Adiaphora Extended II: Ephesians 5:21-33

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

Context is everything. Each of these links provides various contexts within which one should consider what the author of the above passage is saying. First, a general look at marriage in the Greco-Roman world; then, a look at marriage (roughly) in Second Temple Judaism; finally the preceding long passage on the Christian life of which the teachings on marriage are a part.

In general, the author of Ephesians (I am setting to one side, for the nonce, the question of the authorship of this epistle; my very non-expert opinion is that its author is not St. Paul, but certainly someone writing under his theological influence, and perhaps even under his authority) sees the common life of Christians as something wholly distinct from the rest of the world (which the author calls "evil"). There are admonitions against sexual immorality, against gluttony and drunkenness, all as markers not of a moral life lived for its own sake, but as markers of the new creation of all things in which they participate through baptism (and here, the author makes a direct link to the descent and ascension of Christ).

The passage on marriage is interesting in any number of ways. First, it takes marriage for granted as an already-existing institution the fundamental nature of which has been altered, as are all things in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Before the author says anything specifically about the differing roles in marriage comes the following: "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ." This sets a further context for considering the passage that follows. Furthermore, consider the construction in light of the general comments on marriage in pagan and Jewish antiquity. Here, the author is quite clearly distinguishing Christian marriage from other known and accepted practices. Because of the patriarchal nature of Greco-Roman society as well as Second Temple Judaism, the admonition to be subject to one another already sets up a contrast with the surrounding cultures (if, indeed, this letter was written for Ephesus, this would have been even more of a contrast because of the pagan population of the city; my annotated Bible notes that earliest manuscripts omit "to Ephesus", so its original destination may well be in some doubt). Rather than the man completely dominating the marriage contract, with the woman viewed as property to be paid for (the bride-price) and picked up by the husband on her wedding night like a delivery (not to mention the absence of any legal protection for the wife in either legal setting), the author sets up marriage as a relationship of mutual submission in which both husband and wife are fully engaged subjects. This mutuality is called for not out of any inherent integrity the husband and wife have in and for themselves. Nor is it a part of marriage as it is, or should be. Rather, this mutuality is to be done for the sake of Christ.

The opening lines of the marriage service in the United Methodist Book of Worship reads as follows:

Friends, we are gathered together in the sight of God to witness and bless the joining together of - and - in Christian marriage. The covenant of marriage was established by God, who created us male and female for each other. With his presence and power Jesus graced a wedding at Cana of Galilee, and in his sacrificial love gave us the example for the love of husband and wife. - and - come to give themselves to one another in this holy covenant.(emphasis added)

The italicized portion of this greeting is, taking this passage as one's starting point for a uniquely Christian view of marriage, unbiblical. Rather than an institution created by God, marriage is an institution that has always existed, and is transformed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Right here, at the very beginning of the Christian era, the institution is being reimagined in light of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. While any good feminist - and some not-feminists, too! - would point out that beginning with the submission of the wife leaves the overlying structure of patriarchy intact (and would be quite right so to do), I maintain that this is a revisioned patriarchy, reinterpreted in the light of the patriarchy of God, revealed as graceful kenosis, rather than arbitrary and capricious dominance.

I would immediately follow that observation with the qualifier that, in actual practice, this verse concerning wifely submission, ripped out of any and all contexts, has become a very large stick with which to beat (often quite literally) women down, both within marriage itself, and in society at large. Which is all the more reason to do a couple things here. First, consider it in light of the cross-currents of contexts in which it occurs; second, to take the lead on how we think about marriage as Christians not from anything specific that the author of Ephesians says about the roles of husband and wife (although I maintain there is still much good here to be mined), but rather to consider the theological setting in which the author wishes married couples to see themselves - to live their lives out of the faith granted in the grace of crucified and risen Christ.

Adiaphora Extended I: Some General Thoughts

The initial reaction to my post yesterday, in which I suggested that it is possible to consider the matter of marriage - straight or gay - as a matter of little consequence (one can support either "traditional" marriage or same-sex marriage as a matter of no consequence relative to matters central to the faith) - has been positive. By and large, however, I think the main thrust has been misunderstood, so I thought I would take a couple posts to clarify my position.

A naive biblicism seems to rule the church's attitude toward this single institution, over and above others - the state, the family - that have been reimagined in light of contemporary and modern reality. Few, I think, would begin any consideration of the relationship between the church and the state with Romans 13:1. One cannot and should not avoid this verse. I should, however, be approached via other Biblical passages, placing it in a set of assumptions that make any literal appropriation of this particular passage problematic. Consider Barth's classic "Justice and Justification" (or "The Church in its Relations to the State", depending). He begins his consideration of the question with Jesus' trial before Pilate. Liberation Theology, of course, begins with the reality of political violence as the context for any appropriation of the faith, using it as the hermeneutic through which "forgiveness of sins" is understood, in the relevant phrase, from below.

On the one hand, the Hebrew Scriptures contain the commandment to honor one's parents. On the other, in the Gospel of St. Mark, Jesus insists "family" be reinterpreted in light of his own life and ministry, and starts with his own family - whoever does his will is his brother and sister. He claims not to have "a mother" when his mother comes to bring him home to Nazareth, fearing for his sanity. The church understands the family as the heart of our social life, yet is certainly not dogmatic in defining "family" outside the lived reality of the variety of ways that reality exists.

Any discussion of marriage, at least in North American churches, seems to me to be muddled. We support a simplistic biblicism that would be denied in other contexts, and we do not acknowledge the dual role a clergyperson has when performing a marriage ritual as both a representative of the Body of Christ as well as an agent of the state. A minister performs a state function, with the ad extra of a spiritual definition of marriage that is too often placed front and center of the ceremony itself, even as most churches perform marriages in which the couples usually have little investment in such an understanding. In the United Methodist Church, there is little to no requirement for a wedding performed within any particular local church, although most churches do have some minimum requirements. Yet, if marriage is indeed an institution inaugurated by God that serves as an allegory for the relationship between Christ and the Church, it seems to me three one hour meetings talking about finances and setting up the ceremony itself hardly qualify as a serious attempt to teach people about deeper significance of marriage.

We need a wholesale rethinking of the way churches understand their role in performing marriage. If, indeed, marriage is a vital expression of God's love, then we need to be serious, more thoughtful, in our approach. The matter of performing a function easily done by a state representative - a judge, a magistrate - should be set to one side.

It seems to me that the reality of gay marriage offers churches the opportunity to think more seriously, more prayerfully, more honestly about what it is we believe marriage is, and what the church's relationship to this institution is, and can, and should be. Rejecting gay marriage with a combination of proof-texting (and bad proof-texting at that) and bigotry is just not an answer. Neither is adding same-sex marriage to a list of pro forma rituals - graduation benedictions; prayers at Memorial Day ceremonies - that clergy perform as representatives equally of the both state and church. We should get our exegetical, doctrinal, and pastoral houses in order on this matter in order to serve the people of God with integrity and faith.

Harmonic Divergence

Facebook has a rare thing - a little challenge I'm enjoying! It's called "The 30 Day Song Challenge", and it really isn't much of a challenge (with one exception so far; a song that makes me feel guilty?). Day one was my favorite song - "What's Going On" by Marvin Gaye, easy enough - and day two was "least favorite song". For that I picked Deep Purple's "Smoke On The Water", but I got so many great bad suggestions I feel bad for being so precipitous. After all, there's this:



And my sister offered the following suggestion:



Anyway, here's some stuff I like a bit better:

Helpless Dancer - The Who
Symphony No. 2 in A - William Boyce
Everybody's Talking - Crosby, Stills, and Nash
Passage to Bangkok (Live) - Rush
The Journey - Rick Wakeman
Laudate Dominum, from Vesperea Solennes - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Sing a Simple Song - Budos Band
Casey Jones - Grateful Dead
Sparks of the Tempest - Kansas
Burning Sky - Porcupine Tree

That should be enough to clear Starship out of my head.

Adiaphora

The discussion here has reached the point of silliness, really. Which is why I am going to go out on a limb and suggest something that might sound radical, but I don't think it really is.

Gay marriage, issues surrounding sexual identity in general, are in that class of things that, going back to St. Paul's discussion over whether to eat meat dedicated to idols, has been called adiaphora, things of no consequence.

