My Faithful Readers

Greetings!

I am at a loss. My computer has been down since Tuesday morning. This and the previous post have been written in borrowed cyberspace. As a result of my recent binary corruptions, I am unable to post my normal essays. Nor can I post any photographs. How long this shall be the case is unknown, but I am trying to get things up and running with all diligence.

Since you're here, why not introduce yourself. Many of you come regularly without offering me the slightest hint of who you are, why you return, and what you like or dislike here. Feedback is always helpful. One critic recently described my website as "too partisan," which it may be, and that it was insufficiently "against the times" (which is what Contratimes means). This too, may be true. But the name Contratimes is not meant to address the times in general, though zeitgeist (spirit of the age) does undoubtedly imply that. The name actually was borne in opposition to that international-shaper of the zeitgeist, the New York Times. It is really that to which I stand in opposition. I may indeed be partisan, but I am not hiding that, and I think my partisanship is merely where I land on my feet: I am no party activist. Nor am I hiding my disdain for the New York Times, particularly its opinion makers. That any paper should have as much influence over America should be disturbing, particularly when its many writers are not the best and brightest among us. Not all of its staff drive me batty. But most of it does.

Also, what looks like partisanship is really my reacting to the lies and misrepresentations presented by the left: These are the ones most often heard, whether in the papers, on TV news, or at poetry readings. And, I must admit to a bit of provincialism here, as I am in a fairly liberal place, where the vast majority of bumper stickers lean left. I wonder if conservatives festoon their cars and trucks in red states with as much propaganda as leftists in blue states. Perhaps. But the leftists pretty much dominate in the northeast, and it is the northeast that has generally shaped the intellectual and political trends of the country (I said "generally").

I would love your input as to how I can make this site better for you. Of course, it is still rather new. I'd like to know what brings you back.

If you'd like to email me, try the email link in my profile. I still can access that from anywhere.

Peace to you all,

Contratimes

Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women, Part IV

[This series on abortion begins with Kicking At The Darkness.]

Perhaps it's too easy to ask, or too trite, "Why can't we all get along?" Perhaps it's too much to expect from people, with each person oft taking sides, identifying with his or her tribe, to the detriment of civility. Abortion rights discussions are rarely dispassionate; are rarely objective and enjoyed in the cool calm of civil discourse. I doubt I could ever get a member of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League, see note below) to read any of this series with an open mind. Similarly I doubt an Operation Rescue activist would likely sit still through a NARAL protest speech. We are each (myself included) quick to link arms with friend in order to shun foe. It is hardly helpful. What might be helpful is if we could only listen well; to be quick to hear, and slow to speak.

In the spring of 1984, after being drafted in a spontaneous enlistment during breakfast in my college dining commons, I traveled by bus to the Massachusetts State House (in Boston) to join a pro-life protest group. It would be the first, and last, rally I would attend as a participant. What I was technically attending was a counter-demonstration to a large pro-choice rally inside the capitol building. Admittedly I was vague about the event, and I was a bit concerned about losing valuable class and study time marching away the day on the edge of the Boston Common.

As we disembarked from the bus, each of us was handed a sign, a placard, and directed to march clockwise at the foot of the stairs leading to the State House. I particularly liked my sign, with "I support the rights of unborn women" painted in bold print. My girlfriend grabbed another sign, and we were off. (She and I would eventually see ourselves on the front page of the Metro section of The Boston Globe, in the center of a wide-angle news photograph.)

During this 'peaceful' demonstration, bands of pentecostalist-type folks (mostly women) would occasionally mill around and break out with scripture-laced, quasi-prophetic utterances directed at pro-choice passersby. Sometimes these religious would raise hands toward the State House and speak in tongues. One woman, a very large and intimidating woman, would belt out "Repent! The kingdom of heaven is at hand!" Shouts of "Sodom and Gomorrah!" would also occasionally ring out.

At one point, each of us was permitted into the State House foyer, where we could hear various pro-choice speakers address their fellow Roe v. Wade advocates. To my consternation, the pro-lifers around me would erupt in a cacophony of doom-laden rebukes, citing scripture, while the pro-choicers would rebuff them with wild insults. But it was the pro-lifers that set me on edge. The "spiritual warfare" in which they were engaging struck me as dehumanizing and heavy-handed. Even my girlfriend disliked it, as she started shouting "Listen to them! Let them speak!" in a plea that courtesy be shown to the pro-choice speakers.

I left my girlfriend and headed outside, where she later joined me in the slow, marching circuit.

Suddenly, from nowhere it seemed, a man appeared in front of us in full Nazi uniform, a hideous rubber mask over his head. The uniform was perfect: red, black, swaztikas on arm bands, jack-boots. Everything looked authentic and complete. He held up a sign with his left hand which read: "Women of Choice I salute you." And then he held up his right hand in salute.

"Heil Hitler!" He shouted towards us and the State House. I believe he even clicked his heels.

Needless to say, this character sent a wild rush of confusion through my whole being. I wasn't sure what he meant: I had heard pro-lifers referred to as Nazis in their tactics and dogmatism, and alleged fanaticism. Was he directing his mockery at me?

I moved closer toward the man, but only moments after the pentecostalists, prophets and preacher-types hastened their way to him. As I drew closer, the gang of prophets circled the man, and started rebuking him, hurling prayers and exorcisms, hands raised toward heaven. The large woman started shouting, "The Devil is among us, the Devil is among us!"

Through the din I could hear a muffled sound, so I moved within inches of the man and, looking into his eyes – the only flesh of his I could see – my own eyes were opened: The man was elderly, and scared out of his wits, eyes bulging in panic. And from under the rubber which was his mask (he never lifted it up, which to this day stumps me), I could hear his muffled shouts at his accusers: "I am on your side! I am on your side!" He fixed his eyes on mine, as if to beg that I make his position clear.

I turned to my girlfriend, told her what I had heard, and turned away from the scene. I searched my soul for what I was feeling, and what I wanted to do. "Is this the way?" I kept asking myself, "Is this who you are?" After a few minutes I turned around to look at the protesters I had earlier joined. A semblance of peace had been restored. The prophets were back holding their signs, the circuit complete. And there, at the bottom of the steps to the State House was the Nazi-impersonater, once the devil incarnate, now saluting pro-choice women as they left the building.

"I am done," I declared to my girlfriend. I leaned my sign against the wall near where the news photographer had stood earlier in the day. "You can join me, if you'd like," I said. She smiled, a little sadly, I thought, though I knew she was not sad with me. She leaned her sign against mine, grabbed my hand, and, sensing my lead, ran with me at full speed toward the Boston Common. I pulled my hand from her's as I leaped over a park bench, her mirthful laugh filling my soul with pride. And then we joined our hands again, losing ourselves in the city, each having made a choice, both so full of life.

***

We do not get along, it seems to me, because we refuse to understand. And we refuse to humble ourselves enough to understand what is being said, and why it is being said. We are quick to love our own rightness, and slow to love the rightness of others; or we are too rough to properly correct those who are indeed wrong.

I am guilty. I know my sins. They are legion. But I believe that I am called to understand that which is hardly understandable. I am called to find the common ground, the humanity and the tragedy of humanity, and to be a peacemaker in the midst of tribal strife. I am called to be a healing salve, not a wounding sword. I am called to be a friend, not a foe. I am called to life, not to death.

I am called toward the Common. Come. Run with me.

Contratimes

[I am not finished, so bear with me]

To continue with this series, read here.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[NARAL is in the midst of a controversial ad campaign in which Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is described as a proponent of bombing abortion clinics. See story here, and the challenge to it here. Then ask yourself whether the most powerful abortion lobby in the US is honest. Talk about tribalism!]

A Few Comments

1. Should I be disconcerted that the most visited post ever published at Contratimes had to do with a man who for two weeks struggled to remove a padlock from his testicles? Sunday's post was the most popular by a long shot. Perhaps I should reconsider my goals. What do you think?

