Some Thoughts On Human Sexuality And Gender

I've written enough on sexuality to have it be, in a way, a running sub-topic here. I'm not sure I have a single post, though, that, given the limits of the medium, sum up my own thoughts on human sexuality from my own perspective. Given a boost by the ladies, however, I thought I'd take a crack at addressing the questions posed at the link.

Has the nature of modern drift and loss of obligation created a crisis in masculinity? Has the precedence of “equality” as a modern value destroyed the erotic pleasures of gender roles (whether or not they are socially or biologically determined)? What does hierarchy have to do with the erotic, and how does queer identity complicate this? What would Kirkian-conservative feminism look like?

To the first question, I suppose one could wonder whether there is a "crisis in masculinity". The real challenge to masculinity is not anomie; rather it is, and continues to be, the refusal of many men to accept the social and sexual equality of women. With the advent of the pill, no-fault divorce, and legalized abortion-on-demand, women are now as free as men once were to pursue sexual adventure without fear of issue. This sudden freedom, combined with a rising social and political consciousness among women that occurred about the same time, redefined forever the relationship between men and women. Women are no longer the passive recipients, the tools of male pleasure, but just as freely may pursue carnal pleasure for its own sake.

Except, of course, the old stereotypes remain. "Slut" is still a viable English word. As is "whore". We have given women the tools to live as men have always lived, but have not freed ourselves (speaking as a man) from the decision to label women who choose so to live as immoral, unwomanly. Rather than respect a woman who is free enough and strong enough to pursue and experiment with her sexuality the way men have always done, we would rather settle for the old whore/virgin syndrome. There are women whose sexual favors we enjoy (the whore) and there are women who are "moral" enough to raise our children and keep our homes, even as we continue to run around with because we can't get the kind of sexual satisfaction we seem to crave from the mothers of our children and the keepers of our home fires.

This "crisis of masculinity" is really more fear and resentment than anything else.

Related to this question is the second, concerning the way changing gender roles have impacted erotic pleasure. How often have we read some right-wing public figure dismiss feminists as "ugly", "can't get a date", that kind of thing? These neutered females, stripped of their erotic selves my men with power, become stand-ins for the women who have rejected these men over the years. Nothing is more threatening to a man than a woman who proves through her life that she is in no need of a man for her personal, professional, and sexual fulfillment. Rather than something men pursue as a matter of male privilege, erotic enjoyment is far more a negotiation between equals. Those men who still think that women should be passive recipients of male virility rather than equal partners of a mutually fulfilling encounter - and that fulfillment should extend beyond the mere physical pleasure, but be emotional, even spiritual - are unable to negotiate this new reality. They turn their rage at those who seem to embody this rejection - the women who are most vocal about insisting on an equal footing in bed, as it were.

All the same, equality should, for all intents and purposes, increase erotic pleasure; rather than the empty and superficial pursuit of that 1970's and 1980's bugaboo, the one-night-stand, even the briefest encounters can become something more, as sex is no longer just about one or the other partner reaching some kind of physical climax. Opening oneself to all the possibilities inherent in the human sexual encounter - not just physical intimacy, but emotional intimacy, a kind of spiritual union - makes of those moments entered in to with only the intent of physical pleasure full of possibility, not to mention danger. As long as the people involved are aware of the possibilities inherent in real human intimacy, of which sex is just an outward and visible sign, it seems to me that real equality only makes a great thing even better.

I guess my take on sexual minorities is two-fold. From a sexual perspective, viewing same-sex relations as existing within a continuum of human sexual possibility, it runs up against social and cultural taboos; particularly for men, gay men are a threat precisely because they upset our understanding of "masculinity", while lesbians exist as the perfect personification of those women in need of no man. The sexual, then, meets the social/cultural as we consider the impact of "normalizing" same-sex eroticism. I think this is the source of so much Sturm und Drang in regards many of the issues surrounding LGBT folk - it is impossible for far too many people to separate out the sexual from the socio-cultural that we end up with a whole lot of hatred and fear rising to the surface.

As for a Kirkian-conservative feminism, I cannot imagine such a beast; it would devour itself almost immediately.

Please note the absence of any discussion of the morality or immorality of these trends. For the most part, I believe that freeing women from the twin burdens of being passive recipients of male lust and the demand they keep their homes and families intact while the men pursue their worldly ambitions and pleasures is a good thing. I think that human sexuality is the most potent force in human nature; more powerful than the need to satisfy hunger, more determined than greed to satisfy its desires, more insistent than any other instinct one could name. For this reason it should be treated with far more respect and care than it usually is. The pursuit of sexual pleasure for its own sake can become destructive of human lives. It would be far better if we could both affirm human sexuality as a part of our nature, something that, as the United Methodist Book of Discipline affirms, is a good gift from a good God, while still understanding that it is precisely because it is so powerful, it entails huge personal and interpersonal risks. The call to celibacy and monogamy, while too often bleated without thought, actually have much merit, as long as they are accompanied by a frank and broad discussion both of the dangers and rewards inherent in human sexual intimacy. All the same, I do not judge those whose lives have followed other paths, precisely because even this view, which I think has much merit as it comes from my own experience as well as that of countless others, and by which I have chosen to live, is not the end-all and be-all of wisdom. Full human lives have and are lived quite differently, and from these differences we need to learn and ponder our own limitations.

Christians Praying For Death

Well, it was bound to happen.

Orange Country Pastor Wiley Drake fired off an email to his supporters this morning, telling them that all 219 Democrats have been placed on the “imprecatory prayer list.” “We’ll remember in November and pray Psalms 109 while waiting,” he urged, before listing each offending congressman by name in “Satan’s domain in Washington D.C.”

This modern Manichean, who sees Good and Evil n such bright colors, and who is quite sure he knows how to identify each without fail, is calling for people to pray for a quick death for those who voted for health care reform.

At a site that highlighted this story, a commenter wrote: "praying for death for people is crazy….not christian". I would love to be able to endorse this view, but in fact, consistency forces me to admit that this kind of thing, as ugly, unBiblical, ungracious, and foreign to the Good News as it may be, should also be called Christian precisely because these folks consider themselves Christian, they are worshiping in a Christian church led by an ordained clergy person. Also, we shouldn't forget that the Christian Church has a long history of praying for death - supporting forces fighting wars, for example; of course, let us not forget St. Bernard of Clairvaux preaching the first Crusade, enthusiastically whipping crowds in to a frenzy for killing Muslims; there were local preachers who got the ball rolling by preaching death to local Jewish communities as well, resulting in pogroms across central Europe at the time - and we would be false to our history if we simply wrote all this off as a bad idea, or misunderstanding.

Just as it is difficult to claim that violent jihadis are "not true Mulsims" because of the history of Muslim violence, we should at least have the courage to shamefacedly admit that people like this are, alas, acting out part of our collective heritage, repugnant as it may be.

It is for this reason we need to embrace repentance. Not for whatever petty things we have done. For these people who present that shadow side of our collective Christian heritage to the world, we who insist the way of Christ is not that of seeking the death of others, we need to say to the world, "Yes, these, too, are our brothers and sisters in Christ. For this, I am heartily sorry, and do seek your forgiveness."

A Discussion On The Future Of Books

NBCC, The Next Decade in Book Culture from Sonnet Media on Vimeo.

One of the panel members is Scott McLemee. Scott endorses The New Inquiry. Also, the questions to the panel reveal that the panel is far more open than the questioners.

Repeal This!

Yeah, I kinda hope the Republicans run on this in the fall.

Will the Roberts' Court go the way of the Hughes Court of the 1930's? Striking down provision after provision of the New Deal, Roosevelt was fed up and advocated a reorganization of the Supreme Court. While it failed in Congress, and in many ways turned many previously sympathetic Congressional Democrats against Roosevelt, it had the practical effect of goading the court, in 1937, to change course, ruling in favor of the New Deal in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (upholding federal minimum wage laws). Soon after, aged Justice William VandeVanter retired, and the court's approach to federal commerce regulation changed forever. Will the present Court change decades of Constitutional jurisprudence as states seek to nullify federal law? While I doubt it, it will be interesting.

The Republicans have lost a major fight. Since they never intended to vote for this thing anyway, imagine how much better this bill might have been, including a full-fledged public health insurance option, the right for the federal government to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma, and other provisions that would have made this bill so much better. I am not saying this bill is horrible; I am only suggesting that the Democrats gave away a little too much for no good reason.

This may very well be as important in retrospect as Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981.

