This morning, I woke to find Mr. Siegenthaler’s email that contained this moving obituary and video clip:

Dr. Hsu obituary

I was blessed to think on the impact that devoted servants can have for Christ. As a Christian teacher, I was both encouraged to see the impact that a selfless teacher can have and convicted by this man’s deep sacrifice for Christ and for his people. I encourage you to read his obituary above. You will be blessed.

The action of the government was morally wrong. The American people should not have to pay for the bad bets (stupid, greedy, idiotic bets) of nincompoops. These brokers should not have walked away with plenty of money in their own bank accounts. They should be in jail or in a new career having all their assets stripped from them. For that matter, everyone who was making money buying investments that were stoked by the subprime boom should have lost their shirts. They did not. The government stepped in a kept the just judgment from happening.

Occupy is steamed about this. I am too.

They are steamed because they want the government to take care of them (“the little man”) now. I am steamed because I think that when economies make bad bets and do stupid things that they should bear the weight of it. It might have plunged us into a deeper recession or depression, but it could have been a step toward restoring reality to the fantasy economy that now walks upright as if it had a soul and a future (for more on this see Wendell Berry’s brilliant essay in Harpers on “Faustian Economics” ).

My gripe with Occupy then (beside the bad language) is that their tents are in the wrong place! They should be down at DC on the Mall not in lower Manhattan. If our governors in DC would have just had the courage to say no to the brokers and take the pain of reality, we would have had a reshuffling of things and would be headed, I believe, toward a brighter future. Sadly, courage and politics are not located in the same place mentally anymore. So, move the tents south about two hours and I might start listening (especially if the cursing stops).

Epic Fantasy Meets Americana In ‘The Dragon’s Tooth’ 

N.D. (or Nate) was a student at the Logos School in Moscow. His books have become increasingly beloved by young people. He cut his teeth on the very education that your children are getting. In fact, when your kids study Omnibus I here at Veritas Academy they read and study Herodotus’ Histories. N.D. is the author of that Omnibus chapter. Sometimes, parents ask why classical Christian education stresses reading stories and writing. N.D. Wilson will be one of the authors forming the imagination of this generation. What might that mean? I am not sure, but it could be very good.

Enjoy the interview, and if you would like a great story about N.D. and his efforts to raise funds for our school just stop by my office and ask.

Barnes and Noble: The Rector of Justin

You should read it. While reading this book several things shocked me. First, I recognized that this is the only positive portrayal of a Evangelical Christian School Headmaster that I can recall in the history of Western Literature. (I was a quick fan.)

Second, the novel recounts the life of this man through reflections of others—primarily one of his Master Teachers (Masters), and through words written about him by wealthy and shallow board members, rebellious and sometimes repenting students, and by his own wife and daughter. I was both disheartened and paradoxically encouraged by these reflections. Sad, because I know a little of the pain of loss that is recounted. The misunderstandings and disappointments of building an institution. Prescott’s school serves the very wealthy and the very apt (scholarships are given for poor but promising lads). Even in this positive portrayal there is a lot of pain and a lot of regret. Most of the book is done in flashback to earlier times. In the book’s present, the old Headmaster is retiring and he is struggling with the changes that his successor is making to the school that he built. I was encouraged, however, by someone writing so knowingly about these struggles and I was encouraged by the character of Prescott who continually aims, though flawed, is both a heroic and sympathetic character.

Finally . . .

I was blessed by the resolution of the book. Prescott spent his life building a school. He was watching over it, loving it, and grieved by it at times. He, it seems, finally comes to see a truth that all Headmaster should remember. It is not the buildings that are built and the endowments that are filled that matter. A school, and a man, should be (maybe can only be) measured by the impact that his life has on the life of the people around him—in the case of Prescott, his teachers and his students. This impact, even with the best men (Prescott is a much better man than I), is not all positive. It is sometimes dreadful and sometimes unavoidably dreadful. In some of the saddest stories people are broken not intentionally, but broken still. I found in Prescott a model of a good man who is about my work and I hope that someday I could be counted as one of his kindred spirits.

The America of John F. Kennedy was an America of growing agreement. This agreement led to an unprecedented flurry of political activity during the 1^st 100 days after the election victory over Barry Goldwater of the Johnson administration. He passes sweeping civil rights legislation by overwhelming margins. All is well (except for the Republicans, but even the liberal wing of the Republican Party is cooperating with LBJ) or so it seemed. Then the world exploded. In the book, this happens first in the Watts Riots. This racial earthquake continues reverberating through the South. As Martin Luther King and non-violent protesters see their movement co-opted by violent radicals like Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown. American soldiers are dying in a far away land called Vietnam because our leaders believe that if we let countries slip into communism eventually it will be knocking at our front door.

