Not long after landing in France in 1918, my grandmother's brother, Cpl. Everett Shores, was killed in action during what came to be called The Second Battle of the Marne. This was part of the three-phased offensive strategy of German Imperial Chief of Staff Eric Ludendorff, who was using the million men released from fighting the Russians to blow through the western lines. The first phase saw the greatest artillery barrage in history (until the North Korean opening barrages 32 years later) completely destroy the British lines across a miles-wide swath. The second saw the Germans pushing against a combined French-American presence at the hinge of their combined forces. The third was an attempt to blow through this hinge. During this time, a replay of the opening month of the war, when the Germans seemed destined to capture Paris and the French army was taken to the front in a fleet of taxi cabs, even as the British pounced on their right flank, slowing their progress to a crawl, one company of American doughboys was hit by German artillery. Company "M" was pretty much obliterated, and one of their young NCOs was killed by a concussion blast from a massive German shell.
My great-uncle's death was the first of two major blows to my grandmother's family. In the first place, his mother spent the rest of her life blaming herself, because she encouraged her only son to enlist. Ten years later, my grandmother's oldest son, her brother's namesake, Everett Safford, would die after lingering in a hospital bed from injuries sustained during a traffic accident. The names of both Everett's (the younger had the nickname "Ikey", my father's family being great at giving family pet names) were not to be mentioned. Their existence disappeared from family lore, except for a brief mention that they had died. Who they were, what they did - all that was off limits. I was in my mid-20's before my father gave me some details of the traffic accident; it was only this past March that I heard more details.
Nearly a century has passed since those events (90 years, actually), and the ripples still flow out. My own feelings about the death of a man whose chin and eyes I inherited, but who does not exist as a person because the only individual who knew him died 23 years ago without ever telling anyone what kind of man he was, are slightly different. I am angry the Cpl. Shores, like tens of thousands of other young men, went to France only to end up cannon and machine gun fodder, in a useless exercise in European cultural and national suicide. This is not to argue that the war had no rationale; it is only to say that, by 1918, the war was continuing because of its own inner logic, not for any gains either side could have or actually did achieve from it. Killing as many of the "enemy" as possible became an end in and for itself, not a means towards achieving victory. Like our own war-without-end, victory is a meaningless word, best banned from discussion by rational people who see the conflict for what it is, and seek to end pointless deaths.
I have on my wall here two different pieces of paper, sent originally to my great-grandmother. One was an acknowledgment of Shores' death by the Army, signed by Gen. Pershing (it is for that signature, in ink, that I prize that particular piece). The other is a tribute from the French government, signed by Pres. Poincare (again, it is for that signature that I prize this piece; these were the days when people signed things, not machines or stamps). I think four generations of my family would have benefited from these men, and others like them, opening their eyes and realizing that ending war, even if no goal is achieved, no victory is declared, no parades or memorials are celebrated, is a goal to work toward in and for itself.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Waking Up From History, Part I
What follows is a rough draft of the first part of an longer essay I am writing, which in turn is part of an attempted series of essays (my goal is three) on coming of age and living the past quarter century under the rule of the Republicans. Again, this is a first draft, very rough, and I welcome all sorts of constructive criticism.
In November, 1989, I was in the midst of a personal crisis, the details of which are unimportant and far too private to relate. Suffice it to say that I was on the verge of what was euphemistically called “a nervous breakdown”, and leave it at that, shall we? Even in the midst of my own neurotic problems, however, like much the rest of the world, I took a breather one evening, sitting in a living room in Richford, NY, and watched Tom Brokaw standing in front of jubilant crowds celebrating the end of the physical division of the city of Berlin. It was a sight that was, up until that moment, quite literally outside the scope of my own imagination. Up until the day before, anyone doing what members of that crowd were doing - standing on the wall, climbing over it from one side of the city to the other, walking past the East German border guards without giving a single piece of identification - would have been shot. The next day brought even more unimagined triumphs as citizens, both east and west, took any tool at hand large enough to effect damage and whole pieces of the Berlin Wall tumbled down.
The highlight of a year historian John Lukacs called an anna mirabilis, the collapse of East German communism, followed swiftly by its demise in Czechoslovakia and Romania under less pleasant circumstances, as well as the voluntary abdication of Bulgaria’s communists, left much of the rest of the world both confounded by the changes wrought in a few short months and marveling at the possibilities now open not just to the newly freed subjects of Central Europe, but to much of the western world. The demise of the Soviet Union two years later was, in many ways, anti-climactic, almost pre-determined even as the tensions during those few days of the coup against Mikhail Gorbachev seemed unbearable.
I well remember New Year’s Eve, 1990. I had just finished my first semester at Wesley Theological Seminary, was still trying to figure out why I had gone there and what I would do once my sojourn there was over, and was generally quite happy to be living in our nation’s capital. Back home at my parents’ house in Waverly, NY, I sat and watched Leonard Bernstein conduct a huge combined choir and orchestra in a performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, fulfilling a promise he had made to do so once Germany was reunited. I still marvel at the fact that Bernstein managed to do so without the benefit of a score. Like a much shorter, much less celebrated song would declare in a few months’ time, we were watching the world wake up from history, with real revolutions happening all around us, offering us possibilities we couldn’t even have dreamed before.
That day not only marked the end of a decade, the celebration of the reunification of a great nation, and the realization (at least for me) that the events of the previous couple years were indeed real. It also marked the end of a strange sojourn in our collective life. The 1980's had begun in a haze of confusion, fear, and increasing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan exploited the fears of an American public hit by rampant Soviet adventurism (from Angola to Afghanistan) as well as domestic disquiet (the specter we are seeing once again called “stagflation”, high interest rates combined with higher than normal rates of inflation) and defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Reagan won barely fifty percent of the popular vote, yet he managed to win enough states to have his victory declared not just a near landslide, but revolutionary as well.
The next few years were a strange time. A recession that was in fact the deepest economic down-turn since the 1930's, with double-digit unemployment, the deindustrialization of much of the American industrial heartland stretching across the Great Lakes and in to the northeast, and a fundamental shift in American tax policy from progressive to regressive taxation combined with exploding military budgets to create budgetary shortfalls unheard of in American history outside a time of declared war all seemed surreal. We were indeed living in the midst of history, yet we did not recognize it for what it was. It was traumatic in a way that only real historical events are. The pace of social change in the United States had ever seemed so fast, so ineluctable. The few things we thought we could hold on to no longer seemed stable.
Yet Reagan and the Republican Party promised an anchor for troubled times. Using a rhetoric both familiar yet unprecedented in its starkness, we were offered the possibility of national greatness once again. We were offered the consolations of a set of religious beliefs at once comforting and aggressive in their declaration of who was in and who was out. We were given the opportunity to face the challenge of seemingly reinvigorated Soviet Union, perhaps not on European soil, but closer to him in the unknown backyard of Central America. We had allies in this fight as well; Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier in Haiti, Pres. Suharto in Indonesia, Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire were all defenders of freedom, even though their own governing records were a bit lax in this category, and each existed as a wholly owned subsidiary either of the United States or one industrial conglomerate or another.
The contradictions and questions we faced as a nation throughout the 1980's were rarely addressed openly. When such questions did arise, when the factual and rhetorical inconsistencies became too pronounced to ignore, we were often told that these were either the distortions of a class of persons resentful of their loss of power (the Democratic Party) or fellow-travelers, out-and-out sympathizers with our ideological adversaries (the American Left). Often portrayed as a network of interlocking affinities among academia, journalists, and free-lance intellectuals, we were given the opportunity to not so much fear as pity these last remaining survivors from a by-gone era - the 1960's - when radical ideas and political action seemed on the verge of changing the American political landscape. As Stephen King has noted, however, his generation had the opportunity to change the world, and settled for QVC instead. The actual size and relative toothlessness of the American political and cultural left at any time has been small. In the 1980's, it was on life support.
Coming of age during the years of High Reaganism, studying politics and history in college at a time when there was this strange separation between real history both as it was practiced and lived, and politics as the struggle for power on the national level, was an experience I know cannot be repeated. Even a cursory glance at some of the events of the years 1983, when I entered Alfred University as a freshman political science student, and 1987 when I graduated with a piece of paper that was worth quite a bit less than the debt I had incurred earning it leaves one breathless as the strangeness of it all. Whether it was the mining of the harbors of Nicaragua, funding death squads in El Salvador, the invasion and subsequent retreat from Lebanon after a devastating terrorist attack, two attacks upon Libya including a direct assault upon its President, Moamar Qadafi, the invasion of Grenada (in which more military medals were passed out than there were actual participants), and of course the Iran-Contra affair, perhaps the most convoluted conspiracy in the history of the United States - all of these events seemed like watersheds, points of reference for future generations seeking to understand the times through which we lived.
In November, 1989, I was in the midst of a personal crisis, the details of which are unimportant and far too private to relate. Suffice it to say that I was on the verge of what was euphemistically called “a nervous breakdown”, and leave it at that, shall we? Even in the midst of my own neurotic problems, however, like much the rest of the world, I took a breather one evening, sitting in a living room in Richford, NY, and watched Tom Brokaw standing in front of jubilant crowds celebrating the end of the physical division of the city of Berlin. It was a sight that was, up until that moment, quite literally outside the scope of my own imagination. Up until the day before, anyone doing what members of that crowd were doing - standing on the wall, climbing over it from one side of the city to the other, walking past the East German border guards without giving a single piece of identification - would have been shot. The next day brought even more unimagined triumphs as citizens, both east and west, took any tool at hand large enough to effect damage and whole pieces of the Berlin Wall tumbled down.
The highlight of a year historian John Lukacs called an anna mirabilis, the collapse of East German communism, followed swiftly by its demise in Czechoslovakia and Romania under less pleasant circumstances, as well as the voluntary abdication of Bulgaria’s communists, left much of the rest of the world both confounded by the changes wrought in a few short months and marveling at the possibilities now open not just to the newly freed subjects of Central Europe, but to much of the western world. The demise of the Soviet Union two years later was, in many ways, anti-climactic, almost pre-determined even as the tensions during those few days of the coup against Mikhail Gorbachev seemed unbearable.
I well remember New Year’s Eve, 1990. I had just finished my first semester at Wesley Theological Seminary, was still trying to figure out why I had gone there and what I would do once my sojourn there was over, and was generally quite happy to be living in our nation’s capital. Back home at my parents’ house in Waverly, NY, I sat and watched Leonard Bernstein conduct a huge combined choir and orchestra in a performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, fulfilling a promise he had made to do so once Germany was reunited. I still marvel at the fact that Bernstein managed to do so without the benefit of a score. Like a much shorter, much less celebrated song would declare in a few months’ time, we were watching the world wake up from history, with real revolutions happening all around us, offering us possibilities we couldn’t even have dreamed before.
That day not only marked the end of a decade, the celebration of the reunification of a great nation, and the realization (at least for me) that the events of the previous couple years were indeed real. It also marked the end of a strange sojourn in our collective life. The 1980's had begun in a haze of confusion, fear, and increasing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan exploited the fears of an American public hit by rampant Soviet adventurism (from Angola to Afghanistan) as well as domestic disquiet (the specter we are seeing once again called “stagflation”, high interest rates combined with higher than normal rates of inflation) and defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Reagan won barely fifty percent of the popular vote, yet he managed to win enough states to have his victory declared not just a near landslide, but revolutionary as well.
The next few years were a strange time. A recession that was in fact the deepest economic down-turn since the 1930's, with double-digit unemployment, the deindustrialization of much of the American industrial heartland stretching across the Great Lakes and in to the northeast, and a fundamental shift in American tax policy from progressive to regressive taxation combined with exploding military budgets to create budgetary shortfalls unheard of in American history outside a time of declared war all seemed surreal. We were indeed living in the midst of history, yet we did not recognize it for what it was. It was traumatic in a way that only real historical events are. The pace of social change in the United States had ever seemed so fast, so ineluctable. The few things we thought we could hold on to no longer seemed stable.
Yet Reagan and the Republican Party promised an anchor for troubled times. Using a rhetoric both familiar yet unprecedented in its starkness, we were offered the possibility of national greatness once again. We were offered the consolations of a set of religious beliefs at once comforting and aggressive in their declaration of who was in and who was out. We were given the opportunity to face the challenge of seemingly reinvigorated Soviet Union, perhaps not on European soil, but closer to him in the unknown backyard of Central America. We had allies in this fight as well; Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier in Haiti, Pres. Suharto in Indonesia, Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire were all defenders of freedom, even though their own governing records were a bit lax in this category, and each existed as a wholly owned subsidiary either of the United States or one industrial conglomerate or another.
The contradictions and questions we faced as a nation throughout the 1980's were rarely addressed openly. When such questions did arise, when the factual and rhetorical inconsistencies became too pronounced to ignore, we were often told that these were either the distortions of a class of persons resentful of their loss of power (the Democratic Party) or fellow-travelers, out-and-out sympathizers with our ideological adversaries (the American Left). Often portrayed as a network of interlocking affinities among academia, journalists, and free-lance intellectuals, we were given the opportunity to not so much fear as pity these last remaining survivors from a by-gone era - the 1960's - when radical ideas and political action seemed on the verge of changing the American political landscape. As Stephen King has noted, however, his generation had the opportunity to change the world, and settled for QVC instead. The actual size and relative toothlessness of the American political and cultural left at any time has been small. In the 1980's, it was on life support.
Coming of age during the years of High Reaganism, studying politics and history in college at a time when there was this strange separation between real history both as it was practiced and lived, and politics as the struggle for power on the national level, was an experience I know cannot be repeated. Even a cursory glance at some of the events of the years 1983, when I entered Alfred University as a freshman political science student, and 1987 when I graduated with a piece of paper that was worth quite a bit less than the debt I had incurred earning it leaves one breathless as the strangeness of it all. Whether it was the mining of the harbors of Nicaragua, funding death squads in El Salvador, the invasion and subsequent retreat from Lebanon after a devastating terrorist attack, two attacks upon Libya including a direct assault upon its President, Moamar Qadafi, the invasion of Grenada (in which more military medals were passed out than there were actual participants), and of course the Iran-Contra affair, perhaps the most convoluted conspiracy in the history of the United States - all of these events seemed like watersheds, points of reference for future generations seeking to understand the times through which we lived.
Just Say No To Perot!
The only thing worse than listening to Michael O'Hanlon on Iraq is listening to Michael O'Hanlon on domestic politics. Seriously. In today's Washington Post, he and fellow Brookings fellow Alice Rivlin offer the sage advice that we need Ross Perot this election cycle, in order to keep the two major party candidates' feet to the fiscal fire.
