The Complete Master Of Language

The god of language has spoken:

"Then you get the argument that this is not a stimulus bill, it is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point." -- Barack Obama

Critics need not bother the master with clarity of meaning. His deliberate use of language precludes them from even exploring the nuances of words in his presence. That Mr. Obama fails to note that tax cuts, tax holidays, and the like are entirely stimulative without the nasty necessity of spending a cent, proves only how stiffly precise language is when he is in command. He is, after all, editor-in-chief. Linguistic flexibility, by the way, is not a quality of "change we can believe in."

He can stutter and stammer and stall all he wants; he can read everything from a tele-prompter or note card -- even the simplest announcements -- but we are reassured by his minions we can be confident he has his finger on the red pen of self-editing.

Peace -- and prosperity -- through dissent.

©Bill Gnade 2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

A New Age In The Art Of Letters (Teachers' edition)

Inaugural doggerel dock
history ran up the clock

the man fell down
the land is clown

the king is changing locks!
(See Spot stop on the seesaw top)

--- Contratimes poet-laureate

_________________________

The authoritative words of an expert:

"Words matter. Language matters. We live in and express ourselves with language, and that is how we communicate and move through the world in community.

President-elect Obama has shown us at all turns his respect for the power of language. The care with which he has always used language along with his evident understanding that language and words bear power and tell us who we are across differences, have been hallmarks of his political career. My joy at being selected to compose and deliver a poem on the occasion of Obama’s Presidential inaugural emanates from my deep respect for him as a person of meaningful, powerful words that move us forward." -- Elizabeth Alexander, Obama Inaugural Poet

Dear Ms. Alexander:

Thanks for the lesson. I did not know that words matter, nor did I know we use them to communicate. Did you discover this on your own, or did you read it somewhere? But permit me to ask you a serious question: Do you really believe that "we live in ... language"? Please submit your revision by tomorrow's first bell.

_________________________

Indeed, as Ms. Alexander proves (or so she believes), Barack Obama IS SUCH A MAN of LANGUAGE. From his inaugural address (seriously):

We will harness
the sun
and
the winds
and
the soil

to fuel our cars
and run our factories.

Dear Mr. Obama:

Please rewrite. Explain how it is you plan to "harness" the soil. Is the soil untamed; wild? Is the soil running amok? Explain how the soil, once harnessed and apparently tamed, will "fuel" our cars? And please note that we have left the 14th-Century B.C.: the sun is not a chariot racing across the sky. Harness the sun? Will this require a bit, bridle and reins? Also, please study the problems in the passages below. I think you'll see (from my placing your contradictory sentences in a more direct sequence) that you have some serious reconciling to do before this piece merits a passing grade. Please revise and put your final draft in the mail slot for the English Language Arts team -- to my attention -- by 11.6.12.

On this day
we gather
because
we have chosen
hope
over fear

Our nation is at war
against a far-reaching
network of violence
and hatred.
This is the journey
we continue today.
We remain the most
prosperous,
powerful
nation
on Earth.
Our economy
is badly weakened
a consequence of greed
and irresponsibility
on the part of some
but also
our collective failure
to make hard choices
and prepare
the nation
for a new age.
Homes have been lost
jobs shed
Our workers
are no less productive
than when this crisis began
businesses shuttered
our goods and services
no less needed than
they were last week
or last month or last year
Our capacity remains undiminished

On this day
we gather
because
we have chosen
hope
over fear

Our health care is too costly
our schools fail too many
Our minds are no less inventive
and each day brings
further evidence
that the ways we
use energy strengthen
our adversaries
and threaten our
planet.
But our time of standing
pat
of protecting
narrow interests
and putting off
unpleasant decisions
that time has surely
passed

On this day
we gather
because
we have chosen
hope
over fear

These are the indicators
of crisis, subject
to data and statistics.
Less measurable
but no less profound
is a sapping of
confidence
across our land —
a nagging fear
that
America's
decline
is inevitable
and that the next generation
must
lower
its
sights.

On this day
we gather
because
we have chosen
hope
over fear

Today
I say to you
that the challenges we
face are real
They are serious
and
they are many.
They will not be met easily

On this day
we gather
because
we have chosen
hope
over fear
Our nation is at war

_______________________

I just love "standing pat", don't you? I do it all the time, except when I am sitting pat. Or patting stands.


Peace through dissent.

©Bill Gnade/2009. All Rights Reserved.

Perhaps it is the height of bad form to quote oneself. But how can that be, since the act of writing is a type of quotation of the first order, a first edition, so to speak, of quoting a primary source? Writing is a stenographer's transcript of the brain's mutterings -- the stenographer's mutterings. Regardless, I quote myself from the comments section of NH Insider, one of the other blogs where I post:

"With that said, language IS a lovely thing, and yet, sadly, we treat it all too casually. ...The casual, especially in language, has been elevated in America, taking on airs of sophistication, urbanity, and intelligence: casual sex, casual dress, casual speech, casual arguments, casual worship -- all are the signs of having arrived, of authentic individualism. The highest class is now dressed down; we define for ourselves what is comfortable, true, meaningful.

"I was listening to an interview the other day when the guest made the comment that speech structures in America have been reshaped by TV sitcoms and late-night talk-show hosts. Flippancy is now seen as sophisticated and informed; as a new virtue. And the quick comeback, the glibly spoken retort, is given at every turn. There is the expectation everywhere to reply with the sharp and witty quip that puts people at ease -- or in their place. Television is replete with these hasty, glib retorts; many of which are petty and mean insults. Sadly, our discourse has not escaped TV's less ennobling influences. We've become imitators of TV's characters that use casual EVERYTHING to flip the middle finger at intimations of authority, absolute truth, achievement, or moral clarity. As another social critic said, if your middle finger is NOT up in America, especially in social commentary, it is perceived by many in the intellectual class that you are not really well-educated. How sad."

(I guess I am guilty, or so I've been glibly told.)


©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

AnAlogy Gore-alogy: Fun With Al

As a preview to Al Gore's forthcoming book, The Assault On Reason (see my essay here), I thought it would be fun to see how readers complete the following sentence:

Al Gore writing about reason is like _______________.

OR, readers could finish this sentence:

Al Gore lecturing us about the assault on reason is a bit like ________________.

(For a few examples, you can look at the end of my essay posted Saturday, May 19, 2007.)

Invite your friends! Pass the word.

Blessings and blissings!

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Reason Is Not So Fooled: Al Gore's New Book

I am back, and I am mad as fire ants on skin. Actually, I am merely back.

