9/11

Criminals.

Under federal US law, to resist a hijacking should have landed every passenger on United Flight 93 in federal prison. The law assumes the hijackers wanted ransom. No one expected they wanted to kill Americans.

But, using their credit cards for the last time, the passengers and crew called 911 and family members using AirPhones. They found out about the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. So Todd Beamer called 911 and told them they would fight back. With the words “Let’s roll” he hung up the phone and charged the cockpit. In the struggle that ensued, the passengers and crew sacrificed their own lives to save the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, more. They made United 93 crash into a field in Pennsylvania rather than an unidentified target, possibly the Capital.

Instead of landing in prison and being villains, they landed in a Pennsylvania field and became heroes.

Never forget.

I read this and kinda threw a hissy fit at my desk

This summer I’m basically a secretary at a company that makes custom day planners for schools. I file every planner the company produces, so I see a lot of bizarre things on the covers of books. This was probably the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen printed on the back of a planner:

“A Young Child’s Mind”

Author Unknown

I dreamed I stood in a studio
And watched two sculptors there,
The clay they used was a young child’s mind
And they fashioned it with care.

One was a teacher:
the tools she used were books and music and art;
One was a parent
With a guiding hand and gentle loving heart.

And when at last their work was done,
They were proud of what they had wrought.
For the things they had worked into the child
Could never be sold or bought!

And each agreed she would have failed
if she had worked alone.
For behind the parent stood the school,
and behind the teacher stood the home!

Sometimes I worry about the state of American education

Here are the “Top 10 things I learned from other schools in debate that may or may not be true.” These were all said in-round against my partner and I.

10. An advocate isn’t morally responsible for the logical end of her arguments—even if said logical end is genocide (Boise St, PKD)

9. Ending the trade embargo with Cuba will end the recession because they will provide such a boost to our economy (University of Miami-Ohio,Indianapolis)

8. Social Contract Theory supports the Healthcare Bill (Cameron University, PKD)

7. Questioning a federal official destroys the fabric of theUnited States(Grove City, BGSU)

6. States are the ones that give out foreign aid (?, PKD)

5. PETA is an anonymous organization (Eastern Michigan, MISL)

4.Zimbabwe’s democratic elections were a smashing success (Valdosta University, Gorlock)

3. There is no real difference between a republic and a democracy (Central Michigan, MISL)

2. Obesity just might be an infectious disease (Rice University, Creighton)

1. Prohibition was passed by an act of Congress signed by the President and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Utah St,PKD)

Year in Review

One week from now, I will have one year down, six more to go. Then I’ll have full-fledged bachelor’s degrees in political economy and speech. So here are 40 random things I’ve learned this year; some serious, some humorous, and some inside jokes:

1. Hillsdale is hard.
2. It is entirely possible to get a B+ in a class in which you don’t do a good amount of the reading.
3. God’s grace is fully sufficient.
4. The only way to truly live is with the cross of Christ in the forefront.
5. Rap does not make good studying music.
6. Iowa is exactly 306 miles wide.
7. Those who are half white and half black have special hair care needs.
8. Some parts of the Bible make a lot more sense when one knows the basics of Classical philosophy.
9. Some debaters possess the ability to cause the other team’s brain to shut down through cadence and intonation.
10. Monty Python applies to the Odyssey, Aeneid, and the Divine Comedy….actually, make that pretty much every situation in life.
11. Debate partners can and do react violently when you insult high school successes. Especially when said success was against you.
12. Nuclear war is a lot more likely than anyone wants to admit.
13. According to certain professors, Reagan and Nixon (pre-Watergate) were the only two decent presidents since Lincoln.
14. Learning about Stoicism makes John 1 way more meaningful.
15. No amount of winning is enough when one forgets to win for God’s glory.
16. If not for having a female debate partner I would probably show up to every round without pen, paper, timer, and in the wrong room.
17. When I’m doing LD (the kind without a partner) I have a tendency to go to the wrong room. Without a pen. Not knowing which side I’m on.
18. “Fuego” by KJ-52 is great pump-up music.
19. Not everyone understands what “J-Mac” means.
20. Cribbage via webcam takes forever.
21. Mango-onion pizza is disgusting, but that doesn’t keep the Hillsdale cafeteria from serving it.
22. All the food from the Hillsdale cafeteria is disgusting, see 21.
23. Academic Christianity is more dangerous than outright heresy.
24. “Man is an animal who by nature must live in a polis.”
25. “Polis” is a totally amazing word—and way more impressive sounding than “city” or “community.”
26. Christian community is one of the most important things one can have.
27. Seeing a close friend come to Christ is an amazing experience.
28. Slonim.
29. The culture I grew up in doesn’t operate well in inner city Detroit.
30. Being stuck in the Detroit airport for 12 hours is not a fun experience.
31. The Detroit airport floors are really hard, but they do not necessarily preclude sleep.
32. Its entirely possible to get an A in a class you haven’t done most of the reading for.
33. Never, never, never call illegal immigrants an “annoyance” in a debate round. That might invite a racism K. And you will have to argue that “annoyance” is not a racist term, which is difficult when you’re specifically talking about Mexicans
34. We should probably just mine the border between the US and Mexico (sarcasm).
35. Sleep is good.
36. Resolutions which are a paragraph long make for really bad debate rounds.
37. 17 credits plus three national-level debate tournaments, two of which are national championships, plus regional tournaments, plus recruiting trips, makes for a busy semester.
38. Economics can actually be kind of interesting.
39. I’m still good at math, no matter how much I hate it.
40. Slonim.

The Deconstruction of Self

Here’s another paper I wrote on The Time Machine by HG Wells. Its kind of my first attempt to write a paper using kritikal theory (no, that’s not misspelled) from debate. I think it turned out pretty well. And props to Lauren, another debater in the class, for helping me figure out how to interpret all the competing literature I was reading.

