In reading about the plane crash today in New York in which 50 people lost there lives, I was reminded of a speech by Claudio R M. Costa, Don't Leave for Tomorrow What You can Do Today. He quotes a a text, entitled "Tomorrow Never Comes," based on a poem by Norma Cornett Marek. In July, 2007 Brazil saw its most devastating plane crash in its history in which 199 people died. The husband of one of the deceased flight attendants posted this poem on the airline communications board:
"If I knew this would be the last time I would watch you sleep,
I would hug you tighter. I would plead with the Lord to protect you.
If I knew this would be the last time I saw you walk out the door,
I would hug and kiss you and call you back to hug and kiss you one more time.
If I knew this would be the last time I would hear your voice in prayer,
I would record every gesture, every look, every smile, every one of your words,
So that I could listen to it later, day after day.
If I knew this would be the last time,
I would spend an extra minute or two to tell you, "I love you," instead of assuming you already knew it.
If I knew this would be our last time, our last moment,
I would be by your side, spending the day with you instead of thinking,
"Well, I'm sure other opportunities will come, so I can let this day go by."
Of course there will be a day to revise things,
And we would have a second chance to do things right.
Oh, of course there will be another day for us to say, "I love you."
And certainly there will be another chance to tell each other, "Can I help with anything?"
But in my case, there isn't one!
I don't have you here with me, and today is the last day we have—our farewell.
Therefore I would like to say how much I love you,
And I hope you never forget it.
Tomorrow is not promised to anyone, young or old.
Today might be your last chance to hold tight to the hand of the one you love and show all you feel.
If you are waiting for tomorrow, why not do it today?
Because if tomorrow never comes, you certainly will regret for the rest of your life
Not having spent some extra time for a smile, a conversation, a hug, a kiss,
Because you were too busy to give that person what ended up being their last wish.
Then hug tight today the one you love, your friends, your family, and whisper in their ears how much you love them and want them close to you.
Use your time to say,
'I'm sorry,'
'Please,'
'Forgive me,'
'Thank you,'
Or even,
'That was nothing,'
'It's all right,'
Because if tomorrow never comes, you will not have to regret today.
The past doesn't come back, and the future might not come!"
The poem makes an excellent point. I think we can all make a better effort to show our love towards those we care about, and considering how extremely fragile life is, there really is no better time to start than right now.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Altruist in Politics
As I mentioned previously in this blog, I love the writings of Benjamin N. Cardozo. I just had to post some excerpts from a commencement speech he gave at Columbia University in 1889 in which he argues against the altruist in politics:
"There comes not seldom a crisis in the life of men, of nations, and of worlds, when the old forms seem ready to decay, and the old rules of action have lost their binding force. The evils of existing systems obscure the blessings that attend them; and, where reform is needed, the cry is raised for subversion. The cause of such phenomena is not far to seek. 'It used to appear to me,' writes Count Tolstoi, in a significant passage, 'it used to appear to me that the small number of cultivated, rich and idle men, of whom I was one, composed the whole of humanity, and that the millions and millions of other men who had lived and are still living were not in reality men at all.' It is this spirit—the spirit that sees the whole of humanity in the few, and throws into the background the millions and millions of other men—it is this spirit that has aroused the antagonism of reformers, and made the decay of the old forms, the rupture of the old restrictions, the ideal of them and of their followers. When wealth and poverty meet each other face to face, the one the master and the other the dependent, the one exalted and the other debased, it is perhaps hardly matter for surprise that the dependent and debased and powerless faction, in envy of their opponents' supremacy, should demand, not simple reform, but absolute community and equality of wealth. That cry for communism is no new one in the history of mankind. Thousands of years ago it was heard and acted on; and, in the lapse of centuries, its reverberations have but swelled in volume. Again and again, the altruist has arisen in politics, has bidden us share with others the product of our toil, and has proclaimed the communistic dogma as the panacea for our social ills. So today, amid the buried hopes and buried projects of the past, the doctrine of communism still lives in the minds of men. Under stress of misfortune, or in dread of tyranny, it is still preached in modern times as Plato preached it in the world of the Greeks.
