No, We Aren't

(Inauguration Day, 2009)

It is ironic that Jamie Foxx, one of many pop-culture icons on hand Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial lauding America's first pop-culture president, Barack Obama, would quote the late Thurgood Marshall during early inaugural festivities:

“Each of you as an individual must pick your own goals. Listen to others but do not become a blind follower. Do not wait for others to move out. Move out yourself. Where you see wrong or inequality, speak out, because this is your country, this is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.”

Has there ever been in the history of the American people a more blind, conformist, passive and incurious mass than those who have deified Barack Obama? Have you met a single Barack Obama supporter who has an original thought in his or her head about the man? Have you met anyone informed about who this parvenu actually is, what he stands for politically, and what he has actually ever accomplished? This is a president without a resúmé, and yet "change has come!" This is a president who has neither a record of success nor one of failure, and yet "hope is here!" Granted, a case can be made that the election of George W. Bush to the office of president is incontrovertible proof that one needs no qualifications to serve in the Oval Office, but at least Bush had been something, even if that something was a failure. He may have only been a governor of a large state; he may have only been a poor businessman. But at least he had a record, a provenance; even if his life was replete with failure and mediocrity, we could map those failings for ourselves. But Barack Obama, whose only notable qualification is that he has been perpetually running for president, is surrounded by millions of folks who adore him, blindly, mindlessly (and even cynically); he is revered for doing nothing more than, as Hillary Clinton said during her campaign, giving a speech (or two). Jamie Foxx urges the very people who have acted like a common, disinterested and mindless herd not to "become blind followers." The irony is too great not to note.

Inauguration Day. This is NOT a great day for America, though I will say it is an exciting and important day for Americans who have been under the impression that America has been such a bastion of racism that the election of a person with darker skin than white could never be elected to the presidency. I am happy for those who find some message of potential and possibility in his election. But today is a bad day for those who disagree with the over-arching theme of the inauguration -- that "We Are One" -- for the simple reason that America is not one. Over 56 million people voted against Barack Obama: 46% of those who bothered to go to the polls believed he was not fit to be president. And there is no evidence -- NONE! -- that those who opposed him, and STILL oppose him, harbor ANY racial ill-will against him simply because his skin is dark. There are millions of disenfranchised voters not applauding this day -- for reasons having everything to do with ideology, with policies -- and nothing to do with race. Those who voted against Barack Obama do not see "change"; instead they see 1992 and corruption, scandal, in-fighting, smoke-and-mirrors promises, and deception.

We are not one.

I am grateful to a Boston radio talk show host for reminding me yesterday of one of the political left's mantras repeated during the bulk of the Bush presidency. That mantra was shouted even by Hillary Clinton in the wake of Bush's (and her) decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq: We heard "Dissent is not unpatriotic!" from all sectors of our nation's disenchanted. But if dissent was patriotic under the Bush regime, it is surely as glorious under the Obama regime. I admit I do not hold much in common with the host who reminded me of my right to dissent, but I do accept his commentary that the double-standards inherent, not only in the press but in the Democratic Party itself, are so despicable that dissent is not only the only option, it is the noblest option.

For this citizen to be in good standing with his own conscience and convictions, dissent is my only choice. And no, I am not afraid of the ridiculous rejoinder that I must therefore be a person who supports inequality, injustice, racism, oppression, torture, war and "the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer." Moral rectitude is not, even by a long shot, the banner flying over the Democratic Party and its new president. I dissent against deception. I dissent against idolatry, of worshiping a mere man. I dissent against the claim that "America's standing in the world" as defined by pop-culture has been elevated by the new imperialists moving into the White House, led by a pop-idol president. I dissent against the obvious socialistic plans of the new regime; I dissent against the fear-mongering used by Mr. Obama to push down the throats of the American people a "stimulus package" that we need "urgently," and I do so noting that such dire and frightful forecasts coming from Mr. Obama's lips are religious in nature and not one whit factual: he claims to know outcomes he cannot know, telling us we "must" do X and Y before it is "too late," that we are in "imminent danger" and we MUST act with a "preemptive" strike against this mother-of-all recessions. (The economic alarm rung by Mr. Obama sounds exactly like the "non causa pro causa" global warming fallacies used by the likes of Mr. Al Gore.)