2. Part of the Sunday post's popularity had to due with a spammed comment left in the COMMENTS box. This bit of spam drew people from all over the world (I think that's good) to Contratimes, but it appears it is also responsible for dumping a virus here as well. I am not certain of the virus' genesis; but the anomalous traffic to Contratimes suggests a source. That is why I've deleted the comments left in Sunday's COMMENTS box: following the links left there might lead some Contratimes readers into trouble.

3. As my readers know, I've been addressing the approaching confirmation battle of U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in several of my latest posts. The abortion series is directly related to that pending confirmation struggle. As I stated in "In With A Bang, Kicking Down Your Privacy", Mr. Roberts' very private world is being kicked about – in the name of privacy. The New York Times, in fact, reportedly made legal inquiries into whether the private adoption papers of Roberts' two adopted children were in fact legally and forever sealed. Can you imagine? I suspect the NYT's motive was perhaps to find the birth mother(s) of Roberts' daughters (I heard this idea later bandied about by Sean Hannity) and inquire of their opinions about choice, or even, well, privacy. Amazing that the left, whose paper of record is the NYT, decries the alleged invasiveness of the Patriot Act, and yet invades private worlds every day. It's typical Michael Moore maliciousness.

4. The recent news that millionaire leftists are pooling together their resources in order to finance liberal think tanks is positively Orwellian. These liberals continue to declare that they repeatedly fail to effectively communicate their message because (no chortling) the right dominates the media. The Orwell part is easy: The left's paranoia is so much abracadabra, so much smoke and mirrors, all in an effort to distract observers from the fact that the left is in a place of dominance, and has been for a long time. Democrats have long held control over the Big Three TV networks and CNN; the New York Times (the country's paper of record which has not endorsed a Republican since ...), the LA Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post (to name a few); NPR (the largest talk-radio network in the country) and PBS; MOST college and university faculty departments; the Daily Show, SNL and most if not all late-night TV talkshows; and virtually every Hollywood production. Of course, we are leaving out the vast number of philanthropic organizations that fund progressive and socialist ideals (just check out most of the underwriters to NPR programming to see where they fall politically); and those which fund the "arts." That this all adds up to a lack of access to the media by the left is laughable. And as far as think tanks are concerned, isn't the Brookings Institution chock-full of former Clinton staffers?

5. In light of all this, the 2004 election results are shocking. President Bush won the popular vote by what, 3.5 million or so votes? Just think about that for a moment. Here is a president seeking reelection who has taken us to "war illegally" and is a "tyrant", who has "ruined the economy", "lied to the American people" and "falsified intelligence"; a president who served "big business", "greased the palms of his big-oil friends" and "gives tax-cuts to the rich;" in short, here is an unpopular president (as "bad as Hitler"), arguably a weak candidate, who has most of the press and college faculties against him, and yet he still manages to win. What, pray tell, would have been the size of John Kerry's defeat had his opponent been a POPULAR candidate? And, do you think the millionaire left might want to reconsider its goals: The left does not need money for think tanks; it needs some thoughts to put in those tanks, thoughts that are true, good, just and effective. (Can you believe that over the weekend, at a rally somewhere in this country, a Democratic mayor stood up and once again bellowed that Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court "stole the election in 2000"? Talk about fresh ideas.)

6. Dear Democrats: It's not the medium, it's the message.

Peace.

Contratimes

[I return to the abortion series tomorrow.]

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

[Photo: Emu (domesticated), Peterborough, NH. Camera: Canon EOS 3. Lens: Sigma EX APO 300/2.8 with 1.4x extender. Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100VS. Exposure: 1/1000 @ f4. Monopod. Click on image for larger view. All rights reserved.]

Call The Locksmith (Only In New Hampshire)

Well, I thought it'd be nice if we took a little break from our serious discussion on abortion. This is really the FIRST diversion ever taken here at Contratimes. It's time to laugh, cringe, or even cross your legs.

So please enjoy this news report. Click on it and tell me what you think. It's straight out of New Hampshire, and it's the kind of story any person might wish to tell – but only if it happened to someone else. The national media will have a blast drafting headlines for this one. (To leave a comment, click "Comments" shown below.)

Contratimes

PS. For the initial report, click here.

Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women, Part III

[This series begins with Kicking At The Darkness.]

In this, the fourth of a series on abortion rights in America (inspired largely by the pending confirmation hearings of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court), I refer the reader to a statement in my last essay. There I stated that pro-lifers are not anti-choice. And I believe that I defended that statement ably. But now I want to examine whether pro-choice people are anti-life. And I would say that pro-choicers are as passionate about living as the most strident pro-lifer. Such passions are not without their contradictions, as most pro-lifers support the death penalty for serious crimes, whereas most pro-choicers do not. It is hard to be consistent; it is hard to be balanced. But here, we try.

I once sat on a New Hampshire porch talking with a woman who worked as a professional therapist. She was, and remains, 30 years my senior. She is what one might call, "New Age"; a radical feminist progressive, a vegetarian full of mysticism and, of course, opinion. Our friendship began when I was fresh out of college when Gail (not her real name), hired me to be her house painter and perennial housesitter. But once, while sitting watching a summer thunderstorm roll in from the southwest, Gail and I engaged in a conversation about hunting and abortion. The two topics were not directly connected; it's just how our conversation fell. And I can so clearly recall that conversation because of two opinions she offered passionately, her passion all the more fierce because I was an incongruity, at least to her: I was pro-life through and through, anti-death penalty, and (the shock!) also a vegetarian. I was anti-war, anti-hunting, anti-road kill. I was chockful of love for all living things.

But Gail wandered off into some truly strange territory. On the one hand, she clearly and vociferously opposed hunting. In fact, she had nearly severed all ties with her only son, solely because he was a hunter. She could not fathom how anyone could eat anything that did not grow on a vine.

To say that Gail was New Age is a bit of an understatement. She was all crystals and yoga and meditation, enhanced with a little marijuana. She and I even once attended a conference at Hampshire College in the New Age shangri-la of Western Massachusetts for a conference organized by psychotherapists for world peace and harmony.

So later in our conversation Gail expressed her feelings, in mystical overtones, about abortion. A believer in reincarnation, Gail proclaimed that her advice to would-be mothers facing the choice of abortion was to point out that it was not the baby's time.

"I tell them to say to the baby, 'You've come too soon, you're not welcome here. Try again later, when the world is ready for you.'"

Gail never heard my response to her admission. I am not one to trounce a sensitively-held religious ideal in the midst of a debate. But if I had said anything, it might have been something profound, like "What the hell?"

You see, Gail, passionate about life, was quite reckless about death. And she was ridiculously hypocritical. For it takes no great leap of mind to see that Gail's advice could be said by any hunter to any unfortunate deer, moose or elk: "I am sorry to do this, but I must send you back. Your time has not yet come. You are not welcome right now. Try again."

That Gail would offer this kind of apparently sympathetic advice to a woman about to kill a baby, and yet not grant that kind of grace to her son who wants to shoot a deer, is quite telling.

Moreover, Gail's view is rooted in pantheism. It is not merely rooted in sentiment, but in the pervasive New Age spirituality of most radical feminists. Such feminists renounce the "patriarchal" religions and attendant deities of "male-dominated" religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (as they are perceived). Such feminists almost always embrace a deity that is female, if they embrace a deity at all, and that female is usually associated with the Gaia, or the Mother Earth (or some such derivation or variation).

Thus, such feminists can and do take a cavalier approach to death, at least fetal death. For as the Mother Earth controls her body with her own types of abortion (earthquakes, disease, monsoons, landslides, pestilence), so too do women control their own bodies. Gaia can always give her "souls" another chance; another incarnation.

Can the reader think of a more threatening idea toward life than this? I can. It is the idea of reincarnation in general, irrespective of feminism and gods and goddesses. For it is easy to see how a tyrant or a murderer or an oppressive political system could easily slide into large-scale genocide. If everyone is to be reincarnated ad infinitum, or even once, why then fret about their deaths at all? Why NOT thin the herd, so to speak, for the good of the many, especially when the many are "not ready" or "not yet welcoming?"

Honestly, the patriarchal religions of the West (if they are patriarchal, which is debatable), especially Christianity, could never be so cavalier about life or death, as in that religion each person is unique and timely, and has only one shot at living. In fact, science is far more Christian in this sense than Hinduism or various reincarnation systems, as science pretty much concludes that one life is all one gets.

