The Problem Of Knowing Good And Evil, Part I

Perhaps this will not help at all.

Pope Benedict XVI stood at Auschwitz this past weekend. He entered death chambers. He knelt before the gates of death, and he prayed. And then there was a rainbow.

It is not that the several elements, the prayers and presence of a Pope and a rainbow, are causally connected. It is that we hope they are.

Auschwitz is that geographic point that exists like an oracular black hole. Oracles, as you know, were where pilgrims traveled to hear news from the divine, hopefully good news, though usually not. Auschwitz is like an oracle in reverse: there is nothing proclaimed there, only asked. But no answer comes in that crushing dark, the oppressive silence. Auschwitz is the place of questions, the abyss with no answers. We plead for God, and God hides behind veils of smoke, the smoke of burning bodies. Atop gas chambers, birds sing. God says nothing.

The problem of evil, at least in theology, is framed something like this: If God is all-powerful and all-good, He could or would stop evil. Since there is evil, God is either not all-powerful or all-good. Many philosophers have chosen to dismiss God as not all-powerful, needing God to be at least all-benevolent. Many have rejected the idea of God altogether in light of the facts of evil and suffering. And a few malcontents have chosen to see God as so much badness, a real sadist in the sky.

Those theologians and philosophers who believe that God must be both omnipotent and benevolent often defend Him by noting God's free choice to give humanity free will; as such, He permitted us to make a mess of things. And so we have. Of course, really shrewd thinkers note that if God did in fact design humanity and the cosmos this way He is still responsible for starting the whole thing in the first place. Free will arguments don't really absolve God of apparent culpability.

Pope Benedict XVI, like countless other people before him, stood at Auschwitz and asked, “Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?" Of course, I recognize that the Holy Father is asking the question rhetorically; that he is revealing his humanity, his compassion, and his ability to identify with doubt, sorrow, pain. He is like the Psalmist, or like the prophets before him: How long, O, Lord, will you let our enemies prevail? Even the Christian Savior asked in His darkest hours, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Women huddled in a gas chamber asked the question with perfect lucidity.

If readers will permit, I would like to confront the problem of evil (theodicy) in a few posts here at Contratimes. And the first place I would like to start is with the problem itself. For it strikes me as self-evident that the classic problem, that God can't be either omnipotent or benevolent before the facts of evil, is thoroughly wrong-headed.

Not long ago I called a radio talk program to join in on a conversation about this very problem. The guest was a former professor of mine, Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, and I asked if anyone had considered whether perhaps an omniscient God, one knowing everything in a state of all-wisdom, would KNOW that the only way to overcome evil in the world is to overcome evil exactly the way we see things working out every day. For all any one of us knows, an all-wise God would say to us, "You know, I am destroying evil, I am alleviating suffering; and this is the ONLY way for me to do so. This is omniscience intervening." In other words, omniscience would know exactly how to destroy the evil and suffering that besets all creatures, and that destruction might be what we are witnessing in every breath and in every sunset. There can be no other way. Should God just step in and stop, for instance, Hitler from killing Jews, then a far greater evil may follow. Oddly, the talk show host would have none of this: She wanted to blame God for being weak or malevolent. She could not buy the idea of omniscience. And I believe that she could not buy it because she had never thought of it before.

Peter Kreeft, as would be expected of a philosopher, ran with the question. He added that some have speculated that if Hitler had not committed suicide, for example, and that he was instead arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, we might find ourselves living under the dreaded Nazi flag today. For a person cannot tell how one thing ultimately influences another; one cannot tell what is materially the less evil path in the long run. One can only hope; one can only stand on principles when confronting injustice and evil. But one cannot know, unless one is God, whether one's actions will have an ill or healthy effect on the world. Kreeft's words were engaging, and correct.

Hopefully Dr. Kreeft won't mind if I put his words differently. If it were up to us, our battle with evil might be a bit like administering antibiotics: they appear to work as a victorious solution to infections, but in the long run, antibiotics may in fact have weakened humanity's innate abilities to self-immunize. The infections we beat short-term may have been overcome long-term by themselves had we just waited long enough for the human immune system to evolve. One simply does not know. Nor does doltish humanity know what God's sudden "dramatic" intervention might look like, or what effect it might have.

But the assumption in all theological discussions is that God does indeed know. God is either omniscient or He is not. If He is not, it is awfully hard to call Him God. And if He is omniscient, then one can only conclude that the very reality we are in is the best reality for overcoming sin, evil and suffering. To return to the antibiotic image for a second, it would be wrong for a sceptic to conclude that because there is a battle between cells in a person's body the antibiotics are not working, for the battle is proof that they are. If anyone concludes that an antibiotic that does not work "fast enough" (for whom?) or "well enough" is neither potent nor good, that person should be reminded that there are plenty of measures one can take to instantly and completely eradicate an infection. Killing the patient is one such measure. But good doctors are a bit like God. They are wise to the idea that killing the bad often takes time so as not to kill the good. God could perhaps instantly wipe the earth clean of all evil, but what would be left, and where is the wisdom in that?

And yet there is one more thing that complicates matters, and it is a hard pill to swallow: God is that antibody that loves everyone. In other words, God, who is love as well as justice, and who exists as the only all-wise being, loves the very persons many of us consider evil. This is alarming for many of us, but it is Christianity's truest, boldest and most controversial assertion: God loved the Jews in the gas chambers as much as he loved Hitler outside them; God loves the victimizer as much as any victim. It is almost too difficult to even write, let alone admit into one's reflections on these matters. But it must be true. God cannot HATE what we might hate; His wisdom must not be void of love or justice, nor can His love and justice be void of wisdom. God loved Hitler, and all other disgusting tyrants, as much as He loves any of us. And we know Christ the Shepherd leaves the beloved flock to find the one beloved stray, even if that stray is a rebel. That is the most difficult problem in the eradication of evil: How does God eradicate it without destroying everybody, and everything? How does God purge humanity of evil without destroying the entire body?

Only an omniscient Being has the knowledge, and power, to do that. Or there is no such Being at all.

More tomorrow, I hope. (Part II begins here.)

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Related post at WI Catholic can be read here.]

Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil

Why Forget?

In America, today is Memorial Day. It is a very patriotic day. In honor of this holiday, I recommend this essay by Wade Zirkle. It is quite good.

As Canadian singer-songwriter Bruce Cockburn once wrote, "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight/Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight."

We keep kicking.

Contratimes Writing Tip #1: Behold The Verb

I hear a lot from folks who wish they could become better writers. I empathize: I want to be a better writer, too. So, I am excited to announce a new thing here at Contratimes: Contratimes Writing Tips. I hope you will find this occasional feature helpful as you strive to perfect your craft.

One little note: there is nothing said here that is absolute (at least I don't think it is). Writing is a varied and wondrous art. It is impossible to reduce it to simple rules. The tips that are presented here will be exactly that –– tips –– simple suggestions that will help and hopefully never hurt. Consider them little tricks to add to your repertoire.

Tip #1. Use strong verbs

Great writers are surely masters of description, fixing a reader's attention to the essential details of scene, place, time. But most emerging writers misunderstand this part of a writer's very essential work: They think and see adjectives, missing the verbs. Hence, young writers in particular are all about adjectives, jamming descriptives here and there and just about everywhere else.

Yesterday morning, while wearing a mauve IZOD polo shirt, Eddie Bauer chinos and Sperry Top Siders, I walked out of my red aluminum office breezeway and noticed something across the asphalt street. The red brick schoolhouse, built in a rococo style, was on fire. Great red and orange flames could be seen against the midnight-dark smoke. Immediately I went to the nearby firehouse, a red cedar and pine gambrel nestled between two large red maples, and I told the fire chief the news. Red firetrucks quickly left the red cedar-with-a-barn-motif firehouse and went to the scene.

