A simple truck driver did more than disturb -- and distort -- this morning's commute in Oakland, California. He dealt a fatal blow to those 9/11 conspiracy theorists who believe that fires in the World Trade Center could not have "melted" steel.
That such foolishness is contradicted by countless blacksmiths everyday does not stop such theorists' wild fantasies. But maybe James Mosqueda's close scrape with death will quench the flames burning in the hearts and minds of far too many souls who stubbornly refuse to believe the simple truth, namely, 9/11 happened exactly the way they saw it happen. When Mr. Mosqueda and his 8,600-gallon gasoline tanker crashed beneath an overpass in Oakland, the result was the undeniable melting of massive steel girders and the collapse of one of Oakland's vital thoroughfares.
Not that the steel actually melted; it just weakened enough to lose its strength and collapse after three hours of raging fury. Which is, of course, identical to the official statement regarding the WTC towers: the fires, along with the brutality of two planes traveling hundreds of miles an hour slicing through both buildings, weakened the structures enough to render them incapable of supporting their own weight.
But, as I said, we only needed to talk to a blacksmith about steel to come to conclusions the 9/11 theorists could not, in all their scientific inquiries, discover for themselves.
Perhaps we will now learn that Mr. Mosqueda wasn't driving at all; witnesses saw a grey-headed middle-aged man from Texas leap from the tanker into what looked like a Washington, D.C. motorcade. It is reported that three hours later, using a reconfigured cell-phone from inside Air Force One, some person called another phone at the Oakland underpass, which triggered a series of thermite bombs to detonate.
It's all just to throw the conspiracy theorists off the trail.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
My Name is ?
It is a simple judgment: I had enough of their not worshiping me. I could not take their idolatry; I abhorred their indifference to my glory. I stood in silence, I stood in scoffing silence scoffing, and they did not see me; they did not obey my laws. I said, "How long will you not notice me? How long will I not be the center of your attention, the life of your dead parties, the talk of the dining commons?" My patience has been tried, and your hearts have been hardened by youthful lusts, and licentious distractions, and jammed with gods and goddesses primped in all forms of promiscuity. How long shall I wait for you to humble yourselves; when shall you turn from your sinful days and trust funds and your Christian vacuity? What do I have to do with your perversions, your petty conversions, your pet conversations iced with gossip poured over lazy lips?
I wrote poetry. I wrote plays. I was an English major. I never said a word. And yet I was writing a story you could not read. My poems and plays made you uncomfortable; mere words made you fear. How much fear now? I send mail express -- Ismail Ax to NBC -- and yet I leave you with question marks. ? is my name and ? is my legacy. Today, in the grave you will desecrate, I laugh last, and my laugh lasts in your questions asked too late.
This is my grade, my passing grave. I have written something none of you could ever dare to write. Now you all have read it.
Note what I say as I enter your room, Professor: "Good morning! How are you?" It's the first time you heard that, no? I'll show you some irony. Hot irony. And now listen to this, and this, and that, and that, and that. And that!
You have emptied my heart's chambers. I empty them into yours, and yours empty in liquid-who-cares on the forensic details of your bookbag. I will be your god this hour, if it be the last thing I do. I know when the term ends. And so does this gun. You will worship in this moment, pronouncing my name in perfect punctuation.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I wrote poetry. I wrote plays. I was an English major. I never said a word. And yet I was writing a story you could not read. My poems and plays made you uncomfortable; mere words made you fear. How much fear now? I send mail express -- Ismail Ax to NBC -- and yet I leave you with question marks. ? is my name and ? is my legacy. Today, in the grave you will desecrate, I laugh last, and my laugh lasts in your questions asked too late.
This is my grade, my passing grave. I have written something none of you could ever dare to write. Now you all have read it.
Note what I say as I enter your room, Professor: "Good morning! How are you?" It's the first time you heard that, no? I'll show you some irony. Hot irony. And now listen to this, and this, and that, and that, and that. And that!
You have emptied my heart's chambers. I empty them into yours, and yours empty in liquid-who-cares on the forensic details of your bookbag. I will be your god this hour, if it be the last thing I do. I know when the term ends. And so does this gun. You will worship in this moment, pronouncing my name in perfect punctuation.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Cho Seung-Hui: Who Are We?
[Tonight (4.18.07) I amend this post with this preface because I see that a lot of people are seeking, searching, looking. Some of you, like me, may even be groping: How do I make sense of a ruthless massacre like the one that happened at the seemingly peaceful, bucolic Virginia Tech? I have spent much of my time since Monday morning wondering - with much fear - whether it is possible that there is no answer to the question. What if there is no reason at all?
I wonder, though, if we can permit ourselves to accept that the reason might be utterly simple, and singular in scope: Cho Seung-Hui created this all entirely on his own. This tragedy is not God's fault, nor is it the fault of college administrators, overly-cautious psychologists, timid law enforcement officials, or obtuse neighbors. This is something crafted by one person: A man willed something, and it came to pass.
Since I cannot promise any sort of answer here, I can at least direct you toward my own struggles with the problem of evil (see here). Though my struggle is admittedly one fought on Christian terms, I nonetheless believe my struggle can serve as a guide to those who find themselves doing battle in terms that are not one bit religious. My approach is actually more philosophical than theological, though both disciplines, I believe, have more to say about evil than any natural or social science which by definition precludes even the notion of evil.
But whatever you do or wherever you go, I bid you peace, comfort, and solace as you seek to find meaning in a world that shouts meaninglessness at us everyday. My belief is that what the world so often shouts is not at all true.]
You might have come here for comfort, for some understanding or trenchant analysis. I am sorry to disappoint. There is nothing this heart can really give.
_______________
The media, like the rest of us, chafe at the bit of real time. We want answers to simple questions, and we want them right now. We want to know why vision is always 20/20 when viewed in the Slow-motion Afterwards; and we want to know everything. We crave omniscience so we can explain; we crave explanations so we can console ourselves with pithy little phrases, like "isolated incident," "mental illness," "random violence," and "it can't happen to me."
While waiting for hard facts detailing the shootings at Virginia Tech, we are also tempted to ramble on about causes and solutions: We do not know the disease, but perhaps we can all chatter on about prevention. We do not know the problems, but let us posit some answers. This is our wont in the media, and in our consumption of media. And it is all so very entertaining: Let there be no dead air between breathy, vapid sound-bites for fear of losing viewers and listeners.
Of course, the big speculation -- THE BIG PROBLEM -- that filled much of the TV dead air between facts and figures delivered all too-slowly in the Virginia Tech shootings, is that the campus police and administrators are somehow to blame: The school should have been in lock-down immediately. You know what is being said -- we need a terrorist threat-level alarm system every time something bad happens (anywhere). That I have heard nary a word how a lock-down would not have helped is hardly surprising: we need answers, and we need to blame something.
(Think of the preposterousness of it all: VT should have locked down a 2600-acre campus -- over 4 square miles -- wherein 26,000 to 28,0o0 people work, live, study and stroll. Imagine the size of such an enterprise: taking a 2 mile by 2 mile urbanized area and containing it all within a protective blanket. Keene, NH, considered a city by New England standards, has 25,000 residents. Alas, we are hearing commentary suggesting that when Keene has a shooting within its borders, the entire city should be locked down. Instantly.
And then think of a methodical murderer with a plan: He will hide inside a building, wait for lock-down to be announced [he reads it on his own cellphone, perhaps]; he waits a few minutes to ensure that classes are underway and pedestrian flow into the building is low; he chains closed various exits; and then he begins his terror. Such a scenario gives one an immediate sense of how a lock-down actually creates a false sense of security; and how such false security lowers one's suspicions. Besides, the lock-down merely means that the shooter is now locked down with everyone else. He IS a VT student after all, and would be whisked toward protection like any other student.)
But we are all about finding something, ANY thing, to blame. The shooter himself apparently blamed "rich kids" and "debauchery" for his rage (and anyone paying attention to the zeitgeist over the last 30 years knows that rich kids are stereotyped by every sector of American culture). Some will blame video games. Some will blame guns. Others will blame race, or the isolation that too often comes of it.
The fact is that we all might be to blame. I replied to an email last night regarding the VT shootings that Americans -- and westerners in general -- no longer love their neighbors. Alas, we don't even know them. I will not enlarge upon that at this moment, but I will note this: An MSNBC reporter TODAY stood outside the Centreville, VA home of the 23-year-old shooter, and said that the neighborhood was clearly "middle class" (in contrast to a rich kid's neighborhood) and that, though neighbors had seen the shooter's family, none of the neighbors seemed to know a thing about the family (which had been living there for at least a dozen years). In fact, the reporter -- surprised, at least in tone -- shared that none of the neighbors seemed to know any of the others at all. And this in a middle class neighborhood where the very walls of each home were shared one house to the other.
In other words, the VT murderer was raised (mostly) in a tight-knit community of complete strangers.
Sounds like America. Sounds like the world.
There must be a simple explanation.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I wonder, though, if we can permit ourselves to accept that the reason might be utterly simple, and singular in scope: Cho Seung-Hui created this all entirely on his own. This tragedy is not God's fault, nor is it the fault of college administrators, overly-cautious psychologists, timid law enforcement officials, or obtuse neighbors. This is something crafted by one person: A man willed something, and it came to pass.
Since I cannot promise any sort of answer here, I can at least direct you toward my own struggles with the problem of evil (see here). Though my struggle is admittedly one fought on Christian terms, I nonetheless believe my struggle can serve as a guide to those who find themselves doing battle in terms that are not one bit religious. My approach is actually more philosophical than theological, though both disciplines, I believe, have more to say about evil than any natural or social science which by definition precludes even the notion of evil.
But whatever you do or wherever you go, I bid you peace, comfort, and solace as you seek to find meaning in a world that shouts meaninglessness at us everyday. My belief is that what the world so often shouts is not at all true.]
You might have come here for comfort, for some understanding or trenchant analysis. I am sorry to disappoint. There is nothing this heart can really give.
_______________
The media, like the rest of us, chafe at the bit of real time. We want answers to simple questions, and we want them right now. We want to know why vision is always 20/20 when viewed in the Slow-motion Afterwards; and we want to know everything. We crave omniscience so we can explain; we crave explanations so we can console ourselves with pithy little phrases, like "isolated incident," "mental illness," "random violence," and "it can't happen to me."
While waiting for hard facts detailing the shootings at Virginia Tech, we are also tempted to ramble on about causes and solutions: We do not know the disease, but perhaps we can all chatter on about prevention. We do not know the problems, but let us posit some answers. This is our wont in the media, and in our consumption of media. And it is all so very entertaining: Let there be no dead air between breathy, vapid sound-bites for fear of losing viewers and listeners.
Of course, the big speculation -- THE BIG PROBLEM -- that filled much of the TV dead air between facts and figures delivered all too-slowly in the Virginia Tech shootings, is that the campus police and administrators are somehow to blame: The school should have been in lock-down immediately. You know what is being said -- we need a terrorist threat-level alarm system every time something bad happens (anywhere). That I have heard nary a word how a lock-down would not have helped is hardly surprising: we need answers, and we need to blame something.
(Think of the preposterousness of it all: VT should have locked down a 2600-acre campus -- over 4 square miles -- wherein 26,000 to 28,0o0 people work, live, study and stroll. Imagine the size of such an enterprise: taking a 2 mile by 2 mile urbanized area and containing it all within a protective blanket. Keene, NH, considered a city by New England standards, has 25,000 residents. Alas, we are hearing commentary suggesting that when Keene has a shooting within its borders, the entire city should be locked down. Instantly.
And then think of a methodical murderer with a plan: He will hide inside a building, wait for lock-down to be announced [he reads it on his own cellphone, perhaps]; he waits a few minutes to ensure that classes are underway and pedestrian flow into the building is low; he chains closed various exits; and then he begins his terror. Such a scenario gives one an immediate sense of how a lock-down actually creates a false sense of security; and how such false security lowers one's suspicions. Besides, the lock-down merely means that the shooter is now locked down with everyone else. He IS a VT student after all, and would be whisked toward protection like any other student.)
But we are all about finding something, ANY thing, to blame. The shooter himself apparently blamed "rich kids" and "debauchery" for his rage (and anyone paying attention to the zeitgeist over the last 30 years knows that rich kids are stereotyped by every sector of American culture). Some will blame video games. Some will blame guns. Others will blame race, or the isolation that too often comes of it.
The fact is that we all might be to blame. I replied to an email last night regarding the VT shootings that Americans -- and westerners in general -- no longer love their neighbors. Alas, we don't even know them. I will not enlarge upon that at this moment, but I will note this: An MSNBC reporter TODAY stood outside the Centreville, VA home of the 23-year-old shooter, and said that the neighborhood was clearly "middle class" (in contrast to a rich kid's neighborhood) and that, though neighbors had seen the shooter's family, none of the neighbors seemed to know a thing about the family (which had been living there for at least a dozen years). In fact, the reporter -- surprised, at least in tone -- shared that none of the neighbors seemed to know any of the others at all. And this in a middle class neighborhood where the very walls of each home were shared one house to the other.
In other words, the VT murderer was raised (mostly) in a tight-knit community of complete strangers.
Sounds like America. Sounds like the world.
There must be a simple explanation.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Right? You Can't Make This Stuff Up Indeed
An anonymous comment was posted here this morning, though the person who penned it hid behind a pseudonym, Robert Throckmorton (the comment seems to have come through a server in Ames, Iowa, caucus country). And the comment suggested that I was paranoid and full of something like digested hay for thinking (see my essay here) that the Imus story was much bigger than race and sex (and that these were even distractions). The issue, I augured, was that this is about who will be the next president. (And I augured even more than this.)
