................................................. |
|
Friday, April 02, 2004 Bruce Green, Dean of Liberty University's School of Law quotes Arthur Allen Leff as he desperately clings to truths in which he no longer believes: Liberty University - School of Law - March Blogs: "All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us "good," and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.Earlier, Green quotes Leff saying, "There is no such thing as an unchallengeable evaluative system. There is no way to prove one ethical or legal system superior to any other, unless at some point an evaluator is asserted to have the final, uncontradictable, unexaminable word." Green says this is the sad conclusion to an "Agrippian" dilemma. Almost Leff is persuaded to say that, in Green's words, "ultimately God is the only true source of a transcendent and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong upon which to build a legal system of findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously guide us." But he falls short. So too, unfortunately, does Green. A set of "findable rules" that "unambiguously guide us"? Green forgets our finitude as human beings marred by sin. Even though such rules might be said to exist in the mind of God and structure of his Creation, we inevitably, either willfully or blindly, misinterpret those rules. This is why it can be said that, though the "law is perfect," for our purposes it is inadequate. In fact, ALL systems of inquiry are inadequate. We are forced to say collectively with Aquinas that all our works are as straw. By God's grace, however, we need not leave things on that depressing note. Suppose we begin by saying that the interpretation of law is not a monologue or soliloquy of society, but a dialogue with the "other", that is, a negotiation between the known and the unknown, the law and the "outlaw". How else could the civil rights movement gain ground, unless lawmakers recognized their own failure to provide justice to those who wear the law, but have no power to fashion it? And how would they recognize the injustice, without the struggle of the sufferers to raise their voices and, at times, arms in defense of themselves? To say that the law is dialogical, however, is *still* not enough. We can still fail to recognize injustice in our treatment of the other. Leff aptly points to Cain and Abel as an example of this. God, the source of law in His word and works, is also our guide to the interpretation of law -- but not on Green's terms. Green says God provides us within unambiguous propositions. That's like saying we can perceive the will of God for our lives without regard to our character, context, or the consequences of decisions we make. This doesn't mean God doesn't have a plan for our lives. It does mean we discover it in ways other than fundamentalists (and I do not mean the term derogatorily here) would have us believe. Through the personality of his revelation, God speaks to us both by knowing us intimately and perfectly (as the one in whom we died and live again), and also standing outside of ourselves as the ultimate other -- infinite in transcendence, power, and wisdom. He is, as Miroslav Volf would say, the one who fully embraces us, and also the one against whom we find ourselves brought up woefully short. The question then is how that "intimate otherness" functions in law. Green is right to point out that the law must find its basis in the transcendent, but how this actually functions is a discussion for another post... 4/2/2004 12:14:23 PM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ Thursday, April 01, 2004 Here's an argument for pluriformity, sphere sovereignty, or whatever you want to call it, in response to the more than slightly disturbing scenarios that government departments like to construct. Via A&L; Daily: The Way We Live Now: The Human Factor: "To say that a human life is ''priceless'' does not necessarily mean that it is worth more than any amount of money. It may just mean that money is the wrong yardstick to use when our decisions involve the loss of life."Of course, if money is the wrong unit of measure, then how do we determine what an acceptable level of risk is? When does our interest in properly handling taxpayer funds outweigh our interest in preserving human life? Or, perhaps the real subject here isn't human life at all. It may, perhaps, be the stewardship of taxpayers' money. In that case, an economic analysis is justified... 4/1/2004 12:51:03 PM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ A random click brought me to one of the more insightful comments on prayer that I've read: We don’t pray greatly because we don’t desire greatly.I've just quoted a portion of Hyatt's mini-essay, but it's worthwhile to go and read the whole thing. 4/1/2004 10:34:57 AM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ Wednesday, March 31, 2004 I had to post this line from Walzer: "Money, supposedly the neutral medium [of exchange], is in practice a dominant good, and it is monopolized by people who possess a special talent for bargaining and trading -- the green thumb of bourgeois society." 3/31/2004 05:06:05 PM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ Apparently, my social circle is known as an urban tribe. 3/31/2004 05:01:12 PM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ The April edition of Comment magazine is now online! Peruse articles by KVGR, Pennings, Koyzis, Cameron, Bosveld, and yours truly. My article is the second part in a series I'm writing on how "guilds" can provide the missing link between zero representation and union bargaining. When it comes to dealing with imbalances in the work place, there are whole sectors of the working world that have no back-up in negotiating conditions of employment. Guilds, as collective action groups that don't do collective bargaining may be a first step in gaining adequate representation for the vast numbers of temporary, agricultural, and independent workers. Also, don't miss the Comment comment system. We want to see conversation, disputes, and diatribes here. Make this little magazine into an ethereal Alcove #1! 3/31/2004 02:08:24 PM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ Tuesday, March 30, 2004 I'm beginning Michael Walzer's book Spheres of Justice. Chapter 1 opens: Distributive justice is a large idea. It draws the entire world of goods within the reach of philosophical reflection. Nothing can be omitted; no feature of our common life can escape scrutiny. Human society is a distibutive community. That's not all it is, but it is importantly that: we come together to share, divide, and exchange. We also come together to make the things that are shared, divided, and exchanged; but that very making -- work itself -- is distributed among us in a division of labor. My place in the economy, my standing in the political order, my reputation among my fellows, my material holdings: all these come to me from other men and women."What I appreciate about this is how it so easily punctures the libertarian fantasy of the competent, propertied, solitary individual. The fact that we even have discussions about the appropriateness of our distributive channels demonstrates that such distribution is collectively negotiated, not by autonomous parties to contract, but as connected human beings in specific times and circumstances, with specific interests. Distribution involves communal authority, which libertarians seem to avoid desperately. This isn't to say they might not be right about the non-interference of governmental authority in the distribution of market goods. But the way the libertarians argue their case, even if they win temporarily, is reductionist and ultimately unhelpful. 