A President Obama will be good for Life, life in all its reach, its complexity, its simplicity and beauty.  An apparent practicioner of TM, transcendental meditation (he has that unmistakable "it" that knows who and what "it" is) ---Obama promises to be a serious man, an Aristotelian "spoudaios aner," transported to our shore, our Augenblick, our Moment of Vision and Destiny.

Sorry about that--I got carried away.

But even serious men can get carried away.  Witness Obama's first gaffe, the flippant remark about White House seances.  (By the way, there have been seances in the White House, and Obama, a great student, may well have had in the back of his mind some of the unconventional interests of the slightly mad Mary Todd Lincoln.) 

OK.  It's just you and me, now.  President-elect Obama I did not vote for.  He said nothing during the process that indicated a willingness to really change U.S. Foreign Policy, a disaster in the making.  An ongoing disaster.  What, for example, are we doing in Saudi Arabia, the place from which came most of the 9/11 extremists?  Well-meaning--that's what it is.  The Bush Family connection, a very special connection, to this highly suspect regime of ruthless dictators.  Good intentions.  But look at the results.  Altogether fitting and proper and providential that this payback-event (I repeat, it was a payback event and an attempt to wake up sluggish, sleepy people like me...they succeeded)...September 11, 2001 happened on W's watch.  9/11.  Let us never forget about 9/11.  9/11 was a day that woke at least one American up from his slumber.  The Bush response to this, after the dust settled, was unsettling.  It was "knee-jerk."  It was insane.  It was the old "eye for an eye" mindset.  The Old Law at work.  But we are now in the New Dispensation.  Providentially, I guess, New Directions have come our way.  A new sort of Great Awakening, is, or should be, adrift in the land.  One positive sign of this Great Awakening is the hue and cry for "energy independence."  Suppose we accomplish this useful goal.  What then?  Do we abandon our friend, Israel?  They have the atom bomb.  Does this mean they can take care of themselves?  Make no mistake about it:  This country by and large loves Israel and its people.  But we love our own families even more.  We, like Israel, like Palestinians--we love our own.  But we also love, some of us, Christ.  Christ symbolizes the bigger picture, the ultimate questions that go beyond the narrow love of one's own family, tribe, culture, tradition, etc.  "Leave the dead to bury their own dead," said our Master, Jesus Christ.  What does this mean?  "Do not call me good..."  What does this mean?  "Who cares about my mother?  Who cares about my family?"  What does this mean?  The answer can be found, among many other places, in Galatians 3:27ff.  The answer, ironically, can be found in Obama's quixotic quest, even in the international arena, for Unity, for the Family of Man.  Don Quixote indeed.  Suddenly, everything in the world appears as a means to the end of peace and hope and self-giving love.  Appears...appears.  Need I remind myself and others that there is an age-old difference between appearance and reality?  Truth appears in the tired old cliches, "limited government," "states rights," "free trade."  OK.  What about civil rights?  Suppose we had the apodictic maxim of limited government applied to the issue of whether my public high school continues to have separate water fountains, one for black students, one for white students (by the way, both water fountains are still right there in F-Hall).  And Dennis Prager, the incarnation of Don Quixote, would like to have us believe the old wounds and legacies of racism have been washed away.  Well, yes...and no.  Appearances versus realities.  I loved the way Obama made fun of the attacks against him:  "They call me a communist because they found out I, I shared my peanut butter sandwich when I was in kindergarten."  LOL.  My point is that the appearance of wise governing, the conventional wisdom about prudent politics, has been for the moment exposed as the half-truth it really is.  I mean, "limited government" is a half-truth, not the full truth in politics.  I like Edmund Burke and, to some extent Winston Churchill.  But I also admire Colin Powell and Ben Bernanke, a couple of pragmatists, a couple of students of history.  Let's stop with the mindless cliches, conservatives.  Rush, you are getting old--not in the positve sense of the term, but in the negative sense of the term.  Old, old, old.  America, change has come!  Change has come!  It's not a cliche.  It's not that word, C-H-A-N-G-E, a word that, Gary Hart wrote on some blackboard way back in 1983 when he wanted to become Prez.  It's not the "tool" that Sarah studied while majoring in journalism and "political science."  Rather, real change is what I would call the reincarnation of Authentic Wisdom.  Nietzsche wrote about this and Joan Stambaugh, a great scholar, published an article about this Nietzchean theme some years ago in the journal, "Philosophy Today," or somesuch.  The theme is, or was translated as, "Decadence versus Creativity in Nietzsche."

 

For Nietzsche, correct me if I'm wrong, decadence is the conventional wisdom, what "they" say.  Heidegger, a student of Nietzsche, had some things to say about the "They" in his epoch-making metaphysics.  I've studied, and studied hard, Heidegger and Nietzsche.  Contrary to what the knee-jerk conservative poli-sci people have to say, both Nietzsche and Heidegger make arguments about ultimate issues, arguments from which humble people might learn a thing or two.  The theologians Balthasar and Ratzinger both appropriated and continue to sift out some valuable gems from these fruitful, if imperfect, minds and hearts.  And so do other reasonable and driven people.  People driven towards a viable Truth.  A deep-down joy.  Read the works, say "God and World," of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict.

 

As for the principle of Creativity, Nietzsche, as I recall him through decades of distraction, praised men like Richilieux (about whom I know nothing), Napoleon, Socrates, Emerson, Caesare Borgia, Putin and Barack Obama.  Yes, Nietzsche, as they say at St Johns Annapolis, "knew everything." 

 

(As for Zarathustra's praise for Putin, why not, oh you Pragers of the world, why not poison off the "liberals"?)

 

Getting back to business, Nietzsche's principle of Creativity is something the conservatives, some of them, need desperately--like thirsty wanderers in the desert need water.  But let us not get derailed here.  Partisanship is not where it's at.  Mindless partisan "thinking," left or right, is Kaput.  I wrote months ago, during the Reverend Wright fiasco, that "Obama is over."  Boy, was I ever wrong about that.  And boy, is there much that the Rush Limbaughs and Al Frankens of this world are utterly, and potentially disastrously, wrong about.   The point here is that one has to keep alive in one's soul, one's thoughtful mind,  the tension, the fruitful tension between Decadence and Creativity.  And when one makes a mistake, one needs to be big enough, like Eliot Spitzer, to not mince words about it.  I'll hand the man that.  I was dead wrong, several months ago, about Barack's chances.  To this day, I'm flabbergasted at what has happened.  A body can only handle so much "cognitive dissonance."  Underneath it all is a joy the likes of which I've never known, and I did not even vote for the guy!

