Con Version

(A prose poem. Sheer whim.)

I have no cash in the bank and there are no coins in the jar. I am spent.

We talked all day, all night, of things that make up our dreams -- peace, joy, the soft touch of love in the chill dawn. But we see through a glass for most of the time, a cracked and stained glass, brushed dark with blood. There was no truth in these talks, nor could there be. But there was hope:

You laugh at my words: I am so brave and far too sure. I know my way through a dark set of thoughts, I say, and then leave the room with gloom set on my head. I thought I could see, I knew I could hear; but you were right to note that I could taste my fears -- in your kiss.

Oh, how I reach now for your hand, the stars in your skin, the soft clouds in your hair. I reach and reach, but I grasp naught but hail and rain, and sharp flakes of cold pain. You built a wall here that is years thick; I kick holes into its side and climb to a ledge made of books you wrote in jest; mere verse for the fool who loved you.

But I will leave to write my own page, and you will have to leap high to get a glimpse of my fame. You did not know me then, and you will not know me now. That is not my name!

But it is all a hurt that stills truth: truth will not move. And it will not leave. It stays like a scar on my days. It aches like a thorn in the side.

(We laughed once at the old dame who gave her one cent -- all she had -- to the poor. We would give more, we thought.)

If that makes sense, in our one vain time.


©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

(I simply wrote this for exercise. I need to do this sort of thing every now and then. Working with monosyllabic words is always something of a catharsis for me. I've just hated my writing of late, so this kind of discipline kicks my brain around a bit.)

The Moral Center Is Green

[He continues to lose.]

I see a man coming toward me, offering salvation, if I only believe, if I just have the courage. Follow me, he says, though not exactly. I have a moral to place on your shoulders; my burden is heavy as coal, as easy as a bag of fluorescent lights. Take up your carbon cross and follow me. For I have a world I want you to make colder, harder. I promise you can do this, for this is no catastrophe. It is an opportunity. The fields are white, ready for harvest. Please, follow me, and I will make you a sort of fleecer of men.

And so I go forth to make the earth cold. It is unarguably my moral duty. I am required by conscience to ensure that winters are harsher, longer; that ice caps grow and arable land is consumed by glacial creep. I fight for shorter, cooler summers; I pray the earth to slumber longer during winter's solstice and yet to speed past the summer solstice with nary a heat wave, irrespective of hemispheric balance. I shall work miracles.

I am an equipped warrior: I have my word of truth -- the holy word of inconvenient truth -- infused with the infallible and inerrant words of science's best minds, minds that have gathered in great councils, dividing truth from all that isn't. I have my switch plate of righteousness that runs directly to my solar panels; the holy wind rushes through my windmills, and tongues of fire no longer lick at my carbon-smeared furnace. I wear the helmet of carbon sequestration. My feet are shod with the good news of hybridism.

Permit me, please, to cite only one passage of my new holy canon, prophetic in its precision:

'The harbinger of change shall come as Prius* -- which means before -- drawn from the legal term, nisi prius (unless before):"unless before the day appointed (nisi prius) the judges shall come ... (which they always do) and there try the cause."† The judges indeed are coming.' (AIT 6:6-9)

I walk with the cool, controlled sun in my face, and the carbon-neutral magisterium at my back. I cannot falter, for I have courage. I look with faith to the hills and see from whence my turbine help comes; I walk through the valley of the shadow of heat-death, and I cast the shadow aside.

(Blessed indeed are the carbon-pure in spirit, for they shall see their god shivering on a carbon-neutral street.)

But these streets are paved with green.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

*The Toyota Prius is a popular hybrid car. Owners consider this a carbon offset; though they do this, of course, without ever asking if Toyota uses MORE carbon fuel to manufacture and deliver the car.

†I happened to find this quote at the Free Dictionary after searching for the definition of "prius." I thought the passage perfectly apt for a satirical look at the religious fervor associated with much, if not most, environmental activism.

What A Different President Thinks

(It is maybe a bad sign that this is my fourth post today. Who knows? But I feel so strongly about what I buried in Post #2 that I cut and pasted it here. It's that important.)

Perhaps you have heard or read what the Czech President Vaclav Klaus has said in the past few days. President Klaus is ringing a different alarm. According to the Prague Daily Monitor, Klaus has written to the US Congress warning that "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer forms." The biggest threat is "ambitious environmentalism." Klaus wrote:

"[I am] really concerned about the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. …While discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom. …the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."

But I need to quote even more of this fine article for our purposes here:

"[Klaus] noted that this ideology wants to replace 'the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world.'

"Its followers, Klaus added, consider 'their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth' and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation to exert pressure on politicians to achieve their goals.

"Klaus claimed that the environmentalists' argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic, and in this atmosphere they continue pushing politicians to adopt 'illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making.'

"Klaus also said that environmentalists 'neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change,' that there is and has been no ideal state of the world, and they ignore the future economic and technological progress."

I find all of this philosophically fascinating. I wonder if you do too.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Important links relevant to this discussion: The Wizard, fkap (interesting story!); The Reference Frame (Klaus transcript!); Randall Sherman (hysterical!) [Nice job all!]

On Politics And Global Warming: What You Might Not Have Read

In preparing for today's entries on the global warming buzz, I happened upon this transcript posted at Rush Limbaugh's website. I did not go to Mr. Limbaugh's site intentionally; a Google search led me there, and I am glad it did.

Perhaps you read that James Hansen, a director at NASA, testified at yesterday's climate change hearings held by the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. Hansen has relentlessly reported that the Bush Administration has tried to suppress his scientific voice -- and the voice of other government scientists -- for apparently refusing to conform their work to White House ideology. That Mr. Hansen has been free enough, however, to grant 1,400 or so media interviews in the last few years seems to have slipped his mind.

But if you want to read great political banter, and if you want to see what the major media have concealed from your view, then I urge you to read all of the transcript found at Mr. Limbaugh's website (actually, this is a transcript of Limbaugh's radio broadcast where he plays the audio clips from the hearing).

