Unusually for me, I am reading two very different books simultaneously. I have neither the attention nor deftness of mind, normally, to read more than a single book at any given time. Roy Jenkins' Gladstone: A Biography coupled with Paul Tillich's The Courage To Be are an interesting duo, to say the least. The first, a witty and engaging survey of that singular giant of Victorian politics; the second, the most popular work of that odd combination of German theology, existential philosophy, and American indulgence certainly seem an odd pair. Jenkins' combines a biographer's insight with a practical politician's grasp of the possible (Jenkins was a Labor MP for many years, serving as Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer in various Labor governments until that party's collapse in the 1970's; he now sits in the House of Lords, and has left the Labor Party, which has become indistinguishable from Thatcherite Toryism, far behind), and his discussion of Gladstone's career often involves a survey of mid-Victorian social and political realities that are far more clear than the fanciful notions of other, less knowledgeable, historians.
Tillich's remarkable achievement is to distill in a short work the essential elements of that most elusive quality because it is the most demanding of the classical virtues. At the heart of so much of our current malaise lies fear, and courage not only takes in fear in order to transcend it, by stripping the facade created by fear, what Tillich calls "masks", we already being the journey to overcoming fear and facing reality with true courage by recognizing it for what it is.
Politics is usually not a forum in which courage is conspicuous. Democratic politics, by and large, discourages not only courage, but honesty as well, because the choices we face are often unpalatable, and the solutions out of favor with the ruling class. As John Quiggin notes in a post at Crooked Timber, the public continues to support a more firmly left-wing set of solutions to our current problems than is acceptable by our elected officials. The turn to the Republican Party by the majority of those who voted in last November's elections is explainable at least as much by the large group that refused to vote because they have become disenchanted by the Democratic Party's weakness as an inherent trust in the approach of the Republican Party.
In this I must confess my own complicity. Despite my own repeated assertions that I understood Barack Obama to be resolutely centrist, I allowed myself to believe it possible that, given his across-the-board rejection, during the campaign, of the Bush Administration approach to pretty much everything, change would come quickly and decisively. While there were certainly some early moments that would give most comfort - the Executive Order calling for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison for instance, now long forgotten - the result of the past two years has been the realization that the President is, despite his repeated insistence on hope and a Kennedyesque call to arms and support among so many young voters, a creature of the limited, and unreal, politics of our time.
While our current budget impasse is a glaring example, one could name so many instances where the Obama Administration has not only continued policies one would think it would end, but expanded them - domestic surveillance, military tribunals without due process for those who continue to be incarcerated at an open Guantanamo Bay prison, the expansion of our military commitment in Afghanistan without any clear strategic goals, the participation in the misguided NATO mission in Libya - that it is clear now our support was the triumph of self-delusion over clarity of thought. I, for one, believed the President to be better than his record, or at least that such would be possible given the latitude of action granted any President, particularly one elected with such broad support and with a commanding party majority in both Houses of Congress. We are where we are not only because the current Republican majority is an alchemy of unreality and political insanity, but because the President is tepid, silent, quick to compromise rather than stand for policies the American people support, and, at the end of the day, far more weak than any Democratic President I can remember. Even the claimed weakness of Jimmy Carter was as nothing to that of Barack Obama.
Our moment calls for clarity, honesty, and, as I have been repeating, courage. The times have not produced anyone able to address them, but done quite the opposite. Thus, for the moment, despite its seriousness, I find myself firmly believing it far better not to involve myself in matters of public import. Should circumstances change, that may change as well. By and large, with events of the past two years as a guide, I doubt any such change will occur.
Yes, by the way, I still feel quite dirty by even contemplating how odious is our current discourse and the practical consequences that are flowing from it.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Thursday, April 07, 2011
This Moment (UPDATE)
We are a day or so away from a shutdown of the United States government. I have no desire to pretend it is the fault of this or that party, this or that ideology. In general, I tend to refuse to play the blame game. Right now, at this moment, I find myself in the curious position of not really caring about the situation, while simultaneously recognizing that, with hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way, this is a most dangerous moment in our history.
First, beyond any doubt in my mind, the whole idea that there is a fiscal crisis with which we must deal, that the public is demanding action, is ridiculous. There is no such crisis. We have a decade-long, multi-front war which has been carried on without any serious funding plan. Indeed, even in the midst of this war, taxes remained at historically low levels, and any increase in revenue to cover the expense not only of these conflicts, but general governmental expenses, has been considered out of bounds.
