Zappa Plays Zappa opened last Sunday's show with this number, which they learned just for the Chicago crowd.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Projecting The Emptiness Within: Lasch And The Cult Of Celebrity
The tabloids are a lot of fun. They are also disturbing. When I saw a cover of one with the Gosselin's on it, I had to read the story to find out who they were and why I should care. It turns out that, other than having their lives filmed for reality television, I really shouldn't care all that much about them. I still don't. Whatever they are going through, the prurience of the tabloids has shown how easy it is to destroy what it creates.
The apotheosis of our celebrity culture is the viral spread of "reality television". Purporting to present "real life", it has been reduced to presenting images of "ordinary people" and not only offering a glimpse of their lives, but offering to all viewers the opportunity, by turns, to enjoy the spectacle and yearn for the opportunity as well.
In the first chapter of The Culture of Narcissism, Lasch writes the following on pp. 21-22:
The media give substance to and thus intensify narcissistic dreams of fame ad glory, encourage the common man to identify himself with the stars and to hate the "herd," and make it more and more difficult for him to accept the banality of everyday existence. Frank Gifford and the New York Giants, [Frederick] Exley writes, "sustained for me the illusion that fame was possible." Haunted and in his own view destroyed by "this awful dream of fame," this "illusion that I could escape the bleak anonymity of life," Exley depicts himself or his narrator - as usual, the distinction is unclear - as a yawning void, an insatiable hunger, an emptiness waiting to be filled with the rich experiences reserved for the chosen few.
As we reach the final, demented days of a culture no longer even pretending to insist on a distinction between public and private, personal and professional, or understanding that "fame" is quite a bit different from "renown", we are inundated with images from the lives of people who force themselves upon our attention precisely because they have no other resources that make their lives understandable, or even real.
What does it say about us, even as we face grim economic times and tough political choices, that our attention is seized by the personal problems of a couple who, it seems, have nothing to offer us but an object lesson in why fame and celebrity are not to be sought? What does it say about us that literally millions of dollars continue to be spent presenting us, the public, the lives of other people? Other than the related reactions of envy and desire - envy that we are not made as real as they; desire that we, too, can be made real this way - and the glee that always accompanies the destruction of artificial heroes (parents of eight children, it seems obvious that the Gosselins do not have the emotional maturity requisite for such responsibility).
Other than the very human reaction that I feel sorry for the children involved - not just that their parents are splitting up, but that they have to suffer such emotionally empty parents to begin with - I see the Gosselins more as an example of the decline of our culture than anything else. Again, to quote Lasch, on p. 22:
The modern propaganda of commodities and the good life has sanctioned impulse gratification and made it unnecessary for the id to apologize for its wishes or disguise their grandiose proportions. But this same propaganda has made failure an loss unsupportable. When it finally occurs to the the Narcissus that he can "live not only without fame but without self, live and die without ever having had one's fellows conscious of the microscopic space one occupies upon this planet," he experiences this discover not merely as a disappointment but as a shattering blow to his sense of selfhood.
What I find so powerful about Lasch's critique of celebrity is its prescience; he understood the end result of our narcissistic culture would be nothing more and nothing less than the projection of our collective psychic emptiness as an attempt to make "real" that which seems so unreal to us. We have become Narcissus, unable to tear ourselves away from our own projected beauty, never realizing that projection is unreal, the beauty a lie.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Struggle
I'm just not sure what to do with this.
One thing I detest are people who simply write others out of the Christian faith over this or that little point of doctrine or practice.
But praying for the death of any human being . . . especially the President of the United States, regardless of party. . .
I'm saddened by this. I'm disgusted by this. I'm angered by this. I'm struggling to figure out how to respond to this.
Wolf in sheep's clothing, says part of me.
Testing positive for a spirit of hatred, says another part of me.
God is about life, and having it more abundantly; praying for death is antithetical to everything I profess God to be about. It is the opposite of my confession of Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior.
I think more than angry, I am just hurt right now. This is a blight on all Christians. God, forgive my anger and sadness.
"To be honest with you, I have prayed for Obama to die. I'm not the only one, I'm just the only one with the spine to say it."
One thing I detest are people who simply write others out of the Christian faith over this or that little point of doctrine or practice.
But praying for the death of any human being . . . especially the President of the United States, regardless of party. . .
I'm saddened by this. I'm disgusted by this. I'm angered by this. I'm struggling to figure out how to respond to this.
Wolf in sheep's clothing, says part of me.
Testing positive for a spirit of hatred, says another part of me.
God is about life, and having it more abundantly; praying for death is antithetical to everything I profess God to be about. It is the opposite of my confession of Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior.
I think more than angry, I am just hurt right now. This is a blight on all Christians. God, forgive my anger and sadness.
The Setting
The Preface to The Culture of Narcissism describes in broad strokes what Lasch calls "the current malaise" facing late-20th century America. The issue that Lasch attempts to face squarely is the intellectual and moral and social bankruptcy of liberalism, as a practice in the United States.
It is important to remember what he means by "liberalism". He is not using the word to refer to the squishy left-leaning politics of late-70's Democrats. Rather, he is referring to the liberal tradition, which exists in two related strains throughout US history. What we typically call "conservative" is actually just a variety of classical liberalism, far closer to the libertarianism of John Stuart Mill mixed with the classical economics of David Ricardo, rather than true conservative thought such as one reads in Burke or Russell Kirk. The flip side, the mild statism of "liberal Democrats" is more reminiscent of 19th century British liberalism, or perhaps if slightly more "radical" version embodied in Britain in David Lloyd George, rather than a true ideology of the left. With only one true leftist in the US Congress (Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Social Democrat), the left is far less represented in American mainstream politics than the right, which has most of the Republican Party.
These two sides of liberalism, void of any meaningful content to move the American public, or even to hold it together, waged a fierce struggle throughout the decade of the 1970's. The reaction against the radicalism of the late-1960's - itself very much an admixture of strains of traditional liberalism, rather than a substantive truly radical social critique based in Marxist, or neo-Marxist thought - resulted not in a higher synthesis, but rather a resurgence of reactionary corporatism, an unveiled attempt to reverse multiple social gains of the working class. That one of the central critiques of the radical movement of the 1960's - the state is corrupt and evil; do not trust it - was echoed by Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address ("government is the problem") - should have clued people in to the reality that the distance between "liberal" and "conservative" thought in the United States was quite short indeed. It should also have made people aware that each was equally vapid, and quite wrong.
Lasch also points out in the preface that what many observers saw as a retreat from politics might have been a good thing. Low voter turnout and a persistent drop in party identification may have been indications not that the American people are dumb or don't care; rather, he argues, this political distancing may have been a sign of incipient revolt, a refusal to accept the terms of our common life as presented to us by a system far too vested in modes of thought and discourse that they correctly perceive as morally bankrupt.
It should also be noted that the corruption at the heart of American culture, a corruption to which Lasch assigns the term "narcissism" to describe the depth of the psychic emptiness once filled by social, cultural, and civic institutions whose very hearts have been eviscerated by the self-immolation of liberalism, is a corruption first and foremost among elites; then, of course, there is bourgeois culture and its American inheritors, those heady pursuers of personal fulfillment, excessive personal decadence at the expense of delayed gratification.