St. Paul had to deal with a whole lot of silliness in the churches with which he corresponded. Some of it was not just silly, but reflected a kind of practical blindness in the face of the call of the Gospel to be the new creation. One of the things with which he dealt was the way huge controversies in various congregations arose over matters of little consequence relative to the central concerns of the Gospel. He was patient, really and made clear that this was just not an issue about which anyone should care. You want to eat meat dedicated to idols? OK. You would prefer not to do so? That's OK, too. Just as long as the entire question didn't create confusion among those who were not as advanced spiritually as others. Don't do anything to make some folks stumble, is all.

While marriage is often discussed, in particular in the New Testament, it is used as a metaphor for the relationship between God and the Church. Over the course of two millennia, the terms have become switched, and what was originally considered an allegory became, in the Roman Church, a sacrament. While its sacramental status was dropped by the Reformation (it was not something instituted by Jesus Christ), it remains, in many ways, a sacrament-by-default. All one has to do is listen to the opening words of the marriage rite in any Protestant Church ("Marriage is an institution created by God . . . ") to understand how muddled is our thinking on this subject.

To me, however, the question over the status of marriage in general isn't settled, but rather begged, by this state of affairs. If the Christian west, or Christendom in general, were the only society in which marriage existed, I might be persuaded that are dealing with something vital to our spiritual as well as secular lives. It just isn't the case; marriage exists pretty much across most cultures in some form or other as the legal recognition of particular procreative relationships. It is, in other words, merely a way to control both breeding and the passing on of personal property. Making of this rather mundane, legally binding contract between two persons and the state something spiritual is lovely, but creates more problems than it is worth. Not least of these problems, of course, are matters of what kinds of marriages are or should be legally recognized. With changes in social attitudes toward women and sexual minorities, eventually the whole question of marriage becomes fraught with hazards.

While there can certainly be a spiritual dimension to marriage, it isn't inherent in the institution itself. Again, across most societies, marriage is little more than a contract with the state for regulating property disposition and procreation. You want to make more of it than that, why go right ahead. As things change, however, we should not be tied to two-thousand year old allegories that have become misunderstood, had the terms reversed, and used to beat down interracial marriages, keep and trade women as property, and now refuse to recognize that two persons of the same gender can and do enjoy the practical realities of a life lived together, without however, enjoying the benefits of state (let alone religious) sanction, to which might accrue the benefits and responsibilities inherent in such sanctioning.

Since there are, as a practical matter, several states and a couple Christian denominations that recognize same-sex unions, either by marriage or another name (Illinois' legalizing of same-sex unions goes in to effect soon, thank God), it seems to me churches in general would be far better off treating this entire matter as adiaphora. As there is so little Scriptural support for any position regarding same-sex marriage, and the entire matter does not at all impact the central issue of the Gospel - salvation by faith through grace - is seems to me that, rather than sit around and denounce one another as heretics, it might be better to set these matters to one side. People of good faith can disagree. As far as I'm concerned, it seems to me of little consequence whether or not any particular denomination or church wishes to recognize same-sex unions or not; if not, OK. If so, OK.

It is, in a word, adiaphora.

Why I Prefer Really Existing Things To Principles

With his quadrennial pledge drive disguised as a Presidential run, Ron Paul is getting pounded by folks who, last time around, gave him a bit of a pass because he opposed the Iraq War and occupation. For some reason - call it political expediency that makes strange bedfellows - liberals and progressives were all misty-eyed over Ron Paul's denunciations of Bush's wars, said mist clouding their vision when it came to other, less attractive (or intelligent) aspects of his political philosophy. This time around, however, the gloves are off, and while liberals and progressives tend not to have iron fists inside those velvet gloves, they seem to be making up for that by making it plain that Ron Paul, whatever tiny virtues he may have, is nuts.

I am not a fan of libertarianism in general, and Ron Paul, the most mainstream of the breed, provides ample reasons to show why. Color me unimpressed, for example, by his discussion of why he would have not voted for the Civil Rights Act. I realize this is a 57-year-old piece of legislation, yet it continues to crop up in discussions because, as a commenter in the above-link discussion at Crooked Timber points out, conservatives continue to desire its disappearance. They do not like it, in total or its various parts (college sports fans bewail Title IX, for example, so the law seems to tick off just about everyone). There is evidence enough that, rather than any principled Constitutional stand, Paul's dislike of the CRA is rooted far more in his racism. Even Barry Goldwater's "principled opposition" to CRA led him to dabble in political alliances with the ugliest parts of white supremacist southerners during the 1964 Presidential election. While many may cry, "Old news! Ancient history!", it isn't we who brings this stuff up; it is they, and they need to make clear why it is we should ignore their racism when they claim principle.

This is all by way of an aside. Paul carried on concerning the alleged unconstitutionality of various federal programs - something one reads all the time by conservatives on the internet - and it was pointed out to him that, in fact, some of the things he was claiming were not constitutional were found to be so by the Supreme Court. His response?

[CHRIS] WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

Unraveling what passes for thought here is difficult. Were I in Christ Wallace's chair, I might have taken a moment to point out that is irrelevant. He is not claiming that a federal program continues to exist after having been found to be unconstitutional. Rather, he is claiming that a federal program, found to be wholly constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, nevertheless is unconstitutional. He further is claiming that it is a misinterpretation of the commerce clause that is at fault. Yet, this reading has a long and illustrious history in Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence. What, specifically about these cases is that with which he disagrees? Is he aware, for example, that it is the commerce clause, rather than the "general welfare clause" that is the controlling phrase in the Constitution? This isn't "taught in our schools" except as how the Supreme Court understands the Constitution. Unless, of course, he means taught in our law schools, in which case, sure it's taught so that lawyers, you know, understand the law.

In other words, Paul is demonstrating an interesting factoid about libertarians - almost pure ignorance about the Constitution, constitutional law, even law in general. I have yet to read one who has any real familiarity with the real constitution as it actually functions and is interpreted. I have yet to read one who hasn't declared, absent any evidence whatsoever, that this or that or the other thing is unconstitutional, usually asking the rhetorical, "Where in the constitution does it say to do 'X'"? The whole point in particular of the first Article of the Constitution is make clear that there is a legislative body, some basic structural rules, and certain definitions of its function and limitations. Beyond that, there is a wide space for Congress to do all sorts of things.

The question of the Constitutionality of this or that particular law or program is not a theoretical or academic exercise. It is, rather, a reference to an operative document and an existent body of case law. Those who insist upon a libertarian interpretation are, at the very least, in need of a basic acquaintance with that body of law and why it errs. I am unimpressed with any alleged philosophical consistency that might lead Ron Paul to claim Social Security is unconstitutional if he cannot even acknowledge that the Supreme Court has declared the opposite and why that is so. Since that is the case, and since he believes the interpretation is wrong, he could at the very least acknowledge that the reason it is "taught in our schools" is because it is, in fact, the controlling interpretation of the Constitution.

Libertarians toss around the phrase "unconstitutional" far too often to impress me; I tried to find the comment on another site where one actually used the phrase "sovereign property", to which I replied I hoped he would invite me to a court when he used that phrase so I could see the expression on the judge's face. It isn't enough to be attached to a particular political philosophy. One needs, I would think, to be aware that it opposes actually existing legal and political practice, and as such needs more than just nay-saying and the appearance of adherence to principle to appear impressive.

Agnotology & The Liars Paradox

I'm (slightly) involved in a discussion at Crooked Timber on agnotology. It is a topic I have discussed here in the past. For the moment, I want to focus on part of what I see is the issue before us - how to deal effectively with those whose ideological position is different from one's own on a basis of mutual respect, even if the disagreement becomes heated.

I recently noted, in a comment at Dan's blog, the following list from Mark (the person who gave this blog its subtitle). It appears in the right-hand side-bar:

Truths About Liberals
1. Always expect the worst from a liberal and you will never be surprised.

2. Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

3. You can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse you of doing.

4. Liberals don't debate, they argue.

5. The only standards liberals have are double standards.

6. Liberals feel, conservatives think.

7. Whenever you don't understand a liberal's motives, just look for the money.

8. Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.