The Pursuit of Necessity: H. G. Wells’s Time Machine and the Deconstruction of Self

            In The Time Machine, The Time Traveller sees a future in which humanity has devolved into two separate species, the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi, elegant and beautiful, live above world and spend their days in leisure and seeming comfort. The Morlocks, hideous and fearsome, dwell in subterranean tunnels, taking care of and feeding on the Eloi. Through The Time Machine, Wells examines modern sociopolitical construction by presenting a future in which the anti-utopia deconstructs individuality, critiquing modernity’s capitalist philosophy and denial of individuality.

In order to understand the argument of The Time Machine, we must first understand Wells’ definition of individualism. Wells considered the distinctiveness of a person from society to be the individuality of that person, “To Wells ‘individualities’ were the unique characteristics of a person that distinguished him or her from the average of the species and were thus the characters upon which selection might operate” (Hale 262-263). To provide further clarity, “modernity” must be defined as well. According to the Oxford English Dictionary modernity is, “[A]…social perspective characterized by departure from or repudiation of traditional ideas…and cultural values in favour of contemporary…beliefs (chiefly those of scientific rationalism and liberalism).” According to Wells, modernity eliminates the construction of the self, instead creating a social construct under which the individual is subject to the hegemony of the state.

Wells first argues that capitalism destroys individuality, both in the present and in the year 802,701. In a dispute with fellow author Henry James, “James urged Wells to leave off his social preaching and explore instead the subtleties of personality. Wells replied that close scrutiny of character is only possible when the social frame remains constant. In his own time, Wells argued, the acceleration of social change had made the frame itself part of the picture” (Sanders 15). Thus, according to Wells, modernity and the rapid evolution of society has precluded any true exploration of character and thus of individuality. In the opening lines of The Time Machine, destroys the sense of characterization, “The Time Traveller, (for so it will be convenient to speak of him)…” (Wells 3). Furthermore, when The Time Traveller fails to arrive at the dinner, the narrator asks, “‘Where’s——-?’ said I, naming our host” (Wells 14). Furthermore all the characters present for The Time Traveller’s narrative are known by their profession. The group present for the Time Traveller’s story is the narrator, the Psychologist, Blank, the Editor, “a certain journalist, and…a quiet, shy man with a beard…” (Wells 14). No man is given an identity other than his function in society. Speaking solely in terms of efficiency, it would be much easier to give proper names. Therefore, it is not convenient for the narrative to deny characters identities, but it convenient for the societal construct within which Wells writes. Modernity can identify a person only through his role in society; identity is merely one’s utilitarian function. Through this capitalistic destruction of individualism, Wells argues, freedom is crushed as well,

Wells acknowledged that humanity was by nature individualistic…he argued that because humans lived in societies, liberty, in any meaningful sense of the word, was not guaranteed by allowing individualistic passions free reign. He concluded that “for all men, since man is a social creature, the play of will must fall short of absolute freedom.” (Hale 262)

In a capitalistic society, where men may choose that which their passions desire, freedom can never be realized. In a capitalist society, according to The Time Traveller’s conclusions, the Eloi have become an “upper class” which is good only as food for the Morlocks. This is the logical end of modern industrialism (Stover 130). Wells believed that,

For the ‘modernized state’ to come into existence, Wells asserted, would require

‘the will and the ideas of public-minded, masterful people’, formed into ‘a militant  organisation’ which would ‘release the human community from the entanglements of the past’. The alternative was for ‘civilization’ to be left to stagger down past redemption

to chaotic violence and  decadence’ (Bloom 173).

Therefore, modernity is fundamentally flawed and will always lead to dehumanization and the destruction of civilization. The future The Time Traveller saw, while avoidable, is the course upon which mankind has embarked.

When The Time Traveller enters into the future, he beholds a society which seems to have achieved utopia. He finds, however, that the “ideal world” he has stumbled upon is merely a continuation of modernity’s destruction of the construct of the self. Science fiction as a genre must take place in a world unknown to the reader. However, that world still operates as a critique of the reader’s own. Therefore, Wells critiques modernity through the fictional year 802,701. An author writes,

The Time Machine reminds us that science fiction is especially significant in an examination of the subjectivity of modernity. Works in this genre often focus of spatial and temporal mobility and on the realization of the imaginary alien scenarios. The principle of science fiction is the simulation of another world which is both alien yet representable through the conventions, competencies and technologies we already know. (Bignell 143)

Furthermore, Wells uses the medium of science fiction and the juxtaposition of “good” (the Eloi) and “evil” (the Morlocks) to “meditate on specific deep contradictions that he finds in human experience” (Huntington246). Thus, through The Time Machine Wells continues his critique of modernity and its annihilation of the individual, and eventually human intellect. Wells states that individuality is “For Wells it was through individualities that the modern state could avoid stagnation and continue to progress” (Hale 263). Without this forward constant forward progress, a race will necessarily become complacent and stagnant. The result is a race like the Eloi, “[I]t is their routine acceptance of ‘bourgeois refinement’ which renders them incapable of assuming anything but a posture of self-satisfied incomprehension…will by an inevitable mutation lead to [the] form of ineffectiveness…of Wells’s Eloi” (Hale 263). Therefore, without the construction of the self independent of occupation and function in society, Wells’s future will come about.

