I happen to think David Brooks is an interesting and likeable conservative, even if the only reason is because he usually lacks the visible image of spit and foam running down his chin like so many of his fellow conservative travelers. And sometimes he can be relied on write something of interest and coherence.
This morning was not one of those times. This column reads like a research paper written the day before it was due, without any of the required citations. Does the NYT employ editors?
Basically Brooks unveils a Carter-like "Old Europe is in Malaise" spiel, with the special finding that the malaise of old Europe = malaise of American liberalism. Now, American liberalism may indeed be in a state of malaise, but Brooksie trounces old Europe like a one legged step-child for its supposedly high unemployment, low productivity, and polluted welfare state induced public melancholy.
Unfortunately he doesn't cite one statistic to support his conclusions. Nor does he specify what he means by Europe.
If he had the data to back his stuff up, you think he'd level us with it don't you? That what the Gadflyer thinks, too. He even had the guts to suggest Old Europe was about as nifty as Arkansas.
David, stop while you're ahead. Liberalism may be in official retreat, but the last time I looked, the higher income, labor friendly, job producing states voted blue last time around. If you want to hang your conservatism on the backs of Heartland states such as Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota, that are poor and barely getting by thanks to the presence of obsolete military bases, than please feel free to do so. But I don't think it's a good tact for your side to take.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Amateur Hour at the Post
Sorry to be ragging on the Post again, but meant to mention this offering of theirs over the weekend. Lacking anything better to do, the editors venture into Social Security policy and along the way, suggest that because benefits are growing at such a high rate, that maybe the president's "progressive indexing" proposal warrents attention.
Part of their argument rests on their blurring together the combined benefits of Social Security and Medicare, which Dean Baker responds to by giving the editorial's writers the business. The editorial also fails to mention that the rising benefits have been funded by increases in the payroll tax, which again, Baker takes them over the coals for.
But there's more. The Post implies that benefits are increasing at too great a rate. But the current benefit formula that was put into place in 1977 was designed to maintain a constant replacement rate between one's earnings and one's benefits. This replacement rate could be any ratio of earnings to benefits. Currently it's estimated that the average lifetime earner gets a replacement rate of about 42%. Maybe this replacement rate is too high given the level of payroll taxes and the expected change in the ratio of current to retired workers. But the problem isn't necessarily that benefits are growing too fast. The growth rate in benefits is largely secondary to the relationship between the tax base that funds benefits and the replacement rate of benefits. While altering the growth of benefits is expected to improve the ratio between taxes and benefits, the growth rate itself is not really the issue.
Under progressive price indexing or regular price indexing, though, benefits as a share of past earnings will continue to decline indefinitely, eventually amounting to zero if the policy is not eventually altered. The Post's editorial doesn't address this. Nor does it address the relationship between price indexing and the introduction of personal accounts within Social Security. If benefits continue to decline in value, calls for adding or increasing the share of payroll taxes devoted to personal accounts could very well increase. So any provision that leads to a declining value in social security benefits (as opposed to changes that have a one time effect) could be used as a wedge for personal accounts.
Do the Post editors get this?
Part of their argument rests on their blurring together the combined benefits of Social Security and Medicare, which Dean Baker responds to by giving the editorial's writers the business. The editorial also fails to mention that the rising benefits have been funded by increases in the payroll tax, which again, Baker takes them over the coals for.
But there's more. The Post implies that benefits are increasing at too great a rate. But the current benefit formula that was put into place in 1977 was designed to maintain a constant replacement rate between one's earnings and one's benefits. This replacement rate could be any ratio of earnings to benefits. Currently it's estimated that the average lifetime earner gets a replacement rate of about 42%. Maybe this replacement rate is too high given the level of payroll taxes and the expected change in the ratio of current to retired workers. But the problem isn't necessarily that benefits are growing too fast. The growth rate in benefits is largely secondary to the relationship between the tax base that funds benefits and the replacement rate of benefits. While altering the growth of benefits is expected to improve the ratio between taxes and benefits, the growth rate itself is not really the issue.
Under progressive price indexing or regular price indexing, though, benefits as a share of past earnings will continue to decline indefinitely, eventually amounting to zero if the policy is not eventually altered. The Post's editorial doesn't address this. Nor does it address the relationship between price indexing and the introduction of personal accounts within Social Security. If benefits continue to decline in value, calls for adding or increasing the share of payroll taxes devoted to personal accounts could very well increase. So any provision that leads to a declining value in social security benefits (as opposed to changes that have a one time effect) could be used as a wedge for personal accounts.
Do the Post editors get this?
Next
The Wash Post today includes an op-ed column by someone named Gary Anderson, who, the Post tells us at the bottom of his column, is a retired marine officer advising the Pentagon on the Iraqi insurgency.
The op-ed's first three paragraphs give us the kicker:
The adaptive Iraqi insurgency is running out of tricks, and like a cornered rat it is fighting back furiously. The recent spate of suicide bombings against Shiite civilians and the security services has many commentators wringing their hands and wondering what is going wrong. In reality, the question may be: What is going right?
Without a doubt, the insurgency has gotten a breather from the interim Iraqi government's slow start. It is also obvious that the leadership of the most active arm of the insurgency is primarily in the hands of foreign insurgents. The operational goal is to disrupt and demoralize the security services and to incite a sectarian civil war of revenge. This is not working.
The real danger is not that the insurgents will keep doing what they are doing; it is that they will change tactics. The insurgency in Iraq is shifting from being a fairly popular resistance against foreign occupation to a more classic brand that attempts to overthrow a struggling government. To put it another way, the root of the insurgency is drifting away, and the rebels need a new cause.
So, the insurgency is led mostly by a bunch of dead-enders from someplace else, the insurgency is not working, and, oh yeah, the insurgency is now directed against the Iraqi "government" and not the U.S. occupation.
I have a hard time believing the Post printed this. But then again, maybe it really isn't surprising. Of course, the administration and its media allies have been telling us for two years that the insurgents are desperate and their efforts to undermine our virtuous takeover of Iraq are failing.
But the delusion is going further. Some people actually believe there is an Iraqi government. The implication is we're just hanging around for a few more minutes until this "government" gets things up and running.
Some observers of Iraq measure progress there in terms of an election or in terms of the number of bomb attacks and casualties.
Here's my measure of progress: how many U.S. troops are there? If the number is more than 100,000 than things are not progressing.
The op-ed's first three paragraphs give us the kicker:
The adaptive Iraqi insurgency is running out of tricks, and like a cornered rat it is fighting back furiously. The recent spate of suicide bombings against Shiite civilians and the security services has many commentators wringing their hands and wondering what is going wrong. In reality, the question may be: What is going right?
Without a doubt, the insurgency has gotten a breather from the interim Iraqi government's slow start. It is also obvious that the leadership of the most active arm of the insurgency is primarily in the hands of foreign insurgents. The operational goal is to disrupt and demoralize the security services and to incite a sectarian civil war of revenge. This is not working.
The real danger is not that the insurgents will keep doing what they are doing; it is that they will change tactics. The insurgency in Iraq is shifting from being a fairly popular resistance against foreign occupation to a more classic brand that attempts to overthrow a struggling government. To put it another way, the root of the insurgency is drifting away, and the rebels need a new cause.
So, the insurgency is led mostly by a bunch of dead-enders from someplace else, the insurgency is not working, and, oh yeah, the insurgency is now directed against the Iraqi "government" and not the U.S. occupation.
I have a hard time believing the Post printed this. But then again, maybe it really isn't surprising. Of course, the administration and its media allies have been telling us for two years that the insurgents are desperate and their efforts to undermine our virtuous takeover of Iraq are failing.
But the delusion is going further. Some people actually believe there is an Iraqi government. The implication is we're just hanging around for a few more minutes until this "government" gets things up and running.
Some observers of Iraq measure progress there in terms of an election or in terms of the number of bomb attacks and casualties.
Here's my measure of progress: how many U.S. troops are there? If the number is more than 100,000 than things are not progressing.
My List
After a night of soul searching, I feel it necessary for this blog to offer its apology regarding yesterday's remarks about Michael "Savage" Weiner's most recent book, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
Friends, loved ones, the truth is, I have not read this book by Mr. Weiner, or any of his other books. My judgement of this book was not made ex cathedra, but was rather made out of school, where Bulworth stakes no claims to inerrancy or infallibility.
My leap to judgement about Liberalism is a Mental Disorder did get me to thinking about something else, however.
In parsing the list of most harmful books submitted by the editors of Human Events Online, and derived from its cadre of eminent conservative "scholars" and public policy "leaders", I believe I've identified at least one thing each of these books has in common.
Each of these books has a similarly vague title. On Liberty, Feminist Mystique, Descent of Man, Unsafe at any Speed, Das Kapital, General Theory of Employment, Democracy and Education. How on earth is one supposed to know, without reading them, what these books are about? On Liberty. What about liberty? Is liberty good or bad? General Theory of Employment. What is the general theory of employment? Should people be employed? Democracy and Education. What about democracy and education? Are these related concepts? Are democracy and education good or bad? See what I mean? There's nothing in these titles to inform prospective readers what the book's perspective is or what the substantive arguments of the books are.
Fortunately, books by conservative "scholars" and public policy "leaders" don't suffer from this problem. Their book titles include both the book's conclusion as well as the substance of their arguments. One of the helpful advantages of this approach is that one need not actually read the books to know what the book's message is. This helps save a considerable amount of time.
As an example, I have taken the trouble of identifying the most harmful books written in the last decade, give or take a few years. I trust you will easily see that even though you and I have been spared the punishment of having to read them, their titles give us enough to go on.
1. Unfit to Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, by John O'Neil
2. The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on our Schools, Faith, and Military, by Michael "Savage" Weiner
3. Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
4. Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, by Mark Levin
5. Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions, by Michael "Savage" Weiner
6. Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War against Christianity, by David Limbaugh
7. Slouching towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, by Robert Bork
8. Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Libery over Liberalism, by Sean Hannity
9. How to talk to a Liberal (if you must): The World according to Ann Coulter, by Ann Coulter
10. Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, by Ann Coulter
11. Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, by Ann Coulter
12. The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on our Borders, Language and Culture, by Michael "Savage" Weiner
13. The Case against Hilary Clinton, by Peggy Noonan
14. The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House, by Barbara Olson (deceased 9/11)
15. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Bill Clinton, by Ann Coulter
16. Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security, by Robert Patterson
17. Hilary's Scheme: Inside the next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to take the White House, by Carl Limbacher
18. Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11, by David Bossie
19. Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming of the Liberal Media Meltdown, by Brent Bozell
20. If it's not close, they can't cheat: crushing the democrats in every election and why your life depends on it, by Hugh Hewitt
21. A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush, by Ronald Kessler
22. The French Betrayal of America, by Kenneth Timmerman
23. Hating America: The New World Sport, by John Gibson
24. Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies that have obscured our nation's greatness, by Dan Flynn
25. More than Money: true stories of people who learned life's ultimate lesson, by Neil Cavuto
Yes, there are so many, so many more. But hopefully this will give you a taste of true conservative literature and what writing and books are supposed to be about: Liberalism, liberal supreme court, democrats, bad. bad. America and your life is at stake if conservative america is not allowed to destroy, stamp out, and burn at the stake any and all impure peoples dwelling within america's borders that don't faithfully support fox news, the bush white house, and Peggy Noonan.
Book summaries welcome.
Friends, loved ones, the truth is, I have not read this book by Mr. Weiner, or any of his other books. My judgement of this book was not made ex cathedra, but was rather made out of school, where Bulworth stakes no claims to inerrancy or infallibility.
My leap to judgement about Liberalism is a Mental Disorder did get me to thinking about something else, however.
In parsing the list of most harmful books submitted by the editors of Human Events Online, and derived from its cadre of eminent conservative "scholars" and public policy "leaders", I believe I've identified at least one thing each of these books has in common.
Each of these books has a similarly vague title. On Liberty, Feminist Mystique, Descent of Man, Unsafe at any Speed, Das Kapital, General Theory of Employment, Democracy and Education. How on earth is one supposed to know, without reading them, what these books are about? On Liberty. What about liberty? Is liberty good or bad? General Theory of Employment. What is the general theory of employment? Should people be employed? Democracy and Education. What about democracy and education? Are these related concepts? Are democracy and education good or bad? See what I mean? There's nothing in these titles to inform prospective readers what the book's perspective is or what the substantive arguments of the books are.
Fortunately, books by conservative "scholars" and public policy "leaders" don't suffer from this problem. Their book titles include both the book's conclusion as well as the substance of their arguments. One of the helpful advantages of this approach is that one need not actually read the books to know what the book's message is. This helps save a considerable amount of time.
As an example, I have taken the trouble of identifying the most harmful books written in the last decade, give or take a few years. I trust you will easily see that even though you and I have been spared the punishment of having to read them, their titles give us enough to go on.
1. Unfit to Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, by John O'Neil
2. The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on our Schools, Faith, and Military, by Michael "Savage" Weiner
3. Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
4. Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, by Mark Levin
5. Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions, by Michael "Savage" Weiner
6. Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War against Christianity, by David Limbaugh
7. Slouching towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, by Robert Bork
8. Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Libery over Liberalism, by Sean Hannity
9. How to talk to a Liberal (if you must): The World according to Ann Coulter, by Ann Coulter
10. Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, by Ann Coulter
11. Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, by Ann Coulter
12. The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on our Borders, Language and Culture, by Michael "Savage" Weiner
13. The Case against Hilary Clinton, by Peggy Noonan
14. The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House, by Barbara Olson (deceased 9/11)
15. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Bill Clinton, by Ann Coulter
16. Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security, by Robert Patterson
17. Hilary's Scheme: Inside the next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to take the White House, by Carl Limbacher
18. Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11, by David Bossie
19. Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming of the Liberal Media Meltdown, by Brent Bozell
20. If it's not close, they can't cheat: crushing the democrats in every election and why your life depends on it, by Hugh Hewitt
21. A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush, by Ronald Kessler
22. The French Betrayal of America, by Kenneth Timmerman
23. Hating America: The New World Sport, by John Gibson
24. Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies that have obscured our nation's greatness, by Dan Flynn
25. More than Money: true stories of people who learned life's ultimate lesson, by Neil Cavuto
Yes, there are so many, so many more. But hopefully this will give you a taste of true conservative literature and what writing and books are supposed to be about: Liberalism, liberal supreme court, democrats, bad. bad. America and your life is at stake if conservative america is not allowed to destroy, stamp out, and burn at the stake any and all impure peoples dwelling within america's borders that don't faithfully support fox news, the bush white house, and Peggy Noonan.
Book summaries welcome.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Books Conservatives Haven't Read
Along with Here's What's Left, Brad DeLong, No More Mister Nice Blog, and Lawyers, Guns and Money, I've been enjoying dissecting the list of books prepared by the list of conservative "scholars" and public policy "leaders" over at Human Events Online as being the "most harmful" of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Here are the Top Ten:
The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
Quotations from Chairman Mao, Mao Zedong
The Kinsey Report, Alfred Kinsey
Democracy and Education, John Dewey
Das Kapital, Karl Marx
The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan
The Course of Positive Philosophy, August Comte
Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche
General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes
And the runners-up:
The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich
What Is To Be Done, V.I. Lenin
Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno
On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
Beyond Freedom and Dignity, B.F. Skinner
Reflections on Violence, Georges Sorel
The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly
Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
Madness and Civilization, Michel Foucault
Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Coming of Age in Samoa, Margaret Mead
Unsafe at Any Speed, Ralph Nader
Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Prison Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci
Silent Spring, Rachel Carson
Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon
Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud
The Greening of America, Charles Reich
The Limits to Growth, Club of Rome
Descent of Man, Charles Darwin
And yes, it's true. HEO still has Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species mis-titled as Origin of the Species on its webpage. If they can't get the title right, it's hard to imagine they've bothered to read anything between the covers.
Now, I'm a little surprised they earmarked Hitler's Mein Kampf. After all, they're advertising this book on their webpage, which seems pretty similar to the content of Mein Kampf. Maybe they think that by coming out against Hitler they'll make us think they have a soft side.
