Nov 12 - Ms. Troy
said: Hey, if nothing else, the fact that Barack is something of a folk hero with a religious following will be a nice change from the low low low popularity of G-Dub, right?
Nov 4 - John K.
said: Money-changers in the temple, right? Don't worry though, Obama's fashioning his whip of cords. I read an interesting article concerning Alan Greenspan's regrets. Hearing someone of that consequence outline his failures, namely his misplaced faith in the economic system he oversaw/facilitated/perpetuated is one of the scarier things I've come across in recent news. Well, perhaps not. I draw this headline from the CNN home-page as of November 3rd: "mouse found cooked in hot-dog bun." Come Lord Jesus.
Sep 12 - bobby
said: Cindy McCain's battle against prescription drug addiction has been part of her public speaking points for years, but a deeper investigation reveals the far-reaching consequences of her actions washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103928.html
Sep 10 - pitfighter
said: Hello good day
Sep 10 - dogkill
said: i'm fine good work
Aug 10 - ryan
said: 1) I'll grant you that there are plenty of people who believe that they can and do speak for "the public interest" or "the common good." But I would assert that such a claim entails the more problematic claim of the right and ability to define what those are for everyone else. Which is basically an assertion of power, not of altruism. So saying "This is in the public interest" is incoherent unless it is understood as "This is what I want."
2) From there, I'd answer your second point along the same lines. "Interests," in Bentley's terms, or at least as far as I understand them from what Lemann presents of them," don't have quite the economic flavor you're suggesting. I think it means more "Things people are interested in," i.e. "care about," which should head off some of your concerns about the dehumanizing aspects of Bentley. Particularly as Bentley recognizes that not all interests are economic; indeed, there are plenty of people who have non-economic interests that they regularly champion in politics. This is, in a sense, "what goes on in peoples' heads, hearts, and mouths," but you can draw a distinction between that and ideology. The former is people acting based on their chosen interests; those interests may coalesce into more-or-less coherent platforms, but that's beside the point. Platforms, remember, are assembled not because they represent the pure, shining future for humanity, but they are assembled, plank by plank, in order to bring together sufficient numbers of people to wield political clout. They are essentially compromises. Ideologues, on the other hand, are essentially people who have interests but won't compromise to get them done.
3) Saturday. Everything ready?
Government is a shared myth. When the myth dies, government dies. --Frank Herbert
Politics and law [are] not paths to grace and faith, but grace and faith [remain] paths to right politics and right law. The Christian [is] supposed to be law-abiding, and the law of a Christian prince [is] supposed to achieve both order and justice. Law [is] supposed to induce people to avoid evil, to cooperate, and to serve the community. The Christian [is] not to think that by doing good he [can] earn credits in heaven; nevertheless, he [is] to use his will and reason - with full consciousness of their defective nature - to do as much good as God as made possible. --Harold J. Berman
"To do the good and reject the evil from a reasoned insight into their respective natures is a noble thing, but it is a still nobler thing to do so out of regard for the nature of God, and the noblest thing of all is the ethical strength, which, when required, will act from personal attachment to God, without for the moment enquiring into these more abstruse reasons. The pure delight in obedience adds to the ethical value of a choice."
-- Geerhardus Vos
