Tom’s Big Picture

More PurposeDriven wackiness:

Pastor Rick Warren told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Barack Obama is an Amazing Man and that he has what it takes to be President of the United States.

I’m actually excited about Obama- I can think of no greater opportunity for the country than for Obama to get nominated simultaneously with a real conservative like Tom Tancredo. It would be poetic closure to the whole messy situation- Tancredo would offer real hope if elected, but if the country elected Obama, then that would tell me all I would need to know about the future of the country, and the appropriate preparations to take.

Well, it’s been three months.  December will have over 300 unique visitors, a decent number, with most of those visiting more than once.  A preview of what I hope to do with this site over the next year:

1) I try to write about subjects that I believe I have something original to say about (how’s that for a poor sentence?).  I will continue to flesh out what I believe to be my most important contribution, which is a positive, Christian understanding of the legitimate role of our ethnocultural identity in our lives.  For too long this subject has been dominated by professional caricatures on both sides.  Right now the fourth part of the Christianity and Culture series is under review by my very attractive editor (and mother of my children), who makes sure I don’t misstate anything in this sensitive area, which is akin in our era to Victorian prudishness about sex.

2) Related to 1), and covered in detail in the upcoming post, specific experiential features (such as poetry, bits of prose, etc) that will help our understanding of our past and people.

3) Practical suggestions for promoting ethnocultural renewal and self-confidence in our children.

4) Useful information I pick up from time to time- not only because I seek to benefit those who read this space, but also as “Google bait” to bring in new visitors on somewhat random subjects.

5) An upcoming polemnic on what I view to be the chief source of evil in our world today.

Happy New Year and thank you for a great couple months out of the box.

Tom

It was a Christmas night exactly two hundred and thirty years ago.

A small group of rebels, led by a Southern gentleman, desperately try to add a few sparks to the smoldering fire of liberty:

The Battle of Trenton was a battle which took place on December 26, 1776, during the American Revolutionary War after Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River. General George Washington led the main Continental Army across the river to surprise and virtually eliminate the Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey. This overwhelming victory helped to preserve the Continental Army and set the stage for the Battle of Princeton the following week.

A message of hope from our past as we struggle against the tyrants of our present; our task is in some ways more difficult, as the enemy is dispersed and not represented by any one military force or king who can be defeated finally and completely. But as long as there is Christmas, and Christ, there is hope.

Grab your rifles- there’s a spiritual shooting war starting as George Washington’s church has enough of New England immorality…

Two large and influential Episcopal parishes in Virginia voted overwhelmingly yesterday to leave the Episcopal Church and to affiliate with the Anglican archbishop of Nigeria, a conservative leader in a churchwide fight over homosexuality.

Truro and the Falls Church were formed before the US denomination existed. George Washington was a member of the vestry at the Falls Church.

A packed church of nearly 1,000 Truro congregants sat in rapt silence at the end of the 11:15 a.m. service yesterday as Jim Oakes, the senior warden, announced that more than 90 percent of eligible voters resolved to sever ties with the US church and retain control of church property.

Outside after the service, members were somber but resolute about a decision that they say culminated a long period of disenchantment with the Episcopal Church, dating back to the ordination of women in the 1970s. Their alienation grew with Robinson’s election.

“I want to do what’s right in the Lord’s eyes,” said Vicki Robb, 53, an Alexandria public relations executive, who said the church’s leftward drift was becoming intolerable.

A tribute of old to these brave Virginians:

Rebels before
Our fathers of yore,
Rebel’s the righteous name
Washington bore.

Rebels before
Our fathers of yore,
Rebel’s the righteous name
Washington bore.

Why, then, be ours the same,
The name that he snatch’d from shame,
Making it first in fame,
Foremost in war.
Making it first in fame,
Foremost in war.

God save the South,
God save the South,
Her altars and firesides,
God save the South!

God save the South,
God save the South,
Her altars and firesides,
God save the South!

For thou great war is nigh,
And we will win or die,
Chanting our battle cry,
Freedom or death!
Chanting our battle cry,
Freedom or death!

Much of the church today is infected with what I call “corporate” language, i.e. the language and jargon used by large organizations to describe what they do. While hard to precisely define, it is marked by words such as “paradigm”, “mission”, “vision”, “diversity”, “synergy” and other vague, inaccurate words that sound exciting to a certain mindset but in reality can mean virtually anything, and thus mean nothing. I can understand why a lot of church leaders would idolize corporations: as outsiders looking in, and thus their only experience with corporations being exposure to network television corporate propaganda (i.e. commercials), they are enamored with the quasi-tribal trappings of logos and slogans and also with the warm-fuzzy marketing images presented to outsiders. Naturally, they believe they can achieve analogous success (or at least the image of success projected by corporate marketing) by adopting corporate-looking logos, language and slogans for their congregations.

