Barack Obama Calls For Civility, But What Is It?

Earlier this month, while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama urged Americans,  particularly prayerful Americans, to strive for civility.

"Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility."

"Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility."

"I know in difficult times like these -- when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names -- it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint -- civility."

In Mr. Obama's speech, he invoked "civil" or "civility" ten times. But what is civility? And what is the essential component that makes civility civil? Is civility nothing more than being kind, polite, well-mannered?

_________________________

A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON

Let me begin with negation. Civility is not courtesy. It is not good manners. It is not politeness. It is not a kind tone. It is not a strict adherence to protocol or deference to propriety. Of course, it feels like civility must contain all of these things, but it doesn't. If it does, however, these are only accidental. They are not essential.

Civil and civility derive from the Latin civilitas, which stems from civilis, which stems from civis, or "citizen." Civilis meant "relating to citizens" ("citizens" derived from civitas, the Latin word for "city").

I know, I know, this seems all rather academic, but there is a point, and that point is civility has not always meant courtesy or good manners. 

Here is how civility is currently defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary:

CIVILITY, n. formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

But this note in the same dictionary is important:

In early use the term denoted the state of being a citizen and hence good citizenship or orderly behavior. The sense [politeness] arose in the mid 16th century.

In other words, the current use of civility -- politeness -- is a rather recent one.

This foray into etymology is not frivolous. It is important to note that civility is not essentially about being polite, or, more aptly, civility is not about being "polished or made smooth" (which is the meaning of the Latin root for polite). It is really about something else. Kind tones, nice words -- these are not essential to civility at all, especially when one considers that civilization is really the result of civility: civility creates a civilization. It is essential to it.

But if civility is not essentially about politeness or courtesy, what is it?

Answer: Civility is the honorable use of truth. If society is a marketplace, then those who exchange truth in an honorable way, are civil. Truth is the most essential currency, not only in actual financial markets -- the whole idea of honest scales comes to mind -- but in the marketplace of ideas. Those who refuse to transact in truth are not civil, nor are they civilized.

_________________________

POLITENESS DOTH NOT A CIVILIZATION MAKE

One can easily imagine a world of incredible politeness that does not exchange in truth. Such a world, however, could never be civilized. We all have witnessed incredibly polite people tell nothing but lies; from childhood to old age, we can see that politeness can often be a form of abuse, being little more than the packaging of really damaging goods. And where there is abuse, and where there is the neglect of truth, civilization falters, struggles, and even decays. It is impossible to build or sustain a civilization without truth, just like it is impossible to build anything -- at least anything that lasts -- without a firm foundation composed of truth, of the truth of the laws of physics and the rules of engineering. Imagine a set of architect's instructions -- meticulously spoken with perfect syntax, grammar and politely offered warnings -- and yet his words are filled with half-truths and falsehoods. Imagine travel directions given that are sweetly spoken and yet completely wrong. A perfectly polite world without truth or respect for truth would indeed be one where chaos reigns.

And one can easily imagine a civilization that thrives that is not one whit polite. Imagine an architect offering advice whose speech is laced with profane, crude and abusive language, and yet he is utterly precise in his designs, designs obedient to the laws of physics. Things would get built, and they would stand erect against all forces. A civilization need not be built on courtesy. It may help, but courtesy is tangential at best to the great arch of truth that holds a civilization upright.

As long as any civilization is committed to the honorable use of truth, then that civilization will be civil in the truest sense.

_________________________

THE BIFURCATED TONGUE IS SMOOTH

So why bother with all this? Simple, really. I find Barack Obama utterly polite, and yet frequently given to marketing falsehoods. He is obviously a courteous politician, polished and politic. But even the devil is polite. Even Wormtongue was "civil." Even the serpent hisses courteously.

No, I am not suggesting Mr. Obama is a devil. My point is too refined for that sort of garish accusation. I am saying that we must be careful. I am saying that we must be diligent. I am saying that we must not be swayed by smooth speech, or even kind words -- from anyone. What matters is not the delivery or tone or cosmetics. What matters is how truth is handled. What matters is how facts are shared. What matters is civility -- the honorable use of truth.

_________________________

MR. OBAMA: HOW HIS FAITH INFORMS HIM

Here is an example of the sort of truth-less currency with which Mr. Obama transacts; the quote is lifted directly from his speech at the prayer breakfast; Mr. Obama began that speech with a promise that he would speak of how his faith informs his presidency:

"God's grace, and the compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through the men and women like Corpsman Brossard.  It's expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces, through the efforts of our entire government, through similar efforts from Spain and other countries around the world.  It's also, as Secretary Clinton said, expressed through multiple faith-based efforts.  By evangelicals at World Relief.  By the American Jewish World Service.  By Hindu temples, and mainline Protestants, Catholic Relief Services, African American churches, the United Sikhs.  By Americans of every faith, and no faith, uniting around a common purpose, a higher purpose."†

This may seem utterly harmless; it may seem as innocuous and innocent as a child talking about fairies. But it isn't innocuous or harmless or innocent. It is grotesque. If it is not meant as deception and propaganda, then it is undeniably stupid. If it is propaganda, then it is an insult to all religions, and all atheists, and it is meant to deceive, confuse, and obfuscate. And what seems a mere sentimental passage in a forgettable speech is surely a celebration -- unwitting, perhaps, which thus confirms the charge of stupidity -- of Unitarian-Universalism, the creed-less church that attracts so many American liberals.

Pay attention! Just follow "God's grace." Look at what Mr. Obama claims expresses that grace: "God's grace ... it's expressed ... [b]y Americans of ... no faith." Imagine! Even the good actions of atheists are an act of God's grace. Moreover, God's grace is "expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces..." It is expressed in "Hindu temples." It is expressed through the Spanish government. But not only God's grace, but the "compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through ... Spain and other countries... ."

And, to top it all off, Barack Obama is celebrating that the religious and non-religious, all expressing God's grace, unite "around a common purpose, a higher purpose." Indeed, one wonders not only what he means, but whether Pope Benedict XVI knows anything about this "higher purpose."