I dissent against the idea that America looks to a president, some guy in Washington, for inspiration. For guidance. For direction and hope and a moral compass. I dissent against the day we have become so pathetic we must be reminded by a president and a Congress that we need "national days of service," as if America heretofore had been struggling to find volunteers: that until we all saw Barack Obama roll paint on a wall yesterday, Americans had no idea that helping others was a good thing. I dissent against the idea that kindness is to be a matter of law, and not a matter of grace.

And not only do I dissent against the welfare state, I dissent against those who believe the state -- the collective unified as one -- and not the individual acting in freedom, is the basis of the American constitution. I dissent against the new master/plantation mentality already evident in the new regime -- that the master will provide jobs, stimulus, safety, ease -- if we all just comply, if we all just pick our cotton and stop our partisan bickering -- and give the fruits of our slavish labors back to the master to redistribute fairly among those who are "less fortunate." I dissent against a state that seeks to enslave and indebt its citizens to itself. And I dissent against the Ponzi scheme that is the Obama regime's economic plan.

I dissent against the blindness of people like Bono -- who has made himself into a god, perhaps a lesser god. He seeks to eradicate poverty, and yet can countenance -- and participate in -- an inauguration costing more than $105 million. Recall the OUTRAGE over President Bush's intent in 2004 of spending a mere $40 million for his inauguration -- and Bush's party was during the heights of a sterling and thriving economy. Today home foreclosures are at an all time high; Barack Obama has warned us of how dire things are in this recession. And yet things are not so dire that he and his minions would consider refraining from blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on pop-idols and party favors. (Barack Obama believes Americans will overlook these huge expenditures, or so it is reported.)

We are not one. And no we can't.

In honor of the words of Thurgood Marshall, I shall indeed pick my own goals. I will NOT be a blind follower. I will fight injustice and evil and idolatry everywhere I see it. I will NOT be like the common herd that has gathered at the beck-and-call of pop-culture, baptized by the zeigeist, at the National Mall.

Peace through dissent.

BG

Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #1: You Have Not Denounced Idolatry

Dear Senator,

Blessings -- again -- to you. I recognize that tonight is a difficult one for you: you may be on the very threshold of something new and wonderful, but the death of your grandmother must surely sting. I bid you well.

I know I have plodded along in five other essays outlining why I cannot vote for you. Forgive me. I do have my reasons, not least of which is that I want to demonstrate that I disagree with you not because of who you are (I actually like you a great deal). Rather, I disagree with you on the issues, the philosophical issues, that are before us. Our disagreement is really about ideas, and ideals.

Sir, I know you call yourself a Christian. I am not here to divine whether that is true. I know you even said to Christianity Today that you "believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." I recall hearing you talk about Reverend Wright leading you to faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I understand that sort of language; I, too, accept the truths of the ancient creeds.

But here's my issue, sir, and perhaps someday you and I shall have a chance to discuss this face to face. My issue is with the clearly messianic language you and your supporters are using in this campaign. My issue is with your use of New Testament passages to ground your economic plans. Perhaps I have this wrong, perhaps I should be saying my "issues," for I obviously have more than one.

Let me ask you: When you tell us that America's grave sin is that it has forgotten Jesus' teaching that "whatsoever you do to the least of My brethren you do also to Me," are you under the impression that Jesus is talking to the American secular and civil state? I don't see how you can be, but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. But how can I be? I heard what you said, and it was clear: you've even talked about the Sermon on the Mount being normative and prescriptive for American culture; I've also heard you urge Americans to remember that we are to be "our brother's keeper." Why would you do this? Are you sure you should be planning on leading this country by Christian principles?

And what, pray tell, has become of the Democrats' many fears about right-wing theocracies? Egads, Senator Obama, you're perhaps the most theocratic-sounding candidate of my lifetime. You make Pat Robertson sound like a rather viable candidate: you've said things on the campaign trail that are every bit as "religious right" as his many campaign statements. Somehow, however, you've not been vilified by the media or your party for such declamations. You are free to quote the Bible from the podium any time you wish. But what place does the Bible have in forging the policies of the secular state?

