"He'll Be Right Back." (Even so.)

I sat in the emergency room Saturday -- alone and, I am glad to report, OK -- waiting for the ER physician to release me. After pacing the exam room along the very edges of patience, and having read nearly every poster, sticker or tag in sight, I settled in a chair next to the bed and hid behind the little drawn curtain. I noticed the instruction guide to the Morgan Lens device taped to a table top, and wondered how I had missed it in the forty-five minutes I had been waiting. One read-through confirmed my suspicion: in an ER, this sort of device could only suggest dreadful conditions: glass fragments, poisons. I steered clear of the possibilities.

Down low, taped to a medical cabinet, which offered at least a dozen drawers, I spotted a curious and tiny handwritten note on the front of a middle drawer:

"They are more Rapid Rhinos in the closet in Room 7."

The nurse or orderly who had written the note was forgiven the misspelling. "There are more Rapid Rhinos" would be more accurate, but the point was made. I get "they are more," at least in a pinch.

But I couldn't help but feel a bit anxious. I looked closely at the closet door; I was sitting in Room 7. Was someone up to no good here? What would I see if I opened the closet door, black rhinos rushing across the plains of Serengeti?

I quickly stood up, pulled the curtain back and leaned against the frame of the exam room door, telling myself I have enough things to worry about. Despite my best efforts to fix my mind on the whereabouts of my doctor, I discovered I could not resist hearing something move behind me in the muted distance -- the portents of adventure. The sounds of the mysterious inevitable.



©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Looking Forward To The Past

Gary Rosen's recent review of Susan Neiman's new book Moral Clarity is provocative reading, and surely makes a decent case that Ms. Neiman, who stands on the political left, has produced a work worthy of broad attention.

Mr. Rosen does not hesitate to explore Ms. Neiman's frustrations with the increasingly intellectual and cultural vapidity of her leftist peers vis-á-vis universal principles. One passage stands out:

Ms. Neiman points to many factors in the left's retreat from universal principles. The demise of socialism has played a role, as has despair over the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. But the real source, she suggests, is a "conceptual collapse," a self-destructive descent into identity politics, postmodern theory and victimology. Her peers have become paralyzed, she writes, by the view that moral judgments are, ultimately, little more than "a hypocritical attempt to assert arbitrary power over those with whom you disagree."

Part of Ms. Neiman's prescribed antidote is a call to the Great Books catalog of western civilization (often touted by conservatives, like the late-Allan Bloom, as curative of many social ills). No doubt her proposal will raise the ire of multi-culturalists and feminists committed to radical egalitarianism, but I would assume she is more than capable of defending herself before such critics. The only "danger" in Ms. Neiman's idea is that she opens the door to the value of Tradition; such backward looking interests do not sit well with progressives committed solely to that which lies ahead. But tradition, and the intellectuals embedded therein, can be formidable pedagogues. That is scary to a lot of folks.

I am the first to admit that many of my conservative peers have also turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the so-called western canon. I have not completed it myself, though I was definitely trained in that canon's great tradition. There is much to learn; and many Americans are like many fundamentalists, as both the progressive patriot and the fundamentalist act with little regard to the storehouse of knowledge available in the literature and traditions of the past. Both types of zealots forget that many of the questions of today have been amply discussed by our forefathers, civil and religious. In many cases, answers and solutions have been given. The trend to deify our own era at the expense of other notable times is rooted in conceit and arrogance. And it is, at present, a perilous conceit.

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Torture By Graduation

Check out this quote attributed to Richard Butler, a CBS journalist who was kidnapped in Iraq, and then rescued. From the AP story:

Butler said he felt it was better to be kidnapped in Iraq then [sic] taken into custody by Americans in Afghanistan.

"I was pleased I wasn't being mortarboarded in Guantanamo or being held for six and a half years like an Al-Jazeera cameraman, for instance," he said. [emphasis mine]

I can hear prisoners screaming even now, tortured by the receiving of diplomas, and wounded by the turning of tassels and mandatory attendance at sundry graduation parties.

Unless our Mr. Butler wasn't afraid of mortarboards, but water-boarding.

America the brutal, no doubt. How mortarfying!


Screen shot:

Peace and mirth.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Worst Of Times Revisited

(Live blogging.)

Barack Obama is speaking to the press right now in a formal press conference. He has again expressed his consternation with his former pastor. He just called Reverend Wright's "performance" (Barack Obama's words) at the National Press Club yesterday nothing but a series of "rants not grounded in truth;" he even calls Rev. Wright's words an "insult" (among many other things).

What we are seeing, I am sorry to say, is something grossly reminiscent of the mid-1960s. The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, Dr. King: these were the backdrop of both Barack Obama's childhood and my childhood, as we are the same age. And, just like the 1960s, we are watching a battle over racial supremacy: which black man -- or black group -- truly speaks for minorities.

Over the weekend, Rev. Wright spoke at length to the NAACP about the different "learning styles" of European whites and African blacks. He defended an evolutionary difference between the two "races," and he went so far as to argue that whites respond to the first and third beats in a musical four-beat measure, while blacks respond to the second and fourth. Related to this, Rev. Wright used the device that blacks are "different but not deficient." Yesterday, in fact, he spoke at length about this very idea, that difference does not imply deficiency.

Most people, most THINKING people, would agree with Rev. Wright that different is not synonymous with deficient. I think his locution odd and unfortunate, and I suspect it is not something that most decent people have ever promoted.

But what I want to assert is that the conflict we see is over what it means to be racist. Traditionally, racism has been attributed to those folks who do not believe that one race is equal to another. If I think being white is superior to being black, I am a racist, because, essentially and unequivocally, I do not believe blackness is equal to whiteness. That is traditional racism, and I believe that is the model of racism under which MOST Americans, including Barack Obama, operate.

Alas, what Rev. Wright has done is to flip racism on its head. His "different but not deficient" slogan now means that the racist is he who believes whites and blacks are EQUAL. Wright's response to this idea is simple: No, no, no. Not equal. Different. To Wright, whites learn in a different way from blacks, and it is wrong of whites to think blacks are equal to the task, whether that task be learning to speak English or to understand European music.

I am inclined to aver that Rev. Wright has actually advocated a type of intellectual and cultural apartheid, American-style. His is a twist on separate but equal. He maintains that the separation is due to the fact that we are all "different."

Hence, what we are seeing is a race war between African-Americans. This is a massive, and truly scary, disagreement. And it is as scary as those sorts of disagreements that led to the sorrows of the 1960s.

Just some thoughts, offered in sorrow with much anxiety.

