Friday miscellaneous (10/18)

This week the quasi-shutdown finally ended and government got back to normal. What did the Republicans gain from it? Oh right, nothing. In fact, less than nothing, since (echoing what I wrote here) "the partial shutdown reinforces public doubt that Republicans can be trusted to govern." The lack of strategy was a major problem. And when even Grover Norquist says the Republicans went too far, well, that's a problem. It also doesn't help that the Republicans declined to negotiate 19 times prior to the shutdown, and then tried to pin the lack of bipartisan talks on the Democrats.

Not that the Democrats look much better in this giant game of chicken played by giant egos. The result: the nation was harmed and nobody won (except for maybe a singing sloth somewhere).

In the meantime, the shutdown failed to stop the Obamacare rollout (which I thought was the entire point--see comment about lack of strategy above). And the rollout has had problems of its own. So much so that President Obama's own former press secretary is wondering if someone should be fired over the debacle. And then one can't help but be amused that this Obamacare supporter became rather upset when informed that it would double his insurance premiums.

Because when it comes to customer service, the government could take a cue from Netflix. Or T-Mobile. That's what millennials appreciate.

And socially, income distribution in the United States is becoming a problem even by capitalist standards. It's no surprise that there's a Marxist renaissance taking place.

But enough about domestic politics.

Russia is building a rail system to bypass the Suez canal. Unfortunately, other parts of its transportation infrastructure are falling apart.

And here's the little known story of Iran Flight 655, which helps explain some of the current tensions between Iran and the United States.

On a completely different note, here's a fascinating scientific development that appears to cheat Newton's third law.

And finally, an explanation for some of the awkwardness in romance.

Friday miscellaneous (10/11)

Let's see, oh, where to start. With the politics, of course.

Apparently all the American flags on the moon are now white. Have we surrendered, or is this just another effect of the shutdown?

And speaking of the congressional problems, some truckers are taking matters into their own hands. So are Millennials (but with more productive consequences).

But for researchers who can no longer access government databases, Oxford Academic is offering free access to its contents.

Did you know that the Founding Fathers engaged with American Muslims? Me neither.

This is an inspiring story of a young mayor transforming the City of Compton, California.

Answers in Genesis has a new ad campaign running on billboards across the country. It reads, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you’re wrong." Some aren't very happy about this. And when it comes to missions, this might be a better approach anyway.

I've long enjoyed Focus on the Family's Radio Theatre series. Their next installment, on the life of C.S. Lewis, looks excellent.

And now for the really important things.

A giant dragon skull has washed ashore a British beach.

The head of the US Joint Special Ops has confirmed: "I think ninjas are probably quieter than SEALs, but we are better swimmers, and also better with guns and blowing things up." That settles that.

What is an out of work Disney villain to do (it's a tough economy these days)? Put together a resume, of course. And avoid trying to start an urban farm in Muskegon, Michigan.

No matter how bad your day was, this guy's was worse. Despite his protestations to the contrary, he is still legally dead.

And finally, in honor of the shutdown, here's some political spending logic for you.

Losing A Popular Issue (Blair’s Lessons, part VIII)

Reading about the current government shutdown, ostensibly over Obamacare, reminded me of a story in Tony Blair's autobiography. He wrote about the campaign in 2001, when his government was ultimately voted back into power for another term.

Going into this election, there had been growing discontent with Blair's government. One issue that the Conservatives (Tories) decided to focus on was Blair's unpopular pro-European Union stance. Both the polls and the media revealed that this was a weak point in Blair's platform, so naturally, the Tories thought they could exploit it. Instead, it backfired. Blair explains:

What’s more, while Euroscepticism was just about tolerable, there were—as there always are with such issues—those who wanted to take a position that was already at the outer edge of respectability and push well beyond it. The leadership stance gave them permission to go even further and there’s where the public’s position on Europe couldn’t be entirely guessed by reference to the polls. True, if asked, they supported the Tories on it, but it was never going to determine the election. It wasn’t their priority, so the Tory focus on it gave the Tories a curious, lopsided look that swiftly turned into the thought among the public that, well, maybe they just weren’t ready to govern. Once such a thought takes hold, the election’s over.

