"The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away" - Justice Clarence Thomas

Premier League On Leicester City Title: ‘Order Will Soon Be Restored’ - The Onion

LONDONーShortly after Leicester City’s improbable title run culminated in the club clinching their first championship, executives from the Premier League issued a statement Sunday vowing that order will soon be restored. “We would like to inform fans of the Barclays Premier League that steps will be taken to ensure the traditional paradigms are reestablished in time for the 2016-2017 season,” read the statement in part, which did not go on to offer any specifics regarding the measures it referenced, but did stress that a reversion to the league’s long-held competitive hierarchy would be “swift and permanent.” “This is an immediate priority that has our full commitment, and as such, we are willing to spend any and all requisite resources to guarantee a return to what is expected and acceptable. Until that is achieved, we will offer no further comment.” Just hours after the statement’s publication, the Premier League released the 2016-2017 season schedule, which reportedly indicated that Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Manchester City will each play 38 home games.

The Smug Style in American Liberalism - Vox

From the Vox, "The Smug Style in American Liberalism"

"...Elites, real elites, might recognize one another by their superior knowledge. The smug recognize one another by their mutual knowing.

Knowing, for example, that the Founding Fathers were all secular deists. Knowing that you're actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself than an intruder. Knowing that those fools out in Kansas are voting against their own self-interest and that the trouble is Kansas doesn't know any better. Knowing all the jokes that signal this knowledge.

The studies, about Daily Show viewers and better-sized amygdalae, are knowing. It is the smug style's first premise: a politics defined by a command of the Correct Facts and signaled by an allegiance to the Correct Culture. A politics that is just the politics of smart people in command of Good Facts. A politics that insists it has no ideology at all, only facts. No moral convictions, only charts, the kind that keep them from "imposing their morals" like the bad guys do..."

"...Kim Davis was behind the times. Her beliefs did not represent a legitimate challenge to liberal consensus because they did not represent a challenge at all: They were incoherent, at odds with the Good Facts. Google makes every man a theologian.

This, I think, is fundamental to understanding the smug style. If good politics and good beliefs are just Good Facts and good tweets — that is, if there is no ideology beyond sensible conclusions drawn from a rational assessment of the world — then there are no moral fights, only lying liars and the stupid rubes who believe them..."

Here's the conclusion I draw: If Donald Trump has a chance in November, it is because the knowing will dictate our strategy. Unable to countenance the real causes of their collapse, they will comfort with own impotence by shouting, "Idiots!" again and again, angrier and angrier, the handmaidens of their own destruction.

The smug style resists empathy for the unknowing. It denies the possibility of a politics whereby those who do not share knowing culture, who do not like the right things or know the Good Facts or recognize the intellectual bankruptcy of their own ideas can be worked with, in spite of these differences, toward a common goal.

It is this attitude that has driven the dispossessed into the arms of a candidate who shares their fury. It is this attitude that may deliver him the White House, a "serious" threat, a threat to be mocked and called out and hated, but not to be taken seriously.

The wages of smug is Trump.

"...The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy. Further: It is a failure to believe that empathy has any value at all. It is the notion that anybody worthy of liberal time and attention and respect must capitulate, immediately, to the Good Facts.

If they don't (and they won't) you're free to write them off and mock them. When they suffer, it's their just desserts.

Make no mistake: I am not suggesting that liberals adopt a fuzzy, gentler version of their politics. I am not suggesting they compromise their issues for the sake of playing nice. What I am suggesting is that the battles waged by liberalism have drifted far away from their old egalitarian intentions.

I am suggesting that open disdain for the people they say they want to help has led them to stop helping those people, too.

I am suggesting that in the case of a Kim Davis, liberalism resist the impulse to go beyond the necessary legal fight and explicitly delight in punishing an old foe.

I am suggesting that they instead wonder what it might be like to have little left but one's values; to wake up one day to find your whole moral order destroyed; to look around and see the representatives of a new order call you a stupid, hypocritical hick without bothering, even, to wonder how your corner of your poor state found itself so alienated from them in the first place. To work with people who do not share their values or their tastes, who do not live where they live or like what they like or know their Good Facts or their jokes.

This is not a call for civility. Manners are not enough. The smug style did not arise by accident, and it cannot be abolished with a little self-reproach. So long as liberals cannot find common cause with the larger section of the American working class, they will search for reasons to justify that failure. They will resent them. They will find, over and over, how easy it is to justify abandoning them further.  They will choose the smug style.

