CHANGE, ONE YEAR LATER

MAN, n. An animal so lost in rapturous contemplation of what he thinks he is as to overlook what he indubitably ought to be. -- Ambrose Bierce

[see also, Barack H. Obama; Keith Olbermann]

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Contratimes Goes Offensive: Talking About Tea Bags

Forgive me, dear readers. I am about to sin. Seriously, DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED. But sometimes you DO have to fight fire with fire.

There is a vulgar and extremely crude expression used by many in the mainstream media; if those who use it were not liberals, they would be excoriated as homophobes.

The expression takes two forms, "teabagging" and "teabaggers." These are used to describe or label people who have associated themselves with Tea Parties, which are grass-roots protests modeled on the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Such parties have been rather popular over the past year.

If you do not know what "teabagging" is, then brace yourself. "Teabagging" is (generally) a homosexual act in which a dominate male dips his testicles in the open mouth of his partner.

To refer to folks participating in Tea Parties as "teabaggers" is homophobic to its core; it proves my thesis that it is leftists who support gay rights who are responsible for homophobia. It is also patently crude, puerile and vulgar.

Keith Olbermann two nights ago called Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown a homophobic teabagger, proving Mr. Olbermann is a crass child.

How to stop such hate-speech? I have an answer, and it comes in the form of a headline:

Brown Wins In Upset: 'Tea Partiers' Dip Bags in Gaping Mouths of Stunned Democrats

I guarantee THAT will stop Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Janeane Garofalo from using such homophobic slurs in an instant.

(I am truly sorry to have to post this, but someone has got to stop this awfulness. If I have lost you as a reader, well, I apologize.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

With Help Like This: When Martha Coakley's Defeat Began

Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley tonight lost her bid for the US Senate left by the late Edward M. Kennedy the moment these words were said on July 22, 2009:

"I don't know all the facts... I don't know not having been there and not seeing all the facts... but... the Cambridge [MA] police acted stupidly...."

If there is one thing I know about Massachusetts folks, they don't like their policemen being abused by anyone, even if the abuser is the President of the United States. The Cambridge police department, it is worth noting, endorsed the Republican candidate for the "Kennedy Seat" over Ms. Coakley, and this despite the amazing fact that Ms. Coakley's husband is a retired Cambridge police officer. Really, what can be said when the police unions in the bluest state reject their own attorney general? One can't help but think her support of the president did not set well with those who felt Mr. Obama misused his power to support a Harvard friend and denigrate a whole city police department.

I think historians should always look back to July 22, 2009 as the beginning of the end for Barack Obama's term in the White House. At least, that date marks the beginning of the end for Martha Coakley and the Democrats' most hallowed Senate seat. That, at least, is how history should score it.

One commentator tonight, a long-time pol who lives in Massachusetts, summed up tonight's loss as a "referendum on arrogance." Interesting, and mostly right. But it is also a referendum on the Democrats' greatest vice, epitomized in the July 22, 2009 remarks made by Barack Obama. That vice is being utterly tone deaf to the truth, and the people.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Quick Hits: Haiti, "Cheating", and Obama's Truck Fixation

There was considerable confusion and turmoil delivering goods to the victims of the 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia. At the time, it was reported that goods, supplies and provisions were not getting to survivors. If memory serves me well, coordinators from DHL and FEDEX straightened out that mess; goods and supplies were routed efficiently and effectively once the professionals got involved.

Sounds like the public sector working in Haiti could use some big time private sector help. Hopefully DHL, FEDEX and UPS, among others, are helping to get things going. Swiftly. But I do understand how difficult such a task is, particularly in Haiti, since the infrastructure to begin with was so limited. If there are only a few roads out of an airport and they are closed, well, there really isn't much one can do.

It's not like many of us in America have had UPS, FEDEX, DHL or the US Postal Service drop packages in our yards from helicopters.

