I wouldn't be honest if I didn't also write a bit about some other thoughts that occurred to me as I spent quite the largest amount of time repeating to myself, over and over again, how beautiful was the warmth, the lush flora, and the time and space away. While the Disney World resorts are certainly a testimony to the imagination, dogged determination, salesmanship, and tenacity of Walt and Roy Disney, it goes without saying that the thousands of visitors the parks have each day would be impossible without the direct intervention local, state, and federal governments, ensuring everything from a well-maintained interstate highway system and safe air travel to the basic minimal standards for healthy food and drink right through the triumphs of Rural Electrification and, in particular as we drove through southern Tennessee, the Tennessee Valley Authority, made me grateful that I live in a country that, once upon a time, believed it possible that we could, together, make our country better through concerted action directed from the state.
To all those who believe that state intervention in our society has been an unmitigated curse, devoutly to be dismantled at every opportunity, I would offer he vision of America without health and safety regulations regarding food and water, workplace safety, maximum hour and child labor laws, without the extension of electricity to vast swaths of unserved areas due to its lack of economic viability. The interstate highway system, the long-time dream of Dwight Eisenhower, is still a marvel, making our trip south a matter of a mere couple days rather than several fraught with uncertain conditions and poorly regulated accommodations in out of the way places. That so many insist that all of this has been a nightmare from which we need to awaken; or that we no longer can achieve so much more than we already have, due to the temporary dislocations of a sagging economy are testimony to a basic failure of nerve, a refusal to believe that America can, indeed, be great provided we not succumb to fear and a sense of failure.
Ours is a great nation in no small measure because we believed, once upon a time, that we deserved better, and together could work to realize it. We are ill-served by political leaders who insist this is no longer possible, that even to broach the possibility of improving our country is a danger to other values that our current state certainly doesn't bear out in practice. Unlike so many voices that insist that thus-and-such cannot be done, or should not be done, I believe that improving and enhancing our physical infrastructure, ensuring safe food and clean water, ensuring safe travel, and giving to all people the opportunity to work with dignity for better wages are not only possible, but necessary to remind us that we are, indeed, a great land who brightest days do not lie in the past, but in the years and decades to come.
I find it interesting that the prophets of failure, those who insist that we simply cannot do what needs to be done to make our land even better claim, with a straight face, they love America better than others, when their actions and words reflect a fundamental lack of faith in the American people and our ability to achieve so much. We are, and always have been, better than that, and deserve so much more than we currently have in our elected officials in any party currently walking the halls of the Capitol and Executive offices in Washington.
I find a lack of any sense of gratitude for those who worked so hard before us in the attitude that insists we simply cannot do what needs to be done to get this country running again, to improve our roads and our food supply, make water no longer a commodity that we buy but something available in every home by turning a handle on a tap. We owe to them, as well as to our children and grandchildren not yet born, a faith in the possibility that ours is, indeed, a great land, a great people, who can do so much if given the tools and opportunity to do it. Our prophets of failure undermine their own professed patriotism each and every time they open their mouths and insist that we, as a people, cannot do something we all know needs to be done. For all they claim to believe in certain exceptional American qualities, they sound far too often like those exceptional qualities are a dismal refusal to believe that anything at all can be done, that failure, second-rank status is our allotted place in the world, and that our best days are in a distant past.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
What I Learned On My Vacation I
It would truly be a waste of time if, along with spending time with my family and generally enjoying myself away from the hustle and bustle of the daily grind, I didn't drag from amongst the rest a few things that are pertinent to the topics of this site.
First, driving down and back, traveling from the earliest days of spring to the middle of glorious summer in two short days - when we left last Saturday morning it was below freezing and threatening snow; when we arrived in Orlando on Sunday, it was 92 degrees and the concierge actually apologized to me for the heat - watching spring move through its round of days as the miles sped by, I was entranced by how beautiful and varied our country is. From the prairies of Illinois and Indiana to the rolling hills of Kentucky and the mountains of east Tennessee through the plains of Georgia to the verdant swamps of central Florida, the beauty and variety would have been missed completely had we opted to hop a plane and fly down.
I also realized how much I love the variety of flora. While Tennessee provided a display of Red Bud trees in blossom, central and southern Georgia had dogwood and wisteria, the latter occasionally exploding across several trees in a display of purple against the green that was truly a wonder. The dogwood made me miss the dogwood tree in the front yard of the parsonage in Jarratt, VA, whose blossoming in mid- to late-March was the signal that spring really had arrived.
One cannot spend four and a half days in the Disney complex without reflecting on people. The sheer mass of humanity one encounters from the moment one walks out the door of one's room makes it impossible. On the whole, I had my basic faith in the root goodness and even intelligence of human beings reinforced on this trip. Monday and Thursday it rained heavily, enough to drag down the spirits of even the most upbeat vacationer, yet people were unfailingly polite, always quick with a smile, even a "Hello" as you passed. The huge crowds, one could argue, made courtesy necessary to keep tension at a low ebb, yet there was no etiquette police present, no one demanding that all greet one another with a smile and a laugh, sharing moments with complete strangers as we waited in the unusually short lines (the longest wait for any attraction we encountered was about an hour, although the introduction of the Fast Pass certainly helped in that regard) was not a rule posted at the entrance.
I was also impressed with the variety of types of people. Southerners and northerners, western folk and those like us from the upper Midwest. White and black and Hispanic and Asian and non-Americans by the score. Muslim families, the mothers with their heads wrapped in scarves that were beautiful, framing their faces wonderfully standing cheek by jowl with a family of Jews from New York, the men and boys with yarmulkes on their heads, dressed uncomfortably (so it seemed to me) for the warmth of the Florida spring.
Finally, I think the criticisms and derision with which Disney the man and his ideas are addressed by many on the left is rooted as much in ignorance and the kind of earnest silliness one finds all too often in people for whom adherence to ideas is more important than just being with other people. Sure, Disney may well have been an anti-Semite. Given the age in which he lived, this is nor surprising. Compared to the same sentiments among, say Henry Ford or other powerful individuals who were near contemporaries, his was quite less virulent. His company did, after all, produce on the eve of the Second World War a cartoon, "The Three Little Pigs", that effectively showed that he, Disney, was aware of the threat Hitler's regime posed and articulated a courage in the face of Nazi might that was utterly lacking in the rest of the country at that time.
Disney was also a naive, optimistic member of the Church of Progress, who saw in the expanding technologically-rooted ease of life in the 20th century a sign of human improvement that, given the realities of that time, should have been lacking. Yet, he coupled this naive belief that we could make the world a better, more decent place with an abiding belief that in our children - regardless of background - lies our best, perhaps our only hope. We should teach our children to keep their minds open, to work to realize the fondest wishes of their imaginations. As Disney himself was proof this was possible, even as he faced occasional setbacks and failures, it seemed a faith rooted in his experience that one is hard pressed against which to argue.
There are always exceptions to the rule. In particular, my encounters with the thousands of people present were not always enforcing of a kind of base faith in their wisdom or intelligence. How couples could bring infants to Disney World resorts was a source of constant wonder to my wife and me. Even young children, under the age of five or so, it seemed to us, would make enjoying the parks difficult, to say the least. The sight of pregnant women trying, and failing, to get on various rides also made us shake our heads. Then there was the car in parked in front of us at a stop in Tennessee, with various bumper stickers that revealed a narrowness of mind that made my wife cringe. My only thought, still trying to be generous, was that it takes all kinds to make a large country like ours. Someone advertising their ignorance and bigotry as proudly as this person was doing is far less a threat than the silent ones who keep their beliefs to themselves until they explode in an orgy of rage and violence.
By and large, these reflections are a small part of my experience. Most of the time, I was quite simply enjoying eight days of nearly uninterrupted time with my wife and children, in a warm and accommodating space set aside for families to enjoy themselves. We laughed and commented on the rides and attractions and ate and slept and rode together, rarely apart for more than a few minutes at a time, without ever being rancorous or exhausted with one another's company, a testimony, I think, to our abiding love for one another. We shall return there before too much longer, not only to enjoy what we had enjoyed before, but also to experience so much that we missed. Even the very long days we spent in each park were not enough to take in all they had to offer, and we all agreed there was so much yet for us to experience, not least a sunny day at Disney's Animal Kingdom and The Magic Kingdom.
First, driving down and back, traveling from the earliest days of spring to the middle of glorious summer in two short days - when we left last Saturday morning it was below freezing and threatening snow; when we arrived in Orlando on Sunday, it was 92 degrees and the concierge actually apologized to me for the heat - watching spring move through its round of days as the miles sped by, I was entranced by how beautiful and varied our country is. From the prairies of Illinois and Indiana to the rolling hills of Kentucky and the mountains of east Tennessee through the plains of Georgia to the verdant swamps of central Florida, the beauty and variety would have been missed completely had we opted to hop a plane and fly down.
I also realized how much I love the variety of flora. While Tennessee provided a display of Red Bud trees in blossom, central and southern Georgia had dogwood and wisteria, the latter occasionally exploding across several trees in a display of purple against the green that was truly a wonder. The dogwood made me miss the dogwood tree in the front yard of the parsonage in Jarratt, VA, whose blossoming in mid- to late-March was the signal that spring really had arrived.
One cannot spend four and a half days in the Disney complex without reflecting on people. The sheer mass of humanity one encounters from the moment one walks out the door of one's room makes it impossible. On the whole, I had my basic faith in the root goodness and even intelligence of human beings reinforced on this trip. Monday and Thursday it rained heavily, enough to drag down the spirits of even the most upbeat vacationer, yet people were unfailingly polite, always quick with a smile, even a "Hello" as you passed. The huge crowds, one could argue, made courtesy necessary to keep tension at a low ebb, yet there was no etiquette police present, no one demanding that all greet one another with a smile and a laugh, sharing moments with complete strangers as we waited in the unusually short lines (the longest wait for any attraction we encountered was about an hour, although the introduction of the Fast Pass certainly helped in that regard) was not a rule posted at the entrance.
I was also impressed with the variety of types of people. Southerners and northerners, western folk and those like us from the upper Midwest. White and black and Hispanic and Asian and non-Americans by the score. Muslim families, the mothers with their heads wrapped in scarves that were beautiful, framing their faces wonderfully standing cheek by jowl with a family of Jews from New York, the men and boys with yarmulkes on their heads, dressed uncomfortably (so it seemed to me) for the warmth of the Florida spring.
Finally, I think the criticisms and derision with which Disney the man and his ideas are addressed by many on the left is rooted as much in ignorance and the kind of earnest silliness one finds all too often in people for whom adherence to ideas is more important than just being with other people. Sure, Disney may well have been an anti-Semite. Given the age in which he lived, this is nor surprising. Compared to the same sentiments among, say Henry Ford or other powerful individuals who were near contemporaries, his was quite less virulent. His company did, after all, produce on the eve of the Second World War a cartoon, "The Three Little Pigs", that effectively showed that he, Disney, was aware of the threat Hitler's regime posed and articulated a courage in the face of Nazi might that was utterly lacking in the rest of the country at that time.
Disney was also a naive, optimistic member of the Church of Progress, who saw in the expanding technologically-rooted ease of life in the 20th century a sign of human improvement that, given the realities of that time, should have been lacking. Yet, he coupled this naive belief that we could make the world a better, more decent place with an abiding belief that in our children - regardless of background - lies our best, perhaps our only hope. We should teach our children to keep their minds open, to work to realize the fondest wishes of their imaginations. As Disney himself was proof this was possible, even as he faced occasional setbacks and failures, it seemed a faith rooted in his experience that one is hard pressed against which to argue.
There are always exceptions to the rule. In particular, my encounters with the thousands of people present were not always enforcing of a kind of base faith in their wisdom or intelligence. How couples could bring infants to Disney World resorts was a source of constant wonder to my wife and me. Even young children, under the age of five or so, it seemed to us, would make enjoying the parks difficult, to say the least. The sight of pregnant women trying, and failing, to get on various rides also made us shake our heads. Then there was the car in parked in front of us at a stop in Tennessee, with various bumper stickers that revealed a narrowness of mind that made my wife cringe. My only thought, still trying to be generous, was that it takes all kinds to make a large country like ours. Someone advertising their ignorance and bigotry as proudly as this person was doing is far less a threat than the silent ones who keep their beliefs to themselves until they explode in an orgy of rage and violence.
By and large, these reflections are a small part of my experience. Most of the time, I was quite simply enjoying eight days of nearly uninterrupted time with my wife and children, in a warm and accommodating space set aside for families to enjoy themselves. We laughed and commented on the rides and attractions and ate and slept and rode together, rarely apart for more than a few minutes at a time, without ever being rancorous or exhausted with one another's company, a testimony, I think, to our abiding love for one another. We shall return there before too much longer, not only to enjoy what we had enjoyed before, but also to experience so much that we missed. Even the very long days we spent in each park were not enough to take in all they had to offer, and we all agreed there was so much yet for us to experience, not least a sunny day at Disney's Animal Kingdom and The Magic Kingdom.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
If It Were Planned, It Wouldn't Be Random, Duh
This will be my last post for a while. Early Saturday morning, like 5 a.m. our time, we shall be hopping in my car and headed for a marvelous, long-anticipated family vacation in Disney World resorts. Five nights at Disney Hollywood Resort Hotel, a day each at Disney Hollywood Studios Florida, Disney's Animal Kingdom, Epcot Center, and, of course, the Magic Kingdom. Leaving winter's last attempt to assert itself over spring for the balmy central Florida swamp. Speeding through Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia. The whole thing will be a marvelous adventure, a week with the family, a week away from pretty much everything.
Ah . . .
I thought, what the heck. I'm feeling musical right now. Something fun. Something to occupy your minds while I'm away. So, my challenge is simple enough - provide in comments ten songs from your own play lists. They don't have to be random. Just ten songs because such lists tell much about who you are, more than you can imagine.
"Together We're Stranger", indeed . . .
The Wagoner's Lad - Buell Kazee (Anthology of American Folk Music)
I've Seen All Good People - Yes
Neo-Caliban Grides - Soft Machine
It Hurts Me Too - Grateful Dead (Fillmore East)
5:15 - The Who
Sleeping Beauty - A Perfect Circle
Peach - Prince
Out On A Limb - Lunatic Soul
Friday I'm In Love - The Cure
Love On The Air - David Gilmour
What else? Ha! See y'all on the flipside . . .
Ah . . .
I thought, what the heck. I'm feeling musical right now. Something fun. Something to occupy your minds while I'm away. So, my challenge is simple enough - provide in comments ten songs from your own play lists. They don't have to be random. Just ten songs because such lists tell much about who you are, more than you can imagine.
"Together We're Stranger", indeed . . .
The Wagoner's Lad - Buell Kazee (Anthology of American Folk Music)
I've Seen All Good People - Yes
Neo-Caliban Grides - Soft Machine
It Hurts Me Too - Grateful Dead (Fillmore East)
5:15 - The Who
Sleeping Beauty - A Perfect Circle
Peach - Prince
Out On A Limb - Lunatic Soul
Friday I'm In Love - The Cure
Love On The Air - David Gilmour
What else? Ha! See y'all on the flipside . . .