It is true that Perot's insistent focus on the federal deficit changed the dynamic of the Presidential contest; it is generally considered a truism that Bill Clinton saw the rise of Perot as an indication that fiscal restraint coupled with a more limited approach to federal policy innovation as the key not just to winning the White House but keeping it. The now-famous "It's the economy, stupid" sign, plastered around the Clinton campaign in 1992 kept the focus on what the candidate considered the most important issue for voters that year.
Yet, there was more to the Perot boom than middle class concern over budgetary laxity. After eight years of Ronald Reagan and four years of George H. W. Bush, the tensions of the second Cold War, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the demise of the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, and the ideological exhaustion of both major parties in the United States, the public clamored for someone who recognized not only that we were spending ourselves in to oblivion, but that the world of 1992 was fundamentally different from the world of 1988. Politicians were still talking in words and phrases left over from an era that was no longer present. While a crank in many respects, with his leading idea of treating the government as a business from a budgetary and fiscal point of view being the crankiest, Perot nonetheless had the advantage of speaking in a way that was responsive to the desire to hear something new and different and, most of all, relevant, to the American public in 1992.
Of course, the entire Perot movement was highjacked in later years by people even crankier and outside the mainstream than Perot himself. This is saying quite a bit, because in the summer of 1992, Perot dropped out of the Presidential race at the height of both his influence and popularity, claiming among other things that Pres. Bush used surrogates to disrupt his daughter's wedding. Recognizing a fellow-traveler, if not a full-fledged comrade, conspiracy buffs and other assorted fringe elements flocked to him even as regular voters saw the Democratic nominee respond enthusiastically to the demand for a different political discourse.
The fundamental difference between 1992 and 2008 is not a question of policy, either foreign or domestic. In 1992, it took an outsider to shake up both parties, forcing them to realize that the public needed to hear a particular message. The party that responded won. In 2008, the public needed to hear a particular message, and a simple one at that - listen to us, hear our fears, feel our frustration, be responsive. There has been no need for an outsider to change the dynamic of this race, because, at least on the Democratic side (but also increasingly on the Republican side as well), there is a recognition and accommodation for this demand. In many ways, the closeness of the Democratic nominating contest reflects this reality, because both Sens. Clinton and Obama have employed a rhetoric not just of hope and change, but of acknowledging the role of the public in affecting this changed discourse, and the party voters have responded enthusiastically (if sometimes a bit too enthusiastically).
The Republicans, too, are beginning to realize that the ideological exhaustion and practical paralysis of their party is turning away not just voters, but the deep pocket supporters as well, and the word "change" has crept in to Republican Party ads. The problem, obviously, is that most voters, Republican and Democratic, recognize who has been in charge for the past few years, and what "change" would entail. The Republicans also are playing an insider's game. The presumptive nominee is a long-time Washington player, a favorite of the Washington press corps, with ties not just to lobbyists and other players, but with a history of wheeling and dealing. While neither Obama nor Clinton are naifs, their relative newness to the nuts and bolts of Washington politics as well as their continued reliance that at the very least pays lip service to a larger role in the voting public in shaping the dynamics of the Presidential race bode ill for any Republican nominee.
We are in no need of Ross Perot, or any other third party this year, because the public, for the most part, feels that some (at least) of the candidates get it, it being their frustration, their anger, their sense of the disconnect between the current Administration and Congress and the real needs, and political demands of the public.
In 1992, with his squeaky voice and endless charts, Perot focused attention on the rising federal deficit. His warnings helped keep the major-party candidates from talking budgetary nonsense.
It is true that Perot's insistent focus on the federal deficit changed the dynamic of the Presidential contest; it is generally considered a truism that Bill Clinton saw the rise of Perot as an indication that fiscal restraint coupled with a more limited approach to federal policy innovation as the key not just to winning the White House but keeping it. The now-famous "It's the economy, stupid" sign, plastered around the Clinton campaign in 1992 kept the focus on what the candidate considered the most important issue for voters that year.
Yet, there was more to the Perot boom than middle class concern over budgetary laxity. After eight years of Ronald Reagan and four years of George H. W. Bush, the tensions of the second Cold War, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the demise of the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, and the ideological exhaustion of both major parties in the United States, the public clamored for someone who recognized not only that we were spending ourselves in to oblivion, but that the world of 1992 was fundamentally different from the world of 1988. Politicians were still talking in words and phrases left over from an era that was no longer present. While a crank in many respects, with his leading idea of treating the government as a business from a budgetary and fiscal point of view being the crankiest, Perot nonetheless had the advantage of speaking in a way that was responsive to the desire to hear something new and different and, most of all, relevant, to the American public in 1992.
Of course, the entire Perot movement was highjacked in later years by people even crankier and outside the mainstream than Perot himself. This is saying quite a bit, because in the summer of 1992, Perot dropped out of the Presidential race at the height of both his influence and popularity, claiming among other things that Pres. Bush used surrogates to disrupt his daughter's wedding. Recognizing a fellow-traveler, if not a full-fledged comrade, conspiracy buffs and other assorted fringe elements flocked to him even as regular voters saw the Democratic nominee respond enthusiastically to the demand for a different political discourse.
The fundamental difference between 1992 and 2008 is not a question of policy, either foreign or domestic. In 1992, it took an outsider to shake up both parties, forcing them to realize that the public needed to hear a particular message. The party that responded won. In 2008, the public needed to hear a particular message, and a simple one at that - listen to us, hear our fears, feel our frustration, be responsive. There has been no need for an outsider to change the dynamic of this race, because, at least on the Democratic side (but also increasingly on the Republican side as well), there is a recognition and accommodation for this demand. In many ways, the closeness of the Democratic nominating contest reflects this reality, because both Sens. Clinton and Obama have employed a rhetoric not just of hope and change, but of acknowledging the role of the public in affecting this changed discourse, and the party voters have responded enthusiastically (if sometimes a bit too enthusiastically).
The Republicans, too, are beginning to realize that the ideological exhaustion and practical paralysis of their party is turning away not just voters, but the deep pocket supporters as well, and the word "change" has crept in to Republican Party ads. The problem, obviously, is that most voters, Republican and Democratic, recognize who has been in charge for the past few years, and what "change" would entail. The Republicans also are playing an insider's game. The presumptive nominee is a long-time Washington player, a favorite of the Washington press corps, with ties not just to lobbyists and other players, but with a history of wheeling and dealing. While neither Obama nor Clinton are naifs, their relative newness to the nuts and bolts of Washington politics as well as their continued reliance that at the very least pays lip service to a larger role in the voting public in shaping the dynamics of the Presidential race bode ill for any Republican nominee.
We are in no need of Ross Perot, or any other third party this year, because the public, for the most part, feels that some (at least) of the candidates get it, it being their frustration, their anger, their sense of the disconnect between the current Administration and Congress and the real needs, and political demands of the public.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
AUGHHHH!!!! (UPDATE)
A quick survey of some of the liberal blogs and websites gives one the impression that they are populated either by really stupid people, or people so ideologically or otherwise committed to the defeat of Sen. Clinton that common sense and the ability to actually listen to a person's words has left them.
As to Democracy Lover's specific comment, "Hillary needs to bow out NOW. Not next week, not after May 31 - NOW! The woman is a menace.", I could not disagree more. How is she a menace? Because she continues to run for the Presidential nomination? Because she has every word parsed with a hermeneutic based on a suspicion that she is nefarious and calculating? She is engaging in democracy, not some theoretical "Thing", but the real nuts and bolts of democracy, advocating for her own qualifications for the office of President. The Democratic Party is pretty evenly split between her and Sen. Obama - whom I support should one not notice the big banner at the top of the right column - and is doing everything any other candidate would do to secure that nomination.
It is one thing for those on the right to vilify Mrs. Clinton, to take every single phrase she utters and make it malevolent. It is quite another for Democrats to so do (although I quite understand left-wing disdain for both Clintons on a policy level). Olbermann's commentary is absurd on its face, and adds fuel to the already-raging anti-Clinton hysteria. Mrs. Clinton was no more discussing the possibility that Sen. Obama might be murdered than she was discussing the weather in California in June. She was referencing the fact that there has been, in living memory, hotly contested Democratic primaries as late as June. Robert Kennedy's win in California set up an interesting situation, had he not been murdered that night. His final words to his supporters was to go on to Chicago and a win there. He, like Sen. Clinton, had a mathematical chance to wrest the nomination from Humphrey. With RFK's death, the nomination was clearly Humphrey's. That's it, and that's all.
I see no reason for Mrs. Clinton to exit the race. I also do not see her as a menace. The only menace is the constant barrage of nonsense tossed at her by people who should know better. The cult of the offhand comment has reached absurd depths.
For the sake of all that's good and true and holy, please stop.
UPDATE: Eli at Fire Dog Lake takes up this same topic, and writes:
First of all, it's only out there because people like Oliver Willis, BradRocket, and Eli will not take her at face value, or understand what seems pretty clear from the entire discussion as seen in context. As for offering a rationale for murdering Barack Obama - I honestly cannot get that from this quote, no matter how you parse it, unless you believe all the worst of the unbelievable crap from the right during the 1990's about the Clintons. Lamenting that the right now has another cudgel with which to beat Democrats is a non sequitur, since they often have such tools ready at hand, making them up out of thin air, just as this one is. What is feeding this entire thing is the on-going faux-outrage from Obama supporters and others, not the delusions of the already delusional Michelle Malkin.
As to Democracy Lover's specific comment, "Hillary needs to bow out NOW. Not next week, not after May 31 - NOW! The woman is a menace.", I could not disagree more. How is she a menace? Because she continues to run for the Presidential nomination? Because she has every word parsed with a hermeneutic based on a suspicion that she is nefarious and calculating? She is engaging in democracy, not some theoretical "Thing", but the real nuts and bolts of democracy, advocating for her own qualifications for the office of President. The Democratic Party is pretty evenly split between her and Sen. Obama - whom I support should one not notice the big banner at the top of the right column - and is doing everything any other candidate would do to secure that nomination.
It is one thing for those on the right to vilify Mrs. Clinton, to take every single phrase she utters and make it malevolent. It is quite another for Democrats to so do (although I quite understand left-wing disdain for both Clintons on a policy level). Olbermann's commentary is absurd on its face, and adds fuel to the already-raging anti-Clinton hysteria. Mrs. Clinton was no more discussing the possibility that Sen. Obama might be murdered than she was discussing the weather in California in June. She was referencing the fact that there has been, in living memory, hotly contested Democratic primaries as late as June. Robert Kennedy's win in California set up an interesting situation, had he not been murdered that night. His final words to his supporters was to go on to Chicago and a win there. He, like Sen. Clinton, had a mathematical chance to wrest the nomination from Humphrey. With RFK's death, the nomination was clearly Humphrey's. That's it, and that's all.
I see no reason for Mrs. Clinton to exit the race. I also do not see her as a menace. The only menace is the constant barrage of nonsense tossed at her by people who should know better. The cult of the offhand comment has reached absurd depths.
For the sake of all that's good and true and holy, please stop.
UPDATE: Eli at Fire Dog Lake takes up this same topic, and writes:
I really, really want to take Hillary at face value and not believe that she was actually using the prospect of an opponent's assassination to score political points - hell, maybe the possibility of Obama getting shot simply didn't occur to her (it's certainly not on my mind very often). But even if her intentions were pure, it was still an incredibly careless and stupid thing to say, and now the media and the right-wing crazies like Malkin have a new Democratic outrage to wring their hands about. Not only that, but now that the idea is "out there," they all get to breathlessly speculate about the chances that maybe something could happen to Obama. And won't that be fun.
First of all, it's only out there because people like Oliver Willis, BradRocket, and Eli will not take her at face value, or understand what seems pretty clear from the entire discussion as seen in context. As for offering a rationale for murdering Barack Obama - I honestly cannot get that from this quote, no matter how you parse it, unless you believe all the worst of the unbelievable crap from the right during the 1990's about the Clintons. Lamenting that the right now has another cudgel with which to beat Democrats is a non sequitur, since they often have such tools ready at hand, making them up out of thin air, just as this one is. What is feeding this entire thing is the on-going faux-outrage from Obama supporters and others, not the delusions of the already delusional Michelle Malkin.
Saturday Rock Show (It's Back)
I hate to admit that I'm not a huge fan of Dire Straits. I admire Mark Knopfler's guitar playing, but their songs just don't do it for me. Except for this one. I think it's the arrangement and mix - the way the keyboard just floats underneath the vocals in the verses; the guitar call and response in the chorus. This is "Skateaway":
The Complexities of Human Innocence
In comments on a post over at Cameron's blog that references some of the writings of Australian-born ethicist Peter Singer, there is a good discussion that ensues on the issue human innocence. While I agree with Cameron the issue of innocence has become central to many discussions concerning abortion, I also agree with Democracy Lover, at least to the extent that the issue is for the most part irrelevant. Innocent people die and are killed all the time. By what measure or rule can we say that a infant, as opposed to a toddler, a teen, or an adult, is of superior moral worth? Singer, for all his faults, at least wrestles with this question. I do not agree with his conclusions, but as Democracy Lover says, at least he deals with the issue.
I am at a point in my reflections right now that I no longer believe that a word like "innocence" has any meaning or value, because, for the most part, most human beings are a complex mix of naive innocence and compromised morality. Whether we wish to admit it or not, all of us are both morally upright as well as having a vicious streak. The whole issue, it seems to me, when laced with superlatives such as "innocence", becomes more confused, and such terms add far more heat than light.
That is why I agree and disagree with both Cameron and Democracy Lover here.
I am at a point in my reflections right now that I no longer believe that a word like "innocence" has any meaning or value, because, for the most part, most human beings are a complex mix of naive innocence and compromised morality. Whether we wish to admit it or not, all of us are both morally upright as well as having a vicious streak. The whole issue, it seems to me, when laced with superlatives such as "innocence", becomes more confused, and such terms add far more heat than light.
That is why I agree and disagree with both Cameron and Democracy Lover here.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Bizzaro World Is Taking Over Everywhere
The latest anti-Hillary nonsense comes from a comment she makes in an interview, the full version of which is here. Unbelievably, Brad at Sadly!No writes, after posting a transcript of part of the interview:
Um, sadly, no. She brought up the fact that Robert Kennedy was assassinated after winning the California primary in June, 1968. Her point was that Kennedy's win was relatively late, and we remember it so well because he was killed that night.
These people are just out of their minds. That's it, and that's all.
I don’t think there’s anyway this is being taken out of context. She literally listed potential assassination as a reason for her to stay in the race.
