Tag: cabaretic

This, the sixty-eighth anniversary of the date which will live in infamy, is rarely circled in calendars or noted in any wholesale fashion as it once was.  Humans are finite beings with finite memories and as one generation marches to the grave, so too generations ahead of it do not and cannot keep alive the same memory in the same way.  We respect those who have borne the battle and for their widow and their orphan, as Lincoln put it, but struggle though we might, no matter how frequently we invoke the phrase “never again” as a means of supreme deterrent, “again” always manages to arrive once more.  Those who have taught history know the frustration of attempting to grab the attention of students whose impression of that which came before them often has the unfortunate caveat of a yawn attached.  It has been my own personal experience that making parallel examples to the current day is the best means of making the subject both real and current, so upon that framework I state my case.        

Much of the sting of that tragic day has subsided, as those who fought and died in World War II have become increasingly fewer with the progression of time.  Indeed, the very mention of “Pearl Harbor” no longer carries with it the gut-punch sting and the tragedy that it did to those who lived in those times.  Provided subsequent terrorist attacks on American soil are foiled, the phrase “September 11” will in another generation or so begin to lose its collective horror.  Much to the frustration of those that would teach the lessons of the past and those that would wish to be remembered beyond the immediate for reasons either noble, selfish, or some combination thereof it would be unnatural to expect otherwise.  Some of us wish to forget and some of us wish that those who would exploit tragedies for their own gain would disappear from the face of the earth, never to return.    

One hastens a bit to make the 11 September/Pearl Harbor comparison (aside from not wishing to embrace neo-con artist sales jobs) because in many ways they were very different, but in some ways they were not.  Pearl Harbor was the slow culmination of clandestine and backstage interference with Japanese affairs and war goals.  There was, believe it or not, once a time where this country produced a significant amount of crude oil for export, particularly a vast majority of the aviation gasoline and raw materials that then-President Roosevelt denied to the Empire of Japan as a punitive measure.  What is often not mentioned is that due to Japan’s invasion of Manchuria and Mainland China, the United States embargoed essential goods necessary for the island nation’s continued military success.  This fact has led to many to believe in a conspiracy theory, asserting that Pearl Harbor had been sniffed out weeks, if not months before, and was allowed to transpire as exactly planned to draw the U.S. into its second World War.  I personally don’t ascribe to this view, instead believing that any nation can be easily lulled into a false sense of security, particularly when it has been blessed with the ability to have two oceans separating it from foreign invasion and no immediate enemies within easy striking distance.            

What I do find compelling is that, according to one poll, we have been recently returning to our isolationist roots, increasingly reluctant to engage in foreign policy conflicts or exercises in imperialism.  In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, many a story is told of men who when informed of the attack went directly to the nearest recruiting station and volunteered immediately for service.  Likewise, there were many patriots eager to pick up a gun and vanquish the terrorist threat eight years ago.  Now, however, a majority of Americans are skeptical of continued involvement in Afghanistan and still uncertain of where we intend to end up by the end of our latest expanded containment exercise.  It was Pearl Harbor which set into play the strength and scope of our hand in world leadership.  In plainest irony, however, by the end of the war, it placed into motion the Post-War boom that, we know now was but an ephemeral, gauzy dream that obscured larger realities and subsequent challenges yet to arrive.    

A recent pro-Obama column in Newsweek written by Fareed Zakaria notes how the cowboy diplomacy and shoot-from-the-hip impulsiveness of the previous President has been replaced with a thoughtful wartime strategy.  

This first year of his presidency has been a window into Barack Obama’s world view. Most presidents, once they get hold of the bully pulpit, cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate to grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny, and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Even the elder Bush, a pragmatist if there ever was one, lapsed into dreamy language about “a new world order” once he stood in front of the United Nations. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. A great orator, he has, in this arena, kept his eloquence in check. Obama is a realist, by temperament, learning, and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing the resources to achieve them, and keeping his eyes on the prize.  

Franklin Roosevelt’s speech given the day after the ignominy of Pearl Harbor shows this same sort of cautious realism and resistance to forcibly implant sweeping drama deep into the historical record, where it presumably would never be overlooked in the future.

The wording of Roosevelt’s speech was intended to have a strong emotional impact, appealing to the anger felt by Americans at the nature of the Japanese attack…He deliberately avoided the Churchillian approach of an appeal to history. Indeed, the most famous line of the speech originally read “a date which will live in world history”; Roosevelt crossed out “world history” and replaced it with “infamy”, as seen in the annotated copy of the original typewritten speech from the National Archives.

In this address before a joint session of Congress which served as America’s formal entrance into World War II, Roosevelt sought a nuanced approach, careful not to seem too Wilsonian, a President whose attitude towards the first World War and American objectives was based around sweeping idealism and open-ended commitment.

Roosevelt consciously sought to avoid making the sort of more abstract appeal that had been issued by President Woodrow Wilson in his own speech to Congress[8] in April 1917, when the United States entered World War I. Wilson had laid out the strategic threat posed by Germany and stressed the idealistic goals behind America’s participation in the war. During the 1930s, however, American public opinion had turned strongly against such themes and was wary of-if not actively hostile to-idealistic visions of remaking the world through a “just war”. Roosevelt therefore chose to make an appeal aimed much more at the gut level-in effect, an appeal to patriotism rather than to idealism.

Returning to Zakaria’s synopsis,

Obama’s realism is sure to be caricatured as bloodless and indifferent to human rights, democracy, and other virtues. In fact, Obama probably understands the immense moral value of an engaged and effective superpower. As he said in his speech, “More than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades-a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.”

It is this approach that may be exactly what is needed to carry us forward.  Granted, this is not a strategy that lends itself easily to thundering applause and edge-of-your-seat thrills, but changing times require changing tactics.  With the end of World War II may have come the end of the nation/state war whereby one can easily identify the enemy by observing the flag it flies and by taking care to note the well-established boundaries, firmly drawn that separate it from others.  Whomever chose to denote terrorist groups as “cells” provided a very helpful metaphor to explain our current threat.  As cancer spreads from one part of the body to others as it metastasizes, so does our Al-Qaeda or The Taliban.  Members of terrorists groups are linked together by a belief in radical Islam, not by allegiance to country.  One cannot emphasize this fact enough because we are collectively having a very difficult time wrapping our brains around the true New World Order, a task which is further garbled by years of war movies and oversimplified fictionalized struggles between combatants who always manage to be either purely good or purely evil.          

Zakaria again asserts,

As for the broader problem of great-power support, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are largely isolated, with a massive international coalition arrayed against them. That does not mean that they cannot prevail in a local struggle over some parts of Afghanistan, but they will be hard pressed to achieve their ultimate goal of ruling Afghanistan. It might be difficult for the United States to “win” in Afghanistan, but it will be impossible for the Taliban to do so. And finally, America has not abandoned Iraq and will not abandon Afghanistan.

Resounding victory ending up in panicked retreat by our opponents is something we should cease to expect in our current conflict.  There will be no moment of triumph, no statue toppled in the city square, no flag hoisted over the land of the defeated enemy, no Mission Accomplished banner forming the backdrop of a photo-op disguised as a victory speech.  Nor will there be any V-E Day or V-J Day upon which to ring the church bells and observe the medals pinned to the chests of those who served, suffered, and sacrificed.  The only thing the least bit instantly emotional, powerful, and potent about war with extremist groups are in the massive attacks successfully launched by unseen cells which distressingly manage somehow to slide through the cracks.  The actual street-by-street, cave-by-cave, and village-by-village tactics employed by our forces and those of our allies are not especially grandiose nor easily included into the record of noble deeds accomplished by massive invasion with years of hype and build up to the act itself.

