Saturday, 2/6/16

  1. Sustainability
  2. Workers of the world unite!
  3. The Wall Street/TBTF albatross
  4. Proto-Concentration Camps
  5. Reliable, relevant — and a product of the Church


“Sustainable” often means trying to find a “better” way to continue living as we currently do, and often bears within itself an underlying notion of stasis, or remaining the same … [T]here is in fact no such thing in the spiritual life as stasis. If someone is not growing, struggling, and working out his or her salvation, the seeds of degeneration are already planted.

… [A]s … Christians living in the God-created world, we are all, in the deepest sense, priests over creation. His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, said: “Endowed… from the beginning with ‘the image of God,’ humanity is called to continuous self-transcendence so that, in responsible synergy with God the Creator, each person might sanctify the entire world, thus becoming a faithful ‘minister’ and ‘steward.’” We are, in essence, called to be priests over creation, for as ministers of this created universe it is our responsibility to cease doing harm, for our final goal is the transfiguration of creation. The ultimate transformation that must take place within ourselves ultimately brings transformation to the entire cosmos.

(Abbot Tryphon)


Look, there’s a really good discussion to have about what makes for standards of beauty, but the idea that [Maria] Sharapova has more endorsement deals than [Serena] Williams because RACISM is not a conversation-opener, but rather a conversation-stopper.

To challenge the Narrative™ about race, even in an academic setting, is to open oneself to denunciation as a racist, or at least as insensitive to racism. I don’t blame students, especially white students, for keeping their mouths shut in that class. Kids aren’t stupid; they know that to speak aloud the aesthetic judgment that Maria Sharapova is much prettier than Serena Williams is to shout “Workers of the world unite!” in a crowded John Birch Society meeting.

This is the environment that diversocrats and activists have created on campus: one in which it is too dangerous to question the authority of the Narrative™, because the social and professional cost can be too great. If you disagree with the Narrative™ and are courageous, you will speak up and speak out. If you disagree and are smart, you will stay silent, give the impression that you agree, give the authorities what they want, get your degree, and move on with your life.

Learning how to live in untruth, how to keep a poker face in indoctrination sessions like this one without losing your mind or your self-respect, is a skill that will serve you well in corporate America.

Of course there really are good and necessary conversations to have about race, both on campus and in the workplace. There really is a lot to learn, on all sides. But in this atmosphere, it is far too dangerous to have them. If you say the “wrong” thing or ask the “wrong” question, and you may well make yourself a pariah. For the sake of self-preservation, pantomime participation, but don’t let the interrogators into your mind.

This is the real-life lesson these classes are teaching.

(Rod Dreher, Aesthetics as Racism)


I’d be lying if I denied feeling a little thrill that Hillary’s Wall Street connections are becoming a political liability — not because it’s Hillary, but because it hints at belated willingness of voters actually to vote for someone who might bust up the too-big-to-fail captors of America into small-enough-too-fail businesses that might actually do some good things.


A friend notes on Facebook that Hitler was inspired by American Indian reservations. example toward native Americans. That’s new to me, but plausible.

What’s not new is how we treated Catholics, and especially incompletely assimilated Catholics. If you don’t know Meyer v. Nebraska, a landmark case for both parental rights and religious freedom, here’s your chance to learn.


Some Evangelical Pastors are spearheading this weekend’s “symposium” on the Bible at and around Purdue University. I assume that a high view of the Bible’s reliability and relevance is being upheld.

But are there not other questions? Which came first: the Church or the New Testament? Were the New Testament authors designing a future Church or recording the existing Church’s memories and beliefs? Who decided what books belonged in the New Testament? Is the Church that was “up and running” before the New Testament canon was formed (actually, before the first of 27 books was written) still around?

Oh: the New Testament canon calls the Church the “pillar and ground of truth.” Somehow, I never underlined that when I was Evangelical.

* * * * *

“In learning as in traveling and, of course, in lovemaking, all the charm lies in not coming too quickly to the point, but in meandering around for a while.” (Eva Brann)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.