Tag: cabaretic

Third-wave Feminist thinker, political consultant, and author Naomi Wolf published a recent column in Harper’s Bazaar regarding the subject of female rivalry.  I assume this was drafted in response to Susan Faludi’s inflammatory piece about intergenerational conflict within the movement itself.  The underlying issue here is how the mainstream media gets lazy, referring to the same few designated “experts”, who are believed to represent any minority or identity group in totality.  It’s insulting, but also far too commonplace.  No single voice can speak for everyone and closer examination would reveal that no movement needs or desires a designated spokesperson.  

At meeting this past Sunday a Friend’s message asked for help. Specifically she described a particular situation that was troubling her, namely the latest development of our militaristic society, the way that technology-based warfare can create atrocities just as easily as human hands. In so doing, she asked for specific prayers from those gathered for worship. I believe she was lamenting, in part, how human achievement can be so useful and so destructive at the same time. Many Friends rose to fulfill her request. They were so numerous, honestly, that I now have trouble now recalling all of them. One woman recited aloud the Lord’s Prayer, which I memorized at a young age, as many do. Others provided words of comfort that were utterly foreign to me, but no less intriguing.

We often think people are motivated to do something solely by facts alone.  Instead, they are spurred to action by the feeling these facts produce.  People make choices and decisions based to some extent on figures and concrete details, but it is the emotional impact these soberly presented bits of information create that really matters.  It has been noted many times before that polls and other human-made means of discernment have limits because no one can truly understand what lies inside a voter’s heart.  This, in part, is what I mean.  Unlike the typical columnist, I do not intend to use this introduction as a segue-way to rip into President Obama and the ineffectiveness of the (for now) Democratic-controlled Congress.  Rather, I’d like to go well beyond.

Some incumbent Democrats in danger of being voted out of office are attempting to lean heavily on the youth vote this election.  I applaud anyone’s effort to reach out to that particular group, though I have to say the act seems tinged with desperation rather than genuine, lasting outreach.  Voting demographics must be cultivated and allowed to flourish with time, not reached for when desperately needed.  Considering this attitude, I find it unsurprising that few politicians can rely on such a crucial group.  Instead of throwing one’s hands up or lecturing in hopes of creating guilt and shame, I argue that politicians, pundits, and columnists need to look at the subject very differently.

The 1961 Luis Buñuel film, Viridiana, concerns the pious exploits of a young nun who lives in a small village.  Meaning to do good in imitation of Jesus’ ministry, Viridiana leaves the convent and decides to take charge of the moral education of the village’s paupers.  Despite her best intentions, she finds herself exploited, abused, and taken advantage of at every possible turn.  Efforts undertaken to educate the village paupers in morality are an exercise in futility, a clear example of throwing pearls before swine.  After the combined shock of multifarious trauma, Viridiana (Latin for Green) seemingly succumbs to the sin of the world by the film’s conclusion.  Noted reviewer Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote at the time: “The theme is that well-intended charity can often be badly misplaced by innocent, pious people. Therefore, beware of charity.”        

When news broke last week about how the United States government funded and carried out syphilis experiments in Guatemala that had absolutely no scientific value whatsoever, the response was swift.  A tone of harsh, unforgiving condemnation characterized nearly every media story, along with a punitive desire to punish those actively involved in the process.  As is often true, we wished to wax indignantly about it and vent our frustration.  What we might not have wanted to contemplate is our own individual role in the entire sordid mess.  

In response to my prior piece about Medicare and doctors, I received an e-mail from a physician.  I will summarize her response below.

Something not particularly well known about Social Security Disability is that after two years, a disabled person, regardless of age, is eligible for Medicare.  An eligible person isn’t just given the option, he or she is automatically moved to the program unless he or she specifically declines it.  Until that point, a disabled person usually has to make do with Medicaid and all of its maddening restrictions and budget shortfalls.  One would think that the ability to transition to a better program for health insurance would be reason for celebration.  In some ways, it is, but in unexpected ways, it has not proven to be been appreciably better.

What follows is something that has been weighing on me heavily this morning.  Discussing the act of vocal ministry, a Friend noted that, while in the act of sharing a message, we aren’t just God’s mouthpiece, we are God.  This makes me uncomfortable to contemplate.  I would never wish to even come close to hinting that my mortal self was anything near to the Divine.  While I do seek that which is God in others, I am far more comfortable emphasizing my own mortal self.  Due to lots of soul-searching I know where my place is in the cosmos, and I would never grasp for a mantle that is not mine to embrace.  Moreover, I would not take it on if I could, because I do not possess the human strength to bear the burden.  

I thought I’d never find myself even halfway agreeing with Charles Barkley.  Much of what he says is so self-serving and childish that it doesn’t merit a response.  However, after admitting that he took money from agents in college, he then proposed that college athletes be given small stipends to prevent being unduly influenced.  Barkley’s argument confronts the elephant in the room.