You have to preach to yourself first.
Monthly Archives: March 2012
A Fact of Life
The most basic rule of conduct is that practice makes perfect. If you want to be a concert pianist, you have to practice. If you want to grill the perfect steak, you have to practice. If you want to tie your shoes so that they don’t come untied and you don’t trip, you have to practice (for a while, then you get it).
But there’s more to it than simply practice. You have to be doing it right. Noodling on the piano for eight hours a day for ten years won’t make you a concert pianist.
If you want to be happy, you have to practice. And you have to do it right. It’s a skill. And the rules for how to do it right are what we call “morality”.
People who live for pleasure and object to moral rules on the grounds that they don’t let you have any fun are like the guy who spends all his time noodling on the piano but refuses to learn to read music or understand harmony and rhythm. He may think he’s having a great time, but all he’s producing is a noisy mess. How much more he could do if he buckled down to it!
Rally for Religious Freedom
I could try to post something tonight, but I spent too much of last night lying awake, obsessing about our kitchen. (Which appears to be proceeding just fine, actually, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t obsess about it in the small hours.)
But enough of that. Tomorrow at noon, in well over one hundred cities across the country, there will be a Rally for Religious Freedom. Los Angeles is one of the cities, and I plan to be downtown (an odd place to find me, to be sure) standing in the crowd (an even odder place to find me) with my camera, so that I can stand up and be counted.
With luck, I’ll be awake enough to follow what’s going on.
Noooooooooooooooo!
The shower in my bathroom is temporarily dead, thanks to the kitchen work. Supposedly they will have it all fixed up sometime tomorrow.
Oh, and the kitchen is filled with shear walls and other sundry supports because a major load-bearing beam was removed to make way for a new, much bigger (and up-to-code) load-bearing beam.
And they are getting ready to move some windows around, and move the electrical panel, and dig a hole under the breezeway to run new water and electrical lines (yes, They Really Are Tunneling Under My House!), and in general, there’s a lot going on.
But meanwhile the shower has a big gap in the tiles because they needed to move the drain.
There is an upside to this: the shower urgently needed re-tiling already. Now we won’t put it off.
On Goodness and Badness
Here I’m continuing my occasional series of philosophical posts. You can go click on “Deep Thoughts” over on the right, there, to see the recent ones.
When we use the words “good” and “bad”, there are two senses in which we can use them. A thing can be “good” in an absolute sense, or in a relative sense.
Consider a three-legged dog that can’t wag its tail, can’t bark, and hates people. We’ll call him “Fred”. In an absolute sense, Fred isn’t a much of a dog, because he lacks the perfections that dogs are supposed to have. A proper dog should have four legs, a waggy tail, should bark at cats and other intruders, and should be man’s best friend. Fred fails on all of these counts. The fact that he has dog breath doesn’t make up for his other lacks. We could call him a “bad” dog, because he’s a lousy example of the species.
But of course, that’s not usually what we mean when we call a dog a “bad” dog. Consider another dog, whom we will call “George”. George bites, he doesn’t come when he’s called, he piddles on the floor, he makes messes behind the sofa, and he stills steaks from the kitchen counter. He’s a Bad Dog. George is also a fine figure of a dog: he has a gorgeous coat, he’s usually glad to see you, his tale wags, and he barks at cats. He’s a “good” dog in absolute terms, but he’s still a Bad Dog—because he doesn’t meet the requirements that I have for a dog. He’s a Bad Dog relative to me and my wants.
Keep this distinction in mind; we’ll make use of it later.
Lego Cartoon Characters
This guy created a brilliant series of Lego versions of well-known cartoon characters. Really incredibly minimalistic Lego versions of well-known cartoon characters. And yet, despite containing almost no detail, it’s easy to tell who they are. It’s amazing to me that there’s enough information present, but there is. Anyway, go take a look
King Rat
Continuing my progress through James Clavell’s canon, I read King Rat last week. It’s a fascinating book, and very different than Shogun. It seems that during WWII, Clavell was held in Changi prison, a Japanese prison camp in Singapore. Two decades later, he wrote a novel based on his experiences…and that’s what I knew when I opened the book. It was not what I expected.
What I expected was the story of how he was captured, and of interrogations, and sadistic torture, and hot boxes, and solitary confinement—you know, “Bridge over the River Kwai” kinds of things. What I got was very different.
The book begins some months before the end of the war. The Japanese and the prisoners have worked out a sort of detente: the Japanese (or their Korean guards) patrol the outside of the wire, and the British, Australian and American officers keep order inside the wire. Clavell’s stand-in, Lt. Peter Marlowe, is an RAF pilot who was captured in Java. As the novel opens, he befriends (or, really, is befriended) by an American corporal named King, known to all in the camp as “the King”. He’s the King because he’s the guy who can sell things for you and get you money. He can get stuff for you. He, in and of himself, is pretty much the black market in Changi prison. Because of his position, he’s the best dressed man in the camp: he’s got a complete uniform. Few of the others, including the officers, have anything so nice. And because of his position, there are many in the camp, including Grey, the Provost Marshall, who want to see him tumble from his position. Because of their friendship, Marlowe gets tarred to some extent with the same brush.