It is interesting to consider how, at this point, the American right - the rump of all that is left of that decade of fire - has nothing to offer the American people but fear, paranoia, and glittering distractions as a way of staving off the possibility of its own demise. That it might bring down the whole system, and us with it, matters little. Void of any sense of self, these last stragglers from the age of narcissism fear only the annihilation of their own, empty selves. We stand on the brink, and there is no way to be sure who will win the struggle between the nihilist inheritors of the legacy of Reagan and the coming age of possibility and hope, tempered by an understanding of limit and the acceptance of failure on a social and political as well as personal level.
One thing for sure. Lasch's thirty year old book is a great program to the match.
It is important to remember what he means by "liberalism". He is not using the word to refer to the squishy left-leaning politics of late-70's Democrats. Rather, he is referring to the liberal tradition, which exists in two related strains throughout US history. What we typically call "conservative" is actually just a variety of classical liberalism, far closer to the libertarianism of John Stuart Mill mixed with the classical economics of David Ricardo, rather than true conservative thought such as one reads in Burke or Russell Kirk. The flip side, the mild statism of "liberal Democrats" is more reminiscent of 19th century British liberalism, or perhaps if slightly more "radical" version embodied in Britain in David Lloyd George, rather than a true ideology of the left. With only one true leftist in the US Congress (Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Social Democrat), the left is far less represented in American mainstream politics than the right, which has most of the Republican Party.
These two sides of liberalism, void of any meaningful content to move the American public, or even to hold it together, waged a fierce struggle throughout the decade of the 1970's. The reaction against the radicalism of the late-1960's - itself very much an admixture of strains of traditional liberalism, rather than a substantive truly radical social critique based in Marxist, or neo-Marxist thought - resulted not in a higher synthesis, but rather a resurgence of reactionary corporatism, an unveiled attempt to reverse multiple social gains of the working class. That one of the central critiques of the radical movement of the 1960's - the state is corrupt and evil; do not trust it - was echoed by Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address ("government is the problem") - should have clued people in to the reality that the distance between "liberal" and "conservative" thought in the United States was quite short indeed. It should also have made people aware that each was equally vapid, and quite wrong.
Lasch also points out in the preface that what many observers saw as a retreat from politics might have been a good thing. Low voter turnout and a persistent drop in party identification may have been indications not that the American people are dumb or don't care; rather, he argues, this political distancing may have been a sign of incipient revolt, a refusal to accept the terms of our common life as presented to us by a system far too vested in modes of thought and discourse that they correctly perceive as morally bankrupt.
It should also be noted that the corruption at the heart of American culture, a corruption to which Lasch assigns the term "narcissism" to describe the depth of the psychic emptiness once filled by social, cultural, and civic institutions whose very hearts have been eviscerated by the self-immolation of liberalism, is a corruption first and foremost among elites; then, of course, there is bourgeois culture and its American inheritors, those heady pursuers of personal fulfillment, excessive personal decadence at the expense of delayed gratification.
It is interesting to consider how, at this point, the American right - the rump of all that is left of that decade of fire - has nothing to offer the American people but fear, paranoia, and glittering distractions as a way of staving off the possibility of its own demise. That it might bring down the whole system, and us with it, matters little. Void of any sense of self, these last stragglers from the age of narcissism fear only the annihilation of their own, empty selves. We stand on the brink, and there is no way to be sure who will win the struggle between the nihilist inheritors of the legacy of Reagan and the coming age of possibility and hope, tempered by an understanding of limit and the acceptance of failure on a social and political as well as personal level.
One thing for sure. Lasch's thirty year old book is a great program to the match.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Reaching An End
In an attempt to comprehend why we are where we are, socially, culturally, politically, I am going back in time in my own search for clarity. While it's nearly a generation old, Christopher Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in An Age of Diminishing Expectations is as relevant, if not more, than ever. Expect quotes and commentary over the next week or so.
Because It Keeps An Awareness Of The Spirit
The devil does not stay where music is.
- Martin Luther
Indeed.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
What This Has To Do With Anything, I'm Still Not Sure
I ran across a reference or two to this op-ed from the Times but have only now had time to glance at it.
Taking a step back for a moment, I wonder just how "grand" a bargain this is. In the first place, as a stakeholder in this debate - I'm a Christian, and someone who sees no conflict between my religious beliefs and the scientific explanation for the diversity of life - there seems no place for me. Second, atheists are asked to surrender their atheism and get . . . what, exactly, in return? Those fundamentalist Christians who refuse to accept the findings of science also surrender their beliefs and receive a patronizing pat on the head.
The thinking behind this, if I could hazard a guess, is that there is actually a way via some kind of public policy to offer a seat at the table to two groups that are at odds. The problem with this view is that it supposes the issue is one that can be accommodated through compromise. It cannot. This isn't a public policy issue, nor is it one amenable to social or cultural compromise. The worst part of this "grand bargain" is it sounds good, but it's really nothing but a confession by the author that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Taking a step back for a moment, I wonder just how "grand" a bargain this is. In the first place, as a stakeholder in this debate - I'm a Christian, and someone who sees no conflict between my religious beliefs and the scientific explanation for the diversity of life - there seems no place for me. Second, atheists are asked to surrender their atheism and get . . . what, exactly, in return? Those fundamentalist Christians who refuse to accept the findings of science also surrender their beliefs and receive a patronizing pat on the head.
The thinking behind this, if I could hazard a guess, is that there is actually a way via some kind of public policy to offer a seat at the table to two groups that are at odds. The problem with this view is that it supposes the issue is one that can be accommodated through compromise. It cannot. This isn't a public policy issue, nor is it one amenable to social or cultural compromise. The worst part of this "grand bargain" is it sounds good, but it's really nothing but a confession by the author that he has no idea what he's talking about.
News From Home
This story lightens my heart quite a bit. My family's legacy with the LVRR - my grandfather spent his life working for them, including driving trains, especially troop trains during the Second World War - keeps a string tied to the railroad.
Any good histories of the railroad and its social and cultural impact on the US out there, I'm taking requests for titles.
In the photo, Robert Crocker, the gentleman at the far left, was my youth leader at church. Far too long since he and his wife Valerie and I have sat and talked and laughed. . .
Any good histories of the railroad and its social and cultural impact on the US out there, I'm taking requests for titles.
In the photo, Robert Crocker, the gentleman at the far left, was my youth leader at church. Far too long since he and his wife Valerie and I have sat and talked and laughed. . .
The Dearest Kennedy
There was some irony in Edward M. Kennedy's life. Of the four boys Joseph Kennedy and his wife bore, he was the last to be considered for an office of public trust. First, Joe, Jr. was the great hope, but he death on the battlefield opened an opportunity for "Jack", who had no such aspirations. Yet, the second son did well, if also with some of what me might call tabloid flamboyance - marrying a beautiful, intelligent debutante, engaging in many lurid affairs, having a public record of negligible consequence - that ended in a bloody mess on the streets of Dallas. John Fitzgerald Kennedy's closest confidant, his brother Robert, took upon his shoulders the mantle of heir-apparent, even as Republicans and Democrats managed together to agree that never again should a President appoint a close family member to his Cabinet, never mind that as Attorney General, and previous as special counsel to a Senate committee, Robert Kennedy had served not only well, but showed a greater grasp of the rough and tumble of politics than his older brother.
