Uncategorized
« Previous EntriesArticle Summary
- Are Attacks on Food Convoys in Haiti Due to WFP Policy of Women-Only Food Aid? [2010-Feb-26]
- All good things come to an end [2010-Jan-13]
- HAPPY NEW YEAR! [2010-Jan-1]
- Merry Christmas to All! [2009-Dec-24]
- A new direction for Novaseeker [2009-Nov-30]
- Thanksgiving 2009 [2009-Nov-28]
- Happy Thanksgiving! [2009-Nov-26]
- Religion and Man Post [2009-Nov-22]
- A worthy link on Harriet Harperson’s shameless manipulation of the facts in the UK [2009-Nov-8]
- Men Wising Up: Exhibit A … Gavin Mcinnes [2009-Oct-26]
- « Previous Articles
Are Attacks on Food Convoys in Haiti Due to WFP Policy of Women-Only Food Aid?
Friday, February 26th, 2010
By Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized [source]
Not long ago, I wrote about the policy of the World Food Program that is coordinating food distribution in Haiti. The WFP's announced policy is to distribute coupons redeemable for food aid only to women and to men who can in some way prove that they are heads of households, i.e. they're single or don't have a living wife or mother. How men are expected to prove such a thing remains a mystery, particularly amid the post-earthquake chaos that reigns in the island nation.
Despite United States embassy statements to the contrary, it appears that, some six weeks after the quake, distribution of aid is proving to be haphazard at best. For example, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that some 3 million Haitians are in need of aid, and of those, about 2 million need regular food aid. But of those, about half have little or no access to food. Haitians have reported that much food has remained in dockside warehouses so long it's become rotten and unfit for consumption.
Obviously, the task of aiding the needy in Haiti, whose basic infrastructure was never very good and is now barely there at all, is daunting. Aid organizations and workers should be commended for their efforts under the most trying of circumstances.
But on January 30, a food convoy was attacked by men and had to be beaten back by the Haitian military personnel. On February 3 there was a food protest in Petionville which is a suburb of Port-au-Prince. And last Monday, Haitian men armed with machetes again attacked a convoy, this time making off with bags of rice.
Here's an article about the January 30 incident (Yahoo, 2/2/10).
Here's an article about the February 3 demonstration (Associated Press, 2/3/10).
And here's an article about the February 22 attack (The Star, 2/24/10).
Is there a connection between the attacks and the WFP's refusal to distribute food to men in need? I asked my contacts at the World Food Program, but they have declined to respond. Clearly, the plight of Haitians is dire. During the march in Petionville, people held signs reading "Help Us, We're Starving." I have no reason to think that that applies only to men. But those who are attacking food convoys are men, suggesting a level of desperation not experienced by women. And the policy of not distributing food to men is still in place. Maybe there's no connection between the WFP policy and the attacks, but my guess is that it's a factor in the overall desperation and discontent in Haiti.
|
Topics: Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized | Comments
All good things come to an end
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010
By Novaseeker, Uncategorized [source]
Yes, it’s come to that time. The time to officially shutter this blog.
I’ve said most of what I have to say, I think, and honestly don’t have much time for blogging any longer due to real life things. I’ve enjoyed the experience very much, and have liked getting to know some of my readers as well, but rather than have a semi-dormant blog creeping along like a husk, I thought it better to officially close the shop.
I’ll still be around — you’ll see me at The Spearhead from time to time, and at various other blogs on my link list. But maintaining this blog at this point is not something I have the time or energy to do, unfortunately.
I wish you all well, and thank all of my readers for their support. It’s been a good journey, and I hope to cross paths with you elsewhere in virtuality.
Nova
Posted in Uncategorized
Topics: Novaseeker, Uncategorized | Comments
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Friday, January 1st, 2010
By Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized [source]
It looks like 2010 shows promise of being a great year for men's and fathers' rights. Our organizations are stronger and more effective than ever. The overwhelming weight of social science continues to run in favor of fathers and their children. Slowly but inexorably, our issues and our viewpoints are seeping into the mainstream media. As usual, the last to know are the politicians, but we will be doing a lot to educate them about the value of fathers to children and the multitude of issues that affect their relationships.