Pretty good, eh?

Now how about this:

Yesterday, when I stepped out of my office, I spotted smoke pouring out of the school across the street. Brilliant flames crackled behind the windows, with panes of glass bursting out everywhere. I rushed to the nearby firehouse, screaming for help. Firefighters instantly bolted toward the scene; firetrucks raced madly down the street, sirens blaring. Hoses were pulled, ladders raised. Flames hissed and steamed at blasts of water jetting through shattered glass as firemen frantically aimed their nozzles. One fireman, teetering on the slippery roof, smashed massive holes through broken tiles, as plumes of heat belched forth in swirling, volcanic fury. Smoke blacked out the sun. Paramedics scrambled toward victims. It seemed the whole street trembled ...

OK. Maybe not any better, but you get the point. Great writing bursts not with static but active description. Readers don't really care if the flames are red, they want to know what the flames are doing, eating, ravaging, scorching. Readers don't care if a man is wearing Ralph Lauren when he is moving down the sidewalk, they care that he is sprinting. Think action, not adjective. Paint with verbs.

Seriously, great writers use great verbs.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Writing Tips, Writing

The Lion Of The Tribe Of Joy

[Just a simple, and playful, Sunday meditation.]

On several occasions I have had the distinct pleasure of holding (and playing with) lion and leopard cubs. There is nothing particularly noteworthy in such a simple fact other than that such creatures make the heart burst. There is truly a feral ferocity inside even the tiniest cub, and yet that cub will nonetheless play and frolic till it faints.

And it will also purr.

I know Aslan, that wondrous leonine creature, was a stirring prince of peace, or so Clive Staples Lewis (ouch!) suggests in his fantastic portrait of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. But I wonder if Mr. Lewis had ever been in the presence of a Siberian tiger. For while the African lion is indeed rather regal, the Siberian tiger makes all other cats, including the King of the African savannah, look like they are on training wheels.

I recall the first moment I encountered a Siberian, its massive body moving with a grace only great power can achieve. It was a giant male. When he saw me he moved quickly toward my side of his cage (how sad!), rubbing his snout on steel bars, spreading pheremones released from scent-glands hidden somewhere on that glorious face.

And he was purring†.

A cat's purr remains something of a mystery. Is the purring mechanism part of the respiratory or circulatory system of felines, or is it a little of both? What purpose does it serve? Is it a sign of contentment?

That it is a sign of contentment is perhaps a hopeful projection, a hopeful anthropomorphism we need to lavish on our favorite pets and favored mammals. But there is something to it. Veterinarians report that gravely wounded cats purr right to the brink of death; that some cats even purr during surgery. Some experts suspect that purring has a healing and sedating quality; that cats not only comfort but heal themselves with a restorative rumble deep inside their breasts, a sonorous agency emanating not far from their hearts. In fact, studies have shown that the frequency of a cat's purr is identical to that used in successful therapies where sound is used to regenerate compromised bone. It is all too much to comprehend.

If Jesus is indeed the Lion (or Siberian tiger) of the Tribe of Judah, one wonders if he purrs with an archetypal resonance. Did the woman reaching for the hem of his garment hear first a purr? Did Jesus purr as he knelt beside Jairus' dead daughter, or stood, weeping, outside Lazarus' crypt? Did the formerly deaf report a sound like feline contentment the moment Jesus touched them? One can only hope.

And one can only hope that the earth shook with a great purr as Jesus tumbled from the Cross, descending to hell; and that the sepulchre's stone gate was rolled away by the Lion of Judah purring Himself -- and you and me and everyone else -- to wholeness.

There is something merry in all of this, no? Is there nothing more mirthful than a person healed? raised from the dead? Indeed, there is not. But to think that it might all have something to do with kittens, well, that is merriment almost beyond measure.

Find a kitten, or any old cat. Lie on your back. Place your feline friend on your heart. Pet your way to peace. Purr a prayer of gratitude, and be healed.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†It is important to note that my assertion that a tiger purrs is a debatable one. One source argues that if a cat can roar it cannot purr; another suggests that big cats purr only while exhaling. However, every source I've read on this matter concedes that the purring mechanism is not entirely respiratory, nor is it entirely circulatory: it seems it might be a little of each (as I said above). But if I concede that what I've heard is not a purr, so be it. This post is more about what I'd like and not so much about what is. It is about being healed by the beauty which is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

PS. Though I am a photographer who occasionally posts pictures here, the above photo is not one of mine. A note of appreciation to Brent Rasmussen for the link. Great shot, no?

Guilty, With Pardon To Follow: Enron Perversities

It is good to hear that justice has been served. Former ENRON executives Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skillings have been found guilty in a court of law in what can only be described as a decisive jury verdict.

But there is more to it than meets the eye. I wonder if you can recall hearing the constant, snarky remarks during the 2004 US presidential campaign, or the Martha Stewart insider-trading fiasco, that US President Bush and his minions were quick to mete out justice on lesser-knowns or lesser-crimes, but were flat-out protecting ENRON from prosecution (it was a popular Howard Dean mantra). Martha Stewart was in jail, critics announced incredulously, while Ken Lay walked about freely. It was the perfect stuff for fomenting anti-Bush sentiments.

Today, how things have changed. It appears that the Bush Administration has brought a powerful conviction upon the now impotent power company, and this despite the near-constant reminders that ENRON contributed money to the Bush campaign. Martha went to jail for a few months; she did her time and is now, once again, flourishing. But there is hardly a doubt that should Lay and Skillings get their chance at flourishing, they will do so as very old men. Their time has come, and it is long.

But there must be some sort of liberal interpretation in all of this, no? Surely it can't simply be that justice was served, that campaign contributions in Bush's case are shown not to have been bribes, that ENRON's contributions hardly made the President's notice? No, of course it can't be that easy. Daily Kos' Darksyde has posted moments ago his prediction: President Bush is going to pardon his buddy Ken Lay. Not that there is any evidence Bush is going to pardon anybody. To do so would not only be scandalous, it would be nefarious (and bad politics for Republicans). No one pardons bad guys like that. No one, of course, other than Bill Clinton, who did indeed pardon a bad guy, Marc Rich. Not that any of that matters. It's just good to make note of the sort of pattern set by that singular President who surely inspired so many writers† at Daily Kos.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

†There is no suggestion here that Daily Kos' Darksyde was a Clinton supporter.

Technorati tags: Marc Rich, Enron, Enron, Enron, Jeffrey Skilling, Martha Stewart, Daily Kos

The Pope Answers A Question

Many detractors of Christianity are critical not so much of the Faith but the faithful. Christians, you see, are regarded as being rather dumb. And indeed there are dumb Christians, just like there are dumb Muslims, Rastafarians, and graduates of Harvard. Dumbness is not unique to any one group other than that group which willfully chooses to be, in fact, dumb (call it the DeMensa Society). But there is nothing unusual or anomalous, or so I suspect, about the number of dumb Christians. Dumbness is shared equally, from atheist to theist. And even geniuses are occasionally known to stumble about stupidly.

But Christians (and other religious) are often dismissed as dumb not because they are intrinsically stupid but because they are deemed contra-rational. This is mostly a popular man-on-the-street sort of notion; professional academics know better. But the usual saw that is often heard is the one squeaking on about how Christians are all about blind faith, while the thinking and independent person is all about wide-eyed reason.

I will leave the debate for another time. Instead I turn to Pope Benedict XVI's recent response to a student's question about the mutuality of Christian revelation and scientific inquiry. Richard John Neuhaus, the eminent Catholic writer, brought Benedict's remarks to the attention of readers of First Things, Neuhaus' outstanding journal. Neuhaus reports that it is a rarity that a pope would answer questions in a question-and-answer forum with on-the-record replies. Please note two things: the thoughtfulness of the 17-year-old's question to which the Pope replies, and the erudition–and nuance–of the Pope's reply. Regarding the former, I know I could not have asked such a question at 17 years old; regarding the latter, I know I could never respond off-hand with such clarity, depth and reflection.

