ER, in his usual inimitable style, reads this story of a man arrested for dangling nooses at a group of blacks protesting the recent events in Jena, LA, and comes out loudly, and profanely, against hate crimes legislation. I disagree, and would like to advise and extend remarks I made in comments there.
You can read of the case of Matthew Shepard here. A young gay man, Shepard was brutally murdered in 1998 for the horrific act of hitting on one of two friends in a bar. With the introduction of a hate crimes legislation, Shepard's murder lighted a fire under the right who insisted that using such laws to prosecute his murderers would have made little difference, either in fact or in law, because he was still dead, and they were still guilty - convicted by their own statements - and, as is oft repeated, the state would have been in the business of "prosecuting thought", in this case, hatred of gays.
Except of course, it is not thought that is punished under hate crimes. Rather, hate crimes legislation punishes acts that are rooted in bigotry toward a group that has a history of social, cultural, economic, and political exclusion. In other words, hate crimes legislation goes to the question of motive, which is at the very heart of criminal law.
Let me give a completely ridiculous scenario, but one which illustrates my point. One night, the police are called to our house and find me holding a gun, powder burns on my fingers, and my wife dead on the carpet from gunshot wounds. I am arrested for first-degree murder. In the course of the prosecution, the state's attorney office discovers that (a) I had recently taken out life insurance for my wife at work; (b) my wife and I had been having a series of arguments over money problems; (c) I had discovered that afternoon that my wife had been having a multi-year relationship with another man; (d) I had purchased a handgun that afternoon (of course, IL law prohibits that kind of thing, but since all of this is fake, just follow along, please).
The prosecution takes all these facts and fits them in to a narrative in which I, enraged by the discovery of infidelity, take the final step of murdering my wife. This entire narrative is what is known as "motive" in criminal law. It is, in a sense, the outward manifestation of the inward thought and emotions of anger, betrayal, and a desire to murder finally manifest.
My defense attorney, on the other hand, takes these same facts, and argues that I was suffering from acute depression. The gun purchase was done because I had decided to kill myself. My wife, entering the room, tried to stop me. The death was completely accidental. The facts are not in dispute. They do not, however, create a narrative of motive for murder, but a narrative for a suicide interrupted by a tragic accident. I am found not guilty of murder, but guilty of illegal discharge of a weapon and attempted suicide (still a law in IL).
In other words, we prosecute people for thoughts all the time. Indeed, it is thought turned to action that lies behind the issue of motive - it is a non-psychologized rendering of the roots of human activity that we need to return to if we are to be clear about this issue.
Matthew Shepard is dead because he found a young man attractive, and hit on him. That's it, and that's all. His assailants were not after money; they were not looking to make a political statement. They were offended by Matthew Shepard's sexual identity, and insulted by the fact that he would actually make an attempt to sexually solicit one of them. Hatred - not some psychological state, but the act of hatred - was the sole reason for this crime.
In the case to which ER takes exception, a young white man drove by a group of African-Americans involved in protests surrounding events in Jena, LA with a couple nooses hanging from his vehicle. Had he driven by them and shouted a racial epithet, I could see fit to agree with ER - while rude, and prompted no less by racial animus than the display of a noose, this would clearly be protected speech. Even driving by with a hood on his head might be protected speech.
Dangling a noose, however, recalls the role of lynching in race relations. As I wrote on Monday, the lynch rope is the real symbol of much of the history of relations between blacks and whites. It was the epicenter around which swirled an entire system of domestic terrorism, social, economic, cultural, and political exclusion, meant to keep African-Americans from enjoying their rightful place as full participants in American society. Violence was at the heart of this entire system - the violence of "the mob" which was the real law in much of the country (not just the south; Tulsa, OK lost its entire African-American community in a "race riot" - whites burning it down, and chasing off the survivors). To imagine that the display of a rope tied in to a noose could be divorced from this reality, or should be, is to live in cloud-cuckoo land.
Furthermore, to reduce the fear and intimidation to psychological states is to play word games. This isn't about a group of people quaking in terror at the site of a noose. It is about a very real fear - the fear not just of one man but an entire group of people perfectly willing and capable to murder a bunch of uppity blacks who have forgotten their place. The dead dangling from trees, telephone poles, and underneath bridges all cry out against pretending the fear is anything other than a very real, very immediate threat to their very lives.
We are talking, of course, about domestic terrorism, an entire system of domestic terrorism, given the blessing of the powers that be because of the race of those who are the target. Prosecuting this as a hate crime puts this kind of act in the same category of incendiary speech as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous "fire in a theater" test - speech that is a direct threat to the peace is not protected speech. We aren't dealing with some yahoo shouting "Go home, nigger!" We have here the symbol of centuries of racial dehumanization being displayed, with the clear intention of telling these men and women what their fate will be if they don't go home and be quiet.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Just One More I Swear Then I Will Quit Forever (UPDATE)
So the markets are reacting to news that a "compromise" has been reached on a "stimulus package". So maybe they were holding their breaths for the past couple days, wondering if the President and Congress would act like adults in the public interest.Since they haven't the markets are doing the whole scampering chickens routine.
Mission Accomplished Again, George.
UPDATE: A neat feature that I had no idea existed when I linked to the little graph from Bloomberg is that it updated itself as the day went on. So, we now have the result of another wild day, rather than a snapshot of one moment early in the day.
Bill Clinton Is Wearing Out His Welcome
It probably shouldn't come as a surprise that former President Bill Clinton is out there stumping for his wife. After all, he does have many positives, including a strong connection with the African-American community, who embraced him. Yet, I do believe that, in the past couple weeks, he has gone a bit over the top. Before the Nevada caucuses, he made the outrageous claim that some votes would count five times more than others - and those votes, obviously, were assumed to be going for Sen. Obama. Now, he's playing the victim, claiming that Obama put a "hit job" (proverbial, one assumes) on him.
Please.
You know, we all know Clinton knows how to play bare-knuckle politics. We also know that he got the crap kicked out of him, and his family, for the entire eight years he was President. He couldn't buy a break from the press and the right, and they didn't let up, even after he left office. In the midst of a heated campaign, in which he might feel a bit invested, for many reasons, but not least because it might be understood to be a referendum on his Presidency (this is a chance for the American people to register their feelings about him via his wife's candidacy), however, I do believe that he needs to take a step back, breathe deeply, and remember this is a primary campaign, and there aren't a whole lot of differences between his wife, Sen. Obama, and former Sen. Edwards.
To be less charitable, I honestly think Hillary needs to put a bit of a shorter leash on the guy. He also needs a big dose of STFU, available anywhere political advice is given away.
Please.
You know, we all know Clinton knows how to play bare-knuckle politics. We also know that he got the crap kicked out of him, and his family, for the entire eight years he was President. He couldn't buy a break from the press and the right, and they didn't let up, even after he left office. In the midst of a heated campaign, in which he might feel a bit invested, for many reasons, but not least because it might be understood to be a referendum on his Presidency (this is a chance for the American people to register their feelings about him via his wife's candidacy), however, I do believe that he needs to take a step back, breathe deeply, and remember this is a primary campaign, and there aren't a whole lot of differences between his wife, Sen. Obama, and former Sen. Edwards.
To be less charitable, I honestly think Hillary needs to put a bit of a shorter leash on the guy. He also needs a big dose of STFU, available anywhere political advice is given away.
Financial Market News - The Crack Cocaine Of The Day
I know I said I wasn't going to write about the markets. But. I. Just. Can't. Help. Myself. . . . Just. A. Little. More. Won't. Hurt. Me.
From Bloomberg.com comes news that both the Nikkei and European markets managed relatively modest gains (although bigger than the New York exchanges, which tells me they are acting no more rationally today than they were last week when they tried to sell their grandmother's estates for five cents on the dollar). The "panic" phase, I do believe, is over. Besides the federal funds rate cut, there is also the prospect of a real stimulus package coming through Congress (I love the fact that everyone noted, without a single comment, the lack of confidence in Bush's statements about tax cuts; the markets wanted a menu, and he was giving them a diet plan). I do not like the whole "rebate" thing - it smacks of pandering, election-year politics of the worst sort, mailing checks to people. It might be nice to readjust the tax code, reinvigorate the EITC, and perhaps even move to eliminate the payroll (withholding) tax - that would give people money without the unseemliness of mailing checks out.
One story I found just fascinating. The second largest bank in France is reporting a 4.9 billion Euro loss ($7.1 billion), which considering the recent losses in banks around the world that were foolish enough to try and get a piece of the near-criminal, para-fraudulent sub-prime lending market, should come as no surprise. What is a surprise, however, is how they are reporting this loss.
Now, the story does add in, as an afterthought, the role of the credit crunch, in the losses. But . . .
So, the Chair of the Board offered to fall on his sword in the face of the discovery of the "trades", and was refused. How noble of the chair, and how charitable of the board.
Something tells me this was just, a bit, a tad, a smidge, orchestrated. The story, as fleshed out, makes no more sense, indeed quite a bit less.
So, they were . . . acting as traders, not enriching themselves, looking for higher-than-average returns for the portfolios they managed, and they are losing their jobs? Can anyone say "scapegoat"?
I think Bank of America, Wachovia, and even Goldman, Sachs should do this same thing - fire a few high-end risk-taking traders, insist they only discovered the "shenanigans" because the trades were hidden behind the complexity of investment bank accounting, and move forward with confidence now that the real criminals and miscreants behind the current losses have been exposed and tossed aside.
A novel strategy.
From Bloomberg.com comes news that both the Nikkei and European markets managed relatively modest gains (although bigger than the New York exchanges, which tells me they are acting no more rationally today than they were last week when they tried to sell their grandmother's estates for five cents on the dollar). The "panic" phase, I do believe, is over. Besides the federal funds rate cut, there is also the prospect of a real stimulus package coming through Congress (I love the fact that everyone noted, without a single comment, the lack of confidence in Bush's statements about tax cuts; the markets wanted a menu, and he was giving them a diet plan). I do not like the whole "rebate" thing - it smacks of pandering, election-year politics of the worst sort, mailing checks to people. It might be nice to readjust the tax code, reinvigorate the EITC, and perhaps even move to eliminate the payroll (withholding) tax - that would give people money without the unseemliness of mailing checks out.
One story I found just fascinating. The second largest bank in France is reporting a 4.9 billion Euro loss ($7.1 billion), which considering the recent losses in banks around the world that were foolish enough to try and get a piece of the near-criminal, para-fraudulent sub-prime lending market, should come as no surprise. What is a surprise, however, is how they are reporting this loss.
Societe Generale SA said unauthorized bets on stock index futures by an unidentified employee caused a 4.9 billion-euro ($7.2 billion) trading loss, the largest in European banking history.
Now, the story does add in, as an afterthought, the role of the credit crunch, in the losses. But . . .
An offer by Chairman Daniel Bouton to resign after the trades were discovered this past weekend was refused by Societe Generale's board, the bank said.
So, the Chair of the Board offered to fall on his sword in the face of the discovery of the "trades", and was refused. How noble of the chair, and how charitable of the board.
Something tells me this was just, a bit, a tad, a smidge, orchestrated. The story, as fleshed out, makes no more sense, indeed quite a bit less.
Four to five people will be fired as a result of the loss, Mustier told reporters at a press conference in Paris. The trader's manager Luc Francois, the head of equity markets, is among those who will lose his job, said spokesman Hugues Le Bret.
``The transactions that were built on the fraud were simple, positions linked to rising stock markets, but they were hidden through extremely sophisticated and varied techniques,'' Bouton, 67, said in a letter posted on the bank's Web site.
The trader didn't enrich himself from the fraudulent trades, which began in early 2007, and his motivations are unclear, Bouton said at a press conference. The employee cooperated with the bank.
So, they were . . . acting as traders, not enriching themselves, looking for higher-than-average returns for the portfolios they managed, and they are losing their jobs? Can anyone say "scapegoat"?
I think Bank of America, Wachovia, and even Goldman, Sachs should do this same thing - fire a few high-end risk-taking traders, insist they only discovered the "shenanigans" because the trades were hidden behind the complexity of investment bank accounting, and move forward with confidence now that the real criminals and miscreants behind the current losses have been exposed and tossed aside.
A novel strategy.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Pulling A Jonah Goldberg - I Would Like Your Help
Next Monday, I would like to do a music feature on break-up songs. I don't mean just your run-of-the-mill "oh, boo-hoo she's/he's gone" kind of thing. I mean real wrist-slashers. The kind of songs you hate to listen to, yet listen over and over again while you sit there and wonder what, exactly, happened. I have mine picked out (well, I'm still debating a couple, really, but I'm leaning towards one in particular).
What I'm asking for are submissions. You can e-mail me via my profile. Send me the title and artist, and perhaps even a brief description of why this song. I'm not asking you to bare your soul; you can say as much or as little as you like, but if you feel moved, it would certainly help with putting up some gems.
Break-up songs are great things, really. They speak to us because they give voice to what we, in our very real grief, cannot articulate. There is, of course, the humor value, especially as we regain our equilibrium, and look back and find ourselves moving forward. I can both get a bit teary eyed, traveling back in time to the emotions that curdled in my truly broken heart when I heard this or that song. I can also laugh at how bathetic it all is, and was. The grief of a broken relationship - especially those that seemed to have so much promise - is very real, like a death. As someone who quite freely admits he wears his heart on his sleeve, I can tell you my heart got pounded to mush on a couple occasions, and the pain was quite real, a physical ache. Yet, no matter how much it feels like everything is meaningless at the moment, that moment passes, and we find ourselves waking up one day and things really are better.
If I don't get any e-mails, and next Monday's music post sucks, remember, it's your fault.
What I'm asking for are submissions. You can e-mail me via my profile. Send me the title and artist, and perhaps even a brief description of why this song. I'm not asking you to bare your soul; you can say as much or as little as you like, but if you feel moved, it would certainly help with putting up some gems.
