text:
This is the third installment of a series that explores the true nature of liberty, how liberty depends on society, how society (properly understood) has been eclipsed by statism and its artifacts, and how society — and therefore liberty — might re-emerge in the United States. In this installment, I take up the second of several possible objections to my model of a society's essence and workings. This series will close with a blueprint for the restoration of society and liberty in America.
If you have not read the first two installments, "Liberty and Society" and "The Eclipse of 'Old America'," I recommend that you do so before you continue. This post addresses the following question: Is Genetic Kinship an Indispensable Aspect of Society?
In "Liberty and Society," I define society as "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another." Near the end of the post, I say this:
A society coheres around genetic kinship, and is defined by its common culture, which includes its moral code. The culture is developed, transmitted through, and enforced by the voluntary institutions of society (civil society). The culture is the product of trial and error, where those elements that become part of received culture serve societal coherence and — in the best case — help it to thrive. Coherence and success depend also on the maintenance of mutual respect, trust, and forbearance among society's members. Those traits arise in part from the sharing of a common culture (which is an artifact of societal interaction) and from genetic kinship, which is indispensable to societal coherence. If the foregoing description is correct, there is one aspect of society — and one only — that a society cannot "manufacture" through its social processes. That aspect is genetic-cultural kinship.
In the sequel, "The Eclipse of 'Old America'," there is this:
The United States, for a very long time, was a polity whose disparate parts cohered, regionally if not nationally, because the experience of living in the kind of small community sketched above was a common one. Long after the majority of Americans came to live in urban complexes, a large fraction of the residents of those complexes had grown up in small communities.
This was Old America — and it was predominant for almost 200 years after America won its independence from Britain. Old America's core constituents, undeniably, were white, and they had much else in common: observance of the Judeo-Christian tradition; British and north-central European roots; hard work and self-reliance as badges of honor; family, church, and club as cultural transmitters, social anchors, and focal points for voluntary mutual aid.
The focus of this post is the indispensable contribution of genetic kinship to society. Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I do not use "society" in the loose way that politicians do, that is, as a feel-good word for "nation." The United States, as a nation, may comprise societies of the kind defined above, but the United States is not a society. It is a political convenience, held together by force, not by mutual trust, respect, and forbearance — which are the operational characteristics of a society.
Mutual trust, respect, and forbearance arise from the emotional force of genetic kinship. They may be mimicked in arrangements of convenience, such as economic ones. But those arrangements last only as long as they are profitable to all parties.
Arrangements of convenience may be facilitated by social bonding, but they cannot replace social bonding. For example, disparate peoples may trade with each other, to their mutual advantage, but they are not bound to each other emotionally. History is replete with examples of peoples who have turned against each other, despite their economic ties. Diplomatic ties are even less binding, because of their superficiality.
Whence the emotional bonds of genetic kinship? Are they found only in the nuclear family? (No.) Do they encompass the extended family? (Yes.) Are they enhanced by social relationships (e.g., church and club)? (Yes.) Do they extend to broad racial-ethnic groupings? (Yes.)
Emotional bonds may be reinforced (or not) by familial and social relationships, but they begin with racial-ethnic (genetic) kinship:
[S]tudies have demonstrated that relatedness is often important for human altruism in that humans are inclined to behave more altruistically toward kin than toward unrelated individuals.[22] Many people choose to live near relatives, exchange sizable gifts with relatives, and favor relatives in wills in proportion to their relatedness.[22]
A study interviewed several hundred women in Los Angeles to study patterns of helping between kin versus non-kin. While non-kin friends were willing to help one another, their assistance was far more likely to be reciprocal. The largest amounts of non-reciprocal help, however, were reportedly provided by kin. Additionally, more closely related kin were considered more likely sources of assistance than distant kin.[23] Similarly, several surveys of American college students found that individuals were more likely to incur the cost of assisting kin when a high probability that relatedness and benefit would be greater than cost existed. Participants' feelings of helpfulness were stronger toward family members than non-kin. Additionally, participants were found to be most willing to help those individuals most closely related to them. Interpersonal relationships between kin in general were more supportive and less Machiavellian than those between non-kin.[24]….
A study of food-sharing practices on the West Caroline islets of Ifaluk determined that food-sharing was more common among people from the same islet, possibly because the degree of relatedness between inhabitants of the same islet would be higher than relatedness between inhabitants of different islets. When food was shared between islets, the distance the sharer was required to travel correlated with the relatedness of the recipient—a greater distance meant that the recipient needed to be a closer relative. The relatedness of the individual and the potential inclusive fitness benefit needed to outweigh the energy cost of transporting the food over distance.[26]
Humans may use the inheritance of material goods and wealth to maximize their inclusive fitness. By providing close kin with inherited wealth, an individual may improve his or her kin's reproductive opportunities and thus increase his or her own inclusive fitness even after death. A study of a thousand wills found that the beneficiaries who received the most inheritance were generally those most closely related to the will's writer. Distant kin received proportionally less inheritance, with the least amount of inheritance going to non-kin.[27]
A study of childcare practices among Canadian women found that respondents with children provide childcare reciprocally with non-kin. The cost of caring for non-kin was balanced by the benefit a woman received—having her own offspring cared for in return. However, respondents without children were significantly more likely to offer childcare to kin. For individuals without their own offspring, the inclusive fitness benefits of providing care to closely related children might outweigh the time and energy costs of childcare.[28]
Family investment in offspring among black South African households also appears consistent with an inclusive fitness model.[29] A higher degree of relatedness between children and their caregivers frequently correlated with a higher degree of investment in the children, with more food, health care, and clothing being provided. Relatedness between the child and the rest of the household also positively associated with the regularity of a child's visits to local medical practitioners and with the highest grade the child had completed in school. Additionally, relatedness negatively associated with a child's being behind in school for his or her age.
Observation of the Dolgan hunter-gatherers of northern Russia suggested that, while reciprocal food-sharing occurs between both kin and non-kin, there are larger and more frequent asymmetrical transfers of food to kin. Kin are also more likely to be welcomed to non-reciprocal meals, while non-kin are discouraged from attending. Finally, even when reciprocal food-sharing occurs between families, these families are often very closely related, and the primary beneficiaries are the offspring.[30]
Other research indicates that violence in families is more likely to occur when step-parents are present and that "genetic relationship is associated with a softening of conflict, and people's evident valuations of themselves and of others are systematically related to the parties' reproductive values".[31]
Numerous other studies pertaining to kin selection exist, suggesting how inclusive fitness may work amongst peoples from the Ye'kwana of southern Venezuela to the Gypsies of Hungary to even the doomed Donner Party of the United States.[32][33][34] Various secondary sources provide compilations of kin selection studies.[35][36] [from Wikipedia, "Kin selection," as of 08/14/12]
* * *
[E.O.] Wilson used sociobiology and evolutionary principles to explain the behavior of the social insects and then to understand the social behavior of other animals, including humans, thus established sociobiology as a new scientific field. He argued that all animal behavior, including that of humans, is the product of heredity, environmental stimuli, and past experiences, and that free will is an illusion. He has referred to the biological basis of behaviour as the "genetic leash."[17] The sociobiological view is that all animal social behavior is governed by epigenetic rules worked out by the laws of evolution. This theory and research proved to be seminal, controversial, and influential.[18]
The controversy of sociobiological research is in how it applies to humans. The theory established a scientific argument for rejecting the common doctrine of tabula rasa, which holds that human beings are born without any innate mental content and that culture functions to increase human knowledge and aid in survival and success. In the final chapter of the book Sociobiology and in the full text of his Pulitzer Prize-winning On Human Nature, Wilson argues that the human mind is shaped as much by genetic inheritance as it is by culture (if not more). There are limits on just how much influence social and environmental factors can have in altering human behavior….
Wilson has argued that the "unit of selection is a gene, the basic element of heredity. The target of selection is normally the individual who carries an ensemble of genes of certain kinds." With regard to the use of kin selection in explaining the behavior of eusocial insects, Wilson said to Discover magazine, the "new view that I'm proposing is that it was group selection all along, an idea first roughly formulated by Darwin."[22] [from Wikipedia, "E.O. Wilson," as of 08/14/12]
* * *
Wilson suggests the equation for Hamilton's rule:[19]
- rb > c
(where b represents the benefit to the recipient of altruism, c the cost to the altruist, and r their degree of relatedness) should be replaced by the more general equation
- (rbk + be) > c
in which bk is the benefit to kin (b in the original equation) and be is the benefit accruing to the group as a whole. He then argues that, in the present state of the evidence in relation to social insects, it appears that be>rbk, so that altruism needs to be explained in terms of selection at the colony level rather than at the kin level. However, it is well understood in social evolution theory that kin selection and group selection are not distinct processes, and that the effects of multi-level selection are already fully accounted for in Hamilton's original rule, rb>c.[20] [from Wikipedia, "Group selection," as 0f 08/14/12]
The idea that social bonding has a deep, genetic basis is beyond the ken of leftists and pseudo-libertarian rationalists. Both prefer to deny reality, though for different reasons. Leftists like to depict the state as society. Pseudo-libertarian rationalists seem to believe that social bonding is irrelevant to cooperative, mutually beneficial behavior; life, to them, is an economic arrangement.
Leftists and libertarians like to slander the mutual attraction of genetic kin by calling it "tribalism." On that subject, the author of Foseti writes:
People are – in general – tribal. Let's take it for granted that we all wish that this were not so. Further, let's take it for granted that some individual people are much more tribal than others.
The fact remains, however, that people are tribal. It's one thing to suggest that people should not be tribal in their daily dealings with others. Let's stipulate that this is moral. It does not, however, follow that it would be moral to organize society around the principle the people will in fact act anti-tribally….