Let me remind readers that Don Imus constantly referred to Hillary Clinton as "Satan." As wrong or as unfortunate as this may be, Mr. Throckmorton thinks that I am paranoid for thinking that Ms. Clinton benefits -- supremely -- from Don Imus' silence.
Now note this: Ms. Clinton is going to speak at Rutgers on Monday. Yes, I know. Paranoid delusions on my part.
This is all about winning -- for Ms. Clinton. She is, in her own words, in the presidential campaign "to win." As if there is any other option. So, desperately seeking affirmation and the prize, Ms. Clinton is going to steal the limelight -- steal it from a Rutgers women's basketball team, from Al Sharpton, from Don Imus and from Barack Obama. No doubt Ms. Clinton can exploit commiseration to great effect, for she -- all female -- has also been the victim of Don Imus' sexism. That this whole story used to be about a runner-up basketball team whose achievements were overshadowed by the easily ignorable comments of an old white guy is worth noting, particularly since it is no longer about that at all, proving, at last, that it never was. Surely Ms. Clinton has heard that the Rutgers team has accepted Mr. Imus' apology, and that they'd like to move on and get on with living -- and on with the celebration the team still richly deserves. But that has no place in her campaign, for the limelight she is going to steal is about to be rather large and rather bright: the media presence at Rutgers will be so overpowering that it will be hard not to believe that Ms. Clinton already is president. Perfect.
Of course, no one dare suggest that Ms. Clinton is going to exploit the misfortunes of a group of women who have accepted an apology. After all, it may be the case that the Rutgers team has given Imus some sort of absolution, but that does not mean all other women have to follow their example: Other women can still hold a grudge against the I-man.
It's funny. I have been apologetic to Contratimes readers for speculating beyond the prima facie evidence of this whole story. Clearly my paranoia is rooted in some shallow soil. The soil of reality.
But I may still be wrong.
Alas! One more paranoid tidbit: Hillary Clinton, according to the report cited above, has had a longstanding open invitation to speak to the "The Eagleton Center for American Women and Politics" at Rutgers. Can anyone say "motive?" I can.
Odd that I should have been speculating that the machinery behind Don Imus' sudden fall was larger than Al Sharpton. I now see why.
I wonder, Mr. Throckmorton, what you see.
Peace.
(Still experimenting, so bear with me.)
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Barack Obama, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
Let me remind readers that Don Imus constantly referred to Hillary Clinton as "Satan." As wrong or as unfortunate as this may be, Mr. Throckmorton thinks that I am paranoid for thinking that Ms. Clinton benefits -- supremely -- from Don Imus' silence.
Now note this: Ms. Clinton is going to speak at Rutgers on Monday. Yes, I know. Paranoid delusions on my part.
This is all about winning -- for Ms. Clinton. She is, in her own words, in the presidential campaign "to win." As if there is any other option. So, desperately seeking affirmation and the prize, Ms. Clinton is going to steal the limelight -- steal it from a Rutgers women's basketball team, from Al Sharpton, from Don Imus and from Barack Obama. No doubt Ms. Clinton can exploit commiseration to great effect, for she -- all female -- has also been the victim of Don Imus' sexism. That this whole story used to be about a runner-up basketball team whose achievements were overshadowed by the easily ignorable comments of an old white guy is worth noting, particularly since it is no longer about that at all, proving, at last, that it never was. Surely Ms. Clinton has heard that the Rutgers team has accepted Mr. Imus' apology, and that they'd like to move on and get on with living -- and on with the celebration the team still richly deserves. But that has no place in her campaign, for the limelight she is going to steal is about to be rather large and rather bright: the media presence at Rutgers will be so overpowering that it will be hard not to believe that Ms. Clinton already is president. Perfect.
Of course, no one dare suggest that Ms. Clinton is going to exploit the misfortunes of a group of women who have accepted an apology. After all, it may be the case that the Rutgers team has given Imus some sort of absolution, but that does not mean all other women have to follow their example: Other women can still hold a grudge against the I-man.
It's funny. I have been apologetic to Contratimes readers for speculating beyond the prima facie evidence of this whole story. Clearly my paranoia is rooted in some shallow soil. The soil of reality.
But I may still be wrong.
Alas! One more paranoid tidbit: Hillary Clinton, according to the report cited above, has had a longstanding open invitation to speak to the "The Eagleton Center for American Women and Politics" at Rutgers. Can anyone say "motive?" I can.
Odd that I should have been speculating that the machinery behind Don Imus' sudden fall was larger than Al Sharpton. I now see why.
I wonder, Mr. Throckmorton, what you see.
Peace.
(Still experimenting, so bear with me.)
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Barack Obama, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
Friday, April 13, 2007
Humbled, Gladly, By A Comment
I would like to direct readers to a comment made today by a Contratimes reader, Brady, who lives in Switzerland. I cannot tell you how humbling it is for me -- humbling in a good and right way. This is not to say that I am not humbled by every comment posted here, for I am: I am truly honored by others' care. It was just that this one struck a very important chord, one that is pleasant and sustained.
I have indeed speculated wildly over the past few days. I have my reasons; perhaps I will share them in the next day or two. But I cannot help but agree with Brady: my speculations (in general) weaken my credibility, and they surely weaken my spirit.
Let me just put it this way: right now, I am experimenting.
Thanks to each of you for enduring this (hopefully) brief phase.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I have indeed speculated wildly over the past few days. I have my reasons; perhaps I will share them in the next day or two. But I cannot help but agree with Brady: my speculations (in general) weaken my credibility, and they surely weaken my spirit.
Let me just put it this way: right now, I am experimenting.
Thanks to each of you for enduring this (hopefully) brief phase.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Imus, Hate, Reparations And Public Profits: More To Think About
Please, forgive me as I play the fool. But there is so much about the Don Imus story that is important, it is hard to be silent.
As you know, I have already speculated that this Imus "scandal" is largely about presidential politics: key political figures running for the White House can only benefit if Imus is silenced; or, should he return, if he is finally and firmly marginalized as an irrelevant, racist crank. I have also posited that the gang mentality we have seen emerge in such a short time, one utterly deaf to Imus' actual remarks, has been fomented by interested political players behind the scenes. I have further admitted that I am merely speculating; but I am also inferring from the intensity of the furor and the speed of Imus' fall, that surely he did not merely get fired because 10 young women basketball players were offended. There were "bigger" players at work here, ones that even made Imus lose his usually cocky posture.
Now, here's something we all need to think about. Al Sharpton said of all this, in defense of his own noble role in bringing Imus to justice, that America needs to stop those who, using public airwaves, profit from peddling racism and sexism. Please note this with all due attention. Why? Because in the wake of the Imus outrage both MSNBC's and CBS's advertisers began to withdraw from Imus' show; in firing Imus, CBS was willing to forego the apparent $20 million a year he tossed into CBS's coffers. (Please, just for a moment, I want you to follow the money.)
The significant thing for us is that Imus was fired; both MSNBC and CBS agree in action that neither network can nor will profit from the racist, sexist sarcasm and satire of Mr. Imus. But in light of the fact that countless pro-firing commentators, some of whom are staffers of both MSNBC and CBS, keep pointing out that Imus has a long rap-sheet of prior offenses, the firing of Imus appears to be a tacit admission by these networks that they have been, for a long time, profiting from a racist, sexist crank. So, here's the rub: If it is wrong for these networks to continue to profit from a man who clearly has been acting inappropriately for perhaps decades, was it not wrong for them to profit from Imus in the past? If so, does this not then follow: That all the revenue earned by MSNBC and CBS from the Imus show is profit drawn from the purveying of racism and sexism on the public airwaves? Is not the profit already gained from Imus' show dirty, racist, sexist money?
Moreover, does it not then behoove CBS and MSNBC, contrite and deeply moral as they clearly are, to both make reparations, that they pay back the money garnered through racist and sexist programming to those who have been most victimized by such programming?
Alas! I do not see how this argument can be contradicted or denied: MSNBC and CBS must make reparations. Total and complete. For Al Sharpton and his colleagues have made their case, and the firing of Imus proves that the networks agree with that case.
But, let us pause for a moment. For I have one more thing to note, and it is this: If Al Sharpton and others do not seek reparations, if they do not seek damages from toxic and racist radio (and TV) the way some have sought damages from toxic tobacco, can we not infer that simply removing Imus' voice was the only thing some interested parties wanted? Can we not infer that no one seriously believes Imus has been a purveyor of racism and sexism, or that two networks profited from his evil? I don't see how we cannot: If Imus has been a racist and sexist for decades, then all (or most, or even some) of his profits are a result of peddling hate and bigotry. Hence, the profits associated with him have guilt all over them; they represent a debt to victims, not a dividend to shareholders. If no one goes after this money for reparations, then no one is really serious about the charges aimed at Mr. Imus.
Alas, what an ugly door two networks have opened: either they have opened the door to a major lawsuit, or they have opened the door to speculation that this was all about silencing Imus so that he would not stand in the way of someone's bid for the White House. Yes, I believe it is that sort of huge either/or we are talking about here.
Unless, of course, this is all some big publicity stunt. If that is the case, we're all damned.
But, in the end, I admit that I am only speculating. As Imus might say of me, I am a "bald-headed stooge," a "weasel," a "crazy person."
No doubt I am bald, crazy, and a person.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
As you know, I have already speculated that this Imus "scandal" is largely about presidential politics: key political figures running for the White House can only benefit if Imus is silenced; or, should he return, if he is finally and firmly marginalized as an irrelevant, racist crank. I have also posited that the gang mentality we have seen emerge in such a short time, one utterly deaf to Imus' actual remarks, has been fomented by interested political players behind the scenes. I have further admitted that I am merely speculating; but I am also inferring from the intensity of the furor and the speed of Imus' fall, that surely he did not merely get fired because 10 young women basketball players were offended. There were "bigger" players at work here, ones that even made Imus lose his usually cocky posture.
Now, here's something we all need to think about. Al Sharpton said of all this, in defense of his own noble role in bringing Imus to justice, that America needs to stop those who, using public airwaves, profit from peddling racism and sexism. Please note this with all due attention. Why? Because in the wake of the Imus outrage both MSNBC's and CBS's advertisers began to withdraw from Imus' show; in firing Imus, CBS was willing to forego the apparent $20 million a year he tossed into CBS's coffers. (Please, just for a moment, I want you to follow the money.)
The significant thing for us is that Imus was fired; both MSNBC and CBS agree in action that neither network can nor will profit from the racist, sexist sarcasm and satire of Mr. Imus. But in light of the fact that countless pro-firing commentators, some of whom are staffers of both MSNBC and CBS, keep pointing out that Imus has a long rap-sheet of prior offenses, the firing of Imus appears to be a tacit admission by these networks that they have been, for a long time, profiting from a racist, sexist crank. So, here's the rub: If it is wrong for these networks to continue to profit from a man who clearly has been acting inappropriately for perhaps decades, was it not wrong for them to profit from Imus in the past? If so, does this not then follow: That all the revenue earned by MSNBC and CBS from the Imus show is profit drawn from the purveying of racism and sexism on the public airwaves? Is not the profit already gained from Imus' show dirty, racist, sexist money?
Moreover, does it not then behoove CBS and MSNBC, contrite and deeply moral as they clearly are, to both make reparations, that they pay back the money garnered through racist and sexist programming to those who have been most victimized by such programming?
Alas! I do not see how this argument can be contradicted or denied: MSNBC and CBS must make reparations. Total and complete. For Al Sharpton and his colleagues have made their case, and the firing of Imus proves that the networks agree with that case.
But, let us pause for a moment. For I have one more thing to note, and it is this: If Al Sharpton and others do not seek reparations, if they do not seek damages from toxic and racist radio (and TV) the way some have sought damages from toxic tobacco, can we not infer that simply removing Imus' voice was the only thing some interested parties wanted? Can we not infer that no one seriously believes Imus has been a purveyor of racism and sexism, or that two networks profited from his evil? I don't see how we cannot: If Imus has been a racist and sexist for decades, then all (or most, or even some) of his profits are a result of peddling hate and bigotry. Hence, the profits associated with him have guilt all over them; they represent a debt to victims, not a dividend to shareholders. If no one goes after this money for reparations, then no one is really serious about the charges aimed at Mr. Imus.
Alas, what an ugly door two networks have opened: either they have opened the door to a major lawsuit, or they have opened the door to speculation that this was all about silencing Imus so that he would not stand in the way of someone's bid for the White House. Yes, I believe it is that sort of huge either/or we are talking about here.
Unless, of course, this is all some big publicity stunt. If that is the case, we're all damned.
But, in the end, I admit that I am only speculating. As Imus might say of me, I am a "bald-headed stooge," a "weasel," a "crazy person."
No doubt I am bald, crazy, and a person.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
Thursday, April 12, 2007
How So Big, And Why Does This Stuff Matter?
There is a code of conduct here at Contratimes. It is my code, my internal set of standards. It is a code of temperance, of restraint. It is what I have freely chosen to be and to do: I am not given to rants, screeds, and vitriol. Guests are always treated fairly, and with deep and abiding respect. But I do not expect others to behave according to my own rules.
The Imus controversy (largely an American story) and what I have just said are curiously connected, I believe. Here's why.
Did you know that there is a brouhaha across the Internet about the establishment of blogging rules? Perhaps you didn't. And perhaps you did not know that part of the discussion has been around disallowing comment threads on blog sites. Too much freedom, I guess.
Let us step back to November 19, 2004. That was the day John Kerry, who had two weeks earlier lost his bid to become America's president, emailed his supporters. In that electronic missal he wrote the following to his friends:
"You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio."