Maybe the cycle is too deeply set already. Perhaps the divide, the disdain, the whole crack-up are inevitable. But if liberal good intentions are to make a play for a better future, they cannot merely recognize the ways they've come to hate their former allies. They must begin to mend the ways they lost them in the first place."

When I Consider How My Light Is Spent by John Milton

When I consider how my light is spent,

Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,

And that one talent which is death to hide

Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent

To serve therewith my Maker, and present

My true account, lest He returning chide;

“Doth God exact day-labor, light denied?”

I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent

That murmur, soon replies, “God doth not need

Either man’s work or His own gifts. Who best

Bear His mild yoke, they serve Him best. His state

Is kingly: thousands at His bidding speed,

And post o’er land and ocean without rest;

They also serve who only stand and wait.”

Rupert Sheldrake's banned TED Talk - Interview

Rest at http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrake-censored/

Alex Tsakiris:   So let me switch out of the mode of trying to put forth the TED ideas as much as I can glean them from their numerous blog posts and website comments. Let me ask you a couple of questions in general about this because the irony of this is, if not hilarious it’s certainly inescapable. I mean, a reputable scientist like yourself publishes a book claiming that science is dogmatic and then is censored by an anonymous scientific board. It’s like you can’t script that any better.

What does this say about really the whole topic of your book? And about how science can be dogmatic without even realizing it’s dogmatic?

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake:   I think in a way this whole controversy and the people who have weighed in in favor of TED’s actions do indeed confirm what I’m saying. These dogmas are ones that most people within science don’t actually realize are dogmas. They just think they’re the truth. The point about really dogmatic people is that they don’t know that they have dogmas. Dogmas are beliefs and people who have really strong beliefs think of their beliefs as truth. They don’t actually see them as beliefs. So I think this whole controversy has actually highlighted exactly that.

The other thing that is highlighted is that there are a lot of people, far more than I imagined actually, who are not taken in by these dogmas, who do want to think about them critically. One of the remarkable things about these discussions is lots of people are really up for the discussion of these dogmas. They really want it to happen, far more than I’d imagined, actually. I’m impressed by that and I think this TED debate has actually helped show that the paradigm is shifting. There’s no longer a kind of automatic agreement by the great majority of people to dogmatic assertions by materialists.

The Righteous Mind - Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

NY Times Review

You’re smart. You’re liberal. You’re well informed. You think conservatives are narrow-minded. You can’t understand why working-class Americans vote Republican. You figure they’re being duped. You’re wrong.

This isn’t an accusation from the right. It’s a friendly warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal. In “The ­Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. Like other psychologists who have ventured into political coaching, such as George Lakoff and Drew Westen, Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments. But Haidt is looking for more than victory. He’s looking for wisdom. That’s what makes “The Righteous Mind” well worth reading. Politics isn’t just about ­manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them...

...The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others...

... He and his colleagues have compiled a catalog of six fundamental ideas that commonly undergird moral systems: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Alongside these principles, he has found related themes that carry moral weight: divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin and degradation.

The worldviews Haidt discusses may differ from yours. They don’t start with the individual. They start with the group or the cosmic order. They exalt families, armies and communities. They assume that people should be treated differently according to social role or status — elders should be honored, subordinates should be protected. They suppress forms of self-expression that might weaken the social fabric. They assume interdependence, not autonomy. They prize order, not equality.

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet...

...One of these interests is moral capital — norms, prac­tices and institutions, like religion and family values, that facilitate cooperation by constraining individualism. Toward this end, Haidt applauds the left for regulating corporate greed. But he worries that in other ways, liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family. Education policies that let students sue teachers erode classroom authority. Multicultural education weakens the cultural glue of assimilation. Haidt agrees that old ways must sometimes be re-examined and changed. He just wants liberals to proceed with caution and protect the social pillars sustained by tradition...

...The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

Haidt isn’t just scolding liberals, however. He sees the left and right as yin and yang, each contributing insights to which the other should listen. In his view, for instance, liberals can teach conservatives to recognize and constrain predation by entrenched interests. Haidt believes in the power of reason, but the reasoning has to be interactive. It has to be other people’s reason engaging yours. We’re lousy at challenging our own beliefs, but we’re good at challenging each other’s. Haidt compares us to neurons in a giant brain, capable of “producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system.”

Robert Kennedy's Favorite Poem

Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus

Meet the "Nones" - the Democratic Party’s biggest faith constituency

From the Washington Post

"...Stone is part of a massive group of Americans who reject any label or affiliation to describe their faith. At 23 percent of the U.S. population, this left-leaning group called “Nones” are the Democratic parallel to the GOP’s white evangelicals — except without organization, PACs, leadership and a clear agenda. They do, however, have one big expectation of political candidates: Be ethical, and go light on the God talk... 