 

Decadence (the conventional wisdom) versus Creativity.  Would that more Muslims would read, truly read and study and assimilate great minds like the mind of Nietzsche.  Sadly, Mohammed Atta probably read some Nietzsche while studying in Hamburg--and firmed up his "manly" desire to perform what he and his allies performed.  Some French pundit or philosopher remarked, after 9/11:  "What an incredible Work of Art."  I cannot stand with quite such radical thinking.  But having read many of the philosophers of our time, I know exactly what he means.  War is politics by other means.  And Mohammed Atta, in his way, was a politician-artist.  Personally, I don't think I could go that route. (After my conversion, it would be unthinkable.)  But I was not born in Egypt, son of a lawyer who probably beat him mercilessly when he was a child.  Most murderers pass on what they know, what they've learned in life, about life.  They don't wake up some fine autumn morning and say, "Think I'll fly a human bomb into a symbol of oppression of my people."  Whatever else about Atta, he no doubt saw himself as a pious warrior, doing the "will of God."  I repeat, I don't believe I would have gone that route.  But I don't know for sure.  I do know I'm a passionate person, an ambitious person.  Fortunately for me and those around me, that passion and that ambition has been "sublimated" into a working love of Christ under the guidance of heroic lights like John Paul the Great and our truly awesome Holy Father.  And fortunately for our nation and the world, as I hope, Obama has truly undergone a positive conversion.  We saw him evolve right before our eyes these last several months, even years.  In spite of his serious blind spot about abortion, I have reason to hope that he gets it when it comes to actual Creativity, not the appearance of Creativity or Truth.  For that's what Creativity really boils down to, a love of Truth, of Justice (not rabid tribalism). 

Rabid tribalism.  Just what did I mean by that slur-sounding expression?  Certainly not the expression Karl the Great Rove--and I mean that--used the other night when, in context, he referred to himself as a "Norweigian-American."  Nor would Reverend Sharpton or Jesse be, at this point, rabid partisans.  I see love and self-giving in both black men.  With them, my eyes fill with tears of hope, joy, amazement , disbelief, an exalted confusion.  "I'm confused on a higher level," said one beginner in Alcoholics Anonymous many, many years ago, bringing tears of joy and true recovery to my naive beginner's eyes.

 

I guess I'm judgmental enough to see the homicide bombers as "rabid tribalists."  But those who respond in kind, as opposed to with reason and Aristotelian Prudence, are also "rabid tribalists."  Do we, as a world family, want this vicious cycle to go on forever, or do we want to work rationally for solutions?  I see signs of hope in 3 events of late.  One, Barack's election is powerful in a way that defies human speech.  Obama's face is one with which billions of marginalized people can identify.  The oppressed people, the historically shut out folks on this planet, now have reason not to hate, but rather to look up, look up, once again, after a long stint in the wilderness, to the Shining City on a Hill.  Two, recent events in Israel, the heart of the world, show a willingness to listen to world opinion as opposed to digging in, the "in the trenches" mind-set.  Three, recent actions taken by the remarkable President Ahmadinejad, too, offer this Pollyanna signs of Hope.  Ahmadinejad has sent our President-elect a letter of possible reconciliation.  He thus gives more hope to us dreamers in this world.  Let me add one additional sign of Hope that Obama's Team should seize upon, viz., the Saudi Peace Initiative, behind which, I'm told, are 22 or so Arab nations.  The land from which came most of the 9/11 "martyrs" (not really martyrs in our eyes, but only in the eyes of millions and millions of people around the world) is apparently rising to a deadly serious occasion.  Obama's election, in this regard, might have staggeringly positive consequences, or start another tragedy of shakespearean realism.  Shakespearean reminders, like the biblical reminders, that there is indeed hope, but that we have to struggle, we Westerners, too, have too struggle, daily, in an inner-jihad, to do the right thing in  the face of what is, after all, Faith, Hope and self-giving love. 

I don't blame UBL for fighting back, not against the Soviets, not against us.  If I were in his shoes, I'd fight like hell too. 

 

Let's spell this out.  But first, consider Tolstoy's "War and Peace."  The big historical lesson of this greatest novels is this:  people don't like being occupied, especially by aggressors they don't like.  Napoleon invade Russia.  Russia fought back so as to force Napoleon to escape with his life.  The burning of Russian cities is nothing compared to the historical statement issued to Napoleon:  Do not mess with us. 

 

What I'd like to know is, Have we Americans financed our government's "messing" with UBL and those he leads?  Or, is UBL just using this issue for his own dark purposes?  Dr. Michael Scheuer outlines in full the written down grievances of our enemy.  It seems that UBL, a proven fighter, is bound and determined to fight America for what is perceived to be American disrespect, to put it mildly, for Muslim concerns and Muslim principles (one of which is, keep Islam's holy places pure and undefiled).  More than disrespect, which no one can control, is the issue of American actions (our troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia).  American actions (our support for Arab leaders who oppress Muslims).  American actions (our knee-jerk support for Israel no matter what they've done or do to Islam).  American actions (I repeat, our troops on the ground, especially since Desert Storm, in sacred places, i.e., places considered to be sacred by Islam and its believers).  American actions (I repeat, our apparently unjust support for a State that routinely oppresses Muslims as a matter of policy).  American policies (our oil-addicted policies that seem to guarantee our continued presence, even across sacred boundary lines, in the Middle East).

As Dr. Michael Scheuer alarmingly argues in "Marching Toward Hell," America, both prior to 9/11 and most decidedly after 9/11--seems to be in fact marching towards its own undoing as a going concern.  Our invasion of Iraq, in particular, played right into the hands of UBL, whose main mission is to do whatever it takes to get the majority of Islam's believers to come around to his way of thinking, i.e., Justice by the Light of Islam.  To pretend or deny that this Light is not a factor in a billion lives, is to live a lie, a delusion.  And sadly enough, Americans are very good at just that.  However, my faith in my country has been bolstered exponentially by the extraordinary miracle, the Divine Event of the Millenium--the impossible, providential election of Senator Barack Obama. 

 

Long live Barack Obama and his family, both here and abroad.  Long live Barack and his Family of Man.

 

Our gratitude to the soldiers in Barack's new army, these fine fighting men and women.

 

An especial thanks to the leaders, the generals in Obama's New Directions Citizens Par Excellence!  I mean, and I'm leaving out many because I don't know all their glorious names:  Plouffe, Axelrod, Gibbs, Jackson, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, Hill, Clinton, Biden, Adelman, Kmiec, Parker, Noonan, Matthews, what's his name on MSLSD, Carter, Krugman, Volcker, Rubin, Buffet, Geffen, McCartney, Brits, Germans, French, all such "generals" and  citizens par excellence.  And I didn't even vote for the man.