When The Time Traveller enters the world of 802,701, he witnesses the degradation of human intellect and, by extension, of humanity itself. Modern capitalism caused the downfall of humanity,

I tried to preserve myself from the horror that was coming upon me, by regarding it as a rigorous punishment of human selfishness. Man had been content to live in ease and delight upon the labours of his fellow-man, had taken Necessity as his watch-word and excuse, and in the fullness of time Necessity had come home to him. (Wells 68)

Through capitalizing the abstract noun “Necessity,” Wells draws attention to his ironic use of the word. Necessity has driven mankind to create monumental structures, change society, and advance technologically. Necessity had caused the upper class, the Eloi’s ancestors, to drive the lower class underground. Now, Necessity causes the lower classes to feed upon their former masters. Necessity has destroyed humanity. The Morlock branch of the human family tree has devolved to a point that they have become literally inhuman. Humanity has devolved so much that the Eloi’s very clothing is fashioned from the skin of Eloi the Morlocks have eaten (McLean236).

The Eloi’s complacency and satisfaction with their pleasure has caused them to become something less than human as well. The Time Traveller muses, “These Eloi were mere fatted cattle, which the ant-like Morlocks preserved and preyed upon…” (Wells 68). Thus, while capitalism has created the semblance of prosperity for some, the destruction of the individual has led to the ultimate destruction of humanity. Neither race is even capable of sustaining itself. Without their food source, the Morlocks would starve. If not for the Morlocks, the Eloi would have no clothing or population control, thus exhausting their food supply and starving.

Even though both species have lost much of their human sensibilities, the Eloi maintain enough similarity to humanity that The Time Traveller identifies with their plight. He says, “the Eloi had kept too much of the human form not to claim my sympathy, and to make me perforce a sharer in their degradation…” (Wells 68). Thus we can still analyze modernity through the subhuman Eloi, for the principles of the Wellsian critique still apply. Additionally, despite their hideousness, the Morlocks maintain one of the peculiarities of humanity: speech (Stover 115). Because both the Eloi and Morlocks still contain some measure of humanity, we may analyze their future world as a critique of modern social structure.

In the Wellsian construction of the future, the dichotomy between the Morlocks and the Eloi is presented as an anti-utopia. Definitionally speaking, the anti-utopia may be defined as follows: “If the utopian-dystopian form tends to construct single, fool-proof structures which solve social dilemmas, the anti-utopian form discovers problems, raises questions, and doubts” (Huntington124). A dystopia, in turn, may be defined as a “utopia in which the positive (‘more perfect principle’) has been replaced by a negative” (Huntington124). Thus, Wells uses the future to question the idea of a utopia in which all labor has ceased.[1] Additionally, Wells’ utopias are not meant to present solutions, but warn humanity about the course it has embarked upon. “Wells’s uneasiness with the utopian mode in one who began as a writer of…ironic utopias…which deliberately sets out to superannuate previous utopian texts…[Wells] sharply contrasts the utopia with a ‘anticipatory tale,’ a genre in which…he…feels more as home” (Parrinder 115). Thus Wells’s “utopia” in The Time Machine is a cautionary tale of what capitalism will create.

Wells presents an anti-utopia in which the Morlocks act as the State, representing the corporate masters of Wells’s own day. Wells believed that, in order for a utopia to exist, the breeding of children should be overseen by some larger entity. He writes,

…There is a pressing need for such negative eugenics in the Atlantic communities, due to the steady elimination of death selection from human conditions…The only case that has been made out with any degree of conviction is the case for the segregation and sterilization of mental defectives…” (Partington 76).

Thus the state, in order for humankind to progress, must forcibly sterilize some in order to keep the population of “undesirables” low. Because crime and mental retardation does not exist among the Eloi, [2] this must have been accomplished at some point in human history. Furthermore, “Wells hypothesized that the state would of necessity have to control human reproduction. In A Modern Utopia, Wells declared, ‘Utopia will control the increase of its population. Without the determination and ability to limit that increase as well as to stimulate it whenever it is necessary, no Utopia is possible…’” (Hale 266). Thus the state must go beyond sterilizing the undesirables, but also control the entirety of the population. This has been realized among the Eloi, for it seems to The Time Traveller, “The difficulty of increasing population had been met, I guessed, and population had ceased to increase” (Wells 35). He assumes this is because of a social breakthrough that occurred in the intervening period. He finds out, in fact, that the Morlocks “probably saw to the breeding of [the Eloi]” (Wells 68). Thus, through the context of eugenics, the Morlocks have become the State. Because Wells’s vision of the future is a critique of Wells’s own society, the Morlocks represent the oppressive upper class in his own time. The result of such oppression is the same oppression and utilitarianism Wells sees in his time.

The Eloi’s culture, shaped by the Morlocks’ dominance, inherently rejects individuality in all forms. If individuality is that which makes one unique from the average member of society, no individual exists among the Eloi when the Time Traveller arrives. He tells his listeners, “The dinner and my conversational beginnings ended, I noted for the first time that almost all those who had surrounded me at first were gone” (Wells 30). Even though his initial “friends” leave and are never seen again, his interaction with the Eloi are unchanged by the constant revolving door of little people. When The Time Traveller saves Weena from the lake, he creates an individual, for she becomes differentiated from the rest of her race. She is the only major character who is given a name other than her function in society. She is the Individual. Weena is also the only character who dies in a Morlock attack. The anti-utopia of futurity, in mirroring present-day capitalism, destroys individualism. The only true Individual created throughout the novel is the only character which dies. The message is clear: individuality has been killed by the ever-advancing Necessity. Humanity will be destroyed unless utility is sacrificed for personhood.

When a society forces a man to construct his self-identity solely upon his occupation, he loses all sense of individuality. He becomes nothing more than a cog in the machine of industry, useful at best, expendable at worst. Absent intervention, the upper class will oppress the lower class, forcing them into more and more dehumanizing situations. The result of such oppression and unrestrained pursuit of Necessity is portrayed in The Time Machine. The possibility of Individualism is destroyed; everyone must serve his or her function without question and without deviation. As The Time Traveller discovered as he traveled beyond 802,701, the result is extinction. Necessity, modernity, and the deconstruction of self will destroy the world it hopes to improve.