I am so intrigued by all of this that I feel compelled to paste some of the transcript here, but I will refrain. You must read Congressman Darrell Issa's opening remarks, and how he takes Mr. Hansen to task. Plus, I believe NASA research scientist Roy Spencer's remarks are really quite important. Please, I am pleading. Take the ten minutes to read the text found at the link above.

Also, I thought you might find this article, "Scientists have inconvenient news for Al Gore", published in the Sydney Morning Herald, a thoroughly decent read.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On Politics And Global Warming: A Vice President And A President Do Battle

I tried to live-blog this morning, to very little effect and perhaps much frustration. The event I was watching included the Dalai Lama of Climate Change, former Vice President Al Gore, who testified today before the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I found him earnest but incredibly dulling, though dulling not by being boring, but by over-reaching and over-stating. Mr. Gore's most bold claim is that the scientific community -- the "consensus" -- is unanimous: mankind is the primary source of global warming and climate change.

Mr. Gore spent much of his opening statement arguing that CO2 levels are dangerously high; he sees a "correlation" between CO2 levels and increased temperatures. In fact, at one point in his testimony, Al Gore argued that the planet "has a fever" and that, though we are only talking about a few degrees of increased temperature, everyone would agree that the difference between 98.6 and 103.6 is cause for grave concern. Irrespective of this absurd anthropomorphism of the planet and the fundamental weakness of the analogy, Mr. Gore believes that the evidence proves causality, and that the proof is irrefutable.

As I have noted before, confusing correlation and causality is utterly unscientific. Mr. Gore commits this non causa pro causa fallacy right before our eyes; he says it with emphasis and conviction, and yet, seemingly, too few notice. If I were to argue that my age and CO2 emissions have increased in a directly proportional relationship, I could not be dismissed as unscientific, for CO2 admissions have increased as I have gotten older. But surely everyone would snicker at me if I concluded that my increased age is the cause of CO2 emission increases world-wide or, more pertinently, that CO2 emissions are causing me to get older. A correlation does not a causality make.

This is all, truly, quite alarming, though not because it is such bad logic, but because such bad logic is touted as brilliant and courageous leadership by the sychophants sitting in front of Mr. Gore. But Mr. Gore's presentations are nothing of the sort. He is confusing things to promote an agenda, an agenda which might very well be himself. That he is sitting in such high places is not surprising; what IS surprising is how successful he has been in convincing others that the science is unanimous, infallible and indisputable.

If you are not sure the debate is alarming, perhaps these lines from Pulitzer Prize-winning essayist Ellen Goodman, a columnist at the Boston Globe, will open your eyes:

"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

Ms. Goodman's hyperbole -- one that borders, I believe, on the immoral -- can be found in her February 9, 2007 column, No Change in Political Climate. Of course, no one in the scientific community that I know is denying, or has denied, that climate data show a noticeable warming trend, so Ms. Goodman might argue that she is safe: people who deny the trend are this era's Holocaust deniers. But we know she is not saying that; she is asserting that anyone who disagrees with Al Gore and his band of unanimous, all-knowing scientists is the child of Holocaust-denying parents, so to speak. That Ms. Goodman's language utterly cheapens the historical and moral value of the Holocaust is undeniable; her remark is a contemptible cheap-shot and she should be soundly chastised for making it.

There is more to all of this, of course. As some of you may know, the recent news-cycle has brought to us the curious counter-arguments to global warming models offered by University of Copenhagen's Bjarne Andersen; the reports can be found all over the web, like here, here, or here. As these links show, the idea of a global temperature, particularly an average one, is fraught with problems; one report says that Mr. Andersen argues that "compiling temperatures from various places and averaging them would be like calculating the average phone number in the phone book." Good for Mr. Andersen. At least his study shows that the scientific community, at least those like Mr. Andersen who study thermodynamics, are not all of one mind.

WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

Perhaps you have heard or read what the Czech President Vaclav Klaus has said in the past few days. President Klaus is ringing a different alarm. According to the Prague Daily Monitor, Klaus has written to the US Congress warning that "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer forms." The biggest threat is "ambitious environmentalism." Klaus wrote:

"[I am] really concerned about the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. …While discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom. …the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."

But I need to quote even more of this fine article for our purposes here:

"[Klaus] noted that this ideology wants to replace 'the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world.'

"Its followers, Klaus added, consider 'their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth' and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation to exert pressure on politicians to achieve their goals.

"Klaus claimed that the environmentalists' argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic, and in this atmosphere they continue pushing politicians to adopt 'illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making.'

"Klaus also said that environmentalists 'neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change,' that there is and has been no ideal state of the world, and they ignore the future economic and technological progress."

I find this all philosophically fascinating. I wonder if you do too.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On Politics And Climate Change: "Peer Reviewed" – Al Gore Returns To The House

(Live blogging with Al Gore)

Announcement: Al Gore invents the ElectroNet!†

I know it is the epitome of nerdism -- or is it geekism? -- for me to sit and watch Al Gore testify before the US House joint subcommittee on climate change. And I can honestly say that I am dumbfounded.

But what does it matter what I think? Mr. Gore is right now making the lamest argument I've ever heard as he defends his thesis that humans are increasingly short-sighted in their vision of the future: apparently we are living too much -- contrary to all we were told by 1960s visionaries -- for today, or so Mr. Gore declares. Instead, we need to be planning for the long-term, for the far-off future. But surely my thoughts on this matter are utterly irrelevant. But may I ask, do you think that "day-trading" is proof that we are short-sighted, that we are even ignorant of the future? Well, Mr. Gore does.

And then Gore makes this strange connection between the Congress and the "300," the Spartan warriors depicted in the recent comic-book film, "300." Gore right now tells Congress that its members are the "535" who are called to fight "the greatest challenge America has ever" had to face: climate change. It is a cute pop reference.