So raise a glass (of seltzer?) to 2010! Our voices are stronger and are starting to be heard.
|
Topics: Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized | Comments
Merry Christmas to All!
Thursday, December 24th, 2009
By Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized [source]
And always remember to love your neighbor.
|
Topics: Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized | Comments
A new direction for Novaseeker
Monday, November 30th, 2009
By Novaseeker, Uncategorized [source]
As most of my readers know, I haven’t really had all that much time to focus on this blog for quite some time now. I do not expect that this will change much in the months ahead, as work and other life responsibilities are leaving less time for blogging in general.
I will still be posting entries here, and the blog isn’t going away, but I think in the period ahead the focus will be somewhat different from what it has been in the past. I think that with the advent of many quite good men’s-oriented blogs — many of which are located in my link list to the right — as well as the rise of The Spearhead into a true clearinghouse of sorts for men’s issues, an opportunity presents itself to focus on this blog on other sorts of issues that interest me from time to time. I suspect that, in practical terms, this means more articles on some of the other things described in my masthead (philosophy, politics, theology and so on) and less on men’s issues at least on this blog.
I will have to see exactly how this pans out, because of my lower posting availability these days, but in any case it’s likely that you’ll continue to see this blog shift a bit directionally in terms of the kinds of posts it contains.
As always, thanks for reading and commenting.
Nova
Posted in Uncategorized
Topics: Novaseeker, Uncategorized | Comments
Thanksgiving 2009
Saturday, November 28th, 2009
By Novaseeker, Uncategorized [source]
It’s been a busy few days around Thanksgiving this year. I hope that all of my readers in the United States had a fantastic Thanksgiving, and for those readers outside the United States, I hope that you all have much in your lives to be thankful for as we approach the end of 2009.
Belatedly, I’d like to share a Thanksgiving prayer by Fr. Alexander Schmemann:
Thank You, O Lord!
(by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann)
Everyone capable of thanksgiving is capable of salvation and eternal joy.
Thank You, O Lord, for having accepted this Eucharist, which we offered to the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and which filled our hearts with the joy, peace and righteousness of the Holy Spirit.
Thank You, O Lord, for having revealed Yourself unto us and given us the foretaste of Your Kingdom.
Thank You, O Lord, for having united us to one another in serving You and Your Holy Church.
Thank You, O Lord, for having helped us to overcome all difficulties, tensions, passions, temptations and restored peace, mutual love and joy in sharing the communion of the Holy Spirit.
Thank You, O Lord, for the sufferings You bestowed upon us, for they are purifying us from selfishness and reminding us of the “one thing needed”: Your eternal Kingdom.
Thank You, O Lord, for having given us this country where we are free to Worship You.
Thank You, O Lord, for this school, where the name of God is proclaimed.
Thank You, O Lord, for our families: husbands, wives and, especially, children who teach us how to celebrate Your holy Name in joy, movement and holy noise.
Thank You, O Lord, for everyone and everything.
Great are You, O Lord, and marvelous are Your deeds, and no word is sufficient to celebrate Your miracles.
Lord, it is good to be here! Amen.
Posted in Uncategorized
Topics: Novaseeker, Uncategorized | Comments
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thursday, November 26th, 2009
By Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized [source]
To all our readers, both regular and casual, Happy Thanksgiving! I hope you all have a relaxed, stress-free and enjoyable day. Don't forget to take a minute and think of the things you have to be thankful for. Whatever they may be, count your blessings.
And one more thing. "Thanks" are important of course, but the most important part of Thanksgiving is giving. We are never better than when we give to others. So please remember to give a little something of yourself to someone you love, or even to a total stranger. You'll be glad you did, and so will they.
|
Topics: Glenn Sacks, Uncategorized | Comments
Religion and Man Post
Sunday, November 22nd, 2009
By Novaseeker, Uncategorized [source]
Cross-posting here a rather elaborate comment I made at The Spearhead earlier today.
===========
1. There isn’t really any precedent for having consensus moral rules (beyond a few least common denominators) without these rules being based on some consensus transcendent reality – a higher purpose, at the very least. This is missing in our current society because almost all of the contemporary philosophy rejects transcendent reality as a concept, and instead has embraced relativism in one form or another. In a very real way, relativism is the inevitable philosophical outcome of a society which places individual autonomic freedom as its core value – as ours does. The “price” of having that as the core social value is that there are no other consensus values beyond a few common denominators, and even there, there is no consensus (murder would seem to be a consensus moral rule at first blush, but the abortion debate demonstrates how easily even the most baseline consensus moral rule can crumble in the face of the absolute value of personal autonomic freedom).
