N.B.: This is a far more thoughtful response to Feodor's complaint about my remarks concerning Marcel Proust. If this doesn't satisfy him, well, I'll buy him a subscription to Dissent.
One point George Scialabba made last evening with which I profoundly disagree (for obvious reasons) is the effect of the internet on literacy. I find this odd, in particular, since so much of what happens on the internet has to be read. Perhaps a better way of putting it, or perhaps this is what he meant, is the decline of a particular type of literate culture that, indeed, has been in decline for a few decades, and lamented by conservative intellectuals for quite some time.
Much of the ballyhoo in higher ed over curriculum reform, emerging canons versus older canons, and what not seem to me to be, at least in part, a contest over what constitutes a literate person. For decades, there was an agreed-upon understanding, if not definition, that a literate person was one who could converse knowledgeably about particular pieces of fiction - Proust, Faulkner, Joyce - that constituted a particular modernist narrative about western society and its discontents. As time went on, and more and more literature from around the world became available, it was obvious that this particular set of writings was inadequate to describe an understanding of the world that purported to be cosmopolitan and open. Whether it was emerging writers such as John Barth, Philip Roth, or even Norman Mailer (late editions to that original canon in most places); to African-American writers such as Langston Hughes, Zora Neil Hurston, the poet Countee Cullen, and Toni Morrison; to non-western authors including Chinua Achebe, Vikram Seth, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez; the pressure to include voices that were strange, occasionally non-English-speaking, and offered a perspective that was both different and illuminating increased.
With the advent of the internet, the opportunity for exposure to voices and sources outside what is considered acceptable increased exponentially. While it is always necessary to have cultural gate-keepers whose task is to sift through the mass of writings, both popular and literary, to find those nuggets that are truly worth keeping, the possibilities of exposure to all sorts of ways of looking at the world has democratized in a way that makes it much more difficult for those who see their task as holding the gates against the culture-Philistines.
All the same, I believe that the whole idea, what it means to be a literate individual, has been and continues to undergo a change. I believe that relieving ourselves of an ossified, strictly enforced canon of works defined as "literate" is a good thing. I do not for one moment believe this means we as a culture are, somehow, becoming more stupid. On the contrary, all it means is that we are constantly re-evaluating what it means to be literate and, therefore, the sources for understanding what that means, who we are, how we understand ourselves, is evolving. The change isn't a vertical one, from more to less intelligent and thoughtful. The change is horizontal, or perhaps a change of set. We are merely moving from this set of understandings to that set, without, in the process, losing any intellectual heft.
Part of the problem with the old canon, as I see it, is its narrow focus. While modernism was in full swing, these works were not just important; they were necessary for any understanding of the world beyond one's own very limited vision. As the ability to reach beyond the boundaries of the west opened our collective ears to voices as yet unheard, many of the ideas that shaped our sense of ourselves as a unified, even unitary culture, began to break down.
This is not to say that more contemporary, or non-Western, writers are better or worse. The only way to evaluate that is on the merits. This is not to denigrate any particular author, or set of authors. It is, rather, to ask the vitally important question - Who are we? How do we see ourselves? What is important to us? As the answers to these questions change, so, too, the sources that give us clues to those answers. This process is one that is necessarily in flux.
I was far too flip, and insulting, in a recent comment on the novelist Marcel Proust. In the process, I violated one of my own rules - I made a particularly personal point-of-view something far more than just a personal observation. I, therefore, apologize for that particular bit of childishness. While I cannot, for the life of me, crack the nut of Proust's narrative style, I would never deny his importance as a figure in western literary culture.
It is, however, necessary to ask the question, without making it facile, of the relevance of this particular, almost quintessentially modernist author. If the answer is that reading Proust is still necessary to get a grip on who we are (it is without a doubt necessary for an understanding of who we were at one time), then I would insist that he be read. Along with Anthills of the Savannah.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Making Connections
Last evening, I attended a lecture given by George Scialabba. One of the great highlights for me was meeting, in person, a thoughtful historian and dedicated progressive, Rick Perlstein. The most amazing part of the evening, however, was the invitation to join Rick, George, and a few others for a late dinner at Mazza's, a Lebanese restaurant on Lincoln Ave. Besides the excellent food - the best baklava I have ever had, a lentil soup and stuffed zucchini that were to die for - I also had the pleasure of sitting and chatting not only with Rick, but with Jeff Kelly Lowenstein and his lovely, charming wife.
The night was amazing for any number of reasons, not the least of them being the more than occasional glance down the table when I realized I was sitting and chatting and having dinner with Rick Perlstein. Easy-going, not at all affected by his position as an emerging, important figure in left-wing intellectual circles, it was a thrill and honor not only to have met him, but to be accepted by him and a small group of folks whose lives revolve around two things that matter most to me - ideas, and liberal politics.
It was this human connection, far beyond any topic we discussed - which ranged mostly across issues of who we were, what our lives were like, very much "getting to know you" kinds of things - it was this human connection that was most important. I feel very privileged to have been with that small group in that very dark restaurant last evening. Especially since the early-evening Chicago traffic made me extremely late for the lecture itself.
Oh, yeah, there is that $50 parking ticket, too. . .
The night was amazing for any number of reasons, not the least of them being the more than occasional glance down the table when I realized I was sitting and chatting and having dinner with Rick Perlstein. Easy-going, not at all affected by his position as an emerging, important figure in left-wing intellectual circles, it was a thrill and honor not only to have met him, but to be accepted by him and a small group of folks whose lives revolve around two things that matter most to me - ideas, and liberal politics.
It was this human connection, far beyond any topic we discussed - which ranged mostly across issues of who we were, what our lives were like, very much "getting to know you" kinds of things - it was this human connection that was most important. I feel very privileged to have been with that small group in that very dark restaurant last evening. Especially since the early-evening Chicago traffic made me extremely late for the lecture itself.
Oh, yeah, there is that $50 parking ticket, too. . .
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Reconcilable Differences
Tomorrow evening, I am going to Chicago to hear George Scialabba talk about his new book, What Are Intellectuals Good For?, where I hope to meet in person Rick Perlstein (I hope I don't stutter or go on and on . . .) and the author/speaker, get an autograph and a photo or two, and generally have a nice evening away. In a symposium at the website CrookedTimber on the book (a collection of review essays), one respondent notes that Scialabba dedicates the book to Noam Chomsky, Richard Rorty, and Christopher Lasch. To anyone even remotely familiar with the work of these three, this might seem an odd combination. Funny enough, when I read that the author had dedicated his work to these three I thought, "Wow, someone like me!" I cannot imagine three more disparate American thinkers; I cannot imagine three more important late-20th century American critics who are in need of more, rather than less, public acclaim and discussion.
As Henry notes in his response:
It is right here - this very usefulness that is important (how pragmatic of him to use such a turn of phrase . . .)
I think it important, if for no other reason than clarity, to point out that these three, along with Isaiah Berlin, have been formative for my own thinking as well. Adding Berlin should probably only confuse those who might try to understand, so I am going to try and, briefly, explain what I take from these four men, and what I leave behind, as a way of reconciling what seems irreconcilable.
I'll start with Berlin, my addition to the Trinity named by Scialabba. First and foremost, from Berlin I gained an appreciation for lost narratives, specifically those of the early Romanticist thinker Johann Herder and the Italian historian Giambattista Vico. There are many points with which I disagree with Berlin, not the least of them being his reading of Edmund Burke (and I find it ironic that I find Herder, especially, far more "mystical" in his thinking than Burke; here, I believe, Berlin has it exactly backwards). More importantly, I discovered a way of talking about liberalism and pluralism that is honest, vigorous, and above all, modest in its insistence on refusing to surrender to the complaints of those who denounce such thinking as "relativism". One can appreciate the magnificent variety of choices available to human beings for living a fully human life without losing the capacity for critical judgment about the differences among these various ways of living. Precisely in recognizing the historically conditioned nature of human existence, that it might be otherwise than it is, we are free to be critical without dehumanizing those whose lives are utterly different from our own. The freedom from the burden of the high moral ground offered here is immense.
From Lasch, I came to appreciate the power of cultural criticism from the left that, in many ways, is even more fiercely moral and vigorous than anything on the right. While in many ways Lasch became far more reactionary as he got older (Revolt of the Elites, his last, unfinished work, is far less a book "of the left" than, say, The Culture of Narcissism or even The True and Only Heaven), his point of departure was always an attempt to clarify a vision of American society as not so much decadent as it is spent of those values that, at one time, made it not just vigorous and prosperous, but far less hubristic and unsure of itself. While the criticisms of Lasch offered by Rich Yeselson are spot on, they do not rob Lasch of his importance as a social critic. While Lasch's became less afraid to voice a more retrograde point-of-view, at all times his criticism was based in a fierce moral vision of late capitalism robbing American society of values that made it a good place to live; the values it set forth for alternatives, rather than granting opportunities for an even more thoroughly moral life, eviscerate any possibility for a common, and communal, moral life. Indeed, any moral vocabulary becomes impossible with the increasingly totalitarian insistence of capitalism.
I read somewhere once (I wish I could remember all the references in my head) that most leftists go through a "Chomsky" phase; most are fortunate enough to pass through it and leave it behind. I, therefore, feel myself pretty fortunate. From his earliest political writing - American Power and the New Mandarins - through his many and oddly similar works on American foreign policy under the Bush's and Clinton, Chomsky single point of departure is the difference between the publicly stated goals of American foreign policy and the actual content, not to mention results, of those policies. Like many on the left, what I found initially satisfying about Chomsky was finding someone who could write intelligently about American imperial ambitions without apologizing for them. What I found increasingly frustrating about Chomsky in his later work was the obvious frustration and crankiness of his voice. It seems that nearly forty years shouting in the wilderness has rendered him not only less effective as an American Jeremiah, but bitter that he is far too often dismissed as a crank and even (on occasion by mainstream critics who haven't read his work) a conspiracy monger. My own point of departure for both appreciating Chomsky, and limiting that appreciation, is the inaugural essay in a late-70's collection of his entitled Towards A New Cold War. In introductory remarks, and by way of background, Chomsky discusses a policy white paper issued toward the end of WWII that set forth, in some general terms, how American foreign policy should develop over the ensuing decades that would be, for all intents and purposes, dominated by an America unrestrained by foreign powers of near-equal status. What I found in reading Chomsky's precis of this document, and his explication of the ways it determined American policy was how unremarkable it was. Of course a country emerging not only victorious but comparatively unscathed from a major war is going to move forward to exert all sorts of new power to its advantage. Of course the multiple confluences of interest between the ruling class and the monied class in America, at a time of unrivaled American hegemony, is going to produce not only staggering examples of hubris, but all sorts of clear cases of our policy being determined by the interests of that class with the most invested in the on-going success of our hegemonic policies. This fact, filled in with all sorts of historical detail, isn't about conspiracy, but rather, as I say, shared interest, based on an understanding of foreign policy as forwarding American interests abroad, however these are defined.
Finally we come to Richard Rorty. The most important perspective I gained from reading Rorty is humility. By removing philosophy from its throne as judge and jury over such matters as truth, goodness, and beauty, Rorty frees philosophy from the self-imposed burden of being the final voice on matters for which it is ill-equipped. What I get from his is an almost anti-philosophical humility, a sense of the embededdness of philosophy in history, as thought that is historically conditioned, rooted in specific individuals writing in specific times and circumstances, addressing specific issues, rather than - as one of my professors at the Catholic University of America said of Aristotle - someone writing for the ages. While Rorty disdains any kind of moral judgment; while he dismisses religion despite its refusal to disappear as an agent of historical activity; while he is far less hopeful for the prospects of the American project (despite the title of his last collection of essays being Philosophy and Social Hope); despite these misgivings, I was and am quite pleased to have read Rorty because, by dethroning philosophy as the ultimate determinate of human activity, we are freed from the seeming necessity of giving some kind of trans-historical, and largely fictive, explanation as to why, for example, science works so well, or human communities act the way they do. Rather, we can accept that science works so well because it works, for the most part, the way it is supposed to work. Nothing remarkable about that. As a tool, language is imperfect not because there is something we don't understand about language, but because it is nothing more than sounds we make or marks we make, and those sounds and marks mean different things to different people. Nothing unremarkable about that.
In many ways, what unites these four men for me is a sense that the world they are describing is far less occluded than we would otherwise think it is, or perhaps believe it should be. While there is, certainly, an insistence that their perspective allows an entry to understanding that is superior to others, the end result is one that demystifies the world, renders it intelligible on its own terms without recourse to any kind of a priori metanarrative. It also removes human thought and agency from any kind of central role in the universe, as final arbiter of defining, for all time, what it means to be human, to be American, to be a moral agent or community. One need not insist on the singularity of one's vision, or its groundedness in some occult thing called human nature, in order to give voice to one's passionate belief that ours is a world that could be better than it is. We need not dehumanize those whose vision and beliefs are different from ours precisely because their vision, their belief, is no less human than our own. It is just different. We can reject it, even call it out as a source of misery, without losing a sense of the limit of any moral judgment precisely because our perspective is rooted not in timeless values or eternal truths, but our own perspective, our own sense of shared interest and shared values.
Nothing remarkable about any of this.
As Henry notes in his response:
[W]hat philosophy on earth might possibly unite these three? The careful reader will at least be able to discern the outlines of an answer to this question when she finishes reading this book. While this answer is not as much an abstract philosophy, as a carefully elaborated set of political and critical judgments, which are both attractive and useful.
It is right here - this very usefulness that is important (how pragmatic of him to use such a turn of phrase . . .)
I think it important, if for no other reason than clarity, to point out that these three, along with Isaiah Berlin, have been formative for my own thinking as well. Adding Berlin should probably only confuse those who might try to understand, so I am going to try and, briefly, explain what I take from these four men, and what I leave behind, as a way of reconciling what seems irreconcilable.
I'll start with Berlin, my addition to the Trinity named by Scialabba. First and foremost, from Berlin I gained an appreciation for lost narratives, specifically those of the early Romanticist thinker Johann Herder and the Italian historian Giambattista Vico. There are many points with which I disagree with Berlin, not the least of them being his reading of Edmund Burke (and I find it ironic that I find Herder, especially, far more "mystical" in his thinking than Burke; here, I believe, Berlin has it exactly backwards). More importantly, I discovered a way of talking about liberalism and pluralism that is honest, vigorous, and above all, modest in its insistence on refusing to surrender to the complaints of those who denounce such thinking as "relativism". One can appreciate the magnificent variety of choices available to human beings for living a fully human life without losing the capacity for critical judgment about the differences among these various ways of living. Precisely in recognizing the historically conditioned nature of human existence, that it might be otherwise than it is, we are free to be critical without dehumanizing those whose lives are utterly different from our own. The freedom from the burden of the high moral ground offered here is immense.