Let me ask you a few questions. If I write a book entitled Freedom From Hate: Rejecting intolerance, bigotry and prejudice, and the psycho-social constructs that protect them, wouldn't you expect me to be free of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and the psycho-social constructs that protect them? If I write a book called Loosed At Last: Self-delivery from addiction, would it be imprudent of you to ask whether I was the one photographed last week puking with Christopher Hitchens outside Circa Tabac?º What if I pen the best-selling Regular As Sunrise: 10 sure steps to overcoming diarrhea? Would it be proper of you to presume that I did not write that fine book while sitting at a desk in my bathroom?

Just asking.
_______________

If the writer of Ecclesiastes is correct, that there is a season for everything under the sun, then there is a time for scoffing, for sarcasm. A friend of mine once said that she could not embrace Christianity because there was not a single reference in the whole Bible to God laughing. One wonders what she meant: the Bible has several references to God laughing at idols, scoffing at vanities, mocking false and phony gods. In other words, there is a time for scoffing, and the time is now.

You may have already garnered from my many essays about Al Gore that I am incurably Algore-aphobic. I am very discomforted by the over-crowding inside Al Gore's head. But that is the least of my phobias. I am much more phobic that Al Gore is presenting himself to the world as deity.

Surely you have heard that Mr. Gore is about to release a new book called (I am not making this up), The Assault on Reason. No, this is not autobiography, nor is it a confession or tell-all foisted upon the world to generate sympathy for his reckless rhetoric, his own sins of the mind. Those of us paying attention find just a hint of delight, an almost arthritic mirth, in the irony of it all: Al Gore is going to pontificate on the world's flight from reason. We giggle, but with some pain: our joints rattle and grind, joints battered by years if not decades of twists and sprains and hyper-extensions earned while fighting the fallaciousness of mass hysteria, even mass opinion.

Let us recall for the moment that Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is from credits-to-Oscar one long fallacy: the film unrelentingly confuses or, if not confuses, conflates correlation and causality in an almost insouciant non causa pro causa polemic. Of course, this is not to suggest that the conclusion is right or wrong; Mr. Gore may be infallibly correct in his conclusion that humans† are killing the planet and that the need for green living is of moral imperative. But his method is utterly irrational. His method is an assault on reason. Even his appeals to "most scientists" or "scientific consensus" are fallacious, as is his appeal to experts; both are fallacies, the former, the fallacy argumentum ad populum (or consensus gentium, the appeal to majorities), the latter, the appeal to authority.

In 1987, I had the pleasure of hanging out with Al Gore at a house party held on the edges of a tiny New Hampshire town. He was just beginning his bid for the White House; the twenty or so folks gathered in the kitchen and living room were remarkably interested in his words. But they were not sufficiently interested to give him the Democratic nomination in 1988, nor were they overly awed by him. My impression then (vague as it is now), was that the only person sufficiently awed by Mr. Gore was Mr. Gore himself.

Alas, I find he has not changed at all over the last 20 years. I also find that his current fans are giving him a pass. But since I am not a fan (nor am I at all current), he does not pass my way without receiving a jeer and a tomato (both the jeer and the tomato, by the way, are certified organic and totally carbon neutral; the jeer is also free-range). My incredulity slips into sarcasm at the idea: Mr. Gore has come to the rescue; he is going to enlighten us all to the true value and blissfulness of reason. He shall demonstrate logical perfection; he will rise above the profanum vulgus and model proper thinking. But one look at his unintentionally hilarious essay on economics from 2006 will give you a sense of Mr. Gore's vast skills in clear thinking. Perhaps my reference to that essay is unfair; perhaps lucidity is not one of reason's predicates. Perhaps muddied and abstruse prose is the crown jewel of reason. Perhaps.

The Gore Advantage

The advantage to writing a book called The Assault on Reason (TAR) is that the author instantly presents himself as the Most Reasonable Human. For surely the man who writes such a book could not be the most assaultive force on reason, could he? No, he could not. He can only be reason's protector, exemplar, purifier. He must be reason's very template.

And this is proven (I use the word the way Mr. Gore uses it) by TAR's description at Amazon. I would be remiss not to demand that you read it. Please! Go check out this most-reasonable description of this important bulwark against anti-rationalism. It is eye-opening: you will be aghast at your own benighted reasoning skills. A light will shine in your darkness, I am sure.

I just pray that the light shining in your darkness is not a bullet coursing through your incredulous head. I hope that, instead of inflicting any injury upon your lovely self, you will turn toward the light through derisive laughter. It is surely where and how I must turn. Laughter, for me, is the only reasonable alternative to suicide.* A high school friend of mine published next to his yearbook picture a veiled dig at the interminable laughter of a girl he thought he loved. He wrote, "Laughter is the air release of all one fears." But my friend was wrong. Laughter is not the release of all one fears. It is the release of all one hates. I either laugh at Al Gore or I kill myself; I either open my mouth and release my hatred or I open my cranium some other way in order to let out what I loathe. And I do loathe "Al Gore"; I hate him.ª But I do not hate Al Gore the man, the gentleman I met in 1987 or the man that holds his wife's heart. I do not hate the Al Gore loved by God. No, I hate Al Gore the commodity, the product. The merchandised. And the only passage to sanity I can find is one that demands -- for a season -- derision, mockery, scoffing, laughter. I laugh at Mr. Gore, at his absurd over-reaching.

(OK. Let me grant that there's nothing more irrational than for me to critique a book I have not yet read. I admit it is hard to read a book that is not yet even in print. But I am not sure it is unreasonable of me to make a wild prediction: In his new book, Mr. Gore is not going to be elucidating his many intellectual mistakes. Nor do I expect his book to consist of one long string of apologies. And I also do not expect Mr. Gore to admit that he is, of all people, quite eminently dis-qualified to write this book. This is a book that is, above all else, committed to promoting Al Gore.)

Al Gore's book is, like so many deeds and screeds of too many today, mere psychological projection. Mr. Gore is going to point out the sins of others not knowing (apparently) that such sins are his own. (I am reminded of what I wrote to Open Ide, a cowardly visitor to this site a few weeks ago.) And the only sins any one of us is truly expert in is the sins that are indeed our own. The Assault on Reason is a child's game of distraction: Look! What's that behind you?! Mr. Gore hopes you will ignore what is in front of your face, just so he can slink away, unchallenged, but nonetheless beloved for his commitment to "dialogue," to "reasoned conversation."