"These are not NORMAL times," avers Mr. Gore. And now he gives us his suggestions to save the planet from ourselves, and restore normalcy:

1) Immediately freeze CO2 emissions in the United States. ... then start the reductions of CO2.
2) "I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce the taxes on income and make up the difference by pollution taxes". ...Carbon pollution is not presently factored into the marketplace. We need a revenue-neutral tax shift.
3) A portion of those revenues should be and must be earmarked for the lower income groups to help them make this shift.
4) We need to be part of a major global treaty ... [one that includes the following major domestic steps], one replete with cap-and-trade initiatives:

a) A moratorium on any construction of any coal-burning power plants that do not comply with certain standards.
b) †ElectroNet: Congress should allow regular folks to sell electricity back to the grid from domestic, household carbon-neutral power plants.
c) Raise CAFE standards.
d) Ban incandescent light bulbs.
e) Form a carbon-neutral mortgage association.
f) The SEC should require disclosures of carbon emissions in corporate financial reports: stockholders should know of the environmental hazards associated with companies' actions.

[I am paraphrasing because I haven't the skill to take strict dictation.]

Truly, I am numbed by all of this. Mr. Gore is so amazingly dulling to my wits that I can conclude that I must not be made of iron; if iron sharpens iron, then I am either made of lesser metal or neither of us is made of iron. But what is really interesting is Gore's sacred pronunciation of "peer-reviewed," as if this not only adds gravitas, it serves as the imprimatur to Mr. Gore's arguments drawn from "recent findings."

"The debate on the science is over with!" exclaimed Mr. Gore at 10:54 AM EDST.

Really, Mr. Gore?

More later, I think.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

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/Culture: You, That's Who: A Call For Gay Ghettos At The Huffington Post

In his blunt and bludgeoning way, Charles Karel Bouley, radio talkshow host and columnist at the Huffington Post, calls for the very thing he decries. He does not know it, of course, or else he would be saying something different. But his essay -- Who, Exactly, Are You Calling Immoral? -- published at the HufPo today, proves that Mr. Bouley is in high dudgeon as he responds to US General Peter Pace's remarks about homosexuality. (General Pace made the remarks yesterday at the Chicago Tribune; the following is pulled from the Tribune's web edition):

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said. [bold added for emphasis]

(Let it be noted the Tribune admits that the interview with the man who sits as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was "wide-ranging." That the Tribune chose to lead with a man's personal remarks about homosexuality in the military is curious. More later.)

But let us read how the essayist at the Huffington Post believes his like-minded peers should respond to all of this:

"I grow tired of my community trying to make organizations accept them, states, recognize them, governments respect them. We have power in numbers, and in our wallets, use it. If a state votes against same sex marriage or civil unions, move to a state that allows them. Reward the economies of fair states with your home purchases, car purchases, tax payments. Punish those that don't. Leave churches that don't accept you as a whole, real, non-broken person. Screw the Catholics and Evangelicals. Find a place where a real god, a god of love and acceptance is worshipped. Take your tithes, your physical presence, your donations elsewhere.

"It's time we stop begging everybody to accept us and just reward the people that do. And when those that don't feel that crush, lose that money, lose those bodies, lose the revenues, when the rolls dwindle or areas don't get rejuvenated and property values shoot up (every time gays take over an area, it shoots up†, ask South Beach in Miami, Hillcrest in San Diego, West Hollywood in California, Castro in San Francisco) when people start realizing that gays make this country work just like non-gays, and that without us some of the wheels just won't turn as well, then change will come."

How nice. A call to boycott, and a call to partitioning. Nay, it is a call to ghettoizing and to institutionalized hate. Mr. Bouley, after all, wants to oppress those who disagree with him. And he wants to isolate one group -- his "community" -- from anyone who does not think and act like him and his peers.

How very moral, and how convincing: Mr. Bouley's position is so easily defended he resorts to calls for balkanization and financial deprivation. Of course, I do not today see at any major conservative news or commentary outlet a single writer calling for us to ghettoize gays and lesbians; I hear no one calling for us to withdraw from Unitarian societies, Reformed synagogues, or to stop skiing in Vermont, shopping in Provincetown, drinking Tequila in Key West or gawking at the Wharf in San Francisco. But I do find a call from a gay advocate at the Huffington Post to do essentially that very thing.

One is tempted to urge Mr. Bouley to make good with his promises: Indeed, have everyone who is gay and like-minded move to Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and certain enclaves in California.

And, moreover, I would hope that if Mr. Bouley and his peers are not going to spend money on the homophobics around them, they will also not work for any homophobes who might own the company from which they draw paychecks or accept ANY MONEY FROM HOMOPHOBES FOR ANY REASON OR ON ANY CONDITION.

________
EDIT-ORS

Why would the Chicago Tribune choose to lead today's headlines with what a general in the US military said about homosexuality? Is it because the paper's editors' knew that there would be a tremendous wave of umbrage pouring over the country, and through the media and the Web? Did the Chicago Tribune see that it had a story that would dominate tonight's news cycle? Perhaps yes to both. But perhaps the Tribune also meant to do something else, namely, to bury something, to hide it, to drag a very piquant red herring in front of our noses. Though the paper said the reason Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"-policy question was asked had everything to do with curiosity about how the military is going to bolster sagging troop numbers, one wonders if there is something missing in that admission. What else did Gen. Pace say in his "wide-ranging" interview?

Hmm. He said this, for example:

"Addressing a range of other military topics, Pace said House Democrats' proposal to wind down the war could hamper President Bush's planned troop 'surge' in Iraq by creating gaps in troop levels."

Oops. Did General Pace say that the Democrats' proposal would adversely affect troop levels? Indeed, he did, if the Tribune is telling the truth. Of course, THAT sort of thing is not worth a headline at all. Instead, switch the problem: Troop levels are not in jeopardy because of Democratic action, but because of Gen. Pace's alleged homophobia.

(The whole Tribune story is worth reading. It is quite jumbled, bouncing back and forth on the gay/military issue. It does report that Pace is critical of Pakistan's recent political decisions that have hurt the overall war on terror. See copy of story here [you'll have to sign in, but it's easy and worth it].)

