There have been various accounts explaining how it actually is not inherently bad that there is evil in the world, thus dealing with the perennial questions respecting God. Since we mere mortals are said not to be able to understand all of said creator's doings, maybe the problem is that we ala Job are being a bit too full of ourselves. Darn logical musings!
Seriously, my sense -- for what it is worth -- is that bad things are not somehow inherently valuable. I think we can survive pretty well without some of the horrible things out there. The best we can do is use them to our advantage, the best we can. Thus, no, let's not explain to the family member that the fact some heinous soul raped their daughter is you know useful somehow since pain is uplifting or whatever [link to eloquent Narnia source-like descriptions of concept]. No, take what you can to allow them to survive it, and know that we are hot wired to take a lot of shit.
And, yes, along the way, some good will be done. A lot of human spirit is shown in the worst of times, which is a good thing. Not really a justification for the problem, but a way to live through a life that will have enough bad things so that such defense mechanicism are going to be necessary again and again. The thing works writ large and small. You miss your daughter's recital, but on the way back, you find a nice little gift while going to the store (where you would not have gone, if you saw Samantha sing her heart out) that she loves. Little things like that actually are nice ... go with the punches. Miss a certain train, go home a different way, get some Chinese food. Don't stress too much, it will work out more than not.
Writ large, it's harder, but it is roughly the same -- just on a different level. An aside. The NYT Magazine yesterday had a piece on a young man that was a spokesman for the Taliban before eventually winding up at Yale. The journalist who got him there once told his peeps that yes, man is related to the dog, a creature (consider this given their use in Gitmo) seen as distasteful to the Afghan culture. And, he spelled out various similarities, such as the location of the eyes and so forth. Connections on a certain level of generality, but connections all the same. I like that -- it's how I try to see things, a way to understand things and people that do not share my beliefs and life style, but on some basic level is like me. Thus, I respect the moral beliefs of those who I oppose -- they might not do the same, but then people who share my own do not always reciprocate either. Connections, you know?
The immediate application of this sentiment, not quite as profound as the example listed above (though, sadly, on some level, not really), that brought up this philosophizing is the current political situation. I think it is a warning of what happens when we relent, we forget certain basic norms that should underline what our political leadership should follow. In other words, it is a wake up call, even if it is akin to using an air horn instead of an alarm clock. On that level, Laura Flanders last night had a point -- in '04 a certain upstart Dem with progressive instincts received 44% of the vote against Henry Hyde. He's retiring, so the seat will be open ... but, instead of supporting this grass roots/resident again, the PTB (and the junior senator from Illinois, if not Howard Dean) is supporting Tammy Duckworth, a "fighting Dem" who never lived in the district, is a first timer, and is more conservative overall.
Is this the way to win? Ditto Paul Hackett. Yes, it looks like he might have been a bad candidate -- his close race in a special election last year in my view was overblown by some (everything was in his favor and he still lost ... against a hack), and hew as more symbol than a credible senatorial candidate. But, by pushing him out, the PTB in the Democratic Party made themselves look bad. Some real life voters felt cheated while the Republicans smiled. Now, Sherrod Brown looks to be a great candidate. Fine. Let him win a primary. Did they fear that Brown would lose against poorly funded and supported PH? This heavy-handed style (including by my self righteous senator, Chuck) just plain rubs me the wrong way.
Anyway, it's not morally uplifting in the abstract or anything, but let's take the lemons and make lemonade. Rightly sweetened, it is a yummy drink chilled.
And Also: I just heard on the radio that there are now some "strict" guidelines respecting rebuilding at Ground Zero. Yes, sure, not much longer than five years, we mean it! A Knicks winning season will come before they start something down there. It's depressing, but hey, I guess while it's a big hole, it's easier to use as a cheap political motif.
A bit more on the Cass Sunstein book referenced yesterday. One thing that annoyed me was his claim that Nixon barely won in '68, so the Warren Court jurisprudence that secured parts of his Second Bill of Rights easily could have continued in most senses of the word. Nixon did received about one percentage more of the popular vote, the first of several plurality presidents in the last forty years.
But, Wallace got the balance of the vote ... over ten percent ... and surely his voters mostly were Nixonian. See also, CS' claim (with others, on both sides) that abortion rights were just about to be nationwide when Roe came down.