From Lasch, I came to appreciate the power of cultural criticism from the left that, in many ways, is even more fiercely moral and vigorous than anything on the right. While in many ways Lasch became far more reactionary as he got older (Revolt of the Elites, his last, unfinished work, is far less a book "of the left" than, say, The Culture of Narcissism or even The True and Only Heaven), his point of departure was always an attempt to clarify a vision of American society as not so much decadent as it is spent of those values that, at one time, made it not just vigorous and prosperous, but far less hubristic and unsure of itself. While the criticisms of Lasch offered by Rich Yeselson are spot on, they do not rob Lasch of his importance as a social critic. While Lasch's became less afraid to voice a more retrograde point-of-view, at all times his criticism was based in a fierce moral vision of late capitalism robbing American society of values that made it a good place to live; the values it set forth for alternatives, rather than granting opportunities for an even more thoroughly moral life, eviscerate any possibility for a common, and communal, moral life. Indeed, any moral vocabulary becomes impossible with the increasingly totalitarian insistence of capitalism.
I read somewhere once (I wish I could remember all the references in my head) that most leftists go through a "Chomsky" phase; most are fortunate enough to pass through it and leave it behind. I, therefore, feel myself pretty fortunate. From his earliest political writing - American Power and the New Mandarins - through his many and oddly similar works on American foreign policy under the Bush's and Clinton, Chomsky single point of departure is the difference between the publicly stated goals of American foreign policy and the actual content, not to mention results, of those policies. Like many on the left, what I found initially satisfying about Chomsky was finding someone who could write intelligently about American imperial ambitions without apologizing for them. What I found increasingly frustrating about Chomsky in his later work was the obvious frustration and crankiness of his voice. It seems that nearly forty years shouting in the wilderness has rendered him not only less effective as an American Jeremiah, but bitter that he is far too often dismissed as a crank and even (on occasion by mainstream critics who haven't read his work) a conspiracy monger. My own point of departure for both appreciating Chomsky, and limiting that appreciation, is the inaugural essay in a late-70's collection of his entitled Towards A New Cold War. In introductory remarks, and by way of background, Chomsky discusses a policy white paper issued toward the end of WWII that set forth, in some general terms, how American foreign policy should develop over the ensuing decades that would be, for all intents and purposes, dominated by an America unrestrained by foreign powers of near-equal status. What I found in reading Chomsky's precis of this document, and his explication of the ways it determined American policy was how unremarkable it was. Of course a country emerging not only victorious but comparatively unscathed from a major war is going to move forward to exert all sorts of new power to its advantage. Of course the multiple confluences of interest between the ruling class and the monied class in America, at a time of unrivaled American hegemony, is going to produce not only staggering examples of hubris, but all sorts of clear cases of our policy being determined by the interests of that class with the most invested in the on-going success of our hegemonic policies. This fact, filled in with all sorts of historical detail, isn't about conspiracy, but rather, as I say, shared interest, based on an understanding of foreign policy as forwarding American interests abroad, however these are defined.
Finally we come to Richard Rorty. The most important perspective I gained from reading Rorty is humility. By removing philosophy from its throne as judge and jury over such matters as truth, goodness, and beauty, Rorty frees philosophy from the self-imposed burden of being the final voice on matters for which it is ill-equipped. What I get from his is an almost anti-philosophical humility, a sense of the embededdness of philosophy in history, as thought that is historically conditioned, rooted in specific individuals writing in specific times and circumstances, addressing specific issues, rather than - as one of my professors at the Catholic University of America said of Aristotle - someone writing for the ages. While Rorty disdains any kind of moral judgment; while he dismisses religion despite its refusal to disappear as an agent of historical activity; while he is far less hopeful for the prospects of the American project (despite the title of his last collection of essays being Philosophy and Social Hope); despite these misgivings, I was and am quite pleased to have read Rorty because, by dethroning philosophy as the ultimate determinate of human activity, we are freed from the seeming necessity of giving some kind of trans-historical, and largely fictive, explanation as to why, for example, science works so well, or human communities act the way they do. Rather, we can accept that science works so well because it works, for the most part, the way it is supposed to work. Nothing remarkable about that. As a tool, language is imperfect not because there is something we don't understand about language, but because it is nothing more than sounds we make or marks we make, and those sounds and marks mean different things to different people. Nothing unremarkable about that.
In many ways, what unites these four men for me is a sense that the world they are describing is far less occluded than we would otherwise think it is, or perhaps believe it should be. While there is, certainly, an insistence that their perspective allows an entry to understanding that is superior to others, the end result is one that demystifies the world, renders it intelligible on its own terms without recourse to any kind of a priori metanarrative. It also removes human thought and agency from any kind of central role in the universe, as final arbiter of defining, for all time, what it means to be human, to be American, to be a moral agent or community. One need not insist on the singularity of one's vision, or its groundedness in some occult thing called human nature, in order to give voice to one's passionate belief that ours is a world that could be better than it is. We need not dehumanize those whose vision and beliefs are different from ours precisely because their vision, their belief, is no less human than our own. It is just different. We can reject it, even call it out as a source of misery, without losing a sense of the limit of any moral judgment precisely because our perspective is rooted not in timeless values or eternal truths, but our own perspective, our own sense of shared interest and shared values.
Nothing remarkable about any of this.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Same As The Old Boss
I've been attempting, without much success, to avoid anything having to do with the roll-out of Sarah Palin 2.0. Like the New Nixon, the New Palin is the same as the old Palin, sans official title or base of public support apart from some on the right.
Last year during the Presidential election, I made it a point not to discuss the various tawdry and tabloid exploits of her family; to avoid nicknames such as Caribou Barbie; to steer clear, in essence, from anything other than her public positions on issues of national import.
This made for short posts.
Like Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzlbacher, Palin is another mindless doofus foisted on America by the McCain campaign in its futile effort to connect with the American people. That the Republican Party might just tear itself to shreds over the former governor of Alaska and her aspirations for what would likely be a temporary stint in higher office is actually quite funny. She is revealing herself as a shallow, largely ignorant pageant contestant bewildered by the fact that all her alleged charm and obvious good looks haven't wowed her critics. She seems even more befuddled that some of the judges turn thumbs down precisely on those characteristics that, in all likelihood, helped her out in the past.
The nice thing that all this media attention is doing is reminding us that, like the New Nixon, there really isn't a New Palin. There's just Sarah, with her bundle of catch phrases and prejudices, her refusal to admit that her entrance in to our national life is a stain that needs to be cleansed, rather than a moment to be celebrated. All that she represents, all she embodies, are the end result of all the contradictions within the conservative movement, visible at its dawning, pointed out at its zenith in the early 1980's, that have now rent it limb from limb.
While I understand why David Brooks and other thoughtful conservatives might be horrified at the thought that she might well be the Republican candidate in 2012, the sad truth is she is really all they have. That there is no "there" there is plain for all to see. Her rejection by the vast majority of the American people will only be a badge of honor for her supporters, who revel in their marginalization as a sign they are the tattered remnants of the faithful, the last vestiges of "real America" overwhelmed by a tsunami of political liberalism and cultural laxity.
She is, in many ways, the William Jennings Bryan of the Republicans in decline, without Bryan's many meritorious qualities. She even has this in common with Bryan - she left office before her term was up. As Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State, Bryan quit because he detected, correctly, that Wilson was moving toward a more confrontational stance with Germany that could only lead to war. Palin left office in Juneau because . . . well, to my mind, because having someone ghost-write a book about her, making a lot of money, and getting her face on TV probably seemed more attractive than all that governing stuff.
Last year during the Presidential election, I made it a point not to discuss the various tawdry and tabloid exploits of her family; to avoid nicknames such as Caribou Barbie; to steer clear, in essence, from anything other than her public positions on issues of national import.
This made for short posts.
Like Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzlbacher, Palin is another mindless doofus foisted on America by the McCain campaign in its futile effort to connect with the American people. That the Republican Party might just tear itself to shreds over the former governor of Alaska and her aspirations for what would likely be a temporary stint in higher office is actually quite funny. She is revealing herself as a shallow, largely ignorant pageant contestant bewildered by the fact that all her alleged charm and obvious good looks haven't wowed her critics. She seems even more befuddled that some of the judges turn thumbs down precisely on those characteristics that, in all likelihood, helped her out in the past.
The nice thing that all this media attention is doing is reminding us that, like the New Nixon, there really isn't a New Palin. There's just Sarah, with her bundle of catch phrases and prejudices, her refusal to admit that her entrance in to our national life is a stain that needs to be cleansed, rather than a moment to be celebrated. All that she represents, all she embodies, are the end result of all the contradictions within the conservative movement, visible at its dawning, pointed out at its zenith in the early 1980's, that have now rent it limb from limb.
While I understand why David Brooks and other thoughtful conservatives might be horrified at the thought that she might well be the Republican candidate in 2012, the sad truth is she is really all they have. That there is no "there" there is plain for all to see. Her rejection by the vast majority of the American people will only be a badge of honor for her supporters, who revel in their marginalization as a sign they are the tattered remnants of the faithful, the last vestiges of "real America" overwhelmed by a tsunami of political liberalism and cultural laxity.
She is, in many ways, the William Jennings Bryan of the Republicans in decline, without Bryan's many meritorious qualities. She even has this in common with Bryan - she left office before her term was up. As Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State, Bryan quit because he detected, correctly, that Wilson was moving toward a more confrontational stance with Germany that could only lead to war. Palin left office in Juneau because . . . well, to my mind, because having someone ghost-write a book about her, making a lot of money, and getting her face on TV probably seemed more attractive than all that governing stuff.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
More Reasons To Despise Jim Wallis
I have to agree with Duncan. Wallis' framing at the beginning of his HuffPo piece doesn't just miss the point; it elides over the simple reality - Stupak and the rest of the alleged pro-lifers in Congress don't care about the fetus. They only care about derailing health care reform. If, in the process, they can be seen as screwing over poor women, so much the better.
My Congressman
Ugh.
As opposed to all those nice, sweet folk who would normally be imprisoned there.
Memo to Democrats in IL-16 - can we please please please get rid of this guy?!?
Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) called the Gitmo detainees who may be moved to a prison in his district "really, really mean people" who are "driven by a savage religion" in an interview with a local NBC affiliate that aired yesterday.
As opposed to all those nice, sweet folk who would normally be imprisoned there.
Memo to Democrats in IL-16 - can we please please please get rid of this guy?!?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Give 'Em Liberty, And Give 'Em Death
Out of deference to length and relevance, I am responding to the following with a post all its own:
This gets it backwards. Bush was a hegemonic President; Obama far less so. Bush entered office neither knowing nor caring all that much about the world outside. Entering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in earnest, he managed to rid the military and intelligence services of their language and culture experts pretty thoroughly. The Iraq war, done on a shoestring despite repeated insistence that the Iraqi army was not only formidable, but likely to use chemical and biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons, had no plan for the aftermath, precisely because the war planners believed that an invading, occupying force would be greeted as liberators.
Obama enters office with an appreciation of difference, of the reality that not everyone in other countries secretly desire to be an American, or even understands English. Obama understands that our relationships with other countries is not based on personal relationships (Bush's quip about seeing in to Vladamir Putin's likely non-existent soul is a great example) but on the reality of finding common interest and purpose.
Obama appreciates the vernacular. Bush disdains it for American as the lingua franca.
Bush was a vernacular President. Obama is not.
This gets it backwards. Bush was a hegemonic President; Obama far less so. Bush entered office neither knowing nor caring all that much about the world outside. Entering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in earnest, he managed to rid the military and intelligence services of their language and culture experts pretty thoroughly. The Iraq war, done on a shoestring despite repeated insistence that the Iraqi army was not only formidable, but likely to use chemical and biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons, had no plan for the aftermath, precisely because the war planners believed that an invading, occupying force would be greeted as liberators.
Obama enters office with an appreciation of difference, of the reality that not everyone in other countries secretly desire to be an American, or even understands English. Obama understands that our relationships with other countries is not based on personal relationships (Bush's quip about seeing in to Vladamir Putin's likely non-existent soul is a great example) but on the reality of finding common interest and purpose.
Obama appreciates the vernacular. Bush disdains it for American as the lingua franca.
Music For Your Monday
I've never been a huge fan of most singer-songwriters. There are, obviously, exceptions, as with every rule. Joni Mitchell is one. Ray LaMontayne is another. Most, however, I just kind of pass over in silence.
When I was in high school, the AOR station to which I listened, for some reason I still cannot fathom, had Dan Fogelberg on its rotation. One fine summer afternoon, the DJ came on and announced an upcoming song by "Dan Fogelboring", a moment I have never forgotten (obviously), and the nickname has stuck in my mind ever since.
Yet, like all musicians of something beyond modest talent, Fogelberg has had moments that are, if not excellent, are at least interesting. Like most s/s's, his tend to be lyrical rather than melodic or harmonic. I have always thought the song "Heart Hotels" was kind of an interesting, odd, take on the human tendency, first, to have more than one room in one's heart, and to find solace at times in this or that old, dusty room, rather than throw it open for a new visitor, or even long-term resident. It is hardly a great song, but it is, as I say, interesting. It is made less serious, thankfully, by this video.
Now, "The Phoenix" is a song I like just because it captures a moment in a person's life. In the wake of heartbreak - whether from a lost love, or in grief over a death - there can come that wonderful morning when we wake up and realize we are still alive, and have so much for which to live. We will no longer be defined by loss, but by the possibility of what is to come. I also think the little instrumental intro, "Tullamore Dew", is pretty. For all those who remember those points when they have said, with Fogelberg, "I have cried too long", here's a grainy, poorly recorded live video.
Finally, while I know it gets too much airplay, especially at this time of year, there is something about "Same Auld Lang Syne" that I like. For no other reason, I would enjoy an encounter like this, I think, without the overtones of emotional yearning, and the bathos of the ending. I also discovered this Peoria Journal Star column that tells the true story behind the song. There's something even more beautiful about the reality, not least the honor and class of Jill Anderson Greulich for remaining silent out of respect for Dan Fogelberg. I wonder, though, if nearly thirty years after the song's original release if she is as tired of it as many of the rest of us. . .