Again, an assassin's bullet brought to a screeching halt the hopes of another Kennedy in the White House. Edward seemed outclassed in every way by his now-deceased older brothers. Not long after the loss of Bobby, Teddy found himself embroiled in scandal, driving his car off a bridge, an accident that took the life of Sarah Jo Kopeckni who may or may not have been pregnant.
The 1970's were an ordeal for Kennedy. By most accounts, he squandered the main chance between booze and women. His quarrel with President Carter over many issues - Kennedy was far more liberal than the conservative southerner in the White House - played a major role in Carter's defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan in 1980 (I remember the day Carter was quoted, before the primaries, as saying that if Kennedy ran, Carter would "kick his ass"; he did, a lot of good it did him). Kennedy thought about running in 1984, but bowed out, yet he gave a great, rousing speech at the 1984 Democratic convention, a year of such events.
In 1992, he helped Bill Clinton out, again at the Democratic convention, by intoning again and again, "George Herbert HOOVER Bush", a great line indeed. In his final appearance at a Democratic convention, last year, he offered his help and support to Barack Obama.
Yet, there was more to Kennedy than his relationship to his older brothers and great speechifying. He was a master legislator, helping to craft many pieces on health care, labor rights, and other issues over the years. He was the first Senator to come forward, after a careful and close reading of both the opinions and writings of federal Judge Robert Bork, and announce his intent to vote against his confirmation to the US Supreme Court.
He was vilified by the right, caricatured by Tom Clancy as a drunken serial rapist, and his personal demons were the fodder for intrusive photographers (I once saw a photo that purported to be Kennedy, naked atop a young woman, sporting in a small boat tied alongside another larger boat off the coast somewhere) and gossip mongers. While such behavior is unseemly, it had little relevance to his public career. He fought the good liberal fight even as it went out of fashion. He ran against a sitting President of his own party on principle. He offered his aid to many politicians. His Senate staff, by all accounts, was one of the brightest, most thorough, and most efficient.
This marks the end of an era in US history, and we should all mourn with all the Kennedys and their various straggling relations. We should also uphold his legacy by doing what we can to make this country a little bit better, a little more compassionate, and dedicated to public service for its own sake, as not just a privilege but a duty as free people.
Again, an assassin's bullet brought to a screeching halt the hopes of another Kennedy in the White House. Edward seemed outclassed in every way by his now-deceased older brothers. Not long after the loss of Bobby, Teddy found himself embroiled in scandal, driving his car off a bridge, an accident that took the life of Sarah Jo Kopeckni who may or may not have been pregnant.
The 1970's were an ordeal for Kennedy. By most accounts, he squandered the main chance between booze and women. His quarrel with President Carter over many issues - Kennedy was far more liberal than the conservative southerner in the White House - played a major role in Carter's defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan in 1980 (I remember the day Carter was quoted, before the primaries, as saying that if Kennedy ran, Carter would "kick his ass"; he did, a lot of good it did him). Kennedy thought about running in 1984, but bowed out, yet he gave a great, rousing speech at the 1984 Democratic convention, a year of such events.
In 1992, he helped Bill Clinton out, again at the Democratic convention, by intoning again and again, "George Herbert HOOVER Bush", a great line indeed. In his final appearance at a Democratic convention, last year, he offered his help and support to Barack Obama.
Yet, there was more to Kennedy than his relationship to his older brothers and great speechifying. He was a master legislator, helping to craft many pieces on health care, labor rights, and other issues over the years. He was the first Senator to come forward, after a careful and close reading of both the opinions and writings of federal Judge Robert Bork, and announce his intent to vote against his confirmation to the US Supreme Court.
He was vilified by the right, caricatured by Tom Clancy as a drunken serial rapist, and his personal demons were the fodder for intrusive photographers (I once saw a photo that purported to be Kennedy, naked atop a young woman, sporting in a small boat tied alongside another larger boat off the coast somewhere) and gossip mongers. While such behavior is unseemly, it had little relevance to his public career. He fought the good liberal fight even as it went out of fashion. He ran against a sitting President of his own party on principle. He offered his aid to many politicians. His Senate staff, by all accounts, was one of the brightest, most thorough, and most efficient.
This marks the end of an era in US history, and we should all mourn with all the Kennedys and their various straggling relations. We should also uphold his legacy by doing what we can to make this country a little bit better, a little more compassionate, and dedicated to public service for its own sake, as not just a privilege but a duty as free people.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Answering A Really Dumb Comment
Here it is.
In order to make my point abundantly clear, I am going to violate an unspoken rule I have - I try not to quote fiction as an illustration, especially science fiction. Yet, reading the back-and-forth among Ambinder and his critics put me in mind of an early chapter of one of the rare bits of sci-fi I enjoy, Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. The mayor of the Foundation encounters a "diplomat" from the Empire, and they have a discussion on the "origin" question (a fun bit Asimov plops in, considering we readers know the answer). What the mayor brings away from the discussion is that there is a discouraging lack of understanding concerning what constitutes "science". The diplomat seems to believe it is nothing more than weighing the evidence and authority of a variety of sources on a topic and forming a conclusion based on one's perception of the reliability of these sources. This serves well as a plot point in the story; it also serves as an illustration of the basic complaint Krugman was making about Ambinder's position, briefly stated that even though Bush-critics were correct in their conclusions regarding the lack of any reliability of the Administration, yet because they were loud, profane, and seemed almost reflexive in their distrust of any Bush Administration pronouncements, they were, themselves, not credible sources for information.
Krugman's complaint is similar to the mayor's complaint in Foundation. All any of the Bush-era critics wanted was for journalists to do some follow-through, comparing Administration rhetoric to action, the evidence provided justifying various Administration actions and its reliability, and the record of a consistent lack of facts behind most of the Administration's rhetoric. Ambinder's complaint seems to be that the Bush critics didn't play the game by some set of arbitrary rules that he and other journalists seemed to hold dear; Krugman's rejoinder is that was never the issue. Check out what the critics actually said, rather than the way they said it. Check their sources. Check out the actual record of the Bush Administration. That's all. A little homework is all it might take.
That's part of my own complaint, although I add the observation that there seems to be this desire, or need, or something, to get as much information as possible out to the public in very raw form. Thus, we have Chuck Grassley quoted about killing granny without any note that this might be a wee bit over the top. Or Chris Wallace's egregious conduct on Fox News Sunday, interviewing someone who claims the VA wants to kill disabled vets, when in fact he really wants to sell the VA his own booklet.
There is nothing ideological about these complaints. It's all about doing some homework, checking out what person "A" says happens against reports of what happened; checking out whether there is some kind of correspondence between what an official statement may say, and what actions actually occur. It isn't that hard, really.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong in my perception; I'm not a journalist, and perhaps I have too high, or overly idealized view, of what journalists do, or perhaps should do. Yet, at the very least, the record of the Bush years should be a test case of what happens when a group of people practice a deference to power at the expense of our national welfare.