In this speech on his faith, Mr. Obama declared "progress doesn't come when we demonize our opponents." I will spare readers the details of the times Mr. Obama has demonized his opponents; suffice it to say that when he makes such an exhortation he demonizes those who apparently demonize their opponents; he transcends such petty sins by sounding the noble call not to demonize, thus elevating himself, seeing himself as "above all that."

And he wraps up his speech with a quote from Martin Luther King: "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend." But such is simply not true: Truth can change an enemy into a friend (and some enemies become friends around a shared lie).

But what is most disturbing, perhaps, is this line that epitomizes Obama double-speak: "Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary." [emphasis mine]

In other words, calls for unity, civility, common ground: all vapid, empty. We can part ways -- "when necessary."

I began this essay on Wednesday. I did so in anticipation of Mr. Obama's healthcare "bi-partisan" summit, which is happening as I write this sentence. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama exchanges with his opponents the currency of truth; it will be interesting to see whether he demonizes his opponents using straw man fallacies, misrepresenting their views. And it will be interesting to see if he will find reasons to part ways, "when necessary."

Whatever happens, I am sure it will all be very polite.

___________________

†Let's examine this further. Mr. Obama seems to mean that God's grace is really some sort of Idealism, some 'spirit' that inheres in history: that history irresistibly flows towards a progressive end, and it is a shame to be on "the wrong side of history." Or, he is talking about pantheism, that "all" is God, and hence even the actions of an atheist are "God's grace." Or, he is conflating God with the will of the American people: what we will is God, and what we will is good (and spreads throughout all peoples). But these are all philosophically and theologically naive. Surely he cannot mean such things; surely he does not mean to supplant the dogmas of the earth's greatest religions with such bland pantheistic ideals. But if he does not mean them, or if he does not really understand what he is saying, what does this say about his intellectual capacities? And what if he REALLY does mean them? Do we not conclude that he is an intellectual child? And if he does not mean what he said, if he is merely reading words penned by a speechwriter, then is he not deceiving us, lying to us that this is how he feels, that this is how faith informs him as a man and as a president? In conclusion, we can only say that what he said is horrible, (and that he said it is horrible, too). 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

"It's A Bit Of A Throw"

I know this: If this happened to me when I was Shaun White's age, my friends and I would laugh about this till our deaths. (Keep your eye fixed on Shaun.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Shaun White's Tomahawk
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Who Is Ayn Rand? -- The Toyota Hearings

If there is any one thing Ayn Rand may have prophesied accurately in her works The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, it would be what we are witnessing today with Toyota. I am not big on conspiracy theories, but I am painfully aware that this all looks rather bad -- for the Obama administration and the United Auto Workers union. 

Until recently, Toyota was the number one automaker in this country. Toyota's cars are notoriously reliable; they are loved the world over for their safety, design, and quality. Consumer Reports has constantly shown them to be at the top in nearly every category, if not all categories. 

How is it, then, the company ranked #1 is sitting in the dock? And how does it not freak us all out that Toyota IS in the dock when we learn that Toyota ranks 17th -- 17th! -- in recalls. Let me put this another way: There are 16 other carmakers whose cars are recalled more often than Toyota's. And yet we have an end-of-the-world scenario rolling by us in the Congress right now. Toyota is in handcuffs and leg irons, its cars have the Denver Boot, and everything's being towed away by a GM tow truck. 

And let us get this straight: Yesterday a woman testified in congressional hearings that her Toyota suddenly accelerated to speeds around 100 mph, over a considerable distance and time. How can we respect anybody who does not know now to use her brakes, throw her clutch, shift into neutral or turn off the car? What world do we live in that allows this sort of evidence, that thinks driver incompetence is the fault of a car manufacturer? 

Admittedly, I write in haste. I haven't all the facts. I don't know the details. But something -- I guarantee you -- is amiss. Something is askew. There is subterfuge in Washington, and Toyota is the victim. Who is the bully, and who stands to gain in the wake of Toyota's struggles?

Also, for an interesting bit of commentary and analysis, check out Kimberley Strassel's "Washington's Toyota U-Turn."

This Is Why We Love Cheese

Don't squirm; it's not what you think. Check out this video.

Two Men And A Truism?

The inimitably paradoxical and hilariously incisive writer G. K. Chesterton wrote the following in a newspaper column in 1924 (?):

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."

It is a clever bit of prose, apt, witty and deliciously adroit. No wonder he ranks among my utmost favorites.

Interesting, too, is this quote (which pre-dates Chesterton's) from Ambrose Bierce, a master of macabre short stories and a biting satirist for the San Francisco Chronicle; the passage is culled from Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary":

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

It is amusing that both men, one from London and the other from San Francisco, should land on essentially the same observation. Both wrote for newspapers; both were drawn toward the fantastic and the macabre (though Bierce was far more gloomy and pessimistic: Chesterton was a shining light of mirth and optimism). But that they both essentially played the identical riff; that they should both disparage conservatism and progressivism in nearly the same way, just fascinates me.

That's it. I am sure I could exegete the passages, winnowing the wheat from the chaff of each, showing that they are oh-so-subtly different. But I shan't. 

Peace.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Just Because

For RS (from the WSJ), posted for no reason whatsoever.

Ignoring History: Spinning On About Right-Wing Violence

Yesterday, just mere minutes after CNN reported that an Austin, Texas man had burned down his own house and then flew a plane into an IRS building, I speculated here that the whole story would be spun by leftists as some sort of proof of right-wing extremism. Obviously, it took no special gifts on my part to augur so accurately the reactions and cogitations of many.

But I want to explore -- briefly -- a convention often used by my leftist peers. That convention was ably displayed here yesterday by Contratimes reader and commenter, Ginx. Please note the convention as he presented it (here and here):

Eight years under Bush, and liberals don't lash out violently like immature babies. Doesn't take that long under a Dem for the conservative nut jobs to come crawling out of their buried school bus bunkers. ...Where were the crazy liberals blowing stuff up under Bush?

