Here Lies the Nation

     The other day my colleague in our team-taught course in Western Civilization made an interesting point about the passing away of medieval Christendom.  He did not say that it was a good or bad thing that it passed away, and did not say when exactly the demise occurred, but rather showed the students how to identify signs that it had occurred.  So, for instance, when Pope Urban at Clermont preached the First Crusade, regardless of how one views what Bohemond and Godfrey and the other crusaders did, one must still be struck by the bare and remarkable fact that they obeyed the preaching.  This they did, as my colleague justly observed, despite the fact that it was not in the best interest of their own power at home, and despite the fact that they had no discernible desire for colonies or for empire.  Or consider the popular movement, endorsed by bishops and popes, that led to the declaration of the Truce of God and the Peace of God.  Warrior nobles chafed against any encroachment upon their liberty to pillage and lay waste to the lands of their enemies, but they at least sometimes and halfheartedly obeyed, refraining from attacking women and children and the aged, laying their weapons down during the penitential seasons and on certain days of every week, and in general allowing themselves unwittingly to be transformed into something remotely resembling the ideal of a chivalric knights.  People derived their prime sense of identity not from where they lived or what language they spoke, but from the faith they shared even with their enemies; they were Christians before they were Tuscans or Flemish.  By the seventeenth century, the source of a man's identity had shifted: Cardinal Richelieu, that eminence grise, was French first, French second, and French third, and that is why he assisted the Protestants in the Thirty Years' War, and why he arranged a peace between France and the Turk, allowing the Turk to push deep into Hapsburg territories in the east.  Had the Pope then decreed that there would be no fighting between Christian princes, the princes would have laughed.  Christendom as a cultural and cross-linguistic reality was dead, and the nation-state had taken its place.

     But now, he suggested, the nation may be going the same way that medieval Christendom went.  I agree, and I'm not talking about the power of multinational corporations-- and neither was he.  I mean that the virtue of patriotism, which is linked to a sense of belonging to this land, here, and loving it, a virtue that did not begin with the nation-state but could at least survive in it, is fading away.  A man calls himself a doctor or a lawyer, a golfer, a husband and father, a collector of postcards, even a Methodist, before he calls himself an American.  I have an old Army-Navy hymnal at home, and to look through it is to be astonished by the number and variety and quaint eloquence of its patriotic anthems, most of them now long forgotten.  Even our most common patriotic hymns have been reduced, in the lived experience and memories of citizens, to a single verse, usually only dimly understood.  Lines such as these from the hymn that used to be called simply America are almost incomprehensible now, not semantically but affectively, and would certainly never be written:
          I love thy rocks and rills,
          Thy woods and templed hills;
          My heart with rapture fills
               Like that above.

     When did it die, this love, this sense that at the deepest springs of my being I am an American?  Again, I'm not saying that we should feel this way; I'm only observing that we don't.  I don't know when the worm turned, but it has.  How many of the people running for the presidency do not really like America?  How many of them never have anything good to say about it?  How many bear hearts that do not beat warmly when they hear of Teddy and the Rough Riders, or Washington crossing the Delaware to surprise the Hessians at Trenton?  How many do not truly love the ways of Americans, even in such harmless things as food and sport, but rather agree when other peoples think them crazy or foolish?  For how many has the Constitution sunk below a thing of contempt, to become nothing but a dead letter, along with all other venerable American traditions?  I can name at least four or five candidates from both parties, including one of the most prominent candidates, who have never shown the slightest trace of actually liking America, let alone hoping that America is victorious in her struggles with other nations.  We've had such candidates before, but nobody would vote for them; they remained on the fringe.  They are not on the fringe now. 

     And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is?  What do we revere and obey?  We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

Comments

[Francesca]

Tony Esolen writes, "I don't know whether he made the correct decision to fight Iraq. I do know that if it was the correct decision, we'd never hear about that from the media. "

In general, at least until very recently when the extent of the disaster could no longer be hidden, the media has been quite sycophantic to the Bush administration about the Iraq war.

There's an interesting article on Moyer’s piece on the media coverage during the run up to the Iraq War at:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574260

A key excerpt: Walter Isaacson is pushed hard by Moyers and finally admits, “We didn’t question our sources enough.” But why? Isaacson notes there was “almost a patriotism police” after 9/11 and when the network showed civilian casualties it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and “big people in corporations were calling up and saying, ‘You’re being anti-American here.’”

The most important thing America could do for democracy is to rip the news media out of the corporations and make them standalone entities – individually owned. Thankfully the blogosphere provides some independent analysis.

[peterspence]

>>And you consider my pointing out that the economy hasn't collapsed "chipper"? Do you know what a collapsed economy looks like?<<

Like I said, I live in Detroit. And if you think more minimum wage jobs at McDonalds account for growth, I'll be happy to have a cherry pie with my Big Mac.

[Judy Warner]

Like I said, why don't you leave Michigan as so many others have done if things are so bad? And if you are interested in facts rather than anecdotes you could read this or this; here's an excerpt from the latter:

Entrepreneurs and businesses created 111,000 new jobs in January, most of those in professional and business services, education, and health. Revisions to earlier figures also revealed that employers created over 400,000 more jobs in 2006 than the government had previously estimated.

Average wages are also growing, rising 0.2 percent in January to $17.09 an hour. Over the past year, wages have risen 4.0 percent. This solid growth means that American workers are seeing their paychecks rise and that American families are better off than they were last year.

[Christopher Hathaway]

In general, at least until very recently when the extent of the disaster could no longer be hidden, the media has been quite sycophantic to the Bush administration about the Iraq war.

Apparently, if you're not saluting Michael Moore you're a sychophant for Bush. From my perswpective, I saw news coverage of the war begin to get negative about June of 2003. remember the hue and cry about looting of the museum in Baghdad?

[kate]

I’ve followed this post for a few days, hoping for some of the articulate regulars to express some thoughts about how patriotism – a proper love of country – should relate to one’s belonging to the Church.

I grew up among Protestant Americans who all but conflated faith in God with faith in America. Over the years as my faith has deepened, my 'patriotism' has waned, owing in part to living in other countries and fed by the disillusionment that comes from living long enough to have one’s unrealistic political optimism crushed.

In distancing oneself from the cynicism of the leftist chattering classes who seem to happily trash ‘middle America’ in all its manifestations, is there not a danger in being too uncritical of a patriotism that is essentially a kind of chauvinism?

Does this kind of excessive patriotism harm one's understanding of one's citizenship in the Kingdom? I've certainly seen lots of evidence of this over the years.

[Judy Warner]

Francesca, it's not that hard to find reports that show President Bush's new strategy (somewhat misleadingly called "the surge") is producing results different from before.

One article reports:

A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's political process.

The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.

The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha, said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting, scheduled for 2009.

One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court system in Ramadi, the provincial capital.

Another, Can Petraeus pull it off? is a fairly detailed report on the situation in Iraq. It begins:

The news from Iraq is, as usual, grim. Bombings, more bombings, and yet more bombings--that's all the world notices. It's easy to conclude that all is chaos. That's not true. Some parts of Iraq are in bad shape, but others are improving. I spent the first two weeks of April in Baghdad, with side trips to Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja. Along the way I talked to everyone from privates to generals, both American and Iraqi. I found that, while we may not yet be winning the war, our prospects are at least not deteriorating precipitously, as they were last year. When General David Petraeus took command in February, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today there are some glimmers of hope in the unlikeliest of places.

My question to you, Francesca, is: Does an optimistic report from Iraq make you happy or make you disappointed?

[Judy Warner]

Let me guess, Kate. The other countries you lived in were in Europe.

[James Kabala]

Look: I have no respect at all for Dennis Kucinich (who I despise as I despise all ex-pro-life turncoats) or for Hillary Clinton, very little for Harry Reid, and not even very much for Chuck Hagel, but I do believe in being fair to one's enemies. Doesn't anyone remember when Congress sang "God Bless America" after 9/11? If you look up the video on YouTube, Kucinich and Reid are not only present but quite prominent, as are quite a few others known to be liberals. I didn't see Hillary or Hagel, but I'm sure there was some good reason for this (perhaps they simply weren't in Washington at the time, or maybe they were indeed present but were simply in the background - that does seem unlikely for a spotlight-hogger like Hillary, though) rather than that they were boycotting a public expresion of patriotism. You can say that maybe some of these people were faking it, but even if they were it shows that they recognized a public display of patriotism as the thing that ought to be done, which is more credit than some here would give them.

[James Kabala]

I could have sworn I wrote "whom I despise." Maybe when I wrote "who" I was intending to take the clause in a different direction in which Kucinich was the subject.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>A key excerpt: Walter Isaacson is pushed hard by Moyers and finally admits, “We didn’t question our sources enough.” But why? Isaacson notes there was “almost a patriotism police” after 9/11 and when the network showed civilian casualties it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and “big people in corporations were calling up and saying, ‘You’re being anti-American here.’”<<<

Except, of course, that most of the so-called "intelligence errors" upon which the left likes to hang its hat were nothing of the kind.

1. Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. We have found some of them (500 rounds of chemical ammunition, precursor chemicals, biological warfare cultures, etc. Several American soldiers have suffered nerve agent poisoning as a result of IEDs rigged with Sarin-filled artillery shells. Now, Saddam was not supposed to have ANY of these things, and the possession of even one constitutes a violation of the cease-fire agreements and a dozen UN resolutions. That he had as many as we found should be cause for grave concern.

2. As the Dueffler report stated, Saddam had taken steps to rapidly reconstitute his WMD programs upon the lifting of sanctions. This included the hiding of equipment and critical information, sometimes even in the basements and backyards of his nuclear and chemical scientists.

3. Iraq did try to purchase yellowcake Uranium oxide in Africa. Try as he might, Joe Wilson cannot dispute that fact. Even his own report to the CIA tended to confirm rather than rebut it, as the 9/11 Commission stated in its own report.

4. There were indeed operational links between Iraq and al Qaeda, as the Clinton administration acknowledged in 1994. Since the overthrow of Saddam, numerous documents have come to light revealing the extent of that relationship, which included financial, technical and logistic support, training, the provision of sanctuary and base camp facilities. In return for all this, al Qaeda did a lot of Saddam's dirty work against the Shiites and the Kurds, as well as an occasional wet job in Europe. Based on this, one would have to say there was a more substantial operational relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq than between Germany and Japan in World War II. Opponents of the war try to get around this reality by erecting a straw man, claiming that the Admnistration said there was a direct relationship between Iraq and 9/11. This the Administration never said, but it cannot be stressed enough that there are still several warehouses full of documents that need to be reviewed--especially in light of the central role played by Iraq in the first attack on the World Trade Center.