Note what he intimated -- that his campaign fought against "big news" outlets like Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, AND conservative talk radio. These three things John Kerry listed as the banes of his crusade. Notice that he did not say that his White House bid was thwarted by the Republican National Committee or President Bush or by American voters.
Don Imus, as you all should know, is/was a premiere radio talk-show host with a stellar production team and an A-List guest roster. His show was a veritable Who's Who of American pop iconography; his guests were drawn from all levels of media and political importance. And, as you also must know, Mr. Imus, described by many as a wonderful interviewer, blended his interviews with mockery and scoffing and innuendo. He was constantly baiting guests to indict themselves; he was always looking to create scandal, or some sort of incrimination; or to spot some kind of blunder or tic that he might use against his guest. And he did this almost always in a way that was playful and often not-so-playful. His manner was usually engaging, and very lucrative. But most of all, he was looking for a laugh.
His strength, really, was that he was one of the few members of the media who would say what so many people wished they could say. When he called Vice President Dick Cheney "a war criminal," many people agreed. When he scoffed at John Kerry for bungling an apology for a bungled joke, listeners were screaming at their radios in approval (or, at least, I bet many did). There were few people who had been invited to Imus' show who did not get their persona demystified; and that was Imus' ultimate gift to American culture: he took the mystique and aura and artifice out of celebrity and wealth. He was, and is, an American iconoclast. Pure and simple.
That does not mean you must like him. You need not approve of him or send him flowers. I am merely pointing out what he is, and why he is liked. He is an incredibly smart and shrewd man; he has built something of an empire around demystifying New York's idols and America's broadest pretensions. He is a satirist, a lampoon artist, a crank. He is an H. L. Mencken with a microphone; a misanthrope with a mission. And yet he is a misanthrope who is on the cutting edge of philanthropy and change, and he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charity, and has increased listeners' awareness of environmental toxins, deficient military death benefits, pediatric cancer treatments and autism (to name a few).
Is it wrong to ask why all the umbrage and outrage, why all the moral high dudgeon, after Mr. Imus' unfortunate use of the word "hos" to describe a college basketball team? Why does it seem that so many people have lost perspective, their sense of proportion? How did this story get so big, and big so quickly?
Let me make a few guesses.
First, it has to do with what is happening in presidential politics. The big new name on everybody's tongue is Barack Obama. No one is thinking Al Sharpton when thinking of the first African-American president (and let it be known that Al Sharpton does not think Barack Obama has done enough for African-Americans to be president). And we all know that John Kerry is out of the picture; his final moment came, really, right after his botched joke last fall, when he appeared on Don Imus' show and utterly made a fool of himself, with Imus hanging up on him. Add to this mix the popular and well-known New York senator, Hillary Clinton, and you've got something really, really interesting.
You see, Imus had/has a lot of clout, and everybody knows it. His show drew considerable media attention; what was said on his show in the morning often became news later in the day. After John Kerry blew his "if-you-don't-do-well-in-school-you-end-up-in-Iraq" joke, the first place he made a public statement was on the Imus show, and everyone was listening. Sen. Chris Dodd announced his 2008 bid for the White House on Imus in the Morning. And let it be observed that Imus was and is a huge supporter of the African-American Tennessee politician Harold Ford, Jr.; Ford has made frequent appearances on that show.
Now, I ask myself this one question: Who would love to work vengeance upon Don Imus? Well, for one, John Kerry, for Imus utterly humiliated him; and this after Imus had said -- repeatedly -- that he was a Kerry supporter in the 2004 elections. It follows logically that nearly anyone else who hoped for Kerry to win in 2004, and run again in 2008, would have it out for Mr. Imus. But the person who most has to gain from Imus' silence is Hillary Clinton, for we all know how much Don Imus despises the Clintons (for, I believe, their essential betrayal of him after his controversial appearance at Radio and TV Correspondents Association Dinner at the White House in 1996). It is evident that Imus would have supported ANYONE but Hillary for the White House; and since he has shown the ability to support African-Americans, it is very likely that he would have lent his support to Barack Obama.
What I am saying is this: Knowing (at least through Imus' own comments over the years) the history of Don Imus and the Clintons, there is ample evidence that the Clintons would love to see Imus suffer, even to slip into silence. It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that the Clintons have played a major part in generating fury over this incident. Remember, this thing went big really quick, and Imus came out in a big, panicky apologetic way in a hurry. How does this happen? How does this happen to a man who is a giant, a legend? And how could he stagger so, and how could he even lose hold of what was the actual context and intent of his offending words?
And you have to ask yourself one more question: How does this happen to a man who uses language that one cannot call right-wing, or conservative, or even religious? No, this is a man who speaks the language of America. This is a man who has asked that charges of war crimes be brought against the President of the United States. This is a man who has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This is a man largely secular and even humanistic in speech and behavior. How is it that HE, of all people in the media, is suddenly gone?
Second, related to this is the prominent figure Al Sharpton: He has attached himself to this whole thing for two reasons. The first is to put himself back into play, for he is being out-noticed by Barack Obama. Second, some have used this moment (see "Too Little, Too Late?" here) to force Mr. Obama to play his hand (and he has now played it), to make Mr. Obama prove that he is one of the race-conscious reactionaries that compose much of the Democratic Party. Are you with us? is their question. And, as you can guess, this sort of thing works well into Hillary Clinton's hand: if Obama joins with Sharpton he may look like a race-extortionist, and if he doesn't, he looks weak on racism and insufficiently sensitive to black issues.
So, what does this all have to do with a "code of conduct?" Well, a lot, really. If you have listened at all to Al Sharpton and many of the other chattering chins bewailing Don Imus' remarks, you will hear something like this: Don Imus abused the federally regulated public airwaves. Even the Rutgers University President, Richard L. McCormick, mentioned the public airwaves in his formal statements:
"It is unconscionable for anyone to use the airways to utter such disgraceful, disgusting, and racist remarks and to show such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished so much and deserve great credit."
That this reference to the public airways/airwaves is so frequent means only one thing: The left in this country is intent on stopping talk radio, particularly conservative talk radio. And, related to this, the left is intent on limiting discussion on blogs. Why the latter? Perhaps because commenters can throw bombs -- with links leading people away (to truth?) or astray -- on others' blogs without being challenged. That, perhaps, is just a small part of it. Yes, these same folks could disable -- like I can -- the comments portion of their blogs, but the rules some are seeking go beyond comments. This is all about control (in the guise of decency).
And it is really, really about suppressing speech. And remember, even if Don Imus is using public airwaves, his critics are suggesting one thing: free speech is guaranteed, but not everywhere, especially on the air.
All in all, this is about fulfilling what John Kerry said needed to be done: Activists need to shut down Fox News (and Fox News is indeed effectively marginalized in many quarters), Sinclair Broadcasting, and talk radio. The assault on talk-radio is now in full swing.
In short, this is about YOU. I don't care whether you are pro or con, left or right, blue or red. This is about a leftist assault on free speech; on discussion, debate and, yes, even the possibility of anarchy. The right-wing in America has never been this aggressive, this righteous, this cocksure of its moral standing. Never. It is the left-wing that is trying to bring about what it believes YOU MUST HAVE TO BE SAFE and COMPLIANT.
Read this article, or this (Google censoring websites for communist governments), if you doubt me; or read Al Sharpton's statement "that this is only the beginning," or Keith Olbermann's interview with Jesse Jackson.
Lastly, let me say this. If Imus, a man in the highest places moving among America's elites, a man who speaks language you would never hear in church, if he is ousted from his job because he said a poor and ugly joke, how much more in jeopardy are those who DO NOT SPEAK the language of this culture, who do not conform? If Imus can be pilloried for saying a pop-culture word like "hos", how much more the person who believes homosexuality is sinful? How much more the person who believes that abortion is murder? How much more the person who believes global-warming theory is scientifically suspect? How much more the person who disagrees with the zeitgeist?
This may be the biggest media story of my lifetime. No kidding. And let me be perfectly clear about my own position on this: I am not an Imus fan. Yes, I have listened to his show -- a lot. Much of what I do here is in response to something I have heard on his show, something I disagreed with on his show. I doubt very much that Mr. Imus would like me; he might very well find me a loser (and, in many ways, I am). And let me be clear about what I think of the phrase "nappy headed hos." I hate it. It is an ugly expression, and, even if it was not racially charged when Imus said it, it now is -- forever. "Nappy" has now become a racist term (and it wasn't last week).
It is infuriating to hear people suggest that this is a "teaching" or "learning" moment in American culture. It is infuriating because it is so token, so shallow, so small-minded. Why is this moment a learning moment, when countless other moments -- from "Hymie Town" to "white niggers" to hip-hop misogyny to the rants of Louis Farrakhan denouncing interracial marriage -- how have these NOT been learning moments?
There is more to all of this Imus stuff than meets the eye, I am afraid to say. And I am, in some way, afraid to say it.
Peace to you, all of you, friend and foe alike. We are supposed to be in this together.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
The Imus controversy (largely an American story) and what I have just said are curiously connected, I believe. Here's why.
Did you know that there is a brouhaha across the Internet about the establishment of blogging rules? Perhaps you didn't. And perhaps you did not know that part of the discussion has been around disallowing comment threads on blog sites. Too much freedom, I guess.
Let us step back to November 19, 2004. That was the day John Kerry, who had two weeks earlier lost his bid to become America's president, emailed his supporters. In that electronic missal he wrote the following to his friends:
"You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio."
Note what he intimated -- that his campaign fought against "big news" outlets like Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, AND conservative talk radio. These three things John Kerry listed as the banes of his crusade. Notice that he did not say that his White House bid was thwarted by the Republican National Committee or President Bush or by American voters.
Don Imus, as you all should know, is/was a premiere radio talk-show host with a stellar production team and an A-List guest roster. His show was a veritable Who's Who of American pop iconography; his guests were drawn from all levels of media and political importance. And, as you also must know, Mr. Imus, described by many as a wonderful interviewer, blended his interviews with mockery and scoffing and innuendo. He was constantly baiting guests to indict themselves; he was always looking to create scandal, or some sort of incrimination; or to spot some kind of blunder or tic that he might use against his guest. And he did this almost always in a way that was playful and often not-so-playful. His manner was usually engaging, and very lucrative. But most of all, he was looking for a laugh.
His strength, really, was that he was one of the few members of the media who would say what so many people wished they could say. When he called Vice President Dick Cheney "a war criminal," many people agreed. When he scoffed at John Kerry for bungling an apology for a bungled joke, listeners were screaming at their radios in approval (or, at least, I bet many did). There were few people who had been invited to Imus' show who did not get their persona demystified; and that was Imus' ultimate gift to American culture: he took the mystique and aura and artifice out of celebrity and wealth. He was, and is, an American iconoclast. Pure and simple.
That does not mean you must like him. You need not approve of him or send him flowers. I am merely pointing out what he is, and why he is liked. He is an incredibly smart and shrewd man; he has built something of an empire around demystifying New York's idols and America's broadest pretensions. He is a satirist, a lampoon artist, a crank. He is an H. L. Mencken with a microphone; a misanthrope with a mission. And yet he is a misanthrope who is on the cutting edge of philanthropy and change, and he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charity, and has increased listeners' awareness of environmental toxins, deficient military death benefits, pediatric cancer treatments and autism (to name a few).
Is it wrong to ask why all the umbrage and outrage, why all the moral high dudgeon, after Mr. Imus' unfortunate use of the word "hos" to describe a college basketball team? Why does it seem that so many people have lost perspective, their sense of proportion? How did this story get so big, and big so quickly?
Let me make a few guesses.
First, it has to do with what is happening in presidential politics. The big new name on everybody's tongue is Barack Obama. No one is thinking Al Sharpton when thinking of the first African-American president (and let it be known that Al Sharpton does not think Barack Obama has done enough for African-Americans to be president). And we all know that John Kerry is out of the picture; his final moment came, really, right after his botched joke last fall, when he appeared on Don Imus' show and utterly made a fool of himself, with Imus hanging up on him. Add to this mix the popular and well-known New York senator, Hillary Clinton, and you've got something really, really interesting.
You see, Imus had/has a lot of clout, and everybody knows it. His show drew considerable media attention; what was said on his show in the morning often became news later in the day. After John Kerry blew his "if-you-don't-do-well-in-school-you-end-up-in-Iraq" joke, the first place he made a public statement was on the Imus show, and everyone was listening. Sen. Chris Dodd announced his 2008 bid for the White House on Imus in the Morning. And let it be observed that Imus was and is a huge supporter of the African-American Tennessee politician Harold Ford, Jr.; Ford has made frequent appearances on that show.
Now, I ask myself this one question: Who would love to work vengeance upon Don Imus? Well, for one, John Kerry, for Imus utterly humiliated him; and this after Imus had said -- repeatedly -- that he was a Kerry supporter in the 2004 elections. It follows logically that nearly anyone else who hoped for Kerry to win in 2004, and run again in 2008, would have it out for Mr. Imus. But the person who most has to gain from Imus' silence is Hillary Clinton, for we all know how much Don Imus despises the Clintons (for, I believe, their essential betrayal of him after his controversial appearance at Radio and TV Correspondents Association Dinner at the White House in 1996). It is evident that Imus would have supported ANYONE but Hillary for the White House; and since he has shown the ability to support African-Americans, it is very likely that he would have lent his support to Barack Obama.
What I am saying is this: Knowing (at least through Imus' own comments over the years) the history of Don Imus and the Clintons, there is ample evidence that the Clintons would love to see Imus suffer, even to slip into silence. It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that the Clintons have played a major part in generating fury over this incident. Remember, this thing went big really quick, and Imus came out in a big, panicky apologetic way in a hurry. How does this happen? How does this happen to a man who is a giant, a legend? And how could he stagger so, and how could he even lose hold of what was the actual context and intent of his offending words?