Hence it is possible that being pro-choice is to be pro-life, but what view of life is it that countenances death of children as a solution to a problem? At least the hunter is trying to feed a family. What does the death of a child actually give us, better lives?

A BROAD STROKE

Let me posit something I've nothing more than anecdotal evidence for believing. I believe that abortion and child abuse (as well as the abuse of women) are correlated. Granted, prior to Roe v. Wade children and women were abused. But I believe that Roe v. Wade moves us farther from and not closer to a solution of those problems.

Let's stipulate that abortion proponents support life, but their position is not life at any cost, but life that is worth living, a life of quality. Let's further stipulate that some children will today be born into families that should not be allowed to even care for a pet fish. But it must be asked, does accepting Roe v. Wade make for a better world?

I don't think so. If a father and mother can kill a child one minute before it is born, why can they not kick a baby around a bit one minute after it is born? If a mother can abort her child one week before delivery (partial-birth abortion) because of threats to her mental health, then why can't she drown that child one week later, when her postpartum depression proves her mental illness? You see the picture.

If you have a low view of a thing, you are likely to treat it poorly. If you believe dogs are scum, you are likely not to care for dogs. If you believe Jews are half-human, you are not likely going to afford them full human rights. If you believe babies in utero are the property of their mothers, and are only children if deemed so by their mothers (a standard pro-choice belief), then it is quite likely that you will not cherish children very much. (I am not stating that this is the outcome for all pro-choice mothers. But I think it is a dangerous underlying social current.) Violence against children in utero negatively feeds violence against all children ex utero to some degree. I don't see how that can be denied.

So where are we? We are here: Life is fraught with danger and oppression. Both pro-life and pro-choice groups attempt to overcome such dangers and oppression. But it is clear that being pro-choice is not enough to keep violence and oppression at bay. Pro-life approaches, though clearly flawed, thus foster a more convivial world and worldview. Any view that believes a high-quality of life is preserved by killing unborn babies is not much of a view.

(Again, I am not through here, so be patient.)

Contratimes

To continue this series, read here.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Photo: Blue Jay in the rain. Camera: Canon EOS 3. Lens: Sigma APO EX 300/2.8 with 1.4 extender. Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100VS. Exposure: 1/30 @ f 5.6 Tripod and cable release. Click on image for larger view. All rights reserved.]

Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women, Part II

So far in this series, which actually begins with Kicking At The Darkness, we have discussed whether the human fetus is in fact human, and whether abortion rights actually liberate women. We have concluded both that the fetus is indeed human, and that women are actually oppressed by abortion and its advocacy.

Today (and the next few days) I turn to some harsh realities. Each bitter pill is presented for context and to give us some guidance–along with honest understanding of the world–as we wiggle through the minefield which is the abortion debate.

First, recall with me the practices of former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, who was ousted in 1989. Ceausescu's attempt to create an abundant supply of citizens by mandating pregnancy created despicable horrors. Forced quarterly gynecological exams for women, even at the workplace, and vicious punishments for aborting a child, were just a small part of his heartlessness. Countless children were abandoned by frightened and already impoverished mothers, later placed and then neglected in hideously underfunded and squalid orphanages. There has hardly been a more grotesque abuse of children and the sacred mothers who, by nature and not by government fiat, are indeed equipped to bring those very children to life. It is enough to make the skin crawl and the soul crouch in a corner.

It is this horrendous historical fact that colors the abortion debate in our country for countless abortion rights advocates. Outlawing abortion, as Ceaucescu did, appears to many one small step, or even a large one, toward mandating pregnancy. It is a legitimate fear.

But there is a counterpoint to this that is equally horrible, perhaps to be revealed in its full brutality by social scientists ten, twenty or a hundred years hence. It is the horror that is entirely Chinese, and could easily become entirely American. That horror is forced abortion; the mandated termination of prenatal life. Just as a dictator may use anti-abortion sentiments to draft laws forcing women into pregnancy, a dictator could use pro-choice sentiments to force women into sterility.

Prudence would have us pause here and ask, Which outcome is more likely in America? Would a pro-life democracy, proud of its celebration of women and children, turn vicious and contra-natural, forcing women to be baby-makers for the state? Or would a pro-choice democracy devolve into forcing women to abort their babies, perhaps to abate population growth, also in a contra-natural imposition against women and children? Who knows?

My particular confidence is in this: Democracies are less likely to turn to drastic impositions. After all, forcing women to abort or to conceive are historical practices, not of democracy, but of communism (Romanian and Chinese respectively). And I hold particular allegiance to something perhaps viscerally and not rationally inferred: I don't believe a pro-life democracy is likely to force women into mandatory baby-making, largely for consistency's sake. For pro-lifers don't want to oppress either babies or mothers, or even potential mothers. But a pro-choice democracy already has a strike against it: If it can permit a mother to kill a child in utero, it is not too far from encouraging such killing. The distance between permission to kill and insisting on it is less than it is between protecting a child from death and forcing a woman into pregnancy.

How can I make such a claim? Because pro-lifers are not anti-choice. They recognize that any woman can choose to kill her baby, they just don't recognize that such a choice should be legal (and funded and protected by the citizenry, particularly those who oppose it). They don't want to prevent a woman from choosing to kill her baby any more than they want to prevent a man from stealing a car. Laws are not really preventative; they are punative. Speeding laws are not drafted to keep you from choosing to speed. They are drafted to punish you if you do. And pro-lifers recognize that most women, including the vast number of women who've aborted a child, nearly always have a choice: To have sex or not (or to have unprotected sex or not). The choice comes not in the consequences stage. It comes in the initial stage. And that choice is (usually) always free.

And what, if any, is the punishment for a woman who aborts a baby in a pro-life society? My guess is that it is the same as a pro-choice one: A woman has to bear the consequences of her "choice", which is the intentional killing of her child. This is not imposed in some sort of trial; there are to be no sentencing hearings for mothers who abort. There will just be self-loathing, sorrow, remorse. And these do not come from outside; they come not from church or country club. They come from within: The women I know who have had abortions punish themselves every day (and those who do not are largely in some sort of denial).

Let me try my hand at pointing out the paradox: The "punishment" for a mother's actions in a pro-life society, where abortion would be illegal, is to give birth, or to feel guilt for choosing not to; and the "blessing" of a pro-choice society is the legal power to choose to kill. But which society produces the harsher terms–the one where children are born, or the one where they are permitted to be killed? The one society claims to desire to protect life, and it does, making failure to participate in that protection the only painful thing. The other society claims to protect freedom, and it does, though its proof of that freedom is the freedom to kill. Which society do you believe would produce the least amount of suffering, the greatest amount of winners?

For sharper focus, think of the name of Planned Parenthood, the international non-profit organization committed to family planning. Think of what Planned Parenthood stands for: It stands for parenthood that is planned. Ironically, Planned Parenthood is hugely pro-choice. Why is this ironic? For this simple reason: planning for anything, like a vacation or a business venture or a wedding, should always include contingency plans for THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT PLANNED. What, pray tell, does a wedding planner do if she has not planned for a rainstorm spoiling a wedding under the stars? You get the idea.

Well, here's Planned Parenthood's contingency plan for parenthood that is unplanned: Something could always be killed–in the name of freedom, of course.

Clearly, that is no plan at all.

(I am not through yet, so be patient.)

Contratimes
To continue this series, read here.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

[Photo: Nesting tree swallows contend over mate and nesting box, Hancock, NH. Camera: Canon A2. Lens: Sigma 300/4 APO Macro with Sigma 1.4x EX APO extender. Film: Fujicolor 400. Exposure: 1/1500 @ f5.6. Monopod. Click on photo for larger view. All rights reserved.]

Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women, Part I

Before our foray into the topic at hand, permit me one small divergence, though this aside bears a tangential relationship to what I will be discussing today. Various plaintiffs, most notably the New York Times, have lamented President G.W. Bush's "recess appointment" of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. It is no small appointment. And for those of you who do not know what a "recess appointment" is, it is nothing more than a presidential appointment that occurs when the Senate is in recess. Ideally, the Senate would confirm a nominee. But if the Senate stalls or threatens to stall its procedural obligations, the president is constitutionally permitted to appoint someone, in this case Bolton, to a post while the Senate is out jet-skiing off Nantucket. It is not an act of demagoguery.

Do you know how many times Bill Clinton exercised this executive privilege? Once? Twice? Three times? No. He exercised this power 140 times.

***

[This series actually begins here.]

Contratimes' readers know without me telling them that the nomination of judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court is almost entirely controversial because of Roe v. Wade. If confirmed, will Roberts vote to overturn women's right to abortion, or will he protect that right? It is a good question. But what I want to focus on here is why the right to abortion is so important to pro-choice Americans, particularly why it is so important politically.

I can sum the whole thing up in one word: equality.

The political aspects of 'equality' are important, and thoroughly essential to the pro-abortion lobby. I will discuss this further in a moment. But first, my thesis: Abortion rights, or "reproductive freedoms", do not liberate women. Abortion oppresses women.

DEFENDING MY THESIS

The political attractiveness of the right to abortion is in abortion's alleged power to liberate women from the tyranny not only of nature, but men in general. Women gain equality in having the power not to be enslaved to nature's majestic rhythms, and in having the power to determine their reproductive fate on their own terms. Abortion provides a "level playing field" for women, ensuring that they can pursue education and career and all that life has to offer in a planned and deliberate way. Abortion makes men and women equal in the workplace and in the workforce, as women can "choose" to be freed from the burdens nature places on them through pregnancy, and thus follow their career without detour.

Here's a question: Does abortion make men equal to women, or does it make women equal to men? Think about it for a moment.

Now, this question. What can women do better than men, by definition? The answer is simple. Women can produce babies better than men, infinitely better than men. Hence, let us answer the question I asked a moment ago: Abortion makes women equal to men, but it does not make men equal to women. I apologize if I am stating the obvious, but there is power in the obvious, particularly when we have forgotten the rather plain facts.

Let's put this all another way. Abortion rights advocates are not trying to protect a law, or certain abortifacients, in order to make men like women. They are not insisting that Roe v. Wade commands men to have babies in order to guarantee equality between the sexes. No, abortion rights activists want to ensure that women can be like men: Women can have sex and not have to deliver a child. Ever.

What do we know about sex that is as plain as the genitalia that comprises sexuality? We know this: Men transcend the consequence of sexual intercourse. Men cannot ever get pregnant after ejaculating in the wondrous womb that is the incubator of all human life. Men can hit and run, so to speak. And they don't have to worry if their period is late.

Women, on the other hand, are completely different in the reproductive dance. They can be literally transformed by the relatively simple act of intercourse. They are not transcendent; they are not "outside" the post-coital experience. They, by their very natures, must be part of what happens next.

Can you see where I am going with this? I hope so.

Abortion masculinizes women. It gives them a medical, man-made option to be something other than a woman: It gives them the power to be like a man. In short, they can have sex, all the sex they want, and not HAVE to bear forth the consequences of the pursuit of so much endless pleasure. They can have sex and not fret about career, or education, or the annoying things associated with pregnancy. Women can be like men.

And you know what? Men love abortion for THIS very reason: It means that women can be reduced to sex objects all the more. It means that men can also have all the sex they want, as long as they find pro-choice women who will be complicit with them in their wanton lust for pleasure. It means that men are more likely to find sex easier and more available (it is) because women, now freed economically and reproductively (like men), and accessible in the workplace (again, like men, where the men once dominated), can participate in sex that does not "mean anything" (or as much), as it once did (or was supposed to).

No wonder (and here's a fact) more men than women support abortion rights! It gets men off the hook sexually. It sets them free to seduce and conquer. It sets them free to reduce women to well, men with vaginas and breasts. Amazingly, the post-modern woman even embraces this reality (as depicted in shows like "Sex and the City"), where women, long unable to do so because of the constraints of biology, now celebrate casual sex as empowerment. (I recall a moment in Animal Dreams, a novel by Barbara Kingsolver, when the heroine, doing spoons with a man she's been having sex with for weeks, responds with surprise when he suggests more depth to their relationship. "I never led you on," she replies. Feminists everywhere shout a triumphant cheer: Women can be shallow too! Such power!)

The fact is this: "Reproductive freedom" for women means that women can choose to define themselves in a male way in a male world. There is nothing feminist about this idea. The idea is entirely masculinist.

A true feminist, in trying to rescue women from hordes of caddish men, would call women to do what they do best, and create a nursery out of the world. Women, instead of participating in the post-modern, male-dominated sexual morés, should do what their very bodies do better than anything on the planet: they should make the world a place where every child is IN FACT wanted, by women, and bring forth all the children they can. And that, I declare, would bring men to their knees. That's the revolt we need, led by fecund females everywhere.

Hear me, sisters! Your bodies are sacred temples. Stop letting men, and imitative feminists, treat your bodies like a toy or sports arena. Make a man EARN the right to enter your sacred halls. Stop letting the men–and the society they've created with your help–dictate the conditions when your hallowed sanctuary is open for pleasure. You do not open your womb because a man is cute, or has a nice car, a big wallet, a great job, or has made you feel good about yourself with flowers and gentle whispers. You do not open your cathedral because it might feel good, or end your loneliness. Nay, you open yourself when you find someone who can appreciate the cathedral, and is ready to help care for it when it fills up with life and responsibility.

It's time to transform the world. It begins with a choice, and that choice is to see a woman as a sacred being, as a sacrament. She is not to submit to the very male idea of equality and abortion, even when that idea is couched in terms of liberation and choice.

Emptying the womb does not set women free. Protecting it does. Legalized abortion is a chain around the neck of women everywhere, keeping them right where men want them. It's time for a change. A truly feminine one.

Contratimes

To continue this series, read here.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Photo: Bee-like Tachinid Fly on dandelion, Sharon, NH. Camera: Canon A2. Lens: Sigma 300/4 APO macro, with Sigma 1.4 EX APO extender. Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100VS Exposure: not recorded. Tripod. Click on image for larger view.]

Kicking At The Darkness

Canadian singer/songwriter Bruce Cockburn sings in his angst-touched love song, Lovers in a Dangerous Time, that "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight/Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight." It is a powerful image, full of spectral glory. And kicking at darkness is, in a sense, my very ambition. I'll spare the reader the metaphysical details, but the idea of kicking at darkness until it bleeds daylight carries with it all the spiritual force of Jacob wrestling with the angel; or Neo conquering the Matrix as Agent Smith fractures in supernova splendor.

A close look at my blogger profile reveals that I list among life's blessings the nearly ineffable beauty of babies. There is in each baby's perfect fingernails (always clipped to perfection at birth), or in its fresh-from-the-bakery skin, all the mystery of life in perpetuity, inexplicable in its power – a seed planted in the dark earth yielding the entire universe. For each child is indeed all the force of the cosmos (there is no life without the infinitely broad cosmic womb); each baby the incarnation of swirling suns and tidal moons. What does it take to make a baby? All the power and eons of the universe. There are no shortcuts, no sleight-of-hand, to master such impenetrable magic.

But images of light and tiny, gripping hands are not enough to save me today. For I am sickened this afternoon, here in the full light of August's sun. I find myself haunted by an image I saw not long ago while working at a New England prep school. During a photo shoot, I entered the school's computer lab unannounced. There were shrieks of disgust and shock emitted by a dozen or so students gathered around glowing computer screens, each student apparently unaware of my "adult" presence. And quivering in digital vibrancy on every computer screen was the source of all the tumult: It was a color photograph of a man seated in a restaurant booth – a napkin tucked into his shirt collar and a knife and fork in each hand – looking hungrily at the meal before him. What was on the platter? A roasted human fetus.

Kick at the darkness ....

I am sorry to pass along this violence against all that is meant to be pure, lovely, peaceful. But I share this for one reason: Do not be quick to conceive incorrectly that which is conceived in the fertile womb. Do not for a moment think that the unborn are so much superfluous tissue, or accidental bits of bio-mass. We must be provoked, we must kick our way toward the light of honest, simple truth.

