One would hope for better, but smart don't happen overnight. The headline on this story is misleading, because the emphasis was not on the first "100 Days" (which is enough stupid anyway), but on Obama's First Day.
Renee Montagne interviewed Stephen Hess from Brookings, and the entire thing was not about the "100 Days", or the monumental challenges he faces. She even asked, "Will this first day be remembered on his last day?"
Unfortunately, I will remember that stupid question for the rest of my life.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Rule Of Law
Apparently, some Republicans in the United States Senate are afraid the Justice Department might actually mete out some justice.
Last time I checked, doing illegal stuff that someone told you was legal was still illegal. Military personnel are not only not required to obey an illegal order, they can report it and have the superior court-martialed. Same rule applies here, one would think.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee are delaying for up to a week a vote on Eric Holder's nomination to be Attorney General, with some saying they want more time to consider his record on torture.Part of my concern relates to his statements at the hearing with regard to torture and what his intentions are toward our intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was.(John Cornyn - R, TX)
Last time I checked, doing illegal stuff that someone told you was legal was still illegal. Military personnel are not only not required to obey an illegal order, they can report it and have the superior court-martialed. Same rule applies here, one would think.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Joseph Lowery's Benediction
"In the joy of a new beginning . . ."
Beautiful. Moving. Faithful.
Amen. And amen. And finally . . . AMEN!
Beautiful. Moving. Faithful.
Amen. And amen. And finally . . . AMEN!
Words To Work By
Barack Hussein Obama is now our 44th President. From Think Progress comes a transcript of his inaugural address.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
A day of celebration, to be sure. Before too long, perhaps before the sun sets, it will also be a day to begin. Together.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Content Of Their Character
One of the great thefts of our time has been the appropriation of this single line from a speech by King by the American Right. King's vision of a time when skin color would count for less than the merits of each individual as a human being is certainly in keeping with his very American vision of justice. Yet, it is also a deeply Christian, eschatological vision.
Part of my disdain for this appropriation is simply this - the price to be paid for reaching this time has yet to be made by those who have decided to ignore the color of skin. In other words, the right is still filled with the bilge of racism; it is deeply ingrained in our national psyche, and while we have indeed made great strides, as events tomorrow will demonstrate, we still have a long way to go. In the end, American racism is not about individual bigotry. It is about an entire country making amends for centuries of dehumanization. Racism is about power, and its lack. It is about accepting responsibility for our own participation in structures that benefit some, while denying entry to others. While we should most certainly move away from individual acts of hatred, we should also recognize the simple fact that ours is still a deeply racist society. We have to say this again and again, accept our complicity in this racism, and do what we can to change it, not to participate in it, to say it again and again.
The Right denies this. They want no part of accepting their part in the on-going racism of America. They have no desire to accept their own complicity in our nation's history of racial violence, dehumanization, cruelty, and state-sanctioned murder. They seem to believe that saying "I never owned slaves" is enough. They seem to believe that not participating in a lynching is something others should see as a mark of virtue.
While King's struggle was certainly a legal one - he wanted the entire structure of segregation, north and south, de jure and de facto dismantled - it also transcended simple legal redress. He was pursuing Justice, God's justice, the Kingdom of God. It is a struggle that will always be ongoing, and we can never lag behind in our commitment to it. It is not enough to simply decide to take King at his words, when the end result is to judge those of a different skin color of less worth using a different set of criteria. This is dressing one's bigotry up in a nice suit. No price is paid to those whose mangled bodies and lives line our history, their blood crying out from the earth.
Only when we all can stand without fear, admitting for all the world that this history is a living thing, a blood-soaked, hate-filled thing that hovers over all of us, embraces us, calls us to the easy way, to take the benefits offered without merit can we start to appropriate this part of King's dream. Only when those who still hold hate in their hearts admit to that hate, and are willing to pay a price to rid themselves of it, can I listen with anything like equanimity to those who prattle on about "content of their character".
Part of my disdain for this appropriation is simply this - the price to be paid for reaching this time has yet to be made by those who have decided to ignore the color of skin. In other words, the right is still filled with the bilge of racism; it is deeply ingrained in our national psyche, and while we have indeed made great strides, as events tomorrow will demonstrate, we still have a long way to go. In the end, American racism is not about individual bigotry. It is about an entire country making amends for centuries of dehumanization. Racism is about power, and its lack. It is about accepting responsibility for our own participation in structures that benefit some, while denying entry to others. While we should most certainly move away from individual acts of hatred, we should also recognize the simple fact that ours is still a deeply racist society. We have to say this again and again, accept our complicity in this racism, and do what we can to change it, not to participate in it, to say it again and again.
The Right denies this. They want no part of accepting their part in the on-going racism of America. They have no desire to accept their own complicity in our nation's history of racial violence, dehumanization, cruelty, and state-sanctioned murder. They seem to believe that saying "I never owned slaves" is enough. They seem to believe that not participating in a lynching is something others should see as a mark of virtue.
While King's struggle was certainly a legal one - he wanted the entire structure of segregation, north and south, de jure and de facto dismantled - it also transcended simple legal redress. He was pursuing Justice, God's justice, the Kingdom of God. It is a struggle that will always be ongoing, and we can never lag behind in our commitment to it. It is not enough to simply decide to take King at his words, when the end result is to judge those of a different skin color of less worth using a different set of criteria. This is dressing one's bigotry up in a nice suit. No price is paid to those whose mangled bodies and lives line our history, their blood crying out from the earth.
Only when we all can stand without fear, admitting for all the world that this history is a living thing, a blood-soaked, hate-filled thing that hovers over all of us, embraces us, calls us to the easy way, to take the benefits offered without merit can we start to appropriate this part of King's dream. Only when those who still hold hate in their hearts admit to that hate, and are willing to pay a price to rid themselves of it, can I listen with anything like equanimity to those who prattle on about "content of their character".
Music For Your Monday
I've never been a big fan of Madonna. I remember the first video I saw - her writhing in the street to "Burning Up". I also saw her performance at the first MTV Video Music Awards, as she writhed around on stage in a wedding dress. Big deal.
Over the years, though, she has proved to be mistress of her own domain. Far smarter than one would have imagined from her early exposure, she has managed to always stay in the public eye, either through her music or one controversy or another - she is an exemplar of the show-biz motto that there is no such thing as bad press. She also continues to change and grow, a kind of David Bowie without Bowie's fake intellectual pretensions.
There have been a few of her songs that have stood out for me, for different reasons.
I think "Live To Tell" was the first time she wasn't presented in a video as a sex symbol. Sitting quite demurely in a chair, in a chaste dress, her hair up, her vocals understated, the song was for a forgettable movie her then-husband, Sean Penn had done, At Close Range. I still don't know why it stands out for me, unless it was just the fact that it was so different from anything she had done before.
"Justify My Love" may not be the best erotic song ever written - Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing" probably has that honor - but there's something about that synth opening, her husky whisper. It's like the feel of skin underneath one's lips. Geez, now, I'm getting all sweaty . . .
I liked "Ray of Light" almost instantly, and still do. Don't ask me why. The sound here was taken from a tour rehearsal, overlaid with the original promo video.
Over the years, though, she has proved to be mistress of her own domain. Far smarter than one would have imagined from her early exposure, she has managed to always stay in the public eye, either through her music or one controversy or another - she is an exemplar of the show-biz motto that there is no such thing as bad press. She also continues to change and grow, a kind of David Bowie without Bowie's fake intellectual pretensions.
There have been a few of her songs that have stood out for me, for different reasons.
I think "Live To Tell" was the first time she wasn't presented in a video as a sex symbol. Sitting quite demurely in a chair, in a chaste dress, her hair up, her vocals understated, the song was for a forgettable movie her then-husband, Sean Penn had done, At Close Range. I still don't know why it stands out for me, unless it was just the fact that it was so different from anything she had done before.
"Justify My Love" may not be the best erotic song ever written - Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing" probably has that honor - but there's something about that synth opening, her husky whisper. It's like the feel of skin underneath one's lips. Geez, now, I'm getting all sweaty . . .
I liked "Ray of Light" almost instantly, and still do. Don't ask me why. The sound here was taken from a tour rehearsal, overlaid with the original promo video.
Connections
G. Bromley Oxnam had a dream. He wanted to have a United Methodist seminary in the nation's capital. There was a seminary at Westminster College in Northern Maryland, and he wanted it moved. In the mid-1960's, he got his wish - being a Bishop of the United Methodist Church had its advantages. He also managed a real coup. He stole L Harold DeWolf from Boston University as a center around which young scholars - J. Philip Wogaman, James Logan, and later William B. "Bobby" McClain would congregate.
DeWolf was famous as the last great exemplar of the school of thought known as personalism. A kind of realist religious philosophy started at the end of the 19th century, it was a vigorous, lively, and by the mid-1960's withering form of philosophical reasoning. DeWolf had another claim to fame as well; he had been the dissertation adviser to a young Baptist minister from Georgia named Martin King (DeWolf's role in the plagiarism scandal that would haunt King after his death has never been revealed fully). When DeWolf died, he donated his personal library to the library of the seminary he was called to help create - Wesley Theological Seminary.
One day, perusing the stacks at the library, I came across a small copy, in German, of Immanuel Kant's Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft, The Critique of Pure Reason. On the inside cover was a book plate; this copy had been DeWolf's. I stood and flipped the pages. It had been well-read; there were many underlinings in pencil, different colored pens, and margin notes that were barely legible. One, however. leaped out at me. In very clear letters, a section had been bracketed, and next to the brackets were the words, "Show Martin".
I stood there in the library and thought, "In my hand I'm holding a book that was once held, and read, by Martin Luther King, Jr." There is a sense of awe and wonder in that, even after all these years. It's such a human connection, a small thing, perhaps. Yet very real. It is a memory I shall always cherish.
DeWolf was famous as the last great exemplar of the school of thought known as personalism. A kind of realist religious philosophy started at the end of the 19th century, it was a vigorous, lively, and by the mid-1960's withering form of philosophical reasoning. DeWolf had another claim to fame as well; he had been the dissertation adviser to a young Baptist minister from Georgia named Martin King (DeWolf's role in the plagiarism scandal that would haunt King after his death has never been revealed fully). When DeWolf died, he donated his personal library to the library of the seminary he was called to help create - Wesley Theological Seminary.
One day, perusing the stacks at the library, I came across a small copy, in German, of Immanuel Kant's Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft, The Critique of Pure Reason. On the inside cover was a book plate; this copy had been DeWolf's. I stood and flipped the pages. It had been well-read; there were many underlinings in pencil, different colored pens, and margin notes that were barely legible. One, however. leaped out at me. In very clear letters, a section had been bracketed, and next to the brackets were the words, "Show Martin".
I stood there in the library and thought, "In my hand I'm holding a book that was once held, and read, by Martin Luther King, Jr." There is a sense of awe and wonder in that, even after all these years. It's such a human connection, a small thing, perhaps. Yet very real. It is a memory I shall always cherish.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
How Long?
I was going to pick a nit with this, but only a literalist would get all caught up with the fact it's closer to forty-one. Am I right?
Lest anyone think this is an example of Obama worship, or anything like that, I am referring here to the weird and wonderful reality that, forty years after one great man is murdered in pursuit of justice for all, another is being inaugurated to defend justice for all. Considering the stony road African-Americans have trod, it does seem appropriate that "40" comes up now.
I waited patiently for the Lord
He inclined and heard my cry
He brought me up out of the pit
Out of the miry clay
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long...how long...how long...
How long...to sing this song
He set my feet upon a rock
And made my footsteps firm
Many will see
Many will see and fear
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long...how long...how long...
Lest anyone think this is an example of Obama worship, or anything like that, I am referring here to the weird and wonderful reality that, forty years after one great man is murdered in pursuit of justice for all, another is being inaugurated to defend justice for all. Considering the stony road African-Americans have trod, it does seem appropriate that "40" comes up now.
Bush's Lasting Legacy
Two days left, and it seems wrong to kick a guy when he's down and almost out. But what the heck, right?
Osama bin Laden is not only still alive and still at large. He is laughing because, really, in the end, he beat Bush. We are more vulnerable, less prepared, and less secure seven and a half years after 9/11 than before.
That's Bush's real legacy. He got beat by a sick guy living in caves on the Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier. And thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of others are also dead. All those headstones should be Bush's monument.
Osama bin Laden is not only still alive and still at large. He is laughing because, really, in the end, he beat Bush. We are more vulnerable, less prepared, and less secure seven and a half years after 9/11 than before.
That's Bush's real legacy. He got beat by a sick guy living in caves on the Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier. And thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of others are also dead. All those headstones should be Bush's monument.
We Don't Need No Stinking Facts
The ability of some people to be outraged over nothing always amazes me. I really don't care how much the inauguration costs, but some people not only care, they manage to get their collective panties in a huge bunch about it. Oddly enough, Eric Boehlert from Media Matters has an excellent piece that shows the way the number - not $150,000,000 but $160,000,000 - came to be. I could be grossly unfair and say that, yet again, some conservatives in the media managed to fund something in their lower colon, pull it out, and write about it. In fact, however, Boehlert points out that the figure, which is roughly four times the figure for the second Bush inaugural festivities, includes something never included before - the cost of security.