Lest Anyone Think Silence Equals Consent . . .
With the inauguration of Operation Odyssey Dawn (and John Stewart is so right, that sounds like the title of a Yes album), Pres. Obama has managed to bring along the best of all possible worlds. Those who chided him for doing nothing are now attacking him for doing something. Those who insisted that we not get involved are crowing about getting involved in such a half-assed way. While it may be true that the President was in a position where he would have been criticized regardless of what actions he took, he now has the dubious distinction of ticking off all sorts of folks and killing people for no good reason.
While I find Sen Richard Lugar's (R-IN) comments ridiculous - he claimed on Sunday to now know what was going on, etc., as if he had not heard all sorts of clamor and complaint in the couple weeks leading up to the beginning of the mission - and Newt Gingrich's hilarious flip-flop no end of entertainment, that does not mean that I agree with the President. While I find it ridiculous of Speaker Boehner to claim, as he did over the weekend in a letter to the President, that there have been no clearly articulated goals, no clear definition of the mission, no discussion of the scope and size of the mission, that does not mean I find solace in the mission as the President has described it.
Indeed, as I wrote last week
We have no dog in this fight beyond a general desire for freedom for the Libyan people, and a wish they not suffer the hardships of being shelled, bombed, or otherwise injured and killed by their own military. Noble sentiments which I certainly share. All the same, such sentiments are not a reason to commit our blood and treasure to a campaign that involves killing people with whom we have no immediate quarrel, and which carries far too many unknown costs down the road. While it pains me to side with the opponents of the President, I cannot stand with him in the middle of this muddled, murderous nonsense.
While I find Sen Richard Lugar's (R-IN) comments ridiculous - he claimed on Sunday to now know what was going on, etc., as if he had not heard all sorts of clamor and complaint in the couple weeks leading up to the beginning of the mission - and Newt Gingrich's hilarious flip-flop no end of entertainment, that does not mean that I agree with the President. While I find it ridiculous of Speaker Boehner to claim, as he did over the weekend in a letter to the President, that there have been no clearly articulated goals, no clear definition of the mission, no discussion of the scope and size of the mission, that does not mean I find solace in the mission as the President has described it.
Indeed, as I wrote last week
[Qaddafi's] ground forces can consolidate. The opposition, such as remains of it, sits huddled in and around Benghazi. The talking about talking breaks down, and now the Libyan Army is ready to go. And, surprise, surprise! It doesn't need planes. Its tanks, its artillery - all in place. The troops, arranged properly and briefed thoroughly, move in.By and large, this is what is happening. The ground offensive continues, the opposition, such as it may be, untrained, unprepared, inadequately armed, is hardly protected as the tanks, artillery, and troops continue to move against them. The stated final goal - the end of the Qaddafi regime - is no closer to being realized by the no-fly zone than it was before, with added costs not least of which is the loss of an American F-15.
We have no dog in this fight beyond a general desire for freedom for the Libyan people, and a wish they not suffer the hardships of being shelled, bombed, or otherwise injured and killed by their own military. Noble sentiments which I certainly share. All the same, such sentiments are not a reason to commit our blood and treasure to a campaign that involves killing people with whom we have no immediate quarrel, and which carries far too many unknown costs down the road. While it pains me to side with the opponents of the President, I cannot stand with him in the middle of this muddled, murderous nonsense.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Come In She Said I'll Give You Shelter From The Storm
Have you ever wondered if there were ways others could tell things about you that didn't involve cutting open a chicken and dumping out its innards or tracing lines on your hand? Well, there is now.
Hawkwind?
Really?
Let's get some randomness started before I get bored.
Day Fourteen: Pride - Ayreon
I'm Not Waving - Dead Soul Tribe
Linus and Lucy - Vince Guaraldi Trio
High Time - Grateful Dead (Live, Nassau Colosseum, 1980)
Amethyst - Bill Bruford, Ralph Towner, Eddie Gomez
You Got The Look - Prince
Winds of Change - Peter Frampton
Be Still My Beating Heart - Sting
Take Me In Your Arms - Kim Weston
Behind Me Now - Amos Lee
The Cult keeps popping up on my player, and just missed this list. It's like a musical Wayback Machine for me, taking me to more carefree college days. . .
The Beatles: You can do exactly 1.5 pull-ups.For myself, I would enjoy tantric sex, if for no other reason than I tend to enjoy sex anyway, but tantric sex makes it a bit like work before you get there, and I try to keep discipline out of the bedroom. Fat guys? Um, no . . . These are clues to my favorite classic rock band, by the way.
Badfinger: You are a Beatle.
Deep Purple: Some part of a law named after a young girl applies to you.
Led Zeppelin: The first three things you smoked were banana peels, catnip, and poppies, in that order.
Jimi Hendrix: You are under 20 or over 65.
The Kinks: You have bad teeth and are good in bed.
The Guess Who: You have good teeth and are bad in bed.
Black Sabbath: Your greatest joy is painting unventilated rooms.
David Bowie: There is still, somewhere, a Dig Dug or Zaxxon machine with your high score on it.
Mott the Hoople: You are David Bowie.
The Moody Blues: You are a former volunteer at the Liberace museum, a serial killer, or both.
The Grateful Dead: Your stories about the seventies make your daughter's roommates at Tufts very uncomfortable.
Hawkwind?
Really?
Let's get some randomness started before I get bored.
Day Fourteen: Pride - Ayreon
I'm Not Waving - Dead Soul Tribe
Linus and Lucy - Vince Guaraldi Trio
High Time - Grateful Dead (Live, Nassau Colosseum, 1980)
Amethyst - Bill Bruford, Ralph Towner, Eddie Gomez
You Got The Look - Prince
Winds of Change - Peter Frampton
Be Still My Beating Heart - Sting
Take Me In Your Arms - Kim Weston
Behind Me Now - Amos Lee
The Cult keeps popping up on my player, and just missed this list. It's like a musical Wayback Machine for me, taking me to more carefree college days. . .
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Father
As we continue our little musings on prayer, I thought it important to take a moment and clarify a point I made yesterday regarding the opening petition of the Lord's Prayer. Specifically, the highlighted section in what follows:
Yet, in our day and age, the word "father" has become a problem. It isn't too hard to think of people whose relationships with their fathers is, well, less than satisfactory. In fact, I can think of people who have no relationship at all with their fathers, either because their fathers were absent, or were abusive in some way. Very often, this can translate for some in to problems addressing God as "Father". After all, if one's experience of "Father" is either of absence or abuse, who wants God to be like that?
This leads to a situation in which the term of address in the initial petition becomes a matter of concern, even controversy. When I was in seminary, two decades ago (which makes me feel old . . .), our academic Dean, a systematic theologian who should have known better, would, for example, use "Father/Mother" in the Trinitarian formula. That usually made my fillings ache. I also knew a pastor who, during the congregational recitation of the Lord's Prayer, would begin her petition with, "Our Mother."
The invitation to address God as "Father" is problematic for many today for reasons that differ from ways it was problematic in the time of Jesus. Then, it was the intimacy implied by the form of address. As St. Paul says, we are to call upon God using the Aramaic idiom "Abba", connoting familiarity. In our day and age, all too often this intimacy is betrayed in people's experiences with their fathers, leaving a bad taste in the mouth when we turn to God and call upon our Heavenly Father.
All the same, I think it imperative that we not shrink, in this instance, from using that particular title. We must, even in the midst of our fear, our anger at the ways our fathers hurt and betray our trust and love, have the faith and courage, by addressing God as "Our Father" to make the claim that in this Father we have one who will never betray us, never leave us alone, who loves us beyond all imagining, all comprehension.
We should also do this address in the full knowledge that it is a problem. We should use it with a penitential heart, asking forgiveness for the many ways we have made it difficult for so many to say to God, "You are our Father." Even this most intimate, essential relationship is broken by sin. By calling upon God as Father we are not only claiming a relationship of utmost particularity; we are also confessing the ways that earthly relationship is broken. For that reason, I think it necessary to always pray, in the Lord's Prayer, to Our Father, who is in heaven.
Quite apart from contemporary ideological discussions on the word choice, which are important as a matter of communal reflection on our own brokenness, and should always be a part of our prayer life, the opening petition of the Lord's Prayer already contains within it both the honest humility of the sinner and the boldness of faith through grace; approaching the throne of God and daring to speak in that way, to address the unknown and unknowable Creator as "Father" is to declare the mystery of salvation in two short words, to live out the possibility presented to us in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.It is important to remember that Jesus invites us in to a radically new relationship with God through this daring word-choice. Of all the ways to address God, calling God, "Father", introduces a level of intimacy in our relationship with God that should draw us up short, make us pause each time we utter it. This is, after all, the God who is in heaven, whose Name is to be hallowed. Yet, we boldly, humbly dare to address God as "Our Father".
Yet, in our day and age, the word "father" has become a problem. It isn't too hard to think of people whose relationships with their fathers is, well, less than satisfactory. In fact, I can think of people who have no relationship at all with their fathers, either because their fathers were absent, or were abusive in some way. Very often, this can translate for some in to problems addressing God as "Father". After all, if one's experience of "Father" is either of absence or abuse, who wants God to be like that?
This leads to a situation in which the term of address in the initial petition becomes a matter of concern, even controversy. When I was in seminary, two decades ago (which makes me feel old . . .), our academic Dean, a systematic theologian who should have known better, would, for example, use "Father/Mother" in the Trinitarian formula. That usually made my fillings ache. I also knew a pastor who, during the congregational recitation of the Lord's Prayer, would begin her petition with, "Our Mother."
The invitation to address God as "Father" is problematic for many today for reasons that differ from ways it was problematic in the time of Jesus. Then, it was the intimacy implied by the form of address. As St. Paul says, we are to call upon God using the Aramaic idiom "Abba", connoting familiarity. In our day and age, all too often this intimacy is betrayed in people's experiences with their fathers, leaving a bad taste in the mouth when we turn to God and call upon our Heavenly Father.
All the same, I think it imperative that we not shrink, in this instance, from using that particular title. We must, even in the midst of our fear, our anger at the ways our fathers hurt and betray our trust and love, have the faith and courage, by addressing God as "Our Father" to make the claim that in this Father we have one who will never betray us, never leave us alone, who loves us beyond all imagining, all comprehension.
We should also do this address in the full knowledge that it is a problem. We should use it with a penitential heart, asking forgiveness for the many ways we have made it difficult for so many to say to God, "You are our Father." Even this most intimate, essential relationship is broken by sin. By calling upon God as Father we are not only claiming a relationship of utmost particularity; we are also confessing the ways that earthly relationship is broken. For that reason, I think it necessary to always pray, in the Lord's Prayer, to Our Father, who is in heaven.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Some Thoughts On Prayer
As I move toward a week's break due to an impending family vacation, I thought I would take the next few days to consider something vital to the life of every Christian, yet something about which it is difficult to speak. I am helped along on this arduous task with some theses offered at the latest addition to the old roll of links.
I have always considered my own position on prayer as rooted in St. Paul's statement, "Pray without ceasing." Yet, even here, we encounter more questions than answers, stumbling blocks, and hazards. My own sense is that St. Paul's contradictory claim, made in the letter to the Romans, that we do not know how to pray, is as true as his insistence that we are to pray always, in all circumstances.
At the heart of the matter, prayer is both simple, and most mysterious, unfathomable, impossible, irrational thing imaginable. As Meyers writes at one point, prayer is the heart of the gospel, the freedom we have been granted by God to speak to God. It is a freedom that requires discipline, however. At the heart of prayer, at the heart of the gracious gift in which we approach the throne of the Creator, stuttering and stammering, unable to articulate our most heart-felt need, lies the reality that only as we grasp our utter inability to pray have we understood what prayer is about. We cannot do it on our own. We would be unable, through the most powerful will, the most humble words of penitence and plea for access, to gain a hearing no matter our righteousness, no matter our virtue.
Prayer is a gift of God's grace. At the heart of the mystery of redemption lies this new reality, this part of the new creation - God has given us the tools to be heard by God. God wants to hear our prayers. God wants that relationship, wants us all, at all times and in all circumstances, to speak our most secret fears, to admit our deepest hurts, to live in the wounds of this life in the full faith that they do not have power over us.
Prayer is surrender. It is surrender to the idea that it is we, either as individuals or as the gathered Church, who pray. It is surrender to the idea that what too often prompts our prayers - our fears for ourselves or those we love; the needs of those who are sick, who suffer, who are alone, in prison, who are left and forgotten - is the reason we approach God. Prayer is surrender of any sense that "I" or "We" are the center of our lives. We cannot pray until we have learned to die.
This contradiction - we are to pray without ceasing, yet we do not know how to pray - is rooted in the very teachings of Jesus. His disciples asked him to instruct them in prayer. He then uttered two words that are impossible, meaningless, blasphemous - "Our Father". Quite apart from contemporary ideological discussions on the word choice, which are important as a matter of communal reflection on our own brokenness, and should always be a part of our prayer life, the opening petition of the Lord's Prayer already contains within it both the honest humility of the sinner and the boldness of faith through grace; approaching the throne of God and daring to speak in that way, to address the unknown and unknowable Creator as "Father" is to declare the mystery of salvation in two short words, to live out the possibility presented to us in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We do not know how to pray. We must pray at all times. We are to pray in this way, reflecting freedom and newness of life. We are to pray in the faith and hope of the grace of God, calling upon God with the boldness that comes from faith, the humility that comes from faith, the love that flows from God.
It is this mystery, this necessary part of each moment of our lives, living with the boldness that brings the New Creation yet to come present as we dare to embrace the promise offered in the resurrection, our promise made in baptism. Prayer is part of making the Kingdom of God real, here and now, the most baffling thing imaginable.
I have always considered my own position on prayer as rooted in St. Paul's statement, "Pray without ceasing." Yet, even here, we encounter more questions than answers, stumbling blocks, and hazards. My own sense is that St. Paul's contradictory claim, made in the letter to the Romans, that we do not know how to pray, is as true as his insistence that we are to pray always, in all circumstances.
At the heart of the matter, prayer is both simple, and most mysterious, unfathomable, impossible, irrational thing imaginable. As Meyers writes at one point, prayer is the heart of the gospel, the freedom we have been granted by God to speak to God. It is a freedom that requires discipline, however. At the heart of prayer, at the heart of the gracious gift in which we approach the throne of the Creator, stuttering and stammering, unable to articulate our most heart-felt need, lies the reality that only as we grasp our utter inability to pray have we understood what prayer is about. We cannot do it on our own. We would be unable, through the most powerful will, the most humble words of penitence and plea for access, to gain a hearing no matter our righteousness, no matter our virtue.
Prayer is a gift of God's grace. At the heart of the mystery of redemption lies this new reality, this part of the new creation - God has given us the tools to be heard by God. God wants to hear our prayers. God wants that relationship, wants us all, at all times and in all circumstances, to speak our most secret fears, to admit our deepest hurts, to live in the wounds of this life in the full faith that they do not have power over us.