Yet it is indeed doubtful whether, in the history of mankind, a doctrine was ever taught more impracticable or more false to the principles it professes than this very doctrine of communism. In a world where self-interest is avowedly the ruling motive, it seeks to establish at once an all-reaching and all-controlling altruism. In a world where every man is pushing and fighting to outstrip his fellows, it would make him toil with like vigor for their common welfare. In a world where a man's activity is measured by the nearness of reward, it would hold up a prospective recompense as an equal stimulant to labor. 'The more bitterly we feel,' writes George Eliot, 'the more bitterly we feel the folly, ignorance, neglect, or self-seeking of those who at different times have wielded power, the stronger is the obligation we lay on ourselves to beware lest we also, by a too hasty wresting of measures which seem to promise immediate relief, make a worse time of it for our own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for our children.' In the future, when the remoteness of his reward shall have weakened the laborer's zeal, we shall be able to judge more fairly of the blessings that the communist offers. Instead of the present world, where some at least are well-to-do and happy, the communist holds before us a world where all alike are poor. For the activity, the push, the vigor of our modern life, his substitute is a life aimless and unbroken. And so we have to say to communists what George Eliot might have said: Be not blinded by the passions of the moment, but when you prate about your own wrongs and the sufferings of your offspring, take heed lest in the long run you make a worse time of it for your own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for your children.
Little thought has been taken by these altruistic reformers for the application of the doctrines they uphold. To the question how one kind of labor can be measured against another, how the labor of the artisan can be measured against the labor of the artist, how the labor of the strong can be measured against the labor of the weak, the communists can give no answer. Absorbed, as they are, in the principle of equality, they have still forgotten the equality of work in the equality of pay; they have forgotten that reward, to be really equal, must be proportionate to effort; and they and all socialists have forgotten that we cannot make an arithmetic of human thought and feeling; and that for all our crude attempts to balance recompense against toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative severity of different kinds of toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative strain on different persons of the same kind of toil, yet not only will the ratio, dealing, as it does, with our subjective feelings, be a blundering one, but a system based upon it will involve inequalities greater, because more insidious, than those of the present system it would discard.
…
And yet, granting that communism were practicable … the doctrine still embodies evils that must make it forever inexpedient. … It is the refutation alike of communism and socialism that they thwart the instinct of expansion; that they substitute for individual energy the energy of the government; that they substitute for human personality the blind, mechanical power of the State. The one system, as the other, marks the end of individualism. The one system, as the other, would make each man the image of his neighbor. The one system, as the other, would hold back the progressive, and, by uniformity of reward, gain uniformity of type.
…
In almost every phase of life, this doctrine of political altruists is equally impracticable and pernicious. In its social results, it involves the substitution of the community in the family's present position. In its political aspects, it involves the absolute dominion of the State over the actions and property of its subjects. Thus, though claiming to be an exaltation of the so-called natural rights of liberty and equality, it is in reality their emphatic debasement. It teaches that thoughtless docility is a recompense for stunted enterprise. It magnifies material good at the cost of every rational endowment. It inculcates a self-denial that must result in dwarfing the individual to a mere instrument in the hands of the State for the benefit of his fellows. No such organization of society—no organization that fails to take note of the fact that man must have scope for the exercise and development of his faculties—no such organization of society can ever reach a permanent success. However beneficent its motives, the hypothesis with which it starts can never be realized. …" (you can read the entire speech here)
"There comes not seldom a crisis in the life of men, of nations, and of worlds, when the old forms seem ready to decay, and the old rules of action have lost their binding force. The evils of existing systems obscure the blessings that attend them; and, where reform is needed, the cry is raised for subversion. The cause of such phenomena is not far to seek. 'It used to appear to me,' writes Count Tolstoi, in a significant passage, 'it used to appear to me that the small number of cultivated, rich and idle men, of whom I was one, composed the whole of humanity, and that the millions and millions of other men who had lived and are still living were not in reality men at all.' It is this spirit—the spirit that sees the whole of humanity in the few, and throws into the background the millions and millions of other men—it is this spirit that has aroused the antagonism of reformers, and made the decay of the old forms, the rupture of the old restrictions, the ideal of them and of their followers. When wealth and poverty meet each other face to face, the one the master and the other the dependent, the one exalted and the other debased, it is perhaps hardly matter for surprise that the dependent and debased and powerless faction, in envy of their opponents' supremacy, should demand, not simple reform, but absolute community and equality of wealth. That cry for communism is no new one in the history of mankind. Thousands of years ago it was heard and acted on; and, in the lapse of centuries, its reverberations have but swelled in volume. Again and again, the altruist has arisen in politics, has bidden us share with others the product of our toil, and has proclaimed the communistic dogma as the panacea for our social ills. So today, amid the buried hopes and buried projects of the past, the doctrine of communism still lives in the minds of men. Under stress of misfortune, or in dread of tyranny, it is still preached in modern times as Plato preached it in the world of the Greeks.