 

Now, if Russia wanted Napoleon, Russia, corrupted by the West, wanted Napoleon out, imagine how much UBL, uncorrupted by the West, wants America out of its business. Imagine.  It is only a matter of common sense and it's a reason to celebrate what is happening in America right now.  One, Obama has made it.  Two, his first priority, is energy independence so that we can leverage this new freedom from addiction--for only the free can act freely--towards a sane Middle East Policy, a sober, non-addicted policy that will leave all parties concerned in peace and mutual respect for that perennial monster...The Other.  The Other will become part and parcel of Oneself.  We saw this enacted centuries ago in Shakespeare's first play, "The Comedy of Errors."  (Cf. Galatians 3:27.)  The opposites will be reconciled.  As Obama knows and has argued so effectively, there is no "red" or "blue" America.  There is only The United States of America.  As Saint Paul preaches so powerfully in Galatians and Ephesians (I'm not good at memorizing verbatime):  no longer is there master and slave, man or woman, Greek or Jew, Gentile or Jew, Red State or Blue State--but rather, All are One.  In principle, as I see it, this is Truth pure and simple.  We just have to work out the details.  Dennis Ross can help; Bob Rubin can help; Rahm Emanuel will definitely help; Dr. Furman will help; maybe Carter and Clinton can help--not to mention Presidents Bush.  Again, we have in Shakespeare's first comedy a foreshadowing of what is to come.  Unity.  And what about that later, more problematical play of Shakespeare's, "The Merchant of Venice"?  Who, today, is the Merchant?  Obviously, today, the merchant is Wal-Mart.  Let us do things the Wal-Mart Way, and I'm not playing here because I know the stated Wal-Mart Policy Par Excellence:  RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.

If my vote had really counted, I would have voted for Senator Obama.  And I'm a practicing Catholic--like Doug Kmiec, the well-known legal scholar and Roman Catholic who came out several months ago for Obama.  Kmied argued, if I'm not mistaken, that Barack stands for Life just as surely, and more so, than McCain.  I agree with Kmiec on this extremely important issue.  I also agree with a real hero of mine, Father John Corapi, who stated on one of his videos that unless America turns away from abortion it will undergo a cataclysm that will make 9/11 look tame in comparison.  I also agree with this prophesy.  We are probably going to get hit again.  Yet, there is, moreso in Obama than in anyone else, hope.  You see, I believe Obama was "chosen."  People like me, who think about the Bible, look to the Scriptures for clues.  One big clue in the Bible is that the Lord singles out persons for leadership:  Abraham, Joseph, Moses and David.  These are just the ones this lay person can think of.  The Macabees also led--by example, an example noted and in a sense imitated by none other than Jesus.  Jesus, of course, is the Ultimate One "chosen" to lead.  That's what we Catholics believe though we cannot "prove" this in a scientistic way.  We can, however, prove it in an emperical way.  This has been done, and very beautifully done.  Read Pope Benedict's book on Jesus. 

Back to Barack:  He, too, has been chosen to lead.  He could have said no.  Instead, he gave his assent.  His "yes" has made all the difference.  If my theory is correct, the lives he will save will be more than those McCain would have saved, and I include, in my count, the unborn babies. 

We are at war with angry Muslims.  Extremely angry Muslims.  Their anger is so extreme that some of them--with millions saying Yes!--resorted and continue to resort to unspeakable violence.  Is any iota of this anger, this violence, justified?  I don't know.  I've read recently that our troops are on the sacred soil parts of Saudi Arabia.  Is this really true?  Could this be even half-true or true-but-with-good-reasons true?  Again, I don't know the facts on this.  I do know that suicide bombers are motivated, in part, by the perception of presence of our  military on soil considered sacred by one point four billion Muslims.  Barack Obama, for heaven's sake, seems to me much more likely to understand the gravity of this issue, if it is an issue.  I'd like to find out.  But finding out the truth was not what happened when, after 9/11, we American citizens were told that the terrorists did this because they hate "our way of life."  Such hatred our our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our emphasis on human rights and trial be a jury of one's peers--all of this some of them no doubt hate or resent or violently disagree with.  But not to the point of doing a 9/11--I don't think.  Rather, what makes more sense to me, and should make more sense to you if you're capable of putting oneself in another's shoes--is that the explosive hatred we've all seen on our TV came to NYC and DC and PA because we did, in their eyes, virtually the same thing to them.  9/11 was payback.  More than payback, it was a warning of more of the same if we don't start listening to them.  All they ask is that we listen, listen as a starting point. 

 

As for the real reasons behind suicide terror, I invite my millions of readers and fans to google Dr. Robert A. Pape, U. of Chicago professor of politics.  I also invite anyone and everyone to read the alarming books written by Dr. Michael Scheuer, retired CIA analyst.  His most recent work I've read from cover to cover:  "Marching Toward Hell."  In a nutshell, America is marching toward hell on earth, another 9/11 and then some, if it continues to fail the course on Islam.  Yes, Islam.  Mohammed Atta and Company were devout Muslims.  They believed they were doing the will of God.  How can this be?  Study up.  Read a little.  Look up what UBL said about why 9/11 happened.  He is saying that the U.S. Air force came onto the territory of Saudi Arabia.  That would be his home. His Sacred Home.  He has a concern about that, and we should too.  (If Saudi Arabia sent its military to our home, I think we might, as obtuse as we are, begin to understand what UBL was worried about.)  To make matters worse, our troops, accorging to UBL, parked on SACRED GROUND.  Again, we need to learn a little about what this action, if true, means to one point four billion Muslims, or even a tiny fraction of that huge amount. 

******************************************************************************************************

Again, read Dr. Pape; read Dr. Scheuer; read Dr. Andrew Bacevich, who lost a son serving in Iraq.  Review what Dr. Ron Paul said in the Republican Debates of 2008.  When asked why 9/11 happened, Paul, unlike Giuliani, answered with truth and common sense:  It happened "because we are over there," meaning we are violating them in their eyes.  (So, in last resort payback, they are violating us in our eyes.)  Barack Obama has shown that he is more likely to understand the depth of this issue than John McCain.  Moreover, the face that this remarkable human being and citizen shows the world is the face of the oppressed of the world.  The billions who, historically, have been abused, lynched, struck down, kept down, violated--on and on.  Aborted.  In an ironic way, Barack's face even symbolizes the innocent aborted.  What better person then, to fight for life in all its variegated reality: life on the streets, life in the desert, life in the shacks around the world, life on the margins of human existence, even life, especially life--in the womb.  Obama, in his way, will fight, I hope and believe, for all of life in a way that McCain is constitutionally incapable of doing.  Moreso than Obama--at least I hope--McCain affirms the problematical presence of our military in untold places around the globe.  Some of these places, I repeat, are said to be holy ground, ground held holy by believers in God.  If they have an issue with our being on their sacred places,  then we have a sacred responsibility, as human beings and citizens, to respect their perceptions of evil-doing on this matter. As a people backing a government doing these things, in part, because of our addiction to oil, we are responsible.  We are at risk.  Our lives have been and continue to be at risk. 