As for John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, I suspect that beyond not liking the book's libertarian perspective, conservatives probably consider it to be too utilitarian-positivist, which as Michael from Here's What's Left tells us, is a particularly offensive schematic for traditionalists to handle.
I'd attempt a play by play as to why the others are on the list, but I won't. That they don't like women, consumers, and education is plain enough to see.
But at least the list gives us some idea about what we should be reading. If you read any of these books, Michael Medved will cry.
Here are the Top Ten:
The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
Quotations from Chairman Mao, Mao Zedong
The Kinsey Report, Alfred Kinsey
Democracy and Education, John Dewey
Das Kapital, Karl Marx
The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan
The Course of Positive Philosophy, August Comte
Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche
General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes
And the runners-up:
The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich
What Is To Be Done, V.I. Lenin
Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno
On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
Beyond Freedom and Dignity, B.F. Skinner
Reflections on Violence, Georges Sorel
The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly
Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
Madness and Civilization, Michel Foucault
Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Coming of Age in Samoa, Margaret Mead
Unsafe at Any Speed, Ralph Nader
Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Prison Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci
Silent Spring, Rachel Carson
Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon
Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud
The Greening of America, Charles Reich
The Limits to Growth, Club of Rome
Descent of Man, Charles Darwin
And yes, it's true. HEO still has Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species mis-titled as Origin of the Species on its webpage. If they can't get the title right, it's hard to imagine they've bothered to read anything between the covers.
Now, I'm a little surprised they earmarked Hitler's Mein Kampf. After all, they're advertising this book on their webpage, which seems pretty similar to the content of Mein Kampf. Maybe they think that by coming out against Hitler they'll make us think they have a soft side.
As for John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, I suspect that beyond not liking the book's libertarian perspective, conservatives probably consider it to be too utilitarian-positivist, which as Michael from Here's What's Left tells us, is a particularly offensive schematic for traditionalists to handle.
I'd attempt a play by play as to why the others are on the list, but I won't. That they don't like women, consumers, and education is plain enough to see.
But at least the list gives us some idea about what we should be reading. If you read any of these books, Michael Medved will cry.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Memorial Day
Along with the usual triumphant stuff on the dial about wars and rumors of wars, there is on Memorial Day certainly to be found a share of Christian Nation rhetoric, calling us to go back to the 1700's to rediscover our calling as a nation, although calls to recreate slavery and other anti-human institutions of that era usually don't get mentioned along with it.
I happened upon such a spiel yesterday when I tuned into the trinity broadcasting network on my cable tv expecting to see Dwight Nelson, A seventh day adventist (my denomination) minister. Nelson is a reasonably moderate and entertaining fellow who I first heard speak on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI some 20 years ago, and who has from time to time conducted evangelical campaigns.
Anyway, Nelson wasn't on but David Barton was. I won't rehash all of who or what David Barton is and what he had to say except to say that he is a Christian Reconstructionist and that his spiel was noteworty for two things that commonly figure into the usual talking points used by religious conservatives who think we should go back to Levicticus for guidance on public policy.
The first is the well-worn contention about how Christian our national heritage is because Benjamin Franklin called for prayer during the Constitutional debates in 1787. Funny thing about Franklin's motion to begin every session with prayer, though, that doesn't get mentioned in this retelling, and which Barton, surely reading from the same talking points, didn't mention either: Franklin's prayer request was rejected before it was voted on:
Although Mr. Sherman formally seconded the motion, and a few voices in favour were heard, opposition to it was so vocal and extensive that President of the Convention George Washington let the days business close without taking a vote (perhaps to spare Dr. Franklin the embarrassment of a formally recorded rejection). The subject of prayer did not come up again during the rest of the Convention.
So Franklin's prayer that's been said to have changed the course of history and enabled the passing of the Constitution including its 3/5ths clause for southern blacks. Yeah, that prayer. Didn't happen.
The second point of interest is that Barton, perhaps relying too strongly on his talking points, didn't mention that odd little bit in our Constitution, Article VI, which after stating the federal government's obligation to satisfying the debts incurred by the government under the Articles of Confederation and stating the Constitution's supreme authority over other laws in the land, says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "
Gee, I wonder why Barton didn't mention that.
I happened upon such a spiel yesterday when I tuned into the trinity broadcasting network on my cable tv expecting to see Dwight Nelson, A seventh day adventist (my denomination) minister. Nelson is a reasonably moderate and entertaining fellow who I first heard speak on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI some 20 years ago, and who has from time to time conducted evangelical campaigns.
Anyway, Nelson wasn't on but David Barton was. I won't rehash all of who or what David Barton is and what he had to say except to say that he is a Christian Reconstructionist and that his spiel was noteworty for two things that commonly figure into the usual talking points used by religious conservatives who think we should go back to Levicticus for guidance on public policy.
The first is the well-worn contention about how Christian our national heritage is because Benjamin Franklin called for prayer during the Constitutional debates in 1787. Funny thing about Franklin's motion to begin every session with prayer, though, that doesn't get mentioned in this retelling, and which Barton, surely reading from the same talking points, didn't mention either: Franklin's prayer request was rejected before it was voted on:
Although Mr. Sherman formally seconded the motion, and a few voices in favour were heard, opposition to it was so vocal and extensive that President of the Convention George Washington let the days business close without taking a vote (perhaps to spare Dr. Franklin the embarrassment of a formally recorded rejection). The subject of prayer did not come up again during the rest of the Convention.
So Franklin's prayer that's been said to have changed the course of history and enabled the passing of the Constitution including its 3/5ths clause for southern blacks. Yeah, that prayer. Didn't happen.
The second point of interest is that Barton, perhaps relying too strongly on his talking points, didn't mention that odd little bit in our Constitution, Article VI, which after stating the federal government's obligation to satisfying the debts incurred by the government under the Articles of Confederation and stating the Constitution's supreme authority over other laws in the land, says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "
Gee, I wonder why Barton didn't mention that.
Whose Side Are You On?
I spent some time this weekend continuing to read from the works of Episcopalean Bishop John Shelby Spong. (And yes, I managed to get outside and enjoy some sun, too. Thanks for asking.) When I first considered the notion of the Bible not being literal, the first question that came to my mind was, "but if the Bible isn't literal, how do we decide who gets in?". That question says a lot about me, and about the Christian tradition. Who gets in? How do I cash in my religion card for the eternity promise at the end of the rainbow? Closely related to this question is "how do we make sure that 'those other people' don't get in with us?". Exclusion has been central to the role of religion since the beginning of time. The Old Testament includes a wide range of dictates and practices designed to erect barriers between the Israelites and its neighbors. The sacrificial system, the identification of various "clean" and "unclean" foods and states of being, and the assigning of "deviance" to other practices helped to separate the Israelites from other tribes, to create a sense of importance and entitlement. While these rules didn't preclude other peoples from entering into God's grace, it did help to ensure that those who did would conform to the Israelite standards and submit to its system of power relations.
One reading of the Gospel accounts of Jesus is that He lived to eradicate these barriers. In His life and words he opposed hierarchies founded on sex, race, religion, and class. One reading of the growth of Christianity after Jesus' death is that many of these barriers were re-erected and some more were added for good measure as the church elders sought to once again distinguish themselves and to consolidate their power.
I was contemplating these themes as I opened my copy of the Washington Post this morning and turned to the op-ed page. And there greeting me was a column by E.J. Dionne. Dionne was writing about the sacking of Tom Reese, the former editor of a Catholic journal called America, by the new pope and former grand inquisitor, because Reese and his journal had been deemed insufficiently orthodox.
Although the events Dionne described occured over a month ago, and can't be considered hot off the presses stuff, his column was of interest because it included a defense of the pope's decision by the grouchy editor of the Catholic enterprise First Things, Richard John Neuhaus:
...because America is "a Catholic magazine in the service of the church and its mission," it has a special obligation to uphold orthodoxy as defined by the pope. That's especially true, he said, on "publicly controversial questions such as the moral understanding of homosexuality, same-sex marriage and the exploitation of embryonic stem cells."
"On such questions, the church has clearly defined positions," Neuhaus wrote. "The practice of America suggested to some the magazine's neutrality or hostility to the church's teaching. Not surprisingly, they asked of the magazine, 'Whose side are you on?' "
This is what the Christian life has come to mean for people like Neuhaus. Whose side are you on? Who gets in? Who can we keep out, or at least control? Who's right and who's wrong?
I submit that this is the sickness underlying the Christian church in both its Roman Catholic and Protestant manifestations today. The name for this sickness is legalism. While much of the Christian church has professed its contempt for legalism and proclaimed its reliance on grace rather than the law, the sad fact is that to the degree that the church or a church continues to insist that there is a heavenly reward to seek and a hellish punishment to shun (and to deny that doing good is its own reward), so long as it insists on identifying itself as the guardians and interpreters of the one right path to salvation, and so long as it continues to insist that deviants and undesirables, whether they be gays or religious heritics won't get to heaven, the curse of legalism will dictate and compromise the church's calling and infect the local and world community with its disease of division and resentment. I'm prepared to let this vision of Christianity die so that a new vision can emerge, that a new reformation can take place.
I conclude today's sermon with two brief mentions from the gospels. On Jesus's journey to Jerusalem and to the cross, the disciples trailed slowly behind, squabbling among themselves about who was the greatest? Sound familiar? Who's the greatest? Who's right? Who gets in?
Jesus later asked them what they were talking about "along the way". Correctly ascertaining what they were discussing Jesus tells them that although the world conceives of itself in terms of who exercises authority over one another, they, His disciples and future church, were not to be like that. He told them that people who desired to be "first" would be "last". Those who would lead needed to serve. Those who sought to save their lives would lose it. Those who gave away their lives in service and love would gain it.
Later Jesus made an analogy of the separation of the sheep and goats at the end of time. The sheep were defined as those who had ministered to the imprisoned, the hungry, the naked, and the needy, and in doing so, were unaware that they were storing up chits or putting notches in their belts. When confronted with their honorable behavior, they confessed they hadn't recognized they were ministering to the Lord.
In contrast were the goats. The goats, when confronted by their lack of service to the needy, responded that they had never seen the Lord in need. The Lord responds that in the presence of the naked, the poor, and the outcast, Jesus was. Because these self-declared righteous had been seeking absolution, they failed to see their true calling.
Given these kind of statements, it's probably no wonder that much of the church's leadership has turned its attention to devisive social issues and political controversy and away from the simplistic and humble teachings of its Lord.
One reading of the Gospel accounts of Jesus is that He lived to eradicate these barriers. In His life and words he opposed hierarchies founded on sex, race, religion, and class. One reading of the growth of Christianity after Jesus' death is that many of these barriers were re-erected and some more were added for good measure as the church elders sought to once again distinguish themselves and to consolidate their power.
I was contemplating these themes as I opened my copy of the Washington Post this morning and turned to the op-ed page. And there greeting me was a column by E.J. Dionne. Dionne was writing about the sacking of Tom Reese, the former editor of a Catholic journal called America, by the new pope and former grand inquisitor, because Reese and his journal had been deemed insufficiently orthodox.
Although the events Dionne described occured over a month ago, and can't be considered hot off the presses stuff, his column was of interest because it included a defense of the pope's decision by the grouchy editor of the Catholic enterprise First Things, Richard John Neuhaus:
...because America is "a Catholic magazine in the service of the church and its mission," it has a special obligation to uphold orthodoxy as defined by the pope. That's especially true, he said, on "publicly controversial questions such as the moral understanding of homosexuality, same-sex marriage and the exploitation of embryonic stem cells."
"On such questions, the church has clearly defined positions," Neuhaus wrote. "The practice of America suggested to some the magazine's neutrality or hostility to the church's teaching. Not surprisingly, they asked of the magazine, 'Whose side are you on?' "
This is what the Christian life has come to mean for people like Neuhaus. Whose side are you on? Who gets in? Who can we keep out, or at least control? Who's right and who's wrong?
I submit that this is the sickness underlying the Christian church in both its Roman Catholic and Protestant manifestations today. The name for this sickness is legalism. While much of the Christian church has professed its contempt for legalism and proclaimed its reliance on grace rather than the law, the sad fact is that to the degree that the church or a church continues to insist that there is a heavenly reward to seek and a hellish punishment to shun (and to deny that doing good is its own reward), so long as it insists on identifying itself as the guardians and interpreters of the one right path to salvation, and so long as it continues to insist that deviants and undesirables, whether they be gays or religious heritics won't get to heaven, the curse of legalism will dictate and compromise the church's calling and infect the local and world community with its disease of division and resentment. I'm prepared to let this vision of Christianity die so that a new vision can emerge, that a new reformation can take place.
I conclude today's sermon with two brief mentions from the gospels. On Jesus's journey to Jerusalem and to the cross, the disciples trailed slowly behind, squabbling among themselves about who was the greatest? Sound familiar? Who's the greatest? Who's right? Who gets in?
Jesus later asked them what they were talking about "along the way". Correctly ascertaining what they were discussing Jesus tells them that although the world conceives of itself in terms of who exercises authority over one another, they, His disciples and future church, were not to be like that. He told them that people who desired to be "first" would be "last". Those who would lead needed to serve. Those who sought to save their lives would lose it. Those who gave away their lives in service and love would gain it.
Later Jesus made an analogy of the separation of the sheep and goats at the end of time. The sheep were defined as those who had ministered to the imprisoned, the hungry, the naked, and the needy, and in doing so, were unaware that they were storing up chits or putting notches in their belts. When confronted with their honorable behavior, they confessed they hadn't recognized they were ministering to the Lord.
In contrast were the goats. The goats, when confronted by their lack of service to the needy, responded that they had never seen the Lord in need. The Lord responds that in the presence of the naked, the poor, and the outcast, Jesus was. Because these self-declared righteous had been seeking absolution, they failed to see their true calling.
Given these kind of statements, it's probably no wonder that much of the church's leadership has turned its attention to devisive social issues and political controversy and away from the simplistic and humble teachings of its Lord.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Is Theism Dead?
As some of you know from reading this blog, I've been pondering religious issues for some time, both as they directly relate to politics as well as for their own merit. I grew up in the fundamentalist, evangelical, biblical literalism tradition of the Christian church. While I continue to think that the church has something to offer through its community and its revelation of the Jesus story, I've been increasingly disenchanted with the church's regressive views on human development. And I've come to believe that the concept of Biblical literalism has its own set of problems, even irrespective of its sometimes ghastly implications for how we treat people that don't share our nationality or our system of beliefs. So I think it's fair to say I've been sorting through what psychologists refer to as "dissonance" when it comes to reconciling my more modern views of society with many of the primitive and exclusive dimensions of church life.
In the last week I picked up a book by John Shelby Spong, a retired Epicospalean Bishop, on the Sins of Scripture. I ended up racing through that book and bought three more of his books a few days later. Needless to say I've found his commentary highly enlightening and refreshing.
The basic gist of his conclusions is that the Bible is not the Word of God, but is rather a historical epic or series of epic stories that have been merged together out of a common tribal heritage. The personal, intervening God of these writings was once afforded responsiblity for natural disasters, described as supporting the nation's foreign policy and acting to rout and destroy its enemies, attributed as the source of wisdom underlying the tribe's religious practices and social system of hierarchy, and generally treated as if He was aligned with the interests and purposes of the tribe in its struggles against other nations and peoples.
Spong says many of these assumptions have been demonstrated to be unfounded by the growth and improvement of scientific and social scholarship and discoveries associated with the modern era, dating generally to the 1500's when many new findings in astronomy, geography and psychology began to be emerge.
So, no longer can we really give any serious credence to tales of God planting a rainbow in the sky, manna falling from "heaven", and God's reported support for any one nation or body of people at the expense of another. These assumptions derived from primitive views of the world that attributed personal motives and qualities to natural forces, and which were based largely on the need for security.
This need for security in a vulnerable world led in turn to the creation of a father-like deity that handed out promises and threats, rewards and punishments, and could otherwise be placated, appeased and flattered by people in need of protection and life meaning, through the means of animal and ultimately human sacrifices and by means of liturgical services (worship) in which songs of praise were sung and prayers of gratitude were offered to this being.