Lots of progressives (especially those of the libertarian sort) are fond of saying that restricting immigration is tribal. They simply can't support immigration restrictions because they oppose tribalism.
There is no better way of demonstrating your high-status in today's society than proclaiming your anti-tribalism. You should therefore be skeptical of these proclamations. However, many people are indeed not particularly tribal.
Your humble blogger is not a tribal person. There is no sort of person that I see on the street and say to myself, "wow, I bet he and I have a lot in common – we should look out for each other." Temperamentally, I'm very much an individualist type. But it's wishful thinking to generalize from my personal preferences to population-wide-shoulds.
Tribalism is, has always been, and likely always will be a feature of human societies.
Occasionally, we get not-so-gentle reminders that people are tribal. We would do well to learn. Here's a more light-hearted example. Here's a reminder that democratic politics is always tribal.
You're free, of course, to consider yourself above tribalism. However, if you do so, you'll be an idiot when you try to describe geopolitics, local politics, national politics, and public policies in general. By all means, bury your head in the sand, just don't preach while you're down there.
James_G makes a nice analogy in this post. He likens anti-tribal beliefs to communist beliefs. It's true that some groups of humans can function reasonably well under communistic conditions. It's similarly true that many human beings are not particularly tribal. However, it's dangerously immoral to generalize from these exceptions to the general conclusions that communism works on a large scale or that all countries should be rainbow nations…. [from "The immorality of anti-tribalism," July 25, 2012]
In America, the pursuit of happiness in the form of money has sundered many a tribal community. (See "The Eclipse of 'Old America'," especially the 11th and 12th paragraphs.) But tribalism nevertheless remains a potent force in America:
Source: Census.gov, Ancestry: 2000 — Census 2000 Brief, Figure 3. (Right-click to open in a new tab, then click to enlarge.)
I venture to say that the "Americans" who predominate in large swaths of the South are the descendants of the English and Scots-Irish settlers of the colonial and early post-colonial era. They are "Americans" because their ancestors were (for the most part) the Americans of yore.
Not represented in the graph, because it is based on county-level statistics, are the high concentrations of Jews in many urban areas (especially in and around New York City and Miami), the coalescence of Arabs in the Detroit area, and the numerous ethnic enclaves (e.g., Chinese, Czech, Greek, Korean, Polish, Swedish, and Thai) — urban, semi-rural, and rural — that persist long after the original waves of immigration that led to their formation.
If genetic kinship is such a binding force, why is the closest kind of genetic kinship — the nuclear family — so often dysfunctional? Nuclear families are notoriously prone to strife, or so it would seem if one were to count novels and screenplays in evidence. Novels and screenplays are not dispositive, of course, because they emphasize strife for dramatic purposes. That said, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the American nuclear family is a less binding force than it used to be. But that is to be expected, given the interventions by the state that have eased divorce and lured women out of the home (e.g., affirmative action, subsidies for day care, mandated coverages for employer-provided health insurance).
There are other reasons to reject the (exaggerated) dysfunctionality of the nuclear family as evidence against the importance of genetic kinship to social bonding:
1. Strife is inevitable where humans interact, and family life affords a disproportionate number of opportunities for interaction. (For example, conflicts between the members of a nuclear family — parent vs. child, sibling vs. sibling — often begin during the childhood or adolescence of one or all parties to the conflict.)
2. Blood ties have a way of overcoming "bad blood" when a family member is in need of help. (Thus, for example, children of middle-age and older often are supportive of needful siblings and aged parents out of duty, not love.)
3. Many a person compensates for tense or distant relations with parents and siblings by maintaining close ties to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
This is not to say that the bonds of genetic kinship in America are everywhere as strong as in years past. The state's interventions, the search for greener pastures, and the inexorable force of cross-racial and cross-ethnic sexual attraction have led to a more homogenized America.
But genetic kinship will always be a strong binding force, even where the kinship is primarily racial. Racial kinship boundaries, by the way, are not always and necessarily the broad ones suggested by the classic trichotomy of Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. (If you want to read for yourself about the long, convoluted, diffuse, and still controversial evolutionary chains that eventuated in the sub-species homo sapiens sapiens, to which all humans are assigned arbitrarily, without regard for their distinctive differences, begin here, here, here, and here.)
The obverse of of genetic kinship is "diversity," which often is touted as a good thing by anti-tribalist social engineers. But "diversity" is not a good thing when it comes to social bonding. Michael Jonas reports on a study by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century":
It has become increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings….
…Putnam's work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.
His findings on the downsides of diversity have also posed a challenge for Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp. Suddenly finding himself the bearer of bad news, Putnam has struggled with how to present his work. He gathered the initial raw data in 2000 and issued a press release the following year outlining the results. He then spent several years testing other possible explanations.
When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation.
"Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a stern pep talk," wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a recent Orange County Register op-ed titled "Greater diversity equals more misery."….
The results of his new study come from a survey Putnam directed among residents in 41 US communities, including Boston. Residents were sorted into the four principal categories used by the US Census: black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. They were asked how much they trusted their neighbors and those of each racial category, and questioned about a long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on local government, their involvement in community projects, and their friendships. What emerged in more diverse communities was a bleak picture of civic desolation, affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties….
After releasing the initial results in 2001, Putnam says he spent time "kicking the tires really hard" to be sure the study had it right. Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents — all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.
"People would say, 'I bet you forgot about X,'" Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. "There were 20 or 30 X's."
But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."
"People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' — that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes….
In a recent study, [Harvard economist Edward] Glaeser and colleague Alberto Alesina demonstrated that roughly half the difference in social welfare spending between the US and Europe — Europe spends far more — can be attributed to the greater ethnic diversity of the US population. Glaeser says lower national social welfare spending in the US is a "macro" version of the decreased civic engagement Putnam found in more diverse communities within the country.
Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15 recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked, for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust in others. Kahn and Costa's own research documented higher desertion rates in the Civil War among Union Army soldiers serving in companies whose soldiers varied more by age, occupation, and birthplace.
Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they are also less likely to look out for one another. "Everyone is a little self-conscious that this is not politically correct stuff," says Kahn….
In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching. As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement, Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language instruction and investing in community centers and other places that allow for "meaningful interaction across ethnic lines."
Some critics have found his prescriptions underwhelming. And in offering ideas for mitigating his findings, Putnam has drawn scorn for stepping out of the role of dispassionate researcher. "You're just supposed to tell your peers what you found," says John Leo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank…. [from "The downside of diversity," The Boston Globe (boston.com), August 5, 2007]
Putnam's reluctance about releasing the study and his attempt to soften its implications say much about the relationship that anti-tribalist social engineers (like Putnam) have with truth. Here is more from John Leo:
Putnam's study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one's own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn't ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: "In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down'—that is, to pull in like a turtle."…
Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. "Americans raised in the 1970s," he writes, "seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s." And the "hunkering down" occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness….
Putnam has long been aware that his findings could have a big effect on the immigration debate. Last October, he told the Financial Times that "he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity." He said it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that," a quote that should raise eyebrows. Academics aren't supposed to withhold negative data until they can suggest antidotes to their findings…
Though Putnam is wary of what right-wing politicians might do with his findings, the data might give pause to those on the left, and in the center as well. If he's right, heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. Putnam is hopeful that eventually America will forge a new solidarity based on a "new, broader sense of we." The problem is how to do that in an era of multiculturalism and disdain for assimilation…. [from "Bowling with Our Own," City Journal, June 25, 2007]
* * *
I can do no better at this point than inject some passages from Byron M. Roth's The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature. The following observations, taken from Chapter I, are supported by the rich detail that Roth delivers in the following several hundred pages of the book:
…Multiculturalists … ignore the historical record that suggests that social harmony among different ethnic and language groups is at best rare, and where it exists, tenuous. The history of Europe, whatever else it is, is one long tale of religious and ethnic conflict, almost ceaseless war, and the slaughter and the destruction it entails. The enlightenment, and the scientific advances it engendered, did nothing to mitigate this tale of horrific and bloody conflict, with the twentieth century exhibiting the most lethal and unsparing carnage in European history. In addition, in the twentieth century, class conflict was raised to a level in Europe and Asia never seen before. Communist rulers in Europe and Asia effectively divided their societies along economic lines and managed over the century to slaughter even more people than the ethnically based World Wars I and II.
The breakup of the British Empire led to bloody civil strife throughout the former colonies among the disparate peoples held together by British force of arms. The civil war that led to the partition of India and Pakistan left an estimated one million dead in its wake. Similar terrible and murderous turmoil in Southeast Asia, in for example Cambodia and Vietnam, followed the withdrawal of the European Colonial powers. Among the former European colonies in Africa, even today, civil strife is rampant.
In the wake of the fall of Communism those multiethnic societies that had been held together by authoritarian dictators quickly fell asunder. Czechoslovakia divided in a peaceful and largely amiable way. Yugoslavia, on the other hand, was torn by vicious civil war and genocidal ethnic cleansing. Iraq, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, presents a similar case. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a different and bloody example of the difficulties of establishing harmony among groups of differing cultures and religions. Even Belgium, (the seat of the European Union Parliament) is in danger of splitting into its Dutch-speaking and French-speaking halves.8 Canadians of French and English ancestry are grappling with similar problems. In addition, there is a fundamental inconsistency at the base of the multiculturalist program, in that it applauds ethnic minorities who maintain their cultural traditions, but looks askance at majority populations who wish to do the same. Political elites in all Western societies take a negative view of those who wish to preserve their traditional values and patterns of living and question whether those patterns can be sustained in the face of large numbers of newcomers who do not share those values or are actually hostile to them….