Prayer is surrender. It is surrender to the idea that it is we, either as individuals or as the gathered Church, who pray. It is surrender to the idea that what too often prompts our prayers - our fears for ourselves or those we love; the needs of those who are sick, who suffer, who are alone, in prison, who are left and forgotten - is the reason we approach God. Prayer is surrender of any sense that "I" or "We" are the center of our lives. We cannot pray until we have learned to die.
This contradiction - we are to pray without ceasing, yet we do not know how to pray - is rooted in the very teachings of Jesus. His disciples asked him to instruct them in prayer. He then uttered two words that are impossible, meaningless, blasphemous - "Our Father". Quite apart from contemporary ideological discussions on the word choice, which are important as a matter of communal reflection on our own brokenness, and should always be a part of our prayer life, the opening petition of the Lord's Prayer already contains within it both the honest humility of the sinner and the boldness of faith through grace; approaching the throne of God and daring to speak in that way, to address the unknown and unknowable Creator as "Father" is to declare the mystery of salvation in two short words, to live out the possibility presented to us in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We do not know how to pray. We must pray at all times. We are to pray in this way, reflecting freedom and newness of life. We are to pray in the faith and hope of the grace of God, calling upon God with the boldness that comes from faith, the humility that comes from faith, the love that flows from God.
It is this mystery, this necessary part of each moment of our lives, living with the boldness that brings the New Creation yet to come present as we dare to embrace the promise offered in the resurrection, our promise made in baptism. Prayer is part of making the Kingdom of God real, here and now, the most baffling thing imaginable.
Friday, March 18, 2011
What Chris Bertram Said (UPDATE; UPDATE II)
Succinct, clear, and correct. The saying, "Sad but true" keeps coming to mind.
The desire to "do something", while understandable, is woefully misguided absent clarity of thought, any sense of the stakes involved, the interests that may be harmed out of the commendable desire to see a dictator overthrown and a people, yearning to be free, have their wishes granted. That the world is a messy place often makes our real choices unpalatable. The course the UN has placed in front of those who wish to interfere in the Libyan Civil War is fraught with peril all the way around. Just consider Qaddafi's history of retaliation for international interference in his country. No doubt, at some point, the French, or the British, or whoever else gets involved in what will no doubt be seen as a debacle, will be perplexed when there is some kind of violent response against them and/or their interests or people.
I heard an interview yesterday with Secretary of State Clinton. Steve Inskeep of NPR read a question from a gentleman who wondered when the United States would do something. I thought Sec. Clinton's response was spot on. That it seems inadequate to the moment is due, in large part, to an ongoing belief the the United States, being the biggest player in the planetary schoolyard, has both the ability and the responsibility, to set things aright. The persistence of the belief in the benevolence of American interference in the affairs of other states is a marvel, really, of hope over reality. The UN will prove no better, and perhaps spectacularly worse.
I grieve for the lost promise of Libyan freedom. What anyone else could have done, let alone should have done, continues to be the same as it always was - not a damn thing.
UPDATE: I'll be honest. I never saw this coming.
UPDATE II: After some thought, and reports that fighting continues, I have to say I am less surprised now. At this point, Qaddafi stops fighting, and talks about talking. Except, really, he holds all the cards. His ground forces can consolidate. The opposition, such as remains of it, sits huddled in and around Benghazi. The talking about talking breaks down, and now the Libyan Army is ready to go. And, surprise, surprise! It doesn't need planes. Its tanks, its artillery - all in place. The troops, arranged properly and briefed thoroughly, move in.
This is a situation that wholly favors Qaddafi.
The desire to "do something", while understandable, is woefully misguided absent clarity of thought, any sense of the stakes involved, the interests that may be harmed out of the commendable desire to see a dictator overthrown and a people, yearning to be free, have their wishes granted. That the world is a messy place often makes our real choices unpalatable. The course the UN has placed in front of those who wish to interfere in the Libyan Civil War is fraught with peril all the way around. Just consider Qaddafi's history of retaliation for international interference in his country. No doubt, at some point, the French, or the British, or whoever else gets involved in what will no doubt be seen as a debacle, will be perplexed when there is some kind of violent response against them and/or their interests or people.
I heard an interview yesterday with Secretary of State Clinton. Steve Inskeep of NPR read a question from a gentleman who wondered when the United States would do something. I thought Sec. Clinton's response was spot on. That it seems inadequate to the moment is due, in large part, to an ongoing belief the the United States, being the biggest player in the planetary schoolyard, has both the ability and the responsibility, to set things aright. The persistence of the belief in the benevolence of American interference in the affairs of other states is a marvel, really, of hope over reality. The UN will prove no better, and perhaps spectacularly worse.
I grieve for the lost promise of Libyan freedom. What anyone else could have done, let alone should have done, continues to be the same as it always was - not a damn thing.
UPDATE: I'll be honest. I never saw this coming.
Muammar Gaddafi's government said it was declaring a unilateral ceasefire in its offensive to crush Libya's revolt, as Western warplanes prepared to attack his forces.Things that make you go, "Hmm . . ."
"We decided on an immediate ceasefire and on an immediate stop to all military operations," Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa told reporters in Tripoli on Friday, after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorizing military action.
UPDATE II: After some thought, and reports that fighting continues, I have to say I am less surprised now. At this point, Qaddafi stops fighting, and talks about talking. Except, really, he holds all the cards. His ground forces can consolidate. The opposition, such as remains of it, sits huddled in and around Benghazi. The talking about talking breaks down, and now the Libyan Army is ready to go. And, surprise, surprise! It doesn't need planes. Its tanks, its artillery - all in place. The troops, arranged properly and briefed thoroughly, move in.
This is a situation that wholly favors Qaddafi.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Why I Wish I Could Ban "Moral Issues" From Public Debate (UPDATE)
I recently read a story about a New York state representative, a Democrat from the New York City area, who was a pivotal player in killing that state's attempt to legalize gay marriage. He was busted for being part of an extortion/bribery racket . . . with his long-time male partner as enforcer/bag-man. When I read the story, the first thing I thought was, "Well, at least there are some Democrats out there for whom the closet is a comfortable place, too." After the parade of Republicans kicking open their closets, it was a relief, really, to have a Democrat own up to being a real wanker.
The conservatives gave a real run in the hypocrisy marathon, though. David Vitter? Devoted family man who also had a diaper fetish he felt the need to pay someone else to assist him with, rather than trust his wife. Mark Foley? Let's write a bill going after pedophiles on the internet, which should have been a huge clue that he might well have odd feelings about those underage. The late Henry Hyde? Let's prosecute Pres. Clinton, try to get the guy booted from office, because he had the temerity to receive oral pleasure from a woman not his wife. Oh, and by the way, he had a years-long affair. The latest entrant in this rogues' gallery - well, not really latest because he's haunted our public life since I was a young adult - is Newt Gingrich, out there in force talking morality and the joys of monogamy, something at which he has been spectacularly unsuccessful most of his adult life.
I try to avoid talking about most public issues in moral terms, because talking about "morality" is such a slippery thing. Most of the time, when "morality" rears its ugly head, it's a stick others use to beat down those they don't like. Don't like gay folk? Well, then, whatever it is they do, it's immoral! Don't like young people whose lives are different from the previous generation? Well, then, they're immoral!
Elaborate intellectual structures, with all sorts of references to various sacred texts are invoked. The threat to the survival of our society, our very way of life are intoned in what is hoped is the kind of stentorian voice the Hebrew prophets may have used.
It's all a sham.
Social and cultural mores - what we call "morality" - are an ever-changing, never-quite-solid set of rules and expectations that are nice, to be sure. They add to the way we understand and accept one another. All the same, there is no way, apart from near tyrannical strictures and structures, the political arena - the various branches of the federal government, the states, what-have-you - can legally address the way mores change, grow, and move. I would much prefer we deal with matters about which the political process is well-equipped to deal - the economy, foreign policy, addressing our common life through support of the arts, supporting environmental, health and safety, labor organization, and other ways we discovered in the 20th century to improve our common life. We get sidetracked arguing over nonsense and all the while the real barbarians - the thieves and bandits we like to call corporations - steal us blind, strip away the various fig-leaves of protections we have constructed to protect ourselves and enhance our common life.
I noted the Republicans caught in various stages of moral turpitude not to say, "See, aren't they a bunch of hypocrites?", because, frankly, I detest calling people out for moral (or other) hypocrisy. It's easy, it's cheap, and it usually boomerangs around and smacks us in the face. I am quite tired of the "gotcha!" game that goes on far too often, in which this or that person who has spent quite a bit of time pontificating about how horrible our moral choices as a nation may be, only to end up caught, sometimes quite literally, with their pants down. Far better to leave that latter kind of thing in that category that young people refer to as "TMI" and concentrate on matters over which we have actual control.
UPDATE: This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about here.
We are incapable of having this discussion, though, not least because some people seem to think that gay people are destroying America, unwed mothers will leave us impoverished and culturally backward, and masturbation kills. I mean, seriously, people. We were once a country that managed its affairs with at least a modicum of intelligence and maturity. We are, it seems, incapable of governance because we manage our affairs like poorly-trained 19-year-olds, worried about our appearance and whether people will say bad things about us. The real tragedy is that, I think most people get this. Yet, we still have to treat seriously people who should be patted on the head and told to go in the other room while the adults deal with things.
The conservatives gave a real run in the hypocrisy marathon, though. David Vitter? Devoted family man who also had a diaper fetish he felt the need to pay someone else to assist him with, rather than trust his wife. Mark Foley? Let's write a bill going after pedophiles on the internet, which should have been a huge clue that he might well have odd feelings about those underage. The late Henry Hyde? Let's prosecute Pres. Clinton, try to get the guy booted from office, because he had the temerity to receive oral pleasure from a woman not his wife. Oh, and by the way, he had a years-long affair. The latest entrant in this rogues' gallery - well, not really latest because he's haunted our public life since I was a young adult - is Newt Gingrich, out there in force talking morality and the joys of monogamy, something at which he has been spectacularly unsuccessful most of his adult life.
I try to avoid talking about most public issues in moral terms, because talking about "morality" is such a slippery thing. Most of the time, when "morality" rears its ugly head, it's a stick others use to beat down those they don't like. Don't like gay folk? Well, then, whatever it is they do, it's immoral! Don't like young people whose lives are different from the previous generation? Well, then, they're immoral!
Elaborate intellectual structures, with all sorts of references to various sacred texts are invoked. The threat to the survival of our society, our very way of life are intoned in what is hoped is the kind of stentorian voice the Hebrew prophets may have used.
It's all a sham.
Social and cultural mores - what we call "morality" - are an ever-changing, never-quite-solid set of rules and expectations that are nice, to be sure. They add to the way we understand and accept one another. All the same, there is no way, apart from near tyrannical strictures and structures, the political arena - the various branches of the federal government, the states, what-have-you - can legally address the way mores change, grow, and move. I would much prefer we deal with matters about which the political process is well-equipped to deal - the economy, foreign policy, addressing our common life through support of the arts, supporting environmental, health and safety, labor organization, and other ways we discovered in the 20th century to improve our common life. We get sidetracked arguing over nonsense and all the while the real barbarians - the thieves and bandits we like to call corporations - steal us blind, strip away the various fig-leaves of protections we have constructed to protect ourselves and enhance our common life.
I noted the Republicans caught in various stages of moral turpitude not to say, "See, aren't they a bunch of hypocrites?", because, frankly, I detest calling people out for moral (or other) hypocrisy. It's easy, it's cheap, and it usually boomerangs around and smacks us in the face. I am quite tired of the "gotcha!" game that goes on far too often, in which this or that person who has spent quite a bit of time pontificating about how horrible our moral choices as a nation may be, only to end up caught, sometimes quite literally, with their pants down. Far better to leave that latter kind of thing in that category that young people refer to as "TMI" and concentrate on matters over which we have actual control.
UPDATE: This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about here.
When it comes to the cost of environmental rules, industry scaremongering is virtually always wrong. And not just a little wrong. A lot wrong. Yet serious people continue to stroke their chins and take their pseudo-studies seriously.We are bombarded by bullshit that every little environmental regulation will cost jobs, kill the economy, leave us no better than Zambia, economically speaking. Yet, the fact is that mercury, which not only leads to a kind of dementia but is also a mutagen, is the real threat. Not the regulations to control its use and disposal in to the environment. That won't hurt anyone, costs little to nothing, and benefits everyone.
Anyway, read the whole thing. Mercury is a huge health hazard, the new EPA rules have been in the works for decades, and mitigation technology is available that works pretty well at a reasonable cost.
We are incapable of having this discussion, though, not least because some people seem to think that gay people are destroying America, unwed mothers will leave us impoverished and culturally backward, and masturbation kills. I mean, seriously, people. We were once a country that managed its affairs with at least a modicum of intelligence and maturity. We are, it seems, incapable of governance because we manage our affairs like poorly-trained 19-year-olds, worried about our appearance and whether people will say bad things about us. The real tragedy is that, I think most people get this. Yet, we still have to treat seriously people who should be patted on the head and told to go in the other room while the adults deal with things.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Killing The Record Industry One Song At A Time
My friend Greg, who is also the guy for whom I work as a DJ, turned me on to the documentary, Before the Music Dies. It's available free, as you may have discovered if you clicked the link, at Hulu.com. A look at the hazards and potential of our current historic moment as regards music - the depredations of the music industry, corporate consolidation in commercial radio, and the MTV effect on the one hand; the availability of inexpensive recording tools and distribution networks from social media to small labels to other internet sources - the film is a definite must-see for any music fan.
With the advent of Justin Bieber over the past year, and the threat of a new Britney Spears record on the horizon, this film reminds us that while the destruction of both commercial radio and the record industry in the name of profit is an opportunity for musicians to get their music heard, and for fans of music - any kind of music - to hear incredible, strange, marvelous, wonderful stuff.
The film opens with the following clip, leaving this viewer with the dreadful thought that, as the record industry has existed for the past twenty years or so, nothing like this could have been produced. Thankfully, technology and a desire for hearing something new, really new, is keeping the door open for all sorts of people who might otherwise never get a chance to be heard. So, hear are Ray and Billy, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh, yeah, here are ten random songs, just because randomness is a threat.
Two Lovers - Mary Wells
Southern Point - Grizzly Bear
Runaway - The National
Up for the Downstroke - Parliament/Funkadelic
Larks Tongue in Aspic, Part III (Live) - King Crimson
Ommie Wise - G. B. Grayson (Anthology of American Folk Music)
Ben - Michael Jackson
Harold The Barrel - Genesis
Kneel and Disconnect - Porcupine Tree
I Ka Barra - Habib Koite and Bamada
This song just missed my random list, literally. All the same, it may well be my favorite song of all time. If I were stranded on a desert island, and didn't have this song, I'm not sure how I would survive. I think God put Marvin Gaye on this earth to record the album What's Going On, and this title track is just about perfect in every way.