Yet it is indeed doubtful whether, in the history of mankind, a doctrine was ever taught more impracticable or more false to the principles it professes than this very doctrine of communism. In a world where self-interest is avowedly the ruling motive, it seeks to establish at once an all-reaching and all-controlling altruism. In a world where every man is pushing and fighting to outstrip his fellows, it would make him toil with like vigor for their common welfare. In a world where a man's activity is measured by the nearness of reward, it would hold up a prospective recompense as an equal stimulant to labor. 'The more bitterly we feel,' writes George Eliot, 'the more bitterly we feel the folly, ignorance, neglect, or self-seeking of those who at different times have wielded power, the stronger is the obligation we lay on ourselves to beware lest we also, by a too hasty wresting of measures which seem to promise immediate relief, make a worse time of it for our own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for our children.' In the future, when the remoteness of his reward shall have weakened the laborer's zeal, we shall be able to judge more fairly of the blessings that the communist offers. Instead of the present world, where some at least are well-to-do and happy, the communist holds before us a world where all alike are poor. For the activity, the push, the vigor of our modern life, his substitute is a life aimless and unbroken. And so we have to say to communists what George Eliot might have said: Be not blinded by the passions of the moment, but when you prate about your own wrongs and the sufferings of your offspring, take heed lest in the long run you make a worse time of it for your own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for your children.
Little thought has been taken by these altruistic reformers for the application of the doctrines they uphold. To the question how one kind of labor can be measured against another, how the labor of the artisan can be measured against the labor of the artist, how the labor of the strong can be measured against the labor of the weak, the communists can give no answer. Absorbed, as they are, in the principle of equality, they have still forgotten the equality of work in the equality of pay; they have forgotten that reward, to be really equal, must be proportionate to effort; and they and all socialists have forgotten that we cannot make an arithmetic of human thought and feeling; and that for all our crude attempts to balance recompense against toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative severity of different kinds of toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative strain on different persons of the same kind of toil, yet not only will the ratio, dealing, as it does, with our subjective feelings, be a blundering one, but a system based upon it will involve inequalities greater, because more insidious, than those of the present system it would discard.
…
And yet, granting that communism were practicable … the doctrine still embodies evils that must make it forever inexpedient. … It is the refutation alike of communism and socialism that they thwart the instinct of expansion; that they substitute for individual energy the energy of the government; that they substitute for human personality the blind, mechanical power of the State. The one system, as the other, marks the end of individualism. The one system, as the other, would make each man the image of his neighbor. The one system, as the other, would hold back the progressive, and, by uniformity of reward, gain uniformity of type.
…
In almost every phase of life, this doctrine of political altruists is equally impracticable and pernicious. In its social results, it involves the substitution of the community in the family's present position. In its political aspects, it involves the absolute dominion of the State over the actions and property of its subjects. Thus, though claiming to be an exaltation of the so-called natural rights of liberty and equality, it is in reality their emphatic debasement. It teaches that thoughtless docility is a recompense for stunted enterprise. It magnifies material good at the cost of every rational endowment. It inculcates a self-denial that must result in dwarfing the individual to a mere instrument in the hands of the State for the benefit of his fellows. No such organization of society—no organization that fails to take note of the fact that man must have scope for the exercise and development of his faculties—no such organization of society can ever reach a permanent success. However beneficent its motives, the hypothesis with which it starts can never be realized. …" (you can read the entire speech here)
Religion's Place in Government
I liked the following observation by Neal A. Maxwell (1978) which I thought was very applicable to us today:
"We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.
M. J. Sobran wrote recently:
'The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law "respecting" the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge "the free exercise" of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …
'What the secularists are increasingly demanding ... is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.' (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)
M. J. Sobran also said, 'A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus...' (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).
...
This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.
...
Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church." (Neal A. Maxwell, “A More Determined Discipleship,” Ensign, Feb 1979, 69–73)
"We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.
M. J. Sobran wrote recently:
'The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law "respecting" the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge "the free exercise" of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …
'What the secularists are increasingly demanding ... is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.' (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)
M. J. Sobran also said, 'A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus...' (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).
...
This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.
...
Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church." (Neal A. Maxwell, “A More Determined Discipleship,” Ensign, Feb 1979, 69–73)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
A Plodding Mediocrity
Of himself, Benjamin N. Cardozo stated the following:
"In truth, I am nothing but a plodding mediocrity--please observe, a plodding mediocrity--for a mere mediocrity does not go very far, but a plodding one gets quite a distance. There is joy in that success, and a distinction can come from courage, fidelity and industry."
Every law student knows of Justice Cardozo. He has written some of the most famous legal opinions of the past century. I love reading his opinions! Not only are his arguments extremely sound, they are expressed in style that in unparalleled. One historian describes his work this way: "His style is unmistakable: limpid clarity, conciseness suffused with a moral almost spiritual luminosity, and a command of historical material that is unrivaled in the entire common-law tradition. The beauty of his prose must be rated with those of the Greek and Roman classicists whose works he read in the original language for his own pleasure." Another historian stated, "Except for Holmes himself, Justice Cardozo was the preeminent judge of the first half of the twentieth century. Indeed, Cardozo was the outstanding common-law jurist of the twentieth century."
Today I came across that comment Justice Cardozo made about himself, and I really liked it because it helped give me hope as a law student. After having received countless rejections this past semester after applying for legal internships, I've realized it does take some effort not to be discouraged. In this competitive law school culture, it's easy to fall into the trap of measuring your self-worth by your grades, your class ranking, whether you made the law review, your job offers, etc . . . In fact studies have shown that a significant number of law students go through some type of depression or anxiety disorders. Luckily for me, I haven't had to deal with any of these problems. I have my family to keep me from studying too much and to help me have balance in my life while going through school. I'm sure thankful for Sara and Mason and especially for all of Sara's support.
I think "plodding along" as a mediocrity would be a good phrase to describe how I feel sometimes as a student. I know I won't be the next rock star of the legal community, but I know how to work hard, and I know that if I continue to be diligent my "courage, fidelity and industry" will someday payoff.
"In truth, I am nothing but a plodding mediocrity--please observe, a plodding mediocrity--for a mere mediocrity does not go very far, but a plodding one gets quite a distance. There is joy in that success, and a distinction can come from courage, fidelity and industry."
Every law student knows of Justice Cardozo. He has written some of the most famous legal opinions of the past century. I love reading his opinions! Not only are his arguments extremely sound, they are expressed in style that in unparalleled. One historian describes his work this way: "His style is unmistakable: limpid clarity, conciseness suffused with a moral almost spiritual luminosity, and a command of historical material that is unrivaled in the entire common-law tradition. The beauty of his prose must be rated with those of the Greek and Roman classicists whose works he read in the original language for his own pleasure." Another historian stated, "Except for Holmes himself, Justice Cardozo was the preeminent judge of the first half of the twentieth century. Indeed, Cardozo was the outstanding common-law jurist of the twentieth century."
Today I came across that comment Justice Cardozo made about himself, and I really liked it because it helped give me hope as a law student. After having received countless rejections this past semester after applying for legal internships, I've realized it does take some effort not to be discouraged. In this competitive law school culture, it's easy to fall into the trap of measuring your self-worth by your grades, your class ranking, whether you made the law review, your job offers, etc . . . In fact studies have shown that a significant number of law students go through some type of depression or anxiety disorders. Luckily for me, I haven't had to deal with any of these problems. I have my family to keep me from studying too much and to help me have balance in my life while going through school. I'm sure thankful for Sara and Mason and especially for all of Sara's support.
I think "plodding along" as a mediocrity would be a good phrase to describe how I feel sometimes as a student. I know I won't be the next rock star of the legal community, but I know how to work hard, and I know that if I continue to be diligent my "courage, fidelity and industry" will someday payoff.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bush's Legacy and Obama's Incoming Administration
This morning I read the following article in The Economist:
Renewing America | George Bush has left a dismal legacy but Barack Obama can do much to repair the damage I thought it was a great article and that it did an excellent job of contrasting the previous administration's performance with what we might see with the Mr. Obama's. It's not that long, but if you don't have time to read it, the following argument in the article is something to think about:
"[A] president who understands, as Mr Bush did not, that America is not the uncontested hyperpower of the 1990s—one who values "soft power" more than the hard version—will be a change for the better. . . .