But Al Gore writing to us about reason is a bit like my lecturing Fabio on hair care. Al Gore promoting reason is not unlike Madonna promoting chastity. It's like Bill Maher telling the pope to cool down his opinions. It's a bit like Rosie O'Donnell advising Steven Wright on paradox, or Paula Abdul coaching Melinda Doolittle on how to be more vocally dynamic. It's a bit like George W. Bush giving tips to William Safire on how to pronounce nuclear (which, as we know, is just a variant spelling of unclear), or Eddie Van Halen telling André Segovia to be more subtle, or Anna Nicole Smith appearing at Fatima and urging women to remember her temperance.

In other words, Al Gore's book should be a failure before it even hits the editor's desk. Instead, it will be wildly successful.

Laugh your way to light. It's the season.

Peace and true mirth.

ºI mean this as a joke, of course. I do not know if that was Mr. Hitchens partying with me in Soho. But I do recall smashing rounds with a British atheist.

†Christianity has unflaggingly agreed with Mr. Gore since time immemorial, but with a twist. Humans are not going to destroy the planet. Humans already have destroyed the planet.

*I mean this facetiously, really.

ªMy hate is purely a rhetorical device.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Right? You Can't Make This Stuff Up Indeed

An anonymous comment was posted here this morning, though the person who penned it hid behind a pseudonym, Robert Throckmorton (the comment seems to have come through a server in Ames, Iowa, caucus country). And the comment suggested that I was paranoid and full of something like digested hay for thinking (see my essay here) that the Imus story was much bigger than race and sex (and that these were even distractions). The issue, I augured, was that this is about who will be the next president. (And I augured even more than this.)

Let me remind readers that Don Imus constantly referred to Hillary Clinton as "Satan." As wrong or as unfortunate as this may be, Mr. Throckmorton thinks that I am paranoid for thinking that Ms. Clinton benefits -- supremely -- from Don Imus' silence.

Now note this: Ms. Clinton is going to speak at Rutgers on Monday. Yes, I know. Paranoid delusions on my part.

This is all about winning -- for Ms. Clinton. She is, in her own words, in the presidential campaign "to win." As if there is any other option. So, desperately seeking affirmation and the prize, Ms. Clinton is going to steal the limelight -- steal it from a Rutgers women's basketball team, from Al Sharpton, from Don Imus and from Barack Obama. No doubt Ms. Clinton can exploit commiseration to great effect, for she -- all female -- has also been the victim of Don Imus' sexism. That this whole story used to be about a runner-up basketball team whose achievements were overshadowed by the easily ignorable comments of an old white guy is worth noting, particularly since it is no longer about that at all, proving, at last, that it never was. Surely Ms. Clinton has heard that the Rutgers team has accepted Mr. Imus' apology, and that they'd like to move on and get on with living -- and on with the celebration the team still richly deserves. But that has no place in her campaign, for the limelight she is going to steal is about to be rather large and rather bright: the media presence at Rutgers will be so overpowering that it will be hard not to believe that Ms. Clinton already is president. Perfect.

Of course, no one dare suggest that Ms. Clinton is going to exploit the misfortunes of a group of women who have accepted an apology. After all, it may be the case that the Rutgers team has given Imus some sort of absolution, but that does not mean all other women have to follow their example: Other women can still hold a grudge against the I-man.

It's funny. I have been apologetic to Contratimes readers for speculating beyond the prima facie evidence of this whole story. Clearly my paranoia is rooted in some shallow soil. The soil of reality.

But I may still be wrong.

Alas! One more paranoid tidbit: Hillary Clinton, according to the report cited above, has had a longstanding open invitation to speak to the "The Eagleton Center for American Women and Politics" at Rutgers. Can anyone say "motive?" I can.

Odd that I should have been speculating that the machinery behind Don Imus' sudden fall was larger than Al Sharpton. I now see why.

I wonder, Mr. Throckmorton, what you see.

Peace.

(Still experimenting, so bear with me.)

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Barack Obama, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

Imus, Hate, Reparations And Public Profits: More To Think About

Please, forgive me as I play the fool. But there is so much about the Don Imus story that is important, it is hard to be silent.

As you know, I have already speculated that this Imus "scandal" is largely about presidential politics: key political figures running for the White House can only benefit if Imus is silenced; or, should he return, if he is finally and firmly marginalized as an irrelevant, racist crank. I have also posited that the gang mentality we have seen emerge in such a short time, one utterly deaf to Imus' actual remarks, has been fomented by interested political players behind the scenes. I have further admitted that I am merely speculating; but I am also inferring from the intensity of the furor and the speed of Imus' fall, that surely he did not merely get fired because 10 young women basketball players were offended. There were "bigger" players at work here, ones that even made Imus lose his usually cocky posture.

Now, here's something we all need to think about. Al Sharpton said of all this, in defense of his own noble role in bringing Imus to justice, that America needs to stop those who, using public airwaves, profit from peddling racism and sexism. Please note this with all due attention. Why? Because in the wake of the Imus outrage both MSNBC's and CBS's advertisers began to withdraw from Imus' show; in firing Imus, CBS was willing to forego the apparent $20 million a year he tossed into CBS's coffers. (Please, just for a moment, I want you to follow the money.)

The significant thing for us is that Imus was fired; both MSNBC and CBS agree in action that neither network can nor will profit from the racist, sexist sarcasm and satire of Mr. Imus. But in light of the fact that countless pro-firing commentators, some of whom are staffers of both MSNBC and CBS, keep pointing out that Imus has a long rap-sheet of prior offenses, the firing of Imus appears to be a tacit admission by these networks that they have been, for a long time, profiting from a racist, sexist crank. So, here's the rub: If it is wrong for these networks to continue to profit from a man who clearly has been acting inappropriately for perhaps decades, was it not wrong for them to profit from Imus in the past? If so, does this not then follow: That all the revenue earned by MSNBC and CBS from the Imus show is profit drawn from the purveying of racism and sexism on the public airwaves? Is not the profit already gained from Imus' show dirty, racist, sexist money?

Moreover, does it not then behoove CBS and MSNBC, contrite and deeply moral as they clearly are, to both make reparations, that they pay back the money garnered through racist and sexist programming to those who have been most victimized by such programming?

Alas! I do not see how this argument can be contradicted or denied: MSNBC and CBS must make reparations. Total and complete. For Al Sharpton and his colleagues have made their case, and the firing of Imus proves that the networks agree with that case.