Simultaneously, a domestic financial bubble was allowed to grow, then burst abruptly, although certainly not without having been predicted, dragging down not only the housing and banking industries, but the automobile industry, and the economy as a whole. Fiscal measures that, for two generations and more, are generally considered favorable to restarting a stalled economy became a matter of controversy, and a plan to stimulate the economy through government spending, while certainly helpful, was neither large enough, nor long enough in duration to do anything but, perhaps, stave off the worst possible scenario, economically speaking.
The previous Congress, with its Democratic majority, was both highly productive but also, in its final months, cowardly in the extreme. The hectic days of the lame-duck session, after the Republican Party retook a majority of seats, proves this more than anything as many measures that were considered dead were passed easily enough. One matter, however, overall federal spending for the current fiscal year, was not dealt with. The incoming Republican majority was determined to use the failure of the previous Democratic majority to force a confrontation that could lead, and has now led us, to the brink of a shutdown of the federal government, including, as noted Tuesday, stopping pay to troops now in combat in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Libya.
Not once in all the discussions has the threat of a government shutdown in a time of war been noted. Not once in all the column inches of any newspaper or website have I read anyone say that the "fiscal crisis" is imaginary, a product of and underfunded federal government and an economic downturn. Not once in all the finger pointing and blame announcing, have I read anyone call what is now happening false, fake, contrived, phony, or nonsensical. With certain obvious solutions not up for discussion - higher taxes, ending the conflict in Afghanistan and bringing home combat forces in Yemen as well as our troops stationed in Iraq, ending our involvement in the NATO airstrikes on Libya - any "real" solution to the current mess is out of the question. No matter if a government shutdown occurs or doesn't occur, we shall find ourselves again, next year or the year after, in this same situation, facing a massive shortfall of revenue, a sluggish economy (most economists agree it will be years before we approach the kind of economic activity we had in the middle years of the past decade, and far longer if ever before we achieve anything like what we had in the 1990's), and a largely false political discussion.
This is a moment of deep, troubling events. No one - not the President, not anyone in Congress - has displayed any kind of courage or honesty or integrity in addressing what is before us. For this reason, as well as for the insipid, ridiculous nature of so much of what passes for commentary, I am trying, best as I can, to distance myself from any involvement in these events. To be blunt, I feel dirty even thinking about it all, disgusted with our country, ashamed that there is no one willing to be the kind of leader we need right now.
UPDATE: While Paul Krugman has certainly shown remarkable good sense in dismissing Rep. Paul Ryan's "budget" as the nonsense it is, the following, thanks to a link from Jay Ackroyd at Eschaton, is even more clear on what should be, were our politics less insane, the political realities.
First, beyond any doubt in my mind, the whole idea that there is a fiscal crisis with which we must deal, that the public is demanding action, is ridiculous. There is no such crisis. We have a decade-long, multi-front war which has been carried on without any serious funding plan. Indeed, even in the midst of this war, taxes remained at historically low levels, and any increase in revenue to cover the expense not only of these conflicts, but general governmental expenses, has been considered out of bounds.
Simultaneously, a domestic financial bubble was allowed to grow, then burst abruptly, although certainly not without having been predicted, dragging down not only the housing and banking industries, but the automobile industry, and the economy as a whole. Fiscal measures that, for two generations and more, are generally considered favorable to restarting a stalled economy became a matter of controversy, and a plan to stimulate the economy through government spending, while certainly helpful, was neither large enough, nor long enough in duration to do anything but, perhaps, stave off the worst possible scenario, economically speaking.
The previous Congress, with its Democratic majority, was both highly productive but also, in its final months, cowardly in the extreme. The hectic days of the lame-duck session, after the Republican Party retook a majority of seats, proves this more than anything as many measures that were considered dead were passed easily enough. One matter, however, overall federal spending for the current fiscal year, was not dealt with. The incoming Republican majority was determined to use the failure of the previous Democratic majority to force a confrontation that could lead, and has now led us, to the brink of a shutdown of the federal government, including, as noted Tuesday, stopping pay to troops now in combat in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Libya.
Not once in all the discussions has the threat of a government shutdown in a time of war been noted. Not once in all the column inches of any newspaper or website have I read anyone say that the "fiscal crisis" is imaginary, a product of and underfunded federal government and an economic downturn. Not once in all the finger pointing and blame announcing, have I read anyone call what is now happening false, fake, contrived, phony, or nonsensical. With certain obvious solutions not up for discussion - higher taxes, ending the conflict in Afghanistan and bringing home combat forces in Yemen as well as our troops stationed in Iraq, ending our involvement in the NATO airstrikes on Libya - any "real" solution to the current mess is out of the question. No matter if a government shutdown occurs or doesn't occur, we shall find ourselves again, next year or the year after, in this same situation, facing a massive shortfall of revenue, a sluggish economy (most economists agree it will be years before we approach the kind of economic activity we had in the middle years of the past decade, and far longer if ever before we achieve anything like what we had in the 1990's), and a largely false political discussion.