I Want Some Recognition For Being The First Person To Talk About This

Usually, I don't care about recognition. All the same, it would be nice if someone noticed that I first talked about Obama being patience, not caring about the 24 news cycle (and, also, being able to have those who pursue it have it turned against them) during the 2008 campaign. On August 19, 2008, I wrote:

I think Obama is allowing McCain to rant and rave in order for McCain to define himself as the kind of Republican we are tired of. The post-Labor Day campaign has always been far more important, and even though we have the whole 24-hour news cycle and pundits and journalists who spend years of their lives on a single campaign, Obama is trusting that the American people, both far more wise and far more balanced than the typical pundit, will only start paying attention once the summer is over.

So, I think we all should all relax, take some deep breaths, and wait and see. While it is theoretically possible McCain could win, or (a slightly different thing) Obama could lose, my own sense is that Obama will win, handily, with greater majorities for Democrats in both Houses of Congress, ushering in a whole new political and social era in America. The nuttiness on the right will continue to be loud, but it will wield no power, and will be sidelined once again.

For my prescience and faith in Obama's strategy, I got made fun of. Today, I read this.

I should wander back to Obama, shouldn't I. Oh yes: he apparently just doesn't care at all about winning the news cycle, or the day, or even the week. He wants to win elections, and passage of legislation, and, I suspect, the war in Afghanistan. He seems, as far as I can tell, surrounds himself with people who have the same view.

I'll say one thing: I wouldn't bet against him.

So, I guess I want a little recognition because I saw this . . . trait . . . propensity . . . whatever you want to call it a long time ago. He is patient. He knows what he wants and he gets it (remember the stimulus bill? he got almost exactly what he wanted . . . even after both Houses added this then took away that, in the end the President signed the bill he proposed).

I said some time ago that (a) health care reform would pass, and (b) the Democrats will gain seats in the mid-terms this November. Anyone want to bet?

Blaspehmy!

Did you know this was a "blasphemous blog"? It's true! Mark said it. This is the same Mark who, in an exchange with another liberal blogger, used pornographic language to attack a close family friend of said liberal blogger (the comment was deleted by the blog Administrator, but Mark has never apologized for this highly offensive remark, nor does he ee anything wrong with what he said). This is the same Mark who compared me to Stalin and Pol Pot because I am pro-choice.

Since I don't actually believe there is such a thing as "blasphemy", at least as commonly understood, I find this amusing and ironic, really. I saw this in passing while reading comments, and thought, I should rename this "The Blasphemous Blog", but too many people wouldn't get the reference. Still, maybe a subtitle?

Music For Your Monday

What else?

Simon and Garfunkel - "Homeward Bound"



Dream Theater - "Home"



U2 - "A Sort of Homecoming"

Get Thee Behind Me, Satan!

I'm supposed to be on vacation, dammit! Stop enticing me to spend all sorts of time watching videos on YouTube and sitting around writing posts in response to this.

I refuse to succumb. I refuse . . . I . . .

No, I will not weaken.

So, go check it out if you like. I'm on vacation. Really.

All Over But The Shouting Which Always Happens Anyway

The House passed Health Care Reform, and other than a procedural vote in the Senate later this week - reconciliation that also deals with student loan reform (yea!) - it is now, for all intents and purposes, the law of the land.

While hardly the socialist utopia, or creeping tyranny, or death of the Constitution that we keep hearing about, it is certainly significant. Even with the removal of abortion coverage - why, I wonder, when even the private health care plans the Republican Party offers its employees covers abortion! - and other bits and pieces not to my personal liking, since the bill isn't about pleasing me, it is difficult to disagree with Josh Marshall's take that, in the end, its the results that matter. As the plan is phased in over the coming years, and even some regulatory changes become effective pretty much immediately - most important who whole issue of denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions - I think it will be pretty clear that, imperfect as this is, we have reached a real milestone in this country.

I hate to say this, because the process has been long and aggravating, but thank you, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, for finally getting the job done, a job that has been the dream of reformers since Teddy Roosevelt was President over a hundred years ago.

This should have been named the Harry S. Truman Health Care Reform Act, because he ran, in 1948, on instituting national health care similar to the one implemented by Britain by the Labour Party; while this hardly qualifies, we have at least, in part, fulfilled his desire.

What Might Have Been

This is what happens when I can't sleep.

I dearly love Martin Scorsese's The Departed. A film of so many layers, so many different tics and easily-missed traps, every word of dialogue, every facial expression needs to be seen again and again in order to get the full richness of Scorsese's story.

One of the things I take away from this film is its depiction of contingency. In a perfect world, or at least one far better than the one we inhabit, Matt Damon's character, Colin Sullivan, would never have made it through to become a police officer; Leonardo DiCaprio's Billy Costigan would have been the shining white night, rather than the one Mark Wahlberg's Dignam abuses and sends out as an undercover agent in Boston's southside Irish mob. Since it depicts certain moral realities of our world, however stylized, we are confronted with the aggravating complications of radical contingency.

Keeping it as short as possible, what I mean by "radical contingency" in this case is the overlapping realities that limit our freedom, our ability to fully comprehend our world, and to make decisions that are completely moral. This goes for both individuals and institutions. If there were truly a moral law, quite apart from there being no need for a police unit dedicated to ending something like organized crime, the State Police would have recognized Colin Sullivan for what he was; would have investigated and understood his connection to Frank Costello. They also would have known that Billy Costigan was an upright, dedicated individual whose pursuit of a career as a police officer was due in no small part as penance for his family's connection to Boston's underworld.

Keeping in mind that we never know all that we think we know; that our decisions are never as fully considered as they could or should be; that our freedom of decision and movement in life is limited by forces outside ourselves, institutional and otherwise, that are themselves limited, contingent, and flawed. This is what makes for the drama in this film; this is also what makes the film's characters so effective.

Yet, it is also what makes it so morally aggravating. There is a moment in the film when "what might have been" becomes so crystal clear, all these questions rise up and force themselves on the viewer. In the moment when Billy and Sullivan's therapist girlfriend, Madolyn Madden (played by Vera Farmiga), make love, we see how easily, how smoothly, how utterly better the world could be. These are two people who could have found each other under different circumstances, made a life together without duplicity and obfuscation. The ease of their relationship, compared to the awkwardness of Madden's relationship with Sullivan (combined, as it is, with the reality that he is a criminal playing cop), the passion between Costigan and Madden (compared to Sullivan's sexual dysfunction) makes as clear as day what might have been.

I do not know if there is a lesson one can take away from these reflections. Is it, perhaps, that even a moment, just a moment, of real love and "vulnerability" (Madden's description of Costigan just before he kisses her) sometimes has to be enough, but can perhaps be enough? Is it, on the other hand, that we should live our lives understanding that we can never have enough information, never enough trust in our own freedom of action and decision? Is it even, perhaps, that those to whom we are closest, no matter how much we may think and believe otherwise, are not at all the people we believe them to be? All these lessons? None?

All I know for sure is that one moment of honesty and tenderness in a film filled with brutality and lies offers the briefest of breezes of what might have been through the dark landscape of what is.

And The Circular Firing Squad Takes Aim . . .

I'm so amused when I read right-wingers talk about "Obama-care", or a government takeover of health care, or how every fetus conceived from now on will be aborted with their tax money, or that 65 is now the mandatory death-panel age rather than mandatory retirement. If they would actually read the bill, and consider the way the actual discussion has occurred, they would know - and I mean that in the sense of comprehend the mundane reality around all of us - that none of this is true.

In fact, the left is pretty divided as the time for a final vote has arrived. Just consider this post and the comments, as the pure at heart castigate Matt Yglesias for his role in selling out The People to health insurers who are the only ones who will benefit from this bill. As is par for the course of liberals, those who believe they know the real story are prepared to write off as sell-outs anyone who disagrees with them. They are prepared to demand rejection of a bill that, for all its faults, does exactly what Matt says it does - expands the social safety net.

I have registered my own complaints about the bill, and how Congress went about writing it, and about how the debate has gone, but now is the time to set that all aside and vote. Casting aspersions on the motives and liberal purity of others serves only the interests of those who want this bill to die for all the wrong reasons. While I believe a far better, far stronger bill could have been introduced and fought for; while I believe that a more comprehensive, public plan would have been preferable to the mish-mash currently on offer; while I believe both the Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress caved far too early and quickly to the demands of Republicans; all this, and I support the bill in its current form for one simple reason - the status quo is untenable. The American people want reform; the American people deserve reform. In all likelihood, there will be tweaks as the courts consider various parts of the bill, or this or that section or subparagraph is seen to be unclear. In the end, though, I believe we will be far better off with this bill.

The kind of nonsensical name-calling, usually in the name of self-righteousness, is not only counter-productive, but is meaningless. At the end of the day, the plan will be about the same as most Congressional plans - imperfect, in need of some work, but far better than if nothing at all is done.

Crazyland

Glenn Beck, apparently, is doubling down on his truly warped idea that working for social justice is unChristian.