______________________

I have seen at least one TV journalist lose control of his objectivity while covering Haiti. It is clear he has not kept his distance. I am not saying he should, but it is clear his humanity has gotten the journalistic best of him. But there is one fact that people who believe relief is not coming swiftly enough seem to forget: There is no Spiderman. There is no action figure or super hero; there are no Jack Bauers in the world. Relief comes slowly. It's just the way it is. The real world is not TV; the real world is not a movie. No one is guaranteed a happy ending.

_______________________

In Massachusetts right now, voters are turning out to elect the successor to Edward M. Kennedy. The two nominees are Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. As you probably know by now, Mr. Brown has a significant lead in the pre-election polls in a state that is so blue even its clams are Democrats.

In his speech Sunday in Massachusetts supporting Martha Coakley, Barack Obama mentioned Scott Brown's pickup truck six times (Mr. Brown drives a GMC pickup with 200,000 miles on it). Below are all six instances Mr. Obama referred to the "truck":

• "Now, I’ve heard about some of the ads that Martha’s opponent is running. He’s driving his truck around the commonwealth and he says that he gets you, that he fights for you, that he’ll be an independent voice. And I don't know him, he may be a perfectly nice guy. I don't know his record, but I don't know whether he's been fighting for you up until now, but --."
• "So, look, forget the ads. Everybody can run slick ads.  Forget the truck. Everybody can buy a truck."
• "Now, what we're proposing is to make sure that taxpayers get their money back from the rescue that we had engaged in at the beginning of this year, thanks to the bad regulatory policies of the previous administration.  And so we asked Martha’s opponent what's he going to do. And he decided to park his truck on Wall Street."
• "Now, there’s a big difference here.  It gives you a sense of who the respective candidates are going to be fighting for, despite the rhetoric, despite the television ads, despite the truck."
• "So I’d think long and hard about getting in that truck with Martha’s opponent. It might not take you where you want to go."

I have heard others comment about Mr. Obama's truck fixation, but none of these commentators seems to have heard what I hear. What I hear is a man using language that is sexist and racially-charged. Women should be particularly anxious about a man in a pickup truck, as Mr. Obama says: "I'd think long and hard about getting in [Mr. Brown's] truck... [he] might not take you where you want to go." And African-Americans should "think long and hard" about riding in a white man's truck; we all know what a white man in a pickup truck really means.

Maybe I have heard too much. Maybe I am so cynical I can't hear with clarity what a politician actually means. But I have no idea why the President of the United States would use a white Republican man's truck as a reason to steer clear of that man. I have no idea why a pickup truck should be an object of aversion. And I have no idea what a President of the United States is doing scoffing at one of his constituents and all those Americans who have put 200,000 miles on their trucks.

Note, too, Mr. Obama's lovely locution: I know nothing about Scott Brown. But I do know he is this and this and this.

Oh, and one last laugher. Mr. Obama intended to sow fear by suggesting Scott Brown would park his pickup truck on Wall Street. Nice! This from a man who sits in the Oval Office because the largest donors to his presidential campaign were Wall Street financial and banking firms.

Sick.

_____________________

MSNBC's Ed Schultz had this to say about the Massachusetts special election:

"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I’d try. Yeah, that's right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."

Splendid. And Fox News is Faux News!

Did you read Mr. Schultz' apology? Here it is:

"I misspoke on Friday. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I meant to say if I could vote 20 times -- that's what I would do."

___________________________

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had some nice things to say about Scott Brown:

"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible homophobic racist reactionary ex-nude-model tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."

I am wondering if anyone can find for me a single personality on Fox News that is Mr. Olbermann's equal? If so, has that Fox News personality EVER said anything as vile about a candidate for public office as what Mr. Olbermann has said here?

Mr. Olbermann, by the way, is a strawweight.

_____________________

Just some thoughts.

Dear Fox Business News: DICK GREGORY SHOULD NOT BE INVITED BACK

This morning I wrote and sent the following email to Fox Business News. As you know, FBN produces and broadcasts the "Imus In The Morning" program. Because I care for an elderly woman every morning who likes to watch Mr. Imus's show, I end up watching or hearing a good portion of that program each day.