Break-up songs are great things, really. They speak to us because they give voice to what we, in our very real grief, cannot articulate. There is, of course, the humor value, especially as we regain our equilibrium, and look back and find ourselves moving forward. I can both get a bit teary eyed, traveling back in time to the emotions that curdled in my truly broken heart when I heard this or that song. I can also laugh at how bathetic it all is, and was. The grief of a broken relationship - especially those that seemed to have so much promise - is very real, like a death. As someone who quite freely admits he wears his heart on his sleeve, I can tell you my heart got pounded to mush on a couple occasions, and the pain was quite real, a physical ache. Yet, no matter how much it feels like everything is meaningless at the moment, that moment passes, and we find ourselves waking up one day and things really are better.
If I don't get any e-mails, and next Monday's music post sucks, remember, it's your fault.
Trespassing In Church
Through various links, I saw this story in The Wall Street Journal (???) and I have to wonder what, exactly, this minister was thinking.
First of all, there's this passage in the Bible that says, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I hold this to be far more important than countervailing verses saying we need to kick people out of Church for "sinning". The pews would be empty if we did that.
Second, there are a variety of ways to deal with "discipline" in the Church - including using the example of Jesus' sacrifice as the beginning for forming an ethic of Christian discipline (OK, so Karl Barth still lingers in the back of my mind; you can't escape the verbose Basel churchman!). Further, to this specific point here, it seems that what Mrs. McCaskey did hardly meets the threshold necessary for even some kind of minimal "discipline". So she didn't like the way the guy did some things! Good Lord, church politics are awful - heinous even - but this kind of thing is almost beyond the pale.
Back to my first point, though, which I think is far more important, we just seem befuddled about sin. It isn't stuff we do, or at least not primarily stuff we do. It is who we are, how we are, a disposition of enmity towards God. It is the human condition sine qua non (with apologies to Hannah Arendt). For this minister to do this only shows he doesn't understand what sin is, or what the message of the Gospel is. Bound up with judgment - discipline, if you will - and prior to it, is always the grace of God that goes before us, before we even know of such a thing (OK, so now I'm combining Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and John Wesley via Albert Outler - too much education is not necessarily a good thing . . .). The word of grace is a judgment upon us; the word of judgment is precisely an expression of the inexpressible love of God for us. If there was no judgment, how would we now how far God's love extends for us, to us? Limiting "discipline" to this kind of thing is unBiblical in the worst way - it distorts what is on the page, taking it out of any kind of underlying theological (and Christological) context, to suit the needs of the present moment.
On a quiet Sunday morning in June, as worshippers settled into the pews at Allen Baptist Church in southwestern Michigan, Pastor Jason Burrick grabbed his cellphone and dialed 911. When a dispatcher answered, the preacher said a former congregant was in the sanctuary. "And we need to, um, have her out A.S.A.P."
--snip--
The charge was trespassing, but Mrs. Caskey's real offense, in her pastor's view, was spiritual. Several months earlier, when she had questioned his authority, he'd charged her with spreading "a spirit of cancer and discord" and expelled her from the congregation. "I've been shunned," she says.
Her story reflects a growing movement among some conservative Protestant pastors to bring back church discipline, an ancient practice in which suspected sinners are privately confronted and then publicly castigated and excommunicated if they refuse to repent. While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.
The revival is part of a broader movement to restore churches to their traditional role as moral enforcers, Christian leaders say. Some say that contemporary churches have grown soft on sinners, citing the rise of suburban megachurches where pastors preach self-affirming messages rather than focusing on sin and redemption. Others point to a passage in the gospel of Matthew that says unrepentant sinners must be shunned.
First of all, there's this passage in the Bible that says, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I hold this to be far more important than countervailing verses saying we need to kick people out of Church for "sinning". The pews would be empty if we did that.
Second, there are a variety of ways to deal with "discipline" in the Church - including using the example of Jesus' sacrifice as the beginning for forming an ethic of Christian discipline (OK, so Karl Barth still lingers in the back of my mind; you can't escape the verbose Basel churchman!). Further, to this specific point here, it seems that what Mrs. McCaskey did hardly meets the threshold necessary for even some kind of minimal "discipline". So she didn't like the way the guy did some things! Good Lord, church politics are awful - heinous even - but this kind of thing is almost beyond the pale.
Back to my first point, though, which I think is far more important, we just seem befuddled about sin. It isn't stuff we do, or at least not primarily stuff we do. It is who we are, how we are, a disposition of enmity towards God. It is the human condition sine qua non (with apologies to Hannah Arendt). For this minister to do this only shows he doesn't understand what sin is, or what the message of the Gospel is. Bound up with judgment - discipline, if you will - and prior to it, is always the grace of God that goes before us, before we even know of such a thing (OK, so now I'm combining Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and John Wesley via Albert Outler - too much education is not necessarily a good thing . . .). The word of grace is a judgment upon us; the word of judgment is precisely an expression of the inexpressible love of God for us. If there was no judgment, how would we now how far God's love extends for us, to us? Limiting "discipline" to this kind of thing is unBiblical in the worst way - it distorts what is on the page, taking it out of any kind of underlying theological (and Christological) context, to suit the needs of the present moment.
It's Wild! It's Whacky! It's Wall Street!
From Bloomberg comes this handy little graph of the roller coaster that was today's market.I do believe that I shall no longer write about the markets. I think these people are simply disconnected from reality. Period. Unalloyed pessimism is as ridiculous as the kind of Dow 36000!! crap we've heard over and over again - it is, indeed the flip side of the same coin - but this is just . . . I don't have words to describe the way I feel. After yesterday, I expected modest losses, again. In fact, I expected them for the next few weeks.
A three hundred point gain? This isn't irrational exuberance. It is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler sitting in his Feurherbunker and playing with his architectural models for a new Linz and new Vienna. As a professor of mine at Alfred University used to say, it is a bit like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. There are problems in the market, and the economy . . . and the market just simply ignored them.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Obama And Kirbyjohn Caldwell
I read today over at Street Prophets that noted African-American, and United Methodist, minister Kirbyjohn Caldwell has endorsed Barack Obama. When I told my wife, her first reaction was, "Is that smart?" She is very careful not to make any public statement in support of any political candidate, taking the separation of church and state, as well as the threat of IRS action against her and the church, seriously. All I could say was that Caldwell is a pretty savvy operator. Also, this kind of thing is par for the course in the black churches in America, and Caldwell was also careful to insist that this is a personal, not institutional (either United Methodist, or even Windsor United Methodist Church) endorsement.
What seems to be raising people's hackles, especially on the heels of the questions raised by Obama's invocation of the great demon Reagan, is that Caldwell is "conservative". Actually, he is a pretty traditional black churchman - that's why there is an "ex-gay" ministry at his church. Now, Obama has already called out the homophobia of the black community in general (as well as the anti-Semitism of some elements of its leadership), even though this past summer he raised eyebrows by featuring an "ex-gay" preacher on some of his campaign tours.
This tell me a couple things. First, I think there are many reasons Caldwell would come out for Obama, not the least of them being racial solidarity. I find that commendable (also consider that had he, or other prominent African-American church leaders, come out for another candidate, there would be caterwauling about Obama's lack of appeal to certain segments of the African-American community, so one could argue he can't win for losing). Second, I think this does not mean that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate from the right, but a transcendent figure - I have had third thoughts, and I honestly believe that Obama was saying what I said he was saying, especially after reading Bob Somerby today.
Finally, and in all honesty I wonder about this, isn't it a good thing that there are people across the political spectrum who are coming forward to support a particular candidate? At one time, Democrats crossed the line (like Phil Gramm) for reasons of ideology, and everyone at least pretended to understand. Shoot, Joe Lieberman has managed to continue caucusing with Democrats, with the progress of the Iraq war/occupation being the only serious issue that separated him from his former party-mates. When conservatives manage to come forward and put their principles where their practice should be, no one seems to mind. Yet, when the same persons come forward and speak out in favor of someone who calls themselves liberal or even progressive, the only possibility is that the person so endorsed and making these claims is lying, a stealth DLC-right-winger.
That kind of thing just bugs the crap out of me. Obama's history, as a local organizer in Chicago, in the state legislature, and in Congress, while not perfect from a progressive point of view, is certainly no indication that he has any sympathies with the right, or even moderately conservative elements in today's political culture. Furthermore, I see no reason not to take Obama at his word. Until I see real evidence otherwise, I continue to believe that he is exactly as advertised, and Caldwell's endorsement does not change that one iota.
What seems to be raising people's hackles, especially on the heels of the questions raised by Obama's invocation of the great demon Reagan, is that Caldwell is "conservative". Actually, he is a pretty traditional black churchman - that's why there is an "ex-gay" ministry at his church. Now, Obama has already called out the homophobia of the black community in general (as well as the anti-Semitism of some elements of its leadership), even though this past summer he raised eyebrows by featuring an "ex-gay" preacher on some of his campaign tours.
This tell me a couple things. First, I think there are many reasons Caldwell would come out for Obama, not the least of them being racial solidarity. I find that commendable (also consider that had he, or other prominent African-American church leaders, come out for another candidate, there would be caterwauling about Obama's lack of appeal to certain segments of the African-American community, so one could argue he can't win for losing). Second, I think this does not mean that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate from the right, but a transcendent figure - I have had third thoughts, and I honestly believe that Obama was saying what I said he was saying, especially after reading Bob Somerby today.
Finally, and in all honesty I wonder about this, isn't it a good thing that there are people across the political spectrum who are coming forward to support a particular candidate? At one time, Democrats crossed the line (like Phil Gramm) for reasons of ideology, and everyone at least pretended to understand. Shoot, Joe Lieberman has managed to continue caucusing with Democrats, with the progress of the Iraq war/occupation being the only serious issue that separated him from his former party-mates. When conservatives manage to come forward and put their principles where their practice should be, no one seems to mind. Yet, when the same persons come forward and speak out in favor of someone who calls themselves liberal or even progressive, the only possibility is that the person so endorsed and making these claims is lying, a stealth DLC-right-winger.
That kind of thing just bugs the crap out of me. Obama's history, as a local organizer in Chicago, in the state legislature, and in Congress, while not perfect from a progressive point of view, is certainly no indication that he has any sympathies with the right, or even moderately conservative elements in today's political culture. Furthermore, I see no reason not to take Obama at his word. Until I see real evidence otherwise, I continue to believe that he is exactly as advertised, and Caldwell's endorsement does not change that one iota.
Good News, Bad News
So, stocks fell only about 1.1% today - just over 128 points - which, considering the waterfalls in Asia yesterday is at least encouraging. Of course, they initially fell 450 points, but the Fed's rush to cut the federal funds rate three-quarters of a percent helped. Today.
I honestly think that having a holiday yesterday was a good thing for the stock market. Rather than get caught up in the swirl of the Asian tumble, New York managed to keep its head despite the futures predicting doom. All those sellers require buyers, after all, and even though two big banks - Wachovia and Bank of America - reported really bad earnings early this morning (I think I heard B of A reported a 95% loss over the previous year), there is a part of me that wonders if this initial bad news isn't so much the beginning of something horrible as it is getting the worst news out front. Of course, there will be further write-downs as all those defaulted mortgages and credit cards and car loans continue to come in. But, I wonder.
This is not to say that I actually know what I'm talking about; four classes in economics in college do not mean anything. Two real economists, Duncan Black and Paul Krugman, argue over the possibility of recession, its length, etc., with far more understanding of the details than I could even pretend to have. Yet, I wonder if the fears in Asia aren't overblown - if exuberance in the markets, as irrational as it may have been, hasn't been replaced with an equally irrational gloom.
First of all, the unemployment rate is still at historically low levels (5% used to be considered "full employment" until the 1990's when it dipped below that level without any serious inflation). While that number, I am sure, masks underemployment, the number of people who have given up looking, and stagnant wages, it is still something to consider.
While inflation, especially due to the steep rise in oil prices, has been a worry, the price of oil has been declining slowly but steadily as worries over the US economy have grown.
On the other hand, even with the federal funds rate cut today, banks are understandably leery of making substantial loans, or even consumer loans, such as car loans. Who can blame them? Yet, once again, how much of this is irrational gloom following a period of irrational - and poor - business decisions, lending to people with bad credit, no equity or collateral? I honestly wonder how much of what has been happening, while serious (to be sure; please don't think I am discounting the reality of the credit crunch, or the real pain of losing one's house, car, etc.) is as much psychological as it is economic? Considering the fact that the New York market kept its head relative to the very real panic in Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Mumbai, I have to just toss out the observation that we might be in the midst of the wild pendulum swings of the banking version of bi-polar disorder. Perhaps the Fed's action today, combined with serious economic stimulus (something other than making Bush's tax cuts permanent, that is) may be the kind of medicine needed to stave off the worst.
This was just one day. Tomorrow may make me take back everything I wrote here. I think the AA mantra is what is needed here.
I honestly think that having a holiday yesterday was a good thing for the stock market. Rather than get caught up in the swirl of the Asian tumble, New York managed to keep its head despite the futures predicting doom. All those sellers require buyers, after all, and even though two big banks - Wachovia and Bank of America - reported really bad earnings early this morning (I think I heard B of A reported a 95% loss over the previous year), there is a part of me that wonders if this initial bad news isn't so much the beginning of something horrible as it is getting the worst news out front. Of course, there will be further write-downs as all those defaulted mortgages and credit cards and car loans continue to come in. But, I wonder.
This is not to say that I actually know what I'm talking about; four classes in economics in college do not mean anything. Two real economists, Duncan Black and Paul Krugman, argue over the possibility of recession, its length, etc., with far more understanding of the details than I could even pretend to have. Yet, I wonder if the fears in Asia aren't overblown - if exuberance in the markets, as irrational as it may have been, hasn't been replaced with an equally irrational gloom.
First of all, the unemployment rate is still at historically low levels (5% used to be considered "full employment" until the 1990's when it dipped below that level without any serious inflation). While that number, I am sure, masks underemployment, the number of people who have given up looking, and stagnant wages, it is still something to consider.
While inflation, especially due to the steep rise in oil prices, has been a worry, the price of oil has been declining slowly but steadily as worries over the US economy have grown.