5. Saddam's rule was an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe, the ending of which was a just and moral action. Though it did not get much attention, the humanitarian rationale for war was repeatedly stated by the Administration.

Basically, if anyone is twisting intelligence, it is the anti-war faction, not the Administration.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The news from Iraq is, as usual, grim. Bombings, more bombings, and yet more bombings--that's all the world notices. It's easy to conclude that all is chaos. That's not true. Some parts of Iraq are in bad shape, but others are improving. I spent the first two weeks of April in Baghdad, with side trips to Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja. Along the way I talked to everyone from privates to generals, both American and Iraqi. I found that, while we may not yet be winning the war, our prospects are at least not deteriorating precipitously, as they were last year. When General David Petraeus took command in February, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today there are some glimmers of hope in the unlikeliest of places.<<<

"I do not say it is the end, or even the beginning of the end. But it is the end of the beginning".
(Some third-rate English landscape painter)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Doesn't anyone remember when Congress sang "God Bless America" after 9/11? <<<

Could they not? I mean, they may hate America, they may be turncoats, but they are also political opportunists who know how to "maintain their political viability". In other words, they were for America before they were against it.

There used to be a saying, regarding foreign policy, that politics stops at the water's edge. There was a recognition that, regardless of his party, the President spoke for the country in regard to foreign affairs, and the loyal opposition was above all LOYAL--they would not try to undermine his policies even if they disagreed with them. They would not exploit foreign policy for political gain. Above all, they would not attempt, as a certain Congresswoman from California recently did, to circumvent the President and the Department of State to make foreign policy independent of and in opposition to, the Executive Branch.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Then you have a very prejudiced and restricted mind. How about not fighting for Hitler or Fatherland?<<<

Not that anyone in Germany had much of a choice. You seem to conflate a democratic constitutional monarchy such as the United Kingdom, or a representative federal republic such as the United States, with a totalitarian dictatorship such as Nazi Germany. I would call this moral equivalence, but that would not be fair to the moral equivalence crowd.

That given, very few Germans fought "for" Hitler, particularly after Stalingrad. A great many did fight for the Fatherland, which they recognized was faced with extermination at the hands of an implacable enemy, the Soviet Union. Granted, one can easily say that what happened in Prussia, Pomerania and Berlin was merely payback for what happened in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia proper, but that was probably not a consideration for the German soldiers who knew they were the only thing standing between their families and an orgy of rapine and murder. So, for them at least, fighting for the Fatherland was the honorable thing to do.

That said, while this may have been in the backs of their minds, that's not what kept them fighting to the bitter end against insurmountable odds, in a manner that even their enemies found remarkable (my friend, the late Col. Trevor N. Dupuy, wrote of the German army in World War II, "Whether fighting outnumbered or with numerical superiority, whether defending or attacking, in good weather and bad, with and without air superiority, the German soldier throughout the War was consistently superior to all his opponents"). It was not Nazi indoctrination that allowed this. It was not "robotic obedience" (the Americans were closer to the caricature of the German army than the Germans were themselves). Rather, it was a military culture that stressed individual initiative down to the lowest ranks, and which fostered the concept of Kameradschaft. The German soldier, like the American soldier, fought for his buddies, but unlike the American army, which treated the individual soldier as a cog in a gigantic machine, the German army took positive steps to build up and maintain Kameradschaft to the point that even catastrophic casualties could not break the morale of German units.

[peterspence]

"Judy, Judy, Judy, do ya love me?"--why don't they ever play that on the radio?
Anyway, Ms Warner, I don't take the Heritage Foundation to be the most unbiased of sources. Did "average" income rise because the rich got richer? The poor poorer? Exactly *what* did the author have in mind. He does not say. But he's darned chipper about the news! He should move to Detroit, too. Certainly, I do have a jaded picture, watching ifrastructure collapse, watching people I love lose their jobs, seeing more and more people living under overpasses. At least they don't have to worry about fitting through the eye of a needle.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>He should move to Detroit, too.<<<

Actually, Michigan has nobody to blame for its plight but Michigan. Its people voted in the governors and legislators who created a climate that does not encourage the growth of business, that penalizes companies for success, and prevents small businesses from getting a foothold. No surprise, then, that companies are fleeing in droves for more attractive localities (like, say, Virginia!). It makes as much sense for Michigan to blame national economic policies for its malaise as it does for Louisiana to blame Mississippi and Texas for its economic woes. In both cases, local choices yield local effects.

Makes the Onion article on the closing of the last unemployment office in Michigan seem prescient:

Thousands Lose Jobs As Michigan Unemployment Offices Close
February 7, 2007 | Issue 43•06

LANSING, MI—In another devastating blow to the state's already fragile economy, the Unemployment Insurance Agency of the state of Michigan permanently shuttered its nine branch offices Monday, leaving more than 8,500 unemployment employees unemployed.

Newly unemployed workers stream out of the UIA headquarters.

Announcing the closings at a press conference, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm called them "a tragic coda" to a once-vibrant industry that until this week defined the Michigan economy and served almost one-fifth of the state's employable population.

"This is a sad day for the people of Michigan," Granholm said to a crowd of part-time reporters and former assembly-line workers Tuesday. "Our state has a long, hallowed history of unemployment, and with these closings, we have lost a vital part of our economic and social fabric."

Since its inception in 1937, Michigan's unemployment benefits system has been among the nation's most productive, outlasting the state's automotive and other industrial and manufacturing sectors to become Michigan's most enduring job-provider.

For many, the closing of UIA marks an end of an era. Flint resident Martha Ayers recalled the "glory days" of the 1980s when the line of workers waiting to get inside each morning stretched around the block.

"Helping people move on with their lives after they'd been suddenly fired is all I've ever known. What am I going to do with myself now?"

"People from all over the state used to come just to visit our unemployment office," Ayers, 52, said. "Just like Detroit, Ypsilanti, Novi, and most other Michigan cities, Flint's an unemployment town. Has been as long as I can remember."

The sudden collapse of the very institution that formed the backbone of the state economy has left its former employees in total shock. Many newly laid-off UIA workers have expressed dismay at how the closures were handled. While most front-line workers were given no advance notice, department heads were presented with pink slips a week before the announcement and privately urged to return to the office while it was still possible to collect benefits.

Fifty-one-year-old Paul Huegli worked for the unemployment office for 25 years, and now finds himself in the odd position of competing for work against the very individuals he once served.

"Helping people move on with their lives after they'd been suddenly fired is all I've ever been good at, all I've ever known," Huegli said. "What am I going to do with myself now?"

Some of Huegli's colleagues are taking action. Former outreach associate Aaron Corcoran, 41, said he plans to join his brother-in-law and move to Kentucky. "We heard there was a lot of unemployment down there," Corcoran said. "I bet they can use someone who learned his trade in the heart of the unemployment industry. We were the best in the world."

Although the UIA closures appeared to come from out of the blue, some had predicted the agency's downfall, calling its spending-based business model unsustainable.

"They were pouring every penny of profit back into the product, and with all this money going out and none coming in, it was bound to catch up with them," said systems analyst Mark Sturdevant, who had spent the past three months observing the UIA offices firsthand since being fired from an untenured teaching position in the economics department of Michigan State University. "No one, not even Michigan's state unemployment office, can elude market forces."

Despite seemingly grim prospects for the Michigan unemployment industry in the near future, Gov. Granholm expressed solidarity with the laid-off UIA workers, saying that she was "confident" the state will once again have a thriving unemployment industry. "In fact, within a few years, I expect to be right out there with you guys," Granholm said.

© Copyright 2007, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.

[James A. Altena]

Kate,

My previous post more or less addressed your question, but to put the answer more directly:

In one sense we are to love all others, as being made in God's image and likeness. But that does not preclude having particular, special, exclusive loves -- for one's spouse, one's children, and yes, also for one's country. That does not mean denying or minimizing the faults of any of them. It does mean recognizing and accepting that one has been placed by God in a particular network of relations, with corresponding loves and obligations.

Obviously love of Christ comes before all other loves in order of priority; he warned us that even family members will divide against one another over him. But, rightly understood, this does not mean setting one love in opposition to another, much less giving up one for another. Rather, it means distinguishing true agape love -- self-sacrifical devotion to another in obedience to God -- from worldly imitations that are constituted of or contaminated by selfish desires, and deceive us into believing that catering to those constitutes "love".

Thus, e.g. breaking with one's family members in order to follow Christ does not mean choosing between love of Christ and love of family. Rather, by the right ordering of our God-given relations into correct priorities, the man who endures the rift with his family in order truly to follow Christ (i.e. he does not do so, or appear to do so, out of self assertion and willfulness) is in fact properly loving and serving both, for he understands that the witness his love of Christ presents to his family is the most loving thing he can do for them under the circumstances.

So, yes, patriotism as proper love of one's country is subordinate to love of Christ and His Church. However, if "over the years as my faith has deepened, my 'patriotism' has waned", then I make so bold to suggest that you have improperly conceived either patriotism or an aspect of your faith. Were they in right relations and prioirty, then as your love of Christ and His Church had grown, so to would a proper patriotism -- just as would have e.g. your love for your husband and children. Properly cultivated within the love or Christ, your particular loves will blossom and not weaken.

Beware -- beware! -- of the person who claims to have universal loves while disdaining all particular ones. For such a person in truth loves no-one but himself; his "love" of only universals and abstract generalizations is nothing more than the idolatry of his own mind. This usually comes about because real people and real things, with their real flaws, never entirely conform to the idolized ideal. But instead of loving these despite their flaws, and seeing in them that which God can redeem and renew, such a person turns against them in bitterness and ceases to love them for not living up to his ideal image of what they should be.

A flip side of this is Francesca's profoundly un-Christian notion (particularly disturbing in coming from someone who states that she is a Catholic) that

"It would show a profound lack of personal integrity if one standards were not 'of one's own making.'", and that "Individuals should be strong enough in their own belief system" [sic] and describing this all as "honest."

[I'd like to know where any such thing is in the Church's Cathechism.]