That cost is not included when people note the second Bush inaugural cost $42,000,000. In fact, Boehlert is quite clear that the costs of the two events, without adding in the security costs, are virtually identical, $45,000,000 for Obama versus the aforementioned $42,000,000 for Bush in 2005.
I do hope that those who have been hyperventilating about this issue might be able to save money on high blood pressure medication now.
That cost is not included when people note the second Bush inaugural cost $42,000,000. In fact, Boehlert is quite clear that the costs of the two events, without adding in the security costs, are virtually identical, $45,000,000 for Obama versus the aforementioned $42,000,000 for Bush in 2005.
I do hope that those who have been hyperventilating about this issue might be able to save money on high blood pressure medication now.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Cost Of Real Life And Love
With Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Observed) on Monday, the day before we inaugurate the first African-American President, I was thinking of James Baldwin. A writer of immense talent and passion, a man of multiple identities - a writer, a black man in a country where those two words didn't seem to go together very well (to put it mildly), a gay man in a world that thought such a person was diseased, a seer with more clarity precisely because he saw from so many angles at once - his words have always inspired awe in me. In a small paperback volume entitled The Fire Next Time, Baldwin included both that long essay, and a shorter letter to his nephew. Both concern the human toll of racism on the Baldwin family. Both concern Baldwin's dawning realization that, while anger is certainly understandable, the organization of hatred in to an ideology for African-Americans would leave them no better than their white oppressors. Thus, while fascinated with the Nation of Islam, for example, he writes in "The Fire Next Time" with a deep sadness concerning his interview with Elijah Mohammed, a man he wanted to admire, but for whom he felt only pity.
There is a nice little page with various quotes from Baldwin. I thought I'd just toss a few out there.
Baldwin lived his mature, declining years in France, because America, his home, the land he loved even if that was not returned, was too small for him. Even as we celebrate Barack Obama's ascension to the White House, and remember Baldwin's contemporary, King, who also understood the high cost of love and hate, and would pay for both with his life, I think it is important to remember James Baldwin who could see so clearly what others thought was only shadow.
Love is the most dangerous, almost impossible thing in the world. That is why it is the most necessary thing in the world.
There is a nice little page with various quotes from Baldwin. I thought I'd just toss a few out there.
Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law.
I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.
Love does not begin and end the way we seem to think it does. Love is a battle, love is a war; love is a growing up.
Love him and let him love you. Do you think anything else under heaven really matters?
Baldwin lived his mature, declining years in France, because America, his home, the land he loved even if that was not returned, was too small for him. Even as we celebrate Barack Obama's ascension to the White House, and remember Baldwin's contemporary, King, who also understood the high cost of love and hate, and would pay for both with his life, I think it is important to remember James Baldwin who could see so clearly what others thought was only shadow.
Love is the most dangerous, almost impossible thing in the world. That is why it is the most necessary thing in the world.
Saturday Rock Show
The early 1980's were probably an interesting time to be, say 18 to 24 years old in Britain. Some of the most interesting, inventive music was emerging from the wreckage of punk. One of those groups that managed to crawl out from under that particular pile was Midge Ure's Ultravox. Ure would go on to help write, record, and produce a little song called "Do They Know It's Christmas" and organize BandAid and later LiveAid. Ultravox's biggest UK hit - to the point that it drove some folks nuts because it just seemed to be everywhere - was "Vienna". I have the multi-disc set from LiveAid, where they performed this and their other big radio hit, "Dancing With Tears In My Eyes", and this song is just better, even though the electric violin is painfully out of tune.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Down The Road A Bit Further
I was a wee young seminarian was the time I first heard the story of St. Thomas Aquinas; after many years working on his Summa Theologia, a compendium of all theological knowledge, he gave it all up, unfinished, and spent the few remaining years of his life in quiet contemplation. All those who came to ask him "why" were turned away with a single comment: "It is all straw."
I was horrified. "Straw"? "STRAW"? Anyone who has ever picked up and read even small portions of this masterwork of Christian thought - and for all its daunting reputation, it is one of the few pieces of deep theological writing that is eminently readable - would hardly describe it as straw. Yet, its author did.
Thomas was educated at the University of Paris. His teacher, Albert the Great, Albertus Magnus to give him his Latinate honorific, was perhaps the most subtle thinker of his generation; he divined a relationship between light and water as the source of the phenomenon we call a rainbow, being the first westerner to seek a natural explanation for what had been understood to be, until that time, a Divine act. Under Albert, Thomas soon found himself teaching where he once studied. Medieval theological education consisted of studying the Questiones, and writing a commentary on them. Yet, Thomas went much further. He wrote Biblical commentary, philosophical treatises, including a sustained metaphysical argument for the primacy of being over essence. His Christian apologia, Summa Contra Gentiles sought to answer any and all arguments against the Christian faith from doubters and heretics.
His final project would be nothing more and nothing less than the final word on the Christian faith. Yet, it remains unfinished to this day, a monument not only to his intellect and ambition, but also to the moment he cast it aside for reasons he never revealed in detail.
For years, I rebelled against the idea that it was folly to seek this kind of knowledge. I read voluminously, counting each finished work as another notch in my belt, another check mark against the notion that it was all straw. Barth, Brunner, Bonheoffer, Tillich, Gutierrez, Cone, Gilkey, Moltmann, Augustine, Thomas himself, Luther, Calvin, von Balthasar, Wesley, the Niebuhrs, Schleiermacher, Boulaga - my library is a testament to my insistent belief that it was far from straw, but the solid foundation for an edifice of faith.
Except, the idea nagged. Surely, at some point, all these different ideas, written at different times by men usually long dead, sometimes in languages just as dead, or at least incomprehensible to me, had to cease their hold and some little mark of my own was necessary, right? Yet, as the wordiest of them all, Karl Barth, said, all theology is prolegomena, only the initial clearing away of brush and debris in order to make a clear path through the bramble. If Barth, whose Church Dogmatics exceeds Thomas in length and depth, but resembles the original Summa in one regard at least - it is unfinished - could insist that all his work was nothing more than the initial tentative steps necessary for much greater work to come, what possible contribution could another make? Indeed, at what point does prolegomena stop and the real stuff, the tough, almost impossible work, begin?
The intellectual pursuit of understanding the Christian faith is a valid calling, a noble task, and most certainly a humbling one. Joining a conversation with some of the most gifted and brightest minds of the past two millennia is a privilege. Yet, at some point I discovered that I was not conversing. I was only listening. Furthermore, much of my listening was guided by a lack of any grasp of my own place in this line. I discovered that the "straw" could be blown away at the merest touch of a breeze of doubt, or the challenge of those whose perspective might have the virtue of being more deeply rooted in their own lives than my own.
I no longer hold that reading theology, and thinking the faith, are worthy pursuits for me. I can do it, and enjoy a good theological read for its own sake. The disputes between Bonaventure and Aquinas, the writings of William Ockham, the philosophical theology of Paul Tillich and Langdon Gilkey (especially his Reaping the Whirlwind) still inspire awe in me. I find myself enjoying the simple fact that I sat across the table from a man, John Godsey, who took his doctorate from Karl Barth. Indeed, John Godsey did me the honor and privilege of coming to my wedding. But, and there is always a "but" somewhere, what good is all this study and reading if it doesn't bear fruit in living?
I realize that, like Kierkegaard, I may just be setting up a false dichotomy. Indeed, it most likely is a false dichotomy. One can pursue theological knowledge not only for its own sake, but as a guide to faithful living.
At some point, for this Christian, the debate and discussion, the disagreements and diatribes all had to cease. While I do not hold that it is straw for each and all, for me, right now at this point in time - it is straw. There comes a time when one realizes that all one is doing is reading words. Anyone can read words.
How many people can live their own lives as fully and freely as possible?
That is the real challenge. That is the real question.
I was horrified. "Straw"? "STRAW"? Anyone who has ever picked up and read even small portions of this masterwork of Christian thought - and for all its daunting reputation, it is one of the few pieces of deep theological writing that is eminently readable - would hardly describe it as straw. Yet, its author did.
Thomas was educated at the University of Paris. His teacher, Albert the Great, Albertus Magnus to give him his Latinate honorific, was perhaps the most subtle thinker of his generation; he divined a relationship between light and water as the source of the phenomenon we call a rainbow, being the first westerner to seek a natural explanation for what had been understood to be, until that time, a Divine act. Under Albert, Thomas soon found himself teaching where he once studied. Medieval theological education consisted of studying the Questiones, and writing a commentary on them. Yet, Thomas went much further. He wrote Biblical commentary, philosophical treatises, including a sustained metaphysical argument for the primacy of being over essence. His Christian apologia, Summa Contra Gentiles sought to answer any and all arguments against the Christian faith from doubters and heretics.
His final project would be nothing more and nothing less than the final word on the Christian faith. Yet, it remains unfinished to this day, a monument not only to his intellect and ambition, but also to the moment he cast it aside for reasons he never revealed in detail.
For years, I rebelled against the idea that it was folly to seek this kind of knowledge. I read voluminously, counting each finished work as another notch in my belt, another check mark against the notion that it was all straw. Barth, Brunner, Bonheoffer, Tillich, Gutierrez, Cone, Gilkey, Moltmann, Augustine, Thomas himself, Luther, Calvin, von Balthasar, Wesley, the Niebuhrs, Schleiermacher, Boulaga - my library is a testament to my insistent belief that it was far from straw, but the solid foundation for an edifice of faith.
Except, the idea nagged. Surely, at some point, all these different ideas, written at different times by men usually long dead, sometimes in languages just as dead, or at least incomprehensible to me, had to cease their hold and some little mark of my own was necessary, right? Yet, as the wordiest of them all, Karl Barth, said, all theology is prolegomena, only the initial clearing away of brush and debris in order to make a clear path through the bramble. If Barth, whose Church Dogmatics exceeds Thomas in length and depth, but resembles the original Summa in one regard at least - it is unfinished - could insist that all his work was nothing more than the initial tentative steps necessary for much greater work to come, what possible contribution could another make? Indeed, at what point does prolegomena stop and the real stuff, the tough, almost impossible work, begin?
The intellectual pursuit of understanding the Christian faith is a valid calling, a noble task, and most certainly a humbling one. Joining a conversation with some of the most gifted and brightest minds of the past two millennia is a privilege. Yet, at some point I discovered that I was not conversing. I was only listening. Furthermore, much of my listening was guided by a lack of any grasp of my own place in this line. I discovered that the "straw" could be blown away at the merest touch of a breeze of doubt, or the challenge of those whose perspective might have the virtue of being more deeply rooted in their own lives than my own.
I no longer hold that reading theology, and thinking the faith, are worthy pursuits for me. I can do it, and enjoy a good theological read for its own sake. The disputes between Bonaventure and Aquinas, the writings of William Ockham, the philosophical theology of Paul Tillich and Langdon Gilkey (especially his Reaping the Whirlwind) still inspire awe in me. I find myself enjoying the simple fact that I sat across the table from a man, John Godsey, who took his doctorate from Karl Barth. Indeed, John Godsey did me the honor and privilege of coming to my wedding. But, and there is always a "but" somewhere, what good is all this study and reading if it doesn't bear fruit in living?
I realize that, like Kierkegaard, I may just be setting up a false dichotomy. Indeed, it most likely is a false dichotomy. One can pursue theological knowledge not only for its own sake, but as a guide to faithful living.
At some point, for this Christian, the debate and discussion, the disagreements and diatribes all had to cease. While I do not hold that it is straw for each and all, for me, right now at this point in time - it is straw. There comes a time when one realizes that all one is doing is reading words. Anyone can read words.
How many people can live their own lives as fully and freely as possible?
That is the real challenge. That is the real question.
What Krugman Said (UPDATE)
With a generous hat tip to Eschaton, all I can say is high thee to the Times and read.
UPDATE: John Amato manages to capture the essence of the Bush years.
UPDATE: John Amato manages to capture the essence of the Bush years.
Bush gave his last speech to the American people tonight and finally his reign is coming to an end. He looked haggard and old after never fulfilling his promise of eight years of compassion. Instead we got corruption, cronyism, unaccountability, wars, lies, torture and a virus that has infected the entire government that leads us.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Meta-Politics Of Children
Art Linkletter used to have this television show, back when I was a wee little lad, called Kids Say The Darndest Things. It featured children, well, saying the darndest things. It was meant to be both charming and funny. Very often we treat the words of children as mere sounds without meaning other than pure entertainment. "Isn't that funny?" we say.Well, not all children say the darndest things. Some say things that go beyond anything we might dream of saying, cutting through the niceties and polite rules we set for ourselves, rules that are, in the end, nothing more than conventions to be flaunted. Nation Public Radio featured a story this morning about a group of children at a school on a Navajo reservation in Arizona who were given a class assignment - write a letter to President-elect Barack Obama. The results are remarkable for their bluntness. Once one gets passed the fact that these come from some of the poorest Americans, or perhaps precisely because of that fact, I think it may just make us look at the world, and politics, a little differently than we had.