...“You might say we are awaiting the emergence of a secular Jerry Falwell,” said Campbell, who chairs the political science department at the University of Notre Dame. 

With their socially liberal viewpoints, Nones will pull the Democrats to the left — which is already happening with Sanders, said Mark Rozell, dean of the government and policy school at George Mason University and author of multiple books on religion and politics... 

...Nones talk about tolerance, fairness, choice and “making the world a better place.” In interviews some describe their worldview as being more authentically holy than people who cite Scripture and denominational labels... 

...“They don’t see it as a political constituency to mobilize,” McCurry said. That said, “it’s a delicate balance. [Nones] want to hear about your values and what gives you a moral stake, but they don’t want an agenda that’s forced down their throat.” 

In fact, the Nones are a complex and sometimes contradictory group. They believe in God — but on their own terms. They don’t particularly want to hear about religion, but they aren’t anti-religion... 

...“I wish we didn’t have to talk about religion in politics. This is not a religious race,” Stone said. He grew up in a big religious family but feels church has become arrogant and intolerant. “We should be a spiritual country, meaning we should endeavor to have a good government in the eyes of whatever God you feel is right, or in the eyes of no God." 

Christianity has become too broken into sects and intolerant, “it’s split up more,” he said. 

“Back then Muslims were peaceful happy people and, for whatever reason, they got angry. Religions have gotten wacky,” Stone said. “Morality comes from another place. It’s a chicken or egg thing. The morality came before the stories” of religion...

...Asked how she can tell if a candidate is speaking genuinely about their faith, Echevarria’s sunny, non-judgmental vocabulary shifted. “I was told candidates lie,” she said. “I’m guarded with everyone. Open, but guarded.”

RIP David Bowie

David Bowie tribute to Freddie Mercury 

Jerry Seinfeld Says Colleges Are Too Politically Correct

Jerry Seinfield 

"I hear that all the time," Seinfeld said. "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.' I'll give you an example: My daughter's 14. My wife says to her, 'Well, you know, in the next couple years, I think maybe you’re going to want to be hanging around the city more on the weekends, so you can see boys.' You know what my daughter says? She says, ‘That’s sexist.’ They just want to use these words: 'That’s racist'; 'That’s sexist'; 'That’s prejudice.' They don’t know what they’re talking about.”

A Classic Christmas Gift in reverse

"“Presidential candidates should explain the criteria by which they would select judicial nominees.” A discussion from Mohler

“Presidential candidates should explain the criteria by which they would select judicial nominees.”

While that is certainly true in the more general level of all federal judicial nominees, when it comes to the Supreme Court these issues take on an unbelievable importance in terms of our current political pattern. That’s because both other branches of government have been increasingly deferential to the Supreme Court and a part of that is their own cowardice, especially when it comes to Congress. Congress has deferred acting on many big issues of public policy, including issues of tremendous moral importance letting the Supreme Court basically decide these issues and then on the other side of a Supreme Court decision, both of the other branches of government have been generally quite subservient to the Supreme Court and we’re looking at nine unelected human beings sitting on this court and thus five people, that is a majority of the nine, can decide and they often do decide some of the issues of greatest importance, issues in which the Congress and the president should indeed have a very important role as well as a very direct political accountability. The problem with the United States Supreme Court in that sense is that it is virtually impossible to hold the court to account. The only influence by and large anyone has, whether liberal or conservative on the court directly, is by the nomination process in terms of the appointment to the Supreme Court, and that can come only from the President of the United States. Though the United States Senate must give advice and consent and that is confirmation to federal court appointments made by the president, the reality is that the power of appointment and nomination comes exclusively from the President of the United States. So in one sense, every time we elect a president we are electing the future of the U.S. Supreme Court and that in this case is particularly apt with the 2016 presidential election with four of the nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court, either right at age 80 or almost there, or in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually aged 82 already.

Leslie and her possible favourite book

At this point, as is so often the case, George Will gives a deeper analysis that also deserves our attention. He says that the justices of the court on the left and the right, the liberals and the conservatives are basically divided over how they understand that government is supposed to work, how they understand that courts are supposed to work and how they understand a document like the Constitution is to be interpreted and applied. He refers to these two different trajectories as the Hobbesians versus the Lockeans, he’s talking about the philosopher Thomas Hobbes on the one hand and John Locke on the other. He says that the Hobbesians are basically the group that favors big government and the expansion of government and they look at the courts primarily in terms of the process by which the courts operate. They want the courts to follow a process that comes out with the result that they intend and that they hope for and they strive for. The Lockeans on the other hand, are those who believe in a more limited government and they believe that the courts should be limited to operating on the basis of principles. Now this also gets to the fact that when it comes to reading the Constitution, the Hobbesian so to speak, suggests that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted anew in a generation present without any particular accountability to what came before or for that matter, any particular accountability to the actual words of the Constitution. The Lockeans on the other hand, are traditionally the more strict constructivist, they are those committed to judicial restraint to the actual strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution that means the words are to be interpreted on the basis of their vocabulary and their grammar and the intention of those who wrote the words and ratify the Constitution in the first place.