As I said in the comments, I don’t think she’s praying for Obama to get assassinated or anything that gruesome. I think she was trying to think of examples of Dem primaries that didn’t end until June, and she picked the absolute worst possible one to mention.
But wow. Wow-wuh-wee-wuh-wow. It’s about the most shockingly dumb thing I’ve ever heard her say. And it’ll probably be the final nail in her candidacy’s coffin.
Um, sadly, no. She brought up the fact that Robert Kennedy was assassinated after winning the California primary in June, 1968. Her point was that Kennedy's win was relatively late, and we remember it so well because he was killed that night.
These people are just out of their minds. That's it, and that's all.
One More Right-Wing Fantasy Bites The Dust
Feministing reports on a study by the Guttmacher Institute that destroys the widespread right-wing myth/urban legend that teens are engaging in oral sex parties ("rainbow parties").
On the one hand, this isn't exactly "news". Along the same lines as the infamous "wilding" crap we heard a while back after the Central Park jogger business (a young white woman was raped and left for dead; a group of young black men were arrested, and right-wing sociologists and criminal justice types invented something call "wilding", which they claimed was some kind of initiation ritual that spelled doom for America until a serial rapist's DNA was linked to the crime), this just has the whiff of bullshit all over it.
At the same time, I want to know what, exactly, is wrong with oral sex. If I remember high school correctly (way back in the dim, dark days of the early 1980's when Ronald Reagan was President, and $1.15/gallon gas was considered outrageous), there were folks back then who engaged in it, not just as an alternative to intercourse, but because, ahem, it feels really good. All these right-wingers who have their panties in a wad over this aren't upset over teens having oral sex so much as they are disturbed that people might actually be enjoying sex in a variety of ways and with a variety of people.
My theology concerning sex was handed down to me by my mother, and I really have nothing to add to it: "If God made anything better than sex, He kept it for himself."
Amen. And Amen.
As a postscript, may I just add David Bowie's comments from the song, "Changes":
On the one hand, this isn't exactly "news". Along the same lines as the infamous "wilding" crap we heard a while back after the Central Park jogger business (a young white woman was raped and left for dead; a group of young black men were arrested, and right-wing sociologists and criminal justice types invented something call "wilding", which they claimed was some kind of initiation ritual that spelled doom for America until a serial rapist's DNA was linked to the crime), this just has the whiff of bullshit all over it.
At the same time, I want to know what, exactly, is wrong with oral sex. If I remember high school correctly (way back in the dim, dark days of the early 1980's when Ronald Reagan was President, and $1.15/gallon gas was considered outrageous), there were folks back then who engaged in it, not just as an alternative to intercourse, but because, ahem, it feels really good. All these right-wingers who have their panties in a wad over this aren't upset over teens having oral sex so much as they are disturbed that people might actually be enjoying sex in a variety of ways and with a variety of people.
My theology concerning sex was handed down to me by my mother, and I really have nothing to add to it: "If God made anything better than sex, He kept it for himself."
Amen. And Amen.
As a postscript, may I just add David Bowie's comments from the song, "Changes":
And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Character In Politics
This is one of those things that drives me absolutely bonkers. Seriously. Whenever our public discourse turns to the question of a candidate's "character", we end up talking about something that "everyone" seems to understand without anyone actually sitting down and defining the term. I think George W. Bush actually "gets it" better than most, because whenever he has appointed someone to a senior position, his public statements usually include the phrase, "he is a good man", as if that trumped every conceivable argument. This is the character issue in a nutshell - if a person hugs his or her kids, walks the dog, and puts the clean laundry away without being reminded, hey, that's good enough for me.
The issue of "character" really came alive in the 1990's, when the Republicans, while reaping a certain electoral whirlwind, had difficulty dealing with the on-going popularity of Pres. Clinton. Since his policies were liked by most Americans, they decided to take him down on his personal foibles, either real or alleged. Now, one could argue that this begs certain questions of character - what kind of scruples does an individual or a group have that is willing to do anything, including lie, go after someone's family, etc., in order to achieve a political victory? - but that issue was never addressed. To this day, conservatives are convinced that Bill Clinton was not just a bad President, but a morally degenerate human being unwilling to sit in the Oval Office. Considering the absolute mess the current occupant has made of things, I think that even if every charge against Clinton were true, I would still prefer a scoundrel.
A person can be morally vicious in his or her private life, yet be extremely good at one's job, and be preferred to someone who is upright and true, yet demonstrably bad at the same job. Electing the President of the United States is hiring a person for a job. We don't list our character points on our c.v.'s for the very good reason - our potential employers do not care if we are "good people". They want to know if we can do the job we are hired to do. Period. That's all. We have been fortunate in this country that we have had examples of great politicians who have also been overflowing in personal moral integrity. Yet, one could also argue that our two greatest Presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, were also flawed in this regard (Washington was a bit of a moral scold, and thought a bit too much of his own ethical rectitude; Lincoln's marriage was a stormy affair, partly because both he and his wife, Mary Todd, were chronic depressives and had little emotional energy left to deal with each other's problems). Yet, for the most part, Presidents, whether great, good, or awful, are just people, with all the moral complexity and limitations that implies. Whether it is Warren Harding sitting in the White House getting drunk during prohibition; Richard Nixon railing against Jews to his Chief of Staff; or Franklin Roosevelt relaxing in Warm Springs, GA with his mistress - well, some character flaws are bigger and more relevant than others. In the end, though, even had Harding been a tea-totaler, it wouldn't have mattered because he had many other limitations as President. Ditto, Richard Nixon. Roosevelt's long-running affair, while a burden to his wife, didn't mean he couldn't perform the duties of the Office of President, anymore than his polio limited him, because he was a larger than life individual (rare, but they do come along). Teddy Roosevelt was a belligerent war-monger and imperialist who nonetheless managed to broker a peace between Russia and Japan and earn the Nobel Peace Prize.
In the end, character in politics doesn't mean all that much. It's actually sitting down and doing the job the counts.
The issue of "character" really came alive in the 1990's, when the Republicans, while reaping a certain electoral whirlwind, had difficulty dealing with the on-going popularity of Pres. Clinton. Since his policies were liked by most Americans, they decided to take him down on his personal foibles, either real or alleged. Now, one could argue that this begs certain questions of character - what kind of scruples does an individual or a group have that is willing to do anything, including lie, go after someone's family, etc., in order to achieve a political victory? - but that issue was never addressed. To this day, conservatives are convinced that Bill Clinton was not just a bad President, but a morally degenerate human being unwilling to sit in the Oval Office. Considering the absolute mess the current occupant has made of things, I think that even if every charge against Clinton were true, I would still prefer a scoundrel.
A person can be morally vicious in his or her private life, yet be extremely good at one's job, and be preferred to someone who is upright and true, yet demonstrably bad at the same job. Electing the President of the United States is hiring a person for a job. We don't list our character points on our c.v.'s for the very good reason - our potential employers do not care if we are "good people". They want to know if we can do the job we are hired to do. Period. That's all. We have been fortunate in this country that we have had examples of great politicians who have also been overflowing in personal moral integrity. Yet, one could also argue that our two greatest Presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, were also flawed in this regard (Washington was a bit of a moral scold, and thought a bit too much of his own ethical rectitude; Lincoln's marriage was a stormy affair, partly because both he and his wife, Mary Todd, were chronic depressives and had little emotional energy left to deal with each other's problems). Yet, for the most part, Presidents, whether great, good, or awful, are just people, with all the moral complexity and limitations that implies. Whether it is Warren Harding sitting in the White House getting drunk during prohibition; Richard Nixon railing against Jews to his Chief of Staff; or Franklin Roosevelt relaxing in Warm Springs, GA with his mistress - well, some character flaws are bigger and more relevant than others. In the end, though, even had Harding been a tea-totaler, it wouldn't have mattered because he had many other limitations as President. Ditto, Richard Nixon. Roosevelt's long-running affair, while a burden to his wife, didn't mean he couldn't perform the duties of the Office of President, anymore than his polio limited him, because he was a larger than life individual (rare, but they do come along). Teddy Roosevelt was a belligerent war-monger and imperialist who nonetheless managed to broker a peace between Russia and Japan and earn the Nobel Peace Prize.
In the end, character in politics doesn't mean all that much. It's actually sitting down and doing the job the counts.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Cry Me A River
One thing I really haven't spent much time worrying about is the way the various media-created narratives have effected voters' perceptions of the candidates or the resulting polls. I have felt, and still feel, that the media is so far behind the curve this election cycle that all the nonsense is Shakespeare's tale told by an idiot. Yet, this piece by digby, which features some folks with serious gender-related issues, brings up a point that I think is important to remember in this overheated primary season:
The discussion on blogs has too often degenerated in to "Your candidate sucks!", "No, your candidate sucks!" flame wars. They often reach in to the grab-bag of right-wing talking points to elaborate on why the other person's candidate sucks - she's a "rhymes-with-witch", he's "bigger" (snicker, snicker) - and we end up perpetuating this crap. While I support Obama, I have not and will not write a word against Sen. Clinton for the simple reason that I have known since last summer the level of invective that would we tossed her way, and I in no way wanted to contribute to that. Besides that, I do not support Sen. Obama to be "against" anyone, but for Obama. I do not do any favors to anyone by running down Sen. Clinton. What's the point of that?
To the media types who are all upset because the Clinton campaign is pointing out what is quite clear to so many people, all I can say is I don't have a hanky to spare for you because they are being so unfair to you. When a political operative can sit on a cable news show and say that some women deserve to be called "bitches", and not have his mic cut and the "journalist" doing the interview apologize to viewers, I think that says all that needs to be said. I will only stop criticizing the media when someone else gets on CNN or MSNBC, says that some nationally broadcast journalists are assholes, and isn't poo-pooed.
I don't think that it's fair or reasonable for the Obama campaign to be held responsible for this. I've not detected sexism coming from them toward Senator Clinton, certainly in any systematic way. I suspect they have been quite conscious of not going there, which is to their credit. Many Clinton supporters feel that Obama has benefited from the sexism in the media and should have stood up to it, but I just reject that. Both he and Clinton are fighting hard campaigns for the most important job in the world and they are not obligated to defend their rivals while the battle rages. (It might have behooved the progressive movement to have done so, however.)
Unfortunately, at this point I think the media is actually hurting the Obama campaign with their continued sexist coverage. He is trying to reach out to her supporters and the press is making it much harder for him by keeping this hostile, demeaning discussion --- particularly this endless call for her to drop out --- roiling in the ether. The party will work this out, but the media, as usual, is making things worse.
The discussion on blogs has too often degenerated in to "Your candidate sucks!", "No, your candidate sucks!" flame wars. They often reach in to the grab-bag of right-wing talking points to elaborate on why the other person's candidate sucks - she's a "rhymes-with-witch", he's "bigger" (snicker, snicker) - and we end up perpetuating this crap. While I support Obama, I have not and will not write a word against Sen. Clinton for the simple reason that I have known since last summer the level of invective that would we tossed her way, and I in no way wanted to contribute to that. Besides that, I do not support Sen. Obama to be "against" anyone, but for Obama. I do not do any favors to anyone by running down Sen. Clinton. What's the point of that?
To the media types who are all upset because the Clinton campaign is pointing out what is quite clear to so many people, all I can say is I don't have a hanky to spare for you because they are being so unfair to you. When a political operative can sit on a cable news show and say that some women deserve to be called "bitches", and not have his mic cut and the "journalist" doing the interview apologize to viewers, I think that says all that needs to be said. I will only stop criticizing the media when someone else gets on CNN or MSNBC, says that some nationally broadcast journalists are assholes, and isn't poo-pooed.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Making Sense, Part II
In line with my previous post, I have been reading, for the second time, Gary Dorrien's history of American Liberal Theology. Still in the first volume, covering the 19th century birth of the movement, the key elements of what is still a wonderful, lively theological tradition were formed. One of the central tenets of this point of view is an emphasis on Divine love, and its cognates in human personal and social life. There are strains of this in our contemporary religious discourse, whether liberal or conservative, but one can become frustrated with a serious discussion of the issue of divine love if one sets it up without any reference to either scripture or the reality of the messiness of human love. This is one of the bases of the feminist critique of sexist God-talk; mindlessly repeating "Father" as a personal pronoun for God misses the reality that fathers are an equivocal role, sometimes a healing presence, strong and supportive, but also a source of fear, violence, and hostility (if they are present at all).
Human love - real human love, not some ideal we set up in our minds - is a complicated affair (no pun intended). Some people love people of the opposite gender. Some love both genders equally. Some love people of the same gender as themselves. Some love runs smoothly. Some lasts briefly but intensely. Some lasts a lifetime and beyond. Love is as diverse and numerous as the numbers of individuals who can and do love, and have and will love. Each and every time we fall in love and navigate its strange and beautiful waters is different as well. Making sense of divine love analogically from the messy reality of human love, were one honest, should leave us scratching our heads rather than clear on the concept.
At the same time, this messiness - the irrational, sometimes even counter-productive, nature of human love - is an important factor in understanding what it is we mean when we say that God is love, or that God loves us. This love is expressed differently each and every time, in each and every distinct moment of life. It is complicated. It is confusing. It makes no rational sense whatsoever.
Then again, if it did, it wouldn't be love.
Human love - real human love, not some ideal we set up in our minds - is a complicated affair (no pun intended). Some people love people of the opposite gender. Some love both genders equally. Some love people of the same gender as themselves. Some love runs smoothly. Some lasts briefly but intensely. Some lasts a lifetime and beyond. Love is as diverse and numerous as the numbers of individuals who can and do love, and have and will love. Each and every time we fall in love and navigate its strange and beautiful waters is different as well. Making sense of divine love analogically from the messy reality of human love, were one honest, should leave us scratching our heads rather than clear on the concept.
At the same time, this messiness - the irrational, sometimes even counter-productive, nature of human love - is an important factor in understanding what it is we mean when we say that God is love, or that God loves us. This love is expressed differently each and every time, in each and every distinct moment of life. It is complicated. It is confusing. It makes no rational sense whatsoever.
Then again, if it did, it wouldn't be love.
Making Sense, Part I
When I was a wee little lad of 28, I started a serious study of the philosophy of science. One of the "big names" was the brilliant mathematician Imre Lakatos, who was a colleague of Sir Karl Popper at the London School of Economics. He died far too early, but managed to publish a post-T. S. Kuhn defense of Popperian philosophy of science, "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs" that nonetheless moved the goalposts a tad in the then (early 1970's) disagreements between Popper and Kuhn. One of the phrases that Lakatos introduced to the discussion was "rational reconstruction"; that is to say that philosophy of science should seek to strip away the detritus of actual scientific research, all non-scientific forces and influences, and deal solely and simply with a reconstruction in scientific terms of what happens when science is done. While this has the advantage of keeping one's mind focused, it has the disadvantage of leaving science neutered, some inhuman thing that has no reference to anything real.