9. The Liberal creed is, "Do as I say, not as I do.

10. Liberals get older, but they never get smarter.

11. There are no honest liberals. If they were honest -- especially to themselves -- they would not be liberal.

12. A liberal's business is nobody's business, but everyone's business is a liberal's business.

13. Liberals have an inflated sense of self-worth. They are like house flies that criticize the air-worthiness of a Stealth fighter. (Sarah, Palin, George W. Bush, ad infinitum are morons.)

14. Liberals lack a sixth sense that is standard equipment in conservatives -- common sense.

15. Liberals never stop hating.

16. There are only two types of liberals -- the deceivers and the deceived.

17. Every time liberals get on their high horse, they get bucked off.

18. Liberal programs are so wonderful that they have to be forced on people.

19. Liberals always choke on their own medicine.

20. When given a moral choice, liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.

21. The only way liberals can build themselves up is by tearing others down.

22. Liberals not only refuse to admit their mistakes, they refuse to learn from them.

23. Liberals can dish it out, but they can't take it.

24. Liberals are incapable of attacking the message, so they always attack the messenger.

25. Liberal diversity is only skin deep.

I noted in the above-linked comment, that it would be difficult to function even in an ordinary capacity if one truly held these convictions. The reason is simple enough. Taken as a whole, they represent the classic "Liar's Paradox". In its simplest form, it runs like this:

Everything I say is a lie.
I am lying to you.

Essentially, the above list can be boiled down to this logical nonsense. Indeed, if one took it even slightly differently, one could argue that the list claims that liberals are, in fact, conservatives.

All the same, let us assume it is possible to hold these things in one's head and function. What is the result? I get comments such as Edwin Drood's, "Stop pretending to care about the troops . . ." on a post in which I had expressed . . . concern for American forces in Afghanistan. How is it possible for Edwin to make such a claim? Why, he adheres to Mark's idea that our words actually mean the opposite of their literal presentation. A post in support of the troops is in fact an attack upon them. A post criticizing Pres. Obama on this or that or other point - and I have written many over the past couple years - is evidence of blind support for everything Pres. Obama does. The repeated statement that I am a Christian is evidence that I am not a Christian. The list is endless.

In other words, what counts for "evidence" is actually discounted not because of any inherent flaw in the evidence itself. Rather, because I am a self-confessed person of the left, for some at least on the right this is a priori proof that everything that follows is either (a) wrong, or (b) deceitful. Based upon little more than a prior commitment to the belief that liberals are a bunch of immoral, lying scumbags who hate America and want to screw your daughter then force an abortion on her.

Under different circumstances, we should be able to say, "Wow, this is really weird," have a laugh, and talk about something else. Instead, with the Liar's Paradox fully in force, we are faced with the reality that this is impossible.

I think, at this point, we should stop talking about agnotology, and start talking about crazy.

"[T]he scent of failure"

If wishes were horse, beggars would ride, as they said in the generation that learned its magic from Tom Swift and Jules Verne. To know that large numbers of Americans are concerned about getting adequate medical care is one thing; to give them the willies by talking about their "health chairs" is quite another, suggesting not the future but the past, the drone of the small-town autodidact, the garrulous bore in the courthouse square. There is about these dismal reductions something disarming and poignant, a solitary neediness, a dogged determination to shine in public that leads Mr. Gingrich to reveal to us, again and again, what his own interests dictate that we should not see.

Joan Didion, "The Teachings of Speaker Gingrich"

With the announcement that he will no longer wait for a movement to form around him, as he has in years past, but take the initiative and run for President of the United States, Newt Gingrich is bestowing upon political bloggers a great gift.

Himself.

Joan Didion's portrait-cum-review in the August 10, 1995 edition of NYRB is an important jumping-off point for any consideration of Newt. Lucky for us, the intervening sixteen years have not been Newtless. Blaming liberals for Columbine and the horrific murder of her two young children by Susan Smith, Newt opined on the character of Barack Hussein Obama:

"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asked. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

"This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president," Gingrich added.

"I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating -- none of which was true," Gingrich continues. "In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve. ... He was authentically dishonest."

As happens so often with such pronouncements by those on the right, the most significant, negative character traits all too often redound upon the speaker, or in this case, disgraced former-Speaker.

As Maureen Dowd wrote of Newt last September:

Newt has always displayed an impressive grandiosity. Who can forget the time during his Congressional heyday when he declared himself a “defender of civilization, a teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who form civilization ... and leader ‘possibly’ of the civilizing forces”?

And he who thinks Obama is too messianic said in 1994: “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz. I see evil all around me every day.”

I remember quite well, and will be reminding anyone who might be interested in hearing about it.

Somehow, Newt has received the sobriquet "the smartest man in the room", which, I think would refer to whatever room he may occupy alone. His long public record of saying outrageous, untrue, and just downright borderline crazy things reveals a lack of discipline and judgment, not tempered at all by any sense of humility. As Ms. Didion wrote, Newt's is a pose of intellectual depth, a persona used to defend against the slings and arrows of middle-class high school nonsense. It is one thing, for example, to be engaged by Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy as an adolescent. To use it as a touchstone for intellectual and political pursuits reveals someone still yearning for approval that approval of one's peers that all seek during adolescence, and most adults overcome.

That scent of failure, the big "L" on Newt's forehead, has not gone away. I look forward to the coming months as Newt destroys what little public credibility he has left.

The Least Of These

I heard most of Terry Gross's interview with Canadian journalist Ian Brown the other night, and was moved by what I heard. It also led to some questions that, in the light of our usually quite stupid, and occasionally cruel, public discussions on matters of public policy, I think need to be confronted.

First, I want to make clear I am addressing this to those "Christians" who would insist that the kind of stuff Jesus was talking about, and the churches that bear his name occasionally teach, doesn't apply to our public life. You know, the kind of folks who think we should rely on charity to help out folks who are down and out because, really, most poor people are poor because it's their own fault; giving them public assistance only pays people to be lazy, right? Why should we create a health-care system that covers everything for everybody, when I'm not gonna use those services? I mean, come on, that's not taxation, that's theft, right? Besides which, all that stuff, even civil rights, it's all unconstitutional anyway, because I should be free to do with my stuff, my business, my time, and my energy and commitments what I want, not have it dictated to me by a bunch of pointy-headed, do-goody bureaucrats.

This is the attitude Walker Brown challenges simply by being alive. Lucky for him he was born in Canada. His father, Ian, says that so far, in his fifteen years of life, his care has cost the nation around $2 million. The home where he has resided for the past six years costs, Brown estimates, $50,000. And it is paid for thanks to Canada's generous social welfare and health care system.

Walker Brown would face a much harsher reality south of the border, as it were. His parents would be hard pressed to afford care. Walker would be uninsurable, so everything would have to be paid for out-of-pocket. There are certainly group homes here in the U.S. of high quality that cost, roughly speaking, the same as the one where Walker now lives. Obviously, one has to earn quite a bit of money in order to send one's child to such a facility. The alternatives are grim for all around.

What kind of society do we want? Do we want to live in a society where we close our ears and eyes to the sounds and sight of people like Walker? Do we insist that, while we certainly sympathize with the Brown family's dilemma, it isn't our problem, and shouldn't be dealt with using our money? There are currently no, or at best few, alternatives for families with children like Walker here in the United States, and an entire segment of the body politic who insist, over and over again, that the cries of the needy, the voices of the silenced, are of no concern to them, nor should they be to the rest of us.

Like Ebeneezer Scrooge who wishes the poor would die to decrease the surplus population, the notion that there exist human beings outside our sphere of concern is morally vicious. Walker Brown, whose life has been and continues to be hard, nevertheless also lives a life of wonder, filling those who love him with joy and awe at all the things they can experience because he is alive, challenges us to ask what kind of a society we wish to have. Do we want one in which people like Walker are of no value, cast aside? Do we turn a deaf ear to the Brown family and their needs, as an undue burden on an already over burdened populace?

Walker is the "least of these" about whom Jesus spoke. We need to remember that.

Seal Of Disapproval

I noted this story yesterday on Facebook.

After years of letting his congregation believe he'd once been a Navy SEAL, a Pennsylvania pastor's tale has come undone.

