Joking Seriously

Towards a Resurrection

2010-08-03T22:23:00.000-07:00

I’m not much for prayer any more, but maybe not for the typical post-graduate-school-liberal-arts-agnostic sorts of reasons. It’s just that, a long time ago, I realized all my prayers were wholly selfish and, well, not much worth a damn. I’m too small a player and my own whims and sins less than small potatoes. At least I can make fries with those.

Tonight, however, was one of those rare exceptions—a prayer worth making. I read the lead article in the New York Times—about the potential for the most catastrophic and unprecedented oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to have become significantly unrealized—and muttered to myself, “Please, God, let that be true.”

photo by David Martin/Associated Press

Why did I say that? Was it some kind of ingrained habit from my upbringing? Was it a kind of generic form of speech that usually goes unnoted? Was it because, despite all the liberal whining, that I remain a fan of President Obama and hope that his tenure meets some real success for our nation? Was it, please-God-no, just one more selfish, egocentric prayer?

I don’t think so. I think I really did pray that the worst was over, that the oil—through tides and bacteria and sunlight and the hand of God—had somehow magically dissipated so that the people of the Gulf—from Louisiana to Florida to Galveston to Mexico—had somehow miraculously avoided what had been looking like an environmental catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl. I pray to God that it is so.

And I pray that both for the Gulf and for my prayers. If I’m ever to be a believer—and the odds are slight—I want it to be a faith bigger than myself. And if I’m ever to pray, I want it to be for something more meaningful than me.

So I hope it’s true, and I’ll pray again that this doesn’t become another disgustingly premature “Mission Accomplished.” We all know America has had one too many of those. I wanna go back to New Orleans, eat oysters and listen to jazz; walk the beach in Florida and wonder at the bounty of the sea; drive through the marshlands of Alabama and Mississippi and know that life is teeming there—human and otherwise—in ways that I can only dream.

But as I write that, I realize that maybe it's all selfish, maybe it's just about my own wants and needs. I don't know how to move beyond that. I want to cultivate a kind of non-attachment from my Self, but even my most basic efforts end up circling back to me. Maybe I should pray, "May I never return to the Gulf, but let it be healed and may its citizens have jobs and peace and security. May I never see the ocean, put let it be pure and clean and full of life. May I never see a swamp, but let the pelicans and gators and small mouth bass never know the taste of oil." Clearly, I'm still learning how to pray.

So, I don’t know about a faith in any God, but I do pray about the fate of humans and our planet. I’m hoping that one might be answered, and not, in the end, for me.

Fleabags

2009-08-20T00:56:00.001-07:00

I've had the opportunity to visit a lot of museums in my life--partly a result of my parents' concerted effort at giving their two rambunctious boys some "culture," partly because I'm kind of a geek that way--and while I've gotten to see some pretty impressive stuff, one very small painting has managed to imprint itself on my brain, still vivid after nearly 13 years:

This is William Blake's "Soul of a Flea," or perhaps "Ghost of a Flea": either way, it was in London's Tate Gallery, and was tiny, just a few inches high, which seemed appropriate given that it was, well, the soul of a flea.

I was reminded of it after reading a review of a new movie, "Cold Souls," which purportedly depicts its protagonist's soul as something akin to a chickpea--and an extractable, storable chickpea-like soul at that.

To be honest, I don't care much about the movie (though I do enjoy Paul Giamatti), but I was struck by the reviewer's final summation: "In this attractive, smart-enough, finally un-brave movie Ms. Barthes (the director) peeks at the dark comedy of the soul only to beat a quick, pre-emptive retreat."

Well, if that doesn't describe the current push to overhaul healthcare and health insurance, I don't know what does. It's not that anyone is being a coward, exactly, but our elected officials certainly seem "un-brave" and all too willing to beat too quick a retreat. Can't someone just grow a pair? Mr. President? Rahm? (Well, I think they've both got the cajones, I'm just a little unclear on what the plan is, you see.)

Anyhow, and I know I've been yammering on about this, but what with Brett Favre suddenly apperating into the Vikings' training camp, I'm being forced to return to this theme. (You can read back a few posts to catch my drift.)

Of course, if I'm being honest with myself, I'd have to admit that I don't always have the gall and gumption I'd like to pretend I have. We can all be cowards in our own way, it's just that cowardice can take so many forms. Some of us are cowardly lions, others more like scuttling, devilish fleas. The un-brave are truly legion.