_________
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL

Let us remember that it was Bill Clinton who elevated to the status of policy the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" numbness embraced by the military. Of course, it demands the question, If homosexuality is moral, why would anyone not be allowed to ask about it, and why would anyone not want to tell about it? In praxis, then, President Clinton's policy treated homosexuality as immoral, though not necessarily egregiously so. He at least suggested that speaking about it was wrong. Nevertheless, demanding silence about sexual orientation and behavior is utterly homophobic; to me, it is the only truly homophobic stance one can take: No one can utter a word about it. To state outright that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, unnatural, illogical or just plain unhealthy is hardly to state something homophobic, it is assert something as allegedly true. But to demand silence about it; to have a "Shhhhh!" policy in the military, is homophobia par excellence. Egads, most psychologists and even novelists know that any family's dysfunction is directly rooted in what that family CANNOT and MUST NOT talk about. Curiously, the only conclusion one can reach is that Bill Clinton institutionalized dysfunction in the military. General Pace, echoing the policy's intent, at least has the courage to state that he personally finds homosexuality immoral. Good for him.

But in the end, this is the sad moral of this tale of free speech's demise, and it is a lot like what I wrote about yesterday: the policy is really about General Pace's failing to heed his own services' policy: No one should've asked, and he should not have told -- because he is a bigot. And we must stop our ears at his harsh, cold words. Or so it goes.

_________
BOULEY IS A WHOLE PERSON

If there is one thing that sets Christianity apart from the populist faiths currently en vogue, it is that Christianity has not once said that any person, except Christ, is whole; or as Mr. Bouley puts it, "non-broken." In fact it is the one thing that may very well prove Christianity is undeniably true. I have never met a whole person, nor do I know anyone else who has been so lucky; every person I've met has needed to be saved from some demon, sorrow, malaise or besetting sin. Mr. Bouley may indeed set himself above the common herd of humanity, touting himself as fully integrated. But the rest of us honest souls can't help but admit that he strikes us as remarkably disintegrated, a broken man in a great deal of denial. I am sure he can find -- in California no less -- a church and a god that will love him for his apparent integrity and wholeness, but I believe his call for such a deity can only yield but one foolish youth -- Narcissus.

_________
†GAY PROSPERITY

†This idea is rooted -- in part, I believe -- in the work of Richard Florida, whose book, The Rise of the Creative Class argues that in communities where there is a high-level of social tolerance, economies thrive. That Mr. Bouley believes this, is clearly evident; though his sentence makes one think that wherever gays increase in numbers, communities turn to injecting themselves with hard drugs:

"…every time gays take over an area, it shoots up, ask South Beach in Miami, Hillcrest in San Diego, West Hollywood in California, Castro in San Francisco."

That phrase -- "take over an area" -- is unintentionally chilling, for certain. But the effect of Mr. Bouley's "policy" is intentionally chilling: he wants to take over.

I wonder what Mr. Bouley would have to say to this observation about San Francisco, made by a fellow Californian from that beloved city and gay haven (quoted from the Salt Lake Tribune):

"San Francisco is one of the 'least family-friendly cities in the U.S.,' says Maurice Healy, longtime editor of Catholic San Francisco, the diocesan paper. 'Only about 14 percent of families have children under 18. There is an increasing gap between rich and poor. The lack of affordable housing is a crisis.' "

Oh, forget it. I know what Bouley would say, since Healy is a Catholic: "Screw the Catholics."

But what Healy says is really quite true. Have you ever looked at property in, for example, Provincetown, Massachusetts? It is surely NOT a place for the poor OR real economic diversity. But the overlooked fact in all of this is really rather plain: wherever the rich gather in great knots of prosperity, the first thing to go (often) is morality. Why? Because the rich can afford to be indulgent; the rich can afford to be immoral. Therefore, prosperity alone is feckless in helping us determine the health or wholeness of a group, a movement, a community.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

PS. Lest anyone be confused, let me at this moment announce that no where here, or anywhere else, am I calling for the ghettoizing of gays and lesbians, or for the balkanization of American culture. Any idea of such forced segregation is reprehensible to me.

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.

On Politics: The Voice Of Scott Ritter, The Iraq War, And Culpability

Scott Ritter, the former Marine and UN weapons inspector, was in town the other day, and I missed him. But I did not miss his interview with Laura Knoy, New Hampshire Public Radio personality and host of "The Exchange." And it was good that I did not miss it, for Mr. Ritter stated something so rarely heard that it is nearly heroic in its startling frankness.

Some readers here know that I have long held that the Iraq War is really -- at the very least -- now 17 years old. The Iraq conflict has roots in the first Bush administration; that administration led a large coalition of military forces into Kuwait and southern Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Recall that part of the first George Bush's military stategy was to enlist world support by promising that the US and its allies would not enter Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein. Of course, George Bush the First was defeated by a little known governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, in 1992; that popular Democrat would oversee the bombing of Iraq and enforce the near-draconian economic sanctions against that poor country for 8 years. Besides at least two military operations led against Iraq by President Clinton -- Operation Desert Strike (1996) and Operation Desert Fox (1998) -- President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998), which called for "regime change" in Iraq, and he was the commander in chief when Osama bin Laden issued his death to "all Americans" fatwa, the very fatwa that led to the horrific and devastating attacks of September 11, 2001.

Excuse the history lesson, but it is imperative I repeat all this again -- and again. This morning, for the 1000th time, I read another letter to the editor in which it was stated, with all the pompous certainty of a sage on a cliff-top, that there was no connection at all between Iraq and 9/11. Of course, readers of this blog know that in fact there was a causal connection between those two things - a nation and a fateful day: Osama bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11 for its continued oppression of Iraq. He said so himself.

But that is not what is so enlightening in the refreshing (though incomplete) words of staunch Bush AND Clinton critic Scott Ritter. Unfortunately Ritter fails to make this simple connection between Iraq and 9/11; he is perhaps blinded to it by all the absurd rhetoric proffered by nearly everyone calling themselves liberal or Democrat. Even a couple of days ago, US Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), said from the Senate floor -- with all the finality of a renegade scientologist -- that America "in truth, [is] fighting a war with no cause." Cheered as a hero by her fans, Ms. Murray can only receive from me a sighing jeer, for she knows not what she is saying at all. (A war with "no cause?" Perhaps Ms. Murray can enlighten us all to the nuances of her ontological theory on causeless actions as a keynote speaker at the next DNC convention.) Perhaps the blindness of Ms. Murray has blinded more folks than Scott Ritter, but that is beside the point. The point is that Mr. Ritter debunks with one fell swoop the idea that the current Iraq conflict is "Bush's War."