But, let us pause for a moment. For I have one more thing to note, and it is this: If Al Sharpton and others do not seek reparations, if they do not seek damages from toxic and racist radio (and TV) the way some have sought damages from toxic tobacco, can we not infer that simply removing Imus' voice was the only thing some interested parties wanted? Can we not infer that no one seriously believes Imus has been a purveyor of racism and sexism, or that two networks profited from his evil? I don't see how we cannot: If Imus has been a racist and sexist for decades, then all (or most, or even some) of his profits are a result of peddling hate and bigotry. Hence, the profits associated with him have guilt all over them; they represent a debt to victims, not a dividend to shareholders. If no one goes after this money for reparations, then no one is really serious about the charges aimed at Mr. Imus.

Alas, what an ugly door two networks have opened: either they have opened the door to a major lawsuit, or they have opened the door to speculation that this was all about silencing Imus so that he would not stand in the way of someone's bid for the White House. Yes, I believe it is that sort of huge either/or we are talking about here.

Unless, of course, this is all some big publicity stunt. If that is the case, we're all damned.

But, in the end, I admit that I am only speculating. As Imus might say of me, I am a "bald-headed stooge," a "weasel," a "crazy person."

No doubt I am bald, crazy, and a person.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

The End Of The Imus Controversy? He Called Them "Cute"

To those of you who are paying attention to the Imus/Rutgers controversy, I must ask this question: Is not the story already over?

Let me point out something I noted earlier today: During the moments of great offense when he besmirched the Rutgers women's basketball players, Imus called the OTHER basketball team, the University of Tennessee Lady Vols (the women's team that defeated Rutgers for the NCAA national championship) something that was not one whit racial. He called them "cute."

Why make this point? Because if you look at the UT Lady Vols team photograph, you will see that seven of the eleven teammates are of African-American descent. How, then, is Imus being racist if he finds one predominantly black team cuter than another? Does his "cute" remark not immediately re-frame the whole issue: that Imus was talking about a masculine-looking, tough-looking team that was facing a cuter, more feminine team? It's hard to think otherwise, especially since he affirmed what Sid Rosenberg, Imus' guest sports commentator, said during Imus' offending moment: that when he (Rosenberg) saw the Rutgers team step out onto the court he thought they looked like "the Toronto Raptors", you know, a MEN'S professional team. All this, as is well-noted, was done amidst laughter and adolescent goofiness.

Not that any of this absolves Imus of the fact that he hurt people with his words; that his words were ill-chosen, mean, and degrading. But many of his words are demeaning; nay, most of them are. But that is his whole gag: as I said before, he and his team are the bawdy bad-boys holding court on America's loading dock; they are the loudmouth bullies at the back of America's bus. Imus "hurts"† me nearly every hour he broadcasts; he berates many of the values I hold dear. His "Jesus God" profanation occurs dozens of times per show, and it offends my religious faith. But can I divine that he is ruthless at heart, or that God is damning him? I am not in a position to divine that at all. Sadly, many people are suddenly able to damn Mr. Imus to hell; and yet, in the midst of it all, they do not notice that he called the national champions "cute". They hear only what they want to hear. They cannot hear his compliment and, because of their hair-triggered hearts, they cannot possibly understand the context of Mr. Imus' words.

My sense, in light of Mr. Imus' efforts at reconciliation, is that he is an inherently decent albeit flawed human being. But I am also very flawed; I am more flawed than anybody else. So I will not damn him. It is not what I am permitted to do.

Peace, always.

†I am not so fragile.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Imus, Racism, Sharpton, Don Imus,
Rutgers Basketball, Language, Censorship, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

Flashpan: Sparks About Anything

1. This morning, in the wake of last week's major raid on illegal immigrants working at a New Bedford, MA factory, the New York Times offered us this editorial (Immigration Misery), which began with this dandy lead:

"A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure."

Let us ignore the fact that this is yellow journalism from capital to period. Let us also ignore that the crying baby story is apparently not even rooted in fact. Instead, let's focus on mere rhetoric: What this sentence and the rest of the editorial represent is a glaring example of the fallacy argumentum ad misericordiam. In other words, it is a blatant appeal to misery or pity to lend gravitas to an argument. It is not an attempt to reason, but to affect or persuade. It is not an appeal to the mind -- to logic or science or analysis -- but to the emotions. It is heart-string stuff; counter-rational and, sadly, untrustworthy.

It is also shameful and sickening. And all too common.

But in the last analysis I think we should note that it is perhaps bad practice for any journalist to forcibly wean a screaming baby from breast milk in order to find a lead.

2. If you have not seen world-renowned Islamic scholar and Princeton professor Bernard Lewis deliver the 2007 Irving Kristol Award lecture, then you should. It is a great lecture, irrespective of whether the man is at all right. He is 90 years old however, so there are moments when his throat gets a little froggy; you'll find yourself clearing your own throat in sympathetic reflex as you watch. But the man is a giant of a scholar. I found the whole thing riveting. But I am a nerd. You can watch the lecture here.

3. I cannot over-praise the essay in this month's First Things called "Just War and Iraq Wars," by George Weigel. Weigel is consistently one of my favorite First Things contributors. Unfortunately the essay is only available in the print edition of First Things, so you'll have to either find one on the newstand or steal one from the seminary library (or you pastor wannabes should get a subscription ). The article is the best thing I've read on the battle for Iraq and the war on terror. And by best, I mean the best thing -- by a long shot. But in lieu of Weigel's fine work, there is this First Things debate about George Bush's effectiveness. The debate is really quite good, though it is between two men who undeniably fall on the conservative side of the issues (not that there is anything wrong with that). Check out what Joseph Bottum and Michael Novak have to say.

And then get a subscription. It is truly a great journal. Besides, you'll just dig Richard John Neuhaus as he extemporizes out in the public square.

4. Now that I have mentioned Joseph Bottum, I can't ignore his disheartening blog entry from yesterday. No, it's not that he dealt with some sort of bleak tragedy or dark tale. He merely observed that much of what is published in the blogosphere is pure rejectamenta. But not everything. Bottum's essay is part lament, for sure, but it is also part paean: he finds prose that sets him laughing or sets him reeling, both with delight. And he further observes that no one has yet found this generation's on-line Chesterton. Not that the world even needs another Chesterton; I believe Gilbert Keith might holler that there is more than enough of him walking these streets. But Bottum's essay in the final analysis disheartens me not because he is a hard editor to please (I bet he is) or that he has rejected my mean efforts at smooth and elegant prose, but because his words prompt me to reject them myself. It is one thing to be heard, and another to be appreciated; but neither compares to being original and interesting. Any fool can write something a reader might not easily forget, but it takes a certain talent to write something a reader might take pleasure in remembering.