I realized pretty quickly that this was not just untenable, but by creating this imaginary world where science was not so much a human project but some Thing that did and could exist without human beings, it stripped the scientific project of any connection to the actual practice of human beings. In other words, just as I have complained in the past of Richard Dawkins making up a religion, calling it Christianity, then proving that this invention of his stood in for all religions at all times, and at the same time was untenable, so Lakatos' castle in the air he called science was just as fantastic - and flawed.
Two anecdotes should suffice to show how irrelevant such a method is. The first involves the discovery of the chemical construction of benzene. The researcher who was attempting to figure out how the elements that make up benzene bonded the way they did was stuck for a long time. One night, he had a dream in which a snake bit its own tail, then rolled around the ground like a wheel. When he awoke and went to work the next day, he referred to the dream and discovered that benzene was, in fact, a chemical ring.
Percival Lowell was a member of a famous, and wealthy, Massachusetts family who was interested in astronomy. He had this fantastic idea that Mars was not only inhabited, but by a civilization so advanced they had constructed a series of canals visible to the telescopic eye as it observed the fourth planet. In order to further investigate this phenomenon, Lowell spent a bunch of his own money setting up an observatory. His decision to do this was prompted by a visit he had one night by a group of gnomes, who convinced him that this would be money well spent.
How can the philosophy of science deal with these two stories, if the goal is to strip away the human element from the practice? It cannot.
We can only make sense of any human project - science, love, religion, politics, art - if we embrace the wholeness, the complexity, the idiosyncratic nature, and, yes, even the irrational elements that go into each and every event and human experience. We cannot make any real sense of the world unless and until we are willing to accept that "rational reconstruction", whether of science or anything else, limits our understanding.
I realized pretty quickly that this was not just untenable, but by creating this imaginary world where science was not so much a human project but some Thing that did and could exist without human beings, it stripped the scientific project of any connection to the actual practice of human beings. In other words, just as I have complained in the past of Richard Dawkins making up a religion, calling it Christianity, then proving that this invention of his stood in for all religions at all times, and at the same time was untenable, so Lakatos' castle in the air he called science was just as fantastic - and flawed.
Two anecdotes should suffice to show how irrelevant such a method is. The first involves the discovery of the chemical construction of benzene. The researcher who was attempting to figure out how the elements that make up benzene bonded the way they did was stuck for a long time. One night, he had a dream in which a snake bit its own tail, then rolled around the ground like a wheel. When he awoke and went to work the next day, he referred to the dream and discovered that benzene was, in fact, a chemical ring.
Percival Lowell was a member of a famous, and wealthy, Massachusetts family who was interested in astronomy. He had this fantastic idea that Mars was not only inhabited, but by a civilization so advanced they had constructed a series of canals visible to the telescopic eye as it observed the fourth planet. In order to further investigate this phenomenon, Lowell spent a bunch of his own money setting up an observatory. His decision to do this was prompted by a visit he had one night by a group of gnomes, who convinced him that this would be money well spent.
How can the philosophy of science deal with these two stories, if the goal is to strip away the human element from the practice? It cannot.
We can only make sense of any human project - science, love, religion, politics, art - if we embrace the wholeness, the complexity, the idiosyncratic nature, and, yes, even the irrational elements that go into each and every event and human experience. We cannot make any real sense of the world unless and until we are willing to accept that "rational reconstruction", whether of science or anything else, limits our understanding.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Since It's Black Human Beings Not White Fetuses, The Pro-Lifers Couldn't Care Less
The title of this post expresses my view of right-wingers approach to this article at Fire Dog Lake. I urge you all to go read it.
In a nutshell, like they removed us from the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the NPT, the agreement against the nuclearization of space, the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Treaty, and pretty much every other international agreement that makes sense, the United States will no longer participate in the Helsinki Accords in regards to the use of human test subjects in medical experiments. In other words, Dr. Mengele's shingle is hanging back up (that's two for two in re Godwin).
January cannot come fast enough. These people are hurting us more and more each day.
In a nutshell, like they removed us from the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the NPT, the agreement against the nuclearization of space, the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Treaty, and pretty much every other international agreement that makes sense, the United States will no longer participate in the Helsinki Accords in regards to the use of human test subjects in medical experiments. In other words, Dr. Mengele's shingle is hanging back up (that's two for two in re Godwin).
January cannot come fast enough. These people are hurting us more and more each day.
Nothing Left
Perhaps I'm partisan, and therefore blind, but it seems to me that the Republicans are going to get trounced as they have not been trounced in my lifetime (the 1964 election was one year and a couple weeks before I was born). Right-wing pundits sound more and more like they work for the Volkischer Beobachter (yes, I just violated Godwin's law; sue me); the Republicans can't win in freaking Mississippi (even racist and sexist appeals to the fears of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi didn't work). The latest bit of delusional nonsense, via mcjoan at The Great Orange Satan, reads as follows:
It's like they are trying to destroy themselves.
"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."
It's like they are trying to destroy themselves.
Taking Up Marhsall's Challenge, Just For The Fun Of It
Getting back in to the whole blogging thing, slowly but surely, I decided to peruse old fave Marshall Art, who issued some kind of challenge about reading an article over at American Thinker, then arguing against it, or something like that. I'm really not sure, but I went over and I picked this article about Obama's father's religion, about as politically relevant as Reagan's father's alcoholism, or Clinton's father's death, or any other factoid about any candidate's father. The point was to pick an article relating to Barack Obama (whom Marshall refers to as "Barry"; it's so childish, but in an unfunny way), and this one struck me right away as perhaps the silliest piece of "political writing" I came across since reading Jonah Goldberg, I thought I'd run with it. Out of a sense of fairness, I'll offer some snippets from the article here, and allow you, dear readers to be the judges, to whit, am I wrong that this is about as relevant as a discussion of Nixon's mother's obsessive-compulsive disorder or Woodrow Wilson's sister's illegitimate child (I don't really know if either of these claims are true; from this article, however, I don't know what the religious beliefs of Obama's father were, and I am still perplexed as to why I should care).
I have quoted the beginning and end of the article; the middle is a jumble of nonsense that has been disproved - Obama attended a "madrasa" in Indonesia; he's an apostate Muslim facing the death penalty in Muslim nations; his middle name is "Islamic"; we are at war with Islam - that really doesn't deserve to be aired again, but if you wish, be my guest, click the link and read the article. I'm still not sure what the whole point was. Obama's father was a Muslim, who took his family with him when he traveled to a Muslim country, where he educated his son at a religiously-affiliated school. This means that, uh . . . that, um . . . What does it mean?
This is just ridiculous nonsense. The periodical is called American Thinker, but I see no evidence of it here. I do hope there is something, somewhere that deserves to be listed under such a title.
So, I guess I didn't answer Marshall's challenge, because there is just no arguing with people who parade disproved allegations that are really racially and religiously biased personal attacks as if they had any relevance. This isn't serious stuff; it's middle school name calling, no more no less.
When it comes to Barack Obama, only one subject infuriates the swooning mainstream media more than his father's race -- and that's his father and stepfather's religion. Why, the very mention of Barack's early Islamic training -- or even his Muslim middle name -- has become more sacrosanct a PC no-no than disclosing the race of a non-white crime suspect.[Please note the subtle racism in the last sentence. These folks have it down to an art form]
--snip--
Accordingly -- while it's unclear at exactly what point in life Obama forsook the tenets of Islam, are questions pressing the presumptive nominee's positions on such topics as Shari'a in America or Palestinian right of return any less justifiable?
The stakes just don't allow such sophistry.
I have quoted the beginning and end of the article; the middle is a jumble of nonsense that has been disproved - Obama attended a "madrasa" in Indonesia; he's an apostate Muslim facing the death penalty in Muslim nations; his middle name is "Islamic"; we are at war with Islam - that really doesn't deserve to be aired again, but if you wish, be my guest, click the link and read the article. I'm still not sure what the whole point was. Obama's father was a Muslim, who took his family with him when he traveled to a Muslim country, where he educated his son at a religiously-affiliated school. This means that, uh . . . that, um . . . What does it mean?
This is just ridiculous nonsense. The periodical is called American Thinker, but I see no evidence of it here. I do hope there is something, somewhere that deserves to be listed under such a title.
So, I guess I didn't answer Marshall's challenge, because there is just no arguing with people who parade disproved allegations that are really racially and religiously biased personal attacks as if they had any relevance. This isn't serious stuff; it's middle school name calling, no more no less.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Blood And Stupid
Via Eschaton comes this post by Kathleen Parker over at Townhall. To say I am flabbergasted is an understatement. While I would urge you to read the whole thing, if for no other reason than to gaze in to Nietszche's abyss for a moment (or, at least, see what happens to right-wing columnists who have so gazed for a tad too long), I would offer up a snippet or two. If you feel I am quoting out of context, again, by all means, go read the whole thing.
I do not believe I have read anything this frightening from a "mainstream" right-wing columnist in America. Ever.
"A full-blooded American."
That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."
--snip--
It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.
Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically -- and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century -- there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.
--sip--
Yet, white Americans primarily -- and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially -- have been put on the defensive for their throwback concerns with "guns, God and gays," as Howard Dean put it in 2003. And more recently, for clinging to "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as Obama described white, working-class Pennsylvanians who preferred his opponent.
--snip--
But so-called "ordinary Americans" aren't so easily manipulated and they don't need interpreters. They can spot a poser a mile off and they have a hound's nose for snootiness. They've got no truck with people who condescend nor tolerance for that down-the-nose glance from people who don't know the things they know.
What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.
Republicans more than Democrats seem to get this, though Hillary Clinton has figured it out. And, the truth is, Clinton's own DNA is cobbled with many of the same values that rural and small-town Americans cling to. She understands viscerally what Obama has to study.
I do not believe I have read anything this frightening from a "mainstream" right-wing columnist in America. Ever.
No Politics Of Culture
Several weeks ago, I pasted a comment from ELAshley in to a post on the issue of race that contained the following two short, journalistic sentences:
I would like to just say a few words about these two little sentences and the danger such a position represents.
For lack of a better term, "culture" has become one of those buzzwords in our political landscape over the past couple decades that everyone seems to understand without ever really defining. For the most part, it seems to refer to that cluster of products - television, music, movies, books - to which we turn for entertainment; in also seems to refer to practices in our individual and collective private lives that are not immediately public, such as our sexual habits, our recreational habits, or other behaviors that might possibly be effected by these pop culture products.
The idea that these things need to be "fixed" is one of the most contentious issues on the right. That our politicians should feel an obligation to do so is a perennial demand of the right. To take such a position, however, is dangerous as well as misguided. To take the second predicate first, politics will never be able to catch up to our cultural attitudes. Since much of what the right seems to consider "culture" is, in essence, entertainment that exists solely for our private consumption, it exists across a broad spectrum with little public reference. One can impute all sorts of "politics" to any cultural product without being wrong for no other reason than, for the most part, they are unconcerned with deep, public import and exist, rather, to keep us happy, keep us dancing, get us to smile, laugh, cry, or scream. While it is clear why some people would be offended by some aspects of our pop culture products - I certainly am, so I can see how others would be - to demand that these products be "fixed" by outside forces simply because we might object to their content leads us to the first predicate above: it is dangerous to view ay cultural product as amenable to or within the purview of political pressures.
In the first place, we in the US have this little thing in our Constitution called the First Amendment. The opening words, to which several clauses are added, read as follows: "Cogress shall make no law . . ." In other words, back off, hands off, etc. While some might say "That just means this or that or the other area are off limits. Surely you aren't suggesting the founders meant Vivid Video should be outside the control of the law." Since some of the founders (Ben Franklin is a good example) were connoisseurs of Enlightenment pornography, I doubt they would mind all that much. More to the point, the amendment specifically states "no law", so that cordons off a whole area of culture from political interference. Social pressure is one thing - the demand for a ratings system is a good example - but legal remedies are something different. Whether its hard-core pornography, television that dances the fine edge of good taste and gratuitous nonsense, or music that assaults our ears while insulting our intelligence, we are much better off exercising our personal preference rather than our political powers of coercion to insist that certain elements of our common, not to say public, life clean up.
To make a too-long post much shorter, a politics of culture is a dangerous thing. Politics is concerned with one thing - imposing one's will and preferences on others. Culture is about the million little negotiations we go through each day, collectively, and the importation of coercive power in to this formula mitigates any alleged benefit that might accrue from ridding our cultural space of products that one group or another might find offensive, unwarranted, or otherwise undesirable.
Fix the culture. Demand it of D.C.
I would like to just say a few words about these two little sentences and the danger such a position represents.
For lack of a better term, "culture" has become one of those buzzwords in our political landscape over the past couple decades that everyone seems to understand without ever really defining. For the most part, it seems to refer to that cluster of products - television, music, movies, books - to which we turn for entertainment; in also seems to refer to practices in our individual and collective private lives that are not immediately public, such as our sexual habits, our recreational habits, or other behaviors that might possibly be effected by these pop culture products.
The idea that these things need to be "fixed" is one of the most contentious issues on the right. That our politicians should feel an obligation to do so is a perennial demand of the right. To take such a position, however, is dangerous as well as misguided. To take the second predicate first, politics will never be able to catch up to our cultural attitudes. Since much of what the right seems to consider "culture" is, in essence, entertainment that exists solely for our private consumption, it exists across a broad spectrum with little public reference. One can impute all sorts of "politics" to any cultural product without being wrong for no other reason than, for the most part, they are unconcerned with deep, public import and exist, rather, to keep us happy, keep us dancing, get us to smile, laugh, cry, or scream. While it is clear why some people would be offended by some aspects of our pop culture products - I certainly am, so I can see how others would be - to demand that these products be "fixed" by outside forces simply because we might object to their content leads us to the first predicate above: it is dangerous to view ay cultural product as amenable to or within the purview of political pressures.
In the first place, we in the US have this little thing in our Constitution called the First Amendment. The opening words, to which several clauses are added, read as follows: "Cogress shall make no law . . ." In other words, back off, hands off, etc. While some might say "That just means this or that or the other area are off limits. Surely you aren't suggesting the founders meant Vivid Video should be outside the control of the law." Since some of the founders (Ben Franklin is a good example) were connoisseurs of Enlightenment pornography, I doubt they would mind all that much. More to the point, the amendment specifically states "no law", so that cordons off a whole area of culture from political interference. Social pressure is one thing - the demand for a ratings system is a good example - but legal remedies are something different. Whether its hard-core pornography, television that dances the fine edge of good taste and gratuitous nonsense, or music that assaults our ears while insulting our intelligence, we are much better off exercising our personal preference rather than our political powers of coercion to insist that certain elements of our common, not to say public, life clean up.