Peace, pray for peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Gospel Of Guilt: The Wright Way To Preach

I can't resist writing a few theological responses to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech and subsequent comments at yesterday's National Press Club. Of course, I would not be interested in Rev. Wright if he were not undermining what I initially took to be a noble goal in the campaign for the presidency of Barack Obama. That goal was not racial harmony. It was that America would transcend race; that our politics and related discourses would get us past the bitternesses of our fathers. But Rev. Wright has sabotaged all that. Now, like a bad LSD flashback into the heart of the 1960s, race is everything. According to Rev. Wright, God is on the side of the oppressed -- solely. According to Rev. Wright (who cites, in passing, white "evangelical" Jim Wallis) America has not even repented of its sin of slavery. America, be damned.

Let me be the first to assert that "America be damned" is not one whit inaccurate. I say this for the simple reason that both blind nature and Christian eschatology admit that everything is damned, damned by the great cosmic implosion or God's building of a new heaven and new earth. This point may seem glib and even silly, but it isn't, as it points to a very leveling moral and social principle: death equalizes us all. And at the very least Rev. Wright is all about leveling, about equality.

Also, I would not be pursuing Rev. Wright had Mr. Obama not given his permission, as he himself believes that Rev. Wright's religious views are fair political game.

THE BIBLICAL HISTORY QUESTION

I think it wise to quote Rev. Wright's remarks about the Holy Bible which he offered during the press club's Q&A period following his speech. Note that he is defending the black liberation idea that God is the God of the oppressed:

"In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression. The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus is born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed. They weren't in charge of the world. It sounds like some other governments I know."

Those of us who possess some biblical literacy should immediately see the falsehood of Rev. Wright's assertion. It is NOT TRUE that every word of the Bible was written under some form of political oppression. Many of the words of the Torah (or Christian Old Testament) were penned during relative political and social calm. The words of Solomon -- the wildly rich king and revered "wisest man on earth" -- drafted proverbs and poems that were written while he and his kingdom were, in effect, in charge of a whole region. King David's famous psalm of contrition, Psalm 51, was penned while he was in power, despite the fact that he might have been at war. Ecclesiastes appears to have been penned during a period of relative ease, and I think it clear that Job, arguably the oldest of the biblical texts, was not penned by someone under political oppression. And even some of the New Testament is arguably penned by men who were not under oppression either, men like Luke, a Greek physician, or Paul, a Roman citizen of rather high standing. In the end, just one exception, and there is more than one, devastates Rev. Wright's sweeping and dogmatic assertion. (It should be noted that Rev. Wright does not acknowledge that much of the biblical record was written under brother-on-brother or Israel-on-Israel oppression.)

Hence, it is safe to conclude that Rev. Wright is flat-out wrong, and is seeing Christianity through a sieve, one not justified by either Christian tradition or its sacred texts.

But I would like to highlight one absolutely essential point, one that debilitates much of Rev. Wright's liberation theology, and it is this (I have written about this here): Jesus Christ, who was indeed born as a Jew living under Roman oppression, NEVER mentions that He or His disciples live under occupation. OK. That might be extreme. But it is not extreme to assert, with all due confidence, that Jesus clearly ignores the Roman occupation. And He clearly ministers to those occupiers without once asking them to denounce either their Roman citizenship or their positions.

Hence, Rev. Wright is not only wrong about the biblical record, He is wrong in averring that Jesus came to emancipate ANYONE from social oppression. Jesus's concerns, made clear in statements that His kingdom was not of this world and that "the poor you will always have with you," were not political or even societal concerns. They were concerns of the heart, soul and mind of individuals. He was not a social liberator, nor was He revolutionary in any political sense. His political influence was accidental (I mean this philosophically) to His message. His intent was to free humanity from sin, primarily the pervasive, ubiquitous sin of envy.

THE EXCLUSIVITY QUESTION

Here's another excerpt from yesterday's Q&A at the National Press Club:

MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?

WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."

(APPLAUSE)

I have to inject here that Rev. Wright's body language, tone, and countenance showed utter contempt for his interlocutor during much if not most of this exchange. To me, Rev. Wright was thuggish, condescending, arrogant and -- immature.

But let us note the problem. Rev. Wright has been asked if he believes whether Jesus Christ, the Man He purportedly believes is the Savior of the whole world, is the only way to God. Alas, acting like some pompous smart ass, Rev. Wright, in a most self-satisfied manner, replied that Jesus referred to "sheep ... not of this fold." With that, Rev. Wright pulled away from the microphone, satisfied that he has shown not only his superior wit but that his sense of irony has no bounds: he, too, can make Jesus say whatever he wants Him to say. Of course, the real irony is lost on the smug Rev. Wright, as his obscene citation of the "other sheep" only supports Christ's claim as being the exclusive Savior of the world: Jesus is the Shepherd of the other sheep who still must come to God through Him. Jesus, only to augment His point, also argues that He is the Gate of the sheepfold, so no one enters that fold -- irrespective of whether they are OTHER sheep or not -- unless they pass through Him.

Rev. Wright's inanity is indicative of his fear of estranging his black Muslim friends, who share his identity politics. Muslims, who deny that Jesus IS the Christ, the gate-keeper, or the "way and the life," are the other sheep to which Rev. Wright refers. And this from a man described even by Barack Obama as a "renowned" biblical scholar. Rev. Wright's curt reply merely avoids the question by obfuscating simple Christian passages. Jesus claims to be the way for ALL sheep, irrespective of whether they are of the Jewish fold. Rev. Wright intimates, utterly and completely erroneously, that there are "other sheep" who do not need Christ.

And let us put this in boldest relief: Rev. Wright, or so it was reported yesterday, is getting security help from the Nation of Islam.

THE SOCIOLOGY PROBLEM: Standing Black Liberation Theology On Its Head

Let us again return to something that Rev. Wright said in his speech. Here he is talking about how our ideas of God influence us:

"Dr. Jones, in his book, God in the Ghetto, argues quite accurately that one's theology, how I see God, determines one's anthropology, how I see humans, and one's anthropology then determines one's sociology, how I order my society. Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens. My theological lens shapes my anthropological lens. And as a result, white males are superior; all others are inferior."

Let us review the sequence: God-ideas influence our views of mankind, and our views of both influence how we order society.

Rev. Wright goes on:

To say "I am a Christian" is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.

How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say "I am a Christian" is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.

Now, look at what Rev. Wright says about black liberation theology, a theology he gladly espouses:

Now, in the 1960s, the term "liberation theology" began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.

Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.

Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed.