This past week, Glenn Beck publicly revealed that his staff is moving beyond simply twisting the news for ideological ends to now funding opposition research and internet attack campaigns with the stated purpose of destroying the personal credibility of pastors who dare to question statements made by FOX commentators.

And who, pray tell, is the first target?

But the pastor who quickly rose to the lead of the Catholic, mainline, and evangelical rebuke of Glenn Beck was Rev. Jim Wallis, President of Sojourners.

And so with no scriptural or theological arguments to fall back upon, Glenn Beck apparently decided that his only option is to try to destroy Rev. Wallis personally. Personal attacks aren't uncommon from partisan commentators, but what is especially troubling about this most recent development is that Glenn Beck isn't just planning to throw insults; he said that he has been using his FOX staff to research everything that Rev. Wallis has ever said or done and to dig up dirt on the people who work with the pastor.

Now, I'm no fan of Wallis, for a variety of reasons. All the same, this would be funny if it weren't so frightening. Of all the people Beck could pick to go after . . . Jim Wallis, who has lived a very public life for, at least, a quarter century?

So, has he rescinded his apology, or is he just plain loony? Inquiring minds and all . . .

When Generals Lie

Much was made yesterday when retired General John Sheehan, former SAC NATO, claimed that he was specifically told that the Srebrenica massacre in the Balkans, back in the 1990's, was a direct result of the Dutch military integrating gays in to their ranks.

I have never seen diplomats come so close to calling someone a bald-faced liar.

“It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense,” said the Dutch defense ministry spokesman, pointing out that international investigations of the Srebrenica massacre found no evidence “that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role.” The Dutch ambassador to the United States said she “couldn’t disagree more” with Sheehan’s statement, and Dutch caretaker Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop called the claim “‘damaging’ and not worthy of a soldier. ‘I don’t want to waste any more words on it,’ he said.” Gen. Henk van den Breemen, Dutch Chief of Staff at the time of the Srebrenica genocide, added that Sheehan was spouting “total nonsense.”

Such a shock that a conservative would lie under oath. It would be one thing if the guy just said that he was made uncomfortable with gays in the ranks. OK, fine. Instead, he decides to just make stuff up, accusing officials of a foreign country of duplicity.

As far as I'm concerned, just like Bill Clinton was dragged through the much for lying over sex, this guy needs to be indicted for perjuring himself before Congress. Also, anyone who listens to anything this guys has to say should also be disregarded, at least on this subject.

Time Away

Early tomorrow morning, my family will be taking off for a few days of R&R in my hometown. Even though there is this whole wi-fi thing, and my laptop will be with me, blogging will be light to non-existent next week as we all enjoy some well-earned time off.

My only hope is you are all jealous.

Congressional Hamlets

One of the things that makes the drama of Shakespeare's Hamlet so compelling is the annoying trait the eponymous Prince had for attempting intrigue in the face of evidence of murder, regicide, and his clear duty. That greatest of dramatic soliloquies, "To be or not to be, that is the question" shows Hamlet's penchant for trying to be clever, when his clear duty is to act. He, and a lot of other people, die because he dithers doing that at which he is least capable, rather than taking a far more direct approach.

In the face of nearly a year's debate and discussion on a particular piece of legislation, and decades of discussion on the merits of the issue in general, NPR features a story on "Congressional Undecideds", in particular Tom Periello of Virginia. Toward the end of the story, Periello, it is said, is still undecided and will continue to read the bill before making up his mind.

At this point, after all these months of specific debate, years of general discussion, I would go to Washington, enter Rep. Periello's office, and say to him, "What the hell's your problem?" On the "question" that Periello seemed to dither for quite a while - abortion funding - the language of the bill is clear (even before the Stupak Amendment) that there will be (alas) no federal funding for abortion. Periello announces in the story that he is "satisfied" this is not the case; again, we have Hamlet having been given the facts by his dead father, dithering as to how to address the question, "What are you going to do about it?"

Speaker Pelosi is quoted in the story as saying that she does not preside over a "rubber-stamp" Congress (in contrast to recent, Republican-controlled Congresses), which is hardly the point at all. How is it possible that these men and women who are "undecided" can be so, with the text available for anyone to read, and the issues pretty clear-cut, and the stakes so high.

Just remember, Hamlet was too clever by half, and ended up dying at the end of the play. Don't be clever, folks. Be decisive.

I'm No Expert . . .

. . . but I disagree with George Scialabba on two, related, points. First and foremost (as can probably be gathered from the title of this post), I think the word "expert" has now become a club to beat people over the head, rather than a descriptor of a person actively engaged in the pursuit of knowledge in any particular field. Expertise used to denote a refinement of knowledge, but did not connote exclusivity. Anymore, however, one becomes an "expert" at the expense of pretty much everything else. Whether one is an "expert" in atomic physics, say, or film acting, this seems automatically to preclude any understanding outside one's chosen field (unless, of course, we happen to agree with the views expressed by this or that "expert").

I claim no expert knowledge in any particular field whatsoever, nor have I ever. I find the whole notion of expertise to be as outmoded as phlogiston and the luminiferous ether. One can, if one is so inclined, become conversant in all sorts of areas of understanding - in science, literature, philosophy, art criticism, the social sciences - without claiming any as an area in which one lives one's life. It really isn't that hard, as long as one familiarizes oneself, in a general way, with the vocabulary, the peculiarly apt way these fields discuss their topics. If one begins with the premise that, whether it's physics or philosophy, the median intelligence of those pursuing these topics is about the same as that of the auto mechanic and the accountant, one at least has the advantage that one can get an understanding perhaps at least as clear as about half those so engaged in pursuing these specialties.

So much for expertise.

Second, Scialabba seems content to accept the multiplication of perspectives as unique, distinct, and incommunicable. That is to say, a social scientist not only views events in a way different than, say, an analytical philosopher, these two spheres seem to require that one place all one's perspective at the foot of whatever idol these branches of understanding (not to say "knowledge") serve. In other words, these points of view cease to be merely that, and become, for all practical purposes, totalitarian.

Bosh.

I consider myself generally conversant in all sorts of areas, but would hardly think of myself as occupying some high seat from which to pronounce authoritatively on anything whatsoever. I am certainly open to the charge that I can be, and have been, wrong. Every time I read a comment in which I am charged with being an "intellectual", I have to laugh, because, quite frankly, like "expert", the word has ceased to mean anything. To be engaged with ideas and their relation to our common life is to be an active citizen. It is to take the best ideas of our liberal education - in the original meaning of those two words - and apply them to one's life. That there is far more out there for me to learn, even to acquaint myself with, I take as a given.

The other notion - the multiplication of divisions of understanding creating the impossibility of any comprehensive understanding, and therefore, critique - is also nonsensical. This idea does not create "vertigo" as George claims. Instead (at least for me), it just seems to create laughter. It is nothing less than a combination of hubris and ignorance to claim that if one is a sociologist, one by definition cannot take a non-sociological position on non-sociological topics.

More than that, it is a violation of our most cherished Republican values. We are all to be conversant in those areas that impinge on our common life. The actor, the physicist, the unemployed artisan, the artist - we are all together in this mess and have a perspective, a voice to be heard and considered. I often find it hysterically funny that right-wingers get their panties in a bunch when an actor takes a public position at odds with their own. "Why should we listen to 'X' on this matter? He/She is only an actor!" Yet, the brightest star in recent right-wing myth-formation spent the earliest part of his life as "only" a film actor (and, really, not a very good one). Whatever a person does to help pay the bills, or if they are lucky enough to do so, whatever pays their bills and fulfills the deepest yearnings of their hearts and makes them be, fully, themselves, has no bearing on the merits of any public position they may or may not take on issues vital to all of us.

One can be overwhelmed by the idea that only "experts" should say anything about matters of public import. This is, however, a violation of the Republican social contract, a surrender of the most important role any of us have - the engaged citizen. Recent political and social reality actually gives the lie to this notion. The rise of Barack Obama in 2008 was due, in no small part, to the creation of an active, engaged public through a deliberate outreach from his campaign. People responded for any number of reasons, but the larger point is this - whatever his faults as President, as a candidate, Barack Obama not only understood that active participation in our public life is a vital necessity for reestablishing our political infrastructure; he lived it out, got people motivated, got people talking. The reality of the political internet, both left and right, also belies this (always false) idea that we should leave to the "experts" the regulation of our public affairs. Since most such experts have been revealed as naked Emperors (some of whom continue to appear in public without acknowledging their own nudity), it seems more vital and necessary than ever to celebrate the return of something like an active, engaged political consciousness among the people. Whether we disagree or agree on issues, or even fundamentals, the past couple years gives the lie to the idea that "knowledge" and "expertise" should trump simple engagement.