On the other hand, even with the federal funds rate cut today, banks are understandably leery of making substantial loans, or even consumer loans, such as car loans. Who can blame them? Yet, once again, how much of this is irrational gloom following a period of irrational - and poor - business decisions, lending to people with bad credit, no equity or collateral? I honestly wonder how much of what has been happening, while serious (to be sure; please don't think I am discounting the reality of the credit crunch, or the real pain of losing one's house, car, etc.) is as much psychological as it is economic? Considering the fact that the New York market kept its head relative to the very real panic in Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Mumbai, I have to just toss out the observation that we might be in the midst of the wild pendulum swings of the banking version of bi-polar disorder. Perhaps the Fed's action today, combined with serious economic stimulus (something other than making Bush's tax cuts permanent, that is) may be the kind of medicine needed to stave off the worst.
This was just one day. Tomorrow may make me take back everything I wrote here. I think the AA mantra is what is needed here.
Monday, January 21, 2008
By The By
Does anyone want to have a pool on the percentage loss on Wall Street tomorrow? It's too bad Phil Gramm's dream of all those retirees putting their Social Security and health care money in the stock market didn't come true . . .
My long-term prediction - by spring (April-May) the Dow will be between 7,000 and 8,000 points. That, by the way, is what is technically known as a "crash". Fun times ahead, folks.
My long-term prediction - by spring (April-May) the Dow will be between 7,000 and 8,000 points. That, by the way, is what is technically known as a "crash". Fun times ahead, folks.
Music Monday
This one is inspired by ER. What follows are the first three 45-rpm singles I can remember buying. It was the summer of 1978. If my musical tastes evolved quickly over time - and they did - I can at least be excused for being a neophyte. Besides, at least one of these songs is really cool.
McCain And The Age Issue
OK, so it was pointed out to me that I wasn't the only person who mentioned McCain being, well, a tad on the senior side. I honestly am not sure why Norris' comment is such a big deal. It isn't ageism to point out that a person might just be too old for something as strenuous as the Office of President of the United States. I don't think we should allow McCain to shrug off the question of age the way Reagan did with Walter Mondale, with a scripted joke and the patented Reagan smile, head tilted slightly to one side, and a chuckle. This is a serious issue, and needs to be addressed directly. I know our political system is ill-equipped to handle a serious discussion of something as delicate as this, but I also think it is necessary. We have had Presidents in our history who have been seriously incapacitated while in office - the most infamous of whom was Woodrow Wilson, debilitated by a stroke, with his wife and eminence gris Col. House working to insulate Wilson from the stresses and strains of the office - and Presidents who have had various health problems while in office (Grover Cleveland had part of his jaw and palate removed because of cancer; Eisenhower had a heart attack and a stroke; Kennedy suffered from a war injury and was most likely addicted to prescription pain killers; Nixon was an incipient alcoholic; FDR deteriorated before the eyes of an adoring public, finally dying of a burst aneurysm; Reagan was in to the first stages of Alzheimer's Disease before he left office in 1989). These are real issues, to be confronted honestly, and one hopes, with a modicum of decency (thin hopes, to be sure).
Having a physical, and reporting the general conclusions is not a solution, by the way. It is, or should be, the beginning of a discussion. The next President will have a whole host of problems with which to deal. Being able to bear up under the strains of what will in all likelihood be very messy public controversies will be a big part of the job. Of course, many younger than McCain would be ill-equipped to do so. There is also the not unimportant issue that Barack Obama is a chain smoker - and one wonders how his heart and lungs will deal with the twin stresses of the job and the multiple carcinogens he inhales on an hourly basis. This, too, should be part of the discussion (and incidentally would be a nice way to have a broader discussion on questions of health care, public health, and the like; or perhaps I am being a bit too dreamy here).
Anyway, I think it's a legitimate issue, and just because Chuck Norris is the first person to raise it so publicly doesn't mean it is, our should be, out of bounds. On the contrary, I think we need more, not less, discussion. As long as it is done seriously and carefully, and with respect.
Having a physical, and reporting the general conclusions is not a solution, by the way. It is, or should be, the beginning of a discussion. The next President will have a whole host of problems with which to deal. Being able to bear up under the strains of what will in all likelihood be very messy public controversies will be a big part of the job. Of course, many younger than McCain would be ill-equipped to do so. There is also the not unimportant issue that Barack Obama is a chain smoker - and one wonders how his heart and lungs will deal with the twin stresses of the job and the multiple carcinogens he inhales on an hourly basis. This, too, should be part of the discussion (and incidentally would be a nice way to have a broader discussion on questions of health care, public health, and the like; or perhaps I am being a bit too dreamy here).
Anyway, I think it's a legitimate issue, and just because Chuck Norris is the first person to raise it so publicly doesn't mean it is, our should be, out of bounds. On the contrary, I think we need more, not less, discussion. As long as it is done seriously and carefully, and with respect.
Some Thoughts On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Everyone else is doing it, why not me?
When I was in seminary, I took a seminary on liberation theology. Early on, we had a discussion of the theological underpinnings of King's practice of non-violent social change, and its mixed legacy. I made the observation that the radical rejection of King's message and practice, the result of white intransigence in the face of the demands for a more just society from blacks, was understandable. The violence black protest brought out was horrific - no one can see footage of Bull Connor turning hoses on children and setting police dogs loose on innocent marchers and not be enraged - yet it was no different from the systemic violence under which blacks had lived for over two hundred years at that point. From the slave ship through the ripping away of one's identity - a new name, a new language, a whole new set of rules, the entire system of depersonalization involved in chattel slavery in the United States - to the imposition of a reign of terror over blacks at the end of Reconstruction (the lynch rope is the real symbol of Jim Crow, not the ubiquitous signs saying "Whites Only") violence was at the very heart of segregation.
King's demand that blacks reject violence stemmed, I am convinced, from the long experience of observing how an entire system of violence had deformed an entire population - morally, socially, culturally, politically - and he did not wish his people, those who had given his voice a leading role, to become so embittered, so filled with the desire for vengeance, to dehumanize the Other that the goal - a more just society - became lost.
Yet, precisely because of the violence necessary to sustain such a system, King's dream, regardless of its merits, was bound to fail. To get all Marxist, he heightened the tensions and contradictions within American society (initially in the south, but no less so in the north) to the point where simple choices were all that was left. When the first Black Power advocates spoke of "Violence being as American as cherry pie", they were speaking from experience - the experience of a besieged and battered people, bereft of even the tattered remnants of any links to others. The only claim black Americans had was upon the conscience of the vast middle class that was not exposed directly to this violence (it was King's genius that he recognized this and exploited it so well). Other than that, there were few allies - communists, perhaps, and socialists - to whom blacks could look for support as they sought to end, once and for all, the dehumanizing structures of segregation, upheld through the courts and lynch rope.
I was much less wordy than this when I made my statement, by the way.
I ended my comments by saying that King's idea of non-violent social change was misguided in the case of desegregation, because violence was at the very heart of the racial divide. I thought what I said was relatively uncontroversial. The white students in class - good liberals all - erupted. Some said that I had denounced King, his desire for the Christian love ethic to find a place in American social and political practice. Others said I overplayed the role of violence. Still others said that I didn't see the real benefits and gains African-Americans had made.
I think I really upset them when I said that I thought that too few people understood that King was as opposed to the Vietnam War as he was to segregation; that his opposition was rooted in his abhorrence of systemic American violence perpetrated in the name of racial purity, i.e., he saw the destruction of South Vietnamese rural life as no different in kind from the repression of African-American hopes and aspirations. Instead of the court and the rope, though, now the rifle and napalm were being used. In other words, we can get all touchy-feely about the "I Have a Dream" speech and completely ignore King's strident opposition to American imperialism, to the war in Vietnam, and to the continued obfuscations and prevarications of the Johnson Administration. He also thought it horrible that, disproportionately to the rest of the population, children of poor and working class families were being sent to Vietnam to uphold a system that continued to repress them at home (he grieved over the role African-American soldiers, marines, and sailors played in Vietnam). This was no less exploitative than the use of slaves managing slaves on plantations in the ante-bellum south, in his eyes.
I think we do King's legacy and memory an injustice whenever we repeat "the content of one's character". For King, this was one speech on one day, to mark one point in a struggle that continued throughout his life. Our nation is so much poorer today because we have lost the memory of the Martin King who was organizing a mass protest in Washington on behalf of the poor - a protest that might or might not have come off had he lived. We are poorer today because we hear the word of King's dream, without thinking through why he dreamed it.
We are poorer today because King has become tame, a mild-mannered black Baptist preacher of love and peace, rather than a passionate, committed fighter against injustice in whatever form it appeared. Until we reclaim the Martin Luther King, Jr. who fought as hard against the war in Vietnam, who denounced American war crimes in southeast Asia as vehemently as he did American domestic crimes in southeast Alabama, we have not yet begun to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
When I was in seminary, I took a seminary on liberation theology. Early on, we had a discussion of the theological underpinnings of King's practice of non-violent social change, and its mixed legacy. I made the observation that the radical rejection of King's message and practice, the result of white intransigence in the face of the demands for a more just society from blacks, was understandable. The violence black protest brought out was horrific - no one can see footage of Bull Connor turning hoses on children and setting police dogs loose on innocent marchers and not be enraged - yet it was no different from the systemic violence under which blacks had lived for over two hundred years at that point. From the slave ship through the ripping away of one's identity - a new name, a new language, a whole new set of rules, the entire system of depersonalization involved in chattel slavery in the United States - to the imposition of a reign of terror over blacks at the end of Reconstruction (the lynch rope is the real symbol of Jim Crow, not the ubiquitous signs saying "Whites Only") violence was at the very heart of segregation.
King's demand that blacks reject violence stemmed, I am convinced, from the long experience of observing how an entire system of violence had deformed an entire population - morally, socially, culturally, politically - and he did not wish his people, those who had given his voice a leading role, to become so embittered, so filled with the desire for vengeance, to dehumanize the Other that the goal - a more just society - became lost.
Yet, precisely because of the violence necessary to sustain such a system, King's dream, regardless of its merits, was bound to fail. To get all Marxist, he heightened the tensions and contradictions within American society (initially in the south, but no less so in the north) to the point where simple choices were all that was left. When the first Black Power advocates spoke of "Violence being as American as cherry pie", they were speaking from experience - the experience of a besieged and battered people, bereft of even the tattered remnants of any links to others. The only claim black Americans had was upon the conscience of the vast middle class that was not exposed directly to this violence (it was King's genius that he recognized this and exploited it so well). Other than that, there were few allies - communists, perhaps, and socialists - to whom blacks could look for support as they sought to end, once and for all, the dehumanizing structures of segregation, upheld through the courts and lynch rope.
I was much less wordy than this when I made my statement, by the way.
I ended my comments by saying that King's idea of non-violent social change was misguided in the case of desegregation, because violence was at the very heart of the racial divide. I thought what I said was relatively uncontroversial. The white students in class - good liberals all - erupted. Some said that I had denounced King, his desire for the Christian love ethic to find a place in American social and political practice. Others said I overplayed the role of violence. Still others said that I didn't see the real benefits and gains African-Americans had made.
I think I really upset them when I said that I thought that too few people understood that King was as opposed to the Vietnam War as he was to segregation; that his opposition was rooted in his abhorrence of systemic American violence perpetrated in the name of racial purity, i.e., he saw the destruction of South Vietnamese rural life as no different in kind from the repression of African-American hopes and aspirations. Instead of the court and the rope, though, now the rifle and napalm were being used. In other words, we can get all touchy-feely about the "I Have a Dream" speech and completely ignore King's strident opposition to American imperialism, to the war in Vietnam, and to the continued obfuscations and prevarications of the Johnson Administration. He also thought it horrible that, disproportionately to the rest of the population, children of poor and working class families were being sent to Vietnam to uphold a system that continued to repress them at home (he grieved over the role African-American soldiers, marines, and sailors played in Vietnam). This was no less exploitative than the use of slaves managing slaves on plantations in the ante-bellum south, in his eyes.
I think we do King's legacy and memory an injustice whenever we repeat "the content of one's character". For King, this was one speech on one day, to mark one point in a struggle that continued throughout his life. Our nation is so much poorer today because we have lost the memory of the Martin King who was organizing a mass protest in Washington on behalf of the poor - a protest that might or might not have come off had he lived. We are poorer today because we hear the word of King's dream, without thinking through why he dreamed it.
We are poorer today because King has become tame, a mild-mannered black Baptist preacher of love and peace, rather than a passionate, committed fighter against injustice in whatever form it appeared. Until we reclaim the Martin Luther King, Jr. who fought as hard against the war in Vietnam, who denounced American war crimes in southeast Asia as vehemently as he did American domestic crimes in southeast Alabama, we have not yet begun to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Explain Some More Things To Me
I really would like someone to explain to me - so I can understand it; that is, I want facts referenced, not a bunch of pundit double-talk - how in the world (a) anyone can say Sen. John McCain is a "straight-shooting, straight-talking" moderate. He's a serial liar who is just to the right of Atilla the Hun; (b) anyone can think that a man even older than Ronald Reagan was when he first ran for the Presidency, at which time there were some serious questions about his age, can completely avoid the legitimate question of age, especially as the electorate is getting younger.
Finally, could someone please explain how normal people who should know better find McCain so politically attractive. Is it all that "years in a North Vietnamese POW camp" malarkey? How many hundreds of other POWs are there out there, living quiet, productive lives, not exploiting the experience for personal gain? This is not to take anything away from the tremendous personal resources McCain must have had to make it through that ordeal; it is just to say that I question its relevance.
I still doubt McCain's chances at winning the Republican nomination. It just befuddles me, the whole phenomenon of "John McCain" versus the rather mundane, typical politician that is the actual human being John McCain.
Finally, could someone please explain how normal people who should know better find McCain so politically attractive. Is it all that "years in a North Vietnamese POW camp" malarkey? How many hundreds of other POWs are there out there, living quiet, productive lives, not exploiting the experience for personal gain? This is not to take anything away from the tremendous personal resources McCain must have had to make it through that ordeal; it is just to say that I question its relevance.
I still doubt McCain's chances at winning the Republican nomination. It just befuddles me, the whole phenomenon of "John McCain" versus the rather mundane, typical politician that is the actual human being John McCain.
Should He Have Said It?