Dear Mr. Obama,
My name is Christopher Tinajero. I live in a brick house. All my family needs is food. Whenever I get home and I'm hungry I cannot find anything. We can't go anywhere because we always have no gas to drive. My mama voted for you, Obama, because we are a big fan. When you won we went crazy. I would want you to take away guns so our people don't have to die.
Sincerely,
Christopher Garcia Tinajero
Dear Mr. Obama,
Hello, my name is Alisa Talor Yazzie. My maternal clan is Deer Springs, born for Bitter Water, and my paternal clan is Red Bottom clan, born for Towering House. I am full-blooded Navajo and I am 9 years old. At my school I voted for you, I wanted you to win. I was also a princess at my other school but I gave up my crown. There are a lot of things that are happening in my life. My uncle has kidney failure on both kidneys, but he'll be all right, won't he? I hope so. I just wanted to say hi, and I hope I will be able to see you once. When I get a new phone I will tell you my number.
Sincerely,
Alisa Yazzie
While some of the letters feature requests for money - not exactly a surprise considering the profound poverty and lack of any resources whatsoever - they still feature a refusal to buckle under the weight of the cares these children, at least, are aware of. It is all mixed together, the good and the bad, the horrible and the magnificent.
What struck me most when I heard these letters being read by the children who wrote them was the simple reality that, as much as we like to console ourselves that politics is mostly a sport that has to do with who is on top, who holds the whip hand, etc., in the end, what politics is really about is having the power to achieve something for people. Doing stuff. Power for its own sake is worse than useless, because if power is not used for something, it isn't really power, now is it. These children are cutting through the debate about ideology, Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, and asking the new President of the United States to do something. Obviously, they are asking him to do something for them; some of them include the information that they pressed their parents and other adults to vote for Obama, so they are canny enough to understand the game does work a certain way. Yet, in the end, there is something that transcends the mean and petty bickering of so much of our public discourse here. These children believe, as I think we all should, that our national politics is only a means toward the end of accomplishing results that benefit real people.
For far too long, conservatives have repeated that government is inefficient, that government doesn't work, etc., etc. Except, of course, this is not true. Not only does it work, some - perhaps many - expect it to work at least as well as private industry, and to do so with the goal of helping citizens who cannot help themselves.
I'm not suggesting that Barack Obama should order the Treasury to send a blank check to the Navajo Nation (although that might be nice, you know?). I am suggesting that there is a wisdom on display here that we adults, in our endless bickering over trivialities, have forgotten. This isn't a game; this is about leadership, real leadership with real results for real people.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Muslims Call For Investigation . . . No, Wait, Anti-Semitic Americans Demand . . . Shoot, That's Not Right, Either
Oh, that's right. It's Israelis who are calling for an investigation in to whether or not Israel committed war crimes in Gaza.
Silly me. Here I thought all right-thinking people just supported everything Israel did without question.
Silly me. Here I thought all right-thinking people just supported everything Israel did without question.
Supporting The Troops . . . Or Not
Over the weekend, I heard that the military would not give out Purple Hearts for those whose PTSD was a direct result of combat; apparently mental injuries aren't real to these people. Now, it seems that Marines are committing suicide in record numbers. Not just any run-of-the-mill jarhead, mind, but those who are combat veterans.
Heck of a job, Bushie . . .
Heck of a job, Bushie . . .
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The End Of Days
Starting form the granted info that Feodor was over at ELAshley's blog, I thought I'd check it out. I'm providing a link because I'm pretty sure Eric would simply erase any comment I might make (what a man!), but I thought I'd make some general observations.
First, I do so love someone who claims to understand the Bible typing out the following list:
International television was predicted in the late 1st century? Nuclear weaponry by an exiled Hebrew prophet? Not understanding that "prophecy" and "prediction" are two distinct phenomenon, the latter frowned upon by most Christians, the former the exercise of pronouncing God's judgment based in the Law, grace, and love, Eric manages to offer a fourth-grader's reading of the Bible. When taken to task on it by Feodor, his response?
Now, I don't think Feodor missed Eric's point at all. I think he was making fun of it, or at the very least pointing out some pretty big errors in his Biblical reading-comprehension.
Personally, my favorite part is Eric's admission that all he cares about is getting a pat on the head from God for being such a good little boy. At least he is honest enough to admit that his Christian belief is all about him.
First, I do so love someone who claims to understand the Bible typing out the following list:
* The Rebirth of Israel --Matthew 24:32 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* The Increase of Knowledge --Daniel 12:4 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* The Birth of Nuclear Bombs --Ezekiel 14:12 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Russian Jews coming from the North Country --Jeremiah 3:27 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Jerusalem in the hand of the Jews --Zephaniah 3:16 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , Luke 21:24 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* International Television --Revelation 11:9-10 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Deception by Secular Humanism & Cults --Matthew 24:4 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Famines, Earthquakes, Aids, etc. --Matthew 24:7 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Marriage and Materialism --Matthew 24:37-38 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
International television was predicted in the late 1st century? Nuclear weaponry by an exiled Hebrew prophet? Not understanding that "prophecy" and "prediction" are two distinct phenomenon, the latter frowned upon by most Christians, the former the exercise of pronouncing God's judgment based in the Law, grace, and love, Eric manages to offer a fourth-grader's reading of the Bible. When taken to task on it by Feodor, his response?
My motivation is their eternal destination. My motivation is partly Ezekiel 3:18 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , and a desire to hear, 'Well done thou good and faithful servant.' I have no desire to lie to the lost and tell them their lives will be magically better, that their troubles will miraculously lift from their shoulders. Not that it can't happen, but if anyone is going to follow Christ, they have to know that it will not be an easy thing to do. Far from it. Their reward as you say, is a marriage feast... and that's stating it rather simply. No marriage ends with the reception. Likewise, what awaits them in heaven is far more than a sit down meal with their future husband and King.
You have misconstrued much of my intent here. Perhaps I'm not articulating it well enough.
How's this... "Bridge Out! 100 Yards!"
All I'm saying is, "His return is imminent. Get Ready NOW before it's too late!"
Now, I don't think Feodor missed Eric's point at all. I think he was making fun of it, or at the very least pointing out some pretty big errors in his Biblical reading-comprehension.
Personally, my favorite part is Eric's admission that all he cares about is getting a pat on the head from God for being such a good little boy. At least he is honest enough to admit that his Christian belief is all about him.
New Levels Of Crazy
Sometime when I read about right-wing Christians doing stuff, I think, "These folks just can't top themselves." Then, I read this, and I realize I should never underestimate the ability of these people to commit idolatry in their efforts to put politics before God.
So . . . the Oval Office is now the Holy of Holies, to be entered only one day a year, where Pres. Obama will whisper the secret and Holy name of God three times amidst a cloud of incense?
These people are whacked out it is unbelievable.
It seems that Rob Schenck of Faith and Action and Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition took it upon themselves last week to bless the Capitol passageway through which Barack Obama will make his way to be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. Turned back by Capitol police, they happened upon Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who shepherded them to the place. There, as you can see, amidst the praying for the president-to-be and his family, Schenck anoints the door posts with holy oil from the Holy Land, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
What's up with this? In the video, Schenck declares that he is consecrating the passageway "as they did the furnishings of the Tabernacle and the Temple to the use of God and to His will and to His Word."
So . . . the Oval Office is now the Holy of Holies, to be entered only one day a year, where Pres. Obama will whisper the secret and Holy name of God three times amidst a cloud of incense?
These people are whacked out it is unbelievable.
Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!
If you're an old fart like me, you might remember the Iran-Contra scandal back in the late-1980's. A few years before it broke, Congress discovered a spine and managed to make illegal sending funds to the Contras in Nicaragua. Oliver North and others took a brief from Pres. Reagan to continue support for these drug running terrorists and solicited money from various rich Americans, ultimately getting a windfall from a covert arms shipment to Iran, made at a time we were also providing classified intelligence to Iraq (nothing like playing both ends against the middle in a fruitless war of attrition, I always say, especially when you really don't have a dog in the fight). One of the players in this sleazy little D-grade political thriller was Elliot Abrams, a State Department official ultimately convicted of lying to Congress (back when that was a prosecutable offense). At one point during his rather contentious hearing before the special House-Senate committee empaneled to investigate this tangled mess, he insisted the entire thing was a farce, an effort to criminalize what was nothing more than policy disagreements. This particular framing was picked up by many on the right, and continues to this day. Every time some conservative gets harassed by the media and others that they might just have done something not quite legal in the course of their official duties, it's another example of mean, stupid liberals wanting to make doing conservative stuff illegal. Why do we do it? because we're mean and stupid and liberal, that's why!
Fast forward a couple decades, and we have an entire Administration of Elliot Abrams. Shoot, we have Abrams himself, rehabilitated by George W. Bush, no less. The entire crew is set to ride off in to the sunset, unmourned by an American public exhausted by their desire to have this debacle of Executive mismanagement over and done with. Yet, there are many loose ends, as they say, that need tying up, many questions for which the answers aren't exactly comforting, many deeds that need a closer examination. Pres.-elect Obama has done the Bush Administration a favor and signaled his refusal to investigate with an aim toward prosecuting any alleged criminal conduct on the part of members of the Bush Administration. Many on the left are outraged; there are just some things - like, say, torture, indefinite detention, domestic spying for starters - that need to be brought to the light of day, and those responsible held accountable.
I am, in all honesty, of two minds about this. On the one hand, my fondest dream has been to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and many lesser lights of this already-dim group prosecuted in various venues, not least The Hague (having a former President and Vice President extradited to The Netherlands to appear before a war crimes tribunal would most definitely be a victory for real justice). If any group deserved such attention, it is this bunch who have served us so poorly, destroyed so much of our national confidence in the ability of government to actually achieve things of worth, to even do public Administration with a minimal amount of competence.
On the other hand, while I think making such a signal so early and so public has certainly confused a vocal part of Obama's constituency, it might also be part of a deeper game on Obama's part. It is important to remember a couple things. First, many of those calling for investigation with an aim toward eventual prosecution want the kind of open-ended investigation Lawrence Walsh gave us during Iran-Contra. It took years, with the final indictments handed down as Bush 41's term came to a close - Cap Weinberger's indictment in particular was a memorable one - with Presidential pardons hard on their heels. While that was pretty shameless, it should not have been surprising. Such investigations are necessarily lengthy, dealing with millions of pages of documents, memoranda, emails, classified information, and the interview of principles and secondary figures multiple times, sometimes numbering in the hundreds (why else would Oliver North's secretary have to be hauled before a Congressional committee). Obama has to put in place a minimally-functioning Administration on January 20th at noon, and part of that process is getting everyone to play nice, handing over documents, policy statements, email directives and all the rest beforehand. If some mid-level political appointee is afraid there might be something potentially prosecutable in this, that, or the other communique, he or she might just not play along.
At the same time, once all this paperwork and screenwork is gathered together and examined, isn't it just possible - and I say this with more hope than confidence it is true - that someone higher up the food chain might just shout in good Capt. Renault-like tones, "I'm shocked, shocked to discover illegality going on here!" Rather than pursue this or that lead, isn't it at least possible that as specific acts come to light, they will be prosecuted?
Even if this isn't so, we should never forget that the Republicans, elephants that they are, have long memories. Bill Clinton was impeached not only because the Republicans were never satisfied he had won the Presidency outright; he was impeached because, 20 years before, a Democratic Congress had its sights set on Richard Nixon. It was payback. Now, it is true enough, as the example of the Republican treatment of the Clinton Administration demonstrates, that such nasty antics not only distract an Administration from actually doing work. It is also true that, a good prosecutor working long enough and hard enough will manage to find someone somewhere violating the law. When Bush took over, the constant crowing about alleged Bush crimes sounded kind of tinny even to me, a repeat from the left what happened during the eight years of the Clinton Administration. To turn around and start investigating every aspect of the Bush years would take time, resources, and emotional and political energy needed for doing other things, not the least of which is simply executing the laws of the land. Should Republican, by some miracle, win the White House again in the near future, if Obama wasted a whole lot of time and energy investigating and prosecuting every little piece of dirt from the Bush Administration, please know that a new Republican Administration would be dedicated to one purpose and one purpose alone - doing the same to previous Democratic Administrations, only with gusto, flair, and more nasty thoroughness than any Democrat could dream possible. At some point, I think, we have to be realistic enough to accept the fact that, even though there is probably enough evidence in the public record to impanel a dozen grand juries, the political cost might just be too high. It's an ugly reality, to be sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality nonetheless.
Sometimes, I think we have to settle for a kind of minimalist understanding that, yeah, the entire eight years was one long criminal enterprise with a combination of corruption, stupidity, ignorance, and blatant flaunting of the law that was breathtaking in its exuberance. At the same time, it's over, they're gone and this bunch, at least, won't be around to bother us anymore, so let's get some stuff done, and done right. While we're doing that, should we stumble across some evidence - actual evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to find) - that a crime might just have been committed by the Bush Administration ("Shocked, I tell you!"), well then, that's what we have a Justice Department for.