In order to make my point abundantly clear, I am going to violate an unspoken rule I have - I try not to quote fiction as an illustration, especially science fiction. Yet, reading the back-and-forth among Ambinder and his critics put me in mind of an early chapter of one of the rare bits of sci-fi I enjoy, Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. The mayor of the Foundation encounters a "diplomat" from the Empire, and they have a discussion on the "origin" question (a fun bit Asimov plops in, considering we readers know the answer). What the mayor brings away from the discussion is that there is a discouraging lack of understanding concerning what constitutes "science". The diplomat seems to believe it is nothing more than weighing the evidence and authority of a variety of sources on a topic and forming a conclusion based on one's perception of the reliability of these sources. This serves well as a plot point in the story; it also serves as an illustration of the basic complaint Krugman was making about Ambinder's position, briefly stated that even though Bush-critics were correct in their conclusions regarding the lack of any reliability of the Administration, yet because they were loud, profane, and seemed almost reflexive in their distrust of any Bush Administration pronouncements, they were, themselves, not credible sources for information.
Krugman's complaint is similar to the mayor's complaint in Foundation. All any of the Bush-era critics wanted was for journalists to do some follow-through, comparing Administration rhetoric to action, the evidence provided justifying various Administration actions and its reliability, and the record of a consistent lack of facts behind most of the Administration's rhetoric. Ambinder's complaint seems to be that the Bush critics didn't play the game by some set of arbitrary rules that he and other journalists seemed to hold dear; Krugman's rejoinder is that was never the issue. Check out what the critics actually said, rather than the way they said it. Check their sources. Check out the actual record of the Bush Administration. That's all. A little homework is all it might take.
That's part of my own complaint, although I add the observation that there seems to be this desire, or need, or something, to get as much information as possible out to the public in very raw form. Thus, we have Chuck Grassley quoted about killing granny without any note that this might be a wee bit over the top. Or Chris Wallace's egregious conduct on Fox News Sunday, interviewing someone who claims the VA wants to kill disabled vets, when in fact he really wants to sell the VA his own booklet.
There is nothing ideological about these complaints. It's all about doing some homework, checking out what person "A" says happens against reports of what happened; checking out whether there is some kind of correspondence between what an official statement may say, and what actions actually occur. It isn't that hard, really.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong in my perception; I'm not a journalist, and perhaps I have too high, or overly idealized view, of what journalists do, or perhaps should do. Yet, at the very least, the record of the Bush years should be a test case of what happens when a group of people practice a deference to power at the expense of our national welfare.
Monday, August 24, 2009
A Point Of Clarification For A Friend
ER often chastises me for going after "journalists" as a group. He is correct to do so. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of good folk doing the basic grunt-work of journalism out there, from local weeklies and dailies to the big national and international papers like the New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor. My complaints are focused on what some bloggers call "the Village" (a term of art I avoid using because it smacks of the same kind of insiderism that is under a critical eye). Those Washington-based national journalists - the White House Press Corps, national correspondents, Washington-based pundits whose mugs appear far too often on the television, and of course our TV newsers - far too often exist in an odd, somewhat sick-making co-dependency with their sources. This situation, described without any hint of self-consciousness as to the inherent dangers of it, became the source of a spat among Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, Glenn Greenwald (whose position on journalism I actually take with a grain of salt), Paul Krugman, and FireDogLake blogger emptywheel.
While this little internet dust-up is fun to watch, I think there are other ways to look at the question of journalistic responsibility, especially in the face of very real questions of accountability and journalistic ethics. Related to these questions is the ongoing "death of the newspaper" and the increasing lack of credibility many of our journalistic organs are undergoing. This situation was highlighted today in a post at TAPPED by Tim Fernholz:
It is one thing to argue that something said by someone in the public eye, or in a position of public responsibility is potentially worthy of citation. It is another thing altogether actually to cite it; and to do so without any note that the statement might actually be factually inaccurate.
Now, obviously, this lies behind the spat amongst Ambinder, Krugman, et. al., but also behind Kurtz' nonsensical bewilderment at our general national distrust of the press. Yet, I think there is more than simple asymmetry of information at work. When I read Ambinder's original piece (linked above), what I find is not just a willingness to trust his "official" sources", but an almost religious commitment to getting information to the public without context. The entire journalistic enterprise, at least at an elite level, seems less about getting the "who, what, where, and when" of an event, and more about ensuring the public has access to as much information as possible as quickly as possible. From the welter of quotes, official statements, press releases, Congressional studies and testimonies, and whatnot else that appears, it seems that it is up to us as readers to weigh all this in the balance, all of it being of equal import, and come to our own conclusions.
Except without any sort of context, without any sort of vetting, without any sort of actual work done by our information gate-keepers, this is impossible. How is it possible for an individual to discern that, for example, a person appearing on a Sunday news talk show may be spreading lies for no other reason than he has a vested interest in the success of those lies? How is it possible to conclude that a United States Senator is talking out of his ass when he says a bill before Congress includes a provision for euthanasia? He's a Senator on the panel responsible for writing the thing, so he should know what he's talking about, right?
When Chris Matthews gets all hot and sweaty over the thought that bloggers might be a source of news because bloggers don't fact check, and can be called on it quite easily, I say it is time to start thinking seriously about this issue in a new, different way. The credibility gap between what journalists, at least our elite print and television journalists, provide as news to us and the actual contextual worthiness of that news has to be narrowed. This is not just about fact checking; it is about providing a narrative format, in some limited way, that helps us make sense of the sheer mass of words that floods over us each and every day.
When a right-wing radio talk show host claims that Pres. Obama is a racist, or is leading the country down the path to socialism, or is a liar, each of these statements can be checked easily enough. While that checking is, indeed, done (Media Matters for America, while certainly progressive in its intent, is thoroughly fact-based in its content-analysis), it is not available immediately alongside these reports. When Sen. Grassley says that health care reform includes a proposal to "pull the plug on grandma," it might be nice to note, not the next day, or within a week, but immediately, that this is false.
It might also be a good idea not only to call these folks on their nonsense. Accountability might include not inviting Grassley on any more Sunday chat shows; or Newt Gingrich (whose history of fabulism is both deep and wide); or Sarah Palin. Accountability might also include noting that many Americans are wary of tea-baggers bringing guns to those town halls because there is a long history, right up to the present day, of politically-inspired violence in the United States.
Finally, it might be nice to hear an elite journalist admit, in public, that they aren't trusted because they aren't trustworthy.
While this little internet dust-up is fun to watch, I think there are other ways to look at the question of journalistic responsibility, especially in the face of very real questions of accountability and journalistic ethics. Related to these questions is the ongoing "death of the newspaper" and the increasing lack of credibility many of our journalistic organs are undergoing. This situation was highlighted today in a post at TAPPED by Tim Fernholz:
The next time some wild misinformation spreads about a public-policy issue, Kurtz will wring his hands about how no one trusts the press, and that's because the press is content to trust liars.
It is one thing to argue that something said by someone in the public eye, or in a position of public responsibility is potentially worthy of citation. It is another thing altogether actually to cite it; and to do so without any note that the statement might actually be factually inaccurate.
Now, obviously, this lies behind the spat amongst Ambinder, Krugman, et. al., but also behind Kurtz' nonsensical bewilderment at our general national distrust of the press. Yet, I think there is more than simple asymmetry of information at work. When I read Ambinder's original piece (linked above), what I find is not just a willingness to trust his "official" sources", but an almost religious commitment to getting information to the public without context. The entire journalistic enterprise, at least at an elite level, seems less about getting the "who, what, where, and when" of an event, and more about ensuring the public has access to as much information as possible as quickly as possible. From the welter of quotes, official statements, press releases, Congressional studies and testimonies, and whatnot else that appears, it seems that it is up to us as readers to weigh all this in the balance, all of it being of equal import, and come to our own conclusions.