All this reminds me of my favorite passage from the Qur'an, which I'm too lazy to look up at the moment, but goes something like this: "When you see an injustice, change it with your hand. If you cannot do this, change it with your voice. If you cannot do this, change it with your mind." Then follows an admonishment about the weakness of humans, how too often we resort to some kind of mental trickery, condemning what we see within our own thoughts, but too timid to raise an objection or reach out and put a stop to the wrongs we see committed. (And then, the irony of blogging--brave enough to vent, too scared to act, often even too scared to put one's real name on their thoughts.)

The question is, Where do we go from here? One choice or another, something needs to be done.

P.S. Who says one can't relate healthcare reform to football, fleas, testicles, and the Qur'an?

The Wild Rumpus Is Ongoing

2009-08-11T10:36:00.000-07:00

At the end of July, I posted a rather lengthy musing on the nuttiness of America as an idea, a celebration of it even, with an appeal to a more generous appreciation for our diversity. A friend offered a thoughtful response, suggesting that there is no one America, and that to love it or hate it is, in effect, a category mistake.

Yesterday, I complained about some of the insanity that has taken over the debate about health-care. These things are related, at least in the sense we are fighting over definitions of "America" and "patriotism" and "civil discourse." When protesters disrupted former President Bush's public events, the right-wing complained that they were subverting America. Now, when protesters disrupt town hall meetings of their elected representatives, the other side is taking up that same call of anti-Americanism.

It's a Wild Rumpus that would make Max proud:

Passing over for the moment the thrill I get at seeing my favorite childhood story brought to the big screen, where do we go from here? When does a Wild Rumpus serve a greater good and when does it destroy or distract from meaningful work?

And I do mean work: one of the beautiful things about Where the Wild Things Are is its seriousness of purpose, its attention to both the fears and strength of children, its recognition that play is a serious business, and that it is part of the work of growing up.

So what does this say about America? Are we naughty children who are on the verge of being sent to our beds without our supper? It's starting to appear that way: as a society, we're behaving with all the self-restraint of spoiled children throwing a tantrum.

I don't mean by this to suggest that dispute and disagreement should be suppressed, far from it. But I do mean that if we want to build a more civil society, we need to start acting with civility towards one another. Max was banished to his room where he embarked on his Wild adventure, only to learn that there was not a permanent home for him in the land of the Wild Things.

Maybe we're on our own journey of self-discovery, and we need this period of child-like fantasia and excess in order to remember the good of a more ordered world. I have hoped that we are a more mature nation than that, but that's me being idealistic. Instead, we seem to revel in the madness, throwing rhetorical bombs, screaming, and running rampant over each other. Maybe we need this, an exorcism of our social monsters, an indulgence of our ids, in order to grow up.

At the very least, let's hope the adults are kind enough to leave a bowl of soup in our rooms when we return to our senses. And that it's still warm.

The Cost of Stupidity

2009-08-10T09:19:00.000-07:00

My apologies for what will be a highly wonky discussion today, but I’ve been increasingly concerned about the level of conversation about health-care reform as of late, and it’s tough to further that along without some degree of, well, seriousness.

I’m going to start by attempting to distill a conversation I had with a stranger yesterday, a person who has worked for the American Medical Association for a number of years. This isn’t verbatim, but it gets to the heart of it:

Stranger: I oppose Obama’s Socialized Medicine.

Me: Socialized Medicine? That’s not how I understand the bill currently being put together by Congress, but please, what don’t you like?

Stranger: It would do away with CPTs (Common Procedural Terminology).

Me: What’s that?

Stranger: Doctors use them as codes to get reimbursed from Medicare and insurance companies. The AMA has proprietary rights to them, even though they are required by Congress, and Obama’s Socialized Medicine would take away those rights.

Me: Isn’t the AMA a non-profit? Who do CPTs benefit? And who would be hurt if the rights to them would be taken away?

Stranger: Lots of people. The AMA licenses CPTs, so they’d lose money.

[Sidebar: The licensing for these terms—a bureaucratic device—net the AMA approximately $70 million per year, even though they are supposed to be a “common standard.” I don’t know lots about them, but it seems odd that terminology meant to make health-care efficient becomes a money-making device.]

Stranger: Besides, tell me what’s wrong with people showing up at an emergency room and getting treatment first and only worrying about payment later?

Me: Nothing’s wrong with giving treatment to the sick, ill, and injured! That’s great! But it does have a real cost—can’t we have a more efficient system and still treat people?