One finale note. I know that Democracy Lover, for one, and others often write about "principles". I am not dedicated to principles in politics, other than actually achieving stuff. Part of what made the Bush years so awful was we had a group of people in charge, in both the Executive and in Congress, who were dedicated to certain "principles" - conservative ideology, to be precise - and simply ignored public disdain and preference as well as the occasional law to achieve ends rooted in these principles. Whether it was the unitary executive or Tom DeLay threatening to subpoena a brain-dead coma patient to "testify" before Congress during the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco, that is what a dedication to principle leads to, in the end. Principles are for people who see nothing wrong with not actually achieving anything other than a moral victory. Politics isn't about moral victories, but real victories.
Fast forward a couple decades, and we have an entire Administration of Elliot Abrams. Shoot, we have Abrams himself, rehabilitated by George W. Bush, no less. The entire crew is set to ride off in to the sunset, unmourned by an American public exhausted by their desire to have this debacle of Executive mismanagement over and done with. Yet, there are many loose ends, as they say, that need tying up, many questions for which the answers aren't exactly comforting, many deeds that need a closer examination. Pres.-elect Obama has done the Bush Administration a favor and signaled his refusal to investigate with an aim toward prosecuting any alleged criminal conduct on the part of members of the Bush Administration. Many on the left are outraged; there are just some things - like, say, torture, indefinite detention, domestic spying for starters - that need to be brought to the light of day, and those responsible held accountable.
I am, in all honesty, of two minds about this. On the one hand, my fondest dream has been to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and many lesser lights of this already-dim group prosecuted in various venues, not least The Hague (having a former President and Vice President extradited to The Netherlands to appear before a war crimes tribunal would most definitely be a victory for real justice). If any group deserved such attention, it is this bunch who have served us so poorly, destroyed so much of our national confidence in the ability of government to actually achieve things of worth, to even do public Administration with a minimal amount of competence.
On the other hand, while I think making such a signal so early and so public has certainly confused a vocal part of Obama's constituency, it might also be part of a deeper game on Obama's part. It is important to remember a couple things. First, many of those calling for investigation with an aim toward eventual prosecution want the kind of open-ended investigation Lawrence Walsh gave us during Iran-Contra. It took years, with the final indictments handed down as Bush 41's term came to a close - Cap Weinberger's indictment in particular was a memorable one - with Presidential pardons hard on their heels. While that was pretty shameless, it should not have been surprising. Such investigations are necessarily lengthy, dealing with millions of pages of documents, memoranda, emails, classified information, and the interview of principles and secondary figures multiple times, sometimes numbering in the hundreds (why else would Oliver North's secretary have to be hauled before a Congressional committee). Obama has to put in place a minimally-functioning Administration on January 20th at noon, and part of that process is getting everyone to play nice, handing over documents, policy statements, email directives and all the rest beforehand. If some mid-level political appointee is afraid there might be something potentially prosecutable in this, that, or the other communique, he or she might just not play along.
At the same time, once all this paperwork and screenwork is gathered together and examined, isn't it just possible - and I say this with more hope than confidence it is true - that someone higher up the food chain might just shout in good Capt. Renault-like tones, "I'm shocked, shocked to discover illegality going on here!" Rather than pursue this or that lead, isn't it at least possible that as specific acts come to light, they will be prosecuted?
Even if this isn't so, we should never forget that the Republicans, elephants that they are, have long memories. Bill Clinton was impeached not only because the Republicans were never satisfied he had won the Presidency outright; he was impeached because, 20 years before, a Democratic Congress had its sights set on Richard Nixon. It was payback. Now, it is true enough, as the example of the Republican treatment of the Clinton Administration demonstrates, that such nasty antics not only distract an Administration from actually doing work. It is also true that, a good prosecutor working long enough and hard enough will manage to find someone somewhere violating the law. When Bush took over, the constant crowing about alleged Bush crimes sounded kind of tinny even to me, a repeat from the left what happened during the eight years of the Clinton Administration. To turn around and start investigating every aspect of the Bush years would take time, resources, and emotional and political energy needed for doing other things, not the least of which is simply executing the laws of the land. Should Republican, by some miracle, win the White House again in the near future, if Obama wasted a whole lot of time and energy investigating and prosecuting every little piece of dirt from the Bush Administration, please know that a new Republican Administration would be dedicated to one purpose and one purpose alone - doing the same to previous Democratic Administrations, only with gusto, flair, and more nasty thoroughness than any Democrat could dream possible. At some point, I think, we have to be realistic enough to accept the fact that, even though there is probably enough evidence in the public record to impanel a dozen grand juries, the political cost might just be too high. It's an ugly reality, to be sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality nonetheless.
Sometimes, I think we have to settle for a kind of minimalist understanding that, yeah, the entire eight years was one long criminal enterprise with a combination of corruption, stupidity, ignorance, and blatant flaunting of the law that was breathtaking in its exuberance. At the same time, it's over, they're gone and this bunch, at least, won't be around to bother us anymore, so let's get some stuff done, and done right. While we're doing that, should we stumble across some evidence - actual evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to find) - that a crime might just have been committed by the Bush Administration ("Shocked, I tell you!"), well then, that's what we have a Justice Department for.
One finale note. I know that Democracy Lover, for one, and others often write about "principles". I am not dedicated to principles in politics, other than actually achieving stuff. Part of what made the Bush years so awful was we had a group of people in charge, in both the Executive and in Congress, who were dedicated to certain "principles" - conservative ideology, to be precise - and simply ignored public disdain and preference as well as the occasional law to achieve ends rooted in these principles. Whether it was the unitary executive or Tom DeLay threatening to subpoena a brain-dead coma patient to "testify" before Congress during the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco, that is what a dedication to principle leads to, in the end. Principles are for people who see nothing wrong with not actually achieving anything other than a moral victory. Politics isn't about moral victories, but real victories.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Music For Your Monday
I can't keep it straight, so I'll just give it a new title.
Arnold Schoenberg managed to set the musical world on its ear, in the same way and at the same time a bunch of painters were doing the same thing in the visual arts. Generally called "modernism", it was nothing more than innovation, taking the next logical step. Sometimes his music is considered "atonal", which it really wasn't. There just wasn't the same kind of harmonic order that earlier music had. His "12-tone" ideas are interesting, and would be picked up by jazz musicians later in the century. Here's an excerpt from his Piano Concerto 42, with Mitsuko Uchida on piano:
Another excerpt, from his Chamber Symphony, op. 9, from 1984, with Erich Leinsdorf conducting.
I think Glenn Gould is the perfect interpreter of Schoenberg, if for no other reason than he goes well with being a coke-head. Here he is with Yehudi Menuhin on violin, playing Fantasie, op. 47.
Arnold Schoenberg managed to set the musical world on its ear, in the same way and at the same time a bunch of painters were doing the same thing in the visual arts. Generally called "modernism", it was nothing more than innovation, taking the next logical step. Sometimes his music is considered "atonal", which it really wasn't. There just wasn't the same kind of harmonic order that earlier music had. His "12-tone" ideas are interesting, and would be picked up by jazz musicians later in the century. Here's an excerpt from his Piano Concerto 42, with Mitsuko Uchida on piano:
Another excerpt, from his Chamber Symphony, op. 9, from 1984, with Erich Leinsdorf conducting.
I think Glenn Gould is the perfect interpreter of Schoenberg, if for no other reason than he goes well with being a coke-head. Here he is with Yehudi Menuhin on violin, playing Fantasie, op. 47.
Eight Days
Not that I'm counting.
Will America survive?
Just so any right-wing Republicans who stop by may wonder, no, I do not think Obama is the salvation of the nation. Right now, I find him a bit too honorable toward the Republicans in Congress, who are owed nothing for their mismanagement of our national affairs. I think he is too honorable toward the Democratic leadership, for that matter, who are looking to earn points by standing up to a popular President-to-be from their own party so no one can accuse them of partisanship. I think he is aiming low with his stimulus plan - more money in a wider variety of ways (shoot, FDR even funded plays, poems, paintings, and novels) would be better - but since that's Paul Krugman's position and all he has is a Nobel in Economics, what do either of us know? My point is not that Obama is our savior (or, perhaps, Savior?). Rather, my point is that Bush is so bad he could still make things worse in eight days. He has the magic touch, after all.
Will America survive?
Just so any right-wing Republicans who stop by may wonder, no, I do not think Obama is the salvation of the nation. Right now, I find him a bit too honorable toward the Republicans in Congress, who are owed nothing for their mismanagement of our national affairs. I think he is too honorable toward the Democratic leadership, for that matter, who are looking to earn points by standing up to a popular President-to-be from their own party so no one can accuse them of partisanship. I think he is aiming low with his stimulus plan - more money in a wider variety of ways (shoot, FDR even funded plays, poems, paintings, and novels) would be better - but since that's Paul Krugman's position and all he has is a Nobel in Economics, what do either of us know? My point is not that Obama is our savior (or, perhaps, Savior?). Rather, my point is that Bush is so bad he could still make things worse in eight days. He has the magic touch, after all.
Stimulus And Response
Being unqualified to speak on details of Pres-elect Obama's economic stimulus plan before the new Congress - I know what I read in the paper, and I also know that when we've reached numbers like "$700 billion" we have reached a level no one really can comprehend - I am interested in a report on "negotiations" between the Obama camp and Congress. When I first read about this, I thought, what leverage does Congress have in all this?
Then, it occurred to me. Obviously, Democrats have to cave in to every whim and fancy of the most unpopular Republican President in our history, because otherwise people might say bad things about how partisan they are. They win points, however, by standing up to an incredibly popular soon-to-be incumbent Democratic President, who is offering the American people an opportunity to lessen the damage and pain from the train-wreck of the Bush years.
Rather than sit and negotiate - and try to get Republicans on board - Obama should simply have drawn up a bill, had it introduced to Congress, let them vote on it up and down, and then if it failed, held a little presser saying the combination of Republican intransigence and Democratic ineptitude has led to the demise of a bill meant to help the American people. The outcry from the people might have been enough to get another, similar, bill passed without much fanfare. Obama is being far too deferential to the stupid Democrats in Congress and the obstreperous Republicans by holding "negotiations." Screw the negotiations. Play nice on stuff that doesn't matter all that much. Put and keep the Republicans in their place, the minority.
The politics of this thing is really maddening.
Then, it occurred to me. Obviously, Democrats have to cave in to every whim and fancy of the most unpopular Republican President in our history, because otherwise people might say bad things about how partisan they are. They win points, however, by standing up to an incredibly popular soon-to-be incumbent Democratic President, who is offering the American people an opportunity to lessen the damage and pain from the train-wreck of the Bush years.
Rather than sit and negotiate - and try to get Republicans on board - Obama should simply have drawn up a bill, had it introduced to Congress, let them vote on it up and down, and then if it failed, held a little presser saying the combination of Republican intransigence and Democratic ineptitude has led to the demise of a bill meant to help the American people. The outcry from the people might have been enough to get another, similar, bill passed without much fanfare. Obama is being far too deferential to the stupid Democrats in Congress and the obstreperous Republicans by holding "negotiations." Screw the negotiations. Play nice on stuff that doesn't matter all that much. Put and keep the Republicans in their place, the minority.
The politics of this thing is really maddening.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Double Standard?
NB: I saw this yesterday, and was going to write something about it, but was still recovering from a wonderful gastro-intestinal bug that hit me like a Peterbilt Friday morning shortly after I got home from work. I was still physically weak from the onslaught, but am feeling much better.
Poor Sarah Palin. She casts herself as a victim of horrid, evil, liberal journalists who used a double-standard in approaching her own family and that of either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Obviously, if she had been a liberal Democrat no one would have thought to examine her private life.
Over at Fire Dog Lake, Julia takes issue with Gov. Palin's insistence that the scrutiny she faced on this front was the result of media bias. While she makes a persuasive case, I think Julia misses a larger point.
While it is true, as Julia notes, that both the media and the Republican standard-bearers managed to include criticisms of President-elect Obama's wife in their campaign rhetoric, I think everyone can agree there was a larger-than-normal interest in the private life of Gov. Palin. Part of that was due, I think, to the simple fact that she was unknown on the national stage. Sen. McCain had been around, and the story of his marriages, etc., had been told and settled for quite some time. Everyone knew Sen. Biden had suffered a tragic loss, and dealt with it bravely, early on in his life and political career. While new as well, there seemed little in Obama's current life to attract attention. There was some scrutiny by some right-wingers over his birth certificate, whether he was really born in Hawaii or not, and the role his Muslim stepfather may or may not have played in his life at one time, but since most of this was the result of political senescence on the part of the right, it resulted more in derision than anything else.
For my part, I believe the scrutiny Gov. Palin's family life received was rooted less in sexism and political bias than it was in the kind of schadenfreude many feel in exposing moral hypocrisy. Part of the wing of the Republican Party that continues to insist that personal private character traits are, or should be, considered as contiguous with our public commitments and lives, she seemed to invite those who might wish to get to know her to take a look at her family. She trotted out her baby son, Trig, as evidence of her strong family values (a late-life baby with Downs' Syndrome whose birth showed their commitment to pro-life values, so goes the argument). I was personally disgusted with all the attention paid to the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol, yet since Gov. Palin was part of the Republican Party that crows about the evils of teen sexuality, it could at least be argued that here, if nowhere else, there was a lapse in the continuity between her espoused beliefs and her actual practice.