It is odd that I should find myself tempted to measure success in terms of how quickly I reach Bottum.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On Politics: Even More New Puritanism, Of A Sort

It's all about the First Amendment.

Unless you are listening to a conservative give a speech. Then it's time to turn into a New Puritan. Truly, umbrage has never been so hair-triggered.

You've heard the story: After having agreed to participate in a presidential candidates' debate sponsored by Fox News, the Nevada Democratic Party has withdrawn from the event, leading to the cancellation of the debate. Something was said; the Nevada Democrats instantly turned exceedingly righteous, so righteous in fact that they stopped their ears at the sound of a particular joke. They have taken umbrage. They are full of woe and dismay.

And they are proving that America is being overrun by New Puritans.

Amazingly, the New Puritans in Nevada have come -- or so one would think -- to the defense of George W. Bush.

Take a tour with me through the horrifying joke that led to this new spate of righteousness. Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News Channel, was fêted Thursday at the Radio & TV News Directors Foundations' First Amendment Awards banquet. During his acceptance speech, Chairman Ailes said the following (Warning: Not For The Squeamish!!!):

First of all, I was told I should do some headlines, so I'm only anchoring this, re-reporting.

I think we all need to go very slow on this global warming thing. I realize saving energy is good, but I think it may be a trick to get our anchors to stop using blow dryers.

[Laughter]

A man in France was arrested today for using his car to run down a pedestrian. He said he thought it was Osama bin Laden. OK, it was a mistake, but it still ranks as France's biggest military victory ever.

[Laughter]

John Seigenthaler and I are the same age. Look at how he let himself go.

[Laughter]

It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. And I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.

[Laughter/ooohs]

It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.

[Laughter]

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'

[Laughter]

Yes, yes. Pretty shameful stuff. In fact, it is the very worst one can imagine. But I am wondering: Could you pick out the joke that has been declared a mortal sin?

Well, in case you didn't catch it, it is the joke wherein Barack Obama's name is mentioned. That's right: The great offense is the joke ridiculing George W. Bush.

I know, I know. It IS hard to understand how the Democrats of Nevada could be so sensitive about jokes mocking the president. I am, indeed, surprised that they should so quickly come to his defense. But I am no doubt prone to committing the fallacy of facetiousness; the Democrats of Nevada are actually SHOCKED that it was jokingly insinuated that a tongue-stumbling president might confuse the name of Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden. That Bush would be prone to this sort of mistake should have given Democrats some pause, as Bush's shibboleth would prove that he was a threat to decency, and a friend of Sen. Edward Kennedy's. After all, who can forget the great outrage when Sen. Kennedy said in 2005 (see YouTube clip here):

"Why don't we just ask Osama bin Laden, Osama Obama, uh, Obama, what his ... since he won by such a big amount."

(Now that's funny! Of course, there was no outrage.)

But the New Puritans in Nevada, led by the chief puritan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have pulled the plug on any Fox News Channel cooperative because, in light of Mr. Ailes' joke given at a banquet honoring free speech:

"We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments."

And what comments might they be, other than ones ridiculing the intellectual and verbal capacities of the President voiced under the constitutional right to free speech? Democrats cannot defend these comments? Since when?

But the real reason the Democrats are backing out of the Fox News-sponsored debate is due to pressure from MoveOn.org; the real reason is hidden in this priggish quip by MoveOn. org, which called Fox News a "mouthpiece of the Republican Party." In other words, the left-leaning MoveOn.org crowd is intimidated and fearful; they are not confident enough in their own convictions to be asked questions by folks allegedly committed to Republican ideals. The Democratic Party -- or so we can hear them say -- is only so strong and convincing: it will gleefully submit to a New York Times-sponsored debate because that medium is a Democratic Party mouthpiece, where the questions will be safe, easy, unthreatening. But Democrats debating in a Republican-biased forum? Impossible!

And to top all this off, journalists rushed to Barack Hussein Obama to ask him whether he was "offended" by a joke that had nothing, really, to do with him. He replied that he was not offended.

'"I didn't take great offense at the joke," Obama said in an Associated Press interview while campaigning in Iowa. "I have been called worse."'

He's been called worse? One might be tempted to tell the Blessed One (Barack means 'blessed') that he was not called any thing in Mr. Ailes' joke, that this had nothing to with him. But who would do such a thing? After all, when it comes to campaigns, presidential candidates probably do think that everything is all about them.

Umbrage!

©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.

2007's Early Nominee: Senator Harry Reid

Since I began this day announcing the inaugural Contratimes annual awards (I shall be naming a few 2006 winners over the following days), I can't resist nominating US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, for the 2007 Soggy Turnip for Obscene Doublespeak. Please carefully read below what Mr. Reid said yesterday from the podium on the US Senate Floor. The context for these fine remarks is President Bush's apparently new plan for the Battle for Iraq; Democratic leaders have nearly unanimously rejected the President's plan for -- among other things -- increased troop levels in Iraq, while a few Republicans have expressed their own doubts. And both Democratic majorities in Congress are discussing whether they should not fund Bush's plan altogether.

Here is Mr. Reid's amazing articulation (the full statement is printed here):

"I will not prejudice the outcome of the vote on the President's plan, but I will say this: Putting more U.S. combat forces in the middle of an Iraqi civil war is a mistake."

There are mindbogglers, and then there are true mindbogglers. Though his entire statement is a criticism of President Bush's plan, Mr. Reid is nevertheless able to convince himself that he is not attempting to prejudice his colleagues: In fantasyland, he would never think of prejudicing anyone within earshot. George Orwell could not have written a more curious few lines. Perhaps I will consider Mr. Reid for the 1984 Soggy Turnip Award in Orwell's honor.

To think, George W. Bush can mangle a word or two and still make sense, and then be derided for his imperfect oratory; while Mr. Reid can speak with perfect eloquence and yet make no sense at all. It will be a cold day in hell before the popular press takes note of Mr. Reid's nonsense.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Winning High Honors: Let The Awards Begin #1

Today marks the inaugural Contratimes awards celebration. It will be a quirky celebration; there might be nothing at all suggestive of consistency or decorum or excellence. Perhaps the awards will even wallow in mediocrity. Maybe I will fête the fetid and turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the truly glorious. I do not know, for this is all much more whimsical than it is analytical. I choose from the gut; I intuit rather than reason my way to these finalists: my viscera is far more active here than my cerebrum. And surely my vision will be sorely limited, as I can only see so far.