OK. I will stipulate that Ginx specifies the Bush years, that there were no left-wing acts of violence during the Bush regime. But the convention I am interested in is found in Ginx's claim that it does not "take long under a Dem for a conservative nut job" to turn to violence.

Let's see. The Black Panthers were known as a violent group in the United States well into the Nixon Administration. So too were the activists known as the Weather Underground. Conservatives, all? 

A decade earlier, a known Marxist assassinated John F. Kennedy. Was Lee Harvey Oswald a Tea Party prototype? 

In the mid-Seventies, the Symbionese Liberation Army, described as a revolutionary vanguard army, went on a violent spree in California. Also, two leftist women, Squeaky Fromme and Sarah Jane Moore, were both convicted in separate and unrelated attempts to assassinate President Gerald Ford.

And then, of course, there is the recent shooting rampage (3 dead, 3 wounded) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Amy Bishop, who grew up in liberal Massachusetts and worked toward a doctorate at Harvard, is apparently at odds with Ginx's profile of violent offenders, or so reports the Boston Herald:

'A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.'

I imagine I could offer more examples, but why? The fact is clear: Leftists can be quite violent. In fact, they are often rather violent. Does anyone believe that protesting anarchists smashing windows in Vancouver or Seoul or London are conservatives?

Lastly, leftists also do violence in another way: they do violence to truth, and the historical record. This is especially damning, and it is at least arguable that leftist propaganda directed at the policies and practices of the United States has created more than a few enemies of this country -- violent and very angry enemies. 

_________________

Please note that I AM NOT SPINNING THE AUSTIN STORY AT ALL. I have no interest in the matter in that way. I applaud Ginx for noting in his later comments that a case COULD be made that Mr. Stack, the alleged pilot of the plane that hit the IRS building in Austin, was driven in part by leftist attitudes. And I also want to acknowledge that right-wing writers and commentators have also spun this story. It will be interesting to see what the truth finally reveals. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Spinning The Austin Tragedy

Minutes ago, CNN reported that a man in Austin, Texas torched his own house, stole a plane, and flew it into a 7-story building which housed an IRS office. 

Let's see. How will this be spun? How will the leftist blogosphere exegete this man's actions (assuming CNN has reported the truth)? 

How about the "teabagger" trope? 

How about "the logical outcome of Tea Party outrage"? 

How about "right-wing extremism inspired by Timothy McVeigh"? 

How about "the building was intentionally bombed by Bush loyalists still working in the FBI, CIA and Secret Service in an attempt to draw America into a war based entirely on lies; bombs were strategically placed throughout the building and the plane was actually a diversion flown via remote control"? 

Thoughts On The Winter Olympics

The other day I was thinking about how much I prefer the winter Olympic games to those held in summer. My thoughts were plain: the winter events are infinitely more dangerous, challenging and extreme. Besides, there is -- of course -- the whole nordic and alpine romance of the games; the whiff of old European elegance, of Scandinavia, Austria and Switzerland. I've an intuitive, even visceral, understanding of the enchantment of mountains, snow, adventure; of open flame, and long nights by a cozy hearth. Such things attract me, and I cannot resist.

As you know, in the winter games, there are ice and blade, skis and guns. There is the vertiginous height, the dizzying speed. Nearly every event, even every motion, is literally lived on an edge, one honed in steel and carved with bone and sinew. Everything feels precarious, only a millimeter away from unleashing lethal forces, unexpected and immeasurable. And deadly.

But the games have lost some of their romance and mystique, at least for me, with the tragic death of a young man. I watched the video; I saw the dramatic and mysterious physical forces take control, lifting him off the course. I saw his body pass a few inches beyond the shiny veneer. A steel pole; a sudden stop. There is nothing elegant in death.

However, memory is short. I will watch the games; I will hide from my mind things unpleasant. I will remind myself about the "indomitable human spirit." I will think on lovely things, and meditate on the heights of human achievement, of human aspiration. I will marvel. I will gaze in awe. But I will know, deep down, there will be something I have chosen to forget.

________________

Perhaps as an antidote to grief and second-guessing, last night's opening ceremonies to the winter games were a stunning gift. Of course, as I've aged I've become absolutely weak-kneed about ceremonies of all kinds. I don't care if it's F-15s flying over a NASCAR track or Ronan Tynan singing "God Bless America" in Yankee Stadium, I get all choked up, ready to genuflect in an instant before such displays. Last night's presentation did indeed lift me; I was on the edge of tears throughout. Yes, I could see the flaws (sadly, I too often do), but those just charmed me all the more.

Peace.

(K.D. Lang singing Leonard Cohen? There really is a God. And when Canadian opera singer Measha Brueggergosman sang the "Olympic Anthem," I was certain the flags were waving because of her unbelievable exhalations. Words like transportive and transcendent easily came to mind. And her hair! Whoa!)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

For Fun: Recent Facebook Status Updates From Yours Truly

Life appears to be going in the opposite direction of items found in my refrigerator and pantry: The contents remain fresh but the container is falling apart.

_____________

Be certain of your doubts, and always doubt your certainties.

_____________

This morning it was so quiet outside I could hear words spoken yesterday.

_____________

Winter's sub-seasons have returned to New England: the season of the frost heave, and the season of the filthy car. This simply means that some of us are now more eager than ever for a new spring's showers and -- ideally -- a whole new set of springs. (Oh, 'tis not a sin to dream. Or scream.)

_____________

I woke up this morning and my brain was covered with sound bites.

_____________

Last night, as I enjoyed two hours of night skiing (I pretty much had the mountain to myself), I noticed that, despite my love for the sport, I had one recurring thought: "Man, I just love my warm bed." I ask, is this not definitive proof I am firmly ensconced in middle age?

