What are you currently reading?

[Fëanor]

Yes, though of course, the matter is not so cut-and-dried.  History simply vindicates Elizabeth I's reign, but Waugh points out (what the conquerors will simply sweep under a carpet) that (a) Elizabeth was illegitimate (by both canon law and English statute law), and (b) she had, by her religious acts, violated her coronation oath.  We might therefore argue that Felton's act was not treasonous against a rightful sovereign.

Obviously the English courts of the time thought differently.  Henry VII, quite some time before his death, lawfully defined the succession to the Crown: his son, Edward (Protestant); his daughter, Mary (Catholic); his daughter, Elizabeth (Protestant) -- this was the law-of-the land, (regardless of any technicalities of legitimacy of birth), and this was the succession observed. Elizabeth was the rightful soverign according to the law of England -- and I will venture that those who opposed her did so not because of the legitimacy or lack thereof of her birth, but because she was a Protestant.

Elizabeth was one of the greatest of English monarchs. For the most part she trod a course of religious moderation without, however, acquiescing to the meddling of the Pope and Catholic powers in the her kingdom.

I might add that Evelyn Waugh was a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism.  There are few more biased and conservative proponents of any religion than converts, and Waugh was no exception.

[Xenophanes]

I just read Charles Hartshornes autobiographical The Darkness and the Light.



Hartshorne (1897-2000) was a process philosopher, and also a bird song expert.  It is filled with reminiscences and reflections on his long life, with some accounts of various aspects of his philosophy.  Most of it is interesting enough, but I expect it would be a little frustrating for a biographer looking for accurate historical information. I have long had the anthology and commentary, The Philosophers Speak of God, edited by Hartshorne and Reese. He was a persistent critic of what he called 'classical theism.' His bête noire was St. Thomas Aquinas, though his conception of classical theism seems rather like what I know of Calvinism. Some time ago, I decided finally to spend some time studying his thought more closely to see what he has to offer

I have just started reading The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics, by Father Norris Clarke, S. J., (1915-20080), a philosopher who, among many other things, has devoted some effort to the study and criticism evaluation of the process philosophies of A. N. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. I tend to think that Norrie Clarke and a number of others understood Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas better than Whitehead and Hartshorne did.

[karlhenning]

Obviously the English courts of the time thought differently.  Henry VII, quite some time before his death, lawfully defined the succession to the Crown: his son, Edward (Protestant); his daughter, Mary (Catholic); his daughter, Elizabeth (Protestant) -- this was the law-of-the land, (regardless of any technicalities of legitimacy of birth), and this was the succession observed. Elizabeth was the rightful soverign according to the law of England -- and I will venture that those who opposed her did so not because of the legitimacy or lack thereof of her birth, but because she was a Protestant.

Elizabeth was one of the greatest of English monarchs. For the most part she trod a course of religious moderation without, however, acquiescing to the meddling of the Pope and Catholic powers in the her kingdom.

I might add that Evelyn Waugh was a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism.  There are few more biased and conservative proponents of any religion than converts, and Waugh was no exception.

It is interesting that in your view, Waugh's conversion makes for a fatal bias (and his book was praised at the time of publication not only by Catholics); but you take no account of the fact that the English court (you misspoke anachronistically with courts, probably a typo) which "thought differently" were in fact among the highly interested parties in the matter.  Another anachronism is your pitting "the law-of-the land" against canon law and English statute.  What you mean by "the law-of-the land" is simply Might Makes Right. He's got the football, so why shouldn't he make the rules? If this were simply "the law-of-the land," why did Thomas More have any moral difficulty with Henry?

[jowcol]

I bet he's looking for Neal Stephenson.

I'm currently reading his Baroque cycle-- which is quite an investment, but really enjoyable if you don't mind giving the time to it.  I also enjoyed the Cryptonomicon a lot!

[karlhenning]

I might add that Evelyn Waugh was a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism.  There are few more biased and conservative proponents of any religion than converts, and Waugh was no exception.

In reading Edmund Campion: A Life, you found that bias compromised the biography at what points?  Or is the argument simply that because Waugh was a convert, he was biased, so there can be no merit to the book?

I am still puzzled at how Waugh's alleged bias affects the point that Elizabeth had violated her coronation oath.  Yes, the court at the time "thought differently," i.e. they were entirely (or, by consensus) behind those violations.

[petrarch]

I'm currently reading his Baroque cycle-- which is quite an investment, but really enjoyable if you don't mind giving the time to it.  I also enjoyed the Cryptonomicon a lot!