For as Christians we did *not* have "standards . . . of one's own making." On the contrary, we accepted -- even had imposed upon us against our resistant fallen wills -- standards created and give to us by God. We do not possess as masters the doctrines of Christianity as individuals; we are bound as servants to hold them as members of the Body of Christ. It has been the claim of every village atheist philospher for the past 400 years that to reject the the given truths of the Church in favor of his "own belief system" and "standards . . . of our own making" is to be "honest", whereas in fact it is the most dishonest thing a man can do, the one most lacking in true integrity, as it charges God himself with being the father of lies.

Of course, we do not make the nation, or the state, or any political party, into God. Invocations of the Nazi party here are an invidious slur. Tony's point is that there are people in the USA, disproportionately in certain elite classes, who simply do not just disagree with the pursuit of the Iraq war, or even with the current administration in general, but instead positively do not like and even despise their own nation. To despise one's country is a distinct phenomenon from mere political dissent against a particlar policy of its present government.

As Stuart rightly put it, "What characterizes our elites is a belief that our country not only is no better than any other country, but ultimately, the source of everything that is wrong with the world." I remember some years ago (during the Reagan or Bush administrations?) when NY Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote that the USA is the primary source of evil in the world. No even remotely rational and objective person can make such a statement with a straight face. (Lewis also famously said that he still believed in socialism and favored government ownership of everything, even though he also admitted "it doesn't work." The perfect triumph of ideology over reality!) But it is all too characteristic of the person who loves an ideal image, only to despise all real exemplars of it.

[David Gray]

>[I'd like to know where any such thing is in the Church's Cathechism.]

Even if you don't have an RC at hand to explain it to you... :)

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Ethan, I'll bet you thought you were named for a great patriot. Now you know you were named for a terrorist. Might as well change your name to Osama.<<

Actually, I was named after the Psalmist (#89).

On the other hand,
>>Far from being fans of the Continental Congress, they merely went along with those of its decisions with which they agreed, and ignored or opposed those with which they disagreed.<<

They almost sound like my kinda guys! :-)
Seriously, I probably would have been a Tory during the Revolution. The whole enterprise was both illegal and unwarranted.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Seriously, I probably would have been a Tory during the Revolution. The whole enterprise was both illegal and unwarranted.<<<

Not to mention immoral and sinful under Catholic "Just War" Theory.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Some third-rate English landscape painter<<

I say, Stuart! Give him second-rate. I rather enjoy his landscape paintings. And he certainly did a good job on his most major work, the European landscape.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Not to mention immoral and sinful under Catholic "Just War" Theory.<<

I also probably would have been an Anglican, so that might not have mattered too much.

[Bobby Winters]

Let's all stand now and sing a hymn...

///

This is my song, O God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine;
this is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine:
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
and sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine;
but other lands have sunlight too, and clover,
and skies are everywhere as blue as mine:
O hear my song, thou God of all the nations,
a song of peace for their land and for mine.

This is my song, O God of all the nations,
a prayer that peace transcends in every place;
and yet I pray for my beloved country --
the reassurance of continued grace:
Lord, help us find our one-ness in the Savior,
in spite of differences of age and race.

May truth and freedom come to every nation;
may peace abound where strife has raged so long;
that each may seek to love and build together,
a world united, righting every wrong;
a world united in its love for freedom,
proclaiming peace together in one song.

This is my prayer, O Lord of all earth's kingdoms,
thy kingdom come, on earth, thy will be done;
let Christ be lifted up 'til all shall serve him,
and hearts united, learn to live as one:
O hear my prayer, thou God of all the nations,
myself I give thee -- let thy will be done.

[Francesca]

James Altena writes: "A flip side of this is Francesca's profoundly un-Christian notion (particularly disturbing in coming from someone who states that she is a Catholic) that

"It would show a profound lack of personal integrity if one standards were not 'of one's own making.'", and that "Individuals should be strong enough in their own belief system" [sic] and describing this all as "honest."

[I'd like to know where any such thing is in the Church's Cathechism.]"

James, Catechism of the Catholic Church #1790: "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed," and #1800: "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience."

The principle was first formulated by Thomas Aquinas and the Church teaches that even an erring conscience binds. This venerable teaching is rather unpopular amongst people who assume, possibly because they project their own frailties onto others, that this gives one license to create one's own value system without reference to the teachings of the Church, and for one's own convenience. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it means is that effective conscience formation requires rigorous effort, education, and thought *within the context of Catholic teaching*, and then dictates integrity to the resulting conclusions.

Our standards may, as you say, "be given to us by God." Firstly, one needs to be able to discern between God and some human imposter virtually claiming to *be* God or at least to be his direct representative on earth. Secondly, where there is ambiguity, as there so often is in moral decision-making, and particularly within the political arena, it's up to each of us to determine what is right and wrong -- not arbitrarily, but honestly. It would be an abdication of personal integrity to go along with another person's choices out of laziness, timidity, fear of consequences, ignorance, personal convenience, or for whatever other reason *if* that choice conflicted with the dictates of one's own conscience. The Church's teachings have much in common with Kohlberg's more recent thesis on moral maturity.

[Neil Gussman]

Does anyone else think it is odd that this discussion of patriotism can go on for 122 posts without mentioning military service by Americans. I was stationed in Germany in the 70s during the Cold War. We had many joint training exercises with other NATO armies, even with a non-NATO French unit. In those European armies, middle class men served in the military as enlisted men. That has not been the case in America for more than half a century. In the United States, the poor, both rural and inner city, of all races serve in the military--especially those from the South. And now in America middle-class men can identify themselves as patriots and pro-military without even feeling the need to excuse the fact that they never served. In the case of those who came of age during the Viet Nam war, even a record of draft-dodging does not mean one is unpatriotic--Viet Nam was not the "right war." (I am sure Screwtape loves the idea that young men would get to choose which of their country's cause they deem worthy of support.) Does anyone else think that a nation in which the well-educated and privileged no longer serve that patriotism must suffer?

[Francesca]

Judy writes, "My question to you, Francesca, is: Does an optimistic report from Iraq make you happy or make you disappointed?"

Within the current political climate, ulterior motives tend to be projected onto anyone expressing opposing viewpoints. Some have described this as a Rovian strategy. Wherever it comes from, many people seem to be getting it figured out and are tired of it.

To suggest that someone could be "gleeful" or "happy" about the human tragedy that is Iraq is quite viciously uncharitable in my view and seems a last-ditch effort to deflect criticism of the situation. It may be that people who have been shouting out, for years, that the king has no clothes, and have consequently been accused of being unpatriotic, "hating America," being egotistical because they presume to pass judgment on their country, etc., etc., etc., feel *vindicated* to have finally been proven correct. This is quite different from feeling gleeful. Many of the critics started out supporting the war and are quite chastened and humbled about being wrong, but also angry and disappointed.

I can honestly say that I find the bad news about Iraq absolutely heart-breaking and I think the situation over there is unbearably sad, especially for children growing up in such an unstable and violent climate. As for the optimistic reports, we've been lied to so often (remember the WMDs that were constantly being found -- all zero of them as it turned out?) that my first response is cynicism. However, I would quite honestly be absolutely delighted if Iraq could somehow be transformed into a safe, stable, and prosperous society. And soon.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed," and #1800: "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience."<<<

That doesn't mean what you think it means, since it refers specifically to an INFORMED conscience, i.e., one which is congruent with the will of God, a manifestation of the indwelling image and likeness.

[Francesca]

S. Koehl writes, 'Except, of course, that most of the so-called "intelligence errors" upon which the left likes to hang its hat were nothing of the kind.'

It's very clear now that the war was predicated on false information and has been incompetently prosecuted.

You were, if I remember correctly, the person who made the absurd suggestion that "the current war against Islamic jihadism ... is a continuation of a struggle that began when the Persians of Darius the Great were first defeated on the Plains of Marathon." Since Darius lived about a millenium before Islam was even founded (!!!), I would suggest you have issues with either factual accuracy, logic, or both, so I will not waste further time on your claims.

[Francesca]

S. Koehl writes, 'That doesn't mean what you think it means, since it refers specifically to an INFORMED conscience, i.e., one which is congruent with the will of God, a manifestation of the indwelling image and likeness.'

I'm perfectly capable of figuring out what it means:-) Yes, an INFORMED conscience is congruent with the will of *God*. *God*. Not Ted Haggard. Not George Bush. And most certainly not Stuart Koehl, however much he might confuse the two. But *God*. In areas of moral ambiguity, it's for each of us to determine what the will of God actually is, and then to follow it, however hard that might be.

[David Gray]

>It's very clear now that the war was predicated on false information and has been incompetently prosecuted.

So was the American Civil War in many respects. That is an utterly pointless statement. Wars are generally badly prosecuted. WWII certainly was. If we'd given up in WWII when we made mistakes it wouldn't have lasted all that long. And if you think the war was entirely predicated on "false information" then you have a toddler's eye view of the event.

[Judy Warner]

remember the WMDs that were constantly being found -- all zero of them as it turned out?

I think Stuart dealt with that myth very thoroughly several posts back. I didn't see you refute his facts, you just keep on repeating your mantra.

[kate]

Altena: ‘However, if "over the years as my faith has deepened, my 'patriotism' has waned", then I make so bold to suggest that you have improperly conceived either patriotism or an aspect of your faith.’

You are bold. The reason I put ‘patriotism’ in quotes is that I see a number of patriotisms articulated in this lengthy thread, some of which might be properly conceived, others not. The difficulty as I tried to suggest for reflection is working out what a properly conceived patriotism looks like. Is it just possible that my ‘waned patriotism’ is more rightly ordered for having waned over the years? I don’t know (nor do you), but I’m genuinely examining what a properly conceived patriotism is in light of our allegiance to God, neighbor, family, Church, etc.

I don’t object to people loving their countries, but perhaps I’m missing something in not understanding what Altena and others seem to assume – that there is a hierarchical priority of loves that would necessarily include love of country, along with love of God, neighbor, family, Church, etc. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing against a connection. I would like to read something that articulates why a Christian SHOULD love a country that is a political entity. A sense of place, and loyalty to it, is inborn in most people, I would venture, but does that desire for rootedness have to be identified with a politcal entity like the nation-state? Couldn’t it be rooted in love of a specific state (I know some Texans), geographic area (New Englanders), or ‘tribe’ just as well? I don’t know; I’m asking.