_____________

PARADOX LOST: "...I said, wait a minute, he’s an African-American guy in front of a bunch of OTHER white people..." -- Chris Matthews, on Barack Obama's State of the Union address

_____________

Moments ago I jumped on my bike and pedaled hard and fast right toward the fountain of perpetual youth. Thirty thrilling minutes later, I realized it was a stationary bike. I thought to myself, "That's odd." So now I am pedaling even faster, only this time I'm pedaling backwards. (People in the gym are not happy with this, as I've installed an "in-reverse" warning signal: Beep! Beep! Beep!)

_____________

Just finishing up work on my newest invention, a microwaveable Crock-Pot: it gives you slow-cooked stew in 30 seconds. (Tomorrow I begin marketing my greatest design challenge to date: A microwave gas grill. I am expecting sales to go through the roof.)

_____________

Yesterday, after nearly 7 years of orthodontic work, I had my braces removed. But it all turned out to be a rather disappointing and weird lesson in Newtonian mechanics, where every action has an equal and opposite reaction: my teeth are finally straight, but now my entire body is crooked. What does this mean? Well, it means at least one thing: if I like my smile, I must avoid the chiropractor.

_____________

One thing is evident after a heavy thaw: Whether you love them or hate them, snowbanks sure do hide a lot of dog poop.

_____________

After the Haitian earthquake, conservative Pat Robertson spoke of Haiti's "pact with the devil." Meanwhile, actor Danny Glover, a noted liberal, implied the earthquake was the result of "global warming" and, because of our apparent failure at the climate summit in Copenhagen last month, "this is what happens." I haven't a clue what either man could possibly mean. But my gut tells me true prophets are rather scarce.

_____________

Be one with the cold. Consider it practice.

_____________

I am just about to use my new high-definition Crock-Pot. It's wicked awesome. You can taste EVERYTHING.

_____________

In anticipation of the midnight deadline making texting while driving illegal in my home state, I drove around southern NH texting enough to fill two Tolstoy novels. In fact, I'm driving while texting this very update. And I'm driving a motorcycle. In the snow. While eating. With chopsticks. 

Peace and mirth!

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

One Super Bowl Ad: "Proof" Of The Existence God

Greetings.

Just for a moment, please imagine with me that you are sitting in an advertising strategy meeting at Focus On The Family. Imagine that you've got a story to tell about a Heisman Trophy winner whose mother considered abortion during her pregnancy with a son who would grow to become that very Heisman Trophy winner; imagine you want to tell that story in just a few seconds of TV time during Super Bowl XLIV. Imagine the board of directors is in attendance, that an ad agency is presenting ideas, and that a whole bunch of staffers are brain-storming, probing, dreaming. Imagine the overall theme of the strategy meeting: what can we do to have maximum impact?

Finally, a decision is made: An advertisement will be produced that simply talks about the heroic work women do: that motherhood requires toughness, and yet, even when life tackles women hard, they have the capacity to get right up and keep on being awesome, productive and powerful women. That's it. A simple message, along with a simple visual metaphor -- that life sometimes tackles women with tough problems, like can unwanted or complicated pregnancy -- and yet somehow women for millennia have managed to get through such problems with aplomb.

And since Focus On The Family is a Christian organization, imagine the sort of prayer that was prayed: "Lord, help us to glorify You. Your will be done. Help us reach people the way You want them reached. Help us to be effective, to further Your goals on earth. In Jesus' name. Amen."

And what does Focus On The Family get for an answer? Something that looks an awful lot like a proof for the existence of God.

__________________________

Let us be plain: Groups like Focus On The Family believe that aborting children is wrong. They believe that their view of what it means to be moral in the face of any pregnancy -- wanted or unwanted -- is superior to those who disagree with a thorough pro-life stance. They also believe that their position is the more reasonable, loving and restrained one; that their opponents are perhaps irrational, full of zeal, rage and moral confusion. In short, groups like Focus On The Family believe their view is not only pro-child, but essentially pro-woman.

Meanwhile, groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood ALSO believe that they are morally, intellectually and socially upright; that they are the ones dispensing advice in a cool, rational and moral way; that their support of abortion -- in all instances -- is morally defensible. These groups, the ones who support a woman's "right to choose," believe that Focus On The Family is reactionary, blinded by zeal, misogynistic; repressive and regressive. The pro-abortion groups believe they are the very essence of reason, of right thinking, and the very guardians of good advice and wise counsel about pregnancy and family planning.

Then came the mere news of a TV ad.

_________________________

Without having seen the advertisement that eventually aired during the Super Bowl, pro-abortion groups denounced it. They admonished CBS, the network that would show the ad during the NFL's championship game. Some called the ad misogynistic, anti-women. Some expected it would be propaganda against "choice."

And then came the actual ad, broadcast in the opening minutes of the Super Bowl. The very ad that fomented so much blind, irrational, and misinformed discontent. It came like a sheep to the slaughterhouse; it came like a lamb to a dogfight. The ad turned out to be unquestionably pro-woman, pro-mother. It was truly as simple and harmless as a sleeping lamb. And it was beautiful.

What happened? The ad was denounced by pro-abortion advocates as possessing an "undercurrent" of violence toward women.

__________________________

Here are perhaps a few syllogisms explored at the follow-up advertising strategy meeting of Focus on the Family:

If pro-abortion advocates act poorly about an ad they have not seen, then there is a God.

Pro-abortion advocates acted poorly not only before but after seeing the ad.

Therefore, there is a God.

Or this:

If pro-abortion advocates embarrass themselves, then God answers prayers beyond our expectations.

Pro-abortion advocates embarrassed themselves.

Therefore, God answers prayers beyond our expecations.

Or this:

If this ad unintentionally causes pro-abortion advocates to look like they are too irrational to properly counsel needy women, then God performs miracles.

This ad unintentionally caused pro-abortion advocates to look like they are too irrational to properly counsel needy women.

Therefore, God performs miracles.

And finally:

If pro-abortion advocates do not know how to counsel anyone about an unwanted ad, they don't know how to counsel anyone about an unwanted pregnancy.

Pro-abortion advocates do not know how to counsel anyone about an unwanted ad.