The following is clipped from ZENIT, a Catholic news organization based in Rome:

Holy Father, I am Giovanni, I am 17 years old, I am studying at Giovanni Giorgi technological and scientific secondary school in Rome, and I belong to Holy Mary Mother of Mercy Parish.

I ask you to help us to understand better how biblical revelation and scientific theory can converge in the search for truth.

We are often led to believe that knowledge and faith are each other's enemies; that knowledge and technology are the same thing; that it was through mathematical logic that everything was discovered; that the world is the result of an accident, and that if mathematics did not discover the theorem-God, it is because God simply does not exist.

In short, especially when we are studying, it is not always easy to trace everything back to a divine plan inherent in the nature and history of human beings. Thus, faith at times vacillates or is reduced to a simple sentimental act.

Holy Father, like all young people, I too am thirsting for the truth: But what can I do to harmonize knowledge and faith?

Benedict XVI: The great Galileo said that God wrote the book of nature in the form of the language of mathematics. He was convinced that God has given us two books: the book of sacred Scripture and the book of nature. And the language of nature -- this was his conviction -- is mathematics, so it is a language of God, a language of the Creator.

Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: In itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.

The surprising thing is that this invention of our human intellect is truly the key to understanding nature, that nature is truly structured in a mathematical way, and that our mathematics, invented by our human mind, is truly the instrument for working with nature, to put it at our service, to use it through technology.

It seems to me almost incredible that an invention of the human mind and the structure of the universe coincide. Mathematics, which we invented, really gives us access to the nature of the universe and makes it possible for us to use it.

Therefore, the intellectual structure of the human subject and the objective structure of reality coincide: The subjective reason and the objective reason of nature are identical. I think that this coincidence between what we thought up and how nature is fulfilled and behaves is a great enigma and a great challenge, for we see that, in the end, it is "one" reason that links them both.

Our reason could not discover this other reason were there not an identical antecedent reason for both.

In this sense it really seems to me that mathematics -- in which as such God cannot appear -- shows us the intelligent structure of the universe. Now, there are also theories of chaos, but they are limited because if chaos had the upper hand, all technology would become impossible. Only because our mathematics is reliable, is technology reliable.

Our knowledge, which is at last making it possible to work with the energies of nature, supposes the reliable and intelligent structure of matter. Thus, we see that there is a subjective rationality and an objectified rationality in matter which coincide.

Of course, no one can now prove -- as is proven in an experiment, in technical laws -- that they both really originated in a single intelligence, but it seems to me that this unity of intelligence, behind the two intelligences, really appears in our world. And the more we can delve into the world with our intelligence, the more clearly the plan of Creation appears.

In the end, to reach the definitive question I would say: God exists or he does not exist. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of creative reason that is at the beginning of all things and is the principle of all things -- the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom -- or one holds the priority of the irrational, inasmuch as everything that functions on our earth and in our lives would be only accidental, marginal, an irrational result -- reason would be a product of irrationality.

One cannot ultimately "prove" either project, but the great option of Christianity is the option for rationality and for the priority of reason. This seems to me to be an excellent option, which shows us that behind everything is a great Intelligence to which we can entrust ourselves.

However, the true problem challenging faith today seems to me to be the evil in the world: We ask ourselves how it can be compatible with the Creator's rationality. And here we truly need God, who was made flesh and shows us that he is not only a mathematical reason but that this original reason is also love. If we look at the great options, the Christian option today is the one that is the most rational and the most human.

Therefore, we can confidently work out a philosophy, a vision of the world based on this priority of reason, on this trust that the creating reason is love and that this love is God.

I know that there might be more than a few readers who will argue that the Pope is arguing just another form of the ontological argument for the existence of God (that ideas correspond with Being and must be caused by such), or even the cosmological one (from design, i.e. that subjective reason and objective reality coincide rather nicely). But the fact is this: Father Benedict has offered a very reasoned and intelligent reply to a very intelligent question. It may not be a right reply–I think it is–but it ought not be discounted as either thoughtless or dumb.

Peace and mirth.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, First Things, ZENIT, Richard John Neuhaus, Galileo, Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument

Unfair: The New York Times Wants To Know

Dear Editors of The New York Times,

I wonder what you could have meant by publishing today the truly curious story, "Clintons Balance Married and Public Lives," found on page 1, or on the front of the NYT's website. It's not that the Clintons are not important: they are, for many Americans, a beloved former First Family. Any thinking person understands that a major political figure's marriage is newsworthy: how that marriage endures the travails of office and home is important, particularly for a president. But what is curious is not that the Clintons' marital stability is newsworthy. What is curious is that this sort of thing is news today when it apparently wasn't in 1992.

Those of us with recollective faculties not dulled by grinding revisionism or sundry opiates recall that when Mr. Clinton campaigned for president in 1992, his sexual peccadilloes (alleged, of course) were dismissed as nobody's business but Mr. Clinton and his wife's. Shrewd defenders of then-candidate Clinton opined that what mattered was not his performance (or lack thereof) in the bedroom, but his abilities in the Oval Office (which he eventually used somewhat like a bedroom, or so it is rumored). Privacy trumped publicity in these matters: if the Clintons could live with his foibles, what business was it of ours to perseverate on his infidelity? Bill Clinton was running for the office of the nation's president, after all, not the office of National Husband. Leave his alleged womanizing to the Clintons' own care.

Of course, the nation largely did go silent about the Clintons, particularly after Mrs. Clinton's apparent "stand by your man" moment on CBS' 60 Minutes. As we all know, millions of people accepted the argument that a man was bigger than his marriage (and that, believe it or not, was why Mr. Clinton found room for that bigness outside of his wedding vows). But there were many questions ignored by the American electorate: Would you want in the Oval Office a President dealing with divorce litigation? Would you want jaunting here and there in Air Force One a President locked in a custody battle? Would you want in the White House a President standing at a state dinner as cuckold to his wife's illicit affair? Would you want a President parading mistresses through Camp David? If such questions were ever posed to the electorate in 1992, they were asked in a whisper.

But alas, a new question arises for the electorate, and The New York Times has asked it: How will Bill and Hillary's marriage affect Hillary's bid for the White House? There is something almost Solomonic about the question, for it carries with it a very interesting proposition, namely, that Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president (should she run) is sui generis, with a former two-term president at her side. But why should this unique inquiry into marriage matter now when it did not seem to matter 14 years ago? Is it merely because of the near-royal status applied to the Clintons? Or is it representative of a double standard, one that treats a man differently than a woman when it comes to running for high office? With Bill's former presidency, impeachment and peccadilloes stipulated as unique facts, why does it matter how Hillary handles their complex marriage if privacy always trumps publicity? Or is this a concession by The New York Times that privacy surely does matter in many public circumstances, with the presidency being the most important public circumstance?

My guess is that The New York Times has probably not thought all of this through. But I also suspect that there is a latent double standard here. I mean, we all know that married men fool around; we all know that many folks believe that men, especially powerful ones, SHOULD fool around. A great woman will always stand alongside her notoriously unfaithful husband if he is in all other aspects a notoriously great man. But women in power? Well, perhaps their marital lives should be more stable and palatably traditional. Maybe a powerful woman should distance herself from her husband's infidelity, unless, of course, that husband is running for president, and then she should work it out in private (by sticking with him through his thick and thin). And while the standard commentary since 1992 is that Bill Clinton benefited from his spouse's closeness during his candidacy and presidency, the NYT seems to be suggesting that Mr. Clinton as spouse can only help his wife by staying away. That paradox, I am afraid to say, looks a lot like a double standard indeed.