Note that I shall recognize the winners over a period of days.

At the end of 2006, I heard a radio personality calling out for listeners' nominees for "Jerk of the Year" awards. I found the category thoroughly cruel. And I did not wait to hear what listeners offered as viable winners. But if I choose to ignore "Jerk of the Year" categories, can I at least have something pejorative? How about "The Most Misplaced Scoffers of the Year"? How about the "We Are So Smart We're Dumb" award for 2006? Are these too harsh?

Well, for 2006, the winners -- because we can't name just one -- of the Soggy Turnip Award for Grotesque Prejudice belongs to those folks who don't know English as well as they might claim. These folks have even managed to create a small industry around their colossal ignorance, and they are totally blind to the irony of their actions.

You see, in mid-April 2006, President George W. Bush said the following during a press conference (read CNN's aptly titled article here):

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense." [emphasis added]

One would think that President Bush might be derided for admitting that he hears voices. Alas, if it only were that easy. But rather than leaping on the President for his clairvoyance, critics leapt on his much greater offense: He used the word, "decider." Immediately the scoffers raised their voices, and the great thinkers among us set out to prove to the world -- once again -- that Bush was an aphasiac, anomic idiot. Bloggers' fingers were set to typing damnation with great speed; and T-Shirt makers and peddlers of bumper stickers hawked their wares: "I'm The Decider!" almost became a Democratic Party slogan. Not a few voters in this area of New Hampshire had their bumper stickers placed 'just so' in time for the November elections; and even an online linguist analyzed Mr. Bush's anomia, finding Bush's "locution" inexplicably bizarre (and the linguist never notes the following fact).

Of course, reality is glorious: "decider," in case you did not know, is a thoroughly normal English word. In fact, its first known literary usage dates back to 1593, or so reports the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not one whit aberrant, nor did President Bush use it in an odd way. I readily admit that it sounded odd, but that has everything to do with frequency rather than diction or syntax. We all hear new words every day: some are used correctly, others are not. Rarely is a word invented; and even words that are used correctly can sound strange in certain contexts. But "decider" is not even close to being anachronistic, since I can instantly find it in the 2004 dictionary installed on this fine computer.

Hence, the Soggy Turnip for Grotesque Prejudice goes to all those intellectuals out there who did not know that "decider" is as common a word as chooser, picker, and pedantic.

(For a more complete essay on my thoughts regarding sundry Bushisms, see "The Seinfeld Administration".)

Peace, somewhere, if but for a moment.

(PS. Please see the first comment in the comments thread below. Thanks. BG)

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Like The Earth Underfoot, Values Divide

Prologue

Episcopal priest and former US senator John Danforth (R - MO) is interviewed by Will Sullivan in this week's issue of US News & World Reports. The Q & A is tellingly titled, "The Values Divide." Indeed, they do. For Mr. Danforth strings together some of the most disheartening -- and empty -- thoughts I have seen in a long time; it is a wonder he has a book published at all (the occasion for the interview). But more importantly it is a wonder he is taken seriously as an Episcopalian, since his theology is utterly naive. And I am not suggesting a naivete reminiscent of child-like faith. I am talking naivete that is ignorant of its own heresies.

I urge readers to read the full text, which can be found at this link. It is a prerequisite for what follows.
_____________________

One could choose to address a myriad of problems -- cultural, political, philosophical and religious -- with Mr. Danforth's comments, but I shall ignore them for what I believe to be the most salient absurdity posited by Mr. Danforth. This is not a foray -- though it could be -- into the contentious and divisive 2003 election of V. Gene Robinson to shepherd the diocese of New Hampshire. That event is no doubt relevant; it is indeed the backdrop for Mr. Danforth's interview (and his book).

When asked what The Episcopal Church (TEC hereafter) should do to bring back the many (though Danforth believes it is only a few) people who have left TEC, Danforth gives us this stupifying answer:

I think to emphasize that we are traditionally a broad church and this has been our glory. I think a lot of people would say, well, the Episcopal Church is wishy-washy, that it doesn't really stand for anything. I think we stand for a lot. I think we stand for the idea that God cannot be encapsulated in our perceptions or in our views of political issues or social issues. It's saying that God is bigger than all these issues and bigger than any of our factions, and the church is big enough to include everything. [emphasis added]

Fortunately, we are spared Danforth's full list of what might be included in his generous use of the word, everything. But we know no such list is even necessary: listing everything is as futile as dividing infinity. Everything is, well, everything, and it is impossible to find any worth in adumbrating the extension of the word: The church, reflecting the glory of God's inestimable bigness, has no rooms, no partitions. It bids welcome to everyone -- and every thing -- without distinction. After all, to distinguish or define is to be small-minded, factious: If God is big enough to include everything, well, let us fall prostrate in adoration of his hospitality.

One wonders if Mr. Danforth is at all sentient of the glaring fact that he has contradicted himself. If his proposition that "God cannot be encapsulated in our perceptions" is indeed meant as something other than a mere theological jest; if it is meant as a premise to Mr. Danforth's argument, then it must be noted that Mr. Danforth has indeed encapsulated God in his perceptions. To Mr. Danforth, God is BIG, really big. So big, in fact, that we should just submit (islam?) to the overwhelming wonders of God's mighty size in blissful nonjudgmentalism.

The pantheism of Mr. Danforth's theology is utterly clear. We see without the slightest obscurity what this all means: God is everything -- at least everything wonderful (which is a vapid tautology). But we also see the inevitable inverse of all of this: If God is everything, he is nothing. It's analogous to a Christmas morning when a child looks with shock as his father announces that he has not given his child a single gift, he has instead given him everything: "My son, there is a bow and ribbon on the whole universe!" It also calls to mind the great Steven Wright quip: "I have the world's largest seashell collection -- I have it scattered all over the beaches of the world." In other words, Mr. Wright has no seashell collection; and the little boy sits Christmas morning without a single gift to open. Mr. Wright doesn't love seashells enough to collect any for his pocket; the father of the little boy does not love him enough to make a distinction between nothing and just one thing, one gift that is set apart, distinct, chosen and shaped specifically for his little child's delight on Christmas Day.