As the tools of modern science have made this God less relevant and in the language of some, unemployed and idle now that He doesn't have much to do, the prominence of God, especially in the western world, has declined. Old creeds, doctrines, and cliches no longer maintain the same potent meaning once attached to them.
Perhaps most significant of the casualties involved in the retreat of theism is the assumption that life was once perfect before The Fall, after which Atonement was needed for us to restore our connection with God and our once state of perfection. Hence emerged the concepts of sin, punishment, and the need for a bleeding, dying, but eventually resurrected savior. It was said that God and his angels in heaven recorded our every thought, word, and deed. The outcome, for those who submit to this savior and accept this atonement is an eternal life in heaven with God. Those who refused this atonement and this belief, or were found wanting in the books of heaven, would be sent to Hell, to burn to death or to burn eternally (The Catholic church and much of the conservative evangelical world favors the view that "sinners" will burn forever while a few denominations hold that this punishment is to last only as long as is necessary to kill the person).
This belief system carries with it several significant implications for life here on earth. For one it generates a mind set of aiming for rewards and avoiding punishments. While most Protestant denominations hold that our "works" do not gain us heaven, obedience is still treated as essential to gain entrance to the promised land. Evangelicalism varies in its understanding of the cause and effect relationship between behavior and reward, in some cases differing only in emphasis. But the most common and acceptable view to emerge has been that our obedience that assures salvation is a "result" of our being saved, grateful as we become for Jesus dying for our sins and accepting His "new birth" into our lives that we change, become more and more like him, and thus put ourselves in the deserving category. At its best, such a system would seem to help ensure good behavior to others and a stable society. But all of this of course also lends itself to varying forms of severe psychosis and neurosis. For one, it puts a lot of pressure on a person to ensure that others are "saved". At the same time, it generates a heavily self centered, and robotic approach to life where one endeavors to conduct oneself in the proper manner so as to gain God's favor and eternal reward. It also generates an exclusive mind set where only those who believe, act, and indentify themselves with the believer's God or denomination will be saved.
In short, the Christian notions of life and salvation embody many problematic and child like attitudes of dependence, and behavior driven by fear of punishment or desire for favor and reward. Combined with a methodological emphasis that discourages serious intellectual inquiry, challenge, and change, the church's beliefs are gradually being eclipsed by a world that no longer needs the control of institutions and that can no longer accommodate creeds based on outmoded assumptions about people and how the world works. The result is a church that is both dying as well as becoming less biblical and more politically vindicative as it seeks to maintain its relevance in a changing world.
So, the question to ask is, does the church and the bible still have any importance? Does the emporer still have any clothes?
I believe the answer to these questions is affirmative, but the Christian church will need to change its fundamental assumptions, beliefs, and power goals to accommodate a spiritually searching and developing world. Ancient calls for tribal distinctions and exclusions, and the repression of women and gays will have to go. The church will need to be less condescending to a world and people it doesn't understand. It will need to let go of the illusion that life is about "getting into" the kingdom so that it can better work with others towards making a better, more inclusive and peaceful present.
In the last week I picked up a book by John Shelby Spong, a retired Epicospalean Bishop, on the Sins of Scripture. I ended up racing through that book and bought three more of his books a few days later. Needless to say I've found his commentary highly enlightening and refreshing.
The basic gist of his conclusions is that the Bible is not the Word of God, but is rather a historical epic or series of epic stories that have been merged together out of a common tribal heritage. The personal, intervening God of these writings was once afforded responsiblity for natural disasters, described as supporting the nation's foreign policy and acting to rout and destroy its enemies, attributed as the source of wisdom underlying the tribe's religious practices and social system of hierarchy, and generally treated as if He was aligned with the interests and purposes of the tribe in its struggles against other nations and peoples.
Spong says many of these assumptions have been demonstrated to be unfounded by the growth and improvement of scientific and social scholarship and discoveries associated with the modern era, dating generally to the 1500's when many new findings in astronomy, geography and psychology began to be emerge.
So, no longer can we really give any serious credence to tales of God planting a rainbow in the sky, manna falling from "heaven", and God's reported support for any one nation or body of people at the expense of another. These assumptions derived from primitive views of the world that attributed personal motives and qualities to natural forces, and which were based largely on the need for security.
This need for security in a vulnerable world led in turn to the creation of a father-like deity that handed out promises and threats, rewards and punishments, and could otherwise be placated, appeased and flattered by people in need of protection and life meaning, through the means of animal and ultimately human sacrifices and by means of liturgical services (worship) in which songs of praise were sung and prayers of gratitude were offered to this being.
As the tools of modern science have made this God less relevant and in the language of some, unemployed and idle now that He doesn't have much to do, the prominence of God, especially in the western world, has declined. Old creeds, doctrines, and cliches no longer maintain the same potent meaning once attached to them.
Perhaps most significant of the casualties involved in the retreat of theism is the assumption that life was once perfect before The Fall, after which Atonement was needed for us to restore our connection with God and our once state of perfection. Hence emerged the concepts of sin, punishment, and the need for a bleeding, dying, but eventually resurrected savior. It was said that God and his angels in heaven recorded our every thought, word, and deed. The outcome, for those who submit to this savior and accept this atonement is an eternal life in heaven with God. Those who refused this atonement and this belief, or were found wanting in the books of heaven, would be sent to Hell, to burn to death or to burn eternally (The Catholic church and much of the conservative evangelical world favors the view that "sinners" will burn forever while a few denominations hold that this punishment is to last only as long as is necessary to kill the person).
This belief system carries with it several significant implications for life here on earth. For one it generates a mind set of aiming for rewards and avoiding punishments. While most Protestant denominations hold that our "works" do not gain us heaven, obedience is still treated as essential to gain entrance to the promised land. Evangelicalism varies in its understanding of the cause and effect relationship between behavior and reward, in some cases differing only in emphasis. But the most common and acceptable view to emerge has been that our obedience that assures salvation is a "result" of our being saved, grateful as we become for Jesus dying for our sins and accepting His "new birth" into our lives that we change, become more and more like him, and thus put ourselves in the deserving category. At its best, such a system would seem to help ensure good behavior to others and a stable society. But all of this of course also lends itself to varying forms of severe psychosis and neurosis. For one, it puts a lot of pressure on a person to ensure that others are "saved". At the same time, it generates a heavily self centered, and robotic approach to life where one endeavors to conduct oneself in the proper manner so as to gain God's favor and eternal reward. It also generates an exclusive mind set where only those who believe, act, and indentify themselves with the believer's God or denomination will be saved.
In short, the Christian notions of life and salvation embody many problematic and child like attitudes of dependence, and behavior driven by fear of punishment or desire for favor and reward. Combined with a methodological emphasis that discourages serious intellectual inquiry, challenge, and change, the church's beliefs are gradually being eclipsed by a world that no longer needs the control of institutions and that can no longer accommodate creeds based on outmoded assumptions about people and how the world works. The result is a church that is both dying as well as becoming less biblical and more politically vindicative as it seeks to maintain its relevance in a changing world.
So, the question to ask is, does the church and the bible still have any importance? Does the emporer still have any clothes?
I believe the answer to these questions is affirmative, but the Christian church will need to change its fundamental assumptions, beliefs, and power goals to accommodate a spiritually searching and developing world. Ancient calls for tribal distinctions and exclusions, and the repression of women and gays will have to go. The church will need to be less condescending to a world and people it doesn't understand. It will need to let go of the illusion that life is about "getting into" the kingdom so that it can better work with others towards making a better, more inclusive and peaceful present.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Good News, Bad News
The Bad: Ezra Klein and Kos have noticed the electoral college projections showing blue states losing EVs to the red states in the future and Ezra worries the party could become obsolete.
The Good or at least optimistic: Judis and Teixeira think increases in the non-white population and, perhaps paradoxically, the increase in education levels combined with a new emerging technical professional class suggest better times for Democrats in the future.
More good: The Democrats came surprisingly close in 2004, at least at the presidential level. Bush's winning margin was the smallest of any previous incumbent who won re-election.
More bad: Democrats have typically won large majorities of the Black and Jewish vote, but this means that (1) there's nowhere to go but down with these groups, especially to the extent that religion and foreign policy increase in importance for these groups respectively and (2) If Democrats are maxed out on the Black vote, it's hard to see how either group helps in any states where Democrats are currently doing poorly. If Democrats are getting upwards of 85-90% of the black vote in the south and still losing, Democrats will need to expand their base of support in those states to win. Although the poor southern states would seem an ideal laboratory for trying out new, populist sounding themes, such as those recommended by John McGowan, or a "reform" agenda, such as that suggested by Ruy Teixeira, these issues haven't typically galvanized lots of support in past campaigns. In addition, it's hard to see what the Democrats' mobilizing issues are or could be. The Repubs got religion, which with its high emotional content, and base of anger-fear driven pew dwellers, can usually be whipped into a frenzy over just about anything, like a filibuster battle. The war? Arguments about past decisions, especially when so many Democratic officials supported the war, or at least acquienced to it, aren't probably going to help at this stage, unless things continue on their too long, or the situation there dramatically deteriorates, or unless there was a friendly media or a charasmatic candidate that could exploit it.
And, as I've argued previously, the primary threat facing the republic is the emergence of radical fundamentalism, personified by James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and televangelists such as D. James Kennedy and Rod Parsley. But challenging it presents Democrats with the difficult choice of constructing a nuanced argument that criticizes the leaders but not the followers, a task of some difficulty in a world that doesn't appreciate or do nuance and that isn't likely to win many friends or influence many people.
The best thing Democrats will have going in 2008 is incumbency: The Republicans'. Voters will be willing to hear appeals for change or at least balance. And to have a president named something other than Bush. Or Clinton. That, and the fact Democrats are not faced with the need, as they were in 1988, of having to build on their one state success of 1984. They have a larger pool of states to build on.
Beyond that, Democrats are not going to gain a lot of ground until there is a crisis. The last crisis on 9-11 skewed the balance of power the other way.
The next crises are likely to be either economic or foreign policy related (if Republicans continue to overreach by invading/bombing Iran or the other remaining axis of evil member), or until a coup by the religious right results in laws requiring church attendance on Sundays.
Until then, enjoy our Free America while it lasts.
The Good or at least optimistic: Judis and Teixeira think increases in the non-white population and, perhaps paradoxically, the increase in education levels combined with a new emerging technical professional class suggest better times for Democrats in the future.
More good: The Democrats came surprisingly close in 2004, at least at the presidential level. Bush's winning margin was the smallest of any previous incumbent who won re-election.
More bad: Democrats have typically won large majorities of the Black and Jewish vote, but this means that (1) there's nowhere to go but down with these groups, especially to the extent that religion and foreign policy increase in importance for these groups respectively and (2) If Democrats are maxed out on the Black vote, it's hard to see how either group helps in any states where Democrats are currently doing poorly. If Democrats are getting upwards of 85-90% of the black vote in the south and still losing, Democrats will need to expand their base of support in those states to win. Although the poor southern states would seem an ideal laboratory for trying out new, populist sounding themes, such as those recommended by John McGowan, or a "reform" agenda, such as that suggested by Ruy Teixeira, these issues haven't typically galvanized lots of support in past campaigns. In addition, it's hard to see what the Democrats' mobilizing issues are or could be. The Repubs got religion, which with its high emotional content, and base of anger-fear driven pew dwellers, can usually be whipped into a frenzy over just about anything, like a filibuster battle. The war? Arguments about past decisions, especially when so many Democratic officials supported the war, or at least acquienced to it, aren't probably going to help at this stage, unless things continue on their too long, or the situation there dramatically deteriorates, or unless there was a friendly media or a charasmatic candidate that could exploit it.
And, as I've argued previously, the primary threat facing the republic is the emergence of radical fundamentalism, personified by James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and televangelists such as D. James Kennedy and Rod Parsley. But challenging it presents Democrats with the difficult choice of constructing a nuanced argument that criticizes the leaders but not the followers, a task of some difficulty in a world that doesn't appreciate or do nuance and that isn't likely to win many friends or influence many people.
The best thing Democrats will have going in 2008 is incumbency: The Republicans'. Voters will be willing to hear appeals for change or at least balance. And to have a president named something other than Bush. Or Clinton. That, and the fact Democrats are not faced with the need, as they were in 1988, of having to build on their one state success of 1984. They have a larger pool of states to build on.
Beyond that, Democrats are not going to gain a lot of ground until there is a crisis. The last crisis on 9-11 skewed the balance of power the other way.
The next crises are likely to be either economic or foreign policy related (if Republicans continue to overreach by invading/bombing Iran or the other remaining axis of evil member), or until a coup by the religious right results in laws requiring church attendance on Sundays.
Until then, enjoy our Free America while it lasts.
Fox Announces Bash Jesus Day
With Democrats out of power, Bill Moyers and Dan Rather retired, Bill Maher relegated to HBO, and nightly cable tv news shows all hosted by Republican party officials and former officeholders, Fox producers search for a new target for their abuse, a new liberal whipping boy and find it in a Jesus of Nazareth, a village outside of Jerusalem.
Fox and Bush Friends
Join the perky hosts around the sofa as they bash Jesus for forgiving the woman caught in adultery (John 8) and for refusing to answer the pharisees' totally reasonable and just questions. Isn't forgiveness in this case morally relativistic? Isn't Jesus soft on crime?
Dayside with Linda Vester
Is Jesus anti-family and hostile to women who choose to be homemakers? We'll ask our fair and balanced guests, Phylis Schafly of the Eagle Forum, a representative of the Independent Woman's Forum, and spokesperson of the group, Concerned Women for America if Jesus was right to praise lazy Mary and criticize faithful Martha (Luke 10).
Your World with Neil Cavuto
Did Jesus really say that someone who worked one hour could get paid as much as someone who worked a whole day (Matthew 20)? Did Jesus really say that it was hard for rich men to get into heaven (Luke 18; Mark 10)? Why did Jesus just give food to the crowd that followed him (Matthew 14; Luke 9)? Why didn't he make them go and buy it? Did he think this was Food Stamps? Why did Jesus talk about debts being forgiven (Matthew 18; Luke 7)? And are the poor really "blessed" (Luke 6)? We'll explore these and other terribly liberal, anti-capitalist "parables of Jesus" with our round table of experts.
Studio B with Shephard Smith
Did the eldest son in Jesus' parable of the Prodical Son (Luke 15) get a raw deal? What punishment do you think the younger son should get, now that he blew all his dad's money? And what do you think the impact of this story is for family values? We'll be joined by family advocates and Bible experts Oliver North, Pat Sajak and Bill Kristol of Fox News to respond and to take your calls and emails. If you think the parable of the Prodical Son stinks, send us an email and we'll show it on the air.
The Big Story with John Gibson
Why the Beautitudes, especially the one about peacemakers (Matthew 5), are another example demonstrating the anti-American, anti-military bias so prevalent in society today. We'll uncover the truth about how Jesus is just another America-basher, which is, by the way, not only the most common past time, but which also, by the way, just so happens to be the subject of a book of mine.
Ordinary Report with Brit Hume
Is Jesus biased against Republicans? Why did he choose fisherman and tax collectors to be his disciples? We'll ask our guests, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, Bernie Goldman formerly of CBS News, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The Beltway Boys with Morton Krondake and Fred Barnes
We'll debate just how bad was Jesus' command to render unto Ceasar (Luke 20). Mort will take the "just, really, really bad" position, while Barnes will take the "ultra bad, really, really, really, baddy bad" position.
Hannity and Hannity
We'll interview church leaders who allege that Jesus broke the law by healing on the Sabbath, contaminated himself by touching lepers, and degraded himself by dining with sinners, IRS employees and Democrats (Mark 2; Luke 5).
After Hours with Cal Thomas
How exhortions to "love our enemies" (Matthew 5; Luke 6) is destroying the moral fabric of society. I'll be joined in my studio by James Dobson of Focus on Everybody's Family, Tony Perkins of the Researching your Family Council, and Richard Land, formerly the head of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Fox and Bush Friends
Join the perky hosts around the sofa as they bash Jesus for forgiving the woman caught in adultery (John 8) and for refusing to answer the pharisees' totally reasonable and just questions. Isn't forgiveness in this case morally relativistic? Isn't Jesus soft on crime?
