Who can play Shylock to Antonio president

I am not entitled to play Shylock and claim a pound of flesh from the president, for the very simple reason that I am not en elector. Which means that in this affair the one with whom the president made a contract, and who only can claim it, is the electorate.

But a Porzia can always argue, yes, a pound of flesh, but the blood was not included in the contract.

What could this mean in the analogy of the present situation with the Merchant of Venice?

Perhaps that the elected monarch, once found ineffective in assuring the welfare of his community, is not put to death, as in certain old African kingdoms, but just kicked out of office?

HP

Alright, I'll play, HP...

But HP, it was not an episode or an affair of "politics as usual" - it was a national tragedy.

The President is not supposed to "pacify" the lunatic fringe: he is to hold the center: gubernare.

He did a good job this time, by which I only mean that he said the right things and sounded like he meant them.

Am I wrong, or do you want the pound of flesh on this one?

I hope not: the role of Shylock does not suit you, and I will not play Portia to the President's Antonio (and who would be Bassanio in this analogy, anyway?).

A little reflection from the beach

I'm out of Rome, in a little beach town where I use to spend the month of August.

Not to do anything special: a little swimming in the morning, and for the rest of the day what I usually do, i.e. cultivate my studies.

This year I brought with me my Bible and a few books about the Bible.

As a matter of fact, I must confess that, being an old style Catholic, I am more confident with the doctrine and the philosophical reflection on it than with the Sacred Scriptures. For what concern these, I am mostly confident with them through their use in the liturgy.

It isn't that I didn't do my amount of reading in Bible studies. And I definitely have my liking and disliking among Bible scholars. The ones I dislike make the scriptures into something speaking about those who wrote them; the ones I like make them into something of enduring significance, hence speaking of and to us.

Here it is what makes me an old style Catholic, over against the contemporary protestant like trend toward a direct reading of Scriptures: in acknowledging that such a reading needs a guide.

It is hard to crack the code, so to speak, of Scriptures: especially the Old Testament, to see how and why the New Testament makes no sense without it. Or, if it makes sense, it is because it implies it, even though its reader might not be aware of it.

The Christian reader must learn the essential imagery the Old Testament writers employ. Speaking from the beach, one example is sufficient.

On the beach the sea looks rather tame. For the Old Testament writers the sea was the untamed element par excellence. It was God who tamed it, setting limits to it.

Isn't it, such a natural image of chaos, also a nice metaphor for human passions? And though, we pretend to do away with God and at the same time to keep our passions in sufficient control to make social life possible!

Possibly to be continued.

HP

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner!

Over at the redoubtable Fr. Zuhlsdorf's place, there is a great thread going on the ideal dinner party.

I urge you to go there and participate.

Here at the Chronicles, I would propose a variation on the theme, to wit:

A list of 8 living people, experts or public voices on a particular field or area of human life, who, brought together for a weekend house party, would be expressly forbidden to talk about their common subject.

E.G.

Bill Keller (NYT)
Giuliano Ferrara (Il Foglio)
Sylvie Kauffmann (Le Monde)
Berthold Kohler (Frankfurter Allgemeine zeitung)
James Harding (ToL)
Zhang Yannong (People's Daily)
Valery Ignatenko (Itar-Tass)
Sam Adesua (Nigerian Tribune)

would gather for a weekend in each other's company, during which they would not be allowed to discuss politics. Anything and everything else under the Sun, but no politics.

Any takers?

LD

I Know the Joy of a Madman!

When MoDo smelled racism in the Hon. Joe Wilson's pitiable display, I simply shrugged and said to myself, "Sure, Mo, that's about right from you, isn't it?" even as I wondered how many it took for her to get there, and how early she started that day (I'm not judging mind you - not this blogger, and certainly not about that). Hers was truly an envelope-pushing experiment in cross-breeding: what do you get when you combine unutterable brazenness with the most abject and irrecuperable paranoia?

Then President Carter upped the ante.

A blissfully ignorant Charles Gibson blithely suggested the ACORN scandal might be "one for the cables" on the day the Senate of the United States voted 83-7 to defund the organization.

Indeed, the sanest statement I've heard all week came from President Obama, himself, and it was made OTR, regarding an obnoxious postar.

Well-said, Mr. President. Well said, indeed.

Sheesh!

LD

Go See Fr. Longenecker's...

For a terribly funny, "Out of the mouths of babes" take on, "The 'new' Nuns," click here...

What Office Supply Are You?

I am a calculator, apparently, which comes with the following description:

No matter what someone tells you, you're likely to focus on facts and data.

You're a highly analytic person. You are only concerned with what you can know for sure.

You look at situations objectively, and you have no problem approaching problems from multiple angles.

You would make a good analyst or investment banker. You are confident enough to make tough calls and hard decisions.

I think they are working on a mathematical model of rationality: the quintessentially modern understanding of ratio as essentially ratiocinatio. Don't forget your Hobbes, people: he is everywhere, I say! Everywhere!

So, which are you?

You all should know that I found this at the Mulier Fortis. Want to know what office supply she is? Well, click here to find out.