Stranger: You’re right, it does cost money, it raises my insurance premiums. It’s like property taxes—I don’t have kids, but through my property taxes I’m paying to educate other peoples' children. I don’t like that, it’s not my choice. I don’t want to pay for that.

Me: But you already are paying to treat other people. Like you said, higher insurance premiums are effectively funding universal care, its just doing it in the most inefficient manner possible. Wouldn’t it be better, like with car insurance, to require that everyone have it so that we can all share the burden and bring down costs?

Stranger: Well, I don’t want to pay for anyone else.

This conversation drove me crazy. Health-care costs are out of control, we are subsidizing a reactionary system through extremely inefficient means, and nobody is happy, but phrases like "socialized medicine" and "Obama is going to kill my grandmother" get thrown around with astounding recklessness.

Americans are paying for universal care already--in the most backwards, inefficient, short-sighted, and just plain stupid manner possible. And our public discourse about all of this has devolved into a truly asinine shouting match. We're hurting America, as Jon Stewart would say, and it isn't pretty.

I won't even pretend to have a great fix for all of this--either health-care reform or the public stupidity--but I'm sure sick of watching it all go down. When a career AMA employee thinks Obama is out to forbid her certain services (another point in the conversation I didn't retell), undermine doctors, and out-right socialize medicine, we have a symptom of a staggering problem. While I can kinda-sorta understand her wanting to preserve her CPT-slice of the pie, I can't understand the disconnect between recognizing that things are broke and that they need to be fixed.

WTF?

On Progress

2009-07-28T23:12:00.001-07:00

First, an admission: I'm a football fan (and baseball, and basketball, and sometimes hockey--much to my wife's chagrin. And not just the hockey). So, it is with great joy that I can relay the non-story of Brett Favre's decision not to join the Minnesota Vikings. Yes, he's a Hall of Famer, but good riddance. We don't need that former Packer and his wounded psyche and broken arm (not that I'm thrilled with our other options . . . but still).

Second, and speaking of broken down relics, I'm about to head off for Minnesota this weekend, in part of retrieve my grandmother's '86 Crown Victoria. In point of fact, it's got a lot fewer miles than Favre, and runs better. More than that, my Grandpa Al purchased it a few short months before his death, and I'm completely thrilled to be able to keep his ride alive (ok, that's not really my grandfather, but ever the jokester, he did carry this photo in his wallet as proof of his baseball bona fides. Only problem was my grandpa was very white. And a tile setter).

All of this, naturally, has something to do with Islam, Israel, and American politics.

Like Favre (that's Fav-RAH, for those in the know), our healthcare system is just plain broke. Like my decision to try and find street side parking for a twenty-foot boat in DC, the issue of Israeli Settlements is not nearly as untenable as it seems. And like my irrepressible optimism, there is, in fact, lots good about Islam, our world, and religious and political progress. You'll just have to trust me.

But people like pictures and videos--we love to be distracted and entertained--and far be it from me to deny the public what it wants. Let's start with Shatner:

Talk about theater of the absurd. Or, the ever growing Birther's Movement:

Wow, extra nutty!

But this leads me to my final point, something a bit more serious, and something that's been bugging me for a long time. Sure, I can mock Ms. (No Longer Governor) Palin and the extreme end of a particular political spectrum, but one thing I won't do is question their essential "Americana." We are, after all, a nation of nutjobs--we got on creaky boats (sometimes forced and in chains) to sail across an unknown expanse; once there, we made friends and slaughtered them, but still thought it wise to ride thousands of miles across a firmer if still treacherous land in wagons; we came up with unreachable ideals, and set forth trying to promulgate them across the planet, even while wildly failing to realize them in our own lives and homes and nations: in short, we've done, as a country, some crazy shit. And I love us for it.

What drives me batshit crazy is the suggestion that by simple disagreement with some peculiar notion, one inviolates his or her patriotism. Andrew Sullivan, via David Frum, reminded me of this, along with something else I'd read recently (and forgive the lack of reference): when we have political disagreement, it isn't because one or the other of us hates our country, or even hates the opponent; hell, it might not even be that we don't disagree about the goal. Barack Obama isn't out to do away with any part of the American tradition; he's sworn to uphold it. George W. Bush, though I disagreed with just about all he said and did, also loves America. When certain politicians suggest that their adversaries are "out to get you," well, you might wonder who is out to get whom.