Sincerely,

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Clinton Marriage, The New York Times,

Neanderthal Man On Facile Fuel

I am terrible, truly, with understanding conspiracy theories. Surely I've proven my ineptitude in the last two essays here at Contratimes. But since I am so obtuse, I have concluded that I must practice a bit, doing problem solving right before the public. Like this:

If it is the case that the Bush Administration is in cahoots with Big Oil; nay, if it is the case that the Republican Party is up to its neck in Big Oil, then we must conclude that it is a fairly counterproductive relationship. Moreover, if the American automakers are in cahoots with Republicans and Big Oil, maintaining obscenely inefficient gas consumption/mileage standards (CAFE standards), and that they also stubbornly refuse to create more fuel-efficient engines so Big Oil can sell more oil, then I am indeed obtuse. The next thing I am going to hear is that Hollywood is producing more movies and that Major League Baseball schedules 162 games per team per season so Big Oil can sell as much gas to moviegoers and baseball fans as possible. But I am only gassing.

If the Bush Administration, Detroit automakers, and Big Oil are in dark, oily cahoots, how is it that they maintain this conspiracy when it is so utterly backfiring? President Bush's approval rating sputters around 30-35%; Detroit is unloading thousands of workers; people are buying hybrid cars and more efficient Japanese vehicles; Big Oil burns rubber rushing to justify its record profits. What, pray tell, is the political gain in all of this? Where is the great benefit?

Of course, the great benefit is to be found in the Democratic Party. But the incoherence of the "conspiracy" suggests little more than that the conspiracy is indeed incoherent: the theory explains far too little. And with Republicans perhaps poised to lose control of both the House and Senate in November, one might conclude that the conspiracy between the powers in High Places is not what it seems. But it is a conspiracy working wonders–perhaps–for Democrats.

***

What happens when you buy less of product X? What happens when everybody buys less of product X? Do the producers of X continue to produce as much X as when more units were being sold? They do if they are stupid businessfolk. But if they are good businessfolk they will cut production, and cut their costs. For example, when Detroit begins to sell fewer domestic cars, it produces fewer of them; and it cuts jobs that are no longer needed. What it does not do is sell its cars on the cheap (though some Detroit promos came close).

How then is it that rational people believe that if each one of us buys LESS gasoline we will drive the prices down? For if we CONSERVE fuel, will not the producers of that fuel just scale back production? Or do we think that they will produce so much fuel there will be a massive surplus standing on a street corner with its hands in its pockets, and that they will be forced to sell it to us at some ridiculously low price? (And, curiously, if America produces MORE oil domestically in an effort to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, foreign oil producers will simply scale back production or sales for our market, thus maintaining our dependence on that portion we CANNOT produce for ourselves. Or do I have this wrong?)

***

Hopefully you know that President Bush's approval ratings are in the tank (no doubt due to those expensive gas tanks we fill everyday). But it must be asked: The people who respond to these polls designed to track a president's popularity, from where do they get their information about the president? Do they listen to his every press conference from start to finish? Do they read his every piece of correspondence? Do they visit the White House website daily to read Tony Snow's press briefs? Do they download PDFs spelling out current White House agendas?

It is no stretch to say that the answer to each of the last four questions is a rather easily uttered, "No." Most people don't even hear President Bush speak but a few seconds a month; most people read but a few sentences of his ideas a year. Most Americans are indeed ignorant of the President firsthand; egads, they are ignorant of the whereabouts of Iraq or even the White House. In fact, many Americans are often chided for knowing how to find Wal-Mart in a blizzard without knowing how to find the First Amendment on a Bill of Rights. But when it comes to negative approval ratings, Americans suddenly become something of a collective political genius. It is truly stunning that pundits, particularly those on the Left (right now), find that the majority of Americans know not only how bad President Bush is, they know how a good president should perform his duties. Let us ignore the telling fact that this is the same majority that "believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11", as so many tedious analysts have scoffingly opined since the beginning of time.

Look. We all know majorities are "enlightened" when they agree with you and "Neanderthals" when they don't. But the Neanderthals of a few years ago now "understand" that the President is incompetent. What would be really interesting is to take a poll to determine how highly Americans approve of themselves. I am sure there would be convincing data proving that Americans always think rather highly of their own grand capacities. Heaven knows we can now safely conclude from sundry polls that the vast majority of Americans know how to run a country. What a relief.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Big Oil, oil prices, Gas Prices, Approval Ratings, Conspiracy Theories

The Hole In Brown Ground

Perhaps it was an act of quiet protest. Who knows? But instead of packing myself into a theater to see The Da Vinci Code Friday night, struggling for elbow space with people dressed like Mona Lisa, I went to a rather empty theater to see United 93, the riveting film about the 9/11 flight that crashed into a Pennsylvania field. Perhaps it is wrong of me to note that there are many people who believe that The Da Vinci Code is real and that 9/11 was not. But that this surprises any of us is alarming, as most of us pride ourselves at not being shocked by the crazies among us. But the crazies are out: 9/11 was the result of nefarious American military operations and the Church has been hiding the fact that Jesus had children (and that I am one of his descendants).

If you want reason to slit your wrists and bleed out in a Da Vinci Code chalice (soon to be made available with McDonald's Happy Meals, I think), then check out any number of 9/11 conspiracy media, particularly the brooding "documentary" Loose Change. But I warn you: with headphones on (and several one-hitters on your Cheech and Chong bong) you will not only doubt that 9/11 happened as you KNOW IT DID, you will doubt whether bleeding yourself to death is the best way to silence your outrage. (Seriously, I warn you: Loose Change is disturbing, not because it is at all right, but because it does not offer you alternative explanations.) But if you don't want to watch something, you can read hundreds of webpages that will prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy pulled off by literally thousands of people (which proves that miracles DO occur). I am sure that the next thing we will find out is that those who "died" in 9/11, especially those passengers on the four deadly planes, are actually alive and well, held for re-assimilation in Guantánamo Bay (affectionately known as Club Re-med, or so say the voices in my head). By the way, if you do watch Loose Change and you need to regain a foothold on the world, go here for help.

United 93 is a powerful, frank, straightforward tale. But it is not as powerful as one's imagination, especially if one has a strong imagination and is at all familiar with flying in commercial planes. Reality is far worse than the film could depict, which is not to say that the film flinched at realism but rather to admit that film, any film, is limiting. Irrespective of this film's limitations, I wept (which I am wont to do at such movies) during many of the film's scenes. And one line struck me as significant: "We have a real world situation here." Real world indeed.
______________

When I used to paint houses (on the side, pun intended) I became pretty good friends with Bob, the man who worked the counter at the paint store. Bob Peterson was a simple man in the good sense of the word; he surely was not a simpleton. His simplicity was more Thoreau than Forrest Gump; and yet he was far more St. Francis than he ever was that recluse on Walden Pond. Bob also was a Christian, and he wore his faith beautifully, but not on his sleeve; he wore it in his every word and deed. He was an exemplar of everything Christ might be as a husband, father, paint store clerk. And yet Bob no doubt could have been more, more like his brother, a man who attended MIT and Harvard and later became the president of a major company. For Bob, his calling was far less lofty.

Bob told me about his brother several times. The most poignant tale was right after the first anniversary of 9/11 when Bob and his family traveled to Pennsylvania to meet President Bush, to hold hands with others in ceremony, to cry and weep and pray on a quiet tract of land. Bob told me that before the ceremony, a firefighter was assiduously looking for members of the Peterson family. Finally finding them, the firefighter specifically spoke to Bob's nephew. The fireman shared how he was one of the first people to arrive at the scene of the plane crash one year earlier. He said that as he got near the crater left by the plane's horrific impact, the very first thing he found was a lightly scorched Bible. Apparently it still smelled of jet fuel.