Last week, The Patriot-News newspaper, based in Harrisburg, reached out to former SEALs living in midstate Pennsylvania, hoping for some local perspective on the U.S. commando operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Rev. Jim Moats, of Newville, obliged, and was featured in a story that ran in Saturday's edition. But it turns out Moats was never a SEAL, and the guilt-ridden pastor went to the paper's office on Sunday to fess up.

"I never was in a class, I never served as an actual SEAL. It was my dream," Moats, 59, who did serve in the Navy from 1970 to 1974, told the paper. "I don't even know if I would have met the qualifications. I never knew what the qualifications were."

My reaction was sympathy tinged with humor. For the better part of the past 24 hours, my initial response has been to laugh at someone stupid and short-sighted enough to believe that such a tall-tale could ever last.

Now, however, I am starting to sympathize with the guy. Not because I used to tell people I was a Navy SEAL, or anything else so ridiculous. I am sympathizing with him because here is a man who, for whatever reasons, was obviously unhappy with his life. Who of us is not? Which person does not have regrets, looks back and wishes this or that or the other thing could be done, or worse, undone? The Rev. Moats obviously desired to be a SEAL, managed to find a piece of SEALiana, and let others believe what they would without ever disabusing them of the idea. Because, apparently, it made him feel . . . what? Successful? Better?

I have to ask, though, what was missing in his life now that would lead him to this series of decisions and choices? He is a father, a pastor of a church, a Navy veteran honorably discharged after four years of service. These are all commendable, accomplishments to be celebrated. While he may feel like he "missed out" on something by not, at the very least, attempting to become a SEAL, why regret it?

Lisa will tell anyone who listens that my biggest gripe and complaint in life is that the stuff I do here on this blog isn't something I do for pay. The time I put in, the effort, the sense of accomplishment when I write something of which I am particularly proud is tinged with frustration at the fact that I am not remunerated, let alone recognized, for it. When I make these complaints, I also come around to the fact that I do this because I love it, because I want to, because I can, and not to do it would be a little like not being me. So what if I'm not on Meet the Press or published in The Washington Post? The guests the former show has on are usually really bad, and the latter publishes Charles Krauthammer. Enough said, I think.

So, I sympathize. All the same, one should take a certain amount of pride in the simple pleasures and daily accomplishments in life - raising a family, being a spouse, keeping a job. These are, by and large, not heroic activities but certainly important at keeping the fabric of our society from fraying.

If you have regrets, or wish to fulfill some cheap fantasies, don't make up stories about yourself. Write novels. Who knows, you might even make money at it.

Random Musical Notes

A friend on Facebook made a marvelous allusion to Rainbow's "Man on the Silver Mountain" as a possible theme song to the Second Coming.



This same FB friend also made me aware of some interesting covers of classic rock songs by a group doing Gregorian chant.



Ahem.

Useful Idiot - Tool
White Car - Yes
914 - Liquid Tension Experiment
Man Of Our Times - Enchant (Genesis Tribute)
Reise, Reise - Rammstein (Live)
Good News, The Chariot's Coming - Mahalia Jackson
Fess Up - Dr. John
Where I Belong - Steve Howe's Remedy
Seagull - Joe Bonamassa
Hopeless - Train

Because Monty Python Day was on FB this week, one of the most honest love songs ever written . . .

Debt Ceilings, Budget Battles, And Mr. Y

Michael Tomasky's article in the latest edition of the New York Review of Books, on the various budget, tax, and debt issues that surround Washington like a cloud of crap threatening a shit storm makes it clear that, playing the Washington game by the rules as currently set forth creates a no-win situation for anyone, least of all the American people. Going forward in a way that manages all that needs to be managed, not least getting the economy moving again so jobs will be created - a really interesting yet unstated way to bring down the deficit! - requires not only political courage, which is always in short supply, but creative, imaginative thinking, which one might find in a fossil bed at the Smithsonian, but that's about it.

All the same, were President Obama only slightly different in character, only slightly less averse to calling the Republican's bluff, in particular on matters where he has the general if diffuse support of the American people on his side, using the general outlines given in "A National Strategic Narrative" as a guideline would be a good way, in essence, to rip it up and start again, "it" being the entire budget negotiation process with Congress.

Perhaps the most important first step we can take, as part of a National Strategy, is to identity which . . . resources are renewable and sustainable, and which are finite and diminishing. Without doubt, our greatest resource is American's young people, who will shape and execuite the vision needed to take this nation forward into an uncertain future. . . .

Inherent in our children is the innovation, drive, and imagination that have made, and will continue to make, this country great. By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young American - the scientist,s statesmen, industrialists, farmers, investors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow - we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment of the future. Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social service to provide for the continuing development and growth of America's youth.

Our second investment priority is ensuring the nation's sustainable security - on our own soil and wherever Americans and ther interests take them. As has been stated already, Americans view security in the broader context of freedom and peace of mind. Rather than focusing primarily on defense, the security we seek can only be sustained through a whole of nation appraoch to our domestic and foreign policies. This requires a diffeent approach to prblem solving that we have pursued previously and a hard look at the distrubiton of our national treasure For too long, we have underutilized sectors of our government and our citizenry write large, focusing intesnely on defense and proctectionis rather than on development and ciplomomacy. This has been tru ein our approach to domestic and foreign trace, agrictulre and energy, science and techomology, immigration and education, public health and crisis response, Homeland Security and military force posture. Security touches each of these and must be addressed by legeraging all the strengths of our nation, not simply those intended to keep perveived threat a safe arm's length away.

. . . Our third investment priority is to develop a plan for the sustainable access to, cultivation and use of, the natural resources we need to our continued wellbeing, prosperity and economic growth in the world marketplace.

Rather than shred what little remains of the fabric of the social safety net, support for quality education, and defunding the ACA, the first thing that should be done is revisioning education policy and social welfare policy as linked together creating a stable, and one hopes eventually thriving, social infrastructure.

By calling on the service chiefs to draw up white papers on how they see the force structure best responding to the evolving threats over the next fifteen to twenty years (and the death of Osama bin Laden certainly changes the equation of much of our security thinking), it seems to me we might well have a basis for reconsidering the entire way we fund defense. Seeing terrorism as a legal, rather than military, matter would direct resources where they are needed, in particular tracking the flow of money to various groups. Bringing the Department of Justice in to reconsider the whole definition of "terrorist group" in order to direct law-enforcement resources toward those groups that truly pose a threat to the American people (rather than harassing groups that are merely funnels for money that goes overseas) would also be helpful. As would treating political parties such as Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others as political parties, rather than terrorist organizations.

Finally, by seeing our environment, and our productive, resources as existing on the same continuum, we can make better investment and regulatory choices; rather than, say, give billions of dollars in tax breaks and direct incentives to various corporations - oil and gas, the auto industry, sugar, - incentives should exist for sustainable industries for the future; environmental-friendly agricultural practices, rather than factory farming that damages the land, introduces abundant, dangerous chemicals in to the land, water, and food supply, and distorts the eco-system by demanding we reroute whole rivers, creating potential horrific flood conditions.

All of this could be done, offering an entirely different vision of who we are as a people, where we as a country wish to be in five, ten, twenty years. It would be a direct rebuke to the entire stale, tired, and dead-end back-and-forth over ideas and policies that sound the same today as they did 25 years ago. By starting fresh, at the very least, we have the opportunity to change the entire conversation in directions that are productive and positive.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Among my guilty pleasures is my addiction to the SyFy shows Ghost Hunters and Ghost Hunters International. I really don't want to get in to a discussion over how fake or not-fake the show is or may be. I certainly watch each episode with a grain of salt, and make my own conclusions based upon what I see and hear. I have my doubts about the whole phenomenon of EVPs, which most of the time can be chalked up to matrixing. All the same, I really like Grant and Jason, and ever since they got rid of the losers from the first couple seasons, at the very least they have a professional group, not to mention better looking.

I have a general interest in what could be termed the "paranormal", although I find the term misleading, because it implies that certain events are only partly normal. In any event, I have had some interesting stuff happen to me (and others around me) on a few occasions, both at the house in which I grew up and at my oldest sister's house - the latter being far more interesting than scary - and I am far more intrigued by such things than I am scared. Which doesn't mean I go looking for them, or invite the possibility of such things in to my own house. Far from it.

