SYMBOLIC AND SIGNIFICANT BATTLES

I like to watch the military channel to watch the strategies and thinking behind significant battles such as Normandy, Gettysburg, Stalingrad, Thermopylae, The Bulge (mine is down now as I have lost twenty pounds in six weeks), and others: Masada, Vienna, Verdun, Tianamen Square, Dien Bien Phu, the Tet Offensive, the Rape of Nanking, MacArthur in the Philippines, Trafalgar, Waterloo.

What interests me is how battles have a symbolic importance. That is, battles come to have a meaning that goes beyond their actual military importance.

Thermopylae symbolizes the freedom of the west from eastern domination.

The Charge of the Light Brigade symbolizes something about heroic foolishness.

The various battles of the knights of the Round Table with various dragons and infernal entities. Mordred.

Samson and Delilah. The battles with the Canaanites. The Babylonian Captivity. Lots and lots of struggles between men and women, such as that of Esther and Mordecai against Hamann.

Jason and Medea wresting the golden fleece from Colchis. Jason's later battle to free himself from Medea, and her slaying of their two infants, and flying over the rooftop of their home toward Athens.

Homer's epic battle and the slaying of Hector by Achilles. The arrow that slips through the battlefield and sticks in Achilles' heel. The return of the various Greek heroes to their homes. The trap laid by Clytemnestra for Agamemnon. Cassandra's personal battles to be understood and believed as Troy falls around her.

Sometimes someone can lose, and yet win. Christ's battle with the Roman empire is a loss that turns into a win. Socrates had a similar win several centuries earlier. Oscar Wilde had such a win from Reading Gaol. Meaning carries the day.

On this board we've had many battles and one of them was the Gabby Giffords argument a year ago. Stu was certain that the right had assassinated her. It turned out to be another leftist nut case with the brains of a mashed potato. We have had other fights over the sanctity of marriage, and the climate battle, which are so inconclusive mostly because they have not yet been finished in the culture at large. "Truth" has not yet been established. "What is truth?" Pilate asked. Jesus was the truth. He was standing right in front of the idiot.

One of the things I like about Rick Santorum's sudden surge is that he has brought back many battles surrounding family that most of us have thought were over. In his tome, It Takes a Family, he writes,

"In the tradition of my own faith community, the Catholic Church, we speak about the natural law, which we might think of as the operating instructions for human beings. The promise of the natural law is that we will be happiest, and freest, when we follow the law built into our nature as men and women. For liberals, however, nature is too confining, and thus is the enemy of freedom. Consequently, when liberals think about society they see only 'individuals' -- not men and women and children ... Their only problem is that theirs is a false vision, because nature is nature, and the freedom to choose against the natural law is not really freedom at all" (28-29).

Santorum goes on to explore legal arguments for and against various Supreme Court and state legal precedents around gay marriage, liberal marriage (marriage that is irreligious), marriage protection amendments, and others -- massive battles with immediate winners and long-term winners. The battles have often been carried out with great sanctimony and utter viciousness. Santorum suggests that we hold fast, and uses an image from a movie called The Two Towers, in which they "make that last charge against the foe" (38). Not sure what he means since I don't know that movie.

If marriage in the Christian tradition is Adam and Eve in the Garden, then anything that takes away from that or leads us elsewhere would be like the temptation of the snake. There are endless snakes in the grass today. Where Adam and Eve are supposed to work -- the communist vision is that we will instead get checks from the government in exchange for our votes. Instead of hard work to learn a language, the TV promises that we can learn a language in ten minutes. Instead of lowering the national debt, the president keeps offering us new things in exchange for our votes, and the debt is now in the upper trillions of teens. Difficult battles require difficult sacrifices. Anything that can be accomplished in ten minutes is hardly worth doing.

One wonders if someone sensible still exists. I do think there are still sensible traditions. The Catholic one is one of these. I just hope in the latest battles -- that someone from a sensible tradition will prevail. I'm hoping that that person is Rick Santorum.