Pausing once more to reference Zakaria,

The history of great powers suggests that maintaining their position requires, most crucially, tending to the sources of their power: economic growth and technological innovation. It also means concentrating on the centers of global power, not the periphery…It’s important to remember that in the coming century it will be America’s dominant position in Asia-its role as the balancer in the Pacific-that will be pivotal to its role as a global superpower, not whatever happens in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Futurists and those who follow existing trends denote the Age of Terrorism as having a relatively short lifespan.  Thirty to forty years maximum is the number floated by any number of reputable scholars who make their living by of making educated guesses regarding events yet before us.  This is, of course, not to denigrate or refuse to grant 11 September 2001 its rightful place in the American house of horrors, but to say instead that inevitably and eventually some other national crisis will be superimposed on top of it and as it does, generational memory will grow shorter and shorter.  With the rise of Asia, particularly China, will come new challenges to the world and with them a new economic coalition with greatly conflicting interests.  That will be a struggle requiring the leadership dexterity of a seal balancing a ball on top of its nose.  As the Bible says,

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Recently, it has become known that a group of conservative Bible scholars are attempting to re-translate the Bible to fit a decidedly conservative spin.   Calling themselves the Conservative Bible Project, the Wikipedia-inspired platform removes troublesome things like facts and original intent, instead softening the language of that original radical liberal Comrade Jesus.   The problem among many, of course, is that the original Bible as rendered has no allegiance to Twenty-first century ideology, since it was written centuries before.   The strength of the document is in its relative impartiality, at least as regards contemporary culture conflict.   Much about this project troubles me, but my own red flags arise whenever revisionism without just cause and with a stated agenda are justified by excuse and rationalization.   Apparently unable to stick to its own interpretation within the existent passages, this group must create its own scripture in the process, else those evil liberals continue their nefarious brainwashing.

If this were merely some over-reaching effort to put an ideological spin on Jesus and his words, that would be bad enough, but the project contains an element of prudishness to it as well.   In researching for this piece, I came across a helpful column in America Magazine, written by John W. Martens.

There are numerous other issues on which one could raise substantial concerns. The CBP editors are unwilling to grant that Jesus is talking about wine, you know, the stuff with alcohol, in Mark 2: 22, and instead suggest “fresh grape juice” for oinos. It is hard to know how this ancient Welch’s will “burst the wineskins,” thereby destroying the point of the parable, and even harder to know why there were prohibitions on drunkenness amongst early Christians if they were only drinking grape juice.

The project has chosen to address The Old Testament as well.  I’d be curious to know how they’re going to get around Noah’s unfortunate David Hasselhoff-like bout of intoxication.  Genesis 9 provides the story.

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.  When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.  Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.  But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.  When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”  He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

As I interpret it, I take the passage to mean that even the Godliest of the Godly have gaping flaws and make poor decisions at times, but it speaks far worse to those who seek to cover up these matters as a means of suiting their own purposes.   The Canaanites mentioned in the passage were a Semetic peoples conquered by the Israelites and largely assimilated into their numbers.   Conventional interpretation labels the sons and daughters of Canaan a wicked and evil people who were justifiably driven out of the Promised Land to make way for the Hebrews, as they were squatting on land not belonging to them.   Rather than joining forces and entering the promised territory hard won by conflict, they were conquered by force.

Scholars have never completely come to a consensus agreement as to what the curse of Ham really entails, but in any case, the latter verses of the above passage have been variously used over time to justify racism and enslavement of Black Africans.  It would be interesting to see how the Conservative Bible Project can reconcile this particularly troublesome situation, since words alone cannot defeat context and intent.   So much of biblical understanding relies heavily on back story and correct framing, but taking words literally in isolation from the larger picture is where intolerance and rigidity of understanding find their nexus.          

Ham is not directly cursed for his actions; instead the curse falls upon his youngest son Canaan. The curse seems unusually severe for merely observing Noah unclothed. An explanation sometimes offered notes that the phrase “exposing or uncovering nakedness” is used several times elsewhere in the Pentateuch as a euphemism for having sexual relations. See Leviticus 18:6-19 in which this phrase is mentioned in connection with a variety of women in the family–one’s mother, stepmother, sister, half sister, granddaughter, aunt, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law– as well as in certain relationships (during her menstrual period, sleeping with a mother and daughter, etc.)

Rashi, the main commentator on Torah, explains the harshness of the curse: “Some say Cham saw his father naked and either sodomized or castrated him. His thought was “Perhaps my father’s drunkenness will lead to intercourse with our mother and I will have to share the inheritance of the world with another brother! I will prevent this by taking his manhood from him! When Noah awoke, and he realized what Cham had done, he said, “Because you prevented me from having a fourth son, your fourth son, Canaan, shall forever be a slave to his brothers, who showed respect to me!”

Greed combined with personal gain compels others to violence and brutality.   Lessons like these are why the Scriptures never truly date, though I can almost certainly guarantee that the Conservative Bible Project’s bastardization endeavor will need to go through several revisions.  Political winds change at will, but human nature never does.   Still, nothing sets conservative tongue a-waggling quicker than the fear of socialism.    

What is most troubling, however, for the editors of the CBP is the socialism that is rife in modern translations. For instance, “volunteer” is a conservative word, and appears rarely in translations, while words such as “laborer” and “fellow-worker” appear numerous times. Apparently, “work” and labor” reflect socialism, which strikes me as a place that conservatives might not want to go. Are they truly opposed to work?

They themselves?   Yes.   Their loyal voting bloc of the easily deceived and educationally impoverished?  No.   Why unite when you can divide and conquer?

Martens concludes, quite devastatingly,

Best of all, though, is the new translation of Mark 3:27, where “the strong man” of the KJV (also in NRSV and NIV) becomes the “well-armed man” of the CBP. I can just see the “well-armed man” now, ancient rifle in hand, defending his turf, against wine, socialism, and co-workers. There is a little problem here for the CBP: in Jesus’ parable, the “strong man” is Satan. Hmmm…labor on my fellow-workers, labor on, we will disarm him yet.

The verse in Mark that Martens cites is prefaced by this one.

And if Satan is divided and fights against himself, how can he stand? He would never survive.

I used the larger parable from which these verses come in a column I wrote a week ago, where I set out a familiar turn of phrase widely attributed to Abraham Lincoln.  The verse prior to that one reads,

If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  

Some translations render the passage,

Similarly, a family splintered by feuding will fall apart.

The Bible doesn’t promise us what we want to hear.  At times its wisdom is as sharp and cutting as it is inspiring and guiding, but wisdom as I understand it is not meant to be a pep talk.   The idolatry of the Conservative Bible Project is no less damning than that of the Golden Calf or the pursuit of profit.   Faith is not something that we can transform into our own image, lest it guide us towards places that make us uncomfortable or challenge our assumptions.   Faith is not tunnel vision, either, which is something many Evangelical conservative groups and loyal conservatives are quick to adopt, since it promises nothing messy, incomplete, or inexact.   Yet, conceding as so many do that faith guidance is outdated or would force us to adopt some singular uniform focus that would come at the expense of our independence is not a correct assumption, either.  

Jesus concludes,

Let me illustrate this further. Who is powerful enough to enter the house of a strong man like Satan and plunder his goods? Only someone even stronger–someone who could tie him up and then plunder his house.

I wasn’t sure Politico could stoop any lower than it did when it published seven highly subjective (to put it lightly) meta-narratives that the Obama Administration supposedly did not want to become public knowledge.   Widely ridiculed, the column caused the periodical’s credibility to take a severe hit, and unfortunately its turn towards right-wing distortion in opposition to fact seems to have continued.   While none of us knows for sure what goes on behind closed doors, in true Politico style if I had to guess before I knew all the facts, I’d conclude that someone must be pushing the notion that it must incorporate more content that appeals directly to conservatives into each daily edition.  Right-wing points of view have a place, but sloppy logic never does.

I do read Politico on a daily basis, if only to see media framing devices at work, and so yesterday I was incensed, to say nothing of dismayed to note that apologizing for rape apologists appears to be no big deal.   Since the media is comprised of human frailties, it frequently mirrors the frustrations and the flaws of its creators.   For example, an article published this week took Senator Al Franken to task for not taking questions from reporters and instead directing them to his own public relations manager.   Exclusive stories and one-on-one scoops are the Holy Grails of the profession and with the continued decline of the industry, so one can understand easily why disappointment and resentment might build if one of the most colorful and newest Senators might wish to refuse to play ball.

Politico portrayed the decision to avoid contact with the media as evasive and obstructionist by implying that the Junior Senator from Minnesota was too staff-driven and not the soundbyte machine that some had hoped he would become once finally sworn in to take his seat.   That the Fourth Estate would be surprised by his desire and strategy to be kept on a deliberately short leash strikes me as disingenuous at best.   Candidate Franken wisely restrained himself from drawing too much undue attention during the campaign and during the exhaustive recount process that immediately followed last year’s election made only short, safe statements while keeping largely out of sight until the situation was resolved.   This was a carefully crafted design that did him well before and abandoning it now doesn’t make much sense.   Once established and having achieved some degree of seniority, Franken will have the freedom to branch out and speak his mind without fear of serious backlash or threat of losing his seat, but for the moment the most sensible solution is to for him to learn the ropes and avoid stepping on toes in the process.        

