So far, when I have offered examples of what I call radical evil, I have stuck to pretty shocking examples, easily discernible among the plethora of images and facts around us. The crimes of totalitarian regimes; the horror of the murderous psychopath or psychotic run amok; the depersonalized, institutionalized violence of whole systems that destroy human life - it is easy enough to pick these out and say, "This is what I'm talking about." Yet, not all evil announces itself in such a shocking manner. For the most part, evil is insidious. The reason that serpent in the Garden is often conflated with Satan (without any textual merit, I might add) is because of the careful nature of the way it frames its temptation to the woman. This isn't the bold demand of obedience or death. This is the quiet whisper, the question that prompts more questions, and questions that spur doubt, and doubt that spurs rationalizations. Rather than Linda Blair painted green and puking soup on a priest, we have evil here as the beautiful young woman of Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ, telling us what we want to hear, feeding us our own doubts, prompting us to take the easier road.
What, then, do we do? How do we understand this part of the anatomy of evil, as it were? The questions we ask, the doubts we raise, the fears we articulate - how do we know if they are the honest expression of our own limited understanding, or the presence of a creeping serpent, whispering questions in to our ears prompting doubts about what we know to be true? How do we catch that snake, and toss it out of the garden before it gets us tossed out?
The first answer to the above questions is this: We will never get rid of that serpent. It will always be there, offering alternatives where none exist, prompting questions where only acquiescence is called for. The only check of which I am aware for keeping the snake at bay as much as possible is a ruthless self-examination. Never accept your own goodness, your own motives as pure, your own doubts as honest expressions of limit. Rather, be more ruthless upon your own life. Spare nothing.
There is no cure for this disease called evil. There is no way we shall ever root it out of our lives. There is no way we shall overcome the danger it always poses. That is why, along with a ruthless refusal to take oneself at face value, we should also be forgiving of ourselves as well. Even the best of us slip. Even the most loving, most giving, most selfless person falls. Compared to all the manifest evil in the world, the occasional slip up here or there is hardly worth the time of beating oneself up. Learn to forgive yourself as much as possible - precisely because that serpent is always there, whispering questions we never thought to ask, prompting to us to act in ways we know we should not.
Precisely because evil is far more insidious than it is shocking, defining it, catching it in its earliest stages as it slips its way in to our minds and lives is impossible to do in any abstract way. We are confronted only with each case that comes our way, our trust in our own awareness (including an awareness of the reality of evil), and a consideration of what possibilities lie in store.
Friday, October 26, 2007
On Radical Evil III - Some Definitions, More On Art
I think it important to understand why I use the term "radical" as a modifier of evil. Classically, there have been two distinct types of evil discussed. The first was known as Natural Evil - the hurricane, earthquake, or other natural phenomenon that was destructive of human life and property. The other was consciously-willed evil, sometimes known as "radical", because it is freely willed, unaccountable through any rational understanding of cause and effect.
I do not believe that natural events can be called "evil". They are surely destructive - who can see the images from the Indian Ocean tsunami of three years ago and claim otherwise? "Evil" as a word to describe such events, however, gives to them a essence, a purpose, they do not have. The destruction wrought by any natural event is only a byproduct of the event, an accident (to use classical parlance for a moment) rather than something essential to what that event is. There were hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc., long before human beings walked the earth. Long after our species goes extinct (as we surely will in the course of billions of years natural history), they will continue. To call them "evil" is to make a claim based upon a misguided anthropocentrism; the world does not, in fact, exist for human beings, to serve our needs and desires. It is the height of hubris and pride to think that the world cares a whit whether we as a species survive or not, or that any number of human beings die or suffer due to events that are nothing more than the result of natural forces.
Radical evil is what concerns me. Willed acts that serve no purpose but destruction. Whether it is the destruction of one human life, or the institutionalized destruction of human communities, either actively or passively, we have to do with that which is the most base threat, not to the created order (such as it is), but to human life and well-being, both physically and psychologically. Evil is the question that hangs over every attempt to make sense of the world, of humanity, of our history, our psychology. The attempt to fathom the depths of evil in the Belgian rape of the Congo, say, or a parent killing her child leaves us, in the end, with a large blank spot. All the usual suspects - greed, lust, the desire for power, even contemporary categories such as addiction, madness, and other psychological jargon - end up only telling part of the story. We are faced with the uncomfortable reality that there exists, not just in some people but in all of us, a shadow, a desire to act out, to destroy. Through accidents of history, sometimes these destructive elements become institutionalized. Sometimes, it is bad enough that such persons effect just one life, or a handful.
Facing this reality is never easy. As I said below, it is always easier, perhaps even necessary for a time at least, to distance ourselves from such as those who represent the void that exists when hope, love, and life have all been rejected in favor of rage, violence, and despair. It is easy to dismiss John Wayne Gacey as a madman. It is even easier to insist that such a one as this has no relationship to us and our lives. He is the Other to the nth degree - a reprehensible example of what is not human. We can celebrate his death because with it goes a mortal threat not only to innocent life but to our own equilibrium, our own sense of equanimity about ourselves as good people.
To hear and read about Gacey's life, however, is to confront the dilemma implicit in grappling with radical evil. His tale is a tale the echoes so much of our contemporary anomie and listlessness. His decision to succumb to his most base desires is only the end result of a path all of us walk, to a certain extent. We can deny that we would make the decisions Gacey made, the horrid destruction he wrought, the fear that he brings up in all our minds when we think of how ordinary he appeared. Lurking behind the smiling face of the party clown and local up-and-coming politico raged the darkest dreams of all of us. The difference between Gacey and most of the rest of us is one only of degree, not of kind.
We deny this to our peril. If understanding is to be achieved, we have to accept this reality. We have to look in the eyes of those we deem irretrievably lost to infamy - whether it is the ruthless sociopathy of Josef Stalin; the mindless perfectionism of the Khmer Rouge; the strutting, cocky swagger of Ted Bundy; or the lost, empty gaze of Jeffrey Dahmer - and see something of ourselves in them. If we do not do this, we miss the lesson that is available to us. We miss the check that must always exist in us, a check that keeps us from taking those small, almost baby, steps further down the path than we should go.
It is right here, I believe, that art serves an important purpose, because it can do obliquely, through image and symbol, what rational thought and consideration refuses to do.
This painting by Goya, entitled "Saturn Devouring One of His Children" is one of the most horrific images in modern art. At one and the same time the graphic depiction of a tale from mythology, a reflection of the inner turmoil in the artist's life, what has always struck me by this painting is the way Saturn's eyes bulge, staring out of the painting at the viewer. He is not considering his meal; nor does he have his eyes closed as he tears off another piece from his child. He is forcing us to look and see, not just the painting, but ourselves in this painting. This is as much a dark mirror as it is a dark work of art.
This is Black Friday by Willem De Kooning. Here we have a modern piece, more abstract, yet capturing nonetheless a sense not just of despair, but of grief, of sadness, even of terror. This painting captures both the individual sense of loss in our contemporary life, as well as that loss itself. In that sense, this painting serves as a novel of sorts, portraying through this single image an entire facet of our modern life.
Many critics abjure this kind of talk as "pessimistic". They wish we could speak of art as uplifting, as giving the spirit of people hope, of the light that we all hope we receive from the best art. Yet, if art is to be honest, it must also display that which is deepest within us, that which we would refuse to look full in the face. We are horrified by the image of Saturn; we recoil from the suggestion that de Kooning was doing anything more than capturing a moment of time on canvas. How do we cope with the deeper, more disturbing thoughts these works bring to mind? How do we accept the story implicit in these works? In this sense, I believe, the best art never judges, but only offers an opening for understanding, to be taken or not.
That is why I think it is right here that there is the possibility of a beginning of a contemporary recapturing and discussion of the reality of evil. It seems safer to look at at a centuries old painting of a mythological tale, or an abstract representation of an artist's mood; yet precisely because it seems safer than staring in to the eyes of Charles Manson, or looking at what the rage of Jack the Ripper wrought in London's East End 119 years ago it is all the more important that we push the questions these images force upon us.
I do not believe that natural events can be called "evil". They are surely destructive - who can see the images from the Indian Ocean tsunami of three years ago and claim otherwise? "Evil" as a word to describe such events, however, gives to them a essence, a purpose, they do not have. The destruction wrought by any natural event is only a byproduct of the event, an accident (to use classical parlance for a moment) rather than something essential to what that event is. There were hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc., long before human beings walked the earth. Long after our species goes extinct (as we surely will in the course of billions of years natural history), they will continue. To call them "evil" is to make a claim based upon a misguided anthropocentrism; the world does not, in fact, exist for human beings, to serve our needs and desires. It is the height of hubris and pride to think that the world cares a whit whether we as a species survive or not, or that any number of human beings die or suffer due to events that are nothing more than the result of natural forces.
Radical evil is what concerns me. Willed acts that serve no purpose but destruction. Whether it is the destruction of one human life, or the institutionalized destruction of human communities, either actively or passively, we have to do with that which is the most base threat, not to the created order (such as it is), but to human life and well-being, both physically and psychologically. Evil is the question that hangs over every attempt to make sense of the world, of humanity, of our history, our psychology. The attempt to fathom the depths of evil in the Belgian rape of the Congo, say, or a parent killing her child leaves us, in the end, with a large blank spot. All the usual suspects - greed, lust, the desire for power, even contemporary categories such as addiction, madness, and other psychological jargon - end up only telling part of the story. We are faced with the uncomfortable reality that there exists, not just in some people but in all of us, a shadow, a desire to act out, to destroy. Through accidents of history, sometimes these destructive elements become institutionalized. Sometimes, it is bad enough that such persons effect just one life, or a handful.
Facing this reality is never easy. As I said below, it is always easier, perhaps even necessary for a time at least, to distance ourselves from such as those who represent the void that exists when hope, love, and life have all been rejected in favor of rage, violence, and despair. It is easy to dismiss John Wayne Gacey as a madman. It is even easier to insist that such a one as this has no relationship to us and our lives. He is the Other to the nth degree - a reprehensible example of what is not human. We can celebrate his death because with it goes a mortal threat not only to innocent life but to our own equilibrium, our own sense of equanimity about ourselves as good people.
To hear and read about Gacey's life, however, is to confront the dilemma implicit in grappling with radical evil. His tale is a tale the echoes so much of our contemporary anomie and listlessness. His decision to succumb to his most base desires is only the end result of a path all of us walk, to a certain extent. We can deny that we would make the decisions Gacey made, the horrid destruction he wrought, the fear that he brings up in all our minds when we think of how ordinary he appeared. Lurking behind the smiling face of the party clown and local up-and-coming politico raged the darkest dreams of all of us. The difference between Gacey and most of the rest of us is one only of degree, not of kind.
We deny this to our peril. If understanding is to be achieved, we have to accept this reality. We have to look in the eyes of those we deem irretrievably lost to infamy - whether it is the ruthless sociopathy of Josef Stalin; the mindless perfectionism of the Khmer Rouge; the strutting, cocky swagger of Ted Bundy; or the lost, empty gaze of Jeffrey Dahmer - and see something of ourselves in them. If we do not do this, we miss the lesson that is available to us. We miss the check that must always exist in us, a check that keeps us from taking those small, almost baby, steps further down the path than we should go.
It is right here, I believe, that art serves an important purpose, because it can do obliquely, through image and symbol, what rational thought and consideration refuses to do.
This painting by Goya, entitled "Saturn Devouring One of His Children" is one of the most horrific images in modern art. At one and the same time the graphic depiction of a tale from mythology, a reflection of the inner turmoil in the artist's life, what has always struck me by this painting is the way Saturn's eyes bulge, staring out of the painting at the viewer. He is not considering his meal; nor does he have his eyes closed as he tears off another piece from his child. He is forcing us to look and see, not just the painting, but ourselves in this painting. This is as much a dark mirror as it is a dark work of art.This is Black Friday by Willem De Kooning. Here we have a modern piece, more abstract, yet capturing nonetheless a sense not just of despair, but of grief, of sadness, even of terror. This painting captures both the individual sense of loss in our contemporary life, as well as that loss itself. In that sense, this painting serves as a novel of sorts, portraying through this single image an entire facet of our modern life.Many critics abjure this kind of talk as "pessimistic". They wish we could speak of art as uplifting, as giving the spirit of people hope, of the light that we all hope we receive from the best art. Yet, if art is to be honest, it must also display that which is deepest within us, that which we would refuse to look full in the face. We are horrified by the image of Saturn; we recoil from the suggestion that de Kooning was doing anything more than capturing a moment of time on canvas. How do we cope with the deeper, more disturbing thoughts these works bring to mind? How do we accept the story implicit in these works? In this sense, I believe, the best art never judges, but only offers an opening for understanding, to be taken or not.
That is why I think it is right here that there is the possibility of a beginning of a contemporary recapturing and discussion of the reality of evil. It seems safer to look at at a centuries old painting of a mythological tale, or an abstract representation of an artist's mood; yet precisely because it seems safer than staring in to the eyes of Charles Manson, or looking at what the rage of Jack the Ripper wrought in London's East End 119 years ago it is all the more important that we push the questions these images force upon us.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
For ER - The Flaming Lips
ER is celebrating Oklahoma City's own Flaming Lips. So, what the heck, right? With a title like "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots", how could it be bad?
On Radical Evil, II - The Representation of The Profane
In Robert G. L. Waite's psychological biography of Adolf Hitler, The Psychopathic God, there is a discussion of Hitler's obsession with the erotic works of German symbolist Franz von Stuck. While it is telling which paintings of von Stuck were among the dictator's personal favorites, the most telling exchange came between Hitler and his companion from pre-World War I Vienna, "Putzi" Hanfstaengl. When Hitler and Putzi saw this mosaic . . .
he declared, "Those eyes, Hanfstaengl! Those eyes are the eyes of my mother!" For someone who is a textbook case of Freudian psychopathology, Hitler's obsession with his mother, and the shocked expression of recognition as he saw his mother's eyes staring back at him from that image should be telling enough. That von Stuck, whose work includes some darkly erotic imagery of women as both victim of sexual evil and seductress in the midst of that sexual evil, was Hitler's favorite artist should tell us much about what passed for a mind in that diseased skull.
What we see and understand as evil is very often interpreted through imagery familiar to everyone. The traditional image of the Devil as a horned, winged being is very real to many, and was exploited for great effect in an arresting scene in the classic horror film The Exorcist. Yet, how much power can such an image carry in a world where the reality of evil is present in much more mundane imagery - the piles of severed limbs in Rwanda, the grim abattoir underneath the staid suburban tract home of John Wayne Gacey, or the smokey plumes from the ovens at Auschwitz/Birkenau? How can art compete with these realities that are, sadly, too much a part of our lives?
I think, oddly enough, we can take a lesson from Hitler's startled response to von Stuck's image of the Gorgon. When we recognize that which both attracts and repels us in an image, we are on the borderline of comprehending a representation of something of transcendent horror.
This is a crime scene photo of the last Whitechapel murders, usually ascribed to the unknown assailant given the moniker Jack the Ripper. I first saw that photo in 1988, and was transfixed by it. The depth of rage and will to destruction that grabs the viewer by the throat is difficult to put into words. How, we wonder, is it possible for one human being to do this to another human being? Even more unsettling is this question: How do we accept this image, make it a part of our view of the world, incorporate it in to our lives in a way that makes sense? At first blush such a question seems to belittle the sacrifice pictured. To reduce the death portrayed here to a symbol does further violence to the person already violated beyond recognition. How dare we treat one so utterly destroyed as something less than human, a mere image to fit into a catalog of images that help us make sense of our world.
Yet, we must do so. The image presses itself in to our minds and hearts, the silent voice of the victim demanding not only justice (a justice denied contemporaneously) but understanding. In these images we not only see a glimpse of something physically arresting; we see something that recalls to us our deepest fears, not just of what surrounds us, but of what lives inside all of us. We deny to our peril the threat that images of the profane present to us. Unless we are willing, as he most certainly was not, to answer the question posed by Adolf Hitler's declaration that the Head of the Medusa reminded him of his mother, we are destined never to comprehend the reality of evil in this world. Unless we listen to the voices of the victims, and seek to comprehend the depths to which human beings are capable of sinking, we will always remain surprised by evil.
Art allows us this glimpse in to the shadow regions of our own lives. This is why it is here, first, I believe, we shall begin to regain an understanding of and vocabulary for the evil that rests like a tumor upon our souls.
NB: I had to travel to the dark side to get that image of the Medusa. The only place I found it was at a Nazi website. I want to apologize here and now for that. I feel dirty.
he declared, "Those eyes, Hanfstaengl! Those eyes are the eyes of my mother!" For someone who is a textbook case of Freudian psychopathology, Hitler's obsession with his mother, and the shocked expression of recognition as he saw his mother's eyes staring back at him from that image should be telling enough. That von Stuck, whose work includes some darkly erotic imagery of women as both victim of sexual evil and seductress in the midst of that sexual evil, was Hitler's favorite artist should tell us much about what passed for a mind in that diseased skull.
What we see and understand as evil is very often interpreted through imagery familiar to everyone. The traditional image of the Devil as a horned, winged being is very real to many, and was exploited for great effect in an arresting scene in the classic horror film The Exorcist. Yet, how much power can such an image carry in a world where the reality of evil is present in much more mundane imagery - the piles of severed limbs in Rwanda, the grim abattoir underneath the staid suburban tract home of John Wayne Gacey, or the smokey plumes from the ovens at Auschwitz/Birkenau? How can art compete with these realities that are, sadly, too much a part of our lives?
I think, oddly enough, we can take a lesson from Hitler's startled response to von Stuck's image of the Gorgon. When we recognize that which both attracts and repels us in an image, we are on the borderline of comprehending a representation of something of transcendent horror.
This is a crime scene photo of the last Whitechapel murders, usually ascribed to the unknown assailant given the moniker Jack the Ripper. I first saw that photo in 1988, and was transfixed by it. The depth of rage and will to destruction that grabs the viewer by the throat is difficult to put into words. How, we wonder, is it possible for one human being to do this to another human being? Even more unsettling is this question: How do we accept this image, make it a part of our view of the world, incorporate it in to our lives in a way that makes sense? At first blush such a question seems to belittle the sacrifice pictured. To reduce the death portrayed here to a symbol does further violence to the person already violated beyond recognition. How dare we treat one so utterly destroyed as something less than human, a mere image to fit into a catalog of images that help us make sense of our world.
Yet, we must do so. The image presses itself in to our minds and hearts, the silent voice of the victim demanding not only justice (a justice denied contemporaneously) but understanding. In these images we not only see a glimpse of something physically arresting; we see something that recalls to us our deepest fears, not just of what surrounds us, but of what lives inside all of us. We deny to our peril the threat that images of the profane present to us. Unless we are willing, as he most certainly was not, to answer the question posed by Adolf Hitler's declaration that the Head of the Medusa reminded him of his mother, we are destined never to comprehend the reality of evil in this world. Unless we listen to the voices of the victims, and seek to comprehend the depths to which human beings are capable of sinking, we will always remain surprised by evil.
Art allows us this glimpse in to the shadow regions of our own lives. This is why it is here, first, I believe, we shall begin to regain an understanding of and vocabulary for the evil that rests like a tumor upon our souls.
NB: I had to travel to the dark side to get that image of the Medusa. The only place I found it was at a Nazi website. I want to apologize here and now for that. I feel dirty.
On Radical Evil, I - Some Initial Thoughts
This is one of those posts I am sure is guaranteed to make both my sister and Democracy Lover roll their eyes, albeit for different reasons. Ah, well.
Having read all three volumes of Gary Dorrien's masterful history of liberal theology, I am reminded that, as a general rule, theological liberals tended to downplay the question of evil. Indeed, Reinhold Niebuhr made it a central issue in his dialectical criticism of his liberal contemporaries. I agree with Dorrien's view that Niebuhr owed much more to the liberals than he did to the bourgening neo-orthodoxy of his time. I also agree that he overstated his indictment of the flaccidity of liberals on this particular issue. A third area of agreement, but one I think Dorrien does not explore in as much depth as he might have (although, with all that he did do, this is picking one tiny nit out of a beautiful head of hair) is the extent to which Niebuhr's dialectic was oversimplified, almost Manichaean in its dualism, and blind to the specific reality of evil; that is a surprising indictment considering the times in which Niebuhr lived and wrote, but I also think it is true for all that.
Niebuhr famously quipped that original sin is the only Christian doctrine that was objectively verifiable. I think he might better have said that radical evil is a Christian teaching that is objectively verifiable, then spoken of original sin as a Christian understanding and interpretation of radical evil. Be that as it may, both Niebuhr's time and our own furnish abundant evidence on the reality of evil, both personal and social. Whether it is the horrors of Burmese repression; the yoke of unrestrained capitalism run amok; the abusive spouse/parent destroying psyches and lives; or that most heinous example of individual evil, the serial killer - our world is filled with the reality that human beings, both as individuals and as a collective are capable of monstrous crimes against our fellows. The pleas of victims ring in our ears, occasionally drowning out our ability to comprehend a response.
Yet, for all that, we Americans remain almost institutionally incapable not only of calling evil by its name, but of recognizing its ubiquity. I remember the horribly stupid comments of former Secretary of State Alexander Haig on the September 11th attacks, "We lost our innocence." That is quite a claim considering our checkered history. Yet, it remains a persistent myth that the United States is an innocent in the world, going about our affairs of doing good in the world, only to be knocked for a loop by those whose intentions are only evil. In this narrative, it is only the Other who is evil. We are the lamb that is slain, the perpetual virgin, the "shocked, shocked" police captain to discover corruption under his very nose (everyone knows how that particular scene ends).
Some of this sense of our own innocence over and against the evil in Others is the dehumanizing rhetoric too often used when speaking, for example, of those serial killers whose acts destroy any sense of our calm serenity. They are described as "monsters", as "inhuman", as "animals". We recoil from the claim that the difference between them and us is one only of degree rather than of kind. We know we are not capable of tearing down the wall between what is acceptable and what is beyond the pale. We insulate ourselves from the indictment implicit in the criminal act by insisting that "We" would never do what "They" do, that "we" indeed are incapable of such acts.
Yet Christianity (since Luther at any rate) reminds us that the stain of sin is something each of us carries within us. I will leave aside the genetic theory of St. Augustine for the moment, while still insisting that there is something correct in the description of human beings as always wrestling with the reality of our own capacity for horrific acts. I believe that is part of the on-going fascination with each new serial killer, and even those who have (thankfully) passed from our midst - the taboos broken, the depth of depravity to which each successive example plummets catches something heinous in our soul, and we stare in bewildered fascination at the handiwork of these artists of destruction and, however we wish to deny it, we ask ourselves the question, "Am I capable of this kind of horror?"
The answer, of course, is "Yes".
Over the next few days I will explore some thoughts on evil, and some new ways in which we might think, speak, and represent anew for ourselves this question. This is prompted in part by some comments I made over here at Swinging From the Vine:
I think it also necessary to explain that these thoughts have been prompted by some things to which I have been exposed in my own life recently. The need to deal with the issue of evil in an honest manner, to speak the name of that-which-must-not-be-named, is something I find increasingly pressing.
Before anyone think I am boasting of my own "courage" here, I would just add that, this is a blog, and the space for serious, in-depth discussion of these issues and questions is limited. There is also the ever-present reality of commenters who not only keep us honest, but also sometimes distract us with their stupidity.
Having said that, I shall next explore the very nexus of which I wrote in the comment above - the representation of evil for a new era.
Having read all three volumes of Gary Dorrien's masterful history of liberal theology, I am reminded that, as a general rule, theological liberals tended to downplay the question of evil. Indeed, Reinhold Niebuhr made it a central issue in his dialectical criticism of his liberal contemporaries. I agree with Dorrien's view that Niebuhr owed much more to the liberals than he did to the bourgening neo-orthodoxy of his time. I also agree that he overstated his indictment of the flaccidity of liberals on this particular issue. A third area of agreement, but one I think Dorrien does not explore in as much depth as he might have (although, with all that he did do, this is picking one tiny nit out of a beautiful head of hair) is the extent to which Niebuhr's dialectic was oversimplified, almost Manichaean in its dualism, and blind to the specific reality of evil; that is a surprising indictment considering the times in which Niebuhr lived and wrote, but I also think it is true for all that.
Niebuhr famously quipped that original sin is the only Christian doctrine that was objectively verifiable. I think he might better have said that radical evil is a Christian teaching that is objectively verifiable, then spoken of original sin as a Christian understanding and interpretation of radical evil. Be that as it may, both Niebuhr's time and our own furnish abundant evidence on the reality of evil, both personal and social. Whether it is the horrors of Burmese repression; the yoke of unrestrained capitalism run amok; the abusive spouse/parent destroying psyches and lives; or that most heinous example of individual evil, the serial killer - our world is filled with the reality that human beings, both as individuals and as a collective are capable of monstrous crimes against our fellows. The pleas of victims ring in our ears, occasionally drowning out our ability to comprehend a response.
Yet, for all that, we Americans remain almost institutionally incapable not only of calling evil by its name, but of recognizing its ubiquity. I remember the horribly stupid comments of former Secretary of State Alexander Haig on the September 11th attacks, "We lost our innocence." That is quite a claim considering our checkered history. Yet, it remains a persistent myth that the United States is an innocent in the world, going about our affairs of doing good in the world, only to be knocked for a loop by those whose intentions are only evil. In this narrative, it is only the Other who is evil. We are the lamb that is slain, the perpetual virgin, the "shocked, shocked" police captain to discover corruption under his very nose (everyone knows how that particular scene ends).
Some of this sense of our own innocence over and against the evil in Others is the dehumanizing rhetoric too often used when speaking, for example, of those serial killers whose acts destroy any sense of our calm serenity. They are described as "monsters", as "inhuman", as "animals". We recoil from the claim that the difference between them and us is one only of degree rather than of kind. We know we are not capable of tearing down the wall between what is acceptable and what is beyond the pale. We insulate ourselves from the indictment implicit in the criminal act by insisting that "We" would never do what "They" do, that "we" indeed are incapable of such acts.
Yet Christianity (since Luther at any rate) reminds us that the stain of sin is something each of us carries within us. I will leave aside the genetic theory of St. Augustine for the moment, while still insisting that there is something correct in the description of human beings as always wrestling with the reality of our own capacity for horrific acts. I believe that is part of the on-going fascination with each new serial killer, and even those who have (thankfully) passed from our midst - the taboos broken, the depth of depravity to which each successive example plummets catches something heinous in our soul, and we stare in bewildered fascination at the handiwork of these artists of destruction and, however we wish to deny it, we ask ourselves the question, "Am I capable of this kind of horror?"
The answer, of course, is "Yes".
Over the next few days I will explore some thoughts on evil, and some new ways in which we might think, speak, and represent anew for ourselves this question. This is prompted in part by some comments I made over here at Swinging From the Vine:
I would also add that we need to restore the vocabulary and the imagery of the demonic. Evil is something people talk about in whispers, occasionally referring to it obliquely. As Christians, we need to remember that radical evil is the enemy - not we mere humans, who are only its victims. If that means we restore, at some level, talk of a personal Devil, so be it. If nothing else, I have been recently reminded that evil is more than just the personal foibles of an individual, or the collective madness of nations and peoples. Unless Christians, especially American Christians (whose exposure to radical evil on a historical level is minimal), can recapture the depth and breadth of the language of evil as a personal and social force bent on destruction, then I believe our vocabulary is incomplete. I think that only in artistic endeavors can that reclaiming begin; I also think it will take an extraordinary effort of courage to do this.
I think it also necessary to explain that these thoughts have been prompted by some things to which I have been exposed in my own life recently. The need to deal with the issue of evil in an honest manner, to speak the name of that-which-must-not-be-named, is something I find increasingly pressing.
Before anyone think I am boasting of my own "courage" here, I would just add that, this is a blog, and the space for serious, in-depth discussion of these issues and questions is limited. There is also the ever-present reality of commenters who not only keep us honest, but also sometimes distract us with their stupidity.
Having said that, I shall next explore the very nexus of which I wrote in the comment above - the representation of evil for a new era.
We Need To Protect Israel From . . . What Again?
At Talking Points Memo, Joshua Micah Marshall links to this article in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper. Entitled "Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel", written by Ha'aretz staff reporters Gidi Weitz and Na'ama Lanski. The title sums up both the lede and the article quite nicely:
A long memorandum on the working relationship between the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the writers continue in their description:
So, on the one hand we have George Bush warning against World War III because of the existential threat to Israel posed by a nuclear Iran. On the other hand we have the Israeli Foreign Minister accusing the Prime Minister of exploiting a rhetorical threat for domestic political purposes (I wonder if Olmert has Republican handlers . . .) and shrugging her shoulders at that same rhetorical threat.
If they don't fear the onrushing Iranian hordes, why do we fear for them?
As a bonus question - Why does the Israeli Prime Minister speak of her Palestinian interlocutors as if they were legitimate? Could it be that, unlike the American Israeli-boosters who know next to nothing about how Israel has to live, she understands that negotiations are always better than bombs.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.
Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.
A long memorandum on the working relationship between the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the writers continue in their description:
The most important part of the document relates to the talks with the Palestinians. Livni wrote: "The foreign minister shall represent the prime minister and the government of Israel, and will act on their behalf as the director of the dialogue with the relevant Palestinian representatives, and in accordance with the policy and methods to be coordinated in advance with the prime minster, while keeping him informed."(emphasis added)
So, on the one hand we have George Bush warning against World War III because of the existential threat to Israel posed by a nuclear Iran. On the other hand we have the Israeli Foreign Minister accusing the Prime Minister of exploiting a rhetorical threat for domestic political purposes (I wonder if Olmert has Republican handlers . . .) and shrugging her shoulders at that same rhetorical threat.
If they don't fear the onrushing Iranian hordes, why do we fear for them?
As a bonus question - Why does the Israeli Prime Minister speak of her Palestinian interlocutors as if they were legitimate? Could it be that, unlike the American Israeli-boosters who know next to nothing about how Israel has to live, she understands that negotiations are always better than bombs.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
'Twas Ever Thus
Over here at Street Prophets is a very good discussion that I have had on more than one occasion with Democracy Lover and others. The author, dfb1968, writes of his experience over at The Great Orange Satan:
For purposes of reference, here is the original comment:
The religion=child abuse thing:
He wants to know how you deal with it. I think the best way is to state your position frankly, openly, argue the points that need arguing, and if you reach an impasse, agree to disagree and then move on. For those who just can't let it go, though, you shrug your shoulders, shake your head, and, again, move on. In either case - you move on. I have grown weary of these kinds of discussion because they are become a bit repetitive, and neither side, in the end, really listens to what the other is saying (I must admit that I try, but the level of bile I have had thrown at me usually shuts down my cognitive functions).
For the last few months, however, I have noticed a steady stream of diaries, and comments, that disparage anyone who believes in G-d. It all started with this winner, accusing me of being mentally ill, because I have faith in G-d. It is nice that my Reply received 22 recc's, but please note the seven recc's for the original comment. Here's another great one stating a mathematical fact that faith=ignorance.
Unfortunately, the list goes on.
It culminated with this diary today, which contained the lovely comments accusing me (and I would presume to say "us") of child abuse, of being like a "gang member", and still yet another entry in the faith is ignorance category, this one with the special addition of accusing people who believe in G-d of being conspiracy theorists.
For purposes of reference, here is the original comment:
Reason, analysis of empirical evidence and science can explain (or at least effectively address) virtually everything in the physical universe around us. Two thousand years ago, perhaps religion was necessary to help illiterate humans contending with a frightening and mysterious world. The European enlightenment revealed a better way, and the founding fathers of this country followed the same spirit of empiricism and reason in crafting a government that addressed the realities of human nature.
Today the looney religious right is trying to rewrite history and claim that the founding fathers were basically fundamentalists. This turns reality on its head. I guess you could call it history for Bushites.
The religion=child abuse thing:
I would say that it is child abuse for a parent to indoctrinate a child or force them to believe in a religion. i can understand why parents would (my parents taught me to be a Christian), because they believe it was the best thing for me. It is kind of child abuse out of ignorance and good intentions. kids should be able to make their minds up for themselves when they are old enough. however, when they are indoctrinated from the time they are little kids, it is hard for them to break free of that indoctrination. it nooks me a long time to fully leave Christianity and feel at peace with it. kids believe what their parents say. that is why if you go to Afghanistan 99% of people believe in islam, because that is what they are taught. that is one of the main reasons that i stopped believing in christianity. i thought that a god would have to be extremely cruel for sending someone to hell, because they believed in another religion due to the fact that that religion dominated his/her culture.
He wants to know how you deal with it. I think the best way is to state your position frankly, openly, argue the points that need arguing, and if you reach an impasse, agree to disagree and then move on. For those who just can't let it go, though, you shrug your shoulders, shake your head, and, again, move on. In either case - you move on. I have grown weary of these kinds of discussion because they are become a bit repetitive, and neither side, in the end, really listens to what the other is saying (I must admit that I try, but the level of bile I have had thrown at me usually shuts down my cognitive functions).
It Sounded Smart Before It Came Out Of My Mouth
You just knew this was coming, didn't you? Despite all the drivel in the American press about how Turkey wouldn't invade. Now, it seems, that they won't have to.
From the Herald Tribune, billing itself as "Australia's biggest selling newspaper", comes the headline "Bush offers to bomb Kurds".
The same Kurds we have been protecting since 1991. The same Kurds whose aspirations for freedom and self-governance were one of the spurs for Christopher Hitchens to go to the dark side (one wonders if he will sober up long enough to realize that, when you make a deal with the devil, the devil always reneges, and mortals always lose). The same Kurds who have been such a haven of peace and tranquility in a nation that we have otherwise destroyed. This is stupid to the googoleplex power.
From the Herald Tribune, billing itself as "Australia's biggest selling newspaper", comes the headline "Bush offers to bomb Kurds".
According to an official familiar with the conversation, Mr Bush assured the Turkish President that the US was seriously looking into options beyond diplomacy to stop the attacks coming from Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
"It's not 'Kumbaya' time any more - just talking about trilateral talks is not going to be enough," the official said.
"Something has to be done."
While the use of US soldiers on the ground to root out the PKK would be the last resort, the US would be willing to launch air strikes on PKK targets, the official said, and has discussed the use of cruise missiles.
The same Kurds we have been protecting since 1991. The same Kurds whose aspirations for freedom and self-governance were one of the spurs for Christopher Hitchens to go to the dark side (one wonders if he will sober up long enough to realize that, when you make a deal with the devil, the devil always reneges, and mortals always lose). The same Kurds who have been such a haven of peace and tranquility in a nation that we have otherwise destroyed. This is stupid to the googoleplex power.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I Really Like Paradise Lost
I have to say I really like Symphony X's latest CD. Here's a promo video of "Serpent's Kiss":
ALRIGHT!!! Except For The Little Bit About Grace . . .
Just when I felt resolve entering my heart that I had firmly decided to take a stand against nonsense, as I wrote here the other day, I come across Pastor Dan's latest Bible Study at Street Prophets, and I am confronted with my own judgmentalism, hypocrisy, and limited grasp of whatever passes for truth in the universe.
In the face of God's grace - a grace that can turn a murderer in to an apostle; a grace that can turn a denier in to the Rock of the Church; a grace that even includes me within its embrace - what possible reason to do I have for thinking I can say some of the things I have said?
Yet, I do not take them back, either. I am facing, not a dilemma or contradiction, but a conflict between the contingent facts of my own time and the promptings of my heart, and my own belief in the transcendent, all-embracing power of God's love and grace. Jesus said to forgive seventy times seven times. I cannot pretend that I have reached the 491st time I have been transgressed upon, here.
I do believe that I need some time to think, eh?
In the face of God's grace - a grace that can turn a murderer in to an apostle; a grace that can turn a denier in to the Rock of the Church; a grace that even includes me within its embrace - what possible reason to do I have for thinking I can say some of the things I have said?
Yet, I do not take them back, either. I am facing, not a dilemma or contradiction, but a conflict between the contingent facts of my own time and the promptings of my heart, and my own belief in the transcendent, all-embracing power of God's love and grace. Jesus said to forgive seventy times seven times. I cannot pretend that I have reached the 491st time I have been transgressed upon, here.
I do believe that I need some time to think, eh?
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, Day 2
Batshit insane former left-wing radical David Horowitz is lying about the success of his "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" events. You just know that was the case because Horowitz is incapable of telling the truth. He can't even tell the truth in his memoirs about publicly available information.
I have no time or expertise of figure out why Horowitz is nuts. I do have the time, and the commonsense, to announce that his plan to tell the truth about the looming threat of "Islamo-fascism" is dying the death of a thousand deep slashes from an ax.
When Liberty University wants nothing to do with you, it might be a sign that you're just nuts.
While I was researching and writing this, another school Horowitz claims is on board denied participating. Of course, for a paranoid schizophrenic like Horowitz, this only confirms his own sense of persecution by anti-American academics. Speaking as a non-academic, I would like to say that I would enjoy persecuting him, too.
I have no time or expertise of figure out why Horowitz is nuts. I do have the time, and the commonsense, to announce that his plan to tell the truth about the looming threat of "Islamo-fascism" is dying the death of a thousand deep slashes from an ax.
Horowitz is claiming that it will be “the biggest conservative campus protest ever” and “a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses” about “the enemy.” But on CSPAN’s Washington Journal this weekend, Kareem Shora, the Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, said that Horowitz was dramatically overstating the number of participating schools:
We contacted those institutions, alerting them to the fact that their name was being used, and wondering what exactly was taking place. … It’s important to note though, after we contacted those institutions, most of those institutions indicated that no such events is taking place on those campus. And many contacted the sponsors and told them, “do not use my institution’s name in your campaign,” including some very renowned universities such as Yale and Princeton.
Shora also said that the president of Liberty University, the evangelical school founded by Jerry Falwell, also had their name removed from Horowitz’s list.
When Liberty University wants nothing to do with you, it might be a sign that you're just nuts.
While I was researching and writing this, another school Horowitz claims is on board denied participating. Of course, for a paranoid schizophrenic like Horowitz, this only confirms his own sense of persecution by anti-American academics. Speaking as a non-academic, I would like to say that I would enjoy persecuting him, too.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Music Monday
Now obscure, known mostly for one song ("Mississippi Queen") played endlessly on "classic rock" radio, at one time Mountain had a huge following. Always a good concert draw, Leslie West (whose solo album was humorously called The Great Fatsby, featuring Mick Jagger on rhythm guitar), Corky Lang, and the late Felix Pappalardi (who, as producer, is responsible for Cream's Disraeli Gears LP), were one of the proto-heavy metal bands of the late-60's, early-70's. West was one of the first to sound like his guitar was always on "11". They're still out there touring on the nostalgia circuit, although Pappalardi passed way in 1983.
Here's "Theme From an Imaginary Western"
Here's them vamping and showing a bit of fun at their own expense.
Here's one of their better songs, although with Pappalardi gone, I wonder how good it still is, "Nantucket Sleighride":
Here's "Theme From an Imaginary Western"
Here's them vamping and showing a bit of fun at their own expense.
Here's one of their better songs, although with Pappalardi gone, I wonder how good it still is, "Nantucket Sleighride":
An Economist Talks About Taxes
Ezra Klein discusses the distinction between taxation as charity and taxation as positive social policy. It is no small distinction. As he writes:
He opens the piece with the observation that many seem to have the idea that taxes, especially transfer payments, are nothing more than charity. I know I have been hearing this since the early 1980's (and I am sure this kind of nonsense was around long before). It is difficult to discuss the issue of taxes who believe that taxation is theft of personal property. It is difficult to discuss this issue with people who believe that this theft abets the subsidizing of anti-social behavior, or feeds the pathologies of the undeserving poor.
That's why I think we should just ignore those people. And read more Ezra Klein.
Charity is just not a good metaphor for how liberals think about this stuff. Charity is good for the giver and, generally, good for the receiver. But it's not what you build your society upon. It's not reliable, or predictable, or particularly targetable. Indeed, very little philanthropy actually goes into the areas that social policy focuses on. And that's because it's not supposed to. Charity, rather often, is a way to demonstrate virtue or compassion. Social policy, at least in theory, is a way to try and fix a structural problem. The two cannot be swapped in for each other.
He opens the piece with the observation that many seem to have the idea that taxes, especially transfer payments, are nothing more than charity. I know I have been hearing this since the early 1980's (and I am sure this kind of nonsense was around long before). It is difficult to discuss the issue of taxes who believe that taxation is theft of personal property. It is difficult to discuss this issue with people who believe that this theft abets the subsidizing of anti-social behavior, or feeds the pathologies of the undeserving poor.
That's why I think we should just ignore those people. And read more Ezra Klein.
Oh, Those Insane Bankers And Their Hatred Of America
Since I was recently schooled in what a load of crap global warming is, I was so surprised to hear this story on NPR this morning. Who would have thought that Robert Zoellick and the World Bank were such dupes? I mean where's the evidence that Global Warming even exists, let alone poses a threat to stability and peace, right? It's all about Al Gore's ego and junk science that I was told by an authoritative source was junk. Who should I believe, after all? A blogger from Chicago or development experts from the World Bank? Sheesh.
Let's listen in on these deluded people talk about the "effects" of non-existent global warming:
Wow. A country that relies on melting glaciers that will be gone, perhaps in my lifetime, certainly within my childrens' lifetime. I thought there was no evidence that people took seriously . . .
Yikes! More evidence? More data?
Could it be that it isn't Al Gore who is the asshole?
Let's listen in on these deluded people talk about the "effects" of non-existent global warming:
Laura Tucker, who directs the bank's sustainable development program for Latin America and the Caribbean, said the bank has made addressing problems caused by climate change one of its top priorities in the last year.
Latin America and the Caribbean are among the regions where development experts fear climate change could undo decades of efforts to fight poverty. She used Peru as an example because the country depends on melting glaciers for water and hydroelectric power in the winter. She said the glaciers could be gone in 25 to 40 years.
The bank is using new, advanced mapping and modeling techniques to help the country understand what is coming and how to prepare.
Wow. A country that relies on melting glaciers that will be gone, perhaps in my lifetime, certainly within my childrens' lifetime. I thought there was no evidence that people took seriously . . .
David Wheeler, of the Center for Global Development, said the bank is also grappling with new scientific findings on how climate change will affect poor farmers and food supplies.
"Losses in agricultural productivity during the next 70 to 80 years in major regions of the developing world will be enormous, possibly as high as 50 to 60 percent in some regions," he said.
The bank is now revamping its programs, factoring climate change into everything from seed research and irrigation to city planning and road building.
In the past year, its spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency has jumped 67 percent. This month, it launched a new fund that will pay poor people not to cut down trees.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, said this will be crucial.
"Cutting down trees — deforestation — actually accounts for about 20 percent of the green house gas emissions we, human beings, are responsible for," de Boer said.
Yikes! More evidence? More data?
Could it be that it isn't Al Gore who is the asshole?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
No Longer Silent
I did something this morning that has troubled me. Over here at ER's place, I encountered the following comment:
My response, both thoughtful and caring, follows:
What's bothered me is I have done what so many on the Christian Right do all the time - denied the faith of someone who expressed a view different from - and, honestly, antithetical to - my own. I have become no different from those I despise, sitting on a throne of judgment, seeing with such clarity who is and is not a Christian.
Yet, my reaction was honest. My feelings remain. I no longer feel comfortable with the fiction that the differences between someone who expresses a view such as the one above and me are open to negotiation. We are working from, and living within, completely different frames of reference, assumptions. I daresay we worship different "gods".
As uncomfortable as I am in doing so, I no longer feel I should remain silent in the face of hatred and ignorance passing itself off as serious Christian commentary. I cannot be quiet while those who claim to profess the same Jesus, Crucified and Risen, spout the horrible idea that Muslims worship the devil. I cannot remain silent while the God of love, peace, and grace is hijacked by those ruled, it seems clear from their express words, by fear, prejudice, and hatred. The final disposition of their lives before God is between them and their god. As for me, I will no longer pretend to seek some kind of common ground with such as these. I cannot, in good conscience, do so.
St. Paul, echoing Jesus, said that a true believer is known by the fruits that are borne by that person. When I hear hatred, calls for war, the declaration that believers in other religions worship the devil, greed, the lust for power and domination cloaked in the language of the Christian faith I cannot be silent and accept it. Those who do such as these, and more, are not "Christian" by any stretch of the definition of which I am aware. As I said in the comment above, I will stand before the throne of God and declare this to be so, whatever the consequences.
I can't be silent any longer as my good name and those of my Savior are dragged through the filth by people who vomit forth hatred.
Pure, unadulterated, horseswill. Islam calls Jesus "A" prophet of God, but Muhammad "The" prophet of God.
There can be no peace between the children of God and the children of Belial. Comity is certainly possible, but not on the grounds that both believe in "God"... for the devils ALSO believe, yet are they still damned.
The ONLY reason comity is possible at all is the very express command to love our enemies as our selves... to pray for them... especially when the persecute us.
My response, both thoughtful and caring, follows:
[T]his statement alone makes you unworthy to call yourself a Christian:
"There can be no peace between the children of God and the children of Belial."
To even claim to believe that Muslims are devil worshippers is horrific. You are entitled to your beliefs. Please do not call yourself a Christian, however. I will deny it to the throne itself.
What's bothered me is I have done what so many on the Christian Right do all the time - denied the faith of someone who expressed a view different from - and, honestly, antithetical to - my own. I have become no different from those I despise, sitting on a throne of judgment, seeing with such clarity who is and is not a Christian.
Yet, my reaction was honest. My feelings remain. I no longer feel comfortable with the fiction that the differences between someone who expresses a view such as the one above and me are open to negotiation. We are working from, and living within, completely different frames of reference, assumptions. I daresay we worship different "gods".
As uncomfortable as I am in doing so, I no longer feel I should remain silent in the face of hatred and ignorance passing itself off as serious Christian commentary. I cannot be quiet while those who claim to profess the same Jesus, Crucified and Risen, spout the horrible idea that Muslims worship the devil. I cannot remain silent while the God of love, peace, and grace is hijacked by those ruled, it seems clear from their express words, by fear, prejudice, and hatred. The final disposition of their lives before God is between them and their god. As for me, I will no longer pretend to seek some kind of common ground with such as these. I cannot, in good conscience, do so.
St. Paul, echoing Jesus, said that a true believer is known by the fruits that are borne by that person. When I hear hatred, calls for war, the declaration that believers in other religions worship the devil, greed, the lust for power and domination cloaked in the language of the Christian faith I cannot be silent and accept it. Those who do such as these, and more, are not "Christian" by any stretch of the definition of which I am aware. As I said in the comment above, I will stand before the throne of God and declare this to be so, whatever the consequences.
I can't be silent any longer as my good name and those of my Savior are dragged through the filth by people who vomit forth hatred.
The Latest Sermon Series
My wife has been enjoying a year away from the Lectionary, preaching several interconnected sermon series. This is her latest. Today was on "Fair Trade" - related to Scriptures in Leviticus, Proverbs, and the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in St. Luke's Gospel.
This spoke to me in a way that is difficult to articulate. As I encounter bloggers who write things like this:
it is nice to hear it driven home that, in fact, our wallets are not our own. The decisions we make, whether it is which coffee to buy, which stores at which to shop, or which health care plan to buy in to effect the lives of people all over the world. The care we must take, if we are to live in such a way that all our lives are focused on the Gospel demand to love others, should make us aware that our wallets are just a way station along the way for a resource that has the power of life and death over others.
You can hear her sermons via podcast, or purchase them online, if you so desire. All the money goes to the church and its ministries.
This spoke to me in a way that is difficult to articulate. As I encounter bloggers who write things like this:
What we have here is the Dems creating a concern, health care, and setting themselves up as the saviors. No thanks. Keep your hands out of my wallet.
it is nice to hear it driven home that, in fact, our wallets are not our own. The decisions we make, whether it is which coffee to buy, which stores at which to shop, or which health care plan to buy in to effect the lives of people all over the world. The care we must take, if we are to live in such a way that all our lives are focused on the Gospel demand to love others, should make us aware that our wallets are just a way station along the way for a resource that has the power of life and death over others.
You can hear her sermons via podcast, or purchase them online, if you so desire. All the money goes to the church and its ministries.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Discussion Topic
I'll be away today. I thought I would offer an idea surely to rankle. Ripping off Ronald Reagan, I want you to discuss the following:
Just so you know, I am not being facetious here. This is something I am coming to believe more and more each day.
Play nice, kids.
I believe the Republican Party is the focus of evil in the modern world.
Just so you know, I am not being facetious here. This is something I am coming to believe more and more each day.
Play nice, kids.
Read It And Weep; I Did
Pastor Dan at Street Prophets offers a link to this short piece at The Beatitudes Society. He writes, "For once, I'm speechless." And it's no wonder:
One commenter defended the rejection, by stating that "equipping seminarians for ministry" is not "serving the poor". Saying the rejection letter was "poorly worded", the commenter said that, if the foundation's charter was such that it was only to offer grants for direct aid, giving seminarians scholarships doesn't cut it.
I can only say, "Wow." First, to the tone of the rejection letter itself - social justice is "not aligned with [a] mission of the charity of serving the poor"? Along with bad grammar, how is a sentence like this even possible? To the more pointed argument that seminary scholarships aren't about "serving the poor" - this is just nonsense. What is the ministry of Jesus but serving the poor - clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, feeding the hungry? What is the ministry of Jesus but working for a world where the hungry are well fed and the full go away empty? What is the ministry of Jesus but actualizing the Magnificat, which states that the mighty are pulled down from their thrones? Social justice isn't charity. When this commenter argues that social justice is a "modern and liberal" idea, it seems clear to me that she hasn't absorbed just how radical Jesus' idea of ministry in the name of the God he called Father is supposed to be.
We Christians aren't supposed to be about protecting fetuses or hating gays and lesbians. We aren't supposed to defend family values or vote Republican. We aren't supposed to spout moral epigrams and defend the status quo. At its heart, the ministry of Jesus is a threat to every power, principality, and throne - it is the revolution of love that undermines the pride and power of those who think they rule the world. Those who don't understand that, don't understand who we are as Christians.
Sometimes those Beatitudes are just too much to take! After all, they ask us to change the world, to turn it upside down, so that the poor take their place at the table of plenty and the meek, not the mighty, inherit the earth, and peace gets made.
This means change, an upending of the status quo, a serious shift in economic and political priorities. That's why The Beatitudes Society is all about equipping seminarians to advocate for justice and peace and protection of our environment.
Sometimes that's just too much to take.
As today's rejection letter from a foundation said:
"Unfortunately the committee has denied your request at this time. The committee felt that this grant was for furthering the cause of social justice and not aligned with our mission of the charity of serving the poor."
One commenter defended the rejection, by stating that "equipping seminarians for ministry" is not "serving the poor". Saying the rejection letter was "poorly worded", the commenter said that, if the foundation's charter was such that it was only to offer grants for direct aid, giving seminarians scholarships doesn't cut it.
I can only say, "Wow." First, to the tone of the rejection letter itself - social justice is "not aligned with [a] mission of the charity of serving the poor"? Along with bad grammar, how is a sentence like this even possible? To the more pointed argument that seminary scholarships aren't about "serving the poor" - this is just nonsense. What is the ministry of Jesus but serving the poor - clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, feeding the hungry? What is the ministry of Jesus but working for a world where the hungry are well fed and the full go away empty? What is the ministry of Jesus but actualizing the Magnificat, which states that the mighty are pulled down from their thrones? Social justice isn't charity. When this commenter argues that social justice is a "modern and liberal" idea, it seems clear to me that she hasn't absorbed just how radical Jesus' idea of ministry in the name of the God he called Father is supposed to be.
We Christians aren't supposed to be about protecting fetuses or hating gays and lesbians. We aren't supposed to defend family values or vote Republican. We aren't supposed to spout moral epigrams and defend the status quo. At its heart, the ministry of Jesus is a threat to every power, principality, and throne - it is the revolution of love that undermines the pride and power of those who think they rule the world. Those who don't understand that, don't understand who we are as Christians.
Saturday Rock Show
Thursday was payday, and I treated myself with a trip to Border's. My main reason for going was to purchase the Heaven and Hell DVD, which I found (although it was in the "B"'s, because of course "Heaven and Hell" is just a name Black Sabbath used on tour this summer - to separate it from the Ozzfest band). I had forgotten just how good some of the songs - "Children of the Sea", "Neon Knights", "The Mob Rules", and of course "Heaven and Hell" - are. If one ignores Dio's histrionics and the silly lyrics, losing oneself in the music, it's surprising how good, especially when one considers these are the same musicians who gave us "Black Sabbath", "War Pigs", and "Paranoid" (great songs all, but hardly in a class with the group named first).
I also got the first season of the Chris Carter show Millennium. Again, I had forgotten how intense this show was, how close to the edge it always seemed to run, how little light and joy there was. A show about the persistence of evil, and what happens even to the best people who spend too long exposed to it - some of the best, yet most disturbing, television ever.
Finally, as a bonus, I found the most recent Symphony X CD, Paradise Lost. For those who might wonder, it is exactly as the title says, a musical rendition of Milton's poem. Exactly the kind of thing rock critics hate prog for, a pretentious, over-technical, self-indulgent wallowing in complexity and obscurity. Born to Run it isn't. Since we have Bruce Springsteen still, always capable of giving us the best of what he does, it seems to me no need to reinvent that particular wheel, so the complaint of so many critics about prog makes no sense to me at all. It is what it is, and if they don't like it, there are plenty of things worth listening to. I would only say that, while it hardly destines the band for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, this is a very good album by a very good band. Here's the title track:
I also got the first season of the Chris Carter show Millennium. Again, I had forgotten how intense this show was, how close to the edge it always seemed to run, how little light and joy there was. A show about the persistence of evil, and what happens even to the best people who spend too long exposed to it - some of the best, yet most disturbing, television ever.
Finally, as a bonus, I found the most recent Symphony X CD, Paradise Lost. For those who might wonder, it is exactly as the title says, a musical rendition of Milton's poem. Exactly the kind of thing rock critics hate prog for, a pretentious, over-technical, self-indulgent wallowing in complexity and obscurity. Born to Run it isn't. Since we have Bruce Springsteen still, always capable of giving us the best of what he does, it seems to me no need to reinvent that particular wheel, so the complaint of so many critics about prog makes no sense to me at all. It is what it is, and if they don't like it, there are plenty of things worth listening to. I would only say that, while it hardly destines the band for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, this is a very good album by a very good band. Here's the title track:
Friday, October 19, 2007
More Gibberish From The Right
When Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, Marshall Art performed as required by some kind of inner mechanism. The post, while succinct and dreary by some standard, has a comment section chock-a-block with ravings and nonsense that gets further and further removed from reality as time has elapsed.
The "argument" (should one wish to grace it with the name) runs something like this:
- Al Gore is a lying sack of hypocritical crap, only promoting himself.
- The earth isn't warming at all.
- All those glaciers melting, the permafrost thawing, changing weather patterns are part of a cycle that I know about even though I haven't studied the issue at all.
- Even if global warming is happening, it's a good thing, and has nothing to do with peace.
- Even if global warming is happening, and even if it's a bad thing (which kind of wiped out the first four points) it's too far along to do anything about.
- Al Gore doesn't really believe in global warming because everyone knows that the only solution is to end industrial society as we know it and live as troglodytes. Al Gore lives in a big house; ergo he does not really believe in global warming.
- Carbon Caps and carbon trading are for rich people, not the polloi like us who can't afford them; Al Gore is a lying hypocrite.
- Did I mention Gore was a lying sack of crap?
It's like living among the Yahoos over there. Or an afternoon in the garden of the Queen of Hearts. In any case, literary delights all around!
The "argument" (should one wish to grace it with the name) runs something like this:
- Al Gore is a lying sack of hypocritical crap, only promoting himself.
- The earth isn't warming at all.
- All those glaciers melting, the permafrost thawing, changing weather patterns are part of a cycle that I know about even though I haven't studied the issue at all.
- Even if global warming is happening, it's a good thing, and has nothing to do with peace.
- Even if global warming is happening, and even if it's a bad thing (which kind of wiped out the first four points) it's too far along to do anything about.
- Al Gore doesn't really believe in global warming because everyone knows that the only solution is to end industrial society as we know it and live as troglodytes. Al Gore lives in a big house; ergo he does not really believe in global warming.
- Carbon Caps and carbon trading are for rich people, not the polloi like us who can't afford them; Al Gore is a lying hypocrite.
- Did I mention Gore was a lying sack of crap?
It's like living among the Yahoos over there. Or an afternoon in the garden of the Queen of Hearts. In any case, literary delights all around!
It's Not About Me
I am reluctant to discuss the decision by the Portland, ME school board to allow the school nurse to give out birth control pills to Middle School students (you can read the original story, from the Portland Press Herald here). For one thing, this is one of those local stories that is only national because of the internet and the 24-hour news channels. For another thing, it gives right-wingers a chance to puff themselves up and appear all heroic, defending children from the sexual overtures of school nurses, forcing the youngsters to have the pill, and therefore sex, against their parents' wishes, etc., etc.
Listening to The Ed Schultz Radio Show yesterday, I was dismayed by the way Schultz framed his discussion of the issue with callers. While it was clear that Schultz was conflicted in his own mind, the questions seemed to come from a right-wing playbook. Most disturbing to me was the constant bleating, "What if this was your kid?" Since I didn't hear anyone call in from Portland yesterday, I honestly wonder what possible relevance a question like that has. We are discussing an issue of public policy here, not an individual's feelings about their children, or how that parent chooses to raise their children.
Underlying this is the narcissism of so much of the public discourse fed by the right. Please understand I am talking about narcissism as a clinical psychological illness, a personality disorder that manifests itself in a variety of ways, but whose most salient feature (for our purposes here) is the lack of any sense of self resulting in a constant shifting of focus to the self to prevent the public disappearance of the self. In other words, a narcissist fears he or she has no center, no self; fighting this sense of nothingness (what cultural critic Christopher Lasch called The Minimal Self) leads the person with narcissistic personality disorder to always move any discussion to his or her own self, in order to assure him-/herself that in fact he/she exists.
So much for the abstract. In the concrete, this means that constantly attempting to shift the focus of a complicated (and largely irrelevant) public policy issue to one of the personal feelings of a person addressing the issue is a non-sequitur. For myself, had I been a caller in to Schultz' show, and had he posed the question to me, I would have answered, roughly, as follows:
As the parent of a Middle School child (although here they just call it "Upper Elementary"), I applaud the decision of the Portland School Board to act realistically and responsibly for the sake of those children who do not live in a perfect world, and in the interest of the broader public health. Because, you see, it isn't about me. Or my daughter. It's about acting in the public interest, and the best interest of the public.
Listening to The Ed Schultz Radio Show yesterday, I was dismayed by the way Schultz framed his discussion of the issue with callers. While it was clear that Schultz was conflicted in his own mind, the questions seemed to come from a right-wing playbook. Most disturbing to me was the constant bleating, "What if this was your kid?" Since I didn't hear anyone call in from Portland yesterday, I honestly wonder what possible relevance a question like that has. We are discussing an issue of public policy here, not an individual's feelings about their children, or how that parent chooses to raise their children.
Underlying this is the narcissism of so much of the public discourse fed by the right. Please understand I am talking about narcissism as a clinical psychological illness, a personality disorder that manifests itself in a variety of ways, but whose most salient feature (for our purposes here) is the lack of any sense of self resulting in a constant shifting of focus to the self to prevent the public disappearance of the self. In other words, a narcissist fears he or she has no center, no self; fighting this sense of nothingness (what cultural critic Christopher Lasch called The Minimal Self) leads the person with narcissistic personality disorder to always move any discussion to his or her own self, in order to assure him-/herself that in fact he/she exists.
So much for the abstract. In the concrete, this means that constantly attempting to shift the focus of a complicated (and largely irrelevant) public policy issue to one of the personal feelings of a person addressing the issue is a non-sequitur. For myself, had I been a caller in to Schultz' show, and had he posed the question to me, I would have answered, roughly, as follows:
How I would or wouldn't feel were it my child is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the school nurse, as a public health care professional and provider, should, in the course of his or her duties, act in such a way as to protect the health of an individual. In a perfect world, such a discussion would be impossible. We do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where children make bad decisions; we live in a world where parents do not listen to their children; we live in a world where parents hurt their children; we live in a world where children, effectively, have no parents. In these cases, it becomes necessary for someone to act in loco parentis in the interest both of the child and in the interest of broader public health concerns.
As the parent of a Middle School child (although here they just call it "Upper Elementary"), I applaud the decision of the Portland School Board to act realistically and responsibly for the sake of those children who do not live in a perfect world, and in the interest of the broader public health. Because, you see, it isn't about me. Or my daughter. It's about acting in the public interest, and the best interest of the public.
Seeking Understanding
I understand that President Bush and his allies in politics and the press push fear. I understand that the lower life forms of the right push hatred - hatred of brown and black people, hatred of gays and lesbians, hatred of women in positions of authority. I understand that the President seems hellbent on (at the very least) bombing the bejesus out of Iran before he leaves office.
The rationale behind so much of what is going on is so patently awful, one wonders if those who put it forward actually believe it. Glenn Greenwald highlights one example today. Michael Goldfarb, writing in The Weekly Standard says:
Anyone who believes this is a serious argument offered in good faith is either foolish or stupid.
I understand the that. I understand what is being done. I do not understand the why. Unless, that is, there is no end here other than the maintenance of power, in which case my occasional declarations of "nihilism" apply. If that is so, there is no reason for arguing anymore. Argument, persuasion, the balance of various groups against one another in a pluralist society - none of it has any meaning anymore. We are dealing with something far more sinister, far more dangerous than mere ideological fervor here.
I suppose that, for all my braying about nihilism in the past, I still do not wish to believe it. So. I am seeking understanding here. I am seeking to comprehend what seems outrageous here. Why is an argument so patently ludicrous as the one above offered as serious commentary? Why is it considered as such by people who should know better?
The rationale behind so much of what is going on is so patently awful, one wonders if those who put it forward actually believe it. Glenn Greenwald highlights one example today. Michael Goldfarb, writing in The Weekly Standard says:
I]f federal agents show up at a corporate headquarters for a major American company and urgently seek that company's officers for assistance in the war on terror, the companies damn well ought to give it as a matter of simple patriotism, whether the CIA wants a plane for some extraordinary rendition or help in tracking terrorists via email. . . . [T]o expect a company to resist a plea from the government for help in a time of war is ridiculous.
--snip--
The companies affected by the new draft Senate bill acted in the interests of their country when they decided to comply with the government's requests. If the requests were inappropriate, that's another matter.
--snip--
To subject them to the whimsy of our judicial system would be outrageous.
As an act of "good faith," the government has no choice but to deny a bunch of litigious lefties the chance to sue over a decision that any reasonable American would have made.
--snip--
As our Congress works heroically to make permanent the vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers it vested in the President two months ago and to protect the corporations which allowed warrantless surveillance in violation of the Leftist doctrine called "law," it is clearly understood in the Beltway that only the fringe Leftists -- the shrill partisan "activists" -- actually subscribe to this radical new agenda of "warrants," as well as the accompanying extremist doctrines such as the "rule of law."
Anyone who believes this is a serious argument offered in good faith is either foolish or stupid.
I understand the that. I understand what is being done. I do not understand the why. Unless, that is, there is no end here other than the maintenance of power, in which case my occasional declarations of "nihilism" apply. If that is so, there is no reason for arguing anymore. Argument, persuasion, the balance of various groups against one another in a pluralist society - none of it has any meaning anymore. We are dealing with something far more sinister, far more dangerous than mere ideological fervor here.
I suppose that, for all my braying about nihilism in the past, I still do not wish to believe it. So. I am seeking understanding here. I am seeking to comprehend what seems outrageous here. Why is an argument so patently ludicrous as the one above offered as serious commentary? Why is it considered as such by people who should know better?
Another Instance of "I Wish I Had Said That"
Over at Fire Dog Lake, TRex has a wonderful post on the nonsensical "Culture of Life" drivel we continue to hear from Republicans.
Nothing to add but, "Hurrah!"
I’m reaching a point where the sound of Republicans talking out of their asses is like the voice of the teachers and other adults in the “Peanuts” specials, “Wah-wah waaaaaah, wah wah-wah waaaaaaah…” Why even bother with trying to make sense of it? It’s all just heinous gibberish.
Add to all this, of course, the Republicans’ stand against S-CHIP and you have to wonder what, exactly, they think is an ideal society. They want to deny everyone access to any form of contraception, but then, in the event of unwanted pregnancies that may arise, there would be no legal abortions. Of course, when you have the unwanted child, you can’t get health care for it unless you’re wealthy or “lucky” enough to be pinned down by some mindless corporate job where you daren’t leave for fear of losing your health insurance.
Do people on the Right think at all? Apparently not. They just believe. Cause and effect? What’s that? Don’t bore us with the facts, you stupid “Libtard”, we have faith, which is basically the same as believing in magic, and that’s no way to run a bake sale, let alone an entire nation.
Please, god, just let it end soon. Otherwise, we’re never going to able to wash the stink off this country.
Nothing to add but, "Hurrah!"
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Dodd Was Step One; Swopa Offers Us Step Two
The move by Senator Christopher Dodd (the only Democrat from Connecticut) to put a hold on the FISA bill is only the first step in ending the on-going beating the Democrats keep taking at the hands of Republicans. Swopa at Fire Dog Lake offers us the larger picture. Step Two, as it were:
Democrats need to engage in a wholehearted, full-tilt effort to redefine themselves as the party that knows the best way to defend the country. It’s ridiculously easy, with Iraq offering one-sentence proof that the Bushite path is the wrong one.
Fool Me Twice . . .
I wrote here yesterday that I was surprised by what I was reading about Michael Mukasey's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to become the next Attorney General. In comments, Democracy Lover pointed me to Glenn Greenwald, where I got a totally different take - from a Constitutional lawyer. It seems my surprise was a tad misplaced.
Why do I allow myself to believe these people I know to be incapable of telling the truth?
Why do I allow myself to believe these people I know to be incapable of telling the truth?
A Democrat With Balls
This is why Chris Dodd is getting my vote:
He needs to give lessons.
Glenn Greenwald has more.
I forgot. Sign up, and send him some love from me.
Senator Chris Dodd plans to put a hold on the Senate FISA renewal bill because it reportedly grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies for any role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program . . .
He needs to give lessons.
Glenn Greenwald has more.
I forgot. Sign up, and send him some love from me.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Scary Thoughts - My Encounter With Auburn, NY
Two weeks ago, I wrote a bit on my thoughts about ghosts. I told a couple spooky stories. Since then, I must admit, I have been a bit obsessed with the subject. I read earlier this afternoon about Blood's Point Cemetery, just a hop, skip, and two jumps from here, and motored on down. Not only did I encounter nothing, but I got not the least inkling there was anything untoward about the place. Most cemeteries claim a ghost or two, for obvious reasons. This one, however, just seemed like a typical, old, country boneyard.
Now, some may say that my feelings are hardly at issue. I would disagree, based on my feelings, as stated in the post above, during my visit to Gettysburg Battlefield. Indeed, in that earlier instance, I was looking forward to an enjoyable afternoon visiting one of the most important historic sites in America, and left quite quickly due to an overpowering sense of both sadness and horror. I would not return to Gettysburg if paid - the feelings were so overwhelming, I do not wish to go through them again.
I have had one other experience in my life similar to my sunny afternoon on the battlefield of Gettysburg. That was two nights spent wandering the streets of Auburn, New York.
My first job after graduating from college - a job wherein I learned only that sales is not my forte - was canvassing door to door for Greenpeace. They had just opened an office in Rochester, NY, and were canvassing throughout the Finger Lakes (I went on expedition from as far west as Aurora/Niagara Falls east to Skeneateles, south to Ithaca). Somehow, I finagled my way in to being (I forget the exact job title) a canvassing leader. My job was to get maps from city hall, draw up canvassing targets, drop the folks off, go do my own door-to-door work, then swing around and pick people up so we could head on back home.
To say I was "uneasy" from the moment we entered Auburn is to put it mildly. We stopped as a group at a Denny's (as I recall), and almost immediately, I commented on the fact that I didn't like the feeling of the place. The rest of the canvassers thought I was acting odd, but I distinctly recall not liking the town at all. I didn't like dropping the folks off, all by themselves, at various points around town. I didn't like being out on my own, especially once it got dark. I remember one house I walked by - a tall, brick Victorian, abandoned - and I refused to look in the windows, because I knew that something was looking out at me. I also remember going the wrong way down a one-way street, having to turn around in an empty lot - and seeing . . . something . . . that made me slam on the brakes, gasp, and peel out, panting in fear.
I returned, reluctantly, and was even more spooked by the entire town. The people I encountered were distinctly odd. Indeed, they got more odd (and more than odd) as time went on. I vowed I would never return to Auburn after that. I was lucky when I found another job soon afterward.
I relate all this not because there is anything objectively scary about what I went through. Indeed, I am retelling things as best as I can recall them 20 years and many experiences later. With the sole exception of that strange . . . event . . . in the vacant lot, which I cannot recall at all other than a feeling of abject horror, there is in fact little here but my own feelings. Yet, it is precisely here - at the level of feeling - that I have encountered what can loosely be defined as "the paranormal". My feelings about Blood Point Cemetery are simple - just another old place where people buried their dead. Auburn, however, is in a whole different category; like Gettysburg battlefield, I would not return to Auburn for love or money.
Now, some may say that my feelings are hardly at issue. I would disagree, based on my feelings, as stated in the post above, during my visit to Gettysburg Battlefield. Indeed, in that earlier instance, I was looking forward to an enjoyable afternoon visiting one of the most important historic sites in America, and left quite quickly due to an overpowering sense of both sadness and horror. I would not return to Gettysburg if paid - the feelings were so overwhelming, I do not wish to go through them again.
I have had one other experience in my life similar to my sunny afternoon on the battlefield of Gettysburg. That was two nights spent wandering the streets of Auburn, New York.
My first job after graduating from college - a job wherein I learned only that sales is not my forte - was canvassing door to door for Greenpeace. They had just opened an office in Rochester, NY, and were canvassing throughout the Finger Lakes (I went on expedition from as far west as Aurora/Niagara Falls east to Skeneateles, south to Ithaca). Somehow, I finagled my way in to being (I forget the exact job title) a canvassing leader. My job was to get maps from city hall, draw up canvassing targets, drop the folks off, go do my own door-to-door work, then swing around and pick people up so we could head on back home.
To say I was "uneasy" from the moment we entered Auburn is to put it mildly. We stopped as a group at a Denny's (as I recall), and almost immediately, I commented on the fact that I didn't like the feeling of the place. The rest of the canvassers thought I was acting odd, but I distinctly recall not liking the town at all. I didn't like dropping the folks off, all by themselves, at various points around town. I didn't like being out on my own, especially once it got dark. I remember one house I walked by - a tall, brick Victorian, abandoned - and I refused to look in the windows, because I knew that something was looking out at me. I also remember going the wrong way down a one-way street, having to turn around in an empty lot - and seeing . . . something . . . that made me slam on the brakes, gasp, and peel out, panting in fear.
I returned, reluctantly, and was even more spooked by the entire town. The people I encountered were distinctly odd. Indeed, they got more odd (and more than odd) as time went on. I vowed I would never return to Auburn after that. I was lucky when I found another job soon afterward.
I relate all this not because there is anything objectively scary about what I went through. Indeed, I am retelling things as best as I can recall them 20 years and many experiences later. With the sole exception of that strange . . . event . . . in the vacant lot, which I cannot recall at all other than a feeling of abject horror, there is in fact little here but my own feelings. Yet, it is precisely here - at the level of feeling - that I have encountered what can loosely be defined as "the paranormal". My feelings about Blood Point Cemetery are simple - just another old place where people buried their dead. Auburn, however, is in a whole different category; like Gettysburg battlefield, I would not return to Auburn for love or money.
How Did He Get The Nomination? Or Is He Lying Through His Teeth?
From Talking Points Memo:
So far, eyebrow-raising.
If he's lying to get the job, then I hope there is a chair in hell reserved for him. On the face of it, though, I just have to wonder how someone who says things like this made it past Cheney. Honestly.
That was, um, unexpected. Not only did Michael Mukasey repudiate the so-called 2002 "torture memo" signed by Office of Legal Counsel chief Jay Bybee -- which appears to have survived in spirit, if not in letter -- but he compared U.S. torture to the Holocaust.
So far, eyebrow-raising.
Most significantly, Mukasey said that he is unaware of any inherent commander-in-chief authority to override legal restrictions on torture -- a huge repudiation of Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yoo's perspective on broad constitutional powers possessed by the president in wartime -- or to immunize practitioners of torture from prosecution.
If he's lying to get the job, then I hope there is a chair in hell reserved for him. On the face of it, though, I just have to wonder how someone who says things like this made it past Cheney. Honestly.
For Example - They Hate (And Fear) Women (And Hillary in Particular)
Exhibit "A" in defense of my last post yesterday is this post at Hullabaloo yesterday, which highlights a discussion between Clifford May and Tucker Carlson on Tucker's TV show yesterday. Previously, Carlson has claimed that Mrs. Clinton's appearance on television makes him "cross his legs". He also has a problem with her voice. Indeed, like Chris Matthews, Tucker seems to have a bit of a problem with Mrs. Clinton's status as a woman. In this little tidbit, the misogyny is so palpable, one can cut it with a knife:
If it were just Tucker Carlson, or just Christ Matthews, or just Cliff May, or an isolated incident, we might just slough it off as the kind of mindlessness now rampant on the right.
It isn't, and we cannot, nor should we, pretend it isn't a long-standing game to attack Mrs. Clinton, not because of her policy positions, but because of her gender, demeanor, and her alleged motivations and personality traits.
I could go on to Nancy Pelosi, and even go back in time to attacks upon Bella Abzug, but I believe that the kind of blatant fear and hatred exposed by this little exchange should be enough.
What a bunch of little Nancy-boys.
CARLSON: I'm not saying women shouldn't vote for Hillary at all. I'm merely saying the obvious: that you shouldn't vote for her because she's a woman. Here's what the Clinton campaign says: "Hillary isn't running as a woman. As Hillary says, she's not running as a woman candidate. The only reason to vote for her is that you believe she's the most qualified to be president."
Well, that's actually completely false, considering the Hillary campaign -- and I get their emails -- relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. "You should vote for her because she's a woman." They say that all the time. She just said that on The View. I mean, that's like their rationale.
MAY: At least call her a Vaginal-American, as opposed to --
CARLSON: Is that the new phrase?
MAY: I think that is, yeah.
CARLSON: Boy, that's nasty. I don't think I can say that.
ROBINSON: No, you don't say that.
CARLSON: I shouldn't say that? I'm not going attempt it. No, no.
If it were just Tucker Carlson, or just Christ Matthews, or just Cliff May, or an isolated incident, we might just slough it off as the kind of mindlessness now rampant on the right.
It isn't, and we cannot, nor should we, pretend it isn't a long-standing game to attack Mrs. Clinton, not because of her policy positions, but because of her gender, demeanor, and her alleged motivations and personality traits.
I could go on to Nancy Pelosi, and even go back in time to attacks upon Bella Abzug, but I believe that the kind of blatant fear and hatred exposed by this little exchange should be enough.
What a bunch of little Nancy-boys.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
All They Have is Hate
Matthew Yglesias quotes Andrew Sullivan - "There is only one person who can rescue Republican fundraising, reunite the party, rally the base and win the presidency for the GOP. And you know who she is." - and agrees to an extent, although with caveats.
Without considering how one views her various policy positions and pronouncements, isn't it sad to think that the only thing true-believing Republicans feel they can grasp right now is hatred of Hillary Clinton?
Just as a side note, Yglesias' contention that "she has the best chance of losing" is not supported by polling evidence. In most head-to-head match-ups between Clinton and pretty much any of the Republican candidates, she has a lead that continues to widen. Indeed, the purported Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, actually becomes less popular the more people get to know him.
In any event - that's all they have. That's where their hope lies - in a visceral hatred for a woman who has the temerity to be successful, and hold a family and marriage together despite all the troubles involved.
Without considering how one views her various policy positions and pronouncements, isn't it sad to think that the only thing true-believing Republicans feel they can grasp right now is hatred of Hillary Clinton?
Just as a side note, Yglesias' contention that "she has the best chance of losing" is not supported by polling evidence. In most head-to-head match-ups between Clinton and pretty much any of the Republican candidates, she has a lead that continues to widen. Indeed, the purported Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, actually becomes less popular the more people get to know him.
In any event - that's all they have. That's where their hope lies - in a visceral hatred for a woman who has the temerity to be successful, and hold a family and marriage together despite all the troubles involved.
Press Freedom
Via my good friend the Portuguese Doctor, comes a report on press freedom around the world (in Portuguese with translation via Babelfish). The report, including the criteria and questionnaire, can be found here.
The United States ranks 48th out of 169 countries surveyed. We are not quite as free as Nicaragua, and a bit more free than Togo. Other countries with more press freedom than the United States include - Bosnia and Herzegovina (34), Ghana (29), Slovenia (22), and Trinidad and Tobago. The most free press environment is Iceland.
That haven for freedom in the Middle East, Iraq, is 157th out of 168.
Mission Accomplished.
For those incurious enough not to click the link - the survey was done by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontieres), not exactly either a Communist/Fascist/Islamic/anti-American group.
The United States ranks 48th out of 169 countries surveyed. We are not quite as free as Nicaragua, and a bit more free than Togo. Other countries with more press freedom than the United States include - Bosnia and Herzegovina (34), Ghana (29), Slovenia (22), and Trinidad and Tobago. The most free press environment is Iceland.
That haven for freedom in the Middle East, Iraq, is 157th out of 168.
Mission Accomplished.
For those incurious enough not to click the link - the survey was done by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontieres), not exactly either a Communist/Fascist/Islamic/anti-American group.
Doomed
Eric Boehlert has a good piece over at Media Matters today, analyzing the parasitic relationship between right-wing media figures Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh and the GOP. To be honest, I'm not sure who is the parasite, and who the host. All I know for certain is that each is destroying the other. And, as Boehlert details it - it's a beautiful thing, for all the horror involved.
As I wrote here, they can't help themselves, so on cue, we have a new target - a 2-year-old and her family. Boehlert's use of the word "depravity" doesn't even begin to catch the depth of ugliness involved here.
As Think Progress noted last night, Bethany's family understands what will happen to them, and they are moving forward with eyes open, courageously facing the shrieking demons of the right.
Why, you might ask, did I title this post "Doomed"? Why, that's easy! With the National Republican Campaign Committee broke and having trouble recruiting candidates, having a bunch of rabid wolves be the public face of the Party cannot be a help.
I do believe we are watching the slow implosion of the Republican Party we have known and loved ever since 1964.
As I said, it's a beautiful thing.
With the Bush administration in a state of prolonged decline and with Republicans out of power on Capitol Hill, it's the right-wing media machine that maintains the highest profile among conservatives on a daily basis. And it's Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly who have become the face of the Republican Party.
For liberals, that's a good thing, as the GOP is forced to deal with the sludge that keeps washing up on its shores, courtesy of its favorite media stars who now bide their time insulting black entrepreneurs, war vets, and injured children.
--snip--
[W]ith specific regard to Limbaugh and O'Reilly, the fact that both men physically could not stop talking about the controversies (i.e. themselves) was a huge boost for progressives, many of whom were privately nervous the O'Reilly-goes-to-Harlem and Limbaugh-attacks-the-troops stories might fizzle after a day or two.
Instead, thanks to O'Reilly and Limbaugh's inability to look away from their own reflection or to turn down the volume of their own microphones, the stories motored on week after week, doing great damage to both men and to the conservative movement, which defends the talkers at any cost.
--snip--
[T]he Malkin-led jihad unfolded like a parody of blood-thirsty Republican bloggers -- an Onion-worthy spoof -- the kind that even I would have been too sheepish to dream up because the premise made them seem even loonier than I thought they were. How far off the range did Malkin and company roam with their wayward attacks on the Frost family? So far that even the trigger-happy crew at Fox News refused to saddle up and join the midnight posse, out to unmask a sick kid and his needy parents. (Keep in mind that for years Malkin maintained a steady presence on Fox News, yet the channel still wouldn't touch her pet project of hate last week.)
--snip--
[T]he Republican Party was on-board with the smear campaign. Fanning the flames early was an aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who sent out an email to journalists urging them to follow up on the online swarm that was enveloping the Frost family. Days later the White House rewarded Redstate.com for its litany of Frost attacks by sending the site an exclusive statement regarding the upcoming SCHIP vote. (That kind of White House nod is considered to be a major coup among the right-wing blogs.)
--snip--
The examples of depravity were everywhere last week, with virtually every robotic right-wing blogger dutifully dumping on the Frost family, and often doing it with a demented sense of glee. Go here to read Weekly Standard blogger Samantha Sault's take on the Frost story and count the number of falsehoods she passed along, while making fun ("just for laughs") of the working family with two seriously injured children. Also note that when the right-wing lies about the Frosts were quickly disproved (i.e. they do not pay $20,000 a year to send their kids to private schools), Sault failed to acknowledge the litany of smears she helped spread about a 12-year-old boy who survived a coma. (No wonder so few people take the Weekly Standard seriously when it lectures The New Republic about journalism ethics; the Standard appears to have none of its own.)
--snip--
Where did the right-wing bloggers learn their brand of drive-by invective? From Rush Limbaugh of course, who has made a career out of making hollow and erroneous allegations. So it was fitting that when Limbaugh recently stepped in it with his "phony soldiers" slur, it was right-wing bloggers who came to his rescue.
They wrote about the controversy obsessively -- you could almost hear the blood vessels pop over at RedState -- while most progressives were content to let the story play out, watching Limbaugh feed himself just enough rope each day. Like when he first claimed his "phony soldiers" comment (note the plural) was in reference to a single serviceman who faked his military service, then changed his story. Or when he later included Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA.), a retired Marine colonel and decorated Vietnam veteran who opposes the war in Iraq, on his list of "genuine phony soldiers." Or when Limbaugh claimed to play "the entire transcript" of his "phony soldiers" exchange and post it on his website, when in fact he edited out a large chunk of the discussion. Or when he likened U.S. Iraq war vet Brian McGough to a suicide bomber after McGough taped a television ad criticizing Limbaugh's comments.
But here's what was most telling: It wasn't just bloggers who rushed to Limbaugh's defense, it was also key leadership members of the Republican Party. It was presidential contenders Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. It was Senate Republican Conference chairman Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). It was House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and his number two, Roy Blunt (R-MO), along with fellow Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who supported legislation that commended Limbaugh following his "phony soldiers" crack, and Eric Cantor (R-VA) who unveiled a Stand With Rush e-petition, urging "conservatives around the country" to fight for Limbaugh.
An attack on Limbaugh is now seen by Republicans as an attack on the party itself. Why the GOP prefers to have a polarizing, hateful, and widely disliked talk show host as its point person remains open to speculation. What's not debatable, though, is that Limbaugh can often be an anchor around the GOP's neck.
Does anybody think Limbaugh helped Republicans win a single extra vote last autumn when, on the eve of the midterm elections, he uncorked a startling attack on actor Michael J. Fox for having the nerve to tape a television commercial urging political support for stem-cell research. Limbaugh claimed Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, was faking his life-threatening ailments during the commercial: "It's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox." While Limbaugh made his audacious claim on the radio, in-studio video captured him making mocking, herky-jerky motions, as he did his best Parkinson's patient impersonation.
As I wrote here, they can't help themselves, so on cue, we have a new target - a 2-year-old and her family. Boehlert's use of the word "depravity" doesn't even begin to catch the depth of ugliness involved here.
Like the Frost family, the Wilkerson family has already become the subject of right-wing attacks. Michelle Malkin — whose baseless smear campaign against 12-year old Graeme Frost was deemed too bogus for even Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — is now trying to rally the right against Bethany.
Heralding the arrival of a “new toddler-aged human shield,” Malkin writes that “the Wilkersons made a choice” — a seeming reference to the fact that Malkin now believes she has the license to attack the Wilkersons for their public support of SCHIP. “We need more ‘partisan bickering,’ not less,” added Malkin.
Malkin’s not alone in her rage. In a piece entitled “Meet the New Frosts, Same As the Old Frosts,” the National Review’s Mark Hemingway attacks the Wilkersons as irresponsible parents:
As Think Progress noted last night, Bethany's family understands what will happen to them, and they are moving forward with eyes open, courageously facing the shrieking demons of the right.
The last SCHIP family to go public about the value of the health insurance program — the Frosts — was smeared by the right wing. The Wilkersons said today they aren’t scared of the attacks that may come against them:
The Wilkersons said they are fully aware of the possibility that their finances and personal lives may be investigated by opponents of the SCHIP bill.
“We rent a house, we have one car that is a junker. Let them dig away,” Bo Wilkerson said. “I have $67 in my checking account. Does that answer your question?”
Why, you might ask, did I title this post "Doomed"? Why, that's easy! With the National Republican Campaign Committee broke and having trouble recruiting candidates, having a bunch of rabid wolves be the public face of the Party cannot be a help.
I do believe we are watching the slow implosion of the Republican Party we have known and loved ever since 1964.
As I said, it's a beautiful thing.
Music Monday (A Day Late)
Back in the mid-1990's, along with Van Der Graf Generator, I also got to know another early- to mid-1970's British prog band. They released their first album in 1969/1970, and never really made it on this side of the Atlantic. Like King Crimson, their initial album offered a pretty mature version of their sound (unlike, say Yes or Genesis, whose sound continued to change over the years as musicians came and went). Like Renaissance, they also had a female lead singer. Curved Air is not for everyone, but I find them refreshing, even in these old TV clips which do not do their music justice.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Ridiculous. Absurd. Our Current Foreign Policy
Some might have noticed that I have added commentators Roger Ailes (not the FOXNEws executive) and The Atlantic's blogger Matt Yglesias to the blogroll line-up. Ailes I have discovered is both funny and incisive. Yglesias was a bit more troubling for me. Originally he supported the war. He's pretty moderate on most issues. Yet people whose views I both respect and agree with site him on a pretty regular basis. After reading quite a bit of what he has written, I have decided to break down and offer him here for your (and my) reading pleasure.
What tipped my preference for him? Digby highlights Yglesias' commentary on a Romney TV add on foreign policy:
I love the ability some people have of speaking the truth, and doing it both clearly, and with as few words as possible.
What tipped my preference for him? Digby highlights Yglesias' commentary on a Romney TV add on foreign policy:
The idea that we should be laying awake at night afraid that a group of at most several thousand people who control almost no territory or valuable military equipment might establish a universal caliphate or "collapse freedom loving nations like us" is ridiculous. Al-Qaeda's goals are absurd, and obviously so, and one ought to say so confidently. The fact that a relatively small group of people with lunatic goals can nevertheless knock down giant office buildings and murder a huge number of people is, indeed, something to be afraid of but not nearly on the grand geopolitical level Romney is postulating here.
I love the ability some people have of speaking the truth, and doing it both clearly, and with as few words as possible.
What's One More Scandal, More Or Less? (UPDATED)
Yesterday's Washington Post featured an article by Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen in which Qwest Communications CEO pushed back the date the Bush Administration began requesting illegal information from it and other telecoms. By noting the date of the request was February of 2001, the Bush Administration argument that all that illegal activity was necessary to fight the Great War on Terror launched on September 11, 2001 (or was it 1993? 1979? or perhaps the 7th Century when Muhammed emerged from his cave with the Holy Q'uran? I really can't keep track) kind of collapses, doesn't it.
As noted here at Think Progress last night, even if the Bush Administration now argues that it was doing this as part of a preemptive war on terror (or something like that, which no doubt we will be hearing, no later than tomorrow morning), it kind of failed, didn't it? Or perhaps had Qwest only complied September 11 might never have happened? Will we hear variations on either or both of these arguments? I believe it is entirely possible!
As usual, Glenn Greenwald takes the bald fact of Washington duplicity and drives home a central point, and in the process creates the framework for a new narrative structure for critics of the Bush Administration:
Let's sum up, shall we? The telecoms are seeking immunity from lawsuits stemming from lawbreaking that was initiated seven months before the attacks on New York and Washington. The Administration excuse has always been that they were pursuing this - illegal wiretapping of American citizens - in pursuit of the War on Terror. So, either they were lying, or the War on Terror began before September 11, 2001. If the latter is the case, then having the wiretaps didn't do much to prevent the attacks, did they? Indeed, seeing as Qwest was probably the only major telecom not to hand over information for wiretapping, all those illegal wiretaps didn't do a whole lot to prevent it one way or another, regardless of the arguments involved here.
As tristero notes here at Hullabaloo:
Of course, we don't have the former. It might be nice, however, if we could gin up enough outrage to create the latter. Obviously, we might get in to an argument over which scandal we need to deal with first. . .
UPDATE: I don't normally read Frank Rich, because he seems to lose any semblance of balance, or coherence, when he writes about Al Gore. On the other hand, the righteous outrage he displays in today's column is a beautiful thing (h/t, Steve Benen at Talking Points Memo):
Harsh words. Implicating all of us in this travesty upsets our sense of ourselves as proper moral agents. Alas, Rich is correct - we are, indeed, guilty, and we can never do enough to try to clean up our fetid souls until this entire mess is ended.
Lest anyone think there is no Christian connection here, allow me to offer the opening lines of a post from a blog I found thanks to Blogrush:
Enough said.
As noted here at Think Progress last night, even if the Bush Administration now argues that it was doing this as part of a preemptive war on terror (or something like that, which no doubt we will be hearing, no later than tomorrow morning), it kind of failed, didn't it? Or perhaps had Qwest only complied September 11 might never have happened? Will we hear variations on either or both of these arguments? I believe it is entirely possible!
As usual, Glenn Greenwald takes the bald fact of Washington duplicity and drives home a central point, and in the process creates the framework for a new narrative structure for critics of the Bush Administration:
[L]eave to the side that these telecoms did not merely allow warrantless surveillance on their customers in the hectic and "confused" days or weeks after 9/11, but for years. Further leave to the side the fact that, as Hiatt's own newspaper just reported yesterday, the desire for warrantless eavesdropping capabilities seemed to be on the Bush agenda well before 9/11.
. . . Hiatt's claim on behalf of the telecoms that they broke the law for "patriotic" reasons is so frivolous as to insult the intelligence of his readers, but -- more importantly -- it is also completely irrelevant.
There is no such thing as a "patriotism exception" to the laws that we pass. It is not a defense to illegal behavior to say that one violated the law for "patriotic" reasons. That was Oliver North's defense to Congress when he proudly admitted breaking multiple federal laws. And it is the same "defense" that people like North have been making to justify Bush's violations of our surveillance laws -- what we call "felonies" -- in spying on Americans without warrants.
Let's sum up, shall we? The telecoms are seeking immunity from lawsuits stemming from lawbreaking that was initiated seven months before the attacks on New York and Washington. The Administration excuse has always been that they were pursuing this - illegal wiretapping of American citizens - in pursuit of the War on Terror. So, either they were lying, or the War on Terror began before September 11, 2001. If the latter is the case, then having the wiretaps didn't do much to prevent the attacks, did they? Indeed, seeing as Qwest was probably the only major telecom not to hand over information for wiretapping, all those illegal wiretaps didn't do a whole lot to prevent it one way or another, regardless of the arguments involved here.
As tristero notes here at Hullabaloo:
If this country still had a working system of laws and a government with at least some checks and balances left in place, it would be a huge scandal. . .
Of course, we don't have the former. It might be nice, however, if we could gin up enough outrage to create the latter. Obviously, we might get in to an argument over which scandal we need to deal with first. . .
UPDATE: I don't normally read Frank Rich, because he seems to lose any semblance of balance, or coherence, when he writes about Al Gore. On the other hand, the righteous outrage he displays in today's column is a beautiful thing (h/t, Steve Benen at Talking Points Memo):
“BUSH lies” doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s time to confront the darker reality that we are lying to ourselves.
Ten days ago The Times unearthed yet another round of secret Department of Justice memos countenancing torture. President Bush gave his standard response: “This government does not torture people.” Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of “torture” is. The whole point of these memos is to repeatedly recalibrate the definition so Mr. Bush can keep pleading innocent.
By any legal standards except those rubber-stamped by Alberto Gonzales, we are practicing torture, and we have known we are doing so ever since photographic proof emerged from Abu Ghraib more than three years ago. As Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The Sunday Times of London, America’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques have a grotesque provenance: “Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the ‘third degree.’ It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.”
Still, the drill remains the same. The administration gives its alibi (Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples). A few members of Congress squawk. The debate is labeled “politics.” We turn the page.
--snip--
I have always maintained that the American public was the least culpable of the players during the run-up to Iraq. The war was sold by a brilliant and fear-fueled White House propaganda campaign designed to stampede a nation still shellshocked by 9/11. Both Congress and the press — the powerful institutions that should have provided the checks, balances and due diligence of the administration’s case — failed to do their job. Had they done so, more Americans might have raised more objections. This perfect storm of democratic failure began at the top.
As the war has dragged on, it is hard to give Americans en masse a pass. We are too slow to notice, let alone protest, the calamities that have followed the original sin.
--snip--
It was always the White House’s plan to coax us into a blissful ignorance about the war. Part of this was achieved with the usual Bush-Cheney secretiveness, from the torture memos to the prohibition of photos of military coffins. But the administration also invited our passive complicity by requiring no shared sacrifice. A country that knows there’s no such thing as a free lunch was all too easily persuaded there could be a free war.
Instead of taxing us for Iraq, the White House bought us off with tax cuts. Instead of mobilizing the needed troops, it kept a draft off the table by quietly purchasing its auxiliary army of contractors to finesse the overstretched military’s holes. With the war’s entire weight falling on a small voluntary force, amounting to less than 1 percent of the population, the rest of us were free to look the other way at whatever went down in Iraq.
--snip--
Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.
Harsh words. Implicating all of us in this travesty upsets our sense of ourselves as proper moral agents. Alas, Rich is correct - we are, indeed, guilty, and we can never do enough to try to clean up our fetid souls until this entire mess is ended.
Lest anyone think there is no Christian connection here, allow me to offer the opening lines of a post from a blog I found thanks to Blogrush:
The first verse of Leviticus 5 opens a big can of worms as we continue the instructions for the sin offering:
“If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.”
Inaction is sin.
Enough said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