With the advent of Justin Bieber over the past year, and the threat of a new Britney Spears record on the horizon, this film reminds us that while the destruction of both commercial radio and the record industry in the name of profit is an opportunity for musicians to get their music heard, and for fans of music - any kind of music - to hear incredible, strange, marvelous, wonderful stuff.
The film opens with the following clip, leaving this viewer with the dreadful thought that, as the record industry has existed for the past twenty years or so, nothing like this could have been produced. Thankfully, technology and a desire for hearing something new, really new, is keeping the door open for all sorts of people who might otherwise never get a chance to be heard. So, hear are Ray and Billy, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh, yeah, here are ten random songs, just because randomness is a threat.
Two Lovers - Mary Wells
Southern Point - Grizzly Bear
Runaway - The National
Up for the Downstroke - Parliament/Funkadelic
Larks Tongue in Aspic, Part III (Live) - King Crimson
Ommie Wise - G. B. Grayson (Anthology of American Folk Music)
Ben - Michael Jackson
Harold The Barrel - Genesis
Kneel and Disconnect - Porcupine Tree
I Ka Barra - Habib Koite and Bamada
This song just missed my random list, literally. All the same, it may well be my favorite song of all time. If I were stranded on a desert island, and didn't have this song, I'm not sure how I would survive. I think God put Marvin Gaye on this earth to record the album What's Going On, and this title track is just about perfect in every way.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Truth And The Bible I - Prior Commitments Outside The Bible
What follows is a long response to a discussion here. It is not even marginally on topic, would be far too long for a comment, yet it deals with issues under discussion. I dealt, years ago, with these same topics with Neil, who also seemed not to get the point I was trying to make. My hope is that I've become better at explaining this stuff.
In any discussion on the nature of truth in the Bible that includes literalists, one finds what is, in essence, a defense of a particular view of truth that is usually labeled "correspondence". This is the theory that states truth pertains when there is a direct, discernible relationship between the things we say or write, and our experience. Now, the correspondence theory of truth, or at least a version of it, which I will be calling the "weak version", is a good approximation of how we conduct our affairs in everyday life. Communication needs to have a certain level of mundane reliability. As an evolutionary tool, language only works as a survival tool if those who use it understand a certain amount of correspondence between what is said and what is happening. If we doubt that, the saber-tooth tiger that is lurking around the corner may pounce on us because we don't trust the other hunters trying to warn us about it.
At the same time, just because the "weak version" of correspondence has some commonsense validity does not mean it is the sole, or even the best, theory of truth out there. After all, part of the problem is confusing "the correct conveyance of immediate information" with truth as a philosophical category. Just as Newtonian physics works well enough as an approximation for how things operate here on earth at non-relativistic speeds and at the macroscopic level, but breaks down once we start dealing with relativistic velocities and sub-atomic particles, correspondence starts to fall apart once we start to push it toward conveying more than simple facts to truth.
Conveying facts, contingent events, and truth, a quality that obtains throughout the changes of time and space, is qualitatively different. Correspondence does the former quite well. It cannot do the latter for the simple reality that facts exist, they can be pointed to in space and time, plotted on a graph, that kind of thing. Truth, being a universal (at least in philosophical parlance), does not "exist" in this mundane way.
Now, one could argue that I am confusing the matter, since the issue of correspondence concerns itself with the reliability of the reports of various events and persons in the Bible. For example, when the Bible reports the siege of Jericho, the walls are said to have collapsed after the people marched around them and blew their horns. Now, archaeologists have examined the wealth of remains of old Jericho and find no evidence the walls collapsed or were otherwise breached. I have been accused of putting more faith in the archaeologists than in the Scriptural narrative, but right here lies the essence of the confusion. If our trust in the Biblical narrative rests upon a trust in the correspondence between the events depicted in Scripture, either fantastic or mundane, and actual historical events, then the Bible loses. Particularly if the standard is, as it often is claimed to be, that any Scriptural passage so proven factually inaccurate calls the entire body of writings in to question.
There are a variety of understandings of truth: logical coherence, the evidential theory, the pragmatic theory, and the correspondence theory (Karl Popper via Karl Hubner). They are sometimes overlapping, sometimes contradictory, sometimes complimentary, but each is proposed because of limitations and flaws in the others. Relying on any of them for an understanding of truth when reading the Bible forces us to face their limitations.
A prior commitment to any theory of truth, particularly a strong version of the correspondence theory, misses a not unimportant fact. The Bible itself offers a view of truth that is fundamentally distinct from any of these. In the Gospel of St. John, Jesus proclaims himself to be "the Truth", as well as the way and the life. It seems to me that we need to start here for an understanding of truth in the Bible.
In any discussion on the nature of truth in the Bible that includes literalists, one finds what is, in essence, a defense of a particular view of truth that is usually labeled "correspondence". This is the theory that states truth pertains when there is a direct, discernible relationship between the things we say or write, and our experience. Now, the correspondence theory of truth, or at least a version of it, which I will be calling the "weak version", is a good approximation of how we conduct our affairs in everyday life. Communication needs to have a certain level of mundane reliability. As an evolutionary tool, language only works as a survival tool if those who use it understand a certain amount of correspondence between what is said and what is happening. If we doubt that, the saber-tooth tiger that is lurking around the corner may pounce on us because we don't trust the other hunters trying to warn us about it.
At the same time, just because the "weak version" of correspondence has some commonsense validity does not mean it is the sole, or even the best, theory of truth out there. After all, part of the problem is confusing "the correct conveyance of immediate information" with truth as a philosophical category. Just as Newtonian physics works well enough as an approximation for how things operate here on earth at non-relativistic speeds and at the macroscopic level, but breaks down once we start dealing with relativistic velocities and sub-atomic particles, correspondence starts to fall apart once we start to push it toward conveying more than simple facts to truth.
Conveying facts, contingent events, and truth, a quality that obtains throughout the changes of time and space, is qualitatively different. Correspondence does the former quite well. It cannot do the latter for the simple reality that facts exist, they can be pointed to in space and time, plotted on a graph, that kind of thing. Truth, being a universal (at least in philosophical parlance), does not "exist" in this mundane way.
Now, one could argue that I am confusing the matter, since the issue of correspondence concerns itself with the reliability of the reports of various events and persons in the Bible. For example, when the Bible reports the siege of Jericho, the walls are said to have collapsed after the people marched around them and blew their horns. Now, archaeologists have examined the wealth of remains of old Jericho and find no evidence the walls collapsed or were otherwise breached. I have been accused of putting more faith in the archaeologists than in the Scriptural narrative, but right here lies the essence of the confusion. If our trust in the Biblical narrative rests upon a trust in the correspondence between the events depicted in Scripture, either fantastic or mundane, and actual historical events, then the Bible loses. Particularly if the standard is, as it often is claimed to be, that any Scriptural passage so proven factually inaccurate calls the entire body of writings in to question.
There are a variety of understandings of truth: logical coherence, the evidential theory, the pragmatic theory, and the correspondence theory (Karl Popper via Karl Hubner). They are sometimes overlapping, sometimes contradictory, sometimes complimentary, but each is proposed because of limitations and flaws in the others. Relying on any of them for an understanding of truth when reading the Bible forces us to face their limitations.
A prior commitment to any theory of truth, particularly a strong version of the correspondence theory, misses a not unimportant fact. The Bible itself offers a view of truth that is fundamentally distinct from any of these. In the Gospel of St. John, Jesus proclaims himself to be "the Truth", as well as the way and the life. It seems to me that we need to start here for an understanding of truth in the Bible.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Can You See The Real Me?
It is easy enough to get not just pessimistic, but downright cynical about what passes for American popular culture at our present moment. With the rise of the "reality TV" show in an ever-contracting circle - much like what happens when one flushes a toilet, I suppose - to the many, more thoughtful ruminations on the potential dangers of an unhealthy and unrealistic understanding of friendship brought about by the new social media, one could, I suppose, surrender to the potential destruction of any sense of human connection, of any clear-cut line between our public and our private selves, between how we live our lives and how others perceive who we are, seeking to align them in some perverse, and finally psychotic, attempt at balance.
I have been feeling that way. The sheer ubiquity of non-entities crowding public spaces for our attention, the absurdity of fake celebrities cashing in on name recognition for a last chance at the spotlight with fading businessman Donald Trump, or the contrivances of "reality TV" that offer up edited lives, creating the possibility that even those who would, under the usual run of the Universe, not even achieve mediocrity with effort, suddenly have their faces splashed across magazines, their words repeated endlessly, their hairdos and musculature the subject of so much public debate. Combined with the political farce of a fetus "testifying" before a Congressional committee, and Peter King's Islamophobia circus, far too much of our public sphere has been deserted by anything resembling intelligence, thoughtfulness, any sense whatsoever that we are just not meeting the challenges of our time, abdicating any responsibility for our own future as a society.
In the midst, perhaps not of despair but certainly grumpiness, it was my great good fortune to read two essays in the latest New York Review of Books that each in its own way, deal with questions regarding the difference between our public and private selves, the contradictions of our lives, the hypocricies we all face, and the reality that we are worse than we hope, but usually better than we fear, at least most of the time.
The first, a review of an introduction to the Essays of Michel de Montaigne, makes the not unimportant point, wholly relevant in an age of Facebook, Twitter, and the on-going blogs that purport to open our lives to the rest of the world, that there is always a dialectic at work in self-revelation. Even the most mundane reflection on one's life, say a journal entry, precisely because it is a writing about an act, discards what may seem at the time extraneous detail, to focus attention on the act itself. We are hardly being revelatory of ourselves when we sit down on Facebook and give a sentence or two about our kids, or our job, what we're having for lunch, or even providing a link to a song or new article that may have our attention. Even as we try to understand ourselves, there are other parts that we hide, deliberately or otherwise, making even the most naked statement of belief about ourselves simultaneously a hiding of so much else.
Most of the time, I have admitted this to myself and others. Those who worry that even mediocrity can be dramatic (or melodramatic) thanks to "reality" television forget that it is no more real than anything else. Edited, very often in a disingenuous (to be generous) manner to create either drama or tension where none may exist, or to create personas rather than persons, it has no more bearing on human life than an old episode of The Twilight Zone. That some of those who participate in it may begin to believe in the lie there is anything real going on testifies less to the medium or its message, and more to the lack of self-reflection on the part of the individuals involved.
The other essay is a review of the latest Gunter Grass work, where the lines between fiction and memoir, novel and carefully crafted reminiscence become blurred. Designed by the author, it purports to be excerpts from several get-togethers the author had on or near his 80th birthday with his children. He offered to cook for them if he could record their reflections on growing up with Grass as their father. What emerges from the essay, and perhaps from the work as well, is a portrait of Grass as one of the most masterful story-weavers imaginable. Memory and history, fact and fantasy, obfuscation and revelation have always been a part of Grass' work; in this work no less than either his recently published memoirs or his other works it all blends together in the service, it seems, of telling a tale. Sometimes a horrible tale, sometimes a sad tale, sometimes a funny tale, but it is the story that is important.
This blurring of the distinction between reality and fantasy, between perception and reality, between what we wish the world to believe and what really is, as well as allowing the narrative to dictate what is and is not fact, what is and is not relevant, is as old as literature in the west. The master of this, of course, was St. Augustine in his Confessions (about which I had a discussion with someone on my friends list who is a theology Ph. D.; he also figures prominently in the essay on the book on Montaigne). In the long course of his life, that Augustine stole some fruit from an orchard as a boy seems unimportant to we who read it today. We wouldn't otherwise know about it, except of course Augustine tells his readers about it. An important question to ask, I think, regards we contemporary readers of Augustine who are far too quick to dismiss this incident as irrelevant to his life. Clearly, he understood its importance, not just as a symbol, but as an act in and for itself; who are we to say that Augustine doesn't know what he's talking about?
Too many commentators have misunderstood certain events and social and cultural phenomena. For example, the erasure of the distinction between public and private behavior we saw on too-long display during the two years of the Clinton impeachment saga was little more than politics. The ubiquity of the kind of behavior Clinton displayed - taking advantage of a starry-eyed young woman eager enough to throw herself at the President of the United States - should caution us against making ringing judgments about the blurring of that distinction. The ubiquity of "reality TV" is as much as sign of laziness on the part of television producers as it is of moral laxity of Americans. That some folks parrot the trends and personalities on display is not a mark against the genre; rather, it is testimony to the reality that some people quite simply crave attention, and are willing to act as if their lives were on public display. It is more about personality quirks than the destruction of American culture.
My guess is most folks who use Facebook understand the difference between the people on their friends' list and those whom they consider real friends. The latter can usually be counted on no more than the fingers of a couple hands. Those who know us best may number no more than one or two. At its worst, Facebook is a time-wasting device. At its best, it allows people to keep up with a multiplicity of people whose paths have diverged from ours, but who still haunt our thoughts. A century ago, those with a large Facebook friends' list would have a large correspondence. Instead of writing letters, we "like" a status update. It's really no more than that.
I was getting disappointed in the latest NYRB until I read those two pieces. They reminded me that, by and large, we are smarter, and wiser, than we give ourselves credit for. I have yet to meet anyone who believes either that Jersey Shore represents commendable human action, or that Facebook is any substitute for real human interaction, despite all the commentators (myself included on occasion) who might claim otherwise. It is always nice to have a bit of one's faith in reality and all its messiness restored.
I have been feeling that way. The sheer ubiquity of non-entities crowding public spaces for our attention, the absurdity of fake celebrities cashing in on name recognition for a last chance at the spotlight with fading businessman Donald Trump, or the contrivances of "reality TV" that offer up edited lives, creating the possibility that even those who would, under the usual run of the Universe, not even achieve mediocrity with effort, suddenly have their faces splashed across magazines, their words repeated endlessly, their hairdos and musculature the subject of so much public debate. Combined with the political farce of a fetus "testifying" before a Congressional committee, and Peter King's Islamophobia circus, far too much of our public sphere has been deserted by anything resembling intelligence, thoughtfulness, any sense whatsoever that we are just not meeting the challenges of our time, abdicating any responsibility for our own future as a society.
In the midst, perhaps not of despair but certainly grumpiness, it was my great good fortune to read two essays in the latest New York Review of Books that each in its own way, deal with questions regarding the difference between our public and private selves, the contradictions of our lives, the hypocricies we all face, and the reality that we are worse than we hope, but usually better than we fear, at least most of the time.
The first, a review of an introduction to the Essays of Michel de Montaigne, makes the not unimportant point, wholly relevant in an age of Facebook, Twitter, and the on-going blogs that purport to open our lives to the rest of the world, that there is always a dialectic at work in self-revelation. Even the most mundane reflection on one's life, say a journal entry, precisely because it is a writing about an act, discards what may seem at the time extraneous detail, to focus attention on the act itself. We are hardly being revelatory of ourselves when we sit down on Facebook and give a sentence or two about our kids, or our job, what we're having for lunch, or even providing a link to a song or new article that may have our attention. Even as we try to understand ourselves, there are other parts that we hide, deliberately or otherwise, making even the most naked statement of belief about ourselves simultaneously a hiding of so much else.
