I always thought that "Golden Oldies" music was the good stuff from the 40's and 50's. I just learned that radio now uses the term to refer to the 1980's! Boy, do I feel old.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Why Obama is Winning
Obama has integrated his masculine-feminine sides. In Clinton one dimension is usually behind the other, and the integrated person is seen only sporadically. We never ask who the real Obama is. We often do ask that question about Clinton.
Barack is the woman who doesn't cry. Hillary is the man who sometimes does.
Obama can be soft in speaking of uniting, working together, going beyond the old he-man politics, cooperating, overcoming the past and seeking transformative change without destruction -- all in a deep voice and preserving his manliness. He has it together in a unified package – an authentic person.
Most of the time Clinton presents herself as strong, invulnerable, experienced, smart, tough, a battle-scarred veteran who has been tested by Republican dirty tricks, i. e., the well-prepared man who is ready from day one to send the troops into battle if necessary. Moreover, too often she comes across as cool and controlled -- a persona she has worked hard to project in this man-dominated world. Even worse she frequently gives the appearance of being programmed and calculating, careful to seem on both sides of every issue, offering something for everybody in her zone of support and offending as few as possible.
Behind that John Wayne exterior is a soft, vulnerable, human being with feelings who is hurt by being disliked and who can cry. For a brief time in New Hampshire and in her closing remarks at the Austin debate last night, this side came through, and it was appealing and persuasive. In these moments she was empathetic, genuinely concerned about hurting people and ready to champion their cause.
Oh, I know about the demographics, the fund-raising, the contrast between Obama's purple poetry and Clinton's plodding prose, the organizations on the ground, Clinton fatigue, and all that other stuff the TV pundits peddle ad nauseam. All this is important, of course, but I think the decisive difference that may get him into the Oval Office and her back in her Senate office is his ability to project persistently a winsome, compelling, unified personality, whereas the face she presents most of the time is losing and the appealing face that could make her a winning candidate is seen only now and then and too late..
PS: Maureen Dowd has the same idea (NY Times, February 24) but probably didn't get it from me, though hers is cuter. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?hp
Barack is the woman who doesn't cry. Hillary is the man who sometimes does.
Obama can be soft in speaking of uniting, working together, going beyond the old he-man politics, cooperating, overcoming the past and seeking transformative change without destruction -- all in a deep voice and preserving his manliness. He has it together in a unified package – an authentic person.
Most of the time Clinton presents herself as strong, invulnerable, experienced, smart, tough, a battle-scarred veteran who has been tested by Republican dirty tricks, i. e., the well-prepared man who is ready from day one to send the troops into battle if necessary. Moreover, too often she comes across as cool and controlled -- a persona she has worked hard to project in this man-dominated world. Even worse she frequently gives the appearance of being programmed and calculating, careful to seem on both sides of every issue, offering something for everybody in her zone of support and offending as few as possible.
Behind that John Wayne exterior is a soft, vulnerable, human being with feelings who is hurt by being disliked and who can cry. For a brief time in New Hampshire and in her closing remarks at the Austin debate last night, this side came through, and it was appealing and persuasive. In these moments she was empathetic, genuinely concerned about hurting people and ready to champion their cause.
Oh, I know about the demographics, the fund-raising, the contrast between Obama's purple poetry and Clinton's plodding prose, the organizations on the ground, Clinton fatigue, and all that other stuff the TV pundits peddle ad nauseam. All this is important, of course, but I think the decisive difference that may get him into the Oval Office and her back in her Senate office is his ability to project persistently a winsome, compelling, unified personality, whereas the face she presents most of the time is losing and the appealing face that could make her a winning candidate is seen only now and then and too late..
PS: Maureen Dowd has the same idea (NY Times, February 24) but probably didn't get it from me, though hers is cuter. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?hp
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Word and Idea Stealing
Plagiarism is unacceptable. Therefore Clinton and McCain should give credit to each other when they make the same criticisms of Obama in almost the same words.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Thoughts on a Snowy Day: Happiness
Happiness: Happiness is the last day of the pledge drive on NPR. And today is the day. Pledge week on public TV and radio has been called "the fund raising equivalent of waterboarding." NY Times Magazine (February 17, 2008)
Friday, February 08, 2008
Dream Team in 08 Not Likely
No Clinton-Obama team:
Would you want to be Vice-President if Bill is in the White House all day and sleeping with the President at night? Naah! At the prospect BO would remember Cactus Jack Nance Garner's -- FDR's Vice-President --1933-41 -- statement that being VP is "not worth a bucket of warm spit." (The New Yorker, March 22, 2004, claims that he actually said "warm p*ss.")
Hill and Bill playing second fiddle to Barack? Naah!
Would you want to be Vice-President if Bill is in the White House all day and sleeping with the President at night? Naah! At the prospect BO would remember Cactus Jack Nance Garner's -- FDR's Vice-President --1933-41 -- statement that being VP is "not worth a bucket of warm spit." (The New Yorker, March 22, 2004, claims that he actually said "warm p*ss.")
Garner's dictum did not hold with Bush-Cheny and some other recent occupants, of course, but, if it were Clinton-Obama, it might become true again -- in fact if not in outward appearance.
But, on the other hand, politics makes for strange bedfellows, so Hillary-Barack in bed could happen (we refer here to "political" bedfellows, of course -- a clarification necessary whenever Bill is in the vicinity, since he has had some strange "non-political" bedfellows).
Hill and Bill playing second fiddle to Barack? Naah!