Along with Esolen, I deplore the seeming hatred of American ‘elites’ for their country, but they also seem to despise Western civilization (except for their part in it). As an American, I have lived in the Middle East, England, and in many places in North America, and that has strengthened my identification with the legacy of Western civilization as a whole – something that is larger than America, even if America is doing a better job than other Western countries in sustaining that legacy. But I also love the geographic area where I live, where I am rooted. Do I also have to love the political entity/country, or is it enough to be thankful for its strengths, respect its authority, and fulfill my duty as a citizen?

[Scott Walker]

But repitition is what mantras are for. They only work if you say them over and over and over and over...

[David R.]

Judy Warner wrote:
I think Stuart dealt with that myth very thoroughly several posts back. I didn't see you refute his facts, you just keep on repeating your mantra.
Stuart Koehl wrote:
Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. We have found some of them (500 rounds of chemical ammunition, precursor chemicals, biological warfare cultures, etc.

While I hesitate to jump into the path of the Koehl train, a few rounds of chemical ammunition (500 rounds, come on, that's nothing in military terms!) does not WMD make! In any case, the use of the term WMD to refer to chemical weapons is dodgy at best:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/09/my_last_wmd_swing_the_lantern/

Francesca wrote:
It's very clear now that the war was predicated on false information and has been incompetently prosecuted.
David Gray wrote:
if you think the war was entirely predicated on "false information" then you have a toddler's eye view of the event.

Francesca never used the word 'entirely', and seriously David, do you really believe the Iraq war wasn't "sold" to the public by the significant emphasis of certain information and the deliberate suppression of contradictory intelligence? If so then I believe that it is you who has the toddler's eye view.

[peterspence]

Francesca--

As we say in Detroit, "You go, girl." You've dealt very nicely with the overabundance of swagger that passes for Christian charity around these parts--especially when "the State" is questioned.

Dominic also made some valid points. Thanks, Dominic, for being rational.

As far as Iraq goes, I think it was a mistake to go in, but it would also be a mistake to leave now. I wish it had never happened, and I am completely suspicious of Herr President's motives for going in. As Francis Fukuyama said not too long ago, "I can no longer call myself a neo-con," or however he put it. (I'm sure Stuart will know).

A friend of mine, an atheist, was in the army, stationed in France, during the 25th anniversary of the liberation of that country. He said there was a military parade in which soldiers from all of the Allied nations involved in the conflict marched past a dias of French dignitaries and other important politicoes. However, it was only when the American troops paraded by, that the French saluted. My friend said it was one of the proudest moments of his life. I wish I had been there (I was in second grade at the time, and couldn't make it). That's the kind of America I would like to be a part of.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I was stationed in Germany in the 70s during the Cold War. We had many joint training exercises with other NATO armies, even with a non-NATO French unit. In those European armies, middle class men served in the military as enlisted men. That has not been the case in America for more than half a century. In the United States, the poor, both rural and inner city, of all races serve in the military--especially those from the South.<<<

Another urban legend. In fact, the military is widely diverse, and the bulk of the enlisted ranks are filled with men of solidly middle class backgrounds. Data from the Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense indicates that the mean household income of recruits was $41,141 in constant 2000 dollars, as compared to $41,994 for the general population. Ninety-eight percent of military recruits had a high school education or better, as compared to just 75% of the general population. White recruits constitute about 75% of all recruits, which is slightly higher than their percentage of the general population. Blacks constituted 16.6% of all recruits in 1999, but just 14.3% in 2003--yet blacks constitute 14.7% of the general population.

Regarding income distribution, the following table is helpful:

Income range General Pop. 18-24 1999 Recruits 2003 Recruits

$0-29,375 20.0% 18.0% 14.6%
$29,382-$35,462 20.0% 21.0% 19.6%
$35,463-$41,685 20.0% 21.3% 21.2%
$41,688-$52,068 20.0% 21.3% 22.5%
$52,071-$200,000 20.0% 18.6% 22.0%

This reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the poor do not serve disproportionately, the rich do not shirk disproporationately. Rather the reverse, at least, since 9/11: the two lowest income quintiles are under-represented among the 2003 recruits, while the three highest quintiles are over-represented. This is a solidly middle class force.

Moreover, it is getting moreso. Looking at changes in recruit household income levels between 1999 and 2003, we find that the contribution of households making between $20-$40 thousand per year has declined by 1-1.74%, while the contribution of households making more than $40,000 has increased. The largest increase was in the $50-55,000 range, but there were increases for all income brackets between $40-45,000 up to $100,000+ If anyone is shirking, it's the poor. Maybe if we brought back the draft, they would do their fair share?

With regard to regional distribution, urban areas represent 39.1 of the general population, but only 30.1% of recruits in 1999 and 28.9% in 2003. Not surprisingly, those states normally characterized as "red" are over-represented, while blue states are under-represented. Montana, Wyoming, Florida, Maine and Texas provide the most disproportionate share of recruits, while Massachussets, Rhode Island, Utah, and DC are the most under-represented among recruits.

I haven't done a systematic analysis of casualties yet, but I think you will find that, for a variety of reasons, that the middle and upper classes are even more disproportionately represented in the combat arms and elite units, including aviation and special operations.

Despite all that, taken as a whole, the volunteer force looks remarkably like the country that sends it out to fight.

[Judy Warner]

Peterspence, I don't think you would believe any source unbiased unless it agreed with you that because you live in Detroit and know lots of unemployed people, the entire country is going to hell in a handbasket. I was going to give you some other source but it's simply a waste of time. The numbers in the Heritage papers are well known by every economist; I used the Heritage Foundation because I'm familiar with its web site and can find things easily on it.

But you seem to like anecdotes and personal experiences, so here's mine. When we moved to our rural Maryland county 15 years ago the unemployment rate was 12 percent. We could hire anybody for anything -- an unemployed skilled carpenter built in bookshelves for us for $10 an hour. I had a cleaning lady who charged $6 an hour (a rare thing for me, to have a cleaning lady). In the last few years it's difficult to find workmen at all, at any price, they're so busy. The unemployment rate is around 4 percent. The newspaper's help wanted pages keep growing. Would you say my experience is as valid as yours, or does yours trump everyone else's because it's pessimistic, which is the only proper way to be nowadays, in this terrible economy?

[David Gray]

>In any case, the use of the term WMD to refer to chemical weapons is dodgy at best

Standard practice long before the war.

>do you really believe the Iraq war wasn't "sold" to the public by the significant emphasis of certain information and the deliberate suppression of contradictory intelligence? If so then I believe that it is you who has the toddler's eye view.

You have no idea how intelligence works, it is clear. There are a variety of things in which one can fault the current administration but their interpretation of intelligence was not markedly different from that of the Clinton administration or most Western powers. What was different were the conclusions they drew as to what actions were required. If you want to argue with that you'd be taken a bit more seriously, the intelligence angle is one that invites ridicule.

[Tony Esolen]

Kate,

You ask a very good question -- and I agree with James Altena's assessment of the hierarchy of loves. The Catholic Catechism, for instance, teaches -- or at least the old Baltimore Catechism taught -- that a proper love of country is enjoined upon us in the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother." Certainly the virtue of piety extends to your locale, your village, the streams and hills among which you live; but a special place of honor should be given to a free people's common enterprise, the nation that gave us the laws we live by, and that has provided us much of what we take for granted, whereby we thrive.

I agree also with someone about 100 comments back that Clinton pere does like America, and maybe a part of that large and terribly confused heart also loves America. Clinton mere, however, is the ideologue in the family, without whom Clinton mere would never have become President, but without whom, had he ever lucked into the office, he might have been a very fine President, had he kept a padlock on his zipper. He had, after all, the capacity to get along with his political opponents, while Clinton mere has never shown even the capacity to work constructively with her political allies.

I will be posting a blog later this week on the death of Sweden -- a tip of the hat to James A. for the article. Or maybe on the death of the city -- gentrified and sterilely cleaned up metropoloi notwithstanding. Almost everything I've said about ours being a post-national world might also be evidence for our being post-cultural and post-civic. Jane Jacobs showed the road to the death of the city almost 50 years ago.

[peterspence]

Judy,

Certainly, I would see your experience as valid. You seem to be the one who is discounting mine. The point I'm trying to make is that "good news about the economy" is only good news to those who benefit from it. There is very little good news in Detroit, unfortunately. And as for the Heritage Foundation, what would you expect them to say? And the author's data was rather selective as well as pointed. His only bow to people that may disagree with them was to call them names.

[David Gray]

>Herr President's

Gee, I wonder what kind of juvenile notion is being suggested by that turn of phrase.

[peterspence]

David,

Don't get all juvenile on me now.

[James A. Altena]

The principle was first formulated by Thomas Aquinas and the Church teaches that even an erring conscience binds. This venerable teaching is rather unpopular amongst people who assume, possibly because they project their own frailties onto others, that this gives one license to create one's own value system without reference to the teachings of the Church, and for one's own convenience. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it means is that effective conscience formation requires rigorous effort, education, and thought *within the context of Catholic teaching*, and then dictates integrity to the resulting conclusions."

So, Francesca, why then did you originally write:

"It would show a profound lack of personal integrity if one standards were not "of one's own making." If not one's own, then whose?"
["one's own making" not those of the Church]

and

" "Individuals should be strong enough in their own belief system"
[one's "own belief system" -- not that of the Church]

and that you loved Mencken when he wrote:

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority."

*all* without *any* reference whatsoever to informed conscience, or to accepting the teachings of the Church rather than formulating your own. To give "license to create one's own value system without reference to the teachings of the Church" is *exactly* what you proclaimed repeatedly. You can't criticize people for taking you at your word as you wrote it.

You say in response to Stuart that you know the Catechism refers to *informed* conscience. It would seem that the problem here is that you misunderstand what that means. Specifically, you apparently think that;
a) "inform" refers more to acquiring factual knowledge than to interior formation of moral character; and so
b) it is up to *you* to form your own conscience, rather than for your to surrender your conscience to being formed by the Church.

If you had had proper formation in these areas, then you would never have made statements even remotely resembling the ones I cited, or found anything to love in those of Mencken that David Gray supplied. Your statements certainly demonstrate no such "rigorous effort, education, and thought *within the context of Catholic teaching*" as you now state.

As for erring conscience -- that must also be honestly and fully open to correction. And the dissident must first admit that he is such in the face of the teachings of the Church. The Church is not sanctioning the idea that a person may know himself to be a dissident and then knowingly, willfully, and defiantly acting contrary to the Church on the basis of the supposed certainty of his own individual conscience.