Beck Backs Off

So, it seems Glenn Beck didn't really mean to say that people should leave the churches that preach social justice. That's a good thing, because the pews would be empty at pretty much any church worth attending. Yet, the original statement still exists, and can't be redefined to mean anything other than what it seems to mean.

Over at Dan Trabue's Through the Woods, in two threads, discussions seems to take on a surreal quality, as one commenter, in attempting to defend Beck, ends up not only arguing points not in the discussion, but makes it clear that the real issue isn't social justice as preached from a Christian perspective. Rather, what gets their panties in a huge wad is the idea that believing in Christian social justice might actually lead some people to think and believe and live in such a way that leads them to become . . . liberal.

Except, this really isn't the case. The pursuit of social justice in the name of Christ has no political label attached to it. This isn't about supporting government programs, or particular partisan agendas, or political ideologies. It can lead those who come to live out their faith this way to do some of these things, but the pursuit of social justice in the name of Christ, in the first instance, is just that - hard work, in communities sidelined by a society that deems them of little or no worth. I have always believed that the starting point for Christian work such as this is the oft-repeated statement in the Bible - in Exodus, in Deuteronomy, in the Prophets - referring to the Exodus event, "Once you were no people; now you are My People." Just as the LORD took the slaves of Egypt and made of them the chosen vehicle for Divine revelation, so, too, we are to live in such a way that those who are despised, dehumanized, degraded are to be at the center of our attention, our concern, our mission. We are to serve them so that they come to see themselves as human beings, as people God loves.

This isn't part of any political theory of which I am aware. This isn't some secret Marxist agenda gussied up in Biblical quotes. It's just living as God calls us to live.

Anything else, any attempt to make of discussions of social justice some secret plot by liberals to take over the church is ignorant. Pure and simple.

Like, Oh My God!

On the one hand, part of me just wants to say, "Ugh!" to this Matt Yglesias piece, which takes off from Miley Cyrus as a criticism of the recent Ponnuru/Lowry nonsense on American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, this is precisely what I was writing about in my previous post. Even something as droll, contrived, and artificial as a Miley Cyrus song can offer us a glimpse of ourselves if we allow ourselves the freedom to think about it.

Better cultural commentary follows, though . . .

Christianity & Culture - Some Thoughts

A couple generations ago, theologian H. Richard Niebuhr wrote what is now considered the classic Christ and Culture. Rather than a detailed discussion of the relationship between being a Christian and living in society and participating in culture, it was a meta-narrative of various ways Christians have and do live in relation to the culture in which they find themselves. A student of the religious philosopher (he was once a theologian, but turned in later life to a more detached view) Ernst Troeltsch, Niebuhr approached the question of the relationship between being a Christian and living in society from the outside.

Rather than take such an "angel's eye view" of the issue, I much prefer to stand firmly at the intersection of my faith and the culture within which I live, and try to understand what it means to be a Christian. My various wrestlings with music, literature, art, pop culture in general, all start from the premise that, as a believer in Christ, I live my life in-between what has been - a world separated from God - and what will be - a world redeemed by and in full communion with God. I suppose I am a bit more Reformed than Arminian/Wesleyan in this way, because I take it for granted that all we do, all we strive after, our attempts to create beauty, to make our lives more livable through the aesthetic experience in all its variety take part in this "in-between" reality. On the other hand, I think I redeem my Arminian roots to the extent that I believe pursuing greater, deeper understanding through a continued pursuit of ever richer aesthetic experience is part and parcel of what John Wesley called "going on to perfection in this life."

To the extent that I am wrestling with cultural experiences in this blog, I believe that is part of my own journey of understanding. It is evident, I think, that of all the arts, music is the one closest to my own heart. At its best, music transports the listener to that place described in Revelation, where the blessed stand before the Throne and sing, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD". Those songs which speak to us most deeply, which give us greater understanding of our world, which move us to laugh and cry - they are dim echoes of this one, final song we shall all stand and sing together. This is not hyperbole or metaphor, but something I believe with my whole heart.

Yet, music is not the whole of it. Because we are a people formed by the Word, quite literally (just read Genesis, say, or the prologue to the Gospel of St. John), considering literature should also be important for Christians. We have those particularly gifted to shape whole worlds through marks on a page; we enter the lives of people who have never and will never exist, whole worlds that cannot exist, and through their experiences come to understand something of our own. We learn of love and loss, of war and peace, of struggle and triumph and failure. Through their words we might even add a word or two to our own understanding of the world, making it a little brighter, a little more hopeful.

The aesthetic experience is participation. It is not just standing (or however you wish to consider your position) and gazing. It is active, taking part, making something outside part of one's set of tools for understanding the world. Even if that understanding is only that momentary, "Ah! I always thought the world might be this beautiful!", this expands our own understanding of the world just that much. We might get a glimpse of the possibility of living a truly human life, of creating a truly human society. Even that art that presents the terrible and awful bares our darker tendencies. It can serve as a warning of the depths to which we human beings can sink.

All this is by way of introduction, as it were, to my own recent indulgence in considering issues of our received and current culture. These are not something human beings do as a sideline. They are now and have always been tools we use to come to terms with our existence. Being a Christian does not mean we forfeit our humanity to the extent that we can neglect the aesthetic experience; on the contrary, we are called to full participation with our fellow human beings in this life, and the aesthetic experience is part of being fully human. From art in its variety we can understand something of what God meant in Genesis 1 when it is said, after creation, that God said it was "very good."

The Art Of Hard Rock

So, I was thinking last night as I was driving to work, listening to Tool, wondering what Lester Bangs would think of Tool's 10,000 Days CD. Bangs advocated a particular vision of rock music - loud, nihilistic, sheer pleasure for the sake of pleasure, and never, EVER too far from its roots as an unsophisticated music for the polloi. While not ideological like Simon Firth (who argues that any popular music not rooted in African-American folks musics like jazz and the blues isn't rock), Bangs nevertheless cultivated a particular critical point of view that would write out whole genres from "rock" because they aren't "black" enough. What's interesting, to me at any rate, is these same writers who disdain British progressive rock for its references to European art music, also deplore heavy metal - surely a working-class music if there is any - precisely because it isn't sophisticated enough. Of course, the real problem is the music is seen as "escapist", rather than engaging and protesting working-class conditions. A song like "Iron Man", say, or "Spiral Architect", doesn't deal with the conditions of labor in an industrial society; the bands eponymous song relates a Vincent Price movie of the same name to a paranormal event in the life of bassist Terry "Geezer" Butler. How does this raise the consciousness of the proletariat?

In to the mix over the past couple decades swoops Tool. Dark, brooding, their songs mix elements of traditional heavy metal with a more melodic, one could even say progressive approach to song-writing, with a literate lyricism that elevates their singer, Maynard James Keenan, above the fray of mere screamer to something like a poet. They experiment with odd time-signatures, their rhythms are always slightly off-kilter, their music isn't for dancing or even raging. Rather, it is to sit, more like stoned than not, and listening. In performance, the band keeps relatively still (unlike many rock bands, who perform), even as the lead singer dons masks, wigs, even drag. Their songs deal with homoerotic themes ("Hooker With A Penis"), extreme sexual practices ("Stinkfist"), and even dabbles in what some might consider near-blasphemy ("Eulogy"). A favorite theme is hypocrisy ("The Pot", "Tick"). They even have a song detailing what may have been an encounter with a UFO, or perhaps just a psychotic episode ("Rosetta Stoned").

On Lateralus, however, they actually has some songs that were less negative, less filled with sheer rage at an uncaring universe. The opening song, "The Grudge", offers the opinion that holding a grudge can be like an anchor, dragging us down. The title track offers the view that life is an upward spiral, offering limitless possibilities. Even the equivocal "Parabol/Parabola" which might be about sex, or might be about suicide, offers the view that the one thing that might keep us linked to this life is the intimate connections we forge with other people.

So, I have to wonder, what is so wrong about this? These songs rock, without a doubt. Why can't rock, even the hardest rock, also rise above mere folk music to become something transcendent? Does it cease to be "rock and roll" because the musicians and lyricists take up themes beyond getting laid, dancing, and the general concerns of teenagers?

Furthermore, isn't it possible to be both a popular art form and still challenging to much of our received understanding of the world? Can the two-word descriptor "popular art" actually mean something, with the two words reinforcing one another?

Furthermore, the idea that an aesthetic experience is always "only" one thing - escapist, or political, or social, or what have you - is such a myopic view of any art form. Even the Dadaists in the early part of the 20th century understood the political and social ramifications of their art. At its best, rock offers a view of the world that affirms its basic solidity, the joy of existence, and the possibilities inherent in living one's life truly free. Even the most negative rock has this going for it - it protests the status quo, asking if it is possible to see in the drudgery and horror of existence some possibility for something more.