Therefore, there really is a God.

Focus On The Family wins a battle -- and maybe even a war -- with nothing more than a simple story of a Mother and her Son. Who could have guessed, really, that the irrational behavior of a group of individuals could have affirmed the faith of millions?

Peace.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Truly Cruel: Tim Tebow, His Mother, And Their "Undercurrent" Of Misogyny

Oh, yes. The deeply offensive "anti-choice" Super Bowl TV ad. One fact is clear: there is no reason to invent absurdities. They just happen.

Check out this absurdity:

The Women's Media Center, which had objected to Focus on the Family advertising in the Super Bowl, said it was expecting a "benign" ad but not the humor. But the group's president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle [a simulated tackle of Tim Tebow's mother] showed an undercurrent of violence against women.

"I think they're attempting to use humor as another tactic of hiding their message and fooling the American people," she said.

Fooling who? We won't get fooled again.

PS. Please, I beg you, my liberal peers. Don't stop talking.

I Am Sad: Are We All Atheists Now?

Please turn the page, or click the digital exit door, if you came here for words about politics. I am not in the mood. My faith is calling.

I am sad today. Last week I tracked down an old blogging acquaintance; this blogger had closed shop a while ago and I was just checking in to see if anything had changed at that quiet URL. No, the blog was still closed, but there was an announcement: the blogger had become an atheist, a soft atheist. There was a lengthy confessional posted about the loss of evangelical Christian faith; there were some links directing readers to a new start at a new site, and to discussions elsewhere.

I am not simply sad because of one person. I am simply sad because I think atheism is far more pervasive than most Christians understand -- and that the church is filled with people one minute away from rejecting the faith they zealously proclaim.

This is not a polemic I am writing. I could, of course, slide right into one. I could point out how absurd some atheists sound; I could point to that whole set of "leading atheists" who reject the possibility (or the concept) of an "uncaused God"; that such folks are wildly absurd for the simple reason that in one breath they reject an uncaused God and the next celebrate the glories of an uncaused universe. God is summarily rejected because His origin is inexplicable, while the universe is embraced as the totality of Being even though its origin is also inexplicable (and then adored because it is "all a mystery"). 

People have their reasons for believing what they do. I know. But I react negatively to those who assert they are deep when they are really rather shallow. I react strongly to people who think they are critical thinkers when they are really only critical people. I react strongly to atheists who believe themselves the guardians of reason and denounce theists as reason's enemies. Indeed, I react strongly, negatively, to conceit, arrogance; the presumption of knowledge, wisdom, or insight. 

I am not even remotely suggesting my friend falls into any of these categories; I would be wrong to imply such a thing. But I am quite certain that some of those who counseled my friend, at least after the fact, were indeed people oozing with a sardonic conceit. The comments at my friend's blog prove this. 

I am also sad about other things, particularly about the church. I feel like, in many ways, the church itself does not really believe what it proclaims; Catholic or Protestant, it seems that Christians don't really believe anymore. This, of course, is irrational of me, I know. Nevertheless, it sometimes feels as if we're all atheists now. 

When I have a serious issue in my life, a demanding need, to whom am I most often counseled to ask for help? The state. 

When I approach a church with a pressing need, to whom am I often directed? The state. 

If I have need of clothing, food, shelter; if I have addictions or wounds profound, where do I turn? Rarely, if ever, the church, except for short-term help. 

If my house is on fire, who helps me? The state. 

If I need nursing care for my elderly parent, where do I find that help? Who is ready, who is set up, to offer such help? The state, ditto. 

If I've lost my job, or I need health care coverage, do I turn to my church? Does my church hire me when I am without work? Does my church give me Medicare, or unemployment insurance?

I know there are many churches that do great works. But my observation is that churches are only equipped to provide short-term care. In fact, my deep conviction is that American Christians are so involved in pursuit of their own happy lives, they've freely relinquished to the state those things the church had provided for centuries. 

__________________

I read a while back that Catholic churches were reconsidering how to offer Holy Communion in light of the H1N1 outbreak. It seems there was much concern that the Lord's Cup -- the Lord's real blood -- might transmit the flu virus from one communicant to the next. Isn't this an admission that the Lord's Cup is not one whit sacred? Think, really, of what this suggests! 

Forgive my disjointed observations. But there is something seriously amiss in much of what is offered as Christianity. I make no special claims; I have no answers. I am merely venting my own frustrations.

__________________

It's Super Bowl Sunday. Better leave church early: I've something special to prepare. 

For You Football Fans (And Other Geeks)

With the Super Bowl bearing down upon us, I thought the following passages from yesterday's Wall Street Journal might be of interest. In part, the Journal article, "The Time It Takes To Win It All," compares the preparation time required for a team to perform in the NFL with the time necessary for success in other endeavors. Check this out:

"According to an operational study of National Football League teams prepared for The Wall Street Journal by Boston Consulting Group, the typical NFL season requires 514,000 hours of labor per team. That's about eight times the effort it took to conceptualize, build and market Apple's iPod, according to BCG, and enough time to build 25 America's Cup yachts. If both Super Bowl teams dedicated themselves to construction rather than football, their members could have built the Empire State Building in seven seasons.

"If you divide a team's total preparation time by the number of yards its offense gains on the field in a season, you'll find that an NFL team moves at the rate of about 32 hours per foot. And it's only getting worse: According to interviews with NFL personnel, the study's authors say the total prep time per team has nearly doubled in the last 20 years."

The whole article is a fascinating read, especially for those of us drawn toward the geekish.

By the way, here's to watching the Saints go marching in, over and over again.

Peace.

PS. And according to another WSJ article, despite the fact that a typical NFL game lasts about four hours, the football in any given NFL game is only in play -- that is, moving -- for 11 minutes. 

Contratimes Clips: Tebow, Toyota, Etc.

Here's what you already know: Various liberal women's groups, and some liberals in general, are upset with an advertisement scheduled to be aired during this weekend's Super Bowl. The ad apparently focuses on a mother's decision to keep her child rather than choose the abortion recommended by her doctors. The child? Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow. 