As for discernment -- of course it must be practiced. But it can only rightly be practiced on the basis of rightly formed conscience. Your argument is nothing more than the usual approach of the post-Vatican II subversives such as Hans Kung & Co. -- masters of cheap psychologizing who also adopted the typical liberal tactic of accusing opponents of "projection" when they are themselves the chief practitioners of it.

Oh, but I forget -- the rest of us are obviously so much more frail than you, the Prometheus who has the strength to have standards of her own making, and is so strong in her own belief system, and can join Mencken in despising us mere robots who believe in moral certainty.

[James A. Altena]

Dear David,

Touche!

(I haven't yet been back to visit our dispute on the other thread, but this was clever.)

Though, as a matter of fact, when I do have a question about the Catechism, I do consult a knowledgable RC friend. I likewise consult a knowledgeable Reformed friend about the WCF. Etc.

Just remember --

When you're right, your right.
When you're wrong, you're Reformed.
And when you're really wrong, you're me. :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>While I hesitate to jump into the path of the Koehl train, a few rounds of chemical ammunition (500 rounds, come on, that's nothing in military terms!) <<<

Francesca's ignorance is showing again.

Most of the rounds we have found contained either mustard or Sarin/Sarin derivatives.

Mustard is a persistent blister agent, a viscous liquid that is slow to evaporate, and therefore can hang around for days, if not weeks, depending upon the weather. It can soak into the soil and contaminate it for years. If it gets on food or crops, it renders them inedible. When Mustard comes in contact with exposed skin, it causes burns and painful blisters, which if untreated can become infected and cause toxemia. If inhaled or swallowed, it can cause chemical pneumonia that is permanently incapacitating at best and fatal at worst.

Sarin is a nerve agent. It blocks the action of an enzyme needed by the nervous system to transmit signals across the synapses. It is percutaneous, meaning that it can be absorbed through the skin, as well as by inhalation (which is why a gas mask alone will not suffice against it). Once a person has received a dose of Sarin, he will experience difficulty in breathing, nervous convulsions, uncontrollable tearing and muscous discharges, and finally, respiratory collapse and death. It doesn't take much to kill a person: the LD-50 (the does that will kill 50% of all people exposed) is just 100 mg per min per cubic meter if inhaled; or 10,000 mg per minute per cubic meter percutaneously. In other words, a drop on your skin or up your nose can kill you many times over.

Now, Francesca says that 500 artillery rounds and aerial rockets isn't a lot by military standards, and that is correct. But then, chemical weapons don't kill very many soldiers, for the simple reasons that (a) soldiers are trained and equipped to deal with chemical attacks; and (b) soldiers are dispersed on the battlefield, so they don't present a concentrated target (not many people per square kilometer). From a military standpoint, the purpose of chemical weapons is to force enemy soldiers to put on protective equipment, which reduces their effectiveness and tempo of operations; any soldiers killed is icing on the cake. So it would take a lot of chemical munitions to be effective against a first-rate army properly equipped with chemical protective gear (like the United States military).

On the other hand, civilians aren't trained or equipped to counter chemical attack. In fact, they are completely vulnerable. And they tend to be concentrated, into towns and cities, with lots of people per square kilometer. So, if you want to kill a lot of civilians, then you don't need a lot of chemical weapons to do so--which is why Saddam used them against the Kurds.

A typical 122mm rocket or artillery shell has a payload of about 30 pounds. That's about three gallons of Sarin, or something on the order of 135,000 lethal doses (inhaled) or 13,500 lethal doses percutaneous. Per round. Multiply that by 500 rounds, and you get 68 million lethal doses inhaled, or 680,000 lethal doses percutaneous.

If that's a drop in the bucket, consider what Saddam could have done with his complete inventory.

Also remember, it's a big country, and we've barely explored a fraction of it. We have no idea what is still out there, buried or even hiding in plain sight among the 600,000 tons of conventional munitions that Saddam left behind (which, by the way, is two-thirds the size of the total U.S. conventional weapons stockpile; consider that this was for a country of 23 million people).

It would only take Saddam giving one (1) Sarin artillery round to al Qaeda to create the potential for massive casualties in a major metropolitan area. The best way to disperse the stuff would be from a crop duster, but you could even do it with a truck equipped with an aerosol dispenser. In other words, nuclear-level casualties without the cost and all that nasty radiation.

Francesca is pretty cavalier with the lives of other people, don't you think? To say nothing of utterly ignorant of military realities.

I hope that Francesca will take this in the spirit that it is offered; i.e., that if she wants to make broad, off-the-cuff statements about war, terrorism, intelligence operations and the like, that she should take care not to do so in the presence of someone who does those things for a living.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In any case, the use of the term WMD to refer to chemical weapons is dodgy at best

Standard practice long before the war.<<<

The term "weapons of mass destruction" is a neologism in U.S. defense circles. Its origin is Soviet. They used the term to refer to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons collectively, because from the Soviet perspective, they all had the same purpose--to inflict mass casualties. In the United States military, we first referred to "Chemical, Biological and Radiological (CBR) weapons, and then to "Nuclear, Chemical and Biological (NBC)" weapons. Some time in the 1990s, someone thought it was cooler to speak of WMDs, though the term is overly broad and not particularly helpful. For instance, an airliner flown into a skyscraper can meet the criteria for being a weapon of mass destruction, since it is (a) a weapon; and (b) causes mass destruction.

[Yaknyeti]

Kate,

It's taken me fifteen years in the Midwest and a month-long trip back to where I spent my itinerant childhood in Asia before my part of America felt like home. I have no idea how settled you've been, but I think that plays a big part. On the other hand, perhaps you have been settled, and have found something to "unsettle" you as you travel. I don't think patriotism is based as much in a "desire for rootedness" as in gratitude for one's roots. It's similar to a family. You've been with them long enough and depended on them long enough that you are a part of them, and will be even if they mess up and break your heart.

Regardless, I think you and Dominic are right that some Americans take their patriotism too far (although Dominic, PLEASE don't judge our lives south of the border by what you see on TV!). As Bobby Winters' hymn suggests, though, one can take that particular love (of country, state, whatever) and expand that when one thinks about how others see their parts of the world. It may be easier to do that than to build up a love that is lacking in the first place... but regardless, I would rather encourage people to love more than to love less.

I suspect the level for which we build love (nation, state, town, etc.) depends personal identification and thus on the competition. When I'm among Brits, I'm a proud American. But in a group of Midwesterners, I'll start breaking out the Iowa jokes that every Minnesotan learns as a kid. Levels are thus fluid, and get more intense the more local they get (at least, in my case).

A political entity? No, that's not worth of love. But a community that defines who I am? Definitely. The politics plays into it because love is also related to responsibility. If I love something, I will try to take care of it as best I can. The opposite also occurs: that I grow to love something I nurture.

[David R.]

David Gray wrote:
You have no idea how intelligence works, it is clear.

Perhaps, but I know when I'm being sold. And I know when what I'm sold is a lemon.

Stuart Koehl wrote:
Francesca is pretty cavalier with the lives of other people, don't you think?

Actually Stuart, you were responding to me, not Francesca. I am aware of your profession, I'm also fully aware that whatever I post you will simply overwhelm with 50 posts (hence the Koehl train comment). So really, there's no point trying to debate with you unless one is willing to commit hours and hours on this board responding to every one of your posts; not something I am prepared to do. Regarding chemical weapons, the fact that they haven't been used (in any significant manner) by the Iraq insurgency tells me that they're not much use in compared to a good old bomb. So I do stand by my statement.

Also, I will say that the civilian lives which have been lost in Iraq since the war began vastly, vastly outweigh the lives lost under Saddam. The fact that you can't even seem to bring yourself to question the justification for this war shows that it is you who are cavalier with the lives of others.

With that I bow out. Stuart, feel free to pound on at will; it's expected and I will be sorely disappointed if I'm not called a traitor, a fool and a coward.

Regards,
David (not Francesca!)

[David Gray]

>Perhaps, but I know when I'm being sold. And I know when what I'm sold is a lemon.

The problem isn't what folks don't know. It's what they know that isn't so.

Will Rogers

[Yaknyeti]

David Gray & James,

I generally appreciate the things you gentlemen have to say, but I'm having trouble with our exchange two million posts ago over whether loving multiple countries was like loving multiple wives or multiple family members. It seems to me that the husband-wife bond is a unique one in its demands of fidelity (except for the bond between each believer and Christ, of which the marital bond is a sign). And having love for multiple countries is no different to me than having love for the multiple cities in which I've lived, or the multiple neighbors I've had. The love grows out of community, and can be maintained non-exclusively.

Now, my country demands obedience, and I have to give priority of obedience to one country, I certainly agree. But that doesn't affect my love of where I've lived. It brings me sorrow if the countries in love are in conflict, similarly to the what happens when family members are having a brawl, particularly if my obligations (to family or country) force me to choose sides. But love and obedience are distinct.

[David Gray]

>Now, my country demands obedience, and I have to give priority of obedience to one country, I certainly agree. But that doesn't affect my love of where I've lived.

Funny you say that. The longer this has gone on the more I've thought that is some respects we are muddling love, as an emotional bond, and love as an act of the will. Love as loyalty if you like. We might accomplish more if we distinguished the two. I've lived overseas as well and have immense affection for the land where I lived and have a great many dear friends there. But my loyalties are uncluttered. Which is what it sounds like you are saying. I don't think TR would have a big problem with that.

[Labrialumn]

Judy, I grew up on a corn and soybean farm, and you do not know what you are talking about! The government keeps the price -down- so that you will vote for incumbents. The reason the price went up in Mexico is because of NAFTA-related trade controls. Mexican farmers couldn't compete with American farmers, so now they have to pay Mexican prices for American corn. It isn't even the miniscule amount of corn that goes into ethanol, it is the market controls of the planned economy.

The economy is actually quite bad. The dollar has lost a tremendous amount of its value, leading to massive inflation. This in turn cuts giving to the churches and the church schools, so that both are in very bad shape financially. Algore's tax on gasoline is really hurting the poor, regressive tax that it is.

The MSM, sycophantic to the Bush administration? did you pick the wrong mushrooms or something? That has got to be one of the most preposterous statements I have ever heard.

The American war for independence was both legal and just and necessary steps were taken before hand, as is shown in Rutherford's _Lex,Rex_, as well as political thought in Christendom over the previous 1,000 years.