The column critical of Franken’s media management style took special effort to note that the Minnesota senator is one of only a very small number of elected representatives who do not stand directly at the podium to make statements to the press or undergo question and answer sessions.   Reading between the lines, the column implied that perhaps the Senator had something to hide or was afraid of letting his true self and true concerns shine through.   It cited an anecdote where Franken very nearly answered a reporter’s questions before deciding instead to pass the inquiry along to his communications director.   The disappointment and let down inherent in the entire column was clearly palpable and I have to say that while a part of me wished also for more candor from him, I also understood the Senator’s dilemma and did not disagree with his choice of resolution.  

Returning to the column referenced in the beginning of this post, I cite a particularly revealing segment to reveal a better understanding of the full picture.

In a chamber where relationship-building is seen as critical, some GOP senators question whether Franken’s handling of the amendment could damage his ability to work across the aisle. Soon after Tennessee GOP Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander co-wrote an op-ed in a local newspaper defending their votes against the Franken measure, the Minnesota Democrat confronted each senator separately to dispute their column – and grew particularly angry in a tense exchange with Corker.

People familiar with the Corker exchange say it was heated and ended abruptly – a sharp departure from the norm on the usually clubby Senate floor.

As rendered, the entire story reeks of false concern and shame.  It is certainly true that the Senate as an entity is an elite club where partisan differences are often merely for show and bi-partisan friendships help grease the wheels of legislation, but a reliance on deep background sources to make a damning point always raises alarm bells to me.   Nebulously defined sources of information remind one of celebrity gossip more than hard news.   Some outlets, it needs to be mentioned, won’t even use anonymous sources because they leave a column’s veracity quite understandably open to question.  Without credibility, a news article reads as fiction, defeating its entire purpose for existing.  

Here is what actually happened.   Here is how Senator Franken dared to create this supposed maelstrom of ill-will and resulting uncouth broach of decorum.   In particular, note the first sentence of the paragraph and how it prefaces what follows afterward.

Franken, who declined to be interviewed, has said previously that the measure was inspired by the story of former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones, who alleges that she was drugged, beaten and gang-raped at age 19 when stationed in Baghdad. She fought the arbitration clause in her contract, and in September the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Jones’s sexual assault allegations were not “related to” her employment, allowing her to proceed in court. KBR is fighting the ruling.  

Yes, how dare Senator Franken not add a few choice bon mots to flesh out the interpretation of a contemptible act that one would think speaks quite sufficiently for itself.   As for the he said/he said conflict, we are told that it didn’t end up with F-bombs being dropped or with personal attacks being levied on the floor of the chamber itself, quite unlike the conduct of certain other Senators from a party that shall remain unspecified.   The left-wing blogosphere has become a convenient target for Republicans and Trusted Media Outlets™, particularly if and when they get thoroughly bored with blowing spit balls at each other.   People familiar with the exchange say their anger was heated and ended abruptly—a sharp departure from the norm.

“I don’t know what his motivation was for taking us on, but I would hope that we won’t see a lot of Daily Kos-inspired amendments in the future coming from him,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, No. 4 in the Senate Republican leadership. “I think hopefully he’ll settle down and do kind of the serious work of legislating that’s important to Minnesota.”

Silly me.   I wasn’t aware that the act of rape or violence were a bipartisan matter that might be best resolved by compromise.  Could we say that a rape only traumatizes 3/5ths of a person while we’re at it?  Seems fair enough to me.  You really confuse me, Senator Thune.   You remind me of the mainstream media and its attitude towards little old us out here in the blog realm.  First you say that the blogosphere isn’t an objective source of news or information and is of no real consequence, but then you throw darts at us as though you were really paying attention all the time.   One can’t be on two sides of an issue at once, even though as a politician I’m sure you’d like to present that concept.   One can be either one way or the other, but not both simultaneously.

[Franken] Aides point out that despite attacks on Republicans by liberal commentators like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and on blogs such as Daily Kos, Franken never appeared on any of the shows or on the blogs to make a partisan argument about the matter, saying that the senator turned down entreaties to do so. Also, they point to the 10 Republicans who voted for the amendment as proof that it wasn’t a partisan measure.

Yet again, we are encouraged to believe that Senator Franken is somehow cowardly for not going on the defensive or bolstering his claims by directly speaking out in favor of them.   While the blogs and the increasingly ravenous media love a contentious argument, the Minnesota Senator is wise to not draw undo attention to himself.   Those who hog the spotlight risk taking the focus off of the reform measure that desperately need to be enacted and serve as an unnecessary distraction.   One person is a much easier target than a collective group of people with similar goals.   In addition to being common sense, this is also Public Relations 101 and the fact that Politico is either unaware of it or instead determined to provoke an exchange reveals that a once noble profession acts increasingly like a drowning man.   Ignore those who are unhappily going down with the ship, because their spite and desperation reveals everything about them and almost nothing about us.

With the slow demise of old media has also come the demise of niche media like websites which cater specifically to women’s studies and women’s interests.   Prompted by the demise of Double X, an offshoot of Slate, itself an off-shoot of the financial troubled Washington Post, one can tell  how both female-centric media and academic fields are usually the first to go in times of economic crisis, budget cutbacks, or higher education famine.  While part of me laments that such sites end up being placed first on the chopping board when revenues plummet, another part of me wonders if we are finally ready to rid ourselves of the need for specific media designed for identity group solidarity.   In another time where persecution was harsh and undeniably swift to those outside of the mainstream who dared tread into uncharted territory, I think we may be ready to draw up tentative plans for full unity.  

Last week I visited Philadelphia and the historic Arch Street Meeting House, a Quaker house of worship that prides itself as being the largest gathering in the world and the oldest still in use in the United States.   The main part of the building was separated into a larger worship space and a smaller one directly adjacent to it.   A faith committed resolutely to equality among all its members deliberately made accommodations to female attenders by giving them the option of using a women-only space during worship services.  There, ladies who would have otherwise felt constrained to speak from within their hearts and their convictions because of the close proximity of their husbands or out of fear of broaching social protocol could have a safe space of their own.  Within it they were allowed to verbalize that which they had every right to be express but too often kept inside themselves.   It need be noted, of course, that this arrangement no longer exists and that now the voices of women have been welcomed into larger fellowship.  I rejoice that progress has been made and hope it continues.

One hopes that President Obama will strongly and clearly frame our mission in Afghanistan tonight, including the reason for our continued presence in a country that has known wave after wave of outside invaders fighting to advance their own ends.  We are but the latest army to set up shop and increase troop presence in pursuit of an elusive and often invisible enemy force.  The ultimate result is cloudy at this juncture, as was the previous President’s troop surge in Iraq when it was proposed.  I would hasten to call the latter decision an unequivocal success, but it did largely and surprisingly contain a low-grade Civil War.  It is with this fact in mind that many will choke down the prospect of another round of foreign entanglement, troop deployment, and media saturation coverage of major military skirmishes.      

One could, I suppose, reach for an obscure citation describing a similar conflict to which the United States committed troops.  In this situation, however, there are no easy parallels and no conventional warfare nor wisdom to cite.  The Soviet Union’s disastrous nine years in the country might be the best possible comparison under the circumstances, but the peculiarities of that conflict leave it more akin to Vietnam to our current endeavor.  The Soviet War in Afghanistan was an attempt to bolster the existing Communist party from collapsing against the Mujahideen.  We, of course, allocated weaponry and financial support to the Islamic insurgents as a means of undermining the Soviets.  

What has been forgotten in this day is that for nearly fifteen years, the Communist government ruled effectively and made great strides in developing a civilization rather than a backwards state beholden to constant conflict.  With the collapse of the USSR in 1991 came the decline of the Communist state and the rise of the Taliban, which single-handedly destroyed years of reform and plunged the country back into the Dark Ages.  The country deserves lasting stability if it is ever to move forward in time but until it ceases to be a designated battleground, it never will.