So, I'd just like to say: Brett Favre was an amazing football player. He didn't play for my team and I never did, and never could, cheer for him. But he was a star and a competitor nonetheless, and I wish him all the best. But now that that's done, maybe we can agree that we've got some problems to address, and that questioning one's intentions and patriotism is far from being a good sport: It's un-American.

In other words, simply because one might dislike a particular approach to solving a very real healthcare crisis doesn't mean that defeating all healthcare proposals is wise, it's just being a dick (alright, a subtle joke, a prize to whomever explains it!); just because the Middle East (including Israel and land for Palestinians) has been a vexing mess doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it; just because cleaning up our air, land, and water might cost us some short-term money, doesn't mean it isn't worth doing--in fact, our children might thank us for the smaller inheritance but safer world, and I'd even give up the Crown Vic.

I know it's almost August, but let's get to work.

Turban or Not Turban?

2009-07-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

My apologies to Mr. Shakespeare notwithstanding, there's much ado about turbans in Oregon. In the usual Newspeak of most governmental initiatives, the proposed "Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act" would protect the right of state employees to wear religiously required clothing. Unless, that is, if you're a teacher.

To be more precise, the act aims to codify religious freedom for both dress and holidays with one key amendment: "No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher."

Well then. It appears that Oregon is taking a page from Turkey and France and Saudi Arabia in deciding what folk should and should not be wearing (a short summation, Turkey banned head scarves in schools, France has variously played with an Oregon-like ban on religious dress, and Saudi Arabia requires certain kinds of "religious" dress, at least for women).

The predominate arguments for such a ban are that many schools require, if not uniforms, then certain limits on dress for students, and also that schools should be free of any sense of religious promotion. The assumption, as I take it, is that wearing a turban as is required for Sikh men, is akin to proselytizing. If we place limits on what students wear, we can do the same for teachers.

Of course, the proposed ban doesn't spell out what exactly constitutes "religious dress." Presumably, this would apply to Sikh turbans, Muslim headscarves, and perhaps the Jewish kippah (or yarmulke or skullcap, as you'd have it). But would it cover a cross on a necklace? Could being a collar-wearing priest or habit-wearing nun exclude you from consideration as a teacher at an under served public school? Or, if you were an Orthodox Jew, would this ban wigs for women or men's beards and side curls? Does "dress" only mean clothing, or is hair included?

Furthermore, who adjudicates "religious"? For some, the Muslim headscarf and veil are utterly religious; but you could also make a substantial case that these things are cultural, and are only identified as "religious" by members of certain subsets of a religious community. My mother, raised a Mennonite, has photos from her years at the Iowa Mennonite High School playing baseball and basketball in a dress, the "uniform" of her particular religious community. When is a dress "religious" and when is it, well, just a dress? Could Catholics and atheists wear dresses but their Orthodox Jewish and "Old World" Christian colleagues be forbidden from doing so?

Note the sneakers in this photo: Mennonite women, always practical!

This issue is a mess, obviously, and the Religious Freedom Act does nothing to help sort it out. But never fear, faithful reader(s?), I've got a solution: use religious dress as a means to friggin' teach!

It's been clear for some time that Americans know next to nothing about religion, their own or anyone else's. But it doesn't have to be that way. Contrary to popular belief, religion can be taught in public schools, as long as it doesn't become an attempt to convert students. More accurately, the history of the world's religions is a completely acceptable part of public school curricula, and is already taught throughout the US. Having a teacher in "religious" dress could become an entirely teachable moment.

Let me put it another way. You all know who Mayim Bialik is, you just know her as Blossom. She was recently featured in TLC's "What Not to Wear." Alas, throughout the show, there was no comment made on Blossom's refusal to wear pants. That's right, no pants, no jeans, no trousers.

You see, she's a Conservative Jew and chooses to dress modestly, i.e. no pants. Incidentally, she also has a PhD in neuroscience. Um, wouldn't you just love to have your kids taught Biology by a skirt-wearing Blossom? Wouldn't that be infinitesimally better than, well, some of the other sartorially challenged science teachers you all remember? Do you think her decision to dress in a way that reflects her religious identity would somehow compromise this?

So, down with bans, and up with saris. Besides, I've always wanted to know what the mitre is all about. The burqa? Well, that's another story . . .

Can I Buy a Faith?

