick viewing, even for those who don't share my love of economics and
Radiohead (the intro music is "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi" from their album In Raibows), as it is quite entertaining. (NB: I will be voting, and I guarantee that I won't like it per se, but as I feel morally compelled to do so, my behavior is perfectly explained by the Utility function described in the video.)

Hat tip to the ever-excellent Alex Tabarrok over at Marginal Revolution.

And what is with airline food?

Any Gmail users on the blog tonight? Come on, don't be shy! I love Gmail, I really do, but it also kinda scares me. You ever take a look at those ad banners that pop up on the side of your email? Those scare me! Someone, or something, is reading my emails! So, I'm emailing my wife this morning, and somewhere I mention that I haven't been sleeping well lately, and then suddenly this shows up (click for to make bigger):


I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords, but there's more: Play a didgeridoo? What? You're offering me an aboriginal flute to help me sleep? This calls for a quick consultation of the Font of All Human Knowledge!

"A 2005 study in the British Medical Journal found that learning and practicing the didgeridoo helped reduce snoring and sleep apnea, as well as daytime sleepiness. This appears to work by strengthening muscles in the upper airway, thus reducing their tendency to collapse during sleep."

Huh. It's worth pointing out that the study was of a mere 25 patients, including the control group, but still. Weird. I mean, is this a joke? Is there some email-reading robot out there playing a joke on the Cous? It certainly wouldn't be my first encounter with a malfeasant android.

How am I supposed to get to sleep now?

So for those of you who had trouble following along at home: insomnia, robots, didgeridoos. Got all that?

Blogroll

I was going to go through my blogroll and update it a bit (and I have, to some extent), but was dismayed by the number of people I've got on there who seem to have taken an extended hiatus from blogging. I've removed a few people who haven't posted in over a year. Perhaps some of you have also changed your blog's address and I missed it, I don't know.

My point, such as it is, is this: If you read my blog (a long shot), and have a blog (probabilistically diminishing), I would like to read it, and link to it. If you have one and haven't used it in a while, what gives? I know, I myself have never posted more than when I had a self-imposed quota for the year of 2007, averaging one (substanceless) post per week. That's not much.

So, good talk. I'll see you out there.