Works Cited

Bignell, Jonathan. “Another Time, Another Space: Modernity, Subjectivity, and The Time Machine.” Wellsian: The Journal of the H. G. Wells Society 22 (1999) 34-47. Web.24 Feb. 2011.

Bloom, Harold. H. G. Wells.New York: Infobase Publishing. 2005.4 April 2011. Web.

Hale, Piers J. “Labor and the Human Relationship with Nature: The Naturalization of Politics in the Work of Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert George Wells, and William Morris.” Journal of the History of Biology 36.2 (2003): 249-284. Web.24 Feb. 2011.

Huntington, John. “Utopian and Anti-Utopian Logic: H.G. Wells and His Successors (Logique utopique et anti-utopique; H.G. Wells et sa descendance).” Science Fiction Studies 9.2 (1982): 122-146. Web.24 Feb. 2011.

McLean, Steven. “A Swiftian Fable: The Origin of Leather in H.G. Well’s The Time Machine.” Notes and Queries 57.2 (2010) 236. Web.24 Feb. 2011.

“modernity, n.”. OED Online. March 2011.OxfordUniversityPress. Web. 4 April 2011.

Parrinder, Patrick. “Utopia and Meta-Utopia in H.G. Wells (Utopie et méta-utopie dans l’oeuvre de H.G. Wells).” Science Fiction Studies 12.2 (1985) 115-128. Web.24 Feb. 2011.

Partington, John S. “The Death of the Static: H.G. Wells and the Kinetic Utopia.” Utopia Studies 11.2 (2000) 96-111. Web.24 Feb. 2011.

Sanders, Scott. “Invisible Men and Women: The Disappearance of Character in Science Fiction.” Science Fiction Studies 4.1 (1977) 14-24. Web.24 Feb. 2011.

Wells, H. G. The Time Machine: An Invention. Ed. Leon Stover.Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. 1996. Print.

Wells, H. G. The Time Machine.Norwalk: The Heritage Press. 1964. Print.

---

[1] Labor is necessary because, without it, according to the previous Wells quotation, all society will grind to a halt

[2] Beyond that accomplished by evolution

New song

I wrote this song in about 8 hours (interrupted by studying for an exam and taking said exam), and I think it turned out pretty well considering. Most of this comes almost straight from Isaiah and Ezekiel, while the first two lines from the chorus is from Lamentations. You can already tell this is going to be uplifting, can’t you?

 

The Promise

 

I will be their God

And they will be my people

What a promise I made,

What a covenant to keep!

But their kings have gone away,

Whoring without payment

My beautiful bride,

Lade bare for all to see

(chorus)

With their own hands,

My people cooked their children

Traded My blessings for the Curse

Because of their sins

I will hand them over

To the gods they whored themselves with

 

 

Oh, that I had not stayed

My hand in the wilderness

My name would not be mocked

In the nations of the earth

But because of their unfaithfulness

The nations can’t believe

Of my beautiful promise

They have made a mockery

(chorus)

I will be their God,

My Son will be their shepherd

My name will be made great

In the nations of the earth

Because of Judah’s wickedness

The nations can believe

And my beautiful promise

Through their judgment complete

(chorus)

With their own hands,

These people killed my children

Traded salvation for their death

Because of Judah’s sins

I will hand him over

To the gods he has whored himself with

To the gods he has whored himself with

 

Another Paper

This is another paper I wrote for American Heritage. It asks to analyze the arguments of the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists in terms of Montesquieu’s On the Spirit of Laws. And yes, the title is a pull from Plato.

 

Montesquieu’s Republic

The Tea Party views the Constitution as the very model of limited government and freedom. Ironically, when the Framers penned this document, many condemned it as oppressive and tyrannical. Much of the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists focused on Montesquieu’s On the Spirit of Laws. Anti-Federalists argue that a consolidated republic over such a large territory can only produce tyranny. The Federalists rejoin by challenging the Anti-Federalists interpretation of Montesquieu and arguing that an extensive republic is necessary to secure the right of its citizens. Only the Federalist position actually addresses the Constitution, making their arguments more persuasive.

Montesquieu’s definitive work on government, Of the Spirit of Laws, provided much of the ground for the Constitutional debate; both sides quoted it extensively. The Anti-Federalists summarize their Montequieuan arguments in “Letter of Brutus,” explicitly citing Montesquieu as justification for their general position. Although Montesquieu does not specifically make many of the arguments found in “Letter of Brutus,” the Anti-Federalists’ arguments are merely application of Montesquieu’s general principles specifically to the United States. Thus one may analyze the arguments in “Letters of Brutus” within the context of Montesquieu.

Quoting directly from Montesquieu, “Letter of Brutus” asserts a republic must be geographically small in order to secure its citizens’ rights. In a large republic, the will of the people cannot check governmental power; each person is little represented and the will of the people is obscured. Additionally, the multitude of interests within the country will governance impossible, for the interests of New Hampshire and Georgia are so opposed that their representatives can never work in harmony. When the public will is both unknowable to representatives and irreconcilable with other regions’ wills, the rich take control. Only the rich have the influence to gain access to their representatives and the wealth to advance their agenda. Tyranny is born when the rich use this access and influence to trample the liberty of the poor and “[begin] to think…that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country” (Montesquieu VIIII.16). In contrast to a large republic, the Anti-Federalists argue, a small republic allows each citizen to participate more closely in government, thus abuse is “of course…less protected.” (Montesquieu, VIIII.16)

“Letters to Brutus” argues that not only the United States as a whole, but the representative districts themselves are too large to maintain a republic. In a small republic, representatives often know their constituents personally, allowing those in power to accurately represent the will of the people. However, under the Constitution a representative’s district is so large that he could not possibly know the will of his electors. Thus the House cannot truly represent the people, and becomes tyrannical. The only remedy is to create make the House of Representatives so large it is unable to pass legislation. If this occurs, the public will cannot be upheld as the government ceases to function, creating anarchy.