2009-07-14T08:16:00.000-07:00

We don't get much religious conversation on television. That is, there's lots of talk about religion, and there's the various religious channels that spout religion, but there isn't a whole lot of discussion that deals with religion in any sustained and intelligent manner.

The web isn't much better, really, although there are some decent places to think critically and insightfully about faith (try here, and here, and here). But for the most part, alas, we're faced with a dearth of avenues to discuss the ins and outs of religious belief. The same could be said of sex and politics, I suppose--that grand triumvirate of touchy topics. For my money, not a lot else is worth talking about (which I guess explains this blog), but we're all so damned sensitive about these things that we reduce our discourse to platitudes, cliches, or mudslinging. Why is that?

There have been a couple of interesting exceptions of late, however. Michael Gerson, again coming through in his impression of a serious thinker, offers up a nice piece on Pres. Obama's selection to run the National Institute of Health; Ali Allawi, in a longer essay, explores the state of pan-Islamic identity.

Neither one, however, can really compete with this news--passed along by my friend, Alan--about a new Turkish reality show: part Big Brother, part Intervention, fully strange, "Penitents Compete" will host 10 atheists and 4 religious believers in a contest to see who might be converted. The prize is a trip to the most sacred site of the "winning" tradition. Second place, we can only assume, will be ever lasting damnation. Let the arguments begin!

I've had my own idea for a religious reality show: The Greatest Race would capitalize on the theme of Amazing Race, where pairs of contestants would travel the globe to religious sites, competing to see who could most quickly amass the largest number of salvation points, while the viewers at home would be unwittingly subjected to World Religions 101.

So I suppose it's come to this, American capitalism directly applied to religious freedom via our ever more accessible world. I know I'd watch "Penitents Compete" religiously, as it were, if only my cable provider would stream Turkish television, but I'm not convinced this will really get me the sort of dialogue I yearn for.

Maybe I should give up the academic life for a role in television production. I'm sure the compensation would be more lucrative. I'd only have to accept the soul-crushing reality that few people really want to talk about religion. We'd all rather just watch the shadows on the screen.

Happy viewing.

P.S. I want to make a special note of this roundtable discussion on Religion Dispatches featuring Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family, a disturbing account of a secretive, conservative, Christian organization that counts John Ensign and Mark Sanford as acolytes. Something is indeed foul in this house of worship. Big props to Rachel Maddow for featuring Jeff on her show.

Of God and Women

2009-07-10T00:08:00.000-07:00

Wow, what a week. The continued MJ madness (I refuse to link anything further to that), Robert McNamara's and Steve McNair's deaths (the other other M&M boys--the first being my brother and myself, and second being Mauer and Morneau--I suppose calling them the Mick&Mick boys would be derogatory, though I'm not sure who'd be most offended), Gov. Palin's surprise exit, more protests in Iran, the Chinese crackdown on the Uighurs . . . and most stunning, the swearing-in of now Senator Stuart, er, Al Franken!

It makes your head spin, all the events one might choose to talk about. So I'll do the obvious, and just avoid them all.

Well, almost. I first want to highlight a couple of facts of Islam, both in China and more generally. Did you know that China has nearly as many Muslims (approximately 26 million) as does Saudi Arabia? Or, that Indonesia has the most Muslims of any country, over 206 million? Pakistan and India clock in at 170 and 150 million Muslims, respectively. So why is it that we think of the Middle East as the center of the Muslim world when Asia (and I've not even gotten to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia) clearly sports the lion's share? And, did you know that Indonesia held a free and fair democratic election for President this past week? Someone should talk about that.

But I digress. I wanna talk about the ladies. Big stuff there, too, and not just the upcoming confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

In addition to what I'm sure will be an interesting hearing, the NYTimes offered a fascinating profile of the only current female Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Judith Warner, who often pens insightful pieces about motherhood and modernity, puzzles over our society's schizophrenia when it comes to balancing career, family, and education, and some of the biases that are bubbling to the surface in the Sarah Palin era (yes, I said it). Michael Gerson, at his best when not being a partisan hack, writes compellingly about the struggles of Afghan women. And French President Nicholas Sarkozy has suggested that the burqa be banned, an issue that appears to support the freedom of women while simultaneously challenging religious freedom (it's admittedly more complicated than that, but it's at the intersection of these two pillars where we get the rub).

Most provocatively, however, is that a new book has just discovered that God hates women!