I hope you can see the problem. Rev. Wright tells us first that we should start our theology from the top: how we view God informs not just our theology, but our anthropology and sociology. In sharpest Christian terms, it is asserted by all orthodox Christians that God defines for us Who and What He is and What He is like. To God, our relation is responsive: He reveals, we respond. He is Who He Is, or so even Moses reported thousands of years ago. Christianity's starting point is the God Revealed.

But according to Rev. Wright's own words, he actually inverts the paradigm: black liberation theology begins in sociology, the sociological status of the oppressed. The oppressed, beginning in the mire, see God from the pit, defining Him as their liberator and the judge and damner of those who have enslaved them. God, then, is defined not by His own fiat, but by the conditions of the lowest social group. God is coming to judge, and the top social group shall be tossed down and the bottom elevated: the last are now first, the oppressed are now the judges.

That is why Rev. Wright can say, essentially, that the oppressors pray to a different God, even if those oppressors are Christians.

But the FACT IS THIS: All people are prone to manufacture God in their OWN IMAGE! And Rev. Wright has done EXACTLY that!

Alas, this is what passes, at least in Rev. Wright's world, as the prophetic voice. Curiously absent is any sense of proportion. Yes, Rev. Wright concedes that God loves the whole world, as he remarked in his talk, but this concession seems almost reluctantly offered. It even smacks of elitism, as it suggests that God prefers to love the oppressed but, almost despite Himself, He can love, well, "others" too.

Let me say with all due candor: this stuff is preposterous.

THE GOSPEL OF GUILT

In the end, we are left not with a gospel of liberation preached by Rev. Wright, but one of oppression, even extortion. Despite the fact that Rev. Wright is supposed to represent a faith that proclaims that Christ has paid our debts, that He forgives with abandon (assuming folks want forgiveness), that He absolves us of our guilt, Rev. Wright brings the glad tidings that Americans are still guilty, still reprobate, still WRONG. He has not forgiven, nor has he offered that forgiveness. Instead, he brings the gospel of extortion, of indebtedness: America, you still OWE! America, you still must pay! And this is not merely directed at institutions, as institutions cannot be divorced of their constituents. This is aimed at people, individuals.

This is not the gospel. We are not hearing the voice of Christ. We are hearing the voice of envy, resentment, anger, entitlement. This, believe it or not, is imprisonment dressed as liberty.

It is not the gospel at all.

Peace to you.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Simply Sad

For weeks now I have been reticent regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and the allegedly "honest dialogue" on race in the United States. I have had many reasons for being quiet, for suspending judgment, but I will keep those reasons to myself, at least for now.

I just watched, live on CSPAN2, Reverend Wright's speech and Q&A session at the National Press Club breakfast. Last night, I watched a significant portion of his speech to the NAACP. All I can say is that Reverend Wright's opinions, at least to me, are an unmitigated social, cultural, religious, theological, and political disaster. Rev. Wright is wrong in so many ways it is impossible to reply to him in one short blog post. I am simply stunned, to be honest. In fact, I am almost stunned right back to reticence.

Reverend Wright appears to be intentionally fomenting racial hatreds. I am tempted to think he is even provoking assassination. Sorry. I am speaking solely from my heart. The sort of message and the manner in which that message has been presented by Reverend Wright almost seem to be an invitation to raise hostilities to their most feverish heights; to incite even an attack on not only "the black church," which Rev. Wright proclaims the media have undertaken, but an attack on a black leader. I am left feeling -- FEELING -- that Rev. Wright's prophetic message may indeed be naught but a self-fulfilling prophecy: Incited violence and hatred will prove that America is GUILTY, UNREPENTANT and RACIST.

Forgive me. I DON'T WANT these feelings. But I am deeply saddened by a demonstration of a self-righteousness and an arrogance so stunning as to be almost a scripted caricature. One would think this is more like a Hollywood depiction of a crude stereotype of arrogance and self-righteousness than it is a representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It even feels like Reverend Wright wants to sabotage Barack Obama's candidacy. Seriously, this man is NO PASTOR to Barack Obama.

(I would urge you all to find replays on CSPAN or online of Reverend Wright's complete speeches. Watch them in their entirety. Listen carefully. Be discerning.)

It would be foolish of me to make predictions, so I won't. But I can't imagine that the Reverend's speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club can be good for Barack Obama, OR race relations in America. I can tell you this: they were not good for me.

Honestly, I admit that I've been jaded by politics in the past, though such hardening was perhaps skin deep. But I would say that this particular narrative, playing out mainly in the Democratic Party's primaries, has jaded me close to the core: I may be jaded all the way through.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Rewinding, Unwinding

_____________________

Since I confessed to readers Friday that I am having a hard time finding words to share, I thought I might as well post things I've shared elsewhere. Perhaps I can quote myself toward inspiration.

Maybe not.

Here's something I wrote last year on Ash Wednesday. I know we're way past that on the Christian Calendar, but there are no hard and fast liturgical rules here: I write the rubrics, after all.

_____________________

"HIS FACE WAS ASHEN"

I went to the nurse today complaining of an excess of joy. I told her that my stomach was churning with delight; that my hands tingled with bliss and my head pounded with gratitude. I wonder, I said, if there is something wrong. How could I be sick with happiness? How could I be fraught with peace? How could I be wracked with innocence? Should I see the doctor?

She replied that she was glad that I was feeling better. She noted that my complaints from last month no longer seemed relevant. It is clear that your skin has cleared up, she said, and that there are no signs of the deep wounds that once dripped with sarcasm. It looks too like you are no longer biting your tongue or your lip, and that you’re no longer straining to look backwards. I can feel no spasms of regret; the knots of second-guessing seem to have been smoothed away, and the arthritis of cynicism seems to have vanished, leaving your hands free. And I cannot tell you how glad I am to see that you are so fully rested.

There was nothing I could tell her that explained my sudden change, but I told her what I knew: When I woke from what began as a restless sleep but by dawn had become a deep calm, my head was deliciously dizzy with a wine I had not sipped. My arms were light with a spirit I did not earn. There were proverbs on the back of my hands, though I cannot see them now. There were scriptures flying past my window, with many of them gathering in gentle flocks beneath my bird feeders. My heartbeat was a chorus of angels; my ears rang with choruses of hope, my tongue was sweet with glad tidings. And while the thermometer outside my window was filled with gold, my barometer offered no report. And then I saw that my watch pointed to the hour of redemption.

What does all this mean? I asked, laughter spilling from my mouth.

You know what it means, she said, reaching up and wiping ashes off my forehead. It means you’ve already seen the doctor.

______________________

And here's something I wrote last year for no reason whatsoever.