The Bible belonged to Bob's brother, Don Peterson. Don and his wife, Jean, sat in Row 14 on September 11, 2001.
_______________

I think of conspiracy theories, and I think of how cruel they are. The 9/11 theorists, to me, are committing a gross form of spiritual and emotional abuse, even battery. To read (and see) suggestions that Don Peterson's Bible was scorched not by the evil acts of terrorists (and the heroic feats of the United 93 passengers) but by a missile, or some other outside violence, is hard to countenance without anger. It is even harder to countenance without being wounded. 9/11's effects have been monstrous, with not only the collapse of common sense but the collapse of common decency being the most obvious.

The mythology of The Da Vinci Code may indeed lead some people to hell or some sort of apostasy. But the conspiracy theorists scavenging on fear and uncertainty in the wake of a truly awful tragedy are already in hell, the hell of a well-repudiated delusion.

There remains a gaping hole in the earth, with all sorts of things crawling forth.

Remember 9/11.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: The Da Vinci Code, Don Peterson, United 93, Conspiracy Theories, Loose Change, 9/11

Channel Surfing With Da Vinci In New Hampshire

My apologies. I have been very, very busy lately, preparing, as I must, for the big debut of the movie adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. You see, in case you haven't figured this all out, I am a direct descendant of Mary Magdalene and Jesus's gnostic tryst in Palestine. Not that gnostics were generally having sex together, since they believed that the true path of enlightenment was found in the abnegation of the flesh and its carnal pleasures, but my ancient mater and pater were indeed human after all; and I, along with a whole bunch of other Da Vinci cognoscenti, mill about the earth illuminating the rest of you. Of course, if Jesus and Mary Magdalene did indeed have a "family", and Jesus was nothing other than an itinerant rabbi, there is no great legacy gained as a descendant of their ignominy, unless you're Mary Baker Eddy. I mean, at the very least, they were bad gnostics. But I digress.

'Tis true, I am wildly excited about all the hoopla. There are even groups offering "Da Vinci Code Tours" for the countless people who are unable to separate legend from fact. Such folks––I know, I know, we keep hearing that a work of fiction can't adversely affect readers' and viewers' religious understanding––but such folks are actually taking tours to search for more hidden clues in a variety of paintings and architectural details in far-off lands. What delight! MSNBC interviewed one church docent in Britain who said (somewhat contemptuously, I thought) that an American couple refused to leave his church until staffers removed a carpet near the altar so they could see for themselves the Star of David hidden beneath. Alas! There was no star! See? The conspiracy IS true!

I am just a little more excited than I was in August 1987, when I was channeling the spirit of John the Baptist on the summit of a California mountain during the outstanding, world-changing Harmonic Convergence. Surely you remember that wondrous two-day event?! Recall the bliss, will you, that followed those momentous days? Irrespective of the naysayers (I had drone-ish friends calling it the Moronic Disturbance), that age-shifting, paradigm-shaking, two-day reliving of certain Woodstock acid trips was a resounding success (at least for those of us with a fetish for sackcloth, wild locusts and honey).

Soon, I believe, I will be interviewed for Pro-gnosis Magazine about my role in channeling all sorts of gnostic energy toward my fellow New Hampshire resident, Dan Brown, "author" of the Code (he didn't write The Da Vinci Code, Juno did; Brown was merely Juno's amanuensis, though Brown did manage to seal the deal on the transcription's royalties, proving that Brown is also a lousy gnostic). The interview will be held in the same soundstage where the phony moon-landings were filmed for NASA by Oliver Stone. I can't wait to hit New Hampshire-astronaut Alan Shepard's golf ball (I know he allegedly used a four-iron but I am bringing my Big Bertha [Bertha is the goddess of golf, you know]). I mean, there is no way Shepard hit a ball on the moon: we all know there are no tees on the lunar surface. Forsooth, the lunar golf theme was so obvious––a flag, a golf cart, and something that looked like a clubhouse––that one can only conclude that all this was done in Area 51. I promise to tell you all about my time there, and what it was like setting the aliens free.

And after the interview I will be attending the first showing of "The Da Vinci Code" at New Hampshire's "Stonehenge." During the showing David Blaine is slated to reveal himself as the Dark Lord of the Underworld. He is also expected to make Great Britain disappear (proving that The Da Vinci Code is true). Of course, Blaine's trick might prove problematic for all those clear-thinkers enjoying their Da Vinci tours. In the wake of Blaine's magic trick, I have inside knowledge (gnosis) that he will pin the disappearance of Britain on George W. Bush by stuffing the Downing Steet Memo into Osama bin Laden's bottle of Bud.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: The DaVinci Code, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Gnosticism, New Hampshire, Alan Shepard, Area 51, David Blaine, Juno, Harmonic Convergence, Mary Baker Eddy, Mary Magdalene, Jesus, Conspiracy Theories, da vinci code

A Really Inconvenient Fact

I may not have a B.S. in any scientific discipline, but that has never stopped me from recognizing BS, especially when I step in it. I know, I know: it is dubious at best to come to Contratimes for a science lesson, but once in a while it is OK for us to think like scientists, you know, critically.

My starting point is the rather recent installment of PBS's NOVA called "Dimming the Sun", which I watched a couple of weeks ago (and where I stepped into some serious BS). The point of that rather stimulating science program was that particulate matter released into the atmosphere as a result of human industrial activity, along with myriad contrails produced by airliners, combine to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the lower levels of the atmosphere. Studies in the Maldives, for instance, have shown that air pollution may indeed reduce sunlight by as much as 10%. The result, obviously, is that air temperatures in "smoggy" zones are cooler. And cooler air has drastic effects on weather patterns, perhaps even distorting weather and (ocean ?) currents to such a degree that droughts and other sundry calamities occur.

But this is only half of NOVA's story. The other half has to do with reducing air pollutants, especially the particulate matter associated with solar dimming. The idea is that with cleaner air more sunlight reaches the lower atmosphere and ground, thus increasing air temperatures. In other words, the theory is that visible pollutants are masking the invisible catastrophe awaiting us: MASSIVE global warming due to invisible and dangerous levels of greenhouse gases which will "trap" heat should more light penetrate the atmosphere. For a full explanation and a virtual synopsis of the NOVA program, read the Wikipedia article "Global dimming." I urge you to read it not merely because it is interesting, but because of what it never mentions. And you know what? NOVA never mentions "it" either.

But before I tell you what "it" is, I must make one observation about the NOVA program. I might be wrong about this, but I don't think I am: NOVA did not interview a single person with a countervailing opinion regarding dimming, cooling or warming. Not one! Add to that the fact that NOVA only aired the opinions of at best five experts, and one MUST conclude that NOVA might best be taken with something like a grain of salt.

Permit me to back into what is missing in both NOVA's "scientific inquiry" and Wikipedia's article. This passage from Wikipedia is a great starting point. I mean, this is science at its (political?) best:

It is now thought that the effect (global dimming) is probably due to the increased presence of aerosols [sic] particles in the atmosphere. Aerosol particles absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back to space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles, and more aerosol particles result in the clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets, which in turn makes them more reflective: bouncing more sunlight back into space.

Now there is nothing wrong with this virtual rehashing of NOVA's major premise. It is, for our purposes, completely true. But there is something massive, literally, missing from all of this, and one wonders how it could not be mentioned even in passing. I wonder if you have guessed what "it" is. Need a clue? Well, try this one, or this.

Yes, that's right: Volcanoes. What is missing in the global dimming report is the earth itself: that the earth is its own heat engine; and is its own cooler.