…[T]he social science evidence that a harmonious society composed of identifiable ethnic groups with different cultural and religious backgrounds can be arranged is, almost without exception, negative. Has some new type of social engineering appeared which would allow this historic pattern to be broken? Has some new sort of human being been born who will not repeat the follies of his ancestors? Will the world find a way to emulate the example of the Swiss? Policy makers should be trying to understand how the Swiss have managed to preserve their experiment in multicultural harmony for so long, when so many others have failed so utterly. Perhaps Switzerland can be a model for the new multicultural societies? On the other hand, maybe Switzerland is a special case that cannot be copied. Switzerland, for all its ethnic harmony, is, in effect, a confederation of separate but closely related European ethnicities who reside in different cantons, who speak their own languages (French, German, Italian, and Native Swiss), and maintain their ethnic customs and tastes. It would be reasonable to ask if such an arrangement could be widely duplicated in very different settings, but few in the multicultural camp appear interested in such a question.
Similarly, the assimilationists who support mass immigration seem equally nonchalant about the evidence for their position. Clearly, the history of immigration to the United States has been fortunate and largely successful. But in the past virtually all successful immigration was from European cultures very similar to that of the original English settlers. In addition, those settlers usually came with similar skills and abilities, often better than those of the earlier settlers, and generally had little difficulty in competing with them. Once in America, they could easily blend in, there being few physical or social features which set them apart. Usually they came in small numbers over an extended period of time and were forced to acquire the language of their host country if they expected to thrive. This was because (except for German and French speakers in some areas) no one group could sustain communities sufficiently large as to be economically independent and thereby sustain their native language for general commerce. As a counterexample, the French community in Quebec did possess sufficient size and was therefore able to maintain its language as well as its ethnic identity.
The United States was so vast and the opportunities it offered so generous that group conflict was generally muted. Conflict among immigrant Europeans was generally limited to the crowded multiethnic coastal cities, and those who wished to avoid those conflicts could migrate to the interior, often gravitating to ethnic enclaves. Even in those less crowded settings, however, conflict was not uncommon, though it usually took the form of political differences over the place of religion in society and the nature of education. Is this an immigration pattern that could be replicated today in modern societies when the immigrant groups come in large numbers from vastly different cultural and ethnic backgrounds compared to the residents of their host countries? Can this model work in crowded Western Europe where land for housing is limited and where unemployment remains at chronically high levels? In other words, is the American immigration experience prior to 1965 an exceptional one? Can it be the model for future immigration cycles or are the conditions today so different as to make the model inapplicable? These are questions that need to asked, but rarely are.
A clear implication of Roth's analysis is that conflict — political, if not violent — is bound to result from racial-ethnic-cultural commingling — unless the disparate groups are geographically separated and politically autonomous in all respects (except, perhaps, that they each bear a "fair share" of the cost of a common defense).
* * *
The idea that society– properly defined and understood — requires genetic kinship is nevertheless anathema to anti-tribalist social tinkerers of Putnam's ilk. It is ironic (but not surprising) that anti-tribalists often seek connections with "kindred" souls. The leftist groves of academe are notorious for their exclusion of libertarians and conservatives, but an academic mistakes his like-minded colleagues for altruistic kinsmen at his own peril. (I speak from the experience of years in a quasi-academic think-tank, and as a former "friend" in many a work-based "friendship.")
Libertarians, who are notoriously individualistic and aloof, also seek to bond with like-minded persons. Libertarians are responsible for the less-than-successful Free State Project and for seasteading (formally neutral in its ideology, but mainly attractive to libertarians). I expect such experiments in coexistence, if they get off the ground, to be as inconsequential as their anti-libertarian equivalent: the commune. Communes have been around for a while, of course, though none of them has lasted long or attracted many adherents. They are, after all, nothing more than economic arrangements with some "Kumbaya" thrown in.
So, yes, genetic kinship is indispensable to society, where society is properly understood as "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another." But, as I discuss here, not all societies based on genetic kinship are created equal. Trying to make them equal is a fool's errand.
The fourth installment is here.
Related posts:
On Liberty
Rights, Liberty, the Golden Rule, and the Legitimate State
What Is Conservatism?
Zones of Liberty
Society and the State
I Want My Country Back
The Golden Rule and the State
Government vs. Community
Evolution, Human Nature, and "Natural Rights"
More about Conservative Governance
The Meaning of Liberty
Evolution and the Golden Rule
Understanding Hayek
The Golden Rule as Beneficial Learning
True Libertarianism, One More Time
Human Nature, Liberty, and Rationalism
Why Conservatism Works
Reclaiming Liberty throughout the Land
Rush to Judgment
Secession, Anyone?
Race and Reason: The Achievement Gap — Causes and Implications
Liberty and Society
The Eclipse of "Old America"


text:
Punta Cana
Car Rental Guide
Compare the prices of all rental car companies
Subscribe for exclusive offers and deals!
4.6 / 5
based on 200 reviews
So make a quote and save up to 50% on car rental in Punta Cana
Exotic / Specialfrom $ 6/day
Economyfrom $ 2368/day
Minifrom $ 2368/day
Compactfrom $ 2555/day
Intermediatefrom $ 2562/day
SUVfrom $ 2937/day
We offer a comparison of all the rent a car companies in Punta Cana:
In the month March, The average car rental length in Punta Cana was 7 days.
The average car rental duration in 2023 is 7 days.
Currently the most booked car rental in Punta Cana is ECONOMY.
The average car rental price was last month 312 USD.
The average rental price last month was 45 USD per day.
The available car rental companies in Punta Cana are: Alamo, National, Enterprise, Abbycar, York, Finalrentals, etc…

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Robot Chicken
Chris Pine (SDCC 2019)
Learn (incorrect) secrets behind the mad scientist.
Alabama Jackson
Season 11
Season 10
EP 13 Max Caenen in: Why Would He Know If His Mother's A Size Queen
The Lady of the Lake gives Percival some trouble. The Robot Chicken crew shows what Dumbledore sees in the Mirror of Desire. Professor X reveals how the X-Men first discovered their powers. And Garfield gets buried in the pet cemetery.
Season 9
EP 1 Freshly Baked: The Robot Chicken Santa Claus Pot Cookie Freakout Special: Special Edition
Happy holidays everyone, as Robot Chicken joins Santa for the one Christmas he'll never forget. The north pole elves dream of the toys of holidays past. Krampus puts in a good word for the coal industry. St. Nick meets his idol: Jared Leto.
Season 8
Season 7
DC Comics Special II: Villains in Paradise
The Robot Chicken crew takes a peek at what it's like working in the Hall of Doom, the grief Batman goes through whenever he has to ride in one of Green Lantern's power ring bubbles, the origin of Starro, and what happens when the DC villains end up on the same beach as the DC heroes at spring break!
EP 16 The Robot Chicken Bitch Pudding Special
Robot Chicken fan-favorite character Bitch Pudding gets her time to shine in a brand new solo special! When her fellow citizens in Pastryville get tired of suffering Bitch Pudding's abuse, they hatch a plot to eliminate her once and for all! Now Bitch Pudding will blaze a trail of raging revenge, and the world better learn how to duck and cover!
EP 20 The Robot Chicken Lots of Holidays But Don't Worry Christmas is Still in There Too So Pull the Stick Out of Your Ass Fox News Special
The wacky Robot Chicken writers take on every holiday that ever existed in this holiday special! We see what Mother's Day is like for the Disney characters, a talented Jewish boy raps about gelt, a young Pilgrim man has a special surprise for his family on the first Thanksgiving, and Santa has a little trouble with his neighbor up at the North Pole.
Season 6
Born Again Virgin Christmas Special
Robot Chicken takes down Christmas once again! Our writers reveal the origins of the Heat Miser and Snow Miser. Witness Ebenezer Scrooge learn the true TRUE meaning of Christmas. Learn the perils of getting a job at the North Pole. Discover how Santa Claus ruined World War One's greatest day!
EP 1 Executed by the State
Season Six flies in with a brand spankin' new opening credit sequence! G.I. Joe faces their biggest challenge yet; Find out what being a vegetarian is really all about; the questions about Starbucks famous logo are answered; Orville Redenbacher stars in Children of the Popcorn.
EP 5 Disemboweled by an Orphan
Our demented minds see Gadget from Chip 'n Dale in a brand new way; The writers imagine what could happen if Frosty's hat landed on a few other things; We always loved Master of the Universe so we show two Eternia sightseers getting caught up in a battle between He-Man and Skeletor.
EP 6 Hurtled from a Helicopter into a Speeding Train
Middle-Earth will never be the same after Robot Chicken takes on The Lord of the Rings; We imagine what happens when Elijah finally makes it home for Passover Seder; Elliot and E.T. have another adventure; Ben 10 gets a birthday present he didn't expect; The creators bring Captain Planet back to try and save the Earth.
EP 14 Eviscerated Post-Coital by Six Foot Mantis
Robot Chicken creates a new Sesame Street character; The Mario Bros. spend all those gold coins they've collected;What we imagine Pinky and the Brain would do if they had a wild night on the town. Two Vietnamese guards try to break Rambo in our reimagining of this famous movie scene.
Season 5
Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode III
The Emmy Award-winning Robot Chicken returns with its third send-up of the Star Wars universe! In this all-new hour-long special, four very different characters -- Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader, Boba Fett and Gary the Stormtrooper -- reveal untold stories that weave and interconnect throughout all six Star Wars films! Set phasers to "fun"! Oh wait, that's the wrong franchise.
EP 2 Terms of Endaredevil
Discover the secret origins of Mo-Larr, Eternian Destist! Lara Croft makes a terrifying find in a tomb, He-Man's father proves that sometimes the apple falls very, very far from the tree, and the creators imagine how Gargamel might finally get the best of the Smurf's in Smurfitar!