When I was in high school, the AOR station to which I listened, for some reason I still cannot fathom, had Dan Fogelberg on its rotation. One fine summer afternoon, the DJ came on and announced an upcoming song by "Dan Fogelboring", a moment I have never forgotten (obviously), and the nickname has stuck in my mind ever since.
Yet, like all musicians of something beyond modest talent, Fogelberg has had moments that are, if not excellent, are at least interesting. Like most s/s's, his tend to be lyrical rather than melodic or harmonic. I have always thought the song "Heart Hotels" was kind of an interesting, odd, take on the human tendency, first, to have more than one room in one's heart, and to find solace at times in this or that old, dusty room, rather than throw it open for a new visitor, or even long-term resident. It is hardly a great song, but it is, as I say, interesting. It is made less serious, thankfully, by this video.
Now, "The Phoenix" is a song I like just because it captures a moment in a person's life. In the wake of heartbreak - whether from a lost love, or in grief over a death - there can come that wonderful morning when we wake up and realize we are still alive, and have so much for which to live. We will no longer be defined by loss, but by the possibility of what is to come. I also think the little instrumental intro, "Tullamore Dew", is pretty. For all those who remember those points when they have said, with Fogelberg, "I have cried too long", here's a grainy, poorly recorded live video.
Finally, while I know it gets too much airplay, especially at this time of year, there is something about "Same Auld Lang Syne" that I like. For no other reason, I would enjoy an encounter like this, I think, without the overtones of emotional yearning, and the bathos of the ending. I also discovered this Peoria Journal Star column that tells the true story behind the song. There's something even more beautiful about the reality, not least the honor and class of Jill Anderson Greulich for remaining silent out of respect for Dan Fogelberg. I wonder, though, if nearly thirty years after the song's original release if she is as tired of it as many of the rest of us. . .
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Read The Constitution
Jonathan Turley is an attorney, so it would be nice if he understood the response to his concern is already out there.
My first, knee-jerk, thought upon reading Turley's piece is that it reminds me of that Simpsons episode, where at one point all the characters run around saying, in tones of earnest pleading, "But, what about the children?!?" Far too many state-sanctioned crimes are committed in the name of "doing good" rather than considering the implications of acting out of compassion without thought.
It is certainly something to mourn, the deaths of these children. It would be nice if they had a different view of the role of medicine as something God-given, a palliative we can make use of precisely because God has given us the intellectual and physical capacity to heal, artificially, deep wounds and illnesses. Yet, they do not so believe. Moreover, to force them through state-action to violate the tenets of their belief is far more horrible, even for them, then losing a child; it imperils their place before God. When the state insists that it has not only a right but a duty to place itself before anyone's relationship with his or her God, we are edging in to dangerous waters.
Denying children critical care may be divinely ordained for some parents, but it should not be countenanced by the legal system. Until courts refuse to accept religion as a mitigating factor in sentencing in such cases, children will continue to die, neglected as an article of their parents' faith.
My first, knee-jerk, thought upon reading Turley's piece is that it reminds me of that Simpsons episode, where at one point all the characters run around saying, in tones of earnest pleading, "But, what about the children?!?" Far too many state-sanctioned crimes are committed in the name of "doing good" rather than considering the implications of acting out of compassion without thought.
It is certainly something to mourn, the deaths of these children. It would be nice if they had a different view of the role of medicine as something God-given, a palliative we can make use of precisely because God has given us the intellectual and physical capacity to heal, artificially, deep wounds and illnesses. Yet, they do not so believe. Moreover, to force them through state-action to violate the tenets of their belief is far more horrible, even for them, then losing a child; it imperils their place before God. When the state insists that it has not only a right but a duty to place itself before anyone's relationship with his or her God, we are edging in to dangerous waters.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
In Praise Of The Vernacular
I was recently "friended" on Facebook by a gentleman named Scott McLemee. I visited his website, and the first thing I read was a review essay of Russell Jacoby's The Last Intellectuals. One part of the piece that leaped off the screen at me follows:
As a student of both theology and philosophy, I have often marveled at the differences between the prose styles of various thinkers. Reading St. Thomas, for example, either in the original Latin or in translation, the first thing I discovered was the clarity of his writing style. This is not to say that the ideas he offered were either clear or easy to understand. His presentation, however, offered an opportunity for easier understanding precisely because it is a medieval example of Strunk & White in action.
Contrasted with, say, Immanuel Kant or G. W. F. Hegel, Aquinas appears almost simplistic. Kant and Hegel's ideas are no more complex or labyrinthine than the great Doctor from Paris; their nearly impenetrable prose, however, has too often leaving me wishing that "editor" had been an invention of the 18th century.
This is one reason I like Richard Rorty. He is not only a subtle thinker, provocative and subtle; he is an excellent prose stylist. Cornel West is another whose commitment to making his deep understanding of western cultural traditions, and the traditions that arose in protest to them as accessible as possible to as large an audience as possible is palpable.
One need not hide behind the jargon of the discipline to be thought "deep". Too often, opacity of style is a clue that, in fact, not much is really going on. I would much rather spend an evening reading an essay by Rorty, West, or Karl Popper (another philosopher committed to presentation as part of a means to a larger end) than wrestle through a chapter of Kant or Heidegger (perhaps the greatest style criminal in philosophy). The argument from necessity as McLemee presents it is unpersuasive precisely because, if the ideas intellectuals are pursuing are not done with at least a glance from one eye at the larger public and its benefit, it is nothing more than intellectual masturbation, which may relieve tension in the author, but does nothing to propagate public discourse.
“‘Publicist,’” wrote Jacoby, “if it once connotated an engagement with the state and law, is almost obsolete, victimized by Hollywood and ‘public relations’: it now signifies someone who handles and manipulates the media, an advance or front man (or woman). A public intellectual or old-style publicist is something else, perhaps the opposite, an incorrigibly independent soul answering to no one.” But it had to have another overtone as well: “The definition must include a commitment not simply to a professional or private domain but to a public world—and a public language, the vernacular.”
At this point, one can almost hear a chorus of ten thousand graduate students reciting, “But difficult ideas require complex language! Anything else is mere journalism!” Be that as it may, Jacoby insisted on the vernacular as a necessary corrective to the tendency of intellectual discourse to ossify, thereby excluding readers. The example of scholastic Latin came to mind. The turn to common language “characterizes modern culture since the Renaissance,” wrote Jacoby. “The adoption of the vernacular was not always simple or peaceful, for it meant that groups excluded from religious and scientific controversy could now enter the fray.”
Beneath this historical analogy, another set of references may have been active in shaping this call for a new public-intellectual vernacular. Jacoby’s earlier writing included studies of the Frankfurt School, and there were obvious echoes of Jürgen Habermas’s work on the public sphere—the space of free and open debate emerging in the eighteenth century, in which arguments must be made (and unmade) without respect to rank or privilege. But that may not have been the only Frankfurt School overtone. Jacoby complained about the tics and routines of academic prose—not just the jargon and the tone deafness, but the acknowledgments section, with its compulsive recitation of every colleague ever met (no back left unscratched). Any critical intent toward the larger culture was expressed in a form that served constantly to signal its participation in a subsystem of what Herbert Marcuse had called one-dimensional society.
As a student of both theology and philosophy, I have often marveled at the differences between the prose styles of various thinkers. Reading St. Thomas, for example, either in the original Latin or in translation, the first thing I discovered was the clarity of his writing style. This is not to say that the ideas he offered were either clear or easy to understand. His presentation, however, offered an opportunity for easier understanding precisely because it is a medieval example of Strunk & White in action.
Contrasted with, say, Immanuel Kant or G. W. F. Hegel, Aquinas appears almost simplistic. Kant and Hegel's ideas are no more complex or labyrinthine than the great Doctor from Paris; their nearly impenetrable prose, however, has too often leaving me wishing that "editor" had been an invention of the 18th century.
This is one reason I like Richard Rorty. He is not only a subtle thinker, provocative and subtle; he is an excellent prose stylist. Cornel West is another whose commitment to making his deep understanding of western cultural traditions, and the traditions that arose in protest to them as accessible as possible to as large an audience as possible is palpable.
One need not hide behind the jargon of the discipline to be thought "deep". Too often, opacity of style is a clue that, in fact, not much is really going on. I would much rather spend an evening reading an essay by Rorty, West, or Karl Popper (another philosopher committed to presentation as part of a means to a larger end) than wrestle through a chapter of Kant or Heidegger (perhaps the greatest style criminal in philosophy). The argument from necessity as McLemee presents it is unpersuasive precisely because, if the ideas intellectuals are pursuing are not done with at least a glance from one eye at the larger public and its benefit, it is nothing more than intellectual masturbation, which may relieve tension in the author, but does nothing to propagate public discourse.
Saturday Rock Show
After leaving the Sex Pistols, John Lydon spent some time trying to figure out what to do next. While the bundle of contradictions that continues to be his approach to music (including getting the original Pistols back together for a tour twelve years ago, with one minor exception; "Sorry we couldn't dig up our bass player," he quipped at one show) make any attempt to figure out what, if anything, he really means, there can be no doubt that his next project, Public Image Limited, pointed in a direction beyond the Pistols insistence on "no future", as they sang in "God Save the Queen". Their first release, an eponymously titled song, was a direct swipe at the British public who were to some degree confused as to who, exactly, John Lydon was. It may not always be good form to attack your audience, but after the verbal and occasionally physical beatings Lydon took, it is understandable.
Sex And The Church
Lisa told me that she is planning a class on human sexuality for youth and their parents to be held in the spring. I think this is an awesome idea. Among the many reasons for my sense of relief - I have long said the church needs to do more rather than less of this - is that I know it will not be anything like an experience I had as a too-young, too-inexperienced youth leader 20 years ago.
I took a youth group I was failing to lead to a concert by the Christian rock band Petra (they sound like Journey for Jesus, so it was a pretty agonizing musical experience for me), and in between sets, a man came out and talked to the mostly high-school-age audience. It was horrifying. Had I been fifteen or sixteen, it would have made sex the most frightening, dangerous experience, to be avoided at all costs.
The man's name was Josh McDowell.
One thing Lisa said that made me smile, and think of my experience hearing McDowell speak, is that we need to teach kids that abstinence should be about understanding sex is something, not dangerous or horrible, but beautiful and wonderful, to be cherished and protected until being with someone that way has some meaning. McDowell's entire spiel was a simple equation of sex and disease/death.
My question is a simple one - does anyone have experience of a positive approach to discussing human sexuality in a church setting?
I took a youth group I was failing to lead to a concert by the Christian rock band Petra (they sound like Journey for Jesus, so it was a pretty agonizing musical experience for me), and in between sets, a man came out and talked to the mostly high-school-age audience. It was horrifying. Had I been fifteen or sixteen, it would have made sex the most frightening, dangerous experience, to be avoided at all costs.
The man's name was Josh McDowell.
One thing Lisa said that made me smile, and think of my experience hearing McDowell speak, is that we need to teach kids that abstinence should be about understanding sex is something, not dangerous or horrible, but beautiful and wonderful, to be cherished and protected until being with someone that way has some meaning. McDowell's entire spiel was a simple equation of sex and disease/death.
My question is a simple one - does anyone have experience of a positive approach to discussing human sexuality in a church setting?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Shaking In Their Boots
In re my previous post, it is more than a little serendipitous to have rediscovered this old gem from over two years ago.
Our conservative "leaders" are cowards, and want us all to be as cowardly as they are. Even more than their mindless naysaying to the President's agenda, this is what drives them. They are frightened of just about everything. I don't believe they want us to be frightened so they can do whatever they want. I think the lot of them - Boehner, Cornyn, Lieberman, most of the former Bushies - are nothing more than a bunch of terrified children.
Our conservative "leaders" are cowards, and want us all to be as cowardly as they are. Even more than their mindless naysaying to the President's agenda, this is what drives them. They are frightened of just about everything. I don't believe they want us to be frightened so they can do whatever they want. I think the lot of them - Boehner, Cornyn, Lieberman, most of the former Bushies - are nothing more than a bunch of terrified children.
Failing The Constitution Test
I wrote the other day that both elites and conservatives share a lack of faith in our judicial system. With the announcement that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks will be transferred from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to New York City to receive an actual trial, we have yet more evidence that conservatives just don't get it.
Don't Let The Door Hit Your Cassock On The Way Out
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is threatening to end all charity work in the city should the City Council permit same-sex marriages.
There's a nasty part of me that wants to write something about their reaction should the city consider lowering the age of consent for boys. . .
This is a tremendous opportunity for other denominations to ramp up their efforts. As far as I'm concerned, the city should say, "Thank you for your input," and go about their business as usual.
There's a nasty part of me that wants to write something about their reaction should the city consider lowering the age of consent for boys. . .
This is a tremendous opportunity for other denominations to ramp up their efforts. As far as I'm concerned, the city should say, "Thank you for your input," and go about their business as usual.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Constitution Shouldn't Apply To The Guilty
Wolf Blitzer does, indeed, hate America. Hating on the justice system began in earnest with the O. J. Simpson trial. When he was found not guilty, you heard it everywhere; the jury system was irreparably broken. Except, of course, it wasn't. It actually worked quite well in that case.
The problem, then and now, is media exposure not just creates the illusion of understanding, but a sense of participation in the legal process. The addition of Bush-era notions that certain individuals just don't deserve a trial, or any constitutional protections whatsoever. One can even sense a grating tone because they are forced to add "alleged" when talking about those accused of crimes. In the case of the Ft. Hood shooter, there is the additional weight that this was a mass killing of our soldiers, by a soldier.
Too bad for Blitzer that we live in a society in which even the Hasan Nidals of the world are entitled to constitutional protections. That's why they are called "rights". Indeed, Blitzer's point that Hasan will get better treatment than those who receive summary execution and all sorts of other treatment is what makes the United States a far better and humane place to live.
The problem, then and now, is media exposure not just creates the illusion of understanding, but a sense of participation in the legal process. The addition of Bush-era notions that certain individuals just don't deserve a trial, or any constitutional protections whatsoever. One can even sense a grating tone because they are forced to add "alleged" when talking about those accused of crimes. In the case of the Ft. Hood shooter, there is the additional weight that this was a mass killing of our soldiers, by a soldier.