 

Again, I don't know for a fact that our troops still occupy such extremely sensitive places.  But if our troops are still inside boundaries where they really should not be, then, it seems to me, common sense would dictate that we do two things. One, we need to remove our troops from those sensitive places if there is any conceivable way we can do so and still stand by our friend, Israel.  Two, we need to remove our troops from those sensitive places if there is any conceivable way we can do so and still stand by our friend, the State of Israel.  Whether the State of Israel has any business being there in the first place, is quite another question.  My opinion goes with those inside Israel and America and elsewhere:  the vocation of the Jews is to practice their faith wherever they may find themselves, and thus to be true to the principles they believe in, especially the Ten Commandments. 

 

Instead of voting for Barack, whom I admire beyond words, I voted for Ron Paul, who openly stated his belief in the non-interference of America in the sacred places of the world.  Naive?  Probably.  I'm a non-expert.  But as a citizen, I have a right and a duty to participate according to my ability to do so.  I belive I have a profound duty to write about this issue here and now:  America has GOT to achieve a level of energy independence so that we do not have to fight ugly wars all because of our greedy addiction to oil.  To be relatively self-sufficient in terms of our energy needs, our reasonable energy needs all things considered--such independence would be way we would grow to adulthood, and the way Israel would grow to adulthood as well.  Israel would no longer be the unacceptable security risk it has become.  If this sounds, "anti-semtic," so be it. It is not.  Rather, it is tough love.  There has to be a win-win deal in the Middle East War that does justice to the legitimate security needs of all parties concerned, especially America's,  the Palestinian's and Israel's.  Not biting the bullet is no longer an option.  Failure to achieve this win-win deal is no longer an option. 

 

What Father John Corapi has said will happen to those who live a lie will indeed happen to those who live a lie.  One means of starting on the road to peace, it seems to me, would be an eight year reign of our new King, Obama.  An even better, more reliable road to peace would be for each and every one to be nice to each other.  Nice isn't really the word.  The word is respect for the individual, as is written, for heaven's sake, even in the Wal-Mart manual.  Let's take the baby steps that need to be taken, and go from there.  Let's start by treating our wives with respect. Our customers with respect.  And as for the Muslims of the world:  Let's indeed start treating our girls and wives with human dignity and respect.  If I offend, so be it.  Universal education is a must, universal education for all boys and all girls.  The State of Iran knows that.  When will Afghanistan catch up? 

Either the intimations of Immortality were real, the other night, or they were not.  Indeed, Wordsworth and the Romantics come to mind.  The "augenblick" or Moment, if you will, was personally overwhelming to me.  Yes, a sucker is born every minute.  But the fact is, we have a man of wide-ranging excellence soon to be our Leader.  I did not vote for him though I would have if, in my state, it would have mattered.  If I had known about this Moment or, let's say, World-historical Event, I would have voted for him in spite of my newly-discovered "pro-life" position.  In the wake of this incredible feat, this magnificent achievement for a man, for a citizen, for all citizens of the world...it occurs to the thinker that Unity as a force, as a Plan, as a temporary Reality...such Unity is as big or bigger than the sad laws in our land that promote or allow abortion.  Unity, the more perfect Union we still seek as a people, is no longer just a word.  This unity, no matter what happens in the next four years, has reached another world-historical plateau.  Or, so it seems, now, at this moment, to one who read Wordsworth, rocked with Lennon, became an "alcoholic," got saved in a Twelve Step Program--then found Saint Therese of Lisieux, Saint Josemaria Escriva, Saint Padre Pio, Saint Theresa Benedicta (Edith Stein, Husserl's student), Mother Angelica, John Paul the Great and, last but not least, our Holy Father.  And one must mention the great G. K. Chesterton and one avid reader of him, the man who cured my bursitis and bone spur, Bishop Sheen.   Finally, truly, last but not least, this Election dovetails with my marriage to form a Hope the likes of which I've never known in my life.  I thank God that Barack, when he sat down in quiet to ask the Lord His will,  said, ok, "yes, send me."  Few of us can know the faith, natural and supernatural, of this gentle but powerful soul, Barack Obama.  The jokes about the Messiah Coming...there is something real underneath them.  Like Jesus before him, but himself following the Master, Barack grew before our eyes even as his crowds got bigger and bigger.  In the New Testament, we have to notice the crowds, the folks who want to hear, to be near, to even touch the shirt of Jesus.  Something similar, not the same obviously, has just happened in our lifetime.  Through the miracle of TV, we were able to see Jesse, Jesus in Disguise, weeping like a child, an innocent, self-giving Child. And his tears exacerbated our own.  Tears of Joy, of Strength, of Renewal.  Sacramental Tears.  Exile and Redemption all in One.  A new heaven, and a new earth (Revelations 21).  Memory rules from here on out.  Memory and Hope mixed together in a new Augenblick, a new Moment of Vision into which we will be called upon to tap--in order to change ourselves as the very best means of "changing the world."  Wordsworth, Prophet Walt Whitman, Charles Dickens--recently celebrated in First Things by Father Neuhaus. 

 

Only one American living, in this more artistic and spiritual sense, is as great as Barack Obama:  the Creator Garrison Keillor.  Human beings and Citizens:  Let us celebrate this newly-discovered Hope for a More Perfect Union.  And let us invite our fellow Citizens of the World.  The Audacity of Hope has become the Incarnation of Hope.  For real. 

Ahmadinejad's speech today at the UN promoted many things, notably God Almighty, Justice, True Freedom, Obedience, Kindness, Mercy, Forgiveness, Gratitude, Hope, Peace, a Bright Future, Compassion, Cooperation.

 

I respect this great man, this great leader.

A student of history, McCain may have read the following from Rex Warner's "The Young Caesar":  "I began to get a reputaion of a very different kind.  Stories were told of my incredible feats of horsemanship, of the rivers which I had swum across, of my endurance of heat and cold and hunger, of the care I took of my men, of their zeal for the undertaking of impossibilities, of the recklessness with which I myself would, at critical moments, expose myself to danger" (p. 229, 1958, Mentor Edition). 