For the life of me, Senator, I particularly do not know how you can for one minute stand the idolatry happening before your very eyes. Your supporters have deified you, and all you are is a mere candidate for president. There is nothing divine about you; you are not the messiah. And yet you somehow reconcile your claims that Jesus is Lord with letting others treat you as if you were a lord yourself. How do you do that? And haven't you heard that the Christian's "Great Commission" given by your Lord Jesus Christ is to go out into the world and tell others that He -- not you or the state or the nations united, not peace or prosperity or fair taxes -- that He, Jesus Christ, is the only hope for each and every human soul? How is it that you have not asked people to tear up those signs bearing your likeness under which are inscribed "hope," and "progress," and "change", when you, by your own faith proclamation, cannot EVER be hope? And even if you are a mere messenger of hope, surely you know that any message of hope that is not rooted in and centered on Christ Himself is not hope at all, but an idol?

I wonder why when Louis Farrakhan actually called you the messiah I did not hear from you, shouting from the very rooftops, your denunciations of such blasphemy. I know Mr. Farrakhan has been honored by your own church and its pastor; I know you have denounced both in a variety of ways. But what I have not heard is you stand up and defend the Messiah you said saved you. How is it that you would not every day denounce these sorts of appellations, these sorts of idolatrous blasphemies of the One Lord into Whom you have been baptized?

In short, Senator, your weakness at denouncing these sorts of remarks; your tepid response to the thousands of people who have elevated you to a position that you know is not yours to hold, actually frightens me. Why this silence and complicity from you, a fallen man who claims to know the one true and only Messiah?

I could hear and see this idolatry early on in your campaign; I blogged about it long before this worship of your person was well-known. I am not claiming that I was anywhere near first to notice, I am simply pointing out that you have permitted a cult of personality to be formed around you like no one I've ever seen in American politics, and somehow you have let your Christian faith accept what is not yours to accept.

For that reason alone, sir, I cannot vote for you.

Lastly, let me note that one could make the case God has raised you up to be a transformative character in America. Of course, you know all too well that those whom God has raised to play a mighty role are often prone to fall, and fall terribly. Many a good man turns his back on God, pride eating away all sense of gratitude and humilty that remain in him. Let it be said that God has raised you up, that God is leading the way and you are the banner of His new direction (Christian homosexual activists have argued that the Holy Spirit is indeed changing what it means to be a married human being, among other things). But haven't we heard others say this about themselves, too? Didn't George W. Bush get lambasted and berated by your own party for believing that God was at work in him?

How then, dear Senator, is it possible that your party has suddenly accepted that God and you are somehow one in purpose?

In the end, Senator Obama, you may be a Christian, and I certainly believe you are, but I have no idea what sort of Christianity you embrace, as you seem utterly indifferent to the high place you've allowed people to place you. But the Lord I've known in the quiet and simple and tragic moments of my life, has told me that such a high place is already taken.

Jesus the Christ, born of Mary the Virgin in the town of Bethlehem, has been raised to the Highest Place where idols are not welcome. He is the Chief Cornerstone on which all false gods are shattered. He Alone is Progress and Change and Hope. He is the Uniter.

Jesus the Christ, God Incarnate.

"In the beginning was the Word," and the Word was not any one of us.

Peace to you.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

On Christian Living: Writing Only For The Faithful?

A few weeks ago I wondered aloud to anyone close enough to hear whether I was throwing my pearls beneath my own cloven feet. One of my concerns was that I had somehow forsaken the hope to which I had been called -- the "riches of [Christ's] glorious inheritance in the saints" -- in an effort to earn some other accolade. Specifically, I wondered whether I had been pulled off course by my many vanities, enamored of the idea that I needed to prove to the world that I, a serious and orthodox Christian, was nevertheless intelligent, properly worldly, and satisfactorily clever. Had I forsaken truth and the gospel of freedom merely to advertise that I wasn't a dimwit? Had I engaged in petty and popular polemics solely to impress? Were my many words simply cries for approval, approval from those outside the Christian Church? Did I publish here like a wild dog marks his territory, suggesting some sort of dominion, some sort of mastery to which the learned must show respect?

Even now, in these very words, I wonder: Why am I being so careful, so circumspect, as I type these words? Am I, even in confession's presumed transparency, still clouded by hopes that even in this well-expressed self-doubt, I will earn readers' applause? Is vanity still at work here? Am I still striving to impress those who stand decisively outside Christianity's creedal borders, those who have deemed Christians inferior and dumb?