Too bad for Blitzer that we live in a society in which even the Hasan Nidals of the world are entitled to constitutional protections. That's why they are called "rights". Indeed, Blitzer's point that Hasan will get better treatment than those who receive summary execution and all sorts of other treatment is what makes the United States a far better and humane place to live.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A Veteran
When the Second World War ended, one difficulty that seemed impossible to set right was China. There were three Theaters of Operation in the war, Europe, the Pacific, and the China/Burma/India theater. The last was the least remembered as a separate theater, yet here the war had been going on far longer. Japan first invaded Manchuria in the early 1930's. They had sunk an American gunboat - and the Republicans had demanded Pres. Roosevelt do nothing in response - two years before Hitler invaded Poland. The Allied commander in China, Gen. Stilwell, had to beg borrow and plead to get supplies, and then they had to come in "over the hump" - be flown in from India over the Himalayas, a daunting challenge.
Matters in China were even more complicated because of the communist revolt going on. While Mao and Chinese Republican leader Chiang Kai-shek had reached a temporary accord, the nationalists had been breaking the pledge from the beginning, jailing thousands of known communists and their supporters and sympathizers, and even those suspected by them of being so. Some were summarily executed. The matter was made worse by the double-dealing of some of the American advisers of the nationalist leaders. Joseph Alsop's biographer details how he, as an intelligence adviser to the Chiang's, actively sought to undermine Stilwell in part because Stilwell reported accurately on the corruption and criminality of the Nationalist leaders. While Alsop won in the short term - Stilwell was eventually sacked - the Chinese would pay dearly in the end.
When the war was over, there were thousands of Japanese troops still in China; the communists, having decided that the cease-fire was now officially over, restarted their insurgency against the Nationalists. Outside a few cities, the civil and social and physical infrastructure was in such tatters that many thought China might never fully recover. The US decided to help out by, among other things, sending the First Marine Division to China. Among those who would spend nearly a year in China was a young 18-year-old Marine intelligence operative named David Johnston. His older sister, Virginia, would, over the course of time, become my mother.
David was going to be mustered out. He and his group had been training all summer for the invasion of Japan. After the surrender, everything was on hold. Then, the orders came down; he and his group wouldn't be needed, and he and many others would be discharged from the Marine Corps. Then, within a few days, those orders changed, and David, assigned to the 1st Div. even though he actually operated outside the usual lines of command, would sail from the east coast, through the Panama Canal, and eventually wind up in the city then known as Tientsin, on the Pacific coast across the Yellow Sea from Korea.
His adventures - and they were adventures - were numerous. Some were dangerous. Some were exciting. Some of his time was very peaceful; David has fond memories of sitting on the wall around the old city of what was then known as Peiping (Beijing), eating local melons and watching the sun set through the dust storms from the Mongolian Desert. Yet, his trip was tinged with a bitter sadness.
While onboard the transport, he received a communique that his young wife of just six months, Marine Sgt. Janice Charteris, had been killed in an automobile accident in Camp Lejeune, NC. Sgt. Charteris had been pregnant at the time. David had yet to tell his family he had married Janice in a whirlwind courtship just after boot camp; with the sole exception of his oldest brother, no one in the family would learn of this first marriage or its tragic ending, for decades.
My family has served in a variety of ways over the years in the armed forces, from my great-grandfather lying about his age and serving in the GAR at the end of the Civil War to my mother's younger brother Ivan, who was a Navy pilot, flying planes off boats (among other things). David's experiences in China, like his older brother Eugene's time in the Navy during WWII, were long held secret for a simple reason - they, like all intelligence operatives before and since, were ordered to forget all that happened, once they wrote their reports to their superiors. Except, of course, being told to forget, and actually forgetting, are two different things.
If there's someone you know, or someone to whom you are related, who has served in the military, in whatever capacity, thank them today.
Matters in China were even more complicated because of the communist revolt going on. While Mao and Chinese Republican leader Chiang Kai-shek had reached a temporary accord, the nationalists had been breaking the pledge from the beginning, jailing thousands of known communists and their supporters and sympathizers, and even those suspected by them of being so. Some were summarily executed. The matter was made worse by the double-dealing of some of the American advisers of the nationalist leaders. Joseph Alsop's biographer details how he, as an intelligence adviser to the Chiang's, actively sought to undermine Stilwell in part because Stilwell reported accurately on the corruption and criminality of the Nationalist leaders. While Alsop won in the short term - Stilwell was eventually sacked - the Chinese would pay dearly in the end.
When the war was over, there were thousands of Japanese troops still in China; the communists, having decided that the cease-fire was now officially over, restarted their insurgency against the Nationalists. Outside a few cities, the civil and social and physical infrastructure was in such tatters that many thought China might never fully recover. The US decided to help out by, among other things, sending the First Marine Division to China. Among those who would spend nearly a year in China was a young 18-year-old Marine intelligence operative named David Johnston. His older sister, Virginia, would, over the course of time, become my mother.
David was going to be mustered out. He and his group had been training all summer for the invasion of Japan. After the surrender, everything was on hold. Then, the orders came down; he and his group wouldn't be needed, and he and many others would be discharged from the Marine Corps. Then, within a few days, those orders changed, and David, assigned to the 1st Div. even though he actually operated outside the usual lines of command, would sail from the east coast, through the Panama Canal, and eventually wind up in the city then known as Tientsin, on the Pacific coast across the Yellow Sea from Korea.
His adventures - and they were adventures - were numerous. Some were dangerous. Some were exciting. Some of his time was very peaceful; David has fond memories of sitting on the wall around the old city of what was then known as Peiping (Beijing), eating local melons and watching the sun set through the dust storms from the Mongolian Desert. Yet, his trip was tinged with a bitter sadness.
While onboard the transport, he received a communique that his young wife of just six months, Marine Sgt. Janice Charteris, had been killed in an automobile accident in Camp Lejeune, NC. Sgt. Charteris had been pregnant at the time. David had yet to tell his family he had married Janice in a whirlwind courtship just after boot camp; with the sole exception of his oldest brother, no one in the family would learn of this first marriage or its tragic ending, for decades.
My family has served in a variety of ways over the years in the armed forces, from my great-grandfather lying about his age and serving in the GAR at the end of the Civil War to my mother's younger brother Ivan, who was a Navy pilot, flying planes off boats (among other things). David's experiences in China, like his older brother Eugene's time in the Navy during WWII, were long held secret for a simple reason - they, like all intelligence operatives before and since, were ordered to forget all that happened, once they wrote their reports to their superiors. Except, of course, being told to forget, and actually forgetting, are two different things.
If there's someone you know, or someone to whom you are related, who has served in the military, in whatever capacity, thank them today.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Why I Like The Black Panthers
In the mid-1970's, radical black theologian William R. Jones (author of Is God a White Racist?) gave a speech at my alma mater, Wesley Theological Seminary. In that speech, he made the suggestion that the near-canonization of Martin Luther King, Jr. was symptomatic of the history of white America finding an acceptable black man as "leader", whereas the African-American community was not compelled to follow suit; if it had multiple sources of community strength, adhering to a wide range of views (Jones cited Malcolm X in particular), so much the better. Considering the academic Dean at the time, J. Philip Wogaman, had marched in Selma and suffered with the folks there with King, this was, quite literally, a fart in church.
Yet, Jones' point needs to be heard as a legitimate criticism of the near-universal acclaim King was already receiving at that time.
This is not to suggest that, in the period when King and the SCLC was most active, it was not perceived as dangerously radical. Indeed it was; J. Edgar Hoover did everything he could to undermine King. King's message, especially after 1965, when he pointed out the continuity between the struggle for Civil Rights and the struggle against the war in Vietnam, was far more radical than the kind of "Kum Bah Ya" message we too often get today.
During a seminar on Liberation Theology, I pointed out that, for all that King is so beloved for his "I Have A Dream" speech, the reaction of the southern power structure showed that, despite the best efforts of King and others, "non-violence" was not possible as a tactic for social change, precisely because the power structure would use violence to suppress any attempt at social change. I still believe that, despite the earnest quest for social justice through non-violence, this is true.
Other responses at the time, including black separatism given voice (for a time) by Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, criticized not only King's nonviolence, but his goal of social and political integration. They also were far more militant in their approach to the white power structure, and there is more than enough reason to grant their position a fair hearing than to react to it because it refuses to denounce violence as a tactic for social confrontation (not necessarily change). The Panthers, in particular, were a very visual threat precisely because they were armed, wore fatigues, and used a violent rhetoric of opposition that guaranteed them not only press coverage, but official hostility as well.
Except, for the most part, the Panthers violence was rhetorical. Dedicated to creating community support networks, feeding the hungry, education support, and other local concerns, the Panthers were merely exercising their quite legal right to bear arms in their own defense and the defense of their community. Far more than right-wing militia types who believe that the ZOG is preparing to have UN troopse swoop in and steal our guns and make us all swear fealty to Allah and the mullahs in Iran (as opposed to the former belief it was all about the communists), the African-American community's position on the threat of force to meet official terrorism has more than a little moral legitimacy.
While the history of the Panthers is ambiguous at best, I believe their original program, violent rhetoric included, has more than enough claim to being a morally and even politically legitimate position. While I understand why many are turned off at any call to violence under any circumstances, I am not, and while I would not necessarily accept an unprovoked violent attack by any individual or group, the Panthers' position, one of defense against a racist power structure, is one I find, at the very least, a nice "up yours" to the establishment.
Yet, Jones' point needs to be heard as a legitimate criticism of the near-universal acclaim King was already receiving at that time.
This is not to suggest that, in the period when King and the SCLC was most active, it was not perceived as dangerously radical. Indeed it was; J. Edgar Hoover did everything he could to undermine King. King's message, especially after 1965, when he pointed out the continuity between the struggle for Civil Rights and the struggle against the war in Vietnam, was far more radical than the kind of "Kum Bah Ya" message we too often get today.
During a seminar on Liberation Theology, I pointed out that, for all that King is so beloved for his "I Have A Dream" speech, the reaction of the southern power structure showed that, despite the best efforts of King and others, "non-violence" was not possible as a tactic for social change, precisely because the power structure would use violence to suppress any attempt at social change. I still believe that, despite the earnest quest for social justice through non-violence, this is true.
Other responses at the time, including black separatism given voice (for a time) by Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, criticized not only King's nonviolence, but his goal of social and political integration. They also were far more militant in their approach to the white power structure, and there is more than enough reason to grant their position a fair hearing than to react to it because it refuses to denounce violence as a tactic for social confrontation (not necessarily change). The Panthers, in particular, were a very visual threat precisely because they were armed, wore fatigues, and used a violent rhetoric of opposition that guaranteed them not only press coverage, but official hostility as well.
Except, for the most part, the Panthers violence was rhetorical. Dedicated to creating community support networks, feeding the hungry, education support, and other local concerns, the Panthers were merely exercising their quite legal right to bear arms in their own defense and the defense of their community. Far more than right-wing militia types who believe that the ZOG is preparing to have UN troopse swoop in and steal our guns and make us all swear fealty to Allah and the mullahs in Iran (as opposed to the former belief it was all about the communists), the African-American community's position on the threat of force to meet official terrorism has more than a little moral legitimacy.
While the history of the Panthers is ambiguous at best, I believe their original program, violent rhetoric included, has more than enough claim to being a morally and even politically legitimate position. While I understand why many are turned off at any call to violence under any circumstances, I am not, and while I would not necessarily accept an unprovoked violent attack by any individual or group, the Panthers' position, one of defense against a racist power structure, is one I find, at the very least, a nice "up yours" to the establishment.
Populism Doesn't Mean Stupid
This Weekly Standard piece is s wrong, nothing can make it right.
"Entrepreneurial individuals"? What kind of crap is that?
Even worse than the comparison to Jackson - a tough, weather-beaten soldier who actually had military victories under his belt, unlike any of the current crop of GOP war-mongers - is invoking the name of William Jennings Bryan. Making his mark at the 1896 Democratic National Convention, Bryan was the prototypical prairie populist. He was, however, no dummy. While he also ended his life in the 1920's defending Biblical literalism in an overheated Tennessee courtroom, the years in between were hardly arid. Three times Democratic nominee for President, he was Woodrow Wilson's first Secretary of State. He left office because he opposed Wilson's movements toward war with Germany and Austria; in other words, he had principles for which he was willing to take a stand.
More broadly, however, Palin is less a "populist" than she is a figurehead for the right-wing. She seems to have little regard for any individual other than herself, any group other than her family, and any desire for public service rather than self-aggrandizement while in office. Also, "populism" has been far too long equated with a kind of anti-intellectual, almost mob-like mystique that we should be reminded that this is precisely part of the problem populism existed to counter. Unlike its fraternal twin progressivism, populism developed as a rural reform movement against various vested interests. The Grange, Prohibition, women's suffrage, anti-trust - these were all populist issues and program before they were adopted by Progressives. Furthermore, much of the stereotyping of populists as ignorant yahoos was done by urban progressives who had an almost visceral assumption that anyone not from a city was, by definition ignorant.
Michael Moore is a populist. Paul Wellstone was a populist. For all his megalomaniacal tendencies, Huey Long of Louisiana had a pretty progressive program, and frightened Franklin Roosevelt to death.
I consider myself a populist (small "d") democrat.
Sarah Palin is no more a populist than I am a Maoist.
If Sarah Palin visits Nashville on her book tour, she really ought to stop by the Hermitage. Andrew Jackson's plantation is a lot more than a beautifully restored example of Greek Revival architecture and design. It's also a monument to the seventh president's democratic legacy--of rule by the people, of competitive commercial markets, of entrepreneurial individuals lighting out to the territories. It's a legacy to which Palin is heiress. And one she ought to embrace.
"Entrepreneurial individuals"? What kind of crap is that?
Even worse than the comparison to Jackson - a tough, weather-beaten soldier who actually had military victories under his belt, unlike any of the current crop of GOP war-mongers - is invoking the name of William Jennings Bryan. Making his mark at the 1896 Democratic National Convention, Bryan was the prototypical prairie populist. He was, however, no dummy. While he also ended his life in the 1920's defending Biblical literalism in an overheated Tennessee courtroom, the years in between were hardly arid. Three times Democratic nominee for President, he was Woodrow Wilson's first Secretary of State. He left office because he opposed Wilson's movements toward war with Germany and Austria; in other words, he had principles for which he was willing to take a stand.