 

Some of this fits McCain--also the paragraph preceding it which states Caesar's reputation for womanizing.   (Jimmy Carter, I  too, knew womanizing, and you're no womanizer.) 

 

"Apart from the delight I discovered in physical exertion and in the sharing of danger, hardship and exultation, I also found the new way of life satisfying and enchanting from an intellectual and spiritual point of view.  I had already exercised my faculties in the difficult and devious process of Roman politics; but in this military command it seemed to me that will, initiative, intellect and resolution could operate more honorably and with greater precision.  This is not, I think, because the problems of a military commander are simpler than those of a statesman, or that he is more free from external control.  It is rather a question of urgency; for, whether his problems are simple or not, they must be dealt with immediately and continuously; and, however free he may be from the supervision of others, he is directly and again continuously controlled by the necessity for keeping himself and his men alive, strong and ready for action" (229). 

 

By the way, UBL as a commander in chief understands this well; he also understands he made a huge strategic blunder in 9/11 (according to Peter Bergen, expert on UBL).  But note how things have changed from Roman times and even from Cold War times:  al-Qaeda relies on suicide as a weapon, and its supply of this weapon shows no sign of diminishing.  To continue with Rex Warner's "The Young Caesar": 

 

"Though, ideally speaking, we fight wars for the sake of peace, there is a sense in which war has more reality than peace can ever have" (229).

 

My comment is this:  McCain brought his "wild" personality into the Navy with him; he brought his intense and serious side too--it is the other side of the coin.  The Hanoi Hilton and the release from this final nightmare only exacerbated his LOVE OF THE FIGHT (not to mention the womanizing).  Soldiers who survive the deadliest combat remark that "nothing" equals the "thrill" as it were of this "rush."  This weird adrenalin rush of mixtures of fear, overcoming fear and the word Warner uses, "exulttion."  Now, this:

 

"Life, death and honor, when pressing constantly upon one, have a different meaning from that in which these words are used in speeches before the people or the senate.  In warfare the whole personality is engaged at every moment.  Survival will depend on instantaneous decisions and on the real dexterity and perseverance both of body and of mind.  Even unworthy characters can be great in war; they can become, as it were, better than they should be and can genuinely and generously share in the determination, the disappointments and the triumphs of others who are more courageous and intelligent than themselves" (229).  I'll stop quoting there, but what follows will have you on the edge of your seat!

 

Question:  Is this what it means to be a "hawk"?  The idea of McCain as commander-in-chief in the current context (radical dependence on foreign oil) concerns me and should concern you. 

***************************************************************************************************

p.s.  Barack's recent lipstick comment was probably subliminally "suggested" by Bill Clinton in a phone conversation with Barach.  It is the kind of down home and colorful remark that Clinton loves to use.  If it was not put in Barack's ear by Bill, it should have been--if he wants to help Hillary in 2012!  Dick Morris, you prophet you!  And Obama--you fool for repeating that expression given by the former Razorback professor!  The nail is now in the coffin of the Culture of Death so ably represented by Obama and the Clintons, for now.  I mean, Obama is over.  Let us hope and pray that McPalin overhauls our faulty foreign policy from A to Z.  Truly, truly, we need to put Country First!  Recommended reading for Governor Palin: "The Limits of Power" by Dr. Andrew Bacevich, who lost a son in Iraq.

An interesting text from Rex Warner's "The Young Caesar":  What follows is Warner's very realistic fiction...And it's "Caesar" narrating--...

     "My indifference to the people's pleasure does me no harm politically.  Once the people have given a man their favor, as they gave it to Marius and gave it to me, they will not only tolerate but applaud any act which seems to them eccentric or original.  Those who never forgive one for being unusual are invariably members of one's own class" (p.23, 1958).

     Anyone who has read this far will be more than capable of developing the comparison I've presented!

Nonetheless, here goes:  McCain has won, had won the people's favor even prior to the Palin Pinnacle.  He had momentum with "Drill."  Then, he makes what even wise man David Gergen called an eccentric choice.  Indeed, the folks "not only tolerate but applaud..."

Our text then refers to the elites, the ones "who never forgive."  How similar to what has been going on for ten days now! 

     Maybe this comparison works; maybe not.  I do know that the young McCain, like the young Caesar, was a leader already in his own neighborhood--he was looked up to by all--even as a young boy. 

     Now, I beg your indulgence for one more powerful quote, on the subject of power and the young Caesar's first experience of it after standing up to Sulla, the adversary, on a street while leading young boys--then a crowd--in a chant against the villain.  And right in front of the guy.  "Yet still the incident caused some stir, and when I returned home later in the day I found rumors of it had preceded me. ...To me, this incident...had some importance...My reflections encouraged me to believe that it is possible to be, at certain decisive moments, entirely without fear, and that this state of fearlessness confers a strange energy and resilience to the whole body and mind, qualities which can even, by a kind of telepathy, affect others as well" (pp 25-26, Rex Warner's "The Young Caesar," 1958.   

 

The reader is encouraged to read more in these chapters, especially "Caesar's" description of those first feelings of what we call power--his ability, by his example and word and deed--to move people.   It is the same no doubt for many, many who, like Ross Perot, "woke up one morning and found that, like others can play the piano, I can lead."  Governor Palin probably had a similar experience as a young person.  It was not just yesterday that she woke up to discover this uncanny ability to inspire and to lead...

 

McCain appears headed for the White House as President.  Odds are fifty-fifty that Sarah will one day be giving her First Inaugural Address.  I feel sorry, not for Hillary--but for Obama and all those who fervently placed their hope in him.  Sadly, it is not to be. 

Why not?  That sense of power that Caesar feels in this early part of his life.  The McCain Campaign now appropriately feels this very sense of power.  It shows on their faces.  And the camera doesn't lie.  The camera doesn't lie about the dejection on the faces of the Democrats, pundits like Mara Liasson and Michelle Bernard.  I, too, I confess, am a little sad.  However, I adore Sarah!

When asked, about seven years ago, what he was reading, John McCain replied, "a biography of Napoleon."  McCain has the comportment, the pauses and spontaneous smiles, of a serious, not a desultory, reader.  There is that touch of madness about John, even suggestions of genius.  To me, this impression is confirmed, signed, sealed and delivered in the VP decision, a momentous choice if ever there was one. 