This is a moment of deep, troubling events. No one - not the President, not anyone in Congress - has displayed any kind of courage or honesty or integrity in addressing what is before us. For this reason, as well as for the insipid, ridiculous nature of so much of what passes for commentary, I am trying, best as I can, to distance myself from any involvement in these events. To be blunt, I feel dirty even thinking about it all, disgusted with our country, ashamed that there is no one willing to be the kind of leader we need right now.
UPDATE: While Paul Krugman has certainly shown remarkable good sense in dismissing Rep. Paul Ryan's "budget" as the nonsense it is, the following, thanks to a link from Jay Ackroyd at Eschaton, is even more clear on what should be, were our politics less insane, the political realities.
As I’ve noted previously, you can do a combination of tax increases (not too much, just nudge them back up to Clinton-era rates) and defense cuts and you don’t even have to voucherize Medicare or implement a millionaire’s tax and just like that you have yourself back on the right fiscal trajectory through 2030. Small tweaks to Social Security fix that program, and Medicare can only be fixed if we tackle the healthcare system as a whole – which Obamacare begins to do. Ryan’s budget repeals the ACA.That this pretty clear statement of reality is outside the bounds of our current discourse is evidence enough that staying out of the fray is by far the best option for those who cannot impact it at all.
--snip--
I’m confused. A lot of Democrats have suggested some sort of compromise on spending cuts and tax increases. It’s the Republicans who won’t countenance repealing the Bush tax cuts. It’s Republicans who are bound to block any serious effort to scale back defense (though Tom Coburn is good on this, and many Democrats have their fingers in the defense money-pot as well…) It’s Republicans like Ryan who are proposing radical measures that are tantamount to massive wealth transfers from the poor to the wealthy.
A Day Late
There are fewer indications that ours is a decadent, superficial society than the viral status of the fluff, vanity video, "Friday".
While one could say that the multitudes of parodies of this parody of music show a certain robust sense of balance, to me the simple fact that so many are both fulminating about it while simultaneously staring at it as one might a bad multi-car accident we are indulging in a kind death-bed scene, the final rattling breaths of an industry no longer certain it has anything to offer the world, believing, beyond all reason and without any evidence, that pandering to fourteen year old girls is the sole recourse to economic survival.
Happily, there are hundreds of musical acts out there who struggle gamely on, refusing to bend to the winds of their industrial handlers or otherwise compromise their visions for the possibility of suddenly mounting stadium tours in the summer. Content to follow their muse, aided by technology that can turn a sitting room in to a music studio, they write and record songs that appeal to them, a sure-fire way of appealing to discerning music fans everywhere. Even the most facile of these singer-songwriters - Iron & Wine, John Mayer, Norah Jones - have something of an auteur about their work, even if occasionally slipping in to nonsensical solipsism and the recording of minutiae at the expense of revelatory introspection. That our fading music industry refuses to hear their many virtues in favor of indulging and already indulged child, simultaneously providing fodder for critics both of this misguided young lady and the many insiders who shepherd her along is testimony to the deafness and stupidity of an industry that, once upon a time, allowed its favored acts to use illegal drugs in its offices, sat back and let musicians produce album after album of material that could not produce a hit single, and trusted in the discernment of the public to weed out the grain from the chaff.
Considering this year has already produced a singular musical achievement in Amos Lee's Mission Bell, the Rebecca Black phenomenon is even more ridiculous than it might otherwise be. Here, by way of contrast to the foregoing, is "Violin", a gut-wrenching plea for divine intervention by one who sounds lost and on the brink.
Because quality will out, here are ten different songs, randomly chosen by iTunes, with nary a fluffy filler among them.
Hier Lasst Mich Ruhn Die Letzte Stunde - Franz Schubert, Lazarus Oratorio
Burning Rope - Genesis
Lines in the Sand (Live) - Dream Theater
End of the World - Blackfield
It Is For You, But Not For Us (Live) - King Crimson
Bitter Suite - Marillion
Red House (Live at Woodstock) - Jimi Hendrix
How Come - Ray LaMontagne
Hope For Us - Shadow Gallery
Cesaro Summability - Tool
If there is any testimony to the possibility that quality defeats the quick buck, it is the on-going career of Tom Waits.