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Theological Question
News Report: February 7, 2008
At least 55 killed in tornadoes in the South
Write an essay on one of the following:
1. Show how this event illustrates intelligent, benevolent design.
2. Show how this event expresses the love of God without appealing to ignorance, mystery, or eschatology.
Multiple Choice Test:
1. God caused.
2. God did not cause but permitted.
3. God neither caused nor permitted, in fact had nothing to do with it.
4. God could have prevented it but didn't.
5. God would have prevented it but couldn't.
6. None of the above.
7. I don't know. It's a mystery. (The coward's answer, permitted in my classes only on the first day.)
For the correct answer send $1.23 in a plain brown package containing a stamped, self-addressed envelope. For express service, send $1.79. For a 30 second personal lecture on the subject, park a 2008 BMW (any model) in my driveway and hand me the keys and title.
At least 55 killed in tornadoes in the South
Write an essay on one of the following:
1. Show how this event illustrates intelligent, benevolent design.
2. Show how this event expresses the love of God without appealing to ignorance, mystery, or eschatology.
Multiple Choice Test:
1. God caused.
2. God did not cause but permitted.
3. God neither caused nor permitted, in fact had nothing to do with it.
4. God could have prevented it but didn't.
5. God would have prevented it but couldn't.
6. None of the above.
7. I don't know. It's a mystery. (The coward's answer, permitted in my classes only on the first day.)
For the correct answer send $1.23 in a plain brown package containing a stamped, self-addressed envelope. For express service, send $1.79. For a 30 second personal lecture on the subject, park a 2008 BMW (any model) in my driveway and hand me the keys and title.
Monday, February 04, 2008
One Final Time: the God-Critics
Recent best-sellers by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have urged the thesis that religion is bad and should be eliminated. I have had my say about this before, but today I administer the coup de grace.
Their intellectual sin is that, in the words of Alfred North Whitehead, they commit the "fallacy of misplaced concretion." They mistake an abstraction about religion for the whole of the concrete reality. They look at history and the present and find many reprehensible ideas and practices associated with religion and attribute them to religion. They take what they and many of us would regard as untrue and wrong, i. e., bad, and take that to be the essence of religion, its reality.
In short, religion is more complex and ambiguous than the simplistic representations of the God-deniers.
Their intellectual sin is that, in the words of Alfred North Whitehead, they commit the "fallacy of misplaced concretion." They mistake an abstraction about religion for the whole of the concrete reality. They look at history and the present and find many reprehensible ideas and practices associated with religion and attribute them to religion. They take what they and many of us would regard as untrue and wrong, i. e., bad, and take that to be the essence of religion, its reality.
This neglects the fact that religion is always embedded in a cultural context and inexplicable apart from that setting. To abstract religion from its cultural setting is to mistake what is abstracted for the reality itself, i. e., "to commit the fallacy of misplaced concretion."
Remember Paul Tillich, "Religion is the substance of culture; culture is the form of religion."
Remember Paul Tillich, "Religion is the substance of culture; culture is the form of religion."
In short, religion is more complex and ambiguous than the simplistic representations of the God-deniers.
Finis
Too Often the Media Lack Self-criticism and Are Ignorant of Their Ignorance
A free press is essential to a democracy -- to expose corruption in high places, to inform the public about important matters, and so on. Our press frequently fulfills its role well and is to be commended. But journalists tend to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think. (Like some preachers?) It is impossible to be totally fair and balanced since reporters and commentators are human beings with finite perspectives even when they try their damnedest to be competent and impartial. By the very choice of the topics they cover, they make judgments about what is important and what is not.
Two criticisms in particular:
1. They lack sufficient self-criticism. For example, long ago the major reporting agencies decided that the Democratic race was between Clinton and Obama. Edwards was not given the attention he deserved. They will, of course cry, "Don't shoot the messenger," but they forget that the media can shoot the candidate by their lack of attention. They don't just report reality, they participate in determining what people think is reality.
2. They are sometimes ignorant of their ignorance. Most would not attempt to say much about string theory in physics because they know how little they know about it. But they do not hesitate to speak freely about religion, politics, faith, separation of church and state, and the like. They lack sophistication but don't realize it. They lack depth of understanding and don't recognize the shallowness in themselves and others.
On religion and politics, e. g., they apparently can conceive of only two options: political decisions based explicitly on a particular set religious beliefs and a total relegation of religion to the private sphere totally divorced from political choice. They are apparently innocent of other "live options" (W. James) between and beyond this simplistic dichotomy. Note their typical approval of John Kennedy's statement to the Houston Baptist preachers in 1960, which actually is superificial and leaves unanswered what his "conscience" -- his guide -- is guided by. If it is not guided in any sense by his religious faith, then one wonders how broad and deep this faith is.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html
Mario Cuomo is a much better guide here. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomoreligiousbelief.htm
My advice is to journalists is this: Heed Socrates, who said, "Know thyself."
Two criticisms in particular:
1. They lack sufficient self-criticism. For example, long ago the major reporting agencies decided that the Democratic race was between Clinton and Obama. Edwards was not given the attention he deserved. They will, of course cry, "Don't shoot the messenger," but they forget that the media can shoot the candidate by their lack of attention. They don't just report reality, they participate in determining what people think is reality.
2. They are sometimes ignorant of their ignorance. Most would not attempt to say much about string theory in physics because they know how little they know about it. But they do not hesitate to speak freely about religion, politics, faith, separation of church and state, and the like. They lack sophistication but don't realize it. They lack depth of understanding and don't recognize the shallowness in themselves and others.
On religion and politics, e. g., they apparently can conceive of only two options: political decisions based explicitly on a particular set religious beliefs and a total relegation of religion to the private sphere totally divorced from political choice. They are apparently innocent of other "live options" (W. James) between and beyond this simplistic dichotomy. Note their typical approval of John Kennedy's statement to the Houston Baptist preachers in 1960, which actually is superificial and leaves unanswered what his "conscience" -- his guide -- is guided by. If it is not guided in any sense by his religious faith, then one wonders how broad and deep this faith is.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html
Mario Cuomo is a much better guide here. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomoreligiousbelief.htm
My advice is to journalists is this: Heed Socrates, who said, "Know thyself."