I do not believe Gov. Palin received critical press, however, because of her family life. I think it might have been more intrusive if for no other reason than there seems to be an audience for these kind of private portraits. By adding in her own adherence to a certain set of political principles that see no difference between how one conducts one's personal life and the conduct of public business, however, I think the whole issue of "double standard" dissolves. She was held, not to a double standard, but to her own.
And found wanting.
Poor Sarah Palin. She casts herself as a victim of horrid, evil, liberal journalists who used a double-standard in approaching her own family and that of either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Obviously, if she had been a liberal Democrat no one would have thought to examine her private life.
Over at Fire Dog Lake, Julia takes issue with Gov. Palin's insistence that the scrutiny she faced on this front was the result of media bias. While she makes a persuasive case, I think Julia misses a larger point.
While it is true, as Julia notes, that both the media and the Republican standard-bearers managed to include criticisms of President-elect Obama's wife in their campaign rhetoric, I think everyone can agree there was a larger-than-normal interest in the private life of Gov. Palin. Part of that was due, I think, to the simple fact that she was unknown on the national stage. Sen. McCain had been around, and the story of his marriages, etc., had been told and settled for quite some time. Everyone knew Sen. Biden had suffered a tragic loss, and dealt with it bravely, early on in his life and political career. While new as well, there seemed little in Obama's current life to attract attention. There was some scrutiny by some right-wingers over his birth certificate, whether he was really born in Hawaii or not, and the role his Muslim stepfather may or may not have played in his life at one time, but since most of this was the result of political senescence on the part of the right, it resulted more in derision than anything else.
For my part, I believe the scrutiny Gov. Palin's family life received was rooted less in sexism and political bias than it was in the kind of schadenfreude many feel in exposing moral hypocrisy. Part of the wing of the Republican Party that continues to insist that personal private character traits are, or should be, considered as contiguous with our public commitments and lives, she seemed to invite those who might wish to get to know her to take a look at her family. She trotted out her baby son, Trig, as evidence of her strong family values (a late-life baby with Downs' Syndrome whose birth showed their commitment to pro-life values, so goes the argument). I was personally disgusted with all the attention paid to the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol, yet since Gov. Palin was part of the Republican Party that crows about the evils of teen sexuality, it could at least be argued that here, if nowhere else, there was a lapse in the continuity between her espoused beliefs and her actual practice.
I do not believe Gov. Palin received critical press, however, because of her family life. I think it might have been more intrusive if for no other reason than there seems to be an audience for these kind of private portraits. By adding in her own adherence to a certain set of political principles that see no difference between how one conducts one's personal life and the conduct of public business, however, I think the whole issue of "double standard" dissolves. She was held, not to a double standard, but to her own.
And found wanting.
Death And Dying
This past fall I've had to face a lot of death. My dear friend Steve Creech is gone. My Aunt, Joan Konicki, passed away just a few weeks ago. After a battle with lung cancer, Kathy Zoeller died just a few short weeks ago. Just yesterday, we received word that Ruby Jones, a woman who lived catty-corner from us and was a member of the first church to which Lisa was appointed, died recently after a stroke, at the age of 91. Her passing marked the end of an era of sorts in the little town of Jarratt, VA, and there are few who remain from that once wonderful, confounding congregation with which we shared five years of our lives, including the birth of our first child.
I have faced death in different ways in my life, from my childhood loss of my paternal grandfather - my first real encounter with death - to the suicide of my best childhood friend to the sudden, inexplicable loss of my wife's father a little over seven years ago. Now, however, I am entering the age where it will be, if not a constant companion, at least always a shadow in the background, waiting perhaps around if not the next corner, then down the street a ways. Dealing with death, with the reality of the final answer to all of life's mysteries, is never easy. Knowing it is real, knowing it sits there for all of us, yet takes us piece by piece in the deaths of those we know and love before it comes for us is hard. Of course, we are lucky because this is a nation- and culture-specific issue. Were we to live in, say, Zimbabwe (according to an article in today's Washington Post), the issue of death and dying would be far different. Were we living in Congo, the site of a war that has already brought much death and destruction to central Africa with no end in sight, we would face a whole different set of questions, issues, challenges, griefs, etc.
None of this is to say our challenges are not real, or of less urgency than others. Only to say they are different.
In any event, I was brought to mind of these issues and questions, fears and anger, in reading this article in today's Washington Post. Written by a Minnesota-based internist, Chris Bowron, the article explores one physician's frustration as he deals with issues surrounding what are now called "end of life" issues. As he points out, with interesting new medicines and technologies created to prolong life, very often doctors, nurses, and families face increasingly difficult choices as to how best to deal with and care for those who are declining toward death.
I have to admit I was first a bit off-put by the initial presentation, as well as the way Bowron framed the fundamental question - how do we, as individuals, as families, as health-care providers, as a society at large, to come to grips with burgeoning life-extending technologies, yet still coping with the fundamental reality that death comes to us all? Reading a doctor's musings on the reality that death is not the enemy, but perhaps dying, or even the prevention of death (in some though certainly not all cases), was eye-opening. Of course, for his question, I believe there is no final answer. There is no "one way" that fits all situations, and doctors and nurses, families and loved-ones all face difficult choices - despite his assertion at the end that this "choice" is largely illusory - for which we have little guidance. Even the assertion of preference - a Do Not Resuscitate Order in one case; an order to do everything possible in another, similar set of circumstances - can be meaningless in the face of loved-ones, or health-care providers in the heat of the moment (Dr. Bowron offers an example of a patient brought to his hospital from a nursing home when there existed an order that no such measures be taken; the nursing home administration probably just followed their Policies and Procedures without reference to individual preference in this case).
In The True and Only Heaven, the late historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch offers the view of the differences between two societies - early-Victorian Britain and contemporary America - as members of each faced death. He uses the death scene of Little Nell as a template; here is a little girl, dying (as many young people did) surrounded by family and loved-ones (a not-uncommon occurrence). He makes the point that this was a ritual played out innumerable times. When a member of the family was dying, the whole family was paraded past, to see and offer one last goodbye, to be with so the final moment is not one spent alone.
We, on the other hand, keep a certain distance. Dying is done less and less at home (although that is changing) and more frequently at hospitals and nursing homes. Even if family is present, they are kept at a distance through the intrusive technologies and the insistence of doctors and nurses whose intervention is not always wanted or even needed. We attempt to shield our children from the reality of death, believing it unnecessary to expose them to this final state because "they won't understand it".
Yet, none of us understand it. Not really. Yet, is understanding really necessary? Whether we understand it or not, or even accept its inevitability or not, death awaits us all at some point. Dying can be long and drawn out, with or without technological helps. Or it can come in an instant, unexpected, stealing others from us in a blink of an eye. Whether we understand it or not, it is there. How we deal with it, how we face it as families, as health-care providers, as supportive loved-ones and friends, comes down, I think, in the end, to our ability to stare the abyss in the face, allow it to stare back at us, and not fall in to it ourselves.
I have faced death in different ways in my life, from my childhood loss of my paternal grandfather - my first real encounter with death - to the suicide of my best childhood friend to the sudden, inexplicable loss of my wife's father a little over seven years ago. Now, however, I am entering the age where it will be, if not a constant companion, at least always a shadow in the background, waiting perhaps around if not the next corner, then down the street a ways. Dealing with death, with the reality of the final answer to all of life's mysteries, is never easy. Knowing it is real, knowing it sits there for all of us, yet takes us piece by piece in the deaths of those we know and love before it comes for us is hard. Of course, we are lucky because this is a nation- and culture-specific issue. Were we to live in, say, Zimbabwe (according to an article in today's Washington Post), the issue of death and dying would be far different. Were we living in Congo, the site of a war that has already brought much death and destruction to central Africa with no end in sight, we would face a whole different set of questions, issues, challenges, griefs, etc.
None of this is to say our challenges are not real, or of less urgency than others. Only to say they are different.
In any event, I was brought to mind of these issues and questions, fears and anger, in reading this article in today's Washington Post. Written by a Minnesota-based internist, Chris Bowron, the article explores one physician's frustration as he deals with issues surrounding what are now called "end of life" issues. As he points out, with interesting new medicines and technologies created to prolong life, very often doctors, nurses, and families face increasingly difficult choices as to how best to deal with and care for those who are declining toward death.
I have to admit I was first a bit off-put by the initial presentation, as well as the way Bowron framed the fundamental question - how do we, as individuals, as families, as health-care providers, as a society at large, to come to grips with burgeoning life-extending technologies, yet still coping with the fundamental reality that death comes to us all? Reading a doctor's musings on the reality that death is not the enemy, but perhaps dying, or even the prevention of death (in some though certainly not all cases), was eye-opening. Of course, for his question, I believe there is no final answer. There is no "one way" that fits all situations, and doctors and nurses, families and loved-ones all face difficult choices - despite his assertion at the end that this "choice" is largely illusory - for which we have little guidance. Even the assertion of preference - a Do Not Resuscitate Order in one case; an order to do everything possible in another, similar set of circumstances - can be meaningless in the face of loved-ones, or health-care providers in the heat of the moment (Dr. Bowron offers an example of a patient brought to his hospital from a nursing home when there existed an order that no such measures be taken; the nursing home administration probably just followed their Policies and Procedures without reference to individual preference in this case).
In The True and Only Heaven, the late historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch offers the view of the differences between two societies - early-Victorian Britain and contemporary America - as members of each faced death. He uses the death scene of Little Nell as a template; here is a little girl, dying (as many young people did) surrounded by family and loved-ones (a not-uncommon occurrence). He makes the point that this was a ritual played out innumerable times. When a member of the family was dying, the whole family was paraded past, to see and offer one last goodbye, to be with so the final moment is not one spent alone.
We, on the other hand, keep a certain distance. Dying is done less and less at home (although that is changing) and more frequently at hospitals and nursing homes. Even if family is present, they are kept at a distance through the intrusive technologies and the insistence of doctors and nurses whose intervention is not always wanted or even needed. We attempt to shield our children from the reality of death, believing it unnecessary to expose them to this final state because "they won't understand it".
Yet, none of us understand it. Not really. Yet, is understanding really necessary? Whether we understand it or not, or even accept its inevitability or not, death awaits us all at some point. Dying can be long and drawn out, with or without technological helps. Or it can come in an instant, unexpected, stealing others from us in a blink of an eye. Whether we understand it or not, it is there. How we deal with it, how we face it as families, as health-care providers, as supportive loved-ones and friends, comes down, I think, in the end, to our ability to stare the abyss in the face, allow it to stare back at us, and not fall in to it ourselves.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Saturday Rock Show
Since we spoke of weird, wonderful music the other day, I thought I'd put up something from one of those groups that manages to do this consistently, with a good sense of humor. This is "Why Does the Sun Shine?" by They Might Be Giants:
Thursday, January 08, 2009
On Our Culture
The discussion here has got me thinking (for real!), and I figured I should get those thoughts down before they escape my sieve-like mind.
One of the things that really bugs me is when conservatives claim, with no evidence, that "liberals" are comfortable with various elements of our culture - from teenage sexual behavior to the general moral nihilism of much of our popular cultural products - when, speaking only for myself (which is all any of us can do), I am not. In order to be clear, I will deal with the latter first, then move on to the former and related topics.
I make the point in comments that we have not had cable or satellite service in our house for years, and quite deliberately. With the explosion of Hannah Montana, High School Musical, and other televised commercials aimed at girls my older daughter's age, I can only cheer this decision ever louder each day. In fact, though, we stopped for a couple reasons. First, we found that we were paying through the nose for something we did not use. We avoided "sitcoms" because all the jokes centered on sex, in the crudest, most vulgar way. We didn't watch because we didn't want our children exposed to it. Dramas, for the most part, lacked that particular quality. Our kids spend their time reading, using their imaginations, and enjoying a wider variety of things life has to offer because the boob-tube isn't there to sap their energy and their brain cells.
More generally, I think our culture is full of tricks and traps, not just for children, but for anyone not wary enough to avoid them. I do not know, and do not think it possible to determine with anything like accuracy, whether or not people are having more sex and at a younger age, than in previous generations. I remember quite well when I was in Junior High and HS there were those who did, and it was not something we thought was a good idea. I can't remember if folks were ostracized for it, but I do know most of the talk was that people who engaged in such practices were not so much "bad" as they were pretty stupid. By the time I was a Junior and Senior in HS, that had changed slightly, because, of course, all HS students know how adult and sophisticated they are, but there is a vast difference between a sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen year old and a thirteen and fourteen year old, too. How we deal with it as a society, however, is a difficult question, fraught with all sorts of problems. I don't know of any parent who cares little for the behavior of his or her children; I do know that many parents, trapped by the need for multiple jobs just to keep from drowning financially, plus the various pressures of life in general, sometimes feel incapable of dealing with their children, which doesn't make them bad parents. It only makes them emotionally and physically drained and frazzled. That a child, looking for a way to act out, can use this to his or her advantage is something everyone knows, but no one, as yet, has a cure for.