Here is what Mr. Ritter said on Wednesday during a live interview on NH Public Radio. I have transcribed it directly from the NHPR website's podcast feature found at this link. Note that the context is Mr. Ritter's conviction that the United States is poised to begin aerial assaults on key Iranian targets; Mr. Ritter was in New Hampshire promoting his forthcoming book, Target Iran.

[minute 14:16]

Laura Knoy (LK): You said that your concern started under the Clinton Administration. Just briefly, Scott, what were your concerns back then about US Middle East policy?

Scott Ritter (SR): Well, in particular about Iraq, the main concern was that we had a policy of regime change disguised as a policy of disarmament that --

LK: So regime change has been on the books for a while, it’s not just President Bush?

SR: Absolutel-- it’s been, it’s been ingrained in American policy objectives in the Middle East for decades now.

LK: And with Clinton, you said that it was a policy of regime change disguised as inspections. Can you just briefly explain what you mean there, because, again, I don’t think some people would know what the connection is.

SR: After the First Gulf War, the United Nations at the behest of the United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that were linked to Iraq’s disarmament obligation. The deal was if Iraq disarmed, the sanctions would be lifted. From an American policy perspective, the sanctions were about the containment and destabilization of Saddam Hussein until which time he could be removed from power. Inspections work if they help push that policy along by showing that Iraq is not in compliance. The danger comes when inspections start to show that Iraq is complying, and that’s what we were starting to do as inspectors; showing that Iraq was disarmed: We [the inspectors] became the threat to US policy. So the US interfered with the inspection process to denigrate what we were doing in order to continue the policy of sanctions-based containment leading to regime change. The Clinton Administration always talked about supporting the inspectors, supporting disarmament, but that wasn’t their policy. Their policy was regime change. The inspections actually became the enemy. We saw this with Bush in Iraq leading up to the war, where we had inspectors on the ground contradicting every piece of information the CIA put out about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. If we were truly concerned about disarmament, we would have let the inspectors do their job. The policy was regime change.

LK: And now make the connection with Iran, again: inspections as a cover for the real goal which was regime change.

SR: It’s the exact same pattern played over again. The case for military intervention is being made based on a weapons of mass destruction-type threat being brought out from Iran, in this case nuclear weapons. We have inspectors on the ground; their reports are published at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s website accessible by everybody. Read the technical reports; the IAEA clearly states that there is no evidence whatsoever coming from their work that sustains the allegations that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program --

[emphasis added, as was link to IAEA]

While Mr. Ritter fails to make the Iraq/bin Laden/9-11 connection I have repeatedly made here, he nevertheless jars the New Hampshire audience with his blunt words: Bill Clinton was NOT trying to appease and contain Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Clinton theoria was inspections; but its praxis was always regime change. And THAT is why Osama bin Laden issued his death decree to all Americans during Bill Clinton's presidency: Clinton was unduly oppressing the Iraqis not because he wanted them to disarm, but because he wanted something more.

And that is why I believe the revisionists who deny this real and indisputable connection are treasonous. They may love their country -- whatever national ideal it is they adore -- but they are undeniably traitors of the truth.

By the way. When did Scott Ritter resign as a weapons inspector? That's right. In 1998, the year the proverbial crap hit the Clinton fan. And this Wikipedia entry (we are all aware that Wikipedia is not infallible) is great reading, especially in light of current political posturing and campaigning:

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden [D-MD] stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Senator John McCain [R-AZ] later rebutted by stating that he "wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War."

The adage is true. You can't make this stuff up at all.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Call Me "White Nitro" (or call me an ambulance)

So I am back, if but reluctantly. Who could tell that I should prefer to stay atop a mountain than to return to the valley of days?

I spent most of last week skiing at Sugarloaf USA, Maine's premiere ski resort. As you can see from the picture above, the whole place left me looking rather silly. Lesson learned: don't use a super-wide angle lens for a self-portrait.

My son and his two buddies enjoyed the steeps and the big, big view (below); though for some reason they preferred the hot tub at the bottom with the girls nearby more than I expected, all of which proves I have forgotten what it feels like to be 17 years old (sort of). [BTW, click on images for a larger view.]

But I have not forgotten fear, as the photo below, even now, puts a tiny lump in my throat. I mean, those are my ski boots in the foreground; should I just lift them while sitting there, I would instantly begin to slide on my backside. Not that I don't like steeps - I do. It's just that at my age I am not sure I could recover all that quickly from a mistake.

But perspective is hard to convey when using a super-wide angle lens, so perhaps this shot of my son (check out the retro jacket!) surveying things before our descent will be more helpful. He's looking down on Sugarloaf's ski village from his vantage atop White Nitro, a double black diamond trail. Our very cool descent will take us over the ridge in the middle of the photo. It's all loads of fun (though not as much fun with a thirty-pound pack on my back).

I realize that even this does not give a good sense of the scale I am talking about. That's why I took the following telephoto shots of the summit, followed by a wide-angle shot of the mountain from about the same spot. Just notice the size of the skiers in these next two images (next three images taken while riding high-speed chairlift):

And then compare the summit portion of the hill with the whole hillside (pushed back by the wide-angle lens):

Well, perhaps none of this works at all. Suffice it to say that by New England standards this place is huge, steep, fun. No, it is no Big Sky or Vail or Whistler/Blackcomb. But that does not take away from the fact that I am still smiling, dreaming -- and lurching awake every night as some image of a tree coming awfully quick port-side kicks at my reflexes.

And irrespective of my son's dreadful jacket (my opinion), I must say that he looks pretty good here, burning up the hill for his old man's camera:

How hard to accept that we can't do all this forever.