Dayside with Linda Vester
Is Jesus anti-family and hostile to women who choose to be homemakers? We'll ask our fair and balanced guests, Phylis Schafly of the Eagle Forum, a representative of the Independent Woman's Forum, and spokesperson of the group, Concerned Women for America if Jesus was right to praise lazy Mary and criticize faithful Martha (Luke 10).
Your World with Neil Cavuto
Did Jesus really say that someone who worked one hour could get paid as much as someone who worked a whole day (Matthew 20)? Did Jesus really say that it was hard for rich men to get into heaven (Luke 18; Mark 10)? Why did Jesus just give food to the crowd that followed him (Matthew 14; Luke 9)? Why didn't he make them go and buy it? Did he think this was Food Stamps? Why did Jesus talk about debts being forgiven (Matthew 18; Luke 7)? And are the poor really "blessed" (Luke 6)? We'll explore these and other terribly liberal, anti-capitalist "parables of Jesus" with our round table of experts.
Studio B with Shephard Smith
Did the eldest son in Jesus' parable of the Prodical Son (Luke 15) get a raw deal? What punishment do you think the younger son should get, now that he blew all his dad's money? And what do you think the impact of this story is for family values? We'll be joined by family advocates and Bible experts Oliver North, Pat Sajak and Bill Kristol of Fox News to respond and to take your calls and emails. If you think the parable of the Prodical Son stinks, send us an email and we'll show it on the air.
The Big Story with John Gibson
Why the Beautitudes, especially the one about peacemakers (Matthew 5), are another example demonstrating the anti-American, anti-military bias so prevalent in society today. We'll uncover the truth about how Jesus is just another America-basher, which is, by the way, not only the most common past time, but which also, by the way, just so happens to be the subject of a book of mine.
Ordinary Report with Brit Hume
Is Jesus biased against Republicans? Why did he choose fisherman and tax collectors to be his disciples? We'll ask our guests, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, Bernie Goldman formerly of CBS News, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
The Beltway Boys with Morton Krondake and Fred Barnes
We'll debate just how bad was Jesus' command to render unto Ceasar (Luke 20). Mort will take the "just, really, really bad" position, while Barnes will take the "ultra bad, really, really, really, baddy bad" position.
Hannity and Hannity
We'll interview church leaders who allege that Jesus broke the law by healing on the Sabbath, contaminated himself by touching lepers, and degraded himself by dining with sinners, IRS employees and Democrats (Mark 2; Luke 5).
After Hours with Cal Thomas
How exhortions to "love our enemies" (Matthew 5; Luke 6) is destroying the moral fabric of society. I'll be joined in my studio by James Dobson of Focus on Everybody's Family, Tony Perkins of the Researching your Family Council, and Richard Land, formerly the head of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Taking the Bible Seriously
In laying out some of the issues involved with "Biblical literalism", I am first off, trying to sort things out for myself. As a Christian and as a modernist I often find myself having my feet in both worlds. On the one hand, it's curious to me why most modernists (a description I think applies to most lefty activists, bloggers, and academics) don't seem more interested in the Bible, or at least in the questions of how we got here, why we're here, and where we're going. If modernism and the intellectual tradition are concerned about pursuing truth, it would seem to me that the Bible would be at least one source I'd be interested in. And as a modernist and intellectual (in the sense that I believe intellectualism is a positive and valid attribute for a society to have--not that I am intellectually brilliant), I approach the Bible at least partially from this perspective. So, I wonder why more modernists don't take the Bible seriously. I believe there are some who do. But the tendency seems to be to dismiss it alltogether. This is unfortunate as I don't think ignorance works whether one is a conservative or liberal. It inhibits a broader range of discussion that I think could be very fruitful and illuminating.
On the other hand. On the other hand, as I have argued previously, the Christian community has not been the most forward looking, humanity embracing project over the past centuries. Undoubtedly, this social-political track record has not put the church in good stead to be taken seriously by "non-believers". But of perhaps even more consequence, is the paradox that the "faith" community has itself not really taken the Bible seriously.
What do I mean by that? That's a pretty serious charge to make against a community that claims the Bible as its guide.
What I mean is that the church through the years has been inclined to approach the Bible from the perspective that the truth is already known, that this truth is defined by the particular denomination one is a part of, that this church's purpose is to lead others into its own understanding of scripture, and that this understanding of scripture is necessary for salvation. That is, my church, our church, is the sole possessor of truth. This is a somewhat simplistic summary, but I think it holds in most cases. To the extent that this is the church's posture, the Bible can't be studied in any meaningful manner, since the conclusions one is expected to derive from such a study are those that already fit the church's set of creeds and doctrines. In this sense, Protestant denominations are very much like the Roman Catholic church they claim to be protesting. Both systems proclaim themselves as the diviners of Biblical and world truth. The laity and outsiders can read the Bible, or make certain deductions about life from other sources, but ultimately, only the church through its ministers and officials can define church doctrine, and with it, characterize the nature of God.
The argument takes an even more illogical, circular nature when it comes to evangelism. Christians in the pews, and "non-Christian" believers are told (explicitly or implicitly) that the Bible is to be approached with reverance, in an open minded manner, with a willing spirit. Only then can the Bible's seemingly contradictory statements or other "oddities" be understood. A popular Christian quotation is from the writings of the apostle Paul which says that in words to the effect that "spiritual things are spiritually discerned". Only if you are Christian, or willing to be Christian can you understand the Bible and Christianity. But surely this approach and attitude could be asked of any belief system, whether it be Mormonism, Roman Catholocism, Marxism, or Darwinism. Such an approach it seems to me uses the Bible more as propaganda than as learning instrument.
What's the alternative? Bishop Spong, who I cited in previous posts, has come to the conclusion after a long career of study that Christianity as currently constituted is based on an erroneous understanding of the Bible and that a new approach, which negates much of the doctrine we as Christians have held dear for centuries, is needed.
I'm not there yet. But I do think Christians should reconsider the Bible and begin to ask some of the questions I have been posing. We should be willing to go beyond doctrine and creeds to embrace a different approach to the study of the Bible. This new approach I contend shouldn't approach the scriptures with "reverance" any more than one would approach any other historical writing. Nor should the study of the Bible be done to provide security for any particular denomination. For the Bible to be taken seriously means to say that the Bible should stand or fall on its own accord, not on the basis of a handicapped score system that a priori provides it with greater validity than other sources or systems of belief.
On the other hand. On the other hand, as I have argued previously, the Christian community has not been the most forward looking, humanity embracing project over the past centuries. Undoubtedly, this social-political track record has not put the church in good stead to be taken seriously by "non-believers". But of perhaps even more consequence, is the paradox that the "faith" community has itself not really taken the Bible seriously.
What do I mean by that? That's a pretty serious charge to make against a community that claims the Bible as its guide.
What I mean is that the church through the years has been inclined to approach the Bible from the perspective that the truth is already known, that this truth is defined by the particular denomination one is a part of, that this church's purpose is to lead others into its own understanding of scripture, and that this understanding of scripture is necessary for salvation. That is, my church, our church, is the sole possessor of truth. This is a somewhat simplistic summary, but I think it holds in most cases. To the extent that this is the church's posture, the Bible can't be studied in any meaningful manner, since the conclusions one is expected to derive from such a study are those that already fit the church's set of creeds and doctrines. In this sense, Protestant denominations are very much like the Roman Catholic church they claim to be protesting. Both systems proclaim themselves as the diviners of Biblical and world truth. The laity and outsiders can read the Bible, or make certain deductions about life from other sources, but ultimately, only the church through its ministers and officials can define church doctrine, and with it, characterize the nature of God.
The argument takes an even more illogical, circular nature when it comes to evangelism. Christians in the pews, and "non-Christian" believers are told (explicitly or implicitly) that the Bible is to be approached with reverance, in an open minded manner, with a willing spirit. Only then can the Bible's seemingly contradictory statements or other "oddities" be understood. A popular Christian quotation is from the writings of the apostle Paul which says that in words to the effect that "spiritual things are spiritually discerned". Only if you are Christian, or willing to be Christian can you understand the Bible and Christianity. But surely this approach and attitude could be asked of any belief system, whether it be Mormonism, Roman Catholocism, Marxism, or Darwinism. Such an approach it seems to me uses the Bible more as propaganda than as learning instrument.
What's the alternative? Bishop Spong, who I cited in previous posts, has come to the conclusion after a long career of study that Christianity as currently constituted is based on an erroneous understanding of the Bible and that a new approach, which negates much of the doctrine we as Christians have held dear for centuries, is needed.
I'm not there yet. But I do think Christians should reconsider the Bible and begin to ask some of the questions I have been posing. We should be willing to go beyond doctrine and creeds to embrace a different approach to the study of the Bible. This new approach I contend shouldn't approach the scriptures with "reverance" any more than one would approach any other historical writing. Nor should the study of the Bible be done to provide security for any particular denomination. For the Bible to be taken seriously means to say that the Bible should stand or fall on its own accord, not on the basis of a handicapped score system that a priori provides it with greater validity than other sources or systems of belief.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Biblical Literalism, Take Two
Although I promised to address the issue of biblical literalism and its ramifications for children, women, homosexuality, and slavery, I think it's important to mention one other element about Christianity and the Bible. That element is that questions about how the Bible was assembled, whether its seemingly varying and out of time contentions about mankind and society are reasonable, and whether its tales of miracles really happened are not part of the process in the church community. For "people of faith", it is assumed that Biblical events, conversations, teachings and examples occured exactly as written about in the scriptures and no one questions that. That the God of this Bible is "just" is also unquestioned, at least publically. That these extremely vital issues are presumed to be beyond the realm of discussion and debate makes for a relatively united, if unfortunately susceptible audience, and carries with it certain implications for the investigation of Truth. I wrote about the most extreme form of this unquestioning an unsearching for truth in a previous post about Bob Jones University.
And I think it's fair to say that there is little difference between most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church hierarchy on this point. Evangelical Protestants reject the authority of the Pope, but not church authority in general. Of course, if one is unhappy with the Biblical interpretations and pronouncements of a particular church or denomination, than one is free to leave I suppose. But there is little space for debate, which may be part of the explanation for the multitude of denominations. And furthermore, one's salvation is supposed to be at stake.
Now, in my previous post I suggested that while the scientific arguments against Biblical literalism were interesting but not necessarily persuasive, I do think Biblical literalism has faired less well in terms of perhaps the most important area of life, and that is its moral pronouncements and its social prohibitions.
Some of these problem areas are familiar to non-Christians, even if most churches tend to dismiss or excuse them.
Let's consider the role of women. A supreme court ruling in the late 1800's judged against a woman's demand for the right to practice law. This court's ruling, included in Spong's Sins, includes the majority decision that the woman did not have the right to practice law (although educated for it) because of Biblical admonitions about the role of women in public life. And there is no doubt that at least some portions of scripture call for female submission to the male, in the home, the church, and presumably, in the community. On this issue, the secular world eventually turned against the church and acted to provide greater rights and opportunities for women. Spong contends that the church also opposed the right to vote for women (finally extended via Constitutional Amendment in 1920). Undoubtedly this is true for at least some church leaders and denominations. A more empirical study would be interesting. But in any event, the overwhelming evidence is that the church, and political leaders who justified their conclusions on the Bible, have been behind the rest of society when it came to improving the lives and rights of women.
The same could be said for slavery. While support for the institution of slavery was no doubt based more on economic necessity than on Biblical standing, a large portion of the Bible believing community supported slavery, while many more secular groups and leaders in society opposed it. The debate and conflict over segregation a century later similarly pitted mostly secular leaders and students against an entrenched and privileged religious superstructure, and at least for many whites in the south, the struggle to maintain power through segregation was framed in religious terms and relied on the Bible for spotty, if not authoritative support. So again, the political and social beliefs of the church, and political leaders using the Bible for authority, have been found wanting in the passage of time, as their ideas and claims came to be seen as illogical and inhumane.
Which brings us to sex, and homosexuality in particular. The church that calls for opposition to homosexuality and gay persons, does so on the basis of Biblical passages. The same Church and the same Bible that was once used to justify repression of women, and to support the institution of slavery, is now being used as a means for repressing gay people. Based on its past, the church and the Bible it uses for support, doesn't have the most credible of track records.
At this point it is worth noting that two of the main verses used by religious fundamentalists come from the book of Leviticus, which also includes a number of stringent requirements and punishments related to such requirements, for a variety of other conditions and behaviors, including what can and can't be eaten. Naturally, those who use this book to oppose homosexuality are probably unaware of what is in the rest of the book, and even less interested in following it should they be pointed out.
Other sexual matters include the practice of circumcision. Spong suggests that the practice of circumcision may have its roots (no pun intended) in the fact that women bled during menstruation and men wanted to replicate this condition they saw in women. Because blood was very important in those days (and in ours) there was a great deal of mystery around the fact that while women bled from the genitals they did not die. Spong argues that because men feared women, or at least this aspect of womanhood, they feared that in bleeding but not dying, women possessed a power not available to them. To compensate, men established the ritual of circumcision. This allowed them the opportunity to bleed from the genitals and not die (remember, circumcision was originally practiced on adolescent males, not newborns, as is the practice now). While this may be conjecture, it says something about the fact that the necessity for circumcision, at least in the Old Testament, goes relatively unchallenged by most Bible believers. Because the Bible suggests the act was given by God as a means to separate His people, most Bible believers take it at that. Although the apostolic church later rescinded this requirement for new gentile converts, the role of circumcision in the religious community has declined in importance. But its origins are left largely uninvestigated. And Biblical literalists should remember that the issue of circumcision was determined by God to be of such importance, that the Bible says that God set out to kill Moses when Moses was on his way to Egypt to deliver Israel from slavery, because Moses had not conducted this ritual on his sons. (this after God had given Moses the command and the promise of His protection to go to Egypt to begin with).
On matters of sex, gender roles, and slavery, the statements of the Bible have not been shining examples of enlightenment and have not faired well over time.
So then, how do we address this matter of Biblical literalism and inerrancy? That will be the subject for future posts.
And I think it's fair to say that there is little difference between most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church hierarchy on this point. Evangelical Protestants reject the authority of the Pope, but not church authority in general. Of course, if one is unhappy with the Biblical interpretations and pronouncements of a particular church or denomination, than one is free to leave I suppose. But there is little space for debate, which may be part of the explanation for the multitude of denominations. And furthermore, one's salvation is supposed to be at stake.
Now, in my previous post I suggested that while the scientific arguments against Biblical literalism were interesting but not necessarily persuasive, I do think Biblical literalism has faired less well in terms of perhaps the most important area of life, and that is its moral pronouncements and its social prohibitions.
Some of these problem areas are familiar to non-Christians, even if most churches tend to dismiss or excuse them.
Let's consider the role of women. A supreme court ruling in the late 1800's judged against a woman's demand for the right to practice law. This court's ruling, included in Spong's Sins, includes the majority decision that the woman did not have the right to practice law (although educated for it) because of Biblical admonitions about the role of women in public life. And there is no doubt that at least some portions of scripture call for female submission to the male, in the home, the church, and presumably, in the community. On this issue, the secular world eventually turned against the church and acted to provide greater rights and opportunities for women. Spong contends that the church also opposed the right to vote for women (finally extended via Constitutional Amendment in 1920). Undoubtedly this is true for at least some church leaders and denominations. A more empirical study would be interesting. But in any event, the overwhelming evidence is that the church, and political leaders who justified their conclusions on the Bible, have been behind the rest of society when it came to improving the lives and rights of women.
The same could be said for slavery. While support for the institution of slavery was no doubt based more on economic necessity than on Biblical standing, a large portion of the Bible believing community supported slavery, while many more secular groups and leaders in society opposed it. The debate and conflict over segregation a century later similarly pitted mostly secular leaders and students against an entrenched and privileged religious superstructure, and at least for many whites in the south, the struggle to maintain power through segregation was framed in religious terms and relied on the Bible for spotty, if not authoritative support. So again, the political and social beliefs of the church, and political leaders using the Bible for authority, have been found wanting in the passage of time, as their ideas and claims came to be seen as illogical and inhumane.
