The Pittsburgh Symphony

The husband and I enjoyed an evening at Heinz Hall yesterday. The main event was Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It's a brilliant work, of course, but what I cannot understand is how the audience can sit there stonefaced, staring straight ahead, through this symphony.

It's so passionate, in a strong, rhythmically driven way, and yet the husband and I were the only ones reacting. I think the PSO would bring in a lot more people if they eliminated the front rows and replaced them with a dance floor.

Religion vs. America

The religious right have taken the opportunity of our war with Islamic terrorists as a way to push their own religion on government and society as a whole. This is despicable; the only saving grace of the religious in this country is that, on average, they are not that religious. But recent history has seemed to give the more extreme of them the right to wear their religion proudly and parrot again and again that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Not so. This country was founded on Enlightenment principles, in which reason is considered the highest faculty of man, not faith. Read this:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6177

Ahmadinejad and Hitler

So many comparisons have been made between these two entities. One that I have not heard mentioned is the fact that Hitler used the prevailing philosophy of the day-- Kant and Nietzsche--to his advantage in securing his role. The people went along with him, not because they were duped, but because he was saying what they already believed.

Ahmadinejad already has Iranians and the Muslim world in his pocket. When he speaks to people in the United States, he uses OUR prevailing philosophy, which is not so far from that in pre-Hitler Germany. Altruism, multiculturalism, and pretty much any slogans of the left come from the creature's mouth. Speaking at Columbia wasn't his attempt to be understood, but a way to reach the minds of those who already agree with him.

Inconsistency: The Hobgoblin of the Non-Principled

Our country is in deep trouble. The Republicans are the religious party, which is why they cannot combat this danger that is Islam. The Democrats are pushing for socialized medicine, which I, in my middle-aged body dread.

But the arguments are not coming from principle. One side cannot claim superiority over the other. Instead, all attacks are aimed at the other side's inconsistency. Hillary was in favor of the war and now she's against it. Guiliani supported abortion rights, and now he's against it.

Internal consistency (especially over years) is a non-issue. People mispeak, change their minds. Who cares?

But at a time when we are at war, when leaders of countries who hate us are making deals and meeting frequently, when our rights are being stripped away, five at a time, all they can say is "Why don't you say what you said last week?"

Principles ensure internal consistency. The principles remain the same; the concretes may change. But more importantly, they are the necessary precondition of having opinions that can be supported or challenged.

If you are for property rights, why don't you support the right of a woman to live her life? If you are for helping the poor, give them your money, not mine.

The religious right claims that God is the source of rights, and therefore cannot govern without controlling us in a way that they believe God sees fit. Their attachment to a silly superstition not only belies their lack of intellectuality, it shows that they can take some things as faith, which is the exact opposite of reason.

Then we have the liberal left, who believe you only have rights with the permission of "society", and therefore cannot govern without controlling us in a way that they believe Society sees fit. They have given up any pretense at reason. They believe you can't truly know anything.

We're stuck, not between a rock and hard place, but between the mystics and the grunts.