I want to spend a little time on this last claim. The authors of Does God Hate Women? make a serious point about how religion remains the most singularly powerful justification for misogynistic behavior. And they might be right. The mostly defunct "Promise Keepers" movement from the 1990's peddled in the "man is the head of the household" shtick, the burqa in France and the plight of Afghani women goes hand in hand with religious justification, and I would argue that the canard of women's ability to think is often linked to religiously inspired notions of a gender's proper place in society. In short, until we sort through the ways in which religiously tinged language permeates the discussion about the roles and abilities of men and women, we are going to have a tough go sorting out both latent and explicit biases.

But there are other ways to think about all of this, and we can do so without throwing out the religious baby with the misogynist bath water. Culture and context matter and, just like making cheese, the trick is separating the whey from the curd (if I can mix all my metaphors in a boiling pot). Yes, the Bible and Qur'an say distasteful things about women. Men, too, but since we've lived in a world where men have called the shots for so long, it's hard to get our heads around that.

The short answer, and what I want to leave for thought over the weekend, is that "religion" is here, too, being made the scapegoat for all the nasty things we do to one another. A more accurate, and more interesting if less controversial, analysis would examine how religion and culture get used to propagate and defend the subjugation of women. There are, after all, many instances of religion being used to advocate for freedom and liberation. Just like with violence and terrorism, religion gets used to both support and demean women.

That's my concern: religion gets used. It's a nasty business, but I think the fact is that until we're more sophisticated in how we understand the role of religion in shaping human interactions, we won't make much progress. Calling religion the cause of violence and misogyny doesn't advance the agenda of peace and freedom, it just pisses people off.

Until then, I'm gonna offer a dedication to Jenny Sanford, Darlene Ensign, Silda Spitzer, Hillary Clinton, and all the other ladies in the house who are dealing with a cheatin' man: tell 'em you wanna "Smell Yo Dick."

Happy weekend!

The Pride of Death

2009-06-29T22:36:00.000-07:00

"And yet how little of our life is occasion, opportunity to receive good in; and how little of that occasion do we apprehend and lay hold of?" -- John Donne, from Meditation XIV

Too much death, of late. Not that any is ever exactly welcome. But there is a strange curiosity about our society's reaction to death--particularly of public figures, but also of the rest of us--and sometimes we're forced to reckon with it.

A friend died today, and it wasn't Michael Jackson, Billy Mays or Farah Fawcett; it wasn't Neda Agha-Soltan; it wasn't a passenger on an Air France or Yemeni Airlines flight or on the DC Metro: it was Jeffrey White, a journalist, my wife's friend from childhood. He died quietly at his home.

"Quietly" is a horrible word, because the death of someone dear always tolls at a deafening volume in the souls of his or her friends, particularly when that loss is too soon or too tragic or too unjust. Parents and widows of war know that sickening ring too well.

How does one respond to the death of a loved one? This weekend, I saw both "Up" and "A Year of Magical Thinking," two very different meditations on how the living react to almost unbearable loss. And we, as a culture, have been bombarded with reactions to celebrity death--one MJ tribute after another, snippets of loudly shouted "OxyClean!", glimpses of Farah's nipples. There have been tributes to political bravery and innocent accident, too.

What do we make of all this, how do we respond with something even approaching authenticity? In "Up," the bereaved Carl decides to embark upon the adventure he and his late wife always dreamed of, hitching his house to thousands of balloons and setting sail for South America. In Joan Didion's play, she resorts to "magical thinking," all the better to ward off, foreswear, avoid, and eventually accept the death of her husband and her daughter. I guess one could have a dance party for Michael.

Last weekend, I attended a funeral for another recent death, my Aunt Annie, aged 91. She was a Mennonite from Souderton, PA, and we sang hymns, reminisced about her life, buried her, and ate ham sandwiches in the church hall. The coffee was wan and the cake, disconcertingly, delicious. I got to meet old relations and heard stories of a life I can barely imagine. I bought raw milk from a local dairy farmer and saw the land of my ancestors. It was perfect.

But it provides little evidence for what to do when a life is cut too short. Annie was given 60 more years of life than Jeff, and that's not fair.

Not that the universe deals in fairness, or even some omnipotent God for that matter.

Annie had a chance to make the most of it, and did a grand job by all accounts. Jeff, too, took advantage of his one chance: life in Europe, a romance with his wife against the odds, a commitment to work even from his hospital bed. He lived, if briefly, a life full of days--as the Bible says--but those of us still living rail against the denial of his chance to "apprehend and lay hold of" all that he might, yet, have been offered.

