Unambiguous Contradictions: The "Love" Of European Cinema

Sometimes a discovery hits one on the head, like Newton's proverbial apple. What follows is not that sort of discovery. It would be nice to report, even to boast, that I've seen the heretofore unseeable, but no such report shall come. My discovery is more curio than creed, more reverie than revolution. No paradigm shift will follow this discovery's simple wake. Nonetheless, I hope you will join me on my brief jaunt through the philosophy of filmmaking, or cinematic storytelling, and the current condition of the liberal mind in America (I use the word "liberal" to indicate those who might describe themselves as secular progressives with socialist tendencies, and anyone to the left of that).

I am sure you've heard some version of the following in your lifetime: American films are vastly different from European films. No doubt you're nodding your head right now: Not only have you heard this before, you know it, from experience, to be true. And it is arguably true much of the time. In fact, let us without hesitation state the differences:

• American films are often overtold, without subtlety or nuance, in contrast to European films.
• American films present plot lines that are largely predictable, slaking Americans' thirst for resolution, for clear portrayals of the good and the bad; of the guy always getting the girl or the bad guy getting his comeuppance before the last credits. European films are freer from these constraining expectations; and European filmmakers are content with ambiguity and ambivalence, almost flaunting that contentment.
  
• American films speak not only to Americans' alleged need for clear and defined solutions and resolutions, but such films also speak to their alleged need for endings that are not abrupt, thus never leaving viewers hanging. Americans demand a denouement, a tidy wrap up. In contrast, European filmmakers, aware of the complexities of life and death, recognize that life itself often ends abruptly, without resolution, without clarity; their films mirror that reality.
  
• American films are produced for maximum economic impact, for making a big profit splash, while European films are produced for their own sake as works of art (or so it goes).
• American films are largely produced for entertainment purposes, for titillation or distraction, while European films are produced to elevate the soul, to engage the intellect and the heart; or to shock the viewer into existential honesty about the intrinsic meaninglessness (or purposelessness) of life and the shallowness and relativism of social mores.
  

I am not here going to discuss the veracity of these claims. I am interested in something more sociological than cinematic; I want to discuss politics and not the philosophy of art. In fact, what I am interested in is how the differences between American and European film have shaped personal identities in America. What do I mean? I mean that in America, those people who consider themselves "liberal" are nearly always the ones flocking to art theaters to see the latest European import, or the latest edgy independent film. Art films are not usually seen by mobs of conservative, flag-waving Republicans (forgive the overwrought stereotype). Art films, indie shorts, European cult films -- these and nearly anything else European or Euro-inspired are the sorts of things that help define "artsy-fartsy," left-leaning Americans. No self-respecting liberal filmgoer will ever pronounce that "Point of No Return" is better than its inspiration, "Le Femme Nikita," (to pick one populist, albeit violent, example). No genuine artsy-type would ever prefer the Academy Award-winning "Chariots of Fire" to the equally lauded and more continental "American Beauty" (assuming, of course, that type of person would even countenance such "mainstream" films). The European film is a mark of identification for liberals, who are just so comfortable with ambiguity, with abrupt endings, with being left on the edge of the seat, denying themselves the plebeian pleasure of a denouement. Having everything neatly packaged, or fully explained in the gross simplicities of black-and-white moralism, are all anathema to the liberal, sophisticated filmgoer. Tension, irresolution, angst, ennui, despair, futility (and laughter in the face of all of it): these are the mainstays of solid liberal film-loving. Give the liberal a Peter Greenaway film, and give the conservative the utterly predictable "Passion of the Christ" or "March of the Penguins" (both big among evangelicals, by the way); both will be happy.

At least this is true in my experience. When I visit the art house, or when I trek to Harvard Square for a progressive film, I am never surrounded by a bunch of John Birch-types, or even Reagan types. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Clinton: these suit my fellow theater-goers. No, I'm surrounded by the urbane liberals whose sophistication comes trippingly off their tongues.

Oddly, this is only the case, apparently, when discussing film (or literature). For the liberal suddenly becomes an anxious dolt when it comes to politics. Just take a look at liberal responses to the Alito hearings, for example. Chuck Schumer, a liberal New York Democrat, was shocked and dismayed that Judge Alito would not define with absolute clarity his position on Roe v. Wade. Alito in fact incensed all the most liberal members of the US Senate, House, and press corps, hiding (or so he was accused) in ambiguity and dancing around nuance. Unsure of how a Justice Alito might adjudicate, liberals suddenly demanded certainty of their future, demanding guarantees to prop up what has given their lives meaning and purpose for so long. Liberals expect the courts and governments to give their lives stability, in contradiction of the existentialism of the art house, which says that meaning and stability can only come from the self (good old conservative self-reliance?).

One look at the Iraq War will also speak to my point. Liberals scream for an exit strategy, for a "plan" and "purpose," for something unambiguously immediate; for a redeployment that brings swift and immediate resolution. Liberals plead for a denouement; for a tidy ending. Liberals demand a purpose for war and every action related thereto; or they plead for a war-less world, one bereft of cinematic drama and reality's unblinking hardness. Liberals even pronounce a black-and-white sense of justice, with President Bush (and America) as evil and anyone else morally superior ("Anyone but Bush!"). Liberals aver that the war is "all about oil" or "all about imperialism," claims which are patently unambiguous and without nuance.

Liberals want government guarantees to care for the poor; or to save the environment; or to ensure that no child is either left behind or without medical coverage. That these are all fears voiced with a Hosanna! Hosanna! (Save us!) to the great State somehow go unnoticed. But what will not go unnoticed is how these anxious pleas stand in contrast to the love of art's alleged ambiguity and purposelessness.

Ironically, it appears that it is the conservatives who are comfortable with political ambiguity, of not knowing how everything will and must end. It is the liberals who want to take not only the suffering but even the anxiety out of life; while the conservatives, who abhor suffering and anxiety, recognize that neither can be expunged solely by the salvific state. Conservatives appear to be fine with free markets -- instead of laws -- shaping economies. Conservatives appear at ease with a war without a defined (and limiting) exit-strategy. Conservatives appear comfortable with a Supreme Court nominee who may or may not overturn Roe v. Wade (and there are many conservatives who support Roe v. Wade, whereas there is nary a liberal who opposes it, which suggests much about which side is more free-thinking). In short, it is the conservatives who are comfortable in practice with life's raw difficulties, whereas liberals only speak of such in theory from the safety of a Greenwich café.

So, there's my foray into film and identity politics. I have only opined about it here, having thought of my thesis last night while listening to the radio. Take it as you will. I am sure it falls short, but astute thinkers will see irony, hypocrisy and hubris, I believe, in those who claim to be "real" patrons of both progressive film and liberal philosophy.

Now, please excuse me while I go and watch "Memento" – in reverse.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Photo: Something ambiguous, I hope. Some of you won't see what it is until you "free your mind."]

Reading Between And Beyond The Lines: A New Book Club Without Oprah

Welcome to the first ever Contratimes Book Club presented by Semitartnoc Productions. This inaugural post in no way is intended to compete with the esteemed Oprah Book Club. It is a mere tangent to Ms. Winfrey's wonderful and well-drawn circle. Of course, I will NOT be discussing to any great extent Ms. Winfrey's recent attempts to win Frey, the shamed author of the dubious memoir, "A Million Little Pieces," which Ms. Winfrey had so gushingly recommended. Others have done so thoroughly. I point you to Ocular Fusion's two solid (as oak) posts on the matter (here and here), and the New York Times article published today. But I do gloat (such a sin, really) that Ms. Winfrey's Book Club may sway a bit under the weight of this small scandal. Please, forgive the pun (no, don't), but this means only one thing: Harpo gets bad marks (no doubt it would all Frey Groucho).†

Here at Contratimes Book Club, readers who attend our bi-monthly meetings shall be required to do something counter-cultural: they are required to do exegesis without eisogesis. Exegesis is the reading of any text in order to determine what it says, to "get out" its meaning, to discern the writer's intended message. Eisogesis (pronounced Ice-O-Gee-sus, which is not a chilly religious sculpture at the Ireland Winter Carnival), is the rather presumptuous "reading into" a text what a reader may wish to see therein.