EP 13 The Departy Monster
Will the world ever find out what Master Chief looks like under his mask? What is life like for the pink Frankenstein's Monster, Frankenberry? How did Princess Toadstool's parents react when they first met Mario? How will the Scarecrow survive his time in the prison called Oz? The creators answer these questions and more in this thrilling episode!
EP 14 Some like it Hitman
Think being a witch or wizard would be fun? The creators show you what life in Hogwart's would really be like. Ever wonder why Winnie the Pooh likes honey so much? Can you say addict? Find out why Donald Duck's nephew's spend so much time with their uncle instead of their mother. All that, plus find out who's ass Tommy Tapeworm will come wriggling out of.
Season 4
Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode II
Robot Chicken: Star Wars Episode II parodies many of the beloved Star Wars characters from the first special, while adding additional fan favorites: Bossk, IG-88, Zuckus, 4-LOM, Dengar and others as they set off on their quest to capture Han Solo. We reunite with Emperor Palpatine as he gets the idea to place an ad for Bounty Hunters from his hairdresser and spend a day with Gary, the Stormtrooper, who has to suffer through Bring Your Daughter to Work Day.
EP 1 Help Me
Robot Chicken returns for its fourth season, with the help of guest stars Joss Whedon, Ron Moore and Seth MacFarlane! Tila Tequila's "A Shot at Love" reveals a deadly secret. The creators imagine: what if Parappa the Rapper had to rap for his life? Movie and TV favorites are trimmed down to "Just the Good Parts."
EP 4 They Took My Thumbs
The creators imagine the contractor in charge of building those awesome Indiana Jones temples, Jason Voorhees gets ready for Friday the 13th, witness another death of another salesman and what might happen when the Justice League of America suffers through "Bring a Sidekick to Work Day."
Season 3
Robot Chicken: Star Wars Special
The Emperor gets an upsetting phone call. George Lucas is saved from a mob of nerds by one helpful fan. Imperial officers learn how to survive Darth Vader in Orientation. A commercial for Admiral Ackbar Cereal. Boba Fett has a little fun with Han in Carbonite. The truth about Ponda Baba's bad day. President Bush is strong with the force in George of the Jedi. Luke and the Emperor settle things with a "yo mama" fight. Max Rebo's Greatest Hits goes on sale. Jar Jar and Anakin are together again
EP 6 Shoe
Ted Kennedy and Jenna Jameson battle celebrities in politics and porn! Link's looking for a decent reward from Princess Zelda. The Homeless Airlines sorta takes flight. Learn whatever happened to the Micro Machines Man. Skeletor's latest plot against Eternia and He-Man goes a little too well.
EP 12 Losin' the Wobble
The Kool-Aid Man quenches some inconvenient thirsts. The mystery of why Encyclopedia Brown's parents aren't getting along. What new realm will D&D's Venger conquer next? Wonder Woman reveals her revealing arch-enemy. Celebrities are drunk, but that's not why they go to rehab-they go to conquer the world! (Or something.)
EP 18 Monstourage
Vic Mackey from The Shield switches places with the Fantastic Four's Thing and it's funny. Cowboys on a cattle drive have it bad in biblical proportions. Bronson Pinchot and Ludacris star in the off-Broadway production of "Don't Be Ridiculous". Fraggle Rock meets Watership Down when the Fraggles are forced out of their home and onto a desperate hunt for survival.
Season 2
EP 4 Celebrity Rocket
Mexico builds its greatest hero in The Six Million Peso Man. That old dancing guy from the Six Flags commercials saves-and ruins-the day. Two aliens from Space Invaders revolt. A cleaning woman finds the Batcave the hard way. Lindsay Lohan enters the world of Highlander and battles teen starlet foes.
EP 7 Cracked China
Learn the secret life of Pokemon's Pikachu! Stupid kids get a new high from "numb-chucking." A checkers champion goes on the adventure of a lifetime. Meet Eagle Eye Smith, the blind athlete who will touch your heart. Then meet the Four My Little Ponys of the Apocalypse. A kid gets a used-car surprise: a Tron cycle! The Golden Girls share their sexual escapades a la Sex and the City.
EP 8 Rodiggity
Southern-fried funerals get exciting thanks to Dixie Joe! The Booger Man makes a mess. Frankenstein's in-laws are less than pleased. Order your movie tickets from Fan-Dingo--the paper bags want you to. The cast of Final Fantasy VII get jobs at a burger chain. A young soccer player named Ricky faces life's obstacles. Bugs Bunny goes hip-hop in 8 Carrot.
EP 9 Massage Chair
The Senior Mutant Ninja Turtles rock the nursing home! Cuddles the fabric softener bear gets the wrong kind of hug. Monkeys explore outer space on a budget. George W. Bush discovers he has Jedi powers. And we're back with more of those stupendous bloopers, including audition tapes from MTV's Jackass!
EP 10 Password: Swordfish
Care Bears care a lot-about ethnic cleansing. See the action-packed story of Heimlich and his quest to unblock your windpipe. Rick Schroeder is fighting crime in style in the new hit series Rick Shaw. Ben Affleck sues the AFLAC duck. Corporate disputes get solved hand-to-hand in Office Fighter. Harry Potter uses magic to fight... puberty!
EP 12 The Munnery
The legendary Kraken sea monster learns freedom isn't all it's krak-ed up to be. A kid has a fantastic dream about a bear. Weird Al Yankovic's "Weasel Stomping Day" gets a Robot Chicken video treatment! Playmobil cowboys search for new frontiers. A day at the ballpark proves why radio sucks. The wishes of children come true, with dire results. The crew of the Starship Enterprise faces their greatest foes yet-themselves!
EP 13 Metal Militia
Young Young Indiana Jones finds treasure at his elementary school. Rainbow Brite reveals her dark side. Montezuma gets his revenge, and the results smell terrible. Malibu Barbie learns why you don't build your Dream House in Malibu. Rom: Spaceknight meets his ultimate nemesis! Into the Blue gets a relevant skewering. Hulk Hogan busts out of prison camp in Hogan's Heroes.
EP 15 Sausage Fest
Lil' Hitler will win your heart! The Library of Heaven yields answers even God doesn't want you to know. The Burger King serves up some delicious B&E. Garfield and Heathcliff take each other to court. A giraffe deals with the stages of death. Action Jackson endorses laundry detergent. Never pick up a hitchhiking pig! The gang from Police Academy joins the X-Men.
EP 16 Drippy Pony
Learn the secret life of Batman villain the Penguin. Kids will love playing with My Stalker! Orlando Bloom must help his fellow passengers survive after a plane crash. Meet Cork, the world's greatest retarded detective! Jesus and the Argonauts find action and adventure, and turn their backs on it. The Micronauts climb a mountain. The U.S. government declares war on Christmas.
EP 17 A Day at the Circus
Robot Chicken whores itself out to corporate America. Snow Job finds his specialized skills aren't in high demand with G.I. Joe. Thing grows up and leaves the Adams Family nest. The Memory Game challenges the brainpower of contestants, and the penalty for failure is death! The Black Stallion teaches us about race relations. Oprah and Dr. Phil team up in the greatest buddy cop movie ever!
EP 18 Lust for Puppets
Young Victor Frankenstein attempts to bring his cat back to life. The I Think We Should Just be Friends Fairy ruins a guy's life. Cameron Diaz has just 24 hours to live! Calvin and Hobbes have fun therapy adventures. A game of Marco Polo gets out of hand. Mario and Luigi stumble into the violent world of Grand Theft City.
EP 19 Anne Marie's Pride
Mr. T and the Foo Fighters forge an unlikely alliance. Stretch Armstrong needs a corn syrup transplant. A mermaid shows a surface boy the wonders of Atlantis. A guy dates his GPS navigational system. Learn the untold origin of Alvin and the Chipmunks! Roger Ebert and guest reviewer M. Night Shyamalan present upcoming feature films, including Schindler's List 2: Schindler's Pissed.
EP 20 Book of Corrine
Vince Vaughn presents his new hit show, Vince Vaughn Bangs Your Mom. Meet Casper's brother Jasper, the Douchebag Ghost. Ninjas compete in a game show. A nerd gives us a much-needed lesson on GoBots. The cast of Sesame Street deals with a viral outbreak. A robot learns what it means to be alive. Robot Chicken holds a telethon that goes horribly awry.
Season 1
EP 4 The Plastic Buffet
America sends Harrison Ford into space to take out a killer asteroid in "Meteorgeddon." Household animals take to the slopes for "Winter Pet Games." Chucky from Child's Play takes on the cutesy Lettuce Head Kids. The Muppet Show's band is spotlighted in "Behind the Music: Electric Mayhem."
EP 6 Vegetable Fun Fest
The secrets of The Crying Game, Star Wars and The Village are exposed in "Welcome to the Spoilers." The Teen Titans strengthen their roster by adding Beavis and Butt-head. Travel back in time to witness Benny Hill's funeral. The Great Pumpkin of Peanuts fame finally shows itself--and starts killing everyone in sight.
EP 7 A Piece of the Action
A teenage girl gets a fashion makeover in "Pimp My Sister." The Surreal Life gang gets sent on mission to destroy an enchanted ring. Debbie Does Dallas gets re-told with the world's cheapest puppets in "Exhausted Budget Theater." Geeks and nerds collide when a sci-fi convention erupts into war.
EP 8 The Deep End
Seven of the world's greatest heroes stop being polite--and start getting real--in "The Real World: Metropolis." Icons from Star Trek and Tiger Beat alike unite for canned sitcom laughs in "Two Kirks, a Khan and a Pizza Place." Jesus Christ hunts down his greatest nemesis, Tarantino-style, in "Kill Bunny." The hottest game show from Japan is here: "Who Poop Last?" The legends of rock 'n' roll return from beyond the grave to haunt the "Zombie Idol" reality show.