While one could say that the multitudes of parodies of this parody of music show a certain robust sense of balance, to me the simple fact that so many are both fulminating about it while simultaneously staring at it as one might a bad multi-car accident we are indulging in a kind death-bed scene, the final rattling breaths of an industry no longer certain it has anything to offer the world, believing, beyond all reason and without any evidence, that pandering to fourteen year old girls is the sole recourse to economic survival.
Happily, there are hundreds of musical acts out there who struggle gamely on, refusing to bend to the winds of their industrial handlers or otherwise compromise their visions for the possibility of suddenly mounting stadium tours in the summer. Content to follow their muse, aided by technology that can turn a sitting room in to a music studio, they write and record songs that appeal to them, a sure-fire way of appealing to discerning music fans everywhere. Even the most facile of these singer-songwriters - Iron & Wine, John Mayer, Norah Jones - have something of an auteur about their work, even if occasionally slipping in to nonsensical solipsism and the recording of minutiae at the expense of revelatory introspection. That our fading music industry refuses to hear their many virtues in favor of indulging and already indulged child, simultaneously providing fodder for critics both of this misguided young lady and the many insiders who shepherd her along is testimony to the deafness and stupidity of an industry that, once upon a time, allowed its favored acts to use illegal drugs in its offices, sat back and let musicians produce album after album of material that could not produce a hit single, and trusted in the discernment of the public to weed out the grain from the chaff.
Considering this year has already produced a singular musical achievement in Amos Lee's Mission Bell, the Rebecca Black phenomenon is even more ridiculous than it might otherwise be. Here, by way of contrast to the foregoing, is "Violin", a gut-wrenching plea for divine intervention by one who sounds lost and on the brink.
Because quality will out, here are ten different songs, randomly chosen by iTunes, with nary a fluffy filler among them.
Hier Lasst Mich Ruhn Die Letzte Stunde - Franz Schubert, Lazarus Oratorio
Burning Rope - Genesis
Lines in the Sand (Live) - Dream Theater
End of the World - Blackfield
It Is For You, But Not For Us (Live) - King Crimson
Bitter Suite - Marillion
Red House (Live at Woodstock) - Jimi Hendrix
How Come - Ray LaMontagne
Hope For Us - Shadow Gallery
Cesaro Summability - Tool
If there is any testimony to the possibility that quality defeats the quick buck, it is the on-going career of Tom Waits.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Tea Party Republicans Dis American Troops Fighting Wars They Support
The imminent threat of a government shutdown has been the goal of the incumbent Tea Party majority in the House of Representatives since they were elected. They broached the subject initially when discussion turned, before they were seated but after the election, to budgetary matters. They love the idea of the kind of confrontation that makes them look like they are standing on principle when, by and large, there are no real principles involved, the fiscal mess has nothing to do with spending patterns, but the mash-up of a burst financial bubble and two unfunded wars (with a third now added, just to make things interesting). We are told, over and over, that the troops in the field will not be effected by the shutdown, it only deals with "non-essential" matters, like postal service, day-to-day operations of civilian departments, that kind of thing.
Except, of course, that, like the Republican protestations they do not want the shutdown, is a lie.
As I have been saying all along, the lack of any fundamental grasp of the reality of our economic situation in the midst of fighting two wars is breathtaking, but in a bad way.
Except, of course, that, like the Republican protestations they do not want the shutdown, is a lie.
U.S. military troops at war in Iraq and Afghanistan would receive one-week’s pay instead of two in their next paycheck if the government shuts down this weekend due to the federal budget impasse, according to a senior defense official.You think it could be an issue? Hmmm . . .
As the Cable’s Josh Rogin reports, after that initial one-week’s worth paycheck, “all uniformed military personnel would continue to work but would stop receiving paychecks.”
If the federal government shuts down, “you could have forces deployed in the field, with their families back home, and no one’s getting paid. And that could be an issue,” the defense official said.
As I have been saying all along, the lack of any fundamental grasp of the reality of our economic situation in the midst of fighting two wars is breathtaking, but in a bad way.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Living As Those Already Dead - Reflections On Bonhoeffer's Cost Of Discipleship
Pursuant not only to our on-going theme of courage and cowardice, but also to clarification for those readers who continue to believe, despite there being abundant evidence to the contrary, that I just don't get what it is to be a Christian, I got to thinking about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In particular, his remarkable little book The Cost of Discipleship. It is an easy book to misunderstand, in particular as regards his opening chapter on costly grace. His point seems, without due consideration, to be antithetical to the entire spirit of freedom that is ours in Christ through the Spirit. Yet, on even the most minor further rumination, he is talking exactly about that freedom, a freedom that costs us everything because it cost God everything. It is free, there is no price we can pay, it is ours because it is grace. It costs us everything, our lives and fortunes and honor and all we hold precious, and is never to be taken for granted but continually sought in prayer and discipline because it is grace. In the freedom granted in the grace of the cross and empty tomb we find this dichotomy in which we come to understand ourselves as grasped by the love that is God without anything asked of us; yet, as we take hold of this freely-given love and forgiveness, we come to realize that it demands of us not just this or that, but everything. It is freedom not just from the fear of eternal separation from God, but freedom for the most rigorous, continuous searching with others who live in the continuous shadow of the cross for that to which God calls us.