Question of the Day
Do we really want the Billary Clintons to be president of the United States again?
If Hillary does become president, maybe Bill, the ex-boyfriend of Monica Lewis, could teach a class on ethics to the female interns. He could make the point that shaking a finger vigorously for emphasis when lying does not work. Perhaps he could also give them some tips on how to get stubborn stains off a dress.
If Hillary does become president, maybe Bill, the ex-boyfriend of Monica Lewis, could teach a class on ethics to the female interns. He could make the point that shaking a finger vigorously for emphasis when lying does not work. Perhaps he could also give them some tips on how to get stubborn stains off a dress.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Success of "the surge"
Soldier Suicides at Record Level
"Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006."
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
CNN Election News, November 5, 2008
CNN Breaking News
November 5, 2008
This is Bluf Witzer, along with the most conceited political team in television, bringing you the results of yesterday's extraordinary election. This special report is brought to you by HARD ON, HEAT UP--HARD ON HEAT UP -- good for both men and women. You know what it is for.
CNN can now confirm that Barack O'Hillary has been elected president of the United States. The victorious candidate has the most remarkable resume in the nation's history.
The president-elect has a white Christian mother from Kenya, a black Muslim father from Kansas, and grandparents who are Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Agnostic. There is also Native American, Asian, Hispanic, Polynesian, and Australian aborigine blood in the ancestral line.
The President-to-be is an Omnitarian who believes everything that has ever been believed by anyone, anytime, anywhere and professes to have been born again fourteen times, each time into a different religion.
The winner in yesterday's election has White House experience, having been the spouse of a former president.
The newly elected soon to be resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been both a father and a mother and once was both.
The newly elected Vice-President, John Mary Smith, is of unknown parentage, has no resume, no religion, and is of indeterminate gender.
This special report has been brought to you by HARD ON, HEAT UP--HARD ON HEAT UP-- good for both men and women. You know what it is for.
November 5, 2008
This is Bluf Witzer, along with the most conceited political team in television, bringing you the results of yesterday's extraordinary election. This special report is brought to you by HARD ON, HEAT UP--HARD ON HEAT UP -- good for both men and women. You know what it is for.
CNN can now confirm that Barack O'Hillary has been elected president of the United States. The victorious candidate has the most remarkable resume in the nation's history.
The president-elect has a white Christian mother from Kenya, a black Muslim father from Kansas, and grandparents who are Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Agnostic. There is also Native American, Asian, Hispanic, Polynesian, and Australian aborigine blood in the ancestral line.
The President-to-be is an Omnitarian who believes everything that has ever been believed by anyone, anytime, anywhere and professes to have been born again fourteen times, each time into a different religion.
The winner in yesterday's election has White House experience, having been the spouse of a former president.
The newly elected soon to be resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been both a father and a mother and once was both.
The newly elected Vice-President, John Mary Smith, is of unknown parentage, has no resume, no religion, and is of indeterminate gender.
This special report has been brought to you by HARD ON, HEAT UP--HARD ON HEAT UP-- good for both men and women. You know what it is for.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Post-South Carolina Words to the Candidates
Here are my unsolicited messages to the Democratic candidates:
To Bill: Just shut up. (Oh, I forgot, Hillary is the candidate.)
To Hillary: Tell Bill to shut up and remind him who the candidate is.
To: Barack: You are inspiring, idealistic, and hopeful, and your message of partisan-transcending politics sure makes for a good speech and may even be a good strategy to get elected, but you are naive if you think the Republicans are suddenly going to play nice if you are elected president. You said it is wrong to think that rich people do not care about the poor. Of course they care about the poor but only if it does not cost them much to help them. How many are willing to pay substantially higher taxes, for example, if that is what is required? You should be reminded of what Walter Rauschenbusch and Reinhold Niebuhr knew and what John Edwards knows: the privileged will not surrender their self-interests without a fight. But the thought that you could be the President moves this white Southerner to tears and would be for me as an old man a dream come true. If you are inaugurated in January 2009, Martin, my fellow-Georgian and Crozer graduate, will be looking down upon the scene and smiling.
To John: In South Carolina you were, as you claimed, the grown up. You have the most passion for the poor and the best programs to help the poor of all races and ethnicities. You know that the quest for a justice is a fight and not simply a matter of inspiring everybody with great speeches to join in -- although they are supremely important as M. L. King, Jr. demonstrated. But most Democrats are not buying your message. That is too bad, but I don't see much hope for your campaign. I deeply regret that. If you drop out, I hope you will support Barack and try to teach him a little realism about the world, but he needs to do what is necessary to get elected. Maybe what the world needs now is inspiration and hope even if the high idealism of Barack is not altogether realistic, so don't overdo your instruction.
PS TO ALL AMERICANS: Think about it -- an African-American man with a white American mother from Kansas and a black father with a Muslim background from Kenya -- that man President of the United States!
O my, what a day that would be! What a day that would be for the United States. What a day that would be for the world. O my, what a day!
To Bill: Just shut up. (Oh, I forgot, Hillary is the candidate.)
To Hillary: Tell Bill to shut up and remind him who the candidate is.
To: Barack: You are inspiring, idealistic, and hopeful, and your message of partisan-transcending politics sure makes for a good speech and may even be a good strategy to get elected, but you are naive if you think the Republicans are suddenly going to play nice if you are elected president. You said it is wrong to think that rich people do not care about the poor. Of course they care about the poor but only if it does not cost them much to help them. How many are willing to pay substantially higher taxes, for example, if that is what is required? You should be reminded of what Walter Rauschenbusch and Reinhold Niebuhr knew and what John Edwards knows: the privileged will not surrender their self-interests without a fight. But the thought that you could be the President moves this white Southerner to tears and would be for me as an old man a dream come true. If you are inaugurated in January 2009, Martin, my fellow-Georgian and Crozer graduate, will be looking down upon the scene and smiling.