text:
Pet-Ag's New Product Spotlight!
Learn more about our new nutrition, supplement, and grooming solutions.
Unfortunately no products fit the filters you have chosen.
Yes, all kitten and puppy milk replacers must be refrigerated after opening. Esbilac® and KMR® powders are milk-based and contain fat, therefore have the potential to spoil under certain conditions. They can also experience bacterial growth when stored improperly. The can of powder has to be kept in the refrigerator or freezer after it has been opened. The powders will keep in the refrigerator for up to 3 months, or in the freezer for up to 6 months.View all FAQs


text:
Anti-Static Bottle Uses in Electronics Manufacturing & Repair
Just as personnel, workstations, and floors must be properly equipped to deal with ESD, the tools, containers, and other devices used by those who work on electrically sensitive components must also meet the standards needed to prevent ESD-related issues.
To help meet the ESD prevention requirements for precision electronics manufacturing, Janel, Inc. offers several static dissipative bottles on sale until February 28th, 2013. Static dissipative bottles manufactured by Menda (a division of Desco) offer superior ESD protection and contamination control, and are perfect for a variety of dispensing and storage applications for both chemicals and solvents. While ESD preventative bottles from other companies often come in a single color and require labeling, Menda anti-static bottles are available in a variety of colors and are stamped with chemical identifying labels for easy identification. Labels available include "acetone" and "IPA", and all are available in yellow, blue, green, and orange colors.
All Menda anti-static bottles that JanelOnline.com sells are made of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), which is extremely durable, and are embossed with the ESD protective symbol. They contain no migratory additives, which helps to reduce the risk of contamination from the bottle. Bottles are available as a stand-alone product, or with a variety of compatible pumps such as the pure-touch pump, the one-touch pump, and the take-along pump.
Dissipative properties include: Rtt: 1 x 104 to <1 x 1011 ohms tested per ANSI/ESD STM11.12.
Anti-Static Bottle Uses in Salons & Beauty ShopsAside from the ESD protective properties that are required for electronics manufacturers, the chemical containment safety applications of these bottles make them particularly useful in a variety of other industries and businesses as well, such as in beauty salons.
Potentially dangerous chemicals are used in salons on a daily basis, including:
- •acetone (found in nail polish remover)
- •acetonitrile (found in fingernail glue remover)
- •butyl acetate (found in nail polish & nail polish remover)
- •dibutyl phthalate (found in nail polish)
- •ethyl acetate (found in nail polish, nail polish remover, & fingernail glue)
- •ethyl methacrylate (found in artificial nail liquid)
- •formaldehyde (found in nail polish & nail hardener)
- •isopropyl acetate (found in nail polish & nail polish remover)
- •methacrylic acid (found in nail primer)
- •methyl methacrylate (found in artificial nail products)
- •quaternary ammonium compounds (found in disinfectants)
- •toluene (found in nail polish & fingernail glue)
Because these chemicals have the potential to cause a variety of health problems, it is imperative that they are stored in containers that are constructed to keep them safely isolated. Menda HDPE bottles meet the rigorous standards to store these chemicals and keep both employees and customers safe.
Menda anti-static bottles are on sale at Janel Online until February 28th, 2013.
Menda anti-static bottles are on sale at Janel Online until February 28th, 2013.
About the Author
Janel Incorporated has been supplying the production assembly and electronics manufacturing industries for over 50 years and is a focused distributor of Desco ESD products, including Menda HDPE anti-static bottles.
Janel Incorporated has been supplying the production assembly and electronics manufacturing industries for over 50 years and is a focused distributor of Desco ESD products, including Menda HDPE anti-static bottles.


text:
Thursday, March 21, 2013
In my new Verdict column today, I discuss the claims by Republicans that they must stand up for their "principles," which has so far translated into their becoming even more insane about the federal budget. By contrast, national Republican leaders have recently been toning down the culture-war craziness -- not abandoning it, by any means, but spending less time gay-bashing, and letting the wars over reproductive rights play out at the state level -- and many have even come out in favor of immigration reforms that they would have decried before the 2012 elections as "amnesty."
Where are the principles? I seem to remember hearing Republicans ask, "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" There is a core principle, they argued, in upholding the rule of law. Now, however, that principle has given way to the reality that the fast-growing Latino population is turned off by the Republicans, with more than 70% voting for Democrats in 2012. What part of "unprincipled" don't you understand?
The central argument in my column, however, is that the claims by Republicans that their budget proposals are guided by some high set of principles are difficult to take seriously. I take direct aim at their claims that they are determined to make children better off (by resisting increases in the national debt), noting that the Republicans actually seem to be perfectly willing to harm children -- that is, children who lost the parental lottery and were not born into wealth -- in order to reduce taxes on the rich. This "protecting the children and grandchildren" argument is thus clearly not a core principle, because it readily gives way to other policy priorities.
What other principles might be in play? One argument that Republicans often make is that "debt is bad." That, however, is not a principle. It is an assertion that only makes sense if we understand what "bad" means. Other than the future generations dodge, they have never really explained why debt might be bad. We get a lot of claims that "we shouldn't borrow money that we don't have," but that merely restates the problem.
Moreover, as plenty of people have noticed, the Republicans do not really seem to have a problem with debt. Even setting aside the usual (but still important) points about Republicans happily borrowing to pay for wars, prescription drug benefits, and so on, it is obvious that Republicans do not view debt as a bad enough thing to justify paying it off with higher taxes. Consider this extreme hypothetical: If the Republicans actually succeeded in shrinking the government to the point where its budget was as close to zero as it could possibly be, would they continue to fund the IRS so that it could collect taxes to pay down the existing debt?
And even if one could imagine something like that happening -- or, as a more real-world alternative, running large annual surpluses, with a shrunken-but-still-functioning federal government -- where is the principle that tells us how long that should take? At this point, after all, we have seen the Republicans pass budget resolutions in 2011 and 2012 written by their budget pseudo-wonk, Paul Ryan, which would have taken decades even to reduce the annual deficit to zero. That means that the debt would rise every year (requiring, among other things, an increase in the debt ceiling, but I digress).
Now, in response to the beating they took at the polls, the Republicans told Ryan to change his budget to require a balanced budget within ten years. That, of course, will harm still more children (and many adults). More to the current point, however, we have never been given even a clue as to why it was principled to propose twenty- to thirty-year paths to balanced budgets before, whereas it is now absolutely required that the budget be balanced in exactly ten years.
Sure enough, it turns out that ten years is not good enough for some of the true believers. In yesterday's New York Times, there was an amusing op-ed from Georgia Congressman Paul Broun. Broun is best-known as the guy with a degree in medicine who said that evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell." Broun, who is planning to run for the Senate, is also bragging that he was the first to call President Obama "a socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies."
According to Broun, Ryan's latest plan is just too wimpy. Although he claims that everything has to be done NOW, his op-ed does not actually lay out anything close to a comprehensive set of principles, or a way to achieve immediate budget balance. He trots out the usual anti-Washington arguments, suggesting that the Departments of Energy and Education are both places where money is wasted on federal bureaucrats' salaries. (Did you know that Education Department employees have an average salary of $103,000, more than double the national average for teachers!? Does it strike you that this is a meaningless statistic?) He also complains that taxpayers have lost "millions of dollars" (yes, that is with an "m") because of Energy Department programs.
Broun's melange of policy suggestions, in fact, boils down to the familiar argument that much of what the federal government is doing should be done at the state level. He argues that turning Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into block-granted state-run programs "would save approximately $2 trillion over 10 years by capping federal funding at 2012 levels for the next 10 years and giving states an incentive to seek out and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. The government agency closest to the consumer can most efficiently manage taxpayer dollars." That last claim is, of course, utterly belied by evidence. Corruption at the state and local levels is endemic, and proximity makes it more difficult, not easier, to prosecute waste, fraud, and abuse.
But again, where is the principled argument that the federal government must run a balanced budget right away? And where is the plan actually to do so? At most, Broun offers warmed-over claims about overpaid bureaucrats and the virtues of local control. The big principle, apparently, is that the federal government is bad and that state governments are good. Except that state governments would be bad if they spent money on things that Broun does not like. And what he and his colleagues do not like, as I discussed in my Verdict column, is spending on programs that help people when they need help. Some principle.
6 comments:
- David Ricardo said...
I would propose a contest that consists of the following. Can anyone demonstrate a principle of Republicans/Conservatives other than lowering taxes for the wealthy that they have not violated? Not as easy as it sounds, in fact it may be impossible.
For example
1. Balanced Budget: Republicans took the Federal surpluses they inherited in 2001 and turned them into the largest deficits ever seen.
2. 10th Amendment: Republicans support DOMA which takes the issue of defining marriage away from the states and gives it to the Federal government. Similarly, physician assisted suicide, the Republicans want to deny states the right to set policy.
3. Keep the government out of health care: Republicans propose and support legislation that says specifically what a doctor can say and must do in examining women.
4. Support the troops: Republicans consistently work to cut spending on veterans benefits and veterans health care.
5. Strong national defense: Republicans work to keep weapons programs even the Pentagon says it doesn't want or need.
6. Freedom of Religion: Republicans favored all sorts of restrictions on Muslims.
Well you get the picture.
- Cristiero Rola said...