At the heart of Bonhoeffer's little book is his famous dictum that when we are called by God, we are called to die. Not some metaphorical death. We are called to embrace our own very real death. We stand before God as those whose lives are now forfeit. All that we have, all that we are, all our great and good thoughts and deeds are over. To live in the very real, very costly grace of God is not to rest in the peaceful bosom or enfolded wings of an indulgent parent. Rather, it is to stand before the blood-soaked cross each and every moment of our lives. Who we are, before that moment, urges us to run away. The paradox of grace is just this - even as it is offered without price, it demands that we surrender everything we hold precious, our lives and our loves, our fortunes and our families. When the shadow of the cross falls upon us, the full measure of the price demanded of us for the freedom offered here demands that we turn and run. Our old lives cost us nothing, invite us to warmth, to a life lived without thinking about the very real ending that awaits us. The cross invites us to embrace that end, to make it our only reality, the only possibility that provides for true human life. There is no escaping this paradox, nowhere any of us who have been grasped by God can hide once the shadow of the cross falls upon us.
With that in mind, it is important to remember that the possibility of true human life, lived always with the understanding that we are, all of us, already dead, only comes with discipline. It is a discipline rooted in grace, to be sure, not possible outside the faith granted us in the Spirit, something we are to work out together with others who wear the wounds of Christ in their hearts. Yet it is a discipline. It cannot be assumed as something which God will grant to us out of the bounteous goodness of the Divine heart. On the contrary, precisely because each and every moment of our existence forces us to face the cross and the desire to have nothing to do with this bloody mess, this travesty of human and Divine judgment, this mockery of all we thought truly sacred, truly noble, we need to steel ourselves through prayer and devotion and sacrament and the vigilant, loving care of others so that the possibilities of living out the promises of God for real life - a real life lived in the full embrace of our own deaths - can become realized in and through us.
This is the background against which any of what I have written about Christian freedom needs to be considered. This is the background against which anything I have written about my own spiritual development, my own own deepening of faith, must be understood. It is right here, at the heart of the paradox of freedom and discipline, of Divine gratuity and human death, that I find myself living. It is why, by and large, I am unsympathetic to the embourgeoisement of American Christianity, its facile "praise", its encouragement of family over faith, its only demand being we make sure no fetus is left behind, and that all gays be denied the full rights of citizenship. It is why I find all talk of morality to be a dodge, a way of avoiding the very real discipline that calls us, each and every day, to understand that we are dead. We are dead to all that which calls us good, calls us kind, considerate, thoughtful. The cheap grace of social mores brings nothing but the haughty pride of those who seek to exclude. In grace that is truly costly, any question of morality becomes as meaningless as the empty family values that see in Christianity some bulwark for the family we are to renounce if need be in favor of that which is far more precious, far more lasting, that pearl of great price.
Now, I know some will read all this as a bunch of hokum, a further obsurantist denial of the "true" heart of the Christian faith. That's OK, because I'm not here to persuade anyone. I am here telling anyone who might wish to listen what is possible in the very real, very costly grace that is our in Jesus Christ crucified and risen.
At the heart of Bonhoeffer's little book is his famous dictum that when we are called by God, we are called to die. Not some metaphorical death. We are called to embrace our own very real death. We stand before God as those whose lives are now forfeit. All that we have, all that we are, all our great and good thoughts and deeds are over. To live in the very real, very costly grace of God is not to rest in the peaceful bosom or enfolded wings of an indulgent parent. Rather, it is to stand before the blood-soaked cross each and every moment of our lives. Who we are, before that moment, urges us to run away. The paradox of grace is just this - even as it is offered without price, it demands that we surrender everything we hold precious, our lives and our loves, our fortunes and our families. When the shadow of the cross falls upon us, the full measure of the price demanded of us for the freedom offered here demands that we turn and run. Our old lives cost us nothing, invite us to warmth, to a life lived without thinking about the very real ending that awaits us. The cross invites us to embrace that end, to make it our only reality, the only possibility that provides for true human life. There is no escaping this paradox, nowhere any of us who have been grasped by God can hide once the shadow of the cross falls upon us.