Have you ever wondered why, if human fetuses are not human, do we not eat them? Why cringe at the thought of a fetus served to a wealthy connoisseur; or in soup kitchens to the hungry poor? After all, if the human fetus (all 40 million of them since Roe v. Wade) is not a human, have we missed a golden opportunity to feed countless mouths eager for food? In fact, could we not harvest such fetuses as crops, perhaps using petri dishes and sperm- and ova-banks for the production of a new nutrient-rich food source, a sort of veal for the open-minded?

Enough. I've said too much. The unborn are human. Prep-schoolers shrieking at a mere image prove it.

My point is not really about abortion. It is about our slow descent into carelessness. Trust me when I say this: there are and will be pro-abortion activists who will respond to my observations not with revulsion, but with a quasi-academic air of acceptance. They will wonder aloud whether it might be a tenable idea to eat fetuses, all in the posture of open-minded consideration. They will ask about biases against the Fetuses-for-Food program; and they will speculate as to how certain social structures condition people to react squeamishly; and they shall offer arguments against taboo. But their motives will not be one whit academic: Their motives are solely energized to keep abortion legal.

Was it not George Orwell who said that “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men"? Let me then state the obvious.

Each of us once kicked at the darkness. We pressed at it with our hands, even after we sucked our thumbs, the thumbs we didn't know we had. And we kicked at the darkness until it did in fact bleed daylight: The daylight of the world, bolting toward us like lightning, as we kicked our helpless, trusting way through the birth canal, toward the light which bleeds all around us, right now, with the full force of the cosmos pulsing in our veins.

The world felt us kicking, it felt us fighting to overcome. Shame that the very cosmos, which should be considered one giant nursery, with "Welcome" banners unfurled from star to star, has, at least for some, become a hostile place, with the brutal light of the abortionist's hand forced into the warm and safe dark; giant hands ripping out little ones.

Which hands are the more wonderful; whose hands the more welcoming?

Contratimes

To continue reading the series, go here.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

[Photo: Stained glass at All Saints' Church, Peterborough, NH. From the book, "The Stained Glass of All Saints'". Camera: Canon EOS3 Lens: Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 IS. Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100 VS. Exposure: 1/60 @ f5.6. Click on photo for larger view. All rights reserved.]

The Clash of Symbols

The recent announcement of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the United States Supreme Court is fraught with tension particularly regarding women's rights and, though less so, gay and minority rights. Ms. O'Connor's widely circulated comment – "I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of women on our court drop by 50 percent" – has been seized by activists alarmed that even the justice herself is uncomfortable that her nominated replacement, John Roberts, is not an XX chromosome human being. Though Ms. O'Connor puts full confidence in Mr. Robert's judicial aptitude, her lamenting supporters wish that President Bush presented a more estrogen-rich litigator.

Odd, don't you think?

I've already examined the problem of male/female equality in "A Fifty-Million Dollar Apology For Simple Math." There I presented a rather curious logical impasse: Harvard President Lawrence Summers' provocative suggestion that men and women are intrinsically different was greeted with umbrage by those who talk about equality and yet insist that women are not equal to men. If you've not read it, I recommend it to you. I suspect that you might find it somewhat provocative in its own right.

What is odd, is not that Ms. O'Connor should be disappointed. Nor is it odd that activists have used her remarks. That sort of thing is to be expected, and would be odd if Ms. O'Connor or her supporters expressed no emotion at all. But what is odd is that no one knows, other than Ms. O' Connor, what she means by her remarks. For she does not say why she's disappointed, and no one has seemed to ask. She's just "disappointed, in a sense." What does that mean?

Does it mean that she believes President Bush prefers men? Who knows!? Does it mean that she thinks Bush is misogynistic or sexist or repressive? Who knows!? Does it mean that there are no women litigators skilled enough to fill Ms. O'Connor's shoes? Again, who knows?! We are not at all given any insight into Ms. O'Connor's remarks, in large part because the media have treated them thoroughly superficially. The assumption is that she merely wishes Bush had nominated another woman. But for all we know, Ms. O'Connor's "in a sense" means that she is disappointed that so few women have applied themselves sufficiently to the legal profession, thus leaving the Administration few choices.

Of course, I recognize that O'Connor seems to imply something. But it must be admitted that all of us are left in the ambiguous dark as to why she is truly disappointed, particularly when we think about equality, and equal rights. If, after all, men and women are equal – one sex as capable of knowledge and skill and judgement as the other – how then is it an inequality having men decide legal issues for everyone? If there are no differences between men and women, then how is a man exempt from making judgements about equality as it pertains to women? Or are men and women in essence different, bringing different learning styles, perspectives, and intelligences to the Court? Are there legal issues that pertain only to women, others only to men? If we admit this, then men and women are NOT equal under the law, nor are men and women equal in general. Hence, if we admit all this, then why would the enlightened intellectuals at Harvard – and nearly everywhere else – chastise commentators like Lawrence Summers?

Forsooth, even a transsexual recently suggested here at Contratimes that the "new" she now possesses "superior female intuition." Is there indeed something superior to women's minds in some areas? Moreover, are we in fact not heading toward expecting a certain sexlessness, a kind of androgynous amalgam on the Supreme Court? How about – and this might thrill a certain set – loading the Court with transsexuals, balanced with a kindly blend of women who were once men and men who were once women. Of course, the Court might then be rescued from the morass of sex differences, but we would still be dealing with legal, social and ontological inequalities, as transsexuals by definition are different, and thus not equal to those who would be excluded from the bench. Ahhgh! The illusions and elusiveness of equality!

Is there a conclusion to all this? It's hard to know. Take it as just the clashing of sundry symbols – the tokens of power and equality and even genteel democratic dialogue. There is no clear winning here, no obvious passage out, and no flag to wave in victory or surrender. We simply must press on, carrying in our satchels of certitude the miscellany of ambiguities of which life is so sorely composed.

One thing we know: We'll need a lot of grace to make it home.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

[Photo: Peterborough, NH - Iraq war protest, woman in black garb, Gay Pride and American flags. Camera: Canon EOS 3. Lens: Canon EF 17-40/4L. Film: Fujipress 800. Exposure: 1/500 @ f8. Click on photo for larger view.]

In With A Bang, Kicking Down Your Privacy

One person might hope that my return to Contratimes would be ushered in with a bang, while another expects little more than a whimper. Alas, I am not one to know. Even if I did know, there is no assurance that what is to me a bang would not be to others a mere trite and tedious ho-hum. Hoping that my efforts here are not, in truth, a dud, I light the fuse, hold my ears, and let things go off as they may.

The news in America over the past two weeks, during my hiatus, has been filled with terrorism, Karl Rove/Plamegate, and the nomination of a conservative to the United States Supreme Court. I tried to ignore much of the noise around these things, but I failed most of the time. That which piqued my curiosity mostly was the Supreme Court hub-bub. It is that to which I will now turn.

***

On Sunday's Meet The Press (July 24), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) shared the following thoughts concerning Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (please, don't spray your coffee all over the screen as you read his remarks). Durbin sits on the senate judiciary committee and is the Democratic minority whip. In the interest of brevity, I am only including a small portion of his remarks. You should read the whole interview yourself [emphasis added]:

"...I believe that John Roberts, despite his great resume and all of the positive things that can be said about him, still has the burden of proving something. He needs to prove that he is worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land, the court that really stands as the last refuge for the rights and freedoms of the American people and that he will serve there most likely, if approved, 20 or 30 years. So we need to know things about him that two years on the bench in the District of Columbia don't tell us, whether that's through documentation or his answers to questions. What I said to him the other day, 'If you will be honest and forthcoming, you're going to find a warm reception from our side of the aisle, even if we disagree with you on any given issue.'