***

But that is not the moral of this tale. The moral, truly, is one of aesthetic theory, of artistic design: never photograph yourself using a 17mm lens at 4,200 feet while on the verge of fainting. Otherwise, you might look like this, all bug-eyed and twitchy:



(At least the shadow is good-looking -- and sane.)

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Loafing On A Mount Of Sugar

It is my one indulgence, and I can't really do a thing about it. You see, I am away skiing right now, and there are just too many vertical feet I feel I must descend (and ascend). Thus, I am not really here, if you know what I mean.

Call me White Nitro.

Peace.

BG

Reunion (In The Day Room)

The other night I spoke on the phone with a relative to whom I’ve not spoken in years. In the course of our conversation, while discussing what I have been doing with my life, I mentioned this website. One wonders what I was thinking, since I rarely mention this blog to anyone. But my relation expressed enthusiasm about reading some of my work, so that counts for something. After some ado about many other things, we ended our talk.

Three days later, as I survey the sorts of things I’ve written here and the manner in which they’ve been written, I am certain that my relations will reach the rather easy conclusion that I am insane.

Peace.

Sitting In The Doctor’s Office, Waiting For My Wife

I went to the nurse today complaining of an excess of joy. I told her that my stomach was churning with delight; that my hands tingled with bliss and my head pounded with gratitude. I wonder, I said, if there is something wrong. How could I be sick with happiness? How could I be fraught with peace? How could I be wracked with innocence? Should I see the doctor?

She replied that she was glad that I was feeling better. She noted that my complaints from last month no longer seemed relevant. It is clear that your skin has cleared up, she said, and that there are no signs of the deep wounds that once dripped with sarcasm. It looks too like you are no longer biting your tongue or your lip, and that you’re no longer straining to look backwards. I can feel no spasms of regret; the knots of second-guessing seem to have been smoothed away; and the arthritis of cynicism seems to have vanished, leaving your hands free. And I cannot tell you how glad I am to see that you are so fully rested.

There was nothing I could tell her that explained my sudden change, but I told her what I knew: When I woke from what began as a restless sleep but by dawn had become a deep calm, my head was deliciously dizzy with a wine I had not sipped. My arms were light with a spirit I did not earn. There were proverbs on the back of my hands, though I cannot see them now. There were scriptures flying past my window, with many of them gathering in gentle flocks beneath my bird feeders. My heartbeat was a chorus of angels; my ears rang with choruses of hope, my tongue was sweet with glad tidings. And while the thermometer outside my window was filled with gold, my barometer offered no report. And then I saw that my watch pointed to the hour of redemption.

What does all this mean? I asked, laughter spilling from my mouth.

You know what it means, she said, reaching up and wiping ashes off my forehead. It means you’ve already seen the doctor.



Peace to you on this Ash Wednesday.

Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Goin' Up To The Scrubber In The Sky

Imagine all the deep-blue sky, free of CO2. It isn't hard to do. It's easy if you try. The clean blue sky, it's where I'm gonna go when I die.

Sir Richard Branson, music industry icon, billionaire tycoon, owner of an airline -- an ambitious man who has had big oil interests -- has called attention to his deep and generous concern. He wants a cleaner, healthier biosphere. He wants a cooler planet, one with thicker and broader ice caps; with shallower oceans. He wants longer, colder, more difficult winters. And he is willing to give away $25 million to the first person who can keep winter icy-hard.

The AP (and everyone else) reported this weekend that Sir Branson, of Virgin Atlantic Airlines (and Virgin everything else), hopes that his largesse shall spur on competition for a sort of atmospheric scrubber, or a sort of sponge, or a sort of respirator, that will remove harmful levels of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One can't hardly be more impressed with such a noble call: Sir Branson has tapped into the deep reserves of scientific genius in the hopes of finding a cure for our self-inflicted malady.

That, I believe, is the big global warming story of the day.

But the real story is this, no?

Here we have a man who is heavily invested in the airline industry calling for someone -- anyone -- to bring forward some device or method that expurgates harmful levels of CO2 from the atmosphere. Now, let us imagine that I, of all people, have the answer to Sir Branson's challenge, and that I win his $25 million award; imagine that CO2 gases are indeed reduced, and the earth's atmosphere begins to cool to "normal" temperatures. What would happen?

What would happen is that people would not reduce their use of oil at all; rather, they would increase it. Find the certain cure for cancer and everyone starts smoking. In other words, Sir Branson's challenge is billowing with self-interest. He wants to destroy the effects of carbon-based fuel consumption in order to protect the use of carbon fuels. And even if that is NOT his motive, it will clearly be the motive for other people in similar industries. (Just forget about the political need to free the West of its dependence on Mid-East oil.) It hardly matters that Mr. Branson has also promised to invest in green fuels technologies (in his own Virgin Fuels), since that investment is also pure self-interest: he expects a return, and to cash in on popular anxieties.

Sir Branson's challenge certainly tickles the ears, but it is oozing with problems.

Or so it could be argued.

We could always just have people stop exhaling CO2 for half of each day. I mean, six billion CO2 pumps can't be one whit good. Or we could just put gels of algae over every mouth and every exhaust pipe on the planet, or fill the virgin atlantic with those great little creatures. That's it!

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Recess For Real

I have said here before that the US Congress should be required by law to have an outdoor recess twice daily. Representatives and senators should be required to seesaw, swing, jump rope, and play dodge ball together. And they should also have to do this. (Wicked fun!!)

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.

There Is No Bias:saiB oN sI erehT

George W. Bush is your worst enemy; we all know that W stands for Warmonger, and that hidden in his first name is a slightly twisted ogre. Bush the Menace.

Or so says Newsweek.

Shake your head to clear your eyes, if you must, as you look at Newsweek's newest cover: that is Bush the Bellicose glaring Middle-Eastward, eyes like warheads aimed at the Persian Prince of Peace.