You see, it is a rather common practice among those other kinds of reading groups to gather together to discuss, not so much the book-of-the-month, but how the book-of-the-month makes one FEEL. Scant regard is given to what the author's text or message might say or mean; to its veracity or accuracy. Nay, what matters is how the text affects the reader; what jostles the reader's mind, inspiring a torrent of commentary that may, indeed, have nothing to do with the book at all. What is looked for are springboards into dynamic and communal reveries; into a common experience bonding reader to reader without much bonding between reader and writer.

Of course, this sort of thing is rife in Western culture. Ask a person why he is so devoted to the lyrics of Green Day or FooFighters, and one will often receive an answer that suggests a real disinterest in what the songwriters actually mean. Read interviews between journalists and their subjects, be they poets and playwrights, and there is often a tossing up of the hands: "The piece means whatever you want it to mean." There is so much cachet in that sort of poetical mastery; that a work transcends the petty constraints of intent, purpose, meaning, truth. What it means to you is different than what it meant to me during the writing process, one might hear, but let us revel together that we have the shared experience of reading and interpreting it so genuinely and authentically according to our own needs and terms.

Thus, Oprah's defense of Mr. Frey's putative memoir offered when she called into Mr. Larry King's show, is sadly all too familiar (bold added for emphasis):

'...I feel about "A Million Little Pieces" that although some of the facts have been questioned -- and people have a right to question, because we live in a country that lets you do that, that the underlying message of redemption in James Frey's memoir still resonates with me. And I know that it resonates with millions of other people who have read this book and will continue to read this book.

'And, you know, one of the things James says in the book, for all the people who are going through any kind of addiction, is to hold on. And I just wanted to -- you know, I have been calling this number and it's been busy, trying to get through to say to all those people out there who have received hope from reading this book, keep holding on, because the essence of that, I don't doubt.

'Whether or not the car's wheels rolled up on the sidewalk or whether he hit the police officer or didn't hit the police officer is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that he was a drug addict who spent years in turmoil, from the time he was 10 years old, drinking and -- and tormenting himself and his parents.

And, out of that, stepped out of that history to be the man that he is today, and to take that message to save other people and allow them to save themselves. That's what's important about this book and his story.'

Truth should never stand in the way of a good message. Of course, in this case the message is that the memoir is supposed to be true, which is wherein the redemption and hope lie. Redemption does not lie in fantasy; people are not redeemed by a story passed off as true that is in fact rather thoroughly false. People are redeemed and inspired by the real and true, the authentic, the historically accurate and the miracle of facts; and they are also inspired by allegories and novels and myths and legends that are well-known and beloved fictions. But no one is inspired by the breathtaking beauty of deception. Prevarication and mythomania should give readers pause; should give them reason for caution and scepticism, both essential for salvation. Alas, even Oprah's remarks yesterday on her show were an effort to liberate in the old way: The TRUTH shall set you free.

I have run several book groups, and I am amazed at how little interest there is in knowing what any given book's author intended in his or her book. One former participant (a leader in the Episcopal Church where I was leading one group) criticized me for caring too much about the author (G. K. Chesterton) and too little about getting to know everyone in attendance. Her advice was that books were a socializing tool to "build community" and not sources of truth and power. Her view was that books were like an hors d'oeuvre around which people gathered for fellowship; while my view was that books were more like an entree for nourishment or even a bonfire for heat and light. Sentiments rarely build community. Truth builds community. In fact, there has never been a holy site or village erected around a feeling. But there have been many holy sites erected around some event that is at least believed to have happened in truth.

So let me stop here and separate the wheat from the chaff. Do we read in order to learn something presented within these lines, or to learn something outside these lines? Is there really a narrative and a meta-narrative, with the meta-narrative trumping everything else? Or is there something literally present in words, sentences, paragraphs, that demands our respectful attention, begging us to die to ourselves for just one second, to hear an author's voice without the constant drumming of our own self-interested commentary? Is it enough to have a shared experience built around our own affections, without the solidity of truth and historicity? Does literalism not count for anything? If so, do we ignore something to our peril?

Contratimes

†Harpo is Oprah in reverse and is the name of Ms. Winfrey's business empire. Groucho (Marx), of course, was Harpo's brother. Lastly, Mr. Frey's name is pronounced Fry.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Staggering Still: Working Through Suicide

[I just returned from the dentist. The Novocain† has left my tongue a bit numb and unwieldy, so forgive me if I thhlur thum of my words. And I've decided to schlow down how quickly I type to make it easier for you schlower readers to keep apace (that's such a silly old joke, but I love it). But I will pass along, gratuitously, that Dr. David and his (gorgeous) assistant Jane are indeed the dynamic duo of dentistry. They're so good, I purposely encourage my own tooth decay. (OK, I jest about the decay part). With this lighthearted note, I present a somber post.]

Loyal Contratimes readers will remember that last month I mentioned the recent suicide of an old college buddy, a doctor who turned his own medical skill against the miraculous physiology which was his body. Just to let you know, M.'s suicide has left me unsteady on my feet. I am often struck midstride with vertigo, my soul suddenly tipsy with grief and incredulity. There is something truly staggering about it, and I have to will myself back into balance. I have tried to express my sorrow and disappointment without trundling out my bag of sorrows before you, estranging you with my candor. And to think, M. and I had not been close for years.

With that said, it would not be unfair to observe that there is a societal tendency to look at suicide romantically. If that is untrue, then it is at least clear that there is a tendency to look at what leads to suicide through something of a romanticizing lens; that the suicide victim was a tormented yet brilliant genius, unfit for the world which could not embrace him, which could never understand the breadth of his comprehension or the delicate sensitivity of his soul. The suicide victim in some cases was too good for this tawdry life; was too ideal for our mundanity; was too creative to live in the banality of society. The tormented mind is perceived as heroic, discerning through the trite claptrap that fills our daily lives and glimpsing the real, the just, the true; the beyond. The tormented mind is even permitted to be bored with our vacuous little pursuits; he finds the things most people worship to be so much ephemera, so much rejectamenta, so much yawning emptiness. He is perceptive without limit.

Of course, I reject that, and so would M., I believe. His was neither a life nor a death that can be understood in such terms. What comes to mind with M. is the need to stop something, to find a cessation to a constant that should never have been; to close a half-read book that had no possibility of a happy ending (or so he perceived). His was a death born of fatigue, not genius.

I wrote of my struggles with M.'s suicide just before Christmas:

"... I noticed something strange about suicide that I don't think I've ever noticed before. For instance, had M. died suddenly from a natural cause, or in some horrific crash, I would be meditating on his past far differently than I have, in fact, been doing. I would have thought only about the goodness, even the greatness of M.; and I would have been angered at the world's loss of so bright a light. I would have looked over M.'s life and noticed little else but that bright path of his light still glowing in his wake (ignoring even his sins). But instead of doing that, I can't help but look upon M.'s path not so much for the lovely things, but for the sad and dark things, the hints and clues, the causes and influences, that led him to his very sad end. I know this is not what M. deserves, nor is it what I suspect he would've wanted me to do. But I can't help it. Is this experience a necessary result of suicide? Are my meditations, all cloudy and at times even angry, an unavoidable consequence of such deaths? Is it possible to look at the suicide of a friend and not blame oneself; to not look upon all the misunderstandings and lost opportunities without some sort of self-doubt? Egads, a young man who is a notorious rascal who dies suddenly in a skiing accident is nearly sainted at his funeral, with everyone his best friend; but the saint who commits suicide is reflected upon with misgivings, with doubts abounding about perceptions, and whether anyone was ever a best friend."

I still feel this way, and I won't be shaken free of these thoughts any time soon. Suicide does not really memorialize the hero in the person who kills himself; it brings out the dark rememberings, the ugly guesses and "what-ifs"; the doubts that the person was ever transparent or honest or sincere. Or even a friend. In other words, if the suicide victim intends his survivors to memorialize him in wonder and triumph, he is most likely mistaken. Beneath the veneer of mourners' polite gratitude there will be doubt.

There was a time when suicide victims were buried separately from the rest of the dead. As they separated themselves from the living in this world, so they were separated from them, at least symbolically, in the post-mortem memorials of terrestrial graveyards. I understand the sentiment behind the decision to separate -- although, in admitting that, I am not suggesting I know the eternal fate of the soul, nor am I suggesting damnation.