"SHAKING THE DUST WHICH IS MY FEET"

When I was a child I thought like a child, but when I became a man, I did not put away childish things. After all, it is all about being a child, is it not?

I recall walking home daily from school, the little red-brick, six-classroom schoolhouse exactly one mile from my home's kitchen door, and entertaining myself during that lonely walk in myriad ways. Often I'd toss rocks at tree trunks, or crack open acorns, or push lethargic salamanders to safety. Despite the loneliness of the old road on which I lived, there was always something happening, at least in my child's brain. There might have been dull moments, but there were no dull thoughts.

My favorite bit of play occurred when I'd walk over the deeply fractured asphalt and pretend that I was looking down -- from a helicopter -- upon the destruction left by a massive earthquake. Though the street's cracks were the result of freezing temperatures and ice's incredible force, I could envision this devastation as if I were reporting on it from high above the great sorrow. No doubt I was influenced by images I had seen of the Great Earthquake of Alaska in 1964 (I was but 2&1/2 years old then), where great black gashes tore through the snowy streets of Anchorage. I quake today thinking of that event -- which occurred on Good Friday, when the earth shook for five minutes during an 8.6 magnitude earthquake -- for that is a very long time to feel the solid earth move like liquid (more recent estimates place the quake at magnitude 9.2). But the earth felt optimistically solid when I was a little boy, despite the few cracks at my feet.

Always would I pretend to be a reporter narrating what I was witnessing: "Here, on the north side of this slope, is massive devastation. Countless homes have been lost. Thousands of people roam the landscape like ants looking for a crumb in the midst of barrenness." This sort of commentary poured over my lips hundreds of times, often uttered aloud and always to a pretend audience. And there were indeed ants sprawling over great fissures: large black ants and tiny reddish ones; ants dragging pieces of nut or the body of some unfortunate beetle or even another ant. The activity was ceaseless, except in the cold barrens of winter. For then the walk home was about slipping and sliding and snowballs, and the need to stay warm. But in warmer weather ants and their dynamic earth kept me company from grade school till when I was "too cool" to walk, or too old to see the great play at my feet.

This morning, sitting on the porch of a lovely café in New Hampshire, I think of those walks home. Not always were they wonderful; many times I'd turn angry wishing mom or dad would come in the Oldsmobile or Dodge pickup and help me with my burdens. You see, for this little boy, there was hardly a worse day in school than "Desk-cleaning Day", that day when we were made to tidy things up. For then my arms would be filled with papers and art work and construction paper; and I'd be dropping things all the way home. What fury I'd feel in my breast at the long walk homeward! What rage I'd feel, particularly when nature was calling and I desperately needed to relieve myself! Always my rage would blind me to those ants at my stomping feet, ants scaling great and unforgiving heights with huge burdens in their grateful jaws. I hated walking home on these days, and I even hated home.

I have indeed put away childish things, or so I tell myself. For the child's rage is misplaced and misbegotten. For one day, somewhere in my 17th year, I felt the earth move beneath my feet: I heard a rumble that began in Jerusalem on the very first Good Friday, an earthquake of immeasurable strength, for it shakes for all eternity. It was a quake that brought me to my knees, closer to the earth. There I learned that there was no great height from which I was entitled to survey the damage. That height was reserved for another. The Great Quake of Jerusalem knocked me headlong to the only vista I could have: from the bottom of the great chasm.

Like a child I held up my hands and waited to be lifted from the damage which was my very self. The burdens were surrendered, forgotten somewhere in that grave.

There is nothing to do now but laugh and play, and stay close to the solid rock beneath my optimistic feet (even though I still feel that solid Rock shaking).

Peace and mirth, always.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

AS YOU CAN SEE...(Again)...

... I've returned to my original masthead. Consider it a matter of meekness: I've not the will to venture beyond my artistic means.

For now, I will stick to the staid and narrow path.

Thanks for your comments.

Gnade

A Crisis Of Credit, Identity Theft

It is nearly impossible for me to write anything anymore. I have overdrawn my checking account; I am deep in the negative. There are little slips showing up in my mail box: the bank wants its money. I dig deep into my pockets, I search beneath the cushions of the sofa, I paw through the rejectamenta of my car's glove box. Nothing but a few coins.

Surely the bank will not care if I tape them to a card and toss it in the post.

____________________

Perhaps I am exhausted by a particular pleasure. It's a sordid one, I admit, and one thoroughly pervasive in our culture. It is the pleasure derived from criticism, of reading criticism, of being a critic. It is the fatigue that befalls the cynic, particularly the reluctant cynic.

But maybe it's not about criticism. Maybe I am tired of defending what I believe. Maybe I am worn through, having given way like the denim that covered a little boy's knees. Or maybe I am empty, not because I have given too much away, but because I can't find anything to replenish my mind. In this case, it's not what comes out of a man that corrupts him. What corrupts a man is that there is nothing going in.

Perhaps.

____________________

Of course, the problem lies with me, within me. I am a fool for looking "out there" for things to fill the void. The poets and prophets know better (or so they say) and I should too, as I've read their couplets and been burned by their ire. To look elsewhere than myself is to cast blame, to look for a target onto which I might cast aspersions. It is to out-source, if you will, the problem, the cause of the malaise. My grief is not, ultimately, rooted in injustice, or in the vapidity of presidential campaigns, or in the obscenities of culture. My grief is mine: I am the source of my weakness. For I have, in part, put too much meaning, too much import and value, on things outside myself. Such objects of devotion are indeed idols, and they may take the form of real people, like a spouse or a president; or they may be ideas or ideologies or promises uttered by a candidate reported to be as good as Christ.

Indeed, I DO place too much meaning on things. I once was rejected by a woman -- a woman! -- because she thought I held sex in too high esteem: She chided me that sex was "too meaningful" for me. I recall at my 20th high school reunion a conversation I had with an old friend, Helen. She told me that in high school I scared women off because, as she said, "you wanted to get into their heads, and not their pants." How could I reply that I thought that was what women wanted?

I confess my guilt. I have put my hope and trust in things.

_____________________

What does it mean to be happy? Is it enough to to get up in the morning and drink tea while watching the day's birds gather outside on limbs and lawn? Is it enough to ask God to forgive me, again, for forgetting that He is not an idol, a talisman, a magic lamp? And is it enough to say little prayers, just little ones? Is it enough to ask God questions in the morning, and then, beneath the deep night's full moon, ask the same questions again? Does a loving father ever tire of little talks with his children? Is he deaf to the chattering choruses of "why, why, why?" Does he grow weary of giving answers?