As I say, this is not a book about sadistic prison guards. But life in Changi is hard, very hard, very, very hard. But the prisoners have learned to survie. They have learned to grow greens, and fertilize them with urine, so that they don’t get scurvy. They have learned to capture cockroaches from the latrine pits, and harvest their protein. The lucky ones keep chickens, because eggs are rich in vitamins and without the vitamins you die of beriberi. There are many different ways of coping, and we see them all. It warps the men…but by the end of the book it begins to seem normal, somehow.
And then the war ends. And the relieving U.S. and British forces come in to save the prisoners and bring them home. And we see the prisoners with new eyes, with the eyes of the newcomers…and we are appalled.
This is not a book for kids; by no means is it a book for kids. Nor is it a book for the squeamish…though, I admit, it didn’t make me squirm nearly as much as your average Stephen King novel. It’s a very good book, and I recommend it.
One last note. As first written, the book had vignettes concerning the wives and the sweethearts of some of the prisoners, and how they coped with their loved ones being gone for years on end. On first publication, these pages were removed. In the current edition, they have been restored…and the book is much stronger for it, I think.
The Hunger Games
Amazon kept pushing The Hunger Games at me, and so I finally broke down and got a copy of Suzanne Collins’ book. I suppose most everybody but me already knows about it, but here’s the basic premise.
We have a post-apocalyptic society in North America. There are thirteen places where people live: the twelve districts, which produce goods, and the Capital, which consumes them. At some point in the past there were thirteen districts, but the districts rebelled against the Capital, and were put down. District Thirteen was completely destroyed. And to punish Districts One through Twelve, the poorly-named Hunger Games were devised.
Every year, each district must provide two “tributes”, one boy and one girl, to participate in the Games. The Games are a test of survival and blood-thirstiness: twenty-four lads and lasses go in, and only one comes out. The tributes must find food and water, defend themselves against their fellows, and ultimately kill the other survivors in order to win. Our heroine, Katniss, is one of the tributes for District Twelve, a poor district whose tributes almost never win.
Now, the first thing to say about this milieu is that it’s looney tunes. It’s never explained why the Districts put up with the Games or with the drones in the Capital, and since all of the raw materials and food come from the Districts (so far as we can tell), it would seem like starving them out would be fairly easy. Now, the Capital does have access to high technology the districts don’t have, including a variety of flying “hovercraft”, but how they that maintain that technological base given the low population of Panem is unclear.
In short, I didn’t believe in the world for a minute.
That said, Katniss is an engaging heroine. She’s a survivor, and a thinker; she’s got trust issues; and if she’s touchy and inarticulate, she’s also loyal and well able to find food in the wilderness. She’s not been trained to play the Hunger Games, as some of the kids in the wealthier districts are, but her life to date amounts to the same thing. The course of the games is well told. There’s a romance of sorts (and Collins seems to understand teen emotions fairly well), and adventure, sacrifice and heroism. I was especially impressed with Katniss’ relationship with Peeta, her fellow District Twelve tribute. I can’t go into details without spoilers; suffice it to say that Katniss is thrust into an equivocal position, and the confusion in her mind and feelings is handled rather well.
The games are a tad harrowing but not too bad (Collins isn’t Stephen King). The book has a solid conclusion while still leaving the reader wanting more, and there are some obvious threads to be explored in the subsequent books.
So, all in all, not bad. I’ve got the second book, which I plan to read in the near term, and unless I really dislike it I’ll read the third as well, and we’ll see if Collins can stick the dismount.
Subsidiarity
One of the basic notions in Catholic social teaching is “subsidiarity”. I’ve usually heard this principle explained in this way: social problems should be solved at the lowest possible levels that are up to the task. What a person can reasonably do for himself, he should do. What a family can do for itself, the city shouldn’t do. What the city can do for itself, the state shouldn’t do. This popular in some circles currently, because it militates against big government, something it’s clear we have too much of.
However, Brandon has written a post on subsidiarity that shows that this is not quite what the Church is saying. It would be more accurate to say that certain institutions arise naturally in human society (e.g., the family) and that these institutions are naturally good at doing particular things—and that it is the responsibility of these institutions both to do what they do well, and to support the other institutions in doing what they do well!
Thus, if the family is naturally good at ensuring the well-being of children, then the state should do what it can to support the family in this role, rather than taking on this role itself. In American society today, I think that responsibilities do need to move downwards toward the family and the individual and away from the state, and that the state should be trying to encourage the family rather than replace it. But that’s happenstance.
We can see this in the current HHS attack on the Catholic Church. The Church is not really in any kind of simply hierarchy with the federal government. The federal government is not above the Church nor below the Church; they are independent. The Church does some things well; healthcare, education, and feeding the poor happen to be three of them. These things serve the public good, and the federal government should encourage them rather than hindering them.
Anyway, take a look at Brandon’s post; he’s more interesting than I am.
Kitchen Notes
The kitchen has been quiet for most of the last two weeks, while we waited for the structural engineer to finish his work. That was Wednesday; and by Wednesday afternoon the architect had the structural engineer’s plans in hand and OK’d by the county. On Thursday our contractor started work again, and on Friday they completed pouring the new foundation along two sides of our kitchen. Work should resume on Monday, and continue until the next unforeseen hang up.