A couple days ago I gave my take on Obama's comments in praise of Ronald Reagan. I offered the opinion that Obama was talking about Reagan's ability to capture a certain traditional American buoyancy in his rhetoric, tell people they were better and stronger than the times in which they lived, and offered the promise of better days even in the midst of either glum despair or even serious socio-economic dislocation (the "recession of 1982-1983" featured double-digit unemployment, the industrial emasculation of the Great Lakes, and accelerated the shift from manufacturing to a service economy). His was certainly the victory of style over substance, yet it was a style that resonated with voters, even as they voiced disapproval of the substance.
I wonder, however, whether what he said was either clear enough for people to understand or, even if so, was wise. From Hullabaloo, we have this report of comments from Donna Brazile for the Democrats, and Bill Bennett, looking more bloated than usual as he tries to heap faint praise upon Obama, damning him in the process (and sounding a bit overly conscious of Obama's race; kind of odd from a "color-blind" conservative):
Of the two comments, its possible that Brazile's is actually more correct, at least in part. Bennett's "serious black candidate" is a slam at Jesse Jackson, who ran quite a serious campaign in 1988, and also just too aware of Obama's racial identity. Somehow, he has to keep slipping in a mention of the fact that Obama's African-American. Perhaps, for Bennett, Obama is like Samuel Johnson's talking dog and woman preacher. As for what Bennett says - please. To believe that a Democrat would insist that we embrace "Reagan's legacy" is hogwash. Obama was speaking about capturing a moment, understanding the zeitgeist and using it to one's electoral advantage. As for colorblindness, I would believe it if Bennett didn't keep mentioning the fact that Obama is a black man every time he spoke about him.
In any event, even with those criticisms, I think that it might be possible that either some just don't want to entertain the possibility that Obama said what I heard him say, or that perhaps he didn't even say it. If so, that's deeply troubling. If the former is the case, however, we have the problem of trying to interpret a somewhat murky statement which also invokes one of the great bogeymen for the Democratic Party, thus alienating many Democratic voters. In that case, while an astute observation, it may not have been the best idea in the world to say what he said the way he said it.
I've gone from thinking it was pretty cagey, even smart politics, to wondering if maybe he shouldn't have let well-enough alone. Of course, Reagan invoked FDR all the time, even as he attempted to overturn the New Deal (and certainly broke the New Deal electoral coalition), and people just ate it up. So there is some precedent for this kind of thing.
All the same, like the week-long tussle over race-versus-gender, we might have the makings of a tempest in a media teapot here, and Obama may have hurt himself in the process. If he has to explain his statement over and over again, and does so without clarifying it for those who don't want to hear what he (might have) said, it is possible this distraction could wound him electorally. Which is too bad. I think it could have been the opening for a good discussion on where the country is right now, and where it might be going; instead, it might turn out to be people calling Obama all sorts of names, and conservatives like Bill Bennett gleefully telling anyone who will listen that a "black man" embraces "Reagan's legacy". That's one thing I do not want to hear.
I wonder, however, whether what he said was either clear enough for people to understand or, even if so, was wise. From Hullabaloo, we have this report of comments from Donna Brazile for the Democrats, and Bill Bennett, looking more bloated than usual as he tries to heap faint praise upon Obama, damning him in the process (and sounding a bit overly conscious of Obama's race; kind of odd from a "color-blind" conservative):
On CNN, Donna Brazile says [Clinton] pulled it out because she talked about economics and criticized Obama for saying nice things about Ronald Reagan, because there's no nostalgia for Reagan in the Democratic party
Bill Bennett replied, "a serious black candidate is saying to people, including his own party members 'embrace part of the Reagan memory and the Reagan legacy.' I think this is actually Martin Luther King's dream about color blindness. That he's being punished for it tells you that there are still a lot of people in the Democrat Party who have to grow up."
Of the two comments, its possible that Brazile's is actually more correct, at least in part. Bennett's "serious black candidate" is a slam at Jesse Jackson, who ran quite a serious campaign in 1988, and also just too aware of Obama's racial identity. Somehow, he has to keep slipping in a mention of the fact that Obama's African-American. Perhaps, for Bennett, Obama is like Samuel Johnson's talking dog and woman preacher. As for what Bennett says - please. To believe that a Democrat would insist that we embrace "Reagan's legacy" is hogwash. Obama was speaking about capturing a moment, understanding the zeitgeist and using it to one's electoral advantage. As for colorblindness, I would believe it if Bennett didn't keep mentioning the fact that Obama is a black man every time he spoke about him.
In any event, even with those criticisms, I think that it might be possible that either some just don't want to entertain the possibility that Obama said what I heard him say, or that perhaps he didn't even say it. If so, that's deeply troubling. If the former is the case, however, we have the problem of trying to interpret a somewhat murky statement which also invokes one of the great bogeymen for the Democratic Party, thus alienating many Democratic voters. In that case, while an astute observation, it may not have been the best idea in the world to say what he said the way he said it.
I've gone from thinking it was pretty cagey, even smart politics, to wondering if maybe he shouldn't have let well-enough alone. Of course, Reagan invoked FDR all the time, even as he attempted to overturn the New Deal (and certainly broke the New Deal electoral coalition), and people just ate it up. So there is some precedent for this kind of thing.
All the same, like the week-long tussle over race-versus-gender, we might have the makings of a tempest in a media teapot here, and Obama may have hurt himself in the process. If he has to explain his statement over and over again, and does so without clarifying it for those who don't want to hear what he (might have) said, it is possible this distraction could wound him electorally. Which is too bad. I think it could have been the opening for a good discussion on where the country is right now, and where it might be going; instead, it might turn out to be people calling Obama all sorts of names, and conservatives like Bill Bennett gleefully telling anyone who will listen that a "black man" embraces "Reagan's legacy". That's one thing I do not want to hear.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Charles Pierce
No, not this one. This one, the guy who takes over on occasion for Eric Alterman over at the latter's "Altercation" blog. In particular, the following snippet, which made me laugh:
There is a reason this is funny. Back on the night of the New Hampshire primary, Atrios penned a parody of mainstream press somehow turning a horrid loss by Giuliani into a clever strategic victory. Then - Howard Fineman actually said it! You have to keep up with these things if you want to understand how stupid our pundits are, and how empty our discourse is of anything substantive. Pierce's prediction is no doubt true; I made a similar prediction, viz., a Democratic victory will be questioned on the merits of something trivial and stupid, and a growing narrative will develop about the already-wounded President-elect. Pierce's take is only different in emphasis and detail. It says, in essence, the same thing - our press corps is ridiculous.
There is one thing I would like to take issue with - the on-going narrative concerning Sen. Hillary Clinton's "calculating" nature:
There is much asserted here that is only speculation - on the motives for Sen. Clinton's vote for the AUMF, on her general tendency towards using a "protractor", etc. It doesn't seem to occur to people that Sen. Clinton may have had many reasons for acting the way she did, and some of them may have been based in deep convictions, and a sense of necessity for acting in the moment. That her convictions are not the same as many on the left does make them not convictions. It does not make them mere calculations by a hyper-ambitious woman out to win at all costs. It makes them her convictions. I don't like liberals and progressives imposing (right-wing) narratives on politicians any more than I like conservatives or mainstream folks doing it.
Having said that, go and read the little piece.
One more thing. We should all hoist flags in support of that wonderful, all-American city that George Bush and the Republicans tried to kill. It is the birthplace of jazz, of a form of the blues, of Louis Armstrong, of Dr. John, of the Meters and The Neville Brothers. It is no longer the home to tens of thousands who were turned in to refugees from this most American of cities by the deliberate indifference of a political class and party that saw political profit in depopulating a city of its lower-middle, working, and underclasses (the very heart of the music I love so much).
Part The Third: Come a cold morning a year from now, some pundit is going to come on my electric television set to explain how the inauguration of a Democrat as president of the United States is the best thing that ever happened to Rudy Giuliani's campaign.
There is a reason this is funny. Back on the night of the New Hampshire primary, Atrios penned a parody of mainstream press somehow turning a horrid loss by Giuliani into a clever strategic victory. Then - Howard Fineman actually said it! You have to keep up with these things if you want to understand how stupid our pundits are, and how empty our discourse is of anything substantive. Pierce's prediction is no doubt true; I made a similar prediction, viz., a Democratic victory will be questioned on the merits of something trivial and stupid, and a growing narrative will develop about the already-wounded President-elect. Pierce's take is only different in emphasis and detail. It says, in essence, the same thing - our press corps is ridiculous.
There is one thing I would like to take issue with - the on-going narrative concerning Sen. Hillary Clinton's "calculating" nature:
The Clintons appear to have forgotten that, when Bill got his ass impeached for being a priapic idiot, a lot of Democrats supported him because the alternative was utterly unthinkable. Now, it seems to be fast dawning upon them -- and particularly upon Clinton pere -- that there are a number of Democrats who either a) are too young to remember the golden era that was the 1990s, or b) are old enough to remember them all too well as the years of an overly punitive welfare-reform bill, the Defense Of Marriage Act, the several dozen new federal death penalty offenses, and those elements of the Patriot Act that had their birth during the Clinton administration, particularly in the 1996 Antiterrorism act. This seems to be causing the Clinton campaign no little consternation, since it can be assumed that Senator Clinton signed on to the Iraq war out of a similar level of political calculation. Unfortunately for him and her, we now have a Democratic primary electorate that sees such calculation as unseemly at one end and as cowardly at the other. The Clintons are unable at this point to triangulate the circle. Meanwhile, Bill's losing his sh*t to reporters and Hill's resorting to cheapjack electioneering that's getting laughed out of the federal courts. And, it should be noted, that the born-again non-triangulator who was Bill's vice president was right about the war, loudly and publicly, and he was ridiculed for it while Senator Clinton was still working with the protractor trying to fashion a position whereby she could argue that she wasn't really handing the armed forces over to the whims of feckless vandals. The day is past, I think.
There is much asserted here that is only speculation - on the motives for Sen. Clinton's vote for the AUMF, on her general tendency towards using a "protractor", etc. It doesn't seem to occur to people that Sen. Clinton may have had many reasons for acting the way she did, and some of them may have been based in deep convictions, and a sense of necessity for acting in the moment. That her convictions are not the same as many on the left does make them not convictions. It does not make them mere calculations by a hyper-ambitious woman out to win at all costs. It makes them her convictions. I don't like liberals and progressives imposing (right-wing) narratives on politicians any more than I like conservatives or mainstream folks doing it.
Having said that, go and read the little piece.
One more thing. We should all hoist flags in support of that wonderful, all-American city that George Bush and the Republicans tried to kill. It is the birthplace of jazz, of a form of the blues, of Louis Armstrong, of Dr. John, of the Meters and The Neville Brothers. It is no longer the home to tens of thousands who were turned in to refugees from this most American of cities by the deliberate indifference of a political class and party that saw political profit in depopulating a city of its lower-middle, working, and underclasses (the very heart of the music I love so much).
More On Meaning From Meaninglessness
I started reading, for the first time since the autumn of 1994, Thomas Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution, the work that predated The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and in some ways anticipates the arguments he would set forth in the later work. Indeed, in some respects, the earlier work can be seen as one long example of what he was talking about when he spoke of "normal science" and "paradigm shift" and "Gestalt shifts" and the like. Early in the first chapter, he makes a bold statement that is at the heart of his study:
Early on in the paragraph containing the above quite, he sites Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection as another example of a scientific theory that had all sorts of social and cultural implications far outside the bounds of the very narrow confines of science within which it was first created, and for which it served its only real function.
I think the social and cultural implications of "Copernican Astronomy" were enormous, although their movement through western society was much slower than the explosion created by Darwin. Part of that, of course, was the abstract nature of the argument - Copernicus did nothing more than alter the base of calculations, and Kuhn is quick to point out the margin of improvement in astronomical calculations didn't improve all that much by using the Copernican solution. In many ways, it would be the invention of the telescope that would spell the end of Ptolmaic Astronomy; yet, once again, Kuhn is quick to point out there is no reason this is so. A telescope does not remove one from to earth to see it speeding around the sun. In many ways, the telescope provided not so much confirmation of Conpernicus, as create more problems - suddenly there were all these stars no one knew were there!
Why do we ascribe such importance to these issues? Why do we continue to have debates over the meaning for us of a theory on the origins of species? Why do some people insist, despite all the evidence, that the theory cannot be true? What is the fundamental threat posed to human society by a scientific theory?
This question is at the heart of the matter, really. Evolution deniers (no different, in spirit, from Holocaust deniers) insist that if evolution is true, meaning is ripped from life. What a load of horse apples fresh from on a summer afternoon. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with meaning; it is descriptive of natural processes, observable by any human being, that have resulted in the diversity of life on our planet. At the bottom of the ocean are huge tube worms sitting in water so hot and acidic, no biochemical compound should remain stable; yet they not only exist there, but anchor an entire eco-system based upon the nutrient rich outflow from superheated vents. Where is there meaning, however one wishes to define that word, in that?
Copernicus did not set out to destroy millennia-old cosmologies, but to correct calculating errors in astronomy. Darwin did not set out to upset the psyches of generations of fundamentalist Christians, but to answer the simple question - where do all these different kinds of animals come from? Those whose heads explode when they contemplate Darwin, or even Copernicus (I suppose they still exist somewhere, too), miss the point if they think either individual, or the theories associated with them, have any meaning whatsoever outside the narrow confines of scientific applicability for which they were constructed.
We need more than an understandingof the internal development of science. We must also understand how a scientist's solution of an apparently petty, highly technical problem can on occasion fundamentally alter men's attitudes toward basic problems in everyday life.
Early on in the paragraph containing the above quite, he sites Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection as another example of a scientific theory that had all sorts of social and cultural implications far outside the bounds of the very narrow confines of science within which it was first created, and for which it served its only real function.
I think the social and cultural implications of "Copernican Astronomy" were enormous, although their movement through western society was much slower than the explosion created by Darwin. Part of that, of course, was the abstract nature of the argument - Copernicus did nothing more than alter the base of calculations, and Kuhn is quick to point out the margin of improvement in astronomical calculations didn't improve all that much by using the Copernican solution. In many ways, it would be the invention of the telescope that would spell the end of Ptolmaic Astronomy; yet, once again, Kuhn is quick to point out there is no reason this is so. A telescope does not remove one from to earth to see it speeding around the sun. In many ways, the telescope provided not so much confirmation of Conpernicus, as create more problems - suddenly there were all these stars no one knew were there!