Of the Baroque Cycle I have only read Quicksilver, which is indeed quite enjoyable, though I think I skipped the theatre play that was somewhere in there. I found Cryptonomicon more engrossing than Quicksilver, and the shared characters provide an interesting context and continuity. Of his other books, Snow Crash was very good too. I'll eventually tackle the rest of the Baroque Cycle, and I also have Anathem and Diamond Age calling me from the shelf begging to be read.

[Fëanor]

In reading Edmund Campion: A Life, you found that bias compromised the biography at what points?  Or is the argument simply that because Waugh was a convert, he was biased, so there can be no merit to the book?

I am still puzzled at how Waugh's alleged bias affects the point that Elizabeth had violated her coronation oath.  Yes, the court at the time "thought differently," i.e. they were entirely (or, by consensus) behind those violations.

I haven't read the book.  However I know the Waugh was a convert and I have the quotes that you provided.  The quotes are sufficient to demonstrate Waugh's bias.

Elizabeth was the legitimate English monarch as recognized by the courts of her time and by the substantial majority of her subjects.  Courts today are held to a higher standard fortunately, but the is another matter.  Challenges to her reign came from Catholics, often under foreign influence, whose essential objection to her reign was that she was Protestant; the legalities they raised were mere pretexts for their objections.  Felton was justly convicted of treason (by normal standards of that age).

What exact wording of her coronation oath was Elizabeth supposed to have violated?  I stand to be better informed on that point.  Did a politician break a promise?  Well, that's unprecedented, I'm sure. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I am today an atheist but I came from a Reformed Christian background.  No doubt these two facts will lead you to surmise that I, too, have some biases; so be it.

[DavidRoss]

Maybe you'll allow that the United States, the most of any nation, has enshired the notion of "...the people themselves acting freely to serve what they see as their own, their family's, their community's, and their nation's best interests"?  For my part, I will allow that the U.S. is a nation that gives one person one vote.  Yet it is also a nation where an "elite", through the manipulation of voters and politicians alike, "govern the behavior of [the] nation's people" with substantial disrgard for the people's interest. The American elite isn't government (-- albeit it owns government --)

Up to this point we're on the same page.

and it wants the smallest, least regulating, and cheapest government it can buy.  It is deeply ironic the so many Americans, not of the elite, fear "big government".

Here we're on different planets.  If the ruling elite "owns government," and if government is the mechanism whereby their control is enforced, their interests protected, and their wealth increased, then they want the most far-reaching and powerful government possible.  Cost is no object, since that is borne by the middle classes and the working poor (and their children and children's children).  Regulation, since it serves the ruler's interests and restricts competition, is exactly what the ruling elite wants...and plenty of it!

What's deeply ironic is that some folks understand that overreaching government really serves the interests of a powerful ruling class, yet simultaneously believe that surrendering even more power to government will remedy rather than exacerbate the problem!

[Brian]

If I can interrupt for a moment... my newest blog post is I Hate David Foster Wallace.

[karlhenning]

If I can interrupt for a moment... my newest blog post is I Hate David Foster Wallace.

I'll need to check out your post . . . I read The Broom of the System 20+ years ago, and I've been meaning to revisit it . . . .

[DavidRoss]

I'll need to check out your post . . . I read The Broom of the System 20+ years ago, and I've been meaning to revisit it . . . .

I had forgotten all about it, but Brian's review reminded me that I had once meant to read it.  Back on the "must read" list it goes!

[karlhenning]

I had forgotten all about it, but Brian's review reminded me that I had once meant to read it.  Back on the "must read" list it goes!

I remember finding so much of The Broom of the System roll-on-the-floor funny, yet I do not have any sense of the overall narrative, as I do with other wonderful then-newish fiction I read at about the same time, such as T.C. Boyle's Water Music and Don De Lillo's White Noise.

[Brian]

I remember finding so much of The Broom of the System roll-on-the-floor funny, yet I do not have any sense of the overall narrative, as I do with other wonderful then-newish fiction I read at about the same time, such as T.C. Boyle's Water Music and Don De Lillo's White Noise.

In the same amount of time it's been since you've read it, I may go the same way: so much of it was extravagantly funny (I nearly died when the character named Judith Prietht showed up), but the plot is basically ... well, the plot is an excuse for everything else. He uses the plot like artists use those little clips that keep paintings hanging on the wall. 

[DavidRoss]

He uses the plot like artists use those little clips that keep paintings hanging on the wall.

There!  You just wrote a sentence much like those by Wallace you admire.

[Fëanor]

...
Here we're on different planets.  If the ruling elite "owns government," and if government is the mechanism whereby their control is enforced, their interests protected, and their wealth increased, then they want the most far-reaching and powerful government possible.  Cost is no object, since that is borne by the middle classes and the working poor (and their children and children's children).  Regulation, since it serves the ruler's interests and restricts competition, is exactly what the ruling elite wants...and plenty of it!