To John: In South Carolina you were, as you claimed, the grown up. You have the most passion for the poor and the best programs to help the poor of all races and ethnicities. You know that the quest for a justice is a fight and not simply a matter of inspiring everybody with great speeches to join in -- although they are supremely important as M. L. King, Jr. demonstrated. But most Democrats are not buying your message. That is too bad, but I don't see much hope for your campaign. I deeply regret that. If you drop out, I hope you will support Barack and try to teach him a little realism about the world, but he needs to do what is necessary to get elected. Maybe what the world needs now is inspiration and hope even if the high idealism of Barack is not altogether realistic, so don't overdo your instruction.
PS TO ALL AMERICANS: Think about it -- an African-American man with a white American mother from Kansas and a black father with a Muslim background from Kenya -- that man President of the United States!
O my, what a day that would be! What a day that would be for the United States. What a day that would be for the world. O my, what a day!
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Warning: New Peril-- a Spoof
A new menace threatens us -- the invention of new technologies that tempt people to use more gasoline.
Example 1: The Prius gets great mileage, the champ. A whole bunch of people are experimenting to see just how many miles they can squeeze out of a gallon of gas. They have developed elaborate procedures and written instruction manuals with their own jargon. Why, just recently four men from West Virginia went on a 600 mile trip, not because they needed to get somewhere but because they were all experts at pushing the limits of the Prius to get the best possible mileage and wanted to set a new record. Wasting gas on a trip to nowhere.
2. Alas, some close relatives of mine just purchased a new Honda Accord with all the gizmos and gadgets imaginable, including a state of the art GPS. They projected a destination-- somewhere they didn't need to go -- and set out to test the wisdom of the device, an object that you can talk to and interact with. On the way, they decided they didn't really want to go that far and made turns to head back home. GPS said, "Try to make a U turn!" When they persisted, it said, "Well, OK, I am recalculating."
Two trips to nowhere using gas just to play with big boy toys. Suppose this catches on? Our dependence on foreign oil will explode. We must put a stop to it now before it spreads..
PS My daughter points out that in the examples given, the perpetrators were men. What can we learn from this?
Example 1: The Prius gets great mileage, the champ. A whole bunch of people are experimenting to see just how many miles they can squeeze out of a gallon of gas. They have developed elaborate procedures and written instruction manuals with their own jargon. Why, just recently four men from West Virginia went on a 600 mile trip, not because they needed to get somewhere but because they were all experts at pushing the limits of the Prius to get the best possible mileage and wanted to set a new record. Wasting gas on a trip to nowhere.
2. Alas, some close relatives of mine just purchased a new Honda Accord with all the gizmos and gadgets imaginable, including a state of the art GPS. They projected a destination-- somewhere they didn't need to go -- and set out to test the wisdom of the device, an object that you can talk to and interact with. On the way, they decided they didn't really want to go that far and made turns to head back home. GPS said, "Try to make a U turn!" When they persisted, it said, "Well, OK, I am recalculating."
Two trips to nowhere using gas just to play with big boy toys. Suppose this catches on? Our dependence on foreign oil will explode. We must put a stop to it now before it spreads..
PS My daughter points out that in the examples given, the perpetrators were men. What can we learn from this?
The Mystery at the Farmhouse: A Short Story
Scene: The 1880's, a small farmhouse. Emily is talking to Vince on the porch. The back of Emily's hand rests on her forehead, her fingers gently curling, she looks slightly toward the sky . . . .
E: Vince, O Vince, you can't leave me now, my Darling!
V: But Emily . . .
E: Vince, you can't leave me now, not when Dr. Jessup told me this very morning I am going to have a baby, your baby, Vince, my baby ....
V: But Emily, I have to, I must . . .
E: O Vince, you can't, not when that mean old man from the bank is coming out today to repossess the house because my sick, aging Mother can't pay the mortgage . . .
V: That mean old man, Emily, is my Father, and I drew up the foreclosure papers. We are just doing our jobs.
E:Vince, you didn't. You couldn't, but you did, didn't you?. O, you awful cad, you rotten scoundrel! I am so angry. I am so depressed, so angry, so depressed. I HATE you! I HATE myself. Don't you dare move one step til I get back.
Emily runs in the house and presently comes back with a pistol in her hand.
E: I hate you so much I could kill you. I hate me so much I could kill myself. Kill me, kill you! You, me, me you! Which? Both? Neither?
BANG. . . BANG. . .
THE END
E: Vince, O Vince, you can't leave me now, my Darling!
V: But Emily . . .
E: Vince, you can't leave me now, not when Dr. Jessup told me this very morning I am going to have a baby, your baby, Vince, my baby ....
V: But Emily, I have to, I must . . .
E: O Vince, you can't, not when that mean old man from the bank is coming out today to repossess the house because my sick, aging Mother can't pay the mortgage . . .
V: That mean old man, Emily, is my Father, and I drew up the foreclosure papers. We are just doing our jobs.
E:Vince, you didn't. You couldn't, but you did, didn't you?. O, you awful cad, you rotten scoundrel! I am so angry. I am so depressed, so angry, so depressed. I HATE you! I HATE myself. Don't you dare move one step til I get back.
Emily runs in the house and presently comes back with a pistol in her hand.
E: I hate you so much I could kill you. I hate me so much I could kill myself. Kill me, kill you! You, me, me you! Which? Both? Neither?