With that in mind, it is important to remember that the possibility of true human life, lived always with the understanding that we are, all of us, already dead, only comes with discipline. It is a discipline rooted in grace, to be sure, not possible outside the faith granted us in the Spirit, something we are to work out together with others who wear the wounds of Christ in their hearts. Yet it is a discipline. It cannot be assumed as something which God will grant to us out of the bounteous goodness of the Divine heart. On the contrary, precisely because each and every moment of our existence forces us to face the cross and the desire to have nothing to do with this bloody mess, this travesty of human and Divine judgment, this mockery of all we thought truly sacred, truly noble, we need to steel ourselves through prayer and devotion and sacrament and the vigilant, loving care of others so that the possibilities of living out the promises of God for real life - a real life lived in the full embrace of our own deaths - can become realized in and through us.
This is the background against which any of what I have written about Christian freedom needs to be considered. This is the background against which anything I have written about my own spiritual development, my own own deepening of faith, must be understood. It is right here, at the heart of the paradox of freedom and discipline, of Divine gratuity and human death, that I find myself living. It is why, by and large, I am unsympathetic to the embourgeoisement of American Christianity, its facile "praise", its encouragement of family over faith, its only demand being we make sure no fetus is left behind, and that all gays be denied the full rights of citizenship. It is why I find all talk of morality to be a dodge, a way of avoiding the very real discipline that calls us, each and every day, to understand that we are dead. We are dead to all that which calls us good, calls us kind, considerate, thoughtful. The cheap grace of social mores brings nothing but the haughty pride of those who seek to exclude. In grace that is truly costly, any question of morality becomes as meaningless as the empty family values that see in Christianity some bulwark for the family we are to renounce if need be in favor of that which is far more precious, far more lasting, that pearl of great price.
Now, I know some will read all this as a bunch of hokum, a further obsurantist denial of the "true" heart of the Christian faith. That's OK, because I'm not here to persuade anyone. I am here telling anyone who might wish to listen what is possible in the very real, very costly grace that is our in Jesus Christ crucified and risen.
Monday, April 04, 2011
43 Years
I feel I have been remiss because I haven't even noted that today is a terrible date in our nation's history. The early morning air in Memphis, TN was rent by gunfire and a great and good man bled out the last of his life on the balcony of a Howard Johnson's motel, beginning days of rage that included the 101st Airborne being called in to Chicago.
I think it is important today to remember that Martin King died in the full understanding that was most likely his lot. He pressed on, however, day after day, year after year, fourteen long years from his beginnings as leader of the Montgomery, AL bus boycott until that fateful early spring morning. His was the kind of courage we note too infrequently, the courage of someone doing the job they've been appointed, in the face of all sorts of trials and terrors.
We who live in a world that was only possible because King lived and fought and, ultimately, died do him a multitude of dishonors, remembering this or that speech, this or that act, this or that moment from his life without taking his whole life in to account. We who live in an age of rank cowardice, who shiver and shake before obstacles far less intransigent, far less dangerous to our collective hearts and souls, dishonor his memory by meekly submitting to the many threats, giving up without fighting, surrendering before the battle has even engaged. His life, his legacy, is that ordinary people, preachers and students and teachers and housewives can indeed change their country, even as all the forces around us insist that the status quo is natural, even necessary. We can make our country a better place, and it isn't easy, and there are fewer more ardent foes than the forces that benefit from how things are right now.
I think the only weapon I would add to King's quiver with a single arrow with "Love" written on it, would be laughter. The powerful may take a long time to fall to love, even militant love. Laughter, however, is intolerable. Beyond that, we should, on this April 4, decide that we will not have let him die in vain by refusing to submit to the dead hand of the status quo. Remember, even if we don't get there, we do at least have the possibility of getting to the mountaintop and seeing so clearly that promised land to which we march together.
I think it is important today to remember that Martin King died in the full understanding that was most likely his lot. He pressed on, however, day after day, year after year, fourteen long years from his beginnings as leader of the Montgomery, AL bus boycott until that fateful early spring morning. His was the kind of courage we note too infrequently, the courage of someone doing the job they've been appointed, in the face of all sorts of trials and terrors.