One thing I am certain of is this: that in Iran, Newsweek's headline is not "The Hidden War with Iran." Instead, the Tehran edition is headlined thusly: "The Hidden -- and not so Hidden -- War with America." Wait. No. Scratch that. How foolish of me. Newsweek has it right: 'Tis Bush who has been boasting about his nation's great fate; about the absurdity of the Holocaust and the porcine Jews† who hold the earth enslaved by a mythology that fuels Zionism's many fires. 'Tis Bush who wants to usher in the New Age of the 12th Imam, a caliphate and an Eden somewhere between the Tigris-Euphrates and the edges of the earth. The four angels guarding the ancient gates of Eden are relieved of their weary duty; all through Persia run rivers of gold rhetoric, and there waters are Mahdi: peace is indeed rolling, like the thunder of nuclear detonation. And Bush shall lead us home: he is the Bush that burns with war and never leaves.

Alas, again, I am mistaken, even delirious. My first response to the Newsweek cover was utterly errant. It is not the crazed man to the left who is warring against you, me, the very foundations of Western thought. No, it is Bush. The man on the right. You know, the wrong man on the Right; the Christian Right, all broken and jumbled up, full of petty menace, and all very wrong.

Newsweek and MSNBC, allies under the same Great Peacock, can't expect us to divine -- without their journalistic help -- that Mr. Ahmadinejad, ever speaking in gracious and dulcet tones, is a man of peace with sober eyes and waiting smile.

Perhaps the 12th Imam is that man from Illinois, who has fallen from the sky. His name means "blessed."

Peace.

BG

†This is not to be construed as an anti-Semitic slur on my part. I aim to faithfully and sardonically report Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Because I Care About Your Joy

I pray that you saw this little video. Enough to make the oldest heart young again.

And Now The Presentation

"We shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth."

Thus concluded Barack Hussein Obama moments ago in his much-anticipated announcement. Talk about audacity!

"We are one people." Indeed.

Consider this a strange observation: Mr. Obama was presented to the temple of his American audience with the music of U2 laving the podium. If there was ever a band that yearns for a messiah, and surely struggles with a messianic impulse itself, it is U2.

Here is Howard Fineman (right now on MSNBC), editor of Newsweek, on Mr. Barack's announcement:

"This is an amazing story. It can't be repeated enough. ... At this point in our history ... this [isn't about just bringing America together], it is about bringing the world together."

And in light of Mr. Obama's multiculturalism, MSNBC's Chris Matthews said,

"To the world this must say, 'America is bigger than we thought.'"

I would point out that Mr. Obama's speech was very similar to an altar call at a Billy Graham tent-meeting: He called his followers to come forward, to follow their destiny, to come together as one people. And that he was hailed into the temple by people holding up his book -- The Audacity of Hope -- a book that looks a lot like a Pope's own volume, is a curiosity one cannot ignore.

He is indeed the savior the Democrats particularly have been praying about: At last, U2 has finally found what they are looking for.

Wow.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Two Annunciations: MSNBC Supports Barack Hussein Obama, And He Is Not Black (or so says someone)

In a matter of minutes from now (30 minutes), Barack Hussein Obama, the handsome and well-spoken senator from Illinois, shall officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Assisting him in this proclamation, and no doubt a supporter of his candidacy, is MSNBC, the cable network featuring such notable political wisemen as Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. My saying that MSNBC is assisting him is due entirely to the fact that MSNBC is hyping its "live coverage" of Mr. Obama's annunciation with undue alacrity at this moment: MSNBC is giddy about this man. Even Mr. Russert's words on an Imus in the Morning program, words replayed during Mr. Russert's testimony in court the other day -- in the Scooter Libby perjury trial -- are perfectly apt: It was "Christmas Eve" in the newsroom when Libby was indicted. No doubt it is Christmas morning today.

Alas, I have proven rather incompetent in my coverage of the Obama story. For I have not properly secured the facts, though, in this digital age of plastic facts, it is not likely that I could ever pin down any fact, for facts vanish in a flash-media second. But please note that on October 24, 2006, in an essay I wrote about Mr. Obama, I noted that his September 2005 essay posted on the Daily Kos, the influential, self-described leftist blog, had as a banner advertisement the following image:



Please note Mr. Obama's placement in this advertisement. Please note that this ad was present at Mr. Obama's Daily Kos essay months before Mr. Obama even announced his exploratory committee for the presidency. Please note that MSNBC not only placed an advertisement for itself on Mr. Obama's Daily Kos diary, but MSNBC placed Mr. Obama's image adjacent to President Bush's, suggesting, perhaps, that both men are in some sort of great struggle. To MSNBC, Obama is a contender, and this MONTHS before he was indeed a contender. Amazingly, MSNBC threw Mr. Obama's hat into the presidential ring before he had himself.

Or so it looks. Or so it feels.

Unfortunately, I only took a screen shot of the actual ad. I failed to take, and preserve, a screen shot of the ad on the actual Obama page. And as you can see, the ad has been removed from Mr. Obama's essay posted, as it was, on the world's largest blog, a blog entirely devoted to political and sociological liberalism.

But who cares, right? This is, after all, the deliverer we are talking about. The great hope. And in just a little less than an hour, there will be a star over the silent little town of Springfield, Illinois. You know, where Abraham Lincoln once lived.

This is all shaping up to be a perfect little fairy tale, the kind America just loves to tell itself.

MY SKIN IS CLEAR (I think)

Curiously related to all of this mythmaking, and jarring our senses, is this essay ("Colorblind") about Mr. Obama (and race in America in general). It is published on Salon. com, and it is written by a "black" woman, Debra J. Dickerson. Perhaps you saw Ms. Dickerson on "The Colbert Report" earlier this week (in a brilliant interview). Ms. Dickerson's thesis, in case you did not know, is that Mr. Obama is NOT BLACK. I kid you not. His mother, apparently, is a white woman from Kansas, while his dad is from Kenya. That Ms. Dickerson defines blackness in political terms is astonishing: to be black in America means, strictly, to be a direct descendant of former African slaves. During Ms. Dickerson's interview with the thoroughly enjoyable Mr. Colbert, she said that Mr. Obama would be better served if he defined himself -- and I am NOT MAKING THIS UP -- as an African African-American. But he is definitely NOT black.