BANG. . . BANG. . .
THE END
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thought for the Day
My friends, we have to meet the challenge of these obnoxious TV commercials HEAD ON, HEAD ON, HEAD ON . . . . .
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Weep for Sister Benazir
Weep, O World, O tragic world, for Sister Benazir. Weep, all you who long for a little more justice, a little democracy, a little better prospect for the masses who yearn for a more decent life.
In a nation where most options range from bad to worse, she was a glimmer of light, a beacon of hope -- limited though it may have been. Maybe she was corrupt, as they say, but still she was the best that Pakistan had for the near future. Now she is gone.
Why, O why, dear Sister Benazir, did you have to stand up in that car to wave once more, when the bullet-proof car might have saved you? Maybe they would have killed you anyway somehow, someplace, some way, but at least you could have lived one more day to wage the fight.
Dear Sister Benazir, today you join all the other martyrs who tried to shine a light in the darkness and hate symbolized by Chairman Mao's dictum that "power comes out of the barrel of a gun." You are with Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Anwar Sadat, who joined Yitzhak Rabin in saying, "Enough, enough of blood and tears!" All together in a great cloud of witnesses with all whose efforts over the centuries to improve the lot of humankind cost them their lives, they will welcome you, Sister Benazir, to watch what we will do with their sacrifice.
Today, then, let us weep for Sister Benazir and for the better days she might have brought to that troubled complex land. But tomorrow, somebody else has to light a candle in the darkness that might light other lights that might light others until . . . . . .
And in despair I bowed my heart;
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to all."
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth God sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, goodwill to all."
I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
O Sister Benazir, O Sister Benazir . . . . For her and all who like her long for a better day, we must keep the hope alive, but today we weep for Sister Benazir.
In a nation where most options range from bad to worse, she was a glimmer of light, a beacon of hope -- limited though it may have been. Maybe she was corrupt, as they say, but still she was the best that Pakistan had for the near future. Now she is gone.
Why, O why, dear Sister Benazir, did you have to stand up in that car to wave once more, when the bullet-proof car might have saved you? Maybe they would have killed you anyway somehow, someplace, some way, but at least you could have lived one more day to wage the fight.
Dear Sister Benazir, today you join all the other martyrs who tried to shine a light in the darkness and hate symbolized by Chairman Mao's dictum that "power comes out of the barrel of a gun." You are with Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Anwar Sadat, who joined Yitzhak Rabin in saying, "Enough, enough of blood and tears!" All together in a great cloud of witnesses with all whose efforts over the centuries to improve the lot of humankind cost them their lives, they will welcome you, Sister Benazir, to watch what we will do with their sacrifice.
Today, then, let us weep for Sister Benazir and for the better days she might have brought to that troubled complex land. But tomorrow, somebody else has to light a candle in the darkness that might light other lights that might light others until . . . . . .
And in despair I bowed my heart;
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to all."
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth God sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, goodwill to all."
I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
O Sister Benazir, O Sister Benazir . . . . For her and all who like her long for a better day, we must keep the hope alive, but today we weep for Sister Benazir.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Open Letter to Our Children
Dear Offspring,
My Spouse and I had been considering whether we wanted to get gifts individually or choose something as a family for both. After some days of pondering, the more bold, daring, and audacious member of the duet exclaimed giddily, "Why don't we throw caution to the wind and go ahead and get an HD TV and not wait for the Zenith to go POOF, so we can enjoy it before senility and affliction get any worse?" The more cautious, frugal, slow-moving one after thinking it over seriously for about a second and half shouted out with glee, "Capital notion! I'm free to go shopping now, right after I go pee." (Identities of the aforementioned characters will be disclosed upon written request.)
Armed with our shopping bible -- Consumer Reports -- we set out. Bottom line: We will soon (January 8 installation of new HD hardware) be in possession of a Panasonic TH-42PZ77U plasma set with new programming from Direct TV including HD channels.
Tickets for viewing will be available for family members at a discount. Popcorn will be on sale at typical movie prices. Butter is extra. Discounts will not be available for Super Bowl Sunday. Other restrictions may apply.
The original idea had been that when the Zenith went BOING, we would consider HD. But despite the fact that the more impatient member of the zany pair has been beating the Zenith in the face repeatedly over the last few months with a baseball bat, the thing keeps right on playing, so it looked like no HD in our lifetime until -- begin over at the first sentence --
Your Wild and Crazy Parental Units
My Spouse and I had been considering whether we wanted to get gifts individually or choose something as a family for both. After some days of pondering, the more bold, daring, and audacious member of the duet exclaimed giddily, "Why don't we throw caution to the wind and go ahead and get an HD TV and not wait for the Zenith to go POOF, so we can enjoy it before senility and affliction get any worse?" The more cautious, frugal, slow-moving one after thinking it over seriously for about a second and half shouted out with glee, "Capital notion! I'm free to go shopping now, right after I go pee." (Identities of the aforementioned characters will be disclosed upon written request.)
Armed with our shopping bible -- Consumer Reports -- we set out. Bottom line: We will soon (January 8 installation of new HD hardware) be in possession of a Panasonic TH-42PZ77U plasma set with new programming from Direct TV including HD channels.
Tickets for viewing will be available for family members at a discount. Popcorn will be on sale at typical movie prices. Butter is extra. Discounts will not be available for Super Bowl Sunday. Other restrictions may apply.
The original idea had been that when the Zenith went BOING, we would consider HD. But despite the fact that the more impatient member of the zany pair has been beating the Zenith in the face repeatedly over the last few months with a baseball bat, the thing keeps right on playing, so it looked like no HD in our lifetime until -- begin over at the first sentence --
Your Wild and Crazy Parental Units
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Are there any Christians?