Years ago I had a dear friend named Ben who would often wear, to the newspaper office where we both worked, a T-shirt listing the names of "Famous Unitarian-Universalists." It was an impressive set of names, though I could not refrain from always noting the shortness of that esteemed list. I also noted that had anyone decided to make a garment listing famous Catholics -- or, more broadly, famous orthodox Christians -- it would be much grander than a simple T-shirt. It would, in fact, be very much like a wedding gown, with a train as long as history.

But I had to admit to Ben that I was using fame differently, for most of the famous orthodox Christians of history are not really famous, at least not in the Henry David Thoreau/Albert Schweitzer-Unitarian-way some people are famous. Fame is not something Christians are called to attain, nor is the doing of good deeds cause for celebration. Good deeds are simply to be done. They are not something that is considered special. They are assumed.

However, it would be faulty to argue that there isn't a penchant for fame-grabbing and fame-naming in many Christian circles. Some of us recall how quickly the evangelical community proclaimed Bob Dylan's declaration of Christian faith in the early 1980's. Christians have their own list, though no Christian dare wear that list in public. Modesty and humility call us to self-restraint. But we literary-types who accept Christ know too well the names we can drop: T. S. Eliot, Graham Greene, J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, G. K. Chesterton, Fyodor Dostoevksy, Evelyn Waugh. Many of us aspire to be similarly listed.

Alas, have I given myself over to this idol, this idol of notoriety and fame? Have I meant to impress the world, without even thinking at all whether I am impressing the God I claim to adore? I have known my share of local notoriety as an award-winning news photographer and journalist; I have felt the pride in having people notice. But I wonder if in writing for a broader audience (here and elsewhere), and in taking on topics not usually within the scope of my interests, I am looking for the approval that sits in high places, the sort of places that serve as apparent gatekeepers of culture: The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, and, sadly, Oprah.

Last week I almost reached the conclusion to forgo any writing that was not solely directed at a Christian audience. This not because I was suppressing my idolatry, but because I felt I was wasting my time writing to anyone else. How many folks, really, do we need commenting on Al Gore, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Sean Hannity and sundry other absurdities? Need I analyze George W. Bush's language when others are not only more qualified than I, they are more astute and even more passionate than I could ever be? Or IS this sort of stuff my passion?

But the theme of my many questions is the search for obedience. My musings need not solely circle around the idol of fame or approval, for there are many idols to which Christians give undue obeisance. There is, for certain, the idol of intelligence, of wits, to which I am particularly vulnerable; at its very worst, I fall servant to the idol that proves I am not as dumb (or mean) as those Christians over there. It is a nasty idol to serve. But how, really, do I obey God here? Simply by not tipping my head or genuflecting when my idols pass nearby? And is it at all beneficial to the Church, to the called faithful, that I spend anytime wrestling with matters where any victory will neither edify nor inform?

I wonder too much, perhaps. Yet I am reminded of the very lucid and simple exhortation given by St. Paul: Whatever you do, do it heartily unto the Lord.

Lord, how I try.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

God, Bootlegged

On Saturday morning, just before Barack Hussein Obama stepped out from behind the temple veil to reveal his plan to make each of us happier people, MSNBC's Chris Matthews ejaculated that Abraham Lincoln, the great statesman who once governed in Obama's home state, would be dancing for joy at the familiar site of Springfield, Illinois' capitol building; and how it now served as the backdrop to an "African American" announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States. Remember, Matthews gushed, this is where Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Moments later, deep into his own emancipation proclamation -- calling for an end to poverty, promising resolution in Iraq, and freeing us of our fearful dependence on foreign oil and its attendant destruction of the atmosphere -- Mr. Obama said (in bold) this in a list of wondrous deeds Americans have performed as ONE:

"In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." [emphasis added]

Of course, the "King" referred to is Martin Luther King, the fallen and iconic civil rights leader.

Perhaps in this age where some do not respect the fences erected around us by the scribes of copyright laws, by the good manners of attribution and the love of one's neighbors' own genius, it is easy to honor the wrong men, the wrong women, even the wrong gods; or to steal for oneself the giftedness of others. Lakes steal from springs and rivers, and rivers abscond with lakes' blue riches, only to find poverty in the sea that robs from the sky as the sky steals back. So great leaders, apparently existing unto themselves where all greatness is apparently shared, are remembered for the great things they have said, even though they did not say them.