On this day where the negative news about the War in Afghanistan, fresh doubts about President Obama, and a lack of Democratic unity in the Senate regarding Health Care drives a sourly pessimistic news cycle, now is as good a time as any to push back against the doom and gloom brigade.  It may be time for the Democratic party to begin to reform itself first before it can ever make a solid effort to reform the country.  As much as Republicans have provided a more or less solid base of opposition and obstruction, Democrats have only appeared marginally united and only then for brief periods of time.  While I am aware that this is hardly anything new, disorganization will prove to be our own undoing unless we look inward and take stock of our shortcomings.  Everyone talks about this, of course, but as Mark Twain put it regarding discussions concerning weather, nobody does anything about it.      

The most current gloomy AP story of yesterday was predictably dire,

WASHINGTON – The 60 votes aren’t there any more.

With the Senate set to begin debate Monday on health care overhaul, the all-hands-on-deck Democratic coalition that allowed the bill to advance is fracturing already. Yet majority Democrats will need 60 votes again to finish.

Some Democratic senators say they’ll jump ship from the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. Others say they’ll go unless a government plan to compete with private insurance companies gets tossed overboard. Such concessions would enrage liberals, the heart and soul of the party.

The first stirrings of a concept known as Intersectionality began to develop in the 1960’s and 1970’s in opposition to the exclusivity, post-modernism influenced arguments of a prior generation of activists and thinkers.  In brief, Intersectionality rightly assumes that taking into account a variety of lenses and perspectives, as well as how they interact with each other is a much better means of attacking a problem.  Instead of taking one or two issues in isolation, viewing the similarities and acknowledging the spot at which all points meet would, as it is proposed, facilitate common purpose much more easily. In that spirit, seeking to address interrelated issues that comprise a complex matter rather than focusing too heavily on quibbling details would do our Senators and Representatives well.  

As the media has presented it, one would assume that the reservations brought up by individual members of Congress while in hot debate over health care have been matters of profound heft.  Certainly the political football of both Stupak and the Public Option are not issues to be taken lightly, but having read many of the published reports regarding day to day conduct in committee, the substantive concerns have often taken a back seat to needless minutia or pointless hair-splitting.  Threats and counter-threats in this laughably extended proceeding have ceased being coercive and might as well be duly noted in the Congressional Record without objection.  The mystical filibuster, for example, once was feared and sparsely used, and now has become part of process wallpaper to such a degree that even the threat of the procedural measure when invoked produces shrugged shoulders more than abject terror.  True filibusters are rare in any case.          

The Democratic party might at least consider the idea of Intersectionality if it is to prevent more than nominal GOP gains in 2010 and if it deigns to rule for an extended period of time.  Having won, it must now find a way to not overstay its welcome in the good graces of the American people.  Democrats know very well what they do not want to be and aren’t so versed on what they think they ought to be.  Many activists believe that a new way of looking at established rules would push every Democratic figure forward rather than being mired in conventional modes of thought that are long past their expiration date.  Many would argue that several of the long term legislators with seniority are long past their expiration date as well.  It is an unfortunate fact that we have been rather frequently and alarmingly prone to factionalism in recent history, which is partially a result of a disturbing lack of more or less uniform direction.  It should be noted that I do not see this as some greater trend along the same lines as peering at an ant farm, whereby what seems from a distance to be chaotic is upon closer inspection merely a method to the madness.  

Seeking to find mutual purpose between individuals and individual organizations alike, rather than pointing out differences and highlighting distinctions could well be our salvation.  What complicates this process, however, are the multitude of non-profits and PACs that dot the landscape, many of which are devoted to a single issue.  Each was founded out of a desire to make sure that the unique concerns of a particular group or cause was not neglected in the legislative process.  They were created based on an inequality or need that cried for alleviation, but with time, however, these groups began to resemble government agencies, whereby bureaus that could have been consolidated with others for the sake of efficiency were allowed to exist alongside similar departments which did more or less identical work.  Networking is still a fairly foreign concept to many of the myriad of entities that compromise the Democratic party and help set its agenda.  How we think influences how we govern and how we seek to influence that which governs.  Though the current model may have had its place once, the time has come to modify our thinking and with it our strategy.  Focusing too heavily on where we are not alike rather than how we are alike is, arguably, what led to the decline of the party post-Carter and contributed to the 1994 election debacle.  

I wrote a post over the weekend which touched some nerves.  In it, I discussed the way our that own fundamental structure as liberals makes getting us on the same page an exercise akin to herding cats.  One of the comments left was something to the effect of “I’m a Progressive and no one tells me what to do.”  Fair enough, except that I wasn’t suggesting that the person in question (or anyone, really) follow blindly behind any cause or personality.  What I was, however, arguing is that we can’t always isolate ourselves in our own identity group and assume that its concerns are of paramount concern to the whole.  Until we identify as Democrats first and other identities later, we’ll always have unintentionally split allegiances.  Any group established for originally altruistic means quickly becomes obsessed with justifying its own existence and in so doing losing sight of the original intent.  A common thread runs through so many organizations and it goes well beyond a simple label of “Progressivism”.  The most successful educational strategies link together a variety of subjects and show students how each is interconnected.  This is where true learning begins and this might also be the point at which true unity is allowed to thrive.    

I don’t believe in groupthink and I certainly don’t believe in playing follow-the-leader, but I do know that it is certainly easier when waste and superfluity is trimmed away.  I do also know that if everyone had been on the same wavelength before Stupak, then women’s rights wouldn’t have been so easily bartered away for the sake of a narrow victory.  If we truly lived our gospel of multiculturalism and plurality, then human rights would mean more than just the latest atrocity perpetrated in a nation far, far away.  If we practiced what we preached, there wouldn’t be a need for the Gay District, since LGBTs would live boringly normal lives right next door to us.  If we took up the cause of intersectionality, there would be no others who are not like us in some way, shape, or fashion.  While I am writing on this particular topic, I am reminded of a woman who is a contributing editor to a Feminist site I regularly visit; she uses this quote as her e-mail signature:

“Engrave this upon your heart: there isn’t anyone you couldn’t love once you heard their story.” –Mary Lou Kownacki    

Decry it as naïve optimism if you wish, but post-partisanship, if we have not thrown it upon the dungheap of history quite yet, begins with this simple statement.  That which separates us is often artifice, over-reaching, or over-compensation.  One President micromanages the Health Care debate, which fails miserably.  Another President puts Congress in control, failing to understand that he is capable of keeping bickering legislators in line without seeming dictatorial.  We are our own worst enemy, far too often.  Arguably we regained both chambers of Congress due to a GOP that had been remarkably good at shooting itself in the foot, if not other members.  One wonders what will be our strategy in 2010 besides praying that the economic data and unemployment numbers improve drastically and that the Health Care reform bill passes.  How will we learn from four years of mixed results?  I can guarantee that the existing framework and system is no viable solution.  We know what we are not, now it’s time to determine that which we are.  

Dissatisfaction in Progressive circles with President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress continues to swell and grow.  Indeed, I myself am deeply disappointed that the same old legislative and partisan stalemates seem to be so firmly entrenched that even a phenomenon promising optimism and significant reform could not break old habits.  Still, rather than resort to the Howard Fineman/Maureen Dowd approach and play a game of “I-told-you-so”, I’d much rather avoid pettiness altogether and attempt to understand why we are faced with politics-as-usual when we are at a point in our nation’s history when we can least afford it.  Answers exist beyond the usual discourse though they are rarely raised when many would rather exchange philosophy for wonkery.  Wonkery has its place, but what we seek now are solutions and ideas, not process and jargon.    

Regarding our current crisis of several reform measures that have bogged down or are in danger of being passed or scuttled depending on the hours, much of the problem arrives when one considers that we are frequently confused by different allegiances to often incompatible schools of information dispersal and guidance.  Either we are in a stage in between two different paradigms or we have tried to blend together two absolutely contradictory styles, wondering why we can’t get any results afterward.  Conservatives frequently use purely linear leadership to achieve their ends and we on the left often use an uneasy mash up between linear leadership and its asymmetric counterpart.    