Remember in 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo absolutely ripped a hole into our earth's atmosphere, belching material in unimaginable quantities into the earth's very stratosphere? Remember what you were told, that the eruption would affect the entire globe for years? Remember hearing the same when Mt. Saint Helens blew apart in 1980? Remember hearing that such eruptions would cool the earth's atmosphere, even though they hurled millions of tons of gas and heat skyward? Well, if you need a refresher on Pinatubo alone, read this, this and this.

Now let's for a moment return to the Wikipedia quote above, where it is mentioned that global dimming is a result of the presence of aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Alas, there is no mention of volcanic activity. Yet in all three Pinatubo links above we read something like this:

Pinatubo injected about 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it reacted with water to form a hazy layer of AEROSOL particles composed primarily of sulfuric acid droplets. Over the course of the next two years strong stratospheric winds spread these aerosol particles around the globe.

Unlike the lower atmosphere (or troposphere, which extends from the surface to roughly 10 km), the stratosphere does not have rain clouds as a mechanism to quickly wash out pollutants. Therefore, a heavy influx of aerosol pollutants, like the plume from Mount Pinatubo, will remain in the stratosphere for years until the processes of chemical reactions and atmospheric circulation can filter them out. In the case of Mount Pinatubo, the result was a measurable cooling of the Earth's surface for a period of almost two years.

Because they scatter and absorb incoming sunlight, aerosol particles exert a cooling effect on the Earth's surface. The Pinatubo eruption increased aerosol optical depth in the stratosphere by a factor of 10 to 100 times normal levels measured prior to the eruption.

Oopsy! Just a small detail left out of Wikipedia and NOVA's uh, science. Call it a mere blippish oversight. And to think someone went to the Maldives in the 1990's to run tests to determine whether smog blocks sunlight!

Moreover, what is also not mentioned in either source is the effect the earth's core temperature has on climate; that the earth is not a frozen ice ball (though surface materials are indeed "frozen" in the scientific sense), but a sphere with an incredibly volatile heat source not far below its skin. That source of heat is not only important in maintaining life on this planet, it is important in this discussion of global warming and cooling. But more importantly, that NOVA and Wikipedia never mention either volcanic activity or the earth's radiant heat suggests that real scientific inquiry is not what either is interested in. Finally, neither the TV program nor the online encyclopedia mentions increases or decreases in solar activity, which also wreak havoc on terrestrial atmospherics.

Al Gore has released a new movie called "An Inconvenient Truth," in which he apparently divides for us the facts from fiction regarding global warming. I will venture a guess that the complexities of vulcanism and any one volcano's impact on climate make naught but a small appearance in Gore's film. But that's fine: he is a politician, after all, and he needs science to work for his agenda, which is, in part, to distance himself from "Big Oil," you know, that industry allegedly most responsible for global warming (and the one allegedly associated with Republicans). But that NOVA, an apparently neutral science program, should have neglected not only any countervailing opinions but the facts of Pinatubo––that such an eruption lowered global temperatures as much as .6 degrees C in 15 months––should give us all pause.

There is more that NOVA failed to tell us in "Dimming the Sun," but I will leave that for another time. But let us not in all this permit such "fact-based" programs and resources to have a dimming effect on our much needed minds. We need to think clearly about the complexities before us. I mean, let us beware (unlike Al Gore) of committing non causa pro causa fallacies, you know, mistaking correlation with causality. Gore and NOVA might be right, but we won't ever know if we accept only part of the data.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

For a complete transcript of NOVA's program, go here.

Pinatubo photo courtesy of http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/pinatubo/volcano/

Technorati tags: Al Gore, Global Warming, Global dimming, NOVA, Mt. Pinatubo, vulcanism, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate Change

Speaking Truth For Power: What Stephen Colbert REALLY Did

I have already written about Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner held two weeks ago. I shared my thoughts about the very funny Colbert after I watched him lampoon–live on C-SPAN–not only the President, but other public servants as well; and even the press corps. Granted, his barbs hurled at the press corps were infrequent, and paled in comparison to his well-written and well-delivered satire directed at the President. That I found him to be less than his best, even to the point of being tedious, in no way suggests that he is not a brilliantly talented man.

Alas and alack! The blogosphere has been abuzz over Colbert! How can this be when there is so much more to fuss about? Technorati, which tracks nearly 40 million sites (mostly blogs), reports that "Stephen Colbert" was the top search all last week. Some bloggers are eulogizing Colbert as hero and legend, of Mt. Rushmore standing (see Arianna Huffington); while others have not only shown more restraint, they've dismissed him as simply another comedian. Colbert devotees have him "speaking truth to power," while one Washington Post writer has argued that Mr. Colbert did no such thing:

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

Well, maybe he was not a bully, but he was clearly not courageous. But if not courageous, what was he? I'll tell you in a moment. But first I want to remind you of something critical: Colbert is not the first (or only) person to use the Correspondents Dinner to "speak truth to power." Don Imus did it in 1996, and he was subsequently vilified. The only substantive difference, really, between the two performances is that Imus truly targeted the media; and while he embarrassed himself and the Clintons, he hardly spent his time lampooning the Chief Executive (read the text here). But talk about a "scorched earth performance" (as Huffington glowingly described Colbert's routine)! Had a forensic expert described the concluding state of Imus' victims, he would no doubt use words akin to "blunt force trauma and exsanguination due to evisceration." This is not to say that Imus was right, funny or even good. It is merely to report that this is all old hat: Imus has been here before. In fact, he was here a decade ago. And he WAS a bully.

Here's the truth about Mr. Colbert: He did not speak truth to power; he spoke satirically solely to secure his fan base. His remarks at the dinner had nothing to do with economics in any theoretical or didactic sense; he did not lecture on the beneficence of socialism or the malevolence of capitalists. But he did speak entirely about the economics of practical implications: He spoke in a shrewd manner that would appeal to his fans, and thus secure his financial future for at least several more years. There was nothing daring or courageous in his remarks, vetted, as they were, by the White House before they were ever vetted by Colbert’s leftist fans on the blogosphere. In fact, it was all rather safe. Colbert appeared, in a sort of WWF-campish way, to be speaking boldly, but it was pure theater. He was merely winning lots of cash, and lots of Colbert-crazed fans, when he played his little game. This was not heroics; this was self-interest, greed, self-aggrandizement and, not inaccurately, grandstanding.

It was all rather charming, seeing this little man pretend to loath power, yet attaching himself parasitically (all satire is parasitism) to the men in charge solely to take charge of his economic vitality. It was capitalism, not parodied, but on parade.

Indeed, all satire is parasitism. There is no satire without subjects to inspire it. A lampoon is nothing if there is nothing to lampoon. Satirists are entirely derivative; their material is created by others. And the satirists' work is all about lust: if pornography incites lust for fleshly pleasures, satire incites the pleasure of mockery and scoffing. It is pornography of a different sort, appealing not to one's prurience, but to one's self-righteousness. It surely arouses, but not lurid sexual yearnings. It arouses a mockery that titillates an audience's anger, resentment and, above all, its pride. And it is not about the weak speaking to the strong. It is about the powerful appearing weak, weak as the Everyman, exploiting an audience for social and financial gain.

Stephen Colbert played the court jester, as he always does, and he jested quite well. His court, of course, is not the President, but his own very loyal audience, an audience consumed with consuming anti-Bush fodder; an audience consumed with making Colbert not only a legend, but a very rich man.

In short, Stephen Colbert's night with the President was a really good gig. Surely he is grateful President Bush is there to help make him a millionaire, glorious tax cuts and all.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Addendum, May 18, 2006: It was reported last night on Fox News (oiks!) that viewership of Mr. Colbert's "The Colbert Report" has jumped 30% since his heroic night at the correpondents dinner. However, I cannot confirm this.]