"... I have an obligation as a member of the Senate, representing not only Illinois, but speaking for those in the nation who are following this, to ask critical questions about where he stands on mainstream values in America. It's not enough to say all of those things, legally skilled, honest and a good temperament. I need to know if his views fall within the mainstream on critical issues, issues like workers' rights and women's rights and civil rights and the protection of the environment. ... It's a question about the values and principles that guided Roe vs. Wade. What Justice Blackmun was trying to achieve in that decision was to recognize the right of privacy, a right of exclusion so that there are parts of our lives, our personal and family lives, the government can't intrude upon. And in this situation, I think we have a right to know where John Roberts stands when it comes to fundamental issues of privacy and personal freedom. ...

"I would like to hear from him as to whether or not he has at least thought through or struggled with this decision on the future of reproductive rights in this country. I'd like to hear from him that even if he might disagree on a variance of Roe vs. Wade, that when it comes down to the basics, when it comes down to right of privacy, he will acknowledge that is part of our right and our legacy as Americans and that he would acknowledge, as well, that this is an issue of personal freedom ...

"...The American people expect us, I think in this process, to find out what is really driving the thoughts and the heart of the individual who's seeking this nomination. If I didn't do that, we'd be putting someone on the court without an understanding as to whether they would be independent, whether they'd be balanced and have an open mind. This is the last refuge for America's freedoms and rights and I think we have a special obligation to understand what goes into the value judgments of those seeking this bench."

Unknown to Durbin, apparently, is that astute readers immediately see not only a theme to his remarks, but also his blindness, his eyes having been poked out by his own wayward logic. For Durbin takes the high road about the right to privacy – how such privacy is hallowed in the sacrosanct parameters of "Justice Blackmun's" Roe v. Wade – and then immediately denounces privacy in the heart of a man nominated to the Supreme Court. Durbin must "find out what is really driving the thoughts and the heart of the individual who's seeking this nomination." In other words, in order to protect Americans' right to privacy, Durbin wants to make public the private thoughts of a Supreme Court candidate. Moreover, Durbin insists that Roberts must "prove that he is worthy" by showing whether his heart – his personal, privately held belief-system – is up to Democratic Party standards: He must prove that his personal privacy conforms to public, "mainstream" opinion on certain matters.

There cannot be a more frightening abuse of power than Durbin's concealed contempt for personal privacy: He is looking for a party automaton to sit on the bench, whose private beliefs are in lockstep with Durbin's public beliefs. The earth shakes beneath our intellects when we hear Durbin suggest that he wants a justice who is "balanced" and has an "open mind." Why doth the earth shake? Because the only possible type of person who could be approved to the Supreme Court by Durbin is a person whose mind is utterly closed about Roe v. Wade. An open-minded person would be one who is open to the idea that perhaps Roe v. Wade is bad jurisprudence. But Durbin does not want that kind of person, no matter what fealty Durbin allegedly offers "open-mindedness." He wants a person who is not a "free"-thinker. He wants a machine.

In fact, when one listens to Durbin and others like him, there seems to be no need at all for a Supreme Court, particularly if the justices that are confirmed to that court merely decide judicial cases the way Durbin and his cohorts would decide such cases. Who needs justices like Roberts or Ginsberg or Souter, if each is only going to rubber-stamp public sentiments?

Can the reader imagine what sort of brouhaha would ensue if legislators, intent on protecting privacy-rights, nonetheless drafted legislation that legalized abortion hearings, where women had to come before a committee – sort of like the judiciary committee – and answer questions about their motives, about the purity of their hearts, all to determine if they "thought through or struggled with this decision"? The protestations would be historic! Opponents would insist that women have a sacred right to their inner thoughts, even if those thoughts offend life itself. But Durbin and his cadre insist that Judge Roberts does not have the right to his own inner thoughts; his own internal legal wranglings. His mind must be opened, forcibly. No. He must be forthcoming.

Durbin (and senators Kennedy and Schumer) sounds as if he wants to rip open the very womb in which Mr. Roberts' personal beliefs reside.

And you know what? John Roberts at this moment has no privacy, as Democratic activists, from feminist and pro-choice groups, the media, and elected officials, pore over every aspect of his life, all in an effort too divulge what is personal and private to him; to make public his very heart.

For shame!

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

[Photo: The image was taken with a Nikon FM2 on Fujichrome 100. Settings were 1/500th of a second at 5.6. Lens was a Nikkor 300mm f 4. Click on it for a larger view.)

'Tis The Season

Forgive me, please. But Contratimes is going on vacation. I intend to be away for two weeks. I need to let the grass grow beneath my feet for a bit; to let it poke its blades between my toes. I need to feel the wind at my back, and let the sun warm my shoulders. Forsooth, I will be in that metaphorical place in "the deep heart's core", illustrated in the photo I've posted this morning (click on it for a larger view).

Besides, this will give you ample time to catch up on essays you've missed, and to email all your friends about Contratimes. (To send an essay, click the little envelope at the end of each piece.)

I will return, perhaps, only when there is a major news event, or when overcome by the force of some brilliant or clairvoyant insight (which proves, to some of you, that I won't be back at all). Or maybe I will drop in a photograph here and there. Perhaps I'll post a link to an article I find important. Who knows?

Expect me back on July 28.

(I might also be offline for the last week in August.)

"I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree, and a small cabin build there ..."

Peace and mirth,

Bill Gnade

[Photo: Sand Beach and The Beehive, Mt. Desert Island, Acadia National Park, Maine, USA. Camera: Canon EOS3. Lens: Canon EF 20mm/2.8. Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100VS. Exposure: 1/125 @ f13. Click on photo for larger view.]

Taking Flights Of Logical Fancy

Sometimes I feel like lifting off, taking flight, beating weary wings toward some distant, anonymous, perhaps even forsaken place. Recently I felt this acute rush of longing while standing before several pieces of art displayed at a New Hampshire gallery. I felt like fleeing not because of the art per se, which was patently awful. I felt like fleeing because of pretensions at intellectual grandeur, particularly the pretensions of philosophical grandeur printed in one featured artist's statement elegantly displayed near his work (which was also dreadful).

I have long speculated on why it is that the art world tends to be filled with liberals, Democrats, socialists, even progressive nihilists. Is it because art is all about "pushing the envelope" and "breaking with convention" and "inventing new rules that are also made to be broken"? Is it about "shattering presuppositions" in search of the "numinous" or the "meaningful"? Or is it that artists as a class need government subsidies, are even dependent on them; and not mere handouts of cash, but subsidies of equality, where grants and honors and exhibitions are awarded solely to acknowledge the equal effort inherent in every artist's work? You know, in an "all-artists-are-trying" sort of way? After all, was this not the very point behind another recent exhibit I attended, "Art as Process", wherein was displayed the "rough drafts" of several artists' work? Surely the subtitle to that exhibit could have easily been, "Artists: Look How They Try."

But perhaps the reason art and liberalism go hand and hand is about philosophy. I've often thought that conservative thinkers were often chided or disregarded because of their dependence on logic, evidence, you know, the components of reason. Conservatives are often berated for lacking compassion, and I believe they are berated thus solely because reason seems so absolute and confining, so limiting in its expectations and demands. Liberals, on the other hand, have always struck me as being more about passion than cogitation; more affective or emotional than hard-headed logicians. Of course, there are exceptions, but by-and-large I believe this to be so. How else to explain a revolutionary's zeal than to appeal to Jean Jacques Rousseau's "passion trumps reason" (what is felt is more important than what is known or thought); or to understand why George W. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative"? Conservatives tend to think toward an answer to a problem, and this, at times, looks like an uncaring luxury in the slow, calculated manner problem-solving demands. In contrast, liberals tend to feel through a problem; they are compelled to act immediately to solve an alleged injustice: Feeling, fervor, motive, intent – these are the benchmarks of liberal activism. These are the signs over their exhibit: We Are Trying. We Mean Well. We Get Things Done. We Are Urgent.

AN ARTIST'S STATEMENT

I stood in silent disbelief as I read the young artist's statement describing his vision and his muse. It did me no good that I was standing, a glass of cabernet sauvignon in hand, in the midst of a whirling, blustering audience so enamored of the whole, well, "process." And it did me no good to see that several pieces, some fetching fairly good sums for a first showing, had already been purchased, red stickers indicating that pieces had quickly found a home.