Why do we ascribe such importance to these issues? Why do we continue to have debates over the meaning for us of a theory on the origins of species? Why do some people insist, despite all the evidence, that the theory cannot be true? What is the fundamental threat posed to human society by a scientific theory?
This question is at the heart of the matter, really. Evolution deniers (no different, in spirit, from Holocaust deniers) insist that if evolution is true, meaning is ripped from life. What a load of horse apples fresh from on a summer afternoon. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with meaning; it is descriptive of natural processes, observable by any human being, that have resulted in the diversity of life on our planet. At the bottom of the ocean are huge tube worms sitting in water so hot and acidic, no biochemical compound should remain stable; yet they not only exist there, but anchor an entire eco-system based upon the nutrient rich outflow from superheated vents. Where is there meaning, however one wishes to define that word, in that?
Copernicus did not set out to destroy millennia-old cosmologies, but to correct calculating errors in astronomy. Darwin did not set out to upset the psyches of generations of fundamentalist Christians, but to answer the simple question - where do all these different kinds of animals come from? Those whose heads explode when they contemplate Darwin, or even Copernicus (I suppose they still exist somewhere, too), miss the point if they think either individual, or the theories associated with them, have any meaning whatsoever outside the narrow confines of scientific applicability for which they were constructed.
Saturday Rock Show
I thought I'd do the easy one first.
I first heard of Queensryche through a semi-demo/single when I was in college called "The Lady Wore Black". It would be a few years before they released Operation:Mindcrime, a concept album based around a kind of political-thriller-with-a-love-story kind of thing. Usually lumped with such bands as Motley Crue and White Lion, Queensryche actually had some good writing chops, and a singer who could sing, not just either bellow or screech. A few years back, they toured with Dream Theater. The last cut on O:M is probably my favorite song of theirs - I just like the arrangement. "Eyes of a Stranger".
I first heard of Queensryche through a semi-demo/single when I was in college called "The Lady Wore Black". It would be a few years before they released Operation:Mindcrime, a concept album based around a kind of political-thriller-with-a-love-story kind of thing. Usually lumped with such bands as Motley Crue and White Lion, Queensryche actually had some good writing chops, and a singer who could sing, not just either bellow or screech. A few years back, they toured with Dream Theater. The last cut on O:M is probably my favorite song of theirs - I just like the arrangement. "Eyes of a Stranger".
Friday, January 18, 2008
A Bonus! Philosophy Fridays At The Howler!
I have been a daily reader of Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler for close on to two years now. Today, he offered up what he hopes will be the first in a series he is calling Philosophy Fridays. How wonderful! Check out today's entry, and you will get a glimpse in to something near and dear to my heart - taking apart the pomposity of philosophy by recognizing the deeply flawed nature of much of what passes for "thought" and "argument" in philosophy - and not just philosophy, I would add.
The best part is the explanation of Wittgenstein's takedown of much philosophical writing - in which what is essentially a bait-and-switch occurs. We accept something as either profound or provocative, because it makes some kind of surface, grammatical sense. Yet, a moment's thought reveals such sentences - "It is three o'clock on Mars" - to be meaningless gibberish masquerading as profound thought.
I also think Bob is a bit kind in his review of the gentleman in question. The paragraph in question begs more questions than could be answered in any single philosophical monograph. Perhaps that isn't "It's three o'clock on Mars" thinking and writing, but it is awfully close.
The best part is the explanation of Wittgenstein's takedown of much philosophical writing - in which what is essentially a bait-and-switch occurs. We accept something as either profound or provocative, because it makes some kind of surface, grammatical sense. Yet, a moment's thought reveals such sentences - "It is three o'clock on Mars" - to be meaningless gibberish masquerading as profound thought.
I also think Bob is a bit kind in his review of the gentleman in question. The paragraph in question begs more questions than could be answered in any single philosophical monograph. Perhaps that isn't "It's three o'clock on Mars" thinking and writing, but it is awfully close.
For Democracy Lover - Feingold On Edwards
In comments here, Democracy Lover insists that all progressives should support former Sen. John Edwards for President. In a spirit of keeping the record straight, I would offer up this somewhat edited interview with Wisconsin Sen. Russell Fiengold, linked via Talking Points Memo, in which Feingold, currently the most progressive member of the United States Senate says the following on Edwards' record versus his current rhetoric:
On the Democratic presidential candidates
I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.
Tales Of Mystery And Imagination
With a generous hat-tip and a huge thank you to Alan, I recommend this article from The Christian Century. In it, the author demonstrates how easy doing science is - he even discusses his discovery of the oddity of parralax - and the way in which solving one problem often leads to the creation of new problems not even imagined.
I just wish he had fleshed out the ending of the article a bit (I suppose this just reflects my own bias for greater clarity; who am I to correct a published author unless it's Jonah Goldberg?) and stated directly that much of the "conflict" between science and religion misconstrues the nature, function, and proper limits of each. Having made those caveats, this short piece is a wonderful rumination on the excitement of discovery inherent in science; it is also a wonderful rumination on the limits of science and the necessity for leaving room for mystery, and leaving mystery as mystery. Sometimes, there are no answers to the questions we ask, whether it's that scrunchy sound in our ears as our ear is pressed in to the pillow at night, or what dark matter might be.
And that's OK.
I just wish he had fleshed out the ending of the article a bit (I suppose this just reflects my own bias for greater clarity; who am I to correct a published author unless it's Jonah Goldberg?) and stated directly that much of the "conflict" between science and religion misconstrues the nature, function, and proper limits of each. Having made those caveats, this short piece is a wonderful rumination on the excitement of discovery inherent in science; it is also a wonderful rumination on the limits of science and the necessity for leaving room for mystery, and leaving mystery as mystery. Sometimes, there are no answers to the questions we ask, whether it's that scrunchy sound in our ears as our ear is pressed in to the pillow at night, or what dark matter might be.
And that's OK.
On New Hitlers and Reforming Dictators
Matthew Yglesias, whom I tend to respect even if he is not one with whom I always agree, shows a surprising lack of understanding about the history of American support of what he calls "tin-pot dictators", as he reflects on George Bush's lie concerning the non-existent reform efforts of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
This is as old as American hegemonic actions. During the first days of the Cold War, the communist rebels in Greece were linked directly to the Soviet Union, even though Stalin has explicitly denounced them, and pulled both funding and arms shipments via Yugoslave before the situation reached a supposed crisis. For those who may not know, it was the alleged Greek crisis that spurred on the rewriting of our defense and intelligence laws, creating the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. The National Security Act is in many ways a similar over-reaction to a non-event in Greece to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as a response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Not that these were non-events; it is just the response is disproportionate to the action that created them.
In his one trip to South Vietnam, then Vice President Lyndon Johnson called President Ngo Dihn Diem the Winston Churchill of southeast Asia, which was about as realistic as calling Ho Chi Minh the anti-Christ. During the 1980's, Jose Napolean Duarte, President of El Salvador, was championed by various interests in Washington, even as he turned a blind eye to the multiple massacres perpetrated by the death squads his military sent out as wild patrols. Daniel Ortega was the Josef Stalin of Central America, even as the contradoras supported by the United States raised money through cocaine smuggling (I well remember one Reagan speech, in which he held up a photo, supposedly of members of the Nicaraguan regime smuggling drugs; the claim was almost immediately proved false as the people shown were well-known leaders of the contras).
Before Vietnam, President Sukarno of Indonesia was ousted in a military coup, as his reformist, somewhat socialist regime, was seen as a direct threat to . . . well the oil companies, since Indonesia controls oil reserves in the southwestern Pacific.
Of course, there is the horrid events in Chile in 1973, which resulted in neo-Fascist states not just in that poor land, but in Ururguay, Paraguay, and Argentina, Operation Condor, and a reign of terror across South America, and indeed the world. Even now that he is rotting in his grace, and one hopes his soul is suffering in hell, General Pinochet is still lauded by Robert Novak and others in Washington, as if he were the best thing to happen in Chile.
Bush's stupid bald-faced and easily disproved lie in Egypt is just the latest in a long series of nonsensical drivel on our client states and their adversaries that American leaders have done for close to two generations. It is infuriating, but it is also par for the course.
The pretense that every country we have a dispute with is run by the New Hitler while every country we opportunistically ally with is run by a Bold Reformer is incredibly dumb and something a grownup country ought to be able to move past.
This is as old as American hegemonic actions. During the first days of the Cold War, the communist rebels in Greece were linked directly to the Soviet Union, even though Stalin has explicitly denounced them, and pulled both funding and arms shipments via Yugoslave before the situation reached a supposed crisis. For those who may not know, it was the alleged Greek crisis that spurred on the rewriting of our defense and intelligence laws, creating the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. The National Security Act is in many ways a similar over-reaction to a non-event in Greece to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as a response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Not that these were non-events; it is just the response is disproportionate to the action that created them.
In his one trip to South Vietnam, then Vice President Lyndon Johnson called President Ngo Dihn Diem the Winston Churchill of southeast Asia, which was about as realistic as calling Ho Chi Minh the anti-Christ. During the 1980's, Jose Napolean Duarte, President of El Salvador, was championed by various interests in Washington, even as he turned a blind eye to the multiple massacres perpetrated by the death squads his military sent out as wild patrols. Daniel Ortega was the Josef Stalin of Central America, even as the contradoras supported by the United States raised money through cocaine smuggling (I well remember one Reagan speech, in which he held up a photo, supposedly of members of the Nicaraguan regime smuggling drugs; the claim was almost immediately proved false as the people shown were well-known leaders of the contras).
Before Vietnam, President Sukarno of Indonesia was ousted in a military coup, as his reformist, somewhat socialist regime, was seen as a direct threat to . . . well the oil companies, since Indonesia controls oil reserves in the southwestern Pacific.
Of course, there is the horrid events in Chile in 1973, which resulted in neo-Fascist states not just in that poor land, but in Ururguay, Paraguay, and Argentina, Operation Condor, and a reign of terror across South America, and indeed the world. Even now that he is rotting in his grace, and one hopes his soul is suffering in hell, General Pinochet is still lauded by Robert Novak and others in Washington, as if he were the best thing to happen in Chile.
Bush's stupid bald-faced and easily disproved lie in Egypt is just the latest in a long series of nonsensical drivel on our client states and their adversaries that American leaders have done for close to two generations. It is infuriating, but it is also par for the course.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
More On The Latest In Cosmological Science
Yesterday I referenced this article in The New York Times, which covered the esoterica of contemporary scientific cosmology. Today, from the On Faith forum at The Washington Post/Newsweek, comes this little appreciative piece, and the comment section, in which people wax at turns eloquent, insane, and a tad ignorant, on the issues.
Part of the problem with a glib reference to something as deep as theoretical cosmology is that there are standards scientists use. To use one example, the assumptions involved in theorizing a preference for creating partial universes, planets, even floating brains, comes from the law of thermodynamics. Any statistical analysis of the thermodynamics of the universe would almost certainly preclude a universe populated by billions of galaxies, containing hundreds of billions of stars. On one of those planets, incredible as it seems, there is a planet where chemical processes have led to things that are self-propelled, nourishment-seeking, reproduce themselves (roughly), take in certain gaseous compounds to aid in the chemical processes to sustain this other activity. One of these beings has evolved to the point where it can actually wonder "how" and "why" and discover what a statistical fluke the entire structure of the known universe is, let alone its own existence is.
More than anything else, I believe that is the lesson behind all the strange things in contemporary cosmology. All things being equal, our universe is a fluke of some initial flaw in the Big Bang, which has spurred further flaws down the line, which lead to an article in The New York Times talking about free-floating brains in space. It isn't that they are there, or might be; it's just that the equations tell us they are far more likely, statistically speaking, that human civilization sitting on the third planet of an average star asking how such things as floating brains are possible.
Part of the problem with a glib reference to something as deep as theoretical cosmology is that there are standards scientists use. To use one example, the assumptions involved in theorizing a preference for creating partial universes, planets, even floating brains, comes from the law of thermodynamics. Any statistical analysis of the thermodynamics of the universe would almost certainly preclude a universe populated by billions of galaxies, containing hundreds of billions of stars. On one of those planets, incredible as it seems, there is a planet where chemical processes have led to things that are self-propelled, nourishment-seeking, reproduce themselves (roughly), take in certain gaseous compounds to aid in the chemical processes to sustain this other activity. One of these beings has evolved to the point where it can actually wonder "how" and "why" and discover what a statistical fluke the entire structure of the known universe is, let alone its own existence is.
More than anything else, I believe that is the lesson behind all the strange things in contemporary cosmology. All things being equal, our universe is a fluke of some initial flaw in the Big Bang, which has spurred further flaws down the line, which lead to an article in The New York Times talking about free-floating brains in space. It isn't that they are there, or might be; it's just that the equations tell us they are far more likely, statistically speaking, that human civilization sitting on the third planet of an average star asking how such things as floating brains are possible.
Obama On Reagan
First, so we can have some clarity, here is the paragraph that is giving many, including digby, fits:
I think that digby is just plain wrong in her take on this statement. On the other hand, I think that Ezra Klein gets it exactly right.
First, some snippets from digby:
Whether or not Republican rhetoric was reflective of reality, it resonated because it reflected a certain perception of reality. Reagan understood that, blew his dog whistle, and managed 50.1% of the popular vote in 1980. It doesn't really matter that things may not have been quite as bad as Republican politicians painted them. What matters is the country was ripe to elect someone who told them the old American Dream was not dead. Reagan told them that. That he dragged all sorts of baggage with him was, I think, neither here nor there for many voters. Unlike Carter, or Mondale after him, Reagan wasn't gloomy, didn't tell us he would raise our taxes, didn't talk about the American decline. Reagan talked in the folk mythology of an America ready to face challenges, accepting what is coming with the understanding that we could face it squarely.
