Fri Oct 08, 2004 (Politics) Comments

[An e-mail to my father in response to Frank Rich's essay, Why Did James Baker Turn Bush Into Nixon?.]

Good essay. But, I must disagree. No one made a fatal decision to turn Bush into Nixon or anyone else. This was not a failure of stage management. This was a failure of intelligence. Not intelligence in the sense of spy agency analysis. I mean a failure of mental faculty on Mr. Bush's part. I believe the nation saw him for what he is, a confused, inarticulate, and dumb man. And maybe, just maybe, started to question whether he's up to the task.

Really, the story is not so complicated. Mr. Bush is a man of meager intelligence. When asked to explain himself, to defend and justify his decisions, he couldn't do it. He's not up to it. He doesn't have the life experience of arguing positions on the merits of the case, and he doesn't have the mental faculty because he's never bothered to exercise it.

The press, when backed into a corner, always defends President Bush's intelligence, usually with some folksy anecdote. They do this because they must, not because they really mean it. I don't believe them. I never have. Intelligence manifests itself in many ways. I've witnessed no manifestation in Mr. Bush, and I follow the news closely. The man is dumb. I don't respect him, nor do I feel sorry for him, because I believe his failings are largely due to inattention on his part to the deeper side of life.

You know, Anthony Powell wrote in A Dance to the Music of Time- among many topics- about the decline of the British upper classes. He depicts them as falling in with unscrupulous moneyed people and lazy ideas, becoming comfortable with the authority to rule over others, gradually forgetting what it is they defended in the first place that won them the respect and right to rule their fellow men, eventually becoming bitter and ineffectual and attacking the very system they once depended on. I get the feeling we are witnessing this today in our own country, in the decline of the Bush family. The present generation doesn't measure up to the prior generations.

Wed Oct 06, 2004 (Religion) Comments

[I reply to a friend who sent me an Amazon.com interview of Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason]

The kind of intolerance of faith that I am advocating in my book is not the intolerance that gave us the gulag. It is conversational intolerance. When people make outlandish claims, without evidence, we stop listening to them--except on matters of faith. I am arguing that we can no longer afford to give faith a pass in this way. Bad beliefs should be criticized wherever they appear in our discourse- in physics, in medicine, and on matters of ethics and spirituality as well. The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.

I couldn't agree more strongly with the quote. Right on! Lots to digest in the full interview, some of it dubious.

Amazon: You basically characterize Western religion as dangerous and Eastern mysticism as full of promise. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Harris: Mysticism, shorn of religious dogmatism, is an empirical and highly rational enterprise.

Erik: Yikes!

Harris: The core truth of mysticism is this: It is possible to experience the world without feeling like a separate "self" in the usual sense.

Erik: No. To observe is to disturb. I hate it when the physical sciences are hijacked to support the social "sciences", but I think this principle translates well from particles to people. You can't write a book without injecting opinion. You cannot take still photos or moving film without choosing emphasis and imparting opinion. You cannot film "reality" television. Not possible, not real. The very act of observing people alters their behavior. So, my answer to mysticism is that it is escapism. It preaches to avoid life's pain (the disturbance) by ceasing to participate. Such behavior doesn't eliminate the self, though, it merely dampens the disturbance upon others. It's a fruitless pursuit, because not even death can eliminate the disturbance. What we may call the honorable veneration of Martin Luther King Jr., and the dishonorable veneration of the nineteen September 11th hijackers may differ in the ethics promoted, but at least the two perspectives recognize the lasting effect of the self. To not recognize it, as mysticism strives, is delusional and dangerous because essentially it asks the self to be absolved from any responsibility to choose which to venerate. Life is painful and involves choices. Sorry if that bums you out or fengs your shui, but tough.

I used to have this conversation in college. Mysticism has always bugged me, especially because we are all so bombarded by it by Oprah and Borders.

How did you hear of the book?

Sun Oct 03, 2004 (Politics) Comments

[An e-mail to my sister in response to Frank Rich's essay, Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush.]

Great essay.

I'm sorry, but anyone that goes to Billy Graham, at age forty no less, to be told what to value in life is seriously oblivious to the world around him. To deify this "journey" is to glorify ignorance and obedience. It's a thinly veiled message that says, "We all are confused and overwhelmed by the world we find ourselves in. Don't attempt to understand it, it's too complex for you. You will end up tempted into sin. Rather, submit yourselves fully to your overlords: Jesus Christ and George W. Bush." A very soothing message for weak people who are looking to dispense with their will and personal responsibility.

I have no problem with someone turning their life around, finding direction after years of wandering. That is admirable. To boast about it is tedious, and suggests to me that one hasn't really turned anything around.