Here's what the statement said, which began with a quote by "process theologian" Alfred North Whitehead culled from Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is the Massage."[sic] The quote first:

"In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feeling, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."

I beg your pardon for being so academic here. But this is not about being didactic. It is about laughing one's head off, right off one's shoulders. For the quote above is a genuine howler. Don't you see why? It's simple, really. Mr. Whitehead has insisted on using "hard-headed clarity" to show the futility of "hard-headed clarity." Thus, by his own clear argument against clarity, it must be concluded that his observation "issues from sentimental feeling." He himself must be superstitious. And thus, he wallows in a contradiction.

But Whitehead's argument couches something more important, and it is subtle. What Whitehead has done is to give permission to thinkers everywhere to embrace a sort of anti-rationalism, a sort of "reading between the lines" of logic, reason, and argument. In short, he's given them permission to blow off the hard work which the pursuit of logically viable truth and clarity demands.

Now, I know that Whitehead is in part responding to the logical positivists in his milieu, but most readers do not know that, nor is it relevant here. What is relevant is how our young artist understood Whitehead. See if you can make sense of it all:

"I use unrefined materials in imagemaking to depict images and themes in life that range from the common and local to complicated and global. In this manner, I am attempting to metaphorically bridge an unspannable gap between what exists on human scale and that which is distinctly not human, i.e. things which necessarily exist within a global context. A gap in which, as suggested by the quote above from A.N. Whitehead, chance, instinct, intuition and creativity are far more responsive than 'hard-headed clarity' to the 'perplexities of fact' – a commodity too often misinterpreted, misused and corrupted. The interest here is to open up and complicate meaning in a way that does not compromise integrity and does not shy away from presumptions of authority."

Besides it being hard to understand how there is a bridge over an "unspannable gap" between humanity and that which is not humanity, "i.e. things which necessarily exist within a global context" (Lord knows humans don't exist within a global context – Yikes!); one wonders how this statement helps us understand anything other than the artist's flight from reason. To this artist, intuition and feeling and chance are the real forces of creativity. Reason constrains, limits; it is for the hardheaded, and not the softhearted.

This, to me, is a perfect example of the difference between myself, a conservative, and my liberal peers. No doubt my liberal chums would press me to be less intensely logical in reading the artist's statement; that I should see that he is "trying", that his "heart is in the right place", and that he "means well." No doubt they'd also tell me that what was important was not what he wrote, but what he meant, what he intended between the lines.

But there is also this statement by the artist adjacent to the one quoted above:

"My art is a venue [Yikes! again] for a realm of discussion that does not easily find a place in our everyday lives. As people, I think that we need a certain amount of..."

I am sorry, did you say, "As people"? Could we be anything else? Oh, yes, of course. We are that indefinable other thing that lives outside "a global context". Oiks! Help! (This latter artist's piece entitled "Two Birds Talking" sold for $700. It was a pen and ink cartoonish piece, wherein a bird, gripping a branch, speaks to a juvenile bird [apparently]. There are dialogue bubbles. In the final bubble, the senior bird says, and I quote: "You might think we are lying and we may not wholy believe that we are not." Now, for $700, don't you think you might want to have "wholly" spelled correctly? Talk about a venue for discussions! Who needs clarity anyway?!)

WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

This whole exercise for me is about the difference between philosophies of feeling and those of thinking. For me, the quotes above, and the work associated with them, smack not of creativity, but of laziness and even self-centeredness. The laziness part is revealed in the flight from reason, for reason is hard to master. To the lazy philosopher/artist, impulse, intuition, chance, randomness–these are what constitute creativity. Not planning, not practicing certain skills repeatedly. No, just the easy, hasty and quick burst of creative passion: This is art! This merits appraisal and approval! This trumps using one's head: The use of the Heart!

And it is self-centeredness because it seeks approval for being outside, unique, even insouciant. Instead of the tedium of logical constructions, which are all rules and traditions and practices, artists too often flaunt their improvisational skills without once proving they can do the rather rote skills possessed by the masters. Imagine if Michelangelo's David or the Sistine Chapel were mere whims of intuition! mere impulse! mere improv!

How, then does all this play out politically? Perhaps a quote from Socrates as found in Plato's Apology will suffice. Socrates, you might recall, was on trial for corrupting Athenian youth and allegedly denouncing the gods of the state. In his defense, or apology, Socrates described how he had begun his pursuit of wisdom as a result of divine inspiration: an oracle had spoken to him. And in his pursuit of wisdom, he inquired of wise men – politicians and poets and artisans – in an effort to discern what is real wisdom:

"I went to the poets ... I am ashamed to confess that there is not a person ... who would not have talked better about their poetry than the poets did themselves. So I learnt that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of ... inspiration. ... At last I went to the artisans ... I was sure that they knew many fine things; and I was not mistaken, ... But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; – because they were good workmen, they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom." [emphasis added]

The political implications of Socrates' statements are important.

No wonder he was executed.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

PS. For you photo enthusiasts out there: the picture of the Blue Heron (above) was taken with a Canon F1, 80-200/2.8 lens (focal length 200mm). Settings were 1/1000th at f8 on Ilford HP5 Plus film. Click on it for a larger view.

Finding Time For Chores

Today, with all due apologies, I am far too busy to cram in an essay of any import. Things are just too busy at the farm (so to speak), and I've got other duties pleading for my attention. Oh, to live isolated on a hill, or in the deep reaches of earth, where only my selfish interests command my time! Alas, even then, I am afraid, I would find that I was not free.

I recommend that Contratimes readers take a moment and read some of the comments, and my responses, posted recently. Look at the comments offered by one reader at A Picture And A Poem and What If You Could, Would You? You might also want to look at the comments left at Unholy Alliance, Unholy Devotion and A Fifty Million Dollar Apology For Simple Math. I do not think you will be disappointed, nor will you feel at all "cheated."

And, as I promised, I offer another photograph (click on it for a full view) for your enjoyment, symbolic as it is: I've not got enough room for everything.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

PS. If you need something to read that is a bit more heady and provocative, read David Horowitz' piece posted this morning. Click here to access it.

[Photo: Peterborough, NH. Camera: Canon F1. Lens: Canon FD 200mm/4. Film: Kodak 400 Tri-X. Exposure: 1/250 @ f8. Click on photo for larger view.]

A Picture And A Poem

We move about on a sphere hurling through space, each of us swimming at the bottom of an ocean of air and gaseous water - an atmosphere of pressures and currents and energy. At this moment a Category IV hurricane – Dennis – approaches the Gulf Coast of the United States with ominous force: A hurricane is the most powerful structure on the planet.

But there is beauty in the incomprehensible skies. The photograph posted here (click on it for a larger view), taken in the heart of New England, is a rare look at the fragmented eye of a dying hurricane. It's rare solely because it is unusual that any hurricane should pass so far inland in New England, and that it should pass and break apart at sunset (leading to dramatic photos, no doubt). My one regret with the photo is that I saw the scene too late: things went dark rapidly after this image was taken.

So why the picture? I do not know. Perhaps I am hoping for a calm resolution to today's storm; perhaps I am looking for the beauty in the midst of tragedy. Perhaps I am personally looking for a calm in the midst of storm.

Irrespective of the reasons, I offer my prayers to those who have been, and will be, in Dennis' path.

A Poem

For those of you who respond to word rather than image, I offer this poem:

I am not ready

to change the list of sins into something
resembling ease
I am not ready to change the borders between nations
I am not ready to change the currencies of capital
I am not ready to change diapers or schools or addresses
I am not ready to change the world or men or women
or the gospel or the sun, moon, stars, and the streets
in certain towns where small feet begin their walk
toward a living wage.

I am not ready to change the color of grass, or the sky, or
to damn the rainbow as a bumper sticker. I am not ready at all –
for the change clanging about in countless clothes dryers
in a thousand coin-op flourescent linted rooms –
I am not ready to change up or down, left and right
and person and rights and right and wrong and dia-
gonal and the taste of cantaloupe on summer evenings
barefoot in the garden. I am not ready to change
the temperature of the sun, or the face in the moon
I am not ready to change marriage into something re-
sembling two cups atop each other, I like the saucer
beneath the cup and the sky wedded to the sea
and the black and white of chess. I am not going to
change the color of skin because it would make love
easier; or fake an accent because I am not part of
the cognoscenti or some other precious insight or in-
side joke among teammates. I am not ready to change
truth into something digestible.