The difference between the kind of response to our various cultural and social ills we see from liberals and conservatives is not so much either acceptance or at least tolerance on the part of liberals with a more traditional refusal on the part of conservatives. Rather, the difference lies in how we understand these problems, and how we approach dealing with them. In the linked post, Marshall posts and update on the state of MS and some of its troubles. I do not think one can place "culture" on the list of reasons for Mississippi's woes. There are issues of racism, poverty, the malign neglect of the underclass in order to do things like build casinos and give handouts to the wealthy who lost coastal homes in Katrina, rather than do what is necessary to support young people and working families that are far more important than some kind of general cultural acceptance of bad behavior. Dealing with these might be far more productive in terms of reducing social deviance, or alleged social deviance, than passing all sorts of laws, or creating a general social atmosphere, in which there is a re-emergence of social and cultural backlash against moral turpitude.
I think a fine example of this is how the question of "abstinence-only" sex education is discussed, at least in my own experience. Because I see and read about studies that show it not only ineffective but actually counter-productive to its stated goals, one might consider developing a curriculum based on comprehensive education, including information on conception control, but that would also include information on abstinence as well, perhaps with the addition of creating support networks for those who might wish to make such a commitment, after receiving enough information and doing so willingly. In other words, it isn't that we liberals, or at least this liberal, is against abstinence. It is the whole "only" addition, and the way it is used - poor and even incorrect information, a refusal to put abstinence in a larger developmental context, social context, etc. - that is the issue. Precisely because the curriculum as currently formulated is not only inaccurate, but does not work, it might be thought wise to do something that might work. Yet, we are accused, inaccurately and often screechily, of promoting underage sexual activity when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no guarantee that comprehensive sex ed would be more effective, and the first line of defense is always the home - in this as in pretty much everything else - but it seems to me since we have tried something that is a demonstrable failure, it might be socially responsible to try something that many people think would work.
For the sake of emphasis, I think it is important to repeat that moral instruction begins not in school, or in peer groups, but in the home. There is absolutely nothing society in general can do to enforce proper moral instruction in the home. We can encourage families to come to church, synagogue, or mosque, and that children receive religious instruction, although that really doesn't have a bearing, in the long run, as a general rule, on how kids and adults turn out. We can be attentive parents, open to discussing and especially listening to our kids when they have problems or questions. I just don't know how effective social coercion, or worse, legal coercion, would work to deal with certain social ills, if for no other reason than they have failed in the past to be effective, so it might be thought wise to avoid such failures in the future.
How we bring up the next generation of young people, in the end, is something each family has to address in its own way. We can support one another, commiserate with one another, but I just don't see where creating new structures of social or legal remonstrance would deal with underlying socio-economic conditions on the one hand, or the reality that there are personal, biological, and peer issues that cannot be dealt with through simple ostracism or worse. These are not easy issues, and I do not believe there can be easy solutions for them.
One of the things that really bugs me is when conservatives claim, with no evidence, that "liberals" are comfortable with various elements of our culture - from teenage sexual behavior to the general moral nihilism of much of our popular cultural products - when, speaking only for myself (which is all any of us can do), I am not. In order to be clear, I will deal with the latter first, then move on to the former and related topics.
I make the point in comments that we have not had cable or satellite service in our house for years, and quite deliberately. With the explosion of Hannah Montana, High School Musical, and other televised commercials aimed at girls my older daughter's age, I can only cheer this decision ever louder each day. In fact, though, we stopped for a couple reasons. First, we found that we were paying through the nose for something we did not use. We avoided "sitcoms" because all the jokes centered on sex, in the crudest, most vulgar way. We didn't watch because we didn't want our children exposed to it. Dramas, for the most part, lacked that particular quality. Our kids spend their time reading, using their imaginations, and enjoying a wider variety of things life has to offer because the boob-tube isn't there to sap their energy and their brain cells.
More generally, I think our culture is full of tricks and traps, not just for children, but for anyone not wary enough to avoid them. I do not know, and do not think it possible to determine with anything like accuracy, whether or not people are having more sex and at a younger age, than in previous generations. I remember quite well when I was in Junior High and HS there were those who did, and it was not something we thought was a good idea. I can't remember if folks were ostracized for it, but I do know most of the talk was that people who engaged in such practices were not so much "bad" as they were pretty stupid. By the time I was a Junior and Senior in HS, that had changed slightly, because, of course, all HS students know how adult and sophisticated they are, but there is a vast difference between a sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen year old and a thirteen and fourteen year old, too. How we deal with it as a society, however, is a difficult question, fraught with all sorts of problems. I don't know of any parent who cares little for the behavior of his or her children; I do know that many parents, trapped by the need for multiple jobs just to keep from drowning financially, plus the various pressures of life in general, sometimes feel incapable of dealing with their children, which doesn't make them bad parents. It only makes them emotionally and physically drained and frazzled. That a child, looking for a way to act out, can use this to his or her advantage is something everyone knows, but no one, as yet, has a cure for.
The difference between the kind of response to our various cultural and social ills we see from liberals and conservatives is not so much either acceptance or at least tolerance on the part of liberals with a more traditional refusal on the part of conservatives. Rather, the difference lies in how we understand these problems, and how we approach dealing with them. In the linked post, Marshall posts and update on the state of MS and some of its troubles. I do not think one can place "culture" on the list of reasons for Mississippi's woes. There are issues of racism, poverty, the malign neglect of the underclass in order to do things like build casinos and give handouts to the wealthy who lost coastal homes in Katrina, rather than do what is necessary to support young people and working families that are far more important than some kind of general cultural acceptance of bad behavior. Dealing with these might be far more productive in terms of reducing social deviance, or alleged social deviance, than passing all sorts of laws, or creating a general social atmosphere, in which there is a re-emergence of social and cultural backlash against moral turpitude.
I think a fine example of this is how the question of "abstinence-only" sex education is discussed, at least in my own experience. Because I see and read about studies that show it not only ineffective but actually counter-productive to its stated goals, one might consider developing a curriculum based on comprehensive education, including information on conception control, but that would also include information on abstinence as well, perhaps with the addition of creating support networks for those who might wish to make such a commitment, after receiving enough information and doing so willingly. In other words, it isn't that we liberals, or at least this liberal, is against abstinence. It is the whole "only" addition, and the way it is used - poor and even incorrect information, a refusal to put abstinence in a larger developmental context, social context, etc. - that is the issue. Precisely because the curriculum as currently formulated is not only inaccurate, but does not work, it might be thought wise to do something that might work. Yet, we are accused, inaccurately and often screechily, of promoting underage sexual activity when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no guarantee that comprehensive sex ed would be more effective, and the first line of defense is always the home - in this as in pretty much everything else - but it seems to me since we have tried something that is a demonstrable failure, it might be socially responsible to try something that many people think would work.
For the sake of emphasis, I think it is important to repeat that moral instruction begins not in school, or in peer groups, but in the home. There is absolutely nothing society in general can do to enforce proper moral instruction in the home. We can encourage families to come to church, synagogue, or mosque, and that children receive religious instruction, although that really doesn't have a bearing, in the long run, as a general rule, on how kids and adults turn out. We can be attentive parents, open to discussing and especially listening to our kids when they have problems or questions. I just don't know how effective social coercion, or worse, legal coercion, would work to deal with certain social ills, if for no other reason than they have failed in the past to be effective, so it might be thought wise to avoid such failures in the future.
How we bring up the next generation of young people, in the end, is something each family has to address in its own way. We can support one another, commiserate with one another, but I just don't see where creating new structures of social or legal remonstrance would deal with underlying socio-economic conditions on the one hand, or the reality that there are personal, biological, and peer issues that cannot be dealt with through simple ostracism or worse. These are not easy issues, and I do not believe there can be easy solutions for them.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
First, Baby Steps
As is usually the case for me, I am attempting to make sense of what it is I believe and why in a very tentative way. In order to do that, sometimes my initial thoughts and sentiments sound far more grand and fixed than they might actually be. I am thankful that Feodor called this "weak Christian liberal sauce" because it has forced me to be more clear.
First, this is a blog, not a theological seminar, so I don't feel obliged to be either as thorough or as detailed as I might otherwise. This isn't an excuse, it's just a fact.
Second, nothing I said in the linked post - initial thoughts only - should be construed as negating the call to a disciplined life, the call to live for others, or the demands of righteous living for one and all that is part and parcel of living for the Kingdom. I just see them as opportunities we are offered, rather than a new set of rules we are obliged to follow. Freedom means freedom for as well as freedom from. That initial post was nothing more or less than a brief explanation of my own sense of freedom from. Freedom for, well I think that should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. All of it, however, will take time to work out, to live out.
True to my own sense of the Wesleyan tradition, I see faith as something one lives, not something one declares, or claims. It is, to use a modern phrase, a process, even if it is characterized by moments of clarity in the haze and muddle of life. This blog is part of that process, and these are just steps along the way, and I may just turn around in another week and pronounce it all bunk and hogwash (never forget that).
First, this is a blog, not a theological seminar, so I don't feel obliged to be either as thorough or as detailed as I might otherwise. This isn't an excuse, it's just a fact.
Second, nothing I said in the linked post - initial thoughts only - should be construed as negating the call to a disciplined life, the call to live for others, or the demands of righteous living for one and all that is part and parcel of living for the Kingdom. I just see them as opportunities we are offered, rather than a new set of rules we are obliged to follow. Freedom means freedom for as well as freedom from. That initial post was nothing more or less than a brief explanation of my own sense of freedom from. Freedom for, well I think that should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. All of it, however, will take time to work out, to live out.
True to my own sense of the Wesleyan tradition, I see faith as something one lives, not something one declares, or claims. It is, to use a modern phrase, a process, even if it is characterized by moments of clarity in the haze and muddle of life. This blog is part of that process, and these are just steps along the way, and I may just turn around in another week and pronounce it all bunk and hogwash (never forget that).
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Senator Diva Feinstein (UPDATE)
I am not a fan of Dianne Feinstein. Now, more evidence emerges that she is nothing more than a shallow, self-promoting preener, wishing nothing more than to be the center of attention.
What a whiner.
I have no opinion on whether or not the Panetta appointment is a good choice or not. Feinstein's little hissy-fit, however, makes me support it whole-heartedly.
UPDATE: What fragile egos these people have.
She's like a character out of bad political fiction.
Shortly after the news [of Pres.-elect Obama naming Leon Panetta CIA chief] leaked, however, the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), issued a statement complaining that she was not “consulted” about the Panetta selection and condemning his appointment
What a whiner.
I have no opinion on whether or not the Panetta appointment is a good choice or not. Feinstein's little hissy-fit, however, makes me support it whole-heartedly.
UPDATE: What fragile egos these people have.
Just talked with Dianne Feinstein outside the Senate chamber about her qualms with the Leon Panetta nomination. The incoming Senate intelligence committee chairman said that both President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden called her after the fact to discuss the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence agency experience and whose nomination came as unwelcome news to Feinstein when it broke yesterday.
"I understand their thinking" in choosing Panetta, Feinstein explained, describing herself as "very respectful of the president's authority ... this is the man [Obama has chosen]."
She's like a character out of bad political fiction.
Beating The Brain-Dead
Whether we want to or not, I think most people who pay attention to these things remember the circus that formed around poor Terry Schiavo. Reduced to a permanent vegetative state, her husband petitioned the state of Florida to remove her feeding tube in order to end what little was left of her life in some kind of semi-humane way. The United States Congress was actually called back from a vacation to address this particular private drama, with the extraordinary step of legislation passing the was focused on the life and impending death of a particular individual.
Fast forward, and it seems that "pro-lifers" are planning on reminding America of this entire sorry episode.
I just love the whole "piranha Perrelli" bit.
Far be it from me to give advice to conservatives - no one listens to me anyway - but bringing up the Schiavo case out of dedication to principle may make pro-lifers feel good about themselves, but I doubt it will do much good. Most Americans were aghast at the thought the United States Congress would intervene in the private pain of a family wrestling with the most drastic decision any could face. I was particularly horrified at the way Michael Schiavo's reputation was destroyed by the connivance of Republican politicians trying to shore up their base and a press-corps reduced to tabloid-level sensationalism, printing every accusation imaginable. The whole incident was awful, yet because the Republican Party and the pro-life movement is tone-deaf to shame, it will soon be revived. The only benefit, it seems to me, will be reminding America why it voted Democratic in the past two national election cycles.
Fast forward, and it seems that "pro-lifers" are planning on reminding America of this entire sorry episode.
Conservatives are now brushing off the Schiavo case to use it against Thomas Perrelli, President-elect Obama’s pick for the no. 3 spot at the Justice Department. Right-wing websites are outraged at Obama’s association with Perrelli, since he was one of the lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo, who wanted his wife’s feeding tube removed. The Washington Times today reports that these conservatives are now gearing up to fight Perrelli’s nomination:Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, derided Mr. Perrelli’s selection as “just another death-peddler Obama has added to his list of nominees.” She said he’s earned the nickname among pro-lifers of “Piranha Perrelli” for his work on the case.
Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, said several end-of-life issues could make their way to the federal level in the next four years and having Mr. Perrelli at the department means pro-life causes would have a tougher time winning those debates.
“If the Justice Department isn’t going to do anything about it, the states, what’s to stop them from cases like Schiavo and even worse cases,” Mr. McClusky said.
I just love the whole "piranha Perrelli" bit.
Far be it from me to give advice to conservatives - no one listens to me anyway - but bringing up the Schiavo case out of dedication to principle may make pro-lifers feel good about themselves, but I doubt it will do much good. Most Americans were aghast at the thought the United States Congress would intervene in the private pain of a family wrestling with the most drastic decision any could face. I was particularly horrified at the way Michael Schiavo's reputation was destroyed by the connivance of Republican politicians trying to shore up their base and a press-corps reduced to tabloid-level sensationalism, printing every accusation imaginable. The whole incident was awful, yet because the Republican Party and the pro-life movement is tone-deaf to shame, it will soon be revived. The only benefit, it seems to me, will be reminding America why it voted Democratic in the past two national election cycles.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Music Monday
An odd band, to be sure, Procol Harum managed some interesting music. Let's start with one you may not know, but was covered by Transatlantic on their first studio release. This is "In Held 'Twas In I":
"A Salty Dog" from a 1977 concert.
I always liked "Conquistador", although it always bugged me that the word was consistently mispronounced. In this clip, Gary Brooker looks an awful lot like Anthony Hopkins. . .
"A Salty Dog" from a 1977 concert.
I always liked "Conquistador", although it always bugged me that the word was consistently mispronounced. In this clip, Gary Brooker looks an awful lot like Anthony Hopkins. . .
Your Lips Say No, But That Gold Ring Says Yes
It seems Dennis "Womanizer" Prager has a defender! I'll just put it up without any commentary of my own.
Wow! A few things wrong here. First, that Geoffrey feels he's qualified to call Prager an imbecile. What hubris and what incompetence of judgement.
Secondly, where in this piece do you see a mandate for force in any way, shape or form. He's merely speaking from the perspective of the woman, not the man if the woman refuses.
Thirdly, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. And look closely at verse 5, where Paul speaks of mutual consent. No force is suggested there, either.
Fourth, love often means doing that which one would prefer not doing. If any of you feels that expressing love is contingent upon your mood, you don't deserve a spouse and as it is I'll say an extra prayer for each of them.
Fifth, everything to which Prager alludes can be said to men as well. The genders being different, there are other expressions of love that mean more to women than men. It could be something as simple as joining the wife for grocery or clothes shopping or picking out patterns for the freakin' drapes or forgoing the game on Sunday to visit relatives or planting bushes. How often are men in general in the mood for such things? Doing it anyway is a demonstration of love and not female tyranny. Rape indeed!
More than anything else, I see the point regarding behaviors based on mood and feelings as being the most salient in the article. But then, I'm not as progressive as you fakers here.
And just to re-iterate, I didn't see anywhere in Prager's article that suggests the point is based on whether or not the man insists. I think he's suggesting that the woman not even resist the advance just because she's not in the mood. At the same time, it does not preclude the possibility that the woman is NEVER to deny when she's not in the mood. It seems obvious his point concerns those who do it as a matter of routine, conceding only when everything's perfect in HER mind. That's called selfishness. And if, like Dcup (sheesh) suggests, if a woman must enjoy it everytime, selfish it is and again, she is unworthy of her spouse.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
The Real Challenge Of Christmas
For those who may not know it, we are still in the Christmas season. Today is day 11, with Epiphany, the Feast of the Magi, just around the corner. Thanks to some links and the courtesy of a friend, I found the following, a sermon preached on Christmas Eve in Oklahoma City:
Do we wish to face the stark reality that this moment of joy, this moment of peace, is the first step on the journey that leads to the place of the skull? To an ignominious death outside the city gates? Not just for Jesus, although for him certainly. This journey, this remembrance of the birth of the Savior, if it does not also bring about the recollection that we, too, are called to this journey, has not, yet, become fully real for us.
This is the challenge of Christmas, the dare, if you will, of God to all those who see this baby and rejoice in his birth. Are you willing, as all who follow are called to do, to bear your cross? Are you willing to embrace your own death, face squarely the reality that ours is a path of peace, to be sure, but a peace bought at a steep price? We recall Jesus' life, and death, and resurrection, his words, his healing, the loving care and frustration he directed at his disciples not because it offers some ideal we are to emulate. We recall Jesus' life, and death, and resurrection, his words, his healing, and all the rest because this is our journey. We are to be imitators of Christ, in the full knowledge that the Prince of Peace was brutally tortured, scorned, and died abandoned. Embracing the baby Jesus in the stable is not enough, unless we are willing to see the blood from his already wounded wrists on us, the mark of our salvation, the real blessing of Peace.
At Christmas, no less than any other time of year, as we recall the beginning of Jesus' life and ministry, we should remember that, having Jesus be born anew in us, marks us with the sign, not of a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes, but the sign of the cross, a cross from which flowed a fountain of blood (in the words of an old hymn). Before any of us get to comfortable with this whole "Christian" thing, I think recalling the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer are important - "When God calls a man, he bids him come and die."
Essential to our Christian understanding of the birth of Jesus is the claim that Christ is born anew in all of us as an on-going event in the history of creation. We who have vowed to follow Christ must also imitate and embody Christ. This is a daunting task. I wish I could say that it is easy, but it is not. We are called to be countercultural, and in no way more obvious than by taking the path of peace.
--snip--
But we know that this beautiful story will lead to the cross. The way of peace that we must imitate and embody as followers of Jesus is the way of the cross. We can courageously live out that adventure assured that the story doesn’t end with the cross, but continues through Resurrection and Pentecost. However, that confident, post-Easter hope does not remove the fact that the cross lies starkly in the path of peace that begins here on this Christmas Eve.
Do we wish to face the stark reality that this moment of joy, this moment of peace, is the first step on the journey that leads to the place of the skull? To an ignominious death outside the city gates? Not just for Jesus, although for him certainly. This journey, this remembrance of the birth of the Savior, if it does not also bring about the recollection that we, too, are called to this journey, has not, yet, become fully real for us.
This is the challenge of Christmas, the dare, if you will, of God to all those who see this baby and rejoice in his birth. Are you willing, as all who follow are called to do, to bear your cross? Are you willing to embrace your own death, face squarely the reality that ours is a path of peace, to be sure, but a peace bought at a steep price? We recall Jesus' life, and death, and resurrection, his words, his healing, the loving care and frustration he directed at his disciples not because it offers some ideal we are to emulate. We recall Jesus' life, and death, and resurrection, his words, his healing, and all the rest because this is our journey. We are to be imitators of Christ, in the full knowledge that the Prince of Peace was brutally tortured, scorned, and died abandoned. Embracing the baby Jesus in the stable is not enough, unless we are willing to see the blood from his already wounded wrists on us, the mark of our salvation, the real blessing of Peace.
At Christmas, no less than any other time of year, as we recall the beginning of Jesus' life and ministry, we should remember that, having Jesus be born anew in us, marks us with the sign, not of a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes, but the sign of the cross, a cross from which flowed a fountain of blood (in the words of an old hymn). Before any of us get to comfortable with this whole "Christian" thing, I think recalling the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer are important - "When God calls a man, he bids him come and die."
Love - Revising and Extending
I would like to take part of a comment and expand upon it a little.
In the context in which this comment was made - responding to my sister's claim that a certain song was "schmaltz", I think it is important to amplify this statement a bit. We, especially Americans, love love. That is to say, we are a hopelessly romantic people. We think there is something all warm and cozy about love. We do not fear it, but desire it above all other states.
There is much to recommend being in love. There are few states as filled with moments of wonder and rapture. Yet, if we were honest, we would also admit there are few states as dangerous to our very selves as being in love. To be in love, to really love another, one must first be willing, against all good sense, allow ourselves to be completely open, honest, and vulnerable with another human being as possible. Love is fraught with hazards, to which the phrase "broken heart" hardly does justice. People have been psychically destroyed by the end of a love affair. The betrayal of a loved one is far worse than any other emotional pain. It can leave a person worse than depressed; despair, destitution, violation - these and far more can result from a love betrayed, or even just collapsing.
I think remarking that a song expressing undying love is "schmaltzy" while it may be true, also is a kind of defensive ignorance. We are refusing to acknowledge the other side of such a declaration. Giving voice to such feelings runs the risk not only that they will be belittled; it also runs the risk that such openness will be rewarded with rejection, whether in the present or the future. Loving, like all of life, is a risk. It is the most dangerous risk we run. Love can bring life, it is true. Love that ends, however, that is betrayed, denied, or simply withers away over time, can destroy.
Falling in love, being in love - it's about the most threatening thing in the world. Making oneself completely open and vulnerable to another human being is the riskiest thing in the world. Wars have started because of love unrequited or gone awry. Love is about the most dangerous thing in the world. That's why I don't think it's schmaltzy. The real thing is a test of our strength; being able not only to feel this way, but to mean it - it entails the greatest threat and possibility of being fully human there is.
In the context in which this comment was made - responding to my sister's claim that a certain song was "schmaltz", I think it is important to amplify this statement a bit. We, especially Americans, love love. That is to say, we are a hopelessly romantic people. We think there is something all warm and cozy about love. We do not fear it, but desire it above all other states.
There is much to recommend being in love. There are few states as filled with moments of wonder and rapture. Yet, if we were honest, we would also admit there are few states as dangerous to our very selves as being in love. To be in love, to really love another, one must first be willing, against all good sense, allow ourselves to be completely open, honest, and vulnerable with another human being as possible. Love is fraught with hazards, to which the phrase "broken heart" hardly does justice. People have been psychically destroyed by the end of a love affair. The betrayal of a loved one is far worse than any other emotional pain. It can leave a person worse than depressed; despair, destitution, violation - these and far more can result from a love betrayed, or even just collapsing.
I think remarking that a song expressing undying love is "schmaltzy" while it may be true, also is a kind of defensive ignorance. We are refusing to acknowledge the other side of such a declaration. Giving voice to such feelings runs the risk not only that they will be belittled; it also runs the risk that such openness will be rewarded with rejection, whether in the present or the future. Loving, like all of life, is a risk. It is the most dangerous risk we run. Love can bring life, it is true. Love that ends, however, that is betrayed, denied, or simply withers away over time, can destroy.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Should
Feodor is lecturing me on what I should be doing and saying. I respond as follows:
There is something fortuitous about this exchange. My wife and I were having a discussion about our faiths a couple days ago, and I said that I find myself drifting more and more toward a kind of mystical faith. I no longer believe there is any "must", "should", or any kind of imperative with God. When St. Paul writes that we are freed for freedom's sake, I take him at his word.
Before anyone starts huffing and puffing about anti-nomianism, though, I think it is important to say a couple things. First, my position does not entail any lack of moral clarity, or a refusal to take an ethical stance. Rather, I refuse to draw any necessary conclusions between certain factual matters and any particular moral position an individual, of necessity, must or should hold. To take an example from recent controversy, Rick Warren sees no moral difference between being a gay man and being a pedophile. I happen to think this belief is wrong, and that by expressing his belief, Rick Warren is nothing more or less than a garden variety bigot. I do not think that Rick Warren will be damned to hell for all eternity for his assertions; I do not believe that I am a far more moral and ethically upstanding individual than Rick Warren because I do not believe the way he does. I acknowledge our differences, and find his lacking. I would and will argue to my dying day that I believe mine is a far more acceptable moral position, because it recognizes the fundamental humanity and dignity of sexual minorities. What I would never do, however, is insist that everyone else hold the exact same position I do, or claim that my own position is reflective of some inner necessity stemming from God's law or anything else. I do not think it necessary to insist one's moral reasoning is based in anything transcendent for it to be any less worthy of consideration, or worth fighting for.
When someone insists that there is a necessity in argumentation, either logical (Neil) or moral (Feodor), I have to wonder. Are they so unsure of their own beliefs, do they think God so fundamentally weak, they insist that others are either theologically confused or morally degenerate because these others do not believe and act as they do?
God's freedom, granted in grace, is the freedom to be who we are before God and the rest of creation. It is a challenge lived out in faith and humility. I wouldn't surrender this freedom to any necessity whatsoever, including the necessity of human reason or moral clarity.
God offers us a more abundant life. I guess I just take God's Word on this issue.
I don't believe the word "should" applies to anyone, least of all me.
There is something fortuitous about this exchange. My wife and I were having a discussion about our faiths a couple days ago, and I said that I find myself drifting more and more toward a kind of mystical faith. I no longer believe there is any "must", "should", or any kind of imperative with God. When St. Paul writes that we are freed for freedom's sake, I take him at his word.