Here is my email to Fox Business News on this holiday:

To whom it may concern:

This morning's appearance of Dick Gregory on the "Imus In The Morning" program is particularly absurd considering he should have been disqualified from ever appearing again on FBN or Imus after his repulsive remarks of 11/12/2009 concerning the Fort Hood shooting. In November, Mr. Gregory had the temerity to suggest the US Army had somehow conspired to allow that horrible shooting to occur. Such remarks were not only offensive and paranoid, they were intended to sow hate, fear and doubt. Mr. Gregory should have been strongly rebuked and challenged at the very moment those cruel insinuations were voiced.

And the same goes for this morning's reprehensible remarks. That Mr. Gregory was permitted to imply, without evidence, that the US government and its military are not doing their best to help Haitians in the wake of last Tuesday's earthquake is patently obscene. His insinuation that something is suspiciously amiss with the Port-Au-Prince airport's runway being intact and yet the tower is not, and sundry other comments of similar paranoia, should be received with the swiftest and clearest censure FBN can offer. Moreover, Mr. Gregory's remarks about race relations in America are deeply divisive, offensive, delusional and demonstrably false.

Sorry, but that's just how I feel on this Martin Luther King Day.

FBN, and the "Imus In The Morning" program, not only should publicly and clearly distance themselves from Mr. Gregory's offensive comments, they should publicly apologize for NOT confronting such sick remarks immediately, and for inviting Mr. Gregory to speak after what he said two months ago.

Lastly, it strikes me as incredibly curious that Mr. Imus would have as a guest Debra Dickerson, the African-American scholar who wrote an article arguing Barack Obama was not legitimately "black," and Mr. Gregory, who said this morning that African-Americans do not categorize their own according to skin tonalities. Disgusting all around. And that Mr. Imus has not sought noted conservatives like Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, or Walter E. Williams as regular guests  -- outstanding people, all -- is also rather telling. To the casual observer, it appears Mr. Imus is still attempting to atone for something. Trundling out paranoid hate-mongers like Mr. Gregory does not amount to any sort of atonement whatsoever.

Sincerely,

Bill Gnade

A Dire Emergency

If ever the United States needed to respond to a situation, it is now, to the Haitian earthquake. This is a crisis few of us have ever seen. I urge the US president and Congress to act swiftly, fully, and without wavering. This will require the humanitarian equivalent of a major military conflict.

President Obama, I urge you to make an executive decision and extend the fullest -- I mean the FULLEST -- response to Haiti that America can give. This will make Katrina seem a small problem. Or so I predict. Please act. Please focus. Please think about this for more than a few minutes. This is a full-on national and international crisis.

The survivors of the Haiti quake, sadly, are not likely to be survivors for long. What comes next could be far worse than the few minutes of shaking ground. Disease is already afoot. No minute can be lost.

Tragic Thoughts

When I heard about Haiti early last night, I could feel, just for a moment, the despair of Port-Au-Prince. But I am safe in a nice home; I am far away from such suffering. Anything I felt was simply imagined.

It is hard for me to pray. I do offer up prayers, but what, really, do I say? It is not as if I know what the scene is like in that sad country. It is not as if I know what should be done. If there is a God, surely He knows what to do; surely He has already heard the news. I ask myself, as I pray, whether I presume to think my prayers matter when there are hundreds of thousands of Haitians crying out, their faces turned toward the stars. I also ask myself if I think I am hoping to phrase my words, and align my faith with those words, in such a perfect way that God must act, that God must respond? Do I think prayer is mere incantation, a voodoo spell?

I am seeing things, I know. I see a nation in abject poverty; I see chaos, death, despair. I see disease. I see crime. I see revolt. I see war. And I see someone, some Venezuelan or Cuban or even an American, stepping forward to intervene, to calm and charm the Haitian people: I see a peacemaker full of political guile.

It's what I see. I wonder what God sees. Better if I just keep my eyes closed.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Contratimes Fragments: Reid, Gold, Potatoes, Steroids and Mark McGwire

As I peeled potatoes the other night in preparation for the making of a very fine soup, I noticed during this lovely exercise in domesticity that the longer I peeled a potato, the smaller the peels were that I removed. In fact, the last few peels were tiny.