Finally, “Letter of Brutus” argues that a republican government possesses insufficient coercive power, requiring despotic measures to enforce laws. When the common man stands so far away from the center of power he neither respects nor fears the federal government. He will never follow the law under such circumstances. The only remedy is threat of force through a standing army. At this point a nation becomes despotic and forfeits the distinctions of “republican” and “free.” Thus, without an energetic, despotic government the executive and legislative branches will fail, causing the failure of the republican government as a whole.

The Federalist first argues that the Constitution does not institute the kind of republican government Montesquieu argued against.  In Federalist 9 Alexander Hamilton asserts that Montesquieu assumes modern republics are essentially copies of the ancient republics. Hamilton readily admits that any “friends of liberty” (Federalist 9) agree the Roman style of republicanism fails to effectively govern a city, much less a nation. The Constitution, however, makes significant improvements upon the Roman and Greek models. Such institutions as the separation of powers, checks and balances, a separate judiciary, and direct election allow the government to check back against tyranny. Montesquieu did not take these factors into account, thus his arguments cannot be applied to the Constitution.

The Federalist further argues that the United States is not a true republic, but a federal republic. In a pure republic, all power is vested in one national, or central government and the state governments are subject to the national government in every respect. However, as Federalist 39 argues, under the Constitution the states are supreme in all but a few specifically defined areas. Additionally, the state governments can de facto control the federal government through the elections of Senators and the President. This is the great “double security” (Federalist 51), tyranny is avoided because the powerful state governments check back the already limited federal government.

Not only does the Constitutional government avoid the disadvantages of a large republic, but according to The Federalist it reaps the benefits of both a small republic and a large despotic state. The Constitution creates what Montesquieu defines as a confederated republic, or “an assemblage of societies” (Federalist 9) As long as those societies[1] maintain some degree of independence and are able to direct the course of the federal government, the extent of the federal government is of little consequence. Arguments against a consolidated republic do not apply to the federal government, while the advantages of a confederated government are realized. According to Montesquieu, such a republic avoids the threat of tyranny, corruption, and external takeover.

The Federalist further asserts the Anti-Federalist appeals to Montesquieu are fundamentally inconsistent. According to Montesquieu’s definition, the states are too to exist as republics. According to Montesquieu, Sparta was the ideal size for a republic. Every state is significantly larger than one Greek city-state. Thus for the sake of consistency Anti-Federalists must also be anti-state sovereignty. This inconsistency invalidates the Anti-Federalist alternative to the Constitution, which is the continuance of the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, according to the Anti-Federalists’ own logic, either alternative will fail.

The Federalist additionally argues that the multiplicity of interests will actually serve to check the power of the government, not bring tyranny as the Anti-Federalists claim. The United States contains such a diverse population that there are not merely two parties,[2] but many. Each of these parties constitutes a minority, and as Federalist 51 argues, the combination of these parties into one majority is extremely unlikely. Even if they were to combine, it is unlikely they could act as a unified force within the legislature. This is the great security inherent in a large federal republic.

Furthermore, even if a faction gained control of any particular part of the government, the very structure of the government prevents tyranny. Federalist 51 argues that the legislative branch is by far the most powerful and most fearsome of the three branches. The Constitution therefore divides the legislature into two separate houses, each with distinct responsibilities, yet powerless without the cooperation of the other. Thus, even if one of the houses became tyrannical, it could not dominate the government. Additionally, legislative power is checked by the executive because of Presidential veto. One party would have control every branch of government before tyranny could be instituted. Even then, the power of the states acts as a check on governmental power. It is therefore unlikely that a government bound by the Constitution would become tyrannical.

This debate cannot be adjudicated within the context of Montesquieu, for neither party accurately depicts Montesquieu’s arguments. The Anti-Federalists obviously contradict themselves in favoring state governments while citing Montesquieu in their attacks on the Constitution. This contradiction invalidates their Montesquieuan arguments, for their advocacy shifts to suit the situation. The Federalist position is likewise invalidated, because nowhere does Montesquieu provide a specific definition of a confederated government. The only definition given is so vague both the Constitution and Articles of Confederation meet it. Only The Federalist defines this term in such a way to provide any degree of specificity. The conflict of interest is self-evident; the reader must Montesquieuan arguments on both sides. The debate can only be adjudicated by the warrants given in “Letter of Brutus” and The Federalist.

The Federalist arguments are superior to those of the Anti-Federalists, for only the Federalist position addresses the Constitution proper. The Anti-Federalists incorrectly assume that the Constitution duplicates the Roman system of government. The separation of powers and the states’ power check federal authority. Furthermore, the multiplicity of interests assures the rich do not gain control of the government, while compromise assures Congress operates despite differing opinions. The Anti-Federalist position also forgets the character of the American people. Americans fought a prolonged war with England to free themselves from tyranny, and several revolts had occurred since the War in opposition to supposed tyranny. It is evident that, even if the Constitutional government became tyrannical, the people of the United States would check back such tyranny.

Montesquieu recognizes that liberty is not perpetual. He states that “Since all human things have an end, the State of which we speak will lose its liberty; it will perish” (XI.6). History shows that many of “Letter of Brutus’s” arguments have come about. However, despite this seeming failure of the Constitution, it must be remembered that the federal government has secured liberty for millions of people for over two hundred years. Additionally, even though many Anti-Federalist claims have come about, the United States is still one of the freest nations the world has ever seen. One cannot say the Constitution is tyrannical, for it provides for liberty at home and protection from threats abroad. Only the ideal government, Montesquieu argues, can produce such security.