I cannot say I knew Jeff well enough, but I knew enough to expect a vigorous laying hold, a stubborn refusal to simply accept, a rage against the dying light.

In the "Epic of Gilgamesh," the hero, inconsolable at the loss of his soul-mate, Enkidu, journeys to the end of the earth in search of immortality. He even has it in his grasp, but loses it, through simple human frailty. Despondent, he returns to the city of Uruk in ancient Babylon, and writes his story, ensuring an eternal life he would not know. That is one lesson from Gilgamesh, the power of words, not to forestall death, but to bring life into being, to build--with bricks or words--a legacy of living.

There is another lesson from Gilgamesh, in the story of the tavern keeper, Siduri: "Now you, Gilgamesh, let your belly be full! Be happy day and night, of each day make a party, dance in circles day and night! Let your clothes be sparkling clean, let your head be clean, wash yourself with water! Attend to the little one who holds your hand, let a wife delight in your embrace. This is the true task of humankind." I'm guessing Siduri had "Man in the Mirror" on the jukebox, OxyClean in her cabinet, a lover in her bedroom, and children she held dear (and didn't inappropriately bring the children into the bedroom).

That is, she does not call for sensuous debauchery, but offers a reminder to the living that one must keep on living, and do so with all the verve and gusto and fortitude we have. To do otherwise would be to betray the memory of the dead, to dishonor their friendship, to let death have more than its share.

Death has taken too much, already. May we all find more joy and life in every day. So raise a glass--Scotch, if you knew Jeff--and commence with the dancing. Maybe there's something to that dance party, after all.

Free Bird

2009-06-19T21:26:00.000-07:00

Apparently, there's some new internet thingy out there called "Twitter."

Ok, I know what it is, and I understand that people can now "tweet"--a vocal inflection previously reserved for birds, but now applied to very short cyber-posts. I might even try it myself someday. But be warned, I'm not much of a songbird, and I'm certainly no Lynyrd Skynyrd:

But Twitter has become something far more than another strange internet elocution, and I don't just mean Prof. Steve Prothero's "Religion 140" classes (strange and wonderful, in that case).

No, Twitter seems to be fomenting a revolution. Really. Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic needs to be commended for his vigorous support and encouragement of the changes afoot in Iran. For the past week, he's been posting tweets from participants in the (new) Iranian revol . . . well, now that really is the question. Revolution? We're still waiting to find out what it all means.

As I suggested in my last point, precisely what President Obama should be doing about all of this is the parlor game du jour. Roger Cohen, Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, and Paul Wolfowitz (now there's a name to trust, erm, have second thoughts about) have all declared that Pres. Obama needs to be more forceful in condemning the results of the election, criticizing the mullah regime, and supporting the protesters.

Their point, as I take it, is that the US needs to stand firmly behind the voices for democratic change in Iran. A friend reminds me of Pres. Reagan's support of the Solidarity movement in Poland. That's a good point, and needs to be reflected upon a little further.

Pres. Reagan made vocal his support for Solidarity fairly early in 1981, one year into his presidency. Lech Walesa, the future President of Poland, would later write about the debt of gratitude they owed to Reagan for his encouragement of their revolt against Soviet communism.

But before we get too misty-eyed about all of this, let's remember a couple of things. Mr. Walesa wasn't elected president until 1990. The collapse of Polish communism coincided with the dissolution of Soviet proxy-regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria, along with the implosion of the USSR itself, all around 1989.

So while we might grant Reagan an important role for his support of these movements, they were a different animal--and took nearly eight years to come to fruition. I'm not trying to take credit away from anyone, but only to say that this is not a simple one-to-one comparison.

In all honesty, I wish President Obama would say more about the situation in Iran. I really do: what news we have is amazing and potentially historic, and it would be nice to be on the right side of this affair. But I understand the reticence. Too much "meddling," as it were, might only inflame the violent factors in Iranian society (and yes, there are millions of supporters of Ahmadinejad, like it or not). This is when politics presents a barrier to expediency: an individual might have thoughts of one sort or another, but a President is in a more difficult situation.

We might also be cognizant of some other voices emerging from the Iranian reform movement. Reza Aslan, an Iranian native and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, noted today that the movement does not want to be perceived as having been the work of outside forces--they are a home-grown force, and are proud of their independence.