Talk about an observation of the obvious.

Peeling potatoes may be a dreadful parallel to what I consider an absurd optimism about the recent economic news, but so be it. Last month's job-loss numbers -- a mere 85,000 or so -- were considered good news by many who believe in the current president's economic policies. Why good news? Because the numbers were much larger when the current great recession first began; 85,000 is comparably few to what we're used to seeing. But I haven't a clue why this is good news at all, for anyone. All it means, or at least all it COULD mean, is that the peels are getting smaller because there is so little left to peel. Imagine if I took 3 minutes to peel a rather large potato; in the first minute I might have a hefty pile of peels on the cutting board. In the second minute I'd likely produce a smaller pile; in the third, well, even smaller. You get the picture: If all jobs were cut over the next few years would it be good news if, in October 2013, it was reported that the very last job available had been cut? I guess so, since only one job would have been lost that month. Absurd. (The possibility of a jobless recovery seems quite real, by the way.)

_____________________

Early last year, as I saw a sudden increase in TV commercials encouraging investment in gold, I made an off-the-cuff prediction that the next great bubble would be the gold market. I don't think, really, that my prediction is all that crazy, despite what G. Gordon Liddy says. Gold as a valued commodity strikes me as almost archaic; its value is not intrinsic, but extrinsic. If this was 1020 AD, gold would indeed be dazzling. But in 2010? Gold? For what?

Seriously, gold strikes me as one of the most inflated things on the planet.

_____________________

Sen. Harry Reid's rather indecorous remarks about Barack Obama and race were without a doubt an indictment not of America, but of the Democratic Party. In Reid's honest opinion, the Democratic Party was not ready to nominate* a black man whose skin was too dark, too quintessentially African; or who spoke in a dialect that was too "Negro." No wonder Democrats are coming to his defense; no wonder Al Sharpton has absolved him so quickly.

Pointing to the history of racism in the Democratic Party is a scary, scary thing.

*I note that this has not prevented the party from electing other African-Americans to lower positions who do not conform to Sen. Reid's image of a good candidate.

_____________________

Baseball legend Mark McGwire's recent admission of steroid use is interesting, particularly since he claims that he used the performance-enhancing substances for health and not performance reasons.

I have heard people argue that all steroids can do for baseball players is make them bigger and stronger, and that such drugs cannot help a batter make contact with a pitched ball: You still have to possess the coordination to make solid contact; strength does not help with that. But such an argument is really a load of bahooey.

Batters gain three advantages from steroids:

1. Since steroid-using batters are stronger and hence able to generate more bat speed more quickly, they can WAIT LONGER before swinging at a pitch. Hence, they have an advantage: they can study a pitched ball longer, and can therefore better predict its trajectory.
2. Since such batters are stronger and thus capable of generating more explosive bat speed, a mis-hit ball can and will travel faster and farther, even out of the park. "Normal" players who don't make solid contact will not get the ball out of the park, whereas abnormally strong players may. 
3. Steroids make all the muscles in the human body faster and stronger, including the muscles which focus and move the eyes. Therefore, steroids help with hand-eye coordination. 

Mr. McGwire should just accept and confess the truth. It's the natural thing to do.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Let's Face It: It's A Rough And Tumble World Out There

I've always suspected that life as a drug smuggler in Mexico is rather difficult, but I could never have guessed just how difficult it really is. Perhaps this headline sums it up:

Mexican Cartel Skins Rival's Face, Stitches It on Soccer Ball

Who, I wonder, would have been given the task, and who would possess the necessary skills to perform such a task, of skinning and stitching?

The story sure gives a whole new meaning to, "Wilson? Wilsssoooonn?!"

"Private Talks" On Healthcare: The End Of Public Service?

Moments ago, New Jersey Congressman Frank Pallone, a Democrat, gave an interview on television about "transparency." His answer was stunning, and it included the use of the word "private" at least five times.