Abraham Lincoln may have said, "The house divided against itself cannot stand." And I may have said the same thing in a speech as vice-president of my high school senior class. But I was not quoting Lincoln, and Lincoln was not quoting himself: we were both quoting Jesus Christ the Plagiarized.

And then dear Mr. King, who surely gave the right attribution in his original speech, acknowledging his mentors' gifts to him and their own genius, never did say a thing about "justice rolling down." The Jewish prophet Amos did, a fact Mr. King learned as a Christian in Sunday School.

Clearly Mr. Obama and Chris Matthews have both missed out on these apparent trivialities. Who cares if religious language is stolen for political purposes; who cares if the fullness of genius was found in the prophets who uttered what the world most likely had never before heard? What matters is that it takes a certain amount of genius to plagiarize for political gain; to forget that true justice is rooted in the heart and language of God, and to take His honor for oneself.

(It matters not the source, but the outcome, if you but believe in "destiny.")

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

American Eidola

You can laugh at me if you want, but I cannot be overly ashamed of myself for watching American Idol last night. It's not like I watched the whole thing, nor is it like I've watched every show thus far. I did not, and I have not. But I did see a good chunk of last night's broadcast of auditions from New York City, and I must say that the Big Apple seemed quite sliced and cored.

My thoughts are varied and probably contradictory about the morality of presenting to the world people who clearly have psychological issues. But this is, lest we forget, America, the home of the free to be equal and the land of the politically correct; so to handicap anyone for being, well, handicapped, is to be both illiberal and harsh. At the core of America's great progressive mythology is the idea that anyone can be whatever they dream themselves to be; and much political debate is spent on arguing how such dreams are to be achieved. I confess I have little patience for all such theorizing and haggling over terms and ethics, for it all, eventually, seems to be so much theater no matter how it is sliced and diced, drawn and quartered.

Two things strike me as sad. First, that it would seem very likely that many contestants could easily be self-promoting saboteurs. While this may seem a crazy oxymoron, it is not: there are contestants who seek to make themselves known by making a mockery of the process, and the very show, itself. American Idol's success surely has inspired its detractors, both within the entertainment industry and the culture at large. I would not be surprised if Idol encounters all sorts of guerilla-types: those who would subvert the popularity of perceived pop-star idolatry, and those guerilla theater-types who have a political axe to grind. Surely there are the Julliard-type aspiring actors who need to play a role; why not a role as an Idol contestant? Surely there are the Sacha Baron Cohen wannabes who stay in character at all costs, begging for attention from their acting peers, their fellow protestors, their fellow iconoclasts. Are many of these personae even real, even genuine, that walk or flit through the doors to face Idol's well-known judges? At times the whole thing reeks of camp, and it reminds me of the millions of face-less, nameless bloggers parading around the internet pretending to be what they are not.

My innocence, I am sorry to say, regarding "reality" programming was finally shattered when I called into the popular NPR show, "Car Talk" several years ago. How naive I was to think the show was at all spontaneous. Find out for yourself by calling 1-800-Car-Talk; the spontaneity is sheer artifice. You think those guys are brilliant diagnosticians when it comes to cars? Think again. The show is built on your phone call to an automated system wherein you provide the details of your car, its apparent problem, along with your home phone number and a convenient time for them to call. In other words, your problem is researched days, perhaps weeks, in advance.

That American Idol is nonetheless a worthy myth with doses of reality is completely satisfactory. It is, after all, a show meant to entertain.

But the saddest thing is not that Idol is a myth. What is sad is that another network (I will not mention which one, but you can guess: For you satellite TV customers, it's the network just two doors down from Fox News), has taken to the tawdriest form of journalism. Two different "news-based shows," both hosted by middle-aged men in ties, tonight had segments on American Idol. Both segments were all about denigration. And both segments were clearly born of jealousy and were meant to steal viewership -- and important ad revenues -- from a very successful and overall mostly harmless show (more on this some other time). In fact, I have seen several news segments over the last few months on said network in which Fox News, or some Fox personality, is the featured fodder for fun: even one particular commentator seems quite inexplicably obsessed with Bill O'Reilly. What we are witnessing in such TV programming is not the creation of superior art that trumps less successful fare; we are not witnessing a better team beat its opponent. What we are seeing is the talk-news, talk-TV equivalent of mere trash talk, of merely talking smack. One network in particular seems predisposed towards this sort of thing, and it is clear it is not Fox.