2. It’s for this kind of reason that the idea that there can be wide-consensus moral rules outside a wide consensus about the content of faith is, while understandable, rather far-fetched and misplaced. A division, therefore, between “theoretical truth” and “practical truth” is not workable, in practice, and is incoherent even in theory when viewed from the perspective of someone standing inside any of the main faith traditions. The reason for that is, again, the reality that relativism acts as an acid that dissolves consensus moral rules – and there is nothing more relativistic than the notion that “all faith traditions are basically the same”. In fact, this is a fantastically contemporary notion which has no basis in history, and is incoherent in its perception of reality.
3. The trouble with the West at the moment is that it has literally lost its faith. It has been tried (and some are still trying) to cobble together a secularized, non-transcendent “practical faith”, but of course this doesn’t work, because there truly is no reason for consensus to emerge. A society simply cannot extol individual autonomic freedom as its core value while at the same time having consensus moral rules – for consensus moral rules will always act to suppress individual autonomic freedom to some degree. So our thinkers have lost their faith in Western religion (mainly Christianity), but try though they might, they have been unsuccessful in “replicating” what they consider to be the “good parts” of Christianity, in order to forge some kind of a socio-moral consensus – but this will never work without a religion as the glue. And religion is outright rejected by our contemporary thinkers, for the most part. That is the crux of the issue.
4. It’s always humorous when someone tries to portray Jesus Christ as some kind of democratic national committee chairman or something like that. The notion that is often lost is that Christ did not advocate “social justice” – rather he advocated “personal justice”. His admonitions to feed the poor and tend to the sick and so on were directed at individual persons, and not at the state apparatus. In fact, when pressed by his followers about the political issue (and the pressing need to rebel against the Romans who were “oppressing” the Jews of the age), he famously responded that they should pay their taxes, rejecting the notion that the faith he was preaching was a socio-political movement, or one which was directed at uprooting the oppression of the state. It was nothing of the sort.
5. As far as “sola scriptura” goes, that idea is part of the core problem we face today. But of course the issue goes back much further than that. To me, the beginning of the problem was the alienation of the Eastern and Western empires, which eventually led to a separation of the Eastern and Western churches. That separation created problems for both Eastern and Western Christians. For the East, it meant being cut off from the rising West, a gradual shrinking in power, and eventual conquest by Arabs and Turks, and later, communists. Cut off from the Western church, the Eastern church suffered as a result of its weakness and isolation. For the West, it meant being cut off from much of the tradition of the early church fathers, merely for the reason that Greek became largely unknown in the West, and few Greek texts made their way there. This paved the way for the development of scholastic theology in the West (based as it was, on the translation into Latin of Aristotle by Arab scholars in Spain). Scholasticism developed the way that it did in many ways, I think, because of the “newness” of the encounter of the Christian West with Greek philosophy. The Greek fathers of the first millenium were of course quite familiar with Aristotle and the rest of the Greek canon, and had never pursued a scholastic approach based on them, but, as I note, the heritage of the Greek fathers was not available in the West at this time, and so the scholastic movement created its own momentum, reinterpreting anew the proper relationship between philosophy and faith in a way that the early church would not have recognized. There were a few contacts in this period between the rising Scholasticism in the West and the continuing tradition in the East, and they were not particularly cordial. But, in any case Scholasticism led directly to the Protestant Reformation, because in many ways the reformers were reacting against the Aristotelian-esque soteriology that had developed in the wake of scholasticism in the church. The battle cry of “sola scriptura” was quite understandable seen in this context, because it was a rallying of theology away from the winding paths of scholastic theology and back towards the core elements of the Christian faith. However, sola scriptura led to its own problems as time moved forward, as Protestant and Reformed Christianity splintered again and again and again over different interpretations of the Bible – a process that continues today. For while in theory it is attractive to hold that the text of the Bible is a baseline criterion of shared truth, in reality a text like the Bible is subject to many different interpretations, and so while the text is authoritative for all Protestant Christians, the text itself does not serve to unite them, but rather serves to divide them, because there is nothing other than the text itself (which, again, can be interpreted differently) which can resolve a conflict of interpretations. As a practical matter, we know what this has resulted in: a splintering of Protestant/Reformed Christianity into a sea of “denominations” and, now, “non-denominational churches”. But, more importantly for the purposes of what I am discussing here, this way of thinking about absolute truth led inexorably and directly to the relativism we see around us today.