To make a too-long post much shorter, a politics of culture is a dangerous thing. Politics is concerned with one thing - imposing one's will and preferences on others. Culture is about the million little negotiations we go through each day, collectively, and the importation of coercive power in to this formula mitigates any alleged benefit that might accrue from ridding our cultural space of products that one group or another might find offensive, unwarranted, or otherwise undesirable.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
On The Democratic Primary Nonsense
I didn't mention the Democratic primary in yesterday's post, but my feelings about how that is running are similar to my feelings about the way debate and discussion is happening on other issues. On the one hand, I think the rivalry, edging toward animosity, between the candidates is hyped by the media a bit to heighten the narrative tension. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence from comments all over the internet that the supporters of the two candidates in fact are quite adamant.
Get over yourselves.
If either side really believes that the other is the embodiment of some dastardly plot, incarnate political evil hell-bent on destroying all that is good and true in the Democratic Party and the country, and various supporters refuse to even consider voting for the opposite number if their candidate is the nominee - then our politics is truly broken. It's about compromise. It's about accepting that sometimes, the other guy (or gal) wins. Neither candidate is perfect; both have run campaigns that have been both high-minded and down-and-dirty. I support Sen. Obama, but if Sen. Clinton somehow manages to sneak past him in Denver, I refuse to whine in my latte and sit with my arms folded in November. Children act that way.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath, remember what is at stake and who the real opponent is (a seventy-year-old serial adulterer whose supporters include a dispensationalist whacko who preaches from printed flow charts in which he gives details on the coming apocalypse), rather than get all resentful that one's own candidate didn't win. There may be a few thousand out there who act this way, but most of us will vote in November.
I think a round of beers is in order, on the winner, once the primaries are over.
Get over yourselves.
If either side really believes that the other is the embodiment of some dastardly plot, incarnate political evil hell-bent on destroying all that is good and true in the Democratic Party and the country, and various supporters refuse to even consider voting for the opposite number if their candidate is the nominee - then our politics is truly broken. It's about compromise. It's about accepting that sometimes, the other guy (or gal) wins. Neither candidate is perfect; both have run campaigns that have been both high-minded and down-and-dirty. I support Sen. Obama, but if Sen. Clinton somehow manages to sneak past him in Denver, I refuse to whine in my latte and sit with my arms folded in November. Children act that way.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath, remember what is at stake and who the real opponent is (a seventy-year-old serial adulterer whose supporters include a dispensationalist whacko who preaches from printed flow charts in which he gives details on the coming apocalypse), rather than get all resentful that one's own candidate didn't win. There may be a few thousand out there who act this way, but most of us will vote in November.
I think a round of beers is in order, on the winner, once the primaries are over.
Monday, May 12, 2008
I Was A Bit Hasty . . .
I should have learned my lesson from Sean Connery, who once famously said he would "never" play James Bond, only to appear, in the late 1980's, in Never Say Never Again. That's far too long a time span to predict with any accuracy, so I guess I'll take my lumps, as it were.
I thought, to help clarify things a bit, I might just say a couple things here about what it is I do. First, I do not ever try to argue, or convince through some sort of logical argumentation, or seek to prove anything. In the first place, I doubt if few are moved to change their minds based on any argument, no matter how compelling the "evidence" presented. My own position is quite simple - I am presenting the way I understand the world to be, using words that describe that world. If you choose to accept this particular vocabulary - GREAT! If not, it's no skin off my nose. I do not believe any particular vocabulary captures the world. How could it? All I do is offer up my own little point of view. If it resonates, it does. If not, there is no way I can commend it to you in order to make it do so.
Mine is a particularly pragmatic point of view. I have no interest in the "truth", in "reality", in "objectivity" (or its alleged converse). I don't think those words mean anything anyway. I think the way I describe the world works well for me, but I cannot demand others use my own way of speaking about the world; only that you try to understand and share this particular language-game while you're here.
That I do not believe my views are "True" in the sense of transcendentally accurate of the ontological structure of all things, that does not mean I do not hold them with conviction or passion. It only means that my conviction and passion are tempered by my own recognition of their ephemeral quality, their contingency. In other words, since things change, including the words we use to describe things, how could any sentence at any time, capture some bit of reality, no matter how small, for all times and places?
So, if you are "offended" by something I write here; if you think I am being "heretical" or whatever - take a deep breath and remember a couple things. I don't believe that anything we say, no words we use, can possibly become an impediment to God's love for us. I also do not believe that any of our claims about who and what God is have anything to do with who or what God is, so arguing over doctrine is a bit like arguing over Ptolemaic epicycles in astronomy. Being a Christian doesn't hinge on adherence to doctrine, so I find such arguments largely meaningless. Should I mention "doctrine" here, its usually descriptive in some general term, rather than any normative use.
So, starting tomorrow, I think we shall try again to say some things, to toss a few things out there and see if they stick. If so, great. If not, I'll try to be a bit more thick skinned.
I thought, to help clarify things a bit, I might just say a couple things here about what it is I do. First, I do not ever try to argue, or convince through some sort of logical argumentation, or seek to prove anything. In the first place, I doubt if few are moved to change their minds based on any argument, no matter how compelling the "evidence" presented. My own position is quite simple - I am presenting the way I understand the world to be, using words that describe that world. If you choose to accept this particular vocabulary - GREAT! If not, it's no skin off my nose. I do not believe any particular vocabulary captures the world. How could it? All I do is offer up my own little point of view. If it resonates, it does. If not, there is no way I can commend it to you in order to make it do so.
Mine is a particularly pragmatic point of view. I have no interest in the "truth", in "reality", in "objectivity" (or its alleged converse). I don't think those words mean anything anyway. I think the way I describe the world works well for me, but I cannot demand others use my own way of speaking about the world; only that you try to understand and share this particular language-game while you're here.
That I do not believe my views are "True" in the sense of transcendentally accurate of the ontological structure of all things, that does not mean I do not hold them with conviction or passion. It only means that my conviction and passion are tempered by my own recognition of their ephemeral quality, their contingency. In other words, since things change, including the words we use to describe things, how could any sentence at any time, capture some bit of reality, no matter how small, for all times and places?
So, if you are "offended" by something I write here; if you think I am being "heretical" or whatever - take a deep breath and remember a couple things. I don't believe that anything we say, no words we use, can possibly become an impediment to God's love for us. I also do not believe that any of our claims about who and what God is have anything to do with who or what God is, so arguing over doctrine is a bit like arguing over Ptolemaic epicycles in astronomy. Being a Christian doesn't hinge on adherence to doctrine, so I find such arguments largely meaningless. Should I mention "doctrine" here, its usually descriptive in some general term, rather than any normative use.
So, starting tomorrow, I think we shall try again to say some things, to toss a few things out there and see if they stick. If so, great. If not, I'll try to be a bit more thick skinned.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Toodles
For a variety of reasons, this blog is on indefinite hiatus. I do so reluctantly but knowing it is necessary, and will be welcome.
I am a firm believer that all things come and go, that it is far better to leave when it is time to go than to overstay one's welcome. I have achieved some, though certainly not all, that I wanted through this marvelous medium, the most important being making real contact with men and women I never would have known but for it. To ER, drlobojo, Cameron, Democracy Lover, Park Life, Angry Ballerina, (H)apa Theology, and all the rest, I say thank you for putting up with my occasional impertinence, my effrontery at actually expressing opinions that, while certainly sincere, are also self-described as most likely wrong. I have learned much from all of you. Perhaps, some day, I shall find myself dragged back, and have to start from scratch, as it were.
In the meantime, blessings on all of you, peace be unto you, and try not to take yourselves too seriously. I never did, myself least of all (especially when I was at my most "serious").
I am a firm believer that all things come and go, that it is far better to leave when it is time to go than to overstay one's welcome. I have achieved some, though certainly not all, that I wanted through this marvelous medium, the most important being making real contact with men and women I never would have known but for it. To ER, drlobojo, Cameron, Democracy Lover, Park Life, Angry Ballerina, (H)apa Theology, and all the rest, I say thank you for putting up with my occasional impertinence, my effrontery at actually expressing opinions that, while certainly sincere, are also self-described as most likely wrong. I have learned much from all of you. Perhaps, some day, I shall find myself dragged back, and have to start from scratch, as it were.
In the meantime, blessings on all of you, peace be unto you, and try not to take yourselves too seriously. I never did, myself least of all (especially when I was at my most "serious").
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Some Heretical Thoughts, Part . . .Well, Who's Counting?
I was thinking yesterday, apropos of nothing in particular, about intercessory prayer. Like every other church I have attended in my life, much of our communal prayer time is spent listing the names of people in the hospital with various ailments, suffering various injuries, or the families of recently deceased persons. I have always been of two minds about this. On the one hand, it is an important part of our communal life to lift up those in need for others to be aware of. On the other hand, it seems to me (perhaps incorrectly) that we view prayer as a kind of magical incantation; if we pray, God will do whatever voodoo God do and bring about some kind of healing, or comfort, or whatever.
Prayer doesn't work like that. God doesn't work like that. Being the church does not include looking for the Divine Magic Bullet to cure our ills and hurts. When we pray for those in need - whether in terms of health, or finances, or those who mourn, or who are struggling with addiction or whatever - I do not believe we should be looking for God to "do something" beyond being present, providing strength, and offering an opportunity for others in the church community to actively participate in the support of those in need.
More important, I believe that intercession should be limited in our communal prayer life. We should be coming to God in humility, seeking to confess our collective brokenness, seek collective wisdom and guidance, and offer up prayers for the communities in which we live - prayers not for physical healing so much as for the life and spiritual health of these communities.
I figure that, since I have said that God doesn't really care all that much about the trivia and minutiae of our lives, I might as well be consistent and offer the view that God doesn't really care all that much about whether or not Aunt Martha has cancer. At least, God does not see disease and struggle and death as evils to be combated but as part of our life as embodied creatures. It is part of living as God's creatures that we will face such struggles, and should do so in the full acceptance that this, too, is part of being creatures. After all, God calls us, to quote yet again Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to die, it seems to me unlikely that God will make sure we live without the pain of suffering through a disease.
The suffering with which we Christians are called to live in solidarity is not the suffering of individuals facing physical ailment or discomfort, or the (inevitable) emotional pain of loss, but the suffering caused by human sin. That is to say, our intercessions should be for those whose lives are full of pain, and who are separated from the rest of the community either through deliberate exclusion, or the complex of circumstances that we often call "social forces". We should also seek to confess our participation in those institutions and practices that seek to exclude, that break our relations with others. While not excluding lifting up those suffering physical ailment or emotional pain, we should rather see this as a small part of our collective prayer life, and seek instead to offer our hope that we, too, will be the Church for those who need it.
Prayer doesn't work like that. God doesn't work like that. Being the church does not include looking for the Divine Magic Bullet to cure our ills and hurts. When we pray for those in need - whether in terms of health, or finances, or those who mourn, or who are struggling with addiction or whatever - I do not believe we should be looking for God to "do something" beyond being present, providing strength, and offering an opportunity for others in the church community to actively participate in the support of those in need.
More important, I believe that intercession should be limited in our communal prayer life. We should be coming to God in humility, seeking to confess our collective brokenness, seek collective wisdom and guidance, and offer up prayers for the communities in which we live - prayers not for physical healing so much as for the life and spiritual health of these communities.
I figure that, since I have said that God doesn't really care all that much about the trivia and minutiae of our lives, I might as well be consistent and offer the view that God doesn't really care all that much about whether or not Aunt Martha has cancer. At least, God does not see disease and struggle and death as evils to be combated but as part of our life as embodied creatures. It is part of living as God's creatures that we will face such struggles, and should do so in the full acceptance that this, too, is part of being creatures. After all, God calls us, to quote yet again Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to die, it seems to me unlikely that God will make sure we live without the pain of suffering through a disease.
The suffering with which we Christians are called to live in solidarity is not the suffering of individuals facing physical ailment or discomfort, or the (inevitable) emotional pain of loss, but the suffering caused by human sin. That is to say, our intercessions should be for those whose lives are full of pain, and who are separated from the rest of the community either through deliberate exclusion, or the complex of circumstances that we often call "social forces". We should also seek to confess our participation in those institutions and practices that seek to exclude, that break our relations with others. While not excluding lifting up those suffering physical ailment or emotional pain, we should rather see this as a small part of our collective prayer life, and seek instead to offer our hope that we, too, will be the Church for those who need it.
More On Who Is And Is Not A Regular Guy
After my initial thoughts yesterday, in which I wondered aloud about the whole "regular guy" thing offered by that idiot Christ Matthews - and, yes, I will admit a bit of personal pique because I have an advanced degree but consider myself a "regular person" - I came across this post at Hullabaloo this morning, highlighting an interview with Karl Rove (why listen to this joker?) in which he says, among other things, the following:
This way of creating non-patriots out of thin air goes back to the campaigns of George Wallace and Richard Nixon, who piggy-backed on Wallace's success. The emergence of the "southern strategy" was not just a way to use coded language to lure southern whites away from the Democratic Party by reassuring them that the Republicans would defend the peculiar institutions of white supremacy. It helped create the appearance of an emergent national majority by appealing - rhetorically if not electorally - to what became known in the literature as "urban ethnics". One of the principle researchers on the relationship between ethnicity and political identity, Andrew Greeley, did his most influential work in the early 1970's, and discovered that "urban ethnics" - self-identifying members of various national groups usually a generation or two removed from arrival in the US - were the most resistant to Civil Rights, feminism, anti-Vietnam War rhetoric, and other liberal causes.
Greeley's findings included the discovery that part of this lay in a certain sense of ethnic solidarity, as well as resentment, a resentment exploited by Wallace and later Nixon with all his blather about "the silent majority". The politics of racial and cultural division began not with the phony "race hustlers" but with racist white politicians who separated groups along a cultural, rather than socio-economic, divide. The end result of the politics of racial and ethnic division was not so much the creation of a Republican majority through the emergence, by the late-1970's and 1980 of "Reagan Democrats" but the depoliticization of an entire class of formerly engaged groups. The Republicans promised solidarity with what can best be described as the emerging petit bourgeoisie, but delivered little. By the time of the 1980 Presidential election, the lack of any coherent policy left the Republicans with a wonderful political advantage - they could continue to appeal to white ethnics, who would not vote, so they had no reason to follow through.