In all my years loving birds, I've never heard one bird change its song, nor have I ever grown weary of hearing the same winged symphony. Let the chickadee sing the same song all day, for it comforts me. The crow soothes me. The oriole and the rose-breasted grosbeak bring me no small joy.

Of course, I correct myself. There is one bird I know that does change its song. I will not mention that bird here, for its name almost suggests harassment. But I love that bird's nocturnal tunes, though its voice is that of all other birds (and other similar sounds) and not its own. Perhaps today I am like that bird -- that voice of many voices -- calling out in the night, trying out many songs, hoping to land on one that is, in the end, the voice I thought I had.

And I wonder, in the end, if happiness is really rather simple, and it has just one voice: Gratitude.


Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Maxed Out On Caffeine

[OK. The verdict is not yet in on my trial masthead. The votes are in, and it seems that I have missed the mark. Oiks! I guess I will have to try again.]
_____________________

Is this why a Starbucks coffee is so stinkin' expensive? Consumers are subsidizing corporate lunacy and equivocation? Venti! (I hear the coffee's actually free if you know the socialist party's secret password.)

Grande! Yes, we can!

_____________________


No doubt related to the Starbucks grande insanity, here's more proof that the Democratic Party has lost it. Remember: one of Bill Clinton's most-prized achievements while in office was free trade! I know, I know: his wife was for it before she was against it, AND vice versa. (Trend: We are against certain things in public that we privately support.)

At least we know that the coffee bean trade is fair.

Free range coffee beans, on the house!

AS YOU CAN SEE...

...there is a new masthead here. I am merely experimenting. Doodling, really. We'll see.

Blessings!

Gnade

Barack Obama: An Affirmative Action Nominee?

_____________________

Without ANY help from the dirty old political machine called the Republican National Committee, the Democrats are doing a fine job wreaking havoc on their own party.

Take Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver, a US congressman. Here's a black man, admittedly loyal to Hillary Clinton, who, without flinching, says he'd be "stunned if [Obama] is not the next president of the United States."

Why does Rep. Cleaver believe Mr. Obama is likely to win? A news report, based on an interview Cleaver gave to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, gives us an answer:

In the interview, Cleaver insisted he would not back away from his endorsement of Clinton. He claims much of the support for Obama is driven by a sense that his election will prove the country has solved its problems with race.

“I think for many white Americans, they are looking at Barack Obama and saying ‘This is our chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get this boogeyman called race behind us,”‘ Cleaver said. “And so they are going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he has any experience — I think all that’s out the window.” [emphasis mine]

Cleaver adds this gem about Mr. Obama being an "articulate" black man:

"For white Americans, it’s like, this guy can speak..."

So, WHITE Americans are just fascinated with Barack Obama as he's an "articulate" black man (by the way, Mr. Obama only seems articulate when reading his speeches, at least to this writer), is that it? And WHITE America is going to vote for him -- irrespective of whether he's qualified? All this to show that WHITES are no longer racist, or that America has solved the race problem?

(By the way, much of this sounds EXACTLY like what Shelby Steele said in his engaging books, White Guilt, and, though to a lesser degree, A Bound Man. Steele is a black man born of a white mother -- and conservative.)

Clearly we can conclude several things. First, once again, the DNC is not above injecting race into its own primary processes. Second, once again, someone's suggesting that Barack Obama will likely be president solely because he is well-spoken and black: Qualifications, be damned!

To paraphrase Rep. Cleaver: WHITE America is going to absolve itself by promoting a black man above those more qualified. All this suggests that this is an affirmative action project if there ever was one. (And I do not use the word 'project' without noting its brutal irony.)

_____________________

Alas, there is more. Rep. Cleaver cleaves a fine line between what race-conscious America wants and does not want.

Yet Cleaver asserts that Obama as president could actually hamper efforts to curb racial injustice. He said future concerns about race “would be met with rejection because we’ve already demonstrated that we’re not a racist nation.”

What does Rep. Cleaver mean? Is he suggesting that Americans -- black or white -- also DON'T want Barack Obama to be president? Will his election suggest race is no longer a national issue, and hence RACE as a political leveraging tool will be destroyed? Is he saying that whites will use Obama's presidency against those who still see racial injustice: "We can't be racially divided, we've elected a black man!"

It must be wondered, then, where all this leave us. It seems to me that Mr. Cleaver is saying that Barack Obama as the nation's first black president will merely be symbolic, token, even, sadly, illusory.

Oiks! No wonder people grow tired of politics!


Peace.

(HT: James Taranto)

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Are Rumors Of Recession Mere Fabrications?

______________

In the past few weeks, I've caught myself saying, whenever I am pulled into a discussion about the economic "recession," that Americans "hear about recessions EVERY election cycle." I know that I am ill-equipped to descry the numbers buried in the convolutions of economic reportage, my technical understanding of the meaning of "recession" notwithstanding. But at least one seemingly qualified person thinks that "The 'Recession' Is A Media Myth."

What do you think?

I'd love to know.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

A Little Barnicle On The Side

Mike Barnicle, the infamous columnist from Boston and erstwhile talk-radio host, had this to say about the war in Iraq in a recent radio op-ed (listen) on the occasion of the 4000th American killed in that conflict:

"This war though, is unique. First of all, it is unique because it is a war of choice. This president chose to invade Iraq, not because we had to but because Bush and a few others wanted to. You can call and complain all you want about that my friends, but it's a simple statement of fact. It's also unique because it is being fought by so few among us who pay such a high price while so many are asked to do nothing. Nothing at all. Make no sacrifice whatsoever. It's unique because it remains largely a civil war between religious and tribal factions that have fought and hated one another for centuries. It's unique because we are in the middle. It is unique because nobody can define what victory means or when it will arrive. 4000 casualities. 5 years. And most night's it doesn't even make the top of the evening news. That's Iraq today. That's unique."

There would be no stretching of any reasonable person's sense of credulity if I stated that Mr. Barnicle has expressed himself in terms that can be called emblematic. Many folks feel the way he feels; their opinions are perfectly aligned with his. Perhaps not a few possess the means to express their opinions in a public forum; I would bet though that many don't, and that Mr. Barnicle speaks for them.

But the ideas presented in Mr. Barnicle's lamentation are quite sophomoric, his sympathetic voice not withstanding. It makes no sense, for instance, to denigrate an effort because its success cannot be defined; it is equally goofy to lament an effort because no one can predict when it will cease. Football games have a terminus called a clock; but most endeavors are not monitored by a scorekeeper in a booth. Life doesn't usually give us what we expect, in neat little packages, all tidy and prim.

Let's give Mr. Barnicle's thoughts a quick look:

1) "This war ... is unique because it is a war of choice."