Why is that? There are a few reasons. The main one is that once one claims that the text of the Bible is the sole criterion for truth, yet one observes that this “truth” is disagreed about in seemingly endless ways even among those Christians who also hold that the text is the sole criterion – you end up with a crisis of “faith”, because what constitutes the substantive content of the truth appears to be “relative” → that is, some people think it means “A” and others think it means “B”. Yet both the A partisans and the B partisans are, according to themselves, using the same sole criterion of truth. This leads an observer to conclude that this sole criterion can in fact be “interpreted” in different ways – leading to the conclusion that the truth given by such criterion is, in fact, relative, and dependent on interpretation, even though, of course, neither Partisan A nor Partisan B would agree, each seeing their own interpretation as more or less exclusively true. In other words, to an outside observer, it begins to appear that the absolute truth claim based on sola scriptura is, in fact, a relative truth claim, because others use the same criterion to reach a different “truth”.
The second, and related, reason is that because sola scriptura relies on textual interpretation, with no higher authority to interpret authoritatively, the resulting approach to thinking about absolutes tends to become increasingly anarchic, precisely because authority beyond textual interpretation has been eradicated. In other words, while it is true that Christians from the beginning disagreed about the meaning of the scriptural texts, they did devise means of “breaking” these disagreements – of authoritatively picking an interpretation as definitive and, importantly, binding. The reformers understandably rebelled against this as an idea, because they perceived the church authority of their time and place as having made incorrect decisions about such interpretation. However, following the wake of reformation, the lack of such a “breaking” authority – indeed, the lack of any authority above the interpretation of the scriptural texts, something which can, in fact, be a very individual thing and which characteristically has been so in post-reformation Protestant/Reformed Christianity – led to the splintering mentioned above, rather than the coalescing of Protestant/Reformed Christianity into one main tradition. The broader impact of this was even more pernicious, and would eventually undo Christianity in general in the West: namely, the conclusion that the “truth interpreting” authoritativeness of the individual was primatial, and not in need of any higher “human” authority in order for the truth to be authoritatively grasped. While the reformed churches eventually did institute discipline inside the churches, the dangerous idea itself was already out of the bottle. The broader significance of the depth and breadth of this rejection of authority beyond the individual led, quite apart from the churches and in terms of philosophy, directly to the enlightenment, and the philosophical and political worldviews of our contemporary culture. After all, if there is no authority needed beyond the human ability to interpret reality – based as it must be on human reason – there can also be no “checks” on that ability, either. In other words, once authority beyond the individual was trashed as being a necessary criterion for determining truth, it was only a matter of time until the Bible itself was rejected as a criterion once it, itself, started to act as a kind of constraint on the power of the individual mind to authoritatively define reality and truth. These ideas led directly to the rise of the primacy of the individual and the ideas of the enlightenment, which bit by bit crept away from religion in favor of unlimited, untrammeled human reason free from any external authority whatsoever. And hence, indeed, the importance placed by our culture on untrammeled individual autonomic freedom as the core political and moral value of our age.
The core problem we face today is, again, the fact that this entire enterprise of exercising human reason without the constraints of a truly “breaking” external authority (rather than a text which can be variously interpreted) has led to a society where the ability to have shared moral rules is drastically impeded. In short, it has led to a culture which is inherently relativist. It’s true that people like Wright and Armstrong and others recognize this as a problem for the society as a whole, but it’s also true that you can’t concoct a religion, and a moral system based on that, out of a relativist stew, and particularly not when so many of our thinkers over the past 200 years have so assiduously and relentlessly attacked the very concept of religion and absolute truth – whether moral or otherwise. Relativism, as the contemporary practical belief system of the West, does not admit of many moral absolutes, and at the same time is not a system without rather deep roots in our ways of thinking at this point in time. We can see the strength of that system of thought reflected in many of the comments on this thread, it seems to me.