In that case, the Tories selected an issue that had popular support, but addressed it in such a way as to appear irresponsible and unprepared to take power. They pushed the issue to hard, to extremely, and consequently severed the popular sentiment from their specific policy stance. The result was another Blair victory—not because the people agreed with Blair, but because they doubted the basic competence of the alternative party.

This demonstrates just how difficult it can be to take a popular issue and translate it to electoral victory. How you address an issue can be even more significant than what the issue is.

I believe that's the issue the Republicans are missing in their attempt to use the government shutdown as an attempt to negotiate delay/repeal of Obamacare. Let's presume for the sake of argument that it really is as unpopular as the Republicans say it is. Stunts like the non-filibuster filibuster that was never intended to block the bill, or the inability to pass a bill out of their own controlled chamber do not instill confidence in the Republican party's ability to govern (were they given power). Nor does the apparent lack of strategy overall.

In fact, I have yet to see a coherent objective to this current tactic. If it's merely about negotiation, than the Obamacare stance is merely a pretext (which is what the Democrats are saying). If it's about Obamacare, than it's not particularly relevant to the budget debate (since the shutdown didn't affect Obamacare anyway, and most of the objectionable stuff isn't a budget question). If it's merely a ploy to make the Democrats give up something, anything, than the Republicans are as petty as they're saying the Democrats are. The only way the Republicans can score even a few points off this is if they are soundly defeated, and then play the victim (a strategy that requires ensuring defeat and claiming it as victory). If it's some combination of the above, which I suspect is the case, well, maybe the Republicans just aren't ready to govern.

Having a popular support on an issue won't help. As Blair warns, "Once such a thought takes hold, the election's over." The people's attitude to the group in power simply becomes (as Blair says a few pages later) "You’ve done OK, the other lot aren’t ready, carry on."

_________

Also in this series:

Reforming Political Parties (Blair's Lessons, part I)

Racing to the Common Good (Blair's Lessons, part II)

The Right Question (Blair's Lessons, part III)

Debate Prelude (Blair's Lessons, part IV)

Undermining Political Opponents (Blair's Lessons, part V)

The Politics of Immigration Reform (Blair's Lessons, part VI)

Presidential Leadership (Blair's Lessons, part VII)

Undemocratic Opposition (Blair's Lessons, part IX)

International Leadership (Blair's Lessons, part X)

Friday miscellaneous (10/4)

Alright, first of all,  Homeschoolers Anonymous published an expanded version of my prior post here on the United Nations and parental rights. It was written in response to their prior post arguing that homeschooling is not a human right. Check it my response.

And this week's government shutdown has sure generated a lot of interesting links. For example, those suffering panda withdrawal (since the live feed of the panda at the National Zoo has been turned off) need look no further. And here are 21 other lesser known aspects of the shutdown. And it's even causing a bit of an international embarrassment since, well, the Greek ambassador might just want to visit the Smithsonian exhibit done in cooperation with his country.

But on the bright side, many DC restaurants are offering specials to out of work Government employees. (My favorites are the ones that charge double for members of Congress.)

Of course, politics being what it is, both parties are more concerned with blaming the other then with actually identifying or solving the problem. So far, Republicans seem to be getting the worse end of that game (and rightfully so). One of their problems may be that they don't know how to take hostages. But their complete lack of a strategy might also be a contributing factor. For a recent demonstration, look at the effort that the Republicans deliberately set up to fail the very chamber they control.

 Oh, and Australia had a shutdown ... once. Sigh, sometimes monarchy doesn't look too bad.