What's deeply ironic is that some folks understand that overreaching government really serves the interests of a powerful ruling class, yet simultaneously believe that surrendering even more power to government will remedy rather than exacerbate the problem!

Well maybe not totally different planets.  I'll allow that your arguement that the power elite don't really care how big government is because it is mainly paid for by the middle class, has a lot of merit, assuming that the government, whatever size, enforces their wishes.

However don't I believe it follows, nor is a fact, that enforcing their wishes requires a big, expensive government. In the US example, they don't need the EPA or other consumer or environment protection agencies, Medicare, Medicaid, or any off the other entitlement programs. The IRS is debatable I guess, because it's the agency that makes other people pay.     The military is definitely an exception of course because of its close ties with the "defence" industry.

[DavidRoss]

Well maybe not totally different planets.  I'll allow that your arguement that the power elite don't really care how big government is because it is mainly paid for by the middle class, has a lot of merit, assuming that the government, whatever size, enforces their wishes.

However don't I believe it follows, nor is a fact, that enforcing their wishes requires a big, expensive government. In the US example, they don't need the EPA or other consumer or environment protection agencies, Medicare, Medicaid, or any off the other entitlement programs. The IRS is debatable I guess, because it's the agency that makes other people pay.     The military is definitely an exception of course because of its close ties with the
"defence" industry.

Though there are problems with Sorel, his Reflections on Violence captures well how 20th Century "liberalism" serves the ruling class and perpetuates the status quo.  Your objection takes the role of regulatory agencies like the EPA or FDA at face value.  Who they really serve and at whose expense is another matter entirely.  The same with entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Your country and ours had virtually identical health care "systems" until the mid-'60s, with similar cost: about 6% of GDP.  You guys went with a national single payer plan.  We introduced Medicare and Medicaid, which screwed the pooch and introduced a huge "medical services for profit" system.  Today y'all spend about 10% of GDP on health care, we spend 18%--and Obamacare is already increasing our cost.  Taxpayer subsidized industries whose profits go into the pockets of the ruling class sure look like business as usual to me--so successful, in fact, that our masters want to bring ever more of our nation's economic life under government control--and thus their control.

[Fëanor]

Though there are problems with Sorel, his Reflections on Violence captures well how 20th Century "liberalism" serves the ruling class and perpetuates the status quo.  Your objection takes the role of regulatory agencies like the EPA or FDA at face value.  Who they really serve and at whose expense is another matter entirely.  The same with entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Your country and ours had virtually identical health care "systems" until the mid-'60s, with similar cost: about 6% of GDP.  You guys went with a national single payer plan.  We introduced Medicare and Medicaid, which screwed the pooch and introduced a huge "medical services for profit" system.  Today y'all spend about 10% of GDP on health care, we spend 18%--and Obamacare is already increasing our cost.  Taxpayer subsidized industries whose profits go into the pockets of the ruling class sure look like business as usual to me--so successful, in fact, that our masters want to bring ever more of our nation's economic life under government control--and thus their control.

Well, I'm not sure this is the forum or topic in which to persue this debate, but ...

As a Canadian I don't feel the need to defend the myriad ineffectuality, inefficiencies, and ineptitudes of the US system.  Sadly Obama health care is a good case in point -- on that score will you concede that the US ought to have a universal, single-payer system???    I didn't think so.

However I just don't think the facts support the deep conspiracy theory that "big government" is sole for the benefit of the ruling elite.

[Brian]

There!  You just wrote a sentence much like those by Wallace you admire.

Wow! I'm flattered, sir. One sentence at a time, perhaps; one sentence at a time...

[karlhenning]

Well, I'm not sure this is the forum or topic in which to persue this debate, but ...

Separately, Bill . . . I had a question, which I took here. Thanks!

[DavidRoss]

As a Canadian I don't feel the need to defend the myriad ineffectuality, inefficiencies, and ineptitudes of the US system.  Sadly Obama health care is a good case in point -- on that score will you concede that the US ought to have a universal, single-payer system???    I didn't think so.

I have long favored a single-payer system for the US that provides a level of care roughly equal to that of Canada and which eliminates the horrifying waste caused by torts.  My torts prof was one of the designers of New Zealand's system and he convinced me of its essential pragmatic value.  Of course, there's considerable difference between administering systems serving 35 million (Canada), 9 million (Sweden), or 4 million (NZ) and a system serving 300 million (US).

However I just don't think the facts support the deep conspiracy theory that "big government" is sole for the benefit of the ruling elite.

"Deep conspiracy theory?"  What theory is that?  Something suggesting that EVERYTHING government does is a direct consequence of covert plans hatched at the Bohemian Grove?

No back-room conspiracy is necessary to explain concerted actions that benefit the interests of one class at the expense of another.