A prophet of our age, Will Campbell, once said, "Baptists are the hope of the world, if we could only find some." My claim is that Christians are the hope of the world, if we could only find some.
For purposes of discussion, let me begin this way. If we were really Christians in the New Testament sense, most of us would give 50% or more of our income to help those who are worse off than we are. This is a simple implication and a modest, even weak, interpretation of the commandment to love your neighbor equally with yourself, not even to mention Matthew 5: 38 ff. To put it another way to get things going, Christians need to justify why they spend more on themselves than the median family income in this country, which by world standards makes us quite affluent. Radical Christianity would insist that we cannot have two coats as long as anybody in the world has none.
Peter Singer in a provocative essay pointed out that if we had the chance to save a child's life right before us, we would do so even at considerable sacrifice to ourselves. But he rightly noted the fact every time we spend a few dollars for something we don't absolutely need, a child dies who might have been saved had that money been given to, say, Oxfam. There is no way to escape the logic of that.
In another place I argued that the radical ethic of the New Testament was incompatible with civilization, i. e., the assignment of responsibilities with rules and expectations in a continuing society. Total self-giving love that demands nothing from the other is irreconcilable with assigned roles, duties, division of labor, accountability, and so on. The unqualified demands of sacrificial love require their implementation in the moment without regard for future consequences for self or others. Orderly life could not go on if no one ever insisted that others play their part, share the load, live by the rules of civilized society, and carry out their obligations. I concluded that the compromises necessary to have a continuing, organized society were not wrong but that we make the compromises long before and far more extensively than we need to for the sake of civilization.(1)
What, then is the value of an ethic of absolute ideals demanding perfection in this ambiguous, complex civilized world?. Reinhold Niebuhr and Alfred North Whitehead are my guides. Whitehead said that the impractical ideals of the first century are a standard by which to measure the shortcomings of society. "So long as the Galilean images are but the dreams of an unrealized world, so long they must spread the infection of an uneasy spirit" (Adventures of Ideas). A morally serious person of faith cannot read take equal love of neighbor seriously and be at ease with any social status quo.
Reinhold Niebuhr made the same point. Agape, Christian love, is an "impossible possibility" that is relevant in all situations as both judge of every present achievement and guide to further moral advance
OK, the objections: You want to make us feel guilty all the time. No, I am suggesting that our unrealized ideals are a spur and guide to action not a guilt-inducing mechanism.
You don't appear to know about salvation by grace through faith, not by works. O yes I do; it is our only hope. But I also know about "cheap grace" (Bonhoeffer), and that that "right strawy epistle" (Luther), James, says that faith without works is dead. Nobody has ever worked out the relation between grace and law, faith and works in a satisfactory way that is descriptive of everybody, not Protestants, not Catholics, not Luther, not Calvin, not Wesley, not Reinhold Niebuhr.(2) They, however, along with the New Testament all teach that genuine faith expresses itself in good works.
I prefer a pragmatic, experiential approach. Those who are burdened by guilt at their lack of moral perfection need to hear the liberating word of grace. Those who are at ease in Zion need to hear the demand to do better and to reread Matthew 25 where Jesus teaches a doctrine of salvation by works that warns our failure to meet the neighbor's need will get us cast into the eternal flame. My observation is that the population of those at ease in Zion far, far outnumbers the guilt-ridden.
So why am I getting into all this? Here is why: The typical operational assumption among us is that being a Christian means living a respectable life by middle-class standards, being an active, faithful church member, giving generously to church and charities, and doing a usually modest (sometimes zero) amount of good works on a volunteer basis. That is the definition of a cultural Christian. Is it a definition of a New Testament Christian? I don't think so. For my reasoning, see the first two paragraphs.
____________________________________________
(1) Complicating all this is the fact that we don't expect the end of the world very shortly (or live as if we do, even if we say we expect it) as Jesus and early New Testament Christians generally did. Even fundamentalists have life insurance policies and have savings plans for retirement.
(2) For one things the usual assumption is that you are either saved or lost; you either have faith or you don't (although this note is muted in modern liberals), whereas actual experience is too multifarious and variegated to fit a strict either-or logic. Both faith and works come in all sizes, varieties, strengths, and patterns.
For purposes of discussion, let me begin this way. If we were really Christians in the New Testament sense, most of us would give 50% or more of our income to help those who are worse off than we are. This is a simple implication and a modest, even weak, interpretation of the commandment to love your neighbor equally with yourself, not even to mention Matthew 5: 38 ff. To put it another way to get things going, Christians need to justify why they spend more on themselves than the median family income in this country, which by world standards makes us quite affluent. Radical Christianity would insist that we cannot have two coats as long as anybody in the world has none.
Peter Singer in a provocative essay pointed out that if we had the chance to save a child's life right before us, we would do so even at considerable sacrifice to ourselves. But he rightly noted the fact every time we spend a few dollars for something we don't absolutely need, a child dies who might have been saved had that money been given to, say, Oxfam. There is no way to escape the logic of that.
In another place I argued that the radical ethic of the New Testament was incompatible with civilization, i. e., the assignment of responsibilities with rules and expectations in a continuing society. Total self-giving love that demands nothing from the other is irreconcilable with assigned roles, duties, division of labor, accountability, and so on. The unqualified demands of sacrificial love require their implementation in the moment without regard for future consequences for self or others. Orderly life could not go on if no one ever insisted that others play their part, share the load, live by the rules of civilized society, and carry out their obligations. I concluded that the compromises necessary to have a continuing, organized society were not wrong but that we make the compromises long before and far more extensively than we need to for the sake of civilization.(1)
What, then is the value of an ethic of absolute ideals demanding perfection in this ambiguous, complex civilized world?. Reinhold Niebuhr and Alfred North Whitehead are my guides. Whitehead said that the impractical ideals of the first century are a standard by which to measure the shortcomings of society. "So long as the Galilean images are but the dreams of an unrealized world, so long they must spread the infection of an uneasy spirit" (Adventures of Ideas). A morally serious person of faith cannot read take equal love of neighbor seriously and be at ease with any social status quo.