What they don’t realize is that a corporation is an amoral entity designed for economic efficiency. Those at the top are rewarded handsomely, while those in the middle and bottom are kept in the tightest possible ranges of compensation that the market will allow. Thus, corporate language and marketing is designed to maximize revenue while minimizing costs. It is inherently manipulative. Corporate language and slogans are designed internally to trade bottom-line expenses (compensation for employees) for intangible, cheaper alternatives (recognition, sense of purpose, emotional investment in work, etc). We all recognize that external corporate marketing language is manipulative, so why their internal language as well?

When a CEO talks to his employees about having “passion” for their work, what he really means is getting them emotionally invested so that they work more hours and neglect their families for the same amount of money. When a CEO speaks of “belt-tightening”, we all know whose belt he wants to tighten.

“Increasing competitiveness” is corporate-speak for pushing costs onto customers by replacing American personnel with cheaper but less competent foreigners- anyone who’s had to call tech support can attest to this.

The one common thread of corporate language is that it is deliberately vague and patronizing. It must promote an ethic of “change is good” in order to give a quasi-moral basis to the latest cost-saving initiative of the leadership.

I still remember from my corporate days the promotion of the book Who Moved My Cheese?, one from the genre of “thin business books” that appeal to the lowest common denominator of b-school pseudoscience. This particular book tells a story of two groups of mice who were used to getting their cheese in a particular place, and then suddenly the cheese isn’t there anymore. One group of mice complains about the lack of cheese, while the other mice use their sense of smell to locate the new cheese. The moral is, don’t get mad because the cheese moved, because the cheese will always move. Be a winner and get used to the cheese moving, because that’s just the way things are. That’s the whole book, $19.95 at Barnes and Noble. I’m not kidding- this bovine excrement was a business-bestseller.

I can’t believe grown men and women took that book seriously. To me, the book is high parody: the CEO’s are the masters of the universe who move the cheese, and professionals are just rats in a maze looking for where the masters put the cheese. Degradingly insulting, I couldn’t believe how many people swore by this book as some sort of breakthrough for them. But conveniently, it justifies everything a corporation does as inevitable, and thus resistance as futile.

Did your factory job move to Mexico? Looks like the cheese moved! Shutup, don’t complain, just retrain as a computer programmer! Programming job moved to India? Oops, that darn cheese moved again! Time to retrain as a mortgage broker! And people don’t see through this propaganda?!

Corporations have the potential for a great deal of evil for two chief reasons: hired management and dispersed, limited-liability ownership. Whereas the owner-manager is morally responsible for his choices, it is easier for the management of a corporation to do immoral acts on behalf of the shareholders- as the manager can simply say he is serving his masters, the shareholders. And the shareholders, who are so numerous and dispersed as to be powerless, are largely absentee members of the public who care only for the bottom-line results provided to them by management.

Thus, corporate structure defeats many of the private market incentives (an owner-manager’s sense of reputation, moral responsibility, etc) that regulate private behavior outside of the historically artificial corporate context. The idea of a corporation itself is preposterous: that someone ought to be able to act immorally through a proxy for his own benefit without the risk of liability for those immoral acts.

I have three proposals to reform American business:

1) First, kill the lawyers. No, seriously. The main practical need for corporations is the malignant lawsuit culture in our country. The best way to kill the lawyers is to adopt the ethical standards of every other Western legal tradition: make it illegal for lawyers to accept a case on speculation for damages. Let’s put all the smart parasites running whiplash ads on daytime TV into more productive endeavors. Also, we need to destroy the artificial monopoly of law practice controlled by the various state bars: anyone ought to be able to take the bar exam, law school or not (like it used to be), and offer their services to the public. I’ve been amazed how much more I know about areas of law that affect me than the average lawyer, so it can’t be that difficult. Without speculative lawsuits, would-be plaintiffs would have to foot their own legal bill upfront, destroying the culture of litigation.

2) Second, allow liability insurance to “shield” an equivalent number of personal assets. For example, if a businessperson operating as a sole proprietor carries $2 million in liability insurance, that ought to mean that the first $2 million in personal assets is off-limits for litigation. Right now, a $4 million dollar judgment against that person would wipe out the insurance and the personal assets.

3) Finally, get rid of the limited-liability corporate form. Every entity in business ought to be responsible for its own actions, and not arbitrarily shield the enablers of that action from liability. A lot of the problems we see today in the economy with large, abusive companies stem from their limited liability status, and thus eliminating any downside to unethical actions by management to increase profit.

These policies would advantage the small business (e.g. it would be relatively easy for a small business to buy liability insurance, but relatively difficult for Wal-mart due to their size) which has more desirable social effects on society, while disadvantaging large corporations. Large corporations would not be able to corner markets by pooling money from small investors and accepting a below-market rate of return on investments due to their limited liability status; who would invest in Wal-mart if that investment might mean liability for the actions of Wal-mart management? And these things should happen, since the corporation itself is an artificial affront to natural law, where people are responsible for the full effects of their actions.