Francesca, the Church also teaches that your conscience must be formed, not left up to your whims. Kohlberg's final step is nothing other than a repudiation of the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

Yaknyeti,
We native Iowans allow the jokes by the Minnesotans, because we know how badly they need the self-esteem. ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Also, I will say that the civilian lives which have been lost in Iraq since the war began vastly, vastly outweigh the lives lost under Saddam.<<<<

Actually, David, it doesn't matter if it's you or Francesca, since both of you seem to rely on your nether fundaments for oracular wisdom.

Take your statement above, which is manifestly untrue, unless, of course, you give credence to that utterly discredited figure of 650,000 civilian deaths cited in the Lancet study. The independent and far more credible Iraq Body Count--no fan of the war--puts the number between 65-75,000. Which is pretty bad, but is utterly dwarfed by the number of people killed by Saddam, which may exceed one million. So far, the Document Center for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on more than 600,000 deaths, of which 100,000 occured during the Anfal Operation against the Kurds. This works out to about 70-125 civilian deaths per day, every day, for the 8000-odd days that Saddam was president of Iraq. We do not know how many more deaths remain to be documented, or were not documented at all. And then there were Saddam's wars of aggression against Iran and Kuwait, which resulted in at least 100,000 military casualties. Not Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin numbers to be sure, but pretty good for a tinpot dictator of a rinky-dink Middle East country.

>>>With that I bow out. Stuart, feel free to pound on at will; it's expected and I will be sorely disappointed if I'm not called a traitor, a fool and a coward.<<<

Jerk will do just fine.

[Judy Warner]

Labrialum,

From Reuters, April 18:

CHICAGO - Rising U.S. food prices will outpace the general inflation rate for at least the next two years, and one of the main culprits is the steep climb in the price of corn.

Corn prices rose above $4 a bushel in January and have doubled over the past two years. In February, prices hit 10-year highs due to surging demand from the U.S. ethanol industry, which uses the grain as its primary feedstock.

Growing competition for corn has raised costs by varying degrees for livestock and poultry producers and food makers in general, costs which consumers have only begun to realize.

I quite agree the subsidies are voted to keep incumbents in office. But they can't keep the price of corn down when there is growing demand.

Could you point to a source that shows "massive inflation"? From USA Today:

Let's start with inflation. At least by current government figures, inflation is low. The consumer price index, the government's main gauge of inflation, rose just 2.4 percent for the 12 months that ended in February. ...

And there's inflationary pressure ahead....Most important, though, is the tight labor market. The jobless rate now is only 4.4 percent. When unemployment is low and prices are rising, workers tend to demand -- and receive -- raises. The worry is that rising wages will push up prices more.

Did you live through the late 1970s? Inflation was in double digits. Mortgage rates were 15 percent when I bought a house. The term "stagflation" was invented for a stagnant economy with inflation, something believed impossible. That was a bad economy.

The economy has ups and downs, like all of life. People who grew up in the last couple of decades, during which we have had no major recession, get alarmed if there is any change at all, if a single person loses his job or a single plant closes. I grew up with parents who had lived through the Great Depression, and before that had grown up in poverty; I lived with their stories and know secondhand what hard times are really like. I had to move to a new city because I lost my job in the recession of 1982. That wasn't really hard times, that was a blip.

I'm not making light of the suffering that people go through during the economy's ups and downs. But get some perspective. Read some history; look at how people lived in the past compared to how they live now, and how they live in much of the world. Most of "the poor" in America own at least one TV, a car, and household appliances that much of the world only dreams of, even frequently a house. I worry much more about our cultural and spiritual poverty than I do about the economy.

[David Gray]

>Are they hoping for an American Colony, a petroleum hinterland of sorts?

Is that a serious question Canadian friend?

[Neil Gussman]

Stuart,
The earlier post is right about you and quantity of response. Let me say our definitions of middle class are rather different. A household income of $40,000 may be an accepted definition of middle class, but every auto worker and teamsters driver makes more than $40,000. If you double the income number so we are talking about the sons of businessmen, tenured professors, accountants, lawyers, and consultants you and I both know those boys are not carrying rifles in their teens. I am reading Ron Sider's book on Rich Christians. He was discussing how in 1957 Northeastern High School relocated miles away to follow white flight, taking 2/3rds of the teachers and all of its funding advantages with the white kids. The building that was Northeastern became Edison High School. The 90% black underfunded Edison no longer led the state in achievement scores and sports but by 1975 had achieved the distinction of having the highest percentage of its student body die in Viet Nam of any school in the nation. When you served, didn't it seemed to you that the guys in the combat units were dispropotionately men of color?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>A household income of $40,000 may be an accepted definition of middle class, but every auto worker and teamsters driver makes more than $40,000.<<<

You are right. The average salary of a General Motors or Ford assembly line worker is in fact more than $75,000; the salary of a longshoreman on the docks in California is more than $100,000. Metrobus drivers and train operators are making more than $100,000. On the other hand, I have a good friend in the same business as me who brings in about $75,000 a year, and he has two kids in West Point and Annapolis.

Regarding your little vignette about Vietnam, it's cute, but it's also misleading. Looking at the demographics of the men who fought in Vietnam, blacks were not over-represented, nor were were they drafted in disproportionate numbers. The figures are tabulated in Jim Dunnigan's book "Dirty Little Secrets of Vietnam".

>>.When you served, didn't it seemed to you that the guys in the combat units were dispropotionately men of color?<<<

Nope.

We're all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts. And it is hard to argue wth actuals.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think anyone, regardless of their stance on an issue has the moral right to comment here without all the gratuitous mud slinging. Especially a lady. Feel free to blast away at me, I'm used to public shamings and the like, and it doesn't affect my sleep... I take my politics and my political thoughts pretty lightly...entertainment of a sort. I'm Canadian Eh!<<<

I'm sorry, Dominick. I had no idea you were a member of the fair sex.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It's very clear now that the war was predicated on false information and has been incompetently prosecuted.<<<

Really? And your qualifications for making this judgment are. . .what? I'd be interested in knowing what your current or prior involvement with the intelligence community was, and how much actual experience you have with the analysis both of intelligence and military operations. I'd also like to know your idea of a "competently prosecuted" war might be. Because I haven't found one yet, in more than 4000 years of human history.

Take a break from posting, and read Carl von Clausewitz's "On War". Then perhaps you might have an inkling about the reality of war vs. what Clausewitz called "war on paper".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Growing competition for corn has raised costs by varying degrees for livestock and poultry producers and food makers in general, costs which consumers have only begun to realize.<<<

There's also a lot of speculation in corn futures based on the assumption of increased use of ethanol fuel. ADM is very happy.

[Judy Warner]

href=http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm>Who are the recruits? will be automatically discounted since it comes from the Heritage Foundation. It is, however, based entirely on U.S. Census data. One excerpt:

In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) sup­port the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight dif­ferences are that wartime U.S. mil­itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver­age than their civilian peers.

Recruits have a higher percent­age of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distri­bution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.

[Judy Warner]

Sorry, here's the correct link: Who are the recuits?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) sup port the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight dif ferences are that wartime U.S. mil itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver age than their civilian peers.

Recruits have a higher percent age of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distri bution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.<<<

As I keep telling people, everything you think you know about the military and the war is probably wrong.

[luthien]

>>>Actually, David, it doesn't matter if it's you or Francesca, since both of you seem to rely on your nether fundaments for oracular wisdom.<<<
Stuart, would it kill you to be polite to people who disagree with you? Your insistence on such low, eman attacks on those who disagree with you does nothing but discredit you. It's not charitable, it's not funny. If nothing else, you're setting a very bad example for the younger commenters on this blog. Now stop it.

[luthien]

>>>Actually, David, it doesn't matter if it's you or Francesca, since both of you seem to rely on your nether fundaments for oracular wisdom.<<<
Stuart, would it kill you to be polite to people you don't agree with? Such low, mean-spirited, vulgar, and uncharitable attacks do nothing but discredit you. It's not charitable, it's not funny, and it's really not appropriate for grown men to behave like 6th graders.

[RMC]

I've been watching the developments on this thread with interest, and I fell like I just have to say a few things.

The War in Iraq is easily winnable. Consider that there are very few direct attacks on our troops. Most of our casualties come from IED attacks, which by their very nature are inefficient and can only cause a limited number of casualties at a time. Furthermore, we are constantly improving our means of detecting and destroying IEDs before they do damage. Rather than directly attacking us, insurgents and militias in Iraq do the cowardly, easy thing: they attack civilians in suicide bomb attacks.

Why?

It's pretty simple. For one, they know they would never stand a chance in real combat with our troops. It would be over quickly and there would be no more insurgency. Heck, the Americans back home might even get to be cheerful about our success. But, more importantly, they are waging a war of public opinion. They learned what many of us did not from Viet Nam: Americans are squeamish, and if you hurt women and children and then tell them "Hey, I'll stop if you go away and mind your own busuness," the American army will pack up and go home like a whipped dog. They are counting on this. They are hoping that if they keep blowing up mothers and babies, and the media keeps broadcasting the pictures, the American people will demand that we pull out and leave the country to the insurgents.

It is vital that we are not so naive as to think that if we pull out the violence will stop. Take a good look at Southeast Asia today if you have any doubts.

Also, I think we should stop quoting casualty numbers as if they meant something. How many died in D-Day? Gettysburg? The Korean War? How many young men have died in the last four years in car accidents? I'm willing to bet its more than have died in Iraq, but I don't hear anyone bemoaning the sad fate of all those poor boys who died for nothing on their way to work. At least those who die in battle die for something (as long as we do not pull out prematurely and throw their gains away).

The sad fact is that we are making tremendous progress in Iraq. The military is more than capable of crushing the insurgency, so long as they receive support from home and the strategy is left up to the generals rather than the politicians in DC. We've been restoring basic services like electricity and running water, providing medical care, and buyilding schools. Funny thing is, the media doesn't report success stories. In a war of public opinion, the American media is playing to lose.

One more thing. The idea that this is an illegal war is about as preposterous as it gets. Do we really have to drag out every UN resolution made against Saddam? Do we have to drag out every corpse of every tortured and executed Iraqi who stood up to Saddam? I mean, even National Geographic included Iraq uinder Saddam in an article on the history of genocide.

My husband just signed up for another 6 years. I support him, the troops, and my country. He's got a 100% chance of deployment in the next 6 years, probably more than once. I wish more young men had the courage to do what he does. I wish more women had the courage to support it.

[GL]

I know we all like debating the war ad nauseam, but one has to dig deep through these posts to find responses to the question posed by Tony in his original post: "And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is? What do we revere and obey? We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag."