Which brings us to sex, and homosexuality in particular. The church that calls for opposition to homosexuality and gay persons, does so on the basis of Biblical passages. The same Church and the same Bible that was once used to justify repression of women, and to support the institution of slavery, is now being used as a means for repressing gay people. Based on its past, the church and the Bible it uses for support, doesn't have the most credible of track records.
At this point it is worth noting that two of the main verses used by religious fundamentalists come from the book of Leviticus, which also includes a number of stringent requirements and punishments related to such requirements, for a variety of other conditions and behaviors, including what can and can't be eaten. Naturally, those who use this book to oppose homosexuality are probably unaware of what is in the rest of the book, and even less interested in following it should they be pointed out.
Other sexual matters include the practice of circumcision. Spong suggests that the practice of circumcision may have its roots (no pun intended) in the fact that women bled during menstruation and men wanted to replicate this condition they saw in women. Because blood was very important in those days (and in ours) there was a great deal of mystery around the fact that while women bled from the genitals they did not die. Spong argues that because men feared women, or at least this aspect of womanhood, they feared that in bleeding but not dying, women possessed a power not available to them. To compensate, men established the ritual of circumcision. This allowed them the opportunity to bleed from the genitals and not die (remember, circumcision was originally practiced on adolescent males, not newborns, as is the practice now). While this may be conjecture, it says something about the fact that the necessity for circumcision, at least in the Old Testament, goes relatively unchallenged by most Bible believers. Because the Bible suggests the act was given by God as a means to separate His people, most Bible believers take it at that. Although the apostolic church later rescinded this requirement for new gentile converts, the role of circumcision in the religious community has declined in importance. But its origins are left largely uninvestigated. And Biblical literalists should remember that the issue of circumcision was determined by God to be of such importance, that the Bible says that God set out to kill Moses when Moses was on his way to Egypt to deliver Israel from slavery, because Moses had not conducted this ritual on his sons. (this after God had given Moses the command and the promise of His protection to go to Egypt to begin with).
On matters of sex, gender roles, and slavery, the statements of the Bible have not been shining examples of enlightenment and have not faired well over time.
So then, how do we address this matter of Biblical literalism and inerrancy? That will be the subject for future posts.
What is Biblical Literalism?
The Senator had been after me for at least a week to get him a copy of James Wolcott's Attack Poodles, which I did, and along the way I picked up Bishop John Shelby Spong's The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love.
Spong, a retired Episcopalian Bishop of Newark, NJ (he's originally from NC), is notorious or heroic, depending on your perspective, as a religious who believes the Bible is essentially a historic epic, a compilation of narratives, myths, and strands of wisdom, but that which is nevertheless, infected by the primitive thoughts of its eras. The Bible is not, he says, the so-called Word of God. For those of us raised in the literalist, fundamentalist tradition, Spong's arguments are surprising. And in many cases illuminating.
Now, I should probably point out that there are very few individuals or orders that take the Bible absolutely literally. Most who claim to do so really have no knowledge, let alone intention, of returning to a strict constructivist understanding and implementation of the various laws demanded by books such as Levicticus, or think people picking up sticks on the Sabbath should be executed (Numbers), or think the slavery stipulations of Exodus are reputable. Most of this contingent seems unaware of the teachings of Jesus as well, but that's for another day.
In Sins, Spong challenges the conventional fundamentalist use of Biblical passages relating to the environment, women, homosexuality, children, and Jews. Unlike many religious liberals, Spong doesn't merely allege that the fundamentalist right has misinterpreted these verses or misapplied them, he alleges they shouldn't be used at all as guidelines for living because they arose from the beliefs and values of the people of the time and shouldn't be understood as divine authorizations.
His arguments are clear although fairly thorough so I won't replicate them here. Read the book.
But I do want to begin a dialogue or at least a monologue about the Bible, how we should understand it, and whether with the advance of civilization since antiquity, its moral positions continue to be valid.
While the Bible as Myth argument has its own challenges, I'll choose today to focus on the problems associated with the literalist view.
The first set of problems concerns those statements or actions from the Bible that are either illogical or highly questionable if not detestable. I would include in the illogical subcategory those various prohibitions, such as those against homosexuality, as well as the various rules related to cleanliness and uncleanliness, some of which specifically related to women, during their times of menstruation and after giving birth. The highly questionable or detestable incidents involve those where God is recorded as having killed the sons of Judah (Genesis), the killing of 70,000 Jews because of David's sin of numbering the people, Elijah calls down fire on messengers from the king, etc.
A somewhat related problem concerns those cases in which past Biblical injunctions have been proven faulty or undesireable. Assumptions about the earth as the center of the universe (which Galileo challenged, and was threated with excommunication or worse if he didn't recant, which he did) represented in part by Joshua's commanding the sun to "stand still" so as to preserve daylight needed to rout the enemy. As we understand now, the sun doesn't "stand still" for us. We move around it. For Spong, verses like this are a real issue, demonstrating the Bible's lack of credibility. I'm not sure this is the case. As one biblical commentary put it (an apologetic defense, obviously), this could be thought of as merely a figure of speech, such as when we say things like, the sun rises, or the sun sets. Neither of those comments are literally accurate, but just ways of expressing what we see. But in any event, the Catholic church of a couple hundred years ago used the Joshua passage as indicating Galileo's fault. Galileo was eventually proven correct, and the Roman Catholic church got around to apologizing in 1991.
For Spong, later scientific discoveries, such as those by Newton, Einstein and Darwin, challenged conventional views derived from a literal reading of scripture, and provide additional evidence that the Bible should not be interpreted literally, particularly in the case of miracles and other tricks. Again, I'm not sure that the discoveries that the bodies of earth operated according to fixed principles is an argument against miracles. If God is outside of time and space, and omniscient, than He or She can control the forces of nature (even making the "sun stand still").
But if the case against biblical literalism and infallibility on the basis of natural discoveries is less than totally convincing, the problems stemming from Biblical statements regarding sex, women, children, and slavery deserve greater inquiry. It is to this that I will turn in a further post.
Spong, a retired Episcopalian Bishop of Newark, NJ (he's originally from NC), is notorious or heroic, depending on your perspective, as a religious who believes the Bible is essentially a historic epic, a compilation of narratives, myths, and strands of wisdom, but that which is nevertheless, infected by the primitive thoughts of its eras. The Bible is not, he says, the so-called Word of God. For those of us raised in the literalist, fundamentalist tradition, Spong's arguments are surprising. And in many cases illuminating.
Now, I should probably point out that there are very few individuals or orders that take the Bible absolutely literally. Most who claim to do so really have no knowledge, let alone intention, of returning to a strict constructivist understanding and implementation of the various laws demanded by books such as Levicticus, or think people picking up sticks on the Sabbath should be executed (Numbers), or think the slavery stipulations of Exodus are reputable. Most of this contingent seems unaware of the teachings of Jesus as well, but that's for another day.
In Sins, Spong challenges the conventional fundamentalist use of Biblical passages relating to the environment, women, homosexuality, children, and Jews. Unlike many religious liberals, Spong doesn't merely allege that the fundamentalist right has misinterpreted these verses or misapplied them, he alleges they shouldn't be used at all as guidelines for living because they arose from the beliefs and values of the people of the time and shouldn't be understood as divine authorizations.
His arguments are clear although fairly thorough so I won't replicate them here. Read the book.
But I do want to begin a dialogue or at least a monologue about the Bible, how we should understand it, and whether with the advance of civilization since antiquity, its moral positions continue to be valid.
While the Bible as Myth argument has its own challenges, I'll choose today to focus on the problems associated with the literalist view.
The first set of problems concerns those statements or actions from the Bible that are either illogical or highly questionable if not detestable. I would include in the illogical subcategory those various prohibitions, such as those against homosexuality, as well as the various rules related to cleanliness and uncleanliness, some of which specifically related to women, during their times of menstruation and after giving birth. The highly questionable or detestable incidents involve those where God is recorded as having killed the sons of Judah (Genesis), the killing of 70,000 Jews because of David's sin of numbering the people, Elijah calls down fire on messengers from the king, etc.
A somewhat related problem concerns those cases in which past Biblical injunctions have been proven faulty or undesireable. Assumptions about the earth as the center of the universe (which Galileo challenged, and was threated with excommunication or worse if he didn't recant, which he did) represented in part by Joshua's commanding the sun to "stand still" so as to preserve daylight needed to rout the enemy. As we understand now, the sun doesn't "stand still" for us. We move around it. For Spong, verses like this are a real issue, demonstrating the Bible's lack of credibility. I'm not sure this is the case. As one biblical commentary put it (an apologetic defense, obviously), this could be thought of as merely a figure of speech, such as when we say things like, the sun rises, or the sun sets. Neither of those comments are literally accurate, but just ways of expressing what we see. But in any event, the Catholic church of a couple hundred years ago used the Joshua passage as indicating Galileo's fault. Galileo was eventually proven correct, and the Roman Catholic church got around to apologizing in 1991.
For Spong, later scientific discoveries, such as those by Newton, Einstein and Darwin, challenged conventional views derived from a literal reading of scripture, and provide additional evidence that the Bible should not be interpreted literally, particularly in the case of miracles and other tricks. Again, I'm not sure that the discoveries that the bodies of earth operated according to fixed principles is an argument against miracles. If God is outside of time and space, and omniscient, than He or She can control the forces of nature (even making the "sun stand still").
But if the case against biblical literalism and infallibility on the basis of natural discoveries is less than totally convincing, the problems stemming from Biblical statements regarding sex, women, children, and slavery deserve greater inquiry. It is to this that I will turn in a further post.
Filibuster Compromise--The Final Cut
Basically I see this as a short term win for Democrats: They were going to lose the procedural vote implementing the nuclear option; consequently, all seven of the feudalists judges would likely have been confirmed. Now that number is down to three.
The long term image is different. Forcing the nuclear option now would have opened Republicans up to charges of overreach and recklessness and at the same time, ensured that any Democratically controlled government in the future will not be inclined to give minority Republicans any leeway. If, however, the Republicans forestall the use of the nuclear option for a later date, say when a controversial supreme court pick is made, it may appear to be a more reasoned, one time only decision. Democrats could respond as they have already that Republicans filibustered an LBJ judical pick in 68, but the Republicans may ultimately get the better of the argument when the dispute is over one supreme court nomination.
Ultimately, the Democrats are in a tough position because they keep losing elections. While the reelection of W was not surprising, the changes in the House are partly from redistricting, which in itself is a reflection of declining power at the state level, and the 2004 Senate losses were near catastrophic.
Which leads us back to the prospects for a Democratic realignment. I may be overly pessimistic, but I don't think strategies such as "reframing" (associated with George Lakoff) or emphasizing a new "reform" agenda (associated with Ruy Teixeira at Donkey Rising) are likely going to sway many folk. While I prefer a libertarian appeal, aimed at the abuses and civil liberties violating ambitions of the religious fundamentalists, I'm afraid the next Democratic realignment will come in the aftermath of a large economic or political shock, as it did during the depression. Then the party will be left with the need to pick up the pieces. And if the next crisis is a religious one, where dominionists attempt to implement or in fact are successful in passing at least a portion of their reconstructionist agenda than the scale of the crisis will make a democratic realignment tough indeed. At least an economic collapse would provide an incentive for new policies. A religious crisis may not as easily lend itself to an outright collapse of government, making political and policy change more difficult to achieve.
More about this in further posts.
The long term image is different. Forcing the nuclear option now would have opened Republicans up to charges of overreach and recklessness and at the same time, ensured that any Democratically controlled government in the future will not be inclined to give minority Republicans any leeway. If, however, the Republicans forestall the use of the nuclear option for a later date, say when a controversial supreme court pick is made, it may appear to be a more reasoned, one time only decision. Democrats could respond as they have already that Republicans filibustered an LBJ judical pick in 68, but the Republicans may ultimately get the better of the argument when the dispute is over one supreme court nomination.
Ultimately, the Democrats are in a tough position because they keep losing elections. While the reelection of W was not surprising, the changes in the House are partly from redistricting, which in itself is a reflection of declining power at the state level, and the 2004 Senate losses were near catastrophic.
Which leads us back to the prospects for a Democratic realignment. I may be overly pessimistic, but I don't think strategies such as "reframing" (associated with George Lakoff) or emphasizing a new "reform" agenda (associated with Ruy Teixeira at Donkey Rising) are likely going to sway many folk. While I prefer a libertarian appeal, aimed at the abuses and civil liberties violating ambitions of the religious fundamentalists, I'm afraid the next Democratic realignment will come in the aftermath of a large economic or political shock, as it did during the depression. Then the party will be left with the need to pick up the pieces. And if the next crisis is a religious one, where dominionists attempt to implement or in fact are successful in passing at least a portion of their reconstructionist agenda than the scale of the crisis will make a democratic realignment tough indeed. At least an economic collapse would provide an incentive for new policies. A religious crisis may not as easily lend itself to an outright collapse of government, making political and policy change more difficult to achieve.
More about this in further posts.
Winning and Losing
After a day of R and R yesterday, the Senator woke up this morning to find that a compromise had been reached over the president's judicial nominees and the nuclear option. What do we make of this?
Over at the CarpetbaggerReport, they are saying the interpretation depends on what we think the outcome would have been had the nuclear option been voted on. As this blog indicated some days ago, we believe the nuclear option would have been exercised, and the filibuster voted down and out. Advantage: Democrats.
But there's another point, isn't there? It's about what the outcome would have been had the nuclear option been voted on and either supported or rejected. Ezra Klein thinks progressives would have ultimately been hurt by the aftermath, being branded as obstructionists by either maintaining the filibuster of the nominees (if the nuclear option was voted down), or by grounding Senate work to a halt (as promised should the nuclear option been voted up). Since the ultimate goal, according to Ezra, was to preserve the filibuster for future Supreme Court picks, advantage Democrats.
Finally, assuming the nuclear option passes, Democrats are likely stuck with seven bad judges instead of just three. Assuming the option would fail, then Democrats get three bad judges instead of zero. There's a game theory conclusion here somewhere, where zero is the preferred result, seven is the least desired result, and three or four is the compromise. While this would normally be a break even result, the assumption that the option would pass means Dems would have been stuck with seven instead of three, their possible result. Advantage Democrats.
James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Free Republic posters ticked off--priceless.
A final further arguments goes to the effect of having these three put on their respective circuit court of appeals and the change in the balance of power they would cause. The confirmation of Owens and Prior wouldn't necessarily worsen their courts, but the confirmation of Brown would.
Cross your fingers that Brown is voted down.
Over at the CarpetbaggerReport, they are saying the interpretation depends on what we think the outcome would have been had the nuclear option been voted on. As this blog indicated some days ago, we believe the nuclear option would have been exercised, and the filibuster voted down and out. Advantage: Democrats.
But there's another point, isn't there? It's about what the outcome would have been had the nuclear option been voted on and either supported or rejected. Ezra Klein thinks progressives would have ultimately been hurt by the aftermath, being branded as obstructionists by either maintaining the filibuster of the nominees (if the nuclear option was voted down), or by grounding Senate work to a halt (as promised should the nuclear option been voted up). Since the ultimate goal, according to Ezra, was to preserve the filibuster for future Supreme Court picks, advantage Democrats.
Finally, assuming the nuclear option passes, Democrats are likely stuck with seven bad judges instead of just three. Assuming the option would fail, then Democrats get three bad judges instead of zero. There's a game theory conclusion here somewhere, where zero is the preferred result, seven is the least desired result, and three or four is the compromise. While this would normally be a break even result, the assumption that the option would pass means Dems would have been stuck with seven instead of three, their possible result. Advantage Democrats.
James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Free Republic posters ticked off--priceless.
A final further arguments goes to the effect of having these three put on their respective circuit court of appeals and the change in the balance of power they would cause. The confirmation of Owens and Prior wouldn't necessarily worsen their courts, but the confirmation of Brown would.