But forgive me for sounding like a shill for Fox and its news outlet. I am hardly that. But I am paying attention, and what I see is quite sad all around. But the saddest thing -- and it is even a little creepy -- is that other networks are doing stories about another network's shows. It is a sign of the times, Orwellian in language and Randian in import.

The have-nots want to steal from the haves, and the egalitarians are squealing.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Grand Vacuity

To my American readers:

Have you, fellow citizen, been waiting 200 years for anything? I think not. But what about America? Has it been waiting for some incredible event for over 200 years? Apparently it has been waiting, even chafing at the bit, for one very important thing: the ascendancy of a woman to the position of Speaker of the House.

Of course, I use the word ascendancy with a wink to irony, for to be Speaker of the House may indeed be a descendancy: these allegedly lofty posts supporting the dome of human ambition may actually be dehumanizing idols that mean, ultimately, nothing. To be priest or president, king or queen, may be the least humanizing and wondrous roles on the planet. But I digress.

America yesterday apparently made history. In the United States House of Representatives, a U.S. citizen who also happens to be a woman, was given a gavel, a chair, a title, and the keys to a new house. For 2oo years America has been waiting for Nancy Pelosi to become the first woman to speak in that esteemed house -- with authority and control and dominance.

According to this morning's New York Times, Ms. Pelosi had this to say about her elevation:

“This is an historic moment ... It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited for over 200 years.” [emphasis added]

I wonder if there are any women in America who might disagree with Madame Speaker. I am sure there are not a few. It would be fun to hear from them. But one also wonders where this sudden ebullience over feminism's success comes from. Has there, for instance, been a longstanding movement afoot to have a woman Speaker of the House? And even if there was, is this really that terribly historic? We have women CEOs and women astronauts; we have women university presidents and women surgeons general; we have women attorneys general and women presidential candidates. We have had two women secretraries of state, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. OK. So a woman holds a gavel in a house of Congress. Should I care? Should I care as much as Representative Loretta Sanchez, D-CA, who said she voted for Ms. Pelosi “for the empowerment of all women in the world”? (Wow, Ms. Sanchez.) Even Ms. Pelosi spoke of equality with some hyperbole (as reported by the Victoria Advocate), declaring, "By electing me speaker, you have brought us closer to the ideal of equality that is America's heritage and hope. For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling." (Wasn't that ceiling really broken years ago?)

Specifically, should I care about all this if men and women are equal? Are they? How so? If men and women are indeed equal, then why do I care if a woman is Speaker of the House, for is not a woman speaker equal to a male speaker? Moreover, even if I accept that men have far too long forged laws which affect women -- with nary a sense of what women need or want -- how is it any historic gain whatsoever to have a woman forge laws which affect men with nary a sense of what men need or want?

Of course, I am merely having fun here poking at certain American sacred cows. I am grateful that women have found "higher" stations in life. But there is a problem intrinsic to the language we use about equality that peeves me a bit, with such peevishness described more fully in my essay on equality and the former president of Harvard, Larry Summers, posted in 2005.

Other thoughts on yesterday's historic turnings:

• The New York Times' headline today could not be more apt: Jubilant Democrats Assume Control on Capitol Hill. Emphasis, of course, on the word assume.
• Democrat Harry Reid, the new Senate majority leader, said (according to The New York Times), “Guided by the spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats are ready to take this country in a new direction.” The final roll call for the Pelosi-for-Speaker vote in the House? "233 to 202, the 31-seat margin of the new Democratic majority," or so reports the NYT. So much for bipartisan cooperation.
  
• Since the Democrats "assumed" control of America's destiny, one American soldier has been killed in Iraq. I shall keep count from here on in, since it is clear any death on the Democrats' watch is their fault, no? Don't hold your breath counting on these folks to resolve the Iraq conflict any time soon. They would rather raise minimum wage than lower the death count. Apparently they are concerned our soldiers are not getting paid sufficiently.

Lastly, I am reluctant to ask Mr. Reid if he believes that the "new direction" in which he plans to take America is distinguishable from the old one.

Peace.