---

[1] In the case of America, the states

[2] As often occurs in a small republic.

 

“Princess”

This is a song I wrote last year, found last night, rewrote today, and tomorrow will begin writing the music to. The original was based off a friend of mine going off to college. That was, of course, before I added verse 2 (the original was a lot different). This is basically what too often happens at college a person (in this case girl) who had always been a good, godly child growing up pretty much cuts loose once she leaves the house. The story is intentionally not finished—I didn’t want the cliché Facing the Giants/Fireproof happy ending, but I didn’t want to slam the door to reconciliation either. Anyways, without further introduction,

“Princess”

Verse 1

Nineteen years ago,

I saw you for the first time

I could not believe,

What was lying in front of me,

I don’t know where the time went off to,

But the day has come,

For you to leave the home you’ve known

Pre-chorus:

And it seems like it was yesterday,

That I held you in my arms

Chorus:

Oh little girl,

Make us proud!

Like I know you always will,

Oh little girl,

You should know

I’ll be standing right here,

When you come running home

Don’t forget

Your daddy loves you

Verse 2

Now the years go by,

I remember the little girl

That used to laugh and play

I wonder where she’s gone

My heart leaps every time the phone rings

Hoping the day has come

For you to come back to the home you’ve known

(Pre-chorus)

Oh little girl,

Remember me!

And the way that you were raised,

Oh little girl,

Always know

I’ll be standing right here,

If you come running home

Don’t forget

Your daddy loves you

Bridge:

And there’s so much that I wanted to say

That might have made a difference

Yeah there’s so much that I wanted to say

Did I miss my chances?

(musical interlude)

Oh God, just keep her safe!

(Pre-chorus)

Oh little girl,

Come back home!

Come let me see your face

Oh little girl,

You should know

I’ll be standing right here,

When you come running home

Don’t be afraid

No matter what you’ve done

Your daddy loves you

“You Stare Too Fixedly!”: Dante’s Lust and Redemption

It seems the only way I’m able to keep my post number up these days is to post my papers. Well this is a 7-pager that I wrote for my Rhetoric and Great Books class. I’m happy with it, considering I had three or so days to write it, run it through the ringer several times, write an annotated bibliography, and turn it in. My prof for this class is very staunchly Catholic, which is why I use a lot of Catholic vocabulary.

The Divine Comedy offends man’s pride like few other books in the literary tradition. Men do not enjoy being told their conduct damns them to Hell. Yet despite the Comedy’s grisly accounts of God’s wrath it paints a beautiful picture of God’s grace toward sinful man. The Divine Comedy uses the siren of lust to show that Dante is a sinner damned to hell, for this sin is so deeply engrained in his character that it overshadows his longing for God and nearly ends his divine mission. Purgatory shows God’s grace toward repentant sinners, reminding the reader of Divine grace.

The term lust in the Comedy means not simply becoming sexually aroused outside of marriage, but placing the love of women above the love of God. The central theme of the Comedy is misplaced love, in this case loving a good thing too much. The beauty of women in general, and Beatrice in particular, is a gift from God that man should enjoy—a fact which Dante would readily affirm (“Redemption of Beauty” 32-33). However, when man’s love for that beauty overshadows his love for God, the appreciation of beauty becomes lust. Lust may therefore be defined more broadly than simple sexual arousal; it is placing desire for women above desire for God. With this understanding of lust it is possible to analyze Dante’s misplaced love.

In order to analyze lust in the Inferno, it is necessary to understand that Dante’s life prior to The Divine Comedy exhibits misplaced love. Before writing the Comedy, Dante wrote mostly love poems about illicit affairs (Levine 337). Rather than celebrating God’s gift of sex and beauty within the bounds of Scripture, Dante chose to portray those gifts in a perverted form. His poems showed God’s blessings in the context of sin, taking gifts given to man and making them reprehensible to a holy God. Only a soul with misplaced love would abuse common grace by glorifying the use of God’s gifts for evil purposes. Dante[1] sees the consequences of this lust in the Inferno.

In canto 5, Dante not only observes the punishment to which his lust on earth damns him, but the damning effects his lust has on others. Upon passing Minos, Dante sees the souls being tortured for their lust:

That hellish cyclone that can never rest

Snatches the spirits in its driving whirl,

Whisks them about and beats and buffets them,

And when they fall before the ruined slope,

Ah then the shrieking, the laments, the cries!

Then they hurl curses at the power of God (5.31-39).

Dante’s misplaced love for women should damn him to this level. This by itself is significant to the story, for Dante is blatantly guilty of the very first sin which he encounters in hell. Additionally, he is guilty of enticing other men and women to commit adultery, thus placing them in hell. When Dante encounters Francesca and Paolo, Francesca informs him that the couple was reading about the love affair between Guinevere and Lancelot on that fateful night. As they read, they “went pale, as we caught each other’s glance” (5.132). When the couple read about the kiss between Guinevere and Lancelot, she tells Dante that “we did not read another page” (5.138). She goes on to tell Dante, “A pander was that author, and his book!” (5.137). While the author’s culpability can certainly be questioned, her indictment of the author indicts Dante as well. Dante’s poetry has likely caused many couples to fall just as the author caused Francesca and Paolo to fall. Thus, his obsession with women has acted as the vehicle by which men and women are damned to the second level of hell. This hearkens to the words of the Gospel of St. Luke, when Jesus states, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble” (New American Standard Bible, Luke 17:2). Thus, God may justly damn Dante to hell for two sins: Dante’s own lust and his enticing others to lust.