G.K. Chesterton once suggested that suicide was not the killing of one's self, but the killing of the whole world. In a very real sense, that is true: the suicide has indeed murdered us all, cutting us off from him, declaring, in the fateful act, that there is nothing here worth living for or, perhaps, even remembering. There is no baby's smile, no blossom or bee or bluebird sky that is worth marveling at just one more time. It is all worthless, and even if the suicide deems that he is the only thing worthless, he admits in death that there was nothing in earth or sky or lover's eye that could ever redeem him.

There are no conclusions reached here. There is only sorrow making its tipsy way toward something that I hope is not darkness forsaken, but light and life everlasting.

Contratimes

†For you spelling nerds, Novocain is the proper name for an actual brand of anesthesia; novocaine is the generic name or synonym for procaine, or so reports the Oxford American Dictionary. A mere trifle. But I want to be accurate for each of you (nerds).

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

On Reading Signs

It's January in New Hampshire, and I've got daffodils beginning to spike in my gardens. Where there should be snow, there is grass, still a deep green in spots. Where there should be cold, there is an April warmth, with an occasional fly sailing past. Are these signs of something good, or something bad? Do they portend disaster, an omen of sorts, or are they marvels to cheer the frozen heart?

I have never been any good at reading signs. So I take a chance in suggesting that it is good news, so far, that we have not yet heard the fate of Ms. Jill Carroll, the kidnapped journalist held under the threat of execution in Iraq. I pray that her release is imminent.

As I watch the wild turkeys peck their way through my yard, I wonder if they are at all concerned about the Middle East. Do they talk among themselves about Iran's nuclear ambitions? Do they speak with the crows and blue jays flitting around beneath the feeders, all clucking and clicking about sanctions and resolutions and the apocalypse? Do they see the early daffodils and wonder what time it is? Or are they oblivious, commuting daily in the hustle and bustle of forest and fen, striving to get ahead, to earn their keep, scratching out a living in the temporarily thawing earth?

But this post is really about me. Today is not about politics or war or death. It's about my own sort of dyslexia. You see, I really have never been any good at reading signs. Once I stood in a convenience store that also had a pizza-by-the-slice business. On the pizza case, taped above the spinning pies, was a handwritten sign that said, "Buy one, get one." I spoke to the manager at the counter.

"You know, your sign seems a little mis-written. I should hope that if I buy one slice, I will get one." The man looked at me like I was some smart-talking bookworm he hated in grade school. "I think you mean to say that I will get a second slice for free," I offered with no hint of judgmentalism. He grunted and walked away. And then he shook his head.

I once commented to my wife while at a modest dining establishment that she should try the soup du jour, "Vegetarian Vegetable" that was posted on the bill of fare. I told her I was sure it was far better than the "Vegetarian Beef." The waitress, who heard my quip (I wanted her to), twisted her face in disbelief.

"Vegetarian Beef! Der! There is no such thing as Vegetarian Beef! My god!"

She need not have gotten so snippy. Would it have done any good to tell her I had no skill in reading signs? Would it have helped to tell her how I've stood in restaurant bathrooms waiting for the employees to wash my hands? I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've defied the little sign that says "Employees Must Wash Hands." Damn it, I mutter each time, do they think I can wait forever? Do you think if I told her my problem, she'd show the slightest sympathy? Or would I get a "My god!" as she turns heel for the kitchen?

Or would it do any good to admit that, during a particularly bad mood, I once stopped at one of those storage unit rental places and asked the proprietor how much it would cost for me to stay there for a few days?

"I am sorry," he said. "No one is allowed to stay in any of the units."

"But, but, but ..." I sputtered, perplexed. "Then why does the sign say, 'Hilltop Self Storage?'"

He didn't get it either.

I've never been any good at reading signs. My God, indeed.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Prayers Of Hope

Jill Carroll, as you know, is slated to be executed today by the hands of her captors in Iraq. Ms. Carroll is a freelance journalist working for the Christian Science Monitor, and was kidnapped several days ago by members of a heretofore unknown extremist group. The group has called for the immediate release of all Iraqi women prisoners held by American authorities in Iraq. Ms. Carroll's life will be spared if the demands are met.

Ms. Carroll and I may differ on everything political, religious, and philosophical. She, in fact, may disdain my opinions and convictions. I do not know. But I do know that she is my sister on this earth, a fellow traveller. As such, she deserves my prayers, and all our prayers. I am praying that the RIGHT thing happens, with no further death and mayhem. I am praying for peace, a quick and clean resolution. I am praying for intervention, for sanity and grace and mercy. I am praying for reconciliation, for healthy compromise, for justice with love.

I know I am praying for a lot. But I am praying nonetheless. Please pray with me today, tomorrow.

Peace to you, Ms. Carroll.

Madeleine Albright, Diane Rehm, And Casual Sedition - Part II

[Editor's note: For some reason, the first part of this series (which needs to be read to enjoy what follows) was posted in its rudimentary form, though I swear I posted the final draft. I am disappointed by this odd incident for two reasons. First, this series is a difficult one, and it is, I believe, one of the most important things I've worked on at Contratimes. To see it so poorly presented is disconcerting, to say the least. Second, my goal is to always give readers a finished and superlative product. I apologize for failing to meet my goal.]

It's a word I am glad I know: Disingenuous<"not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."(Oxford American Dictionary) And it is today's perfect word. But I ask, what is the word for someone pretending to know more than he really does? A dilettante? a charlatan? a flimflammer? a contratimesean? I ask because there really needs to be a specific word–and I think there is one but it eludes me–that describes Madeleine Albright as she answers questions during Diane Rehm's interview aired Monday, January 9, on NPR. In Part II of our series, I continue with the following excerpt. As in Part I, items of note will be highlighted in bold text:

(1)Diane Rehm: Do you think that Democrats now are formulating a cohesive, coherent alternative policy to what the Bush Administration has decided to do in Iraq or do you believe they’re simply sitting back? [Editor's note: Please notice that this is a hidden fallacy of the loaded question. I believe Rehm intimates, without having shown it anywhere, that the Bush Administration does not have a policy that is cohesive and coherent. It is very subtle.]

Madeleine Albright: Well, I don’t know about all Democrats, but I don’t think people are sitting back, I think there is a great deal of examination of what the record has been and also where we should go and some genuine questions, I mean, it’s very hard, Diane, when you are not in office, not in power in the White House, and you don’t control either House, and you are dependent a great deal on intelligence that you are given and you don’t have the responsibility (falter) it’s a problem in terms of not having enough information but you also have the responsibility to explore a lot of different avenues and to ask a lot of different questions, and I think that’s what the Democrats are doing based on the fact that they are very worried that this war is not going well and that it has all kinds of collateral damage not only with civilians but collateral damage in terms of our reputation, so Democrats at least the ones I speak with are uniformly concerned. But I do think something that is so important is I don’t know any Democrat that wants us to fail.

(2)DR: Do you agree with Congressman Murtha who has said we ought to get out now [of Iraq] because we are ruining our reputation in this world?

MA: Well, my view on this is I am not somebody that is for a deadline because I saw the problems that putting a deadline created for us in Bosnia. We said we’d be out in one year and we couldn’t be out and so it made us look as though we were liars. I do think that we have to figure out a way to have some kind of strategic redeployment, because our problem is, and this is the horribly difficult paradox, our presence is both the problem and the solution, uh, because the security in Iraq of their own forces, military as well as police, are [sic] not yet up to providing an environment that the Iraqis can prosper in, and yet clearly we are also a magnet for the insurgency. So I think that the year 2006 should be a year of transition and while I might not agree with the specifics that Congressman Murtha has raised, I think that he really did change the discussion, and that was very important, to really get some focus on what was going on.

(3)DR: Do you believe that President Bush or members of his cabinet misled the Congress of the American people about the decision to go to war?

MA: I think that they used the facts that they wanted and not present [sic] a full picture and I am very worried about how information was used. Secretary Powell has now spoken about how he does not think that the material that he presented at the UN which seemed to so many people as dispositive was actually accurate, and so I am very concerned by the kinds of facts that were presented to the American people and how the decision to go to war was really made.

(4)DR: There are some calls from those on the extreme of either party and among President Bush’s most severe critics for impeachment proceedings. What’s your reaction?

MA: Well I am not somebody that [sic] would call for something like that because I think we have a very serious issue now in terms of governance generally in our country and I know how disruptive it can be, but I think that as more and more facts come out I think that President Bush and his people owe us more and more of an explanation because I think this is a very destructive war, as I said in many different ways, it also is having implications domestically, and I am very troubled but I am not in a position to make that kind of a call.