Cross your fingers that Brown is voted down.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Senator Bulworth writes to the national right to life committee
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for your recent press release in which you called on Senate Democrats to cease blocking a bill you favor. In the press release your organization, the national right to life committee said:
In the Senate, a parental notification bill (S. 8/S. 403), sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nv.), has 38 sponsors (37 of them Republicans). This bill has been listed among the "top ten" priorities by the Senate Republican leadership, but the Senate Democratic Leadership has erected procedural obstacles that have prevented its early consideration.
"It is outrageous that the Senate Democratic caucus has thrown up procedural obstacles to block parental notification legislation, despite numerous polls showing 75 percent or more of the public supports requiring parental notification,” commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
Doug, allow me to introduce you to the workings of the American political system. Although several authors have written on this subject, I especially liked the summary composed by the family research council's senior writer seven years ago when his organization, and I assume yours, were opposing President Clinton's nominees and initiatives. The Family Research Council's senior writer, Steven Schwalm, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.
"The Senate," he said, "is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it's got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That's why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly."
So, there you have it.
Thank you for playing.
Love,
Jay B. Bulworth
U.S. Senator
Thank you for your recent press release in which you called on Senate Democrats to cease blocking a bill you favor. In the press release your organization, the national right to life committee said:
In the Senate, a parental notification bill (S. 8/S. 403), sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nv.), has 38 sponsors (37 of them Republicans). This bill has been listed among the "top ten" priorities by the Senate Republican leadership, but the Senate Democratic Leadership has erected procedural obstacles that have prevented its early consideration.
"It is outrageous that the Senate Democratic caucus has thrown up procedural obstacles to block parental notification legislation, despite numerous polls showing 75 percent or more of the public supports requiring parental notification,” commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
Doug, allow me to introduce you to the workings of the American political system. Although several authors have written on this subject, I especially liked the summary composed by the family research council's senior writer seven years ago when his organization, and I assume yours, were opposing President Clinton's nominees and initiatives. The Family Research Council's senior writer, Steven Schwalm, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.
"The Senate," he said, "is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it's got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That's why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly."
So, there you have it.
Thank you for playing.
Love,
Jay B. Bulworth
U.S. Senator
Bobo's World
Maybe all that right wing talk about moral relativism has some basis after all.
With apologies to the great Atrios, who usually tracks these events for us, allow me to do the honors with this gem from, where else, Texas:
LINDEN, Texas (AP) -- After a mentally disabled black man was found beaten, unconscious, and shivering on a fire ant mound in 2003, four white men charged in the crime could have faced 10 years in prison.
But folks in this poor, pine-locked Texas hamlet of 2,300 say they knew better.
On Friday, the four young men accused of severely injuring 44-year-old Billy Ray Johnson during a late-night pasture party are expected to be sentenced to probation or brief jail time after juries rejected more serious charges and recommended suspended sentences for two of them.
The victim survived the attack but can't walk without help or speak clearly.
Some white residents believe it is a fair outcome for a few "good boys" from prominent families with no previous legal trouble. But other residents, blacks and whites, say the sentences are far from fair and just another example of justice being tainted by small-town politics, racism and a court system that favors whites.
"They devalued his life. A lot of people might not of thought it was worth much, but it was his. And they got nothing," said black resident Alma Linwood, a lab technician who lives on the country road where Johnson was found. "It's actually not a surprise. It's pretty much what I figured would happen. That's just the way it is."
A judge is scheduled Friday to sentence defendants John Wesley "Wes" Owens, 22, Dallas Stone, 19, James Cory Hicks, 26, and Christopher Colt Amox, 20.
Authorities have said that Johnson, well-known around town as a friendly but "slow" character who loved dancing, was lured to an all-white pasture party where underage drinkers fed him alcohol and picked on him.
"I feel like he was invited to be taunted because of his limited mental capacity, not so much his race," said District Attorney Randal Lee, who is white. "He was the entertainment for the night."
Owens and Stone, who pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony charge of injury to a disabled person by omission, testified that Amox and Johnson were arguing about country versus rap music when Amox told Johnson to leave.
Then Amox swung at Johnson, who fell and began vomiting and gagging, according to testimony. The men loaded Johnson into a truck and drove to an old tire dump, where they left him on an ant hill.
Doctors soon determined he had suffered a concussion that, without medical attention, could have killed him, Lee said. Johnson was hospitalized for weeks. He now resides in a nursing home, undergoes rehabilitation and is unable to walk without help or speak clearly.
Amox, facing the same felony charge as Owens and Stone, was convicted of misdemeanor assault in March. The jury recommended a suspended one-year jail sentence, meaning no time behind bars.
This month, a different jury found Hicks guilty of the felony charge, which carries a penalty of two to 10 years in prison. That jury recommended that Hicks' three-year prison sentence also be suspended.
Owens and Stone agreed in their plea deals to 30 days in the county jail and a $2,000 fine.
I feel like he (Johnson) was invited to be taunted because of his limited mental capacity, not so much his race. He was the entertainment for the night.-- Randal Lee, district attorney
Lee, the district attorney, said the juries' decisions were in line with other juries who sympathize with first-time offenders. And he pointed out that the so-called beating involved one punch.
"This is not that horrible of an outcome. They were all convicted, they'll all be on probation, they'll all have a criminal record, they'll all be watched," he said. "They didn't get off scot-free."
Dennis Spears, 59, a white man whose owns a countertop business in town, said he was struck by the verdicts but empathized with the plight of young boys making bad choices under peer pressure.
"Only thing I saw about it, they oughtn't to have dumped him. They could have taken him to the hospital just as easy," Spears said as he drank coffee at a country store with friends. "Things just got out of hand."
But R.C. Taylor, a white retired heavy equipment operator and barber, said the boys didn't deserve harsh punishment.
"It's been handled good as far as I'm concerned. They ought not to have been tried at all," Taylor said. "I think they should be turned loose, set free, with a slap on the wrist. It was just one of those things."
Others say that's the kind of attitude that led to the assault of Johnson.
"Whites stay with whites, blacks stay with blacks and the American flag still flies like a rebel flag," said Donovan Epps, a black 22-year-old hanging out with friends at Dairy Queen. "Getting probation is just like not getting tried at all. You leave a person for dead, that's like murder."
Just blowing off steam. Well, it was 2003 after all. Things have certainly changed by now.
With apologies to the great Atrios, who usually tracks these events for us, allow me to do the honors with this gem from, where else, Texas:
LINDEN, Texas (AP) -- After a mentally disabled black man was found beaten, unconscious, and shivering on a fire ant mound in 2003, four white men charged in the crime could have faced 10 years in prison.
But folks in this poor, pine-locked Texas hamlet of 2,300 say they knew better.
On Friday, the four young men accused of severely injuring 44-year-old Billy Ray Johnson during a late-night pasture party are expected to be sentenced to probation or brief jail time after juries rejected more serious charges and recommended suspended sentences for two of them.
The victim survived the attack but can't walk without help or speak clearly.
Some white residents believe it is a fair outcome for a few "good boys" from prominent families with no previous legal trouble. But other residents, blacks and whites, say the sentences are far from fair and just another example of justice being tainted by small-town politics, racism and a court system that favors whites.
"They devalued his life. A lot of people might not of thought it was worth much, but it was his. And they got nothing," said black resident Alma Linwood, a lab technician who lives on the country road where Johnson was found. "It's actually not a surprise. It's pretty much what I figured would happen. That's just the way it is."
A judge is scheduled Friday to sentence defendants John Wesley "Wes" Owens, 22, Dallas Stone, 19, James Cory Hicks, 26, and Christopher Colt Amox, 20.
Authorities have said that Johnson, well-known around town as a friendly but "slow" character who loved dancing, was lured to an all-white pasture party where underage drinkers fed him alcohol and picked on him.
"I feel like he was invited to be taunted because of his limited mental capacity, not so much his race," said District Attorney Randal Lee, who is white. "He was the entertainment for the night."
Owens and Stone, who pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony charge of injury to a disabled person by omission, testified that Amox and Johnson were arguing about country versus rap music when Amox told Johnson to leave.
Then Amox swung at Johnson, who fell and began vomiting and gagging, according to testimony. The men loaded Johnson into a truck and drove to an old tire dump, where they left him on an ant hill.
Doctors soon determined he had suffered a concussion that, without medical attention, could have killed him, Lee said. Johnson was hospitalized for weeks. He now resides in a nursing home, undergoes rehabilitation and is unable to walk without help or speak clearly.
Amox, facing the same felony charge as Owens and Stone, was convicted of misdemeanor assault in March. The jury recommended a suspended one-year jail sentence, meaning no time behind bars.
This month, a different jury found Hicks guilty of the felony charge, which carries a penalty of two to 10 years in prison. That jury recommended that Hicks' three-year prison sentence also be suspended.
Owens and Stone agreed in their plea deals to 30 days in the county jail and a $2,000 fine.
I feel like he (Johnson) was invited to be taunted because of his limited mental capacity, not so much his race. He was the entertainment for the night.-- Randal Lee, district attorney
Lee, the district attorney, said the juries' decisions were in line with other juries who sympathize with first-time offenders. And he pointed out that the so-called beating involved one punch.
"This is not that horrible of an outcome. They were all convicted, they'll all be on probation, they'll all have a criminal record, they'll all be watched," he said. "They didn't get off scot-free."
Dennis Spears, 59, a white man whose owns a countertop business in town, said he was struck by the verdicts but empathized with the plight of young boys making bad choices under peer pressure.
"Only thing I saw about it, they oughtn't to have dumped him. They could have taken him to the hospital just as easy," Spears said as he drank coffee at a country store with friends. "Things just got out of hand."
But R.C. Taylor, a white retired heavy equipment operator and barber, said the boys didn't deserve harsh punishment.
"It's been handled good as far as I'm concerned. They ought not to have been tried at all," Taylor said. "I think they should be turned loose, set free, with a slap on the wrist. It was just one of those things."
Others say that's the kind of attitude that led to the assault of Johnson.
"Whites stay with whites, blacks stay with blacks and the American flag still flies like a rebel flag," said Donovan Epps, a black 22-year-old hanging out with friends at Dairy Queen. "Getting probation is just like not getting tried at all. You leave a person for dead, that's like murder."
Just blowing off steam. Well, it was 2003 after all. Things have certainly changed by now.
Just When You Thought It Was Safe
Just when you thought it was safe to turn the tv on again, to give the cable news stations a glance, to see what new made for tv movie would show up on one of the networks, just when you thought it was safe to assume that, investigation, indictment, trial, and conviction completed, no more Scott-Lacey-Peterson stories would threaten your couch potato ways, it comes crawling back and pulls you back in.
Janel Moloney ("The West Wing") stars as Amber Frey in this drama based on Frey's life story and book Witness: For the Prosecution of Scott Peterson.
When Amber Frey (Moloney) meets Scott Peterson (Nathan Anderson), she thinks that she has finally met the man of her dreams. He's handsome and smart, kind and considerate, and claims to be single and ready to settle down. But when Amber begins to suspect that something is amiss with Scott's story, she accepts an investigator friend's offer to check him out.
Scott is supposedly taking a trip to Europe on the night the investigator calls Amber and tells her to turn on the news. She's stunned to see Scott talking about the fact that his wife, Laci, eight months pregnant with their son, Connor, is missing. Realizing that everything Scott has told her is a lie, Amber calls the Modesto Police Department, tells them she is dating Scott Peterson, and offers to do whatever she can to help.
The Modesto Police ask Amber to tape her conversations with Scott and encourage her to try and get information that could be used in their investigation. Amber also decides to go public with her own story, apologizes to Laci's family and offers to help find her.
In the process, Amber's own life is forever changed as the most intimate personal details of the single mother's life are reported daily in the media.
The pressure builds as she continues to take risks for justice and realizes her testimony and taped telephone calls with Scott Peterson will be key to the prosecution's case against him.
Unlike the other movie about this case, this time the producers got actors that actually look like the real life drama's participants.
Where will it end? Who can stop it? Please, make it stop.
Janel Moloney ("The West Wing") stars as Amber Frey in this drama based on Frey's life story and book Witness: For the Prosecution of Scott Peterson.
When Amber Frey (Moloney) meets Scott Peterson (Nathan Anderson), she thinks that she has finally met the man of her dreams. He's handsome and smart, kind and considerate, and claims to be single and ready to settle down. But when Amber begins to suspect that something is amiss with Scott's story, she accepts an investigator friend's offer to check him out.
Scott is supposedly taking a trip to Europe on the night the investigator calls Amber and tells her to turn on the news. She's stunned to see Scott talking about the fact that his wife, Laci, eight months pregnant with their son, Connor, is missing. Realizing that everything Scott has told her is a lie, Amber calls the Modesto Police Department, tells them she is dating Scott Peterson, and offers to do whatever she can to help.
The Modesto Police ask Amber to tape her conversations with Scott and encourage her to try and get information that could be used in their investigation. Amber also decides to go public with her own story, apologizes to Laci's family and offers to help find her.
In the process, Amber's own life is forever changed as the most intimate personal details of the single mother's life are reported daily in the media.
The pressure builds as she continues to take risks for justice and realizes her testimony and taped telephone calls with Scott Peterson will be key to the prosecution's case against him.
Unlike the other movie about this case, this time the producers got actors that actually look like the real life drama's participants.
Where will it end? Who can stop it? Please, make it stop.
Flip Flopping
It's for reasons like this, that Andrew Sullivan has earned his way back into my good graces and gotten himself a spot on my blog roll:
THE SPIN ON TORTURE: It has gone chronologically something like this: "Its not true. Its not true. It may be true but its not torture. Okay, its torture, but isnt official policy. It may be true and official policy, but we changed the policy and we uncovered the abuses ourselves. It may be true, it may have been widespread, but weve punished the culprits. It may be true, it may have been widespread, it may still be happening, but all these reports are old news." Well, give these guys points for effort. How about: it is true; it should never have happened; the people responsible for the policy as well as the criminals should be punished. Ah, but that would mean taking responsibility, wouldnt it? And we dont do that in this administration, do we? Even at the expense of hurting the war effort and staining the reputation of countless great soldiers in a noble cause.
THE SPIN ON TORTURE: It has gone chronologically something like this: "Its not true. Its not true. It may be true but its not torture. Okay, its torture, but isnt official policy. It may be true and official policy, but we changed the policy and we uncovered the abuses ourselves. It may be true, it may have been widespread, but weve punished the culprits. It may be true, it may have been widespread, it may still be happening, but all these reports are old news." Well, give these guys points for effort. How about: it is true; it should never have happened; the people responsible for the policy as well as the criminals should be punished. Ah, but that would mean taking responsibility, wouldnt it? And we dont do that in this administration, do we? Even at the expense of hurting the war effort and staining the reputation of countless great soldiers in a noble cause.
Bulworth Country
The Senator caught this exchange Monday night on Scarborough Country:
DR. BOB JENSEN, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Well, actually, the U.S. news media is not cynical enough. If we think of the way the U.S. corporate news media rolled over in, lets say, the runup to the war in Iraq, when the lies and the distortions of the Bush administration were never challenged, what we see is that, in these hyperpatriotic times, the news media isnt aggressive enough. The problem isnt not enough isnt too much coverage. Its not enough coverage.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Bob, what about Abu Ghraib? Did you not think The New York Times doing 43 pieces on it was not aggressive enough?
JENSEN: I think that when the United States is guilty of torture, murder and the sexual humiliation of prisoners, we should remember, by the way, that the story about the Koran has not been disproved. Its a question about sources. There are detainees who come out of these prisons who talk about this kind of treatment.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Professor, how do you prove a negative, though? How can you say it hasnt been disproved?
JENSEN: It hasnt been disproved because there are people who...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: How do you disprove a negative?
JENSEN: People who testify to this, that the United States government then denies it.
But in the context of the proved abuses by U.S. officials in these prisons, not just in Guantanamo, but in others, Abu Ghraib and, of course, in Bagram, we have a repeated record of up to and including homicide in these prisons. So is it so hard to believe...