Recent complaints have been voiced that Mr. Obama's many campaign promises that C-SPAN would be permitted access to every step of the healthcare reform process (and other legislative debates), have been anything but kept. Mr. Obama, as you know, campaigned as a champion of transparency; his would be the most open and accessible administration in history. (Speaker Pelosi has made similar claims about the Congress she helps lead.) But it seems that C-SPAN is not really happy with the access it has or has not had.

And this is what Mr. Pallone was being asked about: Where, Congressman Pallone, is the transparency when C-SPAN is not permitted access to the current debates between house and senate delegates over the details of a final healthcare bill?

Essentially (and I am not making this up) Mr. Pallone dismissed the charge that legislative transparency appeared rather opaque, saying that the healthcare reform process has been the most transparent legislative process ever. But, he added in self-contradictory (?) fashion, NO BILL could ever be passed without "private discussions" or "private conversations"; that it was impossible that ANY legislation could EVER be passed without "private" dealings between legislators. Hence, C-SPAN had gone far enough, or Mr. Pallone averred. Not everything could be transparent.

So, what does this mean? First, it means Mr. Pallone shows us that Barack Obama's campaign was wrong: the amount of public access to the legislative process has ALWAYS been satisfactory. Mr. Obama's campaign promises that -- finally  -- America could witness for itself the legislative process were foolishly superfluous: NO LAW can be finally legislated EXCEPT in privacy. No amount of C-SPAN coverage will change any of that. In other words, if the amount of C-SPAN coverage of healthcare is fine for Mr. Pallone, coverage that is equal to anything that happened in previous years, then there was no need for promises of "greater transparency."

Second, Mr. Pallone has shown that Mr. Obama, who served a brief stint as the junior US senator from Illinois during his bid for the White House, was making promises out of utter ignorance, OR with utter disregard for truth. Surely ANY senator would know that there is a profoundly well-guarded "private" dimension to legislation. To imply American litigation would be finally fully transparent once Mr. Obama was elected president, as Mr. Obama surely did, was either born of Mr. Obama's ignorance of the PRIVATE legislature that exists in the secret chambers of a PUBLIC house and senate, or Mr. Obama was lying when he promised transparency. He either knew that "no bill" can be passed without "private talks" or he didn't. If he knew it, then he lied. If he didn't, then he was ignorant.

Interestingly, Mr. Pallone is not alone. His defense of "private conversations" -- and keeping C-SPAN at bay -- is also offered by progressive Igor Volsky of the Center for American Progress:

"It’s no exaggeration to claim that health care reform is only possible because of the ritualistic ping-pong back and forth that occurs through private conversations."

Mr. Volsky, in true progressive fashion, added that C-SPAN's access to the whole debate, while part of a transparent process, did not "improve" the legislation or the legislative process. In other words, transparency is wildly important -- at least when George W. Bush was in office -- but transparency does not really "improve" anything.

Huffington Post writer David Sirota summed up Mr. Volksy's argument perfectly:

"[Volsky is saying that] Transparency might be fine and dandy, but it didn't improve anything -- and the only thing that improves anything is secrecy."

In the end, what we discover is that the awful way things were done in the Bush Administration were not all that awful, and that those who have taken up the noble duty of "public service" can only do their best work in "private talks."

Who could have known that there exists such a precious and vital private sphere in the the public halls of Congress?

I, for one, would have liked it if the former senator who occupies the White House had known about this private-sector intrusion on the public sector of Congress BEFORE he ran for office.

©2010/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Cover Your Ears! Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, And The Cross

Fox News contributor Brit Hume recently said something controversial -- on TV! -- about the nature of Christianity. Perhaps you heard his blasphemous remarks; perhaps you heard his great insult.

And perhaps you didn't.

Well, at least one person did -- Ann Coulter. I know, I know, she's a firebrand. She's a bombshell bomb thrower; a crass ideologue; a political pit bull. But set the caricatures of her aside for a moment and read what she has to say about Christianity, about it being the best deal on the planet. Is she right? Has Ann Coulter presented the gospel in a way that does justice to the "good news"?