Recall with me the character in the Lord of the Rings trilogy named Grima Wormtongue. Wormtongue was a snake-like man, a whisperer and insinuator, who's corruptive speech sedated King Theoden, drumming that fairminded king into a snarling, feckless trance. Wormtongue was subtle and crafty, speaking with caprice and deceptions, deceptions disguised as reasonable possibilities.

I can't help but think Mss. Rehm and Albright have wormtongued us throughout their conversation. There is a gossipy quality, a syrupy slipperiness that oozes from their tongues. There is a feigned cautiousness, a pretense at restraint. Reservations are posited that are quickly ignored.

Here are a few problems with what Albright (with a wink and a lead from Rehm) has said. First, the pervasive fact that permeates all of Albright's words is her admissions that she is no longer in office, that what she is discussing is "so hypothetical", that she is aware of only what she has read in "various books" regarding the Bush Administration, and that she is not in a position to really inform us with much that is accurate. Nevertheless, she divines quite a lot from her admitted position of weakness. For instance, while she can't really call for the impeachment of the president, she nonetheless implies that he is, indeed, impeachable. For she avers that he has misused intelligence for his own purposes, and he owes "more and more of an explanation" how it is America found itself in such "a very destructive war."

Second, Albright leaves us with the conviction that former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell has doubts about the Iraq War, ostensibly discouraged by delivering bad counsel to the UN weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq. Let us indeed remind ourselves that not only Mr. Powell but the President himself have said that much if not all of the intelligence on which Mr. Powell's case was based was in fact wrong. But let us also remember what Albright has forgotten: knowing what he knows now, Powell still believes the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Albright and Rehm know this, but the wormy thing to do is to pick-and-choose facts that are useful for their own personal purposes.

Third, let us all admit the fact which is as obvious as the sun. There is no doubt that at some point US troop numbers are to be reduced in Iraq in the coming months. Iraq is after all stabilizing, even if reports suggest that it is not. It has never been as unstable as the media suggest; it has never been a quagmire. Knowing this, we can expect troops to be scaled back, following an unforced timeline, within the year. And yet, because we know this, we can use that fact for political gain, which is exactly what Congressman Murtha did. By seemingly pushing the issue of "immediate redeployment" of US troops in Iraq, as Murtha did in November, Murtha and the Democrats can now suggest that their actions resulted in scaling back troop numbers in combat zones. That is why Albright says that Mr. Murtha "really has changed the discussion." But he did no such thing. He just exploited the obvious for party bragging rights.

Lastly, don't you think it is interesting that during a conversation about the President having misled us all into war, that both Mss. Rehm and Albright mislead us? Does that bother you? Should it bother you?

One last thing: It is amazing that Rehm and Albright never mention the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by Mr. Bill Clinton (and supported by Ms. Albright) and eloquently defended by him in this cover letter. Notice that neither the law nor Mr. Clinton is fixated on weapons of mass destruction. Rather, both the law and Mr. Clinton were fixed on "regime change." In typical Wormtongue fashion, Ms. Albright suggests that President Bush has arrived at his conclusions in a vacuum, conclusions that need "explanation." She ignores that President Bush merely inherited the legal Iraq policy drafted during Ms. Albright's tenure in the State Department.

What really needs to be explained is Ms. Albright's shamelessness and her casual sedition.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

The Problem Of Prophets: The Amazing Maze

Recently, prophecy has been wildly popular, or at least wildly prevalent. Pat Robertson suggested that Ariel Sharon was perhaps ill as a result of his misdeeds, with God protecting the land of Israel from being divided. Two days ago, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pronounced that God wanted New Orleans to be "chocolate", and that God was punishing America with hurricanes for its involvement in Iraq.

Following two posts on this topic (here and here), this post is an exploration of prophecy as it plays out in Protestant America, particularly in Protestant Evangelical America. If you are not religiously inclined and yet are interested in the problem - and I think there is a problem - then I welcome you to the discussion. But for the most part this post is written to and for Christians, particularly those who are Evangelical in doctrine, worship and identity.†

First, this observation. Prophecy is not confined to religious conservatives. Leftists augur all the time. Leftists offer dire predictions about the consequences of war, for example, particularly war in Iraq. Leftists deign that 9/11 occurred, not as retribution because of sexual immorality, like some conservatives suggested, but because of greed or imperialism or conservatism in general. Religious leftists, like Jimmy Creech or Gene Robinson, believe that certain leftist ideals are indeed God's ideals. And Karl Marx, the leftist par excellence, predicted with religious devotion that history must culminate in the socialist state.

With that in mind, I would like to take a look at the problem facing the many churches in America who believe A) that the Bible is the final, authoritative revelation of God, and B) that the prophetic voice is alive in the Church.

To begin, let us look at the following articles from Statements of Faith accepted by four well-known Protestant denominations - the United Methodist (UM), The Church of the Nazarene (COTN), The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC). I have highlighted in bold the salient feature I wish to discuss:

UM (1992): The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

COTN: We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

EFCA: (We believe) The Scriptures, both Old & New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

CCCC: We believe the Bible consisting of the Old and New Testament, to be the only inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God written.

Each of these differs slightly from another, but there is one clear fact: The Bible is deemed final, not only in matters of authority, but in revelation. In short, what each of these hold in common is the belief that Christian revelation is closed, that the canon or scriptures are complete, and that nothing more can be added. In fact, as a warning against adding to the Christian revelation, particularly aimed at those intent on creating cults, this New Testament passage is often invoked by the Faith's defenders: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." (Rev. 22:18)

For my purpose here, I want to solely focus on the CCCC statement that the Bible is the "only inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God written."

Now, what follows is an argument I presented (in a formal letter) to a CCCC church about 8 years ago. The reaction I received was interesting: I was called to a meeting with the Church's senior and associate pastors, and the chairman of the elders. It seemed I was a problem. Here is what I asked them, in part and essentially:

"If the canon of scripture is closed, as the CCCC statement of faith suggests, if it is the only inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God written, then why are men and women permitted, in this particular church, to exercise the 'gift of prophecy?'"

Perhaps a little background will help. I was attending a CCCC church wherein periodically a man would stand up in the middle of a church service, raising his voice, booming out something that always began like this: "Oh, my people! I have heard your cries, I have seen your ..." You get the picture. Needless to say, every time this happened, I was freaked out. It seemed so, well, confusing, disorienting, and, more pertinently, subjective. Was this man actually channeling the Spirit of God? Who could tell?

Well, I could, and he was not (and yet, confident as I was, doubts nonetheless assailed me). Most of this man's prophecies were cut-and-pasted regurgitations of well-known biblical passages, drawn largely from the Psalms and Minor Prophets. They were offered in stentorian voice, and were just dripping with emotions, some urgent, some maudlin, some dire and confrontational. My heart literally shook when this guy spoke, and it goes without exaggeration that he confused many people: Was God really speaking? Really?

But this man is not the only sort of prophet in churches. There are others, more subtle, less flamboyant. There's the praise leader that says that God has told her the praise band should do such and such. There's the man at the men's prayer breakfast who announces that God has told him to quit his job. There's the associate pastor that declares that God has told him what NOT to preach when he walks up to the pulpit, with a new, unplanned, extemporaneous message (or is he just concealing that he's unprepared?). There is the teenage convert proclaiming that God told him he would be an evangelist. Each of these people have had something revealed to them, by God, beyond the realm of rational scrutiny. It is all about faith.

Now, I hope you see the problem. For if the prophet, particularly the dramatic, public, flamboyant one who is deemed to be exercising his "spiritual gift", if that prophet is indeed speaking the truth, what is the nature of that truth? Assuming that the man has not just stood up and shouted forth some scripture verse (how is that prophetic?); assuming that God is indeed showing something not before seen, is what the prophet said inerrant? For surely it should be if it is coming from God, just as it should be infallible, authoritative and inspired. If it is not these things, then it can't be from God, for God is believed infallible and inerrant. (Or does God transmit information to us that is not inerrant and infallible through these prophets?)

Similarly, the man who was told by God to get a new job must not be wrong, if he was actually told something by God, right? Let us assume that the man was indeed told by God to take up his home and move; let us grant that the woman who stepped out of the path of a speeding car was in fact told so by God; where does that leave us regarding revelation? Does it not mean that revelation is not closed, it is not over? Indeed, it does.