Technorati tags: Stephen Colbert, Colbert Report, White House, White House Correspondents Dinner, Don Imus, Imus, Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington

You Have Been Warned: The NSA Red Herring

I have everything to say about nothing. It leaves me quite breathless.

USA Today yesterday reported a rather old ("Homer is new and fresh this morning, and nothing, perhaps, is as old and tired as today’s newspaper." - Charles Péguy) story about the NSA gathering phone records in the all-out war on terrorism (apparently The New York Times did this story in December '05). There is, reportedly, a lot of blustering and posturing around this bit of news, though it is clear that Fox News has got one thing right about the whole mess: USA Today buried the most important part of the story. [Addendum, 5.18.06: Fox issued a correction to this, stating that the USA Today article did not bury the lead on page 5; rather it was reported in ¶11]. That fact (and others) should help frame the comments of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated yesterday that it appears the Bush Administration is treating Americans badly, and that it is "just going to collect their ['tens of millions of Americans'] phone information for the heck of it." It is clear Mr. Leahy (see video clip here) was relying a bit too heavily on the press to inform his all-important understanding of this serious issue: He knows not what he is saying. And now, predictably, we shall have days of reading and hearing about a "fierce debate." 'Tis sickening. On top of that, we have USA Today publishing a story already fleshed out in other venues at the moment President Bush nominates a new man to head the CIA. Again, predictably, USA Today wonders if the nominee, in light of this NSA news, is in trouble. That this whole story seems deliberately timed to sabotage this nominee will undoubtedly go unnoticed by many observers.

***

Of course, the whole story is about the NSA collecting phone numbers to determine phone call patterns. We are talking about numbers here. We are not talking about who is talking to whom.

But what is alarming is that the critics care less about the other eavesdroppers in our lives. I am talking about, of course, what I've mentioned over the last few weeks: The consolidation of power due to the digital and telecom revolution. (Related Contratimes posts can be found here, here, here, and here.)

Let's put it this way. If you have a cell phone, "they" know where you are, and what you're talking about. If you have an offsite voicemail, your messages are in someone else's keeping. If you watch DirecTV or some other satellite TV service, "they" know what you are watching. If you download music from "iTunes", they––the makers of the very Macs downloading such tunes––know what you are listening to (and how often and how many times you've burned a CD). If you use Google, or if you use GMAIL, which is a Google email product, your searches are being catalogued and your emails searched for marketing purposes. And if you are blogging on Blogger, which is another Google service, you are submitting all sorts of data about yourself with every keystroke. As one writer -- an expert on Google's business practices -- pronounced on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, "Google knows more about you than you know about Google." Indeed, it does. (Here is a clipping from the Boston Phoenix on the matter. And this report, citing research that over 75% of Google users do not know that Google stores personal data, is also interesting. And I can't neglect to share this piece with you, where Google is described as a "dream house", one that grows exponentially no less, and where an internet entity's "importance" is determined by how many links there are to that entity's given URL. You are what you're ranked; you are what you're numbered.)

My own posts about this have been perhaps too passive, too tentative. Perhaps I am concerned about alienating Blogger, which essentially hosts this site. But it is important to talk about, especially when one adds this rather interesting wrinkle: Al Gore is the co-founder and president of the Google TV venture, CurrentTV; and he is on the board of Apple Computers and is senior adviser to Google. And yet, as I've noted here, he is "concerned" that the consolidation of power in the media might destroy democracy.

My point is that we daily yield information to countless strangers who indeed have real political agendas. Does anyone think that Al Gore is not driven by power? Does anyone think that Google, CurrentTV and Apple are not politically interested or motivated? Come now. Get real. This is not fantasy. This is about what is happening right before your very eyes.

Never before in the history of the world has there been such a repository as the Internet. It provides all sorts of information about YOU, and it is easy to see how quickly it could be used to track down those who are not CONFORMING to the zeitgeist. Bloggers are especially vulnerable to this, for they are publishing (blindly, on servers owned and operated by whom?) all sorts of strong and challenging political statements––and theological and philosophical statements––that can (and most likely will) haunt them. I know: My internet "record" was used against me, viciously, by a Daily Kos blogger last week. This is not a game here: We are all doing data entry, so to speak, without having a clue where our data is going. And the data is all about us, entered by us ––willingly and willfully. If the jackboots come kicking in our doors, then we're to blame, for we have all made it rather easy for them to find the dissenters among us (and I am, I am certain, a dissenter).

And yet there is a "debate" in Congress brewing about something every Senator and Representative has known about for years. But the real threat is under your fingertips. You will hear nothing about that in USA Today.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Addendum, 5.14.06: James Taranto is right in pointing out that The New York Times misleadingly editorialized about NSA activity, "conflating" two disparate activities. It is also interesting that the Times editorial never mentions that this is essentially old news, news the Times broke in December. This all confirms my feeling that the timing of this "news" was simply to derail President Bush's appointment of General Michael Hayden to head the CIA, and to FOMENT PARANOIA among Bush critics.

Technorati tags: Al Gore, Google, Googlezon, NSA, spying, Wiretaps, USA Today

Quagmires: When Will It All End?

Some of you may recall hearing the eminent evangelist and social justice activist Tony Campolo say the following before a speech to thousands of evangelical Christians gathered at a major event:

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said 'shit' than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

(Dr. Campolo, as many of you may know, is not only a powerful orator [one of the best I've ever heard], he was a spiritual advisor to President Bill Clinton [along with famed evangelical pastor Gordon MacDonald, I believe]. And he is an amazingly funny man. If memory serves me well, he has been a professor not only of sociology but philosophy [yeah!].)

My quoting Dr. Campolo has nothing to do with Dr. Campolo or hunger or obscenity, though I am interested in the obscenity which is, often, our misplaced priorities; nay, I am interested in my misplaced priorities. Just read this story in the Boston Herald of a mother who has lost her second son to violence, no, not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but in Boston. The Herald's lead is wrenching:

"An inspiring Dorchester mother who spent the past decade dignifying her slain son’s memory by being a soldier of peace for Cape Verdean youths could not save herself from losing a second son to street violence."

My own reaction to this news is visceral, in the gut. Indeed, it is like a kick in the gut, partly because I am reminded of how little I often care, not about violence and death and war in faraway lands, but about my own neighbor.

I have written at Contratimes about "quagmire." I have written about the misplaced priorities of war-protesters (though I am not against such protests). And I have written, perhaps with every keystroke, about my own wicked indifference to the sufferings and problems of the people living as faraway from me as the next yard. In other words, Tony Campolo, I have to admit, is right.

Perhaps as a result of this most recent murder the quagmire which is Boston will now be energized to become as just of a city as many of its citizens would wish the White House would become as an Adminstration. Perhaps tomorrow the streets will be jammed with protestors calling for the ousting of the defense secretary, I mean, the police commissioner; perhaps the city will be quaking from sill to rafter with calls for the impeachment (for neglect, carelessness and ineptitude) of the presiding mayor of Beantown. Perhaps Harvard and B.U. will pull students from classes to show solidarity with the oppressed citizens of a town where there has been "seven murders in seven days". Perhaps the intelligentsia of the nation's most liberal city (well, almost) will gather together today to provide New England's Hub some sort of exit strategy; or at least some guidance for the city's intelligence services, i.e. the city's homicide bureau, which the Boston Phoenix has reported as the "worst homicide squad in the country."

Just this sentence alone from the Phoenix' August 2005 report should be a signal that all is not well in Boston:

"The portions of Dorchester, Mattapan, and Roxbury ... make up a tiny area, roughly two miles by three. There have been 38 unsolved murders there in the past year and a half, and 61 since the start of 2002."