Yesterday, Lisa and the girls spent Mother's Day at her mother's house, and I was left to my own devices, by and large. I spent some time on YouTube and discovered a channel by someone named Sunshine Girl, which purports to be a video chronicle of the hauntings at the house in which she and her mother live in Oregon. I found some of the stuff interesting, right up until the "creepy lady" from down the street popped up, and the obviously very badly faked ghost images showed up. Then I realized this was a first-attempt by an aspiring young film-maker. I am a little disconcerted by the fact that so many of her viewers continue to believe her insistence that the events she chronicles are "real". Even more am I surprised - although by now I really shouldn't be - at all the chatter about "demons".

It seems to me that demons, whatever else they may be, have far more important things to do than bother pubescent young women. Furthermore, while certainly startling - all that banging on doors and opening and closing doors and such - I have always maintained that should demons exist and spend their time and energy bothering human beings, they could be far more creative. I am quite sure there are earnest and honest believers in such things, and such matters as demonic possession and demonic hauntings and such, but I just can't get behind such nonsense.

How, one can ask, is it possible that I can hold out the possibility of human hauntings but not demonic, each being equally implausible. For me, I guess, the answer is simple enough. Human hauntings make a certain amount of sense. Demonic, not so much. Since I'm not really sold on the existence of such creatures anyway - and please don't even get me started on angels - the whole thing begs all sorts of questions, the answers to which usually make me figure that demons really are quite stupid. Or perhaps bored. Or even both.

In any event, while certainly entertaining on a level with The Blair Witch Project (and slightly better done), the whole Sunshine Girl phenomenon is no more real than A Haunting in Connecticut or Casper. There may well be interesting hauntings going on out there, documented by folks on YouTube, but this just isn't one of them. The number of folks who buy in to her insistence that the events in question are real only proves that there are really dumb, gullible folks out there in the world who are willing to discount all sorts of evidence that is quite plain.

So, I continue to enjoy my guilty pleasures, salt-shaker always close by for those grains. Encountering Sunshine Girl, at least, has convinced me my powers of discernment are not completely shriveled.

Random Momness

Was it March or May, 1974? I can't remember the month, but I had Asian flu. My temperature was above 102 from early on a Tuesday until sometime on Friday when it finally broke. The worst day of all was that Thursday afternoon and evening. How do I know it was a Thursday? It was the night of the music department performance at the high school, and my sisters and brother were all performing. My older sister was a senior and I was really sad that I was going to miss her concert (she played saxophone). My temperature had been climbing all day. By the time the afternoon rolled around and my family was home from school, it was over 105, and even edged to 106 at one point. I kind of remember that odd time, because it was so odd. Being delirious with fever leaves and impression. Aspirin - about all that was around at the time - wasn't bringing the fever down, so my mother did a couple things. She filled the tub with cold water, even adding ice. I was unable to walk, so my father carried me upstairs and lowered me in to the tub. I remember the moment so clearly, even though I was only eight. It was one of sweet relief. I lay there, my mother using a washcloth to rinse cold water over my head. I wasn't in the tub very long, and my mother quickly dried me off and put clean pajamas on me. Dad carried me back downstairs, and my mother sat next to me and spoon fed me ice cream. Instead of water, I had ice chips to suck on.

By the time everyone came home from the concert, my temperature was down to a manageable 102, and I actually felt better. I remember nothing from the next day, because I slept; my fever broke, probably early in the morning, and the wear on my body had been such that I slept until some time on Saturday. My mother tells me she got me up, changed my pajamas again, and the sheets upon which I was sleeping - breaking a fever causes you to flop-sweat, and as high as my temperature had been, there was quite a lot of it, soaking everything - but I really wasn't very conscious through it.

My mother had five children she nursed through various illnesses and wounds, heartaches and troubles, got impatient with over silly little things like how we mopped the kitchen floor, and stood by us when we really goofed up. My mother raised all five of us to be open and accepting of the differences among all kinds of people. One never heard disparaging words in our house about any individual or group (well, except for the Irish, for some reason). We are all, despite all the differences among us as adults, at the very least open and accepting people in large part because we were raised that way.

She attended the University of Dayton during the Second World War. The men who attended this Catholic University (Society of St. Mary) were a hodge-podge of 4Fs, returning vets some wounded, and young Cubans on student visas (Cuba wasn't in the war; the Society had schools in Cuba at the time, and their best students came to UD). She studied chemical engineering, an odd choice indeed for a woman in the early 1940's. She was top in her class. One year, just for the heck of it, she went out for the University archery team, made it, and wound up not just first for her school, but nationally ranked. She said the next year she could barely hit the target and gave it up.

She had a variety of jobs in and around Dayton. She worked for "National Cash", as she called it, which is now known as NCR. She worked for the Huffman Bicycle Company making the fold-up bikes used by troops in the invasion of Italy.

Her most interesting summer job those years, however, was one she couldn't talk about to anyone. I learned details of it many years later, in 1981. My family had decided to go to a Johnston/Roberts family reunion (my mother's side of the family), in part because my mother's Aunt Lydia was going to be there. Also, her oldest brother was flying out from Seattle. On one particular night, we gathered in my Uncle David's house, which was the family homestead on McLean Street in Dayton, OH. The Johnston's are a large brood, noisy, argumentative, and no one beat my Uncle David in these departments. The combination of noise and the crush of people led me to move away from the crowds around the cake to the front sitting room. The light was off in there, but my mother's two oldest brothers, Eugene (known as Junior, the only one in the family with a nickname) and Rowland, were in there talking. I started to leave when Junior insisted I come in and sit down. He and Rowland then spent about ten minutes praising my mother's various virtues. It was a treat, a moment I'll not forget.

Then Junior asked me a question. "Did you know your mother worked on the Manhattan Project?"

Well, I did know, in fact. I told him that she had run a Geiger counter over the clothing the workers discarded at the end of the day. Junior smiled. "That's what she told you, huh?"

I said yes.

"Did she tell you she received a personal citation from President Roosevelt for her work?"

No.

He smiled again.

To this day, my mother insists that was all she did, but that conversation with Junior has always intrigued me. Considering it was classified, and everyone involved was told they could say nothing about the work they did, and were not told what it was about; considering Junior himself as well as David were involved in various military intelligence stuff and from them I've learned that one does not talk about stuff one is ordered to forget, I wonder - what did my mother do for the Manhattan Project that she did so well she got a Presidential citation for it?

Over Christmas, 1991, I was visiting my parents with my then-lady friend. Mom and Dad were sitting in the kitchen, and my lady friend and I were standing there, and Mom told me that a childhood friend of my older sister, a young woman whose name was the first word I ever uttered (says a lot about me, I think), had visited them out of the blue earlier that autumn. This woman was estranged from her parents, had been for nearly two decades by that point in time, but had spent quite a lot of time around us growing up. Mom said that this woman had told her, Mom, that she was always grateful to have the Saffords to come and visit and stay at, eat a meal with or just hang out. She told my mother that she considered her a second mother and was and would be always grateful for all she had done. She told my mother that Mom was a great Mom, always there, always available, willing to admonish any child in her orbit, as a sign of love and affection. Mom teared up while she told us this, and confessed that she had always felt like a terrible mother.

As a parent now, I can say I sympathize with Mom's sentiments. I think most parents feel inadequate, hold their failures before them, wish they had done this, that, or the other differently if at all. All the same, I will write now what I told my mother. Mom, you were more than a great mother. You were a good mother. You weren't perfect, but maybe that's what made you so good. You raised a vibrant, large, difficult brood of children to become productive, successful members of society, encouraging us to be ourselves without ever once insisting we be just like you.

Happy Mother's Day, Mom. For all you've done, for all of us. Thank you for being the kind of Mom you were and continue to be. I love you.

For The Birds (UPDATE)

When we moved to Plato Center last year, one of the benefits that was apparent pretty quickly was the amount and variety of birds around us. We live on an acre lot, surrounded by trees (rare enough on the Illinois prairie) with a creek on the southern border of our property, all providing a nice habitat for a variety of fauna - raccoons and squirrels, chipmunks and rabbits, foxes and maybe a wild ferret or two. Most of all, though, were the birds. My grandmother, Grace Safford, was a marvelous birder. She knew birds, all kinds of birds, at a glance. She knew their names, their calls, their eating habits, their nesting habits, their migratory habits, their Latin names. She could do the same with flowers (although not the whole Latin thing, I think) but I was always more impressed with her ability to identify birds.