PS. What is Ms. Pelosi doing in the photo above? What is she trying to convey, express? Just wondering.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Speaker Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Equality

TIME Is Its Own Award: The Beast Is Honored

As you must know by now, TIME magazine has bestowed upon the masses the rather confusing appellation, Person of the Year. Of course, the editors of that fine journal understand their use of the language better than most of us: When they declare YOU, meaning, well, YOU, to be Person of the Year, and yet they mean US, which means, you and me and everyone else who use this medium, then their equivocal language begins to make sense: the Person of the Year is really the Persons of the Year.

And yet this is not really true at all; it is not one whit accurate. TIME is not lauding persons; it is not a person or persons who are feted by TIME's inestimable annual award. If TIME is praising or noting anything, if TIME is praising a force or phenomenon or movement or revolution of information, it is really praising personae, or personas. For the WWW is not filled with people (this is hardly a cybernation of real folks). Rather, the WWW is the cult of personaes. How many bloggers (of the millions), for instance, are known by name, by address? Who are the millions of people behind the screen personae we see everyday? TIME would have been nearly as astute in bestowing such great notoriety, even honor, on mere ANONYMITY, for the ANONYMOUS run rampant through this medium. My guess is that among those who are contributors to the "information age", or information deluge, there are far more unknown contributors than known. Only a few of us post our real names, and share images of ourselves, in clear and honest admission: we are not personae, but persons to the fullest extent this medium permits. And yet, though I end nearly every essay posted here with my name, my REAL name, I find that others refer to me as "Contratimes," though I do not refer to myself this way at all. And though I usually paste my initials or name in every comment I leave elsewhere, people seem to miss the self-identification: they refer to the name of my website as if I am the name of a place, or a position.

WHAT TIME HAS REALLY HONORED

But I am not sure that TIME is even noting the unknown users and contributors of the great global gateway. I believe that TIME is actually recognizing the gateway, the web or net or digital neighborhood or whatever it is called, as the Person of the Year. It is the WWW that TIME is honoring, is recognizing. We, mere contributors and consumers, are like the dust of Eden gathered together in so many small bits and bytes; we are giving shape to Adam, to Eve, while TIME, and others, are just trying to breath life into the great PERSON we are all creating: the great IDEA, the great SYNTHESIS and SYNCRETISM; the great nearly all-knowing machine called the Internet. The great BRAIN, the great whistleblower, police officer, guardian angel; even the great provider -- of goods and services and even love and meaning and affirmation and purpose -- that will finally unite us all as family, friends, brothers and sisters. Perhaps someday soon this whole thing will just run itself, and run us. And why not? IT knows our favorite books, our favorite movies. IT knows where we like to shop, what clothes we like to wear, what music we listen to. IT knows which men prefer brunettes, which women prefer Brad Pitt. IT knows who is a Republican, a Liberal, or a defender of the Labor Party. IT knows my religion, and IT even knows why I accept that religion. IT knows your status, your socio-economic standing; IT knows what you can contribute. And IT need not really know who YOU are: IT just needs to feed your IP address -- like any good parent -- with a cookie or two. To IT, you just need to be a number, and IT will take care of the rest. Just type in your prayer, and the answer will appear on your screen or land outside your door in a day or two (assuming you choose Next Day delivery).

Perhaps the single best proof of all of this is to be found in the picture of TIME editor Rick Stengel holding a copy of TIME's "Person of the Year" issue. One look shows something shocking: Stengel's own picture appears on the cover. Has TIME then bestowed the "Person of the Year" honors on itself? It seems so. But does this not suggest that TIME has actually anthropomorphized the Internet: that the Internet is US, is YOU, is all our faces and personaes and fragmented selves wrapped into ONE, one big YOU?

And then, of course, there is this story from TIME, "The Beast With A Billion Eyes: On the Web, anyone with a digital camera has the power to change history." It is this Beast that is referred to as the "Person of the Year" as shown in these two screen captures from TIME's website:


This is TIME's Person of the Year, a thing that is not really a person at all.

(And soon academics will gather to debate what "person" even means.)

Peace to you all, lauded members of the Thing of the Year.

PS. (added 12.18.06): Please note that TIME's cover is a mylar mirror: the idea is that you will see yourself in reflection. Of course, please note too that the mirror is a computer screen. In other words, you will find yourself look at yourself through a machine (which should give the philosophical idealists much to applaud. Go, Fichte! Go, Schelling!) It's all about creating a giant, thinking, feeling Machine -- in your image!!

Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: TIME, Person of the Year, Internet, Blogging, The Beast, The Mark of the Beast, Thing of the Year