Perhaps I misread Mr. Danforth's expansive theological statement. But I don't think I do. "Everything" can fit into the church, which is exactly why the church is increasingly empty. Mr. Danforth's God is as big as Allah, as undistinct as Buddhism's nirvana, as permissive as the cult of Bacchus, and nearly as much nothing as the atheist's void. Truly we can define this apparently Episcopalian theology as universalistic and tolerant; as syncretistic and postmodern. We might even call this idea of God authentic and accessible and "inclusive." But the one thing we can't call it is Christian. To do so would be factious -- and small.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Episcopalianism

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

Ideas About Ideologues

I know more than a few people who often dismiss certain folks as "ideologues." It is almost said reflexively. At times it seems a curious habit. The disparagement is always done with great facility and, perhaps, felicity. And I never quite understand it. Definitions in some of the older dictionaries I own show that, first and foremost, an ideologue is an expert in ideology, which is defined as "the body of doctrine, myth, symbol, etc., of a social movement, institution, class, or large group." The secondary meaning is that of a person who deals with systems of ideas. And the tertiary meaning describes a person "who advocates a particular ideology." (The Random House College Dictionary, 1975).

Curiously, more recent definitions are rather blunt. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary is utterly matter of fact:

ideologue (noun): An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology

And the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives us this definition for ideologue:

1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

It is interesting to note how unnuanced these online definitions prove themselves to be. I wonder if this is the trend in computer age diction, where words become more rigid, lacking subtlety, posited in all their raw black-and-white glory. Computer users are, after all, in a hurry.

My observation -- provincial as it is -- about the word in question is that the man denouncing another chap as a "mere ideologue" is usually himself something of an ideologue. With that said, I, of course, admit that my comment lacks subtlety. I promise to make amends in a forthcoming essay on the topic.

For now, two things. First, I would love to hear what you think "ideologue" means: what does it connote and who does it denote? Second, I urge you to read one of my all-time favorite essays (fragmented as it is) by C. S. Lewis. After reading his capital essay, Bulverism, this morning, I am reminded -- again -- how careful I must be.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

Building Better Brain Bombs

[Every once in a while I post an essay that is really a reply to something that happened off-stage, so to speak. This is one of those moments.]

The other day I received an email from someone who felt that she knew me, my opinions, my own sense of what is true, right, wrong. I shall name no names, and I shall give nothing away here. But the writer suggested that I was being, well, dishonest; and if not dishonest, I was being inaccurate, even, perhaps, revisionistic. What startled me most, of course, was the intimation that someone I barely know knows me better than I know myself. And what I apparently did not know without the help of this particular interlocutor is that I have always supported the Iraq invasion spearheaded by George W. Bush.

It's curious what people claim to know. I can assure you that my wife took this bit of news as a surprise; she recalls trying to get me to change my mind about Iraq, insisting, for example, that I should read Why We Fight by Bill Bennett (she insisted again Friday night that I need to read it). I have not read that undoubtedly fine work, largely because I already have far too much to do as I promote war at every turn. But what I think is clear is that people mistake my strident defense of President Bush as somehow support for everything he stands for; but my defense is really a critique of the junk hurled his way. I have never been pro-war, but I have been very much anti-crap. And I believe this fact with all my heart: the leftists are the revisionists when it comes to the genesis of the Iraq invasion.

Some people cannot believe that Michael Richards is not, in fact, Jerry Seinfeld's fictional neighbor, Kramer; Mr. Richards created such a convincing character one is tempted to conclude that he and Kramer are identical (how jarring it is to learn that they are not). Great actors who loathe serial killings nonetheless convincingly portray serial killers. Great novelists who are anti-war nevertheless portray war in all its brutal accuracy, even without having actually served a moment in battle. Great defense lawyers posit great apologies on their clients' behalf, leading jurors towards a "not guilty" verdict that the defense lawyer himself would not ever reach. You get the point. Merely because I have argued against the arguments proffered against the war, it does not follow that I am for the war. I am merely against bad arguments.

I would urge readers, who are interested in my feelings about the war against Islamic fundamentalism, to read what I believe is my definitive statement as presented in my series, "The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror." Readers will discover what I believe is really at stake; and readers will note, too, that I was far ahead of the pretentious and leftist billionaire George Soros, underwriter of the Democratic National Committee, who -- in a silly essay I discussed here -- called for a change in metaphor when discussing the war on terror. (And as for the attempts by linguist George Lakoff to redefine the Iraq War as an occupation, see my comment #2 at MadMike'sAmerica in this thread.)

I have been quite consistent in challenging bad arguments. I have challenged the idea that pacifism is strictly forbidden in Christian orthodoxy. I have challenged the idea that peace is attainable in "Oscar Wilde, Seinfeld, And Peace That Eludes." I have challenged arguments that suggest that only liberal dissent is deemed unpatriotic. I have criticized arguments that the war in Iraq is a quagmire, or that its difficulty proves its foolishness, or that American troops would fare better with more armor. I have criticized Madeleine Albright. In fact, I have criticized many things here. But I have never opined that I support war.

Sadly, my critic(s) will probably not read my definitive series "The Most Important Question", no matter how much I implore them to. Nor will they probably bother to read my lengthy but sincere letter to America, drafted mere days after 9/11 (and posted at a new Contratimes auxiliary), to judge its consistency with the series mentioned above. They are free to define me as they deem most expedient for them. I offer no definitions about their personal beliefs, since I hardly know these folks. I shall respectfully leave them alone.

Lastly, the emailer described me as a bomb thrower. You know, a sort of intellectual terrorist, a kind of Molotov cocktail-tosser in the brain. I stand, apparently, in the same company as Ann Coulter or, well, no one else. My rhetoric is shaped merely to detonate in the midst of irrefutable logic (or so it is suggested).

I find the 'charge' amusing.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

Preservation And Defense

Not long ago, two old farmers - a brother and sister - moved out of their family farmhouse: the last two surviving members of the Welch family had stayed at home as long as they could. They were each nearly a century old when they died a few miles down the road, beneath the flourescent light buzzing over a nursing home deathbed. But before they left this life, they bequeathed their farmhouse, and all of the surrounding land, to a conservation group: the old siblings did not want their legacy to fall into enemy hands.

Adjacent to the Welch's homestead, just east of the old rooming house, stood a clutch of barns. Inside one barn could be found the initials, carved into pine or painted in stove black, of every farmhand that passed through the farm dating back to 1865. It was clear that not a few workers took jobs at the farm several years in a row; others would be off to fight in some great war, never to return. There were chains and old scythes hanging in rusted silence; there were old tins on the wall; a set of old oars stood in a corner, crossed. It was a hall for the silent past, but a past that was not so silent if one but listened.