I have always wanted to be able to do the same thing. I can identify a number of birds by their calls - robins and blue jays and cardinals and red-wing blackbirds and cowbirds and the sweet, two-note call of the phoebe. I can identify more by their look, their color and markings. The folks who had lived here before us had a couple bird feeders and a hummingbird feeder out back, and the traffic was lively, but the press of events kept my attention elsewhere.

Late last summer, I encountered, up close, a small owl. I was quite close, no more than three feet away, and it ignored me completely as it went about its hunting, nabbing a mouse or mole in the grass after gliding past me from the branch where it had been sitting. Over the winter, we kept up the seed in the feeders, adding a couple suet feeders for woodpeckers, and all through the long months of cold and snow we had downy woodpeckers, chickadees, mourning doves, and a host of junkos, the last of whom fed exclusively on the ground, which meant tossing quite a bit on the ground.

As spring arrived, we noticed an uptick in interesting birds. First, the red-headed woodpeckers stopped by, for a bit. Once or twice a pileated woodpecker would grace us. The sparrows became thick, regulars at the trough. Then, a couple weeks back, Lisa snapped the following picture.

This is an indigo bunting. I realized that this would provide a marvelous opportunity for me to do something I have always wanted to do - some birding. Over the ensuing couple weeks, I was more careful as I watched the comings and goings of various birds. Then, yesterday morning, I was surprised to see, big as life and clear as day, an oriole. I quickly grabbed the camera and took a couple pictures.

Over the course of the day yesterday, I took several more pictures, including one of a goldfinch. Now, the goldfinches have been hanging around for about a month or so. They are frequent flyers, as it were, and we have quite a few; earlier this week I counted five individuals, three males and two females, perched in various places on and around our feeders. Every time I would grab the camera, they would fly away. I started to get paranoid about them, but I finally snapped a quick shot of a male.

Yesterday morning also saw a grossbeak making an appearance.

I decided, after that, to keep the camera close to the windows facing on the feeders. I also took some shots of some other visitors to Chez Kruse-Safford Aviary Restaurant and Lounge. A white-throated sparrow.

A cowbird, which no one seems to like, but they are an integral part of the community of birds that keep our bird-feeder area lively.

A purple finch, who isn't actually purple, kind of like the red-bud tree down south whose buds aren't actually red.

One of our long-time regulars, a downy woodpecker. I should name it Norm, after the character on Cheers.

Over the coming weeks and months, I'm going to be snapping more photos of more and different birds, teaching myself to identify them, then familiarize myself with the individuals who hang out here. My ultimate goal is to snap a picture of a hummingbird. We have had one come around to our hummingbird feeder, but I've been too nervous to even try to take a picture. I am going to try, though.

Being here is a great opportunity to indulge in a hobby that is fun, adds some beauty and life to our lives here, connects me to the local wildlife, and is something I have always wanted to do. I am learning something new, which is always a new thing, but also something I have always wanted to do and connects me to my grandmother in a way I think she would have appreciated.

I know this has nothing to do with being a Christian, or politics, or much of anything else. Self-indulgence, usually, should be avoided, but the birds are far too beautiful not to share.

Even the cowbird.

UPDATE: The picture below was taken less than five minutes ago, at an oriole feeder my wife set up. Just . . . wow, how beautiful are these guys?

Story Telling

One of the advantages of the "National Strategic Narrative" is the offer to the general public of a departure point for thinking in new ways about how we as a country move forward, seeing the interconnections among not only the various interests of other nation-states, but the convergence among domestic and foreign concerns here in the United States. Thinking creatively includes thinking honestly. An honest narrative includes unpleasant realities as well as more pleasant ones.

One of the premises of the author of the introduction to this article, Ann-Marie Slaughter, is the relevance of George Kennan's famous "X" article, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", and the larger emerging policy of containment that emerged with the acceptance of NSC 68 as the groundwork for our foreign, and to some extent our domestic, policy in the Cold War. This is an important historical narrative, to be sure, but it is not without its critics.

One of the most prominent and controversial such critics is linguist and author Noam Chomsky. In the long (60 pages!) Introduction to his essay collection, Towards a New Cold War: Essays on the Current Crisis and How We Go There, as well as the first essays that serve as chapters positioning his own criticisms, Chomsky takes a far different view of American foreign policy in the early years of the Cold War, setting NSC 68 within a far different context (and includes some critical comments from, among others, George Kennan, who was a critic of the kind of militarized, ideological approach to our relations with the Soviets; while Kennan sat on the committee that drafted NSC 68, he made abundantly clear in ensuing years that his original article, and policy preferences, were political and diplomatic rather than militarized) and viewing American policy in a far different light than the mainstream view.

The work in question is, in many ways, a historical document, like most of Chomsky's published works on American foreign policy. Published in 1982, the essays by and large cover matters in the first half of the Cold War, with a particular emphasis on events in the 1970's and the emerging Reagan Administration policies in the early 1980's. The Introduction begins by noting that, by the mid-1970's, it was the general consensus among policy planners and informed commentators that what had been a period of American hegemony in world affairs was over; the challenge, it seemed, was adapting to certain new realities, including a more independent Western European policy toward the Eastern bloc, the rise of Japan as an economic power, and the implications of emerging nations in what continues to be called the Third World. Some, at least, of both the Carter Administration and most of the Reagan Administration can only be understood as a reaction against this reality, a denial of the fact that the US, while still extremely influential, was far less imposing on the world stage than it had been.

A significant part of Chomsky's take on the growth and development of post-WWII American foreign policy lies in the significance he grants to a series of memoranda produced by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Produced by the War and Peace Studies Project, Chomsky writes the following, quoting directly from the memoranda in question, on pp. 96-97:

These memoranda deal with the "requirement[s] of the United States in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power," foremost among the being "the rapid fulfillment of a program of complete rearmament" (1940). In the early years of the war it was assumed that part of the world might be controlled by Germany. Therefore, the major task was to develop "an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States within the non-German world,' including plans "to secure the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by foreign nations that constitutes a threat to the world area essential for the security and economic prosperity of the United States an the Western Hemisphere." . . .

The Us.S.-lef non-German bloc was entitled the "Grand Area" in the CFR discussion. Actually, a Us.S.-dominated Grand Area was only a second-best alternative. It was explained in June 1941 that "the Grand Area is not regarded by the Group as more desirable than a world economy, nor as entirely satsifactory substitute." The Grand Area was seen as a nucleus or model that could be extended, optimally, to a global economy. It was soon recognized that with the coming defeat of Nazi Germany, at least Western Europe could be integrated into the Grand Area. Participants in the CFR discussions recognized that "the British Empire as it existed in the past will never reappear and . . .the United State may have to take its place." One stated frankly that the United States "must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after hits war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to a pax-Americana."Another argued that the concept of United States security interests must be enlarged to incorporate areas "strategically necessary for world control." It is a pervasive theme that international trade and investment are closely related to the economic health of the United States, as is access to the resources of the Grand Area, which must be so organized as to guarantee the health and structure of the American economy, its internal structure unmodified.

One caveat that needs to be kept in mind is the limit of the effectiveness of a series of memoranda in a private organization upon the public policy of the United States. A bunch of really smart people sitting around skylarking about the possibilities of certain post-war contingencies are not a policy, or even a proposal. They are little more than exercises in intellectual imagination.

All the same, there are elements, in particular from the sections quoted by Chomsky, that should sound familiar to anyone who has followed these matters. Even if made more crude and/or circumscribed by a combination of events and political realities, the ideas set forth at least a plausible alternative narrative structure for understanding American foreign policy in the early years of the Cold War. Chomsky's previous, and subsequent, alternate narrative of the history of events up that time relies at least as much on the consideration of this alternative as simple criticism for the sake of criticism.