Throughout history there have been enormous battles. Some, like my own weight battle, have recently experienced a turning of the tide (I was 167 on the scale yesterday morning). Santorum's entry into the electoral fray suddenly promises a resurgance of Catholic thought. Who would have thought this possible? And now the disappearance of Cain and Gingrich from the battlefield, as well as the disappearance of other candidates seems all to have had a meaning: to prune away the lesser contenders in order to reveal a giant. Roe vs. Wade meant that millions of children would die on the operating tables. Battles mean something. What are the most important battles in human history? The writer Celine wrote, "The white race was lost at Stalingrad." Celine actually sympathized with the Nazis. It's hard to believe that a major writer could do that, but he did. Today, there are many major writers who sympathize with the communists, even though they are the same thing as Nazis, and believe the same things. They believe that theirs is a group of beknighted individuals who need justice and to do that they need to destroy an oppressor group. To them, Roe vs. Wade is an important victory. And to overturn it would mean the loss of an important freedom in the "sexual revolution." What was lost where on your scorecard? To me, the looming electoral race between whatever Republican we'll nominate and Obama is a fight between truth, justice, and the American way versus a vicious and creepy Marxism that cannot even say what it's really for -- I see Obama as the proverbial snake in the garden -- a Marxist snake who will bring nothing but endless pestilence into one of the last remaining redoubts of decency -- while speaking in the name of God. Santorum, on the other hand, I think of as a true defender of a true tradition -- and one of the last -- Catholicism. May God Almighty help him to prevail.

LIBERTY Vs. EQUALITY

Democrats want equality even if it means the sacrifice of liberty. Employers must hire a certain number of people in the name of equality, which means they are not at liberty to hire whom they please. Democrats don't want anyone to just say anything: esp. if it might offend someone and make them feel unequal. Democrats dislike esp. the freedom to have guns. They want to make the "great equalizer" illegal, so that government can be the only institution that guarantees equality. Likewise, Democrats want to force everyone to have insurance, so that everyone can be equal. But this denies the liberty of those who don't want to purchase it.

Republicans used to believe in equality (Lincoln argued for it in the Emancipation Proclamation and in the Gettysburg Address) but now they increasingly argue instead for another Enlightenment Value: Liberty.

Liberty is an important and seemingly unimpeachable value. No one pickets the Statue of Liberty. Republicans are generally in favor of it, but not always. Communist women want the liberty to abort foetuses (which do not get equal treatment under the law because they are not considered human until the moment they leave the birth canal -- Obama wants to even prolong the inequality past that event so that young mothers can still be rid of their unwanted babies until the very last minute and so most women continue to vote Democrat). Republicans want the first two amendments which guarantee freedom of speech and freedom to own guns. Democrats used to want freedom of speech (60s) but now that they've arrived in a position of power (esp. on campuses) speech codes in favor of EQUALITY are all the rage.

Liberty denied.

Equality, like love, is important, but they cannot be permitted to become totalitarian. Liberty is also an important value. We need the liberty to question love and equality (which can become evil totalitarianisms), and to argue that they are ill-defined and in some cases: a denial of liberty.

Polygamy is evil. Why? Because it is a denial of equality.

(Yes, sometimes we resort to the recursive, just for fun, and take the other side.)

Freedom can certainly be evil. If someone were to spray bullets into a lunchtime crowd at the local McDonald's, why, that would be evil! Even if they did it to save the animals, in the name of equality! Liberty musn't encroach upon other rights, such as the right to life. (Life is another word that's hard to define: does a foetus have life? Does an olding individual without brain waves have it? Does a gold fish have life? Do viruses have lives, and thus should they fall under the rubric of animal rights? Should cows never be eaten because they are sacred, as are the cows of India? What other animals deserve the right to be sacred cows?)

Most of the lines that used to help us to understand how to live and behave have been erased. The ten commandments still hold for churchgoers, but for the vast unwashed and totally depraved, theft is a good thing, because it promotes equality. Adultery and murder can go under the sign of liberty (if abortion is murder, then it is under the sign of liberty and equality then women should have the right to choose death for their children). The communists (Marx and Engels) wanted the liberty for all to screw all, in the name of equality.

We have the sense that everyone should be equal under the law. Does this mean that everyone gets to be a millionaire, and that everyone should play in the NBA, and that everyone should be president? If not, why not?

The two terms (liberty and equality) are quite confusing, but they are possibly the two biggest terms that Americans can resort to in an argument. Each of them have universal appeal. Democrats lean toward equality as their greater theme, and increasingly believe that it trumps liberty. Republicans on the other hand lean toward liberty (especially those who support Ron Paul). Freedom of speech is an incredibly important value for me. Therefore, I'm with the Republicans. It is very clear to me that at this juncture, they are the party of free speech. The other party, junkies of political correctness, prefer equality as mandated by every official organ they can bring to bear on the matter, and every unofficial groan and jeer such that no one is safe anywhere from the Red Star they use to torment anyone who offends against this Sacred Principle. The whole world has become their personal star chamber.

I, personally, prefer LIBERTY, because I think it allows for more EQUALITY.

What is the Best Thing in the World?