And you have to ask yourself one more question: How does this happen to a man who uses language that one cannot call right-wing, or conservative, or even religious? No, this is a man who speaks the language of America. This is a man who has asked that charges of war crimes be brought against the President of the United States. This is a man who has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This is a man largely secular and even humanistic in speech and behavior. How is it that HE, of all people in the media, is suddenly gone?
Second, related to this is the prominent figure Al Sharpton: He has attached himself to this whole thing for two reasons. The first is to put himself back into play, for he is being out-noticed by Barack Obama. Second, some have used this moment (see "Too Little, Too Late?" here) to force Mr. Obama to play his hand (and he has now played it), to make Mr. Obama prove that he is one of the race-conscious reactionaries that compose much of the Democratic Party. Are you with us? is their question. And, as you can guess, this sort of thing works well into Hillary Clinton's hand: if Obama joins with Sharpton he may look like a race-extortionist, and if he doesn't, he looks weak on racism and insufficiently sensitive to black issues.
So, what does this all have to do with a "code of conduct?" Well, a lot, really. If you have listened at all to Al Sharpton and many of the other chattering chins bewailing Don Imus' remarks, you will hear something like this: Don Imus abused the federally regulated public airwaves. Even the Rutgers University President, Richard L. McCormick, mentioned the public airwaves in his formal statements:
"It is unconscionable for anyone to use the airways to utter such disgraceful, disgusting, and racist remarks and to show such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished so much and deserve great credit."
That this reference to the public airways/airwaves is so frequent means only one thing: The left in this country is intent on stopping talk radio, particularly conservative talk radio. And, related to this, the left is intent on limiting discussion on blogs. Why the latter? Perhaps because commenters can throw bombs -- with links leading people away (to truth?) or astray -- on others' blogs without being challenged. That, perhaps, is just a small part of it. Yes, these same folks could disable -- like I can -- the comments portion of their blogs, but the rules some are seeking go beyond comments. This is all about control (in the guise of decency).
And it is really, really about suppressing speech. And remember, even if Don Imus is using public airwaves, his critics are suggesting one thing: free speech is guaranteed, but not everywhere, especially on the air.
All in all, this is about fulfilling what John Kerry said needed to be done: Activists need to shut down Fox News (and Fox News is indeed effectively marginalized in many quarters), Sinclair Broadcasting, and talk radio. The assault on talk-radio is now in full swing.
In short, this is about YOU. I don't care whether you are pro or con, left or right, blue or red. This is about a leftist assault on free speech; on discussion, debate and, yes, even the possibility of anarchy. The right-wing in America has never been this aggressive, this righteous, this cocksure of its moral standing. Never. It is the left-wing that is trying to bring about what it believes YOU MUST HAVE TO BE SAFE and COMPLIANT.
Read this article, or this (Google censoring websites for communist governments), if you doubt me; or read Al Sharpton's statement "that this is only the beginning," or Keith Olbermann's interview with Jesse Jackson.
Lastly, let me say this. If Imus, a man in the highest places moving among America's elites, a man who speaks language you would never hear in church, if he is ousted from his job because he said a poor and ugly joke, how much more in jeopardy are those who DO NOT SPEAK the language of this culture, who do not conform? If Imus can be pilloried for saying a pop-culture word like "hos", how much more the person who believes homosexuality is sinful? How much more the person who believes that abortion is murder? How much more the person who believes global-warming theory is scientifically suspect? How much more the person who disagrees with the zeitgeist?
This may be the biggest media story of my lifetime. No kidding. And let me be perfectly clear about my own position on this: I am not an Imus fan. Yes, I have listened to his show -- a lot. Much of what I do here is in response to something I have heard on his show, something I disagreed with on his show. I doubt very much that Mr. Imus would like me; he might very well find me a loser (and, in many ways, I am). And let me be clear about what I think of the phrase "nappy headed hos." I hate it. It is an ugly expression, and, even if it was not racially charged when Imus said it, it now is -- forever. "Nappy" has now become a racist term (and it wasn't last week).
It is infuriating to hear people suggest that this is a "teaching" or "learning" moment in American culture. It is infuriating because it is so token, so shallow, so small-minded. Why is this moment a learning moment, when countless other moments -- from "Hymie Town" to "white niggers" to hip-hop misogyny to the rants of Louis Farrakhan denouncing interracial marriage -- how have these NOT been learning moments?
There is more to all of this Imus stuff than meets the eye, I am afraid to say. And I am, in some way, afraid to say it.
Peace to you, all of you, friend and foe alike. We are supposed to be in this together.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
The End Of Reason: The Mad Are In Charge - The Firing Of Don Imus
[update: This post was written in haste. I have emended it at 5:29 pm EST]
Breaking news is sometimes breaking. Sometimes it is broken.
Moments ago I heard on the radio that Don Imus has now finally lost his radio program. CBS has fired Mr. Imus. It is broken news. Desperately broken. And to think he has been fired for calling one women's basketball team "cute."
I wonder, have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't, you are missing one of the most prescient books ever written. In brief, the villains of Atlas Shrugged, all with the noblest intent, steal the wealth of those who actually produce wealth. By the latter I mean that there are indeed folks who generate enormous wealth -- for themselves and others. Exxon-Mobil, for example, is a wealth producer, as is General Motors or Ford Motor Company or Microsoft. For all of these companies generate massive payrolls; they employ hundreds of thousands of people.
Compared to these wealth-makers, there are indeed those who are essentially the parasitic villains who resent and envy the success of those who, practically speaking, are infinitely capable of making wealth for others, of turning healthy profits. Such parasitic villains protest and legislate and gesticulate to much public notice; and they succeed in extorting wealth from the wealth-makers and, finally, forcing the wealth-makers to withdraw from society. The result? The parasites die helplessly and desperately, for they do not know how to make money for themselves.
In the Ayn Rand sense, Al Sharpton is an economic parasite: he, and his minions, have forced a wealth-producer out of business. For Don Imus generates massive wealth for many people; not just for him and his aides, but for the company he worked for and those companies who advertise their wares on Imus' program. Millions and millions of dollars, doled out in payrolls, health care, and property taxes, are produced by Mr. Imus and his work. From the books peddled by Mr. Imus and the music he has promoted, Don Imus has proven that he contributes enormously to the economic vitality of many.
On top of that, Mr. Imus generates massive amounts of cash for all sorts of charities. He has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for all kinds of incredibly important causes.
Al Sharpton is exactly the opposite of Mr. Imus. Mr. Sharpton is an extortionist and hanger-on; he is economically parasitic. He does not generate wealth. None at all.
Even Shame has turned his back on all of this.
This, believe it or not, is not the end of Don Imus. He is too big to be lost in this controversy. The losers here are going to be race relations in America, and Al Sharpton.
But the biggest loser is freedom. For now.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Imus, Racism, Sharpton, Don Imus,
Rutgers Basketball, Language, Censorship, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
Breaking news is sometimes breaking. Sometimes it is broken.
Moments ago I heard on the radio that Don Imus has now finally lost his radio program. CBS has fired Mr. Imus. It is broken news. Desperately broken. And to think he has been fired for calling one women's basketball team "cute."
I wonder, have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't, you are missing one of the most prescient books ever written. In brief, the villains of Atlas Shrugged, all with the noblest intent, steal the wealth of those who actually produce wealth. By the latter I mean that there are indeed folks who generate enormous wealth -- for themselves and others. Exxon-Mobil, for example, is a wealth producer, as is General Motors or Ford Motor Company or Microsoft. For all of these companies generate massive payrolls; they employ hundreds of thousands of people.
Compared to these wealth-makers, there are indeed those who are essentially the parasitic villains who resent and envy the success of those who, practically speaking, are infinitely capable of making wealth for others, of turning healthy profits. Such parasitic villains protest and legislate and gesticulate to much public notice; and they succeed in extorting wealth from the wealth-makers and, finally, forcing the wealth-makers to withdraw from society. The result? The parasites die helplessly and desperately, for they do not know how to make money for themselves.
In the Ayn Rand sense, Al Sharpton is an economic parasite: he, and his minions, have forced a wealth-producer out of business. For Don Imus generates massive wealth for many people; not just for him and his aides, but for the company he worked for and those companies who advertise their wares on Imus' program. Millions and millions of dollars, doled out in payrolls, health care, and property taxes, are produced by Mr. Imus and his work. From the books peddled by Mr. Imus and the music he has promoted, Don Imus has proven that he contributes enormously to the economic vitality of many.
On top of that, Mr. Imus generates massive amounts of cash for all sorts of charities. He has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for all kinds of incredibly important causes.
Al Sharpton is exactly the opposite of Mr. Imus. Mr. Sharpton is an extortionist and hanger-on; he is economically parasitic. He does not generate wealth. None at all.
Even Shame has turned his back on all of this.
This, believe it or not, is not the end of Don Imus. He is too big to be lost in this controversy. The losers here are going to be race relations in America, and Al Sharpton.
But the biggest loser is freedom. For now.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Imus, Racism, Sharpton, Don Imus,
Rutgers Basketball, Language, Censorship, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The End Of The Imus Controversy? He Called Them "Cute"
To those of you who are paying attention to the Imus/Rutgers controversy, I must ask this question: Is not the story already over?Let me point out something I noted earlier today: During the moments of great offense when he besmirched the Rutgers women's basketball players, Imus called the OTHER basketball team, the University of Tennessee Lady Vols (the women's team that defeated Rutgers for the NCAA national championship) something that was not one whit racial. He called them "cute."
Why make this point? Because if you look at the UT Lady Vols team photograph, you will see that seven of the eleven teammates are of African-American descent. How, then, is Imus being racist if he finds one predominantly black team cuter than another? Does his "cute" remark not immediately re-frame the whole issue: that Imus was talking about a masculine-looking, tough-looking team that was facing a cuter, more feminine team? It's hard to think otherwise, especially since he affirmed what Sid Rosenberg, Imus' guest sports commentator, said during Imus' offending moment: that when he (Rosenberg) saw the Rutgers team step out onto the court he thought they looked like "the Toronto Raptors", you know, a MEN'S professional team. All this, as is well-noted, was done amidst laughter and adolescent goofiness.
Not that any of this absolves Imus of the fact that he hurt people with his words; that his words were ill-chosen, mean, and degrading. But many of his words are demeaning; nay, most of them are. But that is his whole gag: as I said before, he and his team are the bawdy bad-boys holding court on America's loading dock; they are the loudmouth bullies at the back of America's bus. Imus "hurts"† me nearly every hour he broadcasts; he berates many of the values I hold dear. His "Jesus God" profanation occurs dozens of times per show, and it offends my religious faith. But can I divine that he is ruthless at heart, or that God is damning him? I am not in a position to divine that at all. Sadly, many people are suddenly able to damn Mr. Imus to hell; and yet, in the midst of it all, they do not notice that he called the national champions "cute". They hear only what they want to hear. They cannot hear his compliment and, because of their hair-triggered hearts, they cannot possibly understand the context of Mr. Imus' words.
My sense, in light of Mr. Imus' efforts at reconciliation, is that he is an inherently decent albeit flawed human being. But I am also very flawed; I am more flawed than anybody else. So I will not damn him. It is not what I am permitted to do.
Peace, always.
†I am not so fragile.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Imus, Racism, Sharpton, Don Imus,
Rutgers Basketball, Language, Censorship, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
On Culture: The Four Essential Contradictions Of The Don Imus Story
[Let me get right to it. You already know the story at hand. I do not usually condone Don Imus' use of derogatory language in general, so I do not condone his use of such language in the particular issue dominating the news. His work is fraught with ridicule, mockery, and iconoclasm. He and his team are the crude guys hanging out on America's loading dock during coffee break; they are the bullies in the back of the bus. Sometimes even the dopey bullies can be funny; and sometimes they are not. I will not now analyze what Mr. Imus said or meant, though I think there is much to be said about the context of his remarks. Instead, I want to note the nearly invisible things I have seen and heard in the last 48 hours.]
Contradiction #1: Self-disrespect and outrage
Yesterday, while the Reverend Al Sharpton was interviewing Don Imus during Sharpton's radio program, Mr. Imus referred to himself, facetiously, as a "cracker." The context of Mr. Imus' self-referential remarks came at the close of the interview.
Immediately Mr. Sharpton interrupted his guest. He wanted listeners to understand that Mr. Imus was using the term "cracker" on his own, that he, Sharpton, had not called Mr. Imus any such thing. To this Mr. Imus responded that he was using the term of himself.
Suddenly Mr. Sharpton got very, well, officious. Here is the exchange in total (quoted from the show's transcript):
IMUS: ...I am willing to participate and look into my heart, first to try to talk to these children, these young women and then to try to make this better and to try to somehow heal what I've done because I really do understand the horrible damage that I have done to these young women because I know even a couple of them are from tough neighborhoods and there's already jealousy and resentment in their neighborhoods and they already -- and now they have some old cracker on the radio calling them some sort of name and they have to deal with that and so I have ...
SHARPTON: The term "cracker" you used on yourself. I didn't call you that.
IMUS: Yes, I know.
SHARPTON: I'm sure some of your supporters will be on TV today saying I called you that.
IMUS: No ...
SHARPTON: And I would appreciate it if you would respect your own race on my show. [my emphasis]
Amazing.