Reinhold Niebuhr made the same point. Agape, Christian love, is an "impossible possibility" that is relevant in all situations as both judge of every present achievement and guide to further moral advance
OK, the objections: You want to make us feel guilty all the time. No, I am suggesting that our unrealized ideals are a spur and guide to action not a guilt-inducing mechanism.
You don't appear to know about salvation by grace through faith, not by works. O yes I do; it is our only hope. But I also know about "cheap grace" (Bonhoeffer), and that that "right strawy epistle" (Luther), James, says that faith without works is dead. Nobody has ever worked out the relation between grace and law, faith and works in a satisfactory way that is descriptive of everybody, not Protestants, not Catholics, not Luther, not Calvin, not Wesley, not Reinhold Niebuhr.(2) They, however, along with the New Testament all teach that genuine faith expresses itself in good works.
I prefer a pragmatic, experiential approach. Those who are burdened by guilt at their lack of moral perfection need to hear the liberating word of grace. Those who are at ease in Zion need to hear the demand to do better and to reread Matthew 25 where Jesus teaches a doctrine of salvation by works that warns our failure to meet the neighbor's need will get us cast into the eternal flame. My observation is that the population of those at ease in Zion far, far outnumbers the guilt-ridden.
So why am I getting into all this? Here is why: The typical operational assumption among us is that being a Christian means living a respectable life by middle-class standards, being an active, faithful church member, giving generously to church and charities, and doing a usually modest (sometimes zero) amount of good works on a volunteer basis. That is the definition of a cultural Christian. Is it a definition of a New Testament Christian? I don't think so. For my reasoning, see the first two paragraphs.
____________________________________________
(1) Complicating all this is the fact that we don't expect the end of the world very shortly (or live as if we do, even if we say we expect it) as Jesus and early New Testament Christians generally did. Even fundamentalists have life insurance policies and have savings plans for retirement.
(2) For one things the usual assumption is that you are either saved or lost; you either have faith or you don't (although this note is muted in modern liberals), whereas actual experience is too multifarious and variegated to fit a strict either-or logic. Both faith and works come in all sizes, varieties, strengths, and patterns.
Presentism and Selfishness
I will begin with a big audacious claim and weasel out of it as refutations require. Most of the major problems in this world can be traced to two sources: presentism and selfishness. Presentism is the preference for immediate satisfactions over future ones. Selfishness is the preference for our own satisfactions over those of others.
Where to begin? We cannot deal effectively with global warming because the benefits of not doing so are enjoyed now, while planetary catastrophe will be experienced later. The same holds for other environmental problems. We cannot move quickly enough toward energy independence because it would be costly now, and the good results would come later. We should have been taking steps like adding a substantial tax to gasoline at least as far back as the Carter era. President Carter advocated a strong future-oriented energy policy but was thwarted.
Congress will not take steps now to deal with Medicare financing that will sooner or later confront us because politicians are focused on getting reelected in the nearer future. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts assisting mainly the rich, especially the obscenely rich, resulting in huge national deficits whose consequences will have to be faced later. A tragic, unnecessary war has been financed by deficit spending because lowering taxes has become a religion for the Republicans, and responsible fiscal policy in the here and now is bad for electoral politics. The enemy is us, not just our politicians, because they know we want our goodies now with as little cost to us as possible and that we are not easily persuaded by futuristic logic.
We have a housing mortgage crisis because people wanted a larger house that small beginning interest payments a few years ago would allow, and banks promoted bad loans out of greed for bigger immediate profits. When the larger payments became due, homeowners defaulted, and the banks had to foreclose, hurting everybody. Now we are in a credit crunch because in the past present interests took precedence over ignored future outcomes.
We are funding our national spending spree with loans from nations like China and Dubai. No one knows what the future results will be. Individuals are getting more and more behind on credit card payments because of past and present purchases. Devotion to presentism shuns frugality and responsible spending. In 2005 we had a negative savings rate. From the Associated Press:
"Consumers depleted their savings to finance the purchases of cars and other big-ticket items. ... The Commerce Department reported Monday that the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only twice before — in 1932 and 1933."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/
Christopher Jencks beautifully points out how difficult immigration reform is because of what I am calling presentism:
"Many employers would accept more stringent penalties for hiring illegal immigrants in the future if that were the only way to legalize their current workers, and many immigrant groups would do the same. On the other side, many conservative activists might accept legalization of today's illegal immigrants if that were the only way to ensure a crackdown on hiring illegal immigrants in the future. In principle, therefore, a deal should be possible. But this deal turns out to have a fatal flaw. Legalization can be implemented within a few years, while penalties for hiring illegal immigrants have to be enforced indefinitely. That means employers get what they want right away, while opponents of illegal immigration have to wait.
"The Immigration Charade," The New York Review of Books (September 27, 2007)http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20602
We could go on. Much that is not accounted for by presentism can be attributed to selfishness. They overlap but cannot be reduced to each other. Presentism is selfishness in the moment for ourselves and others disregarding the future. Selfishness is preference for ourselves disregarding the neighbor in the present and the future. Selfishness in theological terms is sin; presentism adds disregard of wisdom to sin.
Selfishness is such a staple of moral theology that it needs no illustration. Just observe any issue that arises and see how the parties (individuals or groups) line up, taking positions that benefit them, interpreting or ignoring the facts to suit their interests.
Protestant ethic with your emphasis on frugality, self-restraint, discipline, and responsibility -- where are you when we need you?