That this woman, who wrote the book, The End of Blackness, is ruining the great idea of a man with dark skin announcing his presidency from Abraham Lincoln's hometown, you know, the town of that great president who clearly made the first great step for the emancipation of slaves so they could become -- eventually -- candidates for President, is a fact too interesting to let pass unnoticed.

But I ask you: if being black is a political-linguistic term denoting only those who are descendants of actual African slaves imported to America, does it NOT FOLLOW that "white" is equally political, denoting only those who have descended from white slaveholders who imported African slaves to America? I think it does. And if that is the case, then, since there were no slaveholders in my ancestral gene pool, I am not white.

There you go then.

I am not white, and Barack Obama, should he become president, will not be America's first black President.

Go figure.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

¶ Of The Day: Seeing Clearly Through The Radiant Gas

Today's ¶ Of the Day is really but a sentence. But it is a really good sentence.

In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal editorial, "Legal Hot Air" (2.6.07), which discusses, in part, California Attorney General Jerry Brown's intent to sue the auto industry for making cars (that spew greenhouse gases), the editors make this solid point about suing one part of the greenhouse gas-belching industry complex:

In short, there's scarcely any economic activity imaginable that doesn't somehow affect the balance of greenhouse gases, which is why a "nuisance" complaint against any single industry doesn't make sense. It's also why the judiciary has so far wisely refused to get drawn into this kind of game. ...

In any case, as global warming alarmists never tire of reminding us, any serious attempt to control greenhouse gas levels would have to be an international one. [emphasis added]

Amazingly, the Wall Street Journal does not -- apparently -- see what I see in this bold quote; I hope you at least see it, for it is buried right there before our eyes.

What is evident -- even if the most dire predictions of global warming are perfectly true -- is that global warming rhetoric is being used to foment discontent over the idea of separate nation states. In other words, what the WSJ has missed is that this is all about creating one great overseer, one great political monolith: Global warming is so dire we all must work together, now, under one set of rules, and under one enforcing body.

I am surprised I had not seen this before.

Perhaps I do not see as clearly as I believe I do. Of course I don't.

One.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
And all lefts.

¶ Of The Day: A Writer's Great Fear

Perhaps it was melancholy that made me read this passage from "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy" last night:

KAIBARA EKKEN (1630 - 1714), or Eiken, Japanese Confucianist influential in popularizing Confucian ethics among ordinary people. Kaibara was born in Fukuoka. ... Blessed with an extraordinary capacity for work but little originality, he wrote on many subjects. ... His books were a great success.

If it wasn't melancholy that led me to Mr. Kaibara Ekken, surely it was melancholy that led me away from him. As Confucius might say, "Man with much bottle but no genie still makes big wind." Or, perhaps, the Great Sage might say, "The artist who is without talent might still become Madonna."

I wonder what readers think Confucius, or the editors of the "Encyclopedia of Philosophy", might say about my legacy.

"If Gnade played football, he would hold press conferences like Peyton Manning, but only after having thrown the pigskin like Rex Grossman."

"Gnade is a bit like a solar eclipse: there is much passing excitement about a cold stone that gets in the way of sheer brilliance. But we're talking total eclipse all day long. It's more nuisance than magic. By the end of the day, we welcome the night sky with great joy."

Ah yes, but he who laughs at himself makes good friend. And very good lover. Or so says Confucius.

Somewhere.

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Bow Your Heads

(I've been away for a few days. 'Tis good to be back.)

George W. Bush, you'll recall, has often been chided for his associations with the "religious right". He has been mocked for admitting during the 2000 presidential campaign that his favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ. He has been ridiculed for revealing that he prays every day that God would guide him to do the right thing; militant Bush critics even believe this revelation is tantamount to the Commander-in-Chief waging a holy war against Islam, all proof that Mr. Bush holds theocratic ambitions.

But darkness descends on the minds of too many men and women, blinded to the overwhelming fact that there is religion aplenty driving those who adhere to liberalism, or who work to transform the world into the image of the Democratic Party. Without question certain "believers" accept the grandiloquent damnations hurled at religious right activism; and without question they shut their minds to religious leftism and other forms of theocratic emanations.

Who is going to stand up to the great and swaggering behemoth which is the Democratic Party as it bowed its head in prayer the other day? Who is going to demand redress of great religious and ideological grievances brought upon Democrats for their unthinking connivance to appear tolerant, devout, and ever so peaceful?

If you have not already done so, please watch this video clip provided for us by HotAir.com of a Muslim imam invoking "god" at the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Winter Meeting. It is enough to make one's prayer shawl crawl. It is enough to make one daven in disbelief; to genuflect in semi-conscious bewilderment.

Here is a transcript (thanks to Frontpagemag.com) of the whole prayer (the HotAir excerpt is too abridged):

In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen. [Emphasis added]

I am sure we all would agree that it would be wrong for a President of the United States, the Chief Executive of a nation devoted to separation of powers, particularly the separation of Church and State; it would be wrong of that leader to invoke God's "perfect will" in declaring war against a neighbor, all in the name of Christ. Americans recoil at such religious vigor; they expect there to be a "wall of separation" between the State and its many churches.

But I am equally sure that we all must agree -- along with the deconstructionists among us -- that nowhere in the history of America has any founding document called for the erection of a wall between Mosque and State. For it appears, or so it seems, our friends in attendance at the DNC's meeting have no problem sharing the same podium with an imam invoking Allah to guide national affairs; the Mosque is our political friend. All facetiousness aside, we must (must we not?) be perplexed by the sudden Islamophilism of the DNC.

How interesting it is -- or am I wrong about this? -- that the DNC would be of nearly one mind that it is wrong for any leader to seek God's guidance in starting war, and yet it is somehow right for leaders to seek God's guidance in ending war. How interesting it is that the DNC would countenance a prayer by a man asking for exclusive privileges for a certain set of special people, the good people, and that there would be no such privileges on those God has kindly chosen to "doom." And how interesting it is that God should -- with the Democrats' help and Islam's fervent plea -- bring an end to "occupation" and procure "equality" for all.

Ahh, men.



PEACE.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.