But most importantly it means that the Bible is not complete. For if a man stands up and declares that "God is mad at America" or that "Prayer moved a hurricane" or that "God wants me to move to Dallas," and I write those things down, I now have another "inspired, infallible, inerrant and authoritative Word of God written." In other words, I now have, as a result of the prophets who have spoken, extra-biblical truth, extra-biblical revelation, which I cannot disregard if God DID in fact show these things to those who have uttered them. Either God spoke to these people or He did not. If He did, if I write their assertions down, then they must be infallible and authoritative, and should be part of the canon, to which I am ADDING something new. If He did not speak to them, then they are not prophets, and they are not hearing God.

This is the Protestant Problem of Prophecy: If anyone declares that God has revealed ANYTHING to him or her, and it is true that God has revealed that thing, if I jot that news down, then that must be an addition to the written word of God.

How does one get out of this maze? Am I wrong for thinking this a maze?

Sadly, when I asked the CCCC leaders these questions, no answer was ever given.

†I am a confirmed Episcopalian on the threshold of disillusionment.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Seek And Know Not What You'll Find: Publishing Subliminal Pornography

[Warning: This post is rated, well, sort of like a PG-13 film. I just thought you should know.]

Those readers who have come to know a bit what we stand for at Contratimes should get a good laugh at some recent web searches that led new visitors to this site. The stat counter I use yields some helpful information about visitors at Contratimes, not least of which is what search string led visitors here. Trust me when I say that the information provided is fairly harmless; I know mostly the times and lengths of visits, the pages viewed, and the entry and departure point on the WWW. I do not know who's been here, or where they live.

Two recent MSN searches that led people directly to Contratimes caused me to raise my eyebrows. The first search, "ejaculating penis photos," concerned me a bit, as I've got nothing so, well, clinical on this site. I do however have an essay where I mention "ejaculation" and "penis". But my inquisitive visitor must have been disappointed: There are no pictures like that here, I can assure you. The other search, "Mardi Gras breastflashing," also scored a hit on an essay I drafted right after the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Again, no prurient photos or links here, just a few well-intended words.

I am honored to see some eager literary people drop by, even though their searches suggested plagiarism. "Free essay on the Oppression of Women" led one reader directly to my series on that topic, and, while I hope no copyright infringement occurred, I pray that the crime, if it happened, at least resulted in the perpetrator getting a decent grade in his or her class. There have been several searches in that vein, and I truly hope that no one is indeed pushing my stuff onto various professors' desks.

But the best search thus far is this Yahoo search from today: "Women who have a fetish for being an amputee and like to smoke cigarettes during sex." Now that one you can't make up. Click on the link and see that it does list a Contratimes post. Of course, it all just proves one thing: If I stick with blogging long enough, someone, or perhaps some computer search algorithm, will prove that this blog says just about everything. (Of course, now that I've linked a link to this site, have I established an infinite loop? Let's hope so!) By the way, is that not just about the longest search query ever entered?

There is, of course, massive disappointment. Why? Because I see that no one has ever been directed here after searching for that "Handsome bald man with braces who skis wickedly fast and writes the best blog ever". Surely any decent algorithm will take that query and point people here (hopefully only those women people). Of course, now that I've posted that query, some lucky researcher with a "fetish" for that sort of man won't be disappointed.

And here I thought my readers visited solely to read the articles.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

More On Prophecy: Punishing America In New Orleans

Did you know that God is angry with America? That's why He's sending "hurricane after hurricane after hurricane." No, this is not my opinion, nor is it Pat Robertson's. And God is not angry with America for "homosexuality" or "abortion," as Reverend Jerry Falwell may put it. No, God is angry with America, punishing it with calamity after calamity, for being in Iraq on "false pretenses," (which are much worse than true pretenses, I can assure you).

Who made such a bold prophetic utterance yesterday during a celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.'s life? New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin did.

In his speech, Nagin also made this innocuous remark after suggesting God is "upset at black America also [my emphasis]":

"We (members of the African-American community) are not taking care of ourselves. We are not taking care of our women, and we are not taking care of our children when you have a community where 70 percent of its children are being born to one parent."

Last year, Bill Cosby got excoriated by critics for saying something very similar to Mr. Nagin's critique of his community. I wonder how Mr. Nagin will fair, in press and public, in the wake of his prophecies.

Also, before I forget, Mayor Nagin augurs that "God wants" New Orleans to be a "majority African-American" city; in short, God wants a "chocolate city" dominated by black Americans. I am sure that that "chocolate" line is going to go down real smooth, even if Nagin later described "chocolate" as a blend of black and white.

To think, Nagin, who appears to be hearing from God, hasn't even referenced the prophet Joel. At least Pat Robertson gave us that.

Contratimes

Celebrating The Forgotten Martin Luther King Jr.

I don't really care what anyone thinks about the following statement, so I say it without hesitation: The 1960s in America were pretty sick years. I have no nostalgia for them; no awe of their alleged liberation or romance for their upheaval, no glee over the sexual and drug revolutions. I stand in protest of the 1960s and their legacy.

And one salient feature of the illness of the 1960s was the shocking death of Martin Luther King Jr. It is not shocking in that it was unexpected, for even Dr. King anticipated it, I believe, in his very final speech. It was shocking in that it was emblematic of truly profound social conflicts that marred that decade, perhaps the most vulgar and violent one, in America's history. Dr. King, after all, was a pacifist in a tumultuous and vicious fight for equality among the races. That his death, his martyrdom, may have spurred Americans toward a more just and kind world is disconcerting, as death should not be required for what seems intuitively to be a simple lesson: All men are created equal.

Of course, as a man bent toward the philosophical, I ask myself whether it is indeed true that all men are created equal. Is it? If we are strict Darwinists, if we are secularists without appeal to God or some transcendent force responsible for mankind's existence and equality, then we must concede that equality is not an ontological (metaphysical) reality. Evolution, in its dynamic "natural selection" process, abhors equality, as disparate species fight and morph for dominance and survival, with nary a hint of egalitarianism. To the secular mind "equality" must be a religious fiction created by that secularism, for there is nothing in the entire cosmos that even resembles "equality." As I've stated elsewhere, including here at Contratimes, neither "equality" nor "rights" exist in any place other than the faith-based imagination of secularists.

Unless, of course, there really is a God. Then one can indeed talk, not only of "equality" but of "rights" as well, rights rooted in the imago dei, the image of God. And that is why the concepts of "rights" and "equality" are rooted in theological language in the founding documents of America. If there is no God, there is no equality and no rights, except in that fictive realm wherein the secular mind places them. If there is a God, there is at least the potential for there to be real qualities to equality and rights; a real, ontological quality.

Of course, the philosopher in me also sees this astounding problem: If there is indeed a God, then only humans are equal one to another, for God surely is not equal to His creation. In short, a world wherein God exists is hierarchical, with God sitting in the highest seat. With that said, it is no wonder secularists abhor a theological structure for social governance, as God confounds their love of absolute equality.

While today we celebrate the memory of Martin Luther King, I would like to celebrate what is absolutely forgotten about Martin Luther King. And what is forgotten is that Dr. King held no expertise in social or political scheming; he was not trained to be a rebel or a revolutionary. No, Dr. King was first and foremost a Christian theologian and ordained minister. Sadly, in most celebrations of his life, these seem to be the first things that are forgotten about him. I wonder, how would this make him feel?

Today is really a religious holiday, but you wouldn't know it. It is a holiday celebrating the liberating power of the Gospel, the very power that liberated a young Martin King when he first attended church, and when he first attended college. It is a day, not of civil rights, but of the power of love and justice and this wild notion that God loves ALL MEN EQUALLY, which manifests itself in justice and truth in the Christian Savior walking the streets offering a message of hope to the oppressed and harassed: those persecuted by the powerful; those harassed by the terrors of their own sins. It is right to be civil, and it is civil to be right; but neither truth means anything without the civilizing and righteous power of the Christian God who calls all men and women unto Him: that neither Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free; neither man nor woman nor black nor white, are to be excluded from His banquet hall. This is not unconditional universalism, but that universalism with a caveat: that all invited guests must first accept the invitation, shedding their filthy clothes for the formal clothes that come as a result of God's sacrifice, with all men and all women attired in the grace of God's forgiveness. Those who refuse the invitation, or the forgiveness, remain, freely, outside to dine alone. The maître d' bids them Bon appetit! if they would just humble themselves and accept their reservations.

