The Cult Of The Cop

I have a feeling some of what I'm going to write is going to upset some folks.

I couldn't care less.

You see it on TV cop shows. You hear it in news reports. You get it from currently serving police officers.

Cops have a tough job. They're out there, putting their lives on the line. Every day could bring a situation that puts their lives, the lives of their fellow officers, or the lives of members of the public at risk. They have to make split-second decisions, and are trained to make the right ones. No one who isn't a cop can possibly understand.

To all of this I really have only one response - Phooey.

Can we chat here? Just for a moment? A quick scan of the Wikipedia article on the history of municipal policing in the United States (I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but this particular article is well-sourced) reminds readers that, for most of the time we've had publicly-funded police departments (less than two hundred years now) they were viewed with suspicion by the public. As in most societies, the police served the interests of power. Their attitude toward the poor, toward various marginalized populations in general, was hostile. Violence, while uncoordinated, was rampant.

The professionalization of police departments, including specialized training, an emphasis on community relations, coincided with an increase in the para-militarization of police tactics. By the time we reached the 1990's, rather than one or two specialized units (modeled after the Special Weapons And Tactics, or SWAT, units of Los Angeles), most police forces had some training in military tactics, increased firepower which included military style weapons, and the hierarchy of police forces became much more rigid, similar to military practice.

At the same time, there was an increase in the belief that this was necessary. The 1970's and 1980's saw a rapid rise in violent crime, and a general sense of social decay, particularly in urban areas. Rather than address these matters proactively, city authorities relied upon their newest tool, paramilitary police departments, to control their unruly populations.

Events on September 11, 2001 sealed, in many ways, the cult of the heroic cop. Which is not to deny that police officers that day, and every day, act in ways that are, indeed, heroic. It is not to deny that many communities, in particular those in areas most effected by high crime, want a police presence. After 9/11, however, being anything other than nearly worshipful of police officers became something more than counter-cultural. It seemed an insult to the men and women who died that day trying to help so many people escape the terrible events in New York.

We are living in different times. Violent crime is down, and has been on a downward trend, for over a decade now. In the mid- to late 1990's, it was thought this was a product of better economic times. Even as our economy has burbled and broiled since the collapse first of the tech bubble, then the housing bubble, those rates have fallen and other explanations have been floated, with no definitive answers*.

The various videos and photos of events at the University of California at Davis, symbolized by this photo of University Police Officer John Pike calmly and methodically pepper-spraying a group of students who are sitting down, posing a threat to no one, is starting a discussion, long overdo, on the increased use of military tactics and the overuse of violent reactions on the part of police.

A group of writers at Atlantic magazine is addressing the whole matter of police tactics in the wake of what is, quite clearly, a misuse of official violence.

We have to be able to talk about this issue without (a) insulting or alienating the thousands of police officers who go about their jobs with dignity and professionalism; or (b) forgetting that the institutions of the municipal, county, state, and federal police force exist to maintain the social and economic status quo. Which is not to claim in any way that there aren't really people out there who are dangerous, a threat to others, to society at large, or to the communities in which they live. Rather, we need to make sure we keep focused on the matter of police tactics, in particular the overemphasis on paramilitary training and response.

This is not to call in to question the need for police officers, police forces, or even, on occasion, the need for a strong response in the face of violent activity. Rather, it is to raise the issue of what we, as communities, as a larger society, want to be, how we wish to have those who work to protect legitimate public ends, legitimate matters of public safety and security, act in response to various situations.

Walking along and pepper spraying a bunch of college students who are sitting on the ground, posing a threat to no one, isn't the answer. I hope these recent events, and their widespread witness thanks to the ubiquity of video cameras, cell phones, and the Internet may well begin the process of talking about policing without falling in to the trap of the cult of the cop.

*Personally, I lean toward the demographic explanation. The population cohort that commits most crimes, rather than being far larger than others, as it was through the 1970's and 1980's, is relatively even with others. A smaller number of people who tend to commit crimes means a smaller number of crimes is being committed.

Contra Newt, Part 2

This is kind of turning in to a theme. I really don't want to pick on the guy. It isn't like he's gonna get the nomination. Still, a commenter wanted to know a few things:

The sick hatred you have for Gingrich is well known. What is NOT well known is any commentary on any of his ideas and why you disagree. Nothing from your "brilliance" indicating any flaw in any of his ideas. I doubt you've taken even a cursory look at anything he's proposed.

I hate repeating myself, but I do not "hate" Gingrich. I know you don't quite understand this idea that political differences aren't something I consider as personal. I know you insisted, despite my repeated claims to the contrary, that I "hated" Pres. George W. Bush. I am not maniacal in my feelings about Gingrich, or anyone else in public life. As I say toward the end, I actually enjoy his presence in public life, because he adds a breath of crazed fun to it. My reasons for the things I saw about Gingrich are numerous, as I detail, with sources available to anyone who knows how to use a search engine.

Google, Art. It's this thing you use on the computing machine.

A good introduction to the life and times of Newton Leroy Gingrich is this profile in the New York Review of Books by Joan Didion. It was later collected in Political Fictions, an anthology of her political writings in NYRB from the 1988 Presdential elections through the 2000 elections. In this comment, I linked to a Frontline Online piece on Gingrich's personal peccadilloes, which, I was quick to point out, I do not believe counts in the balance against any candidate for the Presidency.

As for Newt's "ideas", he has published many books - he claims 24, with 13 bestsellers to his credit; it may be that high, I'm not sure - and I have actually perused several of them, read excerpts and synopses of others. It isn't difficult to do, when browsing in a bookstore, to pick up a random volume and pick through a few pages. I must say his turgid prose style is more than balanced for a fondness for the telling anecdote that, when given the tiniest bit of scrutiny turns out to have emerged from the land of Newt's ass. One of my favorites concerned an example he gave of the stifling effects of American federal bureaucracy. In one of Al Franken's books from the 1990's, he details a long claim by Gingrich that a man had invented a machine that had proved, through extensive field testing, to be superior in its outcomes in giving CPR to patients needing it. He dropped plans, so said the then-Speaker, because the process of applying for a patent, testing the effectiveness of it, having it vetted by various federal agencies became not only expensive, but seemed to the person who had invented it, delaying quick delivery of a device to the public.

The only problem with this little morality tale? It never happened. Furthermore, it actually becomes counter-productive to make stuff up. There are, to be sure, plenty of anecdotes about the stupidity of various government regulations, of the way socially beneficial new ideas are stymied and even killed by the mountains of red tape and the maze of agencies one navigates in order to achieve success. Why not rely on a real example? Why go to the trouble of making stuff up? That is the far more troubling question this raises. One would think conservatives, dedicated to truth uber alles would understand that.

Finally, in today's Washington Post, we have the other side of an argument on whether or not there is an anti-intellectual streak in the Tea Party. Friday had Kathleen Parker weighing in on what was called, in the column headline, the Palinization of the Republican Party. Today it's Nia-Malika Henderson and Perry Bacon Jr., two political reporters, making the case that Perry and Cain are falling and Newt is rising because of the Tea Party's understanding that the Republican candidate for President needs to have a bit more pepperoni between his or her ears than either Perry or Cain.

Someday I may repeat my frustration with the whole "anti-intellectualism" nonsense, a canard the liberals love because it allows them to pretend to be smarter than everyone else, which is usually annoying. Which is why this discussion is so vacuous to me. I wouldn't have commented on it at all, except I found a delicious Newtism at the very end, something that demonstrates Newt's lack of self-awareness, to be generous:

“One of the Republican weaknesses is that we rely too much on consultants and too much on talking points, and we don’t rely enough on actually knowing things,” he said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. “If you’re going to lead the country and change history, you better know a heck of a lot before you start, because there’s not much time for learning on the job.”(emphasis added)

The portion in italics is what leaped off the screen, smacked me in the face, then proceeded to tickle me until I had to pee. The same man who said this, once upon a time wrote the following:

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo

Can we stop right here for just a moment? Please note both the title of this memo and who wrote it. Are you with me on this so far?

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

While the list could be the size of the latest "College Edition" dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

This is the bulk of the preamble. In essence this memo is a piece of political consulting, and actually produces a list of talking points, rooted in the idea that, as the title says, language is a key mechanism of control. About that list . . .:

Optimistic Positive Governing Words

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!
active(ly)
activist
building
candid(ly)
care(ing)
challenge
change
children
choice/choose
citizen
commitment
common sense
compete
confident
conflict
control
courage
crusade
debate
dream
duty
eliminate good-time in prison
empower(ment)
fair
family
freedom
hard work
help
humane
incentive
initiative
lead
learn
legacy
liberty
light
listen
mobilize
moral
movement
opportunity
passionate
peace
pioneer
precious
premise
preserve
principle(d)
pristine
pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform
prosperity
protect
proud/pride
provide
reform
rights
share
strength
success
tough
truth
unique
vision
we/us/our

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
"compassion" is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor ...)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare

So, the guy who complains about political consultants and talking points once upon a time offered political consultation and talking points.