Ok, enough of that. On to important things. Like the lake that petrifies any animals that touch it. Or the new island formed after an earthquake. Or the abandoned castle in New York. Or the noise police clowns in Paris.

And here's an interesting article on why tough teachers get good results. And on the topic of education, have you heard about how Christian kids loose their faith in college? Apparently they're more likely to loose it if they don't attend college.

And finally, this is an amazing video about the octopus.

Friday miscellaneous (9/27)

My apologies on the lack of posts recently--after taking the bar exam I moved across the country. However, I'm pretty much settled now, so we can resume.

Alright, where to begin...

Abortion clinics are closing across the nation.

Carl Trueman discusses his concerns with the Christian preoccupation with "Christian worldview."

This is an incredible story of the conversion and baptism of a former Taliban member.

And on the political front, this sums up pretty well why I'm skeptical of the current push to defund Obamacare:

Now the Republican plan relies instead on maintaining a Republican filibuster in the Senate, in perpetuity, to prevent a vote on a bill to open the government. They have maneuvered themselves into the least tenable position to defend a plan that never stood a chance of succeeding in the first place.

This article considers whether election outcomes would be different if decided by chance. They would certainly be a lot cheaper.

And the political nerd in me found this article on the changes in political parties fascinating.

Dr. Mark Mitchell on what's wrong with "Conservatism."

Nicholas Kristof on the dangers of living in a political echo chamber.

And the buzzwords that signal a candidate is about to lose.

Have you ever wondered what the United States map would look like if the states all were equalized for population? Now you know.

And on the more strange news front, it's more important than you think to make sure the body is dead before burying it.

I would have never imagined robbing parking meters could be so lucrative, but then again, he had eight years to do it.

Beware of Apple maps. Or, more accurately, if using Apple maps, beware of airplanes.

The above warning probably still applies if you're driving the safest car ever made.

And finally, what will you do for your morning coffee?

Falling Into an Ideological Trap: Responding to Dr. Baskerville's Faith & Reason Lecture

Back in the fall of 2005, my alma mater Patrick Henry College launched its Faith & Reason lecture series. Each semester, an entire day would be devoted to a lecture and discussion on some aspect of Faith & Reason.

That initial lecture was significant, since it was an early factor in the course of events leading to the departure of several faculty members. However, I am not intending to relive or reopen those old wounds. Instead, this is about the Faith & Reason lecture that Dr. Steven Baskerville delivered this semester, entitled “Politicizing Potiphar’s Wife: Today’s New Ideology.”

Already multiple people have criticized the lecture, such as alumni David Sessions, Willie Deutsch, and Michael Daniels. Another blogger has also conducted a thorough critique.

The reaction was so harsh that Patrick Henry College scheduled an additional question and answer session with Dr. Baskerville a week later, which was broadcast online to alumni. At the beginning of that session, the school made it abundantly clear that while they selected the general topic and speaker, Dr. Baskerville’s lecture was neither approved by the school, nor is the school necessarily in agreement with it. The professor hosting the follow-up session also stated his own disagreement with several parts of the lecture.

Dr. Bakserville’s thesis is that there is a new ideology infiltrating our society which is “far above the others in its grip over both culture and politics.” While he fails to give this ideology a name (it’s some form of sexual radicalism), or an objective (other than power, which he identifies as a goal of all ideologies), he does want to talk about its expressions; particularly how this ideology influences all aspects of family law. He says: “Today's most critical political battleground is the family, and of all the soft ideologies, the most elusive and dangerous is the one encompassing the matrix of issues involving the family, children, and sexuality.” In short, he argues that in all aspects of family law, this ideology seeks to disadvantage men and exclude them from the family. And he argues that the liberal/feminist/homosexual lobby is the architect of this agenda.

The first glaring problem, as has been noted elsewise, is that the lecture which contends an ideological takeover of family law fails to define “ideology” (except as something seeking power and motivated by grievances). Dr. Baskerville also appears, from the title and uses throughout, to be equating “ideological” with “political,” an error any student of politics should seek to avoid.