Linear leadership is the sort that was brought to this country by European colonists.  A small continent in land mass contained an enormous variety of different cultures, different languages, and different ways of looking at life.  With so much variance and so little likelihood of reaching consensus or finding common purpose, a forceful style of conducting affairs developed that quickly grew highly stratified and regimented.  In it, hierarchies, pecking orders, and ranking systems became of paramount importance, as did the underlying assumptions that leaders were few, followers were many, and a passive kind of obedience was to be practiced.  In all areas of Western life, this style dominated.  Speaking from a purely Christian perspective, most Christian denominations, sects, and faith groups even to this day follow this same model, whereby a leader (called by a variety of different names depending on which group one ascribes) frequently instructs fellow believers in the form of a sermon and holds much power to direct church policy.  A linear system is a passive manner of conveying a message.  I talk, you listen.  Placing power in the hands of a structured system frequently disenfranchises people and glosses over distinctions, but it is deliberate, effective, and highly successful in dividing and conquering as well as hammering home a singular message.    

Grassroots groups, however, are run on an asymmetric brand of leadership.  The idea is often not about top-down leadership, but on a more egalitarian approach where each individual voice is as important as anyone else’s.  Frequently, however, this creates problems when it comes down to agreeing on any uniform statement or platform that the entire group endorses as a whole.  What is frequently advanced is a notion that everyone has to find his or her own path towards understanding the challenges and issues the group seeks to influence and reform while simultaneously pressing the notion that no one’s path or interpretation should be ranked as more or less important by the organization as a whole.  The problem with grassroots groups is that they seek to affect policy by using one particular strategy that is not found within politics itself.  Politics is structured from top-to-bottom and rarely are those at the bottom granted the ability to speak with any degree of authority.  They are expected instead to be good foot soldiers, never question party line, with the hopes that they might rise up through the ranks and achieve greater distinction and a greater ability to be taken seriously and to contribute to the group dynamic.    

Many Native American groups were based upon an asymmetric model when it came down to making tribal decisions and stating individual opinions.  Though it was certainly more uniformly fair, its key failing was that it did not foster group unity, unintentionally creating factionalism in the process.  Native Americans never had the same sense of common purpose and common unity that Europeans did, which was why they were so easily defeated in battle and by court action.  Different tribes rarely felt any sense of collective solidarity with each other and there was often dissent and schism within tribes.  Some faith traditions, of which unprogrammed Quakers are one, have their worship services more aligned with this philosophy.  Unprogrammed Quakers have no minister and conduct worship without any element, aside, of course, from the start and the finish, planned out beforehand.  However, they often have difficulty reaching uniformity on a large scale basis and particularly from region to region, yearly meeting to yearly meeting.  As a result, different subsets and regional groups have very different priorities and very different ideas about what ought to be important and advanced.    

The 9/12 and Tea Party groups have faced this same problem and are in danger of breaking apart.  Motivated only by their opposition to what they perceive as a common threat, they have frequently broken apart when unable to achieve anything resembling one coherent message.  We might gloat at their self-destructive behavior, but learning from their mistakes and not repeating them within ourselves might be the best lesson of all.  We will need to ask ourselves, individually and collectively, what school do we want to set forth?  Top-down or spread-around?  Whatever we choose will need to be soberly contemplated, because each method has pros and cons, and so long as our opposition continues to use tactics that can, as we have seen, divide us easily in the hopes of conquering us, we cannot take this matter lightly.  We might have to acknowledge that a House divided against itself cannot stand.  It will become all one thing or all the other.    

I thought I’d do something different today for comparison’s sake.  With everyone sufficiently indignant at our banking system, our government’s response, and at the abuses within the Bailout, I thought I might provide some needed contrast.  The details which follow first are the literal steps one has no choice but to follow to attain food stamps in Washington, DC.  I pulled certain phrases off of an advocacy website PDF here but the construction is largely mine.

How to Obtain Food Stamps in the District of Columbia

1.  Sit in line at the Food Stamp office nearest you and, while waiting, fill out a 12 page form.

OR

Print the form and fill out all 12 pages.

2.  To make sure you do not try to cheat the system, you will first be required to reveal your

a) Household income

b) Cash present on hand

c) Rent and utility costs

3.   You will then be asked to provide

a) where you work (if you are, in fact, employed)

b) your employer’s name and telephone number

c) when you started working for them

d) how much your paycheck is before taxes

e) and how often you get paid

4.  If you or anyone else in your household makes some degree of income, repeat step 3

5.  If you have a bank account, you are required to prove it by providing a bank statement

6.  If you own anything else besides your home, you are required to state that you do.

7.  If you have stocks and/or bonds, please respond in in the affirmative.

8.  Did you sell, trade, or give away anything more than $1,000 in the past three (3) years?  If so, please mark “yes” and attach a description to this form.

9.  Provide the exact dollar amount of that which you pay in rent.  Don’t forget to leave out utilities if not included in rent and whether or not you pay for air-conditioning and heating costs separate from your rent.

10.  Mail form.  Wait approximately three and a half weeks for a reply, only to be told after four separate phone calls spent futilely trying to speak to an actual person that, due to a severe backlog in unprocessed claims, it may be up to a month and a half before your paperwork is processed.

OR

Drop off form at Food Stamps office.  Speak to case worker after waiting for several hours.  Turn in form.  Wait approximately three and a half weeks for a reply, only to be after four separate phone calls futilely trying to speak to an actual person that, due to a severe backlog in unprocessed claims, it may be up to a month and a half before your paperwork is processed.

11.  Wait

12.  Keep waiting.

13.  Finally receive form in mail informing of date to meet with caseworker to determine whether Food Stamps will be granted.  Date is eight business days from when one received notice.

14.  Collect necessary documentation to prove identity.  This includes:

a) Photo ID/Drivers’ license

b) Recent rent receipt, copy of lease, mortgage payment, or landlord’s name and phone number.

c) Proof of income, last three pay stubs, VA benefits, educational scholarships, grants or loans, unemployment payments, or your employer’s name and phone number.

d)  Proof of Housing Expense:   Recent rent or mortgage payment receipts.  This includes receipts of all recent utility bill(s): phone, gas, electric, and water.  All of these documents must have your address printed on them.

e) Bank statements:  If one has an account at a bank or credit union, bring a  recent bank statement or bankbook. Also if you have any other type of financial account (for example, a CD) be sure to bring that, too.

f) Social Security Card

g) Proof of any Assets:  Bring proof of ownership for buildings, land, policies, burial arrangements or plots, and/or other property (not your home that you stay in) you reported in your application.

15.  After all hoops have been jumped through and forms brought to the attention and signed off by the appropriate party, wait for judgment about food stamps.

16.  Ten days later, judgment is granted.  Realize that $100.12 per month means approximately one week’s worth of groceries for one person.  Shrug and say to self that every little bit matters.

17.  Attend mandatory EBT Card (Food Stamp) card training before receiving.  Training lasts approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

18.  Proceed directly to grocery store.



How to Obtain Bailout Money in the District of Columbia



1.  Be a CEO of a large financial institute.

2.  State that you are nearly bankrupt, but too big to fail.

3.  Collect emergency funds.

It is with no small discouragement that I put my thoughts down today.  I never expected to be this disappointed with President Obama’s leadership ability and his handling of the proceedings.  Still, I concede that perhaps part of it is that the sheer number of daunting challenges which face us must be held in check by the realization that the legislative process is plodding and slow.  Every President, to some degree or another, bases his or her definition of Executive authority in contrast to the conduct of the previous person to hold the office.  Former President George W. Bush’s desire to circumvent the legislative branch and concentrate power in the White House at the expense of other branches no doubt shaped Obama’s desire to give Congress its fair share of say and impact.  This is a noble gesture, provided it works, and thus far it has not.  My hope is that our President will realize that there is a difference between ruling like a dictator and ruling like a strong Executive, and the lines between the two are neither fine, nor blurry.    

Because the responsibilities of the President are rather vaguely noted in our Constitution, each occupier of the office has taken his own interpretation of what precisely his job description connotes.  Those who have boldly adopted a stance that the Presidency ought to intercede directly and without apology into affairs some might consider the domain of other branches have been variously criticized for threatening to rule as an autocrat.  This is inevitable, since human selfishness and common sense dictates that everyone would like as big a piece of the pie as he or she can get.  Everyone will also be reliably counted on to object loudly if that piece ends up being reduced in size, especially if one thinks it owed to him or her.  Throw in partisan rancor, exaggeration, and media narrative and here one has a familiar formula that has been levied at any number of Presidents who, with the passage of time, history has seen fit to denote as “Great”.  

