Tagged: opinion

Reading Log 9.20.26

I published one of these reading log’s one year ago to the day (does any app not push these vain notifications on us anymore?) and so figured I should go ahead and update you all with another.

****

I learned of History of the Siege of Boston… while reading the 5 volume GW biography by Washington Irving that I have mentioned so many times in the last year or so. It did not disappoint. Of special note are the summative statements of the labor behind the ability for the Minute Men to react, and the reporting of eternally interesting minor details of such pivotal events from so long ago. In short, you (a living citizen in these seemingly uniquely polarizing times) will literally be changed after reading this book.

I also want to share another book (set) that I learned of and purchased while reading GW’s biography.

If the format you’re reading this post in doesn’t allow to pinch-zoom, that entire-book-shelf-filling book set is a 39-volume Writings of George Washington collection. Only 3,000 copies were ever printed, not counting upload to the internet. (Ha.) I discovered the set after following the footnote rabbit hole which opened because I was forever curious where Irving got his lengthy quotes of Washington’s correspondence. He, Irving, didn’t even have such a set as this—merely precursors. But I do. And I couldn’t be more proud. I am 30+ pages into volume one and if it takes me 37 years, at the pace of one volume per year (vol 38 and 39 are indexes), it will be the best thing I do for the next 37 years. Just a remarkable set of books.

Before Oliver Twist, if you would have asked me about Dickens, I would have said, “Coolest thing is that Dark Knight Rises is essentially a retelling of his Tale of Two Cities.” But now, with Christmas Carol, Tale of Two Cities, Great Expectations, and Oliver Twist under my belt, I have an obviously more well-rounded understanding of him. Oliver is an odd duck, in that Dickens chooses to give the reader the nasty, brutish side of the criminal life, with the hope of deterring young Mark Twains from the dream of the pirate’s life. One basic and nearly insurmountable flaw—in my opinion a constant flaw that educated people reveal—is that the criminal element is portrayed as cunning, strategic, and capable of great perseverance in accomplishing long-term goals. Aside from this flaw, it surely accomplishes its aim. But I ask you, dear reader, when is an educated person (in the true sense of the word) going to tell the plain truth? The truth that criminals are stupid, short-sighted, and incapable of self-control and generally all the virtues? There is more (or less, rather) to criminal action than just willingness to prey on people.

One interesting line from the story that I want to record here for ease-of-retrieval is the following quote about tears, “But tears were not the things to find their way to Mr. Bumble’s soul; his heart was waterproof.”

Compare that to Tolstoy’s similarly remarkable characterization of tears from Anna Karenina (from memory), “As if tears were the lubrication for the machine of human communication…”

Just great writing—both of them. Keep it up!

In one of the Deadpool films, the joke is made about the classic superheroes all being virgins. The same criticism has been gravely lobbed at the Avengers/Marvel sagas that have enraptured movie-goers for over a decade now. Suffice it to say that post-2020 comics have completely swung the other way. Now superheroes have sex, and the sidekick women especially, are homosexuals. Great. Just what the world needs. Why does everyone seem to think that all literature was always and only aimed at pushing boundaries? Early comics could have intentionally drawn attention and specifically rebuked social mores of the 50s but this doesn’t mean that every established social boundary is arbitrary. I know, I know. The covers alone should indicate these “aren’t your grandpa’s comic books” but it is disappointing that I have to work so hard to find non-Woke superhero material for my future teenagers to ingest.

Rousseau is Rousseau. The more I read him, the more times I read him, the more I see the extremes of his philosophy. He is certainly spot on about some things and certainly completely wrong about others. The main trouble is he explicitly states over and over again how he is being entirely consistent but as he can’t state everything at once we need to give him the benefit of the doubt when apparent inconsistencies emerge. Okay, Boomer. On the “should read him” side of the coin, he absolutely destroys the notion of analogously comparing government to a family. This hits home for me because a certain non-Westerner in my life, when questioned, likened her support of a certain thought-to-be autocrat to the way a father leads his family. In other words, it is compelling that Rousseau understood that this particular mistaken analogy is hard-wired in the hearts of men. But I assure you, faithful reader, that my reading Rousseau and the subsequent effect of renewed confidence in the idea that elected officials are facing at a totally different problem than that which confronts fathers, has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the people who want to make that analogy. Want another false analogy? Here it is. Unread books are not analogous to the lasers used in gene-editing.

Some Thoughts About Dearborn After Light Review of Last Night’s Events

-In his infamous documentary Pumping Iron, Arnold has a conversation with Lou which discusses whether it is better to be the king of the hill (defending from all comers) or the singularly focused threat on the way up. America is obviously the king of the hill. With this status comes threats and enemies and trolls and jokers etc. Islam needs to be relegated to the myth section of the bookstore, but I am not sure of the path to make that happen.

-In recap: a bunch of (in the case of Dearborn, presumably legal) immigrants outbred and then outvoted natives. At face value, I have no issue with this.

-If we believe the mohammedans lie at will (we do believe they lie and they do lie), I am not sure that talking with them is the answer.

-If my above recap is correct, one path would be to move to Dearborn or any other similar towns and out politic them. But that seems like a weird goal to have and a weird life to lead. Most people simply move for better jobs, not a crusade.

-In my recent readings on Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Revolutionary War before them, I am struck by how turbulent the times and events were. And yet here we are.

My Style Solution to Trans Insanity (Laughably Unserious, If Ultimately Provocative)

A recent debater on Triggernometry said, “So the sex that was recorded um and the gender that was recorded on their birth certificate, you can say, ‘Actually that was a mistake’.”