Faced with these terrifying facts, American divides into two camps. The first sees the racial injustice and political hubris of our country and its leaders and decides to rebel. Some do this in typically American ways—working for Eugene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy—trying as Americans have done over the generations to make democratic change by making a persuasive argument. Others, despairing of persuasion, began dropping out of a society that, to them, seemed “phony”. They renounced (sometimes) the morality and values of their parents and the past. Others, scandalized by the rejection of morality by the hippies and yippies and the increasing lawlessness of radicals, cried out for law and order. These people (Nixon’s “Silent Majority”), however, subtly and out of fear began to reject the values of America as well. They surrendered freedoms and, at times, cheered crushing of radical elements. Both sides stopped trying to persuade. Hell for one side (e.g., grinding Vietnam down in a war of attrition) was the only rational choice for the other side (e.g., we cannot lose a war; we never lose wars). The story of Nixonland is the story of this disintegration of American ideals and American unity.

Richard Nixon was the man who learned to effectively pit one side of this cultural divide against another. He was a brilliant politician. The divisions that he capitalized on still exist today. Today we live in a deeply divided country. I was haunted by the line from Thucydides on the spirit of revolution in Corcyra from his chronicle of the Peloponnesian War. They read:

So bloody was the march of the revolution, and the impression which it made was the greater as it was one of the first to occur. Later on, one may say, the whole Hellenic world was convulsed; struggles being everywhere made by the popular chiefs to bring in the Athenians, and by the oligarchs to introduce the Lacedaemonians. In peace there would have been neither the pretext nor the wish to make such an invitation; but in war, with an alliance always at the command of either faction for the hurt of their adversaries and their own corresponding advantage, opportunities for bringing in the foreigner were never wanting to the revolutionary parties. The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same; though in a severer or milder form, and varying in their symptoms, according to the variety of the particular cases. In peace and prosperity, states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men’s characters to a level with their fortunes. Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places which it arrived at last, from having heard what had been done before, carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions, as manifested in the cunning of their enterprises and the atrocity of their reprisals. Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honour so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow. To put an end to this, there was neither promise to be depended upon, nor oath that could command respect; but all parties dwelling rather in their calculation upon the hopelessness of a permanent state of things, were more intent upon self-defence than capable of confidence. In this contest the blunter wits were most successful. Apprehensive of their own deficiencies and of the cleverness of their antagonists, they feared to be worsted in debate and to be surprised by the combinations of their more versatile opponents, and so at once boldly had recourse to action: while their adversaries, arrogantly thinking that they should know in time, and that it was unnecessary to secure by action what policy afforded, often fell victims to their want of precaution.

I hope to write more on this in upcoming days. I believe that if this division is not healed in our nation that darker days will face us. I also believe that classical Christian education is the most hopeful path out of Nixonland and its divisions. It promises a return to an older and more permanent tradition in the Western world. One that is based on persuasion and reason. One that is flourish as the moral sway of the gospel blossoms in the West. One that could lead to brighter days. More on this to come.

Latin at Princeton

1.  The political left uses tragedies to take swipes at the right even when—maybe I should say especially when—there is no cause. The left wants gun control. All facts are used to prove that it is necessary. Of course, let me be clear, this fellow should not have had a gun! The idea that somehow mass restriction on guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is dubious. I believe that the left has learned (maybe it is just instinctual) that they should toss accusation at the right whenever something like this happens especially if there is no reasonable connection between the action and anyone on the right. They do this because…
2. The political right (in the case Governor Palin) does not handle these sorts of swipes well and too often ends up looking petty as they react to these baseless attacks. Governor Palin is not to blame for this event. The fellow was deranged. Communist Manifesto was one of his favorite books—which, of course is not one on the Glenn Beck approved list. Governor Palin, I am sure, got angry because she was unjustly smeared. Sadly, she released her video response at the same time that President Obama was at the bully pulpit. She is justified in her anger. Her response was unwise. Any sort of reaction that rebuts personal concerns looks petty—particularly against Obama’s excellent and uplifting speech. I am not sure why she did it, but, politically, I do not think it was wise.
3. Finally, both sides of our political spectrum seem immune to both history and reason. The chant arises that our political rhetoric is over the top. It is. This “over the topness”, however, is not new. It has been a characteristic of American politics (and American life) since the third election (Adams v. Jefferson). We are given to overstatement. In some ways our political dialogue is fruitless today, but not because of its vitriol, but because of our penchant for having hurt feelings. We cannot argue with each other. We preach to the choir and stir them in a froth. Real political gains happen when leaders focus their rhetoric more broadly but still resonate with their base—see Ronald Reagan on this point.

Some of the most disturbing words in this whole event have come from the media.

First, on the left, there is a blindness to the logic of the Constitution that is sort of stunning. I heard one fellow (I believe it was Chris Matthews) say something like—“What does bearing arms have to do with free speech?” This sort of disconnect is pitiful in the media. They must know that the very reason that arms bearing is in the Bill of Rights is that a populace that has no way to protect itself from the government is ripe for tyranny. Our Founding Fathers knew this because a government pointed guns at them and told them to hush up. The truth is, of course, that deranged lunatics are the reason for the 2^nd Amendment. Our Founders were worried about the government having all the guns. They knew that this would lead to tyranny and the end of free speech and every other freedom. In the 20^th Century, too often, it led to mass murder.