More broadly, however, Palin is less a "populist" than she is a figurehead for the right-wing. She seems to have little regard for any individual other than herself, any group other than her family, and any desire for public service rather than self-aggrandizement while in office. Also, "populism" has been far too long equated with a kind of anti-intellectual, almost mob-like mystique that we should be reminded that this is precisely part of the problem populism existed to counter. Unlike its fraternal twin progressivism, populism developed as a rural reform movement against various vested interests. The Grange, Prohibition, women's suffrage, anti-trust - these were all populist issues and program before they were adopted by Progressives. Furthermore, much of the stereotyping of populists as ignorant yahoos was done by urban progressives who had an almost visceral assumption that anyone not from a city was, by definition ignorant.
Michael Moore is a populist. Paul Wellstone was a populist. For all his megalomaniacal tendencies, Huey Long of Louisiana had a pretty progressive program, and frightened Franklin Roosevelt to death.
I consider myself a populist (small "d") democrat.
Sarah Palin is no more a populist than I am a Maoist.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Music For Your Monday
The first industrial band was England's Throbbing Gristle - and isn't that an awesome name? The description was related to the industrial sounds from which they derived their rhythms, if one can call them that. Not yet related to heavy metal in any way, Throbbing Gristle used tape loops, analog synthesizers, and various "found sounds" to create a nasty soundscape to their lyrical explorations of death, dismemberment, and almost total alienation.
As industrial developed, one band that took it to a logical extreme, adding heavily distorted guitars and turning them up past the point of clarity was Ministry. Combining punk, metal, and synth-pop danceability, in much the same way as Nine Inch Nails would later, Ministry changed and grew over time, with the one constant being founder/leader Al Jourgensen's uncompromising vision. By turns near-blasphemous, politically radical, and socially offensive, Ministry did have one constant - they were always extremely LOUD.
"Psalm 69" - do I need to explain this one?
This isn't very nice . . . not even the t-shirt. . . "No W"
Ministry did an entire release of covers. Trying to find my favorite is difficult, but this little take on "Wonderful World" makes the point well.
As industrial developed, one band that took it to a logical extreme, adding heavily distorted guitars and turning them up past the point of clarity was Ministry. Combining punk, metal, and synth-pop danceability, in much the same way as Nine Inch Nails would later, Ministry changed and grew over time, with the one constant being founder/leader Al Jourgensen's uncompromising vision. By turns near-blasphemous, politically radical, and socially offensive, Ministry did have one constant - they were always extremely LOUD.
"Psalm 69" - do I need to explain this one?
This isn't very nice . . . not even the t-shirt. . . "No W"
Ministry did an entire release of covers. Trying to find my favorite is difficult, but this little take on "Wonderful World" makes the point well.
Hole In The Wall
Twenty years ago today the people of an unofficially united Berlin began the process of tearing down the wall that had divided them since 1961. The first holes were punched through a day or two after the East German government stopped shooting people who approached the wall without authorization.
One way not to celebrate this event comes today in the form of this Cal Thomas' column.
When the wall fell, leftists could not bring themselves to admit they had been wrong, much less apologize for their misplaced faith. So they did what they do best: they made excuses.
Thomas quotes the Media Research Center, a right-wing nonsense group, and quotes that infamous socialist Strobe Talbott of the Daily Worker . . . no, sorry, that would be Time. He also quotes anti-capitalist Ted Turner, who wants everyone to not make money, just like he didn't.
If anyone is stupider, and meaner, and more ridiculous, on the occasion of celebrating this monumentally wonderful event - an event like the French Revolution in many ways insofar as we have yet to absorb all it has to teach us - I haven't seen it. Thomas is too stupid and lazy to quote actual socialists, communists, and western Stalinists (yes, there are a few), and calls Ted Turner an apologist for Leninism. Furthermore, as a self-professed leftist, I for one remember getting quite emotional when I saw what was happening in Berlin. I had been following the disintegration of communism across Central Europe (not "the Eastern Bloc" as Thomas calls it; and it wasn't "liberated"; these were individual revolutions brought by the people) since the spring, when Poland held multi-party elections and Hungary opened its border with Austria. When the first news reports that there were people dancing on the Berlin Wall, I was stunned, but the feeling I remember most was joy.
Thomas' mean, small-minded, and stupid column, in which he can't even bring himself to cite actual leftists, and finds quotes most likely ripped out of all context to support his claim that our horrible Stalinists at CNN and Time gnashed their teeth at the collapse of communism is part of a right-wing mindset that continues to believe this is all the work of one man, US Pres. Ronald Reagan. Except, it's not. While Mikhail Gorbachev certainly deserves more credit than Reagan, especially for signaling to the East Germans that the Soviets would no longer support their decision to kill their own citizens if they wished to travel to West Berlin, it is the people of Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria that deserve the credit. They did it. Not Reagan, not Gorbachev - it was the people who did it.
This left-winger celebrates today with them. I know of no one, not even die-hard western communists, who continue to support the terror regimes in the Soviet bloc, although there have been some who used to do so. It would have been nice if Thomas had the decency to admit that even we leftists are happy that the wall got some holes in it.
God Is Your Enemy
The folks from Westboro Baptist Church have sunk to a new low. I honestly didn't think it was possible; reveling in American dead as Divine punishment for the "sin" of homosexuality, standing around military funerals with the message that God killed our young service personnel because the United States isn't terrorizing the gay folk is bad enough. Now, they are protesting outside Sascha and Mahlia Obama's school in Washington, DC.
The Obama girls, like Chelsea Clinton, attend Sidwell Friends School, run by Quakers, who are, obviously, notoriously anti-Christian, wanting to destroy America as violently as possible.
These are horrible people whom God loves. We are asked to pray for them, because they are God's children, too. I guess I, for one, would like some assistance on this front, because hate-filled bigots who celebrate death in the name of the God of Christianity makes me angry.
The Obama girls, like Chelsea Clinton, attend Sidwell Friends School, run by Quakers, who are, obviously, notoriously anti-Christian, wanting to destroy America as violently as possible.
Ellis Turner, the associate head of Sidwell, told ThinkProgress that students and faculty members wearing rainbow colors staged a counter-protest. They held a banner with the Quaker phrase, "There is that of God in everyone" . . .
These are horrible people whom God loves. We are asked to pray for them, because they are God's children, too. I guess I, for one, would like some assistance on this front, because hate-filled bigots who celebrate death in the name of the God of Christianity makes me angry.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
One Down, One To Go
So the House passed health care reform, with the egregious Stupak Amendment. The buzz seems to be that it will be removed in conference between the House and Senate.
There are some who think that, should the Stupak anti-abortion amendment still be in the conference bill, progressives should vote against it. I say, nonsense. Let it pass, then let a challenge to the amendment play out in the courts.
There are some who think that, should the Stupak anti-abortion amendment still be in the conference bill, progressives should vote against it. I say, nonsense. Let it pass, then let a challenge to the amendment play out in the courts.
The Perils Of Musical Ideology
As I was finishing up Barker and Taylor's Faking It last night, and started Simon Reynolds Rip It Up and Start Again: Postpunk 1978-1984, I got to thinking more and more about the whole issue of authenticity. One of Reynolds major theses is that postpunk, unlike punk, sought to undermine ideas about authenticity as it consciously merged a variety of musical styles, believing that the destructive aspects of punk had opened up all sorts of possibilities. Thus the deliberate adoption of early dub and reggae by bands like the Clash and Madness (and later No Doubt) are examples of mixing and matching musical styles that move beyond sterile, facile notions of authenticity.
Yet, I have to wonder. Part of the problem with the whole notion of authenticity is a kind of cultural monism; one is only truly authentic if one is playing a music rooted in one's own cultural experience. An African-American playing European art music is deemed less authentic than a southern white man playing the blues; West African musicians using traditional instrumentation and chord structures is more authentic than if those same artists use blues progressions and augment the rhythms with hip-hop beats. The biggest swipe at prog rock is its inauthenticity precisely because it sought to take rock beyond the three-minute pop song, based in the blues, and seemed to highlight musical virtuosity over and above the spontaneity of music rooted in the moment.
Except this latter description is utterly false. King Crimson, for example - at least in the eighteen-month long period from early 1973 through mid 1974 - set aside time during their concerts for group improvisations, or "blows" as the band called them. If one listens carefully enough to live recordings from Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer, and Genesis, one hears intimations of the various group members pushing the boundaries of even the most rigidly structured songs. The live version of "Perpetual Change" on Yessongs is a thirteen-minute example of Steve Howe stretching out during a long breakdown offered in the midst of the song.
More to the point, however, as Robert Fripp suggests in liner notes to several of the KC box sets, the criticism that the music of his band, and other related bands, is inauthentic and self-indulgent misses the mark precisely because - at least in the case of King Crimson - it was rooted not so much in any cultural dynamic from which the members emerged (the English working class striving to move upward). Rather, the music was "authentic" precisely because it was the music they enjoyed playing. As Chris Squire from Yes said once in an interview about the early years of the band, "Everyone had ideas and the songs tended to grow." The whole point was to include as much of everyone's input as possible, as long as it made some kind of musical sense in context. Whether it's "Firth of Fifth" by Genesis, "Yours Is No Disgrace" by Yes, "Lark's Tongue in Aspic, Part I" by King Crimson, or "Lemmings" by Vandergraf Generator, the songs hold together pretty well.
Fripp's further point that much of the criticism of self-indulgence and "faking it", at least in the case of the British music press, was rooted as much in typical British class bias; these bands, made up for the most part of young men from the working class, were not supposed to do anything above their station, to achieve more, to attempt something new and different. Like the scene in the film of Pink Floyd's The Wall where the public school teacher humiliates young Pink by reading his poetry out loud, children of a certain "station" were not to have pretensions to anything artistic. The success of the British blues revival in the 1960's was acceptable because, while inauthentic from one perspective, it was rooted in a common sense of experience. Keith Emerson, Robert Fripp, and Rick Wakeman borrowing from classical and modernist orchestral pieces was inauthentic precisely because, as children of the working class, this was not something people such as they should be doing.
This is not to say that there were not self-indulgent moments in prog. Emerson Lake & Palmer were particularly guilty of showing off a bit too much, concert solos becoming exercises in self-aggrandizement long past the point of boredom. Yet, there is really little to distinguish Peter Gabriel's theatricality as lead singer of Genesis and David Bowie's theatricality as Ziggy Stardust, or to separate Rick Wakeman's cape from Freddie Mercury's mime get-up.
In the end, even at their worst moments, the progressive bands still maligned by so much of the music press were no less authentic than any other band precisely because they were playing what they wanted to play the way they wanted to play it. The issue was less with any inauthenticity on the part of the musicians, and more with rock critics straitjacketed by a combination of British class prejudice and a simplistic, and quite racist, view of what rock should and should not be. If one listens without the burden of ideology, the music has some great moments, and stands up on its own merits in the same way as the music of Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and Bruce Springsteen.
Yet, I have to wonder. Part of the problem with the whole notion of authenticity is a kind of cultural monism; one is only truly authentic if one is playing a music rooted in one's own cultural experience. An African-American playing European art music is deemed less authentic than a southern white man playing the blues; West African musicians using traditional instrumentation and chord structures is more authentic than if those same artists use blues progressions and augment the rhythms with hip-hop beats. The biggest swipe at prog rock is its inauthenticity precisely because it sought to take rock beyond the three-minute pop song, based in the blues, and seemed to highlight musical virtuosity over and above the spontaneity of music rooted in the moment.
Except this latter description is utterly false. King Crimson, for example - at least in the eighteen-month long period from early 1973 through mid 1974 - set aside time during their concerts for group improvisations, or "blows" as the band called them. If one listens carefully enough to live recordings from Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer, and Genesis, one hears intimations of the various group members pushing the boundaries of even the most rigidly structured songs. The live version of "Perpetual Change" on Yessongs is a thirteen-minute example of Steve Howe stretching out during a long breakdown offered in the midst of the song.
More to the point, however, as Robert Fripp suggests in liner notes to several of the KC box sets, the criticism that the music of his band, and other related bands, is inauthentic and self-indulgent misses the mark precisely because - at least in the case of King Crimson - it was rooted not so much in any cultural dynamic from which the members emerged (the English working class striving to move upward). Rather, the music was "authentic" precisely because it was the music they enjoyed playing. As Chris Squire from Yes said once in an interview about the early years of the band, "Everyone had ideas and the songs tended to grow." The whole point was to include as much of everyone's input as possible, as long as it made some kind of musical sense in context. Whether it's "Firth of Fifth" by Genesis, "Yours Is No Disgrace" by Yes, "Lark's Tongue in Aspic, Part I" by King Crimson, or "Lemmings" by Vandergraf Generator, the songs hold together pretty well.
Fripp's further point that much of the criticism of self-indulgence and "faking it", at least in the case of the British music press, was rooted as much in typical British class bias; these bands, made up for the most part of young men from the working class, were not supposed to do anything above their station, to achieve more, to attempt something new and different. Like the scene in the film of Pink Floyd's The Wall where the public school teacher humiliates young Pink by reading his poetry out loud, children of a certain "station" were not to have pretensions to anything artistic. The success of the British blues revival in the 1960's was acceptable because, while inauthentic from one perspective, it was rooted in a common sense of experience. Keith Emerson, Robert Fripp, and Rick Wakeman borrowing from classical and modernist orchestral pieces was inauthentic precisely because, as children of the working class, this was not something people such as they should be doing.
This is not to say that there were not self-indulgent moments in prog. Emerson Lake & Palmer were particularly guilty of showing off a bit too much, concert solos becoming exercises in self-aggrandizement long past the point of boredom. Yet, there is really little to distinguish Peter Gabriel's theatricality as lead singer of Genesis and David Bowie's theatricality as Ziggy Stardust, or to separate Rick Wakeman's cape from Freddie Mercury's mime get-up.
In the end, even at their worst moments, the progressive bands still maligned by so much of the music press were no less authentic than any other band precisely because they were playing what they wanted to play the way they wanted to play it. The issue was less with any inauthenticity on the part of the musicians, and more with rock critics straitjacketed by a combination of British class prejudice and a simplistic, and quite racist, view of what rock should and should not be. If one listens without the burden of ideology, the music has some great moments, and stands up on its own merits in the same way as the music of Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and Bruce Springsteen.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Saturday Rock Show
I bought Nine Inch Nails' The Downward Spiral and immediately realized what Trent Reznor was up to. While in many ways the songs feel very dated - especially the minor hit "Closer" - and I relate far less to the rage and self-absorption evident in many of the songs, it still stands as an important part of the history of industrial rock. While the kindergarten politics of "March of the Pigs" and the swipe at gangster-posers in "Big Man With a Gun" can be dismissed, other songs, like "Hurt" and "The Becoming" are important because they end up being about far more than Reznor venting his own sense of meaninglessness. Indeed, "Hurt" was powerful enough for Johnny Cash to record a version that takes it away from teen angst and makes it about the brooding realities that even successful, accomplished individuals sense in themselves.