This might seem a small matter. It probably is. With Gingrich, however, there is such a large volume of these little things, they have added up over the decades to give a good impression to folks who follow stuff like this (I first heard his name and read a profile in a major news weekly about Gingrich in 1985 or so; some folks pay attention and remember stuff even longer than the internet, Art). That impression is easy enough to spell out clearly - for Newt, reality, like truth, like intellectual integrity and merit, is a tool to be used to force whatever outcome Newt desires.


I called Newt megalomaniacal, and I think that's fair. Not because I am any kind of psychologist; if I were, especially if I were, it would certainly be unethical to claim some kind of diagnosis of Gingrich. Rather, I think there is an abundance of evidence available to say with a certain amount of confidence that he has displayed a more-than-normal (even for a politician, for whom a healthy ego is necessary) sense of the grandiose when it comes to his abilities, his potential, the intellectual merit of his ideas and thoughts, and the potential impact upon our national life they, and he, represent. This, in and of itself, is hardly a disqualification for office anymore than a predilection for extracurricular sex is, or at least should be. It is the substance of Gingrich's bloated sense of self. In different historical circumstances, Newt would have spun out his life one of those mediocrities that populate higher education the way moles populate my backyard. He would set up guest speakers at whatever cow college he landed at, produce all sorts of events for students and faculty to engage at an intellectual level; all of them would be poorly attended, and he would rail against the unfairness of it all. All the while treating his female graduate assistants as repositories for his seminal fluid.

I am not picking on Newt. In fact, I enjoy the attention he receives. It adds a certain amount of levity to what is otherwise a pretty dull political season. I know quite a bit about Newt, about his ideas, the history of his career in public life, and even some of his personal history. Even if I didn't, I have provided links here, and a good guide to finding out more if you, Art, wish to do so - Google. Seriously, man, I've told you many times that it's your friend.

Mind's Eye Of Newt

Since I do not believe polls mean anything, I refuse to speculate as to whether or not Newt's recent rise in said meaningless polls is or is not correct. All the same, since some media outlets put stock in such drivel, it does give us all a chance to revisit our most silly, megalomaniacal politician. Public life offers a spectacle of personality disorders, from the mildly OCD to the outright psychopathic. In Newton Leroy Gingrich, we have the joy of sitting back and watching a man swallow his entire political career whole, with his head firmly resting as far up his ass as possible. Photos don't do the picture justice.

I was reminded of this fact - Newt's best friend, from his own perspective, is Newt; Newt's worst enemy, from the perspective of the rest of humanity, is Newt - when I heard the teaser to this story. I was glad I was making good time so I didn't have to listen to it. It's hard to drive when you're laughing so hard you're doubled over, tears streaming down your face.

"If you look at the totality of what we accomplished, I had a pretty good speakership. I'd rather have done that than been a caretaker," he said. "I did burn out my party. There's no question [that] by the spring of 1998, they were just tired, and they didn't want to fight anymore, and they didn't want to have any new ideas — I actually had a senator say to me, 'We're not doing any ideas this year.' "

I love this. It's like looking at the world through crap-colored glasses. Newt got the heave-ho because he just wore out those poor House Republicans with his new ideas, his legislative accomplishments, his bold leadership.

I have to wonder if he figures cheating on his various wives with female staffers was all their fault. They just couldn't keep up with his manliness, his desires, his prowess.

Seriously, there is something so deranged in this, it should be remembered going forward. It isn't even rewriting history, because Newt, I firmly believe, sees this as the reality with which he dealt in 1998. Anyone paying attention back then knows it resembles those halcyon days of the second term of Pres. Clinton as much as the Disney version of The Alamo resembles the siege of that mission.

Should Newt make it through the first round of primaries and caucuses (caucki?), we should expect more of these kinds of professorial reflections. The kind of question-free zone in which Gingrich continues to walk - did Brian Naylor do no research at all before producing this story? Did he actually quote someone saying Gingrich is a man full of ideas, professorial in his approach to public life in the same way as Pres. Obama? How could he do this without spit taking all over his keyboard? - may well serve the Republic well. After all, if he winds up with Republican nomination, Obama cake-walks to re-election. In our current historical moment, electing a Republican would be even more disastrous than maintaining the status quo. Gingrich, having slightly less discipline in his personal and professional life than a pithed frog, would certainly provide four years of entertainment, including a whole cycle of female staffers emerging from his office tousle-haired and flushed. I say this only because his personal history is against him, not because I wish these poor women to be subjected to his version of "Serving the President".

I just wish we could stop reading and hearing stories about how full of ideas Gingrich is. Seriously. He isn't. He opens his mouth, whatever falls out gets printed, and that's it. The filter that most people use most of the time, that little voice that says, "Don't say that! It's just nuts!", has no power over Gingrich. The guy said that Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who drowned her children, was an example of the results of Democratic social engineering. He said the Columbine HS shootings in 1999 were an example of what happens when we have Presidents getting blow jobs in the Oval Office (as opposed to disgraced former Speakers getting them wherever they can grab the two minutes it takes for him).

Part of me hopes the guy does it, gets the nomination, and just cuts the last frayed moorings to reality. On the other hand, I really, really, really want him to just go away, take his second trophy wife and returns to some public college in Georgia and rails against government all the while pulling in a high salary from the government.

An Annoying Personal Reflection

Tomorrow night is my last night at the job I have had for the previous five years. Leaving has been a long time coming. I needed all sorts of assurance and reassurance from the Rev. Mrs. that jumping without any visible net was OK. Once I got it, though, I didn't hesitate.

I won't bore you with the irrelevant details. I have been searching for new work, and thanks to Lisa I check each day for new opportunities. I won't deny a certain amount of trepidation in the prospects of waking up on Saturday knowing I am, of my own volition, among the unemployed.

At the same time, for the first time since I graduated from college, I am actually setting goals for my life, planning, and working toward accomplishing those goals. This is really what I want to write about.

When I graduated from Alfred University back in the dim, dark days of 1987, I had been accepted at the Public Policy Analysis program in the Political Science department at the University of Rochester. Two years there would pretty much guarantee me a nice, cushy wonk job. From there, it seemed that the skies were blue, the forecast sunny, and the world would be a field of oysters.

It didn't turn out that way for me. Between September, 1987 and early summer, 1990, my life seemed out of anything resembling control. Looking back, I raced to the notion of ordained ministry in much the same way the old joke about people joining the French Foreign Legion: I wanted to forget. My first year in seminary taught me this, at the very least - I was not cut out for pastoral ministry. I suppose at the time I was going through this realization, it was a bit traumatic, but I really don't remember it that way. In fact, just the opposite. My three years at Wesley were a marvelous time. I learned a great deal, felt myself anchored spiritually, and, most important, was surrounded by a group of people I still consider the best friends I have ever had and will ever have.

Needless to say, I met my wife there. What more needs to be said, right?

Well, a whole lot, I think. Most of the past quarter century since that time leaving the cocoon of Alfred to the harsh reality of life has been spent denying even the possibility of making any kinds of plans for one's life. See, once upon a time, I had plans, and life and circumstances unforeseen intervened, and left my plans in a heap on the ground. One would have thought that being older and wiser (I know I'm older; I only hope I'm wiser) I might change my ways, but the voice of that much younger me, burned by an experience that should have left me me stronger, insisting that making any kinds of plans only collapse because life intervenes. As the saying goes, life sucks, right? So, just kind of float from day to day, hope for the best, and hunker down. Basically, that's been my approach to life since Ronald Reagan was President.

So much for all my preachments on courage, huh. If you're wondering, yes, I am quite aware of what a big, stinking hypocrite this makes me. It doesn't help that hypocrisy is the common cold of human failings.

So, here I am, a guy whose adult life has pretty much been dedicated to the proposition that doing anything long-term is impossible, who has stuck with his own personal status quo out of a trembling fear of the unknown taking flight over the abyss.

And, I have plans.

I've been doing the National Novel Writing Month, less with any thought of publishing the results than with the intent of developing the habit of sitting down, each day, and cranking out a minimum number of words. The goal - 50,000 words for November - isn't really "novel" length. At best, the lower end of the range. Furthermore, I have known since the first of November this was more an exercise in habit formation than anything.

And the habit has formed. Whether I really feel like writing or not, whether the words come easily or with difficulty, I sit and I write. It feels good to do that.