But this great day is for me in many ways a day of sorrow, for the great man Dr. Martin Luther King is cheapened, gutted and reduced to something other than he was, for he was not a secular member of the vanguard; his power was not intrinsic to him; his cause was a cause that has nothing, ultimately, to do with him at all. For it is God's cause, and Dr. King knew that, and he embraced that powerful fact. How sorrowful that our schools and culture want to forget what ultimately made Dr. King a great man.†

For me, Dr. King represents the fight to keep the cardinal virtues together in harmonic balance. G. K. Chesterton argued that the Protestant Reformation smashed the union of the cardinal virtues, causing them to run amok, befouling the earth with their zeal. Just think of love, hope, faith, justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude helter-skelter on the earth, unbound from each other. Justice untethered becomes a church or legal fund or race riot insisting on its own verdicts, neglecting the temperance which is mercy. Temperance alone turns into flagellation and legalism. Prudence in isolation turns into the idolatry of caution, dreading the imperfect choice. Love runs to and fro without the truth of justice or the restraint of self-control, and blindly affirms acts and deeds that true love, in balance, would not countenance or so casually condone. Today, I can hear Dr. King call for the orthodoxy which holds all of these virtues together, the orthodoxy of Christ. It is this part of Dr. King's message that I remember today with sadness, for it is the part of his message and his life that is forgotten.

Contratimes

†There are those who don't think Dr. King was a great man, but I think otherwise. His peccadilloes, his sins, do indeed count against him. But all of us have these charges against us. What made him great is that he held to his convictions without being paralyzed by the fact that he was a man of imperfections. Too many of us permit our imperfections to sway us from our course. We fall prey to one of the greatest social evils, which is the fixation on the purity of the messenger rather than on the accuracy of the message. It is the "Who are you?" fallacy. It is the devil's line of discredit.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Sometimes There Is Something In A Number

It is just a number. It is not a number better than another. Strictly speaking, 1 is not better than 2, nor is 24 better than 25. But I must say that today's number, 4000, is a noteworthy one, not simply because it is such a tidy number, but because some visitor to Contratimes shall be the 4000th unique visitor since I began counting in July 2005 (and to think that I actually began this site last April). But 4000 is still something of an important summit, at least for me, and so, in honor of this day, I share another picture of myself that is not quite so, well, entrenched in the biker motif (I will soon be changing my profile photo for those of you intimidated by my mugshot).

No one need point out that other bloggers receive hundreds of thousands if not millions of visitors per month. I am aware of such vast numbers, and I pity those folks who tour the blogosphere in search of junk food. After all, junk food, like fast food, is wildly popular. There is clearly a McDonald's for the mind as well as the stomach. But I am a fussy eater, insofar as I like to take my time and fuss with silver and courses and sorbets. I enjoy lingering over dinner, swirling my wine glass (holding only the stem, mind you) with friends, letting things settle into the corners of the soul. I consider Contratimes a venue for that discerning palate which finds bliss in the mysteries of slow food. In fact, if I could, I'd even require reservations.

So, thanks for your patronage. I've been humbled 4000 times.

Peace.

Contratimes

Spanning The Globe ... Bringing You The Thrill Of Agony And Defeat

Perhaps you've debated with a friend whether certain films or TV programs, especially those which depict violence or gross sexual activity, have an adverse influence on people, primarily young people. Do horror films promote violence? Do bestial scenes inspire bestiality? Do vulgar TV shows affect behavior?

Now when I've engaged in such debates, my first step is to look at movies and programs (and books) which are deemed "good." Surely there is the assumption that "good" educational TV is aimed at influencing behavior, I might say. Surely a teacher choosing to show "Ghandi" in a World Civilization class is aiming at shaping behaviors, as would a teacher who supports Sesame Street. Surely PBS' Frontline and Nova are worthy of being deemed "good", and surely each program presented through PBS is produced for more than the tickling of the mind. Thus, if it is assumed that good programming influences good behaviors, why is it so often assumed that bad programming is naught more than "entertainment?"

All this is prelude to the tremendous story of an unspeakable crime, a crime which proves, I believe, that there indeed exists a moral and philosophical construct aptly called "the slippery slope." Perhaps you've already heard about the man in Germany on trial for murdering and subsequently eating his victim, a male victim who apparently volunteered for the fetishistic ritual. Please note that the murderer (41 years old) is claiming that this dining experience has long been a fantasy of his, fueled by horror films he had watched. He said the fantasy began as early as his 9th year of life. Combine a psychology replete with a feeling of paternal abandonment and a lust for a little "handsome" brother he never had, and you have a killer with a truly mindblowing story, one perfect for, well, an HBO movie. Truly, it gives a whole new meaning to "dinner companion."

Of course, the defendant's lawyers are to argue that since the victim allegedly volunteered, there was, in fact, no murder. Moreover, since cannibalism is not against German law (some things just don't need laws), the defense's client at least has a chance of setting some interesting legal precedent. But fear not. There is plenty of evidence, particularly the two-hour videotape of the entire murder, complete with audio, which should assist the prosecution in its case. As for this post, I will spare you the most scintillating details of the "crime." Suffice it to say that words like "perversion" and "demonic" and "abnormal" and "deviant" sadly have been purged from the Western lexicon, or have been made so anemic as to be rendered nearly lifeless. This is a story of hellishness, and yet there will be folks, the really smart ones whose fraternity I cannot join, who shall seriously consider, with empathy and "open minds", the social and moral implications of the case: Is cannibalism, at least voluntary and co-participatory cannibalism, REALLY bad? Is it "perverse" to eat another person? Is it really abnormal for a man to remove a part of another man, and the two eat it together? Or are we just bringing our prejudices to the event, seeing things from the provincialism of our own local perspective, refusing or unable to see an act from another person's paradigm? After all, from the perspective of the murderer and allegedly even the murdered, they could see not only nothing wrong with cannibalism, but perhaps they could see something approaching the numinous and transcendent. Perhaps we are the abnormal ones.

Perhaps indeed.

What Axis Of Evil?

And here's another mind-bender for those of you who, like me, possess inelastic minds, committed, like Philistines (how sad we are) to the idea that there are some perspectives, and some cultures, that are not worth understanding at all. I posit for your abbreviated brains the news out of Iran that a teenage girl, a victim of a vicious rape, has been sentenced to death by hanging for stabbing her attacker in the chest, killing him. Here, in the West, we would raise up this woman to sainthood, for surely she belongs in our pantheon of great souls. But in Iran, she will be raised up alright: by the neck, in a gallows, in a very sick world. And to think, part of her crime was that she was trying to protect her little niece, who was also assaulted.

Her name is Nazanin. Remember her.

All this proves that George W. Bush is the world's greatest terrorist. Of course, I jest. It is indeed likely, don't you think, that this story will change America? I mean, go visit your local town square this weekend and watch all the peaceniks wielding signs in a courageous defense of the life of an 18-year-old Iranian girl who's been condemned by madness. Look for the peace lovers to storm the Iranian embassies the world over. Look for Harry Belafonte and Michael Moore to come together to produce a film on the injustice befalling Iranian women. Just watch Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean dominate the media tonight in a noble effort to change Iran's policies. And, while your watching these heroes at work, look for news of hell freezing over in the next Frank Rich column, or that Maureen Dowd has finally found a clue.

I know, I know. The "axis" of evil really is America.

Contratimes

PS. At the very least, each of us should get on our knees right now and scream heavenward on behalf of Nazanin, our sister in the world, who is to be murdered for defending herself from rape. While I'm on my knees, I am going to ask God how it is that I am not more outraged.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Pat Robertson, Updated

Only moments ago, Reverend Pat Robertson, during a live video feed to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's son, read a letter of apology for comments he made last week regarding Sharon's recent stroke. Robinson had suggested that Sharon's stroke may have been divine retribution for Sharon's concessions of Israeli territory to the Palestinians.

As I said in my post, Pat Robertson, Prophecy And Partitioning, "Prophets must pay the price for their work." Robertson has paid a bitter price, I believe, and, as I heard on the news moments ago from a source close to the Reverend, Robertson has been in a profound state of reflection since making his initial remarks.

Related to this, it should be noted that yesterday, Israel, upset by Robertson's suggestions, announced that Robertson would not be involved in plans for a multimillion dollar Christian tourism center in Galilee. Robertson, and other evangelical leaders, have been raising at least $50 million for the development of the Christian Heritage Center.

