Thursday Constitutional

Even the Times admits how terrible Jon Stewart’s “reporting” was:

Like a musician lecturing into a microphone onstage, Stewart only permitted one-way mockery. When anyone questioned his opinions and methods, he would say his show was just comedy. In 2013 when it seemed that Stewart was mocking the Obamacare rollout a little too often, he got pushback from his liberal followers. Stewart was quick to point out it was just equal-opportunity joking, and he wasn’t taking a position. He, of course, did not offer similar explanations when hammering President George W. Bush’s policies.

. . . Stewart was exactly the kind of partisan hack he eviscerated. Politico recently reported that not only had Stewart met in secret with President Barack Obama right before big stories were set to hit, but Obama’s aides had also worked with Daily Show writers so that their side of the story was well-represented.

A well-written article on Hannah Arendt’s view of the Christian conception of humility:

Arendt saw that Jesus’s teaching of the impossibility of goodness and humility should not lead one to abandon goodness and humility, but to love them. In The Human Condition, Arendt writes: “We are reminded of Socrates’ great insight that no man can be wise, out of which love for wisdom, or philosophy, was born; the whole life story of Jesus seems to testify how love for goodness arises out of the insight that no man can be good.” [ . . . ]

As much as Arendt admired this pure goodness of the gospels, she struggled fully to commit to it. She feared that giving up on a public and legal notion of goodness was too high a price to pay. Having seen the scores of bureaucrats who had taken part in the Holocaust and who afterwards abdicated their responsibility by saying that they had only followed commands, she believed that we need to be able to make judgments between what is good and what is bad. Arendt did not want to give up on the idea that every person for himself–and we together as a public–can and must debate the question of what is a good act and what is a bad act. Arendt believed in the fundamental importance of a dialogue governed by reason to decide between goodness and evil. She fully understood that this vision of public justice could not easily be consoled with the essential secrecy of Christian humility and goodness, which she nonetheless cherished.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.