Mr. Barnicle had to have been under some dire time constraints to have drafted this inanity. Every war is a war of choice; there is nothing NECESSARY about war. There has not been a single major (and probably even minor) military enterprise in American history that was not chosen. Besides, there is something to that apparently forgotten thing known as the human will. It's free.

2) "This war ... is unique because it is being fought by so few among us who pay such a high price while so many are asked to do nothing."

I was too young to understand the deep sacrifices Americans were asked to make during the Vietnam War. However, I don't ever recall any rationing of food stuffs, or gasoline; there were no shut-downs in manufacturing plants in my home state of New Jersey; there were no black outs. During the Gulf War of 1991, I can't recall a single sacrifice expected of me or my peers, though I did have a dear friend and college roommate serve in that conflict (and he's not been the same since). Again, there was nothing like, let's say, World War 2's demands on American life during the Gulf War, just like there was no call to bear hardship during America's conflict in Bosnia. All of these "wars of choice" (those since Vietnam) marked something that was, in fact, quite wonderful: American servicemen and women CHOSE, in a free military devoid of compulsion, to fight on our behalf so we would not have to. They sacrificed themselves so we would not need to be sacrificed. This fact is one of the true indications of America's greatness and power: America has the strength to send volunteers so that those who remain behind don't EVEN WOBBLE. That is what is REALLY meant when people talk about preserving and protecting freedom.

Just as an aside, I, for one, would love to find anyone in the United States who has been asked, as Mr. Barnicle reports, to do nothing. Who would ask such a fool's question?

But I quibble.

3) "This war ... is unique because it remains largely a civil war between religious and tribal factions that have fought and hated one another for centuries."

No doubt Americans have heard from countless other Americans that Iraq is steeped in civil war. Mr. Barnicle surely counts among those who so declaim. It is a declamation nearly as old as the Iraq conflict itself. But perhaps Mr. Barnicle missed this poll from last year, taken from the largest sample of Iraqis since the fall of Saddam, wherein the majority of Iraqis are quite certain they are NOT in a civil war. Read that fine report here, and read this fine quote gleaned from it:

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Indeed, it is amazing how such news is missed. Of course, no one here is saying the poll is definitive. What I am saying is that Mr. Barnicle should be a little more circumspect.

4)"This war ... is unique because nobody can define what victory means or when it will arrive."

Please. When -- EXACTLY -- did the Allied powers predict the end of World War 2, and when did they describe what their victory MUST look like? Answer: there is no answer precisely because it is essentially a non-question. War is not like climbing a mountain, or going to a Red Sox game, or going to college. War is a messy art. It is about adaptation and flexibility. It is more like evolution than it is a solid-state theory of creation.

It would be nice to say that Mr. Barnicle is showing impatience and thus cut him some slack, but that is not what he is showing. What he is showing is an inflexibility rooted in intellectual immaturity. Such thinking is childishness disguised as moral loftiness. (Sorry.)

Regrettably, on the day in which another soldier died, Mr. Barnicle leaves us with nothing more than moral certitude devoid of certainty.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S MISTAKE

Identity Politics: I, (self-) defined by some particular characteristic of my body or soul, am a political constituency and force demanding legal, social and cultural approval and representation in all matters of this republic (or something like that) on the basis of how I identify myself to you and everybody else. I will brook no dissent: you will accept me on my terms, as I've struggled for approval and representation far too long to stop now.
_____________________

Rather than nominating for their party's candidate for President of the United States the most qualified, experienced person, the Democratic Party has instead essentially nominated two sacred icons, two holy archetypes: a person with dark skin and a person that is not a man. Rather than nominate a talented and skilled executive, like a Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, or Chris Dodd, the party faithful have decided that skin and sex trump achievement, aptitude and competency.

Alas, now the DNC and its members are in a double bind, one they no doubt hoped to wrap around the country in November. Instead, the party itself is trapped: If we choose the person with dark skin, we will be called sexist; if we choose the person with double XX chromosomes, we will be deemed racist. This can't be! Not us! We're Democrats!

Sexist, racist, sexist, racist. Has this not essentially been the heartbeat of the Democratic campaign? Forget the prevarications and postures over "experience." The exchanges that matter -- at least the ones reported by the press and noticed by the public -- are all about "injecting race" or "injecting gender." And what we are witnessing, especially those of us who consider ourselves political independents, is a big-tent party that no longer has a tent. It's a 3-ring riot, and this without the GOP elephant having to do a single trick.

_____________________

In 2006, Markos Zúniga, the founder of the world's largest blog, the incorrigibly leftist "The Daily Kos," said, "Republicans failed us because they can't govern. Democrats failed us because they can't get elected." I noted at this blog and elsewhere how odd a statement is Mr. Zúniga's, for winning elections is in part an indication of being able to govern.

The current Democratic Party imbroglio is largely the result of passion trumping reason, of ideals trumping ideas. Moreover, the Democratic Party's commitment to the role of "super-delegates," a term and role mostly absent from GOP vernacular and praxis, is rooted in a fear that the Democratic electorate might get things wrong. Hence, the super-delegates were designed to act like facilitators in a crisis intervention: they would intervene and set an errant party on the right course, one that would ensure that the most viable candidate (i.e., the person who could win in the general election) would be nominated. I recognize that you've heard this before; I mention it solely to remind readers that the role of the DNC's super-delegates is not, apparently, always that democratic. Really, the irony is almost too much.

All this exacerbates the aforementioned double-bind: if the super-delegates choose the woman, they are racist; and if they choose the black man, well, they are sexist and, possibly, closet racists acting out of "white guilt." What's the best resolution, at least for some? Put the two party icons on the same ticket. The problem? Neither icon wants to take a secondary role.

_____________________

In the 3 years I've been writing at Contratimes, I have written thrice about Rush Limbaugh. Today marks the fourth, and for good reason. Mr. Limbaugh asked an utterly simple yet brilliant question the other day: If the Democrats can't even run their own primaries, how can we expect them to run the country? And indeed it is quite evident that the Democrats can't run their own nomination process, nor can they even remotely unite their own party. Barack Obama is a uniter? Give us a break. Hillary? Are you kidding? Even recent polls show that the Democratic Party is splitting along racial lines: most blacks support Barack Obama over Hillary. This is unity? This is "healing?" [And then, as if on cue, comes these remarks from a black Democrat legislator. -- added 4.3.08]

Read this post-polling analysis from National Review Online's Byron York:

So — [Clinton and Obama are] both down five percent among whites, but Clinton is down 12 points among blacks, while Obama is unchanged. Thus, Clinton's overall positive rating is down more than Obama's. What does that say? It says what has been clear for a while now. The Democratic race is heavily racialized, and is perhaps becoming more so. Party leaders and pundits may be uncomfortable with that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. [emphasis mine]

In the end, what we are witnessing is the clash of two icons in the mess of identity politics. Democrats were looking for a "winner" rather than a qualified chief executive; they went with persona and personality rather than qualifications and substantive ideas, and they've ended up in a wild mess. Indeed, some even may have hoped to use either icon as proof of America's true evils: If either icon is rejected in the general election, then Republican America is clearly racist and/or sexist.