The reverse of this, of course, is being too conciliatory to other branches of government, a stance that has regrettably been President Obama’s undoing in recent months.  Presidents before have kept a tight leash on Congress, not out of some desire for complete control, regardless of how much Senators, Representatives, and pundits scream about it, but out of a genuine understanding that the Executive branch must set the tone, the pace, and the direction.  This is especially true now when though both the House and Senate have substantial Democratic majorities, the leadership tends to viscerally underwhelm and no one person has the force of personality to stand out front and be the face of Congressional mettle and resolve.  With so much that needs to be done, the President cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and watch with his hands on his hips.  He needs to take an active role in the game and if that means that the other players feel as though someone’s trying to grab the headlines from them, then so be it.    

Public opinion of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of Congress in general reflects this dire situation of which we are faced.  A do-nothing accusation lends itself easily to guilty-until-proven-innocent when no one has yet successfully sold Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, Environmental Reform, or any other measure now on the docket.  What we have in its place are overly cautious and thoroughly uninspiring pronouncements that promise ultimate success in the wimpiest possible construction ever devised.  They almost beg to not offend the hearer.  The clear implication is that the latest version of the bill is a coalition of the fragile affair that could break apart at any moment.  This does not exactly foment trust, devotion, and fidelity in the eyes of voters.      

As is my wont, in instances like these, my mind drifts to similar struggles in different ages.  Historical events roughly four and a half centuries ago shaped the formation of our Union and indeed, mirror ours in certain ways.  

The climax of the English Civil War was the ascent of a commoner, Oliver Cromwell, to head the island nation.  A member of Parliament before the war, Cromwell successfully lead the forces of the legislative body into battle against those supporting the crown and in so doing won eventual victory.  A brilliant military strategist and general, Cromwell held little patience for the delays and cross-currents which bogged down passage and enactment of reforms, which meant that with time Cromwell concentrated more and more authority into his own hands.  Though he might have been impatient, one cannot help but sympathize to a degree with his dilemma, particularly right now when partisan or even inter-party bickering has brought even the most modest reform measure to a complete halt.    

As for the legislative frustrations that typified the times, they first began in the form of the Long Parliament, which was compromised of an expansive group of dissatisfied legislators aghast at the base incompetence of a heavily unpopular King.  This then gave way to the high drama of Pride’s Purge.  The Long Parliament was dissolved in large part because it met for eight years solid but, due to factionalism and indecisiveness, could never manage to come to a solid conclusion or resolution regarding much of anything.  The largely deposed King, Charles I, stalled every negotiation by playing different factions in the Parliamentary alliance against each other to his own advantage.  When a significant faction sought to keep the King in control, albeit as only a figurehead, thereby disregarding the authority of the army, a coup d’état commenced.  The Purge brutally, skillfully removed fully half of the body, leaving behind only those who supported the army, at which point the monarchy was effectively dissolved, the King beheaded, and England’s first and only attempt to rule without a sovereign instituted.      

What came next was the so-called “Rump Parliament”, a term that, as is sometimes the case, was made by its opposition as a means of derision but stuck nonetheless.  To this day, the phrase survives and is used to mean a gathering comprised of remnants of a much larger group or organization.  Though initially successful, the Rump met its end four years later.  Its undoing was a combination of its failure to come up with a new, working Constitution and its flagrant disregard of the wishes of Cromwell, who commanded that the body dissolve, which it refused to do.  After personally observing the stalemate for himself, the soon-to-be Lord Protector bellowed,

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

After the Rump came the appropriately-titled Barebones Parliament, which was even less successful.  In disgust, Cromwell took control as a near-dictator and was kept in power by the backing by the army until his death five years later.  The complexities of those times are fascinating and cannot be done justice by a brief synopsis, but my greater point is to note the morass between then and now and, in so doing, note how much easier would be our lot if Congress could ever get a thing accomplished without bogging down into a state of maddening paralysis.  The Cromwellian Protectorate lasted only slightly longer than one modern-day Presidential term in office, at which point English citizens grew weary of it and re-established the monarchy.  It is that lesson above all others which I wish I could impart to our elected representatives and the current occupant of the White House, else they squander a golden opportunity.    

How tempting it would be if the ability existed to instantly call for new elections or even a way to rid ourselves of Representative and Senators whose stated agenda seems to be obstructionism and baseless fear-peddling.  To return to how I began this post, I know that we are stuck with the men and women we have in Congress.  I also understand that we have the theoretical right to throw these people out if they fail to be satisfactory stewards of our trust and our concerns, but one would be remiss to not note how they are often more indebted to the sway of fund raising, high value donors, and corporate interest.  Moreover, I concede that the system as it exists is patently not designed for the kind of major overhauls we desperately require.  The safeguards in place are designed in part for wiser, paternalistic heads to soberly contemplate, stroke beards meaningfully, and then cautiously proceed.  There are too many procedural rules, stalling tactics, and needless esoterica embedded deeply in a branch of government whose ways and means are frequently noted as “arcane”.

However, the time for real leadership arrived about four or five months ago.  While I concede that President Obama picked his strategy for Health Care Reform based on the failed example of President Clinton, it is long past due for a change in strategy.  Sometimes in seeking to avoid a mistake, we over-compensate and create new problems in the process.  Cautiousness is sometimes a viable public option, but as regards a Democratic caucus that is beholden to so many different identity groups, so much ideological difference, and a big tent that strains to be wide enough to accept everyone, else they pitch their own somewhere else, Presidential authority is the only way to get everyone on board.  If the Left has a true skill, it is in finding hairline cracks in party unity.  If the Obama of 2008 can return, then all will be forgiven and we can move forward.  Otherwise, we will be stuck with mealy-mouthed, soft-pedaled promises and over-cautious optimism.  

Recent Obama Administration attacks against the Chamber of Commerce, and, more notably, Fox News have been greeted with perfunctory attention and notice by the major media outlets.  Though a few pundits and experts chimed in to state their case in the immediate aftermath of Team Obama’s war on bias, few were willing to really say what they believed.  Reaction from the chattering classes and the peanut gallery was largely negative and unfavorable of the decision but one got the feeling that many expressed heavily disingenuous views.  Invoking Nixonian tactics in a critique reveals more about current station than All the President’s Men and Women.  In an era where every network and news agency is under increased pressure to maintain advertising revenue and, let we forget, often running significant deficits due to competition with electronic sources of information, caution prevents a major ratings war or uppercut.  In another time, a direct challenge by the White House might have fueled a bare-knuckle brawl among the heavyweights, following its bold example, but at the moment the best one can expect is a holding pattern and resulting uneasy truce.  Peace might be explained away as journalistic ethics, but ethics often are disregarded if monetary advantage is an option.      

Low-octane, under the radar sniping that frequently resorts to passive-aggression is the most obvious sign of the friction between politicians and purveyors of content.  As a result, the major cable networks have largely resisted the temptation to go after each other.  Striking from a defensive posture, MSNBC recently ran effective ads that directly contradicted Fox News’ claim that the 9/12 Tea Party demonstrations in Washington, DC, were not sufficiently covered by other outlets.  MSNBC was, however, careful not to go for the jugular.  To cite another example, despite recent attempts to modernize its programming and its look, CNN still takes a frequently unsatisfying middle ground between centrism and more progressive reporting that frequently comes across as artificial and plebeian in all the worst ways possible.  Still, CNN runs self-serving promo ads on a regular basis that tout its status as number one cable news network, making particularly mention of those under its employ who have won numerous awards and accolades.  This may be so, but CNN in many ways is the proverbial sleeping giant and it will take more than a direct challenge or surprise attack to fully rouse it from its self-satisfied stupor.  CNN was the first on the scene and as a result its demographic is often older and beholden to brand loyalty, but if it continues to lose younger viewers, it will find itself hemorrhaging revenue.      

Returning to the President’s attack on Fox News, one would expect the network, despite its obvious disdain for labor unions, to be solid in its hatred for President Obama.  However, a chink in the armor appears to have developed.  One of its reporters has declined the opportunity to directly engage the President in hand-to-hand combat.  The question remains whether or not he is violating policy or merely exercising a liberty he has the right to embrace.  It is also possible that this decision is a coordinated attempt designed purely to make President Obama look like a child and make Fox News seem like the rational adult in the matter.          

Returning to the relative surface placidity of Fox News versus Barack H. Obama, et al,

Fox News Channel correspondent Major Garrett called himself a “conscientious objector” in his network’s fight with the White House after a brief interview with President Barack Obama Wednesday during which the topic never came up.