Brent BOZELL (Media Research Center--ed): Oh, come on. Just stop that. Just stop that.
(CROSSTALK)
JENSEN: No, the record is clear.
BOZELL: Just stop that.
JENSEN: So, if you want to talk about what the United States news media had and has not done, my argument is, would be, it has not been aggressive enough. Now, did Newsweek perhaps represent a sources words improperly? Yes. Should it be corrected? Yes. But it doesnt go to the question of this pattern of abuse in U.S. facilities, both in Guantanamo and in the Middle East and Central Asia.
SCARBOROUGH: Brent Bozell, respond.
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: Let me put you on the record right now. You cite me the evidence of American soldiers murdering people in prisons.
JENSEN: Well, these are in reports that...
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: No, dont give me reports. You give me the evidence.
JENSEN: No, the evidence is from the Armys own reports. There have been homicides in these prisons. We have photographic evidence of the routine sexual humiliation of prisoners.
BOZELL: I didnt say about routine sexual humiliation. I talked about murders. Youre accusing the American military of murder. If you dont back it up, back off.
(CROSSTALK)
JENSEN: Well, Im not at my computer. Ill send you the sites tomorrow, Brent. You might want to put them up on your Web site.
BOZELL: In other words, you cant do it?
JENSEN: No, I can. If you want to talk about the, if you dont believe the governments own reports about homicides in these prisons...
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: Im saying, dont make allegations you cant back up on national television.
JENSEN: Ill back them up to you tomorrow, Brent. Give me a call.
BOZELL: Send it tomorrow.
JENSEN: The point is that theres a pattern of this kind of abuse. And to pretend that this story about the Koran is sort of fanciful I think is to ignore reality. I also think that youre willfully distorting the reality of these protests in places like Afghanistan. These are not simply a reaction to this. These are not simply spontaneous protests. Theres a political process going forward in Afghanistan. And many people, not just ex-Taliban or al Qaeda, but many people, disagree with the U.S. occupation. They disagree with long-term presence of U.S. military troops. And this event is being used, yes, its being used to whip up peoples opposition, but that opposition is real.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Ill tell you what, Professor. I invite you back tomorrow night. If you could get us those names.
JENSEN: I would love to.
----------
Taking time out from his busy schedule, Senator Bulworth addresses a letter to Brent Bozell of the conservative Media Research Center. A copy of the letter is sent to University of Texas professor of Journalism, Robert Jensen, who appeared on the segment with Bozell.
----------
Dear Mr. Bozell,
First, thank you for the excellent work you continue to do to ensure conservative interests are represented by the conservative media.
On Monday's Scarborough Country, you expressed an interest in any evidence documenting the murder of detainees by U.S. prison officials or staff members.
I was surprised you hadn't already read the Taguba report, which documented just such a case, but in any event, the New York Times this morning provides evidence of two more death cases, based on a new military report.
For your convenience, I have provided a link to a summary of the Taguba Report authorized by the U.S. military: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001. It's a bit cumbersome to read, there's lots of numbers and stuff, but I trust you can give it the sufficient time it warrants.
You can read the NYT story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?
Now, unfortunately I've been unable to provide you with any direct evidence of the murder, such as blood, DNA, fingerprints, fingernail clippings, or video or audio tape, but I hope you will consider the military documentation sufficient evidence, since I know how fond you are of that institution.
Once again, thank you, Brent, for your tireless efforts on behalf of this country's conservative elite. They need all the help they can get. Be assured you have our complete confidence and gratitude. If I or my staff can be of any further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Jay B. Bulworth
U.S. Senator
cc: Robert Jensen, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin.
DR. BOB JENSEN, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Well, actually, the U.S. news media is not cynical enough. If we think of the way the U.S. corporate news media rolled over in, lets say, the runup to the war in Iraq, when the lies and the distortions of the Bush administration were never challenged, what we see is that, in these hyperpatriotic times, the news media isnt aggressive enough. The problem isnt not enough isnt too much coverage. Its not enough coverage.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Bob, what about Abu Ghraib? Did you not think The New York Times doing 43 pieces on it was not aggressive enough?
JENSEN: I think that when the United States is guilty of torture, murder and the sexual humiliation of prisoners, we should remember, by the way, that the story about the Koran has not been disproved. Its a question about sources. There are detainees who come out of these prisons who talk about this kind of treatment.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Professor, how do you prove a negative, though? How can you say it hasnt been disproved?
JENSEN: It hasnt been disproved because there are people who...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: How do you disprove a negative?
JENSEN: People who testify to this, that the United States government then denies it.
But in the context of the proved abuses by U.S. officials in these prisons, not just in Guantanamo, but in others, Abu Ghraib and, of course, in Bagram, we have a repeated record of up to and including homicide in these prisons. So is it so hard to believe...
Brent BOZELL (Media Research Center--ed): Oh, come on. Just stop that. Just stop that.
(CROSSTALK)
JENSEN: No, the record is clear.
BOZELL: Just stop that.
JENSEN: So, if you want to talk about what the United States news media had and has not done, my argument is, would be, it has not been aggressive enough. Now, did Newsweek perhaps represent a sources words improperly? Yes. Should it be corrected? Yes. But it doesnt go to the question of this pattern of abuse in U.S. facilities, both in Guantanamo and in the Middle East and Central Asia.
SCARBOROUGH: Brent Bozell, respond.
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: Let me put you on the record right now. You cite me the evidence of American soldiers murdering people in prisons.
JENSEN: Well, these are in reports that...
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: No, dont give me reports. You give me the evidence.
JENSEN: No, the evidence is from the Armys own reports. There have been homicides in these prisons. We have photographic evidence of the routine sexual humiliation of prisoners.
BOZELL: I didnt say about routine sexual humiliation. I talked about murders. Youre accusing the American military of murder. If you dont back it up, back off.
(CROSSTALK)
JENSEN: Well, Im not at my computer. Ill send you the sites tomorrow, Brent. You might want to put them up on your Web site.
BOZELL: In other words, you cant do it?
JENSEN: No, I can. If you want to talk about the, if you dont believe the governments own reports about homicides in these prisons...
(CROSSTALK)
BOZELL: Im saying, dont make allegations you cant back up on national television.
JENSEN: Ill back them up to you tomorrow, Brent. Give me a call.
BOZELL: Send it tomorrow.
JENSEN: The point is that theres a pattern of this kind of abuse. And to pretend that this story about the Koran is sort of fanciful I think is to ignore reality. I also think that youre willfully distorting the reality of these protests in places like Afghanistan. These are not simply a reaction to this. These are not simply spontaneous protests. Theres a political process going forward in Afghanistan. And many people, not just ex-Taliban or al Qaeda, but many people, disagree with the U.S. occupation. They disagree with long-term presence of U.S. military troops. And this event is being used, yes, its being used to whip up peoples opposition, but that opposition is real.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Ill tell you what, Professor. I invite you back tomorrow night. If you could get us those names.
JENSEN: I would love to.
----------
Taking time out from his busy schedule, Senator Bulworth addresses a letter to Brent Bozell of the conservative Media Research Center. A copy of the letter is sent to University of Texas professor of Journalism, Robert Jensen, who appeared on the segment with Bozell.
----------
Dear Mr. Bozell,
First, thank you for the excellent work you continue to do to ensure conservative interests are represented by the conservative media.
On Monday's Scarborough Country, you expressed an interest in any evidence documenting the murder of detainees by U.S. prison officials or staff members.
I was surprised you hadn't already read the Taguba report, which documented just such a case, but in any event, the New York Times this morning provides evidence of two more death cases, based on a new military report.
For your convenience, I have provided a link to a summary of the Taguba Report authorized by the U.S. military: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001. It's a bit cumbersome to read, there's lots of numbers and stuff, but I trust you can give it the sufficient time it warrants.
You can read the NYT story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?
Now, unfortunately I've been unable to provide you with any direct evidence of the murder, such as blood, DNA, fingerprints, fingernail clippings, or video or audio tape, but I hope you will consider the military documentation sufficient evidence, since I know how fond you are of that institution.
Once again, thank you, Brent, for your tireless efforts on behalf of this country's conservative elite. They need all the help they can get. Be assured you have our complete confidence and gratitude. If I or my staff can be of any further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Jay B. Bulworth
U.S. Senator
cc: Robert Jensen, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Filibuster or Bust
All seven get filibustered. That's our deal. No deals. Just bring it.
If the Repubs want to scuttle the filibuster, obstensibly just for judicial nominees who are presumed to have majority support, but in principle for any old reason 't all, then, please go ahead.
These seven, feudalists all, won't significantly kick back further the cause of civil rights than what you guys have already succeeded in doing. And if you want to bring more feudalist, religious dominionists up for nomination, we'll filibuster them too. And then you can scuttle the filibuster again. And on and on. And we'll remember.
Meanwhile, dear Democrats, hear this. And hear it well. Those "centrist" Republicans you think are gonna defy the WH and their Party on this, for the sake of Senate tradition and friendly bipartisanship, well, they aren't. Nope. McCain maybe. One of the Maine Senators, could be. But these teases you're getting from Sununu, Hagel, Pat Roberts, Voinovich, Chaffey, nah. They'll lead you on, making you think you're going to succeed with the filibuster, and then before you can say, William Henry Harrison, they're gonna vote with their Party. Here's a prediction: They won't even need Cheney's tie-breaking vote.
Some Democrats and press reports gossiping about the supposed reluctance of some "centrist" Repubs to smacking down the filibuster remind me of that night you were thinking your great looking date, who you never thought would give you the time of day but who actually agreed to go out with you, was going to agree to go a little further. But at the last moment, she didn't. Did she? You were in the car getting all steamed up, and then, outta nowhere, she put up the stop sign.* You went home proud of how far you actually did get, and maybe you even had thoughts you could call her later and try again. But you went as far as you would. After a time, you settled in and realized you needed to try somewhere else. That's these "centrist" Repubs. You ain't gettin Sununu's vote, or Roberts' or Voinovich's.
They'll get their nominees through, and then we'll move on. There's more work to do.
*The author denies any and all reports that any such examples from his past conform to even the slightest degree with the illustration discussed here.
If the Repubs want to scuttle the filibuster, obstensibly just for judicial nominees who are presumed to have majority support, but in principle for any old reason 't all, then, please go ahead.
These seven, feudalists all, won't significantly kick back further the cause of civil rights than what you guys have already succeeded in doing. And if you want to bring more feudalist, religious dominionists up for nomination, we'll filibuster them too. And then you can scuttle the filibuster again. And on and on. And we'll remember.
Meanwhile, dear Democrats, hear this. And hear it well. Those "centrist" Republicans you think are gonna defy the WH and their Party on this, for the sake of Senate tradition and friendly bipartisanship, well, they aren't. Nope. McCain maybe. One of the Maine Senators, could be. But these teases you're getting from Sununu, Hagel, Pat Roberts, Voinovich, Chaffey, nah. They'll lead you on, making you think you're going to succeed with the filibuster, and then before you can say, William Henry Harrison, they're gonna vote with their Party. Here's a prediction: They won't even need Cheney's tie-breaking vote.
Some Democrats and press reports gossiping about the supposed reluctance of some "centrist" Repubs to smacking down the filibuster remind me of that night you were thinking your great looking date, who you never thought would give you the time of day but who actually agreed to go out with you, was going to agree to go a little further. But at the last moment, she didn't. Did she? You were in the car getting all steamed up, and then, outta nowhere, she put up the stop sign.* You went home proud of how far you actually did get, and maybe you even had thoughts you could call her later and try again. But you went as far as you would. After a time, you settled in and realized you needed to try somewhere else. That's these "centrist" Repubs. You ain't gettin Sununu's vote, or Roberts' or Voinovich's.
They'll get their nominees through, and then we'll move on. There's more work to do.
*The author denies any and all reports that any such examples from his past conform to even the slightest degree with the illustration discussed here.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Things I think I think
I'm resigned to the idea that the Repubs will pull the nuclear option and will get their feudalist nominees through. But I'm not terribly distressed by this. I think the Repubs are opening a can of worms they may regret later. Not next year, or the year after, but maybe sooner than they think.
Like John McCowan, guest blogging at Michael Berube's perch, I think Jeb! will be the GOP '08 nominee. He's a governor of a state both parties need to win, and he's conservative enough for Repub primary voters. I think the Dem nominee will come down to Biden or Hilary. I would prefer the former. He's not the candidate I'd favor on economic issues, but I think he brings credibility to the party in the area of foreign policy and I think he gets the seriousness presented by the christian dominionists. He doesn't help with the electoral college, but of the other contenders, I think they either come from states that are unwinnable anyway, or would come from states that Dems have locked up either way.
Why are we having still more congressional hearings on steroids and professional sports?
The military base closing commission has announced a new round of whackings. The list has, predictably, come under fire from the states and regions affected. I realize I'd be more concerned if I was in one of the places dependent on the military for jobs. But I'm not. And as much as I am totally in love with Stephanie Hersheth, I'm not weeping for the proposed closure to the military base in S.D. South Dakotans are supposedly rugged individualists that hate government and love W and as a result, a reaping what they've sown. I regret any fallout for Steph, but as for the state's newest U.S. Senator, John Thune, gee, it couldn't happen to a more swell fella. And the downscaling of the military industrial complex is long overdue. The military is, among other things, a boondogle for weapons production, an excuse for poorly apportioned and mostly inefficient employment, and its oversized standing army represents a threat to liberties abroad and at home. Yeah I said it.
Like John McCowan, guest blogging at Michael Berube's perch, I think Jeb! will be the GOP '08 nominee. He's a governor of a state both parties need to win, and he's conservative enough for Repub primary voters. I think the Dem nominee will come down to Biden or Hilary. I would prefer the former. He's not the candidate I'd favor on economic issues, but I think he brings credibility to the party in the area of foreign policy and I think he gets the seriousness presented by the christian dominionists. He doesn't help with the electoral college, but of the other contenders, I think they either come from states that are unwinnable anyway, or would come from states that Dems have locked up either way.
Why are we having still more congressional hearings on steroids and professional sports?
The military base closing commission has announced a new round of whackings. The list has, predictably, come under fire from the states and regions affected. I realize I'd be more concerned if I was in one of the places dependent on the military for jobs. But I'm not. And as much as I am totally in love with Stephanie Hersheth, I'm not weeping for the proposed closure to the military base in S.D. South Dakotans are supposedly rugged individualists that hate government and love W and as a result, a reaping what they've sown. I regret any fallout for Steph, but as for the state's newest U.S. Senator, John Thune, gee, it couldn't happen to a more swell fella. And the downscaling of the military industrial complex is long overdue. The military is, among other things, a boondogle for weapons production, an excuse for poorly apportioned and mostly inefficient employment, and its oversized standing army represents a threat to liberties abroad and at home. Yeah I said it.
It Takes a Village (and other lessons children teach us)
Conservatives went all foamy at the mouth when Hilary Clinton penned her book with this title. Of course conservatives went foamy at the mouth just about any time the Mr. or Mrs. Clinton opened their mouths, but in any case...
A central tenet of conservative mythology is that the success and progress of a country hinges on the strength of the family. When the family disintegrates, society goes kaput. Hence, the primary goal of public policy is to "strengthen families", a mantra that is used to buttress policies ranging from bankruptcy "reform", welfare "reform", tax "relief", the infamous "gay marriage amendment" to the Constitution, "parental notification" abortion restrictions, and an assortment of other twisted and misnomered, anti-individual initiatives cloaked in sheeps clothing to appear "family friendly".
Now, the Bulworth thesis is that, first, this conservative myth is basically bupkes, and that, second, the failure of American liberalism and the Democratic Party is that it, or they, basically accept(s) the conservative diagnosis while lamely trying to refute its policy prescriptions. Consequently we are faced with a continuing series of inane calls for Democrats to embrace the language of "values", to move to the "center" or whatever flavor of sell-out that's currently fashionable so the mechanisms and designs of the political and religious elite remain unrecognized and unchallenged.
But you're thinking, why on earth, Senator Bulworth, are you trying to peddle such heresies as this? How can you say that the need to "strengthen families" is wrong?