Madeleine Albright, Diane Rehm, And Casual Sedition - Part I

NPR talk show host, Diane Rehm, interviewed former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Monday, January 9, during the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show. It was an enlightening, even disturbing, hour of airtime. I am not an Albright scholar, nor am I even a partially bright scholar (to some of you), so I stipulate that I am not qualified to pronounce judgment on Ms. Albright's role and position in American history and foreign affairs.

I have taken the time, a considerable amount really, to listen to that interview, transcribing it directly from audio (the interview can be listened to here). I beg your indulgence for the rather lengthy excerpt which follows, but it is important.

The topics discussed of interest to us were Iraq, the Iraq War, and the Bush Administration's handling of intelligence regarding Iraq. Leading up to the part of the interview excerpted below, which happened more than 13 minutes into the broadcast, were such comments as Ms. Albright's self-congratulatory and defining pronouncement––"I probably said more terrible things about Saddam Hussein than any other American official and I did it for eight years"––or that the Iraq invasion was a "war of choice" and not one "of necessity" (I digress, but is any war one of "necessity," or is there such a thing as a "choiceless" war?); or that the Clinton Administration would have chosen a "diplomatic course" rather than a military one with Iraq.

For purposes of my analysis (which will follow), I am highlighting in bold words and phrases throughout the excerpt. Please note them as you read along. Also, I have placed [sic] in those places where things that seem either odd or misstated are nonetheless directly quoted from the original conversation.

As a point of reference, Ms. Rehm's questions and Albright's answers followed this statement by Ms. Albright regarding the Clinton Administration's use of military force in Iraq and intelligence: "We were not adverse to using force. But we felt very strongly about using an international approach. I would have advised very strongly against going in [Iraq] in 2003. We had a very collegial approach to how we dealt with all of this, and a President who wanted to listen to a variety of advice." The phrase "collegial approach" is the keystone to my analysis.

Here is the excerpt:

(1)Diane Rehm: Had President Clinton decided to invade Iraq, put troops on the ground, with your strong feeling that that was not the way to go, what do you think your own action would have been?

Madeleine Albright: That is so hypothetical because, President Clinton, I know where he was on a variety of things, and I know where you are going with this, but I think that it’s very difficult to decide how one would act in a hypothetical situation like that, and I think we would not have been in this kind of position, and I have thought a lot about what would have happened with President Gore [sic]. I think what this was based on was faulty intelligence, or confusing intelligence, and one of the things that I think people need to understand what intelligence [sic] really means in terms of these terms [sic]. I would come into my office in the morning and read the State Department intelligence booklet for the day and then the CIA person would come in and give me the, now everybody knows, this PDB, the President’s Daily Brief, and then a longer version of it, and what would happen frankly, Diane, was that they never were flat out black-and-white so it was all speculative, and to a great extent it’s like a Rorschach test, the intelligence is a product and the decision-maker is the consumer and I think President Clinton and President Gore would have seen this intelligence in a different way.

(2)DR: And President Bush apparently chose not to take into account the intelligence coming from the State Department. How does that intelligence which comes from State Department researchers differ from that which comes from intelligence sources [sic]?

MA: First of all I do not know what it was like during the Bush Administration, but in our time, first of all, they operate off the same intelligence takes, but the thing that is very good about the State Department intelligence daily brief is that it’s within a diplomatic context, it has much more of a kind of a historical overlay and diplomatic overlay and how other countries might react to it. I know President Clinton very much appreciated the State Department take, um, but what I found interesting was the combination of all of these because they all said something slightly different and, um, it was very interesting to compare the different views, but mostly the State Department is known for putting the intelligence within a diplomatic context, but they’re operating off the same source material to a great extent though obviously sources also come from the ambassadors and people on the ground.

(3)DR: So the President, President Bush, chose to put aside that which was coming from the State Department as opposed to that flawed intelligence that was coming from the CIA, I mean can we divide those?

MA: I don’t think we know - I mean I think honestly at least I don’t know. All I know is the various books I’ve read and articles and things like that so I don’t know what the thought process was but there clearly were a variety of different views and I think even, as I understand it, even the CIA take on it or the Defense Intelligence take or whatever was not totally black-and-white. And I think -- that’s why I say Rorschach test, I think you see in it what you think you want to see or what you see [sic] -- but I can’t speak to how the decision making actually happened in the White House beyond the books that I’ve read.

Let us first note the evolution of Ms. Rehm's questions. Note question #2. She begins with "President Bush apparently chose not to take into account intelligence coming from the State Department." Ms. Albright, apparently giving only lip-service to what she claims she does not know, suggests that she in fact does know what the thought processes were in the White House, gleaned from the tea-leaves found in sundry books she's read. Then comes question #3: "So, the President, President Bush chose to set aside intelligence..." Please notice that Ms. Albright has not at all shown this to be the case in her answer to question #2. She has said that she is ignorant, she admits that the questions are "hypothetical", and yet she augurs an interpretation, posits a scenario, and casts a spell on listeners, leaving us with the impression that she knows what she cannot know.

But there is something even more telling here, and I hope you discerned it. Let's just look at the highlighted statements that Ms. Albright offers regarding intelligence sources coming before her in the Clinton Administration: "...the State Department intelligence booklet for the day and then the CIA person would come in and give me the, now everybody knows, this PDB, the President’s Daily Brief, and then a longer version of it and what would happen frankly, Diane, was that they never were flat out black-and-white" and, "so it was all speculative." Ms. Albright informs us that the intelligence reports sent up from the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA, "[all] operate off the same intelligence takes" and that "they all said something slightly different."

OK. Let's get our bearings for a second. Ms. Albright wants us to believe that Bill Clinton and his cabinet maintained a "collegial approach", that he was particularly fond of Ms. Albright's State Department contributions to intelligence briefings, that each brief submitted by each department was dependent on the same source material and were thus only "slightly" different and never black-and-white, and that the Clinton Administration would have interpreted the Rorschach inkblot (aren't they black and white?) differently. Perhaps she is right. And yet(!) we have to reconcile all that she has said with her unbelievable indictment of the Bush Administration:

"...but there clearly were a variety of different views [in the Bush White House] and I think even, as I understand it, even the CIA take on it or the Defense Intelligence take or whatever was not totally black-and-white. And I think -- that’s why I say Rorschach test, I think you see in it what you think you want to see or what you see [sic] -- but I can’t speak to how the decision making actually happened in the White House beyond the books that I’ve read."

An astute interviewer would have jumped all over Ms. Albright's absurdity, for it appears that Ms. Albright has actually said nothing intelligible. A variety, Ms. Albright? I thought you just said the various intelligence views were not really various. Of course, an astute interviewer would also have been more circumspect, maintaining some self-awareness that her questions were loaded and leading. But we must ask how Ms. Albright is not alarmed with herself, failing, as she did, to reconcile her assertions that intelligence reports come from the same source material and are only slightly different from brief to brief. And yet President Bush, by her insinuation, ignored a "variety" of intelligence, a "variety" Ms. Albright just admitted doesn't even exist.

A Collegial Myth

Of course, Ms. Albright and Ms. Rehm are parishioners in that church which holds to the political myth that President Bush is utterly incurious about a multiplicity of views (though Ms. Albright claims not to know what the "thought process" was); that the President listens only to what he wants to hear, that he heeded Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice and ignored Secretary Powell; that Bush is not at all "collegial." Of course, one might wonder why Mr. Bush would at all be collegial when the intelligences from these various representatives are based on the same bland sources and vary only slightly. But in the church of this myth, mysteries abound: To Albright, a singularity for her is a "variety" for President Bush.

But here's the rub, and let us shatter these religious delusions. In Ms. Rehm's interview with Ms. Albright in 2000 on the same NPR program, when Ms. Albright was still in the Clinton White House, Ms. Rehm confronted Ms. Albright (read transcript) with this truly curious question about a press speculation regarding the aforementioned collegiality (which is followed by Ms. Albright's curious answer):

DR: Why do you think the press has taken up this issue as to whether Madeleine Albright is making foreign policy or whether it's [National Security Advisor] Sandy Berger who has the President's ear?

MA: Well, I think it's one of those kind of who's up, who's down, who plays what game in Washington. And it changes all the time. Sandy and I have a lot of laughs over it, frankly.