Music For Your Monday

Herbie Hancock came to public attention as a prodigy, performing on stage as a small child. Later, he rose to fame as the piano player for Miles Davis' mid-1960's quintet. He struck out on his own, and has forged a path of relentless experimentation. Even in the early 1970's, when jazz seem mired in confusion as to its identity, he refused to sit still. In the 1980's he reminded the world that he could be relevant as well as hip, with his MTV hit "Rockit", featuring his electronica and dancing robots. He is at his best, though, when he is playing with friends.

"Chameleon"



Here he is with Miles Davis Quintet, featuring Wayne Shorter on saxophone, Ron Carter on bass, and a very young Tony Williams on drums. It should be noted that their music was completely improvised.



Going back to his roots - with members of the Quintet, performing from Davis' massive Kind of Blue LP - here they are doing "So What" at a far faster pace than the original, giving it a fresh, free feeling.

Treading With Care

The New Inquiry has a syllabus for crying out loud. The first of many gems I discovered there is this piece on silence.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but I recall someone writing that putting some things in to words renders them smaller, makes of the confusion and chaos something orderly, even as one attempts to capture that chaos and confusion.

There are many things I have written about over the life of this blog (far too may, I think at times). Yet there is far more about which I shall never write, here or anywhere. Some things like love and loss, some experiences and people and emotions are far too fraught, far too complicated to untangle. Sometimes it is best to give them their integrity as confusing and tangled.

Silence not only saves us from lawsuits. It also saves us from taking that which is most precious and rendering it safe, domesticated somehow. Writing about things or people, events in our lives - already we start to pick these things out of the maelstrom of experience, isolate them in a way that is largely artificial. It may make understanding some things better; it might be important for some things to be rendered comprehensible in this way. Others, though, those perhaps closest to our hearts, those perhaps whose strings are still tied around our lives in ways even we cannot fathom - these we should pass over, as Wittgenstein urged of may such things, in silence.

Itinerancy

My wife is being appointed to a new church, starting July 1 this year. We will end six wonderful years here in Poplar Grove, and begin a new life in Plato Center, just west of Elgin. Things will get hinky with the blog over the course of the next few months as we pack up our lives and move to a new house, a new town, an entirely new church community. There have been and will be tears shed as we say goodbye to the people of Poplar Grove UMC who have become our extended family.

The mixture of emotions right now is difficult to grasp. The thing is, though, I think I summed up my own feelings best when I told Lisa that we have become too comfortable here, and maybe that's not a good thing. Being comfortable is not to be denigrated; it shouldn't be part of the life of a minister and that minister's family, though.

So, now that the cat's out of the bag, we can start the complicated process of ridding ourselves of so much stuff, packing up the essentials (like our library, the hundreds of CDs and DVDs without which . . .), and starting something fresh, new, and exciting.

Which Churches Don't Do Social Justice?

Glenn Beck has goofed. Nothing surprising there, because he's dumber than a postage stamp. His call for people to "run" from any church that preaches social and economic justice is not just stupid; it's ignorant and funny, too.

See, the thing is, any Church - be it a local congregation or denomination - that is really a Church of Jesus Christ has as part of its ministry the pursuit of social and economic justice. You see, all that stuff that Beck thinks is Marxism - liberation theology he hasn't read or understood for example - is really just good, old fashioned Christian theology rooted in the Biblical witness. It's all there, starting in the stories of the expulsion from the Garden and the story of Cain's exile, really. In those instances, we already see God's justice and mercy are one and the same, and we Christians have more stories than that - and not just stories! whole books of the Bible called "the Prophets" - helping us understand that God's love is to be extended in this world through welcoming in to community everyone. Part of the welcoming includes working to undermine and destroy the barriers we insist on building based on race, class, ethnicity, sex and gender, what have you.

Social justice is not some leftist quirk that just emerged suddenly since Karl Marx. It's at the very heart of the Christian life, it defines diakanoia, service, it can be seen in the lives of the saints, in the work of Anabaptist groups such as the Friends and Mennonites. The Methodist Social Affirmation was written . . . in the first decade of the 20th century not under the influence of Karl Marx, but John Wesley.

In other words, social justice isn't a quirk, but a necessary part of being the Church, called out by God to serve the world. Any claim otherwise is, quite literally, ignorant.

On Eric Massa

First, it seems pretty clear to me the guy is sexually confused.

Second, I think that it is far too easy to make fun of the interview on Glenn Beck's program, where Massa said something about tickle-fights. In fact, the multiple accusations about unwanted touching amount to pretty clear evidence of a pattern of behavior that should be disturbing to anyone. It doesn't have to do with being gay; it has to do with not understanding boundaries and what is, and is not, proper behavior.

The comparison to the Mark Foley affair is problematic, because Foley, it seems, had a penchant for the underage. Yet, unwanted physical contact is unwanted physical contact, regardless of age.

Finally, there does seem to be emerging some evidence that the Speaker of the House new of the accusations against Massa. Unlike Dennis Hastert in the case of Mark Foley, however, the evidence isn't clear that she either covered anything up, or urged him to continue in office and even seek another term.

Massa is leaving, and good riddance, and I hope he gets some help.

Dealing With Violence Against Women On Campus

The Center For Public Integrity released a report on sexual assault on our nation's college campuses, and the results are frustrating to anyone who believes that we might actually be making strides in taking reports of sexual violence against women seriously.

The probe reveals that students found “responsible” for alleged sexual assaults on campuses often face little or no punishment, while their victims’ lives are frequently turned upside down. Many times, victims drop out of school, while students found culpable go on to graduate. Administrators believe the sanctions administered by the college judicial system are a thoughtful and effective way to hold abusive students accountable, but the Center’s investigation has discovered that “responsible” findings rarely lead to tough punishment like expulsion — even in cases involving alleged repeat offenders.

I heard about the study on a report on NPR earlier this week, and flashed back to an event from my own college days. I attended a small private University in western New York - less than 2500 students total, undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral candidates - and we all heard stories of violence against women that went unreported, or were treated lightly by the Administration.

I believe it was either my junior or senior year, though, something happened that forces us all to confront the reality that these events need to be taken seriously. A young woman, living in a suite with three other women, had her door broken open by an ex-boyfriend who used a baseball bat. Not only did she go to school authorities, she went public; she refused to remain silent even though in the rare instances when reports of violence reached an official level, silence tended to be the rule.

It is still far too common for officials to treat rape as a "he-said-she-said" event for which there is little room to sort out competing narratives. Victims far too often have every bit of their sexual history revealed, while perpetrators are treated lightly. Women still face the accusation they somehow "deserved" the treatment they received, either because of a past history of sexual activity, their dress, or being in a place and time where their willingness to accept sexual advances might be implied. Yet, the report is clear that rape and sexual assault on college campuses is similar to such cases in the general population, i.e., the vast majority are the result of repeat offenders, young men who have a history of violence and sexual violence against women. Rather than focus on the the role of the victim, it seems to me that colleges and universities need to take cases of violence against women as indicative of a trend toward violence in the life of the perpetrator.

We still have a long way to go before we come to terms with the simple fact that women still face far too many threats, even on our college campuses. It would be nice that our so-called enlightened institutions of higher learning would be enlightened enough to deal with sexual assault without resorting to blaming the victim, or shielding the perpetrator (when guilt is found) from serious consequences for his actions.

Once Again - An Open Invitation

Since they write at a website called "American Descent", I'd like their views on this really good summary of the real descent of America.

In the past decade, nearly every pillar institution in American society — whether it's General Motors, Congress, Wall Street, Major League Baseball, the Catholic Church or the mainstream media — has revealed itself to be corrupt, incompetent or both. And at the root of these failures are the people who run these institutions, the bright and industrious minds who occupy the commanding heights of our meritocratic order. In exchange for their power, status and remuneration, they are supposed to make sure everything operates smoothly. But after a cascade of scandals and catastrophes, that implicit social contract lies in ruins, replaced by mass skepticism, contempt and disillusionment.

In the wake of the implosion of nearly all sources of American authority, this new decade will have to be about reforming our institutions to reconstitute a more reliable and democratic form of authority.

The sad fact is, America is in decline not because of anything our current President and Congress have done or attempted to do. Rather, the past generation of conservative dominance has shredded the social and political fabric of this country, and we are left with the monumental task of reconfiguring it - in the face of the constant shriek that we are the ones who have destroyed or are destroying the country.

I look forward to their responses.

What Amiri Baraka Said

Pretty much, he can be summed up, "Democrats, get your heads out of your asses and get the job done." Rather than kill one another, get together and get the job done.