One wonders also if this is merely a shrewd tactical move or indicative of larger trends within Fox News.  Much exists behind the scenes that we simply aren’t privy to and whether the Obama Administration has struck a deal with Fox News is purely speculative because no one’s talking.  Naturally, at least one conservative pundit has taken the opportunity to take a condescending swipe at the President’s strategy and perceived lack of satisfying and successful victories in foreign policy.  It is the intention of many on the right to paint our President as little more than an empty suit.    

Tongue in cheek, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said the interview “constitutes the most important truce in our history since the Korean armistice of 1953.”

“We are South Korea in this particular analogy,” he said.

To be completely honest, however, Fox News has never truly embraced an all out battle royal with the Obama Administration.  While it continues to be snidely dismissive of its policies and eager to run stories with a healthy dollop of right-wing distortion, it has never counter-attacked with any kind of ferocity.  When the immediate charges were levied against Fox News, namely that it was merely a propaganda wing of the Republican party, it became at most a two-day story, and notably reached no fevered pitch of nastiness.  Clearly, no one really wanted to run with the story for very long.  The truth is that the media had nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose if it pushed back too hard.  

Any means of information dispersal has to justify its own existence from time to time and anything that might cause some degree of doubt on behalf of viewers or readers is poisonous.  Opening up a major dialogue about the role of the media in daily life is the last thing any of the mainstream outlets wanted in this situation, which is unfortunate because I think it’s a long-overdue topic that the American people need to debate and then decide for themselves.  Fox News’ stated objective is noble enough, until one realizes that it is cynically manipulative at best.  We report, you decide?  I suppose it depends on what one means by “reporting.”  The easiest populist tactic in the toolbox of any politician is the act of criticizing the media for unfair and unbalanced treatment.  The irony, of course, is that the media, and by this I notably remove Fox News for the most part, is frequently criticized for fueling baseless fears as a means of pushing back against accurate, damning revelations.  It is notably not held accountable for its real limitations and real shortcomings.          

Snide commentary aside, one isn’t sure whether this revelation constitutes victory, stalemate, or submission.  The powers that be in this circumstance are shadow figures who always talk off the record and never wish to be identified.  Nothing could be less transparent than the motives at play or the ultimate decision.  Still, if conditions continue to deteriorate regarding the quality of content and a resulting shift towards partisan bias rather than impartiality, expect some major wars to break out that will not be assuaged by back-stage politics.  If, at some critical juncture in the near future it seems like there’s not enough money or enough oxygen to go round, one can be sure the gloves will be coming off and staying off.

Amy Walter’s column “It’s Still 1960 in Washington” rings true in many ways.   Designed to point out the stain of sexism and condescending attitudes Washington still holds within its its corridors of power, the piece also speaks to that which we have gained and have yet to gain regarding equality between the sexes. Certain assumptions have proved difficult to completely eradicate from our system and while the boldest and most visible offenders may have been banished from public sight into private secret, subtle suggestion and dog whistle have sprung up to replace them.  To be sure, we do not live in a post-sexist society (yet), though if one only considered the victories won and not the upcoming contests, it might be easy to be lulled to complacency.   At times we resemble the boxer, who having won a few key contests, rests back on his haunches, fails to stay in shape for his next match, and ends up losing it based on poor conditioning.      

Gloria Steniem wrote,

“Those of us who were taught the cheerful American notion that progress is linear and hierarchical may have had to learn with pain…that no worthwhile battle can be fought and won only once….the issues still repeat themselves in different ways and in constantly shifting arenas.”

This is, at its core, the fly in the ointment of many a Progressive and many an activist.   No single election, no single candidate, no single protest, no single idea, no single victory of any size is enough.   Whether you agree or disagree with the mission, The Crusades, after all, progressed easily enough at the beginning.   Spurred to action by the passionate appeals of a zealous Pope, highly trained and heavily skilled armies easily defeated Muslim forces.   After having secured the Holy Land and established outposts, Christian crusaders began to slowly but steadily trickle back home with time.   This left the soldiers who did remain in the coveted territories and manning the castle outposts vulnerable to Muslim attack.   In time, the crusader states won went back into the hands of the “infidels” and the process had no choice but to start all over again.   End of Crusade One.   Next, Crusade Two.          

Rust is the enemy of reform and as much as it would be tempting to swap war stories, no worthwhile conflict leaves any room for nostalgia.   The problem facing Feminism right now (or for that matter, any reform movement) is that many of the major forces at play haven’t recognized the generational shift and new challenges that are merely part of the progression of time.   Instead, they want to fight the newest enemy with obsolete strategies and obsolete weaponry.   Those who do recognize the problem, frequently young Feminists and young activists, end up being tokenized, patronized, or discounted.   These offenses have led to third-wavers forming their own organizations and groups, though in truth it would be far better if everyone was on the same page and not working at cross-purposes with each other.   In order to make change, one must be willing to make change within oneself, and those who encourage self-reflection, sad to say, often run the risk of taking a long walk off of a short plank.    

For years, the goal of feminism was to get reproductive rights out of the realm of “women’s issues” and into the category of “family issues.” And many have wondered if EMILY’s List, an organization dedicated solely to electing pro-choice Democratic women, has outlived its usefulness. After all, in an era that saw a woman come so close to being elected president, a women’s-only group can sound as outdated as the three-martini lunch. Yet it was striking that on an issue as central to the Democratic party ideology as this one, it was up to women to define and defend it.

Upon first reading this passage, I was afraid Walter was going to resort to the same argument which states that feminism and women’s-only groups are superfluous and outdated.   The need for them does persist, but aforementioned outdated thinking and antiquated strategy comprises the mission statements of far too many of them.   That which begins with good intentions drifts dangerous towards self-parody if group introspection is not prized and actively incorporated.  Many women’s rights groups could and probably have been fodder for The Onion and for good reason.   The second-wave feminism of the sixties and seventies advances the concerns of a relatively privileged group of now aging white middle class women and frequently doesn’t take into account currents trends and cultural evolution.   Furthermore, getting more than just reproductive rights transformed into the realm of family issues is what Feminism has attempted and frequently failed to do.   Even invoking the phrase “family issues” instantly conjures up maternal images of rocking babies to sleep and feeding small children.    

What needs to happen, unless it is forever perceived in the cultural imagination as a niche group with a relatively limited scope, is for Feminism’s goals to advance human rights.   To be sure, there are many activists, myself being only one, who are attempting to bring this to pass.   What we continue to struggle with, however, are cultural attitudes that lock men out of the process altogether by assuming that they will be meant to feel unwelcome in feminist circles or that taking an interest in the concerns of women is masculine and thus effeminate.   Along with this is a gross stereotype that portrays Feminism as shrill, exclusive, lacking an understanding of irony, and having no grasp of nuance or subtlety.   Though most Feminist thought does have a woman-centered emphasis for good reason, I as a man have been amazed at how much of conventional masculine gender roles and concerns I can observe even in the most strictly female construct.   It is that point in particular that makes me realize that our supposed separation from each other is a skillfully crafted illusion.  We must not be careful to not break the bonds of fidelity and common purpose that link us together, provided we are willing to constantly seek them and repair them.  Wear and tear is simply part of the game.

I am not usually a reader of magazines except when waiting in places like doctor’s offices or for routine car repair, but a particular column in The Atlantic fairly jumped out at me yesterday while running errands.  Provocatively entitled “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?“, immediately I wondered what Christianity the author was referring to when making such a sweeping pronouncement.  As it turns out, it’s a particularly curious hybrid strain that synthesizes radical optimism and personal gain at the expense of hard truths or self-awareness.  In that regard, it could not be more indicative of the modern age, in all of its faults and promises of salvation through riches.  Moreover, in this epoch where instant gratification reigns, perhaps it was inevitable that this petard preaching material gain was hoist.  

Though centrally based around an emerging Catholic congregation catering specifically to recent Latino immigrants, in her compelling article author Hanna Rosin draws in disparate strains of different denominations to make an interesting and ultimately damning point.

America’s churches always reflect shifts in the broader culture, and Casa del Padre is no exception. The message that Jesus blesses believers with riches first showed up in the postwar years, at a time when Americans began to believe that greater comfort could be accessible to everyone, not just the landed class. But it really took off during the boom years of the 1990s, and has continued to spread ever since. This stitched-together, homegrown theology, known as the prosperity gospel, is not a clearly defined denomination, but a strain of belief that runs through the Pentecostal Church and a surprising number of mainstream evangelical churches, with varying degrees of intensity.