"Eraser" is perhaps the most disturbing song on the disc, with its repeated "Kill Me" winding the song down. Indeed, the song seems to be a kind of therapeutic confession of the inexorable slide from desire for another person, through the warping of that desire in to something dangerous, to the guilt and remorse that can consume a person who realizes that something beautiful has turned demonic. All I can say is, I grok, dude. Should go without saying that this song is not for the faint of heart.
"Eraser" is perhaps the most disturbing song on the disc, with its repeated "Kill Me" winding the song down. Indeed, the song seems to be a kind of therapeutic confession of the inexorable slide from desire for another person, through the warping of that desire in to something dangerous, to the guilt and remorse that can consume a person who realizes that something beautiful has turned demonic. All I can say is, I grok, dude. Should go without saying that this song is not for the faint of heart.
When Religion Is Irrelevant
In the wake of the mass killings at Ft. Hood, TX by Army Major Hasan Nidal, the reaction among many has been to raise the issue of Nidal's religion as central to his alleged shooting. At GetReligion.org, a review of stories on the event takes issue with an article by Michael Moss in The New York Times, specifically the following:
For my part, I find this point-of-view refreshing as a reality-check. There have been a slew of reports, although nothing overarching and definitive, on the long-term effects of our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the mental health of veterans. The long-simmering understanding that returning vets have a greater tendency for violence and self-destruction, and the limited resources allocated to confront this problem frames the events at Ft. Hood in a completely different light than raising the question of whether or not Major Nidal's religious views played a part. Granted, Maj. Nidal was not a returning vet, and it seems highly likely, as the facts continue to emerge from the fog and blood of Texas, that religion indeed played a part. Yet, as Benjamin points out in the quote above, as part of a hierarchy of command within the military - and with a history of warning signs clear enough for the military already to note that action was taken in Nidal's case - there is a certain amount of responsibility to be placed at Nidal's commanders.
It should also be pointed out that there are thousands of active-duty military personnel who are faithful Muslims who haven't gone around shooting up their fellow service members. This, too, should raise the question of the relevance of Maj. Nidal's religious beliefs as a factor governing his actions.
I am still waiting for more facts to surface, more information on what triggered Nidal to allegedly begin shooting up folks with whom he worked and served. I certainly reserve the right to change my mind as to the role his religious beliefs may or may not have played in determining his actions. In the end, though, I think complaining that a particular quote in a story doesn't bring up religion because religion may not have been a factor misses an obvious point. Maj. Nidal's religious beliefs may not have played a role, and there are other issues, including the role of the military chain of command and the lack of mental health resources (ironic, of course, because Nidal was an Army psychiatrist) made available to active duty personnel and veterans.
“When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal,” said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. “But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad.
“Ultimately it was Brother Nidal’s doing, but the command should be held accountable,” Mr. Benjamin said. “G.I.’s are like any equipment in the Army. When it breaks, those who were in charge of keeping it fit should be held responsible for it.”
For my part, I find this point-of-view refreshing as a reality-check. There have been a slew of reports, although nothing overarching and definitive, on the long-term effects of our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the mental health of veterans. The long-simmering understanding that returning vets have a greater tendency for violence and self-destruction, and the limited resources allocated to confront this problem frames the events at Ft. Hood in a completely different light than raising the question of whether or not Major Nidal's religious views played a part. Granted, Maj. Nidal was not a returning vet, and it seems highly likely, as the facts continue to emerge from the fog and blood of Texas, that religion indeed played a part. Yet, as Benjamin points out in the quote above, as part of a hierarchy of command within the military - and with a history of warning signs clear enough for the military already to note that action was taken in Nidal's case - there is a certain amount of responsibility to be placed at Nidal's commanders.
It should also be pointed out that there are thousands of active-duty military personnel who are faithful Muslims who haven't gone around shooting up their fellow service members. This, too, should raise the question of the relevance of Maj. Nidal's religious beliefs as a factor governing his actions.
I am still waiting for more facts to surface, more information on what triggered Nidal to allegedly begin shooting up folks with whom he worked and served. I certainly reserve the right to change my mind as to the role his religious beliefs may or may not have played in determining his actions. In the end, though, I think complaining that a particular quote in a story doesn't bring up religion because religion may not have been a factor misses an obvious point. Maj. Nidal's religious beliefs may not have played a role, and there are other issues, including the role of the military chain of command and the lack of mental health resources (ironic, of course, because Nidal was an Army psychiatrist) made available to active duty personnel and veterans.
A Year After Victory
Rick Perlstein in The Daily Beast:
Me here on this blog:
Where I believe my own view differs from Perlstein's (and isn't that pretty humble of me . . .) is I am not sure what else the President could do, or should do, that he hasn't already done, for example, on pushing Congress on health care reform legislation. Many liberals and left-wing advocates are frustrated that he seems to be wishy-washy on the question of a public option; yet he has made clear that "reform" is his desire. If that includes a public option, and it is done in a workable form, that's great. If universal or near-universal health care access is achieved without it, then that's fine by him (and I'm not sure why this point isn't emphasized more, except that too many liberals are far too vested in those two magic words to understand what the President is trying to do).
With the glaring exception of a troop draw-down in Iraq, and raising the specter of a greater commitment to Afghanistan, the President has actually achieved, one year after being elected, quite a bit of his agenda. He has also signaled his willingness to address DADT in the military (which he cannot simply ignore or set aside since it's a statutory, not executive or administrative, policy), which he did not address at all during the campaign. He has signed historic hate crimes legislation that will, I believe, be as important in the long run as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
On the glaring exceptions - the occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan - I can only wonder whether there are structural impediments to Obama moving forward with troop withdrawal. Add to that his penchant for caution when acting, and perhaps taking seriously any criticism he may face as a Commander-in-Chief who has never served in the military, and there is a recipe for lethargy that frustrates many (myself included).
I stand by my early assertions that the President is governing in the only way he sees he can govern; the criticism Perlstein levels at the President (that what he does seems to matter very little) ignores the reality that the trouble isn't the Executive Branch, or even the lower House of Congress. As Perlstein rightly states, the brakes are being applied by just a few members of the United States Senate. What can the President possibly do to address this? Indeed, what can any of us do that hasn't already been done?
These are issues to be addressed by the House and Senate Democratic majorities, who as a group seem determined to act as if they are still the minority, and were not elected with majorities great enough to determine the agenda. The best the President can do is a combination of cajolery and admonition to Congressional leadership; if they refuse to step up and act like a party that can govern, is that the President's fault?
While I think "mixed" is a good way to describe Pres. Obama's overall success - he certainly hasn't faced any major defeats; he just hasn't secured a victory on health care reform yet - my guess is much of the left-wing whining about his performance is a desire to have elected a different man, with a different set of governing principles, in office. I do believe that Obama's performance matters, and I think it is better, in many ways, than any Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson (well, there have been only two since then . . .). The structural and ideological impediments to enacting any kind of progressive or left-wing populist agenda are far greater now than forty-five years ago, and Congressional Democrats and the President have done pretty well so far. Once health care reform passes, my guess is the Democratic leadership in the House will beg off other big legislative items - a new stimulus, financial regulatory overhaul, cap-and-trade legislation - and then we will see the President push them a little bit more.
With too few exceptions, Obama very much not among them, the Democrats have shown neither the willingness nor the ability to foment populist politics from the left. The right comes to own a monopoly on an emotion in ever more plentiful supply: anger. They have, of course, no solutions. But when it only takes 40 senators to filibuster—and “filibuster” means merely signing a petition—legislators representing only the 20 least populated states in the union, and about 9 percent of American citizens, can at the very least stop Obama from claiming credit for solutions. And then the mainstream media—tada!—reports that Obama’s a failure. How’s his performance been? I just wish that question mattered more. On the big questions, it’s almost moot. Though fortunately the government has been and will be far, far better administered in the meantime.
Me here on this blog:
[President Obama] doesn't operate on the nightly news schedule. He gives speeches, to be sure, and does appearances - most recently at a green factory in Iowa - but he isn't focused on whether or not he gets a good story on the three networks, or a good spin during the on-going 24-hour news stations. Recognizing the artificiality of the pressure-cooker created by 24-hour news channels, Obama has opted, for whatever his reasons may be, to govern as an adult. He understands the depth of the challenges he faces, not the least of them being an establishment that is geared to doubt the effectiveness of any attempt he may make at correcting the situation.
--snip--
[M]any liberals are upset that Obama has not simply moved with lightning speed, for example, to take legal action against those who authorized the use of torture during the Bush Administration. I think that he will no more be pushed to act by his natural constituency than by his opponents. Part of the reason for this, I think, is a sense of propriety; one of the things Obama is asserting is the inherent limitations of the Office of the President, and simultaneously the independence of the Department of Justice. He has also refused to insist that Congress do anything - in regard to the torture memos or anything else - precisely because it is an equal branch of government to the Executive.
In other words, we are looking at a patient, fairly deliberate man using that patience and deliberation for the long-term benefit of the country.
Where I believe my own view differs from Perlstein's (and isn't that pretty humble of me . . .) is I am not sure what else the President could do, or should do, that he hasn't already done, for example, on pushing Congress on health care reform legislation. Many liberals and left-wing advocates are frustrated that he seems to be wishy-washy on the question of a public option; yet he has made clear that "reform" is his desire. If that includes a public option, and it is done in a workable form, that's great. If universal or near-universal health care access is achieved without it, then that's fine by him (and I'm not sure why this point isn't emphasized more, except that too many liberals are far too vested in those two magic words to understand what the President is trying to do).
With the glaring exception of a troop draw-down in Iraq, and raising the specter of a greater commitment to Afghanistan, the President has actually achieved, one year after being elected, quite a bit of his agenda. He has also signaled his willingness to address DADT in the military (which he cannot simply ignore or set aside since it's a statutory, not executive or administrative, policy), which he did not address at all during the campaign. He has signed historic hate crimes legislation that will, I believe, be as important in the long run as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
On the glaring exceptions - the occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan - I can only wonder whether there are structural impediments to Obama moving forward with troop withdrawal. Add to that his penchant for caution when acting, and perhaps taking seriously any criticism he may face as a Commander-in-Chief who has never served in the military, and there is a recipe for lethargy that frustrates many (myself included).
I stand by my early assertions that the President is governing in the only way he sees he can govern; the criticism Perlstein levels at the President (that what he does seems to matter very little) ignores the reality that the trouble isn't the Executive Branch, or even the lower House of Congress. As Perlstein rightly states, the brakes are being applied by just a few members of the United States Senate. What can the President possibly do to address this? Indeed, what can any of us do that hasn't already been done?
These are issues to be addressed by the House and Senate Democratic majorities, who as a group seem determined to act as if they are still the minority, and were not elected with majorities great enough to determine the agenda. The best the President can do is a combination of cajolery and admonition to Congressional leadership; if they refuse to step up and act like a party that can govern, is that the President's fault?
While I think "mixed" is a good way to describe Pres. Obama's overall success - he certainly hasn't faced any major defeats; he just hasn't secured a victory on health care reform yet - my guess is much of the left-wing whining about his performance is a desire to have elected a different man, with a different set of governing principles, in office. I do believe that Obama's performance matters, and I think it is better, in many ways, than any Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson (well, there have been only two since then . . .). The structural and ideological impediments to enacting any kind of progressive or left-wing populist agenda are far greater now than forty-five years ago, and Congressional Democrats and the President have done pretty well so far. Once health care reform passes, my guess is the Democratic leadership in the House will beg off other big legislative items - a new stimulus, financial regulatory overhaul, cap-and-trade legislation - and then we will see the President push them a little bit more.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Makes Me Want To Cry
OMFG! To think I was going to enter a contest in which the judges thought this piece of craptastic offal was worth publishing.
Talk about dodging a bullet.
Talk about dodging a bullet.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Waiting For The Deluge
The only thing I feel like saying about today's events at Fort Hood, Texas - beyond my sadness and prayers for the families of those slain - is we all know the nuts are going to pick up on the Muslim-sounding name of the alleged perpetrator and get their hate on. With no evidence, this is going to be tagged an al Qaeda sleeper cell hit against the Army. Just wait.
Adding, it will be Obama's fault.
Adding, it will be Obama's fault.
Frustrated
I haven't been posting a whole lot lately because, for one thing, I've been busy. Another reason that keeps me from doing more is an on-going frustration that seems to have no resolution. With commanding majorities in both Houses of Congress and a President elected with the largest plurality in decades, the Democrats continue to act as if they are the minority part, as if their ideas were suspect from the get-go, and as if everything the Republican "leadership" in Congress does is far more effective with the American people than the Democratic electoral victories.
There are days I feel like going to Capitol Hill and dope-slapping some of these people. Lead! Govern! Stop listening to idiots like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe!
Earlier this year, when Congress was actually doing the stuff it was elected to do, it was popular. All the dithering, all the deference to the party out of power and their refusal to actually legislate and govern has dragged down the approval ratings for the Democratic Party. This isn't the result of the American people suddenly awakening from some haze to discover the secret Marxism of the Democrats. Rather, it is frustration at their fiddling while Rome continues to burn.
Writing these folks doesn't seem to help. Calling, either. The Washington-based national press corps continues to act as if the Republicans are in charge, and the Democratic hasn't done anything to prove them wrong.
If I may add a slam at some seriously big liberal blogs and websites, I am quite tired of the daily posts on the idiotic antics of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I. Don't. Care. What. They. Say. Continuing to pay attention to them gives them far more power and influence than they might otherwise have. "Debunking" them - a la Media Matters and such - is useless because they aren't going to change, and supporters and detractors know the score anyway. Time and energy is wasted on this kind of thing.
One website, Crooks and Liars, seems almost obsessed with Beck, and Minnesota's answer to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann. The best thing to do for the country would be to ignore them, unless laughter is involved, and let them slide back in to the obscurity from which they emerged. Both of them are certifiable. Rather than a long, detailed fact-based challenge to whatever they say, just copy & paste with the single comment - HAHAHAHAHA!!.