And just before this exchange, Ms. Albright offered us this insight into the inner collegiality of the Clinton White House:

"...the President expects us to have differences. That's what we're paid for. If we all agreed, I think there would be something wrong. But, basically, when there is a disagreement, then it goes to the President, and he needs the benefit of a lot of different opinions.

"And partially also what happens is when we meet -- and we all meet constantly -- it is everybody's job to see a foreign policy perspective or a national security perspective from the perspective of the department that you represent. And if I didn't do that or Secretary Cohen didn't do that, we wouldn't be doing our jobs. So this is how foreign policy is made in the United States in terms of people looking at it from different vantage points, presenting their best judgment to the President of the United States."

Ahh. So the various voices in the White House were "paid" to "have differences." I see. So the Clinton White House was not singular in mind and purpose; it was not entirely collegial. And yet, alas, are you suggesting, Ms. Albright, that the Bush White House is too singular, and, simultaneously, that it also ignored a different viewpoint that, by your own admission, was only "slightly" different from the others? Or are you again only referencing what you know from "various books?" What books, Ms. Albright?

I am not overreaching when I say that Mss. Albright and Rehm have participated in passive sedition. This is not to pass judgment on them or their patriotism. I am judging their words, not their characters, hearts or souls. Of course, Jesus once said that "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." But I will stick merely with the words. And the words are awful.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved

Pat Robertson, Prophecy, And Partitioning

No one should be surprised when I confess I am no fan of Reverend Pat Robertson's. Perhaps my lack of respect for the man was borne when I first photographed him during his Presidential bid in 1987. His campaign stop was one of my first photojournalism assignments, perhaps my first candidate assignment, and I shot the whole event wonderfully, at least I thought so until, with about 5 minutes left to the gig, I discovered I had no film in my camera. I was eventually able to salvage something from the event, but I felt every bit the freshman. Admittedly Robertson had nothing to do with my mistake; he just reminds me of my own failures. But I've long held a suspicion, not of the man, but of the ambitious idea that God wants to establish something resembling a Christian state. God might indeed desire the melding of Church and State, but I have my doubts.

If there is one thing that can be said about the media, if you've said something unpopular, they will vigorously misquote you; or, at best, they will 'accurately misrepresent' you. Robertson found himself in the media spotlight last week for his alarming assertion that Ariel Sharon's recent stroke and brain hemorrhage were punishment meted out by the Almighty. That this may be in fact be the case eludes the best progressive minds of our young century, as only two weeks ago we were all handed a heavy dose of the limitations of science in the wake of a Pennsylvania Intelligent Design court decision: there are some things science can never know. But one thing science can know, infallibly, is that Pat Robertson is wrong. Or so it goes.

I believe Mr. Robertson is in fact guilty, but not of the intellectual crimes for which the media have indicted him. But before I journey into Mr. Robertson's mistakes, let us compare what Mr. Robinson actually said with what he reportedly said. This, I promise, will be fun. Here is what he said on his 700 Club program:

'Ladies and Gentlemen I said last year that Israel was entering into the most dangerous periods of its entire existence as a nation. That is intensifying this year with the loss of Sharon. Sharon was personally a very likeable person and I am sad to see him in this condition, but I think we need to look at the Bible and the Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who “divide my land.” God considers this land to be His. You read the Bible and He says “this is my land” and for any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says “no, this is mine.” I had a wonderful meeting with Yitzhak Rabin in 1974. He was tragically assassinated, it was a terrible thing that happened but nevertheless he was dead. And now Ariel Sharon who again was a very likeable person, a delightful person to be with, I prayed with him personally, but here he’s at the point of death. He was dividing God’s land and I would say woe unto any Prime Minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations, or the United States of America. God says “this land belongs to me. You’d better leave it alone.”'

Please note that nowhere does Robertson actually state that Sharon is being punished. He may imply such a fact, but he does not say it outright. Robertson, long a zealous supporter of Israel's independence and legitimacy as a state, is merely warning that God allegedly does not take the partitioning of Israel lightly: Woe to those who parcel out My land. Robertson is quite clear, really, that he likes Sharon, has prayed with him, and is in fact sad to see him ill. Robertson is merely speculating that Sharon's illness might be a sign of God's wrath; how else to explain its timing and severity?

OK. You are now thinking I am some sort of shill for Mr. Robertson. I will defend myself in a moment. But let us look at what MSNBC has on its website regarding Mr. Robertson's remarks.

Here is the MSNBC headline:

White House blasts Robertson's Sharon remark: Christian broadcaster said stroke is God’s wrath for ‘dividing God’s land’

How about this at the JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency) website:

"Robertson: Sharon punished for dividing Israel - -- The Rev. Pat Robertson said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was punished by God for dividing the Land of Israel."

At least the LA Times, The New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post show some restraint, headlining their reports with the verb "Robertson suggests" Sharon's stroke an act of God.

That Mr. Robertson stands in a tradition which honors prophecy is not to go unnoticed. Evangelicalism is enamored of prophetic utterances, whether by such prophets as the aforementioned Joel, or those who might speak today from the pulpit. Sadly, this latter fascination with prophecy is one of evangelicalism's most pronounced weaknesses. Prophets abound in the fundamentalist and evangelical backwaters, and even, to be frank, in the highest courts of evangelical fervor. Such prophets compete, not so much one to another, but for spiritual supremacy in their respective milieus, often leaving their followers stymied as to how to respond to a decree uttered by God to the man in charge. That this leads to gross abuses of the mind, an unfettered subjectivism that is impossible to rebuff, is undeniable.

But it is not merely backwater conservative believers, or Robertson devotees, that turn to prophecy. The Reverend Gene Robinson, the gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, a true liberalizer and sturdy Democrat, believes that the liberalizing of sexual identities (homosexuality in particular) is a move of God, an act of the Holy Spirit. Of course, once Mr. Robinson so decreed his Great Awakening, silence becomes the masses: it is hard to argue with God.

Ostensibly, there are two types of prophecy: that which predicts or augurs the future, and that which discerns the lessons of God in what history presents. The former represents the popular definition of prophecy, with predictions channeled in Nostradamus-like clairvoyance. The other type of prophecy, hardly known and less appreciated because of its lack of gravitas, sees trends and signs and events and interprets a lesson, a warning, a shining message that God might want us to hear. To me, a modern example of this might be C.S. Lewis's "That Hideous Strength," though less Christian minds, like George Orwell or Ayn Rand, strike me as tapping into a similar prophetic spirit.

Pat Robertson's mistake is that he blends this latter form of prophecy not with mystical clarity, not with pristine vision of God's dazzling decrees, but with judgmentalism. What do I mean? I mean that he comes dangerously close to suggesting that he knows that something is a punishment, when he means to say that one "might be" punished if God's will is forsaken. The former is a judgment; the latter a warning. Even Jesus's disciples fell into the same sort of trap, wondering whether a child was born blind as punishment for sins either he or his parents had committed. Jesus's answer was surprisingly Other.

To suggest that Ariel Sharon was struck by God is a bold one, and I am not fit to pronounce judgment on it. There seems to be plenty of materialistic explanations for Sharon's ill health; but the will of God eludes me in these deeper matters, as God may have, indeed, caused Sharon's illness. Who knows? I mean that, not in a cavalier way, but in an intellectually honest one. Who knows about the divine? Science doesn't, as we have so fully learned through the Intelligent Design debate: Science must be silent in the face of religious propositions. Of course, it never is, as doctors step to the microphone daily to demystify the world of mind and body, and the invisible world beyond them both.

For me, let Robertson be. Prophets must pay the price for their work. It is, I am sure, a horrid vocation. But prophecy is either true or it is not. Only time, study, and healthy interrogation can lead us toward the proper vantage point from which to judge such utterances. My only sorrow is that there is such a lust for prophetic dominance, on the left and right, much of which is harmful; much of which is ignored.

Do you hear the hue and cry? Outrage! Umbrage! Robertson is a fool! or so shout the pundits. But the President of Iran, who hopes that Sharon dies, gets a pass. Sad, really, that this is so. Equally sad is the energy expended in trying to connect Robertson's remarks to the viciousness of real terrorists, straining to find an Al Qaida connection between American fundamentalism and militant Islam, fudging each of our individual intelligences. Heard a fatwa issued by the 700 Club lately?

No. You haven't.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.