This is high praise for the rhetoric of Reagan, and I am someone who voted for Mondale in 1984, my first Presidential vote ever. I am proud of my vote for Mondale, even though at the remove of nearly a quarter century, I will tell you that I know he was perhaps the worst possible choice the Democratic Party could have made. There was a case to be made against Reagan, and Mondale just wasn't the person to make it.
Progressives like to dismiss Reagan as a crank, or perhaps some sinister character who used his wonderful phrases to hide the horrid mess of right-wing nonsense that has followed in his wake. I doubt he was either that intelligent or that clever; I think he was simply articulating something missing from American politics for a long while - the possibility that America and Americans could be better again, could rise to the challenges of stagflation and a resurgent Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan. People responded to it not because they were closet right-wingers, or because they were racists; those elements certainly latched on to Reagan like a stink to an outhouse, but I think at its most basic, Reagan's appeal was something deeply American. He has not had a duplicator, only imitators, since, in either party.
In contrast to digby's somewhat visceral reaction to Obama's words, I offer a bit of young Ezra, who I think nailed it quite nicely:
My only quibble with Klein here is his insistence that Reagan "understood" what he was doing. I doubt it was that conscious. I think Reagan believed what he was saying; it was far more intuitive than intellectual. There was nothing at all calculated about Reagan's appeal to "the City on a Hill" (although then-Gov. Mario Cuomo's takedown at the Democratic convention was a superb job, by taking on a central myth, a story America cherishes about itself, he was dooming the Democratic Party).
I think his inclusion of Bill Clinton in the list of Presidents who haven't fundamentally changed the nature of our political climate is telling. Clinton, I think also unconsciously but with later cultivation, understood the necessity of an upbeat message. Yet, I think he also understood the conservative movement had yet to run out of steam and political capital; it was not a time for bold, persistent experimentation, as the fight over health care reform showed. Clinton was the master of retail politics at the national level, undercutting Republican ideological and strategic advantages through the appeal to lingering middle-class resentment, albeit in an upbeat way.
Obama is a conscious, intelligent Reagan of the liberal variety. This is a nice summary, and I also think it is a compliment.
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
I think that digby is just plain wrong in her take on this statement. On the other hand, I think that Ezra Klein gets it exactly right.
First, some snippets from digby:
I get that Obama is signaling that he sees this election as a game changing election like 1980. And he may very well be right about that. I hope so. But it's disconcerting to hear him casually recount these Republican arguments without a clear disclaimer, as if it's a matter of fact not opinion. People may have believed in 1980 that the "excesses" of the 1960's and the 1970's were the cause of all their problems and that government had "grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating" but that doesn't make it true. Republican propaganda conveniently offered up all kinds of scapegoats for the fact that the US was reeling from Vietnam, Watergate, a terrible oil shock --- and a lousy economy as a result of all those things. An awful lot of the "excesses" Reagan spoke of in carefully coded speech had to do with civil rights and more urgently at the time, integration, specifically busing, which was one of the hot buttons that drove the "Reagan Democrats" outside the south to the Republicans. And then there was the relentless, militant fear mongering about the Evil Empire ...
Remember, Reagan didn't run on "Morning in America" in 1980. That was 1984. 1980 was the much more aggressive, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Whether or not Republican rhetoric was reflective of reality, it resonated because it reflected a certain perception of reality. Reagan understood that, blew his dog whistle, and managed 50.1% of the popular vote in 1980. It doesn't really matter that things may not have been quite as bad as Republican politicians painted them. What matters is the country was ripe to elect someone who told them the old American Dream was not dead. Reagan told them that. That he dragged all sorts of baggage with him was, I think, neither here nor there for many voters. Unlike Carter, or Mondale after him, Reagan wasn't gloomy, didn't tell us he would raise our taxes, didn't talk about the American decline. Reagan talked in the folk mythology of an America ready to face challenges, accepting what is coming with the understanding that we could face it squarely.
This is high praise for the rhetoric of Reagan, and I am someone who voted for Mondale in 1984, my first Presidential vote ever. I am proud of my vote for Mondale, even though at the remove of nearly a quarter century, I will tell you that I know he was perhaps the worst possible choice the Democratic Party could have made. There was a case to be made against Reagan, and Mondale just wasn't the person to make it.
Progressives like to dismiss Reagan as a crank, or perhaps some sinister character who used his wonderful phrases to hide the horrid mess of right-wing nonsense that has followed in his wake. I doubt he was either that intelligent or that clever; I think he was simply articulating something missing from American politics for a long while - the possibility that America and Americans could be better again, could rise to the challenges of stagflation and a resurgent Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan. People responded to it not because they were closet right-wingers, or because they were racists; those elements certainly latched on to Reagan like a stink to an outhouse, but I think at its most basic, Reagan's appeal was something deeply American. He has not had a duplicator, only imitators, since, in either party.
In contrast to digby's somewhat visceral reaction to Obama's words, I offer a bit of young Ezra, who I think nailed it quite nicely:
What he's saying is that Reagan effectively understood the ideological currents in the country and used that mastery of public opinion to drive popular sentiment. In other words, he admires Reagan for shifting the center. When he says that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," he's articulating a fundamentally different idea of the presidency than Clinton is -- more inspirational than managerial, as concerned with the prevailing ideological atmosphere as with the specifics of contemporary legislative initiatives.
--snip--
[Obama's] reconstructing [Reagan's political legacy] as accountability in government rather than smallness of government, clarity of purpose rather than conservatism of purpose, dynamism and entrepreneurship rather than backlash and upward redistribution. So what's going on here is twofold. First, Obama is suggesting he has a fairly grandly ideological view of the president's role, and that it includes harnessing the ideological forces of the moment to push the country in a new direction. Second, he's sanitizing and subtly reworking Reagan's legacy, and more than Reagan's legacy, the lessons of the 80s, so they fit with a liberal worldview, rather than undermine it.
My only quibble with Klein here is his insistence that Reagan "understood" what he was doing. I doubt it was that conscious. I think Reagan believed what he was saying; it was far more intuitive than intellectual. There was nothing at all calculated about Reagan's appeal to "the City on a Hill" (although then-Gov. Mario Cuomo's takedown at the Democratic convention was a superb job, by taking on a central myth, a story America cherishes about itself, he was dooming the Democratic Party).
I think his inclusion of Bill Clinton in the list of Presidents who haven't fundamentally changed the nature of our political climate is telling. Clinton, I think also unconsciously but with later cultivation, understood the necessity of an upbeat message. Yet, I think he also understood the conservative movement had yet to run out of steam and political capital; it was not a time for bold, persistent experimentation, as the fight over health care reform showed. Clinton was the master of retail politics at the national level, undercutting Republican ideological and strategic advantages through the appeal to lingering middle-class resentment, albeit in an upbeat way.
Obama is a conscious, intelligent Reagan of the liberal variety. This is a nice summary, and I also think it is a compliment.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
For Alan, Inspired By A Discussion Over At ER
OK, so it's kind of long and complicated, but the really short version is that Alan has been having a discussion over what constitutes evidence, etc. in a debate.
I stumbled across this via tailrank, and I think it is quite something. Please peruse the link and let me know what you think.
I stumbled across this via tailrank, and I think it is quite something. Please peruse the link and let me know what you think.
Explain Some Things To Me
I know I must sound like a naif, but I honestly do not understand the recording industry. I know the model under which it still operates has been little changed in a quarter century, and perhaps longer, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong not just with the big labels and the whole issue of supporting acts and distribution, but with big radio as well.
I came of age at a time when, especially FM, radio was changing, and the recording industry was undergoing the first major contraction it had experienced since the Great Depression. From the mid-1960's through around 1977-1978, there was money to burn as all kinds of artists and musicians and label-created non-entities sold millions of copies of their recordings. When Bob Welch could sell a million copies of his first solo recording, one knows that people are just looking to toss money around. Yet, as the economy in general became different, and the recording industry changed to meet the changing standards, the amount of money and time invested, especially in new acts, simply disappeared (in one of my books on prog, an anecdote relates how Genesis was understood to be a money-losing proposition when it was first signed to its label in Britain; the label saw it as a long-term thing, and was willing to make the investment). Big radio stopped being diverse - I can still remember hearing good, solid funk and jazz on my AOR station until around 1980, when suddenly all one could hear was Foreigner, Journey, and Loverboy. And "Stairway to Heaven".
Yet, as I listen to Pandora I am amazed at the huge diversity of music available. Not just on the internet via downloads, but on CD. Even though it is difficult to get a song on radio today (one could almost say impossible) with any quality, if one keeps one's ears open, there are artists out there who are still doing the whole CD thing even as its death is continually announced.
I realize there aren't all these artists out there who can move bucket loads of CDs, but there are still many, many groups that could do well if they had access to radio air time.
Perhaps we need a new definition of commercial viability.
I don't know what the answers are. I only know there is plenty of great music out there for the taking. I would think that the music industry, which kind of exists to make money off people's willingness to spend money on what is essentially a luxury, would take the time to look at the way they create, market, and distribute this music. People are willing to shell out the bucks (although that may not be as true in the upcoming year as it has been in the past). Punishing listeners for downloads is not an answer (consider the reaction against Metallica's surrender of a print-out of illegal downloads). Maybe considering making a smaller return on a larger number of artists spread over a wide array of genres is better than looking to make a killing on what, in the end, amounts to the same regurgitated formula (Nickleback, I mean you) is a possibility.
I guess I just don't understand business, because this seems to me to be a no-brainer.
I came of age at a time when, especially FM, radio was changing, and the recording industry was undergoing the first major contraction it had experienced since the Great Depression. From the mid-1960's through around 1977-1978, there was money to burn as all kinds of artists and musicians and label-created non-entities sold millions of copies of their recordings. When Bob Welch could sell a million copies of his first solo recording, one knows that people are just looking to toss money around. Yet, as the economy in general became different, and the recording industry changed to meet the changing standards, the amount of money and time invested, especially in new acts, simply disappeared (in one of my books on prog, an anecdote relates how Genesis was understood to be a money-losing proposition when it was first signed to its label in Britain; the label saw it as a long-term thing, and was willing to make the investment). Big radio stopped being diverse - I can still remember hearing good, solid funk and jazz on my AOR station until around 1980, when suddenly all one could hear was Foreigner, Journey, and Loverboy. And "Stairway to Heaven".
Yet, as I listen to Pandora I am amazed at the huge diversity of music available. Not just on the internet via downloads, but on CD. Even though it is difficult to get a song on radio today (one could almost say impossible) with any quality, if one keeps one's ears open, there are artists out there who are still doing the whole CD thing even as its death is continually announced.
I realize there aren't all these artists out there who can move bucket loads of CDs, but there are still many, many groups that could do well if they had access to radio air time.
Perhaps we need a new definition of commercial viability.
I don't know what the answers are. I only know there is plenty of great music out there for the taking. I would think that the music industry, which kind of exists to make money off people's willingness to spend money on what is essentially a luxury, would take the time to look at the way they create, market, and distribute this music. People are willing to shell out the bucks (although that may not be as true in the upcoming year as it has been in the past). Punishing listeners for downloads is not an answer (consider the reaction against Metallica's surrender of a print-out of illegal downloads). Maybe considering making a smaller return on a larger number of artists spread over a wide array of genres is better than looking to make a killing on what, in the end, amounts to the same regurgitated formula (Nickleback, I mean you) is a possibility.
I guess I just don't understand business, because this seems to me to be a no-brainer.
On Editing The Bible
Pastor Dan has a nice summary on the whole issue of how the Bible came in to existence. What's best about it is it clears away much of what is considered "learned opinion" on the subject. While I might quibble with the idea that textual variants among various manuscripts comes down to the question of whether an article is definite or indefinite (they didn't exist in Koine Greek, so it is kind of hard to tell), in general the variants are minor enough to be inconsequential. There are books, especially in the New Testament (particularly Paul's letters) that seem to be compilations (and bad ones at that) of various writings (check out the end of Romans, or 2 Corinthians), which raises the question not so much of authorship as editorship. The form critics of the mid-20th century, I think, had a good idea, but they went too far in attempting to divine (no pun intended) not only attribution, but motive in editions.
Having said that, I think it is also important to say that, in a very real sense, translation is "rewriting" in a very real sense. Especially when reconstituting the dead languages in which the Bible was originally composed into the living languages of today, it is necessary to wrestle not just with grammar, but intelligibility. The poetry of the Old Testament stands up well (the Psalms still do well, I think, as do some passages in the prophets, especially Isaiah 40), but the declarative nature of much of the New Testament can render even the most dedicated translator bananas, especially as the structure of subordinate clauses in the Greek used by Paul leaves most people scratching their heads.
Having said all that, Dan is essentially correct to say that the Bible has been, for all intents and purposes, unchanged for close to two millennia. Since questions of editorial intention and possible lost content, to name two subjects discussed ad nauseum, are impossible to answer, it seems to me far better not to pursue them. They usually reveal the biases of the person doing the asking rather than anything substantive about the construction of the canon or individual books.
Having said that, I think it is also important to say that, in a very real sense, translation is "rewriting" in a very real sense. Especially when reconstituting the dead languages in which the Bible was originally composed into the living languages of today, it is necessary to wrestle not just with grammar, but intelligibility. The poetry of the Old Testament stands up well (the Psalms still do well, I think, as do some passages in the prophets, especially Isaiah 40), but the declarative nature of much of the New Testament can render even the most dedicated translator bananas, especially as the structure of subordinate clauses in the Greek used by Paul leaves most people scratching their heads.
Having said all that, Dan is essentially correct to say that the Bible has been, for all intents and purposes, unchanged for close to two millennia. Since questions of editorial intention and possible lost content, to name two subjects discussed ad nauseum, are impossible to answer, it seems to me far better not to pursue them. They usually reveal the biases of the person doing the asking rather than anything substantive about the construction of the canon or individual books.