A few early on (before the war broke out) said "self."

I opined that we need something outside and beyond ourselves to which to fulfill these roles.

Ethan and Stuart spoke of a return to "tribal" or "clan" loyalties -- however one might define the tribe and the clan. (And I believe the concept of more local, parochial loyalities is a movement in the right direction in answering Tony's question, but that leaves the issue of what characteristics will define these tribes and clans.)

I don't believe anyone else answered the question Tony posed. I believe it is an interesting question and I believe that on this thread and many others proceeding it that we have beaten the war issue into a dead lump.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the question Tony originally posed?

[kate]

I come to much of this discussion with an inquiring and curious mind, and from a standpoint of a long-standing inclination to trust my government (sorely tested in the past few decades, to be sure). But I echo Luthien's and Dominic's remarks about civility.

Stuart Koehl's contributions are usually informative and helpful. When he starts name-calling, I stop reading, as I tend to discount all other commenters' remarks once they start mud-slinging. The content may be accurate, but if it doesn't come with charity, I'll get my information from someone else.

[Beth]

GL, I suggested early in the thread that there may be a turn toward spiritism, Eastern religions, perhaps witchcraft/satanism, etc. -- spiritual ideas that do not smack of Christianity. I already see a tendency these directions even at my Christian college. (Another trend seems to be "we'll call ourselves Christians but we'll redefine the faith to mean what we want it to mean -- that gives us 'God' without the responsiblity.) What I'm not seeing yet is the least indication of group identities overtaking the absolute valorization of the individual; even among those who form cliques, the group is not more important than the individual, not yet.

[Labrialumn]

Reuters is wrong about corn prices, just like it is about so many other things.Are you going to believe a farm consultant(where farm business consultant actually means something) professional and retired farmer like my father, or some anonymous Reuters reporter?

My source for massive inflation are the prices in the grocery stores and the gas pumps.

I did live through the late 70s and early 80s. Out of the hundred and ten or so farms Dad consulted, a number were forced under in what history will view as it does the highland clearances. Then their wives left them and they went out to the barn and ate a shotgun. That depression has continued to the present day, and that corn prices are at 10 year highs says very little. How does it compare, adjusted for inflation, to the early to mid 70s? To the Great Depression?

How often in history have yeoman farmers been unable to afford to follow in their fathers' footsteps?

The summer jobs school teachers used to take are gone, taken by illegal immigrants. The price on divers items in the grocery stores are more than 33% higher than they were a year to a year and a half ago. Housing prices have skyrocketed, the dollar has lost tremendous value against the pound, Euro and ounce of gold. That is real inflation.

The local major international computer company has lain off thousands of people locally every year. Our congregation can no longer make expenses. Our association school is losing roughly 20 students per year because parents can't afford to send them, and our teachers, administrator and facilities aren't exactly getting a lot of money.

Do NOT confuse new technology and fabrication techniques with a real rise in familial well-being.

I know some history. I know that it is not normal for the middle class to require both parents to work away from home in order to make ends meet. I know that credit card debt is maxed out for many people -just to stay alive- I know that historically, people went for Sunday drives, now they cannot afford to. Demand for gas does not decrease because usage is already at the minimum.

Read some history, Stuart, get some perspective.

Dominic, if the US wanted a 'petroleum hinterland' we would have liberated Venezuela from the highly unpopular and soon to emulate Pol Pot dictatorship of Hugo Chavez. It is much closer, and the logistics would be much easier, and with much more popular support. Iraq wouldn't be selling nearly all of its oil to communist China and India, but rather to the US. Gas prices at the pump would be down, not up. Especially with a major election coming up.

Ron Sider's book has long been demonstrated to be stuff and nonsense.

GL, I did answer Tony's post, way back up there.

sDG

[David Gray]

>Such low, mean-spirited, vulgar, and uncharitable attacks do nothing but discredit you. It's not charitable, it's not funny, and it's really not appropriate for grown men to behave like 6th graders.

People who insist on undermining the struggle while demonstrating a complete lack of familiarity with even the very basics of the matter at hand while at the same time good men are dying can leave one with a more sour disposition than otherwise might be the case.

[Scott Walker]

Dominic G. if we wanted an "American Colony, a petroleum hinterland of sorts" it would be much, much cheaper to simply occupy Alberta. Please.

[Ethan Cordray]

As I haven't any particular expertise in war matters and am weary of tedious debate, I too have a much greater interest in discussing Tony's original point.

This may be mostly reiterating my earlier statements, but to put it more simply: I do not see anything replacing the old communal identity structures of religion, commmunity, or state, and I don't see why anything will (on a wide scale) as long as our economic system allows and encourages us to live as autonomous individuals.

In our Western civilization, we have elevated autonomic liberty to the place of an inherent value, substituting the chaotic atomization of Lewis' hell for the kindly hierarchy of Dante's heaven.

Is this an inevitable result of democratic government coupled to technological affluence? Not for everyone, as the Touchstone project indicates -- but due to the welter of human sinfulness, it may be inevitable for large societies.

If this makes me sound like some sort of bitter anti-modern monarchist, then guilty as charged. Tolkien was right. Mostly.

What hope I do hold out is that among good people the idols of the past haven't just been brutally demolished, but have merely been restored to their proper stature. A humble love of church, land, and family -- as distinguished from zealotry, jingoism, and tribalism -- remains among the stalwart few, after the bloody centuries of history have discredited their monstrous ideological offspring.

If the conditions necessary to our civilization's current atomization pass away, it will be those stalwart few who will have the hope to build a new civilization, rather than simply returning to the barbarous night like their neighborless fellows.

May we discuss this, rather than the wisdom or folly of some particular political decision?

[Ethan Cordray]

Scott Walker,

From what I read, Alberta has EROEI problems (Energy Return on Energy Invested). Even if it were successfully revved up, oil sand mining will be much more expensive than liquid petroleum extraction has been. I don't think anything is going to simply replace liquid oil. The question is how well we adjust to the changes.

I am skeptical of our ability to sustain our current technological infrastructure with more expensive energy, and I am also skeptical of the desirability of doing so. So that makes me doubly skeptical of attempts to do so.

I admit that I could very well be wrong on all counts, as so many others have been.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>From what I read, Alberta has EROEI problems (Energy Return on Energy Invested). Even if it were successfully revved up, oil sand mining will be much more expensive than liquid petroleum extraction has been. I don't think anything is going to simply replace liquid oil. The question is how well we adjust to the changes.<<<

Oil sand extraction is economic at a market price of $30 per barrel, assuming economies of scale as one moves beyond pilot plants. Similarly, oil shale extraction is economical at roughly the same price, as is synthetic oil through coal hydrogenation (the technology used by the Germans in World War II). That nobody is building large scale plants at this point is due to a several factors, including regulatory issues, worries about carbon cap nonsense, but the main one is a lack of certainty on the part of the investment community that oil prices will stay above $30/barrel. In other words, the smart money doesn't believe the peak oil theory.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My source for massive inflation are the prices in the grocery stores and the gas pumps.<<<

Hmmm. Food and energy. The high volatility elements of the consumer and producer price index. How come we never heard you complain when prices fell for nearly three years?

>>>How often in history have yeoman farmers been unable to afford to follow in their fathers' footsteps?<<<

So, your basic premise is the world was a better place when 75% of the people lived and worked on the land? It must have been a better place when a bad harvest could mean starvation for half the people, too.

>>>I know that it is not normal for the middle class to require both parents to work away from home in order to make ends meet. <<<

Actually, it is. It's the 1950s that were an abberration.

>>>Read some history, Stuart, get some perspective.<<<

Good one, Lab.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, would it kill you to be polite to people you don't agree with? Such low, mean-spirited, vulgar, and uncharitable attacks do nothing but discredit you. It's not charitable, it's not funny, and it's really not appropriate for grown men to behave like 6th graders.<<<

Not in this case. I dislike fools, and I dislike liars, and I have a nasty tendency to tell them both exactly what I think of them.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think Stuart dealt with that myth very thoroughly several posts back. I didn't see you refute his facts, you just keep on repeating your mantra.<<<<

OMMMMMMMM. OMMMMMMMM. OMMMMMMM

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>While I hesitate to jump into the path of the Koehl train, a few rounds of chemical ammunition (500 rounds, come on, that's nothing in military terms!) does not WMD make! In any case, the use of the term WMD to refer to chemical weapons is dodgy at best:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/09/my_last_wmd_swing_the_lantern/<<<<

Covered this one, too. So, we have to pull "World Casualties in Magadeaths" to define a weapon of mass destruction. As I pointed out, just one 122mm Sarin-filled artillery shell has the potential to kill tens of thousands of people, if you use it in the right place at the right time, e.g, flying a crop duster over Yankee Stadium one afternoon when the Bombers and playing the Bosox. That would be about 70,000 dead right there (I'm assuming a sell-out crowd, of course). So what would 500 of those things do, in your estimation?

After a while, it becomes a drag to have people constantly telling me how to do my own business, for which I have trained and studied for twenty-six years. But I suppose some blogger off in the UK knows better.

[Ethan Cordray]

Low EROEI, Stuart. Higher oil prices mean higher extraction prices for oil sands, higher costs for the natural gas used in coal hydrogenation, etc.

And not all the money is off of peak oil, for example Matthew Simmons and the GAO.

Obviously, we'll which was the "smart money" in a few years.

[James A. Altena]

Dear GL,

I think that at least one of my posts dealt with Tony's original question, albeit a bit tangentially. Briefly, the hierarchy of loves also presumes that the basic ranks of those loves to be necessary. The cult of self, the myth of modern atomistic individualism, has meant the folly of the solipsistic attempts of persons to "define" themselves apart from family, community, nation, church, etc. The destructive end is that the worth of persons becomes identified not with being made in the image and likeness of God, and set in relations with other persons. Instead, it is ironically doen by contractual social productivity -- success at one's job, hobbies, etc. And thus, those who do not suit given social criteria at any given moment -- the preborn, the aged, the incompetent -- are deemed worthless and expendable, and it is even pretended to be humane to exterminate them.

I suspect that the love of nation, like any particular love, is something given to forfend this to some degree, though sin has twisted it cruelly as well.

[T. Chan]

And not all the money is off of peak oil, for example Matthew Simmons and the GAO.

Another Robert Hirsch of the Hirsch Report.