Forget what you've heard. The umbrage and alarm over this ad have nothing to do with "choice," since the ad is clearly about making a choice, a choice for life. The real source of liberal outrage is plain and simple: the pro-choice/pro-abortion advocacy groups cannot compete with a story of their own. What happy tale can be shared during the Super Bowl about a woman who DID abort a child? There may be one, but I should think it would be hard to reproduce on film. 

The ad's message, ultimately, is akin to that voiced about suicide: no problem is so bad, no issue so irresolvable, that death is the better choice.

_________________

Toyota has always made incredibly reliable cars, but I never thought them all that exciting. Until now. I mean, for those of us who like an exciting driving experience, "an accelerator problem" sounds like an oxymoron.

What will be interesting is to see if someone crunches the numbers and discovers that Toyota's problems are not all that unique; that when compared to the sets of all cars, cars with design problems, cars with such problems that lead to accidents, and accidents so-caused that lead to injury or death, perhaps Toyota's numbers will be found to be totally within a norm. Maybe this is all media-driven, government-driven hype. 

What do you do, by the way, when your car accelerates unexpectedly? Here's what I do: I throw my clutch (or I put the car in neutral). Or I put my foot on the brake. If that doesn't work, I use my emergency brake.  And if I can't think that fast -- these are all so unusual and complicated, I know -- I shut the engine off. 

But if I am driving a Toyota and none of these works, well, then, I can safely conclude that Toyotas are a total piece of junk. 

_________________

Why do you think Barack Obama and his administration are so enamored of giving criminal trials to people who are clearly more than criminals? I think it might have to do not so much with national security, but Mr. Obama's personal insecurity. After all, this is a man who believes himself a constitutional and legal scholar. Keeping terrorists and enemy combatants in the federal court system gives Mr. Obama the opportunity to speak meaningfully about such matters; it keeps them in what he believes is his wheelhouse. To send them into the military justice system removes them from his many probing pronouncements. But he's insecure; he wants to control his image. And one aspect of that image is that there is nothing about him that is accustomed to, or comfortable with, anything military. He is the consummate outsider, but he mustn't let that be seen.

Keeping terrorists in criminal court, in short, gives Mr. Obama a reason to show-off. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

The Audacity Of An Opinion: Thoughts On Perceptions Of Race

[Note: This essay was written over a year ago. I wrote it in response to several rather mean and incendiary emails I got from readers of my 2008 post-election essay, "I Know But Do Not Feel." I post it so late because I needed to let some time pass, of course, being rather raw by the vicious criticism I received. But I also post it because of the recent comments about race made by some of my liberal peers, most notably Mr. Chris Matthews. Odd that I haven't gotten a single email about Mr. Matthews' remarks. Odd, too, that no one who found fault with me minded that Mr. Matthews, white to the core, said that it was his "job" as a "journalist" to make sure Barack Obama succeeds. Surely a white newsman breaching etiquette by announcing the first-ever black president is too weak to succeed without his help should have been perceived -- and denounced -- as a self-righteous oaf given to making racially-charged statements, but he wasn't. Funny. And yet simple and honest words written here, which were not racially-charged at all, elicited serious censure and rebuke from those folks who believe themselves the moral arbiters of all things racial. This merely because someone had the audacity of an opinion about his experiences -- through media, education and society -- of race. - BG]

Not terribly long ago I talked with someone who had a difficult time with my essay on what the racial import of the election of Barack Obama meant to me. My essay was affective in thrust; being intensely personal, it explored how I felt in the wake of Barack Obama’s election. I offered to readers a sort of autobiography: I discussed how I experienced race, and racial justice, in America. I mentioned the role movies, books, sports figures, TV, and entertainers played in portraying the issue of race; I mentioned that I am (along with millions of others) the product of a national effort to eradicate racism via media, art and education. Countless articles have been written and countless interviews given; countless documentaries and essays have been produced, all focusing on the role media have and must play in dealing with racial injustices in America. From film to disc, from poem to song, America has worked on racial harmony -- for decades.

Born in 1961, the same year as Barack Obama, I can’t help but be a part of that legacy. I have been shaped, molded, affected and moved. What person has not? In fact, the vast majority of Americans have experienced racial injustice through media, whether it be through newspapers, books, letters, poems, film or song. I would venture to guess that even many black people, who have perhaps experienced direct racism in their lives at some time, would admit that many of their feelings about race have been formed in the womb of media. Few blacks, really, living today in America can say that they have experienced racism all day, every day, of their lives; I would think there is no one in America, white or black, who would assert that every black and white encounter can be defined as white supremacy and black subjugation; that every encounter a black person has with a white person is racially charged, where inferiority meets superiority or where the disenfranchised meet the enfranchised.

What I am saying is that the vast majority of what any American would call “experiences of racism” are not directly experienced. Instead, racism is experienced only after it has been processed through the media we have come to accept as intrinsic to American life. Few racial incidents actually happen each day in America, at least when compared to the total number of social incidents that occur. But racism via media -- through reportage and screenplays and essays and sermons -- is depicted rather constantly.

Let me put this another way: Remember the story of black churches being torched in the 1990s? Remember how reports that arsons, and fires of undetermined origin, had ravaged black churches across the south in America? I am sure you do. Do you remember, too, that when some astute observer finally did the math; when it was demonstrated that the rate of fires at black churches, including arsons, showed no distinct difference from those fires and arsons at all churches, including all “white” churches, do you remember how the story of racist arsonists just seemed to disappear? In other words, much of what we believe to be racism is merely fueled by the sensationalizing media.