And I am not about to climb a mountain and shame it
for being above the valley or pull a gun on the
unrighteousness of a given day and to call my dog
a cat or friend a foe or an enemy unredeemable and

I am not ready to change mankind into a woe

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

[Photo: Dublin Lake, Dublin, NH. Camera: Canon F1. Lens: Canon FD 20mm/2.8. Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100. Exposure: Unrecorded. Click on photo for larger view.]

The West's Truest Moral Failure

[I received mixed reviews from readers about yesterday's "essay", A Little Perspective. One reader thought the post packed a powerful, to-the-point punch; admitting that a picture may indeed be worth a thousand words. Another wrote that he felt cheated by the brevity of the post; that it was too diminutive. I receive both reviews with glee, for the former's is a direct compliment, while the latter's compliment is veiled: my verbosity, at least to one reader, is perceived as a good thing.]

The leftist Blogosphere is abuzz about London. But I only need to point to one example, culled from three interlinked sites – Nationaldebunker.blogspot.com, DailyKos.com, and MediaMatters.org – that has the left rather dizzy. And this one example will suffice to make a head-shaking point.

The three aforementioned sites are taking umbrage with this exchange between a Fox News co-anchor, Brian Kilmeade (who is not a reporter, nor does he pretend to be, I believe), and a Fox News guest host in what is clearly an exchange of opinions. I quote the exchange as posted at The Daily Kos:

"KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY [the guest host]: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah."

It must be asked how a reasonable person might assess Kilmeade's remarks [the bold highlights were emphasized by others, not Contratimes]. Is he reckless? Is he presumptuous? Is he offensive? Does he sound as if he is celebrating the London bombings? Does he in any way indicate that he is glad these things happened?

Of course, I have asked how a reasonable person might interpret Kilmeade's remarks. Let me stipulate with generosity that Kilmeade is not much of a player: He co-hosts a morning news show that is self-consciously and intentionally silly (Fox & Friends), and is, for lack of a better word, Fox's alternative to Good Morning America and the Today show. It is not the flagship news broadcast of Fox News (that would be Special Report with Brit Hume). With that said, let's first look at how the ostensibly reasonable folks on the already-cited web-sites have spun Kilmeade's remarks:

"While I was listening to the news of the London bombings on NPR yesterday, I was online reading an essay, written before the attacks and posted on Juan Cole's site, on the improbability that the Bush administration would adopt an exit strategy from Iraq, and speculating on the legacy of the US-led occupation.

"Of course to say that that legacy arrived yesterday in London is premature. But yesterday's events are, I believe, a taste of what's likely to come. While ass-clowns like FOX's Brian Kilmeade prattle on nonsensically about how the London bombings are good for the US, thinking adults (never part of the FOX News demographic) know better.

"As the individual quoted on Cole's site compellingly argues, the outlook for the kind, severity and quantity of future terror attacks spawned by the Iraq war is not favorable to the West or its allies. He/she writes:

'The really scary thing is what happens when the well-trained jihadis leave Iraq, victorious, and head south to destroy the Saudi oil infrastructure and west, to Mexico and Canada, to slip into the US and create many more 9/11s ...'

"...What I do think, though, is that the London attacks are a portent for a future filled with many more terror attacks once Iraq's battle-hardened jihadis -- recruited thanks to the war Bush and Blair started -- are loosed upon the world."

And this from the Daily Kos:

"Fox News: London Attacks a Good Thing [headline]

"For all those opposed to the Bushites who are wondering about the ethics of politicizing the London bombings, you should know that the Murdoch noise machine [Fox News] has no such qualms ...

"The masters of war will be unafraid to utilize this tragedy to further their goals of marginalizing dissent and justifying their criminal actions in Iraq. I even heard a wingnut (Dennis Prager) on the radio this morning say that Spain was responsible for this bombing. I don't hold out much hope that this event will turn the public in Britain against Blair and in the US even more against Bush, but I still hope this happens. We must be prepared and unafraid to provide clear counterpoint to the oncoming rush of propoganda."

If my readers are unable to see the contradiction in these remarks, then I have failed in my mission at Contratimes. What is the contradiction? (You KNOW you see it, don't you?) The contradiction is this: Both writers have used the London bombings for political reasons in order to show how shameful it is that a Fox News anchor used the bombings for political reasons. Moreover, both writers actually exploit the bombings themselves (along with countless other bloggers) as evidence that the Bush War on Terror has made America and the West LESS safe (the tedious mantra of leftist critics offered since 2003). In fact, the left has actually proven that the bombings in London are GOOD for the West, because, as these bloggers and other commentators intimate, the bombings HELP the cause of the anti-war movement. In other words, the bombings are good for leftist agendas everywhere.

Ironically, even a casual analysis of Kilmeade's remarks does not show that he 'prattled' on, nor does it show that he believed it was good for America, only that it helped to unify the "West" against a legitimate and objectively real threat. He in no way suggested the bombings were morally or even politically good. It was clear, stumbling along in his often obtuse way, that Kilmeade was looking for the equivalent of a "silver lining" in a hideous and objectionable tragedy. And that silver lining is a socio-political unity between Western nations that, together, might form a strong defense against terrorism.

But the left has indeed found the very silver lining they've been looking for: The bombs of London prove that the war on terror is an abject failure. The West, to the leftists, particularly the conservative West, deserved to be bombed on Thursday. And had the West heeded the anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-war left, the bombings in London would have been less likely to occur (or would not have occurred at all).

Now, check out this comment by a reader on The Daily Kos:

"I can't help making a mental comparison between 3 bombs in London that killed upwards of 30 people with the tons of bombs that we have dropped on Iraq that have killed upwards of 10000 people. Frankly, I don't see any moral superiority in our position."

This comment comes in a long line of postings (196 as of 7.9.05) by all sorts of readers (mostly) aligned with the Daily Kos' progressive nihilism (sorry, but it is nihilism), and in response to Kilmeade's remarks. And I know that Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson essentially opined the same shocking sentiments yesterday in "A look in the mirror for America" (read it and grieve). It must be asked: Are people really this unthinking? And do such people mark themselves as members of the intelligentsia?

Two questions: What warning did Londoners have on Wednesday that they were about to be bombed? and, How many Muslim terrorists have come to London, or to Ground Zero, to assist in the rebuilding of the Tube or the World Trade Center? Surely, you see the point of these questions.

When the West has attacked its enemies in the War on Terror, IT HAS ALWAYS GIVEN THEM FAIR WARNING. It has broadcast not only its intentions, it has given - repeatedly - specific deadlines and even criteria by which conflict can be avoided. This was and has been specifically true in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there have been no internecine, hidden, concealed anonymous bombings or attacks on either of these countries by the West. In fact, the West has been boldly visible in its actions and intentions. When a bomb lands in Iraq after years of diplomatic struggle with the West, an Iraqi KNOWS that the bomb came from the US military. But please, pray tell, who bombed London on Wednesday? Who exactly? Where is their capitol, and where is their embassy? Where is their military headquartered, and what uniform do they wear? And who is their president, or their prime minister?

Lastly, Americans are dying in Iraq trying to rebuild, heal and repair what they knocked down, injured or damaged. Seen any Muslim terrorists doing the same in Spain, Beslan, New York or London? No. Why? Because the West has in fact and deed taken a "morally superior position" than its enemies.

There. I said it. Am I wrong? Maybe.

Shame on Derrick Z. Jackson and those who think (it's not thinking) like him. It is the West's truest moral failure that it has raised opinions like Mr. Jackson's to the status of intellectual viability.

Today, I fly my flag halfstaff, largely because I mourn that Derrick Z. Jackson and others can be so full of hate for this imperfect country in which I live. The globe the Boston Globe's Jackson apprehends is a very small globe indeed.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes