It would be nice if we could unlock the secrets of the Universe. It would be wonderful if we found the final theory, the single equation that served as the master key to opening all the doors of nature for us. It would be wonderful if there were a final language-game that all human beings in all times and places could accept as descriptive of their world.
Unfortunately, none of these things are ever to be. Should we ever finalize a marriage between quantum mechanics and general relativity, it will in all likelihood create as many new problems as it solved old ones. One of the lessons of science is that each new theory doesn't so much close doors for research as it does open up whole new wings on buildings for further research.
Taking his cue from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, philosopher Richard Rorty is trying to wean us away from a view of science as somehow the metanarrative for the human race. Rather than view science as the key to opening the locked doors of nature, or (to take another metaphor from an early work), cleaning the mirror of nature that resides in something we call "the human mind", science is the unexciting and rather mundane pursuit of the human species figuring out ways of coping with its environment in order to survive, and perhaps thrive a little. Indeed, from Rorty's perspective, science isn't even the most fruitful, or interesting, or important way human beings are coming to grips with the world in which we live. Literature, art, the social sciences - these are not so much keys to something we call truth as avenues for discovering ways of living in solidarity with our fellow human beings as we traverse this world through our 3 score and 10 years. Science, then, like literature, and music, sociology and anthropology, are nothing more and nothing less than one more adaptations human beings have for survival. It is not qualitatively distinct from the discovery by chimps of tool use and the art of war; it only differs because we want to insist, on no evidence other than wish-fulfillment, that human beings themselves are somehow qualitatively distinct from all other creatures on earth.
The service of philosophy is less as arbiter of final truth - because there is no such thing - or judge over all the narratives we have to cope with our lives to find the "best fit" to the world, than it is one more therapy. Philosophy does us all a service when it points us in possible directions towards those language-games that serve the greatest need of the greatest number; it should allow for the possibility of error, and cheerfully eschew the idea that it has a judicial role. Philosophy, like science, is best when it helps us cope.
Echoing Dewey, who claimed that most of our beliefs are mostly true most of the time, Rorty describes "truth" as something that not so much resides in some final vocabulary toward which we are working through whatever mechanism - be it science, philosophy, sociology, or whatever - as a web of beliefs and desires we use to cope with the world. This web of beliefs and desires is in constant flux as we encounter new words, new sentences, whole new paragraphs that describe the world in new and surprising ways. Sometimes these new words and sentences become woven into the fabric of our beliefs and desires, and in so doing, the whole warp and woof is changed, not through some occult phenomenon known as rationality or argument, but just through the adaptation of new words and sentences that open up exciting possibilities for us.
The best we can ever do is learn to cope in better and better ways with the world around us. We will never know the world as it is in itself, because this fiction serves no purpose. Things do not exist in themselves, but as parts of the various webs of relationships we come to represent through various sounds and marks on paper to try and make sense of them. These sounds and marks are not occult phenomenon, but the part of another unremarkable human adaptation we call language. Language is another way we have of coping with our environment.
I find Rorty's views refreshing because, by flattening out the artificial hierarchies we use to congratulate ourselves on our cleverness, it reminds us that we are just Darwinian creatures having to cope with our environment. Unlike tigers, who hunt, or zebras, who herd together, we use things like language and science and anthropology and philosophy as part of the package natural selection has given us to survive. That's really all there is to it.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Childishness
The reviews are in, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez did not fare well yesterday. This is hardly surprising, yet the astounding thing about his performance is how abysmal it was even after a much-publicized time of preparation. Consider how much of a train-wreck it might have been had he gone in cold.
For me, it was not so much his almost-constant claims of amnesia when questioned on his role in the despicable politically motivated firings of eight US Attorneys (he could recall the actions of others pretty well; for him, though, not so much). The most telling thing was his attitude. At once petulant and arrogant, whiny and presumptively dismissive, he reminded me of a child caught doing something bad. In an attempt to protect oneself from the results of breaking rules, children very often will adopt such an attitude as a way of protecting themselves from the punishment that is sure to come. It usually fails miserably. In Gonzalez' case, however, he has an indulgent father in President Bush who will no doubt continue to defend this horrid little man who displayed, for all the country to see, how much he is in over his head as head of the Department of Justice.
One of the most egregiously childish acts of his entire performance was his robotic mantra that came down, essentially, to repeating, "I said I was sorry!" Again, like a child caught doing something bad, he must figure that apology is the same thing as penance, and should derail any attempt at punishment. My nine-year-old has already learned that, as I told her recently, "Sorry is not enough." It is only the first step. For Gonzalez, it would be best if he just went away, disappearing in to some obscurity, although wing-nut welfare will no doubt rescue the tatters of this man's reputation, landing him a cushy job somewhere distorting our legal system for his own ends, until the next Republican Administration when, Elliot Abrams-like, he emerges again to do us public disservice.
As with children behaving badly, I just wish all of them would go away. I wish it were January 21, 2009, with Pres. Clinton/Obama/Edwards ensconced in office, with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and a real accounting for all the terrible crimes of the past years could be done. The children have been left without a babysitter since January of 2001, and the house is a disaster; there are years ahead of us rebuilding what has been so relentlessly attacked by this gang of criminal oafs.
For me, it was not so much his almost-constant claims of amnesia when questioned on his role in the despicable politically motivated firings of eight US Attorneys (he could recall the actions of others pretty well; for him, though, not so much). The most telling thing was his attitude. At once petulant and arrogant, whiny and presumptively dismissive, he reminded me of a child caught doing something bad. In an attempt to protect oneself from the results of breaking rules, children very often will adopt such an attitude as a way of protecting themselves from the punishment that is sure to come. It usually fails miserably. In Gonzalez' case, however, he has an indulgent father in President Bush who will no doubt continue to defend this horrid little man who displayed, for all the country to see, how much he is in over his head as head of the Department of Justice.
One of the most egregiously childish acts of his entire performance was his robotic mantra that came down, essentially, to repeating, "I said I was sorry!" Again, like a child caught doing something bad, he must figure that apology is the same thing as penance, and should derail any attempt at punishment. My nine-year-old has already learned that, as I told her recently, "Sorry is not enough." It is only the first step. For Gonzalez, it would be best if he just went away, disappearing in to some obscurity, although wing-nut welfare will no doubt rescue the tatters of this man's reputation, landing him a cushy job somewhere distorting our legal system for his own ends, until the next Republican Administration when, Elliot Abrams-like, he emerges again to do us public disservice.
As with children behaving badly, I just wish all of them would go away. I wish it were January 21, 2009, with Pres. Clinton/Obama/Edwards ensconced in office, with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and a real accounting for all the terrible crimes of the past years could be done. The children have been left without a babysitter since January of 2001, and the house is a disaster; there are years ahead of us rebuilding what has been so relentlessly attacked by this gang of criminal oafs.
Working For the Weekend
This has been a difficult week, personally and publicly, and I for one cannot wait for tomorrow morning. I get off work at 7 a.m., will sleep for a few hours, then spend time mowing the lawn, listening to something uplifting - maybe the Sea Symphony or perhaps Ancient Echoes by the San Antonio Vocal Arts Ensemble (SAVAE) - and read. In the course of 9 days, we have gone from a quick recap of winter (snow and ice and very cold) to sunshine and temps in the 70s. The windows are open, the heat's off, and the sounds of spring - from birds to weed-whackers - flow through our house.
I can't help but think, though, that there are 32 young people who will never know the coming of spring. There are 32 families who will not have their child figuring out how to balance work and play this summer. There is a family here in NoIl that will not see their son graduate from HS, go to the prom, dance with his wife on his wedding day, or see his team (Da Bears) maybe actually win a Super Bowl*. I know I should move beyond this, but this has been, as I said, a hard week.
On a non-political, non-religious, totally self-indulgent and hopeful note, I want to know what your plans are for this weekend. Drinking? A quick trip to see something beautiful? Time with family? A baseball game? A reunion with old friends or family? I think we need to celebrate life a bit right now, and be thankful.
*The young man who passed away was a huge Bears fan. A neighbor of ours is also a Bears fan, having his pick-up customized with a team logo. My wife asked if she could use his truck to transport the casket across the street from the church to the cemetery where he would be buried, in his "34" jersey. Not only did the man agree, but he gave my wife one of his copies of a special Walter Peyton magazine that came out after Sweetness died. The edition is limited and valuable, and went in to the casket and the ground with this young Bears fan. Is it any wonder why I love her so? She knows just the right touch, and brings out the best in everyone she encounters.
I can't help but think, though, that there are 32 young people who will never know the coming of spring. There are 32 families who will not have their child figuring out how to balance work and play this summer. There is a family here in NoIl that will not see their son graduate from HS, go to the prom, dance with his wife on his wedding day, or see his team (Da Bears) maybe actually win a Super Bowl*. I know I should move beyond this, but this has been, as I said, a hard week.
On a non-political, non-religious, totally self-indulgent and hopeful note, I want to know what your plans are for this weekend. Drinking? A quick trip to see something beautiful? Time with family? A baseball game? A reunion with old friends or family? I think we need to celebrate life a bit right now, and be thankful.
*The young man who passed away was a huge Bears fan. A neighbor of ours is also a Bears fan, having his pick-up customized with a team logo. My wife asked if she could use his truck to transport the casket across the street from the church to the cemetery where he would be buried, in his "34" jersey. Not only did the man agree, but he gave my wife one of his copies of a special Walter Peyton magazine that came out after Sweetness died. The edition is limited and valuable, and went in to the casket and the ground with this young Bears fan. Is it any wonder why I love her so? She knows just the right touch, and brings out the best in everyone she encounters.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers
The title is out-and-out theft. Before becoming the first professor theology at the new University of Berlin, the young German Reformed pastor Friedrich Schleiermacher, who had also served, like his fellow faculty-member and nemesis Georg W. F. Hegel, as tutor to some of the wealthiest families in Prussia, published a series of sermons he had preached on the intersection of "religion" and "culture" in Enlightenment Prussia. One must remember that this was the era of Immanuel Kant, of Schelling, of Fichte. This was the time of Voltaire and LaPlace. Schleiermacher's sermons are pleas for the consideration of a mostly beneficent, intellectually vapid culture-Christianity that does neither harm nor good, because it only serves as metaphysical buttress for what is best about society. Despite my great admiration for much of his work, this one, while a stunning popular success, is not his finest hour.
I hope to turn the title around here, because I have made comments in the past couple days that would seem, on the very face of things, to be contradictory. I am a Christian, yet I have taken other Christians (and pseudo-, or non-; I don't really care what Dinesh D'Souza's religious beliefs are, but if he wants to classify himself as a Christian, so be it) to task for the condescension and intellectual vapidity they too often display. I want to make clear the sources of these comments so someone can't jump up and down and say, Horschach-like, "OOO! OOO!"
First of all, I see nothing incongruous with a Christian saying that we need to listen to those of other faiths, and those of no faith at all. This comes from my firm belief in Christian humility, best summed up in the words of my father: "You don't know every goddamn thing!" Part of Christian humility includes listening to the voices of those who not only don't believe, but can't imagine believing. We have no stake, no interest, and no impetus, for demanding that others believe as we do. All we can do is live our lives, and leave the rest to God.
Second, by trying to take every little bit of information and turn it in to an apologetic moment demeans the faith, demeans the intellectual content of the faith, makes us look small, weak, frustrated. It would seem to me that, for example, the presence or lack thereof of atheists in foxholes or mass murder sites is neither here nor there. As with a famous study of the Holocaust done in Israel, the reaction of survivors was pretty much across the board - some had their faith shattered, some had it strengthened, and some said it had no effect on their faith whatsoever. I think to try and bring God in to an argument here, at least in the way D'Souza wants to, is intellectually flabby (to say the least) as well as dishonest. We need to listen to what real people say about their experiences, not judge beforehand what the spiritual outcome might or might not be.
I do not believe the Christian faith is proved or disproved by any and every little action we human beings do, or every event that occurs in the world. I do not think we can say with any kind of intellectual honesty that, "The holocaust shows that God does not exist", or "The survival of 'x' people during 'e' event shows that God was with them," or whatever the case may be. this is my main beef with Dawkins; he wants to show that he has definitively proven that God cannot exist. There is simply no way to do that. One can deny God's existence, for some reasons that are both intellectually and emotionally satisfying. One cannot say that one has shown for all time and all places and all people that God is an existential impossibility. It can't be done. Period. Such intellectual shabbiness is on a par with the horribly awful "apologetics" of Josh McDowell.
I think what we Christians need to do is shut up. I think what we Christians need to do is start listening to people, including non-Christians and even anti-Christians. I think we need to ask forgiveness for our pride, the kind of pride that sees no atheists in foxholes, the kind of pride that sees divine providence in a disaster area, the kind of pride that can detect the invisible action of the Almighty in every eigen-state jump of every elementary particle. I think we need to pray more, sing more, worship more, and let go the vast conceit that we have an "in" to the reality of the Universe that is closed to others. We may claim that the universe was created by God, but that doesn't mean we either understand that universe, or the God who created it. I think we need to practice a bit of silence in the face of so much noise and squawking and shouting. We need to be a bit slower to have all the answers. In fact, we need to admit that sometimes, there are no answers, because there are really no questions.
There's just life. That's all. For me, Christianity isn't the magic key to all the mysteries of everything. It's just about life. And sometimes, life is admitting you don't know everything, and listening to other people tell their stories.
I hope to turn the title around here, because I have made comments in the past couple days that would seem, on the very face of things, to be contradictory. I am a Christian, yet I have taken other Christians (and pseudo-, or non-; I don't really care what Dinesh D'Souza's religious beliefs are, but if he wants to classify himself as a Christian, so be it) to task for the condescension and intellectual vapidity they too often display. I want to make clear the sources of these comments so someone can't jump up and down and say, Horschach-like, "OOO! OOO!"
First of all, I see nothing incongruous with a Christian saying that we need to listen to those of other faiths, and those of no faith at all. This comes from my firm belief in Christian humility, best summed up in the words of my father: "You don't know every goddamn thing!" Part of Christian humility includes listening to the voices of those who not only don't believe, but can't imagine believing. We have no stake, no interest, and no impetus, for demanding that others believe as we do. All we can do is live our lives, and leave the rest to God.
Second, by trying to take every little bit of information and turn it in to an apologetic moment demeans the faith, demeans the intellectual content of the faith, makes us look small, weak, frustrated. It would seem to me that, for example, the presence or lack thereof of atheists in foxholes or mass murder sites is neither here nor there. As with a famous study of the Holocaust done in Israel, the reaction of survivors was pretty much across the board - some had their faith shattered, some had it strengthened, and some said it had no effect on their faith whatsoever. I think to try and bring God in to an argument here, at least in the way D'Souza wants to, is intellectually flabby (to say the least) as well as dishonest. We need to listen to what real people say about their experiences, not judge beforehand what the spiritual outcome might or might not be.
I do not believe the Christian faith is proved or disproved by any and every little action we human beings do, or every event that occurs in the world. I do not think we can say with any kind of intellectual honesty that, "The holocaust shows that God does not exist", or "The survival of 'x' people during 'e' event shows that God was with them," or whatever the case may be. this is my main beef with Dawkins; he wants to show that he has definitively proven that God cannot exist. There is simply no way to do that. One can deny God's existence, for some reasons that are both intellectually and emotionally satisfying. One cannot say that one has shown for all time and all places and all people that God is an existential impossibility. It can't be done. Period. Such intellectual shabbiness is on a par with the horribly awful "apologetics" of Josh McDowell.
I think what we Christians need to do is shut up. I think what we Christians need to do is start listening to people, including non-Christians and even anti-Christians. I think we need to ask forgiveness for our pride, the kind of pride that sees no atheists in foxholes, the kind of pride that sees divine providence in a disaster area, the kind of pride that can detect the invisible action of the Almighty in every eigen-state jump of every elementary particle. I think we need to pray more, sing more, worship more, and let go the vast conceit that we have an "in" to the reality of the Universe that is closed to others. We may claim that the universe was created by God, but that doesn't mean we either understand that universe, or the God who created it. I think we need to practice a bit of silence in the face of so much noise and squawking and shouting. We need to be a bit slower to have all the answers. In fact, we need to admit that sometimes, there are no answers, because there are really no questions.
There's just life. That's all. For me, Christianity isn't the magic key to all the mysteries of everything. It's just about life. And sometimes, life is admitting you don't know everything, and listening to other people tell their stories.
Why Blame the Victims When We Can Blame the Entire Country (Plus an English Biology Professor, Too)?
Remember when the Columbine HS massacre happened, and Newt Gingrich said that it was the perfect encapsulation of liberalism, or something to that effect? Remember after 9/11, when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed abortion and feminism? It seems that there is always someone else to blame for these horrors than those who actually perpetrate them, and the fault usually devolves to some aspect of society that is not liked by those doing the speaking.
I wrote about John "Rambo" Derbyshire's whine about how wimpy the victims were in not taking this guy out. Others on the right, Michelle Malkin for instance, have started blaming the education system for turning our young men into heartless, gutless wimps, who cower when a maniac points a gun at them (I suppose she really liked Samuel Jackson's line in Pulp Fiction where, confronted by a robber at the diner, says, "This isn't the first time today I've had a gun pointed at me," all calm, cool, and collected).
Now we have that sorry pathetic excuse for a human being, Dinesh "Distort D'Newsa" D'Souza, writing here (with a hat tip to Digby, and also Obsidian Wings, whose take on this piece is wonderful). The part where he answers D'Souza's question about the presence of atheists in the wake of tragedy is priceless: "So that's why I couldn't find me." I shall reprint D'Souza's little failed typing exercise in full. It's short (which is lucky, cause I just had lunch):
The universe doesn't have a "characteristic", main or otherwise. Atheism, it seems to me, has never had a problem dealing with the question of evil. Had D'Souza spent more time in class at Dartmouth and less time making up stuff to put in the student newspaper, he might have read Freud and the Frankfurt School (especially Herbert Marcuse) and any of a host of social theorists who have written on the topic. Of course, since these folks are atheists, I suppose what they have to say means nothing to Dinesh. In fact, I doubt reading them would matter because, while I have little truck with Richard Dawkins, invoking his name, and distorting his argument (and granting will and agency, including indifference, to conglomerations of atoms in the process) does not help at all.
Because he seems incapable of being embarrassed at how stupid he is, I refuse to waste my time being embarrassed for him. I would rather put his writings out there for all to see and laugh at. The bit about "good", "evil", and "souls" not existing in a "materialist universe" (whatever that means) is really funny. I mean, seriously. Good and evil are human constructs based upon what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. That's all. For the Romans, watching people kill each other, throwing religious minorities and other criminals in to a ring to be devoured by lions and tigers, was all OK. For us, it isn't. I happen to think we're a better society for it, but I certainly can't prove that point by reference to something "out there" called "good" and "evil". As for the soul, well . . . let's just not talk about that, OK? I really, really don't want to make D'Souza look any worse than he already does.
There are always atheists in foxholes, or at mass murder sites. We just don't listen to them, because some people with a certain agenda lift up those people who happen to mention one deity or another.
Since his last book tanked, I don't think he has helped his prospects for a new book deal with this little piece of non-intellectual fluff. Maybe Dancing With the Stars needs another right-wing has-been, since Tucker Carlson fared so badly before.
I wrote about John "Rambo" Derbyshire's whine about how wimpy the victims were in not taking this guy out. Others on the right, Michelle Malkin for instance, have started blaming the education system for turning our young men into heartless, gutless wimps, who cower when a maniac points a gun at them (I suppose she really liked Samuel Jackson's line in Pulp Fiction where, confronted by a robber at the diner, says, "This isn't the first time today I've had a gun pointed at me," all calm, cool, and collected).
Now we have that sorry pathetic excuse for a human being, Dinesh "Distort D'Newsa" D'Souza, writing here (with a hat tip to Digby, and also Obsidian Wings, whose take on this piece is wonderful). The part where he answers D'Souza's question about the presence of atheists in the wake of tragedy is priceless: "So that's why I couldn't find me." I shall reprint D'Souza's little failed typing exercise in full. It's short (which is lucky, cause I just had lunch):
Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning.
The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul--well, that's an illusion!
To no one's surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules.
If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.
The universe doesn't have a "characteristic", main or otherwise. Atheism, it seems to me, has never had a problem dealing with the question of evil. Had D'Souza spent more time in class at Dartmouth and less time making up stuff to put in the student newspaper, he might have read Freud and the Frankfurt School (especially Herbert Marcuse) and any of a host of social theorists who have written on the topic. Of course, since these folks are atheists, I suppose what they have to say means nothing to Dinesh. In fact, I doubt reading them would matter because, while I have little truck with Richard Dawkins, invoking his name, and distorting his argument (and granting will and agency, including indifference, to conglomerations of atoms in the process) does not help at all.
Because he seems incapable of being embarrassed at how stupid he is, I refuse to waste my time being embarrassed for him. I would rather put his writings out there for all to see and laugh at. The bit about "good", "evil", and "souls" not existing in a "materialist universe" (whatever that means) is really funny. I mean, seriously. Good and evil are human constructs based upon what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. That's all. For the Romans, watching people kill each other, throwing religious minorities and other criminals in to a ring to be devoured by lions and tigers, was all OK. For us, it isn't. I happen to think we're a better society for it, but I certainly can't prove that point by reference to something "out there" called "good" and "evil". As for the soul, well . . . let's just not talk about that, OK? I really, really don't want to make D'Souza look any worse than he already does.
There are always atheists in foxholes, or at mass murder sites. We just don't listen to them, because some people with a certain agenda lift up those people who happen to mention one deity or another.
Since his last book tanked, I don't think he has helped his prospects for a new book deal with this little piece of non-intellectual fluff. Maybe Dancing With the Stars needs another right-wing has-been, since Tucker Carlson fared so badly before.
Short Take
Been watching Senate hearing with the Attorney General. Here is my impression of how the questions are going:
Democratic Senator: You've lied, misled, blocked information, changed your story, and now you want us to believe you, even under oath. I think you are a lying sack of crap.
AG:You can believe me because I don't remember anything important.
Republican Senator:A question or two on how tough your job is, and how awful for the Democrats to be calling you a liar, politicizing this process. You are a tough man doing a tough job.
AG:Thank you, Senator, for having my back, along with the President.
BTW, "I don't remember", and worse, "I've been searching my memory" (he actually used these words in response to a question from Jeff Sessions from Alabama) are weasel ways of avoiding perjury charges, because, you know, suddenly the light can go on in a darkened corner of the AG's mind, and he can remember what he forgot to talk about under oath.
Democratic Senator: You've lied, misled, blocked information, changed your story, and now you want us to believe you, even under oath. I think you are a lying sack of crap.
AG:You can believe me because I don't remember anything important.
Republican Senator:A question or two on how tough your job is, and how awful for the Democrats to be calling you a liar, politicizing this process. You are a tough man doing a tough job.
AG:Thank you, Senator, for having my back, along with the President.
BTW, "I don't remember", and worse, "I've been searching my memory" (he actually used these words in response to a question from Jeff Sessions from Alabama) are weasel ways of avoiding perjury charges, because, you know, suddenly the light can go on in a darkened corner of the AG's mind, and he can remember what he forgot to talk about under oath.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
How to Report the News 101, by Christy Hardin Smith
Let's cut to the chase, shall we? All the nonsense about "balance" in the news has to stop for this simple reason, summed up in this paragraph from a post at Fire Dog Lake by Christy (you need to read the whole thing):
This is my problem with the people who want to hide Don Imus behind the First Amendment. This is my problem with all those who whine about how "horrible" the "liberal media" and foul-mouthed liberal bloggers are to Bush and his criminal cronies. This is my problem with mainstream journalists like David Broder, Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, Tim Russert, and others. They insist we have to take this crap, and not call it crap, because it comes from official sources. Sorry, but if you hold a spoon full of shit up to my mouth, insisting it is medicine and that I have to take it because you say so, my mouth is staying shut, and, by God, I will call it shit, no matter how much you insist it is medicine.
Why is it non-journalists seem to understand this concept so much better than journalists do? How difficult is it, in a story or during an interview, when someone lays down a real whopper, to just say, "You know what, that's just wrong, and I need to point that out." If the person wants to continue to lie, or insist on a falsehood, just keep calling them on it. It isn't that hard. You do it and do it, as often as you have to. If they cut you off from access to information, what in the world have you lost but a lying, no-good sack of shit? In fact, it would seem to me you could write a piece that included the following line:
How about that for journalistic ethics?
[T]he false equivalency given to factually inaccurate crap has got to stop. If the public official with whom you are speaking is trying to sell you a load of bullshit, it is okay to call it manure. In fact, it is accurate to do so. As Jay [Rosen] says, too many journalists over the past few years have "lapsed into a phony kind of balance." If the facts do not support it, you aren't doing yourself any favors by pretending that both sides of an argument are equal. That is not balance, it is just phony.
This is my problem with the people who want to hide Don Imus behind the First Amendment. This is my problem with all those who whine about how "horrible" the "liberal media" and foul-mouthed liberal bloggers are to Bush and his criminal cronies. This is my problem with mainstream journalists like David Broder, Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, Tim Russert, and others. They insist we have to take this crap, and not call it crap, because it comes from official sources. Sorry, but if you hold a spoon full of shit up to my mouth, insisting it is medicine and that I have to take it because you say so, my mouth is staying shut, and, by God, I will call it shit, no matter how much you insist it is medicine.
Why is it non-journalists seem to understand this concept so much better than journalists do? How difficult is it, in a story or during an interview, when someone lays down a real whopper, to just say, "You know what, that's just wrong, and I need to point that out." If the person wants to continue to lie, or insist on a falsehood, just keep calling them on it. It isn't that hard. You do it and do it, as often as you have to. If they cut you off from access to information, what in the world have you lost but a lying, no-good sack of shit? In fact, it would seem to me you could write a piece that included the following line:
I went to my usual source, X, who lied to me, and when I called him on it, he cut me off from information. Because he lied to me, I do not feel obliged to hide his identity any longer.
How about that for journalistic ethics?
Awful
We have been dealing with a whole lot of death recently in our household. Two weeks ago, a childhood friend of mine, a man whom I had known since we were in kindergarten, died. Monday, my wife performed two funerals. Today, she attended two. Tomorrow, she attends the funeral of a sixteen-year-old at whose death-bed she sat on Sunday, along with his family. On top of this comes the mass murder at VA Tech. A person can only take so much.
The fellows at Sadly!No do us all a service by making fun of horrible people. Here, here, here, and here they take shots, like standing inside a closed barn, hoping to hit a wall, or perhaps the roof, at Deb Schussel (again, I refuse to link to her because she is so abysmally horrible). I have been able to laugh when, to be honest, I just want to weep. I want all of it - all the blame, the finger pointing, the racism, the faux-hero posturing, the demand for more guns, more gun-control more this, less that - I want it to all STOP so we can just be human enough to mourn with the families and friends, to console those who have survived. Crooks and Liars has this piece that includes a comment at Schussels blog, calling her an "empty-souled vampiric monster." How appropriate.
Why can't these people just shut up? Seriously. Just. Shut. UP!
The fellows at Sadly!No do us all a service by making fun of horrible people. Here, here, here, and here they take shots, like standing inside a closed barn, hoping to hit a wall, or perhaps the roof, at Deb Schussel (again, I refuse to link to her because she is so abysmally horrible). I have been able to laugh when, to be honest, I just want to weep. I want all of it - all the blame, the finger pointing, the racism, the faux-hero posturing, the demand for more guns, more gun-control more this, less that - I want it to all STOP so we can just be human enough to mourn with the families and friends, to console those who have survived. Crooks and Liars has this piece that includes a comment at Schussels blog, calling her an "empty-souled vampiric monster." How appropriate.
Why can't these people just shut up? Seriously. Just. Shut. UP!
For This Christian, "Religion" Is Optional
Via Faith in Public Life.org, comes this piece by Jeff Jacoby. I can 't think of a better illustration of bad thinking and ridiculous question-begging than this, and I insist you go read it. I shall quote just one line, the most egregious of which follows:
I shall be quick (I hope; we all know what happens when I get on a roll . . .). Very simply put, "religion" as a social phenomenon covers such a wide variety of practices - one can look at AA as a religion, as has been done for two decades by social scientists; we can analyze certain civic practices (saluting the flag, moments of silence on days of national remembrance, the ceremonies of our public life) as part of what is known as "civil religion' - that it is less a noun than an adjective, a term empty until filled in by the description of certain specifics that one or another analyst deems necessary to flesh out his or her idea of what constitutes "religion". In short, the word "religion" has come to mean nothing except what we want it to mean; the word itself is a cypher, and the constant conflation of it with certain specific practices such as "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", etc., is misleading at best, and intellectual dishonesty and obscurantism at worst.
Second, to say that "God" is indispensable is to do to the word "God" what we have done to the word "religion". It becomes a cypher, a blank to be filled in by whatever qualities, affectations, and descriptions we feel best fit the word. Rather than deal with the specifics of Christian practice, Jewish practice, Buddhist practice (OK, that's not a good example, because Buddhism doesn't have gods, but you get my point), we posit something-we-know-not-what and call it, for lack of a better word, "God", and demand that others recognize this as supposed universal idea as representative of divinity.
I would wish that such talk were replaced by discussions of very specific faith traditions, what they offer us, how they restrict us, and their effects both good and ill on us as individuals and as a society. By discussing the topic this way, we avoid the kind of nonsense Jacoby is offering - I am not an apologetic thinker when it comes to questions of faith, so I do not believe it necessary to defend the Christian faith from the onslaughts of critics - and get down where people live. Indeed, I would insist that Jacoby's piece is more harmful than good, because it distracts us from discussing religion as a social phenomenon is some kind of intelligent, thoughtful way.
Finally, for many individuals, God and faith, religious practice and professions of faith are not only optional, they are easily discarded as so much detritus. Why should we dismiss these people, their lives, their lack of belief, and their cheery apathy toward these questions and issues in such a demeaning, presumptive tone? I really am tired of people of faith who demand that others not only practice as they do, but believe as they do, and (by way of implication) that by not so doing, they are somehow wrong on some very fundamental level. Give me a cheery atheist over a demanding Christian any day of the week.
I say and write all this as a Christian who believes deeply in the transformative power of faith; in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and the inauguration of the New Creation, within which we live; in the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to lead us all to new life, to the kind of life God desired for us when we were created in the divine image. Having said all that, I do not believe for one moment that such statements need to be defended from assault, or that they are "necessary" for social cohesion. Social cohesion, especially in a land as diverse and multi-faceted as ours has no need of divine support, nor should it.
That isn't any religion's business.
[Y]ou rarely have to look far to be reminded of the indispensability of God and religion .
I shall be quick (I hope; we all know what happens when I get on a roll . . .). Very simply put, "religion" as a social phenomenon covers such a wide variety of practices - one can look at AA as a religion, as has been done for two decades by social scientists; we can analyze certain civic practices (saluting the flag, moments of silence on days of national remembrance, the ceremonies of our public life) as part of what is known as "civil religion' - that it is less a noun than an adjective, a term empty until filled in by the description of certain specifics that one or another analyst deems necessary to flesh out his or her idea of what constitutes "religion". In short, the word "religion" has come to mean nothing except what we want it to mean; the word itself is a cypher, and the constant conflation of it with certain specific practices such as "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", etc., is misleading at best, and intellectual dishonesty and obscurantism at worst.
Second, to say that "God" is indispensable is to do to the word "God" what we have done to the word "religion". It becomes a cypher, a blank to be filled in by whatever qualities, affectations, and descriptions we feel best fit the word. Rather than deal with the specifics of Christian practice, Jewish practice, Buddhist practice (OK, that's not a good example, because Buddhism doesn't have gods, but you get my point), we posit something-we-know-not-what and call it, for lack of a better word, "God", and demand that others recognize this as supposed universal idea as representative of divinity.
I would wish that such talk were replaced by discussions of very specific faith traditions, what they offer us, how they restrict us, and their effects both good and ill on us as individuals and as a society. By discussing the topic this way, we avoid the kind of nonsense Jacoby is offering - I am not an apologetic thinker when it comes to questions of faith, so I do not believe it necessary to defend the Christian faith from the onslaughts of critics - and get down where people live. Indeed, I would insist that Jacoby's piece is more harmful than good, because it distracts us from discussing religion as a social phenomenon is some kind of intelligent, thoughtful way.
Finally, for many individuals, God and faith, religious practice and professions of faith are not only optional, they are easily discarded as so much detritus. Why should we dismiss these people, their lives, their lack of belief, and their cheery apathy toward these questions and issues in such a demeaning, presumptive tone? I really am tired of people of faith who demand that others not only practice as they do, but believe as they do, and (by way of implication) that by not so doing, they are somehow wrong on some very fundamental level. Give me a cheery atheist over a demanding Christian any day of the week.
I say and write all this as a Christian who believes deeply in the transformative power of faith; in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and the inauguration of the New Creation, within which we live; in the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to lead us all to new life, to the kind of life God desired for us when we were created in the divine image. Having said all that, I do not believe for one moment that such statements need to be defended from assault, or that they are "necessary" for social cohesion. Social cohesion, especially in a land as diverse and multi-faceted as ours has no need of divine support, nor should it.
That isn't any religion's business.
Let's Ban All Medical Procedures!
So, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on Intact Dilation and Extraction (Intact D & E, or IDE), known among the pro-life community by the very bad, very false neologism "partial birth abortion". What medical procedures are next? Vasectomies? Blood transfusions? Open-heart surgeries? Organ transplants?
My view on this issue is really quite simple. This is a medical procedure, performed under the care of a physician, and it is dangerous business when the state determines what is a legitimate medical procedure and what is not. This has ramifications that have little to do with the question of abortion. We can extend the logic here to start banning pretty much any medical procedure that violates some group's beliefs. Let's just consider the question of childbirth itself; even though anesthesia was available for years, it was denied women because of the scriptural injunction that women were to give birth in pain as part of the punishment for original sin.
Let's not even go down the list and talk about conception control.
Rather than simply throw the whole issue of abortion back on the state legislatures where it belongs, and where we could actually have a debate on the issue of abortion, we now have a situation where the Supreme Court has done a mirror-image of the Roe decision, imposed its will upon the public, initially within a highly narrow category of prospective cases, but with ramifications across a broad spectrum of social and medical practices. This is a very dangerous precedent.
My view on this issue is really quite simple. This is a medical procedure, performed under the care of a physician, and it is dangerous business when the state determines what is a legitimate medical procedure and what is not. This has ramifications that have little to do with the question of abortion. We can extend the logic here to start banning pretty much any medical procedure that violates some group's beliefs. Let's just consider the question of childbirth itself; even though anesthesia was available for years, it was denied women because of the scriptural injunction that women were to give birth in pain as part of the punishment for original sin.
Let's not even go down the list and talk about conception control.
Rather than simply throw the whole issue of abortion back on the state legislatures where it belongs, and where we could actually have a debate on the issue of abortion, we now have a situation where the Supreme Court has done a mirror-image of the Roe decision, imposed its will upon the public, initially within a highly narrow category of prospective cases, but with ramifications across a broad spectrum of social and medical practices. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Issues
Digby's right. These people have issues (from tbogg's blog):
Before I take a stab at the whole thing, the italicized line needs a bit of, um, clarification. Perhaps Kevin McCullough, the "author" of the above piece of woman-hating ranting, is unaware that auto-eroticism does not refer to masturbation as a general practice, but a particular form, much more prevalent among men than women, that involves asphyxiation, and can end up in tragedy. We shall leave this bit of fetishistic ignorance to one side, and shall just stare at this piece of bewildering wonderment.
I have written recently of the fear certain men have, a fear exacerbated by the appearance of independent, strong women. Such women, whose mere image can cause such men to simultaneously cower and shiver in fear and explode with rage, highlight the underlying insecurity such men have that they are not "man" enough. That they are not necessary for fulfilling the life of these women. They fear that such women would take a look at them, snicker dismissively, and wander away in search of - another man? a woman, perhaps? D-batteries? - whatever might fulfill here needs of the moment or a lifetime. McCullough is a perfect illustration of the warping of the male psyche brought about by the appearance of independent women; if this isn't self-justification masquerading as social critique, I don't know what is (alright, for the sake of argument, I will also concede that there is social commentary here; so perhaps its social commentary masquerading as one big essay/assay into the borderland of psychosis).
While all men have insecurities when it comes to their relationships with women - if you read Susan Faludi's Stiffed, and nodded in agreement even once, you know what I mean - most of us come to some sort of accommodation with these insecurities. Indeed, if you are mature, and even just a bit self-aware, in the midst of a relationship, you might want to share those insecurities. But these are, for the most part, private matters. When the presence of a type of public woman appears on the scene, however, these men quiver and shake and turn beet-red in the face. Simultaneously afraid and rage-filled - the mere presence of these individuals as representative of a type is usually enough to get the adrenaline pumping - they must reassert their masculinity. Thus, as in the case of McCullough, we have the reminder that, "Hey, man got sperm!" As if, somehow, this were even close to being relevant to anything other than this particular sad-sack's own sense of his emptiness and lack of worth.
As a personal aside, let me just say that I am the youngest child in a family with three older sisters, all of whom are extremely bright, intelligent, accomplished, and, like our mother (Sis, if you're reading this, please nod in agreement), strong-willed. I married a woman of similar traits and talents and accomplishments. The presence of such a type of woman in the world makes all our lives both more interesting and easier; for some men, however, the fear such women engender (no pun intended) overwhelms their rational thought processes, and we end up with Kevin McCullough telling us that without sperm, women are nothing.
It is both scary and sad.
For years the modern feminists have attempted to completely obliterate the need for men in society. They have argued in favor of, marched for, and protested on behalf of the ideas that women can provide everything that a woman needs.
Go into any women's studies program on the campus of any major university and you will learn that women don't need men for economic provision, physical protection, or to even achieve sexual orgasm. Our daughters are being taught that to believe men are necessary for anything is not only pure bunk, but actually a sign of intellectual weakness.
As a result women have shunned personal relationships and sky-rocketed to the top of the business world. Their incomes have increased as they have put off having children, not to mention the thought of getting married till far later in life.
They've gotten themselves into the gym and lifted weights and learned kick-boxing so that at least theoretically they could ward off an attacker. (Of course they haven't been encouraged to pack fire-arms or conceal handguns because for some reason its more "progressive" for a woman to take male hormones and resemble eastern European male wrestlers than it is for the most lady-like among us to blow someone away if their life depended on it.)
Women have been inundated with auto-eroticism (emphasis added) methodologies and lesbian love making techniques not only in these women's studies courses but also through popular culture, women's magazines, and cable television. They are also told by that same culture, be it prime time media or TIME magazine, that men at best "are clumsy" in this area, and at worst "just plain don't know what they're doing."
In making all these “advances” there has still been one major stumbling block for the argument of a completely female universe. That has been the production of sperm, male DNA, the missing element to creating a child when paired with a woman's egg. Without this necessary ingredient the entirety of the female-only existence is impossible, women's studies departments are useless, and feminism is nothing more than mindless brainwashing.
Before I take a stab at the whole thing, the italicized line needs a bit of, um, clarification. Perhaps Kevin McCullough, the "author" of the above piece of woman-hating ranting, is unaware that auto-eroticism does not refer to masturbation as a general practice, but a particular form, much more prevalent among men than women, that involves asphyxiation, and can end up in tragedy. We shall leave this bit of fetishistic ignorance to one side, and shall just stare at this piece of bewildering wonderment.
I have written recently of the fear certain men have, a fear exacerbated by the appearance of independent, strong women. Such women, whose mere image can cause such men to simultaneously cower and shiver in fear and explode with rage, highlight the underlying insecurity such men have that they are not "man" enough. That they are not necessary for fulfilling the life of these women. They fear that such women would take a look at them, snicker dismissively, and wander away in search of - another man? a woman, perhaps? D-batteries? - whatever might fulfill here needs of the moment or a lifetime. McCullough is a perfect illustration of the warping of the male psyche brought about by the appearance of independent women; if this isn't self-justification masquerading as social critique, I don't know what is (alright, for the sake of argument, I will also concede that there is social commentary here; so perhaps its social commentary masquerading as one big essay/assay into the borderland of psychosis).
While all men have insecurities when it comes to their relationships with women - if you read Susan Faludi's Stiffed, and nodded in agreement even once, you know what I mean - most of us come to some sort of accommodation with these insecurities. Indeed, if you are mature, and even just a bit self-aware, in the midst of a relationship, you might want to share those insecurities. But these are, for the most part, private matters. When the presence of a type of public woman appears on the scene, however, these men quiver and shake and turn beet-red in the face. Simultaneously afraid and rage-filled - the mere presence of these individuals as representative of a type is usually enough to get the adrenaline pumping - they must reassert their masculinity. Thus, as in the case of McCullough, we have the reminder that, "Hey, man got sperm!" As if, somehow, this were even close to being relevant to anything other than this particular sad-sack's own sense of his emptiness and lack of worth.
As a personal aside, let me just say that I am the youngest child in a family with three older sisters, all of whom are extremely bright, intelligent, accomplished, and, like our mother (Sis, if you're reading this, please nod in agreement), strong-willed. I married a woman of similar traits and talents and accomplishments. The presence of such a type of woman in the world makes all our lives both more interesting and easier; for some men, however, the fear such women engender (no pun intended) overwhelms their rational thought processes, and we end up with Kevin McCullough telling us that without sperm, women are nothing.
It is both scary and sad.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
For Those Left behind
Tomorrow, I hope to be in a different emotional space. The events at Virginia Tech have just left me feeling that all the nonsense, all the talk, all the pomposity, all the posturing, all the foolishness - it is all meaningless. We need to come together right now, all 300,00,000 of us Americans, and pray or do the non-religious facsimile thereof, and hold in all our thoughts those who are living and will live with this forever: the parents, siblings, lovers, friends, and those who escaped death, sometimes by the narrowest of margins. We need to hold them all and let them know all of us are with them. I know the song is cheesy, but I heard it last night, and I can't get out of my head the feeling that, for the living, this is what we need to be saying:
Note: I couldn't upload the actual video, but this one is pretty good. If you don't like it - the song or the video - go find your own. But do it for them, not for yourself.
Note: I couldn't upload the actual video, but this one is pretty good. If you don't like it - the song or the video - go find your own. But do it for them, not for yourself.
Pornography
There has been quite the little controversy here over dirty words and pictures. Some people have been offended by languages and images that have appeared on the blog of one who proclaims himself a "Christian". Compared to the following, from John Derbyshire from NRO (no, I will not link and increase the technorati ratings for this scumbag), nothing I could ever post would be as horrible or as damaging (h/t, Ana Marie Cox at Swampland):
In the wake of this horrific event, to write something like this . . . Words fail me as I try to figure out how to describe this vomitous pile of letters structured like sentences. The only thing that makes this worse is his bringing up Flight 93, thus somehow finding a 9/11 angle when there wasn't any to be had. This is the vilest pornography. It certainly doesn't meet this community's local standard, and should be prosecuted as obscenity.
UPDATE: In the interest of fairness, I should add that, while not nearly as bilious as the above piece from National Review Online, the following excerpt from this pice at Fire Dog Lake by TRex is also unfortunate, because it attempts to make political hay out of the deaths of 32 innocents and one very ill individual. Perhaps in time we can have discussions such as this. For now, however, we should all just remain silent, praying to which ever God or god or goddess or gods or goddesses or nature or whatever that the families and friends of the fallen may find some way of making it through these next days. Sometimes all this talk on the internet can be just awful, and awful knows no political label:
As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.
At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.
Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.
In the wake of this horrific event, to write something like this . . . Words fail me as I try to figure out how to describe this vomitous pile of letters structured like sentences. The only thing that makes this worse is his bringing up Flight 93, thus somehow finding a 9/11 angle when there wasn't any to be had. This is the vilest pornography. It certainly doesn't meet this community's local standard, and should be prosecuted as obscenity.
UPDATE: In the interest of fairness, I should add that, while not nearly as bilious as the above piece from National Review Online, the following excerpt from this pice at Fire Dog Lake by TRex is also unfortunate, because it attempts to make political hay out of the deaths of 32 innocents and one very ill individual. Perhaps in time we can have discussions such as this. For now, however, we should all just remain silent, praying to which ever God or god or goddess or gods or goddesses or nature or whatever that the families and friends of the fallen may find some way of making it through these next days. Sometimes all this talk on the internet can be just awful, and awful knows no political label:
This is a terrible tragedy, one that will be haunting us for years to come. Still there is a part of my brain that absorbs this kind of sudden and senseless catastrophe and responds, "Welcome to what the people of Iraq go through every day."
Monday, April 16, 2007
Music Monday
One of my musical passions is sacred music. I am not a fan of gospel (although there is something transcendent about Mahalia Jackson), or of white gospel like the Gaithers, but I do love listening to baroque, classical, and contemporary sacred music. Perhaps it's just a cultural bias (especially because I recognize the beauty and power of both gospel and spirituals; I just can't sit and listen to them), but listening to an orchestra and a choir pulls me out of myself and places me somewhere holy. My first offering tonight is just a bit of "St. Matthews Passion", a cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. My copy is from the Musical Heritage Society, on three CDs.
Next is British composer Ralph Vaughn Williams, with "Five Variations on Dives and Lazarus". The "Dives and Lazarus", for those who may not know, comes from the parable in St. Luke's Gospel about the rich man who dies and, standing on the edge of an unbridgeable gulf, sees a poor man who had begged at his gate held to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begs first for mercy, then for the opportunity to return, Marley-like, to earth to warn his family of the peril that awaits them. Father Abraham says, "You had the law and the prophets. Why should they listen to you, if they will not listen to them?" Ouch.
Finally, I present a piece by Franz Schubert. I have a seven-CD collection of his sacred works, including Masses, bits of masses, and a cantata based upon the raising of Lazarus from St. John's Gospel. The liner notes include mention that Schubert often neglected, or purposely left out, the invocation of the Trinity from many of his Masses, and he was a vocal critic of what he viewed as "obscurantism"; yet his masses were performed often. The following is the "Benedictus" from Schubert's Mass No. 6 in E-flat major:
Next is British composer Ralph Vaughn Williams, with "Five Variations on Dives and Lazarus". The "Dives and Lazarus", for those who may not know, comes from the parable in St. Luke's Gospel about the rich man who dies and, standing on the edge of an unbridgeable gulf, sees a poor man who had begged at his gate held to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begs first for mercy, then for the opportunity to return, Marley-like, to earth to warn his family of the peril that awaits them. Father Abraham says, "You had the law and the prophets. Why should they listen to you, if they will not listen to them?" Ouch.
Finally, I present a piece by Franz Schubert. I have a seven-CD collection of his sacred works, including Masses, bits of masses, and a cantata based upon the raising of Lazarus from St. John's Gospel. The liner notes include mention that Schubert often neglected, or purposely left out, the invocation of the Trinity from many of his Masses, and he was a vocal critic of what he viewed as "obscurantism"; yet his masses were performed often. The following is the "Benedictus" from Schubert's Mass No. 6 in E-flat major:
No Sense of Irony
Cluelessness is not something restricted to politicians, or Republicans, or conservatives. All of us from time to time say and do things that, were we a bit more self-aware, we might not have done. Yet, it seems that our President wants to monopolize this particular corner of human behavior. From Faith in Public Life.org:
Yes, let us have dignity for blastocysts, but not for the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and the 3300 American service personnel killed, the tens of thousands of each of these wounded. Let us make sure that every germ cell is preserved, but death row inmates dispatched as quickly as possible.
This man is a horror show of self-ignorance. I suppose I should have entitled this one "No Sense of Shame", but one would have to be aware of how horrible one is in order to have any shame.
President Bush preached to the choir at the National Catholic Prayer breakfast Friday, promoting the "dignity of life," and stressing his opposition to easing restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research — a reference to a bill he's threatened to veto.
"In our day there is a temptation to manipulate life in ways that do not respect the humanity of the person," Bush said Friday. "When that happens, the most vulnerable among us can be valued for their utility to others instead of their own inherent worth."
Yes, let us have dignity for blastocysts, but not for the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and the 3300 American service personnel killed, the tens of thousands of each of these wounded. Let us make sure that every germ cell is preserved, but death row inmates dispatched as quickly as possible.
This man is a horror show of self-ignorance. I suppose I should have entitled this one "No Sense of Shame", but one would have to be aware of how horrible one is in order to have any shame.
In Memoriam
To those who have fallen in Blacksburg, VA:
Merciful Jesus, that takes away the sin of the world, grant them eternal rest forever.
Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world, grant them eternal rest forever.
Merciful Jesus, that takes away the sin of the world, grant them eternal rest forever.
Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world, grant them eternal rest forever.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Art, Politics, & Dirty Words: Is Imus as Bad as Snoop Dogg?
I am not a fan of rap music the way I am a fan of prog metal or jazz. I do not own any rap CDs. I do not listen to rap to relax, or as background for reading, or any of the reasons I listen to music. I do not stay current with who's hot, who's not, what's better, what's worse. I honestly have no opinion on all sorts of issues of vital interest to those intimately involved in rap and hip-hop culture.
This does not mean I do not appreciate it as an art form. At its best, it is challenging in a way that no art form has been since be-bop. It has changed the way we view issues of musical authorship, of the relationship among lyrics, rhythm, tonality, and a whole host of other "traditional" musical categories. It has also focused attention on those who create it - inner-city African-Americans. Its roots in the Bronx and Brooklyn, and its spread to other minority communities (significantly south central LA) pushed this new art form into communities with very specific attitudes, grievances, and vocabularies. Thus, the premiere LA rap group NWA offered the following song from their first release, Straight Outta Compton (NPT, you might want to get your smelling salts):
Living in a city that has a long history of official violence against blacks, one can imagine the rage and frustration that comes from being considered a criminal simply because of the color of your skin. We may blanch at the violence and rage, but we should also understand it is very real, and a perfectly reasonable response to a history of police violence and corruption.
Is rap, are rap artists, as bad as Don Imus? Indeed, one African-American journalist says he is worse. Earl Ofari Hutchison, writing at Atlernet.org says:
First of all, lest we all faint from the horrid R-rated words, let us all calm down and remember that Snoop's characterization of Imus as "another tired old white guy", juxtaposed against the hippest, young black man around (himself) is part of what is missing when we get the vapors from racially insensitive remarks, "vile" profanity, and the like. Imus is a tired old white guy, and Snoop is, while perhaps not as cutting edge as he once was, certainly among the more creative hip-hop artists of the past fifteen years. The rules for what is and is not acceptable behavior and word-choice (including the infamous "n" word) are different. Not only that, they should be different. These are two different persons emerging from two completely different backgrounds and historical contexts. They should be judged differently, because there is no one final arbiter of who is correct and who is not, I think it entirely reasonable to hold an artist who struggled to get himself out of a world of violence and criminal activity, but still carries much of that baggage with him to a different standard than an aging white man who hob-nobs with some of the most powerful and influential politicians and journalists in the country. The latter, Don Imus, has no business, even in jest, appropriating African-American street slang to demean a group of successful young women. As soon as Snoop has the kind of power and influence Imus had, and as soon as he says something equally offensive - and both conditions have to apply here - I will be the first to raise all kinds of hell about it. Until then, there simply isn't any comparison.
I think Hutchison is wrong in saying that Snoop Dogg is worse than Imus. Middle and Upper-middle class blacks have always had a problem with the popular entertainments that came from working and under-class African-American life. They thought jazz and the blues were barbaric, and worked overtime to separate themselves culturally from their more crass, vulgar, and earthy fellow citizens of color. So, along with racial problems, we also have intra-racial class bias at play here, another factor with a long history. I think Hutchison's sniff at Snoop's vocabulary is only understandable within the larger framework of a rising black middle class wishing to distance itself from its own past. I pass no judgment upon Hutchison for doing so; I am explaining, neither defending nor condemning. I have no dog in this fight, except of course for the fact that, as an American, this kind of racial, class, and cultural conflict tends to effect us all in the end. I do not agree with Hutchison for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I do not think that art is as central to questions of power in society as politics and the media are. That is the main reason why I do not equate the rantings of Don Imus with the lyrics of Calvin Broadus - it's like apples and oranges.
For those who might wish to disagree on any number of points I have made here, all I can say is that any attempt to make all words mean the same things throughout all time to all people doesn't work. Words don't mean the same thing at the same time to two people having a conversation; why in the world would anyone think that Don Imus calling the Rutgers' Women Basketball team "nappy-headed hoes" and Snoop Dogg referring to women as "hoes" and "bitchezz" are equivalent? One is a white guy trying to be sneakily racist; the other is a black guy trying to forge an art form from very rough materials the only way he knows how. I don't like the characterizations of women that rap artists use, but I do understand there is a world of difference between Don Imus and Snoop Dogg.
This does not mean I do not appreciate it as an art form. At its best, it is challenging in a way that no art form has been since be-bop. It has changed the way we view issues of musical authorship, of the relationship among lyrics, rhythm, tonality, and a whole host of other "traditional" musical categories. It has also focused attention on those who create it - inner-city African-Americans. Its roots in the Bronx and Brooklyn, and its spread to other minority communities (significantly south central LA) pushed this new art form into communities with very specific attitudes, grievances, and vocabularies. Thus, the premiere LA rap group NWA offered the following song from their first release, Straight Outta Compton (NPT, you might want to get your smelling salts):
Living in a city that has a long history of official violence against blacks, one can imagine the rage and frustration that comes from being considered a criminal simply because of the color of your skin. We may blanch at the violence and rage, but we should also understand it is very real, and a perfectly reasonable response to a history of police violence and corruption.
Is rap, are rap artists, as bad as Don Imus? Indeed, one African-American journalist says he is worse. Earl Ofari Hutchison, writing at Atlernet.org says:
While Imus's "nappy headed hos" slur has been plastered all over creation, the "B" "H," and expletive-laced rant that Snoop unleashed against Imus, has barely got a squint of mention.
His R rated words are so vile they can't be printed in adult company.
First of all, lest we all faint from the horrid R-rated words, let us all calm down and remember that Snoop's characterization of Imus as "another tired old white guy", juxtaposed against the hippest, young black man around (himself) is part of what is missing when we get the vapors from racially insensitive remarks, "vile" profanity, and the like. Imus is a tired old white guy, and Snoop is, while perhaps not as cutting edge as he once was, certainly among the more creative hip-hop artists of the past fifteen years. The rules for what is and is not acceptable behavior and word-choice (including the infamous "n" word) are different. Not only that, they should be different. These are two different persons emerging from two completely different backgrounds and historical contexts. They should be judged differently, because there is no one final arbiter of who is correct and who is not, I think it entirely reasonable to hold an artist who struggled to get himself out of a world of violence and criminal activity, but still carries much of that baggage with him to a different standard than an aging white man who hob-nobs with some of the most powerful and influential politicians and journalists in the country. The latter, Don Imus, has no business, even in jest, appropriating African-American street slang to demean a group of successful young women. As soon as Snoop has the kind of power and influence Imus had, and as soon as he says something equally offensive - and both conditions have to apply here - I will be the first to raise all kinds of hell about it. Until then, there simply isn't any comparison.
I think Hutchison is wrong in saying that Snoop Dogg is worse than Imus. Middle and Upper-middle class blacks have always had a problem with the popular entertainments that came from working and under-class African-American life. They thought jazz and the blues were barbaric, and worked overtime to separate themselves culturally from their more crass, vulgar, and earthy fellow citizens of color. So, along with racial problems, we also have intra-racial class bias at play here, another factor with a long history. I think Hutchison's sniff at Snoop's vocabulary is only understandable within the larger framework of a rising black middle class wishing to distance itself from its own past. I pass no judgment upon Hutchison for doing so; I am explaining, neither defending nor condemning. I have no dog in this fight, except of course for the fact that, as an American, this kind of racial, class, and cultural conflict tends to effect us all in the end. I do not agree with Hutchison for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I do not think that art is as central to questions of power in society as politics and the media are. That is the main reason why I do not equate the rantings of Don Imus with the lyrics of Calvin Broadus - it's like apples and oranges.
For those who might wish to disagree on any number of points I have made here, all I can say is that any attempt to make all words mean the same things throughout all time to all people doesn't work. Words don't mean the same thing at the same time to two people having a conversation; why in the world would anyone think that Don Imus calling the Rutgers' Women Basketball team "nappy-headed hoes" and Snoop Dogg referring to women as "hoes" and "bitchezz" are equivalent? One is a white guy trying to be sneakily racist; the other is a black guy trying to forge an art form from very rough materials the only way he knows how. I don't like the characterizations of women that rap artists use, but I do understand there is a world of difference between Don Imus and Snoop Dogg.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Saturday NIght Rock Show
One night in early April of 1986, my friend Jim came back late from doing his radio show on the college station. He knocked on my door and tossed a cassette tape at me. "I think you might like this," he said.
Jim was wrong. For the next four weeks, until I left for the summer, I literally listened to nothing else (I must have bored my neighbors to death). It was the first solo album by Eric Johnson, Tones. Here is the first vocal track from that album, from a recent (?) Austin City Limits appearance. The song is "Friends":
Jim was wrong. For the next four weeks, until I left for the summer, I literally listened to nothing else (I must have bored my neighbors to death). It was the first solo album by Eric Johnson, Tones. Here is the first vocal track from that album, from a recent (?) Austin City Limits appearance. The song is "Friends":
Weaving & Re-weaving Webs of Belief: Richard Rorty & Charlotte (Part I of II)
Note: This is the second in a series of posts I hope to do on the philosophy of Richard Rorty, whose works I am currently reading. I previously wrote here about Rorty's approach to civic virtue. What follows is the first of two parts on Rorty's approach to issues of knowledge, rationality, and argumentation. I believe they are highly relevant to many issues addressed in this blog, and reflect my approach to these matters more clearly and concisely than I ever could.
My kids got the latest movie-version of Charlotte's Web in their Easter baskets, so you may forgive me in using my almost constant exposure to this version of E. B. White's classic children's tale as a jumping off point for discussing something supposedly deep like philosophy. It has struck me, both as I watched the film version and re-read White's book (my older daughter has read it recently; I read it last in 1973 or so, but how can one forget it?) how close to Rorty's views on notions of "truth", "belief", "justification", "argument", and "rationality" are the events in Zuckerman's barn. I shall try and be succinct in my summation of Rorty here, so as not to unduly bore anyone. He proposes that the philosophical notions of "truth", of "rationality", are nothing more or less than the words we use to describe what he calls a web of beliefs and desires. Following Donald Davidson, Wittgenstein, and John Dewey, he sees no reason to insist that what we profess to believe either could or should reflect something "real", or that the words we use are somehow made true by something that is not words. Rather, we are participants in a language-game, one in which we are introduced to certain rules and boundaries, and we negotiate with other participants in this game. He views the idea that there is something mysterious or occult about the "language-reality" dichotomy to be question begging. After Darwin, how else could we describe language and thought than as reactions to stimuli in our environment? This is neither controversial nor in need of philosophical unpacking. More interesting than figuring out to how to get "behind" language, or "around" language, or figure out the "one true vocabulary" for describing what is, is the project of describing how different participants in all the variety of language-games interact, and in that interaction, weave and re-weave their webs of beliefs and desires in to wholly new and surprising webs, none of which are predictable within previously understood vocabularies, and some of which might hold the key to something beneficial to us all.
As I hope anyone reading this remembers, Charlotte manages, through her cleverness and Wilbur's earnest good nature, to save the life of a spring pig by weaving words in her web, words which attempt to draw attention to the uniqueness and special nature of Wilbur. Wilbur is no longer just "a spring pig" destined for Christmas ham and winter bacon and sausage, but an individual, "Some Pig", "Radiant", "Terrific", and "Humble". Charlotte manages, merely through the use of words, words woven into a web, to change the perspective of an earthy farmer toward one of his capital assets. Wilbur is saved because, as White says, Charlotte was a good friend and a good writer. New words, a whole new vocabulary for talking about a pig, changed Zuckerman's way of thinking about who and what Wilbur was. There was no "argument" here, no "rational discourse", indeed there was no meeting of the minds, as it were. Rather, Charlotte introduced new and interesting words to Zuckerman who, upon reading them, started to weave these woven words into his own vocabulary, with surprising, and happy (for Wilbur, at least; as a fan of pork steaks and sausage, I might be a bit disappointed) results.
Along with Davidson, Wittgenstein, and Darwin, Rorty also incorporates Thomas Kuhn into his view of the way we think about the world. Kuhn's major work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, showed that the "rational reconstruction" model of scientific discovery was sorely mistaken. We do not change the way we think about the world because science somehow approaches the true nature of reality. Rather, we change the way we believe the world is because we invent whole new ways of talking about the world. It is pointless to argue that "Copernicus is right, Ptolemy is wrong"; that is like saying "French is right, German is wrong". They are just two different vocabularies, two different ways of describing the world. We can pride ourselves on having made a "discovery" that is "true" but there is no rational way to make this point. It is an assertion, for which there is no rational reason. In a thousand years, all our verities may seem as absurd as Ptolemaic astronomy and spontaneous generation.
Taking his cue from Kuhn, Rorty sees our ways of changing our minds as a matter not for rational argument, but rather of being introduced to new and interesting words, perhaps even new and interesting sentences, then trying to fit those sentences into the larger structure of sentences that together form the web of our beliefs and desires. When the new structure is complete - saying, for example, "Some Pig" - it may not resemble anything we could have imagined, and it may just open up all sorts of possibilities, not just for us as individuals, but for all of us. That is why it is always impossible to predict, based upon our current understanding of the way things are, how things are going to be, because when change occurs, the whole structure of the way we speak and believe the world is changes; we are no longer participants in our previous language-game, and there is no master linguist who is able to describe the rules for all possible language games. We are the creators of the world, with all sorts of potential, both wonderful and horrible.
While I doubt very highly that White set out to set forth a good example of pragmatist anti-epistemology, his little children's tale demonstrates the power of words to change the world, sometimes in big ways, sometimes in small ways, and how, in so doing, it is not so much the world that changes, but our reactions to it, which is all that really matters for us.
My kids got the latest movie-version of Charlotte's Web in their Easter baskets, so you may forgive me in using my almost constant exposure to this version of E. B. White's classic children's tale as a jumping off point for discussing something supposedly deep like philosophy. It has struck me, both as I watched the film version and re-read White's book (my older daughter has read it recently; I read it last in 1973 or so, but how can one forget it?) how close to Rorty's views on notions of "truth", "belief", "justification", "argument", and "rationality" are the events in Zuckerman's barn. I shall try and be succinct in my summation of Rorty here, so as not to unduly bore anyone. He proposes that the philosophical notions of "truth", of "rationality", are nothing more or less than the words we use to describe what he calls a web of beliefs and desires. Following Donald Davidson, Wittgenstein, and John Dewey, he sees no reason to insist that what we profess to believe either could or should reflect something "real", or that the words we use are somehow made true by something that is not words. Rather, we are participants in a language-game, one in which we are introduced to certain rules and boundaries, and we negotiate with other participants in this game. He views the idea that there is something mysterious or occult about the "language-reality" dichotomy to be question begging. After Darwin, how else could we describe language and thought than as reactions to stimuli in our environment? This is neither controversial nor in need of philosophical unpacking. More interesting than figuring out to how to get "behind" language, or "around" language, or figure out the "one true vocabulary" for describing what is, is the project of describing how different participants in all the variety of language-games interact, and in that interaction, weave and re-weave their webs of beliefs and desires in to wholly new and surprising webs, none of which are predictable within previously understood vocabularies, and some of which might hold the key to something beneficial to us all.
As I hope anyone reading this remembers, Charlotte manages, through her cleverness and Wilbur's earnest good nature, to save the life of a spring pig by weaving words in her web, words which attempt to draw attention to the uniqueness and special nature of Wilbur. Wilbur is no longer just "a spring pig" destined for Christmas ham and winter bacon and sausage, but an individual, "Some Pig", "Radiant", "Terrific", and "Humble". Charlotte manages, merely through the use of words, words woven into a web, to change the perspective of an earthy farmer toward one of his capital assets. Wilbur is saved because, as White says, Charlotte was a good friend and a good writer. New words, a whole new vocabulary for talking about a pig, changed Zuckerman's way of thinking about who and what Wilbur was. There was no "argument" here, no "rational discourse", indeed there was no meeting of the minds, as it were. Rather, Charlotte introduced new and interesting words to Zuckerman who, upon reading them, started to weave these woven words into his own vocabulary, with surprising, and happy (for Wilbur, at least; as a fan of pork steaks and sausage, I might be a bit disappointed) results.
Along with Davidson, Wittgenstein, and Darwin, Rorty also incorporates Thomas Kuhn into his view of the way we think about the world. Kuhn's major work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, showed that the "rational reconstruction" model of scientific discovery was sorely mistaken. We do not change the way we think about the world because science somehow approaches the true nature of reality. Rather, we change the way we believe the world is because we invent whole new ways of talking about the world. It is pointless to argue that "Copernicus is right, Ptolemy is wrong"; that is like saying "French is right, German is wrong". They are just two different vocabularies, two different ways of describing the world. We can pride ourselves on having made a "discovery" that is "true" but there is no rational way to make this point. It is an assertion, for which there is no rational reason. In a thousand years, all our verities may seem as absurd as Ptolemaic astronomy and spontaneous generation.
Taking his cue from Kuhn, Rorty sees our ways of changing our minds as a matter not for rational argument, but rather of being introduced to new and interesting words, perhaps even new and interesting sentences, then trying to fit those sentences into the larger structure of sentences that together form the web of our beliefs and desires. When the new structure is complete - saying, for example, "Some Pig" - it may not resemble anything we could have imagined, and it may just open up all sorts of possibilities, not just for us as individuals, but for all of us. That is why it is always impossible to predict, based upon our current understanding of the way things are, how things are going to be, because when change occurs, the whole structure of the way we speak and believe the world is changes; we are no longer participants in our previous language-game, and there is no master linguist who is able to describe the rules for all possible language games. We are the creators of the world, with all sorts of potential, both wonderful and horrible.
While I doubt very highly that White set out to set forth a good example of pragmatist anti-epistemology, his little children's tale demonstrates the power of words to change the world, sometimes in big ways, sometimes in small ways, and how, in so doing, it is not so much the world that changes, but our reactions to it, which is all that really matters for us.
When Is Censhorship Not Censorship?
There is a bit of confusion in the comments' section over at Democracy Lover's blog and in my previous post. There seems to be some confusion concerning what it is I am advocating, and (while I shouldn't have been surprised, I was) the dreaded "c" word reared its ugly head. While ER's comments are more thoughtful and express certain liberal platitudes - the marketplace of ideas and all that - his reproach becomes clear when he uses the phrase "liberal fascism" (kind of like right-wing socialist).
Censorship is when official organs of the state ban or otherwise suppress dissent. not only would I never advocate that, if the Bush White House went after anyone, even Rush Limbaugh, to try and silence them, I would be at the front of the line demanding such actions stop. I shall say this here and now, as loudly and as clearly as I possibly can:
Were it the case that Glenn Beck, Michael Smerconish, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Levin, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh used their hours of air-time to advocate for left-wing causes, but lied, were intellectually dishonest, made up incidents, statistics, and so on out of whole cloth to do so, or otherwise acted in ways both invidious and destructive, I would want them gone. It isn't the political content of their radio programs that I object to; it is the constant flow of disinformation, of hysteria, of hatred, bigotry, and the distortion of reality to which I object. This isn't about political perspectives of equal weight being carefully considered in a marketplace of ideas. Those listed above have no ideas to which one should lend any credence; their speech is the contemporary equivalent of the crazy guy with the sandwich board waling around the park, except these crazy guys are paid a whole lot of money to wander around and spout off.
Another point at issue, for those who want to take the First Amendment high horse, is that this is not, in the end, about speech. It is about money. A whole lot of money. Millions and millions of dollars in advertising revenue, contract revenue, endorsement revenue, plus the other subsidiary rights and contracts such as paying ghost writers to put out books under the names of these guys who probably have a problem finding "g" on a keyboard. If you think I am wrong, consider the story I wrote about back in January in which a local blogger from San Francisco started emailing clips from a right-wing radio station to advertisers. Advertisers started to pull out. The station, owned by Disney, landed on this guy with both of Mickey's over-sized feet, and lashed his pencil-thin tail around the guy's neck for good measure. There is a disproportion in economic and social power at play here that needs to be understood if the issue is to be grasped fully. In our public square, those who pay more, get to say more. Radio is a business, even though it operates in a publicly-owned arena. Corporations pay a whole lot of money - in station infrastructure, in licensing and user fees, in contracts - to be able to make even more money. Even a million bloggers can be stymied by this kind of cash, because, as the saying goes, "money talks, and bullshit, even First Amendment bullshit, walks". Let us not delude ourselves in thinking this has even the remotest connection to Constitutional issues.
There is no right to be on radio. There is no right to lie in public. There is no right to make millions of dollars (and then squander it on Oxycontin and Viagra and trips to sex-tourism hot spots like the Dominican Republic) spewing lies and hatred and distortions of the public record. These are either privileges or distortions of the marketplace we mistakenly call one of ideas. In the end, this isn't about good speech driving out bad speech. This is about clearing muck and mud and slime and filth from the public square; it is also about making oneself aware that all that dirt and ordure was put there by millionaires who want to continue to put it there, regardless of the general publics' preference that the area be cleaned up.
Censorship is when official organs of the state ban or otherwise suppress dissent. not only would I never advocate that, if the Bush White House went after anyone, even Rush Limbaugh, to try and silence them, I would be at the front of the line demanding such actions stop. I shall say this here and now, as loudly and as clearly as I possibly can:
I AM NOT ADVOCATING CENSORSHIP, BUT PUBLIC ACTION TO REMOVE FROM RADIO VOICES WHICH CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO OUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE BUT LIES AND THE DEFENSE OF THE INDEFENSIBLE.
Were it the case that Glenn Beck, Michael Smerconish, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Levin, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh used their hours of air-time to advocate for left-wing causes, but lied, were intellectually dishonest, made up incidents, statistics, and so on out of whole cloth to do so, or otherwise acted in ways both invidious and destructive, I would want them gone. It isn't the political content of their radio programs that I object to; it is the constant flow of disinformation, of hysteria, of hatred, bigotry, and the distortion of reality to which I object. This isn't about political perspectives of equal weight being carefully considered in a marketplace of ideas. Those listed above have no ideas to which one should lend any credence; their speech is the contemporary equivalent of the crazy guy with the sandwich board waling around the park, except these crazy guys are paid a whole lot of money to wander around and spout off.
Another point at issue, for those who want to take the First Amendment high horse, is that this is not, in the end, about speech. It is about money. A whole lot of money. Millions and millions of dollars in advertising revenue, contract revenue, endorsement revenue, plus the other subsidiary rights and contracts such as paying ghost writers to put out books under the names of these guys who probably have a problem finding "g" on a keyboard. If you think I am wrong, consider the story I wrote about back in January in which a local blogger from San Francisco started emailing clips from a right-wing radio station to advertisers. Advertisers started to pull out. The station, owned by Disney, landed on this guy with both of Mickey's over-sized feet, and lashed his pencil-thin tail around the guy's neck for good measure. There is a disproportion in economic and social power at play here that needs to be understood if the issue is to be grasped fully. In our public square, those who pay more, get to say more. Radio is a business, even though it operates in a publicly-owned arena. Corporations pay a whole lot of money - in station infrastructure, in licensing and user fees, in contracts - to be able to make even more money. Even a million bloggers can be stymied by this kind of cash, because, as the saying goes, "money talks, and bullshit, even First Amendment bullshit, walks". Let us not delude ourselves in thinking this has even the remotest connection to Constitutional issues.
There is no right to be on radio. There is no right to lie in public. There is no right to make millions of dollars (and then squander it on Oxycontin and Viagra and trips to sex-tourism hot spots like the Dominican Republic) spewing lies and hatred and distortions of the public record. These are either privileges or distortions of the marketplace we mistakenly call one of ideas. In the end, this isn't about good speech driving out bad speech. This is about clearing muck and mud and slime and filth from the public square; it is also about making oneself aware that all that dirt and ordure was put there by millionaires who want to continue to put it there, regardless of the general publics' preference that the area be cleaned up.
Friday, April 13, 2007
One Down, A Bunch More To Go
I suppose that, as a good liberal, I should comment on the whole Don Imus thing. I wasn't going to, but after thinking about "what it all means", if it means anything, I have decided that there is something here that liberals and progressives need to be aware of. Perhaps they are, perhaps not, but I think it is important to bring it up.
Imus is gone. After a vigorous, sustained campaign by many both within and without the blogosphere, he is now unemployed, although probably not for long. His prospects in commercial radio are gone. Satellite radio, perhaps, but even there, this whole episode will follow him.
I view this as a warning shot across the bow to all those sewer-spewers on the right - Glenn Beck, Michael Smerconish, Michael Savage, Michael Levin, Sean Hannity, and the Dark Lord of them all, Rush Limbaugh - to sit up and take notice. Imus was viewed as untouchable because of his ratings, his market appeal, his place within a tightly knit group of political and media insiders, and his connections. With the entire navy of the right fairing badly, when this particular ship started listing, the rats deserted it so fast you could hear their bloated little bodies splashing, and their breathing as they paddled to get as far away as possible. The momentum from this action needs to be kept up, and we need to target all of them. Imus was the biggest precisely because he had a certain cachet with political insiders. The rest of them are fringe personalities - sometimes beyond the fringe and right out there, with no umbilical cord tying them to earth - with the possible exception of Rush "Oxycontin-Viagra-on-a-trip-to-sex-tourist-land" Limbaugh. With those two strikes against him, however, it would seem to me making a case to force sponsors to make a decision regarding their support for a whole host of these reverse-peristaltic creatures only increases. This is the time to make the move to remove the blight from our public airwaves. We should not rest on our laurels, but keep the pressure on. Perhaps the public airwaves can be returned to the public through good old-fashioned grass-roots campaigning.
Imus is gone. After a vigorous, sustained campaign by many both within and without the blogosphere, he is now unemployed, although probably not for long. His prospects in commercial radio are gone. Satellite radio, perhaps, but even there, this whole episode will follow him.
I view this as a warning shot across the bow to all those sewer-spewers on the right - Glenn Beck, Michael Smerconish, Michael Savage, Michael Levin, Sean Hannity, and the Dark Lord of them all, Rush Limbaugh - to sit up and take notice. Imus was viewed as untouchable because of his ratings, his market appeal, his place within a tightly knit group of political and media insiders, and his connections. With the entire navy of the right fairing badly, when this particular ship started listing, the rats deserted it so fast you could hear their bloated little bodies splashing, and their breathing as they paddled to get as far away as possible. The momentum from this action needs to be kept up, and we need to target all of them. Imus was the biggest precisely because he had a certain cachet with political insiders. The rest of them are fringe personalities - sometimes beyond the fringe and right out there, with no umbilical cord tying them to earth - with the possible exception of Rush "Oxycontin-Viagra-on-a-trip-to-sex-tourist-land" Limbaugh. With those two strikes against him, however, it would seem to me making a case to force sponsors to make a decision regarding their support for a whole host of these reverse-peristaltic creatures only increases. This is the time to make the move to remove the blight from our public airwaves. We should not rest on our laurels, but keep the pressure on. Perhaps the public airwaves can be returned to the public through good old-fashioned grass-roots campaigning.
The Human Image, the Divine Image, & Hyper-Sex
Like an earlier discussion over the whole question of profanity, this will be my one statement on the whole issue of what images I consider appropriate and what images I consider inappropriate for inclusion in this blog. After all, this is supposed to be from a Christian perspective, so it would seem natural that anything here would be acceptable to an adult Christian, correct? I use both epithets, "adult" and "Christian" as descriptive of the type of person who might find something of interest here, although not exclusively, because I have non-Christian here all the time, and, as I always say, everyone is of course welcome. It is just that I am an adult, and a Christian, so there you go.Having said all that, I will ask you to take a few minutes and scroll down the page, or click this link, read the post, and view the accompanying photograph, and then read the comments. I'll wait. Whistling "Warm Wet Circles" as it plays on the stereo. You back? Good. I mean no disrespect to Neon Prime Time because, despite our political differences, he is a fellow Midwesterner, and he seems a decent fellow. My problem, however, is that he saw the photo I put at the top of the article as not just inappropriate, but bordering on pornographic. What it came down to, as far as I can tell, was the fact that the model is nude. I guess Susan Sarandon was right when she said a nipple will upstage you every time.
All this is by way of introduction. I shall begin my main point by stating something that, while perhaps controversial, I believe to be nonetheless true: I believe that our society is so repressed, so afraid of human sexuality that we have ended up, in some bizarre process of inversion, sexualizing everything, to the point where appropriateness and context are meaningless. A Calvin Klein ad, Deep Throat, Body Heat, and Michaelangelo's David (at top of this post) are all on a continuum in which the unclothed human form, or barely clothed but suggestive human form, create an unnecessary salaciousness, a sexual desire that must be stamped out. All this repression, all this fear of sexual desire, creates an atmosphere in which sex pervades our culture, creating an endless cycle of unwanted desire and screeching reaction.
I tried to find, but was limited by time, one of a myriad of Renaissance Virgin and Child paintings in which (a) Mary was topless, and (b) the baby Jesus was naked. The reason for this is simple: Renaissance Italy was a society in which human sexuality was repressed, especially among the lower clergy, who also happened to make up many of the artists. This repressed sexuality came out in perverse ways, including somewhat disquieting images of Jesus and his mother. Yet, these paintings are, despite the suggestive nature of the composition, considered great art, indeed they are great art. A sexually repressed society often creates hyper-sexual art.
I believe that there is nothing inherently sexual about an image of the nude human form. Indeed, I believe that to so view nudity is a failure of imagination, less a reaction to whatever may or may be in the piece in question that a reaction to the desire that wells up in the viewer. Since sexual desire is a no-no, any instance of it, and its cause, must be stamped out. I am not speaking here of obvious sexual imagery - porn, both hard-core and soft-core - or the sophomoric obsession with sex contained in popular entertainment, including television and popular music (although, to be honest, sex has always been a part of the music of the common people; that's why our betters never liked it all that much; can't have the great unwashed multiplying, you know). I am speaking of any image or representation of the human form. When sexual desire is kicked in to drive by any glance at a naked person, I do believe we have reached a place where collective neurosis has set in.
For my part, I believe there is something beautiful about the human body. We are, after all, created in God's image, and the Creator did happen to say something after all was said and done on the sixth day, to the effect that, with the creation of human beings, creation was "very good". Oh, yeah, Adam and Eve went around naked and unashamed. It seems to me that as a mark of the New Creation - something we Christians proclaim with joy, especially in the aftermath of last Sunday - a return to that idyll is not unwarranted. Having said that, I will also say that I will not ever put an image here I find inappropriate, deliberately salacious or sexually provocative, or downright pornographic. Since I don't think nudity in and of itself is either bad or inherently sexual, however, there might, on occasion, be the image of an unclothed individual.
My governing philosophy for this blog is that of what Wynton Marsalis called, in an interview in Ken Burns' Jazz documentary a "certain adult sensibility". That is, this is for grown-ups. I firmly believe that there is and should always remain a distinction between what is appropriate for children and what is appropriate for adults. The latter include serious discussions of issues of grave importance, serious discussions of culture, and accompanying images and sounds that might (or might not) contain images or words that children have no business being exposed to. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, why should everything we produce be viewed or listened to by your average eight-year-old? That's just a silly idea, not just a "dumbing down" of our culture, but the active infantilizing of us all. As a parent myself, I live this out in a number of ways, not the least of which is that my children are not allowed to view my blog. After all, why should they?
In the final analysis, this is my blog, governed by my rules as to what is appropriate and what is not appropriate (as I said to Neon Prime Time, as this is my blog, here, at least, it is all about me). Should you be one of those who just can't handle seeing the unclothed human form, I suggest you glance with one eye just barely open in the future to make sure you don't see anything that might offend or unnecessarily arouse. As with profanity, I certainly will not set out to be provocative, but if something fits, I will not shy away from it just because someone, somewhere might be offended. I can only do what I do the way I know how to do it. I will not apologize for any unwarranted offense, because the offense is in the eye of the beholder, and to my mind says so much more about them - and our weird, repressive, hyper-sexual culture - than it does about me.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
While I Was Away . . .
Miss a day and a half and you miss a lot. Lost e-mails. Don Imus losing MSNBC. Patrick Leahy losing his cool on the Senate floor because the White House lost emails. I wouldn't be surprised in Imus lost his cool with Leahy for losing his cool because of some lost emails!
Seriously, though, is anyone really, really, REALLY surprised that, "Hey! Sorry! We lost 'em!" was the response? Of course, it might be they lost them because they were never actually being kept . . . which happens to a (ahem) violation of the law (that whole high crimes and misdemeanors thing again), but why shouldn't we give the Bush White House the benefit of the doubt, right? Beside the fact that they are corporally and institutionally incapable of telling the truth, I would suggest you go read this post by Glenn Greenwald in which we begin to see a trend in "losing" and then, miraculously, "finding" documents, videos, whatever . . .
So next Tuesday Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the midst of an on-going tussle with the White House over the release, or perhaps even the existence, of emails directly pertaining to many of the questions Gonzalez may face. Were this a court case, and were Gonzalez a criminal defendant, his attorney might call for a continuance, or perhaps a directed verdict, or perhaps even dismissal. Of course, the prosecution would most likely return with charges of "obstruction of justice", "evidence tampering", etc., and the judge, were he or she inclined to take the lack of credibility of the defendant in to account, I would assume the case would continue, with things made that much worse for the defendant. So, perhaps in an attempt to protect Gonzalez, or even their own collective selves, from possible criminal indictment, they have only managed to make things that much worse for Gonzalez.
Well done. Seriously. It's that whole "anti-Midas" thing again. They are incapable of doing even basic intrigue and guileless corruption well.
Seriously, though, is anyone really, really, REALLY surprised that, "Hey! Sorry! We lost 'em!" was the response? Of course, it might be they lost them because they were never actually being kept . . . which happens to a (ahem) violation of the law (that whole high crimes and misdemeanors thing again), but why shouldn't we give the Bush White House the benefit of the doubt, right? Beside the fact that they are corporally and institutionally incapable of telling the truth, I would suggest you go read this post by Glenn Greenwald in which we begin to see a trend in "losing" and then, miraculously, "finding" documents, videos, whatever . . .
So next Tuesday Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the midst of an on-going tussle with the White House over the release, or perhaps even the existence, of emails directly pertaining to many of the questions Gonzalez may face. Were this a court case, and were Gonzalez a criminal defendant, his attorney might call for a continuance, or perhaps a directed verdict, or perhaps even dismissal. Of course, the prosecution would most likely return with charges of "obstruction of justice", "evidence tampering", etc., and the judge, were he or she inclined to take the lack of credibility of the defendant in to account, I would assume the case would continue, with things made that much worse for the defendant. So, perhaps in an attempt to protect Gonzalez, or even their own collective selves, from possible criminal indictment, they have only managed to make things that much worse for Gonzalez.
Well done. Seriously. It's that whole "anti-Midas" thing again. They are incapable of doing even basic intrigue and guileless corruption well.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
High Standards? Feh!
You know, the empty-headed elitism of some journalists just takes my breath away. Over at Swampland, Ana Marie Cox writes about a forum at which Mark Halperin appeared. She writes of Halperin's comments vis-a-vis bloggers and their complaints concerning the mainstream media:
There are so many things wrong with this quote, if it is indeed a quote (no link provided in the original), that it is easiest to work through it. I shall start with the end and move backward. First, "the best solution for serious consumers of news [is] to write letters to the editor"? Oh. Sweet. Loving. Jesus. How noblesse oblige can one get (actually, he does get worse, as I shall point out anon)? We ordinary non-journalist citizens should not voice our complaints about the abysmal performance of major journalists on blogs. We shouldn't point out glaring errors of fact or analysis, errors that include not taking into account all available information, context, history, etc. No, we should just write letters to the editor. Please, keep me from weeping . . .
As for those alleged "high standards of journalism", I'm still waiting to see those in action. Seriously. This past week, with the Pelosi trip to Syria still fresh in our minds, how would Halperin account for the press' almost universal bleating of Republican talking points, unless he is willing to concede that these so-called high standards of his were honored more in the breach than in practice? This is just one example, but we could write a whole series of posts, indeed a whole blog about this subject. You know, kind of like Media Matters for America.
The most egregious statement is "I don't mind if people blog". I am so glad I have the imprimatur of a serious person like Halperin for what I am doing. I can now sleep because I have his permission. I honestly think Halperin has no idea how ridiculous, how inane, and how comical a fellow he has just made himself. He has, with the words quoted above (even if not direct quotes, they may just perhaps reflect the essence of his remarks), completely and utterly removed himself from consideration as a person to be taken seriously.
Glenn Greenwald has more.
As for those bloggers, the ones "tainted" by having ideological motives -- unlike our patriotic politicians, mind you -- Halperin generously allowed that "I don't mind if people blog -- but they should apply high standards of journalism," and "they should focus on news organizations when they fail to meet the standards of the profession," i.e., accuracy and objectivity. In fact, he said, "the best solution is for serious consumers of news to write letters to the editor."
There are so many things wrong with this quote, if it is indeed a quote (no link provided in the original), that it is easiest to work through it. I shall start with the end and move backward. First, "the best solution for serious consumers of news [is] to write letters to the editor"? Oh. Sweet. Loving. Jesus. How noblesse oblige can one get (actually, he does get worse, as I shall point out anon)? We ordinary non-journalist citizens should not voice our complaints about the abysmal performance of major journalists on blogs. We shouldn't point out glaring errors of fact or analysis, errors that include not taking into account all available information, context, history, etc. No, we should just write letters to the editor. Please, keep me from weeping . . .
As for those alleged "high standards of journalism", I'm still waiting to see those in action. Seriously. This past week, with the Pelosi trip to Syria still fresh in our minds, how would Halperin account for the press' almost universal bleating of Republican talking points, unless he is willing to concede that these so-called high standards of his were honored more in the breach than in practice? This is just one example, but we could write a whole series of posts, indeed a whole blog about this subject. You know, kind of like Media Matters for America.
The most egregious statement is "I don't mind if people blog". I am so glad I have the imprimatur of a serious person like Halperin for what I am doing. I can now sleep because I have his permission. I honestly think Halperin has no idea how ridiculous, how inane, and how comical a fellow he has just made himself. He has, with the words quoted above (even if not direct quotes, they may just perhaps reflect the essence of his remarks), completely and utterly removed himself from consideration as a person to be taken seriously.
Glenn Greenwald has more.
Women, Women's Sexuality & the Right
I've been thinking about this post and the accompanying photo in the context in which it all came about - French fascist Jean Marie Le Pen's comments on how women should avoid unwanted pregnancy - and the larger issue of sexuality, especially women's sexuality, and the social reaction to it. I had been thinking about how to say more, from a Christian perspective (or at least my Christian perspective) on this question, but I wanted more than just my opinion to be out there. I started one yesterday, then gave up. Then, late last night, I came across this piece by Jane Hamsher at FDL on Rudy Giuliani, and lo! and behold! it began by summing up much of what I wanted to say by way of background, and I quote (although it would be rewarding to read the whole thing):
I know I'm late to this particular party, but I have to disagree with just about everyone who thinks Rudy really stepped in it with his abortion comments last week and believes he has now alienated the mouth breather vote. It may have been an artless move, but I think it actually won't cost him a thing — in fact, it liberates him from an image of slavish devotion to wingnuttery that will help him in the long run, and I seriously doubt that that the lizard brains are going to abandon him.
There is a central misconception at play wherein people believe that because the social conservatives make so much noise about abortion, it's something they actually care about. It isn't. It's an abstraction. If you think they really give a happy hootie about innocent fetuses, you're living in a fool's paradise. George Bush could say the war on terror will be won tomorrow by stringing up Islamofascist blastulae and torturing them at Guantanamo Bay and nobody would make a peep. Not a one. Being anti-abortion is an article of faith, a calling card, a way of saying you are a member of the tribe. It's Michelle Malkin showing up in a white hood to the Klan meeting. The "unborn child" is what they profess to care about because what they really care about are self-determined urban women with lives of their own who take their jobs away and have sex and don't bake quite enough pies, and they hate 'em. But that's not okay to say so we get yet another chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred."(emphasis added)
It is my belief that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe V. Wade, legalizing abortion on demand, was the last straw for many on the Christian Right. For a decade since the introduction of the birth control pill, the prospect of women being able to have a fulfilling sex life without fear of unwanted pregnancy posed a mortal threat to male dominance of society. For centuries, sexual freedom was a male prerogative. Women were the objects of male sexuality, quite often nameless, faceless, non-persons who were walking masturbation aids. With the advent first of the pill, then of abortion, which took care of those missed by the pill, women were now emancipated from the fear of issue and could exercise their sexual desire and power with a freedom previously only reserved for men.
I do not wish to downplay the economic dimension, either. With both conception control and abortion available as live options, women were now free to pursue careers outside the home with a freedom even their mothers had not had. As legislation and case law increasingly defined the limits of discrimination against the employment of women, and as women were no longer bound by either tradition or biology to limit their options, it increased competition in the workplace. Indeed, in many ways, the pool of available workers suddenly doubled, as both men and women became potentially equal partners in the job market (I say "potentially" because it hasn't happened, and we are years away from the playing field being even). Combined with the more elemental threat of a more free sexuality available to women, the reaction of the right, especially the Christian right, should have been obvious.