Mittmentum And The End Of The Republican Party
So Willard Romney won the Michigan primary last night. By 9 points. The race is, as I heard on NPR this morning, wide open. I have been saying this for a while. I think it is hilarious, because unlike the Democratic primary campaign, in which most voters feel very enthusiastic and are happy with the wealth of choices, the Republicans are unhappy, and recognize the dearth of serious choices. We move forward, inching closer to (what may be) the decisive Super Tuesday on February 5. Or not. I foresee the potential for enough different wins - the states cover the country pretty well geographically, socially, etc. - to keep both races wide open. On the Democratic side, I will not discount either ego or the casual dislike of the other candidates keeping the rest of the field in play. On the Republican side, I just see, as I have said repeatedly, a train wreck, although I think the speed of this particular multi-car mess is increasing. With consummate liar and fraud Mitt Romney finally winning a primary, he can "keep hope alive" (to borrow one of Jesse Jackson's phrases) long enough to just about screw the entire party in to the ground.
Why do I think this? The policy commitments of the Republican Party, whether it's tax cuts forever, military Keynianism, or corporate profit over workers and the environment simply have no traction with the majority of the American people (I think it an arguable point if any of them ever had such traction; yet they certainly have enough cachet with enough to keep the Republicans in the "W" column for a generation). Exhausted of any ideas - I heard Newt Gingrich this morning, pimping his book Real Change, saying we need more supply side economics even though it has already been revealed that supply-side was always a strategy for ending the Great Society rather than a serious economic theory - and saddled with the most unpopular incumbent President since Herbert Hoover (I don't count Nixon, because he left office before having to face the serious wrath of the American voter; maybe that's why he left, to save the Republican Party), the candidates for the Republican nomination include one of the oldest to seek the nomination; a two-term governor from liberal-leaning Massachusetts who has somehow miraculously transformed himself in to a right-wing nut job; and a real right-wing nut job who refuses to deny that he is anything but. And, of course, now-irrelevant sociopath Rudy Giuliani, and racist libertarian Ron Paul.
In an ideal world, Romney would run on his record in Massachusetts, and be a respectable, formidable opponent to the Democratic nominee, leaving the competition in the dust early on. Yet, because of the nature of the Republican Party (or perhaps a perception of the Republican primary voters?), Romney felt he had to become far more conservative, and spent close to a year becoming a hunter, anti-gay rights, anti-choice candidate, all of which were simply not who Mitt Romney was.
I still foresee the possibility of a brokered Republican convention (anything, at this point, is possible), and an anointed nominee - this is where Newt Gingrich comes in; I think he new book is the same kind of campaign document we see from candidates every election cycle - which only makes things worse. The Republican Party is dismembering itself before our eyes, which, in many ways is sad, because it had a worthy pedigree at one time, and represents currents in American history that are not wholly bad. Captured by elements of the far right, it has morphed in to something unrecognizable to those who called themselves a Republican even within my lifetime, but it has run out of steam, and I think the George Bush Presidency was the last gasp of the Republican Party for a while.
Why do I think this? The policy commitments of the Republican Party, whether it's tax cuts forever, military Keynianism, or corporate profit over workers and the environment simply have no traction with the majority of the American people (I think it an arguable point if any of them ever had such traction; yet they certainly have enough cachet with enough to keep the Republicans in the "W" column for a generation). Exhausted of any ideas - I heard Newt Gingrich this morning, pimping his book Real Change, saying we need more supply side economics even though it has already been revealed that supply-side was always a strategy for ending the Great Society rather than a serious economic theory - and saddled with the most unpopular incumbent President since Herbert Hoover (I don't count Nixon, because he left office before having to face the serious wrath of the American voter; maybe that's why he left, to save the Republican Party), the candidates for the Republican nomination include one of the oldest to seek the nomination; a two-term governor from liberal-leaning Massachusetts who has somehow miraculously transformed himself in to a right-wing nut job; and a real right-wing nut job who refuses to deny that he is anything but. And, of course, now-irrelevant sociopath Rudy Giuliani, and racist libertarian Ron Paul.
In an ideal world, Romney would run on his record in Massachusetts, and be a respectable, formidable opponent to the Democratic nominee, leaving the competition in the dust early on. Yet, because of the nature of the Republican Party (or perhaps a perception of the Republican primary voters?), Romney felt he had to become far more conservative, and spent close to a year becoming a hunter, anti-gay rights, anti-choice candidate, all of which were simply not who Mitt Romney was.
I still foresee the possibility of a brokered Republican convention (anything, at this point, is possible), and an anointed nominee - this is where Newt Gingrich comes in; I think he new book is the same kind of campaign document we see from candidates every election cycle - which only makes things worse. The Republican Party is dismembering itself before our eyes, which, in many ways is sad, because it had a worthy pedigree at one time, and represents currents in American history that are not wholly bad. Captured by elements of the far right, it has morphed in to something unrecognizable to those who called themselves a Republican even within my lifetime, but it has run out of steam, and I think the George Bush Presidency was the last gasp of the Republican Party for a while.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Lord Deliver Us From Those Who Know Your "Standards"
It seems inescapable that Mike Huckabee's little statement about changing the United States Constitution to fit "God's standards" would become a subject today. I would much rather write about pretty much anything else, but have decided that, if nothing else, it would put paid, once and for all, my desire to place in print my own take on the idolatry of the family in certain religious circles in the United States. It would also be a nice way to ensure that no one ever think for one moment that I believe Mike Huckabee has done anything other than espouse a very dangerous, un-American thing by insisting we change the Constitution to fit some arbitrary "standard" some would call Divine (by the way, I'm not even sure what the phrase "God's standard" refers to; God doesn't really have a standard except unconditional love for all creation, so I suppose that wouldn't be a bad thing; on the other hand, to pretend this is what Huckabee is referring to would be ludicrous).
First, in order to get ourselves oriented, here is the whole paragraph in which the phrase appears:
One of the things we notice is that, to someone not steeped in fundamentalist rhetoric, this statement makes no literal sense - I'm not even sure who Huckabee is arguing with here, to be honest. Furthermore, the idea that the Constitution is some kind of guide to "how we treat each other and how we treat the family" is simply ignorant. The Constitution dictates the form of government we have, the extent and limits of its power and authority, and gives some rough detail on the relationship among the branches of government created by it. Period. Part of its genius is its brevity and simplicity; part of what makes it so confounding a document is its vagueness and openness.
So, I'm not really sure what the problem is here. Unless, as should be obvious, Huckabee is arguing for a theocratic rewriting of American governance. In which case, he does not deserve to be elected dog catcher in Sussex County, Virginia, let alone President of the United States.
As far as the phrase referencing the family is concerned, I wish to state that the idolatry of "family" by religious conservatives is unBiblical. There are few places in the New Testament that reference the family directly, and some that pop to mind are downright hostile: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword to the family"; "Anyone who does not hate his father, mother, or brothers, indeed does not hate his own life, is not worthy to be called my disciple"; in St. Mark's Gospel, Jesus' mother and brothers come and try to bring him home, afraid he has lost his mind and is in need of their care and Jesus responds, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?"
Not exactly family-friendly.
I have never understood the family-fetish of the right. Families come in many different shapes, sizes, and members. Indeed, the word "family" can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. To those on the right, I am quite sure it references some kind of vaguely traditional paternalistic nuclear or somewhat extended group of individuals, related by blood. Is a couple that has never married, but raised some children and spent many happy years together a "family"? What about a gay couple who are raising the child of one of the partners? What about a childless couple? Single parents? What about the old woman who has a couple cats footpadding around the house after her - are they her family?
Creating some ideal and calling it normative not just for understanding but for sole consideration as worthy of social concern, interest, and support, is dangerous in a society as vast and plural as ours. To do so based on some reading of sacred literature - without any basis within that literature, one might add - is not just dangerous, but misguided as well. Whatever the phrase "God's standards" might mean, encoding any or all of the above Bible verses as public policy would certainly not be conducive to supporting the family, however one conceives it.
As for any other reading of this statement - taking it out the realm of family-worship, and considering the whole question of "changing God's word" (not God's standard) - since it can only mean some kind of theocratic reconstitution of our government and society, it is the height of dangerous lunacy. Any other view is simply absurd; Huckabee may be playing to his base, but the rest of us should shudder, wondering exactly which of God's standards we will fail.
UPDATE: I am listening to a cover of the following song by Boston-based guitarist Gary Hoey. I couldn't find the cover, but the original rocks pretty good, too (bad grammar, but hey, what you gonna do?). I think this should be the theme song for the Democratic Party this year, "Lunatic Fringe" ("Can you fell the resistance? Can you feel the thunder?")
First, in order to get ourselves oriented, here is the whole paragraph in which the phrase appears:
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
One of the things we notice is that, to someone not steeped in fundamentalist rhetoric, this statement makes no literal sense - I'm not even sure who Huckabee is arguing with here, to be honest. Furthermore, the idea that the Constitution is some kind of guide to "how we treat each other and how we treat the family" is simply ignorant. The Constitution dictates the form of government we have, the extent and limits of its power and authority, and gives some rough detail on the relationship among the branches of government created by it. Period. Part of its genius is its brevity and simplicity; part of what makes it so confounding a document is its vagueness and openness.
So, I'm not really sure what the problem is here. Unless, as should be obvious, Huckabee is arguing for a theocratic rewriting of American governance. In which case, he does not deserve to be elected dog catcher in Sussex County, Virginia, let alone President of the United States.
As far as the phrase referencing the family is concerned, I wish to state that the idolatry of "family" by religious conservatives is unBiblical. There are few places in the New Testament that reference the family directly, and some that pop to mind are downright hostile: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword to the family"; "Anyone who does not hate his father, mother, or brothers, indeed does not hate his own life, is not worthy to be called my disciple"; in St. Mark's Gospel, Jesus' mother and brothers come and try to bring him home, afraid he has lost his mind and is in need of their care and Jesus responds, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?"
Not exactly family-friendly.
I have never understood the family-fetish of the right. Families come in many different shapes, sizes, and members. Indeed, the word "family" can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. To those on the right, I am quite sure it references some kind of vaguely traditional paternalistic nuclear or somewhat extended group of individuals, related by blood. Is a couple that has never married, but raised some children and spent many happy years together a "family"? What about a gay couple who are raising the child of one of the partners? What about a childless couple? Single parents? What about the old woman who has a couple cats footpadding around the house after her - are they her family?
Creating some ideal and calling it normative not just for understanding but for sole consideration as worthy of social concern, interest, and support, is dangerous in a society as vast and plural as ours. To do so based on some reading of sacred literature - without any basis within that literature, one might add - is not just dangerous, but misguided as well. Whatever the phrase "God's standards" might mean, encoding any or all of the above Bible verses as public policy would certainly not be conducive to supporting the family, however one conceives it.
As for any other reading of this statement - taking it out the realm of family-worship, and considering the whole question of "changing God's word" (not God's standard) - since it can only mean some kind of theocratic reconstitution of our government and society, it is the height of dangerous lunacy. Any other view is simply absurd; Huckabee may be playing to his base, but the rest of us should shudder, wondering exactly which of God's standards we will fail.
UPDATE: I am listening to a cover of the following song by Boston-based guitarist Gary Hoey. I couldn't find the cover, but the original rocks pretty good, too (bad grammar, but hey, what you gonna do?). I think this should be the theme song for the Democratic Party this year, "Lunatic Fringe" ("Can you fell the resistance? Can you feel the thunder?")
Monday, January 14, 2008
Music Monday
The summer of 1988 was an important time for me. I was breaking up a two-year-long relationship that had been damaging to both the young woman and myself. I was getting back in touch with my religious heritage. I spent the summer in a place with people who embraced and comforted and supported me without ever knowing they were giving me a sense of peace and comfort that I had not had for about a year of my life. I was in a place of healing.
One of the gifts I received that summer, from my dear friend Barb, was an introduction to a remarkable folk duo, Amy Ray and Emily Saliers, who performed under the name Indigo Girls. I don't think anyone who heard their second release, The Indigo Girls, could not realize they were hearing musical genius. The first cut, which was also the first single, is a major statement of who they were at the time, but also defined them in a way I think they should be proud of. They are probably sick to death of performing it (especially 20 years on), but I really don't get tired of hearing it.
I think this next song is the single most beautiful composition they have ever put together. While the arrangement is lush - all those strings - the nakedness of the lyrics is so brave, I wonder how Emily sings this one facing an audience. I am happily envious that there are those who are willing to be so brutally honest about the depth of their love for others, and the sometimes dangerous places love (not obsession, but real love) can take us ("There's not enough room in the world for my pain" has resonances in my life, as I'm sure others can relate). There is someone I think of when I hear this song (my wife knows, and deals with it), and while time and life have separated us, the song takes me back to a time and place, which is what the best songs do.
One of the things I love about the Indigo Girls is their unabashed political turns. They aren't the kind to bash one over the head with their political point of view, but they do not shy away from speaking their minds. From Come On Now Social, this is Amy Ray's song "Go".
One of the gifts I received that summer, from my dear friend Barb, was an introduction to a remarkable folk duo, Amy Ray and Emily Saliers, who performed under the name Indigo Girls. I don't think anyone who heard their second release, The Indigo Girls, could not realize they were hearing musical genius. The first cut, which was also the first single, is a major statement of who they were at the time, but also defined them in a way I think they should be proud of. They are probably sick to death of performing it (especially 20 years on), but I really don't get tired of hearing it.
I think this next song is the single most beautiful composition they have ever put together. While the arrangement is lush - all those strings - the nakedness of the lyrics is so brave, I wonder how Emily sings this one facing an audience. I am happily envious that there are those who are willing to be so brutally honest about the depth of their love for others, and the sometimes dangerous places love (not obsession, but real love) can take us ("There's not enough room in the world for my pain" has resonances in my life, as I'm sure others can relate). There is someone I think of when I hear this song (my wife knows, and deals with it), and while time and life have separated us, the song takes me back to a time and place, which is what the best songs do.
One of the things I love about the Indigo Girls is their unabashed political turns. They aren't the kind to bash one over the head with their political point of view, but they do not shy away from speaking their minds. From Come On Now Social, this is Amy Ray's song "Go".
Science Versus Scientism - Getting Meaning From Meaninglessness
Yesterday, I heard the tail-end of the public radio program Speaking of Faith, in which hostess Krista Tippett interviewed author Jenna Levin, theoretical physicist and novelist (the transcript is here, and the mp3 audio is here). At the end of the interview, Ms. Levin went all whimsical on the powerful meaning for her of the relationship between stellar fusion and life on earth - carbon being forged in the heart of stars billions of years dead, expelled in those stars' death throes at hyper-velocities, finding their way, by chance, to our little corner of the galaxy, and, through the grinding of time and the occasional happy (for us) accident, leading to the creation of amino acids, proteins that are able to make copies of themselves. Musings on the inherent beauty and power of the contemplation of such astrophysical facts is neither new nor surprising. Albert Einstein could put listeners to sleep as he gave a quasi-mystical interpretation of his view of theoretical physics; at the end of his bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says that working on a solution to the general relativity/quantum mechanics contradiction leads him to think that he is approaching the mind of God. Perhaps the most well-known, to my mind at any rate, statement of this approach to the wonders of contemporary physics, is the collection of essays Broca's Brain by the late Carl Sagan.
Now, it is easy to understand how those so deeply immersed in the pursuit of such fundamental questions could be captivated by the beauty, the awesome power, and even elegance (a word Einstein used often to describe the way equations fit together) of the discoveries of science. The combination of fear and awe often associated with religious reverence certainly seems justified when we sit and think about the consequences of certain scientific investigations - a kind of weak anthropic principle, the universe sitting and contemplating itself.
Yet, I wish to question this way we appropriate the discoveries of science. Wonder is certainly appropriate when we realize we are studying such fundamental, awesome power as what goes on in the heart of stars, or trying to figure out what, exactly quasars are; yet, to give these things meaning is extrinsic to the facts themselves. They are bare facts - stellar fusion, chemical processes, and the emergence of carbon-based life are nothing more than facts. To grant to them some kind of even minimal transcendent quality, while understandable, is, to my mind, to completely misunderstand what science is and does. Even at its most grand - cosmology and theoretical astrophysics; biochemistry and genetics - science is actually quite a humble enterprise, limited in scope, operating within clearly defined parameters, and offering us no more meaning that the cup of coffee sitting in front of me. To wax rhapsodic about the deep meaning of sudden, accidental coalescence of amino acids in the warming oceans of the earth half a billion years or so after its creation is to misinterpret the nature of the event. While certainly important (would any of us be here is this hadn't happened? chilling thought, that), there is no inherent meaning in it. Ditto even for something as necessary to study as the Big Bang (to which most scientists would agree we can only approach as close as the first nano-second after its occurrence).
This kind of romantic understanding of science (I get the term from the subtitle to Sagan's book, Essays on the Romance of Science) is, in the end, the creation of a kind of ideology, which I call (for lack of a better word) scientism, the elevation of scientific inquiry to a quasi-mystical, quasi-reverential avocation. While indeed wondrous (I certainly would not argue with such an appellation), to take the next step and inscribe meaning upon bare scientific facts, some of which are working models themselves, to be modified as our ability to figure things out improves, is to put upon them something that, even in their grandeur, they do not deserve.
To take the example of the rain of carbon upon the infant planet earth from cosmic debris - this is a theory concerning the nature of the origin of that element upon our planet. based upon various other theories, including stellar mechanics, it is certainly the most plausible scenario, but that in no way means it is correct and should therefore serve as the the basis for reverential contemplation on the nature of human beings. There is nothing within the theory itself that lends itself to such value-laden exegesis. The events are, despite our puny human perspective, unremarkable. Granting some kind of deeper status to these events is to move them from the mundane reality they are to a transcendent realm wherein they contain some kind of transcendence they are ill-equipped to carry.
I wish to be clear. I am certainly not disputing the discoveries of astrophysics, biochemistry, and the like. I am taking issue with taking these discoveries and making of them something mystical. They are meaningless events. Only human beings grant them meaning. The ideology of scientism is as much a distortion, detrimental to a proper understanding of the scientific enterprise, as creationism, working from the other end of the spectrum. Creationism isn't science, but pretends to be. Scientism isn't science, but pretends to be.
Now, it is easy to understand how those so deeply immersed in the pursuit of such fundamental questions could be captivated by the beauty, the awesome power, and even elegance (a word Einstein used often to describe the way equations fit together) of the discoveries of science. The combination of fear and awe often associated with religious reverence certainly seems justified when we sit and think about the consequences of certain scientific investigations - a kind of weak anthropic principle, the universe sitting and contemplating itself.
Yet, I wish to question this way we appropriate the discoveries of science. Wonder is certainly appropriate when we realize we are studying such fundamental, awesome power as what goes on in the heart of stars, or trying to figure out what, exactly quasars are; yet, to give these things meaning is extrinsic to the facts themselves. They are bare facts - stellar fusion, chemical processes, and the emergence of carbon-based life are nothing more than facts. To grant to them some kind of even minimal transcendent quality, while understandable, is, to my mind, to completely misunderstand what science is and does. Even at its most grand - cosmology and theoretical astrophysics; biochemistry and genetics - science is actually quite a humble enterprise, limited in scope, operating within clearly defined parameters, and offering us no more meaning that the cup of coffee sitting in front of me. To wax rhapsodic about the deep meaning of sudden, accidental coalescence of amino acids in the warming oceans of the earth half a billion years or so after its creation is to misinterpret the nature of the event. While certainly important (would any of us be here is this hadn't happened? chilling thought, that), there is no inherent meaning in it. Ditto even for something as necessary to study as the Big Bang (to which most scientists would agree we can only approach as close as the first nano-second after its occurrence).
This kind of romantic understanding of science (I get the term from the subtitle to Sagan's book, Essays on the Romance of Science) is, in the end, the creation of a kind of ideology, which I call (for lack of a better word) scientism, the elevation of scientific inquiry to a quasi-mystical, quasi-reverential avocation. While indeed wondrous (I certainly would not argue with such an appellation), to take the next step and inscribe meaning upon bare scientific facts, some of which are working models themselves, to be modified as our ability to figure things out improves, is to put upon them something that, even in their grandeur, they do not deserve.
To take the example of the rain of carbon upon the infant planet earth from cosmic debris - this is a theory concerning the nature of the origin of that element upon our planet. based upon various other theories, including stellar mechanics, it is certainly the most plausible scenario, but that in no way means it is correct and should therefore serve as the the basis for reverential contemplation on the nature of human beings. There is nothing within the theory itself that lends itself to such value-laden exegesis. The events are, despite our puny human perspective, unremarkable. Granting some kind of deeper status to these events is to move them from the mundane reality they are to a transcendent realm wherein they contain some kind of transcendence they are ill-equipped to carry.
I wish to be clear. I am certainly not disputing the discoveries of astrophysics, biochemistry, and the like. I am taking issue with taking these discoveries and making of them something mystical. They are meaningless events. Only human beings grant them meaning. The ideology of scientism is as much a distortion, detrimental to a proper understanding of the scientific enterprise, as creationism, working from the other end of the spectrum. Creationism isn't science, but pretends to be. Scientism isn't science, but pretends to be.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Dorkology
The humor site Sadly, No! is simultaneously doing us all a favor and turning itself in to the "All Goldberg All The Time" website. Like TNT broadcasting A Christmas Story over and over again on Christmas Day, the site has become dedicated to poking fun at Jonah Goldberg's ridiculous book, Liberal Fascism (I'd include the subtitle, but the question is begged - why?) It might be tempting to simply dismiss Goldberg as an ignorant crank who refused to do any research; or perhaps as a poor logician, falling in to fallacy after fallacy; perhaps one might even suspect that, in the end, he has no earthly clue what he's talking about.
The nice thing is, dedicated as they are to making sure we all keep our perspective on the basic hilarity of some parts of our public discourse - its pretensions, its nonsensical ad hominem attacks, its complete ignorance of any decency or sense of proportion - we are all saved the conscience-troubling decision of deciding whether to buy Goldberg's 500-page pile of refuse, thus contributing to its nominal success. Along with the accompanying book tour, and a recent interview in Salon, Goldberg actually manages to kick himself while he's down (not quite as hard as kissing one's elbow, but for one of Goldberg's physical proportions, still quite a feat), providing more fodder for the contributers at Sadly, No!
There is a part of me - a small part, but it is still there - that is frustrated by all this. I know I could write a better book than Goldberg; hell, I could write a better bad book than Goldberg, without farming research out to readers of a magazine. But, I know that envy is an ugly emotion, so I try not to let it intrude upon my criticism of what is, in fact, one of the silliest "literary" offerings that has appeared in many a year.
The one service Goldberg has rendered is proving it is possible to be a worse writer than Ann Coulter, or have a worse ghost-writer than Rush Limbaugh.
The nice thing is, dedicated as they are to making sure we all keep our perspective on the basic hilarity of some parts of our public discourse - its pretensions, its nonsensical ad hominem attacks, its complete ignorance of any decency or sense of proportion - we are all saved the conscience-troubling decision of deciding whether to buy Goldberg's 500-page pile of refuse, thus contributing to its nominal success. Along with the accompanying book tour, and a recent interview in Salon, Goldberg actually manages to kick himself while he's down (not quite as hard as kissing one's elbow, but for one of Goldberg's physical proportions, still quite a feat), providing more fodder for the contributers at Sadly, No!
There is a part of me - a small part, but it is still there - that is frustrated by all this. I know I could write a better book than Goldberg; hell, I could write a better bad book than Goldberg, without farming research out to readers of a magazine. But, I know that envy is an ugly emotion, so I try not to let it intrude upon my criticism of what is, in fact, one of the silliest "literary" offerings that has appeared in many a year.
The one service Goldberg has rendered is proving it is possible to be a worse writer than Ann Coulter, or have a worse ghost-writer than Rush Limbaugh.
Future Not
I just heard an interview on Living on Earth with a man named Ray Kurzweil, who is described as a "famed inventor and futurist". Now, he may be well known among that cohort of people who follow lone inventors and "futurists", but I had never heard of him. Furthermore, listening to the interview, I felt that my ears were being assaulted with the same crap I heard from Alvin Toffler disciple Newt Gingrich.
Now, in some ways, this future is now. His vision of a "diagnostic chair", right out of Star Trek, isn't; his imagination concerning health care delivery - individual choice in lieu of serious health care reform - is the nightmare most people without insurance face, without all the gee-gaws, and also with limited financial resources to meet the need.
More to the point, has any of this wonderful technological innovation changed the fact that we are in the midst of a deteriorating occupation in Iraq? Is the promise of "nanobots" (Kurzweil's term; I much prefer "nanites", which comes from Star Trek: The Next Generation; they all amount to the same thing) mitigating the current malaise brought on by inept and corrupt public administration at the federal level? At its most fundamental, "futurists" tend to be wild about all sorts of gadgets, imagining how they will revolutionize our lives, while forgetting that our social and political lives have deeply entrenched problems that no amount of gaping at a hi-def scene from Maui will repair. That is, they are wrong about the social and political impact of technological advancement because they have no interest in or understanding of either.
Technology does create new opportunities, and challenges and problems as well, and they do alter the social and political landscape, although very often not in ways we imagine. The "futurists" have been spectacularly wrong about the implications of all sorts of technology; indeed, they are often wrong in their predictions about the directions technology will take, because they mistake technology for something independent of human beings who make it. By assuming the stance "if it can be built, it will be built", they ignore all sorts of reasons why all sorts of contraptions aren't built. Or aren't utilized (my mother used to tell me how, as a young adult in the late 1940's, "futurists" confidently said that by the 1970's helicopters would replace automobiles as the favored form of individual and family transportation).
I tend to think of the future as something that is largely driven by human social, economic, cultural, and political needs and desires; technology is a subset, and hardly the most important, of "cultural" in this list. It would do well to remember that, no matter how clear the sound in those new Bose speakers, they don't change the fact that Ann Coulter is still employed, Rush Limbaugh still has millions of listeners, and George Bush is still in the White House.
[In the early 21st century, imagine waking] up to a wall-size, high-definition television showing surf off Maui. (this is my favorite island - you can pick your own scene) You walk or jog or do Stairmaster while catching up on the morning news and beginning to review your day's schedule. Your home office is filled with communication devices, so you can ignore rush-hour traffic. . . . When you are sick, you sit in your diagnostic chair and communicate with the local health clinin. Sensors take your blood pressure, analyze a blood sample, or do throat cultures. The results are quickly relayed to health aides, who make recommendations and prescribe medicine. . . . If you need a specialist, a databank at your fingertips gives you a wide range of choices based on cost, reputation, and outcome patterns. You can choose knowledgeably which risk you want to take what price you want to pay.
Now, in some ways, this future is now. His vision of a "diagnostic chair", right out of Star Trek, isn't; his imagination concerning health care delivery - individual choice in lieu of serious health care reform - is the nightmare most people without insurance face, without all the gee-gaws, and also with limited financial resources to meet the need.
More to the point, has any of this wonderful technological innovation changed the fact that we are in the midst of a deteriorating occupation in Iraq? Is the promise of "nanobots" (Kurzweil's term; I much prefer "nanites", which comes from Star Trek: The Next Generation; they all amount to the same thing) mitigating the current malaise brought on by inept and corrupt public administration at the federal level? At its most fundamental, "futurists" tend to be wild about all sorts of gadgets, imagining how they will revolutionize our lives, while forgetting that our social and political lives have deeply entrenched problems that no amount of gaping at a hi-def scene from Maui will repair. That is, they are wrong about the social and political impact of technological advancement because they have no interest in or understanding of either.
Technology does create new opportunities, and challenges and problems as well, and they do alter the social and political landscape, although very often not in ways we imagine. The "futurists" have been spectacularly wrong about the implications of all sorts of technology; indeed, they are often wrong in their predictions about the directions technology will take, because they mistake technology for something independent of human beings who make it. By assuming the stance "if it can be built, it will be built", they ignore all sorts of reasons why all sorts of contraptions aren't built. Or aren't utilized (my mother used to tell me how, as a young adult in the late 1940's, "futurists" confidently said that by the 1970's helicopters would replace automobiles as the favored form of individual and family transportation).
I tend to think of the future as something that is largely driven by human social, economic, cultural, and political needs and desires; technology is a subset, and hardly the most important, of "cultural" in this list. It would do well to remember that, no matter how clear the sound in those new Bose speakers, they don't change the fact that Ann Coulter is still employed, Rush Limbaugh still has millions of listeners, and George Bush is still in the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