My problem with Greeley's research is that, by focusing on "ethnicity" as a variable - and it should be noted that he did in fact control for income and other economic variables - he further broke up any sense of solidarity among various voting blocs, creating a situation now where people like Chris Matthews can carry on about "the Irish" and "regular people" in ways that make no sense in regard to our current ethnic complexity, our socio-economic conditions, educational attainment, and other factors. In other words, this is an old way of thinking. Familiar, yes, and rooted in a passing snapshot of the American people, but hardly indicative of where we are now.
The fact that various folks, including an idiotic lip-flapper and dime-novel political manipulator, continue to talk this way shows how bereft our public discourse is; the transparency, the falseness of this entire way of discussing who we are, and what our politics is like should be obvious. The fact that Karl Rove can accuse others of being elitist - that's chutzpah, a sign of really big balls, rhetorically speaking (of course).
There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em. Which he is. That comment where he said, you know, "After 9/11, I didn't wear a flag lapel pin because true patriotism consists of speaking out on the issues, not wearing a flag lapel pin"? Well, to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism. It's a statement of their patriotic love of the country. And for him to sit there and dismiss it as he did—
This way of creating non-patriots out of thin air goes back to the campaigns of George Wallace and Richard Nixon, who piggy-backed on Wallace's success. The emergence of the "southern strategy" was not just a way to use coded language to lure southern whites away from the Democratic Party by reassuring them that the Republicans would defend the peculiar institutions of white supremacy. It helped create the appearance of an emergent national majority by appealing - rhetorically if not electorally - to what became known in the literature as "urban ethnics". One of the principle researchers on the relationship between ethnicity and political identity, Andrew Greeley, did his most influential work in the early 1970's, and discovered that "urban ethnics" - self-identifying members of various national groups usually a generation or two removed from arrival in the US - were the most resistant to Civil Rights, feminism, anti-Vietnam War rhetoric, and other liberal causes.
Greeley's findings included the discovery that part of this lay in a certain sense of ethnic solidarity, as well as resentment, a resentment exploited by Wallace and later Nixon with all his blather about "the silent majority". The politics of racial and cultural division began not with the phony "race hustlers" but with racist white politicians who separated groups along a cultural, rather than socio-economic, divide. The end result of the politics of racial and ethnic division was not so much the creation of a Republican majority through the emergence, by the late-1970's and 1980 of "Reagan Democrats" but the depoliticization of an entire class of formerly engaged groups. The Republicans promised solidarity with what can best be described as the emerging petit bourgeoisie, but delivered little. By the time of the 1980 Presidential election, the lack of any coherent policy left the Republicans with a wonderful political advantage - they could continue to appeal to white ethnics, who would not vote, so they had no reason to follow through.
My problem with Greeley's research is that, by focusing on "ethnicity" as a variable - and it should be noted that he did in fact control for income and other economic variables - he further broke up any sense of solidarity among various voting blocs, creating a situation now where people like Chris Matthews can carry on about "the Irish" and "regular people" in ways that make no sense in regard to our current ethnic complexity, our socio-economic conditions, educational attainment, and other factors. In other words, this is an old way of thinking. Familiar, yes, and rooted in a passing snapshot of the American people, but hardly indicative of where we are now.
The fact that various folks, including an idiotic lip-flapper and dime-novel political manipulator, continue to talk this way shows how bereft our public discourse is; the transparency, the falseness of this entire way of discussing who we are, and what our politics is like should be obvious. The fact that Karl Rove can accuse others of being elitist - that's chutzpah, a sign of really big balls, rhetorically speaking (of course).
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
What's In A Name
Shakespeare had Romeo ask that question, not quite rhetorically, because he loved a woman who was the member of a family of mortal enemies of his own family. To Romeo, besotted, names meant nothing. That, it seems, is the approach all adults should take, when name calling comes up.
In that spirit, the man Gen. Tommy Franks called "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet" is now calling those who protest the Bush Administration's torture policy "assholes". Which name would you rather wear, considering the sources?
In that spirit, the man Gen. Tommy Franks called "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet" is now calling those who protest the Bush Administration's torture policy "assholes". Which name would you rather wear, considering the sources?
A Good Critique Of The (False) God Of Creationism
Tristero at Hullabaloo writes frequently on the topic of creationism. His attacks on this pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religious ideology of ignorance occasionally pour over in to hyperbole, but this post nails the entire subject on its puny head. Using an "article" in a "creation science" site as a jumping off point - it looks at a bacterial endo-parasite and comes to no analytical conclusion other than, "Wow, that's really complex! God musta dood it!" - he (?) writes the following:
They cloak their ignorance in awe at the false god of their own creation and call it the Lord of the Universe.
Idolatry.
[L]et's play a thought experiment and simply accept the conclusion that it is "irreducibly complex" and God did indeed design a life history of trematode parasites. It isn't and it evolved, but you know, let's just say, for the sake of argument.
So what?
What a far cry that concept of God is from the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible, smiting enemies hither and yon, making the sun stand still! Gone is the God of the Gospels with a redemptive message of forgiveness uttered from the mouth of a crucified man betrayed and abandoned by his closest followers. This God, the God of creationism, is a dorky obsessive compulsive preoccupied with minutiae - I expect this God to wash His hands every five minutes and to check the locks.
In short, creationists provide a trivializing notion of what is meant by God, an illustration that "God of the Gaps" is not only non-science but crummy theology. Sure, the life history of trematode parasites will be explainable by natural causes should anyone care enough to study it closely (or, strictly speaking if you insist, it's far too early to throw up one's hands and say, "I dunno, whatever"). More importantly, no non-scientist searching for the meaning of God cares one way or the other whether the development of trematode parasites are "irreducibly complex." No one will ever start a prayer, "O God, without whom trematode parasites would not now live their parasitic lives in fish guts..."
What a bleak, sad universe these people live in. Bad enough their view of reality is thoroughly out of focus. They have a stunted imagination to boot.
They cloak their ignorance in awe at the false god of their own creation and call it the Lord of the Universe.
Idolatry.
Some Things I Just Don't Understand
While I know it irks ER no end to call Chris Matthews a journalist, for better or worse he is one, and he lets his neuroses and just plain oddness hang out there for all to see and hear. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the guy who had to wipe drool off his chin at the sight of Pres. Bush in his flight suit back on "Mission Accomplished" day would wax all stereotypically gender about Obama's bowling score. What I don't get is the whole "regular guy" shtick, especially the whole business about being educated.
I have an advanced degree, yet I work at a job that pays less than $12.00/hr. I work third shift, with lousy benefits - do I qualify as part regular guy, part effete latte-sipping elitist? What, exactly, makes someone "regular people"? My wife and I struggle from paycheck to paycheck, like most folks, and we always seem to be just a step, or even half-step, ahead of serious financial trouble. Both of us have Master's Degrees, my wife is an accomplished professional, influential in both our local community and within her chosen profession. We both enjoy Starbucks, Borders, jazz, and are raising our children without cable or satellite television. I write occasionally on abstruse topics in philosophy and theology, always with one eye on the fact that I have to be as clear as possible because, while it might make perfect sense to me, it doesn't to others.
This entire way of framing political discussions just doesn't really make any sense to me. I read enough stuff to know that some people carry a huge chip on their shoulders because they might not be as educated or "worldly" or whatever as others. In discussions with some such on the 'net, I have always found it interesting - and occasionally infuriating - that such people automatically assume that I view them, and their opinions, as less worthy of consideration not because they are logically flawed, or based upon factually inaccurate premises, or are poorly organized, but out of some built-in bias against those whose educational or other achievements are not the same as my own. I do not have any corner on any special knowledge or wisdom or information, and seek to learn from anyone and everyone. At the same time, I refuse to put up with nonsense cloaked in self-righteous indignation that he or she is entitled to some pass because, while not educated, his or her opinion comes from "regular people".
While probably standing accused by my own words as a hypocrite, I feel I have the virtue of at least admitting my own limitations, the probability of being wrong, and not believing there is any such thing as a privileged opinion from which to argue.
Matthews is such a chowder head (yes, that is an ad hominem attack; sue me).
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you about how he -- how's he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?
I have an advanced degree, yet I work at a job that pays less than $12.00/hr. I work third shift, with lousy benefits - do I qualify as part regular guy, part effete latte-sipping elitist? What, exactly, makes someone "regular people"? My wife and I struggle from paycheck to paycheck, like most folks, and we always seem to be just a step, or even half-step, ahead of serious financial trouble. Both of us have Master's Degrees, my wife is an accomplished professional, influential in both our local community and within her chosen profession. We both enjoy Starbucks, Borders, jazz, and are raising our children without cable or satellite television. I write occasionally on abstruse topics in philosophy and theology, always with one eye on the fact that I have to be as clear as possible because, while it might make perfect sense to me, it doesn't to others.
This entire way of framing political discussions just doesn't really make any sense to me. I read enough stuff to know that some people carry a huge chip on their shoulders because they might not be as educated or "worldly" or whatever as others. In discussions with some such on the 'net, I have always found it interesting - and occasionally infuriating - that such people automatically assume that I view them, and their opinions, as less worthy of consideration not because they are logically flawed, or based upon factually inaccurate premises, or are poorly organized, but out of some built-in bias against those whose educational or other achievements are not the same as my own. I do not have any corner on any special knowledge or wisdom or information, and seek to learn from anyone and everyone. At the same time, I refuse to put up with nonsense cloaked in self-righteous indignation that he or she is entitled to some pass because, while not educated, his or her opinion comes from "regular people".
While probably standing accused by my own words as a hypocrite, I feel I have the virtue of at least admitting my own limitations, the probability of being wrong, and not believing there is any such thing as a privileged opinion from which to argue.
Matthews is such a chowder head (yes, that is an ad hominem attack; sue me).
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Matt Yglesias Expresses Bafflement
In this little post on the determination of the Bush Administration to get Ukraine in to NATO, Matt Yglesias writes the following:
The answer is simple, really. The Bush Administration is fundamentally and deeply incompetent, doing and acting in ways that undermine, from top to bottom, our national security and our standing in the world. I would have thought that was understood by now, with no need to express befuddlement at the latest example of such behavior.
The failure of U.S. policymakers to set priorities is a bit baffling. Why not ease up on Ukraine and try to work with Russia on stuff that matters more?
The answer is simple, really. The Bush Administration is fundamentally and deeply incompetent, doing and acting in ways that undermine, from top to bottom, our national security and our standing in the world. I would have thought that was understood by now, with no need to express befuddlement at the latest example of such behavior.
Death, Lies, Corruption - And Not A Word About Politics
One of those days where there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interesting stuff out there. So, I turn film critic. Look how clever and profound I am!
I am currently watching The Departed in stages, due to the fact that I can't watch it while the kids are awake. The latest Martin Scorcese gangster film, based upon a Japanese film, The Departed examines the parallel lives of a corrupt Massachusetts State Police officer in hack to southie gangster Frank Costello and an undercover cop who is so far inside Costello's organization that, in the end, he's the only one Costello trusts. One thing to note about this film is the prevalence of death - from family and friends of the main characters to anonymous bloody corpses to, in the end, just about everyone (the ending is like Hamlet or Macbeth with everyone dying off). There isn't a single weak performance in the film; even Leonardo DiCaprio, whom I thought was channeling Ray Liotta's performance in Goodfellas the first time I saw The Departed, gives an outstanding performance as a fundamentally good man caught through his dedication to his job in a situation that leaves his judgment and sense of himself impaired. Matt Damon, playing the corrupt cop, is so sleazy I always wonder how his girlfriend, played by Vera Farmiga, can't see through him.
Of course, she does in a way. In an intersection of lives that seems far-fetched but only because we don't realize how close both men are to one another, DiCaprio sleeps with Farmiga - a state-employed psychiatrist who counsels both police officers and convicts on probation - in a scene using as background music Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb". I told Lisa last night how clever Scorcese was in doing that because it is the one moment in the lives of both these characters filled with unabashed honesty. Each does so, I think, for his and her own reasons, but they are each as far from numb, for those brief moments, as can be. They are making love because they are each feeling too much, and face lives in which they cannot let their feelings show - DiCaprio cannot let his real identity or feelings show if he wants to live; Farmiga cannot let Damon know she is disappointed in Damon's sexual inadequacy, or the fleeting thought (confirmed later in the movie) that he isn't the superstar cop he pretends. Each wounded - DiCaprio forces Farmiga to admit she not only does lie, but would continue to do so (not the characteristics one would want in a psychotherapist) - and trapped, they find a few minutes of honest emotional and physical solace in each other.
Subsequent to this particular scene, Dicaprio learns that the levels of deception and subterfuge run even deeper than was previously imagined. The web of lies, and the inexorable flow of events toward what can only be understood as the inevitable result of all the lies and betrayal, creates a situation in which the choices open to the characters become limited. DiCaprio faces the possibility of redemption through the ultimate heroic act; Damon faces not just death, which he would welcome, but humiliation, which he does not wish to face. In a turn of events, Damon becomes the hero, while Dicaprio dies, his identity (but not his suffering) acknowledged only post mortem, only to face his own death not with courage (which he does not have) but resignation.
One question the film does not answer is this - at what point do we untangle the webs of deceit that ensnare our lives? Is it even possible? While using the extreme circumstances of mob life and the necessary deception of undercover police work as a context, like Goodfellas and Bringing Out The Dead, Scorcese uses unusual circumstances to force us to look at the ways all the qualities and virtues we hold in high esteem, and the vices we abhor, are far more complex than we think, and exist within contexts in which they can look exactly like their opposite. Do any of us truly live lives of virtue and integrity, so unsullied by the necessary restrictions and limits of all the larger forces and contexts of our lives that we can look ourselves and our loved ones in the eye without fear or a sense of our own viciousness? Both Damon and DiCaprio display loyalty, betrayal, a tendency towards violence and a desire to not be sullied by violence, love for a woman while not being able to fully consummate that love (Damon physically, DiCaprio by not being present), and a desire to have the webs of deceit and all the tangled threads of lies and betrayal torn off, so each can be who they see themselves as - DiCaprio as just another state police officer, Damon as the hero wunderkind who saves the day for everyone. Of course, that great equalizer, the star of this movie - death - is the only real truth, the only thing that unwinds all those knots and cords and leave all the characters the same - a bloody corpse whose final identity is nothing more than the sum total of other people's stories about them.
Our identity, it seems, no matter how hard we try, is in the hands of those who recall us after we become the departed.