In the midst of this daily writing, I managed a couple weeks ago to write a short story. It is, I think, among the best things I have written. Response from alpha readers has been generally positive. With some polishing, I firmly believe it will land somewhere that will share the belief it is worth reading.

I believe that the best things, the most important things, have been said in fiction. The truth that lurks within the compounded lie of the novel is durable, tangible. Human. I have no interest in beating people over the head with ideas or my own political or religious point-of-view. Those kinds of books are both boring and annoying. The best stories make their point by being recognizably human. I do not believe I will ever write "the best stories". I do believe I have the capacity to write stories that include characters who are recognizably human in situations that are recognizably human.

So, that is my plan. When I finish the whole NaNoWriMo thing, I will go back and do a rewrite based on the input I've received from my alpha readers, then tuck it away, and turn my attention to something a bit more ambitious, even more than trying to write a fifty-thousand word novel in a month. If I feel the urge, I might write more and different things, too. The habit has settled upon my life, and plans and hopes are forming.

For the past five years I've been woodshopping here. Once upon a time, I thought this would be a vehicle to something more. It has become that; just not in the way I once imagined.

So, as I head out to my penultimate night at Sam Walton's emporium, I feel a mix of things. Most of all, for the first time since I was 21 years old and thought I had it made in life, I have hope because I have plans, and know what it will take to move forward.

The Real Challenge For The Occupy Movement

It was increasingly evident that the powers-that-be across the country were losing patience with the Occupy Movements in various places. For a couple weeks now, stories of police violence in Oakland have made it clear that the tolerance of the ruling classes in various places was disappearing.

It started Sunday in Portland, OR, and was telegraphed on Friday, when the mayor - who repeatedly made the claim he supported the Occupy movement - insisted that police were going to move in at one minute after midnight two days later. Since then Oakland (again) and last night in Manhattan, where police cleared Zuccotti Park. There are various videos abroad the show pretty clearly the police were none too gentle as they pushed the people out. They were, one and all, in riot gear, with state-issued truncheons and pepper spray. What good is it having all these toys if you can't play with them?

I have to admit that I am surprised at the sweep of officialdom's decision to act this broadly. At the same time, it isn't like it should be that surprising. What really troubles me, however, isn't the predictable reaction of state power to a growing, and popular, movement of popular democratic resistance. Instead, this article in particular, while certainly within a history of radical ideas, betrays the heart of the Occupy movement by identifying the institutions of state power with the interests of the people who make up that institution:

Individual officers and even groups have expressed support of certain struggles--most notably, for a time during the occupation of the Wisconsin Capitol last winter. Some participants in Occupy Wall Street, despite regular police attacks, have chanted, "Police are the 99%!"

But the truth is this: The police force is not, and cannot ever be, a force for social justice.

In reality, the police don't do the job that they do on TV: protect regular people from crime and violence. Instead, they serve and protect private property and the existing racist, sexist, and massively unequal social order.

What makes my discomfort with this even deeper is I pretty much agree with it, at least to a point.

Yet, I am far more sympathetic with the following:

Addressing government authorities, one occupy spokeswoman used the police aggression as an opportunity to refocus on the larger message of the movement:

You claim to support us, and yet you tell your police force to destroy us. Peaceful citizens are being injured in the process. This is not democratic, this is autocratic. … We have said from day one that our fight is not with you, but rather with banks, irresponsible corporations, and a corrupt federal government. By camping outside the city hall, we gave you a choice to decide to stand with us and with working class Americans. Instead, you made the choice to protect unjust social and economic policies that are leading our nation into a state of financial ruin and institutionalized oppression.

More of this kind or thing is needed. We need to address police officers as members of the working class whose jobs, too often, lead them to acts that are contrary to their own interests.

There is little doubt, I believe, that the mild-mannered, establishment commentator Charlie Pierce is correct, however, in his general description of what has happened over the past 24 hours:

Your right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances, and how you may do it, and what you may say, will be defined by the police power of the state, backed by its political establishment and the business elite. They will define "acceptable" forms of public protest, even (and especially) public protest against them. This is the way it is now. This is the way it has been for some time. It's just that people didn't notice. And that was the problem with the Occupy protests. They resisted the marginalization — both literal physical marginalization, and the kind of intellectual marginalization that keeps real solutions to real problems out of our kabuki political debates.

Now that the police have moved, en masse, across the country, the next step will determine whether Occupy will go the way of similar protests in Britain that ended after the Tory-led coalition government there sent the cops in to smash some heads, or if they will defy the police, the mayors, and the nonsensical political commentators. I would caution, by the way, that relying on the courts as a bastion of defense is a sketchy plan. They are as much a part of the apparatus of control as the police, who do their bidding.

The question that faces Occupy now is: Do protesters return to Zuccotti Park and the other public spaces they have taken over, in the face of the state making their feelings about the movement clear for all to see? If they do, then Occupy may well be on its way to overcoming the internal debates and divisions, some of the more important of which I highlighted above, and pose an even graver threat to the institutions that would stifle democracy.

Nonsense

Full confession - I do not read Ross Douthat. Not because he is conservative. Not because he is often skewered by folks like Tbogg and the folks at Sadly,No!. I don't read him because, by and large, I only have so many minutes in a day to dedicate to reading stuff. He is one who has slipped through the cracks, is all.

When the folks at Crooked Timber dedicated a post to a column Douthat wrote on the whole sad Penn State business, I thought it might be a nice idea to find out what it was Douthat had said. First, here's the key point in Douthat's attempt to understand what happened at PSU:

Bad and mediocre people are tempted to sin by their own habitual weaknesses. The earlier lies or thefts or adulteries make the next one that much easier to contemplate. Having already cut so many corners, the thinking goes, what’s one more here or there? Why even aspire to virtues that you probably won’t achieve, when it’s easier to remain the sinner that you already know yourself to be?

But good people, heroic people, are led into temptation by their very goodness — by the illusion, common to those who have done important deeds, that they have higher responsibilities than the ordinary run of humankind. It’s precisely in the service to these supposed higher responsibilities that they often let more basic ones slip away.

Good so far? Paterno screwed up not because he is a fallible human being who acted out of a sense of self-interest and self-preservation, but a hero who, if he has fallen further, had already climbed higher than so many of the rest of us.

Here's what Belle wrote as a summary of Douthat:

The only reason Catholics like Joe Paterno and Darío Castrillón Hoyos are able to commit such uniquely awful crimes is because they are ethical in a way that run-of-the-mill godless folk cannot understand.

N.B.: The Dario Castrillon Hoyos who is named was a heroic Roman Catholic bishop of Medellin, Colombia who, upon being raised to the Crimson and becoming the Vatican's point man on the pedophilia scandal, became the leader of those who denied the existence of such a scandal, tried to claim it was a uniquely American experience, and praised bishops who refused to denounce their priests to secular authorities.

In any event, some commenters at CT are up in arms that Belle wrote what she did about Douthat's column. Except, that is exactly what he said.

And it's bullshit. From beginning to end. To even imagine there are human beings who are intrinsically more in tune with the moral order of the Universe is a marvelous pagan idea. As Douthat describes events, he sounds far more like a classicist describing the role of hubris in Greek tragedy, instead of someone trying to make a serious moral point in some kind - perhaps Roman Catholic, although I can't imagine a serious Roman Catholic ethicist making any claim close to this - of a Christian context.

This is a kind of praising with faint damnation that envisions a Universe where good and evil, virtue and vice, are weighed in a balance. Furthermore, Douthat does a marvelous job reading Paterno's mind, divining all sorts of morally superior reasons for not coming forward, or moving more vigorously to investigate, allegations that a protege of his was buggering little boys in the showers. There is already enough evidence in the public record to make the case that, in fact, Paterno kept mum because he knew, if he pushed to hard, he could lose his job. Imagining he was acting out of an inherently superior sense of right and wrong is not only contradicted by serious ethical reflection. It is also contradicted by the evidence in the public realm.

I'm honestly not sure what Douthat was thinking when he wrote this particular column, beyond - perhaps - attempting to claim that there are individuals out there who are just morally better than others. If that is the case, he probably should have picked a different set of circumstances that the attempt to cover-up serial child rape. It's disgusting.

A Few Words In Defense Of Michelle Bachmann's Whine

I don't pay attention to the Republican primary candidates' debates out of a sound sense of personal preservation. It seems, however, the latest dust-up might - despite my preferred attitude of bemused neglect - have some merit. Michelle Bachmann is complaining that last night's debate in South Carolina was weighted against her.