I should say, for emphasis, that the implementation of NSC 68, rooted in a loose interpretation of Kennan's ideas on containment as well as other criteria (not least an odd combination, as Chomsky himself notes, of the belief in the potential overwhelming power of the Soviet Union and its inherent weaknesses that, exploited enough, would create conditions for its collapse, an eventuality that took half a century) was the official, if classified, statement of our foreign - and to a certain extent our domestic - policy, at the very least until the end of the Vietnam War. I do not know anyone, least of all Noam Chomsky, who would argue otherwise. The point at issue here is the larger context within which such a policy was adopted, the mindset and assumptions of the policy planners in question as well as their sources. The imposition of American hegemony, rooted in a view of American interests being in some sense global, entailing a radical shift in our diplomacy, our military policy, and our economy, was relatively rapid. At the very least, many in the foreign policy community continue to view American interests as global; consider Henry Kissinger's idea that, while certainly emerging as formidable powers, China, India, Russia, and the European Union do not have the same scope of interests as the United States. He makes this argument as if it were a fact, rather than a position in need of support.

The emerging idea that we need a new strategic narrative if we are going to be a credible partner in world affairs, no longer managing but perhaps creating conditions for interdependent action must also take in to account the past, and possible alternative interpretations of that past. While Chomsky does not enjoy a large audience, and certainly not a friendly one, his views do offer an alternate narrative of the past that one should consider moving forward.

Depressed

Before we turn to specifics from "A National Strategic Narrative", I think a few words need to be said about the premises from which Mr. Y works. Any thoughtful assessment of our current historical moment should be realistic not only about the challenges we face as a country, but the social, cultural, and political conditions that color our perceptions of these challenges. The best policy in the world may well sit on a shelf, never to be implemented because the conditions for carrying it out simply don't exist. While the "Y" article certainly takes several steps in the right direction, the authors do not address specifics regarding our current national mood, except perhaps in passing.

I think the best entry point for such a discussion is the national reaction to the news that American Special Forces operatives killed Osama Bin Laden on Sunday. After many long years, including many when it seemed such an event would never occur, the news caused widespread expressions of jubilation and even public celebrations. Some of them have been quite ugly, to be honest. I know that, given the opportunity, such an eventuality was inevitable, determined by the actions Bin Laden set in motion years ago. His death, however justified and justifiable, is not an occasion for celebration in and for itself; even less should it be an excuse for outpourings of hatred.

For several years, our nation has found itself floundering. The past ten years have provided a legacy that has left us, by and large, without any sense that we can extricate ourselves from the hole we have dug for ourselves. The economy continues to be a pile of crap, to be blunt. Overseas, the Arab spring gives even more evidence of the irrelevance of the arguments once made for our presence in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the 100,000 plus troops seem to serve no purpose or strategic objective; while our service personnel face danger and death, there just seems to be no purpose, no rhyme or reason to it, and the upheavals in the Muslim world make clear our presence does little to effect the dynamics going on. At the very least, the successful execution of the operation in Abbottobad, Pakistan give us a reason to celebrate our military, a successful mission accomplished. In that respect, at least, the outpouring of national celebration seems understandable, even if slightly grotesque.

We have something to celebrate. It is a victory of sorts in a struggle that has been long and complicated, includes the horrific events of 2001 and the frustrations of a lost opportunity - I am quite sure through no fault of anyone, just circumstances - in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan that have come to be known as the Battle of Tora Bora. While we achieved initial success in ousting Saddam Hussein from Iraq, the questions as to why do so in the first place, as well as our long occupation, have created bitterness at home and abroad. The spectacle of a stubborn economic slump in the midst of what its supporters insist is a war equivalent in importance to the Second World War raises a host of other questions that just don't receive any proper response. Our various approaches to public matters of grave import just don't seem coordinated; the effects of our actions seem to fade in the distance, if they ever come at all. While we can rest easier with the death of Osama Bin Laden, the underlying troubles and sense of helplessness remain.

For me, this is part of the importance of the "Y" article. In moving beyond the stale rhetoric of the past, it cuts across any narrowly-understood ideological or partisan divide and offers a way of thinking about public policy that, rather than a hodge-podge of base, narrow policy preferences and intermediate improvisations that seem to do little than attempt to patch a hole here or there without addressing the core set of problems we face. In particular with the death of Bin Laden, we can now face the present, and create a possible future, with this particular bit of nasty business out of the way.

Our on-going national funk creates a whole set of obstacles even to hearing what "Y" is offering as a vision for a vibrant, productive future with the U.S. as an important partner with others for making our world more livable, more safe for more people. We need to understand this particular set of obstacles in order to overcome them, so that we can all start moving forward together.

Make 'Em Laugh

The seriousness of pop and rock is something that needs to be punctured. Not only should music be fun, it should rarely take itself so seriously as to be unafraid to laugh at itself. Fee Waybill's parody of David Bowie/Gary Glitter looks an awful lot like Marilyn Manson, who no one would ever accuse of taking himself lightly.

George Clinton managed simultaneously to create some of the best funk, take tremendous amounts of drugs, and produce stage shows so over-the-top that everyone involved knew his acid-flaked tongue was firmly in his cheek.



While Barenaked Ladies have managed to have some fun, the groups that consistently employ a sense of humor in their music are few and far-between. While punk in Britain was popular in part because it seemed to puncture the pretentiousness of the huge supergroups then dominating radio - Led Zepelin, Pink Floyd, Yes - they did it with a self-conscious seriousness that is surprising (except for the Sex Pistols, who had John Lydon out front; he was angry, and wanted to be heard, but he also, at least at first, seemed to be having fun). It would be nice if there were more performers out there who had the kind of humor and sense of playfulness that could create the following anti-love-song. God rest Frank Zappa's soul.



Down to business, what do you say?
Waiting Phase Two - Porcupine Tree
Sparks of the Tempest - Kansas
Mein Teil (Live) - Rammstein
Un Da Sie Ihn Verspottet Hatten (St. Matthews Passion) - Johann Sebastian Bach
Undertow - David Hentschel (Genesis Tribute album)
Prelude - Tangent
Where Did Our Love Go - The Supremes
Help Me - Joni Mitchell
To Say Goodbye, Part II: On Our Way - Ice Age
Leftovers - Sieges Even

The little-known German band Sieges Even deserves a wider audience. I fell in love with their Learning to Navigate by the Stars release, and just love their sound.

Credit Changes In Muslim World Over Past Decade For Leading To Bin Laden

When twenty volunteers signed on to fly four planes in to targets in the United States, the world was a very different place. The biggest difference was that the powerlessness of so much of the frustrated lower-middle classes of various Muslim states was directed not at the regimes that held them down, but outward at targets - Israel and the United States in particular - that seemed not only to represent the ultimate source of their own frustrated ambitions, but provided possible alternative targets for their rage. With vast networks of internal security and long histories of repression, countries like Algeria, Egypt, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and others provided little outlet for their citizens to protest their treatment. They did, however, provide alternatives, in the policies of Israel and the United States that, they were assured over and over again, were the real source of their frustrations.

The situation just this year is fundamentally different and can be summed up in two words - Tunisia; Egypt. The on-going anti-authoritarian struggles across the Muslim world, and the successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have shown the frustrated masses of the Muslim world that change is possible, that they need not settle for the never-ending drudgery of repression and the petty humiliations of local bureaucrats and corrupt soldiers. While I think it misguided, the NATO support of Libyan rebels is showing the Muslim world the West understands their desire for freedom and will support it. While there are still areas where our attitude and policies toward the larger Muslim world could improve, the events of the first third of this year, in and of themselves, represent a sea-change not only in the Muslim world, but in the perception of Muslims around world toward the west in general and the US in particular.

Seen against this background, the calls by Bin Laden and others to continue the struggles against the US no longer have the resonance they once did.

This judgment is not mine alone. I found it here.

On The Death Of Osama Bin Laden (UPDATE; UPDATE II; UPDATE III)

It's taken nearly ten years, hundreds of thousands have died in the meantime, billions of dollars have been spent, our fiscal, foreign, and domestic politics have been radically deformed, but in the meantime, the man who bears responsibility for the deaths of 3000 on September 11, 2001 is dead.

I'm sorry if it displeases folks, but I am not celebrating. The terrorist attacks ten years ago were monstrous; what happened as a result is nothing more or less than the erosion of our republican values, the poisoning of our public discourse, and the militarization of our foreign police. We made of a man filled with hatred and rage much more than he ever was. While he certainly gave a face and a name to the forces that murdered so many in New York and Washington, he was in the end just one man.