Except without any sort of context, without any sort of vetting, without any sort of actual work done by our information gate-keepers, this is impossible. How is it possible for an individual to discern that, for example, a person appearing on a Sunday news talk show may be spreading lies for no other reason than he has a vested interest in the success of those lies? How is it possible to conclude that a United States Senator is talking out of his ass when he says a bill before Congress includes a provision for euthanasia? He's a Senator on the panel responsible for writing the thing, so he should know what he's talking about, right?
When Chris Matthews gets all hot and sweaty over the thought that bloggers might be a source of news because bloggers don't fact check, and can be called on it quite easily, I say it is time to start thinking seriously about this issue in a new, different way. The credibility gap between what journalists, at least our elite print and television journalists, provide as news to us and the actual contextual worthiness of that news has to be narrowed. This is not just about fact checking; it is about providing a narrative format, in some limited way, that helps us make sense of the sheer mass of words that floods over us each and every day.
When a right-wing radio talk show host claims that Pres. Obama is a racist, or is leading the country down the path to socialism, or is a liar, each of these statements can be checked easily enough. While that checking is, indeed, done (Media Matters for America, while certainly progressive in its intent, is thoroughly fact-based in its content-analysis), it is not available immediately alongside these reports. When Sen. Grassley says that health care reform includes a proposal to "pull the plug on grandma," it might be nice to note, not the next day, or within a week, but immediately, that this is false.
It might also be a good idea not only to call these folks on their nonsense. Accountability might include not inviting Grassley on any more Sunday chat shows; or Newt Gingrich (whose history of fabulism is both deep and wide); or Sarah Palin. Accountability might also include noting that many Americans are wary of tea-baggers bringing guns to those town halls because there is a long history, right up to the present day, of politically-inspired violence in the United States.
Finally, it might be nice to hear an elite journalist admit, in public, that they aren't trusted because they aren't trustworthy.
Music For Your Monday
In honor of the first day of school here in the North Boone School District . . .
How could I have forgotten this? Forgive me.
How could I have forgotten this? Forgive me.
Bad Morals, Bad Economics
In the middle of this wonderful column yesterday on a possible public option for health care insurance, Krugman writes the following on the persistence of bad ideas in our public discourse on economics and public policy:
As he has over the past couple weeks, Krugman put the onus squarely on the shoulders of Pres. Obama who "hasn’t used the bully pulpit to confront government-is-bad fundamentalism." Except, of course, why should he? It isn't the public that needs to be convinced, at least according to recent polling data. Even some Blue Dogs seem to be working against their constituents express interests, as for example this piece from Think Progress notes on conservative Democrat Jim Cooper from Tennessee.
It is precisely those members of Congress - the Blue Dogs in the House and a few Senate Democrats like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson - who need to be convinced, and the bully pulpit will not work with them because (at least in the case of Baucus and Nelson) it isn't about sweet persuasion. It's about filthy luchre (as, again, Krugman notes).
In the midst of the very inconvenient reality that, once again, proves that unfettered capitalism of the kind advocated by conservatives, free-marketers, Friedman disciples, and business and banking lobbyists is ultimately self-destructive, that we are still debating whether or not to put back in place regulations to prevent another disaster should be embarrassing. When Republicans and others stand up and insist that regulating the markets may destroy them, it might be a nice idea to point out that stripping regulation actually did destroy them; it was government that saved them. While there was innovation in "financial instruments" and "investment products", most of them were nothing more than variations on Ponzi schemes that created what atrios called Jenga, that great kids game where you pull blocks out of a tower and pile the ones on the bottom up on top until the whole thing becomes unstable and falls over. With no one around to say, "Hey, guys, wait a minute, is this a good idea?", shrewd manipulators and insiders managed to get rich fairly quickly, then leave the structure to its own, inevitable, conclusion.
Regulating our financial sector should be a no-brainer. It allows for confidence among investors that the market will not hit some glitch that will not just trip it up, but bring it down; it also assures the rest of us that this sector of our society is answerable to our demand for stability and confidence over unfettered and unchecked privateering. The whole thing exists not only at the behest of all of American society, but for our benefit; there is no reason in the world why we should not reign in the ability of some individuals and groups to profit outrageously when such profit endangers the rest of us. To answer the tired question of what is too much profit - too much profit is the point at which that profit becomes a danger to the society that ensures the individual and corporation making that profit can still exist in safety and security. We reached that tipping point, and will be paying the price for it for years to come. The least we can do is put back in place some of the structures that prevented this kind of thing for decades.
The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity. . . .
But it’s much the same on other fronts. Efforts to strengthen bank regulation appear to be losing steam, as opponents of reform declare that more regulation would lead to less financial innovation — this just months after the wonders of innovation brought our financial system to the edge of collapse, a collapse that was averted only with huge infusions of taxpayer funds.
As he has over the past couple weeks, Krugman put the onus squarely on the shoulders of Pres. Obama who "hasn’t used the bully pulpit to confront government-is-bad fundamentalism." Except, of course, why should he? It isn't the public that needs to be convinced, at least according to recent polling data. Even some Blue Dogs seem to be working against their constituents express interests, as for example this piece from Think Progress notes on conservative Democrat Jim Cooper from Tennessee.
It is precisely those members of Congress - the Blue Dogs in the House and a few Senate Democrats like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson - who need to be convinced, and the bully pulpit will not work with them because (at least in the case of Baucus and Nelson) it isn't about sweet persuasion. It's about filthy luchre (as, again, Krugman notes).
In the midst of the very inconvenient reality that, once again, proves that unfettered capitalism of the kind advocated by conservatives, free-marketers, Friedman disciples, and business and banking lobbyists is ultimately self-destructive, that we are still debating whether or not to put back in place regulations to prevent another disaster should be embarrassing. When Republicans and others stand up and insist that regulating the markets may destroy them, it might be a nice idea to point out that stripping regulation actually did destroy them; it was government that saved them. While there was innovation in "financial instruments" and "investment products", most of them were nothing more than variations on Ponzi schemes that created what atrios called Jenga, that great kids game where you pull blocks out of a tower and pile the ones on the bottom up on top until the whole thing becomes unstable and falls over. With no one around to say, "Hey, guys, wait a minute, is this a good idea?", shrewd manipulators and insiders managed to get rich fairly quickly, then leave the structure to its own, inevitable, conclusion.
Regulating our financial sector should be a no-brainer. It allows for confidence among investors that the market will not hit some glitch that will not just trip it up, but bring it down; it also assures the rest of us that this sector of our society is answerable to our demand for stability and confidence over unfettered and unchecked privateering. The whole thing exists not only at the behest of all of American society, but for our benefit; there is no reason in the world why we should not reign in the ability of some individuals and groups to profit outrageously when such profit endangers the rest of us. To answer the tired question of what is too much profit - too much profit is the point at which that profit becomes a danger to the society that ensures the individual and corporation making that profit can still exist in safety and security. We reached that tipping point, and will be paying the price for it for years to come. The least we can do is put back in place some of the structures that prevented this kind of thing for decades.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Decline I Can Live With
Checking out FireDogLake's Book Chat, it turns out it's this book. Which, in its turn, is similar to this book, which I bought soon after 9/11, and dealt with that event obliquely (the event occurred after the book was finished).