Michele Bachmann told reporters in the spin room after Saturday night’s presidential debate here that her campaign has proof that, in the words of a Bachmann spokesperson, debate sponsor CBS News had “a pre-planned attempt to limit” the number of questions Bachmann was asked on stage.

Bachmann has an email from CBS News Political Director John Dickerson she says backs up her claims, but before the controversy could cook off, one debate co-sponsor — the South Carolina GOP — said Bachmann was barking up the wrong tree.

“The SCGOP had no input on how questions were developed or to whom they were addressed,” party Executive Director Matt Moore told TPM. “Congresswoman Bachmann seemed to receive a fair number [of] questions, and had ample opportunities to answer.”

That’s not how Bachmann saw it.

“Clearly, we received an email today, unintentionally, that CBS had an effort not to ask questions,” she said. “That was their effort, I don’t know why.”

“The email was targeted to me,” Bachmann said. “I don’t know if it was targeted to anyone else.”

TPM, which is covering this latest bit of news, offers the following less-than-sterling defense of the decision by CBS to ask Rep. Bachmann fewer questions than other candidates:

CBS’s just hired political director, John Dickerson, wrote an email — apparently to CBS colleagues — noting that Bachmann probably wouldn’t get many questions tonight since she’s basically tanked in the polls. That’s not terribly surprising — also-ran candidates typically get less mic time in a multi-candidate debate.

--snip--

For some context, the TPM Poll Average puts Bachmann currently at 3.2% support nationwide among Republicans. So she’s creeping up on Gary Johnson territory. And well into Santorum-ville.

I have been immune for quite a while to the nonsensical "liberal media!!!" screeching from the right. This case, one would think, is evidence of the real problem with so much of our national political media. It isn't liberalism, or excessive Democratic partisanship.

It's hubris. Stupid hubris.

"Polls" at this point in time - before a single vote has been cast - are meaningless. Considering current "polls" have Herman Cain in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney, one would think cooler heads would merely chuckle at them then insist on going about the business of constructing these debates with some sense. The constant tea-reading - it's Perry! no, it's Cain! Gingrich is up! Bachmann is down! - is meaningless drivel. Even Romney's pretty consistent high numbers are meaningless because there haven't been any primaries or caucuses yet. The playing field is level for one simple reason - the current crop of Republican primary candidates haven't had anyone vote for them yet.

So, basing the number of questions any particular candidate will face at any given time based on polls is ludicrous. A good answer here, a bad answer there, a misstep on this one, a clear, concise, knowledgeable response on that one - this, too could change the polls. Most sentient people understand this. None, apparently, work for CBS.

Putting in writing that the debate format is limiting opportunities for some candidates is monumentally stupid. It may well be the case that Michelle Bachmann deserves less attention than some other candidates. We have no way of knowing that unless we as the voting public are exposed to her ideas on specific topics. We can't be exposed to them if she has fewer questions addressed to her, and is allowed a shorter response time than other candidates.

There was a time when these debates were run by the League of Women Voters. Back in those halcyon days, the League made it a policy to just let candidates in, to have a moderator ask questions, then sit back and let them talk. Complaints over the way the League did things were perennial, especially when they had the temerity to refuse to block debate access to non-party and Third Party candidates. It would be preferable to have such institution do these things without any input from any of the candidates or news organizations. The candidates want to debate? Here's the format. Folks who show up will be asked whatever questions we want. Folks who don't show up, well, doesn't that tell us something about them?

I would be more sympathetic to Ms. Bachmann if she, and so many conservatives, hadn't spent decades whining about the liberal media. I would be more sympathetic if this whole incident didn't start before the debate was even over last night. Running as the perpetual victim of Big Blue Meanies who lie in wait ready to pounce is unbecoming, to say the least. Yet, she does have a point. No matter her standing the "polls", she deserved the right to have as many questions asked of her as other candidates did. It isn't "fair" to deny her time just because her poll numbers are low. Even if Josh Marshall thinks it is, or CBS, or anyone else.

Besides, according to the same site that thinks she got about as much attention as she deserved, she did manage a marvelous whopper.

“If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps,” she told the GOP debate moderators. “They save for their retirement.”

I mean, come on. Why deny us the opportunity for more of this preciousness?

Free With The Facts (UPDATE)

Whenever George Will puts on his Constitutional scholar hat, right-thinking people cover their eyes in shame. It may well be that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is an unconstitutional piece of crap. At the same time, the attempt at both the state and federal level to regulate certain speech-acts as beyond the bounds of Constitutional acceptability does have a certain amount of practical merit. No one should be surprised by Will's opposition to a set of rules and regulations that would disproportionately harm the political opportunities of conservatives. When it comes to slinging piles of poo until they stick, the Republicans are the alpha males of our little primate colony.

All one needs to consider is the following on-going meme - the socialism of President Barack Obama. Real socialists carry on about the perfidy, weakness, and general bag-carrying-for-business-and-banks of Pres. Obama and his Administration. No matter. We'll just repeat it and repeat it, and pretend it actually means something and, voila! There are significant numbers of conservative and Republican voters who believe our business-coddling President is V. I. Lenin in a better suit.

It is a dodgy thing, at best, to talk about regulating speech. It is impossible to look for guidance in these matters to the founding generation of our country, because they honored these things, by and large, in the breach. John Adams supported and signed the Alien and Sedition Act which, among other things, criminalized all sorts of political speech. We still have laws regulating seditious libel, for which truth is no defense (something I cannot fathom; there is no rational reason why truth isn't a defense when going after a public figure, except to protect the status quo, so, uh, duh). The Presidential election of 1800 makes our current politics look like a high school student council election by comparison, and the things said about Pres. Obama only approach the kinds of invective Adams tossed at Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, being a gentleman, managed to toss far less lethal poo at Adams.

All the same, our current speech-climate certainly favors those who have no scruples. Those who are quite willing to say anything and everything about candidates, about laws and bills before Congress, about the actual effects of legislation or policy preferences. Which means, in recent history, Republican candidates. The year-long campaign against the Affordable Care Act was an object lesson in the effectiveness of lying in politics. With false statements no longer constitutionally protected, we might well have a situation where the playing field between various parties and their policy preferences becomes level. Even more than removing money from the electioneering process through campaign finance reform, what would our politics look like if all parties were reduced to discussing issues knowing they could not, under penalty of law, make a false statement in the negative about their opponents or their policy preferences, nor could they make any false positive statements about themselves?

It would have a devastating impact upon the economy, because there would be a whole lot of people whose livelihood depends upon lying about public affairs who would suddenly find themselves unemployable. It would also be a nice statement about what kind of society we wish ourselves to be. It would set a minimal standard for our public discourse, now suffering from extreme strains of decrepitude.

Heck, Newt Gingrich might actually be asked a question such as, "Mr. Disgraced Former Speaker, if you truly believe that organs of state power are at the heart of so much of our national malaise, why do you spend an inordinate amount of time seeking to lead them?"

Yeah, I see how silly and utopian my position is.

UPDATE: Augh. I had completely forgotten that, yesterday, I saw this. Rather than rewrite the whole thing, I thought I'd tack it on the end here:

Social scientists have known for a couple of decades that, contrary to its national myths, the US is a country with low intergenerational economic mobility, by international standards. Back in 2001, when I reviewed The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism by Bob Goodin and others, I mentioned that this was already well known. More recent evidence has shown that social mobility is not only low but declining. Yet until recently, popular discussion in the US seemed impervious to this evidence.

Imagine! An entire society impervious to evidence of a reality that should be all too clear. Like about global warming. Or the positive revenue effects of cutting tax rates.

Right now, the Republicans at pretty much every level and their hired guns and willing stooges carry on that each and every attempt by others to regulate economic affairs is dangerous to the likelihood that economic prosperity will grow like some big snowball as it rolls through time, granting to our children and grandchildren greater rewards than we have received. This, of course, distinguishes us from those horrid socialist Europeans who only work 15 hours a week and make do on government welfare checks, smoking their smelly cigarettes and drinking their horrible coffee, wiping themselves with paper towels.

That the reality is the exact opposite of this caricature is no small bit of important information to have moving forward. One would think. Coddling Americans to believe ours is the greatest and bestest of all in everything is the social equivalent of insistently telling one's children that the Easter Bunny brings all that candy and eggs. When said children are college students. We would fare better as a country if we actually started from a position rooted in the reality of certain situations. You cannot design policies that work from false premises.

Empty Words Flowing From An Empty Head

Ron Paul, a true believer in the racial superiority of whites and the economic superiority of rich people telling the rest of us to suck it up and deal when the world makes lemons out of our lemonade stands, was asked to comment on Elizabeth Warren's recent comments that our social contract demands certain obligations from us even as it offers us opportunities for social and economic betterment. Paul's response - "Socialism!" - was so predictable, and the resulting revision and extension of his remarks so laughably inane, I thought they would make a good drinking game (every time he uses words like "market", "competition", "socialism" participants would have to drink; a ten minute interview would leave a heap of people waiting for the ambulance so they could have their stomach's pumped).