That last claim is, of course, utterly belied by evidence. Corruption at the state and local levels is endemic, and proximity makes it more difficult, not easier, to prosecute waste, fraud, and abuse.www.joyrs.com windows 7 ultimate activation key www.rs2fun.com
- Paul.K said...
fraud and abuse. The government agency closest to the consumer can most efficiently manage taxpayer dollars." That last claim is, of course, utterly belied by evidence. Corruption at the state and local levels is endemic, and proximity makes it more difficult, not easier, to prosecute waste, fraud, and abuse.Buying Runescape Gold | rs gold for sale
- Unknown said...
Thanks for sharing with us how you did your research.Samsung cases I always find it fascinating.
- qiongzhang55 said...
That is awesome. Your "Motherland" is undoubtedly a ought to inside my touring upcoming. The actual culture, customs and the trafalgar law costume possibility to always be separate regarding incredible all-natural means seems to be enough to start researching whenever, where and how I will help to make that journey an actuality. Appreciate your sharing this knowledge, appears like you had a nice period.
- Cicy said...
Departments of Energy and Education are both places where money is wasted on federal bureaucrats' salaries. (Did you know that Education Department employees have an average salary of $103,000,cheap fut coins
elo boosting service
buy fut 14 coins
more than double the national average for teachers!? Does it strike you that this is a meaningless statistic?) He also complains that taxpayers have lost "millions of dollars" (yes, that is with an "m") because of Energy Department programs.


text:
Gary Graff (born 1960) is an American music journalist and author.
Originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Graff attended Taylor Allderdice High School where he wrote for school newspaper The Taylor Allderdice Foreword. He received his Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri. He wrote for the Detroit Free Press from 1982 until 1995 when there was a strike at the Detroit Free Press. Graff refused to cross the picket line and subsequently lost his job. Graff has contributed to publications including The New York Times, Billboard, The Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle. In 2005, Graff published The Ties That Bind: Bruce Springsteen A to E to Z. One reviewer said that the book "comes close to being the definitive study" on Bruce Springsteen. He is also the founding editor of the MusicHound Essential Album Guide series. He now lives in Detroit, Michigan with his wife and family.


text:
Internship experience is priceless. But food, gas and rent cost money. So I am excited by the possibility that one Saratogian newsroom internship this summer could be a paid job. This is my way of telling eligible college students — and helicopter parents — to get on the stick before the Feb. 20 deadline. Internships at The Saratogian are usually for school credit and are unpaid. However, the foundation of a statewide journalism organization, the New York Press Association, is offering stipends of $2,500 each for college students working as a summer intern. The first step is for the student to apply. The application is at the association's website under the foundation tab. Send the completed application to me by Feb. 20. I will look through the applicants and select one to send to the NYPA for a possible stipend. The NYPA will select up to 20 newspaper applicants at random. Aside from the possible paid college internship, high school and college students are encouraged to pursue a for-credit internship. Most of our newspaper internships focus on the newsroom — digital and print reporting, editing, photography, and social media. But we also have opportunities on the dark side, er, I mean, in advertising, and possibly in graphic design. I can email a rundown of the potential internships and contact information to anyone interested. I am partial to interns, and I know firsthand what an internship can mean. I interned twice at the newspaper in Binghamton, N.Y., while I was a political science undergraduate at Harpur College, the liberal arts branch of the State University of New York at Binghamton, which is now inexplicably known at Binghamton University. But I digress. The internship was a game-changer for me, clinching my decision to become a journalist. After Binghamton, I entered what was a really strong journalism program at the time at Ohio State University. But nothing I learned in the classroom as I obtained my master's in journalism was more valuable than the semester and summer I spent in the Sun-Bulletin newsroom, when the city editor was John Simpson, who later became a founding editor of USA Today's international edition. Having had the internships gave me an edge over job applicants who had only a degree. It showed I was hungry and serious. It also gave me important professional references. It turned out the managing editor I'd worked for in Binghamton was friends with the newspaper recruiter I interviewed with as I neared graduation at Ohio State. I think The Saratogian provides as rich an internship experience as I had in Binghamton, thanks largely to the investment of time and energy by Assistant Managing Editor Betsy DeMars, Online Editor Emily Donohue and others. We expect a lot from our interns. When it's a mutually beneficial experience, it's a wonderful thing. This isn't a place where interns fetch coffee for the boss, though now that I think of it, I wish it were. Interns jump in and do real work, earning bylines from the get-go. We've had interns who were later promoted to paid jobs as editors of our summertime arts publications. Some former interns are in high falutin' positions at magazines and other publications. OK, you get the point. I'm plugging the possibility of a rare paid internship. You know someone who ought to apply, forward this column. Today. Questions? Contact me at
. Barbara Lombardo is managing editor of The Saratogian. Her blog, Fresh Ink, can be read at


text:
In an exclusive interview with Accuracy in Media last week on Veteran's Day, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and bestselling author Jed Babbin said that now that the Republicans have made big gains in Congress, they will have to deliver or else face the same fate the Democrats met earlier this month. And he is warning that the Obama administration is doing damage to the military, and may not be up to the many national security challenges that the United States currently faces.
Babbin says that "We have not fought the ideological half of this war at all. We have to do what is right for America, and what is right is to redefine the war, to find the sponsors of terrorism and get them out of that business, and, also, to take on the ideological war. Let's face it," says Babbin, "Islam is not only a religion, Islam is an ideology, and radical Islam is hegemonistic. It is violent—it provides a blanket declaration of war against our culture. And we need to be defending that—we need to be attacking the ideology. George Bush didn't want to do that, and Barack Obama is, quite frankly, surrendering that part of the war preemptively. So I believe we have to redo our thinking very significantly in order to win this war."
Babbin, a former Air Force officer, is the best-selling author of In the Words of Our Enemies; Inside the Asylum: Why the U.N. and Old Europe are Worse Than You Think; and Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States. Most recently he has written a broadside, or pamphlet, called How Obama is Transforming America's Military from Superpower to Paper Tiger. He is the former editor of Human Events, the oldest conservative journal in the U.S., and is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law School.
Below, in italics, are excerpts from the interview. You can listen to the entire interview, or read the transcript here.
The Republicans need to achieve things. The American people voted to throw out the Democrats more than to elect the Republicans, and if they don't achieve things, the same thing's going to happen all over again in 2012. You have a mandate to cut spending, to reduce the size of government, to get government out of our personal lives—vis à vis Obamacare and things of that nature. But if they don't do it, if they don't actually accomplish things, I don't think they're going to be rewarded by the voters in 2012.
Congress needs to look at what the government has done in areas in which the Constitution does not call for it to act, and back the government out of those areas. There's nothing in the Constitution that I can find which says the government ought to be buying General Motors and then saying, "Well, we're going to produce the Chevy Volt"—which nobody wants, an electric car—"and then subsidize it with a $7,500 tax credit."
When I hear about plans—Secretary Gates is voicing to cut back military pay, to reduce the cost of military health care—I'm just, frankly, appalled. There are an awful lot of things in this government that need to be cut, and need to be cut massively, but the debt that we owe to our veterans—the combat veterans, the trigger-pullers—those are the guys we need to support, and that burden is one we should bear proudly.
I don't believe that we've seen the end of conventional war. I look at what China is developing, a hell-for-leather build-up in their military structure. I look at what happens in the Middle East, and with Iran and other nations there. I believe that conventional war capabilities are things that we have to have, and that goes into other areas, also, in unconventional war. Cyber-warfare—we now get thousands of cyber attacks a day against our intelligence, military, and industrial infrastructure, and we have to be very aggressive in not only defending that, but, quite frankly, in coming up with the capability and operational doctrine to have the offensive capability in that area that we need.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we've been fighting proxy wars. The people who sponsor terrorism have paid no price for doing so, and, regardless of what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan, when we withdraw, the terrorists will go back in. You see that already in Iraq. There are massive attacks in Iraq, quite a few of them over the past two weeks taking hundreds of casualties. This is in direct proportion to our withdrawal. I'm not saying we should stay in Iraq—I believe we should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as fast as our little feet will carry us out of there—but the basic point is, the nations that sponsor terrorism—Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, a number of others—have to be made to get out of that business. You can do that economically, diplomatically—and militarily.
…we have to contain China. What we have to understand is, we are now engaged in, effectively, the Second Cold War—with China. China is expansionist and hegemonistic. They are building their military with a view towards excluding our military from their areas of operation. They're developing weapons very specifically to attack and defeat American aircraft carriers. Their anti-submarine warfare capabilities are growing. And their cyber-war capability is enormous. It is, probably, much more advanced than ours, and, quite frankly, we are suffering attacks from China every day in the cyber-war area. The long and the short of it is, China has to be contained. They are, of course, our banker, though, and, at this point, they have enormous leverage against us.
I think the House being run by the Republicans, from January, for the next two years, is going to prevent Obama from accomplishing more of his domestic agenda, but Congress can't stop him from doing really harmful things in the international arena, and I think that Mr. Obama's agenda, quite frankly, to take us down from superpower status, will be very, very dangerous, and Congressional Republicans are going to have to work very hard to try to contain what Obama is doing. We need to try to contain China. We need to fix our relationship with Saudi Arabia. None of that's going to get better in the next two years because Barack Obama's going to make it worse.
The whole point of this book [In the Words of Our Enemies], is that there are bad people out there, they do mean us harm, there are nations that are our enemies, and we should take them at their word. Instead of trying to psychoanalyze these folks, let's just take their word and act accordingly. When Hugo Chavez threatens the use of oil as a weapon against the United States, we ought to take that seriously. When the Saudi preachers, the imams, and the main mosques in Riyadh are chanting "Death to the West!" we need to take that seriously, and we haven't.
Back in the day, when I was growing up, I was reading an awful lot of things—National Review and others—and there was an evolution of conservative thought. People were talking about different theories and debating them and pushing conservative thought into the future. That's what the conservative media is not doing right now. It very much needs to be done, and I'm hopeful that there are going to be ways to do that in the near future.
Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media, and is the writer/director of the award-winning documentary, "Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope."
He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Graphics added by Gulag Bound


text:
|« Prev
|On the words of the Gospel, John x. 14, 'I am the…
|Next »
Sermon LXXXVIII.
[CXXXVIII. Ben.]
On the words of the Gospel, John x. 14, "I am the good shepherd," etc. Against the Donatists.
1. We have heard the Lord Jesus setting forth to us the office of a good shepherd. And herein He hath doubtless given us to know, as we may understand it, that there are good shepherds. And yet that the multitude of shepherds might not be understood in a wrong sense; He saith, "I am the good Shepherd."41244124 John x. 11. And wherein He is the good Shepherd, He showeth in the words following; "The good Shepherd," saith He, "layeth down His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, seeth the wolf coming, and fleeth; because he careth not for the sheep, for he is an hireling."41254125 John x. 12, 13. Christ then is the good Shepherd. What was Peter? was he not a good shepherd? Did not he too lay down his life for the sheep? What was Paul? what the rest of the Apostles? what the blessed Bishops, Martyrs, who followed close upon their times? What again our holy Cyprian? Were they not all good shepherds, not hirelings, of whom it is said, "Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward"?41264126 Matt. vi. 2, 4. All these then were good shepherds, not simply for that they shed their blood, but that they shed it for the sheep. For not in pride, but in charity they shed it.
2. For even among the heretics, they who for their iniquities and errors have suffered any trouble, vaunt themselves in the name of martyrdom, that with this fair covering disguised41274127 Dealbati. they may plunder the more easily, for wolves they are. Now if ye would know in what rank they are to be held, hear that good shepherd, the Apostle Paul, that not all who even give up their bodies in suffering to the flames, are to be accounted to have shed their blood for the sheep, but rather against the sheep. "If," saith he, "I speak with the tongues of men, and angels, but have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. If I should know all mysteries, and have all prophecy, and all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing."41284128 1 Cor. xiii. 1, etc. Now a great thing truly is this faith that removes mountains. They are indeed all great things; but if I have them without charity, saith he, not they, but I am nothing. But up to this point he hath not touched them, who glory in sufferings under the false name of martyrdom. Hear how he toucheth, yea rather pierceth them through and through. "If I should distribute," saith he, "all my goods to the poor, and deliver my body to be burned." Now here they are. But mark what follows; "but have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Lo, they have come to suffering, come even to the shedding of blood, yea come to the burning of the body; and yet it profiteth them nothing, because charity is lacking. Add charity, they all profit; take charity away, all the rest profit nothing.
3. What a good is this charity, Brethren! What more precious? what yieldeth greater light? or strength? or profit? or security? Many are the gifts of God, which even the wicked have, who shall say, "Lord, we have prophesied in Thy Name, in Thy Name have cast out devils, in Thy Name done many mighty works."41294129 Matt. vii. 22. And He will not answer, "Ye have not done them." For in the Presence of so great a Judge, they will not dare to lie or boast of things they have not done. But for that they had not charity, He answereth them all, "I know you not." Now how can he have so much as the smallest charity, who when even41304130 Referring it would seem to the conference held but a little while before this with the Donatist party at Carthage. convicted, loves not unity? It was then as impressing on good shepherds this unity, that our Lord was unwilling to mention many shepherds. For it is not, as I have said already, that Peter was not a good shepherd, and Paul, the rest of the Apostles, and the holy Bishops who were after them, and blessed Cyprian. All these were good shepherds; and notwithstanding to good shepherds, He commended not good shepherds, but a good Shepherd. "I," saith He, "am the good Shepherd."
4. Let us question the Lord with such little understanding as we have, and in most humble discourse hold converse with so great a Master. What sayest Thou, O Lord, Thou good Shepherd? For Thou art the good Shepherd, who art also the good Lamb; at once Pastor and Pasturage, at once Lamb and Lion. What sayest Thou? Let us give ear and aid us, that we may understand. "I," saith He, "am the good Shepherd." What is Peter? is he either not a shepherd, or a bad one? Let us see, if he be not a shepherd. "Lovest thou Me?"41314131 John xxi. 15. Thou saidst to Him Lord, "Lovest thou Me?" And he answered, "I do love Thee." And Thou to him, "Feed My sheep." Thou, Thou, Lord, 524by Thine Own questioning, by the strong assurance of Thine Own words, madest of the lover a shepherd. He is a shepherd then to whom Thou didst commit Thy sheep to be fed. Thou didst Thyself entrust them, he is a shepherd. Let us now see whether he be not a good one. This we find by the very question, and his answer. Thou didst ask, whether he loved Thee; he answered, "I do love Thee." Thou sawest his heart, that he answered truth. Is he not then good, who loveth so great a Good? Whence that answer drawn from his inmost heart? Wherefore was this Peter, who had Thine eyes in his heart for witnesses, sad because Thou askedst him not once only, but a second and a third time, that by a threefold confession of love, he might efface the threefold sin of denial; wherefore, I say, being sad that he was asked repeatedly by Him who knew what He was asking, and had given what He heard; wherefore being sad, did he return such an answer, "Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thyself knowest that I love Thee"? What! in making such a confession, such a profession rather, would he lie? In truth then, he made answer of his love to Thee, and from his inmost heart he gave utterance to a lover's words. Now Thou hast said, "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things." 41324132 Matt. xii. 35. So then he is both a shepherd, and a good shepherd; nothing it is true to the power and goodness of the Shepherd of shepherds; but nevertheless even he is both a shepherd, and a good one; and all other such are good shepherds.
5. What means it then, that to good shepherds Thou dost set forth One Only Shepherd, but that in One Shepherd Thou teachest unity? and the Lord Himself explains this more clearly by my ministry, putting you, beloved, in remembrance by this Gospel, and saying, "Hear ye what I have set forth; I have said, 'I am the good Shepherd;' because all the rest, all the good shepherds, are My members." One Head, One Body, One Christ. So then both the Shepherd of shepherds, and the shepherds of the Shepherd, and the sheep with their shepherds under The Shepherd. What is all this, but what the Apostle says? "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ."41334133 1 Cor. xii. 12. Therefore if Christ be even so, with good reason doth Christ in Himself containing all good shepherds, set forth One, saying, "'I am the good Shepherd.' 'I am,' I Alone am, all the rest with Me are one in unity. Whoso feedeth without Me, feedeth against Me. 'He that gathereth not with Me, scattereth.'"41344134 Matt. xii. 30. Hear then this unity more forcibly set forth; "Other sheep," saith He, "I have which are not of this fold."41354135 John x. 16. For He was speaking to the first fold of the stock of the fleshly Israel. But there were others of the stock of the faith of this Israel, and they were yet without, were among the Gentiles, predestinated, not yet gathered in. These He knew who had predestinated them; He knew, who had come to redeem them with the shedding of His Own Blood. He saw them who did not yet see Him; He knew them who yet believed not on Him. "Other sheep," saith He, "I have which are not of this fold;" because they are not of the stock of the flesh of Israel. But nevertheless they shall not be outside of this fold, "for them also I must bring, that there may be One Fold, and One Shepherd."
6. With good reason then to This Shepherd of shepherds, doth His Beloved, His Spouse, His Fair One, but by Him made fair, before by sin deformed, beautiful afterward through pardon and grace, speak in her love and ardour after Him, and say to Him, "Where feedest Thou?"41364136 Cant. i. 7. And observe how, by what transport this spiritual love is here animated. And far better are they by this transport delighted, who have tasted ought of the sweetness of this love. They hear this properly, who love Christ. For in them, and of them, doth the Church sing this in the Song of Songs; who love Christ, as it seemed without beauty, yet the Only Beautiful One. "For we saw Him," it is said, "and He had neither beauty nor comeliness."41374137 Isa. liii. 2, Sept. Such He appeared on the Cross, such when crowned with thorns did He exhibit Himself, disfigured, and without comeliness, as if He had lost His power, as if not the Son of God. Such seemed He to the blind. For it is in the person of the Jews that Isaiah said this, "We saw Him, and He had no beauty nor comeliness." When it was said, "If He be the Son of God, let Him come down from the Cross. He saved others, Himself He cannot save."41384138 Mark xv. 31. And smiting Him on the head with a reed, they said, "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who smote Thee?"41394139 Matt. xxvi. 68. Because "He had neither beauty nor comeliness." As such did ye Jews see Him. For "blindness hath happened in part to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles enter in,"41404140 Rom. xi. 25. until the other sheep come. Because then blindness hath happened, therefore did ye see the Comely One without comeliness. "For had ye known Him, ye would never have crucified the Lord of Glory."41414141 1 Cor. ii. 8. But ye did it, because ye knew Him not. And yet He who as though without beauty bare with you, all Beauteous as He was, prayed for you; "Father," saith He, "forgive them, for they know not what they do."41424142 Luke xxiii. 34. For if He were without comeliness, how is it that 525she loveth Him, who saith, "Tell me, O Thou whom my soul loveth"?41434143 Cant. i. 7. How is it that she loveth Him? how is it that she burneth for Him? how is it that she feareth so much to stray from Him? How is it that she hath so great delight in Him, that her only punishment is to be without Him? What would there be for which He should be loved, if He were not beautiful? But how could she love Him so, if He appeared to her as He did to those blind men persecuting Him, and knowing not what they do? As what then did she love Him? As "comely in form above the sons of men. Comely in form above the sons of men, grace is poured abroad in Thy Lips."41444144 Ps. xlv. 2. So then from these Thy Lips, "Tell me, O Thou whom my soul loveth. Tell me," says she, "O Thou whom," not my flesh, but, "my soul loveth. Tell me where Thou feedest, where Thou liest down in the midday; lest haply I light, as one veiled, upon the flocks of Thy companions."41454145 Cant. i. 7, Sept.