His death may or may not result in a spike in attempts at terrorism against the US, its allies, or interests. At this point, Al Qaeda is so weakened that it is difficult to imagine it mounting a serious attack. All the same, the cycle of death continues. It didn't start with September 11, 2001, and it isn't going to end with Bin Laden's death. So many have already died, so many families torn apart, so much destruction.

UPDATE: According to Tyler Cowen, there is a possibility that the information that led, in the end, to American Special Forces landing by helicopter inside a gated community outside Islamabad, came about through Guantanamo Bay prisoners and our treatments of them.

I have never been pro-Guantánamo, or for that matter pro-torture (and do note the caveats above), but I am willing to report results which may run counter to my views. The moral and the practical do not always coincide, and perhaps we should be celebrating just a bit less. It is possible this is not a totally “clean” victory on our part.

From a Ha'aretz story:

The initial lead which led to his assassination came out of interrogations of Guantanamo inmates – interrogations which often used torture, a fact that has been condemned by human rights groups. One of these interrogations, of top al-Qaida operative who was close to Khaled Shiekh Muhammad, was helpful in indentifying some of bin Laden's closest aides. U.S. intelligence caught up to them and put them under surveillance.

According to TPM, one of those couriers made a phone call. Bad move.

According to U.S. officials, a crucial moment in the hunt for Osama bin Laden came when one of the terrorist leader's couriers held a telephone conversation with someone who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence.

About the original lead being a possible result of torture and illegal detention, Kevin Drum writes:

[I]f the reason you oppose torture is because torture doesn't work, then you'd better be prepared to change your mind if it turns out that torture does work. I'm not willing to do that.

The obvious counterfactual here is that although torture might have produced actionable information that eventually helped locate bin Laden, perhaps we could have gotten the same information another way. And maybe so. But I doubt that this kind of abstract argument has much impact on most people. The fact is that torture probably does work in some cases, and if you oppose it, you need to oppose it even so.

We have no idea, definitively, whether or not the original lead was obtained through "torture", although if the Ha'aretz story is correct, it certainly seems possible.

This does not, in any way, show that "torture works sometimes". As many of Drum's commenters point out, how many folks were tortured and gave all sorts of information that turned out to be false? You would have to torture a whole lot of folks to get actionable information.

As to one or two folks I've read on my FB news feed who are saying they are glad Khalid Sheik Mohammed was tortured, and that had anything at all to do with the death of Bin Laden, all I can say is I wish some people had a bit more shame.

UPDATE II: Maybe all the torture pimping was a tad premature:

[T]here is currently no evidence to suggest that the detainees that provided the information that led to bin Laden were subject to torture. And Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who presumably has some knowledge about what went on at Gitmo, today threw some cold water on this theory:

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

UPDATE III: I feel like Glenn Greenwald here. Anyway, this comment at Crooked Timber sums up exactly the way I feel.

That a mass murderer has met his just reward is good news. But a great patriotic victory, it ain’t. Over at Talking Points Memo, they’re calling it VBL Day without any apparent irony, but this is a far, far cry from finding Hitler dead in his bunker as the Allies take Berlin. Really, even if recent events have definitively ended the prospects for Bin Laden’s insane vision of a new Caliphate, he got a big part of what he wanted as the United States flailed uselessly across the ME and Central Asia, incurring thousands of casualties and inflicting close to a million of them and squandering more than a trillion dollars all the while. As a strategic and/or moral victory for the U.S., this rings very hollow indeed. So good news that a mass murder is dead, to be sure, but all this good news does for me is call to mind all the pointless suffering that the U.S. created on the way to this so called victory.

Democratic Legitimacy And Policy Choices

On a link I put on Facebook to one of my recent blog posts on the Mr. Y article, I lamented the lack of attention it was receiving. One commenter said that it was, indeed, receiving attention, but only within the bureaucracy, which is where such attention belongs.

No.

Doing some quick checking on the historical background to NSC 68 yesterday, I was flipping through the relevant passages in Dean Acheson's memoirs, Present at the Creation. I was struck by the following passage on p. 377:

The need to tell the country how we saw the situation created by the Soviet Union and the necessary response to it came soon after the President's announcement of his hydrogen bomb decision.

Even as a group met within the White House to hammer out the outlines of a policy that would remain secret until 1974, there was a sense that it still required democratic legitimacy. Acheson not only writes of the split within the Democratic Party at the time, between liberals who continued to insist that a negotiated settlement of differences and tensions between the US and Stalin's USSR was possible and those, including Acheson, who saw the Soviets as a threat to be managed and contained (George Kennan was among those on the committee that drew up NSC 68).

In his Voltaire's Bastards, John Ralston Saul levels a stinging critique at what has become a most troubling trend in our public life - reliance on expertise. From p. 477:

[The] obsession with expertise is such that the discussion of public affairs on a reasonable level s now almost impossible. If an engineer who builds bridges doesn't want interference from outside his domain, and a nuclear engineer feels the same about his responsibilities, then neither is likely to question the other's judgment. They know precisely how questions from any nonexpert would be treated by an expert - the same way they themselves would.

Their standard procedure when faced by outside questioning is to avoid answering and instead to discourage, even to frighten off the questioner, by implying that he is uninformed, inaccuare, superficial, and invariably, oeverexcited. If the questioner has some hierarchical power, the expert may feel obliged to answer with greater caer. For example, he may release a minimum amount of information in heavey dialect and accompany it with apologies for the complexity, thus suggesting that the questioner is not competent to udnerstand anything more. . . . And even if someone does manage to penetrate the confusion of material, he will be obliged to argue against the expert in a context of such complexity that the public, to whom he is supposed to be communicating understanding, will quickly lose interest. In other words, by drawing the persisten outside into his box,, the expert will have rendered him powerless.

The contempt for the citizen which all of this self-defense through exclusivity shows is muted by the fact that the expert is himself a citizen. He or she considers it his right to treat his own area of expertise as exclusive territory. That, he believes, is what makes him as individual.

In an intellectual autobiographical sketch in the opening pages of The True and Only Heaven, the late Christopher Lasch writes the following about his growing disdain for post-WWII American liberalism as embodied by the Kennedy Administration, from p. 26:

The writings that gave shape and direction to my thinking in the early sixties . . . contained certain common themes, I now see: the pathology of domination; the growing influence of organizations (economic as well as military) that operate without regard to any rational objectives except their own self-aggrandizement; the powerlessness of individuals in the face of these gigantic agglomerations and the arrogance of those ostensibly in charge of them.

Just as my (small "r") republican sensibilities made me skip the recent royal wedding in Britain (I thought we fought a couple wars so we wouldn't have to put up with things like aristocrats and royalty), so, too, my (small "d") democratic sensibilities incline me to want as great a dissemination of vital, and correct, and comprehensible, information as possible. Turning our public lives over to "experts" is an abrogation of the most basic duty of republican citizenship - being informed and involved. The contempt of elites - bureaucratic, intellectual, and otherwise - for democracy comes in no small part from their own unfounded belief in their expertise granting them exemption from criticism.

Part of my own frustration with the Bush Administration's conduct in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was the contempt in which it held the public. Not only were a multitude of lies told; not only was the decision for such an act made prior to any justification for it; the entire way the Administration went about trying to influence public opinion was a farcical copy of real democracy. Unlike Acheson, who engaged not only Republican critics on his right, but Democratic critics on his left in order to create a larger consensus for a policy that would be non-partisan, the Bush folks simply tossed story after story, piling innuendo upon lie until, when former Sec. of State Colin Powell sat before the UN Security Council to lay out the American case for war, every single factual claim he made was proved to be false, some within a matter of hours.

The narrative offered by Mr. Y invites participation across a broad-range of talents. Seeing national security in a far broader sweep than simple military, or even military-diplomatic confrontation, but as the whole country pursuing both economic prosperity and stability at home and working with partners around the world in a confluence of interests to work against pending threats to the security of all, including the United States, the national strategic narrative is something more Americans should read and study, discuss and criticize. Far more important than phony budgets; far more visionary yet traditional than any recent "doctrine", be it Carter's, Reagan's, or Bush's, this is a subject that needs to be discussed.

That's why I have been and will continue to write about it. Word needs to get out. It's too important to leave to the experts.