SIXTY-ONE UNSOLVED MURDERS IN SIX SQUARE MILES! Where is the outrage? (I mean, if you're not outraged, you are not paying attention: this is New England's own sort of Sunni Triangle.)

The number of murders in the United States annually, numbering in the tens of thousands, has even prompted Chinese officials and journalists to wonder about the loveliness of domestic life in the United States. Is America its own sort of quagmire? If so, where is the exit strategy from violence and why do we not see more protestations over the death of little boys and girls? Why the passion about outsiders' sufferings, such as the Iraqis (which are real passions and real sufferings), and yet so little daily commentary about murder and mayhem in America's urban areas (the murder rate is declining in non-metropolitan areas)? Where are the blogs that are stewing daily, hourly, about the quagmire and abusers of human rights which may indeed be the most liberal cities of our nation?

Where, where, is the outrage?

My prayers go toward Boston today.

Peace.

[addendum 5.9.06: Apparently the city of Boston is going to do something about recent violence. Part of the solution in that town is to install more surveillance cameras in the troubled neighborhoods, which is, apparently, a suitable Orwellian solution. Of course, I am sure there will be some protest over the cameras.]

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Related essay: "Sleepless in America"

Technorati tags: Boston, Domestic violence, street violence, Iraq, Exit strategy, US murder rates, Tony Campolo

Whatsoever Things Are Lovely ...

In keeping with this morning's earlier post, I share with you this picture and attendant anecdote, now several years old.

On a very warm and dry June morning, I set out early to photograph wildlife along the borders of our local land preserve (nearly 9,000 acres). I would go this day to a beautiful meadow set between a stunning marsh and a gentle, sloping mountain. Unfortunately my wait in the woody shadows––though I was dressed from head to toe in camouflage––produced nothing. So as I meandered homeward in the now quite-blazing sun, I came across a female snapping turtle returning from laying eggs in a sandy section of the meadow. She was, no doubt, a citizen of the marsh and was perhaps as old as I. I fell prone before her, blocking her path and positioning myself, my camera, lens and stabilizer, in order to photograph her. But I noticed a curious thing. Coming across the ground, near the turtle's front left claw, was a tiny inch-worm, a little green larva. It climbed onto the turtle's jagged foot, made its way up the foreleg, found the turtle's neck, and, unbelievably, it walked across the turtle's face and across her razor-sharp and deadly jaws. Where was it going? Why so directly?

Who could have guessed? It went straight to the turtle's eye and stopped. There it began to drink. And it stayed for a long time.

Ahh, a witness to a miracle. Or was it mere chance? Mere symbiosis? For here we three beings were in a parched meadow in the middle of a very dry June. A moist thing passes by, a turtle's eye, towering stories above the meadow's roots. I happen to stop a turtle and an inch-worm finds an oasis, a well-spring of life, with an intention as old as the earth.

The whole scene finally and quietly ends, with the inch-worm falling back to the ground as the turtle pulls its eye inward in one sudden blink. We each continue on our way.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Click on the photo for a larger view. Image made with a Canon EOS 3, Sigma EX APO 300/4 macro lens, with 1.4 extender. 1/500th at f8-11. Kodak Ektachrome 100VS, pushed one stop.]

Newspeak Natterings #3: George W. Bush And Bill O'Reilly (On My Mind)

In Newspeak Natterings #3, a rather infrequent feature at Contratimes, I turn today to some rather curious turns of phrase by our President and Mr. Bill O'Reilly (who is not the President).

First, as you know, in light of the recent fact that a group of artists drafted a "Spanish" version of the Star-Spangled Banner, President Bush opined last week that he believed the American national anthem should be sung in English. OK. But then there is this as reported by Fox News' Brit Hume:

Language Barrier

A hip-hop Spanish language version of the "Star-Spangled Banner" released last week prompted President Bush to say that the national anthem "ought to be sung in English," but he may not have always felt that way.

Media reports from the president's 2001 inauguration note that Latin singer Jon Secada performed two versions of the song — one in English and one in Spanish. And "American Dynasty" author Kevin Phillips claims that the anthem was performed in Spanish during campaign stops at largely Hispanic locations in 2000, writing that the president would sometimes join in.

Oiks!

Mr. O'Reilly earns our notice for three curious things he has offered viewers and listeners over the past several days. First, on his TV program, The O'Reilly Factor (on Fox), I watched Mr. O'Reilly debate a Colorado man, I believe, who felt that the use of the term "illegal alien" was racist and dehumanizing. O'Reilly disagreed, arguing that it was a descriptive legal term; that "illegal aliens" is exactly what some people are.

Not 48 hours later, on his radio program, the Radio Factor, I heard him begin a programming block with this, and I paraphrase: "You shouldn't refer to illegal immigrants as 'these people,' or 'those people.' For it borders on racism, even on xenophobia." In other words, it's dehumanizing. OK. Fair enough. But using "these people" is actually what "these people" are: They are "these people", which is far less damning, or potentially xenophobic and reductionistic, than "illegal aliens." But I will admit that I might be wrong.

Then, there is this. The following day, again on his radio program, Mr. O'Reilly began to use, in reference to certain liberal groups, the moniker "SP's". "The SP's say this ...", or, "The SP's are trying to do this ..." What does SP's stand for? It stands for secular progressives; those people who are earnestly seeking to produce a purely secular and liberal society.

Am I confusing things, or is Mr. O'Reilly? Which is it: Is it wrong to label, and thus to reduce, people with a shorthand or not? Is SP better or worse than "these people"?

Some terms, when defined and used NOT to dehumanize, are truly expedient and helpful. But Mr. O'Reilly earns a place in Newspeak Natterings because he is a man that, in this instance at least, is utterly confusing to me.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Words Heard In The (Very) Dark

"Finally, brothers [and sisters], whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." St. Paul, Phil. 4:8

Late last night I went outside in the beautiful dark, and I struggled with my own demons. This morning I awoke, in my simple, wonderful bed, to the clarion song of a Tufted Titmice and the noisy chatter of a Baltimore Oriole. I stood on my rather tiny feet, grateful that I made it to another morning.

Let me put this simply. The reason I am saying this will make no sense to many of you, but I will speak it nonetheless. I will always take responsibility for how I write; how I opine; how I craft my arguments. I will take seriously the charge I've set for myself, namely, that when I write I shall do so with clarity. I will accept that I must be responsible for making my words as accessible to readers as possible. But I will be damned if I take responsibility for making people good readers.

Once again, I have learned a lesson, a valuable one. It seems that I am my own worst enemy; I am the devil in my own skin. Satan does not tempt me, I tempt myself, and I go places where I will only find injury. An elderly friend of mine, a brilliant Catholic literary critic, once rebuked me when I sought his solace before the great whirlwind of hate that came my way after I voiced an opinion (!) during an event sponsored by a local Unitarian Church. His comforting, paternal response to me was simple: You should not have entered that church in the first place. I recall once, while traveling with friends to Grand Isle on Lake Champlain in the middle of the night; it was dark, we were tired, disoriented, and we hesitantly parked our car near our cabin (or so we thought) that was nestled among others. Wafting out through an open window was a woman's voice: "You have no right being there!" Her greeting remains deeply rooted in my memory, and her words have become part of the oral history shared between me and my friends.

Last night in the warming spring darkness I came to grips with the truth. I had no right going where I did. None at all. I am reminded of Christ's warnings about such things. I am reminded of holding onto one's dignity. I am reminded of my own personal demons, that they are Legion. I am reminded of so much. Now, if I can make it, I will return to what St. Paul so beautifully urged of me: I will look for the pure, the lovely, the beautiful; I will fight against that self-doubt that believes the world is vicious and ugly; I will think on the good, the true, the so very wonderful.

Think on these things. Amen.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.