Most of the time, I have admitted this to myself and others. Those who worry that even mediocrity can be dramatic (or melodramatic) thanks to "reality" television forget that it is no more real than anything else. Edited, very often in a disingenuous (to be generous) manner to create either drama or tension where none may exist, or to create personas rather than persons, it has no more bearing on human life than an old episode of The Twilight Zone. That some of those who participate in it may begin to believe in the lie there is anything real going on testifies less to the medium or its message, and more to the lack of self-reflection on the part of the individuals involved.
The other essay is a review of the latest Gunter Grass work, where the lines between fiction and memoir, novel and carefully crafted reminiscence become blurred. Designed by the author, it purports to be excerpts from several get-togethers the author had on or near his 80th birthday with his children. He offered to cook for them if he could record their reflections on growing up with Grass as their father. What emerges from the essay, and perhaps from the work as well, is a portrait of Grass as one of the most masterful story-weavers imaginable. Memory and history, fact and fantasy, obfuscation and revelation have always been a part of Grass' work; in this work no less than either his recently published memoirs or his other works it all blends together in the service, it seems, of telling a tale. Sometimes a horrible tale, sometimes a sad tale, sometimes a funny tale, but it is the story that is important.
This blurring of the distinction between reality and fantasy, between perception and reality, between what we wish the world to believe and what really is, as well as allowing the narrative to dictate what is and is not fact, what is and is not relevant, is as old as literature in the west. The master of this, of course, was St. Augustine in his Confessions (about which I had a discussion with someone on my friends list who is a theology Ph. D.; he also figures prominently in the essay on the book on Montaigne). In the long course of his life, that Augustine stole some fruit from an orchard as a boy seems unimportant to we who read it today. We wouldn't otherwise know about it, except of course Augustine tells his readers about it. An important question to ask, I think, regards we contemporary readers of Augustine who are far too quick to dismiss this incident as irrelevant to his life. Clearly, he understood its importance, not just as a symbol, but as an act in and for itself; who are we to say that Augustine doesn't know what he's talking about?
Too many commentators have misunderstood certain events and social and cultural phenomena. For example, the erasure of the distinction between public and private behavior we saw on too-long display during the two years of the Clinton impeachment saga was little more than politics. The ubiquity of the kind of behavior Clinton displayed - taking advantage of a starry-eyed young woman eager enough to throw herself at the President of the United States - should caution us against making ringing judgments about the blurring of that distinction. The ubiquity of "reality TV" is as much as sign of laziness on the part of television producers as it is of moral laxity of Americans. That some folks parrot the trends and personalities on display is not a mark against the genre; rather, it is testimony to the reality that some people quite simply crave attention, and are willing to act as if their lives were on public display. It is more about personality quirks than the destruction of American culture.
My guess is most folks who use Facebook understand the difference between the people on their friends' list and those whom they consider real friends. The latter can usually be counted on no more than the fingers of a couple hands. Those who know us best may number no more than one or two. At its worst, Facebook is a time-wasting device. At its best, it allows people to keep up with a multiplicity of people whose paths have diverged from ours, but who still haunt our thoughts. A century ago, those with a large Facebook friends' list would have a large correspondence. Instead of writing letters, we "like" a status update. It's really no more than that.
I was getting disappointed in the latest NYRB until I read those two pieces. They reminded me that, by and large, we are smarter, and wiser, than we give ourselves credit for. I have yet to meet anyone who believes either that Jersey Shore represents commendable human action, or that Facebook is any substitute for real human interaction, despite all the commentators (myself included on occasion) who might claim otherwise. It is always nice to have a bit of one's faith in reality and all its messiness restored.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Going Back To New Orleans
Even though it's over now, Mardi Gras season in New Orleans is a reminder of what a lively, unselfconsciously multicultural celebration of life can be like. Rooted in Catholicism as well as southern Louisiana hoodoo and other variants of that branch of Christianity, it is one way people prepare themselves for a season of sacrifice, a season of disciplined reflection on life, a season in which we prepare for the coming of Easter. That this party happens in the cradle of American music, our most famously non-Anglo city (we have plenty of others, to be sure), a city that gave birth to jazz, provided a place for the Delta blues players to congregate and exchange ideas, that celebrates its heritage as the stew pot of French and African and Creole and American and Caribbean people and cultures and languages and folk arts. America without New Orleans wouldn't be America; indeed, the world would be a far poorer place without New Orleans.
It is fitting that one of the great interpreters of that city, Mack Rebbenack, also known as Dr. John, is being inducted in to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A sessions musician and song-writer and performer and friend to so many great musicians and mentor to so many more, at the end of the day, he is saturated in the flavors and spices, the steam and the sultriness, of that unique musical city New Orleans. While I'm not impressed with the whole "Hall of Fame" thing, it is nice to know that a hard-working musician's musician is finally getting the kind of recognition he deserves.
Oh, wait. That's that other New Orleans treasure, The Neville Brothers. I'd be sorry, but they are so truly awesome I'm really not.
Let's see what Random has in store for us today, shall we?
Brandenburg Concerto #1 in F, First Movement - Phillip Picket: New London Consort
Isis and Osiris - Ayreon
Out on a Limb - Lunatic Soul
Forever My Friend - Ray LaMontagne
He Got Better Things For You - Memphis Sanctified Singers (Anthology of American Folk Music, Harry Smith, compiler)
Run Through The Light - Yes
B'BOOM (live in Mexico City) - King Crimson
Trampled Rose - Robert Plant and Allison Krauss
The Way To Gone (Bonus Track Version) - Black Mountain
Chickenman (Live) - The Indigo Girls
And . . . so close but not quite making the cut . . .
It is fitting that one of the great interpreters of that city, Mack Rebbenack, also known as Dr. John, is being inducted in to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A sessions musician and song-writer and performer and friend to so many great musicians and mentor to so many more, at the end of the day, he is saturated in the flavors and spices, the steam and the sultriness, of that unique musical city New Orleans. While I'm not impressed with the whole "Hall of Fame" thing, it is nice to know that a hard-working musician's musician is finally getting the kind of recognition he deserves.
Oh, wait. That's that other New Orleans treasure, The Neville Brothers. I'd be sorry, but they are so truly awesome I'm really not.
Let's see what Random has in store for us today, shall we?
Brandenburg Concerto #1 in F, First Movement - Phillip Picket: New London Consort
Isis and Osiris - Ayreon
Out on a Limb - Lunatic Soul
Forever My Friend - Ray LaMontagne
He Got Better Things For You - Memphis Sanctified Singers (Anthology of American Folk Music, Harry Smith, compiler)
Run Through The Light - Yes
B'BOOM (live in Mexico City) - King Crimson
Trampled Rose - Robert Plant and Allison Krauss
The Way To Gone (Bonus Track Version) - Black Mountain
Chickenman (Live) - The Indigo Girls
And . . . so close but not quite making the cut . . .
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Sympathy & Compassion Aren't Good Policy (UPDATE)
I'm not surprised John McCain was all in favor of the US military intervening in Libya's civil war on the Sunday gabfasts. Now, private citizen Newt Gingrich thinks we should be lobbing bombs and cruise missiles in to that poor north African country. In some ways, I'm sympathetic. The folks struggling for freedom from 42 years - 42 years! - of Gaddafi's rule, after some stunning initial successes, are facing stiffening opposition from military forces loyal to Gaddafi. The former Colonel has not shown much restraint, shelling and bombing his own population in an effort to cow it in to submission. While the 300-odd deaths in Egypt were regrettable and tragic, one must admit, after the reports from Libya over the past couple weeks that former Pres. Hosni Mubarak should be lauded for showing restraint. After all, Egypt could very well have descended to this level of violence. That it did not says much about its military and their sense of both duty and honor, and they should be praised for their restraint, and perhaps even refusal to follow a path that would have led to what we are seeing in the country to their immediate west.
The President has said that there are military options "on the table" (God, yet another phrase I am tired of hearing), the most popular being a "no-fly zone" over Libya. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that implementing a no-fly zone presents certain difficulties, not the least of them being that it would be a de facto declaration of war, because Libyan anti-aircraft batteries would need to be taken out. My guess is they are located not in isolated areas - after all, why would warplanes attack isolated areas? - but places where people actually live. Thus, the possibility looms in such a scenario not only for waging aggressive war against a country with whom we have no particular beef, but of causing possibly significant civilian casualties. Remember, our record on precision air strikes is, well . . . OK, it's bad.
I sympathize with the Libyan rebels, as I do for those in Yemen and Bahrain and Oman and Iran. I grieve the deaths caused by Gaddafi's murderous desire to stay in power. All the same, sympathy and compassion are really not good guides to sound policy, particularly in a case as fraught with hazard as this is. First of all, the rebels in Libya have not requested international assistance in any formal way. In fact, if one follows the rebels, as I do, on Twitter, there is a certain reticence about the entire subject of foreign intervention. While some of the rebels certainly see the attacks on civilians by military aircraft and artillery as necessitating some kind of sustained intervention, others continue to wish nothing more than to defeat Gaddafi on their own terms. This is a not unimportant point. Even if I did support intervention, doing so without popular support from the rebels would not be advised. It would only cause trouble down the road.
As a practical matter, our military is stretched incredibly thin. Currently engaged in two military actions in two Muslim countries, intervention in a third, regardless of the possible merits of such intervention, could very well lead to a third occupation, and all the bureaucratic inertia we see in Iraq and Afghanistan toward remaining for the very long term. Congress seems reluctant, to say the least, to pony up the funds to support much of anything these days; preparing a major military campaign even as the folks who hold the purse strings to the entire United States government are wary of opening them would not exactly boost a morale already sapped by thinning supply lines, dwindling civilian support, and complicated logistical tables, not to mention the actual loss of personnel as domestic stinginess requires further reduction of actual forces in a time of war.
There is, of course, our history of attacking Libya, including the ill-regarded and ultimately tragic 1986 bombing by US F-111 fighter bombers. Denied access to French airspace, the planes had to fly all the way around the Iberian peninsula on their way to and from the bombing run (the planes were based in England). Retaliation for a bombing in a German discotheque that took the lives of several American military personnel, it was that bombing, that included an attack on Gaddafi's residence and killed one of his young daughters, that led, in the course of time, to the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. So, there is a history of bombings and retaliations and much blood that needs to be accounted here.
In regards Gingrich's ill-advised comments, his casual dismissal of the UN is not nearly as surprising as his equally casual dismissal of NATO. While technically true that we do not "need" to wait for authorization from any international body for military action, the record of doing so isn't that awesome. In fact, when we have so acted with UN authorization, it hasn't gone too well, either. I have to wonder if the simple reality that Gingrich and McCain are so enthusiastic for military action against loyalist forces in Libya isn't the single biggest piece of evidence that doing so is a horrible idea.
As events unfold in Libya, we should do all we can to assist the rebels that is within our current expressed limited means. There are so many reasons why direct military action is a bad idea that we should draw a line there. I recognize that people of goodwill from a variety of ideological positions will disagree, and that's OK. The fact that there is not anything like unanimous support for some kind of military action in Libya should give anyone pause before demanding we start sending our pilots in to harm's way.
UPDATE: It seems liberals dislike military intervention . . . except when we like it. Out of a very real, and understandable, desire to end the suffering of the Libyan people, there seems to be this belief that the US military, which the left normally wishes to dismantle, has endless sources and resources. Thus, commenters at an Yglesias post. For example:
That's first and foremost.
Second, however, is a question in re possibly intervening in 1994 in Rwanda that is wholly relevant. Rwanda is a landlocked nation, small, with limited physical infrastructure. Even the UN forces then on the ground had logistical issues that seemed insurmountable. Had Clinton suddenly decided to intervene, how might US troops have entered? Perhaps through Kenya and/or Tanzania, two large, neighboring countries with whom the US enjoys good relations. US officials contact the Kenyans/Tanzanians and informs them we need to use their territory to stage a humanitarian military intervention in Rwanda. Haggling ensues even as more Rwandans die. The logistical tables are drawn up, forward staging - in the Middle East perhaps - begins. All that is awaited is a signal. Once we arrive in Kenya and Tanzania, there is the not inconsiderable task of getting all these troops and vehicles and supplies from the forward bases to Rwanda itself. Meanwhile, the Rwandan military has been instructed to resist. Now, this may be thought a minor matter, but invading Rwanda even in a case like this would be an act of war. So, we have the prospect of American troops, seeking only to stop mass killing, suddenly embroiled in combat, their supply lines already thin, with minimal air support. The entire prospect, while certainly laudable, becomes a logistical and political and diplomatic nightmare.
OK? Got that? So, some lefties want to feel good about "doing something". Fine. Give me, in detail, how you would go about "doing something" in regards to Libya, that minimizes civilian casualties, respects the wishes of both the Libyan rebels as well as international law, gives our troops maximum flexibility to do the mission and succeed, and always make sure there's an exit strategy from the get-go so we don't wind up with another open-ended occupation in the Muslim world.
It's easy to talk about doing stuff. Pony up.
Then, there's this comment:
The President has said that there are military options "on the table" (God, yet another phrase I am tired of hearing), the most popular being a "no-fly zone" over Libya. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that implementing a no-fly zone presents certain difficulties, not the least of them being that it would be a de facto declaration of war, because Libyan anti-aircraft batteries would need to be taken out. My guess is they are located not in isolated areas - after all, why would warplanes attack isolated areas? - but places where people actually live. Thus, the possibility looms in such a scenario not only for waging aggressive war against a country with whom we have no particular beef, but of causing possibly significant civilian casualties. Remember, our record on precision air strikes is, well . . . OK, it's bad.
I sympathize with the Libyan rebels, as I do for those in Yemen and Bahrain and Oman and Iran. I grieve the deaths caused by Gaddafi's murderous desire to stay in power. All the same, sympathy and compassion are really not good guides to sound policy, particularly in a case as fraught with hazard as this is. First of all, the rebels in Libya have not requested international assistance in any formal way. In fact, if one follows the rebels, as I do, on Twitter, there is a certain reticence about the entire subject of foreign intervention. While some of the rebels certainly see the attacks on civilians by military aircraft and artillery as necessitating some kind of sustained intervention, others continue to wish nothing more than to defeat Gaddafi on their own terms. This is a not unimportant point. Even if I did support intervention, doing so without popular support from the rebels would not be advised. It would only cause trouble down the road.
As a practical matter, our military is stretched incredibly thin. Currently engaged in two military actions in two Muslim countries, intervention in a third, regardless of the possible merits of such intervention, could very well lead to a third occupation, and all the bureaucratic inertia we see in Iraq and Afghanistan toward remaining for the very long term. Congress seems reluctant, to say the least, to pony up the funds to support much of anything these days; preparing a major military campaign even as the folks who hold the purse strings to the entire United States government are wary of opening them would not exactly boost a morale already sapped by thinning supply lines, dwindling civilian support, and complicated logistical tables, not to mention the actual loss of personnel as domestic stinginess requires further reduction of actual forces in a time of war.