We who live in a world that was only possible because King lived and fought and, ultimately, died do him a multitude of dishonors, remembering this or that speech, this or that act, this or that moment from his life without taking his whole life in to account. We who live in an age of rank cowardice, who shiver and shake before obstacles far less intransigent, far less dangerous to our collective hearts and souls, dishonor his memory by meekly submitting to the many threats, giving up without fighting, surrendering before the battle has even engaged. His life, his legacy, is that ordinary people, preachers and students and teachers and housewives can indeed change their country, even as all the forces around us insist that the status quo is natural, even necessary. We can make our country a better place, and it isn't easy, and there are fewer more ardent foes than the forces that benefit from how things are right now.
I think the only weapon I would add to King's quiver with a single arrow with "Love" written on it, would be laughter. The powerful may take a long time to fall to love, even militant love. Laughter, however, is intolerable. Beyond that, we should, on this April 4, decide that we will not have let him die in vain by refusing to submit to the dead hand of the status quo. Remember, even if we don't get there, we do at least have the possibility of getting to the mountaintop and seeing so clearly that promised land to which we march together.
A Recurring Theme
It has come to my attention that a certain thematic thread is running through much of my commentary on matters both political and Christian - that of courage, and its all-too-present opposite, cowardice. In the face of so many threats - economic, social, cultural, political, military - we find ourselves, as a nation and as Christian churches, in the position of striking out against a host of foes, many of which don't actually exist, and some of which would be overcome easily enough if we did not succumb to fear. I find it more than a little amusing, even in the midst of such dire circumstances, that we as a people might well need to remember that nothing is accomplished out of a sense of dread.
I shall turn to courage as a theological theme in a moment, but I would be remiss if I didn't note that, 300 years before the birth of Christ, Aristotle dealt specifically with this subject in the Nichomachean Ethics.
Despite the intervening 2000 years of Christian discussion, aided no doubt by the return via the Muslims after the Crusades of so much pagan literature, and the rediscovery of non-Christian virtues as equally compelling human ends, this approach, not only to courage, but to the rest of the virtues, exists largely intact. Indeed, utilitarianism is nothing more or less than measuring the costs and benefits of certain actions, and acting appropriately. Rawls' notions of justice as fairness and its implications for society are little more than understanding what the ends of justice are - provided we pretend we are acting as if we did not already exist in a society where the scales were out of balance - and acting accordingly. Aristotle's ideas concerning virtuous action, the rational calculation according to a set of rules prior to acting, and that courage, among the rest of the virtues, is nothing more or less than an action that falls somewhere between rank cowardice and foolhardiness (rushing in where angels fear to tread) should be familiar enough precisely because it is the way most of us consider how we are to act virtuously.
I would submit, however, that St. Thomas, when discussing the virtues in the Summa, erred when he excluded not just courage, but the rest of the pagan virtues from what he termed "theological virtues". He limited these to those imparted by grace and named by St. Paul at the end of 1 Corinthians 13 - faith, hope, and love. All the virtues discussed by Aristotle - magnanimity, temperance, prudence, courage - are also ways of being both fully human as well as acting in accord with the grace of God.
Courage, along with justice, is arguably a sub-theme of so much of both Testaments. The Psalms are filled both with pleas for assistance in the face of fear, and admonitions not to fear because of the omnipresence of God. The eighth chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans is nothing more or less than a long note of encouragement in the face of persecution and doubt, rooted in the reality that in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the real fight, the real struggle, is over, and we are to live and act as those who know that nothing in this world can really destroy us.
We are living in difficult times, to be sure. Threats seem to press in on all sides, a never-ending stream of attacks on our sense of personal and social equanimity. In the face of these, we are experiencing what is, in essence, a national panic attack. While certainly understandable, understanding is never condoning (a point most conservatives seem not to comprehend; for instance, I can understand why some young Muslim men might see in martyrdom through mass murder an attractive alternative given a multitude of social and political circumstances, but this understanding certainly does not mean I condone such behavior, or find it reprehensible). That there are some politicians who would exploit these fears for their own rise to power is a reality that is always with us. It seems these voices exist, for example, in my own denomination of The United Methodist Church. By and large, however, fear and its exploitation are easy enough to spot, and, regardless of ideological or theological bent or preference, the best antidote is the recurring words of Scripture: "Fear not."
I have already written a bit on this theme before, and I am quite sure it will crop up again. This general, sketchy survey is meant as a way of underlining an important point. If we are ever to get beyond our current historical moment, to rise above the economic doldrums and our collective sense of foreboding, we each and all need to buck up, face our fears head on without flinching, and refuse to listen to the voices that insist we need to cower and let others do our living for us, make decisions for us, make of all the vicissitudes of the moment monsters that are more strong than any weapon we can fashion.