Ironically, as Mort Kondracke observed recently, the double-bind problems around race and sexism are not the only double-binds facing the Democratic Party. Kondracke recalls that it was the Democrats in 2000 who hooted and hollered that the "popular vote" (which then-candidate Al Gore won in the general election) trumped the "electoral college," which George W. Bush and the United States Supreme Court purportedly hijacked. Now, should the Democrats face a decision at their Denver convention where one candidate holds the lead in the popular vote but the other holds more delegates, one can almost see the paralysis. Hoisted by their own petard as a result of their petulant and indignant reaction 8 years ago, the Democrats will find themselves in a quagmire. In fact, they've led themselves right into one, and this without ANY help from Karl Rove, Fox News, or even Donald Rumsfeld.

And these are the folks who can save us from the "quagmire" of Iraq? Are these the folks Mr. Zúniga believes can govern?

How curious.


©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

What's Been Bred Into YOU?

ABC News' Jake Tapper, senior national correspondent and blogger at Political Punch, recently reported what Barack Obama apparently said in his radio interview when he mentioned a "typical white person," i.e., his grandmother. But there is something deeply disconcerting about Mr. Tapper's blog entry, partly because a correction I submitted was later deleted from Mr. Tapper's blog. Trust me when I say the correction was important.

Here is what Mr. Tapper presents in his March 20, 2008 blog entry, "Obama Talks More About His 'Typical White Person' Grandmother":


In an interview with sports radio 610 WIP in Philly early this morning, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said "the point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, well there's a reaction that's in our experiences that won't go away and can sometimes come out in the wrong way. And that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it."


I must inform the reader that Mr. Tapper follows this paragraph with a link directing readers to the actual audio clip of Mr. Obama's interview with 610 WIP. And what follows is ACTUALLY what Mr. Obama said (additions/corrections will appear in bold):


...the point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a, uh, typical white person, who, uh, y'oh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, y'know, there's a reaction that's been bred into, uh, our experiences , that that don't go away and that sometimes, uh, come out in, in the wrong way. And that that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it...


Please note the essential and totally accurate additions to what Mr. Obama reportedly said. Note, also, the potential problem. AFTER calling his grandmother a "typical white person," he sets out to describe her. Notice that he shifts, rather awkwardly, from the third person singular -- SHE -- to the first person possessive plural -- OUR, as he begins to describe his grandmother's typical fears. Hear him stop himself --"uh"-- when he says "...there's a reaction that's been bred into, uh, OUR experiences..."

First, that Mr. Obama stops himself after he says "bred into" is telling, as is his grammatical shift from "she" to "our." It appears he KNOWS he's made a dangerous gaffe. He is about to say that something is BRED INTO a "typical white person." So, stopping himself, he mitigates the effect by saying that "there's a reaction that's been bred into, uh, OUR experiences..."

What is perhaps most telling is that no sane person believes that ANYTHING is ever BRED into our EXPERIENCES. The metaphor is absurd. It makes no sense, and it makes no sense because that is not initially what Mr. Obama was going to say. He stopped himself, and he did so solely to mitigate the damage his words would have on his campaign.

But what is most important is that the quote at ABC News' blog written by Jake Tapper is wrong, and it remains wrong even AFTER I offered a mild correction. On top of that, my comment vanished.

Alas. Perhaps I have overstated it. What is most telling is that this false quote posted at ABC News has been circulated elsewhere (apparently it comes from a Philadelphia newspaper). And, the fact that few are even mentioning the "bred into" locution is most disturbing of all. Had this been a locution uttered -- EVEN accidentally -- by a WHITE or REPUBLICAN candidate for president, he (or she) would be asked to leave the country.

Surely this proves that George Orwell was a prophet.


Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

It Would Seem To Me...

... and I am just thinking aloud here, that if the nation's attention, particularly as it was held last week, were to focus on a "typical white" evangelical mega-church, one roughly the size of Barack Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ, where a particular white presidential candidate was a member (theoretically speaking), and Americans were to hear what were considered incendiary, divisive, reprehensible remarks coming from that church's pulpit, I should think it reasonable to assert that we would hear -- in all forms of media -- no matter how many good works emanated from that house of God, no end to the hue and cry that this "typical white" evangelical church was led by very typical evangelists who play to congregants' fears, fears like homophobia and xenophobia, for the sole purpose of MAKING THEMSELVES RICH!!

I am sorry. But is that not true? Would we not hear that the eight thousand pitiable parishioners waving their hands in worship were being seduced by a pastor's words for the single purpose of stealing their money? Is that not what the mega-church is all about?

And would we not hear cries of alarm going up -- should this "typical white" evangelical church manifest its enthusiasm for God by cheering loudly, war-whooping in approval of its pastor's proclamations and leaping in the aisles for sheer joy -- that such a congregation was a threat, was reminiscent of a fascist's rally, was a political force that should raise our concern?

Of course we'd hear this.

Alas, Barack Obama's mega-church church cannot be a threat; it can't be all about the money. Just look at the meek Obama. There's nothing alarming about him. There's nothing "typical."

Of course not. But I do notice that his "former" pastor and beloved mentor, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, is moving into a $1.6 million home that Trinity United Church of Christ is building now that he's retired -- on a $1o million line of credit.

It can't be about the money. Money and the pulpit...that's a typical white thing, I presume, where white pastors EXPLOIT the less fortunate.

And so it goes.


Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

"GOD" is still speaking?

One of my first essays at Contratimes was titled, "The god of love." It is worth quoting the opening sentences of that essay here, as they still ring true, though perhaps for very different reasons than when I first penned them.

Permit me to announce my rejection of Christ. For if Christianity is as the United Church of Christ (UCC) suggests in its recent TV commercial, then I have no interest in being a Christian. Such religiosity is anathema to me; and I'm anathema to it.

I have indeed renounced the Christ that is not the Christ, if you will. For I do not recognize as divine the voice of the Christ presented in the various churches I used to frequent. So I not only renounce that voice, I denounce it in total. It is to me an ugly voice.