Which criticisms of lefty bloggers and all leads me to another point. We won, folks. All these liberal web sites continue to act as if it were 2005-2006, as if George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Denny Hastert were still in charge and we had all sorts of structural and procedural impediments to moving forward with a progressive agenda. We don't, and it would be nice if liberals grew a pair. Celebrate victories a little more loudly, and stop whining about the mean stuff and lies the Republicans and conservatives are saying.
The loser attitude among Democrats and liberals, both in office and in the public, has to stop. We won, and we won big, and we should take that win and run with it. Whether it's John Boehner and Mitch McConnell or Olympia Snow and Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh, we need to remind them of some simple facts, the first one of which is the job of a legislature is to legislate. If they don't want to pass laws, they have every right to vote against them. If they believe their sole role in this Congress is to stop it from doing stuff, however, they have no place at a table discussing how best to craft legislation.
How simple is that? They don't like it, why, they can run home to their constituents and get re-elected on a platform of, "I've been serving in Congress and done nothing for the country! Re-Elect me and I'll continue to draw a public paycheck and sit on my ass!"
Who cares about the freakin' tea-baggers and birthers and the rest of the loons. Mindless, idiotic . . . so much of our public discourse is still warped by deference to crazy people. Just let them hold their little protests and allow that time to be spent on something substantive. If Republican members of Congress want to join them, so much the better - one can pass legislation without their vote (which would happen anyway).
OK, this somewhat unfocused rant is drawing to a close. . .
One positive note (I so want to end on an upbeat) - thank you, Congress and President Obama for passing the hate crimes bill.
There are days I feel like going to Capitol Hill and dope-slapping some of these people. Lead! Govern! Stop listening to idiots like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe!
Earlier this year, when Congress was actually doing the stuff it was elected to do, it was popular. All the dithering, all the deference to the party out of power and their refusal to actually legislate and govern has dragged down the approval ratings for the Democratic Party. This isn't the result of the American people suddenly awakening from some haze to discover the secret Marxism of the Democrats. Rather, it is frustration at their fiddling while Rome continues to burn.
Writing these folks doesn't seem to help. Calling, either. The Washington-based national press corps continues to act as if the Republicans are in charge, and the Democratic hasn't done anything to prove them wrong.
If I may add a slam at some seriously big liberal blogs and websites, I am quite tired of the daily posts on the idiotic antics of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I. Don't. Care. What. They. Say. Continuing to pay attention to them gives them far more power and influence than they might otherwise have. "Debunking" them - a la Media Matters and such - is useless because they aren't going to change, and supporters and detractors know the score anyway. Time and energy is wasted on this kind of thing.
One website, Crooks and Liars, seems almost obsessed with Beck, and Minnesota's answer to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann. The best thing to do for the country would be to ignore them, unless laughter is involved, and let them slide back in to the obscurity from which they emerged. Both of them are certifiable. Rather than a long, detailed fact-based challenge to whatever they say, just copy & paste with the single comment - HAHAHAHAHA!!.
Which criticisms of lefty bloggers and all leads me to another point. We won, folks. All these liberal web sites continue to act as if it were 2005-2006, as if George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Denny Hastert were still in charge and we had all sorts of structural and procedural impediments to moving forward with a progressive agenda. We don't, and it would be nice if liberals grew a pair. Celebrate victories a little more loudly, and stop whining about the mean stuff and lies the Republicans and conservatives are saying.
The loser attitude among Democrats and liberals, both in office and in the public, has to stop. We won, and we won big, and we should take that win and run with it. Whether it's John Boehner and Mitch McConnell or Olympia Snow and Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh, we need to remind them of some simple facts, the first one of which is the job of a legislature is to legislate. If they don't want to pass laws, they have every right to vote against them. If they believe their sole role in this Congress is to stop it from doing stuff, however, they have no place at a table discussing how best to craft legislation.
How simple is that? They don't like it, why, they can run home to their constituents and get re-elected on a platform of, "I've been serving in Congress and done nothing for the country! Re-Elect me and I'll continue to draw a public paycheck and sit on my ass!"
Who cares about the freakin' tea-baggers and birthers and the rest of the loons. Mindless, idiotic . . . so much of our public discourse is still warped by deference to crazy people. Just let them hold their little protests and allow that time to be spent on something substantive. If Republican members of Congress want to join them, so much the better - one can pass legislation without their vote (which would happen anyway).
OK, this somewhat unfocused rant is drawing to a close. . .
One positive note (I so want to end on an upbeat) - thank you, Congress and President Obama for passing the hate crimes bill.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
No Right Answer
Duncan posts again on our elite's fetish for policy over politics. My take on this phenomenon - call it, for lack of a better term, the Rodney King ("Can't we all just get along?") phenomenon - is rooted in a sincere, but ultimately misguided belief that there is one right answer for our social ills, and an efficient, non-adversarial approach to solving them is the best solution.
That's completely and utterly wrong.
We in the west are inheritors of a philosophical tradition that insists that, for every question asked, there is only one answer that is correct. Whether that question is, "What is the sum of two and two?" or, "What is the best allocation of our public resources for the greatest good?", there is only one correct answer. By making these questions similar both in effect and affect, we are making the huge error that all questions are the same. Yet, a mathematical question concerns a very limited set of criteria, while a question concerned with politics is far more broad, and there is no set of criteria to which one can point a priori to determine how one arrives at an answer.
This problem was sketched out long ago, in Jacques Ellul's classic The Technological Society, and been addressed time and again by many other social and cultural historians and critics. Whether in the watered-down approach of a social commentator like David Broder, or a far more sophisticated approach such as Alan Bloom, there is this belief that the acceptance of difference on a social, cultural, and political level is an error because it ignores the singularity of Truth.
This is why, to those who have faith in democracy and the democratic process, our elites too often sound anti-democratic. Democratic politics, as the creature has evolved in America, are a messy business precisely because the notion that the search for "solutions" involves a rational discussion leading to a single, "correct" conclusion is erroneous. While there are, indeed, guidelines and general principles, for example, in economics, that are helpful for arriving at a policy that best serves the public good, they are hardly determinative.
It would be nice if there were a right answer to what ails us. It would be nice if interested parties could sit down and hash out together, with an eye on both a method and desired result that was acceptable to everyone, how best to solve our social ills. They can't and won't because such a procedure is anathema to democracy.
That's completely and utterly wrong.
We in the west are inheritors of a philosophical tradition that insists that, for every question asked, there is only one answer that is correct. Whether that question is, "What is the sum of two and two?" or, "What is the best allocation of our public resources for the greatest good?", there is only one correct answer. By making these questions similar both in effect and affect, we are making the huge error that all questions are the same. Yet, a mathematical question concerns a very limited set of criteria, while a question concerned with politics is far more broad, and there is no set of criteria to which one can point a priori to determine how one arrives at an answer.
This problem was sketched out long ago, in Jacques Ellul's classic The Technological Society, and been addressed time and again by many other social and cultural historians and critics. Whether in the watered-down approach of a social commentator like David Broder, or a far more sophisticated approach such as Alan Bloom, there is this belief that the acceptance of difference on a social, cultural, and political level is an error because it ignores the singularity of Truth.
This is why, to those who have faith in democracy and the democratic process, our elites too often sound anti-democratic. Democratic politics, as the creature has evolved in America, are a messy business precisely because the notion that the search for "solutions" involves a rational discussion leading to a single, "correct" conclusion is erroneous. While there are, indeed, guidelines and general principles, for example, in economics, that are helpful for arriving at a policy that best serves the public good, they are hardly determinative.
It would be nice if there were a right answer to what ails us. It would be nice if interested parties could sit down and hash out together, with an eye on both a method and desired result that was acceptable to everyone, how best to solve our social ills. They can't and won't because such a procedure is anathema to democracy.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Music For Your Monday
I've been enjoying my second reading of Barker & Taylor's Faking It. Since I'm a fan of music that is usually outside critical acceptance, whether authenticity is a category critics use or don't use, I thought that it might be fun to put up what I consider some important "turning points" in my own evolving journey with music.
I might have mentioned before - or maybe I didn't I'm not sure - that hearing "Star Cycle" by Jeff Beck was really the beginning of it all for me. From the fusion-oriented There and Back LP, that the song even received airplay is astounding to me. That it received enough to push me to purchase the album and pretty much wear out the grooves listening to it is shocking. A record such as this would disappear almost upon release today. Since almost no one I knew had even heard of it, I knew I was on to something different because this was just . . . I still can't find the words to describe my reaction to it. Except that here - right here - was something that made sense.
Hearing Judas Priest and Iron Maiden as a high school student was one thing. Hearing Metallica as a college student, though, was on a different scale altogether. While I have come to appreciate the simple pleasures of Judas Priest on occasion, and find some of Iron Maiden's songs to be entertaining, the material on Metallica's first four records still stands out for me as taking heavy metal beyond the Black Sabbath/Motorhead/Judas Priest orbit on the one hand, and the darker musings of their musical mentors like Venom and Danzig. They certainly flirted with darker themes without succumbing to the stupidity of death metal, while also refusing to rest easy with blues-based song structures. Their subsequent career, especially after their eponymous "Black" album of 1991 is a long, slow death spiral. While their early experiments in speed metal were interesting, it was when I first heard "Creeping Death" that I knew there was something more going on here.
I remember the moment, for some odd reason, I first heard Dream Theater's song, "Pull Me Under". After a late winter/early spring of nothing but grunge, I was wondering what, exactly, came next. I happened to be driving southwest on Western Ave, the street that is the border between the District of Columbia and Maryland, and without any introduction at all came the opening. I knew, immediately, I had to have it (I can be stupid that way, I guess). In the seventeen years since then, I've purchased their CDs, gone to their concerts, absorbed their aesthetic, and am still amazed that anyone besides me loves this band. I am happy to report that my older daughter, Moriah, loves this song, too.
I might have mentioned before - or maybe I didn't I'm not sure - that hearing "Star Cycle" by Jeff Beck was really the beginning of it all for me. From the fusion-oriented There and Back LP, that the song even received airplay is astounding to me. That it received enough to push me to purchase the album and pretty much wear out the grooves listening to it is shocking. A record such as this would disappear almost upon release today. Since almost no one I knew had even heard of it, I knew I was on to something different because this was just . . . I still can't find the words to describe my reaction to it. Except that here - right here - was something that made sense.
Hearing Judas Priest and Iron Maiden as a high school student was one thing. Hearing Metallica as a college student, though, was on a different scale altogether. While I have come to appreciate the simple pleasures of Judas Priest on occasion, and find some of Iron Maiden's songs to be entertaining, the material on Metallica's first four records still stands out for me as taking heavy metal beyond the Black Sabbath/Motorhead/Judas Priest orbit on the one hand, and the darker musings of their musical mentors like Venom and Danzig. They certainly flirted with darker themes without succumbing to the stupidity of death metal, while also refusing to rest easy with blues-based song structures. Their subsequent career, especially after their eponymous "Black" album of 1991 is a long, slow death spiral. While their early experiments in speed metal were interesting, it was when I first heard "Creeping Death" that I knew there was something more going on here.
I remember the moment, for some odd reason, I first heard Dream Theater's song, "Pull Me Under". After a late winter/early spring of nothing but grunge, I was wondering what, exactly, came next. I happened to be driving southwest on Western Ave, the street that is the border between the District of Columbia and Maryland, and without any introduction at all came the opening. I knew, immediately, I had to have it (I can be stupid that way, I guess). In the seventeen years since then, I've purchased their CDs, gone to their concerts, absorbed their aesthetic, and am still amazed that anyone besides me loves this band. I am happy to report that my older daughter, Moriah, loves this song, too.
Writing About Religion
I dismissed an article at Alternet as "garbage" because I found it to be shallow, without any reference to any actual thought by actual people, a parody of criticism of serious thought. I continue to be amazed, years after the fact, that the rules of serious intellectual engagement and criticism can be suspended if one is attacking "religion" or "Christianity". The fact that allegedly "serious" writers like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins can use these two words as synonyms without being called on it, even by reviewers in reputable publications, makes me wonder what's wrong with people who claim that the threat to intellectual life is one of their beefs with religious beliefs. If that is so, I respond, show it by being more vigorous and knowledgeable about the subject matter you are criticizing. In the case of both Harris and Dawkins, they are so woefully ignorant of even the most basic facts concerning Christianity - for example, it is only one expression of religious belief, and in both its theoretical and practiced forms is so diverse as to evade a single-word appellation; it is far more correct to talk about "Christianities" - that anything else they write about the subject becomes tainted by their ignorance.
A similar ignorance pervades journalistic discussions of religious life and belief as well. Many religious critics of mainstream religious journalism set that down to a lack of religious belief among journalists; in other words, they are operating out of ignorance. Yet, most journalists are ignorant of any subject they cover because they aren't zoning-law experts, criminal attorneys, or politicians, but journalists. They are trained not as these and other professionals, but as writers about a topic. As such, it would seem they have a duty to inform themselves about their subject matter, at least insofar as they are presenting a particular story to the public. Yet, one finds (for example) the Washington Post/Newsweek online "On Faith" Forum to be so poorly researched, I for one wonder why it attracts readers at all. Many of the regular, featured, writers - Eboo Patel and Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite in particular - are both gifted writers and present their ideas with a deep understanding of their faith, and a deep faith as well; for the most part, though, the stuff there can be ignored out of hand.
We are in the midst of two wars in lands soaked in a religious tradition foreign to our own, largely Christian, heritage; yet most commentary on both Christianity and Islam is ignorant of some of the most basic facts of either religious belief, and how even in an increasingly secularizing atmosphere religious belief still shapes who we are as a people. A doctor working at a health clinic for women is murdered, and people claim to support him and his act of premeditated homicide as a religiously-inspired moral act. One cannot dismiss such a claim out of hand without an understanding that there are serious precedents for such a claim. Among the fastest growing branches of Christianity are the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; there are many mainstream Christians who consider both of these outside the communion of Christianity (especially the LDS Church because of its additional, Third Testament of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon). Yet, how do we in the mainstream communicate with these branches of the faith if we are unwilling to grant that they, too, have something to offer people?