You tell me. I'd love to hear what you think of "If You Can Find A Better Deal, Take It!" And I'd like to hear what you think of Mr. Hume's remarks, too. (Coulter quotes him at length.)

Peace.

Shelby Steele: Simply Unbelievable, And Right -- Perhaps The Best Commentary Of The Year

If you do not know Shelby Steele, he is a conservative intellectual whose mother was white and father was black (you know -- like Mr. Obama's parents).

Check out Mr. Steele's TRULY STUNNING commentary, "Obama And Our Post-Modern Race Problem." It is one of the year's finest essays. In fact, it might just be the best essay of the year.

Imperfect Pensées, Again

Last night -- somehow -- in the process of putting both my feet beneath the coverlet on my bed as I retired for the evening, I injured my right ankle. Imagine! Just the gentle movement of getting under the covers left me lame. What, pray tell, does this portend?

No doubt great things.

*

Does it bother anyone else that the year may end -- or next year might begin -- with a law dropped upon us from on high that everyone in the United States must have health insurance? Where, O, where are the radicals of the 1960s who helped shape me from my mother's womb? How is it that conformity -- by law -- to the "establishment" and its government is now seen as progressive? Where is the rebellion from authority? Where are those who urged me to live my life unfettered from authoritarianism; to "be my own person" at all costs? Where are those who shouted from the rooftops that the government had no right in our bedrooms, that it had no claims on our bodies?

Apparently they are in the United States government and its fawning class.

("You can't legislate morality." Yes we can!)

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Bearing Glad Tidings

My dear friends, blessings to you. For those of you who celebrated Hanukkah, I send my belated wishes of joy and peace: may your light always shine.

To my Christian friends, I wish you a blessed and Merry Christmas.

Joy to the world, indeed!

The World's Greatest Golfer Seeks Relief From A Really Bad Lie

As Contratimes readers know, when the unfortunate story broke about the World's Greatest Golfer, I chose to criticize the media gluttons who would prey on that story. I feel, largely, that I was right to take that tack, as the indiscretions of the World's Greatest Golfer have pushed from the spotlight news about troop increases in Afghanistan, the Great Climate Clash, the racially-motivated assassination of 4 police officers in Washington state, and the religiously-motivated Fort Hood massacre. Instead of these important stories, the prurient media give us, apparently, what we "want."

A few minutes ago, for the umpteenth time, I listened to professionals explore the psyche of a man, a man known as the World's Greatest Golfer (WGG), who "has it all." The WGG is the "very embodiment of the American Dream," or so it goes -- a handsome and athletic man possessing fame and fabulous fortune; owner of mansions and yachts; husband to a beautiful wife, father to two lovely children -- and yet, somehow, none of this was enough to make the WGG happy. Why?

Here are just a few of the "answers" to that apparently very perplexing question:

• The WGG is under too much pressure as an athlete
• The WGG is under too much pressure as a competitor
• The WGG is under too much pressure as an archetype to the African-American community
• The WGG is under too much pressure as a business commodity
• The WGG is under too much pressure as a philanthropist
• The WGG is under too much pressure as a role model
• The WGG is bored with life; everything is too easy, and hence he seeks drama, danger, adventure
• The WGG is unmoored as a result of the death of his father, who probably served as an anchor to his son
• The WGG is in rebellion now that his overbearing father is dead. Finally, he's doing things "his way." Finally, the little boy who was so sorely repressed is now acting out
• The WGG is suffering an identity crisis: he is not sure of his race, or what his own heart is telling him about who he really is and what he truly wants
• The WGG is a victim of perfectionism, with its attendant expectations, all of which are absurdly unfair and unattainable
• The WGG is a victim of social stereotypes, among which is the stereotype that black men MUST philander, and MUST do so with leggy, buxom, and blonde white women

Enough. You get the picture.

But what is really at the heart of these bits of "analysis"? What are the underlying premises that go unspoken when we hear such things?