[Beth]

Very well said, Mr. Altena. I know a man who is not able to financially support his family, and who is not intellectually inclined. Put these two "disabilities" into play, with the church looking down on one and society-at-large the other, and you have the makings of a deep sense of despair and self-loathing. *God* does not say these are what make him a man of worth, but the messages are so loud and clear from around him it's hard to hear anything else: what I do is what I am, and since I do "nothing" (by the culture's definition), I *am* nothing.

I've seen this come into play with students who are not really suited for college work. They would do wonderfully well in some other venue, but because a college degree is one of the things that define us nowadays, they are sent here to struggle for that credential of "worthiness" -- and to fail, in many cases.

I'm always bemused by feminists who try to name themselves apart from people -- "I'm a 'human being,' an individual, not a mere 'woman,'" they cry stridently. Yet in God's way of creating us, we can only be defined by, as you say, our likeness to Him and our relation to other people. I just don't "get" the angst in this . . . but we have always striven to name ourselves rather than be named by God.

[kate]

If this thread has any legs left for Esolen's original observations and query, consider:

"Peace, justice, and the conservation of creation--this trio of values have nowadays emerged as a substitute for a lost concept of God ..." -- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Church on the Threshold of the Third Millennium", Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith

Undoubtedly, the Self in choosing its own idols loves Itself above all, but Benedict has identified three 'destinations' for idol-seekers.

It is only first of all a love of God that enables one to even hope to order one's other loves aright.

(thanks to Ignatius Scoop weblog for quote)

[Ethan Cordray]

A good quote, Kate. And I would add that when they are defined apart from the revelation of God, war becomes peace, oppression becomes justice, and ruin becomes conservation.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And not all the money is off of peak oil, for example Matthew Simmons and the GAO.<<<

Don't know Simmons. The GAO I know very well. I stick with my assessment.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Another Robert Hirsch of the Hirsch Report.<<<

Hirsch wrote his report in 2005, and practically the first thing it says is "Nobody knows when peaking will occur". I note also that he posits three scenarios, one in which action begins 20 years before peak, a second in which action begins ten years before peak, and a third which assumes action begins at peak. Since reports of this sort always give a high, low and mean assessment, this can be taken as evidence that Hirsch's group did not expect peak oil for at least ten years. But since experts have been predicting peak oil since 1920, one has to take all such predictions with a grain of salt.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The cult of self, the myth of modern atomistic individualism, has meant the folly of the solipsistic attempts of persons to "define" themselves apart from family, community, nation, church, etc.<<<

There is, it seems, an upper limit to the size of the entity to which a human being can give his love, beyond which it all becomes an abstraction. People seem to give their love to other people, organized into primary and secondary groups. Naturally, the bonds are tightest in primary groups, which is to say the immediate family and close friends, which seldom exceeds ten or twenty people. The next circle of attachment would be a secondary group, which might be an extended family or tribe, a parish, a village or a school--but still less than 1000 people. Beyond this, it is hard to know any individual person, and so love of state, of country and of Church (in the large institutional sense) tends to be more intellectual than visceral, except to the degree that these identities and institutions are manifested in specific persons who are their symbolic manifestation for the individual. Thus, e.g., the identity of the state may be bound up in the identity of the king, queen or president; that of the Church in the local priest or diocesan bishop (or, in the case of an phenomenon like John Paul II, in the Pope). The problem with the notion of supranational identities (European, Asian, African, Arab, etc.) is their lack of concrete manifestations. A Dutchmen knows what it means to be Dutch, not so much to be European. Even his Dutch identity may be more tightly bound up in his province, his city, or his village; that is, with the people who are the center of his daily life.

[Neil Gussman]

Stuart,
I was in from 1972 to 84 so I am guessing I am a few years older than you, but I think we served during the same period. What branch were you in?
Neil

[T. Chan]

Hirsch wrote his report in 2005, and practically the first thing it says is "Nobody knows when peaking will occur". I note also that he posits three scenarios, one in which action begins 20 years before peak, a second in which action begins ten years before peak, and a third which assumes action begins at peak. Since reports of this sort always give a high, low and mean assessment, this can be taken as evidence that Hirsch's group did not expect peak oil for at least ten years.

A recent piece by Hirsch, Peaking of world oil production: Recent forecasts

"No one knows precisely when peaking will occur, because much of the data needed for an accurate forecast is either proprietary to companies, state secrets of major oil exporting countries, or politically/economically biased. However, even large differences in estimated remaining world oil reserves would not significantly change the date of world peaking, when viewed from the perspective of mitigation. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), “[Our] results [related to oil peaking] are remarkably insensitive to the assumption of alternative resource base estimates. For example, adding 900 billion bbl (more oil than had been produced at the time the estimates were made) to the mean USGS resource estimate in the 2% growth case, only delays the estimated production peak by 10 years. Similarly, subtracting 850 billion bbl in the same scenario accelerates the estimated production peak by only 11 years.5"

[Stuart Koehl]

So, we're still dealing with increments of ten years. And since estimates of reserves have been consistently low for the past half century, and given that new technology allows for extraction of oil previous believed inaccessible, we're still anywhere from ten to twenty years away--at a minimum.

[Labrialumn]

Due to the various comments about the economy that those of us on the ground scratch our heads at, here is an article that might be of interest:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070430/greider

And what he is proposing is closer to Christian social and economic theory than the present situation.

[Labrialumn]

Stuart, I get that way, too, when I don't have nearly enough sleep, or am in significant pain for a few days. Go home, take some advil and get some sleep.

[T. Chan]

we're still anywhere from ten to twenty years away--at a minimum.

And do you also think that solving the problem of social security should be postponed until the last minute?

[Labrialumn]

Scott, and Alberta would thank us, as long as we gave the bicoastal column of counties to either Canada or Cuba.

Ethan, I'd just as soon we moved away from petroleum, too, it is simply too valuable for plastics. In the mean time, we can pump jet fuel out of the Colorado oil shales with some new technology. We can all switch to E-25, We can do something about the Chinese (mercantile) colonization of South America (including Venezuela). We can use wind where it is sensible, like in my part of the country where it is nearly -always- blowing. We can build thorium breeder reactors, and get the Farnsworth-Bussard fusor, which reached break-even right before the Navy defunded it, burning boron (think Death Valley Days) and deuterium, producing a-neutronic fusion for power. We might also build more refineries to try to mitigate the effect of Algore's regressive gas tax, so that refineries wouldn't always have to stop, shutdown, retool, and fire up again every few days to meet the demands of the myriad fuel grades he mandated.

Stuart,
Certainly humanity would be happier if 75% lived on the land. No question in my mind.
God seems to agree. Been there, done that, wish I were still there. The starvation comment is absurd. There was this little thing called "The Green Revolution" Even when I was a boy, the average American farmer produced enough food to feed 53 people. Hills of corn lie rotting on the ground by the grain elevators. If we could just ferment that stuff, leaving the high-protien mash behind - which is a superior feed for livestock due to the consumer demand for lower-fat meat.

Assuming that you are overtired and in pain, I will charitably ignore your rudeness and point out that historically, the middle-class had -servants-, NOT husband and wife both having to work away from home with a crippling debt load just to survive.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart, on the subject of oil, we shall see. As Mr. Hirsch indicates, the lack of available information makes most forecasts merely speculative.

Regardless of that particular issue, I think that being able to imagine terrific changes in our economic and social systems is helpful in evaluating questions like Dr. Esolen's. What have we lost, and why? What might make it possible or impossible to recover lost virtues? Would it take a catastrophe, or could it be done normally?

Time will tell for each popularly imagined crisis. None have fully panned out so far. Someday, though, our civilization will crumble, as every one has done before us. In our deification of the individual, we do not seem to be preparing well for that day.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, on the subject of oil, we shall see. As Mr. Hirsch indicates, the lack of available information makes most forecasts merely speculative.<<<

That was what I said, I think.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Certainly humanity would be happier if 75% lived on the land. No question in my mind. <<<

Have you looked at countries where 75% of the people still live on the land?

>>>The starvation comment is absurd. There was this little thing called "The Green Revolution"<<<

Which is entirely dependent on industrial society providing agriculture with the technology it needs to produce crops in such abundance. Thus is the great circle of life complete, Simba.

And don't start in with organic farming, because that's what we did when people were starving to death. In any case, the British Ministry of Agriculture recently published a study that showed the footprint needed to grow a bushel of produce (tomatoes, lettuce, whatever) is approximately one order of magnitude greater for organic farming than for conventional farming.

>>>Assuming that you are overtired and in pain, I will charitably ignore your rudeness and point out that historically, the middle-class had -servants-, NOT husband and wife both having to work away from home with a crippling debt load just to survive.<<<

Only if you speak of the "upper" middle class. In the solid, working middle class, the "petit bourgoisie", the shopkeepers and craftsmen, the wife usually worked right alongside her husband in whatever the family business was.

Regarding middle class anxiety, I remind you that anxiety is what defines and has always defined the middle class. Insecurity is what propels the middle class to succeed, while the upper class, secure in its wealth and privilege, is more laid back. And, at the other end, the lower class, having nothing to lose, feels no need to try.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart said,
>>That was what I said, I think.<<

Yes, it was. I suppose that points to a difference in our personalities, that I react far more pessimistically to uncertain information. But you already knew that about me.

[Judy Warner]

Eeyore, I mean Ethan, it is a more natural thing to be pessimistic than optimistic today. When is the last time you heard a piece of good news on the news, aside from little human interest stories? For one thing, most of those who choose what the news is to be and comment on it in the mainstream media are invested in making things look bad, especially today when almost everything bad can be blamed on President Bush. It is their cynicism based on their lack of attachment to anything larger than themselves that makes them wary of presenting anything to positively.

Further, the nature of the media is to present bad news; nobody will read a story headlined "Good student gets along with parents" or, so the media think, "Soldiers in Iraq build school." Few will buy a book entitled "The Coming Good Times" while "The Coming Bust" will sell. "We're running out of oil" is a headline; "We're not running out of oil" is not.

So we are surrounded by bad news about the economy, the war, the state of America, the environment, and almost anything else you can think of. I am putting myself at great risk of being called "chipper" by Peterspence, but I guarantee that things are usually not as bad as presented. I have lived through many promises of imminent disaster that have not come to pass.

[Judy Warner]

And yet I can think of many disasters that might come to pass. I even spend paid and unpaid time trying to alarm people about them. But it is important to focus on the correct threats and not on ones that are manufactured in order to sell books, gain publicity, or push a twisted world view, or that are simply mistaken.