In the course of comments on Charlie Pierce's marvelous post on this same subject, a libertarian entered the fray to defend the idea that public services are socialist.

Things didn't go so well, mostly because the rest of the commenters were laughing at him too loud for him to be heard. That hurt his feelings so he took his toys and went home after telling us that we were mean and stupid and ugly. So there!*

A perennial complaint of mine has been the looseness, the vagueness, and occasional utter vacuity of our public discourse. Words that once meant stuff, words like liberal and conservative, freedom, socialism have become empty vessels, to be defined by whoever is using them. Never directly, of course. We have to guess that, say, when Ron Paul says that public education is socialism, he may or may not be talking about the same thing that Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin (whose views on what constituted socialism were different, but that's the subject for another post) meant when they used the word socialist.

Now, obviously, one of the purposes of public rhetoric is to persuade, and persuasion is very often accomplished better when there is a confusion of terms. Folks who toss around words carelessly in order to get people to nod their heads and agree with them have accomplished their goal - "You like me! You really like me!" - but have made it that much harder to have a serious, honest discussion about matters or real importance.

When Ron Paul speaks, the English language dies a little bit. Language needs to have substance, referents, a common stock of mutually-agreed-upon definitions in order to be effective. Communication can only take place when all parties have at least general agreement that the words they are all using mean the same thing. Calling public education "socialist" fails utterly. Sitting and blabbing about home-schooling and vouchers and choice and competition are meaningless beyond stating one's personal preferences. Because there has yet to be a study conducted on the alleged benefits of competition in education that has borne out the claims of its proponents, intellectual honesty should, in a perfect world, force them to admit they support ideas that are about as useful as leeches in treating fevers.

The Constitution, for all its flaws, both originally and on-going, is a remarkable document. It is even more remarkable because it means none of the things Ron Paul thinks it means. Born from the minds and hard work and politicking of men steeped in an understanding republican ideals and virtues gleaned from reading Montesquieu, Locke, and other commenters upon the benefits of mutual obligation in human society, the Constitution is chock-a-block with references to the common good because that lies at the heart of the social contract represented by the Constitution. American society is not an experiment in economic freedom. It is, rather, an experiment in republican governance, which needs active participation among its various factions (to borrow a word from the Federalist Papers) always with an eye toward achieving certain ends for the benefit of all. Sometimes this is best done by voluntary organizations (De Tocqueville was a big pimper of the idea that, in the United States, voluntary associations worked to flesh out the social contract; he was conservative in the classical sense, wavered between an allegiance to monarchy and a kind of grudging admiration for American republican institutions without being blind to their flaws). Sometimes, the state in some form - local, county, state, or federal government institutions - has to intervene to achieve the ends all see as beneficial to the nation as a whole.

This language of republican civic virtue is dead, slaughtered by mindless blathering from people like Ron Paul whose minds are like old Commodore 64 computers, limited in their capacity to respond to inputs because their programs only contain certain programmed responses. I am underwhelmed by arguments of libertarians not because of any reflexive ideological principles. I am underwhelmed because they are vacuous, ignorant, and, when even partially implemented, corrosive upon our common life.

It is nice on occasion to laugh at the stupidity of Ron Paul, and to make the uninteresting and unremarkable observation that the things he says are without any political, historical, or intellectual merit whatsoever. It would be nice, however, if we had more people who insisted that recovering at least some of the language of republican virtue, of this sense of mutuality that lies at the heart of the American social contract, was necessary to heal the wounds inflicted by so many decades of stupidity.

*If you scroll down and read through all the comments and replies, you will see my Facebook avatar - a tarsier. I have decided, rather than use various pictures of myself or my family, that this tiny primate is the best representative for me in public discourse.

Rick Santorum Is A Horrible Human Being

I wasn't going to write or say anything about the spreading scandal at Penn State. At the heart of the scandal is the now established fact that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was caught, on at least one occasion, performing a sexual act with a child. Along with Sandusky, who should wear his testicles in a bag around his neck without actually severing them from his body, the scandal has brought down the athletic director, a vice-president and, today, legendary head coach Joe Paterno.

I wasn't going to say anything because . . . well, good Lord, what is there to say? Hooray they caught a pederast? Hooray the people who covered up the fact he might well be a serial pederast have lost their jobs (cold comfort to the molested children that some rich people have to live off their savings . . .).

Then, I read the following:

Nine years ago, it seems, Rick [Santorum] sponsored, for the honor of "Congressional Angel in Adoption," Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant football coach who is presently accused of multiple acts of child molestation and rape, and whose long career as a predator may well bring down the whole football program at Santorum's alma mater. Obviously outraged, Santorum reached deep into the well of his anger and pulled up this bucket of mealy-mouthed slop:
"Look, I pray and hope that he [PSU coach Joe Paterno] didn't do anything he shouldn't have done, but it certainly looks horrible for the university, horrible for the football program and obviously people were fired, should be fired."
Of course, as the report above says, since the Penn State scandal broke, Santorum "has been circumspect in his comments about it. (He is not implicated in any way.)"
By contrast, here's what he once said about gay marriage:
"This is an issue just like 9/11. We didn't decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?"

All these phony family values jerk-offs are now revealed to be nothing more or less than the moral equivalent of parasites, sucking the life-blood from our country even as they grow fat. Santorum doesn't even have the fortitude to mention that, you know, there might have been some children whose lives were ruined by this "Angel" Sandusky, and gee, it might be more horrible these kids have to live not only with this trauma but that it was covered up by people who had a legal responsibility, years ago, to report it to authorities?

These were children who were raped, Mr. Santorum. The tragedy here isn't what's happened to Penn State athletics. The tragedy is what Penn State athletics, in the person of Jerry Sandusky, and later the others higher up the food chain who tried to shove it under whatever furniture was lying around, did to those children. That's the tragedy.

Even an immoral liberal like me understands that. Why can't a sanctimonious pus-bug like you?

Thoughts on Non-Violence And The Occupy Movement

[N]o one can be non-violent in an unjust society.

James Cone

I had, even without knowing it, absorbed this idea so deeply that I uttered it, two years after first discovering it, in a seminar on liberation theology.

I read James Cone's best-known works - A Black Theology of Liberation and God of the Oppressed - my first semester at Wesley. His work was deeply affecting, shaping much of my ensuing considerations on theological matters. It was not until last night, standing in my wife's office and randomly scanning God of the Oppressed that I realized just how much I had absorbed so many of the lessons he taught me.

In a chapter on Christian ethics and liberation, Cone has a section on the issue of non-violence. From the perspective of black liberation in North America, and the issue of non-violent resistance in the pursuit of justice in any context, the matter of non-violence is of particular centrality because of the prominent place it held in the thought and praxis of Martin Luther King. Far more radical segments of the African-American community disparaged King's insistence on non-violence. Some preached outright revolution, although they were a small minority. By and large, however, the impatience of many in the face of white intransigence led them to see King's approach as ineffective.

Cone's discussion, seen in the context of the larger discussion within the African-American community over the question, begins, after some introductory remarks, with the observation in the epigram above. It can be shocking, I suppose, for those who believe that America is a just society, or that non-violence as a tactic is, or perhaps should be, the norm in the pursuit of justice. By stating baldly that such views hide the reality of systemic violence, Cone challenges the entire discussion at its heart.

Over a couple years of seminary education, I had kept a special place in my heart for Cone's thought, even as I moved on to so many others. My last semester, in a seminar on liberation theology, there was a discussion of the eschatological thought of Martin Luther King, the place it held in his broader program of the pursuit of racial justice and reconciliation, and, of course, non-violence. I made a small point - despite King's best efforts, the Civil Rights movement was anything but non-violent. From the streets of Montgomery, AL during the bus boycott through Little Rock to the waves of terrorism visited upon the Freedom Riders and the volunteers during Freedom Summer when folks, black and white, went to the deep south to register African-American voters to the fire hoses and attack dogs Bull Connor unleashed on school children, violence was at the heart of legalized white supremacy in the United States, and it wouldn't give up without a bloody fight.

I recall little more than the sense that the other members of the class acted like I had farted in church. The passing of a quarter century (at that point in time) had only set King's non-violent resistance in an ever-deeper and thicker foundation of stone. Saying, in essence, that this bright shining monument to American ethical exceptionalism was wrong was, for all intents and purposes, an indication of just how wrong I would always be.