After the old couple died, I would walk the forsaken farm, taking pictures here and there. The photo above was taken along the northern wall of the old house, just off the ell. I could not help but take the photograph -- with the old lamp and bulb, the paper-wasps' nest tucked beneath the shade, the flecked paint, a lonely window and the ghostly imprint of old shutters -- all calling me to remember. But what seems silent is not at all; and what seems old is still rather new: the tap of hands on a window flung open, the smell of fresh paint on a horsehair brush, the piquant air of harvest. I hear children nearby, the shouts of farmhands heading to town with a wagon-load of milk; or the muted thud of boots beneath a dim lamp during heavy snows.

The conservation group which inherited the land, in response to fears and anxieties and sundry other modern maladies, decided that the best thing for the preservation of the old regime was for the new to vanguish the past. So the fire department was called. The volunteer fire corps practiced in the light of burning barns. They rescued smoke and soot. They aimed their hoses only after all memories had disappeared in the heat of a spark fanned bright by legal arson. Later, a bulldozer would level the old farmhouse. Soil was pushed here and there beneath the row of singed catalpa trees; a little monument was erected to remind stray visitors of the monuments that were burned and buried.

Occasionally I return to the old Welch farm. Nothing much remains, of course, but a few flecks of paint, a shard of glass, an ember pressed into soot. And the wasps nearby.

Peace.

Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Talking Their Language: John Kerry Tells A Joke With "Nuance"

I had not heard the story until today. I read about it in the recent column of Chicago Tribune essayist John Kass, and it sheds light on John Kerry and his Ohio loss in 2004. Kass reflects on that exciting time, just before Americans rushed the polls to cast their vote for President; Kass muses about sundry Kerryisms that may have not played well in the American heartland:

My absolute favorite Kerryism was the time he tried to sound like Jethro Bodine from the old "Beverly Hillbillies" TV show.

That's the one that cost him the presidential election in 2004, by losing him Ohio.

He dressed up in hunting gear so new there must have been tags hanging from the ankles. He had a shotgun, since the symbolism was about manliness, as he moseyed into a general store with several TV news cameras.

Kerry would purchase a hunting license and go hide in a field and let a guide shoot some geese, which another aide would carry so the senator could have the benefit of the symbolism without the responsibility of goose blood.

But first he needed the license. Yet instead of asking for one in a normal voice, Kerry inexplicably decided to use country dialect.

"Kin ah git me a hunting license here?" said Kerry, the country man.

The folks in the general store were frightened to hear an odd twang emanating from Kerry's Boston adenoids. Perhaps he thought that they weren't highly educated, and so he had to talk "their language."

One wonders whose language John Kerry was speaking on Monday when he said the following to a college crowd at Pasadena City College in California:

"You know education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Oops. Ouch. Bing, bang, bomb.

I recall John Kerry supporters in the last election cycle describing the Massachusetts senator as being more "nuanced" than his opponent, George W. Bush. And the quote above shows that they were absolutely right. The only real question, though, is how much nuance is good for the Democratic Party. For a prima facie viewing of Kerry's remarks, uttered, as they were, to college kids in the inner city (Pasadena City College enrollment data shows that minorities comprise 70.3 percent of the 25,000 students enrolled there; I found the data here; hispanics and Asian minority groups are ably represented), it is evident that most reasonable listeners would conclude that Mr. Kerry is saying that the dumb student ends up stuck as a soldier in Iraq. His juxtaposition of you (one would assume he means "you who are listening and are in school") with "smart" and "stuck" would indeed led credibility to the wild theory that Mr. Kerry is warning students that those who do not fare well in school end up as cannon fodder.

But we KNOW Mr. Kerry is too nuanced for such a misleading and unfortunate suggestion. What nuanced listeners realize, of course, is that Mr. Kerry is suggesting that if you are a poor student, like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, then you WILL become stuck in Iraq. Of course, one wonders what Mr. Kerry might mean comparing his scholarly achievements with Mr. Bush's, since I showed last year that Mr. Kerry is a certain victim of his own rather average gossip.

It is all, in Mr. Kerry's own words, the result of a "botched joke." OK. That's fine. But it is also about an administration ripping Mr. Kerry's words out of context -- a city college full of minority kids most "vulnerable" to military recruitment (or so it goes) -- and distorting them for political ends, or so Mr. Kerry asserts. Odd that he should not have taken the high road here, bolstering his broad mythology, arguing that he is that man of the people who speaks their language with nuance and subtlety.

HERE'S SOME SUBTLETY

During Mr. Kerry's appearance on the Imus in the Morning program a few minutes ago, Mr. Kerry said two things that all of us have heard too often. In fact, we have heard them often enough to know that there is nothing in them.

In defending himself from charges that he insulted American troops, he said that the real insult is Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, you see, should apologize for getting America stuck in Iraq, Mr. Kerry said; for it was Rumsfeld who "did not send enough troops [to Iraq]."

Later in the interview, Don Imus remarked that it was not just the White House that was damning Mr. Kerry's remarks. Even Sen. John McCain jumped into the fray with these not-so-subtle words:

“The suggestion that only the least-educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat today.”

In reply to Imus' little bomb, Mr. Kerry said that though he considered Mr. McCain a friend, he found McCain's comments unfortunate. "But the fact is," Mr. Kerry went on (I paraphrase), "John McCain has been a cheerleader for a failed policy, and McCain wants to put more troops in Iraq, as many as 100,000 more, and I do not believe we should do that because we do not even have that many troops, and more troops would attract more jihadists and terrorist attacks, resulting in more American military deaths."†

Now, I know you think I am making this all up, but I am not. Mr. Kerry is so nuanced that he believes Donald Rumsfeld should apologize for NOT sending more troops into Iraq, and Mr. McCain should apologize for wanting to send more. This paradox is a typical Democratic message; it says two contradictory things and pretends that people do not notice the absurdity.

Of course, this is all nuanced language, HIGHLY nuanced, the parlance of parlors in Beacon Hill. It is misunderstood, you see, by all us dolts who did not do well in school.

Peace.

†(UPDATE ADDED at 11:24 EST: If you would like to read what one decent guy thinks about the whole thing involving Kerry, and if you would like to hear Mr. Kerry's Imus comments for yourself, go to this blog for both.)

(PS. Thanks to blogger Amy Kane at Atlantic Avenue for finding the photo at the top of this post.)

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: John Kerry, Imus In The Morning, Kerry, Botched Joke, Iraq, Pasadena City College, minorities