Note that my intention here is not to “knock” Protestant/Reformed Christianity any more than it is to “knock” the Catholics and the Orthodox for bungling their ecclesial relations 1000 years ago (the event which started the train running down the wrong track, in my opinion), but rather to point out what I see as causes and continuities in terms of how our own Western history in this area has played itself out.
Posted in Uncategorized
Topics: Novaseeker, Uncategorized | Comments
A worthy link on Harriet Harperson’s shameless manipulation of the facts in the UK
Sunday, November 8th, 2009
By Novaseeker, Uncategorized [source]
The blog Exposing Feminism has posted a good, brief article on the recent quasi-reprimand received by Harriet Harperson, the deputy leader of the UK’s governing Labour Party, regarding the misleading use of statistics in claiming that there is a substantial “wage gap” based on sex in the UK.
Statistics is largely an exercise in smoke and mirrors, as any statistically-fluent academic can confirm. Yet it is good to see that at least some voices are rising in the governments of the West to say: it is a time to try to get past some of the worst obfuscations and stereotypes, and drill down to what the differences actually are, and, hopefully, what drives them.
Specifically, this letter from Sir Michael Scholar, the Chair of the UK Statistical Authority, states that the actual mean wage gap for full time employees in the UK is 12.8%, not the 22.6% “blended” figure spouted by Harperson and her minions at the Orwellian-named “Equality and Human Rights Commission”. Sir Michael further notes that:
The casual reader would be surprised to learn then that median hourly earnings of women and of men (excluding overtime) are very close, with women’s median pay actually being slightly higher than men’s (by 3.4 per cent).
We should not entertain illusions about what this means. It means nothing other than this: feminist women in government institutions are making up statistics to justify passage of laws that will screw men when women, in actual fact, are mostly earning as much as men are if not more.
The reason for the average disparity, as compared to the mean, I would suspect is the infamous “glass ceiling” canard, which I commented on here. Needless to say, the story is a familiar one: when you peer past the smoke and mirrors of statistical obfuscation and selective reporting of them in “studies” generated by politically-slanted interest groups, the bottom line is that the wage gap based on sex is almost entirely due to female career choice and lifestyle choice decisions. To blame men, the so-called “patriarchy”, or discrimination for the decisions women are themselves making is rank misandry, full stop.
It’s good to see that at least one man has the courage to raise his hand and call foul on this vile, shameless misinformation campaign by the UK’s feminist regime.
================
Note: I have been extremely busy at work this Fall, which has led to fewer posts here. As I speak I am getting ready to leave for the UK later today, which means another week of less than average participation in the blogosphere. It’s an occupational hazard of mine, but thanks for reading, and I hope to be back to posting more regularly when things calm down a bit on the professional front. Cheers — N
Posted in Uncategorized
Topics: Novaseeker, Uncategorized | Comments
Men Wising Up: Exhibit A … Gavin Mcinnes
Monday, October 26th, 2009
By Novaseeker, Uncategorized [source]
Aye, lads. There is some reason (and humor) yet in the blogosphere.
Gavin McInnes has a fantastically funny yet poignant post here.
A relevant and hilarious excerpt:
Anyway, during our “debate” the Middle East kept getting high fives and I was starting to hear talk of the burqa being empowering. “So why is it made out of black polyester,” I asked. Why not some flowing white cotton? “It’s not made out of polyester” she retorted before adding, “Polyester is an oil based product. They export oil.” Huh? Is that why toothpicks are verboten at the lumber yard? “Get that out of your mouth Harv! We need to export that! We only use plastic toothpicks here!” Megan realized she wasn’t making sense so she pulled out the Jezebel race card: “What about rape?” she asked. As Heart’s “What About Love” played in my head with new lyrics, I smiled and said, “Honey, America ain’t got nuthin’ on the Middle East when it comes to rape.” She then said, “Did you just call me honey?” and stormed out of the bar. Thank God.
LMAO. I was in laughing fits reading that. Just. Brill.
Worth much more than the price of admission I must say. Kudos to you, Mr McInnes.
Posted in Uncategorized
Topics: Novaseeker, Uncategorized | Comments
« Previous Entries