High Taxes, More And Stronger Unions Are Key To A Robust Economy

For some reason (probably a lack of any historical memory whatsoever), conservatives love and liberals hate the 1950's. A dynamic decade, far removed from the somnambulant decade of Eisenhowerian drift, the fifties were, in many ways, the staging ground for the upheavals of the following decade. The Civil Rights era began in the 1950's; the beats, rock and roll, the space age, Holden Caufield - all products of that time. One of the things that made that decade such a robust period in American history was the underlying economic stability made possible through the on-going New Deal regulations that some Republicans even then sought to roll back. Eisenhower, showing far more wisdom than any Republican since, refused. The main economic engine, however, was the progressive income tax and strong unions.

There are two things you can rely on contemporary Republican politicians to talk about whenever they talk about the 1950's - taxes and unions. Yet, if they actually knew anything at all about either subject, they would realize that the 1950's do not endorse any conservative approach to national economic policy, but rather endorse high taxes - during the 1950's, the marginal tax rate on those earning (in adjusted dollars) $3 million, was 91%.

Think about that for a moment.

At the moment, there are proposals to return the top marginal tax rate (which is different from the top rate altogether; since the advent of supply-side economics, discussion has always been on the marginal tax rate) to what it was during the Clinton Administration, roughly 31%, and this is seen as creeping socialism. Under Republican Presidents and a (very brief) Republican Congress fifty years ago, the top rate wasn't touched and we had robust economic growth.

Another log on the fire of economic growth, and social and cultural expansion, was robust unionism in the manufacturing sector. As the soldiers who fought in the Second World War came home and went to college on the GI Bill, they went to work in factories where the unions had won important victories during the Depression (with the help of the Fair Labor Standards Act). These men and women not only constituted what William Manchester has called "the best educated generation in American history"; they were also among the wealthiest. The booming suburbs, aided by policies that sought to attract white working and middle-class families away from cities, were helped by unionized workers being able to afford the homes and the commutes. Simply put, having a union wage drove the consumerist engine of the 1950's. With the turn away from a unionized manufacturing sector, and the rise of non-unionized service industries, that important social and economic engine stalled, then stopped completely.

When you read in various posts how the Republican Party has pretty much destroyed our infrastructure, these changes in our tax and labor policies are not just part of the equation, but at its very heart. Somehow we managed for decades to have high marginal tax rates on the very wealthy along with robust economic activity. We had a healthy organized labor movement and a strong manufacturing sector. Republicans insisted, however, that we needed to reduce taxes on the wealthy and stop unions in their tracks, and things would improve. Instead, the whole thing pretty much collapsed, and in a very short amount of time.

This argument, based on reality, rather than the fantasies of know-nothings and fake libertarians, needs to be made often and as explicitly as possible. We need higher taxes and stronger unions if we really want a healthy economy.

Old Arguments

I was attracted to this "defense" of the "Weinberger Doctrine" because I remember all too well something that is missing from the discussion of Reagan-era discussions of military policy - the Pentagon's proposal to sacrifice Europe to fight what it considered a winnable, limited nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union.

It may be difficult to remember the atmosphere of relentless tension between the US and the Soviets of a generation ago. It was made worse by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision by the Reagan Administration to deploy medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, against the express wishes of the people of the various countries where those missiles were put. Part of the problem complicating relations between the US and the Soviets were the interregnum between the death of Leonid Brezhnev and the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev there, and President Reagan's first-term rhetorical belligerence, made plain in a now-infamous 1983 speech in Miami in which he called the Soviet Union "the focus of evil in the modern world."

In the midst of the hair-trigger between the two superpowers, it was revealed that Weinberger's Defense Department was seriously studying the possibility of fighting and "winning" a limited nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. Of course, it would mean limiting that exchange to the newly-deployed medium-range nuclear missiles, making of western and Central Europe a vast, unlivable wasteland for centuries to come.

When the document outlining this particular bit of craziness was revealed, Theodore Draper took to the pages of The New York Review of Books to scold then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger not only for setting aside the post-war alliance with western Europe, and stating boldly that it might be in the US national interest to allow it to die in a nuclear oven if it meant "defeating" the Soviet Union; in so doing, Draper contended that this was an explicit rejection of the policy of deterrence that, for all its faults, had managed to limit confrontation with the Soviets to the margins, rather than full-on war. Weinberger replied, and the on-going exchange opens Draper's 1983 collection Present History: On Nuclear War, Detente, and Other Controversies. I read this book in the fall of 1984, at the same time I was taking a survey class in international relations as an undergraduate, and it shaped much of my thinking on that subject.

While there are, indeed, many good things to be said about the "Weinberger Doctrine" as it is presented at Democracy Arsenal, leaving out this particular bit of craziness misses a crucial aspect of late-Cold War Defense and Foreign Policy. At least in the early years of its existence, the Reagan Administration not only accepted the idea that nuclear war could be something "fought" and "won", it actively sought to lay out scenarios in which this would be so.

Saturday Rock Show

When Dream Theater broke the radio barrier in 1992 with "Pull Me Under" - in the last days of rock radio's importance - they offered a whole generation of musicians a way to hear the tired dinosaur of progressive rock. Using not just the classic prog repertoire of Yes and Rush, but adding Metallica's own debt to prog, heard most clearly on song's like ". . . And Justice For All", and the band's early tendency toward extending thematic and melodic material, DT managed to open up all sorts of possibilities for musicians who tired of the limitations of the either/or of classic prog rules and the weight of heavy metal.

Of course, as is always the case, really good bands inspire imitators. Some early metal-prog bands were a pretty direct ripoff of Dream Theater's approach, and one can hear it pretty clearly in Symphony X, for example (although lyrically, at least, Symphony X has charted a different course, sticking with a kind of "sword-and-sorcery" material, with highlights such as their attempt to put Homer's "The Odyssey" in a 20-minute piece of music, and their last release, a concept album based on John Milton's Paradise Lost). Another band that, in many ways, was pretty much a direct descendant of DT was York, PA's Shadow Gallery. Even the name, for crying out loud, was kind of a rip off.

I tried hard to like them. I guess what they wanted their music to sound like, and what I thought it should sound like differed enough so that I never quite got to the point where I could sit and listen with my critical ear quiet. All the same they have moments, to be sure. One of their best, from the CD Legacy, is this pretty little love song, "Colors". My one complaint is the addition of a slide guitar during the bridge, but that's an arrangement decision that I might have made differently, and doesn't really rob the piece of its basic prettiness (not the same as beauty).

Do My Eyes Deceive Me?

I have stopped reading what Atrios calls "Fred Hiatt's crayon scribble page". While the news stories at The Washington Post continue to be pretty good, the editorial and op-ed pages of this once-great journalistic institution have become a sink-hole for global warming deniers, inside-beltway conventional wisdom of the most venal, trivial sort, and former Bush Administration third-tier hacks like Michael Gerson and, now, Marc Thiessen. This isn't an issue of "now it's conservative and I'm all upset." It's more a question of intellectual honesty and integrity. George Will's columns on global warming keep getting debunked and called out as fraudulent, but he still has a job; Marc Thiessen, like Bill Kirstol at the Times, can't write an honest column, yet he still gets in print, spouting the Bush Administration line that (a) the US didn't torture, but (b) if we did, the sonsabithces deserved it, so it's OK.

Today, though, something caught my eye, and I have to admit I'm impressed. Howell Raines, former executive editor of The New York Times, has a piece entitled "Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?"

Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."

Fox repeats this as gospel. But as a matter of historical context, usually in short supply on Fox News, this assertion ranks somewhere between debatable and untrue.

Sometimes you get struck by something you read, and this is one of those times. Now, in part or perhaps even as a whole, this article is directed more toward journalists (which one could guess, I suppose, from the title) than the general, non-journalistic audience. Even as Raines tosses comity and politeness out the window, the non-journalist gets the impression that some taboo has finally been shattered; the complaint against FOXNews that has heretofore been part of the narrative of the liberal internet has crossed - finally, and with the full force of a former editor of the NYT - to the mainstream in a huge way. Furthermore, he does not mice words, talk around his subject, or attempt an "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach that might mitigate some critical takes on FOXNews.

Why has our profession, through its general silence -- or only spasmodic protest -- helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.

Why can't American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team? His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher's political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation's airwaves to Murdoch's cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post.

--snip--

Under the pretense of correcting a Democratic bias in news reporting, Fox has accomplished something that seemed impossible before Ailes imported to the news studio the tricks he learned in Richard Nixon's campaign think tank: He and his video ferrets have intimidated center-right and center-left journalists into suppressing conclusions -- whether on health-care reform or other issues -- they once would have stated as demonstrably proven by their reporting. I try not to believe that this kid-gloves handling amounts to self-censorship, but it's hard to ignore the evidence. News Corp., with 64,000 employees worldwide, receives the tender treatment accorded a future employer.