Ron and his possible favourite book

When you look at those two trajectories you understand that the liberal wing of the court basically sees the court as a vehicle, as a mechanism of political change to get the country where they believe it should go. Meanwhile, the Lockeans, the more conservative on the court, they believe that the court’s role is rather humble, it is indeed to prevent government from overstepping its bounds and to make certain the government operates within the confines of the Constitution. So the 2016 presidential race in the United States will pit two political worldviews over against one another, but the worldview issues go far deeper than politics and furthermore, the American people will be electing an understanding of the courts and of the Constitution in terms of how they vote for president.

-Albert Mohler 

Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher's "lectures"

...Just before taking on CBS’s Late Night, Colbert famously said “To be a fool for Christ is to love.” I’m not sure I fully understood what Colbert meant by this until his Maher interview. Colbert could have resolved the tension with Maher in a different way. He could’ve laughed off the question of faith and made an easy Trump joke, but that’s not what he did. He embraced the tension. He entered into the foolishness... 

Rest at here, Mereorthodoxy. 

The false promise of ‘judicial restraint’ in America- George Will (or a study on the difference between Hobbeseans and Lockeans or Ron and Leslie)

From George F. Will and the rest at the Washington Post

...Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, recently took to a place that needs it — the University of California at Berkeley — this message: “The judicial passivism of the Supreme Court has combined with the activism of both Congresses and presidents to produce a behemoth federal government, which seemingly renders the actual Constitution a mere relic, rather than the governing document it purports to be.” 

In his lecture “Is the Constitution Libertarian?” Barnett acknowledged that in many respects, American life “feels freer” than ever, and that we have more choices in living as we wish. In many other ways, however, the sphere of freedom is too constricted, and individual rights are too brittle, because for decades America’s Lockeans have been losing ground to Hobbesians: “The Lockeans are those for whom individual liberty is their first principle of social ordering, while the Hobbesians are those who give the highest priority to government power to provide social order and to pursue social ends.”

Not all Hobbesians are progressives, but all progressives are Hobbesians in that they say America is dedicated to a process — majoritarian decision-making that legitimates the government power it endorses. Not all Lockeans are libertarians, but all libertarians are Lockeans in that they say America is dedicated to a condition — liberty. It is, as Lincoln said, dedicated to the proposition that all people are equal in possession of natural rights."

Lockeans favor rigorous judicial protection of certain individual rights — especially private property and freedom of contract — that define and protect the zone of sovereignty within which people are free to act as they please. Hobbesians say the American principle is the right of the majority to have its way. Last year, 54 Democratic senators (including two so-called independents), Hobbesians all, voted to amend the First Amendment(“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”) to empower majoritarian government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political speech.

Lockeans say the Constitution, properly construed and enforced by the judiciary, circumscribes the majoritarian principle by protecting all rights that are crucial to individual sovereignty. Lockeans say the Constitution codifies the Declaration of Independence, which, in its most neglected word, says governments are instituted to “secure” natural rights... 

...And, Barnett argues, a nonpassive, properly engaged judiciary bears the burden of saying when the government has not justified its restrictions as necessary and proper.

So, Barnett says, yes, the Constitution — “the law that governs those who govern us” — is libertarian. And a Lockean president would nominate justices who would capaciously define and vigorously defend, against abuses by majoritarian government, what the 14th Amendment calls Americans’ “privileges or immunities.” 

Today, Democrats’ intraparty arguments are dull as ditchwater because they concern nothing fundamental, only how rapidly and broadly to expand Hobbesian government’s redistributive and regulatory reach. Republican presidential aspirants must be forced to join their party’s intramural arguments about the judiciary’s proper function. Then we can distinguish the Lockean constitutionalists from the merely rhetorical conservatives whose reflexive praise of “judicial restraint” serves the progressives’ Hobbesian project of building an ever-larger Leviathan.

G.K Chesterton on Humility

“It has been often said, very truly, that religion is the thing that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equally important truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary man feel ordinary.”

- G.K Chesterton