My sense is that a good chunk of the media are doing their very best to avoid denigrating the myth that "having it all" makes a person happier, better, and nobler than his or her less fortunate peers. In a sense what they're saying is that the WGG does not have it all: if he did, he would be happy "having it all." In the minds of the media, there is no defect in the myth, but in the possessing: The WGG is missing something. He does not quite have it all. And once he finds that missing something, he can be happy, whole, and the perfect incarnation of the American Dream.

And I am also under the impression that a very different chunk of the media are doing their level best to sabotage the idea that the American Dream is a good dream: it is, in fact, an unattainable, nightmarish fantasy. The WGG proves this.

Of course, I realize I am in a sense trying to have it both ways, i.e., some in the media seem to be suggesting that the WGG does not perfectly possess all the American Dream has to offer; if he did, he'd be deliriously happy; and some in the media want us to believe that the American Dream is a corrupting influence, victimizing the WGG, turning him into something unhealthy, even reprehensible.

But what if it is a lot more simple than all that? What if the WGG is just a lecherous pig? What if this is just about pure lust? What if it is just about narcissism in the basest sense? What if this is, in a very real way, best understood in religious terms; that this story is about sin, and not psychology or sociology or both? That this is more satanic than Freudian; that this is best fixed not by therapy but confession, repentance, absolution, baptism? Conversion?

___________________

Perhaps in reports that the WGG's wife had issued him an ultimatum -- "It's either me or golf!" -- we can find some sense of a "true story." No doubt the WGG, when caught by his wife, admitted his indiscretions (that's too mild a word) with these sorts of qualifications:

"There's so much pressure on the Tour! The competition, the press, the sponsors!"

"Even when I win on the Tour I need relief from the pressure. Sometimes I can't bear to win -- or lose -- alone. I just have to release all that built up tension! You've no idea."

"All the women look like you because I wish you could be with me. I can't stand to be away so long on the Tour."

"There are just so many women hanging around the guys on Tour. They're everywhere. You've no idea the pressure."

In other words, perhaps the WGG would want his wife to believe that the problem is extrinsic to the WGG, and not intrinsic. Or so it seems he might have led her to believe. Why else her ultimatum if he did not paint a horrid picture of the pressures and temptations associated with professional golf?

But let's pull Occam's Razor out of the bag. The best explanation is the simplest: The WGG is a sinner. Let's not give him excuses, especially the lamest one of all, given, no doubt, by countless husbands countless times: "There is just so much pressure. I need relief."

©2009 Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On A Particular Man Who Golfs: Can We Leave This Alone?

Should I say anything about the greatest golfer in the world?

This morning I heard a member of Big Media say that, despite all the important news that should demand at least some of our attention, a certain golfer's peccadilloes will dominate Big Media because, well, "that's what the people want."

But is that true? Do you call your local TV station or favorite news anchor and beg for reports on the most salacious aspects of a person's life? Do you thirst for gossip? Think of it this way, and it is all rather simple: Who first broke the story about the World's Greatest Golfer who crashed his car? Was it Big Media, or someone like you, a "consumer"? I think you know the answer.

Clearly, Big Media seeks to exploit any story -- let's be honest -- for fiscal gain. The tale about the World's Greatest Golfer has profits apparently written all over it.

But what is the news here, really? It would be nice -- wouldn't it? -- if someone stood up and said, "Move along, folks. There is nothing for you to see here. Move along." Didn't someone, somewhere, used to say and do exactly that? Move along. Mind your own business. This is a private matter.

The World's Greatest Golfer is naught but a fallen god. OK. We get this, and we've gotten this hundreds of times in the past: People are not perfect. Wow, thanks for the BIG LESSON.

OK. The World's Greatest Golfer might lose his endorsements. Is that really big news?

OK. He might have to mount a comeback, ask for a mulligan; he will have to "dig deep." Haven't we heard this sort of thing before, ad infinitum and yes, ad nauseam?

Yes, yes. We know our heroes are mortal, stained, blemished, weak. Yes, yes. There are indeed many who enjoy feasting on our heroes' sins; who find pleasure in others' pain. But are we not sick of all this -- YET?