As a general rule, I am not a huge fan of "USA No. 1!" nonsense. There have been great nations in the past - from Sumer and Babylon and Egypt and the Mongols up to the British, the French, and the Germans - and all have fallen. It's just the way these things happen. Like our relatively short history thus far, our sojourn as the dominant global power was brief and fiery. I think, however, we can look at the post-WWII British example and learn much from it, most of which can be summarized thus: It's good no longer to be a world power.
I can live with my grandchildren being part of just another country in a world with another world power calling the shots, or perhaps no single leader, or perhaps some kind of mixed supranationalism. I can live with it because being a world power has been detrimental to our national psyche, our republican institutions, our democratic processes, and our sense of ourselves. Only those unsure of their own status and stature yearn to be better than others. I, for one, have no problem simultaneously praising the US as the best hope for the world and believing that our decline from world-power status is a good thing, perhaps the best thing, for keeping that hope alive.
While the question of "Who will be number one?" seems to occupy some publicists interminably, I couldn't care less about that question. The British and French have managed just fine, as have the Russians and others.
It will be nice to be just another country again, with unique opportunities to be sure, but no longer "bearing any burden" because those burdens have become far too cumbersome for our broken polity to carry.
As a general rule, I am not a huge fan of "USA No. 1!" nonsense. There have been great nations in the past - from Sumer and Babylon and Egypt and the Mongols up to the British, the French, and the Germans - and all have fallen. It's just the way these things happen. Like our relatively short history thus far, our sojourn as the dominant global power was brief and fiery. I think, however, we can look at the post-WWII British example and learn much from it, most of which can be summarized thus: It's good no longer to be a world power.
I can live with my grandchildren being part of just another country in a world with another world power calling the shots, or perhaps no single leader, or perhaps some kind of mixed supranationalism. I can live with it because being a world power has been detrimental to our national psyche, our republican institutions, our democratic processes, and our sense of ourselves. Only those unsure of their own status and stature yearn to be better than others. I, for one, have no problem simultaneously praising the US as the best hope for the world and believing that our decline from world-power status is a good thing, perhaps the best thing, for keeping that hope alive.
While the question of "Who will be number one?" seems to occupy some publicists interminably, I couldn't care less about that question. The British and French have managed just fine, as have the Russians and others.
It will be nice to be just another country again, with unique opportunities to be sure, but no longer "bearing any burden" because those burdens have become far too cumbersome for our broken polity to carry.
Saturday Rock Show
Without a doubt, my favorite song writer is Pete Townsend. He's also one of my favorite performers. This performance of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is an object lesson in how good a rock band can be even in the midst of being unhealthy and on the verge of collapse. Keith Moon would die not long after this. Townsend was in the midst of multiple addiction crises that would come close to killing him. Yet, if you watch this even with that in mind, it's pretty astounding.
If We Stick Together
I got thinking about this scene from It's A Wonderful Life not because of the relevance of the economic collapse. Rather, it is George Bailey's response to the panic that I find important. In light of the insanity of recent events, it seems even more important to consider some facts in light of a context that might just make us embarrassed by our behavior.
It was quite evident before the first eruption at a town hall meeting that we were in for some rough times this month. Right-wing leaders had made it very clear they would co-ordinate with various local individuals to organize protests to disrupt town hall meetings members of Congress would hold on health care reform. The scenes have become so typical as to pass from event to myth in less than a month. Groups holding signs denouncing the President as, variously, a socialist and a Nazi. Groups shouting down any attempt to communicate. Accusations that became more and more divorced from any serious reading of the various bills before Congress.
Then there are the various bits that show the ignorance and irony of our situation. Senior citizens insisting that "government" not mess with Medicare, which is government-provided health insurance. A young man who is part of a right-wing group insisting he was injured by "union goons", then setting up a drive to collect money because he has no health insurance. For two weeks now we have actually had to repeatedly hear talk of "death panels" and "government pulling the plug on grandma". The media has tried as best it can - and I really will give our national media credit - to take all of this in and make sense of it, including taking apart various accusations that have no semblance of reality to them, even as some pundits and journalists continue to traffic in easily disproved nonsense.
The President's poll numbers have slipped; the poll numbers of Congressional Democrats have slipped. The only bright side to this slip is there has not been a boost in the numbers for Republicans of any sort, which while heartening, also makes the case that Democratic reluctance to be more forceful and stand up to the rhetorical onslaughts of the right has weakened the party. The President and some senior members of Congress (especially of the Senate) insist they want Republican support for health care reform even as it has become abundantly clear that the Republicans have no intention of supporting any bill whatsoever. Compromise and cooperation with a group as intellectually dishonest as this is impossible; the American people seem to understand that even if members of both houses of Congress still seem to think that collegiality demands compromise.
One would think all this hubbub concerned a near-revolutionary change in the social contract, or perhaps a debate on whether or not to go to war. The question that has spawned this spectacle of outrage is this: Will we, the wealthiest industrialized nation on the planet, provide access to quality health care to all its citizens? The loudest voices, even if still a very distinct minority, is quite clearly, "No!"
Can we take a look at ourselves for just a moment? Can any of us, good, solid Americans of right, center, and left, take a look at what we have become for just a moment or two and see and hear and, perhaps, wonder at what we have become? We have allowed the forces of the status quo to divide us! We are allowing individuals and groups who lie outside the general consensus to drive the debate on the question of reforming health care. It takes nothing more than a whispered rumor by someone most Americans know has no grasp of serious national policy to take the debate in to territory that has relationship to reality whatsoever. We hear people advocating bringing weapons to meetings. We hear intimations of violence. We see people screaming in rage and fear at the prospect of some bogeyman called "socialism", which has no relationship to what is actually being discussed. We waste precious time and resources attempting to steer the discussion back toward the question at hand, only to have the debate go off the tracks over this or that or some other accusation that is in no way relevant.
What kind of a nation are we? Where are our religious leaders, our civic leaders, our citizens demanding an end to the panic and fear? Where are the voices of sanity and comity insisting that the debate over health reform is about all of us? Divide and conquer has always been the best strategy for victory, whether in war or politics. We are being divided even as the question before us is one of coming together not only to provide assistance to those most in need, but also to provide for sound fiscal and financial health for a sector of our economy that is bloated, out of control, and capricious in its relationship with the public.
The snarls of hatred, the glare from a polished weapon, the denunciations of politicians as enemies of the state do nothing but weaken us. The gradual erosion of support for our elected leaders to do the one thing they were put in office to do - to lead - should be a wake-up call that it is time to remember that all of us, regardless of political ideology have a stake in the outcome of this debate. All of us will benefit. We will be a better country should we no longer make the ability to pay the gate-keeper for access to health care. We will be a more compassionate, more unified country if we no longer recognize some arbitrary standard such as income, social class, or wealth as the magic formula that open the doors to better health.
This is not a request for comity, or an attempt to silence opposition. It is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to get people to see what we have become. We are, right now, so far away from addressing the simple question before us, and seeing the possibilities for general national betterment inherent in this question that we resemble nothing more than that crowd at the Bailey Building and Loan. We are all scrambling in panic and fear, not realizing that the forces that have far too much control over our lives already see an opportunity for gaining even more. If all of us, Democrats and Republicans, left, right, and center, can return to the question at hand and consider it on the merits, we might be surprised that we can, indeed beat "this thing" if we all stick together. Panic in the streets is an opportunity for the powerful to increase their power; a mob is nothing more than the expression of whatever status quo exists exerting its unchecked desire for power against whatever forces might be trying to alter that status quo. The irony, of course, is that the subsumed ego within the mob mentality is quite literally atomized, cut off from real social intercourse with others. This walled-up ego, separated from others, serves only the interests of power, a power that even now can break us as a people.
I don't know if this attempt to get people to look at the situation we are in will find fertile ground. I'm not sure I really care. I recognize there are many individuals and groups that are not only vested in the status quo, but also vested in the ongoing insanity. Yet, not to do so would be a surrender not only to those vested interests, but a supreme act of cowardice. At some point, some lone figure needs to stand before the panicked mob and insist, "Will you take a look at yourselves?"
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Healing Ministries
The debate over health care reform is very often framed as an issue relating to money, i.e., it is about how we pay for health care, rather than the quality of care received. Yet, it seems to me that there is a relationship between what care we get, what care we can afford, and what this says about the kind of society in which we live. As a self-professed Christian, the relationships among these questions become even more pointed precisely because part of the ministry of Jesus was a healing ministry.
People came to Jesus for any number of reasons, but quite frequently he encountered people in need of physical healing, which he treats as having spiritual roots. A paralytic is cured by being lowered through the roof of a crowded house. Jesus is challenged by some over the root cause of a man's blindness and sees the possibilities for God's glory to be revealed, rather than any sin this man, or any of his ancestors, may have committed. A woman with "an issue of blood", not only suffering physically but socially as well (she was ritually unclean), is healed through her "faith", her boldness in being willing to risk the uncleanliness of another by touching the hem of Jesus' garment.
Those in need came to Jesus for help. Jesus, in turn offered not just a cure for their physical ailment, but the comfort and grace and even glory of the presence of God. The artificial lines between the spiritual and the physical weren't a consideration for Jesus; making the sick and unclean whole, restoring them to communion with others, was not just a way of making these people better. It was also a sign, an example, of what Jesus meant when he talked about "the Kingdom of God".
The United States is a country with a long history of insouciance toward human life. Born in the violence of revolution, we have long histories of the violent social repression of various minority groups, the legal dehumanization of African slaves, occasional outbursts of extra-legal vigilantism, a Civil War that is the bloodiest such episode in our history. Even today, our violent crime rate is far higher than most other industrialized countries.
Not just do our social mores permit a certain amount of violence; so does our legal system. We execute individuals convicted of violent crimes, as do Iran, Syria, and Lybia, but unlike Great Britain, France, or Germany. Even as evidence of race and class bias in the apportionment of these sentences comes clearer every year; even as more and more persons awaiting the executioner are exonerated by better evidentiary techniques; there is still majority support for putting to death a group of citizens deemed beyond the reach of compassion by our society.
In the midst of all this, comes a debate over access to health care. We have this odd juxtaposition occurring. A society whose roots include a dedication to the Christian faith and practice, which also has a lax attitude toward human life, is struggling to accept the idea that access to health care is not to be limited by economic status, or other factors often weighed by private insurers for considering eligibility for insurance. It seems to me that we members of the Body of Christ should speak out of a commitment to the healing ministry of our Savior. Jesus understood no distinction between the physical, the social, and the spiritual; "curing" one was actually "healing" to all. Offering access to quality health care to all Americans would be a large step in the direction not only of ensuring no American is denied access to the best treatment options available do to a lack of availability to pay. It would also be a step away from our history of social violence, and our culture of acceptance of violence and dehumanization.
Allowing access to health care, including publicly funded health insurance, would not just offer the "cure" of the doctors and their healing work. It would heal some of the brokenness in American society. It would be a bold statement that class is no barrier to acceptance as part of our society. It would be a small whisper that the long history of violence no longer holds sway. Rather than accept violence, but excluding the victims from care, we have an opportunity to say, with Jesus, that one is a part of the society again.
People came to Jesus for any number of reasons, but quite frequently he encountered people in need of physical healing, which he treats as having spiritual roots. A paralytic is cured by being lowered through the roof of a crowded house. Jesus is challenged by some over the root cause of a man's blindness and sees the possibilities for God's glory to be revealed, rather than any sin this man, or any of his ancestors, may have committed. A woman with "an issue of blood", not only suffering physically but socially as well (she was ritually unclean), is healed through her "faith", her boldness in being willing to risk the uncleanliness of another by touching the hem of Jesus' garment.
Those in need came to Jesus for help. Jesus, in turn offered not just a cure for their physical ailment, but the comfort and grace and even glory of the presence of God. The artificial lines between the spiritual and the physical weren't a consideration for Jesus; making the sick and unclean whole, restoring them to communion with others, was not just a way of making these people better. It was also a sign, an example, of what Jesus meant when he talked about "the Kingdom of God".
The United States is a country with a long history of insouciance toward human life. Born in the violence of revolution, we have long histories of the violent social repression of various minority groups, the legal dehumanization of African slaves, occasional outbursts of extra-legal vigilantism, a Civil War that is the bloodiest such episode in our history. Even today, our violent crime rate is far higher than most other industrialized countries.
Not just do our social mores permit a certain amount of violence; so does our legal system. We execute individuals convicted of violent crimes, as do Iran, Syria, and Lybia, but unlike Great Britain, France, or Germany. Even as evidence of race and class bias in the apportionment of these sentences comes clearer every year; even as more and more persons awaiting the executioner are exonerated by better evidentiary techniques; there is still majority support for putting to death a group of citizens deemed beyond the reach of compassion by our society.
In the midst of all this, comes a debate over access to health care. We have this odd juxtaposition occurring. A society whose roots include a dedication to the Christian faith and practice, which also has a lax attitude toward human life, is struggling to accept the idea that access to health care is not to be limited by economic status, or other factors often weighed by private insurers for considering eligibility for insurance. It seems to me that we members of the Body of Christ should speak out of a commitment to the healing ministry of our Savior. Jesus understood no distinction between the physical, the social, and the spiritual; "curing" one was actually "healing" to all. Offering access to quality health care to all Americans would be a large step in the direction not only of ensuring no American is denied access to the best treatment options available do to a lack of availability to pay. It would also be a step away from our history of social violence, and our culture of acceptance of violence and dehumanization.
Allowing access to health care, including publicly funded health insurance, would not just offer the "cure" of the doctors and their healing work. It would heal some of the brokenness in American society. It would be a bold statement that class is no barrier to acceptance as part of our society. It would be a small whisper that the long history of violence no longer holds sway. Rather than accept violence, but excluding the victims from care, we have an opportunity to say, with Jesus, that one is a part of the society again.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Numbnut
I hate navel-gazing about blogging, but this, referencing this, got me thinking about the whole "the bloggers are ruining the news!" trope you read a few years back. It's still out there, because reporters believe, based only on the fact that there are public affairs bloggers, that we are all a bunch of wannabe journalists. Also, as Duncan points out repeatedly, some nationally-recognized journalists pretend to an ethical standard they simply don't hold.