First, I come to politics with the assumption that societies are comprised of three classes: the high, the middle and the low.* Now, among the first items of business for the elite is to either sell the notion that this distinction doesn't exist, or that if it does, it's justified because the low are lazy and immoral. And by becoming hard working, morally upright, yada yada yada, the low can become part and parcel members of the great American class of patriots. And everyone will live happily ever after if the low and dissenting members of the middle would just shut up and sing along to God Bless America during the seventh inning stretch.
But let's return to the three classes of people and what it means for the politics of family values. First, let's get this straight. The high (whether they be Hollywood actors or the heads of family research organizations) has no interest in being told how to run their families, or in being challenged on the basis of their morality or work ethic. And in the unlikely event that policies were crafted to regulate the family functioning of the high, we can be assured that the high won't be restricted or enlightened by them, primarily because they would be designed and implemented by the high itself. So to the extent that families need to be "strengthened", those families are not to be found among the higher classes.
Which leaves us with the middle and the low. First the middle. Now, by virture of the relative economic stability and modest educational attributes of this class, and because of the fact that despite what some conservatives and even some liberals might imagine, most families of the middle are not well depicted by scandalous TV shows such as "Desperate Housewives", the more juvenile (and Fox Entertainment sponsored) "O.C.", the family structures of the middle are pretty sound, or otherwise inpervious to any of the instruments that public policy might be brought to bear on them. Are there divorces and broken families among the middle classes? Well, yes, of course. Do they essentially affect the work and behavior of their family members? Essentially, no. Eric Harris and Dylan Klybold, the protagonists of the Columbine shootings were from typical, nuclear families. Most of the children from both solid and interrupted families adapt to their circumstances, and because whatever the degree of disruption that occurs, are more than likely to end up in a household that falls within the same middle class lifestyle, and hence, their lives don't change a lot. But the important point is that even if this was not so, there are no valid instruments of public policy "for the family" that would have much effect on them anyway. Increase in the child tax credit, more restrictive abortion laws, the outlawing of gay tolerance literature in public schools, and on and on, won't do much to affect the shape or behavior of the middle classes, other than to foment conflict and fear between families and locales and focus attention away from the ruling classes and the nature of the regime it commands.
So what is, or what are, the purpose(s) of all this ranting about the need for stronger family policies by groups like Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, etc? And what about the low classes?
First, the behaviors and habits of the low, as with Oceania's proles, are irrelevant to the needs of the superstructure. The members of the low only need be kept ignorant, imprisoned (think, War on Drugs), formally or informally segregated, or just kept convinced of their inefficacy and that their actions are unlikely to alter their conditions.
So, the morality police, like James Dobson and Bill Frist, emphasize "family values" to pit middle against middle, and middle against low. Daydreamers on the left who have fantasies about populist campaigns and the ultimate arising of the low, forget the need for a lower class upon which to pit their frustrations that has also been inherent during middle class oriented populist crusades.
So, Hilary, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, John Edwards, and the rest of you with ambitions for 2008: stop trying to imitate conservative philosophies and placate their imagined grievances. You're hurting America.
The primary task of government, besides the need to defend itself from enemies from abroad, is to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected, and that the coercive powers of the state, hierarchical religions, and the more subtle exertions of the economic elite to pit families and regions against one another through devisive and misleading rhetoric.
Tell this to the country.
*from George Orwell's 1984.
A central tenet of conservative mythology is that the success and progress of a country hinges on the strength of the family. When the family disintegrates, society goes kaput. Hence, the primary goal of public policy is to "strengthen families", a mantra that is used to buttress policies ranging from bankruptcy "reform", welfare "reform", tax "relief", the infamous "gay marriage amendment" to the Constitution, "parental notification" abortion restrictions, and an assortment of other twisted and misnomered, anti-individual initiatives cloaked in sheeps clothing to appear "family friendly".
Now, the Bulworth thesis is that, first, this conservative myth is basically bupkes, and that, second, the failure of American liberalism and the Democratic Party is that it, or they, basically accept(s) the conservative diagnosis while lamely trying to refute its policy prescriptions. Consequently we are faced with a continuing series of inane calls for Democrats to embrace the language of "values", to move to the "center" or whatever flavor of sell-out that's currently fashionable so the mechanisms and designs of the political and religious elite remain unrecognized and unchallenged.
But you're thinking, why on earth, Senator Bulworth, are you trying to peddle such heresies as this? How can you say that the need to "strengthen families" is wrong?
First, I come to politics with the assumption that societies are comprised of three classes: the high, the middle and the low.* Now, among the first items of business for the elite is to either sell the notion that this distinction doesn't exist, or that if it does, it's justified because the low are lazy and immoral. And by becoming hard working, morally upright, yada yada yada, the low can become part and parcel members of the great American class of patriots. And everyone will live happily ever after if the low and dissenting members of the middle would just shut up and sing along to God Bless America during the seventh inning stretch.
But let's return to the three classes of people and what it means for the politics of family values. First, let's get this straight. The high (whether they be Hollywood actors or the heads of family research organizations) has no interest in being told how to run their families, or in being challenged on the basis of their morality or work ethic. And in the unlikely event that policies were crafted to regulate the family functioning of the high, we can be assured that the high won't be restricted or enlightened by them, primarily because they would be designed and implemented by the high itself. So to the extent that families need to be "strengthened", those families are not to be found among the higher classes.
Which leaves us with the middle and the low. First the middle. Now, by virture of the relative economic stability and modest educational attributes of this class, and because of the fact that despite what some conservatives and even some liberals might imagine, most families of the middle are not well depicted by scandalous TV shows such as "Desperate Housewives", the more juvenile (and Fox Entertainment sponsored) "O.C.", the family structures of the middle are pretty sound, or otherwise inpervious to any of the instruments that public policy might be brought to bear on them. Are there divorces and broken families among the middle classes? Well, yes, of course. Do they essentially affect the work and behavior of their family members? Essentially, no. Eric Harris and Dylan Klybold, the protagonists of the Columbine shootings were from typical, nuclear families. Most of the children from both solid and interrupted families adapt to their circumstances, and because whatever the degree of disruption that occurs, are more than likely to end up in a household that falls within the same middle class lifestyle, and hence, their lives don't change a lot. But the important point is that even if this was not so, there are no valid instruments of public policy "for the family" that would have much effect on them anyway. Increase in the child tax credit, more restrictive abortion laws, the outlawing of gay tolerance literature in public schools, and on and on, won't do much to affect the shape or behavior of the middle classes, other than to foment conflict and fear between families and locales and focus attention away from the ruling classes and the nature of the regime it commands.
So what is, or what are, the purpose(s) of all this ranting about the need for stronger family policies by groups like Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, etc? And what about the low classes?
First, the behaviors and habits of the low, as with Oceania's proles, are irrelevant to the needs of the superstructure. The members of the low only need be kept ignorant, imprisoned (think, War on Drugs), formally or informally segregated, or just kept convinced of their inefficacy and that their actions are unlikely to alter their conditions.
So, the morality police, like James Dobson and Bill Frist, emphasize "family values" to pit middle against middle, and middle against low. Daydreamers on the left who have fantasies about populist campaigns and the ultimate arising of the low, forget the need for a lower class upon which to pit their frustrations that has also been inherent during middle class oriented populist crusades.
So, Hilary, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, John Edwards, and the rest of you with ambitions for 2008: stop trying to imitate conservative philosophies and placate their imagined grievances. You're hurting America.
The primary task of government, besides the need to defend itself from enemies from abroad, is to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected, and that the coercive powers of the state, hierarchical religions, and the more subtle exertions of the economic elite to pit families and regions against one another through devisive and misleading rhetoric.
Tell this to the country.
*from George Orwell's 1984.
A Way with Words
At today's press briefing, White House spokesman, Scotty McClellan criticized reporters whose newspapers and magazines continued to refer to the president's Social Security reform proposals as constituting "personal property accounts", "personal accounts", "individual accounts" or "individual personal property savings accounts".
"We've been clear since day one about this", the president's spokesman said. "The president is not 'personalizing' Social Security, or 'individualizing' Social Security. We've said all along that the appropriate description of the president's initiative is 'privatization'."
"I would hope the press will finally start to report the president's proposals plainly and accurately," said McClellan.
On a related note, in a hastily arranged interview with the Fox News program, Fox and Friends, Republican U.S. Senators, Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mitch "Wild Thing" McConnell (Kentucky), and Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn) lambasted Democratic Senators' and press usage of the terms 'constitutional option' and 'majority option', in describing Republican efforts to end the filibustering of certain judicial nominees.
"What we are doing is invoking the 'nuclear option'," said the Senate trio. "The use of any other term to describe what we're doing is inaccurate and intended to be derogatory. We would hope the other side would refrain from continuing to try to mislead and manipulate the press and the American people."
According the producers of Fox and Friends, no Democratic response could be provided for in the time span allowed for the segment. The producers at Fox News don't regret the inconvenience.
"We know there are a lot of people who are trying to criticize the way we do news, to be like them", said Fox News Washington Bureau Chief, Brit Hume. "But we aren't going to listen to them or change who we interview. The Democrats are demons, and that's just that," said the fair and balanced anchor.
Still more criticism was levied at the editors and staff of Newsweek magazine by Fox News and Administration spokesman because of the journal's covering of the continuing wars and unrest in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There's no reason for Newsweek or anybody else for that matter, to continue to report on car bombings, prison interrogations, or military recruitment levels," said Fox News John Gibson, host of the show "The Big Story", who was joined by Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita. "That Koran story would have never even gotten out there if the press would just mind its own business and report only what the White House and the Republican Party provide it through its daily press releases."
"Some people should watch what they say", chimed in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who appeared briefly at the podium to sign autographs for the Fox News anchors and staff in attendance.
"We've been clear since day one about this", the president's spokesman said. "The president is not 'personalizing' Social Security, or 'individualizing' Social Security. We've said all along that the appropriate description of the president's initiative is 'privatization'."
"I would hope the press will finally start to report the president's proposals plainly and accurately," said McClellan.
On a related note, in a hastily arranged interview with the Fox News program, Fox and Friends, Republican U.S. Senators, Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mitch "Wild Thing" McConnell (Kentucky), and Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn) lambasted Democratic Senators' and press usage of the terms 'constitutional option' and 'majority option', in describing Republican efforts to end the filibustering of certain judicial nominees.
"What we are doing is invoking the 'nuclear option'," said the Senate trio. "The use of any other term to describe what we're doing is inaccurate and intended to be derogatory. We would hope the other side would refrain from continuing to try to mislead and manipulate the press and the American people."
According the producers of Fox and Friends, no Democratic response could be provided for in the time span allowed for the segment. The producers at Fox News don't regret the inconvenience.
"We know there are a lot of people who are trying to criticize the way we do news, to be like them", said Fox News Washington Bureau Chief, Brit Hume. "But we aren't going to listen to them or change who we interview. The Democrats are demons, and that's just that," said the fair and balanced anchor.
Still more criticism was levied at the editors and staff of Newsweek magazine by Fox News and Administration spokesman because of the journal's covering of the continuing wars and unrest in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There's no reason for Newsweek or anybody else for that matter, to continue to report on car bombings, prison interrogations, or military recruitment levels," said Fox News John Gibson, host of the show "The Big Story", who was joined by Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita. "That Koran story would have never even gotten out there if the press would just mind its own business and report only what the White House and the Republican Party provide it through its daily press releases."
"Some people should watch what they say", chimed in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who appeared briefly at the podium to sign autographs for the Fox News anchors and staff in attendance.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Milgram and Zimbardo
All the "war on terrorism, axis of evil, values voters, and spongebobsquarepants is gay" talk over the last several years has finally gotten me around to thinking about the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments.
The Milgram experiment was the one where participants were told to apply electric "shocks" to other study participants who failed to provide correct answers to certain questions. The shocks weren't real, but the participants told to apply them did not know that. And a considerable majority of those told to go on "hurting" the other people went ahead with it. The gist of the experiment was it showed the extreme degree to which basically normally people would obey authority, even when it resulted in injury to others.
The Zimbardo experiment was an attempt to study prison behavior through the use of a simulated prison setting. Some of the participants were chosen to be "prisoners" while others were chosen to be "guards". Again, a random selection of seemingly normal people. The experiment was intended to last several days, but the "guards" became so abusive to the "prisoners" that the experiment was called off early.
I mention these experiments because I think they provide a fair and balanced alternative view of evil relative to the all too common perception that comes from the media and religious dominionists that evil derives from the individual alone, and that context, conditions or environment play little to no role in human behavior.
Obviously, the religious and economic elite have a strong interest, prurient and otherwise, in making people think that evil stems from individuals, is a matter primarily of sexual standards, that you shouldn't blame your environment or corporations for your economic status, and that the purpose of government is to make individuals docile, blindly patriotic and ignorantly paranoid of other people. The result is calls for "personal responsibility", "family values", pastoral exhortations that "if you vote for Kerry you should repent or leave the church", and policies like bankruptcy "reform", welfare "reform", Social Security "reform", anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation and amendments, and "academic bills of rights" to punish individuals and discourage or penalize dissent.
Now, I think this view is deeply troubling for those of us who value personal freedom, civil liberties, and the right to privacy.
But I also think this view as an indictment of society is objectively wrong as well. The primary threat to individuals and society is not other individuals or their sexual appetites. The primary threat to individuals and the challenge for society and government is power, concentrated, coercive power, whether public or private.
Which disturbs you more? The response of experiment participants to authority and conditions, or your neighbor's consensual sexual activities?
Very well. But what about religion and Christianity? Aren't sexual and other individual behaviors terribly vital in these belief systems? Weren't Sodom and Gomorrah distroyed by fire because of the homosexuality openly practiced in their midst? How do those of us who admit to being "people of faith" reconcile our spiritual beliefs to the realities of political life? Is religion still relevant? I'll attempt to address these issues in my next post.
The Milgram experiment was the one where participants were told to apply electric "shocks" to other study participants who failed to provide correct answers to certain questions. The shocks weren't real, but the participants told to apply them did not know that. And a considerable majority of those told to go on "hurting" the other people went ahead with it. The gist of the experiment was it showed the extreme degree to which basically normally people would obey authority, even when it resulted in injury to others.
The Zimbardo experiment was an attempt to study prison behavior through the use of a simulated prison setting. Some of the participants were chosen to be "prisoners" while others were chosen to be "guards". Again, a random selection of seemingly normal people. The experiment was intended to last several days, but the "guards" became so abusive to the "prisoners" that the experiment was called off early.
I mention these experiments because I think they provide a fair and balanced alternative view of evil relative to the all too common perception that comes from the media and religious dominionists that evil derives from the individual alone, and that context, conditions or environment play little to no role in human behavior.
Obviously, the religious and economic elite have a strong interest, prurient and otherwise, in making people think that evil stems from individuals, is a matter primarily of sexual standards, that you shouldn't blame your environment or corporations for your economic status, and that the purpose of government is to make individuals docile, blindly patriotic and ignorantly paranoid of other people. The result is calls for "personal responsibility", "family values", pastoral exhortations that "if you vote for Kerry you should repent or leave the church", and policies like bankruptcy "reform", welfare "reform", Social Security "reform", anti-abortion and anti-gay legislation and amendments, and "academic bills of rights" to punish individuals and discourage or penalize dissent.
Now, I think this view is deeply troubling for those of us who value personal freedom, civil liberties, and the right to privacy.
But I also think this view as an indictment of society is objectively wrong as well. The primary threat to individuals and society is not other individuals or their sexual appetites. The primary threat to individuals and the challenge for society and government is power, concentrated, coercive power, whether public or private.
Which disturbs you more? The response of experiment participants to authority and conditions, or your neighbor's consensual sexual activities?
Very well. But what about religion and Christianity? Aren't sexual and other individual behaviors terribly vital in these belief systems? Weren't Sodom and Gomorrah distroyed by fire because of the homosexuality openly practiced in their midst? How do those of us who admit to being "people of faith" reconcile our spiritual beliefs to the realities of political life? Is religion still relevant? I'll attempt to address these issues in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)