There is, of course, our history of attacking Libya, including the ill-regarded and ultimately tragic 1986 bombing by US F-111 fighter bombers. Denied access to French airspace, the planes had to fly all the way around the Iberian peninsula on their way to and from the bombing run (the planes were based in England). Retaliation for a bombing in a German discotheque that took the lives of several American military personnel, it was that bombing, that included an attack on Gaddafi's residence and killed one of his young daughters, that led, in the course of time, to the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. So, there is a history of bombings and retaliations and much blood that needs to be accounted here.
In regards Gingrich's ill-advised comments, his casual dismissal of the UN is not nearly as surprising as his equally casual dismissal of NATO. While technically true that we do not "need" to wait for authorization from any international body for military action, the record of doing so isn't that awesome. In fact, when we have so acted with UN authorization, it hasn't gone too well, either. I have to wonder if the simple reality that Gingrich and McCain are so enthusiastic for military action against loyalist forces in Libya isn't the single biggest piece of evidence that doing so is a horrible idea.
As events unfold in Libya, we should do all we can to assist the rebels that is within our current expressed limited means. There are so many reasons why direct military action is a bad idea that we should draw a line there. I recognize that people of goodwill from a variety of ideological positions will disagree, and that's OK. The fact that there is not anything like unanimous support for some kind of military action in Libya should give anyone pause before demanding we start sending our pilots in to harm's way.
UPDATE: It seems liberals dislike military intervention . . . except when we like it. Out of a very real, and understandable, desire to end the suffering of the Libyan people, there seems to be this belief that the US military, which the left normally wishes to dismantle, has endless sources and resources. Thus, commenters at an Yglesias post. For example:
Nial Ferguson sucks balls. He's horrible. So is Charles Krauthammer who Applebam links to.OK, let's explore Rwanda for just a moment. Was it a horrible mistake for the US not to intervene? Far more horrible, really, was the concerted effort Clinton's then UN Representative Madeleine Albright waged to ensure that body did quite literally nothing, including give ROE to the UN peace-keeping forces already in that country that might have allowed them to intervene. The moral approbation Clinton should receive extends beyond merely "doing nothing" to actively ensuring that no one did anything.
"This is the “ethic of responsibility” approach. What’s wanted on Libya aren’t bold ideas to fix things that are as likely as not to end up creating some new horrible problems, "
In other words, "Not. Our. Problem."
Here's pseudo in nc's favorite writer Hitchens
"And yet there is a palpable reluctance, especially on the part of the Obama administration, to look these things in the face. Even after decades of enmity with this evil creep, our military and intelligence services turn out not even to have had a contingency plan. So it seems we must improvise. But does one have to go over all the arguments again, as if Rwanda and Bosnia and Kurdistan had never happened?"
Clinton said Rwanda was the biggest mistake of his 8 years in office. What was the "ethics of responsibilty" about sitting by and doing nothing while hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings were slaughtered?
That's first and foremost.
Second, however, is a question in re possibly intervening in 1994 in Rwanda that is wholly relevant. Rwanda is a landlocked nation, small, with limited physical infrastructure. Even the UN forces then on the ground had logistical issues that seemed insurmountable. Had Clinton suddenly decided to intervene, how might US troops have entered? Perhaps through Kenya and/or Tanzania, two large, neighboring countries with whom the US enjoys good relations. US officials contact the Kenyans/Tanzanians and informs them we need to use their territory to stage a humanitarian military intervention in Rwanda. Haggling ensues even as more Rwandans die. The logistical tables are drawn up, forward staging - in the Middle East perhaps - begins. All that is awaited is a signal. Once we arrive in Kenya and Tanzania, there is the not inconsiderable task of getting all these troops and vehicles and supplies from the forward bases to Rwanda itself. Meanwhile, the Rwandan military has been instructed to resist. Now, this may be thought a minor matter, but invading Rwanda even in a case like this would be an act of war. So, we have the prospect of American troops, seeking only to stop mass killing, suddenly embroiled in combat, their supply lines already thin, with minimal air support. The entire prospect, while certainly laudable, becomes a logistical and political and diplomatic nightmare.
OK? Got that? So, some lefties want to feel good about "doing something". Fine. Give me, in detail, how you would go about "doing something" in regards to Libya, that minimizes civilian casualties, respects the wishes of both the Libyan rebels as well as international law, gives our troops maximum flexibility to do the mission and succeed, and always make sure there's an exit strategy from the get-go so we don't wind up with another open-ended occupation in the Muslim world.
It's easy to talk about doing stuff. Pony up.
Then, there's this comment:
What was the "ethics of responsibility" about giving political cover while hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings were maimed or killed and millions were displaced?Again, it is so easy to take the high moral ground in a situation like this. In particular when one has zero responsibility for addressing the messy details of what an alternative policy might be. Which is yet another example of why I truly, truly dislike such earnest breast-beating. Again, put up or shut up.
Wait, wait, that's right, at least we were doing something...even if it was wrong.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Holding A Mirror To A Life
In his weekly column at Inside Higher Ed.com, Scott McLemee last week reviewed National Book Critics Circle Award Finalist Terry Castle's The Professor and Other Writings. I was fascinated by the description of a series of review articles that also served as a way of writing a memoir; after all, what else is a memoir but a review of sorts? What intrigues me most about the work, as McLemee describes it, is the possibility of honesty without either heroics or ego. Far too often we are subjected to the tired tropes of overcoming addiction, abuse, or some other relatively mundane problem as a source of strength, the prism through which one sees the rest of one's life emerge. Castle's book, on the other hand, offers up nothing either so dramatic or played out. Instead, it seems, what we have on offer are a series of reflections that are unapologetic in their revelatory power precisely because they are rooted in something quite literally everyone is at some point or another - whether insecure, or emotionally stunted, or what have you, all of us have lived moments in our lives that, were we more self-aware at the time, would have caused us horrid embarrassment at the very least. Looking back, through the veil of years, it is easy enough to cringe at ourselves, to wonder what, exactly, was wrong with us. To be able to sit and look at such moments, without apologizing, making excuses, with an honesty the author probably wishes were more evident at the time, and perhaps - I haven't read the work, but Scott seems to hint at this in the review - to do all this without seeking a "lesson" or "meaning" beyond, "Man, how could I not realize how I looked to others?". I find this more than attractive. It is, in a word, compelling.
I don't know if it's included in the volume Scott McLemee reviewed, but The New Inquiry included a link to Castle's reminiscence of the late Susan Sontag in The London Review of Books. Written as a memorial shortly after Sontag died, the piece is unsparing in its depiction of Sontag's personality, with all its quirks and foibles. It is also unsparing in its honest reflection on Castle herself. Without either apology after the fact or explanation as to its source, Castle reveals herself as helpless, even long after it became clear their relationship had deteriorated, in attempting to draw Sontag in to her life. In the midst of one of those dreary Manhattan dinner parties peopled by the obscurely famous and self-important, Castle shines a bare bulb upon the affectations of the self-declared culturally superior that is simultaneously funny and sad, not least because of how she depicts her place in such rarefied company.*
While certainly not as interesting or as intelligent as Castle, the possibility of doing something similar has been in the back of my mind, on and off, for years. I have no desire to be prurient. Nor do I wish to make others sorry they have known me by writing about times in my life that might include them in it. Further, I don't believe I am seeking meaning or life-lessons in doing this. If someone could, perhaps, see in my mistakes - to be polite - the possibility of escaping such a fate, that might be the best I could hope for.
All this is by way of introducing the possibility that, perhaps by way of Confessions-style writing, attempting to eschew too much explanation or a search for deeper causes, I may attempt such a venture.
*I should note that I have had exactly one such moment, being included in the rarefied company of a group both vastly more intelligent, and including some well-known, people. My experience was far less interesting than Castle's because I had the pleasure of the company of historian Rick Perlstein, a most gracious and open host. Around a restaurant table near Lincoln Park in Chicago, I had the opportunity to chat with and get to know a bit Chicago Reporter journalist Jeff Kelly Lowenstein and his lovely, charming wife Dunreith. Our guest of honor, George Scialabba, I sat catty-corner to, but he was engaged in conversation with others, and passed a pleasant evening in good company.
I don't know if it's included in the volume Scott McLemee reviewed, but The New Inquiry included a link to Castle's reminiscence of the late Susan Sontag in The London Review of Books. Written as a memorial shortly after Sontag died, the piece is unsparing in its depiction of Sontag's personality, with all its quirks and foibles. It is also unsparing in its honest reflection on Castle herself. Without either apology after the fact or explanation as to its source, Castle reveals herself as helpless, even long after it became clear their relationship had deteriorated, in attempting to draw Sontag in to her life. In the midst of one of those dreary Manhattan dinner parties peopled by the obscurely famous and self-important, Castle shines a bare bulb upon the affectations of the self-declared culturally superior that is simultaneously funny and sad, not least because of how she depicts her place in such rarefied company.*
While certainly not as interesting or as intelligent as Castle, the possibility of doing something similar has been in the back of my mind, on and off, for years. I have no desire to be prurient. Nor do I wish to make others sorry they have known me by writing about times in my life that might include them in it. Further, I don't believe I am seeking meaning or life-lessons in doing this. If someone could, perhaps, see in my mistakes - to be polite - the possibility of escaping such a fate, that might be the best I could hope for.
All this is by way of introducing the possibility that, perhaps by way of Confessions-style writing, attempting to eschew too much explanation or a search for deeper causes, I may attempt such a venture.
*I should note that I have had exactly one such moment, being included in the rarefied company of a group both vastly more intelligent, and including some well-known, people. My experience was far less interesting than Castle's because I had the pleasure of the company of historian Rick Perlstein, a most gracious and open host. Around a restaurant table near Lincoln Park in Chicago, I had the opportunity to chat with and get to know a bit Chicago Reporter journalist Jeff Kelly Lowenstein and his lovely, charming wife Dunreith. Our guest of honor, George Scialabba, I sat catty-corner to, but he was engaged in conversation with others, and passed a pleasant evening in good company.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Struggling Against The Unreality Of Our Politics
Even as Libya descends to civil war and other Muslim countries demand greater democratic accountability for their leaders; even as the governor of Wisconsin continues his Sisyphustic struggle against the public employees of his state; even as members of the House Republican majority and the Obama Administration meet to hammer out a budget agreement for the rest of the fiscal year; in the midst of all this, a word needs to be said that so much that has captured our imagination and stoked the fires of our public discourse is done without a single glance at some fundamental realities that, were they taken in to account, would challenge every one of our cherished assumptions. What follows is not a partisan attack. Our so-called leaders, Democratic and Republican, Congressional and Executive, have failed to do so on a matter of such national moral import that even drawing attention to it seems a monumental struggle against the inertia of a kind of national dream state. We have, for too long, been lulled to sleep in our public life by fairy tales and polite fictions that ignore some basic realities that, were our elected officials adults, treating the voters like adults, would completely alter the way we are talking about our current state of national affairs.
This particular problem has been made more clear to me in recent weeks as my wife and I struggle with teaching our older daughter that "growing up" means more than being granted privileges. It also means acting out of a fundamental respect and concern for the feelings and integrity of others. It means acknowledging that the world does not revolve around one's own needs, but rather one must place one's own life in service of others. Being a mature adult means accepting certain responsibilities that are uncomfortable, compromise our own desires, but serve our longer term interests.
As the political clock ticks away in Washington, and more and more folks in Congress whisper and grumble about our fiscal state of affairs, about the need to cut here and slash there, to eliminate this program or that whole department, including cutting $100 billion from the Department of Defense, no one that I recall has mentioned a fundamental reality.
Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not; regardless of the questionable legality regarding the way we arrived here; whether we did or did not support it, we cannot, must not, forget that we are a nation at war. Despite the declaration that our combat troops have left Iraq, we currently, and for the foreseeable future will continue to have around 50,000 American service personnel in Iraq. As of May last year, we had nearly 100,000 American military personnel in Afghanistan. With all the talk of fiscal austerity, of what we need to surrender for the sake of posterity, of not abandoning our most vulnerable to the whims of the market, of ensuring that we continue to fund law enforcement agencies like the EPA and OSHA, we have not, as much as I look, ever noticed that those Americans most at risk, those fellow citizens who have voluntarily sacrificed their personal comfort and even identity to serve this great land are those most vulnerable to violent death; as we talk about cutting the budget, including the budget of the Department of Defense, we are not talking about how fewer military personnel, fewer supplies, more vulnerable logistical lines, imperil our troops in places far away.
So much of our politics for a decade now has been conducted with our eyes closed to some fundamental realities. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, several decisions of national import faced us, including dedicating our military to attacking those who had attacked us. The struggle, we were told over and over again, was the equivalent of the Second World War, a fight for national survival. Dedication and sacrifice were demanded. Except, of course, not really. In the midst of deciding to fight a war on two fronts far from our homeland, we simultaneously decided that we could forgo the most fundamental national sacrifice - we wouldn't pay for it. Indeed, not only would we not gather together and sacrifice more of our income and other resources in the form of higher taxes, the very notion of higher taxes was somehow anathema.
For the next ten years, there was a fundamental disconnect between that which was declared our most important, most vital foreign policy - fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - and our most vital domestic policy, economic growth, Instead of deciding that, if we were to carry out the former, we would need to sacrifice much of the latter to it, we figured, as our parents did a generation ago during Vietnam, that we could do both. Now that the inevitable crash has occurred, we have yet to face how distorted our politics and policy has become. To speak of cutting spending on defense even as our sisters and brothers, our husbands and wives, our sons and daughters face the danger and death on our behalf is not only madness; it is a fundamental betrayal of the moral obligation we owe our troops, to remember their sacrifices for us.
Rather than even mentioning "government shutdown", we need to talk about our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of insisting that any tax increase is off the table, we need to ask those who were most vocal in support of these wars if they are willing to pay for it. Instead of demeaning government service and public employment, we need to remember that some government employees live their lives in threat of death, largely forgotten not only by a political class that continues to believe that wars can be waged, by and large, out of the public eye, but by the public as well. Those taxes that so many complain about not only pay the salary of the guy sitting pushing paper at OSHA that piss off industrialists. Those taxes also make sure our troops have proper supplies, steady and secure supply lines, enough food and fuel and body armor not to have to worry about them. While a government shutdown may not effect our troops in the field, at least immediately, it halts any and all progress toward figuring out how civilian contractors, a vital part of the military supply chain, are going to integrate in to the overall logistical picture. Indeed, were I in charge of a company that might be able to serve the military logistical table in some manner, right now, I'd be backing away from even thinking about submitting a bid for any contracts that might be up. Of course, none of this includes the cuts that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is already implementing, cuts that reduce our service personnel at precisely the time we need more, not fewer, people in uniform.