 

My first encounter with Palin occurred in some desultory bedtime reading about seven months ago:  an introduction to a phenomenon, so to speak, in one of the major magazines.  I wondered, finally fell to sleep and forgot about this marvel as the more humdrum"hype" and "buzz" proceeded to take over.  One of the major pundit/pollsters suggested over a month ago that Sarah Palin would be McCain's best choice for VP.  McCain had an open mind--a key requirement for a president--listened, and chose courageously and brilliantly.  Totally in character.  Predictable almost. 

 

Now comes the fun part.  Watching this woman take Joe Biden among many other old ideas apart.  Old ideas are not always a bad thing.  It's only when old ideas become status quo ideas, e.g., four and six cylinder cars, billions of them, using up scarce resources and ruining the earth and its citizens.  Old ideas in the best sense of the term are what we need to recall--precisely at this moment in time, this Kairos.  T. S. Eliot wrote an essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent," that might well be appropriated at this hour.  The German philosopher, a student of the great Heidegger, wrote a book entitled, "Truth and Method."  What the book and the essay by Eliot have in common is the Aristotelian idea that the "status quo" will not stand on its own for long.  Aristotle teaches that the status quo--in things constitutional and educational, e.g., is a must.  But, according to this master, conventional or "that's the way we've always done it" mindsets can be a death sentence to a city-state or a nation-state.  For Eliot, the mere imitations of the masters soon lose their effectiveness at making sure language says what it means and means what it says.  Now, Eliot, obviously, being a poet, was not against appropriate Ambiguity; but he was definitely for a poetry, a writing and thinking--of freshness and force.  To compare him to Aristotle, tradition is to Convention (nomos) what the individual talent is to Nature (phusis).  Book Five, chapter seven (if memory serves) of the Nicomachean Ethics points up this tension, if you will, in terms of a dichotomy.  On one hand, we have conventional justice--the laws or the constitution; on the other hand we have "natural justice" (phusis, again), e.g., a case where Common Sense suggests an alternative to "the way we've always done it" or the conventional or "tried and true."  To use a cliche many have come to hate, Aristotle was Aristotle and not some forgotten disciple because he knew how to think "outside the box."  Sarah Palin I love because she has thrown away that old cardboard box. 

 

As for Hans-Georg Gadamer, who died a few years ago at age 100 or so, his remarkable book, while conventional next to Heidegger's stuff, yet points up something he learned well from Heidegger, who himself was a master of Aristotle, arguably his main teacher.  That "something" that Gadamer learned from his master, Heidegger, was "care."  The "truth" is clearly for those who care.  But when real Truth loses its correct perception and becomes pseudo-truth, caring folks need to respond quickly to remedy the situation--lest things get OUT OF CONTROL.  (In our country, at present, things are arguably getting out of control--our energy supply, our money supply, our creativity supply.)  Hans-Georg Gadamer (whom I had the honor of having dinner with in 1976) injected "method" into the worn out "truths" of the twentieth century.  If you read his "Truth and Method" you find that he speaks to the issue of our Constitution.  Gadamer shares with us his "hermeneutics" or art of interpretation.  Unlike Leo Strauss and his devotees, who say "understand the text as it understands itself," Gadamer, a true student of the classics, says "understand the texts in light of...THE SITUATION." 

 

Leo Strauss's subtext would probably agree:  The Situation one finds oneself in obviously colors one's reading of authors and their texts.  But that is not the Straussian Orthodoxy.  This (sometimes) mindless orthodoxy starts to remind one of a certain Russian general portrayed in Solzhenitsyn's "August 1914."  The dull-witted general, no matter the situation, would just bureaucratically command such and so--at the cost of needless loss of life. (And not a little cruelty to horses.)  Such utterly conventional minds are dangerous during wartime.  And right here, right now, we find ourselves at war, a very world-historical war.  A war in which the enemy could be our boss at Verizon.  We don't really know.   This is no time for a mindless bureaucrat running things.  This is no time for a Joe Biden or, in my opinion, anyone who thinks he is qualified to be POTUS.  The meek and mild-mannered Hans-Georg Gadamer knew what Joe Biden apparently will never know:  There is a time for all things.  (In Biden's case, a time for brevity and real thoughtfulness as opposed to diarrhea of the mouth and genuine idiocy.)  (My apologies for a lapse in Christian behavior, there.)

 

Our Constitution, to get back to "Truth and Method," is not a text with just one interpretation.  If so, How do we get to the--let's say--appropriate interpretation?   It's been a while since I've studied the philosophers of Interpretation, but life also teaches this science and art.  What I've learned is that Prudence, real Aristotelian and Thomistic Prudence, is still possible and necessary in our time.  It's up to the Individual Talent, to get back to Eliot's metaphor, to decide.  How then, do we find Individual Talent--be it for poetry or science or politics or philosophy?  (In religion, we have it--in our Holy Father and in his friends, Karol and Hans Ur von Balthasaar.)  T.S. Eliot himself was the Individual Talent that he was talking about.  What were the qualifications he had that "certified" him as an Individual Talent?  Suffering, for one thing.  Read the life of T.S. Eliot.  More importantly, Eliot's training in World Literature (we need statesmen trained in it--and world history even more), I repeat, Eliot's training in and love for World Literature gave him his start.  Well, actually, his parents and society gave him his start--in St. Louis, no less.  But my point is this:  This tension between Tradition and Individual Talent is a creative one, a mysterious one.  Lincoln's kids did not turn out to be like Lincoln although his eldest son did very well for himself indeed.  Leaders in ancient history had sons who turned out far differently from their fathers.  It is a mystery how a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama emerges.  What were the odds?  Who could have predicted?  In Clinton's case, there was a second grade teacher who in fact DID predict. 