Tuesday morning, on NBC's Today show, in an interview involving Matt Lauer and Messrs. Imus and Sharpton, Mr. Imus said that the "context" of his remarks needed to be heeded and understood. Besides, he added, the words he used were not uttered in malice or vindictiveness; they were meant humorously. More importantly, he continued, the words were words borrowed from Mr. Sharpton's own black community; the word "ho", not only originating in hip-hop but even elevated to a word of distinction, is used viciously and hatefully by [many, not all] black men throughout America.
Mr. Sharpton interrupted Mr. Imus, saying that he speaks against such injurious language no matter where it is spoken; no matter who is speaking it. [Mr. Sharpton made similar remarks in the transcript cited above.]
Now, let me point out the obvious: the word "nigger" and the word "ho" are considered by all of us to be deeply offensive. Mr. Imus only used the latter; I have never heard him use the former. But I hear nearly daily -- if I watch a black comic perform on TV or if I listen to most hip-hop -- African-Americans use these hateful and degrading terms. Of course, they are used by African-Americans, and are used as self-reference or in reference to other African-Americans.
But, and here's the point, one cannot find any evidence that Al Sharpton is out in the "hoods" trying to stop people from using this offensive language. He is not advocating boycotts of radio stations that play abusive hip-hop songs; he is not protesting outside comedy clubs where black men call themselves "nigger." Recently, on Inside the Actors Studio with James Lipton, I heard guest Chris Rock use -- to much laughter by many whites in the audience -- the word "nigger" several times. But I ask you this: If Al Sharpton is willing to reprove Don Imus for disparaging his own race, why is Mr. Sharpton not reproving Chris Rock for the same offense (and nearly every hip-hop artist on the planet)? Where is Sharpton's outrage at those who daily and constantly disrespect the very race they share with Mr. Sharpton?
Contradiction 2: We all, fall, down!
Yesterday, during the Rutgers University press conference called to address Don Imus' remarks, RU Women's Basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer said the following, and I quote from a transcription I made off of a YouTube video clip:
"You know it was amazing because, less than twenty four hours after they [the team] had accomplished so much, and when we should have come back to Rutgers, to have all people exalt and speak of all of the things that they had accomplished and all the hopes and dreams that they gave to so many young girls and to young people, and to people everywhere, all of you, about what it meant to work hard, they came back to this. We have all been mentally, physically and emotionally spent, so hurt by the remarks that were uttered by Mr. Imus.
"But you see, we also understood a long time ago that, you know what, no one can make you feel inferior unless you allow them, that we can’t let other people steal our joy, we’ve always understood that, for a long, long time....
"...We had to experience racist and sexist remarks that are deplorable, despicable and abominable, and unconscionable, and it hurts me. ... you know ... I was a victim of racial discrimination, but you see I had a father and a mom, and a group of people who stood up for me ... and my dad ...said, 'Vivian, if you don’t stand up something you’ll fall for anything.'
"So as I felt what Mr. Imus said, I experienced this not only as a coach and as a mom to them, but as a person who had also experienced the same and I hurt, yes, and I’ve cried, and I’ve been angry, and disappointed because I don’t understand all that and yet to a great extent I do." [my emphasis]
Later in the press conference, one player stood up and shared how, instead of coming home to fanfare at the teams' outstanding season, players came home to scandal and controversy. She said that her entire holiday weekend was centered around Don Imus' hurtful words.
Please note, then, Contradiction #2, for it is subtle: C. Vivian Stringer's message to her team, that NO ONE CAN STEAL YOUR JOY, or NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU FEEL INFERIOR UNLESS YOU LET THEM, has not been heeded, not by the RU team or by Ms. Stringer herself: Some hack radio guy has ruined what should have been an exultant moment -- AND THEY LET HIM DO IT!
Imus' remarks were foolish, and, yes, even offensive -- clearly. But his words DID NOT determine Ms. Vivian's reaction -- she did. She need not let his words hurt her, but she did. She could have stood tall, like her father said; instead she chose to fall, fall into hurt, sadness, anger, and tears. In other words, she empowered Imus by giving him more than he deserved; and, like Ms. Stringer, everyone else is giving him more than he deserved. One wonders who went out of his or her way to tell these girls about what some white guy said -- in coarse and crude jesting -- about them on the radio. Did that person not realize that the very reporting of Imus' sin would steal the team's joy? Egads! Instead of holding press conferences and parades in celebration of the team's achievements, the president of Rutgers, and the coach herself, have chosen to ignore that achievement so they can focus attention on everybody's injuries! For shame. How dare these people encourage their students to be so weak and easily influenced! To hell with Don Imus; who cares what he says?! Get on with living, get on with knowing joy! Celebrate, don't fixate. Stop licking your wounds. Stand up and stop falling down every time somebody says something stupid.
Contradiction #3: What about that other team?
Take a look at any photo of the Rutgers University womens' basketball team. This is the team Imus jokingly referred to as "nappy-headed hos". Despicable as that phrase is, it is clear -- any photo proves this -- that he was wrong. Note, also, that the team is not all black; two of the players are white. Now, I ask you to look at the team photo of the University of Tennessee women's basketball team, the OTHER team in all of this: This is the team that defeated Rutgers for the national title. Note that the majority of them are African-Americans.
Now, I ask: What did Imus say about the OTHER team, the one from Tennessee, during his commentary when he misspoke about the players at Rutgers? Yes, that's right. He called them "cute." In other words, he called a MOSTLY BLACK TEAM CUTE.
No one has said a word about that. Of course, Imus can only be a racist.
Contradiction #4: Forgive first, then stone
When asked by NBC's Matt Lauer whether he, the Reverend Al Sharpton, a man of Christ, would forgive Mr. Imus his many sins, Mr. Sharpton said that he would. But, he added, that would not stop Imus from being punished.
We should all pause at this dulling remark, because it is disgusting. For the one person who is indeed doing the punishing is Al Sharpton. Anyone knows that if a thing is forgiven, it is forgotten. Specifically, what Al Sharpton's forgiveness must mean is that he cannot seek to punish Mr. Imus. Imus could still be punished -- by others. But Al Sharpton, if he truly does forgive, has therefore chosen to free Imus of any charges he, Al Sharpton, may wish to bring forward.
Mr. Sharpton, in defending his position, mentioned that he visited a man convicted and imprisoned for stabbing him. Mr. Sharpton said that he told the man that he forgave him, but that his forgiveness could not stop the sentence from being carried out; punishment must continue. And Mr. Sharpton is absolutely right, punishment will continue. But the punishment cannot and will not be at the hand of Mr. Sharpton, for he has forgiven the man. The state does the punishing, and if that state should forgive Mr. Sharpton's attacker, his punishment will cease.
Let me enlarge upon this a bit more. If I forgive some friend a $2000 debt, I do not then attempt to collect it anyway. If I as a parent forgive my child for breaking my favorite vase, I do not then spank that child. There are no doubt times I forgive a friend his sins that are not sins against me; I tell friends all the time that I forgive them for being sinners. But I do not tell them that my absolution will stop OTHERS from seeking their due. When my child breaks someone else's vase, I cannot forgive her -- fully -- for that act, nor can I spare her the consequences. And I may choose to punish my child for some sin, but I never do so if forgiveness has been offered and received. I may punish my child only if my child refuses to admit guilt: punishment is meant to incite -- hopefully -- a guilty conscience, and to bring that conscience to repentance and forgiveness. But punishment and forgiveness -- once forgiveness is granted -- do NOT go hand in hand. Punishment ends where forgiveness begins.
So, Mr. Sharpton, oddly, has placed himself as both absolver and executioner of Don Imus' career. That this is hardly a Christian role Mr. Sharpton is playing is blatantly obvious. Mr. Sharpton is acting as Imus' judge, not his mediator. He is not offering counsel, he's offering the pillory. That Don Imus has a debt to pay is quite true. But if Al Sharpton has forgiven Don Imus, then Al Sharpton has but one option. He needs to be silent. He cannot seek retribution. If he does so seek it, then he has not forgiven a man who has sincerely apologized to his face -- and to the nation.
One final note: If the Rutgers coach is right when she says that the players on her basketball team are "God’s representatives in every sense of the word," then those players have only one option: they must forgive -- and move on. If they forgive, like God, they cannot then seek punishment. They can't. Forgiveness is that simple. God does not forgive your debts only to shake you down. Imus will surely be punished, but he cannot be punished by those who forgive him.
And that's the whole point of Christian forgiveness: it costs the forgiver something to forgive, namely his or her right to seek vengeance. Forgiveness cost God His life; it costs us all a lot, too. But punishment is reserved solely for those who do not want forgiveness. Imus clearly has asked for it. He has renounced his sin.
How odd then to read this headline: Women's basketball team unsure if it'll accept Imus' apology.
God's representatives? Let's hope so.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Springer, Matt Lauer, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship
Contradiction #1: Self-disrespect and outrage
Yesterday, while the Reverend Al Sharpton was interviewing Don Imus during Sharpton's radio program, Mr. Imus referred to himself, facetiously, as a "cracker." The context of Mr. Imus' self-referential remarks came at the close of the interview.
Immediately Mr. Sharpton interrupted his guest. He wanted listeners to understand that Mr. Imus was using the term "cracker" on his own, that he, Sharpton, had not called Mr. Imus any such thing. To this Mr. Imus responded that he was using the term of himself.
Suddenly Mr. Sharpton got very, well, officious. Here is the exchange in total (quoted from the show's transcript):
IMUS: ...I am willing to participate and look into my heart, first to try to talk to these children, these young women and then to try to make this better and to try to somehow heal what I've done because I really do understand the horrible damage that I have done to these young women because I know even a couple of them are from tough neighborhoods and there's already jealousy and resentment in their neighborhoods and they already -- and now they have some old cracker on the radio calling them some sort of name and they have to deal with that and so I have ...
SHARPTON: The term "cracker" you used on yourself. I didn't call you that.
IMUS: Yes, I know.
SHARPTON: I'm sure some of your supporters will be on TV today saying I called you that.
IMUS: No ...
SHARPTON: And I would appreciate it if you would respect your own race on my show. [my emphasis]
Amazing.
Tuesday morning, on NBC's Today show, in an interview involving Matt Lauer and Messrs. Imus and Sharpton, Mr. Imus said that the "context" of his remarks needed to be heeded and understood. Besides, he added, the words he used were not uttered in malice or vindictiveness; they were meant humorously. More importantly, he continued, the words were words borrowed from Mr. Sharpton's own black community; the word "ho", not only originating in hip-hop but even elevated to a word of distinction, is used viciously and hatefully by [many, not all] black men throughout America.
Mr. Sharpton interrupted Mr. Imus, saying that he speaks against such injurious language no matter where it is spoken; no matter who is speaking it. [Mr. Sharpton made similar remarks in the transcript cited above.]
Now, let me point out the obvious: the word "nigger" and the word "ho" are considered by all of us to be deeply offensive. Mr. Imus only used the latter; I have never heard him use the former. But I hear nearly daily -- if I watch a black comic perform on TV or if I listen to most hip-hop -- African-Americans use these hateful and degrading terms. Of course, they are used by African-Americans, and are used as self-reference or in reference to other African-Americans.
But, and here's the point, one cannot find any evidence that Al Sharpton is out in the "hoods" trying to stop people from using this offensive language. He is not advocating boycotts of radio stations that play abusive hip-hop songs; he is not protesting outside comedy clubs where black men call themselves "nigger." Recently, on Inside the Actors Studio with James Lipton, I heard guest Chris Rock use -- to much laughter by many whites in the audience -- the word "nigger" several times. But I ask you this: If Al Sharpton is willing to reprove Don Imus for disparaging his own race, why is Mr. Sharpton not reproving Chris Rock for the same offense (and nearly every hip-hop artist on the planet)? Where is Sharpton's outrage at those who daily and constantly disrespect the very race they share with Mr. Sharpton?
Contradiction 2: We all, fall, down!
Yesterday, during the Rutgers University press conference called to address Don Imus' remarks, RU Women's Basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer said the following, and I quote from a transcription I made off of a YouTube video clip:
"You know it was amazing because, less than twenty four hours after they [the team] had accomplished so much, and when we should have come back to Rutgers, to have all people exalt and speak of all of the things that they had accomplished and all the hopes and dreams that they gave to so many young girls and to young people, and to people everywhere, all of you, about what it meant to work hard, they came back to this. We have all been mentally, physically and emotionally spent, so hurt by the remarks that were uttered by Mr. Imus.
"But you see, we also understood a long time ago that, you know what, no one can make you feel inferior unless you allow them, that we can’t let other people steal our joy, we’ve always understood that, for a long, long time....
"...We had to experience racist and sexist remarks that are deplorable, despicable and abominable, and unconscionable, and it hurts me. ... you know ... I was a victim of racial discrimination, but you see I had a father and a mom, and a group of people who stood up for me ... and my dad ...said, 'Vivian, if you don’t stand up something you’ll fall for anything.'
"So as I felt what Mr. Imus said, I experienced this not only as a coach and as a mom to them, but as a person who had also experienced the same and I hurt, yes, and I’ve cried, and I’ve been angry, and disappointed because I don’t understand all that and yet to a great extent I do." [my emphasis]
Later in the press conference, one player stood up and shared how, instead of coming home to fanfare at the teams' outstanding season, players came home to scandal and controversy. She said that her entire holiday weekend was centered around Don Imus' hurtful words.
Please note, then, Contradiction #2, for it is subtle: C. Vivian Stringer's message to her team, that NO ONE CAN STEAL YOUR JOY, or NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU FEEL INFERIOR UNLESS YOU LET THEM, has not been heeded, not by the RU team or by Ms. Stringer herself: Some hack radio guy has ruined what should have been an exultant moment -- AND THEY LET HIM DO IT!