I assure you, dear reader, that I am earnest when I ask this, no matter how it sounds. But I ask, “So, if we stop recording gender/sex on birth certificates, how does a person know they’re trans? If that is the mistake, then why not nip it in the bud right then and there? Birth certificate has name and weight but no recording of a gender/sex?”

Has anyone heard this approach of mine in a debate or discussion forum? Please do share if you know how they respond.

My Latest Thought On The Leadership Void

I have long held (recent years) that there is a void in leadership.

As I continue to read articles from the major historical events of Vietnam, WW2, and Civil Rights (thank you to Library of America), a new thought occurred.

We have poor leaders—that is given. My new thought: the reason we have such poor leaders is there is nothing to do. There is no group to lead, no task to accomplish, and no need to unify.

Concluding Remarks of Washington Irving

Pay special attention to the final paragraph. This book was written in 1859, but Lord Brougham’s quote was 1839.

And they want to tear down statues. And we let them. I’m not saying the statues must stay as if by divine decree; I am merely stating that this Lord Brougham hit the nail on the head. Wisdom and virtue will not be found in a people who do not honor Washington. This was and is self-evident. So read up! And remind others when they drift!

For Next Year’s ARC Conference: No More Hedging If You’re a Christian Speaker

I have been listening to a few of the 13-min talks from this year’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference and, as with the past two years’, they are tier one models of conservative perspectives. And yet I cannot deny that when the speakers use the language “America’s past is not perfect” or similar, I shake my head. I hadn’t been able to pinpoint exactly why this phrase, and the concept behind it, bothers me so until just yesterday.

For context, please call to mind that I am reading volume 5 of Washington Irving’s Life of George Washington. Specifically, I am up to his decision to run for reelection. Let’s just say that since his birth and the legendary tree incident, a lot has happened. And after everything I have read, I conclude, “And all of it was the best thing for the future occupants of planet Earth,” full stop.

I know, I know. I can hear you. What about slavery? What about women’s rights? What about civil rights? What about ‘Nam?

Allow me to break some news to you. I am a Christian. Inherent to Christianity is the belief that all men are sinners (“They have all turned aside, altogether they have become worthless; There is no one who does good, not even one.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭14‬:‭3‬ ‭LSB‬‬) and that no earthly government—though instituted by the Living Triune God himself—is perfect (“Then Yahweh said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”
‭‭1 Samuel‬ ‭8‬:‭7‬ ‭LSB‬‬ and “Be subject for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do good.” 1 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭LSB‬‬). For me, a Christian, then, to hedge the character or accomplishments of people or governments with some seeming politically correct admission of unpleasant facts, is to betray my beliefs, exchange them, as it were, for someone else’s beliefs—and for what? For likes? For views?

No. That is not right. We can all just speak truth for truth’s sake. Speaking isn’t violence. Everyone knows, by virtue of the content, what we believe anyway as we talk. And the import of the speaker’s content is directly related to the integrity of the message. In short, it is weak when a Christian hedges their claims about men and government. It is weak because the Bible has, amongst many mysteries, essential and clear statements about the nature of man and government. Man is sinful. Government is inadequate.

Conversely, it is the game of the Woke, the Left, and the Commies, among others (hard to leave out the DNC) to believe man is perfect (without evidence) and government is adequate (without evidence). Christian doctrine does not support either.

So, ARC presenters, next year, as you continue to bravely, and at some risk to yourselves and your families, model for us plebes how to live, please step up your integrity on this topic. America wasn’t doing “the best it could while having some original sin”, instead America “is and has always been the beacon of freedom for the entire world”. George Washington didn’t “have faults”, instead GW “played the almost superhuman role of founder of America, played it well, and deserves our continued gratitude and attention”.

The events of the present and future are not improved or sustained by “bending the knee” to those who seek destruction. Time is limited. So use it all to accomplish any speaker’s goal: nourish and flourish.

(Let us pray.)

Thuck-Y-Dideez

I first heard of Thucydides in college. This would have been 2001-ish. We weren’t studying him, but the professor needed to make a point and used the classic “Athens-open, Sparta-closed” historian to do so. Along the way, the professor interlaced a story about how a student came to him complaining about the reading and pronounced thoo-sih-di-deez: Thuck-Y-Dideez.

Funny stuff.

I do not know what the Thucydides Trap is, but I want to post an informed guess before I google it. What did Xi mean when he used the phrase?

Before I reveal my surmise, I want to add here that a chinaman using a western anecdote is real evidence that America and the West are already winning the war with China. And rightly so, since we’re obviously the more relevant civilization.

Okay. That said. What is the “Thucydides Trap” that we hope to avoid?

War.

(Wish me luck in my AI-ing for confirmation/information.)

Did You Know the Victorian Era had a Fad Called “Table Turning”?

It’s true. I first read about it in the Gateway to the Great Books volume on Natural Science.

The renowned physicists of the era actually referenced, with tremendous disdain, the nonsense on their way to explaining how the physical world follows seemingly iron law.

But don’t take my word for it. Just search it up. Victorian era table-turning.

(You’re tired. It’s late. What does this have to do with anything, you ask? Well, it just should be counted as proof positive that there are no bounds to our ability to try to fool each other and to be fooled by each other. There are no extraterrestrial life forms, folks—only terrestrial suckers.)

On Noble Pleasure

Anyone else, for whatever reason—be it environmental considerations or energy (mine is energy)—refuse to turn on hot water to wash their hands? And given this state of play, then, every so once in a while, wash them right after someone who isn’t so aware, and, for the briefest of moments, feel just regal as the still-warm water hits? For my part, I imagine the pleasure is exactly comparable to what it must have felt like to sneak a dessert made with the richest, purest, and freshest ingredients right off the King’s china after he had departed—and before the other (reckless and shifty as they were) servants entered—the hall.