I am currently watching The Departed in stages, due to the fact that I can't watch it while the kids are awake. The latest Martin Scorcese gangster film, based upon a Japanese film, The Departed examines the parallel lives of a corrupt Massachusetts State Police officer in hack to southie gangster Frank Costello and an undercover cop who is so far inside Costello's organization that, in the end, he's the only one Costello trusts. One thing to note about this film is the prevalence of death - from family and friends of the main characters to anonymous bloody corpses to, in the end, just about everyone (the ending is like Hamlet or Macbeth with everyone dying off). There isn't a single weak performance in the film; even Leonardo DiCaprio, whom I thought was channeling Ray Liotta's performance in Goodfellas the first time I saw The Departed, gives an outstanding performance as a fundamentally good man caught through his dedication to his job in a situation that leaves his judgment and sense of himself impaired. Matt Damon, playing the corrupt cop, is so sleazy I always wonder how his girlfriend, played by Vera Farmiga, can't see through him.
Of course, she does in a way. In an intersection of lives that seems far-fetched but only because we don't realize how close both men are to one another, DiCaprio sleeps with Farmiga - a state-employed psychiatrist who counsels both police officers and convicts on probation - in a scene using as background music Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb". I told Lisa last night how clever Scorcese was in doing that because it is the one moment in the lives of both these characters filled with unabashed honesty. Each does so, I think, for his and her own reasons, but they are each as far from numb, for those brief moments, as can be. They are making love because they are each feeling too much, and face lives in which they cannot let their feelings show - DiCaprio cannot let his real identity or feelings show if he wants to live; Farmiga cannot let Damon know she is disappointed in Damon's sexual inadequacy, or the fleeting thought (confirmed later in the movie) that he isn't the superstar cop he pretends. Each wounded - DiCaprio forces Farmiga to admit she not only does lie, but would continue to do so (not the characteristics one would want in a psychotherapist) - and trapped, they find a few minutes of honest emotional and physical solace in each other.
Subsequent to this particular scene, Dicaprio learns that the levels of deception and subterfuge run even deeper than was previously imagined. The web of lies, and the inexorable flow of events toward what can only be understood as the inevitable result of all the lies and betrayal, creates a situation in which the choices open to the characters become limited. DiCaprio faces the possibility of redemption through the ultimate heroic act; Damon faces not just death, which he would welcome, but humiliation, which he does not wish to face. In a turn of events, Damon becomes the hero, while Dicaprio dies, his identity (but not his suffering) acknowledged only post mortem, only to face his own death not with courage (which he does not have) but resignation.
One question the film does not answer is this - at what point do we untangle the webs of deceit that ensnare our lives? Is it even possible? While using the extreme circumstances of mob life and the necessary deception of undercover police work as a context, like Goodfellas and Bringing Out The Dead, Scorcese uses unusual circumstances to force us to look at the ways all the qualities and virtues we hold in high esteem, and the vices we abhor, are far more complex than we think, and exist within contexts in which they can look exactly like their opposite. Do any of us truly live lives of virtue and integrity, so unsullied by the necessary restrictions and limits of all the larger forces and contexts of our lives that we can look ourselves and our loved ones in the eye without fear or a sense of our own viciousness? Both Damon and DiCaprio display loyalty, betrayal, a tendency towards violence and a desire to not be sullied by violence, love for a woman while not being able to fully consummate that love (Damon physically, DiCaprio by not being present), and a desire to have the webs of deceit and all the tangled threads of lies and betrayal torn off, so each can be who they see themselves as - DiCaprio as just another state police officer, Damon as the hero wunderkind who saves the day for everyone. Of course, that great equalizer, the star of this movie - death - is the only real truth, the only thing that unwinds all those knots and cords and leave all the characters the same - a bloody corpse whose final identity is nothing more than the sum total of other people's stories about them.
Our identity, it seems, no matter how hard we try, is in the hands of those who recall us after we become the departed.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Music Monday
Before I figured out how easy it was to post videos from YouTube, I did a little promo on Seal. To atone for my former ignorance, here he is. By the way, for those who may not know, his facial scarring is characteristic of lupus. Yet, he still managed to marry Heidi Klum.
Time, History, And Necessity - Some Reflections From Watching An Old Star Trek Episode
I know it will make Alan happy to read that I admit watching Star Trek.
My family was watching the episode "The City On The Edge Of Forever" from the original series, and I got to thinking about the whole issue of history, contingency, and whether, in a case such as the one presented, there were or could be any choices to which the label "correct" could be applied. For those born or living under a rock, the episode concerns the accidental alteration of Earth's historical timeline by a drugged Dr. McCoy, and the ultimately successful attempt by Captain Kirk and Lt. Cmdr. Spock to set things aright. McCoy escaped through a time portal to 1930's New York and saved the life of a woman who, not having died, went on to delay American entry in to WWII. Through this delay, the Nazi's managed to win, and the ensuing struggle to toss off the Nazi yoke devastated the world. A minor quibble of mine with this particular episode has been this - if it is true that the moment McCoy went through the portal history was irrevocably changed, why is the landing party still there, rather than winking out of existence?
Anyway, Kirk and Spock manage to get themselves to NY a few days ahead of McCoy and Kirk falls under the spell of a soup-kitchen angel played by Joan Collins. In a rare instance in which Kirk actually shows real emotion, rather than simple tail-chasing, he is confronted with the horrific realization, provided dispassionately by Spock, that Edith Keeler (Joan Collins' character) is the pivot point around which all of human history swings. She must die.
This is the point at which I asked the following question: If Kirk's love for Edith Keeler is real (and we should not doubt it, because we cannot have future episodes of his tomcatting at this point), even knowing that her death saved millions, even billions of lives not yet born, is it a moral choice to allow her to die? Would I make that choice? Could I make that choice?
At this point, I should say that this episode shows the way little things, individual acts, can have drastic, world-historic implications without our ever realizing it. We all stand on the cusp of history, and even the most moral act can possibly have the most tragic consequences. How do we ever know whether the right thing isn't the wrong thing viewed from the future, or vice-versa? There is no way to make these judgments, so it seems to me this episode, in the end, creates a moral equation that is fundamentally flawed. While Kirk and Spock are forewarned, I nonetheless contend that allowing Edith Keeler to die was an immoral act. At this point, the lives that hang in the balance are only potential lives. Furthermore, had they allowed Ms. Keeler to live, they could have stayed, and influenced the course of history in such a way that the US entered the war on time. Or they could have made some other choice. Furthermore, perhaps the manner of Ms. Keeler's death in the episode was not the way it happened in Kirk and Spock's timeline, and their alteration was enough to make other changes.
I would also offer the suggestion that The Matrix trilogy offers the same conundrum - a balance of lives is offered, and Neo takes the one very real life of the woman he loves, in the hope that alternatives exist that had not been envisioned before, rather than sacrifice the one, very real woman he loves on the alter of a false choice offered by those in power as the only "moral" choice available.
What say you?
My family was watching the episode "The City On The Edge Of Forever" from the original series, and I got to thinking about the whole issue of history, contingency, and whether, in a case such as the one presented, there were or could be any choices to which the label "correct" could be applied. For those born or living under a rock, the episode concerns the accidental alteration of Earth's historical timeline by a drugged Dr. McCoy, and the ultimately successful attempt by Captain Kirk and Lt. Cmdr. Spock to set things aright. McCoy escaped through a time portal to 1930's New York and saved the life of a woman who, not having died, went on to delay American entry in to WWII. Through this delay, the Nazi's managed to win, and the ensuing struggle to toss off the Nazi yoke devastated the world. A minor quibble of mine with this particular episode has been this - if it is true that the moment McCoy went through the portal history was irrevocably changed, why is the landing party still there, rather than winking out of existence?
Anyway, Kirk and Spock manage to get themselves to NY a few days ahead of McCoy and Kirk falls under the spell of a soup-kitchen angel played by Joan Collins. In a rare instance in which Kirk actually shows real emotion, rather than simple tail-chasing, he is confronted with the horrific realization, provided dispassionately by Spock, that Edith Keeler (Joan Collins' character) is the pivot point around which all of human history swings. She must die.
This is the point at which I asked the following question: If Kirk's love for Edith Keeler is real (and we should not doubt it, because we cannot have future episodes of his tomcatting at this point), even knowing that her death saved millions, even billions of lives not yet born, is it a moral choice to allow her to die? Would I make that choice? Could I make that choice?
At this point, I should say that this episode shows the way little things, individual acts, can have drastic, world-historic implications without our ever realizing it. We all stand on the cusp of history, and even the most moral act can possibly have the most tragic consequences. How do we ever know whether the right thing isn't the wrong thing viewed from the future, or vice-versa? There is no way to make these judgments, so it seems to me this episode, in the end, creates a moral equation that is fundamentally flawed. While Kirk and Spock are forewarned, I nonetheless contend that allowing Edith Keeler to die was an immoral act. At this point, the lives that hang in the balance are only potential lives. Furthermore, had they allowed Ms. Keeler to live, they could have stayed, and influenced the course of history in such a way that the US entered the war on time. Or they could have made some other choice. Furthermore, perhaps the manner of Ms. Keeler's death in the episode was not the way it happened in Kirk and Spock's timeline, and their alteration was enough to make other changes.
I would also offer the suggestion that The Matrix trilogy offers the same conundrum - a balance of lives is offered, and Neo takes the one very real life of the woman he loves, in the hope that alternatives exist that had not been envisioned before, rather than sacrifice the one, very real woman he loves on the alter of a false choice offered by those in power as the only "moral" choice available.
What say you?
Jane You Ignorant Virgin
Tbogg has a great little piece (no pun intended, but this entire post will be filled with them, so be my guest) on a "club" at Harvard called True Love Revolution. A small group of non-Christians dedicated to celibacy, led by one Janie Fredell, this little band of persevering abstainers seem not so much destined to catch on so much as to catch a lot of flak.
For the record, I think there is nothing wrong with people who choose abstinence. Furthermore, I think there is nothing wrong with people who so choose to band together and even proselytize. I even think there is a certain legitimacy to Ms. Fredell's view that, in our current climate, the choice of abstinence has a certain counter-cultural cachet. Whether one bolsters one's view through the Bible or John Stuart Mill, there is no doubt that in a society in which Girl's Gone Wild seems destined to ever more editions, the fact that some young women and men are willing to save themselves for marriage should be applauded (as well as ridiculed; I do not believe in sacred cows).
Yet, Tbogg notes that Ms. Fredell is less than enlightened concerning the power of the sexual drive.
This is in response to the following from this piece in The New York Times:
So . . . she has no idea that some people actually think about sex a lot. She is horrified at the notion of self-gratification (or self-abuse, depending upon your perspective, I suppose). Her boyfriend's honesty in that regard is refreshing, especially the whole "habit that's so deeply ingrained" part.
A student at Harvard who has no idea that the sex drive is so powerful it actually makes some people distracted as random thoughts enter one's head as they sit in Houghton Library reading John Stuart Mill or Martin Heidegger. Is it any wonder we have folks who have never been to Harvard who believe that sex is ultimately a selfish act (I tried to find the link to Marshall Art's actual line in which he stated his firm belief that sex is inherently selfish, but couldn't)?
For the record, I think there is nothing wrong with people who choose abstinence. Furthermore, I think there is nothing wrong with people who so choose to band together and even proselytize. I even think there is a certain legitimacy to Ms. Fredell's view that, in our current climate, the choice of abstinence has a certain counter-cultural cachet. Whether one bolsters one's view through the Bible or John Stuart Mill, there is no doubt that in a society in which Girl's Gone Wild seems destined to ever more editions, the fact that some young women and men are willing to save themselves for marriage should be applauded (as well as ridiculed; I do not believe in sacred cows).
Yet, Tbogg notes that Ms. Fredell is less than enlightened concerning the power of the sexual drive.
Perhaps I'm just being naive here (even more so than Ms. Fredell) but I have a hard time imagining a twenty-something woman who appears to be fairly bright, bright enough to be accepted into Harvard at least, who is shocked, shocked by the plainly stated fact that men (or women) look at other men (or women) on the street or wherever and think, "I'll have an order of that with nothing on it".
This is in response to the following from this piece in The New York Times:
The one great difference between them seemed to be in their experience of abstinence. Fredell was unaware of that gap. Whenever sexual urges struck, she told me, she was able to manage them by going on a long run and assumed that everyone should be able to do the same. “The biological drive can be overcome,” she said. “It’s not like it reaches a peak, and you have to go out and have sex.”
“And you don’t go down the street thinking you’d like to have sex with him, him, him and him?” I asked.
“No!” she said, abruptly. “Is that what men do?”
It seemed a good time to talk with her about what else Keliher had told me. He described the act he has never experienced as something “breathtakingly powerful” that “lights all of your body on fire.” He spoke of his lust as “this untamed beast.”
Fredell was incredulous: “Leo said that?”
He told me that he struggles constantly against “physical lustful temptation” — that he can be aroused just by a woman’s touch, by even a look at a woman or at a photo or sometimes by “thoughts that just come out of the blue — basically pornography in my head.” They come to him when he’s merely walking around campus, or even when he’s alone in the library — “like a fly buzzing around.”
To the matter of masturbation, he said, “This was really tough for me . . . because when you have a habit that’s so deeply ingrained, it’s hard to stop.”
Fredell, when asked about masturbation, just said, “Oh, God, no!”
So . . . she has no idea that some people actually think about sex a lot. She is horrified at the notion of self-gratification (or self-abuse, depending upon your perspective, I suppose). Her boyfriend's honesty in that regard is refreshing, especially the whole "habit that's so deeply ingrained" part.
A student at Harvard who has no idea that the sex drive is so powerful it actually makes some people distracted as random thoughts enter one's head as they sit in Houghton Library reading John Stuart Mill or Martin Heidegger. Is it any wonder we have folks who have never been to Harvard who believe that sex is ultimately a selfish act (I tried to find the link to Marshall Art's actual line in which he stated his firm belief that sex is inherently selfish, but couldn't)?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Some Reflections On Reflections - The Many-Mirrored Christian Way Of Reading And Living The Bible
Last Sunday's Easter meditation by Pastor Dan concerns Colossians 3:1-4, which is appropriate for a number of reasons. First, the verses, from the Revised English Bible:
This is a description of what it means to be baptized - the early church baptized at sunrise on Easter. We are no longer our own, but "hidden in Christ" we are to live with the light of Christ shining forth through us. As St. Paul says, it isn't he who does what he does, but Christ in him.