Not only is lust a flaw in Dante’s character, it is his greatest siren, for it is the only sin which nearly undoes his divine mission. In Canto 17 of Paradise, Caccuaguida commands Dante that, despite the Comedy’s inflammatory nature, he must “let everything you’ve seen be manifest” (17.28). Caccuaguida goes on to explain why, “if your words are sharp at the first taste, / they’ll leave behind a living nourishment / when they have been digested at the last” (17.130-133). Dante’s mission is one of salvation. As opposed to the destructive words of his past career, Dante’s Comedy will bring sinners to repentance. However, Dante’s great Siren brings this mission into danger. When Dante falls asleep in Purgatory, an ugly woman appears to him in a dream, but,

I stared at her, and as the sun gives strength

To the cold limbs made sluggish by the night,

So did my gave now straighten all her length

And form her tongue so she could speak aright,

All in a moment, and it brought the color

Love most desires into her pallid face. (19.10-15)

In the next lines this woman of Dante’s creation announces herself to be a Siren. While the term “siren” may represent any general temptation, the proper noun “Siren” alludes to the island of the Sirens in Homer’s Odyssey and thus represents Dante’s lust. In the Odyssey, giving into the Sirens’ call would have killed Odysseus; Dante’s surrender to the dream of the Siren would have the same result. She tells Dante to “grow used to me, / you rarely leave—so fully do I please!” (19.23-24). She desires to keep Dante trapped in his dream world, undoing his salvific mission. Dante only wakes up that night because “a blessed lady” (19.27) inspires Virgil to literally rip open the Siren’s chest, destroying the dream. Dante’s grant of power to the Siren and forgetfulness God show his lust is stronger than his desire for God.

Lust is so engrained in Dante’s soul that it is the only sin of which he must be cleansed before entering into Paradise. Of the seven deadly sins, the Comedy only recognizes two which Dante must endure punishment. In canto 13, Dante says to Sapia, “As for the torment on [the ring of pride], / far more’s the fear that makes my spirit tense— / already I feel the burden on my back” (Dante, 13.136-139). He openly confesses his pride and his need to spend several years bearing heavy loads. But that punishment is in the future; he does not have to endure that torment during life.

In contrast with pride, Dante must be cleansed of his lust while still alive, which reveals his lust is even greater than his pride. At the gates of heaven an angel tells Dante, “‘Holy souls, you pass no farther on / unless you’re bitten by the fire. Come, enter, / and turn no deaf ear to the hymns beyond” (Dante, 27.12). Lustful souls must pass through the fire to be cleansed. Additionally, the lustful hear “‘How blest are they, the pure in heart’” (Dante, 27.8) as they pass through the flames. Dante too must listen, for this is the hymn which the angel commands him to take note of. Therefore, this must be punishment for his lust. Lust is the only sin which keeps him from God, for it is the only sin of which he must be purged. Thus, according to the doctrine of Purgatory, lust must be the most significant sin in Dante’s life.

As Dante passes through the fires of Purgatory, he proves that he desires to be with Beatrice, the woman he loves, more than he desires to be with God. When Dante hesitates to walk through the fire, Virgil prods him, “Son, look now, / what’s keeping you from Beatrice is this wall” (Inferno, 27.35-36). Virgil does not use God to lure Dante into the flames, but rather Dante’s lustful desire for Beatrice. After Virgil informs Dante that Beatrice is waiting, Dante walks into the flames. As he feels the flames, envelope him, Virgil calls out, “I think I can already see her eyes” (Inferno 27.54). Once again it is not the glory of God which inspires Dante, but the knowledge that Beatrice is close. Dante’s lust is so blatant that he prizes God’s creation above God himself; Dante makes his own depravity manifest as he is being purged of his sin.

Despite Dante’s great wickedness, because of his repentance God extends mercy to him. In canto 31, Dante he weeps before Beatrice and repents of his sin, “Things of their passing day, / when once your face was hidden from my sight— / their lying pleasures turned my steps away” (31.35-36). Beatrice scolds Dante for his sins, but he is lead to the banks of the Lethe. There Matilda baptizes him in the stream’s waters, where Dante exults, “I had been washed clean” (17.103). This is the first time Dante repents of his sins, and in this moment he finally feels the grace of God. This echoes the book of 1 John, “If we repent of our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (New American Standard Bible, 1 John 1:9). Despite Dante’s great crime, the very God which Dante has rejected in favor of Beatrice has forgiven the pilgrim.

Dante never loses his affection for Beatrice, but he does prove that his love has become rightly ordered in Paradise. Beatrice’s beauty is a gift which Dante should enjoy, but in Purgatory Dante allows that enjoyment to overshadow his longing for God.  On the level of the Sun, Dante becomes so enthralled in the worship of God that he says that, “I gave my love to Him so utterly, / Beatrice was forgotten in the eclipse” (10.59-60). This is the ultimate proof of Dante’s sanctification; he gives his soul to God so utterly that the sirens of this world become completely insignificant. Here in Paradise Dante proves his repentance; he puts Beatrice out of his mind in order to worship the One who saved him.

Dante’s salvation reminds the reader of God’s grace to repentant sinners. Dante states in the opening of Paradise, “I have been in…heaven” (1.4). St. Paul is the only other human who has entered heaven while still alive. This line creates a direct comparison between the Paul and Dante. However, this comparison also allows us to examine Dante in light of Paul’s confession in 1 Timothy, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst” (New American Standard Bible, 1 Timothy 1:15). Paul killed Christians for his livelihood; Dante’s livelihood caused people to be tormented in Hell for all eternity. Dante too may be called the greatest of sinners. When Dante repents from his sins in Canto 31 he is allowed to cross the waters of Lethe, thus washing away the guilt and remembrance of his sins. Like Paul, Dante is then allowed to see God’s all-surpassing glory while yet living. The message to the reader is plain: If God will pardon Dante and Paul, both Dante and Paul—the greatest of sinners—He will forgive all who truly repent and believe.