The right wing media, however, does little better. They understand the reason for the Constitutional right to bear arms, but struggle to react well to masterful rhetoric on the left—especially by President Obama (the best speaker to hold the office since, at least, Reagan). They pick at his speeches. They look so petty and make him look so magnanimous. His speech was brilliant. I do not agree with all that he said in it, but the tone was uplifting, appropriate, somber, and hopeful. The right would do well to just tip their hat to the President when he makes speeches like this and then move on. Do not oppose speeches like this one. Oppose policies! President Obama’s flaw is that his rhetoric and his actions are not congruent.

Now, for education. A classical Christian education spends a lot of time helping students with their rhetoric. Our 10^th through 12^th grade students are called rhetoric students. Why do I focus on this so much? Barak Obama’s use of the bully pulpit at the memorial service in Arizona is a superb example of why rhetoric matters. Appropriate rhetoric (good words) presented well is a force that moves people and changes things. Good rhetoric is the closest mimic I know of to God’s power in creation. Words and ideas expressed well have an impact.

The right, if it wishes to have a representative in the Oval Office after the next election, must recognize the kind of candidate that can beat Obama. They need someone who will fight on the issues and match, or at least compete, with the sort of transcendent rhetorical flair displayed on occasion by President Obama. People—especially those outside of the choirs on the left and right—long for a President to have this sort of rhetorical power. The right should realize that they need someone who looks and acts more like a President than President Obama. This will be a tall order, and I do not know that person’s name.

Remember, however, rhetoric is important—very important—and this is why Veritas spends so much time on it.

This story begins (tentatively) to ask one of the questions that we are going to have to answer as a culture over the next decade: “Can we afford to continue to fund education in the way that we have in the past?” (BTW, this is only a subset of the larger question: “Can we afford to live in the way what we have in the past?”) The obvious answer is no.

This answer keeps staring us in the face. We keep looking away. It has not stopped staring. The Federal government is answering this question presently by printing money to maintain a false, unsustainable reality. I am convinced that the Federal government so long as it has this power will never answer the question. States cannot print money so right now they are having to think how they will actually live sustainably—i.e., spend only what you have. 

The story is a watershed for this area because . . . .

The story is a watershed for this area because really the local papers have never asked this question. I am encouraged that we are at least considering the question. This is a twinkle of hope. There is a lot of reason for discouragement, however, mainly when you read what school board members quoted in the paper say. Their comments are simply not connected to economic reality. Here are the two biggest school board misnomers: 

1. “We will not keep good teachers if we don’t pay what everyone else is paying.” Bull. This is not a seller’s market—it is a buyer’s market. Good quality people in every field are without work. The salaries of other people are going down. The net worth of others is going down. School boards have to have the courage to act on economic reality—not psychology.
2. “Teachers are not well compensated.” This, as best I can tell is not true. It might be true that public school teachers are not compensated as much as others with the same amount of education on a yearly salary basis—I am not sure that there is any longer any difference, but I have heard this. It is certainly not true if you take into account the benefit packages that public employees presently have. Over a lifetime the argument does not hold.

Let me be clear about a few things that this article is not yet saying, but that must be taken into account. I am not against good teachers being paid well. I am working hard right now trying to figure out how to better pay our teachers at Veritas. Teacher compensation has to be tied to success! Our schools are not succeeding. If they are not, we should not continue to compensate people as if they are. To make an NFL analogy, you should not pay Jimmy Clausen (the lowest rated quarterback) Tom Brady’s salary.

Great teachers should be compensated well. Bad teachers must be made to find another calling. Right now, the teachers unions keep this from happening. Here is just a little advice for these unions: compromise. Do what is good for the students and for the entire nation, compromise on pension, compromise on teacher tenure (so that bad teachers can be replace), cut your own salaries and find ways to cut expenses. The public schools have (by far) the largest number of students. If the teachers unions did this they could be heroic. Public education gained ascendency in America mainly because committed people made huge personal sacrifices. Ascendency follows these sorts of sacrifices. If that does not happen again now, be prepared for fairly substantial changes in education in the next ten years.

I opposed him at every point when he was President. I thought of him as an unprincipled pragmatist. As a rather philosophical fellow then, (and still) I thought that there were few curses that could be uttered that were more damning than “pragmatist.”  

I was wrong! Way wrong! Listen to this snippet of the speech and tell me what you think:

Clinton’s Farewell Speech

Some things might cause giggles (highest home ownership in history…how were we doing that?) but look at where we were 10 years ago. We were on a track to cancel the National Debt. Clinton brags that he (remember that Republican majority in Congress) got us a smaller government. He brags about it! I feel sick, but I have to admit…I am nostalgic for Clinton.

Fine Arts Blog