 

But this example brings up an important point:  There are trainings and then there are trainings.  The education of Bill Clinton was quite different from the education of George W. Bush.  For Bill Clinton, Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" symbolizes his philosophy of politics, his political philosophy (Straussians would deny he HAS political philosophy, properly speaking).  For George W. Bush, the life of Winston Churchill symbolizes HIS political philosophy--and here we are dealing with a real philosophy, even according to the neocon Straussians.  (Reread Charles Krauthammer's famous essay on the Bush Doctrine which can be found in Bill Kristol's "The Weekly Standard," around 2003.)  The neocon political philosophy is part Machiavelli--help friends, harm enemies; part Winston Churchill and HIS training, which was vast and included Aristotle and Shakespeare; part the Constitution of the United States and the men, I repeat, men--who came up with it.  Our President, and especially our Vice President, came under the spell of real philosophy, real political philosophy.  President Bush's boldness, his courage, his creativity--results from his openness to creative ideas.  I'll never forget the year 1998, maybe even 1997.  The great teacher and scholar and pundit from the U. of Virginia, Larry Sabato, was asked on TV whom he thought might be a viable candidate for the Republicans.  I was shocked when he said, "George W. Bush, the Governor of the State of Texas."  Sabato not only had heard the inside buzz, he had seen for himself the talent, the Talent of George W. Bush.  What has made his Presidency so utterly world-historical is the sense in which his Talent has clashed with the Tradition, not of Literature, but of American History and Republican Policy.  American Foreign Policy, whether Dem or GOP.  The Bush Doctrine flies in the face of George Washington's wise advice not  to get entangled too much in foreign affairs.   The Bush Doctrine (over now, cf. brilliant article by James Pinkerton around 2004) flies in the face of Tradition, of International Law--you don't attack another country unless you have first been attacked!  But the talented Bush, and he is sharp, he is a politico, a real "player" as they say in athletics--Bush thought past certain conventions and bought in to certain other conventions.  He thought past the "realism" of Brent Scowcroft and Company.  He blew by the opinion of the European Community of Nations.  He completely disregarded the Popes.  He completely disregarded the serious conservative voices of our time--Pat Buchanan, Michael Scheuer, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak and countless others.  

 

The jury is still out on this incredibly bold, creative, life-giving and perhaps reckless decision. 

 

What is for sure is that, using the Tradition-Individual Talent Model, the Bush Doctrine fits in on the side of both:  both Tradition and the Individual Talent were--and are still--at play. 

 

There is, first of all, in history, Western and World History, a Tradition of the surprise attack, so to speak.  On 9/11, we were at the receiving end of one such brilliant surprise attack.  And a very successful surprise attack it was.  Its purpose was, in part, to educate.  In this regard, it has succeeded.  Many of us who cared little for "foreign policy" are now alert, watchful, studious, intense, learning more every single day.  Thank you, Mr. bin Laden.

 

President Bush's response in Iraq was arguably another sort of tit-for-tat "surprise attack."  We had done nothing to Atta (but we had) and he attacked us; Saddam had done nothing to us (but he had) and we hit him in return.  Arguably, another surprise attack, even though it was partly on television around the world.  (And that brings up the decisive problem for our security here, now.)

 

The Creativity of the Bush Doctrine, like all creativity, has been dangerous in its abusive aspects.  Our own security here at home is at risk, arguably moreso than if we had focussed, really focussed, on getting Mr. bin Laden.  Today the certified experts on radical, extremist, suicide-murdering Islam disagree on just how safe we are here at home.   The next two months will be telling.  The question now is, Is Woodrow Wilson turning over in his grave?  Has the project of converting the Middle East to democracy failed?  Or how about Churchill himself?  Is he turning over in his grave? 

 

These are questions.  I hope they have been delightful and instructive if not creative? 

 

 

Mr. Gerson, former speech-writer for President Bush, writes beautifully of the Moment represented by Barack Obama.  Indeed the moment is a beautiful one.  But it is a gut-wrenching and heart-rending one as well.  I predict Barack will lose in November.  Why?  The following and what they stand for and those who, while not signed up, "think" this way:

     Ku Klux Klan

     Neo-Nazi

     White Nationalist

     Racist Skinhead

     Christian Identity

     Neo-Confederate

     Black Separatist

     General Hate

     Fill in the Blank

     ___________

Interesting that alcohol is an issue both in Shakespeare and Tolstoy.  More precisely, the dysfunctional family is an issue for both artists.  The lie of excessive commercialism is arguably the enveloping action for both The Comedy of Errors and "The Master and Man."  Shakespeare sees the development of Modernity right there in his first comedy, the product of his youthful, recently married and becoming-a-father genius-mind.  Tolstoy's novella is the product of a seasoned artist at the beginning of the last fifteen years of his long life.  Tolstoy, a member of the Alcoholics Anonymous of his time (a so-called "temperance league") at some point went totally on the wagon.  At his 70th birthday, his wife would not allow a toast out of a misguided respect for her husband's abstinence from even a token drink.   (See the astonishing, classic bio of Tolstoy by the Frenchman whose name I cannot remember.) 

 

The seeds of "Hamlet" are already to be found in "The Comedy of Errors."  Infidelity, drink, abuse of human dignity, the question of "mastery" and "masters" and "men."  One example:  In Errors, as in Hamlet, one person is mistaken for another in a way that leads to injury or death (Polonius is mistaken for Claudius, Hamlet's new and detested step-father; Polonius is killed, however, while Dromio of Syracusa, e.g., in Errors is only beaten unjustly.)  In Tolstoy's story, the servant, Nikita, is mistreated badly by Vasili.  Nikita lives while V finds "new life."  At the end of Hamlet, eight are found dead on the stage.  At the end of Errors, all are reconciled and the servants are singled out for their new sense of Human Dignity.  The question of Humanity pervades both dramatist and novelist.  Strangely, a kind of gnostic Christianity also pervades these made-up stories. 

 

But Tolstoy's "master," Vasili, hears a strange "call" from HIS "master" right before he freezes to death.  In responding to this "call," Vasili literally lays down his own life for his slave, Nikita--by using his own furs and body to shelter Nikita, to prevent him from freezing to death.  He performs this heroic deed as naturally as breathing and utterly without fear.   In fact, he finds himself in an unexpected, profound state of joy and bliss.  No more fear.  No more cares about "the deal," the business that drove him irrationally into the snow--along with the poor Nikita.  I've compared this New Joy experienced by V to the New Bliss felt by Pericles, a character who, like John McCain, confesses his faults.  The fact that Shakespeare's Pericles is given the great gift of this "music," this Indescribable Joy, is connected to the fact that Pericles realizes his weakness, his sin.  So, in "The Master and Man," the boss realizes the absurdity of his life up till now.  He realizes his errors, the many ways in which he has wandered from the truth.  And the truth is that his obsession with his titles and status and stuff--well,  he finally realizes that he has been living a lie.  To make amends, to act on this truth, he finds he must help Nikita, whose plight has moved him, literally moved him out of himself and into, as it were, Nikita.  The master is transported into the man; rather, the master is morphed into the man.  He stretches himself out, like Jesus did, to identify with, to become one with, to die for, to be an act of self-giving. 

 

Nikita not only continues to live--he flourishes for many, many more years.  We have reason to believe that the "serfs" in Shakespeare's comedy will also not only live but live well in their new sense of human dignity.  They, in their turn, will become merchants, yes, perhaps they will become merchants and owners--like Vasily did.  Like many, in our dysfunctional time, have done and will continue to do.  But like the magnificent, "The Merchant of Venice," a play about a merchant, that little play about "errors" teaches us Moderns a lesson in human dignity, a lesson even about the Rights of Man over against the "masters."  The oppressors. 