So what is the cure? If you are a preacher, you might start with Romans 1:27ff. and take it from there. Secularists can point out the consequences of selfishness and the folly of presentism, quoting the old biblical and cultural adage that we reap what we sow. Obviously the gospel in both its religious and secular forms calls for repentance (change of mind) and reformation of character with the appropriate deeds (fruits meet for repentance Matthew 3:8 KJV) that follow. Rates of expected success for prophets or secular reformers: small. The pleasures of presentism and selfishness are too seductive to be resisted.
Here endeth the lesson. Remember: hell is truth seen too late (Thomas Hobbes).
Where to begin? We cannot deal effectively with global warming because the benefits of not doing so are enjoyed now, while planetary catastrophe will be experienced later. The same holds for other environmental problems. We cannot move quickly enough toward energy independence because it would be costly now, and the good results would come later. We should have been taking steps like adding a substantial tax to gasoline at least as far back as the Carter era. President Carter advocated a strong future-oriented energy policy but was thwarted.
Congress will not take steps now to deal with Medicare financing that will sooner or later confront us because politicians are focused on getting reelected in the nearer future. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts assisting mainly the rich, especially the obscenely rich, resulting in huge national deficits whose consequences will have to be faced later. A tragic, unnecessary war has been financed by deficit spending because lowering taxes has become a religion for the Republicans, and responsible fiscal policy in the here and now is bad for electoral politics. The enemy is us, not just our politicians, because they know we want our goodies now with as little cost to us as possible and that we are not easily persuaded by futuristic logic.
We have a housing mortgage crisis because people wanted a larger house that small beginning interest payments a few years ago would allow, and banks promoted bad loans out of greed for bigger immediate profits. When the larger payments became due, homeowners defaulted, and the banks had to foreclose, hurting everybody. Now we are in a credit crunch because in the past present interests took precedence over ignored future outcomes.
We are funding our national spending spree with loans from nations like China and Dubai. No one knows what the future results will be. Individuals are getting more and more behind on credit card payments because of past and present purchases. Devotion to presentism shuns frugality and responsible spending. In 2005 we had a negative savings rate. From the Associated Press:
"Consumers depleted their savings to finance the purchases of cars and other big-ticket items. ... The Commerce Department reported Monday that the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only twice before — in 1932 and 1933."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/
Christopher Jencks beautifully points out how difficult immigration reform is because of what I am calling presentism:
"Many employers would accept more stringent penalties for hiring illegal immigrants in the future if that were the only way to legalize their current workers, and many immigrant groups would do the same. On the other side, many conservative activists might accept legalization of today's illegal immigrants if that were the only way to ensure a crackdown on hiring illegal immigrants in the future. In principle, therefore, a deal should be possible. But this deal turns out to have a fatal flaw. Legalization can be implemented within a few years, while penalties for hiring illegal immigrants have to be enforced indefinitely. That means employers get what they want right away, while opponents of illegal immigration have to wait.
"The Immigration Charade," The New York Review of Books (September 27, 2007)http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20602
We could go on. Much that is not accounted for by presentism can be attributed to selfishness. They overlap but cannot be reduced to each other. Presentism is selfishness in the moment for ourselves and others disregarding the future. Selfishness is preference for ourselves disregarding the neighbor in the present and the future. Selfishness in theological terms is sin; presentism adds disregard of wisdom to sin.
Selfishness is such a staple of moral theology that it needs no illustration. Just observe any issue that arises and see how the parties (individuals or groups) line up, taking positions that benefit them, interpreting or ignoring the facts to suit their interests.
Protestant ethic with your emphasis on frugality, self-restraint, discipline, and responsibility -- where are you when we need you?
So what is the cure? If you are a preacher, you might start with Romans 1:27ff. and take it from there. Secularists can point out the consequences of selfishness and the folly of presentism, quoting the old biblical and cultural adage that we reap what we sow. Obviously the gospel in both its religious and secular forms calls for repentance (change of mind) and reformation of character with the appropriate deeds (fruits meet for repentance Matthew 3:8 KJV) that follow. Rates of expected success for prophets or secular reformers: small. The pleasures of presentism and selfishness are too seductive to be resisted.
Here endeth the lesson. Remember: hell is truth seen too late (Thomas Hobbes).
Christmas Memories
Christmas is about anticipation and realization. For people my age, however, Christmas becomes more and more about memories. For me one image in particular stands out.Christmas was big with my former wife, who passed away twenty years ago last October. Eloise would trudge all over Rochester in the treacherous snow and ice to find what the children wanted and would always try to have at least one surprise for them. We added at least one new ornament every year to the collection, which therefore grew larger each season making the tree brighter and more colorful.
The rule in our house was that the children could not come downstairs until 7 AM on Christmas morning. So Paul, Nancy, and Melissa would huddle at the top of the stairs clock in hand waiting as the minutes ticked away like hours. At the appointed time on the dot, they would hurry down the stairs and into the living room to look at the pile of gaily-wrapped presents. under the bright and glorious tree in all its splendor . The parents were still sleepy and tired from having been up until 2 or 3 AM getting everything ready. "Some assembly required" will suggest why. My limited mechanical abilities and obscurely-written instructions frequently tested my usual restraint against the use of profanity. But somehow it all got done, and here we were all together at the magic moment when wondrous anticipation turned into joyful realization.
The children are all grown up now and into middle-age with their own families far away from 2961 Elmwood Avenue. They are wonderful human beings and a joy to Gloria and me along with her own adult offspring and our grandchildren.
But deep in a treasured corner of my heart at this season of the year they are all little again standing in the door to the living room in the glow of the bright colorful shining tree reflecting in their beautiful eyes the joy and wonder of Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)