In his wonderful little book Politics: A Very Short Introduction (which was assigned reading at PHC while I was there), the late Kenneth Minogue explains the difference—indeed the opposing nature—of politics and ideology. These concepts are key for understanding Dr. Baskerville’s lecture.

Minogue defines politics as “the activity by which the framework of human life is sustained” or the act of rationally considering and discussing “what local problems require of the legal system.”  “Ideologies,” he writes, “by contrast with political doctrines, claim exclusive truth. They explain not only the world, by the false beliefs of opponents as well. Ideologists possess the long-sought knowledge of how to abolish politics and create the perfect society.”

Minogue then further describes ideologies and how to identify them, using Marxism as his example for ideology:

Ideology meant (for the ideologues themselves) a philosophical hygiene revealing truth, and (for Marx) the very falsity which needed to be cleansed. The problem of apparent contradiction disappears, however, when one realizes that the falsity of those false ideas is guaranteed by the truth of one’s own ideas. Ideology refers, as it were, to the negative and positive poles of a dogmatic conviction. Marxists had a true understanding of the world, and therefore whatever contradicted them must be false—that is, ideological, which meant both false and false because reflecting the wrong social location. The same ambivalent usage marks anarchist versions of the truth, or those of radical feminists. So long as one grasps this symbiosis, the term ideology can be used without serious confusion as referring both to the truth, and also to all other beliefs which are judged to be false in terms of that belief. Ideology thus exhausts the entire field of truth and error, so long as one judges that one knows, as Marx and his followers thought they did, what the truth is. 

* * * 

Ideology is commonly signaled by the presence of a tripartite structure of theory. The first stage reveals to us the past is the history of the oppression of some abstract class of person. It is concerned with workers as a class, not (as a politician might be) with workers at a particular time and place; or with women in general, or with this or that race. Specific discontents are all swept up into the symptomatology of the structurally designed oppression. The duty of the present is thus to mobilize the oppressed class in the struggle against the oppressive system. This struggle is not confined to the conventional areas of politics. It flares up everywhere, even in the remoter recess of the mind. And the aim of this struggle is to attain a fully just society, a process called liberation. Ideology is thus a variation played on the triple theme of oppression, struggle, and liberation.

Dr. Baskerville adopts this very type of reasoning, condemning those ideas behind today’s family law structure as being the bad ideology and appearing by implication to endorse old Puritan (which he equates with Christian) structure as the “good” ideology. Neither needs to look to the facts of the matter or particular mores of the people, both are assumed to be all-encompassing ideals in competition with each other. Although complaining about the prevalence of ideology and asserting the need to “put the ideological genie back into the bottle,” the entire nature of the lecture is ideological in its scope.

Additionally, the lecture follows the ideological pattern exactly. He identifies the oppressed class (men), calls for mobilization against the oppressors (feminists and their ideological allies), and holds out the promise of liberation ending with the quasi-messianic comparison to the army of Gideon. He’s following the very playbook he condemns.

Insofar as he accurately (more on that later) identifies ideology at work, Dr. Baskerville is making an important observation. However, his failure to fully see it, especially his own, leads to significant blind spots in his own work. And his critique of what he is seeing is greatly muted by his own incorrect orientation. He condemns the ideological tendency to condemn groups, while condemning groups (both within the lecture and after). He criticizes the trend to make everything political, but cannot see the possibility of non-political motivations behind those he criticizes. He claims that Christians should never become “scolds” or “nag and bemoan and wag our fingers at others,” but does exactly that throughout. The result is a lecture that serves to perpetuate the very travesty it purportedly identifies. The argument collapses into self-referential inconsistency.