Except, well, I wasn't wrong. The facts of the matter are simple enough. An entire system of entrenched social, cultural, racial, political, and economic power depends upon the threat and use of force to maintain itself. After chipping away at the edges of the legalized dehumanization of African-Americans, the on-going demands by more and more people for dismantling not only segregation but the entire structure that propped it up, from discrimination in hiring to laws restricting the African-American franchise, would only be seen as a threat to the entire order. The gears of American economic and social progress have been lubricated for much of its history with the blood of blacks, and the poor, and immigrants. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it any less the reality with which we have to live.

Sitting around discussing non-violence, whether tactically or as an end in and for itself misses the point made most clearly by H. Rap Brown: Violence is as American as cherry pie.

I have been thinking about these matters in the wake of the rising official violence against Occupy protesters in Oakland, CA; the tentative and sporadic violence in New York against Occupy Wall Street; scattered beatings and arrests at various Occupy sites in Maine and Tennessee. I suppose I have been thinking that one can gauge the success of the perceived threat of any protest movement by the reaction of the organs of state power to it. With the rising tide of anti-Occupy violence, it should be clear that the folks in charge see the threat to their perquisites and prerogatives as very real. Thus, the attempt to stifle them through the use of police power utilizing the para-militarized weapons and tactics developed over a generation of "law and order" policies.

I have no answer to those who insist on asking what other choices folks who are protesting have. The reality is, despite the best intentions and most thorough indoctrination in the methods and ideology of non-violence, the police are going to have no worries using any and all the methods and weapons at their disposal to thwart a threat to the existing order. It would be ideal to think that such tactics would or could end systemic injustice.

I just don't think so. Which breaks my heart.

Neither Seminary Nor The Church But Tired, Stereotyped Cliches Put Forward By The Flavor Of The Week Is Our Problem

Anytime someone insists they have "the answers", that is the moment you need to change the channel. By and large, "the answers" are actually statements the person has repeated over and over again, creating questions afterward that make "the answers" sound really good. They aren't really answers, anyway; they are marketing points, ad copy for folks to show the world how smart and clever they are and why they should be paid a whole lot of money by others just to show up and talk.

Such, I would submit, is Brian McLaren. His self-description from Google for his eponymous website is "author, storyteller, and theologian". Sounds marvelous! You get to his website and you find . . . Brian's books, reviews of those books, and Brian's recommendations for books. Plus Brian's sermons, Brian's talks, links to articles Brian has written.

For someone who is ordained clergy, Brian seems to work awfully hard to make sure the world knows all about Brian.

In any event, McLaren has written an article as part of a symposium on theological education that, to my mind, does nothing to advance any agenda other than making sure Brian McLaren's name continues to circulate as the latest snake-oil salesman to tell smart folks in the church how much they need to pay him to reward them for being smart.

[T]oo many seminarians step out of seminary and straight into a brick wall. When they arrive in a local congregation, they experience nearly the opposite of their positive seminary experience. Church members seem to want:
1. A familiar closed environment where old answers to outdated questions are repeated in predictable ways, and no new questions are allowed to disturb the peace.
2. A rigid sectarian environment where the boundaries between "us" and "them" are constantly reinforced and celebrated.
3. A superficial environment where spiritual vulnerability is dangerous and where institutional and/or doctrinal maintenance trumps spiritual hunger and thirst.
4. An insular environment which maintains aloofness, fear, or disdain toward the world and its problems.
5. A demanding consumerist environment where people seek religious goods and services tailored to their exacting standards and tastes.

Except for the last item, which merely restates the obvious point that American Christians are going to act like Americans in the way they view any social or cultural institution - one among a variety of choices that are sought to fulfill certain needs or perceived wants rather than a way of being an alternative community gathered around a shared commitment to an external authority - the list above is so old and stereotyped, I'm surprised it hasn't been copyrighted.

The body of McLaren's text continues:

[R]ecalling that Jesus himself was unable to transform the Temple establishment of his day, and remembering that Paul was run out of a good many more synagogues than he was welcome in, I'm not sure that any amount of training can equip seminarians for transformation in churches that are quite happy with how they are—or were, thank you very much. It may sound harsh for me to say, but I think it is unethical to send gifted, idealistic, and high-potential young leaders into intractable, dysfunctional congregations that will grind them up, disillusion them, and damage them for life.
And I have met many who fit this description.

To the first part of this, I would say that Jesus did indeed transform the Temple establishment, just not the way they feared. Apparently, McLaren didn't quite get what Jesus said when he talked about destroying the Temple and rebuilding it in three days.

To the last sentence, however, I would ask just this: Who? Who are the gifted, excited clergy whose professional lives have been destroyed by churches? What are the congregations? Where are they? What denomination? What are the statistics on clergy burn-out, on overhead-versus-ministry/mission ratios in church budgets?

It is almost too tiresome to ask the simple questions. We can reward ourselves for all the marvelous things gained through a seminary education without ever considering whether or not the one thing we haven't really gained is either wisdom or perspective. The kind of disdain for the local church on display here, a disdain that forgets an important part of what it means to be church, is breathtaking.

Does McLaren not understand that the church is full of sinful, broken people? Does he not get that even at our best, local churches do a pretty piss-poor job of incarnating the Spirit of Christ in the world, yet somehow it has managed to survive, even thrive? Does He not understand that folks like St. Paul, the author of the epistles of St. Peter, and of the Revelation of St. John the Divine all addressed the fact that some local congregations just weren't up to snuff?

Seriously, dude. You want to comment on the future of theological education, don't set up straw arguments about straw congregations, insist you know some of this first-hand, and then not even have balls enough to name some names. You could comment on Edward Farley or David Kelsey. You could talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the professional graduate school model as applied to ministry. You could look at a sampling of seminary curricula from denominationally affiliated schools versus non-denominational (say Duke Divinity School versus Harvard or Vanderbilt). You could examine the relationships between theological schools and local churches, forged through student-pastor relationships that allow students attending seminary to also serve local churches.

You could do a whole lot of things you didn't do. Instead, you rewarded seminarians for going to seminaries and chastised local churches for being congregations of sinners. Without actually providing any data to back up any of the claims you make. Not even a single anecdote. For a self-professed storyteller, that's pretty lame.

There are many challenges the churches face. Seminaries, too, struggle to come to terms with shifting paradigms in education, as well as the fundamental relationship of theological higher education in service to the traditions both of free inquiry in a research university and the church which called the seminary in to being. There is the general decline in religious affiliation in America, and the decline in particular among the old mainline Protestant churches, who nevertheless continue to fill seminary desks with students and pulpits with clergy.

McLaren didn't address any of these things. Instead, he made up some stuff that folks have been saying for years about all those energized seminary graduates getting chewed up and spit out by dysfunctional local churches, without once putting a face or a name or some numbers to the claim. He told seminarians they were just too good for the local church. He told local congregations they weren't good enough for the wonderful people coming out of seminaries.

Honest to God. What a crock of shit. The only thing that makes it worse is some folks whom I respect think McLaren's take is right on target.

A Message To Some Folks I've Encountered On The Internet

If you think this is addressed to you unfairly, you might well be wrong.

Starving The Beast

It is a column tailor-made for the blogosphere. Dana Millbank's piece in today's Washington Post is a parody of blog writing, an example in "Blog Writing 101 - How To Be Outraged, Lesson 4: Sarcasm and Superiority":

After preaching for weeks about the urgency of Washington taking action to create jobs, lawmakers decided to put their mammon where their mouths are. And so on Tuesday evening they descended from the mountaintop and came forth to anoint a jobs bill of biblical proportions:

“H.Con.Res 13 — Reaffirming ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States.”

The grace of this legislation, taken up on the House floor, was not immediately revealed to all. “In God We Trust” has been the nation’s official motto for 55 years, engraved on the currency and public buildings. There is no emerging movement to change that. But House Republicans chose to look beyond the absence of immediate threats and instead protect the motto against yet-unimagined threats in the future.

It's all right there. The smug superiority, the condescending tone, the sarcastic aside that our national motto, whatever its merits or demerits, is not a fit topic for symbolic legislating in these perilous times.

What should come as no surprise to anyone who has spent more than a day or so perusing the internet's political corners is that less than a few hours after posting, the column already has over 300 comments. SageThrasher wrote:

This piety posing could have come straight out of Machiavelli, see: "How to keep the rabble quiet: act holy." A motto that actually confirms something about American values is "E pluribus unum," which worked just fine until 1956. It certainly inspires higher ideals than the Talibanesque nod to passive fatalism and religious supremacy over secular politics implied by "In God We Trust." It also hints at genuine cooperation as necessary to succeed--something else worth thinking about.

andrew23boyle wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It doesn't say "A religion". It says "religion" in general. It is no better to officially endorse a number of "religions" than it is to endorse only one.