In addition to showing men their flaws and God’s grace, the Comedy shows the careful reader that God sanctifies the deeds of men. As noted before, Dante’s poetry previous to the Comedy has damned people to hell. After Dante’s repentance Caccuaguida tells him that his poetry will bring salvation. God, through the cleansing work of His Son, has not only regenerated Dante’s soul, but his writings as well. This is the essence of sanctification; when one is regenerated through Christ the redemption of his soul will be manifested by the reformation of deeds. As James says, “‘…show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works’” (New American Standard Bible, James 2:18). Whenever God saves a human soul the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit will transform the works of that soul to bring glory to God. Dante richly experiences this sanctification; through his repentance and God’s grace his works have been regenerated.

The tale of Dante Alighieri in The Divine Comedy is one of sin and repentance. Throughout the poem Dante repeatedly reveals that he places his desire for women above his desire to God, damning both himself and others. So great is this lust that he puts his own salvation in jeopardy through creating the Siren. He further spurns God by allowing Beatrice, not God, to inspire him to pass through the flames in Purgatory. He is indeed a great sinner, spurning God in favor of a perverted form of His gifts. But Dante repents, and with that repentance God’s grace and forgiveness is made manifest. The message is clear—God forgives. The only way to “self-realization” and sanctification is through repentance and belief in the saving grace of God. Dante invites the reader to join him in desiring God above all else, to repent and believe in the blood of Christ for the washing of sins,

---

[1] It is at this point that it becomes necessary to distinguish between the character Dante and the author Dante. “Dante” refers to the character unless otherwise noted.

“Accidental Arrogance”

I wrote this over the summer and never got around to posting it. I was reminded of it during a discussion about Christ redeeming every culture. Please enjoy.

I remember attending a speech and debate tournament at a major fundamentalist Christian university my senior year. In preparation for the tournament I read the student code, since NCFCAers were generally expected to follow them. One of the rules was that no music CDs (or MP3s) were allowed except classical, hymns, or “New Age” instrumental. The rest is an evil perversion of music. Steven Curtis Chapman was specifically banned. Rock and rap music, even Christian rock and rap, is worldly and to be avoided.

I’ve written papers, journal entries, and had conversations about how the Bible mentions using both early guitars and drums in worship, while piano is only mentioned by a technicality in instrument classification. And that’s a persuasive argument, but its hardly convicting. There had to be some reason why rejecting certain forms of Christian music (and thus other Christian “cultures”) is wrong. Through a long conversation with my campus minister at UNL and a Bible study I did last year, I finally found the answer. It’s accidental arrogance.

What is the assumption behind saying that Christian rock is evil, while hymns are ok? The assumption is that one culture is inherently better than the other. It says to the Christian rock musicians and rappers that, because I am not comfortable with the way you act and dress, and because from my perspective, my life is more godly than yours, rock must be wrong. Because I don’t wear baggy T-shirts, have necklaces or tattoos, and wear a baseball hat with the bill facing forward and bent; because I don’t look like a gangster, you must be of the world and I am not.

One of the beauties of Christ’s love is that He redeems every culture. Everything from the hip hop scene to politicians in Washington to modern-day Pharisees who have grown up in the church but never understood the Gospel. Paul even said he became all things to all people. He did not compromise his Gospel message, but he would act like a Greek, dress like a Greek, and talk like a Greek when he was around Greeks. He would become a Jew around Jews. In today’s culture, he became a gangster around gangsters, factory workers around factory workers, and a philosopher around the philosophers. Every culture needs the message, and, before Christ, every culture is just as sinful. The gangster is just as evil as the hypocritical Pharisee in the church pew. God calls people from every walk of life.

One of my favorite pastors, Paul Washer, said this before a group of Christian rappers at a Christian rap convention:

“I am not prone to flattery. I believe flattery is a…dark sin that does no good to the hearer. But I have met men [here]…that do not so much have a passion for a style of music, but a passion for God and the truth of God …Some of the words that I heard spoken here in the songs were truth. The type of truth this…world needs…Yesterday and today, I saw the same thing happen to a music form that He did with my life. He has taken it, cleaned it off, made it new, and filled it with life…I stayed up last night until almost three in the morning with a group of men and I was absolutely amazed…Lord, what a privilege it was for me to be in the midst of a group of young men that you’re raising up that believe the Ancient Ways! Now if Jonathan Edwards were to…see some of these guys he would probably be afraid, but they’re saying the exact same truth. And they’re speaking to a people that Spurgeon could not reach, and Edwards could not reach, that Whitfield could not reach. I applaud what is being done here.”

Is it not arrogant to reject an entire culture of Christianity because it happens to act and dress in a way you aren’t comfortable with? Every Christian culture looks like the world in one way or another. The Christian fundamentalist movement just happens to look like the world about sixty years ago. The Amish look like the world about five hundred years ago. The real test is if that Christian culture maintains its Christianity within the culture it falls. When asked about this, Trip Lee (one of the foremost reformed Christian rappers), said,

“I think its ok for us to dress like [the hip hop culture], to talk like it. But then with hip hop you get a lot of boasting and a lot of in-your-face raw, ‘I’m sinful, and I love it and you should do it too.’ And at that point we drop it off…that’s not why I touch the mic, to tell people I’m nice [on the mic]. I want Jesus Christ exalted. But, yeah, stuff like that we have to drop off. Embrace the parts of the culture that are neutral. The dress, the talk, the style, this stuff is neutral, just like the American culture is neutral. And you have to drop off everything else and embrace biblical values that’s counter-cultural. And, you have to match up everything with the Word and try to live accordingly.”

Once you get past the grammar of his statement, you will see that Trip Lee (and the others in the “Holy Hip Hop” movement) understands what Paul meant when he said to be in the world, but not of the world.