7. It seems obscure, obscure it is; for it is a mystery of the sacred marriage bed. For she says, "The King hath brought me into His chamber."41464146 Cant. i. 4. Of such a chamber is this a mystery. But ye who are not as profane kept off from this chamber, hear ye what ye are, and say with her, if with her ye love (and ye do love with her, if ye are in her); say all, and yet let one say, for unity saith; "Tell me, O Thou whom my soul loveth. For they had one soul to Godward, and one heart.41474147 Acts iv. 32. Tell me where Thou feedest, where Thou liest down in the midday?" What does the midday41484148 It is not possible in English to preserve the same translation for the word meridies, which occurs throughout this passage in the two senses of the noon or midday, and the South. signify? "Great heat, and great brightness." So then, "make known to me who are Thy wise ones," fervent in spirit, and brilliant in doctrine. "Make known to me Thy Right Hand, and men learned in heart, in wisdom."41494149 Ps. lxxxix. 12, Sept. (xc. English version). To them may I cleave in Thy Body, to them be united, with them enjoy Thee. Tell me then, "tell me, where Thou feedest, where Thou liest down in the midday;" lest I fall upon them who say other things of Thee, entertain other sentiments of Thee; believe other things of Thee, preach other things of Thee; and have their own flocks, and are Thy companions; for that they live of Thy table, and handle the sacraments of Thy table. For companions are so called, because they eat together,41504150 Sodales enim dicti sunt, quod simul edant, quasi simul edales. messmates as it were. Such are reproved in the Psalm; "For if Mine enemy had spoken great things against Me, I would surely have hidden Myself from him; and if he that hated Me had spoken great things against Me, I would surely have hidden Myself from him; but thou a man of one mind with Me, My guide, and My familiar, who didst take sweet meats together with Me, in the house of God we walked with consent."41514151 Ps. liv. 13, etc., Sept. (lv. 12–14, English version). Why then now against the house of the Lord with dissent, but that "they have gone out from us, but they were not of us?"41524152 1 John ii. 19. Therefore, "O Thou whom my soul loveth," that I may not fall upon such, Thy companions, but companions such as Samson's were, who kept not faith with their friend, but wished to corrupt his wife.41534153 Judg. xiv. Therefore, that I may not fall upon such as these, "that I may not light upon them," that is, fall upon them, "as one that is veiled," as one that is concealed, that is, and obscure, not as established upon the mountain. "Tell me" then, "O thou whom my soul loveth, where Thou feedest, where Thou liest down in the midday;" who are the wise and faithful in whom Thou dost specially rest, lest by chance as in blindness I fall upon the flocks, not Thy flocks, but the flocks of Thy companions. For thou didst not say to Peter, "Feed thy sheep," but, "Feed My sheep."41544154 John xxi. 17.
8. Let then the "good Shepherd," and, "the Comely in form above the sons of men," make answer to this beloved one; make answer to her whom He hath made beautiful from among the children of men. Hear ye what He answereth, and understand, beware of that wherewith He alarmeth, love that which He adviseth. What then doth He answer? How free from soft caresses, yea, to her caresses He returneth severity! He is sharp that He may bind her closely, that He may keep her. "If thou know not thyself," saith He, "O thou fair one among women:"41554155 Cant. viii. Sept. for however fair others may be by the gifts of thy Spouse, they are heresies, fair in outward ornament, not within:41564156 Visceribus. fair are they without, and outwardly they shine, they disguise themselves by the name of righteousness; "but all the beauty of the King's daughter is within."41574157 Ps. xlv. 13. "If" then "thou know not thyself;" that thou art one, that thou art throughout all nations, that thou art chaste, that thou oughtest not to corrupt thyself with the disordered converse of evil companions. "If thou know not thyself," that in uprightness, "he hath espoused thee to Me, to present you a chaste Virgin to Christ;"41584158 2 Cor. xi. 2. and that in uprightness thou shouldest present thine own self to Me, lest by evil converse, "as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds too should be corrupted from my purity."41594159 2 Cor. xi. 3. "If," I say, "thou know not thyself" to be such, "go thy way; go thy way." For to others I shall say, "Enter thou into the joy of 526thy Lord."41604160 Matt. xxv. 21. To thee I shall not say, "Enter in;" but, "Go thy way;" that thou mayest be among those, who "went out from us." "Go thy way." That is, "if thou know not thyself," then, "go thy way." But if thou know thyself, enter in. But, "if thou know not thyself, go thy way by the footsteps of the flocks, and feed thy kids in the tents of the shepherds. Go thy way by the footsteps," not "of the Flock," but, "of the flocks, and feed," not as Peter, "My sheep," but, "thy kids; in the tents," not "of the Shepherd," but, "of the shepherds;" not of unity, but of dissension; not established there, where there is One flock and One Shepherd. The beloved one was confirmed, edified, made stronger, prepared to die for her Spouse and to live with her Spouse.
9. These words which I have quoted out of the Holy Song of Songs, of a kind of bridal song of the Bridegroom and the Bride (for it is a spiritual wedding, wherein we must live in great purity, for Christ hath granted to the Church in spirit that which His Mother had in body, to be at once a Mother and a Virgin); these words, I say, the Donatists accommodate to their own perverted sense in a very different meaning. And how I will not conceal from you, and what ye may answer them, I will, by the Lord's help, as well as I shall be able, briefly recommend. When then we begin to press them with the light of the Church's unity spread over the whole world, and demand of them to show us any testimony out of the Scriptures, where God hath foretold that the Church should be in Africa, as if all the rest of the nations were lost; they are in the habit of taking this testimony in their mouths, and saying; "Africa is under the midday sun; the Church then" they say, "asking the Lord where He feedeth, where He lieth down; He answereth, 'Under the midday sun;'" as if the voice of her who put the question, were, "Tell me, O Thou whom my soul loveth, where Thou feedest, where Thou liest down;" and the Voice of Him who answereth, were, "Under the midday sun;" that is, in Africa. If then it be the Church which asketh, and the Lord maketh answer where he feedeth, in Africa, because the Church was in Africa; then she who asketh was not in Africa. "Tell me," she saith, "O Thou whom my soul loveth, where Thou feedest, where Thou liest down;" and He maketh answer to some Church out of Africa, "Under the midday sun," in Africa I lie down, in Africa I feed, as if it were, "I do not feed in thee." I repeat, if she who asketh is the Church, which no one disputes, which not even themselves gainsay; and they hear something about Africa; then she who asketh is out of Africa; and because it is the Church, the Church is out of Africa.
10. But see, I admit that Africa is under the midday sun; although Egypt is rather under the meridian, under the midday sun than Africa. Now after what fashion This Shepherd is there in Egypt, they who know, will acknowledge; and for them that know not, let them enquire how large a flock lie gathereth there, how great a multitude He hath of holy men and women who utterly despise the world. That flock hath so increased, that it hath expelled superstitions even thence. To pass over how it hath in its increase banished thence the whole superstition of idols, which had been firmly fixed there; I admit what you say, O evil companions; I admit it altogether, I agree that Africa is in the South, and that Africa is signified in that which is said, "Where feedest Thou, where dost Thou lie down under the midday sun?" But do ye too equally observe how that up to this point these are the words of the Bride, and not yet of the Bridegroom. Hitherto it is the Bride that saith, "Tell me, O Thou whom my soul loveth, where Thou feedest, where Thou dost lie down in the midday, lest by chance I light, as one veiled." O thou deaf, and blind one, if in the "midday" thou seest Africa, why in her that is "veiled" dost thou not see the Bride? "Tell me," she said, "O Thou whom my soul loveth." Without doubt she addresses her Spouse, when she says, "whom" [in the masculine41614161 Quem. ] "my soul loveth." Just as if it were said, "Tell me, O thou whom [in the feminine41624162 Quam. ] "my soul loveth;" we should understand that the Bridegroom spake these words to His Bride; so when you hear, "Tell me, O thou whom" (in the masculine) "my soul loveth, where Thou feedest, where Thou liest down;" add to this, to her words belongs also what follows, "In the midday." I am asking, "where Thou feedest in the midday, lest by chance I light as one veiled upon the flocks of Thy companions." I consent entirely, I admit what you understand of Africa; it is signified by "the midday." But then as you understand it, the Church of Christ beyond the sea is addressing her Spouse, in fear of falling into the African error, "O Thou whom my soul, loveth, tell me," teach me. For I hear that "in the midday," that is in Africa, there are two parties, yea rather many schisms.41634163 Concisiones. "Tell me," then, "where Thou feedest," what sheep belong to Thee, what fold Thou biddest me love there, whereunto ought I to unite myself. "Lest by chance I light as one veiled." For they mock me as if I were concealed, they mock me as destroyed, as though I existed nowhere else. "Lest," then, "as one veiled," as if concealed, 527"I light upon the flocks," that is, upon the congregarious of the heretics, "thy companions; the Donatists, the Maximinianists, the Rogatists and all the other pests who gather without, and who therefore scatter; "Tell me," I pray Thee, if I must seek my Shepherd there, that I fall not into the gulf of re-baptizing. I exhort you, I beseech you by the sanctity of such nuptials, love this Church, be ye in this holy Church, be ye this Church; love the good Shepherd, the Spouse so fair, who deceiveth no one, who desireth no one to perish. Pray too for the scattered sheep; that they too may come, that they too may acknowledge Him, that they too may love Him; that there may be One Flock and One Shepherd. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.
|« Prev
|On the words of the Gospel, John x. 14, 'I am the…
|Next »