3/30/2004 06:19:52 PM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ It takes a lot of education to make certain kinds of mistakes, and the grosser the mistake the more education it takes to make it. - Roy Clouser 3/30/2004 10:41:48 AM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ Thursday, March 25, 2004 The following is an apt observation on the right to education vs. the effort of education from Juan Enriquez, Chairman and CEO of Biotechonomy, in InsideEdge, published by the Conference Board of Canada: A lot of people think graduating from high school is a right. And if getting a highschool diploma is a right, as opposed to something that a person earns, then we should save taxpayers a lot of money and print the high-school diploma on the back of the birth certificate, and simply make it valid on the 18th birthday. If you're going to give out diplomas in high schools, and in college, they should stand for something -- that this person achieved a minimum competence.It is important not to misunderstand what Enriquez is arguing here. He is not arguing that education should be higher priced, to squeeze out those unwilling to work full-time jobs on the side to pay for it. His comments have nothing to do with access to education. In fact, we could make education free, and still have a high quality system. What he is arguing is that we should have high academic expectations of those who go to academic institutions. Those who cannot meet the standards are obviously not cut out for academic work, and should be encouraged to find another career or a different kind of education. I would suggest two things: 1. We should have diverse educational options for the different kinds of knowledge and ability: universities, technical schools, trade schools or apprenticeships, etc. 2. No one of these educational options should be glorified (and Enriquez unfortunately does this) as the be all and end all of national success. The trades (millwrighting, welding, etc.) are highly skilled occupations that require knowledge of technology and precise techniques. They are also well-paid, given a shortage of qualified tradespeople. Yet few people choose to pursue this route, because university is seen as the way to a good job. And it is that -- but only if that is where your abilities lead you. Otherwise, it's a good way to a job at McDonald's, because your degree doesn't reflect your talents, and you don't know how to do anything else. Having a wide range of respected educational options will help build Canada into what Porter calls a "competitive cluster" where people with a variety of skills exist in close proximity (slight irony here -- we're more likely looking at regional clusters in a country like Canada) and feed off each other's ideas and skills. So should Canada be a knowledge-based economy? Canadians should be smart about where the opportunities are, but also recognize that there are different kinds of knowledge required in every field of human endeavour, whether that knowledge is cultural, technical, scientific, or theoretical. Canada should be a knowledge based economy only in that we know the possibilities, and know how to bring those possibilities to life with excellence. 3/25/2004 10:29:08 AM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ Friday, March 19, 2004 “Reading Christianly” What does it mean to read as a Christian? Is it just about morality, or are there other issues to be considered? Our own Deborah Bowen believes that learning to read is a lifelong occupation. The Hearts and Minds fellowship group will meet on Friday, March 19 at 6pm for a potluck supper followed by the presentation from Deborah Bowen. Deborah is an English professor at Redeemer University College. She teaches 19th c. and 20th c. British and Canadian literature, postcolonial literature, and literary theory. If you're interested, send me an email. 3/19/2004 10:18:58 AM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ Thursday, March 18, 2004 I am not having a good day. This morning, I managed to sleep in til 8:15, after having heard my alarm AND turned it off. When I want to be in by 9, and have to drive an hour, this is not a good thing. After my shower, I had to fetch my dry clothes from the basement, which involves leaving the house, and walking down two flights of stairs laden with 4 inches of snow. Then, once I was dressed, I realized that, once again, I had no food for breakfast in the house. I grabbed my lunch out of the fridge, left the house, and discovered my car was blocked in and I had to wake up the neighbour so I could get him to move his. Finally, in my car, on my way to work. But... I realized about ten minutes later that I had left my lunch at the house. Another buy-lunch day. But, at least I've got a Subway Club card for a six-inch sub sandwich. I made it to Mississauga without incident -- but not to work. Why? Because at the light on Eastgate Parkway, I assumed the driver in front of me would be going through the light (turning yellow) and planned accordingly. He didn't. I hit the brakes, but instead of stopping, I simply slid thirty feet into the car's rear end. Not too hard -- but not gently either. I look at the car, cursing, and wince to see the blue and white logo of a BMW 5-series. Shit. The 5-series driver was not pleased either. "What the FUCK were you thinking!?" He continued to swear at me while I retrieved my insurance information, and wrote down my name, phone number, and license number. For some reason, we had spectators too -- who helpfully remarked, "Ohhh, he hit a Beamer. That could be expensive." Much obliged to the peanut gallery, which I ignored completely. Gradually, the driver calmed down once he realized that there was no damage, except for some scrapes on the plastic of the bumper (which he said a friend could buff out, thank goodness). After all this, I made a stop at Tim Horton's for a cinnamon-raisin bagel and a coffee. No cinnamon-raisin. I *love* cinnamon-raisin bagels. But, nothing for it except to order a blueberry bagel, and make my way into the office, walking in the door at 10:00 AM. I guess it can only go up from here. Or stay the same. Teach us to number our days, so that we can calculate what percentage of our lives it was worth it to get out of bed. I roll up the rim on my coffee cup. "Play again," it says. 3/18/2004 10:20:19 AM | | Email me ______________________________________________________ |
|||