This little rant really comes down to this simple point: I am quite exhausted by the ignorance that pervades our talk about "religion" and "Christianity". Whether in criticisms of it that are void of any serious intellectual merit, yet sell hundreds of thousands of copies, making their authors notorious overnight without any justification of which I am aware; or in our public discourse that ignores the reality that we are currently occupying two countries that exist within far different faith traditions than our own, faith traditions of which we know next to nothing. The simple reality is, despite the insistence for over a century that religion is less and less important in our collective lives, it continues to be a major driving force and underlying current in our public events. That we cannot discuss it with even a modicum of intellectual honesty, or even accept the simple factual nature of the assertion, troubles me deeply.
Unfortunately, I don't know what to do about it.
A similar ignorance pervades journalistic discussions of religious life and belief as well. Many religious critics of mainstream religious journalism set that down to a lack of religious belief among journalists; in other words, they are operating out of ignorance. Yet, most journalists are ignorant of any subject they cover because they aren't zoning-law experts, criminal attorneys, or politicians, but journalists. They are trained not as these and other professionals, but as writers about a topic. As such, it would seem they have a duty to inform themselves about their subject matter, at least insofar as they are presenting a particular story to the public. Yet, one finds (for example) the Washington Post/Newsweek online "On Faith" Forum to be so poorly researched, I for one wonder why it attracts readers at all. Many of the regular, featured, writers - Eboo Patel and Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite in particular - are both gifted writers and present their ideas with a deep understanding of their faith, and a deep faith as well; for the most part, though, the stuff there can be ignored out of hand.
We are in the midst of two wars in lands soaked in a religious tradition foreign to our own, largely Christian, heritage; yet most commentary on both Christianity and Islam is ignorant of some of the most basic facts of either religious belief, and how even in an increasingly secularizing atmosphere religious belief still shapes who we are as a people. A doctor working at a health clinic for women is murdered, and people claim to support him and his act of premeditated homicide as a religiously-inspired moral act. One cannot dismiss such a claim out of hand without an understanding that there are serious precedents for such a claim. Among the fastest growing branches of Christianity are the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; there are many mainstream Christians who consider both of these outside the communion of Christianity (especially the LDS Church because of its additional, Third Testament of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon). Yet, how do we in the mainstream communicate with these branches of the faith if we are unwilling to grant that they, too, have something to offer people?
This little rant really comes down to this simple point: I am quite exhausted by the ignorance that pervades our talk about "religion" and "Christianity". Whether in criticisms of it that are void of any serious intellectual merit, yet sell hundreds of thousands of copies, making their authors notorious overnight without any justification of which I am aware; or in our public discourse that ignores the reality that we are currently occupying two countries that exist within far different faith traditions than our own, faith traditions of which we know next to nothing. The simple reality is, despite the insistence for over a century that religion is less and less important in our collective lives, it continues to be a major driving force and underlying current in our public events. That we cannot discuss it with even a modicum of intellectual honesty, or even accept the simple factual nature of the assertion, troubles me deeply.
Unfortunately, I don't know what to do about it.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
A Question That Answered Itself In Real Time
A former aide to discredited and vilified former Vice President Dick Cheney, John Hannah poses a question in NRO that, perhaps without knowing it, was answered.
Michael Crowley points out in The New Republic that Sec. Clinton was applauded when she said these words. Since Bush and Cheney are still less popular than a root canal without anesthesia, it isn't a surprise.
Long-term, though, we need to show that the promise Obama embodies for the world comes true. There is all the difference in the world between a salesman who offers you a new and improved mousetrap, and the mousetrap actually catching more mice faster, easier, and with less clean-up.
For now, though, it is enough for John Hannah to say that Sec. Clinton must have thought our interests are advanced by pointing out that she does not represent Bush/Cheney. We are all still trying to wake up from that nightmare, and this was a good shake on the shoulder.
Does anyone advising President Obama and the secretary of state really believe that this kind of partisanship and trash-talking abroad about another American president is really going to buy us much long-term goodwill among either our friends or our adversaries? Do they imagine that this sort of thing really helps to advance U.S. national interests?
Michael Crowley points out in The New Republic that Sec. Clinton was applauded when she said these words. Since Bush and Cheney are still less popular than a root canal without anesthesia, it isn't a surprise.
Long-term, though, we need to show that the promise Obama embodies for the world comes true. There is all the difference in the world between a salesman who offers you a new and improved mousetrap, and the mousetrap actually catching more mice faster, easier, and with less clean-up.
For now, though, it is enough for John Hannah to say that Sec. Clinton must have thought our interests are advanced by pointing out that she does not represent Bush/Cheney. We are all still trying to wake up from that nightmare, and this was a good shake on the shoulder.
A Rerun With Edits
I originally ran this on All Saint's Day two years ago. I have changed it slightly to reflect that two VERY prominent names on my list have changed their status, as it were. I have lost Steve Creech, and will always mourn that loss and feel responsible for the distance that grew between us. I love you, Steve. Recently, all who care about the UM Church lost a powerful, loving voice when the Rev. Dr. James Logan passed away. Our church is better for his life and gifts and service.
Today is one of my favorite feast days in the church calendar, All Saints Day. This is the day to celebrate and remember that "great cloud of witnesses" that surrounds, upholds, and gifts us by their presence in our lives. In the spirit of the day, I want to offer a partial list of those who have enriched my life, some of whom will never meet me, many of whom are long dead, and all of whom are faithful witnesses in their own way to the power of God's loving care. Should some of those listed prefer not to be associated with me, I can understand. Yet, I would be dishonest in the extreme were I to omit the names of those whose impact upon my life has been through admonishment, criticism, and (on one or two occasions) rejection.
My family, most especially my daughters Moriah and Miriam, come first. Not just on this list, but in my life.
Ahem:
The members of Poplar Grove United Methodist Church, Poplar Grove, IL; the people of Community United Methodist Church, LaMoille, IL; the people of Centenary United Methodist Church, Jarratt, VA; Steven Creech (d); the faculty of Wesley Theological Seminary, particularly those who, through direct instruction, taught me the true meaning of what the marriage of knowledge and vital piety could be - Rev. Dr. Sharon Ringe, Rev. Dr. John Godsey, the late Dr. Roy Morrison , the late Rev. Dr. James Cecil Logan, Rev. Dr. Josiah Young, Dr. David Hopkins, then-Dean Dr. M. Douglas Meeks, Rev. Dr. Laurence Hull Stookey, Rev. Dr. Mark Burrows, Rev. Dr. Douglas Strong, Rev. Dr. William Shopshire; my fellow students at Wesley Theological Seminary, especially Rev. Rodney Lorenzo Graves, Rev. Alpha Estes Brown, Rev. Scott Prinster, Mitchell Bond, Pamela Monn, Rev. Dr. Lauren Heather Lay, Rev. David & Sarah Roberts, Michael Jones; Rev. Kim Kathleen Capps; Janet Powers; Rev. Lisa-Jean Hoefner; James and Lucinda Krager; Revs. Hugh & Sarah Miller; Rev. Edwin Martin; Robert & Valerie Crocker and all my fellow members of the Sayre, PA First UMC UMYF; Rev. Richard H. Schuster (d.); Barbara Bouton; my teachers long-distance, most especially Gary Dorrien for his insights on the small, yet vital, movement of liberal Christianity in America; Gustavo Gutierrez; Rev. Dr. James Cone; those teachers who have passed from this life, but whose work illuminates the lives of many - Langdon Gilkey, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Friederich Schleiermacher, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, William Ockham, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers, Tertullian, St. Paul, the Gospel writers.
Jesus Christ.
I know I have forgotten many, many people (and they are probably thankful).
Today is one of my favorite feast days in the church calendar, All Saints Day. This is the day to celebrate and remember that "great cloud of witnesses" that surrounds, upholds, and gifts us by their presence in our lives. In the spirit of the day, I want to offer a partial list of those who have enriched my life, some of whom will never meet me, many of whom are long dead, and all of whom are faithful witnesses in their own way to the power of God's loving care. Should some of those listed prefer not to be associated with me, I can understand. Yet, I would be dishonest in the extreme were I to omit the names of those whose impact upon my life has been through admonishment, criticism, and (on one or two occasions) rejection.
My family, most especially my daughters Moriah and Miriam, come first. Not just on this list, but in my life.
Ahem:
The members of Poplar Grove United Methodist Church, Poplar Grove, IL; the people of Community United Methodist Church, LaMoille, IL; the people of Centenary United Methodist Church, Jarratt, VA; Steven Creech (d); the faculty of Wesley Theological Seminary, particularly those who, through direct instruction, taught me the true meaning of what the marriage of knowledge and vital piety could be - Rev. Dr. Sharon Ringe, Rev. Dr. John Godsey, the late Dr. Roy Morrison , the late Rev. Dr. James Cecil Logan, Rev. Dr. Josiah Young, Dr. David Hopkins, then-Dean Dr. M. Douglas Meeks, Rev. Dr. Laurence Hull Stookey, Rev. Dr. Mark Burrows, Rev. Dr. Douglas Strong, Rev. Dr. William Shopshire; my fellow students at Wesley Theological Seminary, especially Rev. Rodney Lorenzo Graves, Rev. Alpha Estes Brown, Rev. Scott Prinster, Mitchell Bond, Pamela Monn, Rev. Dr. Lauren Heather Lay, Rev. David & Sarah Roberts, Michael Jones; Rev. Kim Kathleen Capps; Janet Powers; Rev. Lisa-Jean Hoefner; James and Lucinda Krager; Revs. Hugh & Sarah Miller; Rev. Edwin Martin; Robert & Valerie Crocker and all my fellow members of the Sayre, PA First UMC UMYF; Rev. Richard H. Schuster (d.); Barbara Bouton; my teachers long-distance, most especially Gary Dorrien for his insights on the small, yet vital, movement of liberal Christianity in America; Gustavo Gutierrez; Rev. Dr. James Cone; those teachers who have passed from this life, but whose work illuminates the lives of many - Langdon Gilkey, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Friederich Schleiermacher, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, William Ockham, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers, Tertullian, St. Paul, the Gospel writers.
Jesus Christ.
I know I have forgotten many, many people (and they are probably thankful).
He Believes His Own Hype
At least I know who to blame for Jon Gosselin.
The problem with this entire piece isn't that "reality television" has created monsters such as the balloon boy, the train-wreck Jon & Kate Plus Eight, or the Kardashians. The problem, embedded in Murray's article (presumably) in his own words, is the contradiction at the heart of the genre.
So, despite calling it "reality" television, it is just . . . television. There is nothing real about it. Life isn't a story, with clean beginnings, plot-lines and story points, and endings that tie up all the loose ends. Presenting something as "real" that is deliberately contrived doesn't so much create false expectations among the viewers or participants as it does misrepresent the challenges and ambiguities of real life. By offering "ordinary people" the opportunity for fame, if not necessarily fortune, it also appeals to the most superficial desire for instant fame without any sacrifice. As the Gosselins, the Kardashians, and many others have found, though, sacrifice usually comes at some point, and if not offered voluntarily, extracts an even greater toll further on.
There was nothing "real" about the original MTV's The Real World, any more than there is Survivor, Fear Factor, or any of the rest of these abominations. Murray's contention that the shows are real because they aren't scripted belies the fact that, by editing out the boring, or uncontroversial, or too controversial, parts the producers end up with a representation not of reality, but of a narrative of certain events, some of which may not even have transpired as presented.
The lure of fame, and the promise of easy success that seems to flow out of Hollywood's shit factories has reached a kind of resting place with reality television. As the example of the train-wreck life of Jon and Kate Gosselin should demonstrate for anyone with a modicum of sense, the issue isn't reality. The issue is fame, and how emotionally equipped an individual or family is to handle it. Even the hardiest psyche would probably buckle a little bit under the various pressures presented by the constant presence of a television production crew, the creation of a reality more real than the humdrum, boring, existence we all live offered up for world-wide delectation, and the sudden realization that one can become "well-known" for no other reason than having one's face on television.
Yet, Murray believes people should get "real". The easiest way to do this is to shut off the boob tube, stop believing that fame, money, and ease come without price and sacrifice, and start living without the expectation that there is anything more real, or wonderful, than the ambiguous lives we all lead.
When my late partner Mary-Ellis Bunim, a producer of daytime soaps, and I came together in the late 1980s to create MTV's "The Real World," reality television, as we know it today, was nonexistent. Our plan at first had been to do a scripted series about young people starting out their lives in New York. But a scripted show was prohibitively expensive, so we took the documentary approach instead. We quickly realized that an unscripted, real-life show would be much more relevant to MTV's young audience.
The problem with this entire piece isn't that "reality television" has created monsters such as the balloon boy, the train-wreck Jon & Kate Plus Eight, or the Kardashians. The problem, embedded in Murray's article (presumably) in his own words, is the contradiction at the heart of the genre.
We don't tell the cast what to say, but we do edit the episodes to contain stories with a beginning, middle and end.
So, despite calling it "reality" television, it is just . . . television. There is nothing real about it. Life isn't a story, with clean beginnings, plot-lines and story points, and endings that tie up all the loose ends. Presenting something as "real" that is deliberately contrived doesn't so much create false expectations among the viewers or participants as it does misrepresent the challenges and ambiguities of real life. By offering "ordinary people" the opportunity for fame, if not necessarily fortune, it also appeals to the most superficial desire for instant fame without any sacrifice. As the Gosselins, the Kardashians, and many others have found, though, sacrifice usually comes at some point, and if not offered voluntarily, extracts an even greater toll further on.
There was nothing "real" about the original MTV's The Real World, any more than there is Survivor, Fear Factor, or any of the rest of these abominations. Murray's contention that the shows are real because they aren't scripted belies the fact that, by editing out the boring, or uncontroversial, or too controversial, parts the producers end up with a representation not of reality, but of a narrative of certain events, some of which may not even have transpired as presented.
The lure of fame, and the promise of easy success that seems to flow out of Hollywood's shit factories has reached a kind of resting place with reality television. As the example of the train-wreck life of Jon and Kate Gosselin should demonstrate for anyone with a modicum of sense, the issue isn't reality. The issue is fame, and how emotionally equipped an individual or family is to handle it. Even the hardiest psyche would probably buckle a little bit under the various pressures presented by the constant presence of a television production crew, the creation of a reality more real than the humdrum, boring, existence we all live offered up for world-wide delectation, and the sudden realization that one can become "well-known" for no other reason than having one's face on television.
Yet, Murray believes people should get "real". The easiest way to do this is to shut off the boob tube, stop believing that fame, money, and ease come without price and sacrifice, and start living without the expectation that there is anything more real, or wonderful, than the ambiguous lives we all lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