Before anyone starts huffing and puffing about anti-nomianism, though, I think it is important to say a couple things. First, my position does not entail any lack of moral clarity, or a refusal to take an ethical stance. Rather, I refuse to draw any necessary conclusions between certain factual matters and any particular moral position an individual, of necessity, must or should hold. To take an example from recent controversy, Rick Warren sees no moral difference between being a gay man and being a pedophile. I happen to think this belief is wrong, and that by expressing his belief, Rick Warren is nothing more or less than a garden variety bigot. I do not think that Rick Warren will be damned to hell for all eternity for his assertions; I do not believe that I am a far more moral and ethically upstanding individual than Rick Warren because I do not believe the way he does. I acknowledge our differences, and find his lacking. I would and will argue to my dying day that I believe mine is a far more acceptable moral position, because it recognizes the fundamental humanity and dignity of sexual minorities. What I would never do, however, is insist that everyone else hold the exact same position I do, or claim that my own position is reflective of some inner necessity stemming from God's law or anything else. I do not think it necessary to insist one's moral reasoning is based in anything transcendent for it to be any less worthy of consideration, or worth fighting for.
When someone insists that there is a necessity in argumentation, either logical (Neil) or moral (Feodor), I have to wonder. Are they so unsure of their own beliefs, do they think God so fundamentally weak, they insist that others are either theologically confused or morally degenerate because these others do not believe and act as they do?
God's freedom, granted in grace, is the freedom to be who we are before God and the rest of creation. It is a challenge lived out in faith and humility. I wouldn't surrender this freedom to any necessity whatsoever, including the necessity of human reason or moral clarity.
God offers us a more abundant life. I guess I just take God's Word on this issue.
Saturday Rock Show
My friend Jim Bush-Resko sent me a wonderful music care package, including Blue Oyster Cult's Extra-Terrestrial Live, some MP3s from "The Garage Files", a Chinese animated film for my daughters, and a recording of a Living Colour concert. It was from a show Jim attended at the Ritz in NYC in 1989. All I can say, after hearing this show was, "Wow". It is nonstop, and reminds me what potential they had before, like many groups, they went down the road of acrimony and petty infighting. Vernon Reid is one of the great guitarists of all time. Their rhythm section just rocked it. This is "Open Letter To A Landlord"
Friday, January 02, 2009
My Favorite
Cause I feel like it, I'm going to put up a video of my all-time, favorite love song. Could someone, preferably Alan, because he is in to this stuff, tell me what Sci Fi Network show the video clips are from, and who is that actress? Anyway, if you want to know the song and artist, ask. Otherwise, I'm figuring you should know.
Where Angels Fear
I am always reticent to write about the state of Israel. No matter what one says, one runs the risk of (a) attracting spam commenters who insist that Israel is behind every sinister plot to destroy the United States, even 9/11; (b) that my evident anti-Semitism leaks out of every syllable I have typed, even if I have written something positive; (c) getting in to stupid side arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand (usually involving (a) and (b)). Yet, it seems Israel is intent on doing the same stupid thing it had done repeatedly over the past twenty years, viz., when it realizes there is a serious power vacuum in the United States and that it will thus face no serious consequences, it goes about killing Palestinians indiscriminately. Not only is such action immoral on its face, it is counter-productive to the stated aims of Israeli governments since the mid-1970's, which is a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the original inhabitants of the land now known as the State of Israel.
Every time Israel does this, someone somewhere starts yakking about "the peace process", as if there actually were such a thing. The last time there was a chance was the tail-end of Bill Clinton's Presidency. There have been conflicting reports on what happened at the talks among Clinton, Arafat, and Ehud Barak, but the usual suspects ended any chance: the right of return and the status of Jerusalem in particular. I can understand the question of the right of return; Israel kicked all these people out of their homes, confiscated the property, and allowed Israeli citizens to move in. The process of "return" would end up with a mess of civil law suits, if nothing else. As far as the status of the city of Jerusalem is concerned, it seems to me the international community could deal with that rather easily. Legally, the city is divided between the State of Israel, and the occupied West Bank which was originally Jordanian territory. It seems to me that making Jerusalem a Free City - existing outside any State boundaries, administered via the UN through a mayor drawn from the international community, with rules regarding the rights of all religious inhabitants access to their Holy sites - might do quite well, even if it did upset just about everyone at first.
In any event, the latest Israeli stupidity and atrocity will have the same result as all the rest of them. A whole lot of Palestinians will die; Israel will be roundly, and justifiably, condemned by most of the rest of the world, while defended by the United States; the Palestinians will become even more defiant, starting yet another round of mutual killing; the Israelis will whine about how stubborn and recalcitrant the Palestinian people are; yadda-yadda-yadda.
There is no military resolution to the conflict. There is no reason for the Israeli action, as it will only result in further reducing the possibility of an achievable settlement in the near future. American encouragement, usually couched in terms at once ignorant and strident, only aids and abets the basic criminality and futility of Israeli military action, which is always - ALWAYS ALWAYS - counter-productive.
I think I've said enough now.
Every time Israel does this, someone somewhere starts yakking about "the peace process", as if there actually were such a thing. The last time there was a chance was the tail-end of Bill Clinton's Presidency. There have been conflicting reports on what happened at the talks among Clinton, Arafat, and Ehud Barak, but the usual suspects ended any chance: the right of return and the status of Jerusalem in particular. I can understand the question of the right of return; Israel kicked all these people out of their homes, confiscated the property, and allowed Israeli citizens to move in. The process of "return" would end up with a mess of civil law suits, if nothing else. As far as the status of the city of Jerusalem is concerned, it seems to me the international community could deal with that rather easily. Legally, the city is divided between the State of Israel, and the occupied West Bank which was originally Jordanian territory. It seems to me that making Jerusalem a Free City - existing outside any State boundaries, administered via the UN through a mayor drawn from the international community, with rules regarding the rights of all religious inhabitants access to their Holy sites - might do quite well, even if it did upset just about everyone at first.
In any event, the latest Israeli stupidity and atrocity will have the same result as all the rest of them. A whole lot of Palestinians will die; Israel will be roundly, and justifiably, condemned by most of the rest of the world, while defended by the United States; the Palestinians will become even more defiant, starting yet another round of mutual killing; the Israelis will whine about how stubborn and recalcitrant the Palestinian people are; yadda-yadda-yadda.
There is no military resolution to the conflict. There is no reason for the Israeli action, as it will only result in further reducing the possibility of an achievable settlement in the near future. American encouragement, usually couched in terms at once ignorant and strident, only aids and abets the basic criminality and futility of Israeli military action, which is always - ALWAYS ALWAYS - counter-productive.
I think I've said enough now.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Beginnings And Endings
Happy 2009, to all and each!
ER got me thinking about the plethora of apocalyptic warnings in Christian garb out there, which takes me back to my youth, and the presence of a single and singular "book" that ushered in an entire "new way" of looking at the world. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth is without a doubt one of the biggest bits of garbage spewed out of "Christian book stores", and it certainly has set back an understanding of the last book of the New Testament by about 1400 years. None of this is to say that dire predictions of the end of the planet at the hands of an angry, blood-lusting God and warrior Jesus are new; historian Norman Cohn has written several works on the variety of apocalyptic cults in the late medieval and early modern eras. Even Martin Luther, who was not keen on the Book of Revelation, nevertheless keenly anticipated the imminent return of Jesus, and was eager to participate in battle with his personal nemesis, Satan. Apparently, tossing shit at the Prince of Light (it wasn't an inkwell, folks; Luther was a crude individual) only whetted his appetite for battle.
Of course, Lindsey's rueful consideration on the destruction of God's creation was popular because it was a "religious" version of many of the kinds of scenarios we were living with. Nuclear destruction, environmental degradation, the breakdown of the social contract over women's rights, civil rights for African-Americans, a birthing gay right's movement, the ubiquitous presence of urban unrest and an exploding crime rate - they all seemed to be signs of an unraveling. Lindsey merely provided one possible context for understanding this unraveling.
Fast forward, and these same ideas are still with us. They always will be (I think Cohn is correct that as long as there are marginalized populations with the ability to misinterpret the Bible, there will always be a projected hope of Divine revenge upon those who thwart the hopes and destroy the lives of society's cast-offs). Yet, I think we are sitting, not on the brink of The Battle for Megiddo (a cross roads of sorts where various trading roads met; this was the place where the final Epic Battle was to take place, allegedly), but perhaps moving towards some moments, if not of the Final Peace, certainly a measure of reconciliation and a renewed sense of national unity. We are 19 days away from the first Obama Administration. The new Congress will be seated, I believe, next week. Within a few days, a huge influx of public works projects, all sorts of money and opportunities for turning the country around will be passed and passed out. Even though we are facing dire economic times, there is the possibility that, having people in positions of authority who actually know what they are doing, and understand that policy is the end of politics, not an adjunct to it, we might actually weather this storm pretty well.
Yes, Israel is once again in the business of killing Palestinians for no real political, strategic, or even tactical purpose or gain. The Russians are awaking, which might just be a good thing. We are emerging from our national dream of being the world's only juggernaut to face the reality that we are not trusted, not listened to, and other nations once considered risible on the international stage - India in particular - have both the ability and flexibility to insist on being heard. The world is always a far more complicated place than the dreams of imperial conquerors, and that's all to the good. Much better to relinquish the desire to lead the world than to ruin it out of a combination of hubris and incompetence.
I believe with all my heart that 2009, despite all the rumblings of bad economic news and the desire among the vast majority of Americans for George W. Bush and his gang of idiots to just go away and disappear in to the dustbin of history, will be a great year. I believe we will surprise ourselves as a nation, as a people, as those who can tough it out, and make ourselves better by, perhaps, learning our greatness does not come from our military might, or our industrial prowess. Rather, my hope for 2009 is that we learn that we are great because of our Constitution. I hope we no longer see enemies in dark faces and strange names and different beliefs.
The past year was historic. It may have been, as the saying goes, prologue for what is to come. May we face it together in real hope, without fear, and always ready to have a laugh at our own absurdity.
ER got me thinking about the plethora of apocalyptic warnings in Christian garb out there, which takes me back to my youth, and the presence of a single and singular "book" that ushered in an entire "new way" of looking at the world. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth is without a doubt one of the biggest bits of garbage spewed out of "Christian book stores", and it certainly has set back an understanding of the last book of the New Testament by about 1400 years. None of this is to say that dire predictions of the end of the planet at the hands of an angry, blood-lusting God and warrior Jesus are new; historian Norman Cohn has written several works on the variety of apocalyptic cults in the late medieval and early modern eras. Even Martin Luther, who was not keen on the Book of Revelation, nevertheless keenly anticipated the imminent return of Jesus, and was eager to participate in battle with his personal nemesis, Satan. Apparently, tossing shit at the Prince of Light (it wasn't an inkwell, folks; Luther was a crude individual) only whetted his appetite for battle.
Of course, Lindsey's rueful consideration on the destruction of God's creation was popular because it was a "religious" version of many of the kinds of scenarios we were living with. Nuclear destruction, environmental degradation, the breakdown of the social contract over women's rights, civil rights for African-Americans, a birthing gay right's movement, the ubiquitous presence of urban unrest and an exploding crime rate - they all seemed to be signs of an unraveling. Lindsey merely provided one possible context for understanding this unraveling.
Fast forward, and these same ideas are still with us. They always will be (I think Cohn is correct that as long as there are marginalized populations with the ability to misinterpret the Bible, there will always be a projected hope of Divine revenge upon those who thwart the hopes and destroy the lives of society's cast-offs). Yet, I think we are sitting, not on the brink of The Battle for Megiddo (a cross roads of sorts where various trading roads met; this was the place where the final Epic Battle was to take place, allegedly), but perhaps moving towards some moments, if not of the Final Peace, certainly a measure of reconciliation and a renewed sense of national unity. We are 19 days away from the first Obama Administration. The new Congress will be seated, I believe, next week. Within a few days, a huge influx of public works projects, all sorts of money and opportunities for turning the country around will be passed and passed out. Even though we are facing dire economic times, there is the possibility that, having people in positions of authority who actually know what they are doing, and understand that policy is the end of politics, not an adjunct to it, we might actually weather this storm pretty well.
Yes, Israel is once again in the business of killing Palestinians for no real political, strategic, or even tactical purpose or gain. The Russians are awaking, which might just be a good thing. We are emerging from our national dream of being the world's only juggernaut to face the reality that we are not trusted, not listened to, and other nations once considered risible on the international stage - India in particular - have both the ability and flexibility to insist on being heard. The world is always a far more complicated place than the dreams of imperial conquerors, and that's all to the good. Much better to relinquish the desire to lead the world than to ruin it out of a combination of hubris and incompetence.
I believe with all my heart that 2009, despite all the rumblings of bad economic news and the desire among the vast majority of Americans for George W. Bush and his gang of idiots to just go away and disappear in to the dustbin of history, will be a great year. I believe we will surprise ourselves as a nation, as a people, as those who can tough it out, and make ourselves better by, perhaps, learning our greatness does not come from our military might, or our industrial prowess. Rather, my hope for 2009 is that we learn that we are great because of our Constitution. I hope we no longer see enemies in dark faces and strange names and different beliefs.
The past year was historic. It may have been, as the saying goes, prologue for what is to come. May we face it together in real hope, without fear, and always ready to have a laugh at our own absurdity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