Imus' remarks were foolish, and, yes, even offensive -- clearly. But his words DID NOT determine Ms. Vivian's reaction -- she did. She need not let his words hurt her, but she did. She could have stood tall, like her father said; instead she chose to fall, fall into hurt, sadness, anger, and tears. In other words, she empowered Imus by giving him more than he deserved; and, like Ms. Stringer, everyone else is giving him more than he deserved. One wonders who went out of his or her way to tell these girls about what some white guy said -- in coarse and crude jesting -- about them on the radio. Did that person not realize that the very reporting of Imus' sin would steal the team's joy? Egads! Instead of holding press conferences and parades in celebration of the team's achievements, the president of Rutgers, and the coach herself, have chosen to ignore that achievement so they can focus attention on everybody's injuries! For shame. How dare these people encourage their students to be so weak and easily influenced! To hell with Don Imus; who cares what he says?! Get on with living, get on with knowing joy! Celebrate, don't fixate. Stop licking your wounds. Stand up and stop falling down every time somebody says something stupid.
Contradiction #3: What about that other team?
Take a look at any photo of the Rutgers University womens' basketball team. This is the team Imus jokingly referred to as "nappy-headed hos". Despicable as that phrase is, it is clear -- any photo proves this -- that he was wrong. Note, also, that the team is not all black; two of the players are white. Now, I ask you to look at the team photo of the University of Tennessee women's basketball team, the OTHER team in all of this: This is the team that defeated Rutgers for the national title. Note that the majority of them are African-Americans.
Now, I ask: What did Imus say about the OTHER team, the one from Tennessee, during his commentary when he misspoke about the players at Rutgers? Yes, that's right. He called them "cute." In other words, he called a MOSTLY BLACK TEAM CUTE.
No one has said a word about that. Of course, Imus can only be a racist.
Contradiction #4: Forgive first, then stone
When asked by NBC's Matt Lauer whether he, the Reverend Al Sharpton, a man of Christ, would forgive Mr. Imus his many sins, Mr. Sharpton said that he would. But, he added, that would not stop Imus from being punished.
We should all pause at this dulling remark, because it is disgusting. For the one person who is indeed doing the punishing is Al Sharpton. Anyone knows that if a thing is forgiven, it is forgotten. Specifically, what Al Sharpton's forgiveness must mean is that he cannot seek to punish Mr. Imus. Imus could still be punished -- by others. But Al Sharpton, if he truly does forgive, has therefore chosen to free Imus of any charges he, Al Sharpton, may wish to bring forward.
Mr. Sharpton, in defending his position, mentioned that he visited a man convicted and imprisoned for stabbing him. Mr. Sharpton said that he told the man that he forgave him, but that his forgiveness could not stop the sentence from being carried out; punishment must continue. And Mr. Sharpton is absolutely right, punishment will continue. But the punishment cannot and will not be at the hand of Mr. Sharpton, for he has forgiven the man. The state does the punishing, and if that state should forgive Mr. Sharpton's attacker, his punishment will cease.
Let me enlarge upon this a bit more. If I forgive some friend a $2000 debt, I do not then attempt to collect it anyway. If I as a parent forgive my child for breaking my favorite vase, I do not then spank that child. There are no doubt times I forgive a friend his sins that are not sins against me; I tell friends all the time that I forgive them for being sinners. But I do not tell them that my absolution will stop OTHERS from seeking their due. When my child breaks someone else's vase, I cannot forgive her -- fully -- for that act, nor can I spare her the consequences. And I may choose to punish my child for some sin, but I never do so if forgiveness has been offered and received. I may punish my child only if my child refuses to admit guilt: punishment is meant to incite -- hopefully -- a guilty conscience, and to bring that conscience to repentance and forgiveness. But punishment and forgiveness -- once forgiveness is granted -- do NOT go hand in hand. Punishment ends where forgiveness begins.
So, Mr. Sharpton, oddly, has placed himself as both absolver and executioner of Don Imus' career. That this is hardly a Christian role Mr. Sharpton is playing is blatantly obvious. Mr. Sharpton is acting as Imus' judge, not his mediator. He is not offering counsel, he's offering the pillory. That Don Imus has a debt to pay is quite true. But if Al Sharpton has forgiven Don Imus, then Al Sharpton has but one option. He needs to be silent. He cannot seek retribution. If he does so seek it, then he has not forgiven a man who has sincerely apologized to his face -- and to the nation.
One final note: If the Rutgers coach is right when she says that the players on her basketball team are "God’s representatives in every sense of the word," then those players have only one option: they must forgive -- and move on. If they forgive, like God, they cannot then seek punishment. They can't. Forgiveness is that simple. God does not forgive your debts only to shake you down. Imus will surely be punished, but he cannot be punished by those who forgive him.
And that's the whole point of Christian forgiveness: it costs the forgiver something to forgive, namely his or her right to seek vengeance. Forgiveness cost God His life; it costs us all a lot, too. But punishment is reserved solely for those who do not want forgiveness. Imus clearly has asked for it. He has renounced his sin.
How odd then to read this headline: Women's basketball team unsure if it'll accept Imus' apology.
God's representatives? Let's hope so.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Springer, Matt Lauer, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship
Monday, April 09, 2007
Post 444: I Press On With Gratitude
Two years and two days ago, I began this little blog. It is but one voice among many; it is a voice hardly heard. But that is OK. There is comfort in some anonymity, in partial invisibility. The showy and loud are heard and seen often enough. It is no small part to be the muted tone in a garish tableau, or the soft word in the silver-bright clatter. It is easy enough to be the peacock, perhaps, although that grand bird is not known for its subtle camouflage. But those flying bits of forest you can hardly see, those warbling songs you can hardly hear: What would forest and fen be like without their hidden, secret blend?
This is post 444, and it should have been posted on 7 April 07. It comes two days late because I suffered a mild concussion Saturday in a rare but violent ski accident. I feel in many ways that had I not been wearing a helmet when I crashed, post 444 would not be here today. I have been to the doctor's, I have been through the anxiety grind. I should be fine, though I am not at all myself right now. So, belatedly and through the haze of some freaky vertigo, I want to take this moment to thank all who have visited here, all 25,000 or so "unique" visitors. Thank you for leaving comments, befriending me backstage via email, or linking to something here you thought witty, foolish or something far worse. And not a few of you have told me that you've prayed for me, which is no small gesture. Thank you all. And thank you each.
I began here in 2005 with a very imperfect essay about intellectual blindness. I do not presume that any of us is without it; I surely have it. But I do presume that many people do not know they have it; and I believe Paul Krugman, who I wrote about in my inaugural post, is not aware of his own limitations. Some people forget that under the tablecloth there is a table, one that might very well be disgustingly dirty. But a tablecloth is not a table, which is perhaps to state the obvious; but it is a veneer, a shield, a shade: it is a cloak often concealing that which needs to be examined, washed, polished and, yes, even fixed. Rhetoric and polemics have their own gauzy shawl, and my aim is to look beneath it, though not in a skirt-lifting, prurient way: I want to get to thought's firm bones and to exorcise the shimmering ghosts we've been fooled to think have substance.
I earnestly pray that I may offer intelligent and edifying commentary here. And I pray that in some small way I am a help to someone.
Again, thank you for caring. You will never know my debt to you.
Peace and mirth.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
This is post 444, and it should have been posted on 7 April 07. It comes two days late because I suffered a mild concussion Saturday in a rare but violent ski accident. I feel in many ways that had I not been wearing a helmet when I crashed, post 444 would not be here today. I have been to the doctor's, I have been through the anxiety grind. I should be fine, though I am not at all myself right now. So, belatedly and through the haze of some freaky vertigo, I want to take this moment to thank all who have visited here, all 25,000 or so "unique" visitors. Thank you for leaving comments, befriending me backstage via email, or linking to something here you thought witty, foolish or something far worse. And not a few of you have told me that you've prayed for me, which is no small gesture. Thank you all. And thank you each.
I began here in 2005 with a very imperfect essay about intellectual blindness. I do not presume that any of us is without it; I surely have it. But I do presume that many people do not know they have it; and I believe Paul Krugman, who I wrote about in my inaugural post, is not aware of his own limitations. Some people forget that under the tablecloth there is a table, one that might very well be disgustingly dirty. But a tablecloth is not a table, which is perhaps to state the obvious; but it is a veneer, a shield, a shade: it is a cloak often concealing that which needs to be examined, washed, polished and, yes, even fixed. Rhetoric and polemics have their own gauzy shawl, and my aim is to look beneath it, though not in a skirt-lifting, prurient way: I want to get to thought's firm bones and to exorcise the shimmering ghosts we've been fooled to think have substance.
I earnestly pray that I may offer intelligent and edifying commentary here. And I pray that in some small way I am a help to someone.
Again, thank you for caring. You will never know my debt to you.
Peace and mirth.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
On Maundy Thursday: A Reply To A Brother
Today is Maundy Thursday, that holy day when Christ mandates that we love each other a new way: we are to love each other as He loved us. It is the day for celebrating this new commandment; it is also the day we meet with Him for the first feast day, when the cup of salvation and the bread of heaven were first consecrated and given to the Church. It is also the day of betrayal, when dark forces entered into the heart of Judas Iscariot, tempting him to turn Christ over to the political powers, perhaps, sadly, to force the Savior's hand to deliver Israel from the Roman occupiers. But as we know, Jesus would have none of that scheme, nor would He bow down and worship the idols of power, authority or even earthly acts of righteousness.
_____________
Who Are The Saints?
Earlier this morning I read an essay, "The Canonisation [sic] of John Paul II: The Denial of the Gospel," critical of the seemingly imminent canonization of the late-Pope John Paul II. It was written by David Ould and posted at the Anglican website, Stand Firm. It is a challenging essay in many ways. And I left a rather lengthy comment with Mr. Ould that I would like to share with you. It follows below. Of course, I will add some further thoughts at the end of this post. I think, in many ways, it is all a fitting Maundy Thursday meditation.
The context of my comment has less to do with the actual canonization of the Pope and more to do with God's love for His people and the mysteries of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. There is virtually no technical language in my reply; there need not be to make the sort of points I wanted to make. But it must be stated first that while Mr. Ould is offended by much of Roman Catholic teaching about canonization, the bulk of his umbrage is directed at the Church's teachings about what it means to be saved and sanctified. I do not think it necessary that you read his post first, but it will surely not hurt if you do.
_______________
Dear Mr. Ould,
May you have a safe and blessed trip to Singapore. And may this truly be a blessed and holy Easter for all.
At the risk of being facetious, I must make this observation: If all (true) Christians are saints, and if Pope John Paul II is a true Christian, then he is a saint. Hence, I see no reason NOT to canonize him this side of glory. OK. So not all of us other saints get that honor. So? Besides, there are many who believe that the Pope is their spiritual elder, their lesser, even adoptive father. Are we not told by the Lord to honor our elders, and to honor our parents?
Alright. Enough facetiousness, though I don't think my points are useless. Now, I would like to turn to a few things you've written thus far. First you wrote this after your citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia on Beatification/Canonization:
Your statement strikes me as akin to the grumbling vineyard workers in Jesus' parable who worked all day and yet were paid the same as those who worked but an hour. "What is that to you?" I hear our Lord ask. I am also reminded of the petulant brother who refused to celebrate the return of the Prodigal Son; he did not seem to understand that the father's love was complete and total, and yet, well, differently distributed: the happy father made distinctions.
Of course, as you said, we are all saints. Sort of like all cities are earthly; and yet we find that God prefers Jerusalem to Salt Lake City. Yes, all of the earth is full of God's glory, and yet God is not dismayed that Abraham builds altars indicating that some places are more glorious than others. Could this not be the way with saints, that all saints are equal, and yet some are more equal than others? Are we not all going to be judged -- and rewarded -- differently? Or does everyone get the same reward after the great purgative fires? Is that true, even scriptural?
You mention purgatory in your essay:
But later in the comments thread you write:
Had you more fully reported what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about the canonization and beatification of saints, you would have noted that the Church posits that there are people who live such sacrificial and "heroically virtuous lives" that they could be described as "prolonged martyrdoms." Martyrs, as you know, are those who in death immediately pass to heaven; they are not the dead in Christ who "rise first", as Paul proclaims (which suggests that there are saints in the ground and saints that are in heaven: the saints in heaven are those who fought well in the tribulation, no?). I wonder, then, if it is at all possible that there are those Christian brothers and sisters who live such obedient lives that they pass through purgatory -- in this life? Is that not possible, and is this not exactly what Catholics say of some saints?
In response to Dan Martins' comment suggesting that you had not accurately presented the Catholic case, you wrote:
The whole debate about justification/sanctification seems often to be more akin to autopsy than theology: it divides terms so meticulously as to leave a corpse with no mystery. But the glories of the faith are powerful and mysterious. One wonders how the myriad faithful of the ancient church could ever have been saved without having Luther's parsing and privileged view of things, or even Aquinas' or Augustine's. The thief on the cross, no doubt, was without much theology, and yet he was ushered -- today, our Lord promised him -- into paradise.
Of course, the thief was given a special privilege. No one else that we know of had such a promise made to him or her. But this promise did not come without a price: the thief still had to die, to hang on that cross, next to a dying Savior who made what must have seemed a wild promise in the fading light of things: the thief hung faithfully on his own cross, his life bleeding into the refiner's fire, the devil calling him to doubt, to deny, to fall faithless into death's cynicism. His entry into paradise was no easy pass. And he was given such life without baptism, or without understanding "prevenient grace" or "expiation" or "forensic satisfaction."
Did God show preferential treatment to the thief, to Lazarus, to Elijah, to Moses? Were they not whisked away, or given a second life, while others were not?