A generation later, however, we have yet to grasp the almost elemental fear and hatred of women among many on the right. I do not mean hatred of individual persons who happen to be women; I am talking about the fear engendered by free, powerful, sexually and (relatively) economically liberated women upon men. As long as women fulfill roles defined for them, there is nothing to fear. Once women start to press the limits of "acceptable" behavior, however, one can almost hear the howls of rage. Consider, for a moment, the disdain for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the past two weeks, there has been an onslaught against her for a trip to Syria, part of which included bringing along a message from the Israeli government to reassure Bashar al Assad that Israel had no plans for a spring or summer offensive against them (the Israeli government claimed afterward that no such message was given, even though the Israeli press had been discussing it prior to Pelois's visit; this is a separate matter deserving a much fuller treatment elsewhere). For our purposes here, it is just enough to consider the almost universal screech, not just from members of the Administration and Congressional Republicans, but from members of the mainstream press who should be aware that the trip was (a) bi-partisan, and (b) unremarkable because members of Congress routinely do exactly what Speaker Pelosi has done, not the least of them being Newt Gingrich. Yet, as Glenn Greenwald has carefully and thoroughly demonstrated, the attacks upon Pelosi began before she even took office as Speaker of the House and have continued in the same manner for the past five months.
Nancy Pelosi is a woman who has attained the Number 3 position, essentially, in our Constitutional order (she is second in line for the Presidency after the Vice President). The threat she poses, I contend, is not just political, but sexual. She is a successful, powerful, appealing, and attractive woman - a horrible combination for men already threatened in their masculinity by female freedom in general. Is it any wonder that many on the right feel about her as frequent visitor and commentator Neon Prime Time expressed in a comment several months ago, viz., "She scares me"? What is frightening can be summed up in Simone de Beauvois's famous dictum, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Here is a woman who does not need a man to be free, powerful, a leader. She doesn't know her place. That she is physically appealing as well as politically appealing only makes the threat that much more horrendous.
Faced with the power that women have over men, a power men have had to control through de-humanization, social and economic control, sexual exploitation and physical violence, and the rhetoric of innate sexual difference, many men end up, in the end, a quivering puddle on the floor, terrified that a strong woman will discover and make public what has been heretofore a secret even to these men themselves (except perhaps in their darkest thoughts they dare not express) - these men just don't cut it. A sexually, socially, economically liberated woman is a threat on many levels. It is my contention, however, that the most elemental threat is the sexual element. There are various social and economic controls that still exist to limit the social and economic power of women. A woman who is sexually free, however, threatens men's view of themselves at its most basic level.
You might be wondering about the whole "Christian" element I spoke of above. It is my contention that all that I have written has been written from a perspective that views women as equal creatures before God, created with power and vulnerability, part of which is sexual. Unless we want to deny that sex is a good gift from a good God (as my other told me, "If God made anything better than sex, He kept it to Himself"; there is no better theology of sex that I know of!) we have to start thinking in more creative ways about human sexuality. We should begin by recognizing, as a social fact, the threat posed to men's well-being by strong, independent women. We need to recognize that threat as existing on multiple levels, and deal with it on multiple levels. We need a positive view of human sexuality, one not linked to outmoded social roles and easily avoidable biological consequences, and teach both boys and girls, men and women, about the power they have, and how it should be used creatively and positively; and about the dangers it poses destructively and negatively.
For further reading, I suggest you go here to Alternet.org. I think the headline says it all.
Note: The photo is entitled "Forbidden Fruit" by Alexander Feodorov.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Music Monday
I've given up my music crit blog, due to my innate inability to do two things at once. So, rather than divide up my time, I will just, occasionally, write about music here. Or just post music videos, now that I know how. First, here is a live clip (from a cell phone, I think) of one my of my favorite bands, Dead Soul Tribe, performing the song that first caught my attention, "Some Things You Can't Return":
Second, is the German band Sieges Even, with the only video I could find. Both the sound and video quality do not convey their musical ability, or the singer's beautiful voice. Or maybe they just suck live. This is "The Weight":
Finally, there's Ozric Tentacles. You either get what they are doing (with or without hallucinogens) or you don't. I do, sans chemicals, and they are without a doubt the most innovative, interesting band around, picking up and incorporating everything after filtered through a synthesizer. This is "Chewier"(all their songs are instrumentals, basically roughly structured jams):
Second, is the German band Sieges Even, with the only video I could find. Both the sound and video quality do not convey their musical ability, or the singer's beautiful voice. Or maybe they just suck live. This is "The Weight":
Finally, there's Ozric Tentacles. You either get what they are doing (with or without hallucinogens) or you don't. I do, sans chemicals, and they are without a doubt the most innovative, interesting band around, picking up and incorporating everything after filtered through a synthesizer. This is "Chewier"(all their songs are instrumentals, basically roughly structured jams):
Helping by Not Helping
Apparently, this went under a whole lot of radar. With Bill Kristol leading a charge of right-wingers complaining that the British wimped out in their diplomatic success in getting their military personnel released from Iranian custody, Think Progress has this little tidbit in their highlight from FOXNews Sunday's discussion with Kristol and Juan Williams:
So, we offered to "help" by creating a situation which most likely would have led to the deaths of the hostages we were supposed to be helping . . .
How abysmally stupid do you have to be to think that a military strike such as this would be constructive? Or is it not so much stupid as it is bloodthirsty? Or war-mongering? Or war-criminally liable? Seriously, I think the Hague needs to start looking into these jokers that are nothing short of a clear and present danger to the well being of the entire planet.
The [Manchester] Guardian reported this weekend that, “The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes.” The article added, “The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it.”(emphasis added)
So, we offered to "help" by creating a situation which most likely would have led to the deaths of the hostages we were supposed to be helping . . .
How abysmally stupid do you have to be to think that a military strike such as this would be constructive? Or is it not so much stupid as it is bloodthirsty? Or war-mongering? Or war-criminally liable? Seriously, I think the Hague needs to start looking into these jokers that are nothing short of a clear and present danger to the well being of the entire planet.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Having Your Cake and Eating It, Too
My good friend, the Portuguese doctor, has a post on a recent debate in France, a debate that included the ultra-right-winger Jean Marie le Pen (the post is in Portuguese, with translation provided by Babelfish). The debate, sponsored by Elle magazine, centered on issues of women's rights and the role of women in society. During the course of the debate, on the issue of pregnancy outside marriage, Le Pen offered the idea that masturbation was a possible conception control alternative for women.You may or may not recall that we once has a Surgeon General in the United States who was raked over the coals for bringing up the "m" word when discussing sexual education. By the right wing.
Apparently Le Pen is so stupid, or ignorant (why not both?) that he has no conception (pun not originally intended, but why not run with it?) that women may just want to have their cake and eat it, too. Being sexual is not something that one turns on and off, a feeling that can pass through the judicious use of fingers or toys.
In the comments, I wrote that Le Pen was one of those people who is so dumb we should actually demand back all the oxygen wasted to keep him alive.
New Creation Day 1: Jesus Has Risen! He Is Risen Indeed!
From the Gospel of St. Luke 24:1-7 (Revised English Bible):
It isn't yet 4:30 in the morning here, and the sun isn't even close to rising in my little corner of the world. The Reverend is putting the finishing touches upon her Easter sermon, preparing for Sunrise Service, getting ready for a long day of work and family time. It is all routine, in a way, another Easter, another full day of singing "Christ the Lord is Risen Today", "He Arose", and preaching a sermon on a topic both familiar and strange. It is the most important single day on the Christian calendar, but familiar for all that.
Are we so jaded by over-exposure that we no longer recognize the utter shock of this event? Are we, like the ladies who went to the tomb to prepare Jesus' body for the long sleep of death, just going about our business, unprepared for the astounding truth that confronts us on this day? Are we, like them, looking for what we do not even understand to be the living among the dead, accustomed as we are to the grim reality of death?
There are moments in our lives that, in retrospect, we grant singular importance - for an older generation it was the moment they heard JFK was shot; for me, it was when I heard Ronald Reagan was shot, then then Pope, the Challenger explosion, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, September 11, 2001; more personal moments such as my first kiss, the first time I lay with a woman, meeting my wife, the birth of my daughters. Of course, they become important because of the emotional impact the events had upon us at the time. Yet all of these, both public and private, share a common trait: all of them involve elements of life with which we are familiar. For all their import, they are not strange or new or without precedent. Even events of historical importance - the Berlin Wall's collapse, Tom Brockaw standing in front of crowds dancing upon it; the Towers burning then collapsing, thousands of people trapped inside dying in those moments caught forever on film and videotape - are not qualitatively different from other moments in history that mark a sudden change. When Chou En Lai told Henry Kissinger that the French Revolution was still an event to be wrestled with, to be understood, he was only indicating that events of historical import have meanings that change over time, and we can never fathom them completely, as long as allow them to live.
"Allow them to live". In truth, it is we who keep these events alive; they do not live in and of and for themselves. My parents get disgruntled by a later generations' insouciance towards Pearl Harbor Day, because they remember the impact it had upon them; for us, it is no longer alive, no longer a "day which shall live in infamy".
Jesus' resurrection, however, is in no need of such assistance. This is an event that carries the weight of its meaning with it through vast distance of time and space and language and culture and confronts us with the strange and awesome and wonderful event that Jesus is alive, never to die again. From this moment forward, nothing will be the same. Life will not be the same. Death will not be the same. Relationships, community, speech, love, politics, human agency - everything from this moment forward is touched by this event. Not just the fact of physical death, but the process of death, the whole emotional, psychological, sociological interweaving of emotions and rituals surrounding this personal and interpersonal event no longer has the last word on us, our endeavors, our hopes, or our fears. We are now confronted with a new reality, a new creation, ruled not by the cycle of life, which is also the cycle of death (Nietzsche was fascinated with it and made it the cornerstone of his own thinking about the world). That circle is now broken, and we are no longer terrorized by the abyss over which we tread, because we are buoyed up by the hope granted us through the resurrection.
Nothing will ever be the same again now. The whole world, and everything that was, is, and ever will be in it has been made again.
But very early on the first day of the week they came to the tomb bringing the spices they had prepared. They found that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb, but when they went inside, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they stood utterly at a loss, suddenly two men in dazzling garments were at their side. They were terrified, and stood with eyes cast down but the men said, 'Why search among the dead for one who is alive? Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be given into the power of sinful men and be crucified, and must rise again on the third day.'
It isn't yet 4:30 in the morning here, and the sun isn't even close to rising in my little corner of the world. The Reverend is putting the finishing touches upon her Easter sermon, preparing for Sunrise Service, getting ready for a long day of work and family time. It is all routine, in a way, another Easter, another full day of singing "Christ the Lord is Risen Today", "He Arose", and preaching a sermon on a topic both familiar and strange. It is the most important single day on the Christian calendar, but familiar for all that.
Are we so jaded by over-exposure that we no longer recognize the utter shock of this event? Are we, like the ladies who went to the tomb to prepare Jesus' body for the long sleep of death, just going about our business, unprepared for the astounding truth that confronts us on this day? Are we, like them, looking for what we do not even understand to be the living among the dead, accustomed as we are to the grim reality of death?
There are moments in our lives that, in retrospect, we grant singular importance - for an older generation it was the moment they heard JFK was shot; for me, it was when I heard Ronald Reagan was shot, then then Pope, the Challenger explosion, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, September 11, 2001; more personal moments such as my first kiss, the first time I lay with a woman, meeting my wife, the birth of my daughters. Of course, they become important because of the emotional impact the events had upon us at the time. Yet all of these, both public and private, share a common trait: all of them involve elements of life with which we are familiar. For all their import, they are not strange or new or without precedent. Even events of historical importance - the Berlin Wall's collapse, Tom Brockaw standing in front of crowds dancing upon it; the Towers burning then collapsing, thousands of people trapped inside dying in those moments caught forever on film and videotape - are not qualitatively different from other moments in history that mark a sudden change. When Chou En Lai told Henry Kissinger that the French Revolution was still an event to be wrestled with, to be understood, he was only indicating that events of historical import have meanings that change over time, and we can never fathom them completely, as long as allow them to live.
"Allow them to live". In truth, it is we who keep these events alive; they do not live in and of and for themselves. My parents get disgruntled by a later generations' insouciance towards Pearl Harbor Day, because they remember the impact it had upon them; for us, it is no longer alive, no longer a "day which shall live in infamy".
Jesus' resurrection, however, is in no need of such assistance. This is an event that carries the weight of its meaning with it through vast distance of time and space and language and culture and confronts us with the strange and awesome and wonderful event that Jesus is alive, never to die again. From this moment forward, nothing will be the same. Life will not be the same. Death will not be the same. Relationships, community, speech, love, politics, human agency - everything from this moment forward is touched by this event. Not just the fact of physical death, but the process of death, the whole emotional, psychological, sociological interweaving of emotions and rituals surrounding this personal and interpersonal event no longer has the last word on us, our endeavors, our hopes, or our fears. We are now confronted with a new reality, a new creation, ruled not by the cycle of life, which is also the cycle of death (Nietzsche was fascinated with it and made it the cornerstone of his own thinking about the world). That circle is now broken, and we are no longer terrorized by the abyss over which we tread, because we are buoyed up by the hope granted us through the resurrection.
Nothing will ever be the same again now. The whole world, and everything that was, is, and ever will be in it has been made again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