What is most interesting about the arrival of FOXNews and Roger Ailes is the similarity, in many respects, to situations in Italy and, now, Chile, where the rise of media moguls portended big political changes. It can be no accident that American conservative politicians have at least one eye trained on Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, and Chile's new President (inaugurated this week quite literally during a major aftershock from the horrible earthquake of a couple weeks back), Sebastian Pinera (my keyboard, alas, does not have a tilde for the "n" in his last name). While Murdoch cannot run for office, and Ailes has always enjoyed the kingmaker role (he came to prominence during the Nixon Administration), his promotion of various right-wing political candidates has that same air about it as Berlusconi's and Pinera's channel's promoting their owner's political ambitions.

I think a kind of Rubicon in discussions of journalism, public discourse, and the relationship between journalism and politics in this country has been crossed. A major figure has said what many on the internet have been saying for years - FOXNews doesn't "do" journalism, and even its news department is nothing more than a promotional vehicle for the Republican Party and its talking points. This is a good sign.

Yes, I See God At Work In Haiti

It's taken me a while to calm myself down enough to type a response to Feodor's rather haughty, belittling dismissal - without any reference to anything I actually said - during the course of a discussion at ER's blog (that site is on hiatus during Lent, and out of deference, I am not linking; I plan on highlighting the points that (a) pissed me off so much; and (b) making clear what my argument actually said, rather than Feodor's misreading of it). When I say calm down, I mean that quite literally; when I read the actual exchange, not just the first time, but many more afterward, I was not only enraged by his rather casual dismissal of the feelings of many in my family toward an untimely, accidental death; he also seemed to insist that my argument was facile. It really is the former that made me see red, but the latter also got to me, too.

I recounted the death of my cousin, Denise Shreck, in 1996, after having fallen in a river. It was an example I was citing after he expressed his outrage at God for the earthquake in Haiti, and what he perceived to be Divine absence in the stark evidence of massive human suffering there. I argued that, on the contrary, God was indeed present in the lives and services of all those who were actually in Haiti to relieve that suffering. Rather than consider the point, Feodor merely dismissed the whole idea. I kept getting the feeling that Feodor was enraged that, after all the historical suffering the people of Haiti had been forced to endure, an earthquake seemed to add insult to injury, and by so doing, demonstrated that God may perhaps have perished after all.

The point I had been making - and it seemed pretty clear to me, but I suppose it might not have been - was a longer version of that infamous bumper sticker, "Shit Happens". Earthquakes hit poor countries without the resources to assist their own people in recovery. They also hit rich countries, like Chile, and render those places not much better than impoverished ones, as communication, local services, fear, political turmoil, all engulf them.

I cited the example of my cousin as another of those "shit happens" moments in life. It is easy enough to stand around and rage at God because the world is designed in such a way that earthquakes strike places that have few resources available to cope. It is easy enough to rage at God for the loss of young woman whose life offered so much promise. Standing around and raging at God doesn't help anyone; it might satisfy an individual's sense that one has a better grasp of things than others who might offer the possibility of the divine presence even in the midst of the sufferings there.

I guess I was wrong when I said once that Feodor was a whole lot smarter than I am. I figured the point was clear enough. Instead, he took my example and tossed it aside; he insisted that the sufferings my family endured in the wake of Denise's untimely death were just not comparable to the sufferings of Haiti. Yet, in so doing, he not only missed my main point, he refused to acknowledge part of the point that I thought should be clear as day - bad stuff happens in this world, and we humans suffer in the midst of it. 'Twas ever thus; should we lose our faith in a good, loving, just God because of an earthquake, the senseless loss of a child, the seemingly infinite capacity of human beings to wreak havoc on one another? Any why Haiti? Shoot, consider the Roman mass crucifixions during the slave revolt a century before Christ was born. Crosses lined the highways for miles as men and women suffered slow, painful deaths as an object lesson for all to see. Should we so desire, we can point to any number of incidents, large and small, that seem to indicate pretty clearly that, even if God exists, taking care of creation seems be down on the list of things to do.

My point, however, is really quite simple. One can lose faith - it has happened before, and will no doubt happen again - but so what? That is as meaningless as endorsing faith, really, and is safe enough from the confines of a place and time far removed from the midst of all these tragedies. Denigrating the work of those who have gone to help in the name of the God of love and justice and compassion actually is worse than meaningless, precisely because it stems from a sense of moral and intellectual superiority that pretends to "know" more about the way the world works than those who give their time and talents and even lives to serve others. Sitting in the safe confines of northern Illinois, or Brooklyn, or wherever, and telling people they just don't get it, that God's silence is clear in the suffering the folks in Haiti are continuing to endure, doesn't really cut it for me. It's a form of intellectual and moral cowardice, to be honest.

Furthermore, human suffering and mourning in the face of loss is not a contest. My family's grief over our loss was not less than the sufferings of those who lost whole families in Haiti (or Chile, or the Holocaust, or Kampuchea). Human loss is human loss; if you want to be angry at God because we live on a planet where the crust isn't firm and occasionally shakes violently, well fine. We can all go back to Lisbon in the 18th Century if we want. Do you want to blame God because we human beings seem to enjoy inflicting death and suffering on our fellows? Well and good, but please don't demand special pleading for this or that case, because human history is bloody enough with examples. We Americans are no more or less callous or ignorant than the average citizen of any other Empire to the effects our hegemony has on the less-fortunate among other nation-states. We are fortunate, however, that we are free enough to allow those citizens moved by compassion to go to those places where suffering seems particularly acute and work to alleviate the pain caused by living in a world that just doesn't meet the standards of some who think God hit the snooze button once too often the day the earth decided to shake in Haiti.

So, yes, I affirm that God is at work in Haiti. God is at work in the midst of the many sufferings of sub-Saharan Africa. God is present in the stinking slums of Mumbai and Calcutta. God is there in the faces and voices and hands of people who are attempting, sometimes with success, sometimes without, some kind of help. Raging at God for senseless death and suffering, whether it is caused by an earthquake, a misstep on a slippery slope above a river, Complicating factors, including a history of oppression and Imperial exploitation do not mitigate the reality that, well, bad stuff happens.

A Partial Rerun With Feeling

Jennifer Bernstein and Rachel Rosenfelt are two young women who run the most amazing website, called The New Inquiry. I have been reading and commenting and interacting with them frequently over the past few weeks because they are really on to something - the intersection of culture, society, and politics, which dovetail with my own quite nicely. They had a "Conservative Thought Salon" recently that covered the gamut of social, cultural, and political concerns.

Three years ago, I wrote a post entitled "Women, Women's Sexuality, and the Right". Part of that post addresses my own view in regard to the general topic of "sex and gender" addressed at the Conservative Thought Salon.

A generation later, however, we have yet to grasp the almost elemental fear and hatred of women among many on the right. I do not mean hatred of individual persons who happen to be women; I am talking about the fear engendered by free, powerful, sexually and (relatively) economically liberated women upon men. As long as women fulfill roles defined for them, there is nothing to fear. Once women start to press the limits of "acceptable" behavior, however, one can almost hear the howls of rage.

There is nothing more terrifying for some men than a woman who does not need a man to define or complete her. There is nothing more frightening to some men than the image of a woman undressed. Those who protest the most very often are the ones who, in their heart of hearts, tremble at the thought that there are women whose lives, including their sexuality, are not in need of any man.

Of course, this doesn't deal with the wholly separate issue of queer folk. My guess, however, is that these same men who harbor so much fear toward an independent, strong woman also fear gays and lesbians precisely because they undermine our traditional ideas of gender. The inability to accept difference as human choice, but to see it as error - especially moral error - is a sign, to me, of limited imagination. Moreso, it is a far greater moral failing than the alleged viciousness of gays or strong women. Refusing to grant full humanity, including full human moral agency, to others whose life-choices are different from one's own is only slightly better than writing them out of the human species entirely. To insist that other's lives bespeak a certain moral stuntedness, they are less than fully human, is a kind of dehumanization.

The marvelous panorama of choices available to people should be a source of joy and celebration rather than censure, mockery, and violence. It is too bad there are those who harbor such fear in their hearts they cannot see others without putting labels on them.

Horrible People

Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru are awful human beings.

Victor Davis Hanson notes that one reason for American exceptionalism may be that we did not inherit from England “a large underclass of only quasi-free people attached to barons as serfs.” Sadly, a worse institution took root here, but never became part of the national psyche.(italics added)

I'm not sure what else to say. Our entire history has been deformed by slavery and race. To claim anything else is not just ignorance. It is morally reprehensible.

Some Thoughts From An Invitation

From The New Inquiry's Conservative Thought Salon:

Kirkian conservatism founds its logic of a higher order on religious conviction. God provides the benchmarks of extrinsic, absolute value. What currency does conservatism have in an increasingly secular age? Can we determine extrinsic value without God?