Why, on this April Fools' Day, should I return to the United Church of Christ and its rather ugly message? Well, perhaps I do so for two reasons. The first is because the "Christ" voice I hear in the UCC is remarkably similar to the voice I hear in the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire (I am an Episcopalian in exile), which is identical to the voice I hear in the Unitarian Universalist society which I often frequented, which is identical to the voice I hear daily in the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It is, in the end, a political voice, not a divine one, and not even a truly religious one.

But most important, I mention this UCC voice because my hypocrisy alarm has sounded. Again.

_____________________

Let it be known that the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ is Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Let it also be known that said church is the largest fiscal donor to the United Church of Christ's "Wider Mission." (see UCC press release here)

In other words, the church in which the revered though wildly controversial Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. presided is the capstone congregation of the United Church of Christ. It is in this church, one that sits atop a particularly liberal religious denomination, where Barack Obama worshiped for 20 years. It is also the church to which Mr. Obama gave over $20,000 -- no casual sum -- in 2006.

But where is the hypocrisy in all of this? Well, perhaps it all begins years ago (1993) in the UCC's denunciation of the Boy Scouts of America (many BSA troops once used UCC church facilities). One can read the UCC's resolution, found here in PDF form, which pronounces judgment on the independent and private Boy Scouts of America's position on homosexuality.

What perplexes me, as it probably perplexes you, is how a Christian denomination could ban from its function rooms and basement dining halls, a private club known for doing good works that also happens to take a traditional view about sexuality and marriage; and yet, that same denomination has no problem accepting funds from it largest single congregation wherein is propagated blatantly racist and anti-Semitic junk -- all in the name of "the Bible." The Boy Scouts of America hardly make a peep about sexual morality; they are curiously silent, by and large, about homosexuality in particular. It's not Boy Scouts marching against gay marriage; the Scout Oath says nothing about denying gays the right to protection under law.

And yet from its most esteemed and successful pulpit, the UCC has accepted, without blushing, the sort of pornography that has come to be known as the Gospel. Bill Clinton was "ridin' dirrrrrty" on black people; Hillary Clinton ain't never been called a "n------r!"; whites rule the United States of KKK America; it was whites who killed the black Jesus (actually, it was the "garlic-nosed" Italians who did it); AIDS was invented by the white man to kill blacks. THIS is the Gospel presented in the flagship pulpit of the United Church of Christ. You know, the very church that bans Boy Scouts for their quiet discrimination.

Of course, it only gets worse when we think of the tolerance of those great men of faith lauded by the UCC's gemstone pulpit, men like Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (a quick web search shows that Mr. Farrakhan holds some very "intolerant" views on sexuality). The Trinity United Church of Christ even published in its church newsletter an op-ed (see page 8ff here) by a man demonstrably anti-Semitic; he accused Israel of having worked with the "white supremacists" of South Africa, detonating nuclear bombs on a whim off the South African coast, and developing a bomb that would kill Arabs and blacks.

All this makes sense in a perverted way when we admit into our discussion the UCC's motto, "God is still speaking." And our reply to this God, I am sorry to say, should really be "Please, shut up." For this sort of stuff pouring from the pulpits of the UCC is not God's voice at all.

Amazingly, the UCC itself is hardly mentioned in media accounts and analysis of Reverend Wright's work (and those who echo his angry and racist beliefs). But the UCC should be held to account.

Consider this my meager start.


Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

That Paragon Of Opportunity

I am not a fan of Howard Dean. In fact, I am not certain I even like him. This sort of admission is rare for me; I make a real effort to like people. But there is just something about Mr. Dean's irrational pugnacity that I dislike; he evokes in me the same sort of reaction I get when I hear James Carville or Paul Begala speak: I sense that they will say ANYTHING in order to win.

And to curtail any criticism that I am partisan in my dislike, let me say I am also no adorer of John McCain. But I do find myself liking McCain more this morning precisely because of what Howard Dean said in a release sent to the Democratic Party faithful:

"The American people have been waiting for a president who understands the challenges they face, not another out of touch Bush Republican who promises four more years of the same failed leadership. John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years." [emphasis mine]

John McCain a "blatant opportunist"? Really?

One wonders how Mr. Dean can be so wrong. For surely John McCain was not being opportunistic when he made his apparent statement that the US would be in Iraq for a 100 years: this odd sort of opportunism can only be seen as a man who marches to the beat of his own very singular convictions. Isn't the blatant opportunist that guy who jumps on a sudden, popular mood-swing and shouts that he's been feeling similarly? Isn't a blatant opportunist that guy who embraces the popular, especially that padded by recent polls? What's so opportunistic in telling the American voter that Iraq might be a 100-year struggle? And what's so opportunistic about being a Bush supporter in matters of national defense? Isn't President Bush loathed by everybody on the planet? Does Howard Dean even know what it means to be an "opportunist"?†

Oops!

But the facts on the ground, as they might say in military circles, give the lie to Mr. Dean's over-wrought pronouncement. John McCain was not saying that American troops should or would be engaged in military conflict in Iraq for 100 years. He was saying that he could justify an American presence in that country for 100 years, a presence identical to that which the Americans have in South Korea and Germany, you know, a post-conflict presence as peace-keeper, humanitarian and deterrent. Amazingly, Howard Dean and many anti-war protesters forget or ignore the real fact that Harry Truman's troops are still in Korea and Germany (not that they are really Truman's troops, but you get the picture). Plus, it is clear Mr. Dean is choosing to mislead because he hears in Mr. McCain's words a real threat: McCain is telling the truth, while Mr. Dean and those he wants to influence not only stop their ears, they muzzle those who speak plainly, even those in their own party.

But thanks be to ABC News' Jake Tapper (and the WSJ's James Taranto), for directing me (indirectly) to this quote from Howard Dean from 2004, when Dean was stumping for John Kerry:

"The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Dean, perhaps blinded by his own sycophancy, clearly gives us fodder for ridicule, for clearly his man in 2004, John Kerry, never rose above the level of a blatant opportunist, at least when it came to throwing up his war credentials as points of honor. If John McCain is an opportunist for reminding us that he has military street cred, then what was John Kerry in 2004? (Taranto makes this point to greater effect, by the way.)

But more importantly, nothing proves that the blatant opportunist in all of this is Howard Dean himself.

Oops!

And to top things off, Mr. Dean mocks Mr. McCain's apparent lack of economic erudition. That's rich, indeed.

Isn't it self-evident that when Americans consider the paragons of all things economic, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Howard Dean are not the first -- or even the second, fifth or tenth -- names that come to mind?

Oops, again.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†(Special thanks to Mort Kondracke, who made similar points last night on "Special Report.")