"What is that to you?" I hear Him ask.
I may have a problem with honoring JPII with canonization; it does seem a bit like induction into the RCC Hall of Fame. But I have no qualms with honoring certain brothers and sisters above others; I would be saddened to learn that Billy Graham's funeral (should he have one) is equal to my own. And I have no problem whatsoever believing that all my brothers and sisters, including Pope John Paul II, deserve more notoriety and acclaim as saints in this life, than do I. Love, after all, considers everyone else more important than oneself. In short, love does make distinctions.
Peace.
BG
_______________
Further Thoughts
Much of the debate between Protestants and Catholics about the mechanics of salvation seem rooted in how time is perceived. Am I justified in an instant, or over time? Am I sanctified in a moment, or does it take time, perhaps a lifetime -- and more -- to be sanctified? I guess these are good questions, but it seems to me that if there is a God who justifies and sanctifies, then His sense of time is what ultimately matters. And what is His sense of time, He Who lives in the Eternal Now, outside of time? What is time to Him, what is process, if a thousand years are to Him like a day? Is my lifetime of struggle in the Faith but a moment to Him? Does He not see my salvation, and my sanctification, as He sees all of life, in an instant?
I do not know. But it irks me to no end that churches divide themselves over what are absolute mysteries of the faith. Some gnostic claims to understand the totality of the Incarnation; another gnostic claims to know how it is we are justified -- in toto -- before the eyes of God. Such gnostic ambition is disheartening, to say the least, and nearly always results in some utterly clear, mystery-free heresy. But just think of the countless souls that have been deemed saints in the eyes of God who did not understand complex theological terms! It is humbling, for certain. As it should be. We are called to believe in a Savior, a God-Man; we are called to follow Him, to obey His commands; to eat His flesh and drink His blood; to love each other as He has loved us.
The last thing I believe Jesus ever did, or expected His disciples to do, was to quibble over the language used to describe what even the great councils of the Faith have proclaimed is forever mysterious: how a Man can be God, and God, Man; and how each of us, sinners and enslaved to death, are to be made saints alive in holiness and truth.
The God-Man Jesus the Christ came to deliver me. Can I be delivered without knowing, or even understanding, the exact details how? If exactitude is important, then what of the man who accepts Christ as his Savior and then, suddenly and inexplicably, drops dead?
We see through a glass darkly indeed.
Have a blesséd Maundy Thursday.
BG
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
_____________
Who Are The Saints?
Earlier this morning I read an essay, "The Canonisation [sic] of John Paul II: The Denial of the Gospel," critical of the seemingly imminent canonization of the late-Pope John Paul II. It was written by David Ould and posted at the Anglican website, Stand Firm. It is a challenging essay in many ways. And I left a rather lengthy comment with Mr. Ould that I would like to share with you. It follows below. Of course, I will add some further thoughts at the end of this post. I think, in many ways, it is all a fitting Maundy Thursday meditation.
The context of my comment has less to do with the actual canonization of the Pope and more to do with God's love for His people and the mysteries of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. There is virtually no technical language in my reply; there need not be to make the sort of points I wanted to make. But it must be stated first that while Mr. Ould is offended by much of Roman Catholic teaching about canonization, the bulk of his umbrage is directed at the Church's teachings about what it means to be saved and sanctified. I do not think it necessary that you read his post first, but it will surely not hurt if you do.
_______________
Dear Mr. Ould,
May you have a safe and blessed trip to Singapore. And may this truly be a blessed and holy Easter for all.
At the risk of being facetious, I must make this observation: If all (true) Christians are saints, and if Pope John Paul II is a true Christian, then he is a saint. Hence, I see no reason NOT to canonize him this side of glory. OK. So not all of us other saints get that honor. So? Besides, there are many who believe that the Pope is their spiritual elder, their lesser, even adoptive father. Are we not told by the Lord to honor our elders, and to honor our parents?
Alright. Enough facetiousness, though I don't think my points are useless. Now, I would like to turn to a few things you've written thus far. First you wrote this after your citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia on Beatification/Canonization:
Most worrying is the statement that saints are those "whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love".Please permit me to ask, Is there no distinction in God's love? Prima facie it seems that there isn't. But what of Jesus? Did He, the Incarnate God, show preferences? What of the disciple whom Jesus "loved most"? What of him [tradition calls him the "Beloved Disciple], and what of Jesus' seeming partiality here? Is this not proof that God does not love everyone equally, or in the same way?
So, to put it clearly, there's more than one type of Christian. There's the ordinary run of the mill sort like you and me, and then there's those who by virtue of what their lives look like are worthy of God's special love.
Your statement strikes me as akin to the grumbling vineyard workers in Jesus' parable who worked all day and yet were paid the same as those who worked but an hour. "What is that to you?" I hear our Lord ask. I am also reminded of the petulant brother who refused to celebrate the return of the Prodigal Son; he did not seem to understand that the father's love was complete and total, and yet, well, differently distributed: the happy father made distinctions.
Of course, as you said, we are all saints. Sort of like all cities are earthly; and yet we find that God prefers Jerusalem to Salt Lake City. Yes, all of the earth is full of God's glory, and yet God is not dismayed that Abraham builds altars indicating that some places are more glorious than others. Could this not be the way with saints, that all saints are equal, and yet some are more equal than others? Are we not all going to be judged -- and rewarded -- differently? Or does everyone get the same reward after the great purgative fires? Is that true, even scriptural?
You mention purgatory in your essay:
For most of us we will not be pure upon our death - there will still be dung remaining which will need to be burned off in purgatory before we may enter God's presence.It seems that you hold to some idea of a refiner's fire; this is good, for it is inherently biblical [ref. 1 Cor 3:12ff]: those who pass through the fire, though they shall be saved, shall nonetheless suffer loss.
But later in the comments thread you write:
I trust readers can see clearly what the Roman church thus says about those that are not saints; they are not definitely in Heaven. Apparently, then, Christ’s work on the Cross is not sufficient to get them there directly.I ask you: if Christ's atoning death on the cross is sufficient, then why should ANY Christian be delayed in the refiner's fire? Do you not contradict yourself here? For if, as you say, Christ's death is totally sufficient for all Christians to enter paradise, then why must they first pass through purgatory?
Had you more fully reported what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about the canonization and beatification of saints, you would have noted that the Church posits that there are people who live such sacrificial and "heroically virtuous lives" that they could be described as "prolonged martyrdoms." Martyrs, as you know, are those who in death immediately pass to heaven; they are not the dead in Christ who "rise first", as Paul proclaims (which suggests that there are saints in the ground and saints that are in heaven: the saints in heaven are those who fought well in the tribulation, no?). I wonder, then, if it is at all possible that there are those Christian brothers and sisters who live such obedient lives that they pass through purgatory -- in this life? Is that not possible, and is this not exactly what Catholics say of some saints?
In response to Dan Martins' comment suggesting that you had not accurately presented the Catholic case, you wrote:
Problem is, the Roman Catechism doesn’t address the issue. Unless, of course, I missed it in which case I would appreciate a reference.Now, I wish I knew by "the issue" what you meant. Do you mean the issue of canonization, or that of justification/sanctification? You are correct if you mean the former; you are wrong if you mean the latter. But the very heart and purpose of your whole polemic, and the very context of Fr. Martins' remarks, are all about justification/sanctification and the modus operandi of both. Hence, you must mean the latter; and it must be pointed out that the RC catechism very much enlarges upon Christ's work on the cross (see ¶595-623 here). Christ's sacrifice is described in ¶616 as "redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction", while ¶618 refers to it all for what it truly is, "a paschal mystery." All in all, the language of the catechism here is lovely and orthodox, broad and inclusive, covering much theological ground; it is hard to find fault with it without destroying its mystery by parsing it into so many theologically correct fragments.
The whole debate about justification/sanctification seems often to be more akin to autopsy than theology: it divides terms so meticulously as to leave a corpse with no mystery. But the glories of the faith are powerful and mysterious. One wonders how the myriad faithful of the ancient church could ever have been saved without having Luther's parsing and privileged view of things, or even Aquinas' or Augustine's. The thief on the cross, no doubt, was without much theology, and yet he was ushered -- today, our Lord promised him -- into paradise.
Of course, the thief was given a special privilege. No one else that we know of had such a promise made to him or her. But this promise did not come without a price: the thief still had to die, to hang on that cross, next to a dying Savior who made what must have seemed a wild promise in the fading light of things: the thief hung faithfully on his own cross, his life bleeding into the refiner's fire, the devil calling him to doubt, to deny, to fall faithless into death's cynicism. His entry into paradise was no easy pass. And he was given such life without baptism, or without understanding "prevenient grace" or "expiation" or "forensic satisfaction."
Did God show preferential treatment to the thief, to Lazarus, to Elijah, to Moses? Were they not whisked away, or given a second life, while others were not?
"What is that to you?" I hear Him ask.
I may have a problem with honoring JPII with canonization; it does seem a bit like induction into the RCC Hall of Fame. But I have no qualms with honoring certain brothers and sisters above others; I would be saddened to learn that Billy Graham's funeral (should he have one) is equal to my own. And I have no problem whatsoever believing that all my brothers and sisters, including Pope John Paul II, deserve more notoriety and acclaim as saints in this life, than do I. Love, after all, considers everyone else more important than oneself. In short, love does make distinctions.
Peace.
BG
_______________
Further Thoughts
Much of the debate between Protestants and Catholics about the mechanics of salvation seem rooted in how time is perceived. Am I justified in an instant, or over time? Am I sanctified in a moment, or does it take time, perhaps a lifetime -- and more -- to be sanctified? I guess these are good questions, but it seems to me that if there is a God who justifies and sanctifies, then His sense of time is what ultimately matters. And what is His sense of time, He Who lives in the Eternal Now, outside of time? What is time to Him, what is process, if a thousand years are to Him like a day? Is my lifetime of struggle in the Faith but a moment to Him? Does He not see my salvation, and my sanctification, as He sees all of life, in an instant?
I do not know. But it irks me to no end that churches divide themselves over what are absolute mysteries of the faith. Some gnostic claims to understand the totality of the Incarnation; another gnostic claims to know how it is we are justified -- in toto -- before the eyes of God. Such gnostic ambition is disheartening, to say the least, and nearly always results in some utterly clear, mystery-free heresy. But just think of the countless souls that have been deemed saints in the eyes of God who did not understand complex theological terms! It is humbling, for certain. As it should be. We are called to believe in a Savior, a God-Man; we are called to follow Him, to obey His commands; to eat His flesh and drink His blood; to love each other as He has loved us.
The last thing I believe Jesus ever did, or expected His disciples to do, was to quibble over the language used to describe what even the great councils of the Faith have proclaimed is forever mysterious: how a Man can be God, and God, Man; and how each of us, sinners and enslaved to death, are to be made saints alive in holiness and truth.
The God-Man Jesus the Christ came to deliver me. Can I be delivered without knowing, or even understanding, the exact details how? If exactitude is important, then what of the man who accepts Christ as his Savior and then, suddenly and inexplicably, drops dead?
We see through a glass darkly indeed.
Have a blesséd Maundy Thursday.
BG
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Flashpan: Helicopters Fanning The Flames
[Second post today]
I can remember a time in America when the shout could be heard in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the lecture halls. "You can't legislate morality!" was heard everywhere, particularly in the midst of debates about sexuality and abortion. Folks who described themselves as liberal or progressive were quick to yell this into the face of any would-be conservative who dared to advocate for social and cultural change, for moderation; these progressives usually followed such ejaculations with the daring "Get your laws off my body!" or "Keep Congress -- and the religious right -- out of our bedrooms!"
Last week Al Gore took issue with all of that, as you know, and nary a progressive said a word. For Al Gore, who spoke to committees in both the House and the Senate of the US Congress in order to influence legislation, said of global warming, "This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue."
Finally it is agreed upon even by leftists: you can legislate morality. And you must.
_______________What I am about to tell readers is absolutely true.
In 1973, when the gas and oil crunch swept over the United States, there was a family in my town who had a particularly abusive father running the household. Seeing the gas crisis as an opportunity to prepare his children for a bitter and difficult future without gasoline or oil, the father made this loving decision: He would make all of his children walk to school, despite the fact that they lived on a bus route and were the last house at the edge of town. So, everyday the kids would walk, first the three miles to the grade school in the village, and then three miles to the junior high and senior high schools. They would reverse the route in the afternoon. The kids did this routine faithfully -- for years. It was for practice, for preparation.
And in his benevolence their father did what any dad would do to instill proper discipline in his children: when his work did not take him out of town (it often did), he would hop in the family station wagon and FOLLOW HIS CHILDREN TO ENSURE THEY WERE NOT GETTING RIDES TO SCHOOL.
Big Father was good at watching. It was for the good of the kids.
________________
When Al Gore says that your use of carbon fuels is a "moral issue," he might be right. He might be as right as all those who believe that homosexual marriage is a moral issue, or abortion, or embryonic stem cell research. And he might be right to want to impose a sort of moral order on our lives. But the problem is that those who impose moral order on the world from outside often do so as tyrants.
Rather than encourage voluntary moral compliance, Al Gore and his panel of unanimous peers are suggesting a forced compliance. They are suggesting a form of tyranny. It's a "moral issue," after all, and there is "no longer any argument. The debate is over."
So says Big Father.
There is no skill required to divine exactly how this all will take shape, this lordship over the masses. Why? Because Big Father is already at work, and he is working exactly like that father did in my hometown in 1973. For if we can trust RIA Novosti, a noted Russian news agency -- and there is no reason for us not to -- then we can be assured that this story is reliable. Perhaps you've already heard it; maybe you've read about it. If not, then let me get you up to date:
BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.