I shall turn to courage as a theological theme in a moment, but I would be remiss if I didn't note that, 300 years before the birth of Christ, Aristotle dealt specifically with this subject in the Nichomachean Ethics.
Now the brave man is as dauntless as man may be. Therefore, while he will fear even the things that are not beyond human strength, he will face them as he might and as the rule direct, for horour's sake; for this is the end of virtue. But it is possible to fear these more, or less, and again to fear things that are not terrible as if they were. Of the faults that are committed one consists in fearing what one should not, another in fearing as we should not, another in fearing when we should not, and so on; and so too with respect to the things that inspire confidence. The man, then, who faces and who fears the right things and from the right motive, in the right way and at the right time, and who feels confidence under the corresponding conditions, is brave; for the brave man feels and acts according to the merits of the case and in whatever way the rule directs. Now the end of every activity is conformity to the corresponding state of character. This is true, therefore, of the brave man a well as of others. But courage is noble. Therefore the end also is noble; for each thing is defined by its end. Therefore it is for a noble end that the brave man endure and acts as courage directs.(1115b, 11-24)The whole structure of Aristotle's approach to the virtues is summed up in this description of courage: that virtue is the result of a rational calculation; that virtue is finding the mean, using a set of rules, with the understanding of the proper end of each virtue; that this is accomplished through discipline and practice (what St. Thomas would call a habitus); that the most exemplary dramatization of courage is martial courage.
As we have said, then, courage is a mean with respect to things that inspire confidence or fear, in the circumstances that have been states; and it chooses or endures things because it is noble to do so, or because it is base not to do so.(1116a, 10-13, both passages translated by Richard McKeon)
Despite the intervening 2000 years of Christian discussion, aided no doubt by the return via the Muslims after the Crusades of so much pagan literature, and the rediscovery of non-Christian virtues as equally compelling human ends, this approach, not only to courage, but to the rest of the virtues, exists largely intact. Indeed, utilitarianism is nothing more or less than measuring the costs and benefits of certain actions, and acting appropriately. Rawls' notions of justice as fairness and its implications for society are little more than understanding what the ends of justice are - provided we pretend we are acting as if we did not already exist in a society where the scales were out of balance - and acting accordingly. Aristotle's ideas concerning virtuous action, the rational calculation according to a set of rules prior to acting, and that courage, among the rest of the virtues, is nothing more or less than an action that falls somewhere between rank cowardice and foolhardiness (rushing in where angels fear to tread) should be familiar enough precisely because it is the way most of us consider how we are to act virtuously.
I would submit, however, that St. Thomas, when discussing the virtues in the Summa, erred when he excluded not just courage, but the rest of the pagan virtues from what he termed "theological virtues". He limited these to those imparted by grace and named by St. Paul at the end of 1 Corinthians 13 - faith, hope, and love. All the virtues discussed by Aristotle - magnanimity, temperance, prudence, courage - are also ways of being both fully human as well as acting in accord with the grace of God.
Courage, along with justice, is arguably a sub-theme of so much of both Testaments. The Psalms are filled both with pleas for assistance in the face of fear, and admonitions not to fear because of the omnipresence of God. The eighth chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans is nothing more or less than a long note of encouragement in the face of persecution and doubt, rooted in the reality that in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the real fight, the real struggle, is over, and we are to live and act as those who know that nothing in this world can really destroy us.
We are living in difficult times, to be sure. Threats seem to press in on all sides, a never-ending stream of attacks on our sense of personal and social equanimity. In the face of these, we are experiencing what is, in essence, a national panic attack. While certainly understandable, understanding is never condoning (a point most conservatives seem not to comprehend; for instance, I can understand why some young Muslim men might see in martyrdom through mass murder an attractive alternative given a multitude of social and political circumstances, but this understanding certainly does not mean I condone such behavior, or find it reprehensible). That there are some politicians who would exploit these fears for their own rise to power is a reality that is always with us. It seems these voices exist, for example, in my own denomination of The United Methodist Church. By and large, however, fear and its exploitation are easy enough to spot, and, regardless of ideological or theological bent or preference, the best antidote is the recurring words of Scripture: "Fear not."
I have already written a bit on this theme before, and I am quite sure it will crop up again. This general, sketchy survey is meant as a way of underlining an important point. If we are ever to get beyond our current historical moment, to rise above the economic doldrums and our collective sense of foreboding, we each and all need to buck up, face our fears head on without flinching, and refuse to listen to the voices that insist we need to cower and let others do our living for us, make decisions for us, make of all the vicissitudes of the moment monsters that are more strong than any weapon we can fashion.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
What I Learned On My Vacation II
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.
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.
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 . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