Mr Bush (see article) had a simplistic tendency to see the world through ideological and partisan spectacles. He hung on to bad advisers for longer than he should have; he divided the world too often into good and evil; and he plotted to establish a Republican hegemony although he had sold himself to the electorate as bipartisan. In economic matters, he was too prone to sacrifice the long-term good for short-term gain. He seemed curiously incurious about vital details, such as the conduct of the war in Iraq."
Well, I'd better get back to studying. Although I don't agree with everything I read in The Economist (its stance on gay marriage, for example), I think it's a fantastic newspaper and highly recommend it--very readable and very insightful. This British newspaper describes itself in the following manner (the author(s) of every article are intentionally kept anonymous):
"What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position.' That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage."
Renewing America | George Bush has left a dismal legacy but Barack Obama can do much to repair the damage I thought it was a great article and that it did an excellent job of contrasting the previous administration's performance with what we might see with the Mr. Obama's. It's not that long, but if you don't have time to read it, the following argument in the article is something to think about:
"[A] president who understands, as Mr Bush did not, that America is not the uncontested hyperpower of the 1990s—one who values "soft power" more than the hard version—will be a change for the better. . . .
Mr Bush (see article) had a simplistic tendency to see the world through ideological and partisan spectacles. He hung on to bad advisers for longer than he should have; he divided the world too often into good and evil; and he plotted to establish a Republican hegemony although he had sold himself to the electorate as bipartisan. In economic matters, he was too prone to sacrifice the long-term good for short-term gain. He seemed curiously incurious about vital details, such as the conduct of the war in Iraq."
Well, I'd better get back to studying. Although I don't agree with everything I read in The Economist (its stance on gay marriage, for example), I think it's a fantastic newspaper and highly recommend it--very readable and very insightful. This British newspaper describes itself in the following manner (the author(s) of every article are intentionally kept anonymous):
"What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position.' That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage."
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Media, Morals, and Politicians
I found it surprising how much media attention was given to the most recent scandal concerning the governor of
Concerning President George Washington, it has been said "in all history few men who possessed unassailable power have used that power so gently and self-effacingly for what their best instincts told them was the welfare of their neighbors and all mankind" (
Although some argue that a politician's private moral choices should be completely separate from his public political choices, I have a hard time trusting a politician's loyalty to the general public when he cannot be loyal to his own wife. The Lord certainly will not turn a blind eye to bad moral choices, public or private. Indeed, "there is not an indoor and an outdoor set of Ten Commandments" (Maxwell, The Prohibitive Costs of a Value-free Society, 1978)
As Edmund Burke warned, “… society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more of it there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (Leo Rosten, A Trumpet for Reason, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1970.)
Sunday, March 9, 2008
On the Gradual Normalization of Abberration
"Instead of being communicating neighbors, we are flooded with talk shows, some of which feature not real conversation but exhibitionism and verbal voyeurism among virtual strangers.
We are lathered with soap operas in need of nothing so much as soap—for the scrubbing of themselves! Some seriously maintain that media violence and sleaze leave consumers untouched. But revenue is received from commercials precisely because of their influence. Either we deserve reforms, or sponsors deserve refunds! . . .
Even with its flaws, the family is basic, and since no other institution can compensate fully for failure in the family, why then, instead of enhancing the family, the desperate search for substitutes? Why not require family impact studies before proceeding with this program or that remedy, since of all environmental concerns the family should be first? Hundreds of governmental departments and programs protect various interests, but which one protects the family? . . .
Only reform and self-restraint, institutional and individual, can finally rescue society! Only a sufficient number of sin-resistant souls can change the marketplace. As Church members, we should be part of that sin-resistant counterculture.
Instead, too many members are sliding down the slope, though perhaps at a slower pace."
--Neal A. Maxwell, "Behold, the Enemy is Combined" (1993).
I really liked the point he made about families and the importance of being cautious about what we allow to influence us (or what we expose ourselves to, thinking it cannot influence us). Many of the world's arguments for undermining the family, moral values, and religion are blatantly obvious, but at other times they can be very subtle and even more persuasive. For me, I sometimes like to take a look at my attitudes to see which of the world's "philosophies" I've knowingly or unknowingly bought into.
Sara and I have recently stopped watching a show that we really liked for the most part, but that undermined some of our basic values, in obvious ways and also in subtle ways. Not only am I beginning to find such messages even more offensive, but I've also come to the conclusion that with the precious limited time I have to spend on this earth, I just don't have time to expose myself to things that may lead me to forget, or at least undervalue, what's most important in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