The phrase "In God We Trust" does just that because it endorse and lends official validation to any number of philosophies or ideologies that believe in a "god" while excluding others that do not. Since it is not the Republic's business to declare for this or that "religion" , the Republic has no business making such declarations.

Furthermore, Congress has MUCH better things to do with its time.

This is why I can never call myself a Republican. They talk a good game about personal liberties but then turn around and try to use the state to force their religion on everyone else. We need a "Mind you own business party". The radical wing can be the "Mind your own g-dd-amn business!" party.

So, from a nonsensical bit about a meaningless resolution come forth the frothing masses to denounce an overt danger to our secular Constitution and multicultural, multireligious society. While I doubt the commenters really get too worked up about it all, even taking the time necessary to think through such sentences, reaching such conclusions, seems like far more work than the event itself deserves. Yet, it serves its purpose of feeding the beast.

Yesterday, a story broke on TPM that Ann Coulter, who manages to eliminate any sexiness her image might dredge up the moment her mouth opens, said something that sounds pretty racist. I'll be perfectly honest. I neither know nor care whether Coulter is a bigot. By and large, Coulter wants only one thing - attention. Stuff like this is designed to drag out even the most casual reader of the day's events. We can all feel better about ourselves that we don't associate ourselves with someone whose public persona is, to say the least, horrible.

Then there's the latest wankfest at Dan Trabue's blog. No disrespect to Dan, who seems like a really nice guy, thoughtful, tentative. Sadly, Dan feeds the trolls, so they keep coming back. A modest observation that there are links between Hebrew prophetic announcements regarding the LORD's justice and the OWS protests becomes yet another 100+-comment wankathon. Instead of telling folks like Doug and Art that his observations are just that, they are entitled to their views, but please go away and stop bothering me, Dan still believes, long after such behavior should have been as discredited as negotiating with Republicans on taxes, it is possible to have a discussion with them.

They aren't interested in discussion. By and large, they demonstrate little understanding of the topics involved. They get off on pissing off folks by saying outrageous things. Like Coulter. Like House Republicans. Not to say that there are not some among House Republicans who believe legislative action reaffirming our national motto is a good thing. They probably do. The reason the leadership allowed it come up and take up time on the floor is simple - it is a slab of meat to the lions, some bread and circuses for the masses. Meaningless in any substantive way, it is a political gesture of the most transparent, crass sort. Rather than spend 800 words in the precious op-ed space of one of the nation's leading newspapers, Millbank might have spent 800 words on what happened to former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine Mutual Fund, or the obvious anti-democratic sentiment among the leaders of the EU as they shout in rage over the Greeks determination to vote on the latest round of austerity.

As you may have noticed, I've been mailing it in with the whole music-thingy. Bored bored bored would best describe my feeling about that. Rather than be bored, I gave it up, which is fine with me. All the same, I'm not going to sit around here and feed the beast of internet nonsense, showing how more outraged I can be than the next person over meaningless drivel. Spending even a few minutes showing the world how much smarter I am than everyone else does little more than demonstrate I have way too much time on my hands.

So, I'm not gonna feed the beast. Observing the various rituals of the political internet, I believe that was once a promising venture in new ways of doing national dialogue has become, and been for a while, a ritualized dance rather than a serious attempt at informing or persuading anyone. Far better to be constructive in one's pursuits than end up being the liberal version of Ann Coulter - saying stuff just to get attention.

My Little Town

Trying to find a song that describes my hometown has been difficult. My first instinct was something bland - "On the Border" by Al Stewart, say. Because Waverly sits right on the border of New York and Pennsylvania.

Dumb.

Then, I thought back to the Paul Simon chestnut, "My Little Town". That song resonated with me for a long time.

It's unfair, though, because "my little town" isn't really that town.

Would I end up using "My Hometown" by Bruce Springsteen? How sad would that be?

Then I got to thinking about the reality that I actually have many fond memories of growing up there. It was a good place to grow up, a great place to be a kid because we had the run of the place. As a kid you could start your day right after breakfast and go until after dark, just checking in enough so the parents knew where you were.

I also got to thinking about all the folks I knew growing up who married their childhood sweethearts and now, decades later, are still together, enjoying their middle years and the rewards that come with it. Which, of course, led me to thinking of the girl or two I dated in high school. Nothing big, and rest assured those women are much better off having moved on fairly quickly. All the same . . . yeah, those memories are nice.

So, in honor of being reminded that my childhood and youth were actually a really good time; that the people with whom I grew up have, by and large, turned in to really interesting adults; that I am so happy for those I knew who found their life's partner right there in the middle of nowhere . . .

It's Only Real When Glenn Greenwald Discovers It

I have had a long-term love-hate relationship with Glenn Greenwald. By and large, I agree with much of what he says. At the same time, he is the first person who would tell you how important Glenn Greenwald is, how intelligent, insightful, and most of all correct Glenn Greenwald is.

He has a new book out. With Liberty And Justice For Some: How The Law Is Used To Destroy Equality And Protect The Powerful is a book whose topic is important, timely, and I would urge everyone concerned over matters of justice under the law to purchase it, read it, and share it with friends.

All the same, reading some of Greenwald's promotional posts in his Salon column leaves me with just one question: Does Greenwald really believe he's stumbled on to something new here?

The book focuses on what I began realizing several years ago is the crucial theme tying together most of the topics I write about: America’s two-tiered justice system – specifically, the way political and financial elites are now vested with virtually absolute immunity from the rule of law even when they are caught committing egregious crimes, while ordinary Americans are subjected to the world’s largest and one of its harshest and most merciless penal states even for trivial offenses. As a result, law has been completely perverted from what it was intended to be – the guarantor of an equal playing field which would legitimize outcome inequalities – into its precise antithesis: a weapon used by the most powerful to protect their ill-gotten gains, strengthen their unearned prerogatives, and ensure ever-expanding opportunity inequality.

--snip--

The past decade has witnessed the most severe crimes imaginable by political and financial elites: the construction of a worldwide torture regime, domestic spying perpetrated jointly by the government and the telecom industry without the warrants required by the criminal law, an aggressive war waged on another country that killed hundreds of thousands of people, massive financial fraud that came close to collapsing the world economy and which destroyed the economic security of tens of millions, and systematic foreclosure fraud that, by design, bombarded courts with fraudulent documents in order to seize homes without legal entitlement. These are not bad policies or mere immoral acts. They are plainly criminal, and yet – due to the precepts of elite immunity which were first explicitly embraced during Ford’s pardon of Nixon — none of those crimes has produced legal punishments.(italics added)

Seriously? Greenwald's a really smart guy, the kind of lawyer I would want if my back were up against the wall, not least because of that personality quirk that seems to come across so clearly in both his column and his tweets - he's kind of a jerk, convinced as he is of his own purity and righteousness.

The American legal system has, by and large, always existed to protect the prerogatives of the powerful. This isn't something that only came to pass with the pardoning of Nixon, or was only embraced during the 1970's. Even a cursory understanding of American history makes one familiar with the myriad ways the courts and the law work to maintain the socio-economic status quo. In the middle of the 19th century, there was a German observer of rising bourgeois democratic institutions who noted that they seemed geared toward the protection of privilege. Which is why he didn't really have much faith in democratic and republican institutions to protect the rights of the oppressed classes in society. Marx understood that they were designed and worked precisely the way they were supposed to - to protect the powerful and privileged.

It's the kind of breathless, earnest insistence that he has discovered something new, something that has suddenly burst to full flower around us, rather than the latest iteration of a long-running struggle that bugs me. Again, get the book, read the book, pass on the book. Remember, however, that the phenomena Greenwald discusses is as old as human society, a problem with which any society struggles, a struggle we are currently still losing. Having the information Greenwald provides, the perspective of one dedicated not to any ideology or part but the Constitution is important. He hasn't discovered something new, however, all his pretense to the contrary.

My First Time

Doing something you love always begins at some point. Unlike the fantasies we all have, whether that's walking up to the plate, swinging the bat at the first pitch ever to come our way, and smacking it over the fence, or throwing/receiving a forty-yard pass then running for a touchdown as defenders peel off because we're just too fast, the reality is usually much different.

So, too, with starting a record collection. I would love to tell you that my first purchases included Never Mind The Bollocks or The Ramones' first album; I would be so happy to let you know that The Jazz Messengers and Al DiMeola were on my want-list when I was 14.

I'd be lying.