Furthermore, as part of his need to paint men as an oppressed class in need of liberation from the feminists, Dr. Baskerville mangles the legal system beyond recognition. Others have addressed this in more detail (see links above), but claims such as “[t]he confiscation of children from legally innocent parents by government officials is now out-of-control throughout the West” (p. 13) is absurd, as is his conspiratorial argument about large numbers of “secret incarcerations” that can’t be documented because they don’t appear in any records (p. 20). Furthermore, his railing against “involuntary divorce” (p. 13, 22) doesn’t even make sense, since in every divorce proceeding, at least one spouse is a voluntary participant.

Nor are domestic violence crimes in opposition to regular criminal law, as Dr. Baskerville would have you believe. Instead, domestic violence (which is in fact defined in state criminal law statutes) is usually classified as a type of assault or battery, which includes all the traditional elements plus additional ones.

And despite what he said at the follow-up question and answer session, there aren’t mass incarcerations where people were denied their right to a jury trial. That right is still considered pretty important by the courts, and they will and do reverse convictions based on its violation. I spent one summer in law school working in a court, and another working in the appellate division of a state attorney general’s office—these arguments were taken seriously.

And that is only a sample of Dr. Baskerville’s errors. I haven’t the patience to address the rest. Instead, I’m more interested what the sum total of these fallacious arguments amount to.

See, because of its ideological nature, this lecture couldn’t just present some shortcomings of the legal system and explore solutions (in fact, no solutions were presented). Instead, it needed to dig deeper, expose/invent the conspiracy, and assign then blame. That’s how the class becomes truly victimized and the struggle for liberation can be instigated. A series of inadvertent unintended consequences isn’t compelling enough to warrant an ideological response. A full-fledged inquisition is needed to get proper victimhood, and where it doesn’t exist it must be invented.

Now, some of these may actually be real problems. For example, the American Bar Association has discussed some of the problems with child abuse reporting system and due process. In seeking to protect the exploited, our legal system may not be giving sufficient procedural rights to the accused. (At the same time, rape and domestic violence cases remain very difficult to prosecute.) But when that is the case, it is an unintended consequence of balancing a prior system that gave women and children virtually no rights whatsoever, not a deliberate conspiracy by [insert disliked group here].

Potiphar’s wife’s crime was one of a false report. It, as I would imagine is also the case with those instances of false reports of rape or domestic violence today, did not have political undertones. It was neither a political nor ideological act, but instead simply a human sin.

However, this lecture does invent false accusations against another for an ideological goal.

Which leads me to ask: who has really transformed Potiphar’s wife into a political model?

* * *

As harsh as I've been in my critique, I believe there is still another point that needs to be made which is likely even more important. And this has been the hardest part to write due to its delicate nature.

Jesus warned us that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." (Matt. 12:34, Luke 6:45) In all the criticism, in all the response and disagreement, we may have forgotten that behind the lecture stands a person--a hurting person, as is evident from the lecture. And in forgetting that, we are liable to fall prey to the same impersonal temptation of "being right" that we accuse Dr. Baskerville of.

So how does an obviously intelligent person such as Dr. Baskerville come to some of the conclusions he did? Initially, I was inclined to say that this lecture is the result of his spending too much time as an unchallenged expert in the conservative bubble. And indeed, that may be partly the case, given his difficulty (demonstrated at the Q&A session) to even understand the critiques and his tendency toward Orwellian redefinitions.

But to dig deeper, I think this lecture is the culmination of a very broken person. His own account of his own divorce, which appears to have sparked his interest in family law matters, testifies to a feeling of powerlessness and loss of identity. That his wife left him, and a court determined that he was not fit to retain custody of his child, appears to have imposed a wound that is slow to heal. Regardless of the merits of those decisions, the hurt remains.

So while we can and should disagree with the lecture, that sentiment must always be balanced with something more important--care for person behind the argument. He may need our challenges, but he needs our care and prayers even more.

We Christians are called to care for the hurting. That includes the rape and domestic violence victims, the children harmed by divorce, those falsely accused of horrible acts, and yes, even Dr. Baskerville.