For myself, I do not desire to be a journalist. I enjoy writing about the things that interest me, and I try to do so with integrity - being as factual as possible, making sure that my position is clear and separate from whatever the facts of a given instance may be - if for no other reason than that is the one currency any writer trades in. You lose that, you might as well fold up your tent and go home.
The caricature of the loner sitting around in his or her jammies, getting Cheetos powder on the keyboard as they vent their frustrations to the world is not only old, it is belied by the sheer welter and diversity of blogs. This caricature holds, however, because those who criticize blogging per blogging tend to be the same folks who believe we are nothing more or less than frustrated journalists, yearning for respectability. Like all writers, we yearn for an audience, to be sure; professional recognition, however, is a wholly different matter. I've resigned myself to a small audience if for no other reason than it seems all I can attract. I'd rather do things my own way than compromise in order to get higher traffic.
So, I think the adjective (or perhaps noun?) "numbnut" just doesn't fit anymore, if it ever did. There are such out there, to be sure, sending barely readable screeds to the universe to puzzle over. Yet, there are also many, many excellent places where there is the thoughtful expression of opinion balanced with a serious dedication to the facts of the matter. The numbnuts, I believe, are the folks who believe having a blog is a license to trade in whatever crap crosses their path.
Kind of like CBS News.
For myself, I do not desire to be a journalist. I enjoy writing about the things that interest me, and I try to do so with integrity - being as factual as possible, making sure that my position is clear and separate from whatever the facts of a given instance may be - if for no other reason than that is the one currency any writer trades in. You lose that, you might as well fold up your tent and go home.
The caricature of the loner sitting around in his or her jammies, getting Cheetos powder on the keyboard as they vent their frustrations to the world is not only old, it is belied by the sheer welter and diversity of blogs. This caricature holds, however, because those who criticize blogging per blogging tend to be the same folks who believe we are nothing more or less than frustrated journalists, yearning for respectability. Like all writers, we yearn for an audience, to be sure; professional recognition, however, is a wholly different matter. I've resigned myself to a small audience if for no other reason than it seems all I can attract. I'd rather do things my own way than compromise in order to get higher traffic.
So, I think the adjective (or perhaps noun?) "numbnut" just doesn't fit anymore, if it ever did. There are such out there, to be sure, sending barely readable screeds to the universe to puzzle over. Yet, there are also many, many excellent places where there is the thoughtful expression of opinion balanced with a serious dedication to the facts of the matter. The numbnuts, I believe, are the folks who believe having a blog is a license to trade in whatever crap crosses their path.
Kind of like CBS News.
Monday, August 17, 2009
In Defense Of "The Crazy Tree"
The scene would be familiar to anyone watching video feeds of recent Town Hall events. A group of people, some carrying signs denouncing the President as a socialist, others calling to an end to tyranny, some screaming, others demanding a return to the constitutional principles of the founders, some just incoherent. This isn't a scene from our recent town halls, though. Rather, it is the prescription for obstruction sent out by Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, in the mid-1960's, to fight against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These instructions, as reported in George Thayer's revised The Farther Shores of Politics: The American Political Fringe Today, published in 1967, has several chapters on the American right at the height of the Goldwater insurgency. Yet, this right-wing insurgency included not just mainstream conservatives such as Goldwater. There were racists, states-rights supporters, the militia movement, and just plain weirdos, such as those who desired a revival of Nordic religion, including such inscriptions as "Odin Speed to Valhalla . . ." on orders sent out to various members (that's even the title of a chapter in Thayer's book).
The names and issues have changed. It is no longer Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson who are President, but Obama. It is no longer Civil Rights or Medicare, Vietnam (which some on the right saw as a way to distract attention from the graver threat in Cuba) or the nascent anti-nuclear movement that are the targets, but health care reform. One could read "Islam" in many of the quoted pieces in Thayer's book where the word "communism" appears. It's uncanny, really.
Bob Somerby is not a fan of Rick Perlstein's piece in the "Outlook" section in Sunday's Washington Post.
Unfortunately, Somerby does a little name-calling himself, pointing out Perlstein's upbringing in a tony suburb of Milwaukee, education at the University of Chicago, and what-not, as if any of that were relevant. Somerby also points out that one of the person's highlighted in Perlstein's piece is described in a derogatory manner; Somerby wishes that Perlstein had pointed out some other set of descriptors. Alas, this is a false choice. The man in question may, indeed, be a working-class rube, being played by high-flying elites to do their dirty work for them. At the same time, he is part and parcel of a long history of crazy, a portion of which is highlighted in the aforementioned book the George Thayer. Somerby may find it patronizing to call crazy people crazy. I find it patronizing to treat them as simple misguided souls who, if only given the proper information by a properly functioning press corps would work in their own best interests.
Perlstein is, unfortunately for Somerby, correct. The tree of crazy has been with us from the beginning. Before the internet, mimeograph machines and cheap postal rates made printing up newsletters to be mailed out to fellow-believers incredibly easy. These helped feed and water the crazy tree. Before the newsletter was the broadside and pamphlet; the internet is only the latest iteration in the long history of connecting with like-minded folk for political action.
We do ourselves no favors to be patronizing, treating the crazy folk at town halls as anything other than what they are - just plain nuts. Sure they're misinformed, too. But, it isn't a contradiction to note they are both wrong and loony.
The names and issues have changed. It is no longer Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson who are President, but Obama. It is no longer Civil Rights or Medicare, Vietnam (which some on the right saw as a way to distract attention from the graver threat in Cuba) or the nascent anti-nuclear movement that are the targets, but health care reform. One could read "Islam" in many of the quoted pieces in Thayer's book where the word "communism" appears. It's uncanny, really.
Bob Somerby is not a fan of Rick Perlstein's piece in the "Outlook" section in Sunday's Washington Post.
The analysts were filled with disgust at Perlstein’s sneering analysis. He name-called a lot of those “working-class people,” engaging in the very conduct he had described to Coolican. But he certainly didn’t spend much time naming the “elites” who drive this cynical culture. And Perlstein knows about those elites.
Unfortunately, Somerby does a little name-calling himself, pointing out Perlstein's upbringing in a tony suburb of Milwaukee, education at the University of Chicago, and what-not, as if any of that were relevant. Somerby also points out that one of the person's highlighted in Perlstein's piece is described in a derogatory manner; Somerby wishes that Perlstein had pointed out some other set of descriptors. Alas, this is a false choice. The man in question may, indeed, be a working-class rube, being played by high-flying elites to do their dirty work for them. At the same time, he is part and parcel of a long history of crazy, a portion of which is highlighted in the aforementioned book the George Thayer. Somerby may find it patronizing to call crazy people crazy. I find it patronizing to treat them as simple misguided souls who, if only given the proper information by a properly functioning press corps would work in their own best interests.
Perlstein is, unfortunately for Somerby, correct. The tree of crazy has been with us from the beginning. Before the internet, mimeograph machines and cheap postal rates made printing up newsletters to be mailed out to fellow-believers incredibly easy. These helped feed and water the crazy tree. Before the newsletter was the broadside and pamphlet; the internet is only the latest iteration in the long history of connecting with like-minded folk for political action.
We do ourselves no favors to be patronizing, treating the crazy folk at town halls as anything other than what they are - just plain nuts. Sure they're misinformed, too. But, it isn't a contradiction to note they are both wrong and loony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