In Garay’s church, God is the “Owner of All the Silver and Gold,” and with enough faith, any believer can access the inheritance. Money is not the dull stuff of hourly wages and bank-account statements, but a magical substance that comes as a gift from above. Even in these hard times, it is discouraged, in such churches, to fall into despair about the things you cannot afford. “Instead of saying ‘I’m poor,’ say ‘I’m rich,'” Garay’s wife, Hazael, told me one day. “The word of God will manifest itself in reality.”

I find this belief system, if one could truly call it that, particularly troubling and problematic, considering that there are any number of verses of Scripture and words of Jesus I could invoke to directly contradict it.  The most obvious citation and one that likely jumps out to those with a strong Christ-centered background is, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

I am surprised certainly at how unapologetic is this emphasis on personal finance and wealth, since the model used by many churches is a much more insidious one.  The most flagrant perversion is found within conventional Protestant Christianity and is known as the Edifice Complex.  In it, individual salvation is closely linked with coughing up enough money into the collection plates to buy the brand new multimillion dollar building being pushed by the minister and certain well-connected committee members.  A singular focus upon a new house of worship takes precedent, is set into motion, and is awaited with a kind of rapturous Messianic zeal.  Plans are drawn up, each stage is announced with much fanfare, updates are frequently provided on how much money has been donated to cover the expense, and it is implied strongly and frequently that all problems will be easily solved by more square footage.  The tactic is almost always justified by stating that unchurched people will be drawn into the fold and as a result souls will be saved.  Of course, paying for it all over time, in addition to such matters as an notable increase in monies devoted to utilities, mortgage payments, and routine upkeep would certainly require greater participation and increased numbers in the pews, but these are often vulgar, cynical conclusions few dare to draw openly or, for that matter, vocally.

It is not all that surprising that the prosperity gospel persists despite its obvious failure to pay off. Much of popular religion these days is characterized by a vast gap between aspirations and reality. Few of Sarah Palin’s religious compatriots were shocked by her messy family life, because they’ve grown used to the paradoxes; some of the most socially conservative evangelical churches also have extremely high rates of teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, and divorce. As Garay likes to say, “What you have is nothing compared to what you will have.” The unpleasant reality-an inadequate paycheck, a pregnant daughter, a recession-is invisible. It’s your ability to see beyond such things, your willing blindness to even the most hopeless-seeming circumstances, that makes you a certain kind of modern Christian, and a 21st-century American.  

At times I have found criticism from those who are not people of faith a little annoying and self-righteous, but still do try to give credence to their concerns, many of which are well-founded.  If, for instance, one assumes that religion, or for that matter, Christianity is little more than a panacea of positive thinking or a snake-oil curative based on this example, I can hardly fault them for it.  True believers have always had to contend with distortions of the truth formulated to suit the ends of those who manipulated followers to advance their own ends, which often involved material gain.  It is unfortunate that tunnel-vision suffices for real faith in the eyes of the deluded, though I fault those who advance it, not those who cling to it.  

Later in Matthew,

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”  On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  Learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, not sacrifices.’  For I have come to urge sinners, not the self-righteous, back to God.

I remember that when I was in high school I had a friend who grew up in a very conservative Evangelical family.  Underneath the piety, however, was a kind of dysfunction utterly at odds with the stability which they espoused.  The mother and father had been long divorced and so my friend lived with his mother in an always cluttered house packed floor to ceiling with junk and unorganized possessions.  She used divine revelation and divine direction as justification to leave the country for long periods of time.  No matter whether or not she had the money or the need to engage in weeks-long mission trips to remote corners of the globe, her rationalization was that God meant for her to go and since she wanted to go, He would provide for the messy details like funding or making sure her son had the support he needed.  Upon reading this article, this anecdote from my own life entered my mind and I am saddened to think that what I considered delusional eccentricity might be far more commonplace then I had ever dreamed.          

The Atlantic article focuses on a member of this Charlottesville, Virginia, Latino Catholic congregation by the name of Billy Gonzales, whose requisite devotion to the Prosperity Gospel raises some major red flags in the eyes of this reader.  

By many measures, Billy Gonzales does not have it all. He lives with his wife and three children in a tiny apartment on the back side of a development at the edge of town, where people hang out on the stoop until all hours. He works 45 minutes away and his car has been broken down for three months, and he does not have any money to fix it. Every day at work he is faced with a vision of what he does not have. He works for a man who just built a $4 million house-one of four the man owns. Gonzales’s job is to make sure every wine glass, garden statue, and book is dusted and in its proper place. Yet when I talked to Gonzales he was like a child hearing the ice-cream truck, or a man newly in love. “I’m crazy! Just crazy,” he said, meaning crazy for the Lord, and giving little jumps out of his chair.

“I want to buy a house,” he confessed to me one evening this summer. It turned out his lease was almost up, and he needed to move in the fall. “Not a small one but a really huge one, a nice one. With six bedrooms and a kitchen and living room. I know, it’s crazy! But nothing is impossible! God, you saved my life,” he said, no longer speaking to me. “You saved my life, and now you will give me a gift. Now I’m crazy!” Last I heard, he and Garay were house-hunting together.

The narrative that has been advanced in our society since roughly World War II is that religion is detrimental and thus it ought to be jettisoned and disregarded.  This has found favor particularly in liberal circles and continues to be pushed hard, since it is easy to provide a new example of how religious intolerance holds back progress or controls people to maintain its own power.  When riding the bus yesterday here in DC, I came across a very visible ad for Humanism.  It fairly dripped with optimism, smiling faces, calm colors, and good cheer, stating that it is possible for a person to be good without having to have a belief in God or a higher power at all.  

In my opinion, I believe that it is entirely possible to be a model citizen without a belief in a higher power, but I suppose I simply have a hard time entertaining the notion that humans when in groups are capable of staying grounded and remaining focused in their efforts to assist everyone.  One needs only look at the artifice we have created in government to see the confusion, the inequality, and above all, the needless complications that resort when peoples’ stated agenda at the outset is egalitarianism which ends up by the end nothing remotely like it.  What often starts with the best of intentions concludes with a finished product that pleases no one.    

Going back to Gonzales, what strikes me as a supreme tragedy is this particular passage, which flies in the face of much biblical teaching and, to be fair, much teaching of other religions.

He told me he feels pity for his employer. He assumes the man must have been close to God at one point, or at least his family must have been, “because the rich are closer to God.” But now the man has lost his way. He laughs when Gonzales talks to him about Jesus, and he wastes his money, buying $500 birdhouses and hiring Gonzales to clean them.

This story begs to be contradicted and my selection of the passage below should come as no surprise.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”  “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.  Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”  When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”  Jesus looked at them intently and said, “For humans this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

The long and short of it is that religion isn’t meant to be a consistent warm fuzzy.  That’s not the point.  Jesus called out the leaders of his day and age, which directly led to his death on a cross.  All or nothing thinking transforms religion either to a nonstop bummer trip of hypocrisy and thought control or a kind of willing Utopia adopted by believers desperate for a break from the travails and stressors of the world.  We are taught, poetically, that to everything there is a season.  Sometimes we need encouragement, sometimes we need to be aware of our own frailties, sometimes we can delight in joy, sometimes we need to be held accountable for our transgressions, but we don’t need a retelling of the bootstrap mythology based on a oversimplified interpretation of scripture.  

A notable criticism of all of the monotheistic religions is that they are Paternalistic and at times needlessly meddling.  I admit that the intention of the Gospels has been twisted to state “I know better than you do”.  Still, focusing specifically on what Jesus taught, the ultimate intention in the beginning was that of empowerment, not subordination.  No teacher desperate to be worshiped or admired would have stated that whomever exalts himself or herself will be humbled and whomever humbles himself or herself will be exalted.  It is a corruption of original intent that leads many away from faith and towards a gospel preaching riches, while in the process forsaking the Golden Rule.  The American Dream as realized begins with the Protestant work ethic, but takes a sharp detour along the way.    

To conclude, a message for false teachers and corrupt politicians.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.  They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.  Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.  And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.  Don’t make others call you a leader, because you have only one leader, the Messiah.  The greatest among you will be your servant.