I know the answer. It is one of these things:

Indoor plumbing, Republican politics, the Lutheran church, cotton underwear, sex, sleep, urination, badminton, beautiful elbows, Lithuania, artisanal bread with garlic butter, ravioli, coconut milk, tigers, the Juan Marichal baseball card from 1967, Matchbox toys, the Honda Odyssey from 2004 (gold), golf, studying languages, progress in food distribution in India, children (all children, taken together), music (all music, taken together), Cooperstown, Woodstock, Fleishmann's, the state police car behind when it flashes blue and red and white to pull over, ants, bees, barrels of monkeys, football played at the professional level, saunas, moisturizer, cotton towels, poetry (all poetry, taken together), yachts, princesses and princes from the few remaining monarchies, the Ipod, the notion of hell, the notion of heaven, the new Victor mousetrap that doesn't injure the mouse, gum.

BAN FOOTBALL

In this month's Scientific American (February 2012), there is an article entitled "What Football Does to Brains."

I opened the table of contents to verify that this is the article that would stipulate exactly what is being done to brains under the moniker of football. "Football players diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease may suffer from the effect of repeated blows to the head."

The article begins,

"Kevin Turner was a premier athlete in the National Football League, a fullback who could run, catch and block. At 6'1" and roughly 230 pounds, he was slightly undersized for his position, but he had tremendous thrust in his legs and used it to launch himself into players who were bigger than he was... Now Turner can't button his shirt" (68).

Turner is 42, and can't open a box of cereal.

"What is clear is that when the head, moving at significant speed, comes to an abrupt stop, the brain cells inside get stretched, squeezed and twisted ... When a concussion occurs, however, the membranes of brain cells get damaged and the cells become leaky ... Ions rush in and out indiscriminately..." (68).

Chrisopher Giza, an associate professor of pediatric neuology compares it to a submarine crash in which leaks are coming in everywhere -- a mild concussion can require about ten days for the cells to repair themselves. A major concussion can mean permanent injury to brain cells, and even death of the brain cells.

David Duerson, an NFL star who played for the Chicago Bears, shot himself in the heart and gave his brain to science. What was discovered is that he had "chronic traumatic encephalopathy" which meant that major parts of his brain had been destroyed during his career in the NFL. This disorder is very similar to Lou Gehrig's Disease.

Kevin Turner, the premier athlete, was once a very sharp and focused guy. Now he's a basket case who can't fold laundry or open a box of cereal. His wife comments, "I hate what he has gone through, emotionally and physically, because of football" (71).

Kids should stick with synchronized swimming.

JEREMY LIN: Christian NBA Star

While the NBA season started late, I still haven't seen a single game. I've only peripherally been aware of the Knicks' sudden improvement due to the addition to their starting roster of a Chinese American player named Jeremy Lin. They had had a mediocre season, losing more than they won, and suddenly added Lin to the roster and they've won four of four. Lin's 6'3" and only 200 lbs. I heard an interview with him on NPR this morning where he stated that he was not a freakishly good athlete, but was clever in reading defenses and setting up teammates with good passing. He's also not good in one-on-one. He's a team player. The Knicks beat the LA Lakers last night with 38 points from Lin. That's a pretty impressive number. We haven't had anyone on the Knicks score that many points since the old days of Patrick Ewing.

How will Spike Lee react to this new addition to the Knicks?

Does he consider it to be the right thing for the team?

Lin grew up in Palo Alto and led his high school team to an all-California championship, then played at Harvard and was a bench-sitter for the Golden State Warriors until about a month ago. When he was picked up by the Knicks he didn't expect to make the team permanently and has been sleeping on his brother's couch. He got his chance with the Knicks last week after they played another listless game, and suddenly they began to hit hoops and win.

But there's yet another anomaly about Lin: he's Christian!

According to Wikipedia:

"Lin grew up in a devout Christian family and would one day like to be a pastor who can head up non-profit organizations, either home or abroad.[105][38][106] He has also talked of working in inner-city communities to help with underprivileged children.[91]"

I think we should all pray for him.

SANTORUM WINS THREE

Santorum wins three primaries in one night: Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Just when I thought he was out, he wins three in a row. I ordered his book, It Takes A Family (a clear reference to Hillary's It Takes a Village).

Many people want to throw their kids upon the village, and have them raise them. Well, really, only families can raise kids. What constitutes a family? We are about to have a huge debate, if Santorum can win the nomination.

What we'll see is the resurgence of a Catholic framework that has been worked out over a two thousand year period, aligned up against the flimsy multicultural Marxism of the left. I don't know if Santorum can continue his momentum, but if he does he will entirely change the conversation.

The Gingrich moment seems to have petered out, floundering on the rock of his ex-wives' allegations, and his own rhetorical violence. Santorum on the other hand has solidity on his side, and an unwavering commitment to Catholic ideals.