But if the inflated story of arson at black churches does not suffice as an example, let me point to two more events that influenced perceptions of racism in America, both of which were entirely media-driven; both of which were nearly entirely perceived by blacks and whites SOLELY through the media that produced the events. The first is the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles. The second is the O.J. Simpson trial, also an LA phenomenon. The former was undeniably essentially media-driven: the very videotape of the King beating necessarily presented a very narrow, reductionistic view of that event. There was no context, no backstory provided by the videographer. All that was projected was cops beating a helpless black man. As a result of the very restrictions of a camera -- a camera cannot review a wider or total context -- countless figures in media stepped forward to create a fictionalized context for that unfortunate event: Rodney King was beaten merely because he was a black man in America. It is not my intent to comment on the merits of that case; I am specifically talking about how media influenced, even created, the perception of racism. Virtually no one in America, save a couple of people, experienced the Rodney King event directly. Instead it was experienced solely through the media filter, and then shaped to fit prejudices and ideology.

And when the officers charged with assault in the Rodney King beating were dismissed, that dismissal, almost entirely, was experienced by the masses through media. So, too, the ensuing riots.

The OJ Simpson murder trial is hardly any different. This, too, was a media-driven spectacle: it wasn’t the facts on the ground that created the racial narrative that plagued that case, but Simpson’s legal defense team and the media that team exploited who created a racial narrative out of whole cloth. In other words, the racial component was not ever experienced directly by anyone; it was only insinuated, and then passed on through media where it was perceived and apprehended, second-hand and artifically. Call it racism artificially disseminated.

Hence, I can say with some confidence that media of all kinds and shapes have framed all of our experiences and interpretations of race and racism in America. What I noted after the election of Barack Obama was hardly unusual, strange or incomprehensible. The slightest open-minded and honest reflection would have shown that my words were rather clear.

Here’s a question. What do 99.9% of Americans know of Barack Obama, and how do they know it? Answer: Not much, and they know what they know of Barack Obama SOLELY through media. Few people have experienced him intimately, directly and exhaustively. But millions and millions of people believe they know and understand him; they believe they REALLY know him for themselves. But the unalloyed truth is that they know only an apparition: they know him through books, essays, reports, photographs, film and audio clips. Most people know him the way they know many if not most things outside their direct experience. The reliance on media to inform and direct and even shape perception is ubiquitous, irresistible and even overwhelming.

How strange, then, that a person who blithely (and perhaps even blindly) supports Barack Obama finds fault with me because my experience of race in this country is shaped by media and not direct experience. It is not strange, really. Many of us have come to expect such vapidity, even such stupidity, from our interlocutors. Many folks who think they are deep thinkers are really remarkably shallow, closed to any idea that they are indeed shallow.

Let me restate what I wrote in November 2008: While I fully UNDERSTAND what the election of Barack Obama means, both existentially and historically, his election did not FEEL at all new or different. I have seen black men and women in every imaginable high place: Doctors, lawyers, judges, senators, secretaries of state, generals, mayors, governors, astronauts, bishops, news anchors, movie directors, corporate gods, Wall Street millionaires. None of these has been without black representatives for a good chunk of my life; the truth of what I am saying is exactly what made Barack Obama feel so comfortable running for office in the first place. He saw no obstacle, and there wasn’t, and I, and all of us born in 1961, saw no such obstacle, either. Hence, Barack Obama’s election as a person with darker skin than mine did not FEEL SPECIAL -- to me! Nay, it did not feel special or even surprising to me and many of my peers. Is this too hard to grasp? Is this an affront to civility? Is this an indecorous statement to make in mixed company?

Is this the wrong side of history?

So be it. Let the fussy scolds take umbrage at my simple statement of the facts.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

OOPS!

In the process of showing someone how to embed a video on Blogger, I inadvertently posted one here. So, for those of you who receive Contratimes via email, I apologize for the weirdness. The video was quickly deleted. 

Fouad Ajami -- again.

Should the article at this link be mandatory reading? You decide. (And then let me know.)

On J. D. Salinger: Holden Holds In

Permit me to preface this essay with a quote from Ambrose Bearce's amusing The Devil's Dictionary:

DISTANCE, n. The only thing that the rich are willing for the poor to call theirs, and keep.

I did not initially write at Contratimes about J. D. Salinger's death because I did not think there really was all that much to say. Surely there were others with analysis to offer, and mine, should I offer any, would be aptly inferior.  But I did draft a note right after Mr. Salinger's death, posting it on my Facebook page; perhaps those words are a fitting start for what follows:

Though I was not a big fan of The Catcher in the Rye, I remain an avid fan of Franny and Zooey. A legend has died; may J.D. Salinger finally be at peace.

_________________

Let's take a look at a passage or two from the Wall Street Journal essay about Salinger's death, "J. D. Salinger's Long Goodbye":

How can you grieve for a writer who has been, for all practical purposes, dead for half a century -- one defined by his refusal to publish or even to appear in public?

As the WSJ astutely suggests, if only by implication, there is really nothing to say about Mr. Salinger's work that has not already been said, precisely because the man stopped writing a long time ago. Salinger has given us nothing new; he has been utterly invisible for half a century. The WSJ continues:

Salinger, uniquely among major writers, seemed to go in the opposite direction, from public storytelling to private, until he reached the point where it was unnecessary to admit any readers into his fictional universe.

The purpose of "Franny and Zooey," with all its Zen exhortations, was partly to predict and justify this development. When Salinger declared that he was writing for himself, not for the world, he was echoing the words of the Bhagavad Gita that Seymour and Buddy Glass posted on their wall: "Work done with anxiety about results is far inferior to work done without such anxiety, in the calm of self-surrender." Yet this philosophy seems incompatible with the writing of fiction, which is nothing if not an engagement with the world and the self. It seems highly unlikely that the books Salinger wrote for his own pleasure—if they exist—could be as lovable as the books he wrote for the pleasure of his readers.

Really, what more can be said? Salinger's pen turned inward, too inward, apparently, for him to share with the world what it was in the literary life that he found so lovely, so wonderfully freeing and instructive.