This is the starting point for any realistic discussion of anything from budgets to our economic and fiscal situation to whether or not to fund the EPA. This is the starting point for talking about jobs. Until and unless we are willing to admit that we have rewarded our military for all the sacrifices of the past ten years by forgetting them, by reducing their ability to do their jobs, by reducing the effectiveness of their tasks, then the blood of those lost in on all our hands. This is about much more, and much less, than the moral and legal questions regarding how our troops got be in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is, instead, about accepting the responsibilities before us, as adults, as moral agents, as mature human beings who understand that our military has been asked to sacrifice so much over the past ten years; now, they are sacrificing their safety and the efficiency of their missions on the altar of fiscal responsibility even as far more vital and basic questions remain not only unaddressed, but even unasked.
We owe it to ourselves, and even more to those who have volunteered to serve the United States and have been rewarded with years-long, multiple tours in far-away countries, strategic and even tactical questions remaining unaddressed, to face squarely and forthrightly the demands their care places upon us. To do anything less would be far more than a failure of historic proportions. To do so would be to show those most vulnerable precisely because their lives are dedicated to our safety and security, that we do not honor that sacrifice.
This particular problem has been made more clear to me in recent weeks as my wife and I struggle with teaching our older daughter that "growing up" means more than being granted privileges. It also means acting out of a fundamental respect and concern for the feelings and integrity of others. It means acknowledging that the world does not revolve around one's own needs, but rather one must place one's own life in service of others. Being a mature adult means accepting certain responsibilities that are uncomfortable, compromise our own desires, but serve our longer term interests.
As the political clock ticks away in Washington, and more and more folks in Congress whisper and grumble about our fiscal state of affairs, about the need to cut here and slash there, to eliminate this program or that whole department, including cutting $100 billion from the Department of Defense, no one that I recall has mentioned a fundamental reality.
Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not; regardless of the questionable legality regarding the way we arrived here; whether we did or did not support it, we cannot, must not, forget that we are a nation at war. Despite the declaration that our combat troops have left Iraq, we currently, and for the foreseeable future will continue to have around 50,000 American service personnel in Iraq. As of May last year, we had nearly 100,000 American military personnel in Afghanistan. With all the talk of fiscal austerity, of what we need to surrender for the sake of posterity, of not abandoning our most vulnerable to the whims of the market, of ensuring that we continue to fund law enforcement agencies like the EPA and OSHA, we have not, as much as I look, ever noticed that those Americans most at risk, those fellow citizens who have voluntarily sacrificed their personal comfort and even identity to serve this great land are those most vulnerable to violent death; as we talk about cutting the budget, including the budget of the Department of Defense, we are not talking about how fewer military personnel, fewer supplies, more vulnerable logistical lines, imperil our troops in places far away.
So much of our politics for a decade now has been conducted with our eyes closed to some fundamental realities. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, several decisions of national import faced us, including dedicating our military to attacking those who had attacked us. The struggle, we were told over and over again, was the equivalent of the Second World War, a fight for national survival. Dedication and sacrifice were demanded. Except, of course, not really. In the midst of deciding to fight a war on two fronts far from our homeland, we simultaneously decided that we could forgo the most fundamental national sacrifice - we wouldn't pay for it. Indeed, not only would we not gather together and sacrifice more of our income and other resources in the form of higher taxes, the very notion of higher taxes was somehow anathema.
For the next ten years, there was a fundamental disconnect between that which was declared our most important, most vital foreign policy - fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - and our most vital domestic policy, economic growth, Instead of deciding that, if we were to carry out the former, we would need to sacrifice much of the latter to it, we figured, as our parents did a generation ago during Vietnam, that we could do both. Now that the inevitable crash has occurred, we have yet to face how distorted our politics and policy has become. To speak of cutting spending on defense even as our sisters and brothers, our husbands and wives, our sons and daughters face the danger and death on our behalf is not only madness; it is a fundamental betrayal of the moral obligation we owe our troops, to remember their sacrifices for us.
Rather than even mentioning "government shutdown", we need to talk about our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of insisting that any tax increase is off the table, we need to ask those who were most vocal in support of these wars if they are willing to pay for it. Instead of demeaning government service and public employment, we need to remember that some government employees live their lives in threat of death, largely forgotten not only by a political class that continues to believe that wars can be waged, by and large, out of the public eye, but by the public as well. Those taxes that so many complain about not only pay the salary of the guy sitting pushing paper at OSHA that piss off industrialists. Those taxes also make sure our troops have proper supplies, steady and secure supply lines, enough food and fuel and body armor not to have to worry about them. While a government shutdown may not effect our troops in the field, at least immediately, it halts any and all progress toward figuring out how civilian contractors, a vital part of the military supply chain, are going to integrate in to the overall logistical picture. Indeed, were I in charge of a company that might be able to serve the military logistical table in some manner, right now, I'd be backing away from even thinking about submitting a bid for any contracts that might be up. Of course, none of this includes the cuts that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is already implementing, cuts that reduce our service personnel at precisely the time we need more, not fewer, people in uniform.
This is the starting point for any realistic discussion of anything from budgets to our economic and fiscal situation to whether or not to fund the EPA. This is the starting point for talking about jobs. Until and unless we are willing to admit that we have rewarded our military for all the sacrifices of the past ten years by forgetting them, by reducing their ability to do their jobs, by reducing the effectiveness of their tasks, then the blood of those lost in on all our hands. This is about much more, and much less, than the moral and legal questions regarding how our troops got be in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is, instead, about accepting the responsibilities before us, as adults, as moral agents, as mature human beings who understand that our military has been asked to sacrifice so much over the past ten years; now, they are sacrificing their safety and the efficiency of their missions on the altar of fiscal responsibility even as far more vital and basic questions remain not only unaddressed, but even unasked.
We owe it to ourselves, and even more to those who have volunteered to serve the United States and have been rewarded with years-long, multiple tours in far-away countries, strategic and even tactical questions remaining unaddressed, to face squarely and forthrightly the demands their care places upon us. To do anything less would be far more than a failure of historic proportions. To do so would be to show those most vulnerable precisely because their lives are dedicated to our safety and security, that we do not honor that sacrifice.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
I Write An Email To An Academic Hack (UPDATE)
A Facebook friend had linked to this Huffington Post piece and, since the link was provided, I checked out the survey report that was the source for the article. I was surprised, and somewhat dismayed, to discover the survey in question said none of the things the author, Phil Zuckerman, claimed it said. Furthermore, the description of various Christian believers, the thumbnail sketch of the history of conflict between more traditional, conservative Christians, and their various liberal opponents, was caricatured to the point of unrecognizability, with some pretty glaring errors of historical fact tossed in just to make it interesting.
Indiscretion being the better part of valor, I decided to send this doofus, who teaches sociology at someplace called Pitzer College, an email. Ahem:
UPDATE: So I was checking out some other stuff Phil Zuckerman has written that are available on-line. This piece in particular struck me as interesting, not least because the interpretation of the data showing a rise in non-belief across the board, including in the United States which had been impervious to the secularization of western Europe, is interesting. All the same, I came across the following paragraph that leaped out at me with blinking red-and-white neon screaming "BULLSHIT!!":
That many western European countries simultaneously display a large disbelief in traditional religious faith and exercise various social policies most folks identify as "liberal" at the very least does not represent anything other than statistical correlation; the two happen to occur at the same time in various societies. One is not related to the other beyond, perhaps, being the results of various historical forces the authors do not come close to addressing.
Indiscretion being the better part of valor, I decided to send this doofus, who teaches sociology at someplace called Pitzer College, an email. Ahem:
Dear Sir,One can be critical of conservative evangelicals. One can be critical of all sorts of things. The thing I really dislike is when people who are supposed to be educated present information to people that is so wrong it wouldn't pass muster in an undergraduate research class.
I was led to your Huffington Post article, "Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus", and was amazed and saddened to discover, after reading the linked article from the Pew Research Center, that your description of the survey results, the provocative headline, and even some of the alleged history related in the article are quite wrong, misleading, and play upon stereotypes rather than fact. When reading the Pew Center article discussion its research on the Tea Party and religion, a couple points jumped out at me. First, it states unequivocally that "[t]he analysis shows that most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party. But support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right." To support this assertion, the authors write the following in reference to the results of the survey: "An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46%) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about “the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right”; 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one-in-ten (11%) said they disagree.3 More generally, the August poll found greater familiarity with and support for the Tea Party movement (86% of registered voters had heard at least a little about it at the time and 27% expressed agreement with it) than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it)."
Your description of Jesus teaching "socialism" is the kind of lazy, thoughtless nonsense one would expect from someone who doesn't carefully study the subject in question, rather than a professor at a university.
Finally, the historical survey regarding the relationship between conservative evangelicals (did you know there are liberal evangelicals?) and various liberal mainline Christian churches, after jumping forward to the post-WWII era, makes the glaring mistake of moving "the Social Gospel" a generation forward, long after it had petered out as a source of inspiration. Furthermore, the criticism that anti-communism joined up with (non-existent) criticism of (non-existent) Social Gospelers in the 1950's misses a huge factual point; the most important American Protestant theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, was influenced strongly by the Social Gospel movement, although he took several steps to one side during the early part of his career. After the Second World War he, along with Arthur Schlesinger created Americans for Democratic Action, a left-leaning but also anti-communist organization of intellectuals and activists. Niebuhr spent much of the time after WWII actively criticizing some European theologian, most prominently Karl Barth, for their softness toward communism. To claim that it was only conservative evangelicals who were anti-communist is negated by actual historical fact.
The entire piece was so typical of someone who doesn't understand the complexity of American religious life (fundamentalists are not always evangelicals; evangelicals certainly are not all fundamentalists), the actual history of the various movements involved, and doesn't even take the time to read through the details of a survey before writing about it. Such is the state of American intellectual life today that this kind of thing is acceptable.
Thank you for your time,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford
UPDATE: So I was checking out some other stuff Phil Zuckerman has written that are available on-line. This piece in particular struck me as interesting, not least because the interpretation of the data showing a rise in non-belief across the board, including in the United States which had been impervious to the secularization of western Europe, is interesting. All the same, I came across the following paragraph that leaped out at me with blinking red-and-white neon screaming "BULLSHIT!!":
Every single 1st world nation that is irreligious shares a set of distinctive attributes. These include handgun control, anti-corporal punishment and anti-bullying policies, rehabilitative rather than punitive incarceration, intensive sex education that emphasizes condom use, reduced socio-economic disparity via tax and welfare systems combined with comprehensive health care, increased leisure time that can be dedicated to family needs and stress reduction, and so forth.These same countries also share a certain historical background - official religions that support the ruling status quo that was, until the early- to mid-20th century, hostile to the needs of large parts of the population. Religious support for the fascist tyrannies across central Europe certainly didn't help. Already by the end of the First World War there was a strong popular reaction against established religious beliefs in various European countries, for the quite sound reason that they supported the slaughter across the continent.
That many western European countries simultaneously display a large disbelief in traditional religious faith and exercise various social policies most folks identify as "liberal" at the very least does not represent anything other than statistical correlation; the two happen to occur at the same time in various societies. One is not related to the other beyond, perhaps, being the results of various historical forces the authors do not come close to addressing.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Real Elitism
The third and, I think, final little installment of what is, really, a kind of overview of what I do and why. Here, we address a wide-ranging topic. I know you're just breathless with anticipation.
In the summer of 2009, as the Tea Party began to coalesce around opposition to the proposed health care reform legislation, there was quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the liberal world over all those horrible folks showing up at various Town Hall events, speaking out against the bill. I, for one, supported it, and still do. I remember quite distinctly writing that more participation in the political process is always a good thing. Even if done by those with whom I disagree.
What I dislike, with all my heart, is the way far too many conservatives choose to discuss everything from budgetary concerns to the President's political philosophy. It is all well and good to oppose, say, the Affordable Care Act, even for reasons of principle. It is quite another to dub it "Obamacare" and claim the Affordable Care Act is a "government takeover of health care." It is, in fact, the exact opposite, invigorating the health insurance market by regulating certain practices that open the market up, creating a pool of customers three hundred million strong. Costs for consumers, so the theory goes, will decline, and the larger pool of potential customers present opportunities for insurance companies to rake in some serious money. Now, as I say, one can oppose these matters on principle. What one cannot, or at least should not, do is argue from the premise that the Affordable Care Act eliminates private insurance, dictates and limits treatments, and stifles innovation. None of these last three are addressed in any way by the act, and even those opponents who dislike the ACA have never argued it.
Yet, that is the way the entire issue is framed. Zombies are easier to kill than this bunch of lies; at least those you can shoot in the head. No matter how often they are shown to be wrong, counterfactual, nonsense, BS, and hokum, they keep appearing.
Why is that? The answer is as close as the TV remote.
For example, as events in Madison, WI heated up, there has been little to no reporting on whether or not Gov. Walker's insistence on stripping collective bargaining rights from municipal employees will actually create a healthier fiscal climate for the state. Even as he revealed his budget the other day, insisting it closed, over two years, a widening budget gap, he said it was contingent on busting the state workers' union. It seems to me this is an easy enough question to answer - will ending collective bargaining give, in Walker's words, "needed flexibility"? There certainly has been no effort of which I am aware, to answer this question, by NPR or anyone else. Instead this, like all great political discussions, is presented as a simple, two-sided, he-said/she-said affair, where any factual information is far less important, far less interesting, than repeating the talking points of each side with the meaningless "some say" qualifier. Whenever you hear a news reader use those two words, you are listening to a weasel.
In all this, we are experiencing the undermining of our ability to govern ourselves as elite news outlets shun factual content for the far more interesting fight between two sides. Now, I can grant that it is quite possible Gov. Walker, the folks in the Wisconsin State Senate who wrote the bill, and those around the state and country who support it, do so in the sincere belief it is necessary. They might also be motivated by an honestly felt distrust of organized labor in general, and municipal unions in particular. There is nothing wrong with any of this. Stopping there, however, is not giving people the information necessary to understand the stakes involved. The question at the heart of conflict should be addressed.
This isn't done because for too long any attempt to figure out what actually lies at the heart of so many of our political debates is attacked by conservative elites - beginning decades ago with Vice President Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" speech (thank you, William Safire) - as nothing more than "liberal bias". No matter how often it is demonstrated that such a creature doesn't exist, it, like the mega-zombie lies about the ACA, continues to exist. It is the cockroach of our social life, a bit of social vermin that cannot be destroyed, and may well survive a nuclear war.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not care if you oppose Pres. Obama, the policies of the Democratic Party, or anything else. I am glad the rank and file Tea Party supporters are out there, concerned about important matters facing all of us, engaging in discussions on matters of fiscal policy and all the rest. I long ago gave up slandering these folks because, at heart, being a small-"d" democrat, I always prefer more participation to less, more activism to less, more opportunities for all sorts of folks to engage in the hard work of running this huge, wonderful country.