Finally, the church needs to be the church. I could do without seeing another non-orthogonal cross “logo” (if you look at the average cross on a church logo these days, you’d think the Romans were very poor craftsmen of execution devices; in reality, it’s an effort to de-emphasize the reality of the cross and thus make it acceptable to the world) photoshopped in with a drop shadow and cutesy fonts, commissioned by well-meaning people who think that looking more like McDonald’s is going to help bring people to Christ.

The hard thing about this one is that, unlike most politicians, I actually liked Perry as a person.

“Now, strategic fencing in certain urban areas to direct the flow of traffic does make sense, but building a wall on the entire border is a preposterous idea,” Perry said.

“The only thing a wall would possibly accomplish is to help the ladder business.”

This is probably the most shameless open-borders argument possible: it’s impossible to stop therefore it’s inevitable. If the Mexican Border Patrol can manage to keep Guatemalans out of Mexico, surely the US Border Patrol can keep Mexicans out of the US.

It gets worse:

“Good neighbors do not foster fear and engage in divisive appeals. They seek solutions”

Perry said the federal government needs to quickly enact immigration reform, and he said he supports a guest worker program that would bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows.

The governor also said he believes legislation that has been filed in the Texas House to do away with “birthright citizenship” is divisive.

State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has a bill that would challenge a U.S. constitutional interpretation that gives automatic citizenship to everyone born in the United States. Berman’s bill would deny such citizenship to anyone born to parents who are in the country illegally.

So basically, Perry here is saying that he supports an amnesty- letting illegals stay. And he supports automatic citizenship (and welfare benefits) to the child of any pregnant Mexican who can make it across the border. What’s “divisive” about that, except providing an incentive for a pregnant woman to risk her and her baby’s life while hastening the demographic displacement of the American people?

We’ve got a real problem here in Texas. How does arguably the most conservative state in the country have such sorry leaders? A governor who basically lied to us in the campaign and now supports open borders. Both of our Senators (Cornyn and Hutchinson) have this year supported their own amnesties. Hutchinson is even pro-choice, for goodness sake, elected in the very state whose laws against murdering unborn children were overturned by Roe v. Wade!

I think the main problem in the state is its size- it takes so much money to run for statewide office that the grassroots have relatively little influence over the selection. If a good candidate were to run for governor, unless that candidate could convince the money-men to fund his campaign, you’d never even hear about him, or else dismiss him as a wasted vote. I have hopes the Internet can change this in the long-term.

But for now, all this almost makes me wish I had voted for the crazy Jewish cowboy:

Kinky Friedman has said that if he was elected governor of Texas, he would make the Mexican government pay for the costs of illegal immigration in Texas or face what he called the “Israeli discount.”

“We should be as ruthless as they are with the southern border,” said the author and musician. He says: “I would tell [Mexican officials] to step up to the plate and pay their fair share of the cost illegals are costing the state of Texas…If they don’t do that, then I want the border on the nightly news every night.

But we should have better choices than a washed-up wannabe cowboy Yankee transplant named “Kinky”.

We only have ourselves to blame: we ought to research every candidate on the Republican Primary ticket for statewide offices and vote for the most conservative ones, regardless of funding. Did you do this? Did you even vote in the primary? If you didn’t, you really have no right to complain when Tweedledee calls Tweedledum a liberal in the campaign and then adopts his positions after the election.

“When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.” Friedrich Nietzsche

The atheist macroevolutionist Richard Dawkins* recently posted a link on his blog to an article on the “quiver full” movement among conservative Protestants. Most interesting to me is the response of his audience in the comments.

A heckler posts:

Oh, the irony: as you atheists/evolutionists realize that you’ll be victims of your own, very real, self inflicted form of natural selection (abortion, birth control).

An atheist responds:

Not if we can conquer aging and death through scientific means.

Delicious irony: it seems that belief in the worldview dictated by macroevolution is itself evolutionarily disadvantageous, as only deeply religious people (and really stupid people) reproduce themselves at an above-replacement pace.

By their own logic, religious belief in an imperative for high fertility is evolutionary advantageous. The logic of the eventual evolutionary triumph of faith is inarguable: all they can do is appeal to their faith that science will save them from death and the necessity of rearing children. In other words, they have replaced one faith with another that is empty and sterile.

Raising children is hard, arguably a form of voluntary slavery. Only faith in God can provide sufficient motivation to raise a large family. The future belongs to the fundamentalists.

Nietzsche may have been right when he remarked that “God is dead” as a real belief among the elites of late 19th century Europe; but as atheism and agnosticism run their course, God is coming back with a vengeance.

*Dawkins is a British scientist and a public personality who has a sort of anti-religious missionary zeal against all types of religion (and to his credit, he does not pull any politically correct punches when it comes to Islam), seeing them as the world’s prime source of conflict; we will be seeing more of him as a public enemy of the faith. Dawkins’ scientific ideas, however, when confined to their proper microevolutionary contexts (as opposed to the man’s macroevolutionary faith), are quite interesting. In particular, his work on memes (ideas that replicate themselves analogous to genes), stripped of his political agenda, is brilliant.