Yet, this Christian triumphalism and realized eschatology is tempered, as always, by the reality that "when Christ is revealed, then you too will be revealed with him". In other words, this is not the final reality, nor is it a complete reality. It is that toward which we move, the reality, the context in which we are to understand our lives. We are no longer our own, but servants of God, hidden in Christ to be revealed to all at the end of all things. We live, in a phrase often used but never quite grasped fully, "between the times" (there was a famous German theological journal entitled Zwischen den Zeiten).
What the author of Colossians is writing about here (as the Pauline authorship of the epistle is under dispute, and I do not feel qualified to judge, I leave the question of authorship open) is what became known, in Wesleyan terminology, as sanctification, or as John Wesley called it, "Christian perfection". As we live out our baptism, "working out our salvation in fear and trembling" as Paul said, we continue to shed our propensity towards selfish, self-centered living, the exploitation of others, and the rebellion against God's love that is a part of our make-up. The perfection here is not a perfection of action, but rather the final removal of sinful intent and selfish desire from our conduct with others. It is, to use the phrase most accurately, "perfection in love". Wesley no more believed himself having achieved this final state than he believed the Second Coming had occurred; he did, however, insist that it was a living possibility, and one towards which we should strive. "Entire sanctification" is the phrase most often used to denote this particular state of spiritual enlightenment.
What began on that very first Easter is an on-going project in which more and more people are caught up in the freely offered life hidden in God through Christ. We no longer have to live in fear, or arrogance, or rebellion, but can live moving forward to the day when we are revealed with Christ. It's a journey with many interesting twists and turns, but as we surrender our rebellious ways, we may actually find more and more peace along the way.
Were you not raised with Christ? Then aspire to the realms above, where Christ is, seated at God's right hand, and fix your thoughts on that higher realm, not on this earthly life. You died; and now your life lies hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you too will be revealed with him in glory.
This is a description of what it means to be baptized - the early church baptized at sunrise on Easter. We are no longer our own, but "hidden in Christ" we are to live with the light of Christ shining forth through us. As St. Paul says, it isn't he who does what he does, but Christ in him.
Yet, this Christian triumphalism and realized eschatology is tempered, as always, by the reality that "when Christ is revealed, then you too will be revealed with him". In other words, this is not the final reality, nor is it a complete reality. It is that toward which we move, the reality, the context in which we are to understand our lives. We are no longer our own, but servants of God, hidden in Christ to be revealed to all at the end of all things. We live, in a phrase often used but never quite grasped fully, "between the times" (there was a famous German theological journal entitled Zwischen den Zeiten).
What the author of Colossians is writing about here (as the Pauline authorship of the epistle is under dispute, and I do not feel qualified to judge, I leave the question of authorship open) is what became known, in Wesleyan terminology, as sanctification, or as John Wesley called it, "Christian perfection". As we live out our baptism, "working out our salvation in fear and trembling" as Paul said, we continue to shed our propensity towards selfish, self-centered living, the exploitation of others, and the rebellion against God's love that is a part of our make-up. The perfection here is not a perfection of action, but rather the final removal of sinful intent and selfish desire from our conduct with others. It is, to use the phrase most accurately, "perfection in love". Wesley no more believed himself having achieved this final state than he believed the Second Coming had occurred; he did, however, insist that it was a living possibility, and one towards which we should strive. "Entire sanctification" is the phrase most often used to denote this particular state of spiritual enlightenment.
What began on that very first Easter is an on-going project in which more and more people are caught up in the freely offered life hidden in God through Christ. We no longer have to live in fear, or arrogance, or rebellion, but can live moving forward to the day when we are revealed with Christ. It's a journey with many interesting twists and turns, but as we surrender our rebellious ways, we may actually find more and more peace along the way.
Guilt, Responsibility, And Hope In Regards To Race
If there is anything that frustrates me more when it comes to discussing race in America, it is the term "white guilt". I sometimes wonder how anyone can just leave that term sit there, without addressing it directly. Invented as a straw argument to deflect attention from the issue at hand, it creates an aura of responsibility-free social relations in which contemporary white America can move free from any of the historical and present burdens of white supremacy and privilege. As someone who is so white I am almost transparent, I do believe I am qualified to address this issue; as someone lucky enough to have African-American friends patient enough and loving enough to help me see the world through their eyes, I feel even more qualified to address this issue, because I have had the opportunity of people telling me, and showing me, how the world looks, and is lived, through eyes other than my own.
For those who might be interested in context, this particular post is a response to this comment by ELAshley over at a thread at ER's blog. Rather than take up space there, I thought I would respond here. Here is the comment in full:
One minor quibble with this comment can be dispensed with easily enough. I the second to last paragraph, he writes that we should demand that our politicians "fix the culture". That isn't the way it works, nor should it. In a land with freedom of expression, we should allow and open up all sorts of cultural experiments, rather than restrict them. Politics will always be behind the curve when it comes to cultural expression. Rather than surrender to those who whine the most, we should accept even those expressions we find abhorrent - especially because they represent part of what America is. This goes equally for the left and right.
The bulk of my own reflection concerns the opening paragraph, however, in which he quite explicitly absolves himself of any responsibility for dealing honestly with our history because he was not a slave owner, nor did he participate in lynching, nor any other example of extreme racial violence. He sees appeals to these realities as instilling something called white guilt, the perpetuation of a sense of remorse on our part for these historic cruelties.
This particular point of view, while prevalent, is a distraction, the creation of those who do not wish the issue of race to be addressed. I am not saying that ELAshley is a racist. I am saying the line of argument he is employing is a creation of racists, however. Accepting this particular set of terms with which to conduct a discussion of race, while seemingly high-minded, in fact misses the point and offers a straw argument that allows those who bear the fruits of our racist past to avoid seeing and accepting responsibility for the role we continue to play in keeping it alive.
History isn't something we can pick and choose. It is, to our collective life, like genetics. It is built in to the very fiber of our being as a people. It is not determinative - I do not believe in fate - but it certainly creates conditions and circumstances and a context which can restrict the choices available to us. Our nation is one with a horrendous history of racially-inspired violence. Enshrined in our Constitution with the one-third clause, which in turn was interpreted by Chief Justice Roger Taney as declaring that no blacks had any rights a white person need respect (in Dred Scott v. Sanford), and returning after the Civil War with the introduction of racial segregation and socio-economic peonage across much of the former Confederacy, we have not just a social history of racial violence, but an official, legal history with which to contend.
Even more insidious, we are the beneficiaries of the economic exploitation of blacks, sitting on piles of wealth gained through the enslaved sweat of other human beings. This collective economic capital is a reminder that our national wealth was stolen from its rightful owners through legal means. Consider, just for a moment, the insurance industry. While still early in its formation, and hardly the financial giant it would become, it is nonetheless true that several antecedents to currently existing insurance companies made money by insuring the personal property of slave owners, including slaves. Furthermore, these same slaves, used as human capital, were capital assets individuals used as collateral for loans with banks, enriching banks through the income from interest payments. Nascent southern industry was highly profitable precisely because it used wage-free slave labor - fees were paid to slave owners which were far below what might have been paid as wages.
These examples, and they are just a sampling of the way our collective wealth was accumulated through slavery, should be proof enough that we sit atop piles of money drenched in the blood and sweat of those denied any human rights, indeed any humanity at all. While I, or ELAhsley, or whomever, might not personally profit from such wealth, our nation as a whole is far wealthier than it might otherwise be precisely because of slave labor. This stolen wealth lies at the heart of part of the argument, not just for responsibility, but for reparations as well.
Now, to be more pointed, the issue of "guilt" sounds very high-minded, but by removing oneself from any historic chain of responsibility by this trick, we are in the presence of someone who is denying not just personal responsibility for these past crimes (which I would hardly endorse), but from current participation in a society benefiting from the past exploitation and violence directed against an entire class of individuals. No human being exists free from the weight of history; it can be liberating, to be sure, but it also is false, because we cannot escape history that way. Part of being a responsible human being includes accepting the burdens history places upon us as individuals who bear this weight. There is no "white guilt", the creation of blacks and white liberals to perpetuate a sense of victimhood among blacks and perpetual agony among whites for past grievances. Rather, there is the responsibility we, as the inheritors of wealth and myriad social and cultural benefits bear. To those to whom much is given, much is also required.
My hope, in regards to the on-going discussion of race, is that we can actually move past this phony argument, expose it for the fallacious non-argument it is, and deal with the issue honestly. My further hope is that we can be honest enough to see ways to see race not as the stumbling block or destroyer of our social fabric, but part of the warp and woof of our collective lives; for all the hatred and bitterness and violence, it is inescapable as a social and historical fact of our lives as Americans. I would much rather we face it as it is, rather than pretend it exists other than it does.
For those who might be interested in context, this particular post is a response to this comment by ELAshley over at a thread at ER's blog. Rather than take up space there, I thought I would respond here. Here is the comment in full:
"we are just a bit late to get into the game of moral rectitude. And once we enter it, our efforts at righteousness tend to fail the test of sincerity."
I might agree with this had I personally been alive during the aforementioned slave trade and genocide, but I wasn't. Tim Wise therefore should look to his own tie when he decides again to suggest I'm a bit late into the game; or you for that matter, ER. We're not late! We're right on time!
I might agree if any Blacks today lived as slaves, or any indigenous people living today had suffered genocide in this country. Again, Mr. Wise should look to his own presumptuous tie before suggesting I have no business being outraged by the level of outrage and misplaced venom Jeremiah Wright spills from his lips.
Mr. Wise gets it very wrong if he thinks Wright is merely "reminding" us of America's past. Wright's rhetoric condemns the Present because of the past. You, ER, are not your father. Nor your grandfather. You are not responsible for their sins.
As to responsibility, I have NONE whatsoever except to ensure it never happens again. That's not to say I don't acknowledge the past; how can I not!? But I cannot change the past, neither can you or anyone else. Drlobojo is right; it's time to rethink race, class, and ethnicity in America, NOT dredge up a past that has little relevance to where we are today.
There's a lot we can do to make things better for Blacks specifically. But if you really want to feel guilty for their plight in America, then blame yourself for what this government did, in OUR lifetime, to separate fathers from their families just so their families could have food and shelter.... in the projects. Feel guilty about this governments policy of rewarding illegitimate births. Feel guilty about the quality of entertainment these young children receive through music, television, and bling; steeped in degradation, misogyny, hedonism, drugs and booty.
Fix the culture. Demand it of D.C. Demand they stop all the social experimentation and go back to what worked. Stop castigating men like Bill Cosby for speaking the truth, and for God's sake stop rewarding race pimps like Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and Wright for perpetuating the scam of Black Victimhood.
Tim Wise's essay may have been well written, but it's filled with crap.
One minor quibble with this comment can be dispensed with easily enough. I the second to last paragraph, he writes that we should demand that our politicians "fix the culture". That isn't the way it works, nor should it. In a land with freedom of expression, we should allow and open up all sorts of cultural experiments, rather than restrict them. Politics will always be behind the curve when it comes to cultural expression. Rather than surrender to those who whine the most, we should accept even those expressions we find abhorrent - especially because they represent part of what America is. This goes equally for the left and right.
The bulk of my own reflection concerns the opening paragraph, however, in which he quite explicitly absolves himself of any responsibility for dealing honestly with our history because he was not a slave owner, nor did he participate in lynching, nor any other example of extreme racial violence. He sees appeals to these realities as instilling something called white guilt, the perpetuation of a sense of remorse on our part for these historic cruelties.
This particular point of view, while prevalent, is a distraction, the creation of those who do not wish the issue of race to be addressed. I am not saying that ELAshley is a racist. I am saying the line of argument he is employing is a creation of racists, however. Accepting this particular set of terms with which to conduct a discussion of race, while seemingly high-minded, in fact misses the point and offers a straw argument that allows those who bear the fruits of our racist past to avoid seeing and accepting responsibility for the role we continue to play in keeping it alive.
History isn't something we can pick and choose. It is, to our collective life, like genetics. It is built in to the very fiber of our being as a people. It is not determinative - I do not believe in fate - but it certainly creates conditions and circumstances and a context which can restrict the choices available to us. Our nation is one with a horrendous history of racially-inspired violence. Enshrined in our Constitution with the one-third clause, which in turn was interpreted by Chief Justice Roger Taney as declaring that no blacks had any rights a white person need respect (in Dred Scott v. Sanford), and returning after the Civil War with the introduction of racial segregation and socio-economic peonage across much of the former Confederacy, we have not just a social history of racial violence, but an official, legal history with which to contend.
Even more insidious, we are the beneficiaries of the economic exploitation of blacks, sitting on piles of wealth gained through the enslaved sweat of other human beings. This collective economic capital is a reminder that our national wealth was stolen from its rightful owners through legal means. Consider, just for a moment, the insurance industry. While still early in its formation, and hardly the financial giant it would become, it is nonetheless true that several antecedents to currently existing insurance companies made money by insuring the personal property of slave owners, including slaves. Furthermore, these same slaves, used as human capital, were capital assets individuals used as collateral for loans with banks, enriching banks through the income from interest payments. Nascent southern industry was highly profitable precisely because it used wage-free slave labor - fees were paid to slave owners which were far below what might have been paid as wages.
These examples, and they are just a sampling of the way our collective wealth was accumulated through slavery, should be proof enough that we sit atop piles of money drenched in the blood and sweat of those denied any human rights, indeed any humanity at all. While I, or ELAhsley, or whomever, might not personally profit from such wealth, our nation as a whole is far wealthier than it might otherwise be precisely because of slave labor. This stolen wealth lies at the heart of part of the argument, not just for responsibility, but for reparations as well.
Now, to be more pointed, the issue of "guilt" sounds very high-minded, but by removing oneself from any historic chain of responsibility by this trick, we are in the presence of someone who is denying not just personal responsibility for these past crimes (which I would hardly endorse), but from current participation in a society benefiting from the past exploitation and violence directed against an entire class of individuals. No human being exists free from the weight of history; it can be liberating, to be sure, but it also is false, because we cannot escape history that way. Part of being a responsible human being includes accepting the burdens history places upon us as individuals who bear this weight. There is no "white guilt", the creation of blacks and white liberals to perpetuate a sense of victimhood among blacks and perpetual agony among whites for past grievances. Rather, there is the responsibility we, as the inheritors of wealth and myriad social and cultural benefits bear. To those to whom much is given, much is also required.
My hope, in regards to the on-going discussion of race, is that we can actually move past this phony argument, expose it for the fallacious non-argument it is, and deal with the issue honestly. My further hope is that we can be honest enough to see ways to see race not as the stumbling block or destroyer of our social fabric, but part of the warp and woof of our collective lives; for all the hatred and bitterness and violence, it is inescapable as a social and historical fact of our lives as Americans. I would much rather we face it as it is, rather than pretend it exists other than it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