If, however, anyone uses false information to support their position, don't believe for one moment you are above being corrected. If a person receives their information from questionable sources, whether that is FOXNews or AM talk radio hosts or right-wing websites like Renew America, Little Green Footballs, or American Thinker, please know the target of my ire is not you for holding the beliefs you do, but the sources that are taking you for a ride. There are plenty of serious, thoughtful conservative sources of information. The Frum Forum, to which I linked, is one. While National Review Online is a truly pathetic place, the print version is, by and large, still quite good. There's even that mainstay of responsible Establishment conservatism, to which I subscribed for years, U.S. News and World Reports.
It is important for all of us to weigh the sources of our information. Check out anything and everything we read against any available facts. With Google, that is easy enough for the average person. Just because a report chimes with our worldview doesn't make it either true or real. We need to keep checking, getting the information from as many sources as possible. That way, we aren't taken for a ride by those who have agendas that might well not suit us. This is the way I conduct my affairs. It keeps me honest; when I am factually wrong, I admit it. I hate being so, but being human, it is bound to happen no matter how thorough and conscientious I am.
On the other hand, when I call some folks on the carpet about their repeated claim the Pres. Obama is a socialist, I am told that no matter how much I point out that actual socialists aren't too enamored of the guy's policies; that there is nothing in his public life to indicate he is anything more than a moderately liberal (at best) Democratic politician; that the claims concerning his alleged socialism are rooted in falsely reported facts and incorrect understandings of the terms involved; no matter how often this happens, I am told I am the one who is wrong. At this point, it is pretty clear those who do this aren't interested in facts, are not swayed by the way the world is, that words have no meaning. Really, that last is the greatest danger we all face.
When words cease to have any social meaning; when facts become malleable, because the words we use to talk about them are empty of any content, rest assured, we are in serious trouble.
Our contemptuous, elitist overlords - Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch; the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey; Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann - want us to stay tuned without actually thinking about what we are told. They make money, acquire power, and rob us of our critical faculties. Our democracy is the poorer for it. These are the folks we should worry about. Not the ridiculous idea that Barack Obama is a foreign-born, closet Muslim-jihadist-socialist. Rather, that this idea isn't given to you, but sold to you by folks who are laughing all the way to the bank with your money.
In the summer of 2009, as the Tea Party began to coalesce around opposition to the proposed health care reform legislation, there was quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the liberal world over all those horrible folks showing up at various Town Hall events, speaking out against the bill. I, for one, supported it, and still do. I remember quite distinctly writing that more participation in the political process is always a good thing. Even if done by those with whom I disagree.
What I dislike, with all my heart, is the way far too many conservatives choose to discuss everything from budgetary concerns to the President's political philosophy. It is all well and good to oppose, say, the Affordable Care Act, even for reasons of principle. It is quite another to dub it "Obamacare" and claim the Affordable Care Act is a "government takeover of health care." It is, in fact, the exact opposite, invigorating the health insurance market by regulating certain practices that open the market up, creating a pool of customers three hundred million strong. Costs for consumers, so the theory goes, will decline, and the larger pool of potential customers present opportunities for insurance companies to rake in some serious money. Now, as I say, one can oppose these matters on principle. What one cannot, or at least should not, do is argue from the premise that the Affordable Care Act eliminates private insurance, dictates and limits treatments, and stifles innovation. None of these last three are addressed in any way by the act, and even those opponents who dislike the ACA have never argued it.
Yet, that is the way the entire issue is framed. Zombies are easier to kill than this bunch of lies; at least those you can shoot in the head. No matter how often they are shown to be wrong, counterfactual, nonsense, BS, and hokum, they keep appearing.
Why is that? The answer is as close as the TV remote.
Over the past couple of years, I’ve been keeping track of a trend among friends around my age (late thirties to mid-forties). Eight of us (so far) share something in common besides our conservatism: a deep frustration over how our parents have become impossible to take on the subject of politics. Without fail, it turns out that our folks have all been sitting at home watching Fox News Channel all day – especially Glenn Beck’s program.It isn't just conservatives who find this troubling.
--snip--
I flew out for a visit, and observed that their television was on all day long, even if no one was watching it. What channel was playing? Fox. Spending a few days in the company of the channel – especially Glenn Beck — it all became clear to me. If Fox was the window through which I saw the wider world, for hours every day, I’d be perpetually pissed off too.
--snip--
Unbridled anger at the deserving enemies is a danger to the civil order, and ultimately to ourselves. Remember Thomas More’s warning to the hotheaded William Roper in A Man For All Seasons, when Roper accused More of going easy on a scoundrel who hadn’t (yet) broken the law. Roper charged More with wanting to give the Devil the benefit of the law.
“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s!” More responded. “And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”
More adds that he would give the Devil the benefit of the law “for my own safety’s sake.” There’s a profound conservative truth in this, a warning that even passion for righteousness can be turned to evil, precisely because it is passion.
The popularity of vigorous rage merchants like Beck and Olbermann are not a sign of our political culture’s vitality, but rather its decadence. We live in a time and place that puts high value on emotion, and that views emotions as self-validating. To feel something is thought by many to be sufficient evidence of its truthfulness, or at least its authenticity. This is a mark of the barbarian. I understand why post-Sixties liberals make the mistake of believing that nonsense. But conservatives?
If they weren't so nasty most of the time I'd start to feel sorry for the Tea Party. They are getting taken for such a ride by hucksters, snake oil salesmen and billionaire puppeteers that it's getting sort of pathetic.Were this solely the work of ideological opponents, I suppose I could be accused of the very thing I am complaining about. I am unhappy to say it isn't only conservatives who get taken for a ride by extremely rich folks who sell bullshit on TV.
--snip--
I'm sure there are plenty of sincere Tea Partiers out there who are getting fleeced all the time by these types. And while it's tempting to say they deserve it, it still isn't right. They are just trying to exercise their democratic right to organize and they are being manipulated and conned by a bunch of billionaire media moguls and small time hustlers. I guess that's part of the bargain too, but it's distasteful to see it happening anyway.
Rachel Maddow made some flat-out mistakes in her first report on Wisconsin—as people often do.The closest I come to using an American news source is listening to NPR in my car to and from work. Now, some would consider that the epitome of limousine liberalism; while the news readers tend to stick to bare facts when reciting headlines, and the occasional complex story gets far more full treatment than it might otherwise receive even on a cable network that has 24 hours to fill, when it comes to politics, even NPR succumbs to the notion that facts are irrelevant trivialities when conflict arises.
--snip--
On February 18, Politifact began to fact-check Maddow’s confusing report. In the process, they spoke to Lang himself; they concluded that Maddow, like several others, had gotten this matter wrong.
--snip--
Please note: The fact that Maddow seems to have made this mistake isn’t a hanging offense. Nichols made the error first, and several others followed. But other people corrected themselves, and Maddow simply didn’t. Politifact challenged her report on February 18—and all was silent for almost a week. But all hell broke loose last Thursday night, with Maddow saying that she had been “slandered” when Politifact called her a “liar.”
Politifact didn’t call Maddow a liar, of course; it simply said she had made some mistakes. But Rachel Maddow is rarely wrong— if you let Rachel Maddow tell it. Last Thursday, she issued a blistering, 12-minute rant in which she hotly denied all error. Her rant was grossly unfair, and highly deceptive . . .
For example, as events in Madison, WI heated up, there has been little to no reporting on whether or not Gov. Walker's insistence on stripping collective bargaining rights from municipal employees will actually create a healthier fiscal climate for the state. Even as he revealed his budget the other day, insisting it closed, over two years, a widening budget gap, he said it was contingent on busting the state workers' union. It seems to me this is an easy enough question to answer - will ending collective bargaining give, in Walker's words, "needed flexibility"? There certainly has been no effort of which I am aware, to answer this question, by NPR or anyone else. Instead this, like all great political discussions, is presented as a simple, two-sided, he-said/she-said affair, where any factual information is far less important, far less interesting, than repeating the talking points of each side with the meaningless "some say" qualifier. Whenever you hear a news reader use those two words, you are listening to a weasel.
In all this, we are experiencing the undermining of our ability to govern ourselves as elite news outlets shun factual content for the far more interesting fight between two sides. Now, I can grant that it is quite possible Gov. Walker, the folks in the Wisconsin State Senate who wrote the bill, and those around the state and country who support it, do so in the sincere belief it is necessary. They might also be motivated by an honestly felt distrust of organized labor in general, and municipal unions in particular. There is nothing wrong with any of this. Stopping there, however, is not giving people the information necessary to understand the stakes involved. The question at the heart of conflict should be addressed.
This isn't done because for too long any attempt to figure out what actually lies at the heart of so many of our political debates is attacked by conservative elites - beginning decades ago with Vice President Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" speech (thank you, William Safire) - as nothing more than "liberal bias". No matter how often it is demonstrated that such a creature doesn't exist, it, like the mega-zombie lies about the ACA, continues to exist. It is the cockroach of our social life, a bit of social vermin that cannot be destroyed, and may well survive a nuclear war.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not care if you oppose Pres. Obama, the policies of the Democratic Party, or anything else. I am glad the rank and file Tea Party supporters are out there, concerned about important matters facing all of us, engaging in discussions on matters of fiscal policy and all the rest. I long ago gave up slandering these folks because, at heart, being a small-"d" democrat, I always prefer more participation to less, more activism to less, more opportunities for all sorts of folks to engage in the hard work of running this huge, wonderful country.
If, however, anyone uses false information to support their position, don't believe for one moment you are above being corrected. If a person receives their information from questionable sources, whether that is FOXNews or AM talk radio hosts or right-wing websites like Renew America, Little Green Footballs, or American Thinker, please know the target of my ire is not you for holding the beliefs you do, but the sources that are taking you for a ride. There are plenty of serious, thoughtful conservative sources of information. The Frum Forum, to which I linked, is one. While National Review Online is a truly pathetic place, the print version is, by and large, still quite good. There's even that mainstay of responsible Establishment conservatism, to which I subscribed for years, U.S. News and World Reports.
It is important for all of us to weigh the sources of our information. Check out anything and everything we read against any available facts. With Google, that is easy enough for the average person. Just because a report chimes with our worldview doesn't make it either true or real. We need to keep checking, getting the information from as many sources as possible. That way, we aren't taken for a ride by those who have agendas that might well not suit us. This is the way I conduct my affairs. It keeps me honest; when I am factually wrong, I admit it. I hate being so, but being human, it is bound to happen no matter how thorough and conscientious I am.
On the other hand, when I call some folks on the carpet about their repeated claim the Pres. Obama is a socialist, I am told that no matter how much I point out that actual socialists aren't too enamored of the guy's policies; that there is nothing in his public life to indicate he is anything more than a moderately liberal (at best) Democratic politician; that the claims concerning his alleged socialism are rooted in falsely reported facts and incorrect understandings of the terms involved; no matter how often this happens, I am told I am the one who is wrong. At this point, it is pretty clear those who do this aren't interested in facts, are not swayed by the way the world is, that words have no meaning. Really, that last is the greatest danger we all face.
When words cease to have any social meaning; when facts become malleable, because the words we use to talk about them are empty of any content, rest assured, we are in serious trouble.
Our contemptuous, elitist overlords - Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch; the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey; Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann - want us to stay tuned without actually thinking about what we are told. They make money, acquire power, and rob us of our critical faculties. Our democracy is the poorer for it. These are the folks we should worry about. Not the ridiculous idea that Barack Obama is a foreign-born, closet Muslim-jihadist-socialist. Rather, that this idea isn't given to you, but sold to you by folks who are laughing all the way to the bank with your money.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
It Don't Mean A Thing If It Aint' Got That Swing
Before I gave up my membership, The Musical Heritage Society provided the opportunity to purchase a complete edition of Benny Goodman's 1938 Carnegie Hall concert. A triumph for Goodman, for swing, for race relations in music (it was one of the first opportunities, and at a large, important venue, for black and white musicians to play together), and for the historical detective work necessary to track down lost songs, to put Goodman's recollections included on the recording in context. Even if you aren't a particular fan of jazz, or swing, it is a marvelous recording, although the CD separates out the applause and band changes as separate tracks, which makes the set interesting to listen to on iTunes, as there are little thirty- and forty-five-second bits that are titled "Applause".
Along with a live recording of the Dave Brubeck quartet at that same venue, as well as by the Dizzy Gillespie Orchestra around the same time, also at Carnegie Hall, I have a nice little set of live jazz at Carnegie Hall that shows this staid institution opening itself to the liveliness of American's signature musical art form. My father, who studied at Carnegie Hall, told me the original auditorium was an acoustic masterpiece; one could stand in center stage and speak and be heard with clarity way up in the cheap seats in the balcony; since microphones didn't exist, this was necessary, but one can get a feeling for the acoustics of this marvelous theater on the Goodman recordings, in particular those previously considered lost but discovered on weathered acetates that have been digitally reconstructed. The Goodman show, in particular, shows the old Carnegie at its best, American swing at the beginning of its national popularity as a powerful musical force, and offers a glimpse of a long-lost moment in our cultural history that should be treasured by all Americans.
Plus, it makes you want to get up and dance.
OK, enough reminiscing about my awesome music library. I'm pushing the button . . .
Lady Evil - Black Sabbath
Baby, Baby Don't Cry - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles
Lamplight Symphony - Kansas
Kiss of Death - Vanden Plas
Pope - Prince
S'il Vous Plait (Live) - Miles Davis, Complete Birth of the Cool
Filipino Box Spring Hog - Tom Waits
Remember Me Lover - Porcupine Tree
Map of the World - Marillion
Times of Trouble - Temple of the Dog
This one just missed the cut. One of those 1970's, country-rock one-hit wonders that deserves to be a hit.
Along with a live recording of the Dave Brubeck quartet at that same venue, as well as by the Dizzy Gillespie Orchestra around the same time, also at Carnegie Hall, I have a nice little set of live jazz at Carnegie Hall that shows this staid institution opening itself to the liveliness of American's signature musical art form. My father, who studied at Carnegie Hall, told me the original auditorium was an acoustic masterpiece; one could stand in center stage and speak and be heard with clarity way up in the cheap seats in the balcony; since microphones didn't exist, this was necessary, but one can get a feeling for the acoustics of this marvelous theater on the Goodman recordings, in particular those previously considered lost but discovered on weathered acetates that have been digitally reconstructed. The Goodman show, in particular, shows the old Carnegie at its best, American swing at the beginning of its national popularity as a powerful musical force, and offers a glimpse of a long-lost moment in our cultural history that should be treasured by all Americans.
Plus, it makes you want to get up and dance.
OK, enough reminiscing about my awesome music library. I'm pushing the button . . .
Lady Evil - Black Sabbath
Baby, Baby Don't Cry - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles
Lamplight Symphony - Kansas
Kiss of Death - Vanden Plas
Pope - Prince
S'il Vous Plait (Live) - Miles Davis, Complete Birth of the Cool
Filipino Box Spring Hog - Tom Waits
Remember Me Lover - Porcupine Tree
Map of the World - Marillion
Times of Trouble - Temple of the Dog
This one just missed the cut. One of those 1970's, country-rock one-hit wonders that deserves to be a hit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