Big Media: A fast-food joint that comes to you dishing out triple scoops of schadenfreude. For free. Everywhere. 24/7.

Resist Big Media. Let's kick the ever-living schadenfreude out of it.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Fouad Ajami: The Arab Street & Barack Obama

Once again Fouad Ajami does not disappoint in his essay "The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama." I doubt you will feel you wasted the few minutes it takes to read Mr. Ajami's piece.

Be well.

A Contratimes Replay: The Death of C. S. Lewis Remembered

From the Contratimes archives, 2005:

Today I give thanks, though not in a holiday sense. I will wait two days for that fine American celebration. Instead, I give thanks for a man who died 42 years ago today, in England, his death overshadowed by the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Odd that this man, along with Kennedy and the great humanist Aldous Huxley, would have died within hours of each other.

I am talking of C. S. Lewis. No other person of letters, I believe, has had a more profound impact on my life, even if I admit that there are other writers and thinkers I prefer. For it was Lewis who set me on my way, speaking to both heart and mind; emboldening me to live a life where faith and reason, where mysticism and intelligence, are not exclusive one to another, but two sides of one glorious and mysterious coin. In him I met Christ the thinker, the poet; the creator. In him I met the Christian imagination with all its possibilities: Narnia, Ungit, Perelandra, the pantheon, and even Middle Earth. Hobbits came to life for me, largely because of Lewis' love and support of his best friend, J.R.R. Tolkien, and both men's unwavering devotion to the ancient creeds of Christendom.

And in the wake which Lewis left in my life, I fell on St. Francis and St. Thomas, George MacDonald, G. K. Chesterton, E. C. Bentley, Owen Barfield, Sheldon Vanauken, Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft, Grady Spires (an unpublished elvish genius), T. S. Eliot (whose work Lewis abhorred), Charles Williams, Malcolm Muggeridge, Madelyn L'Engle, and even Annie Dillard. Though there might not be a causal chain between these writers' works and Lewis, there is indeed a causal chain between Lewis and my reading them, for he inspired me to be a thinking Christian, and I am all the better for that chain, and for that inspiration. And had not Lewis' books found their way into my life, I doubt that I would know of John Donne, Thomas Traherne, George Herbert, or even William Butler Yeats. And I am not afraid to say that I might even be dead now without the influence of Lewis' testimony.

This is neither idolatry, nor is it gratuitous beatification. Lewis is my mentor. He has, along with Christ, preached to me in prison; he has descended into hell and handed me a tiny silken thread, the very thread he found in the dark and venomous mines described in MacDonald's "The Princess and the Goblin." I hold that thread now, standing, as I so often do, in the deep and chilly dark.

Early this morning I was reading Peter L. Berger's A Rumor of Angels, a famous little book written by the lauded sociologist from Boston University. In his examination of the death of the supernatural in modern society, and the apparent death of God, Berger shared this anecdote:

A few years ago, a priest working in a slum section of a European city was asked why he was doing it, and replied, "So that the rumor of God may not disappear completely." [emphasis added]

Lewis could have been that priest, for surely he worked in the slums of so many forsaken and forsakeable ideas. Lord knows he worked in mine. And in small homage to him, I do the same, here and elsewhere, trying to keep rumors alive.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

I Am Sorry

To the few faithful readers I have, I want to apologize for my silence at Contratimes. Simply, I am exhausted.

Peace to you.

Bill Gnade

Hitchens: Mother Teresa Can Go To Hell (If There Was A Hell)

Christopher Hitchens, the erudite atheist and belletrist, recently had this to say about Mother Teresa:

"Mother Teresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean who comes to that conclusion who isn't a complete fanatic? She took -- and I would directly say stole -- millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it -- when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize -- that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it's a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to." [emphasis added]

Mr. Hitchens offered his charitable, lucid opinion of the beloved saint during Dennis Miller's Internet radio program.

UPDATE: November 10, 2009: Mr. Hitchens apologizes