Taking this in reverse order, for my part the last question is really quite meaningless. Nothing has "extrinsic value". I don't even know what that phrase means, to be honest. What is the "value" of a flower? Of a mosquito? Of a human being? How do we determine what the word "value" means in each of these questions? Does even granting the existence of God somehow both define and ground "value" in a way that not so granting does not?

Furthermore, if we grant the premise, what about the market? How do we constrain the market - the other deity of conservatives - in the face of counterclaims to "value" that cannot be measured in dollars and cents? Or, does the market work in some way heretofore unknown to eliminate itself from consideration in these matters? Based on the evidence, this is demonstrably untrue. Changing the definition of value from some intangible quality a thing possesses apart from our desire to measure its worth, and the market's determination of a fair trade value for any particular item, it seems to me we have reached a kind of incompatibility in conservative thought.

In actual practice, Kirk's views on religion are little different from the sociological, functional approach. Not really all that interested in the subtleties and nuances of theological argument, conservatives view religion as a necessary social and cultural glue, without which value becomes, like currency exchanges, free-floating. Yet, so viewed, religion can be easily substituted, as it has been in the US, for the rule of law as determining a minimal social and cultural standard for behavior and accepted norms and practices. Once religion becomes reduced to a social necessity in this way, we aren't that far from Eisenhower's nonsensical idea that it doesn't really matter what we believe, as long as we believe in something.

Yet, if conservatives are correct, that ideas have consequences, it seems that theological and confessional disagreements and arguments are vital to understanding the role of religion in society. In northern Ireland, in the Middle East and across the Levant, in India, in Sudan, the remnants of Somalia, even in secularized western Europe, religious disputes turn on what people believe, which informs how they live their lives. In these instances, religious belief is as fraught with peril as it is with promise. It is a force for social disintegration as much as it is for tribalistic integration. Kirk, I believe, is mistaken in the view that social cohesion comes from acceptance of religious belief; the world is far too full of religious conflict to make such a sanguine view of religious practice acceptable.

We are, by far, the most religiously observant industrialized country on the planet. Part of our strength, socially and culturally, has been the acceptance - not always given freely and very often honored in the breach - of a variety of religious practice. Kirk's views would include a kind of renewed intolerance for differences of religious opinion; if it becomes a force for social disintegration, disagreement becomes a threat to social well-being, and therefore needs to be addressed by the society at large. This is as un-American an idea I can imagine.

Finally, I would reference Dietrich Bonhoeffer's now-famous quote, that the challenge for our time continues to be how to speak of God in a religionless world come of age. The combating forces of sectarianism and secularism, part and parcel of western history for over two hundred years, have yet to reach a final conclusion, but it seems to me the question of the social role of religion, approached in a purely functional way, rests upon far too narrow and shallow a foundation to be of any help whatsoever.

Moral Decay?

A right-wing commenter recently said, in regards to the presence of pornography, that it is both evidence and cause of moral decay in our country.

I am always fascinated by the claim that the United States has experienced some kind of moral decline. Usually traced to the upheavals of the 1960's, it seems motivated, at least in part, by the social and cultural changes that fraught decade brought to the country. I am just asking, and have invited Jennifer Bernstein and Rachel Rosenfult from The New Inquiry to weigh in, what, exactly does this mean? I really don't see it, have never understood the point, and see no evidence of such a decline.

Just curious.

Is The Numinous Like Reese Witherspoon Only Chunkier?*

Ross Douthat tries his hand critiquing American religion. The results are making my eyes leak blood like a statue of the Virgin Mary.

Conservative believers fixate on the culture wars, religious liberals preach social justice, and neither leaves room for what should be a central focus of religion — the quest for the numinous, the pursuit of the unnamable, the tremor of bliss and the dark night of the soul.

The "pursuit of the unnamable"? What the hell is that? Apparently, Douthat, who otherwise would be praising the market as the savior of all humanity, thinks the embourgeoisment of American religious life is a bad thing, yet if more people were real mystics it would be a better country. This column is marvelously inept, so stupidly contradictory, and blissfully ignorant of the true terrors involved in a real mystical experience that I really don't know what else to say.

Why is everyone an expert on religion and religious experiences?

*Douthat once wrote a piece in which he confessed to a liaison with a young woman who resembled, in his words, "a chunky Reese Witherspoon". The moment didn't last, so much the better for her; talk about dodging a bullet.

What The Heck

Yet another earthquake - in Turkey. Is the planet trying to tell us something? Are we, on the other hand, just a bit more sensitive to this news right now? All I know for sure is it does seem an odd cluster, doesn't it?

Music For You Monday

One of my favorite exchanges from the old television series WKRP in Cincinnati occurs between DJs Johnny Fever and Venus Flytrap. After a heated exchange between Venus and news reader Les Nessman, Johnny tries to cool Venus off by asking, "Hey, Venus, let's go look at some Carly Simon album covers."

After Carole King's Tapestry LP in 1971, there was an explosion of female singer-songwriters, or (like in Simon's case), just singers. Arriving with the second wave of feminism, there reception was ambivalent (as Johnny Fever's line indicates). King had been part of the stable of songwriters at the Brill Building in the early-1960's, writing many hits with her partner Jerry Goffin. Finally getting a chance to record her songs herself, Tapestry showed a more mature song-writer, a woman whose words and music reflected a coming of age.



Cyndi Lauper, like Carly Simon, was destined to have her image overwhelm he abilities. Working with her long-time personal and music partner, the founder of the band The Hooters, she wrote and released She's So Unusual in 1984, and became a sensation in the midst of an era obsessed with visual imagery at the expense of anything else. While "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" managed to make a mark in the brief era when music videos actually meant something, her songwriting was never better than in "Time After Time".



I'm not a huge fan of Sarah McLachlan. The Canadian singer-songwriter spent far too much time trying on personae, trying to "fit", in an age when image seemed so important. Yet, some of her songs really capture me. "Possession" is a fascinating piece; the lyrics are actually quotes from letters she received, and she wrote the song because she was fascinated by the way some, certainly unbalanced, people responded to her. There is something quite scary about this song, which might be why I like it so much . . .

The Definition Of A Hate Crime

Since all the wingers seem to think the hate-crimes law is aimed at Christian preachers, I just thought I'd point out how the law really works. From this story:

After interviewing the suspects, investigators concluded the victim was targeted because the assailants thought he was gay.

Whether or not the victim actually was gay is not at issue; the suspects believed him to be; indeed, it seems they were specifically targeting gays. That one sentence is the definition of a hate crime. The sole motive for the crime is bigotry toward supposed members of a specific group of individuals (gays, blacks, latinos, women). It isn't about speech, and it isn't about making up a motive where none exists. This is a textbook case of a hate crime.

When Studies Contradict

A recent study by researchers at the University of Montreal seems to indicate that all the deleterious effects so many have claimed pornography has on interpersonal relationships just aren't present. A report in the Calgary Sun is pretty clear that (a) consumption of pornography is prevalent among men (they report they couldn't find any men in their twenties who had not viewed pornographic material, at least a little); (b) those who consume pornography are able to maintain the distinction between the fantastic world on the paper or screen and the real people with whom they are involved, are more likely to support women's equal rights, and understand, in general, that pornographic images have no relationship to their real lives.

The Washington Post asked a researcher who wrote a book claiming all sorts of deleterious effects to write an Outlook piece. She uses the space to insinuate the research at Montreal isn't as thorough as her own, and thus the conclusions aren't as reliable as hers.

Yet, all she has to offer are anecdotes from people who approach her with their own horror stories. She admits "This is hardly solid lab research." But then continues directly:

But it is one of many signs of pornography's hidden impact.

"Hidden impact". How horrible! Except, there is research that shows there is no such "hidden impact". While it might be the case there are those who are impacted negatively by pornography, it might well be their relationships had other issues. The Montreal study manages, at least, to offer some perspective on those persons and couples whose lives are not negatively impacted by pornography.

Clearly, this is an area where research needs to be constructed that satisfies more than merely ideological concerns, and focuses attention on the range of responses. While the stories Ms. Paul relates of the bad effects of porn are certainly sad, the question remains open (and she cannot admit it, with her talk of "hidden impacts"): are these "effects" statistically significant, correlated in some manner to watching pornography? Relating sad tales of couples on the rocks, and blaming porn, is not, as she admits, "solid research". Yet, that is all she has to offer - anonymous emails, stories offered with changed names.

Since there hasn't been a refereed study of the effects of pornography that shows any serious deleterious social or interpersonal effects in any statistically significant way, the Montreal study is hardly an outlier. It seems to me Ms. Paul's claims are far more questionable.