I grew up surrounded by music. And records. It seemed natural enough, when I turned eleven or so, to decide I wanted to buy some music. I didn't really give it much thought. I went out and bought what I really wanted to hear. One of the really big albums for teens at the time was Destroyer, by KISS. So, here I am admitting my first conscious album purchase was this bit of cheesy schlock that, all in all, had some really good songs on it. Their radio hit "Beth". The opening track, "Detroit Rock City", one of their better arranged songs. And their anthemic follow-up to "Rock And Roll All Night", "Shout It Out Loud".



At least I remember my first time. As in so many of life's most important things, I would like to believe I've become better at buying music with practice.

Facing The Consequences

There are just too many things in the world for any one person to have the time and energy to say something about all of them. There are times, though, when you have to say something. Silence starts to look like complicity.

I was reading Lisa's post from yesterday, which had a link to a Newfie blogger writing about a Canadian comedian/social commentator named Rick Mercer. The subject of a recently televised "Rant" by Mercer was gay teen suicide.



I'll get to the best part of this rant in a moment.

This hit me because . . . well, I know it's an issue. OK, it's more than an "issue". It's a very real situation where too many kids live in fear of their peers, their teachers, the administrators, the cops, the clergy. They live in fear of all these people because they are gay. Their peers taunt them and tease them, sometimes beat them and humiliate them. Their teachers and school administrators turn a blind eye and deaf ear to it. The cops chuckle about kids being kids. Clergy pound their pulpits and screech about morality, and the dangers these kids - confused kids who need love and guidance and support and all the stuff ministers and rabbis and priests and other such are supposed to give - pose to the rest of us.

Sometimes, it just gets to be too much, and these kids give up. That giving up can be a slow agonizing death from drug and alcohol, from risky behaviors that go one step too far. Sometimes, it's just that final decision, that button pushed one time too many, and out comes the gun, the razor blade, the final step off the ledge and in an instant all that promise, all the gifts this young person had to offer the world is gone because someone, somewhere, thought it was funny to taunt a kid who was different.

So, I read the post and listened to the rant video and sat here and nodded in all the right places, congratulating myself on agreeing with a no-brainer - gay kids shouldn't live in a world where suicide seems like a better option than living.

Then, I clicked the next link on my blogroll I wanted to read, and here's what I saw.

Asshole of the Day
Jim Whitney.

... adding, he says his account was hacked & his district supports him. You decide!

I clicked those links (in the original post) and found this story:

Jim Whitney, a**hole and math teacher at Joplin High School in Joplin, MO, posted several homophobic comments on a former student’s Facebook page after the student, Josh Gonzalez, posted an article about Jamie Hubley, a gay 15 year-old who recently committed suicide after dealing with depression and bullying.

Sometimes, you get a message that the time for silence on a subject is over.

Back to Rick Mercer's rant. At one point, he says that it might be nice, not only to send in the grief counselors and other "helping professionals", but also to have a good old-fashioned assembly. Bring in the cops. Get the message out to the student body that there are consequences to actions.

As someone who has had to live through the suicide of someone close, I will say that the person who does that final, horrible act does not bear sole responsibility for it. For the rest of my life, I have to live with the ways I failed a good friend, didn't see the pain he carried, didn't even think to ask about it. I never took the time to look beneath the surface. He's gone and I won't get the chance to tell him I'm sorry. I'm angry with him for doing what he did, and I stand by the assertion I made to my sister once - it was a stupid waste, not a tragedy.

Chip wasn't gay, however. He wasn't the subject of a barrage of insults and taunts, what amounts to a constant threat and actual violence against his person just because he is who he is. Which, in a way, mitigates a whole lot of the personal responsibility in the case of gay teens. The climate of hate and fear and violence is just too pervasive. We adults shake our heads at how "sad" such a situation is, yet never think there are things we can do to make it just a little better for all those kids who live in silence and fear.

We can teach our children that being gay isn't bad. We can teach our kids that words like "faggot", "homo", "queer" have barbs that stick and pull away flesh. We can tell kids who aren't ours whom we find acting this way that it is unacceptable. We can demand our teachers do more than stand by, our principals and school administrators do more than throw up their hands. We can insist that this isn't about "bullying". It's about terrorism, really. We can tell any clergy person who rails against "the gay agenda" that their words have the potential to kill. We can walk away from a church that celebrates anti-gay behavior, and make public those who would hate in the name of the one who died because of Divine Love.

Most of all, we can go to those directly connected to yet another poor kid who saw no other way out than death and say, "This broken body, this wasted opportunity for a life full of love and happiness? It's yours. Live with the knowledge that you own this death. Have a nice life."

I Love Rock And Roll, So Put Another Dime In The Jukebox, Baby

I honestly thought I'd have to punt on this one - a song I've played on a jukebox. Sheesh. Then, I remembered the Back Door Lounge at Starved Rock Lounge. I worked there in the early aughts, and the last couple years they had a jukebox in the bar where we'd go to eat our lunch. When it was dead in the off-season, I'd put a quarter in, and pick four songs. They had the full version of the Dead's "Terrapin Station", one of Robert Hunter's better lyrical compositions. The melody is a pretty tune, something the Dead was good at when they really wanted to.

Some Deadheads didn't like it when it first came out, because they used an orchestra. They screeched, "Sell outs!" Well, why not, from a creative point of view, at least give it a shot? Here's the whole thing, nearly fifteen minutes, with the band's signature vocal harmonies, Garcia playing with a restraint the song calls for, but his voice still strong before the ravages of years of smoking both unfiltered cigarettes and heroin had taken their toll. I do like this song.

Maybe More Than A Moment Of Silence

If anyone has been paying attention - and I'm not convinced anyone has - I haven't been writing a whole lot on the usual matters. Instead, I've been self-indulgent, dabbling in bad photography, and finding music that I enjoy that isn't the run-of-the-mill stuff I usually post.

Because, frankly, I am tired of the noise. I'm tired of the news. I'm tired of NPR. I'm tired of CNN/FOXNews/MSNBC. I'm tired of political bloggers. I'm tired of political pundits. I'm tired of every voice sounding like every other voice, a swelling chorus that serves little more than to detract from the reality that we would be far better served listening than speaking.

I have been trying, by and large, to follow my own preferences. I have ventured forth on occasion over the past six weeks or so, but by and large I figure that silence is a far better choice, all things considered.

We all would benefit, I think, if everyone was silent. Take a day and just shut up. Don't write about Pres. Obama or Eric Cantor of Speaker Boehner or anyone else in public life. Don't write about the latest stupid celebrity trick. Don't comment on the personal hygiene or sexual preferences of one's interlocutors.

Shut up. Sit and listen. Listen to the last of the autumn birds outside your window. Listen to the creak and groan of your house settling. Listen to your children tell about their day, what they're going to wear on Halloween, what they're frustrated about at school. Listen to your spouse tell you he or she loves you. Listen to your pets as they sleep.

Listen. Don't speak or think. Silence all the voices, inside and out. Just listen.

And wonder and the beauty and awe and majesty around you. The sound of rain on the last autumn leaves. The breeze through the bare branches. The growl and grumble of the studs in your walls and across your floors as the foundation of your house slips, imperceptibly but inexorably, in to the earth. Listen to the sound of your child't heart beat when she snuggled up to you. Listen to the sound of your spouse breathing next to you.

These are the things that are important. These are the things that matter. There is power, here, the most important power, the most threatening force to all that is - the power that comes from the very real, very human ties we share with those most close to us. Nothing threatens the world more than this. Nothing is more subversive than to sit and listen and realize, with awe and a sense of one's own limitation, how grand and glorious this world is.

Because, at its heart, regardless of political stripe or color or declared ideology, the torrent of words serves only one purpose - to perpetuate our dying status quo. To stand outside of it, to declare that one will no longer feed the beast, that the most intimate, most important ties of one's life are far more important, far more dangerous, than the most clearly worded declaration of solidarity, the most righteous proclamation for justice - this is revolutionary in a way no program or leaflet or petition could ever be.

So, I sit. I listen. I venture forth on occasion, only to realize what I should have learned long ago. Most internet discussions aren't. They aren't discussions, they are attempts to sound more informed, more intelligent, more wise than everyone else. There's no percentage in that, really. Usually, one ends up looking and sounding much more like a jerk who has something to prove. I have nothing to prove, and I have no desire to look or sound like a jerk. So, I sit. I listen.

Nothing would serve the Republic more than an internet day of silence. No blog posts. No viral videos on YouTube or viral hashtage on Twitter or viral photos on Facebook. Just . . . silence.

I'm trying to lead by example. Little more than some thoughts on music I like for a couple more weeks. Maybe, then maybe, a thought or two on what I've heard, what I've learned, what might be possible. First, though, I need to do more listening.

Which means, I just need to stop . . .