This race just keeps getting more interesting. Personally I had hoped that Romney would pull ahead so we could begin to work with him. He's goodlooking, and he has some business sense. But Romney has been for abortion, and for other things (Romneycare) that are anathema to many on the right.

I think almost all the people on the left will be bitterly angry if Santorum wins the nomination. They went to all the trouble of knocking out Pawlenty, Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, and tried in vain over and over to make sure that Romney was the alternative. The right meanwhile kept trying to get behind different candidates. Anyone BUT Romney. Santorum has somehow survived and somehow has traction finally.

The only thing I know that he's said is in reaction to a question from a college student in New Hampshire. She asked, why are you against two men in love, and willing to marry? He asked Socratically, why not three men in a tub, rub a dub dub? I heard this second-hand, and need to verify that's exactly how it went, but I think that's what he said. I should track this down!

I did find it funny that he put it into the framework of a nursery rhyme. It's the first reference to any kind of poetry in the debates.

One thing the Catholics have worked out over the last thousand years are a set of clear definitions. From St. Thomas Aquinas forwards, they have worked on the notion of beauty which they define as coherence and complexity, and on the notion of ethics, down to whether or not the fingernails will grow in the afterlife (I can't remember if they will or not). There is something to be said for Catholic unity, and discipline, and the powerful intellectual life they've created through the monastery system and their willingness to work on even the most arcane questions in order to create firm definitions.

If Santorum wins, we'll see the logic the Catholics have worked out over the last thousand years and more come into play against the often crazy and meandering logic of the left that has been worked out in the humanistic (man is the measure of all things) secularizing universities (which have in essence nothing but desire holding them together). The OWS movement was the epitome of this, with Zizek arguing for having sex with animals along with socialism, as somehow one leading to the other. Against that, three men in a tub sounds like orthodoxy. I had to hold my head as I listened to Zizek's logic befor ethe OWS crowd, held together merely by desire, rather than by any sense of what's reasonable or healthy for animals and people.

I am now hoping this Santorum-Obama debate will take place, as old questions that have been silenced over the last twenty years will come back into play. What is a family? What is beauty? What is a community? I think many Lutherans and other evangelicals will be willing to close ranks with the Catholic Santorum, as they really can't quite with either Gingrich (whose personal life is a monumental disaster) or with Romney, who is from such a strange tradition that most of us aren't even familiar with it, or with their ideas that Christ lived with Native Americans after Gethsemane, for instance. Mormons apparently believe you get your own universe after you die. This may not matter in politics, but it is very strange for most of us who believe there is just one God, and we're not it. Also, in terms of sheer numbers, the Catholics, even after all their problems, still have an enormous army at their command, while the Mormons -- not so much. We need to win more than Utah if we're going to win the White House. Can Santorum pull it off?

He will face very stiff resistance in a way that Romney, who is a much less defined entity (Romney is a gas, while Gingrich is a liquid, and Santorum a solid). At the very least Santorum will provide definitions, or definition, to the race. I for one would like that. I want something that is like a rock: solid. The church is that, at least as it was originally defined (before it started to become a gas in the 60s).

LEMON-AID FOR LYME

Lyme Disease has been in the news lately. Researchers note that the ticks that spread the disease are heavily infesting the northeast, especially NJ and CT.

No one seems to mind killing the tick, but there are sentimentalists who mourn the death of deer, probably due to the Disney film, Bambi.

Deer are conveyors of disease and nothing else! Let's get them from the air with helicopter gunships before it's too late! What are we waiting for? President Obama has done nothing. He got OBL, but since when has he bagged a Lyme perp, who are the real terrorists (thousands of new cases each year and it's SPREADING). Perhaps Preisdent Gingrich will be the first to release the helicopter gunships on the deer. We need leadership in this area! AFAIK, there has not been one candidate who has mentioned Lyme throughout the 2012 contest although a full 1% of Americans now suffer from the disease.

My kids this summer will sell lemon-aid for victims of Lyme, and we will donate all profits to the Lyme Foundation. That's more than this government is doing.

Stuart Kurtz: Lutheran Surrealist Citizen of the Month

Our long term correspondent Stuart Kurtz, a mathematician at the U. of Chicago, is happy. Why? Because he has just voted in the most recent Lutheran Surrealist poetry contest. Check the comments box to see the poet that he voted for. (Two or three posts down.)

It is not a requirement that you vote wearing our official LS t-shirt, but it is encouraged.

However, there are only two in existence, and I have no idea how to make any more of them. The other one belongs to a poet in Jacksonville, Floria, who goes here by the name of GM. Our winner has not yet been decided. It's nip and tuck, with one vote for each of three candidates. Your vote could be decisive. Please: no dimpled or hanging chads. Make your preference known!