This is just the beginning of madness. Grab a cup and cover your barbie. You're about to get kicked in the coals.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I can remember a time in America when the shout could be heard in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the lecture halls. "You can't legislate morality!" was heard everywhere, particularly in the midst of debates about sexuality and abortion. Folks who described themselves as liberal or progressive were quick to yell this into the face of any would-be conservative who dared to advocate for social and cultural change, for moderation; these progressives usually followed such ejaculations with the daring "Get your laws off my body!" or "Keep Congress -- and the religious right -- out of our bedrooms!"
Last week Al Gore took issue with all of that, as you know, and nary a progressive said a word. For Al Gore, who spoke to committees in both the House and the Senate of the US Congress in order to influence legislation, said of global warming, "This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue."
Finally it is agreed upon even by leftists: you can legislate morality. And you must.
_______________What I am about to tell readers is absolutely true.
In 1973, when the gas and oil crunch swept over the United States, there was a family in my town who had a particularly abusive father running the household. Seeing the gas crisis as an opportunity to prepare his children for a bitter and difficult future without gasoline or oil, the father made this loving decision: He would make all of his children walk to school, despite the fact that they lived on a bus route and were the last house at the edge of town. So, everyday the kids would walk, first the three miles to the grade school in the village, and then three miles to the junior high and senior high schools. They would reverse the route in the afternoon. The kids did this routine faithfully -- for years. It was for practice, for preparation.
And in his benevolence their father did what any dad would do to instill proper discipline in his children: when his work did not take him out of town (it often did), he would hop in the family station wagon and FOLLOW HIS CHILDREN TO ENSURE THEY WERE NOT GETTING RIDES TO SCHOOL.
Big Father was good at watching. It was for the good of the kids.
________________
When Al Gore says that your use of carbon fuels is a "moral issue," he might be right. He might be as right as all those who believe that homosexual marriage is a moral issue, or abortion, or embryonic stem cell research. And he might be right to want to impose a sort of moral order on our lives. But the problem is that those who impose moral order on the world from outside often do so as tyrants.
Rather than encourage voluntary moral compliance, Al Gore and his panel of unanimous peers are suggesting a forced compliance. They are suggesting a form of tyranny. It's a "moral issue," after all, and there is "no longer any argument. The debate is over."
So says Big Father.
There is no skill required to divine exactly how this all will take shape, this lordship over the masses. Why? Because Big Father is already at work, and he is working exactly like that father did in my hometown in 1973. For if we can trust RIA Novosti, a noted Russian news agency -- and there is no reason for us not to -- then we can be assured that this story is reliable. Perhaps you've already heard it; maybe you've read about it. If not, then let me get you up to date:
BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.
Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.
Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming. [emphasis added]
This is just the beginning of madness. Grab a cup and cover your barbie. You're about to get kicked in the coals.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Out Of Bounds: A Paean To A Muse
(Since this was originally posted, several of the links enclosed are corrupted or broken. Apologies.)
[This is a long and personal post. And it is an aural post. It is highly recommended that you read this using either headphones or a decent set of desktop speakers. Give yourself time to enjoy. If you are a Contratimes reader and happen to be deaf, I apologize profusely for excluding you from much of what follows.]
Not one of us is self-made. Many people have inspired us, and dozens of teachers have conspired to build in each of us such things as character and gratitude, wisdom and wonder. Each of us has had a muse, and even when we've been confused, some guide gave us clarity when we most needed it. Talents, we know, are shared; they are not created ex nihilo, or in isolation, or by sheer wishfulness. Genius is a collision of many things, not least of which is the influence of predecessors who possessed great skill, passion or mastery. Michelangelo may have been a genius, but he did not create the real David, nor did he ever invent the chisel, hammer or painter's brush.
Tonight I would like to share a little about what has inspired me. But I will only focus on one of my many influences; I could wax long about all of my teachers, but I will resist the temptation to bore you. Tonight I want to reveal a little about myself, of course; yet in the process, I would like to pass along the art and inspiration of a man who was, perhaps, the only true genius I ever met. But I shall not deceive you -- I did not know this man. I met him only long enough to shake his hand and say, "Thank you for so fully sharing yourself with me tonight." But the gratitude was not in the words, it was in the touching. It was the closest thing to pushing myself through a crowd to touch the hem of a garment: although the gesture would neither save nor heal, it would at least express my happy indebtedness.
Some of you may know that I wish, though only in a small way, that I had been a guitarist. I do not play the instrument at all. But I love the guitar for many inexpressible reasons. And I am an awed fan of many great guitarists: Segovia, Clapton, Howe, Carlos, Hendrix, Stevie Ray, Gilmour, King, Klugh, Keaggy; The Edge, Lievano; Eric Johnson, Joe Satriani, Steve Vai. I admit that it is perhaps even a little foolish to suggest that there are favorites among favorites: there are many, many amazing masters of the six strings.
To many guitar aficionados, Steve Vai sits on a high seat in the guitarist pantheon. No doubt he is amazing, a virtuoso of the highest order. But of one guitarist he said this: “There is nobody on God’s green earth that plays the guitar like Michael Hedges.”
Mr. Vai was exactly right.
_______________
I first heard of Michael Hedges in 1984 when a college buddy of mine handed me a cassette tape called "Aerial Boundaries". Within the first minute of listening to the album's title track through a pair of high-powered Snell loudspeakers, I can honestly say that it was the first time I had ever been literally stunned by a guitarist's work. I was awestruck, confused, and full of doubt. The sonic dynamics astounded; I could not believe what I was hearing could be coming from just one acoustic steel-string guitar. I heard picking and strumming and tapping simultaneously, and yet I could hear slides and percussions and a bass note that seemed impossible. What manner of fretwork was this? What manner of artist was this?
In 1997, I sat with the same college friend in the balcony of the intimate Iron Horse, the well-known music venue in Northampton, MA, and watched Michael Hedges simply blow my mind from just a few feet away (the stage was elevated; it lifted Hedges only a few feet from our table). Everything about him suggested transcendence, or, more accurately, that the transcendent was now immanent. He was the guitar incarnate, music personified. He and his muse had merged like nothing I had ever before witnessed. His movements, his passion and power and grace were so enchanting I was nearly frightened, as if I might be in the presence of some strange spiritual power. In every way the man was an artist: he sang beautifully, he played the flute and recited poetry and walked on his hands with his legs flopped over his elbows. He played his guitar while bouncing on a giant rubber ball (and had been as part of his performance long before I had ever seen smaller ones used in fitness clubs); he danced and whirled as sound emanated from the spheres which were him. Michael Hedges' performance that night was the best performance of any thing I had ever seen.
But even if I merely fix on his guitar playing, and not on composition or stage presence, I nonetheless fix on a mystery of mastery. My college friend had described his first experience of Michael Hedges in the early 1980's this way: It was as if he was just beating up the guitar and music came out. My reaction, more than a decade later, was similar. Imagine this: a musical genius who played percussion, piano and harp, a man who had never even touched a guitar; he finds himself trapped on a desert island with nothing but a six-string. He picks it up, and, in moments, everything that comes from his hands just makes sense. One critic described a particular Michael Hedges composition as "music written by aliens for humans." Hedges' music is indeed a bit alien, though not in an other-worldly, astral sort of way. It is alien to our own sense of what an instrument can do; it transcends our pre-conditioned sense of what combination of sounds makes music, and what does not.
Hedges' playing instantly suggested genius to my ears even before I heard the tenth measure. His work surely would inspire others to emulate his work, though perhaps to little avail: Hedges was the first to play the guitar to such limits, limits no one else knew existed. I recently was praised by a prominent ski instructor I have known many years; he said of my skiing that I "take the equipment to its limit." High praise, but it is an overstatement: I am not a World Cup skier, nor do I push myself to the limits many skiers do, where equipment and skier are stretched to the very boundaries, and even beyond. With the guitar, Hedges did reach what appears to be the limit of the acoustic guitar, but he also reached what appeared to be the very fringes of musicianship; the human body could not move much closer to the edge without loss. In fact, in a weird way there was something wildly electric about Hedges' playing, though it wasn't the guitar; he was electric, given to jolts and spasms of lightning that he somehow could manage, like a wizard dueling dark forces on the edge of a chasm.
It's no wonder Hedges referred to his own music as "Heavy Mental," "New Edge," "Thrash Acoustic" and "Deep Tissue Gladiator Guitar."
________________
Dazzled and humbled by Hedges' performance right before my uncomprehending eyes, I remember offering this one prayer: Lord Christ, whatever I do I want to do as well as this man does this. In that prayer there was no cry for fame or notoriety. There was simply the desire to be the best I could be, even if that excellence was done at home, or in the quiet of a studio, or in the raising of a child. And it didn't need to be everything I did; if I could just do one thing well, even for a moment, I would feel I had honored the life -- and the cosmos around me -- that simply tremble with excellence. Michael Hedges was excellence embodied; and his musical abilities and compositions were as close to genius that I have ever stood.
Sadly, a few months after this transportive moment in Northampton, Massachusetts, Mr. Hedges would die in a car crash on a lonely California highway. He was 43-years-old. I wept at the news.
________________
It's a bit hard for me to believe that it has been nearly ten years since I prayed that little, earnest prayer. I've yet to find any assurances that the prayer has been answered. But I am perhaps being a bit impatient; besides, this is about discipline and drive, about commitment and persistence and the unflagging pursuit of excellence. God can't simply make me achieve a certain standard of competence. I must be willing and compliant; I must be disciplined and passionate. I must, in a very real sense, be there, as they say.
________________
Allow me to share with you a few video links of Mr. Hedges in action. Again, I implore you to don some headphones. Don't cheat yourself with poor fidelity.
First, there is this outstanding live cut of Aerial Boundaries performed, I believe, at Red Rocks (not sure though). I start with this link because this is the very first Hedges track I ever heard. It is a stunning composition; the album of the same name is described by Guitar Player magazine as "the greatest solo-acoustic [guitar] record ever made." Unfortunately this is not a perfect video, and the audio is less than ideal. But you will get the idea instantly (don't be fooled by the previous act still walking off the stage as Hedges' set begins.) Moreover, there is a veritable dearth of video recordings of this dear man doing what he did best as a musician. The links I have here are the best I can find. Sorry.
Next, there is the truly glorious Silent Anticipations, written by Hedges in his native Oklahoma; it is drawn from his experience of waiting for an approaching thunderstorm, one carrying within it a tornado. Sheets of rain rush across the stage beneath Hedges' feet, and lightning strikes all around. (For a different version of the piece, go here. I like the intensity of the ending as he tries to tune the guitar at full speed. And by full speed, I mean full: one Hedges emulator warns that these guitar slides will leave players with slivers of steel embedded in their thumbs.)
I think you will also enjoy this amazing clip of Because It's There. Here Hedges plays the harp guitar, which is a very cool instrument. Kick up the bass on your equalizer.
Hedges could also sing, and, though others have suggested he was not a natural singer, I find his voice to be quite lovely (as noted above). Surely he is better than many folk singers; he makes Bob Dylan sound like, well, Bob Dylan, which means the sound of a nylon comb scraping the lip of an old cast-iron tub. Hedges' version of Dylan's prophetic "All Along The Watchtower" was thrilling to see and hear in person; I believe it is quite compelling in these two clips (here is a slower version, with a powerful yet harshly interrupted ending; and here is the other, faster version with some very fun comments and a look at Hedges' personality). Again, I wish the video and audio were better. Alas!
For some other great video, try Hedges' performance of Dirge. The introductory remarks are kind of fun, though the video and audio break up in a few weird spots. In one spot it actually sounds as if Michael has lost his way, but I think the problem is in the film. However, the clips from this concert are interesting, since they are of Hedges' return to his hometown (or nearby), after having long before ventured to California to pursue his art. And I enjoyed this clip (from another performance) of Naked Stalk, Jealous Tunnel, About Face, a medley of sorts (fairly straightforward technique throughout). Again, Hedges' humor comes through very effectively. And, again, the audio really fades out. Sorry.
Lastly, there is this clip, terrible in quality, that at least gives witness to my friend's observation that Hedges beat up the guitar until it said "uncle."
_______________
What does it mean for a person to be a genius, or to show genius? I wish I knew. Right now I am reading for the very first time a title by Kurt Vonnegut; surely Slaughterhouse Five displays real genius. But I cannot prove it, nor can I even begin to describe it. I just know it.
Recently, during a PGA golf tournament aired on TV, a commentator reported that Tiger Woods, golf's true master, said that he NEVER makes a casual swing, even during practice. Every step is deliberate, intentional, and serious.
Never casual? Is the genius that person who never does a thing partially? Is the genius that figure whose concentration and drive and goals meet in perfected accomplishment? I wonder.
Michael Hedges may not have been a genius, but he is surely a muse. He is, without doubt, one of my muses. I am listening to him play as I write this sentence. His work still inspires: I continue to pray that I may honor God the way Mr. Hedges honored sound. That Mr. Hedges' guitar work should reach beyond frets and fingers to keys beneath fretting fingers, to these very words, is testimony to his influence. His work has crossed beyond one area of specialty into many others.
Perhaps a genius then, is that person whose life and work expands not merely his own life, but the lives of others, whose art is others' art. But I grope for strings in the dark. Yet in the dark I hear the sound of something brilliant: The weight of darkness is not so heavy, for there is light in sound.
God rest ye, oh, merry, gentle man. I bid you peace; I give you thanks.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
For more on Michael Hedges, read the Michael Hedges Wikipedia entry (very helpful to me), or go to his website, Nomad Land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)