 

An interesting footnote:  The "master of the house" in Hamlet, King Claudius, winds up on his knees asking God for forgiveness.  Just as Nikita, fearing death, examined his life of drink, of error, so Claudius kneels down (not knowing that Hamlet is nearby and could kill him "in the state of grace").  As Professor Bloom discusses, for all we know, Claudius and Gertrude have been "one flesh" for a long, long time.  In fact, Hamlet might even be the son of Claudius.  The one thing Hamlet needed to know but does not know, it seems, is that he is a Child of God.  Thus, to use one of Bill O'Reilly's favorite words, Hamlet bloviates like crazy.  A scholar, an artist, even a "master artist," Hamlet's ignorance of the real calling makes him the most verbose character ever.  A true candidate for alcoholism--had he lived. 

 

Students of Shakespeare:  Here's a project for you:  Compare this theme of "master" and "man" in Tolstoy's "The Master and Man" and Shakespeare's "The Comedy of Errors."

 

 

 

 

Interesting that alcohol is an issue both in Shakespeare and Tolstoy.  More precisely, the dysfunctional family is an issue for both artists.  The lie of excessive commercialism is arguably the enveloping action for both The Comedy of Errors and "The Master and Man."  Shakespeare sees the development of Modernity right there in his first comedy, the product of his youthful, recently married and becoming-a-father genius-mind.  Tolstoy's novella is the product of a seasoned artist at the beginning of the last fifteen years of his long life.  Tolstoy, a member of the Alcoholics Anonymous of his time (a so-called "temperance league") at some point went totally on the wagon.  At his 70th birthday, his wife would not allow a toast out of a misguided respect for her husband's abstinence from even a token drink.   (See the astonishing, classic bio of Tolstoy by the Frenchman whose name I cannot remember.) 

 

The seeds of "Hamlet" are already to be found in "The Comedy of Errors."  Infidelity, drink, abuse of human dignity, the question of "mastery" and "masters" and "men."  One example:  In Errors, as in Hamlet, one person is mistaken for another in a way that leads to injury or death (Polonius is mistaken for Claudius, Hamlet's new and detested step-father; Polonius is killed, however, while Dromio of Syracusa, e.g., in Errors is only beaten unjustly.)  In Tolstoy's story, the servant, Nikita, is mistreated badly by Vasili.  Nikita lives while V finds "new life."  At the end of Hamlet, eight are found dead on the stage.  At the end of Errors, all are reconciled and the servants are singled out for their new sense of Human Dignity.  The question of Humanity pervades both dramatist and novelist.  Strangely, a kind of gnostic Christianity also pervades these made-up stories. 

 

But Tolstoy's "master," Vasili, hears a strange "call" from HIS "master" right before he freezes to death.  In responding to this "call," Vasili literally lays down his own life for his slave, Nikita--by using his own furs and body to shelter Nikita, to prevent him from freezing to death.  He performs this heroic deed as naturally as breathing and utterly without fear.   In fact, he finds himself in an unexpected, profound state of joy and bliss.  No more fear.  No more cares about "the deal," the business that drove him irrationally into the snow--along with the poor Nikita.  I've compared this New Joy experienced by V to the New Bliss felt by Pericles, a character who, like John McCain, confesses his faults.  The fact that Shakespeare's Pericles is given the great gift of this "music," this Indescribable Joy, is connected to the fact that Pericles realizes his weakness, his sin.  So, in "The Master and Man," the boss realizes the absurdity of his life up till now.  He realizes his errors, the many ways in which he has wandered from the truth.  And the truth is that his obsession with his titles and status and stuff--well,  he finally realizes that he has been living a lie.  To make amends, to act on this truth, he finds he must help Nikita, whose plight has moved him, literally moved him out of himself and into, as it were, Nikita.  The master is transported into the man; rather, the master is morphed into the man.  He stretches himself out, like Jesus did, to identify with, to become one with, to die for, to be an act of self-giving. 

 

Nikita not only continues to live--he flourishes for many, many more years.  We have reason to believe that the "serfs" in Shakespeare's comedy will also not only live but live well in their new sense of human dignity.  They, in their turn, will become merchants, yes, perhaps they will become merchants and owners--like Vasily did.  Like many, in our dysfunctional time, have done and will continue to do.  But like the magnificent, "The Merchant of Venice," a play about a merchant, that little play about "errors" teaches us Moderns a lesson in human dignity, a lesson even about the Rights of Man over against the "masters."  The oppressors. 

 

An interesting footnote:  The "master of the house" in Hamlet, King Claudius, winds up on his knees asking God for forgiveness.  Just as Nikita, fearing death, examined his life of drink, of error, so Claudius kneels down (not knowing that Hamlet is nearby and could kill him "in the state of grace").  As Professor Bloom discusses, for all we know, Claudius and Gertrude have been "one flesh" for a long, long time.  In fact, Hamlet might even be the son of Claudius.  The one thing Hamlet needed to know but does not know, it seems, is that he is a Child of God.  Thus, to use one of Bill O'Reilly's favorite words, Hamlet bloviates like crazy.  A scholar, an artist, even a "master artist," Hamlet's ignorance of the real calling makes him the most verbose character ever.  A true candidate for alcoholism--had he lived. 

 

Students of Shakespeare:  Here's a project for you:  Compare this theme of "master" and "man" in Tolstoy's "The Master and Man" and Shakespeare's "The Comedy of Errors."

 

 

 

 

Eric Cantor would not only be a good pick, if Obama enlists the Clintons to the max, a Cantor VP would be crucial to compete w/ The Dream Team (or so it would seem).

 

Moreover, the ideal person to implement needed "course corrections" in our business w/ Israel, provided Cantor comes to realize the need...Who could be better than Cantor himself?  Our own Homeland Security Interests; Israel's Homeland Security Interests; World Peace in General...all this and more requires a set of corrections in our business with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Syria, the Balkans, Pakistan, Afghanistan--we MUST rethink ALL OF THE ABOVE.

 

If you haven't dipped into Dr. Michael Scheuer's "Marching Toward Hell," a non-neoconservative critique of American Foreign Policy, give it a whirl.  But be sure to have some sedatives on hand or at least a six-pack.  This book is not for the ones, like me, who get a little week in the knees.  This book is scary.  And if one-tenth of the book is true, we are indeed MARCHING TOWARD HELL.