When I first read The Catcher in the Rye my sophomore year in high school, my teacher told all of us in class that the easiest way to remember the essence of The Catcher in the Rye was simply to pronounce the narrator's first name -- "Hold In". Our teacher would note, "Just notice what Holden has had to 'hold in', and note what remains 'held in' even after he completes his plaintive confessional at the story's end." It was an easy hook, a helpful if incomplete mnemonic device, to share with listless and distracted sophomores, though perhaps too easy for purposes here. But it makes some sense, as does a college professor's observation that the family Salinger seemed most interested in writing about was the Glass family -- a fragile, lucent collection of souls (Seymour Glass = see more glass). Holden Caulfield was always holding something back, and it seems J. D. Salinger was, too.

_________________

Permit me to talk a moment about envy. Envy is a very subtle, pernicious vice. It is hard to descry as it silently wends through the grasses, through the reeds, thistles and thorns. Envy is sly, and always well-camouflaged.

And let me like others observe that both J. D. Salinger and his Holden Caulfield came from privileged backgrounds. So, too, does Salinger's Glass family. And now that I've made an observation of the rank obvious, I will delve into some of envy's psychology.

Sometimes the privileged don't like to be envied. They see it in the eyes of those they pass; they see it in the doorman or cab driver, or the young children who live in the "mean houses" at the end of the estate's driveway. They hear it in voices -- "You live there?!" -- "You went to Exeter?!" -- "You work in that building?!" -- and what they hear often makes them feel ashamed. Also, sometimes they worry that if they are not charitable enough, or earthy enough, or "authentic" or "common", they risk losing their wealth, their privilege; that the gods or the masses will smite them for being selfish and rich.

Of course the rich and privileged are not exempt from envying each other; when I traveled around the Hamptons, perhaps America's only truly super-rich enclave, I could not help notice how massive and imposing were the hedges circling each estate. But these, or so I felt, were not merely to keep the riff-raff at a distance, they were designed to keep the Vanderbilts from noticing that the Dupont's house was a bit ostentatious, or too big, or impractically small. There is profound envy among the rich; let us not be fooled.

Salinger fell into this whole game, or so I believe. His Holden Caulfield was doing one thing, and one thing only: he was sabotaging the image of wealth and privilege because of envy. On the one hand, he envied all those who still had more -- whose Christmas recess was celebrated not at Stowe, but at St. Moritz. He envied all those who had not just second homes on a lake in New Hampshire, but third and fourth homes in exotic lands; and he damned them. On the other hand, in venting -- in letting out what he held in -- he was also sabotaging the riff-raff's perceptions: he was saying to all the riff-raff out there that "we, the privileged, are not to be envied. We're as phony and unhappy as..." (As whom, everybody else?)

But notice, too, what the benefit of an attack on the life of the privileged has on those who live such a life: it keeps it out of reach. Recall the Bearce quote above, that the wealthy like to give away distance -- liberally. Don't descriptions of the privileged life showing it to be as empty and meaningless and vain and phony as any other type of life protect the privileged life?

Let me put it this way: If you have a friend who recently bought a huge, imposing mansion, and you say, as you tour the estate, "It is so lovely here, it is so beautiful! What a blessing to live in such a place. I am so happy for you," will he not respond with something like this: "Why thank you, but I have to tell you, the taxes are murder"? Might he not say, "We're happy, but boy, the upkeep is absurd"? Yes, he will say something like that, and his intent is this: "Please, don't envy me." And he responds this way because he fears that if he says merely "Thank you," the gods and the mobs will strike him with cancer or take away his wealth, or that he will be judged "greedy" or "avaricious" or "careless"; or that outsiders will declare,  "He thinks he's better than everyone else."

My sense is that Salinger's work was partly this sort of thing: Don't envy me. And yet, as a member of the privileged class in which much was expected of him, perhaps too much, he wrote what he did in part to set for himself what he perceived life's all-consuming goal: an enviable life.

For some people, when faced with the competition inherent in living, they rise to the occasion and they compete. Others, fearful, perhaps, of failure, runaway altogether. Envy is at work even in competition; it could be said that all competition is fueled by envy. But envy's most devastating act is this: feeling that it can't compete, that it can't live the most enviable life of the family or win father's love, envy rejects the idols of the family. So, James' older brother went to Harvard, and James, fueled by envy, rejects his own acceptance to Harvard and thus declares his brother's success as being beneath him; James chooses something more authentic, or earthbound, or domestic; he becomes a writer. But this is not James acting nobly but ignobly: his envy metes out justice on his family by rejecting the family's expectations. And yet, even in so doing, James finds success in that very act; he flees the good life and chooses a life of hidden letters in the remoteness of some wilderness. There he thinks, finally, he has created one of life's most enviable lives: A man from wealth and fame, who rejects it all for a life in the hills, alone, sickened by the phonies who want his attention.

And what does he really get? He lives a life of privilege, in the hills, with the riff-raff and even the muckety-mucks kept at a suitable distance, leaving his family and their privileged neighbors,"talking."

In other words, J. D. Salinger appears to this writer to have written a life with envy's pen solely to carve out a niche in the world of privilege that stands out from the phonies who live in the Hamptons or the Upper West Side. When I hear Holden Caulfield speak, I hear envy's whine, and little else.

It seems to me Salinger created Holden Caulfield merely to be the vicar of envy's ugliest machinations.

_______________

Granted, Salinger may have left us two lifetimes' worth of work in his Cornish, NH home. Perhaps he will explain everything, showing that envy had no hand in his work, his eccentric silence. Perhaps. But there is no doubt he seemed a man who had little peace. May he finally find the peace he was looking for.

_______________

Lastly, I must blame this essay on the very engaging essays of Contratimes reader, Randall Sherman, who wrote two interesting pieces on Salinger, which you can read here and here. 

Also, if you want to read a short story that I think exactly captures the struggle the wealthy have with envy, please read "The Garden Party," by Katherine Mansfield. She ably describes the anxiety the wealthy feel not only about their wealth, but about the gaze that comes from the "mean houses" (I borrowed this as shown above). And just note the irony in this line of hers when you read it in context: "Don't be so extravagant."

Blessings, from my little house in New Hampshire.


©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.