Add to that the US's long history of interference, and not always on the side of democracy. In 1953, the CIA, working with Britain, removed democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq from power because he had the temerity to nationalize Iranian oil fields, to the detriment of BP's financial interest. We reinstated the Shah, whose despotic rule paved the way for the revolution of 1979, and the rise of the ayatollahs. In short, we've fucked this one up before.

What is currently underway is, of course, of import to our own national interests. But it is of more interest to the people of Iran themselves: this is their time, and their movement. May they succeed, and on their own accord, and seek to build an independent nation of free citizens. And may it come sooner than another eight long years.

Tweet away.

P.S. I've succumbed: @martynoliver

The Hand of God

2009-06-16T10:27:00.000-07:00

As the above clip (somewhat obscurely) shows, the Argentine soccer star Diego Maradona once scored a goal against England during the 1986 World Cup which he famously described as having been from "The Hand of God." Years later he admitted that it had been his own hand that punched the goal through the net, but the results of the "Hand of God" stood, and Argentina went on to win the cup.

Something similar seems to have happened this past weekend in Iran. If you've not been following the news, there are massive--and largely peaceful--demonstrations in Tehran and other cities, protesting the disputed election. Although it's far from clear who actually won the election, the post-election comments from Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei and incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were fascinating. Khamenei called the results the work of "the miraculous Hand of God," and Ahmadinejad called the protesters "soccer hooligans" who were nothing more than dust.

It shouldn't need to be said that elections aren't soccer games--the results matter more in the real world. But since the comparison has already been made, we might wonder about God's role in both affairs. That is, I'm not sure God had much to do with either event. As Maradona's confession revealed, the appeal to God's hand was only a way to cover up the unseemly reality of the illegal goal. Khamenei's appeal strikes me as the same thing: an attempt to paper over blatant cheating with theological decoration.

The people of Iran aren't having it, and Ahmadinejad's derisive comments about the "hooligans" only adds to the controversy. Precisely because the results of the election are so important have Ahmadinejad's dismissal of foul play become a lightening rod for the protesters. Furthermore, the erstwhile president's disdain for the opposition--and the tenuous situation this has created for Khamenei--has generated a combustible tension that threatens to rip apart the Iranian status quo.

Precisely what role the US and President Obama should take in this affair is far from clear: silence when it comes to another (and very proud and independent) nation's internal affairs, a clamorous call for democracy and the overthrow of the Iranian regime, or a more subtle middle ground? As with the Middle East (which Iran is not, by the way), this is a byzantine path to navigate.

Regardless, if the results are allowed to stand, there will someday be a reckoning with the truth that God's hand played no role, and that like Maradona, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad punched their way--quite literally in this case--to winning.

Auto-Erotic Asphyxiation

2009-06-05T13:21:00.000-07:00

This is going to be tricky. There were a couple of big news stories last Thursday. First, President Obama gave a speech at Cairo University (we'll get to that in a minute). Second, David Carradine--also known as Caine from "Kung Fu," or Bill from "Kill Bill" for you younger folk--was found dead in his Bangkok hotel room. That's him in the clip above--a classic example of what "Kung Fu" was all about.

Actually, the Carradine story was more sordid than that: he was found naked, hanging in his closet, with a cord wrapped around his genitals. While the official version hasn't come out yet, the three possibilities for his death are murder, suicide, or accident.

In all likelihood, it was the latter, and a very particular form of accident: auto-erotic asphyxiation. I'll refrain from the details of that other than to say it has something to do with limiting the flow of oxygen to the brain while engaged in "self-abuse." You can take it from there.

So why in the world, other than simple historical, um, accident would I link these two events together? Well, that's where I think it gets interesting.

Let's get back to Pres. Obama's speech. My first hunch was that it's going to take a while to know what, if any, real world effect would come about from his decision to try and navigate the explosive minefield that is Middle Eastern politics in such a direct manner. (That said, the recent elections in Lebanon are a hopeful sign, as Tom Friedman points out, writing about what he knows best.) There were a couple of insightful articles about Obama as theologian-in-chief, Obama as an idiosyncratic Solomon negotiating between Ishmael and Isaac, and a consideration of Obama's evolving rhetoric. On the other side, Charles Krauthammer (in the mode of my least favorite columnist--he's also one of my favs, fyi) invented a reason for Jews to be pissed and some complained that Obama had drawn a one-to-one comparison between the Holocaust and Palestinian disenfranchisement.

I left the final complaint for last as it serves my point, though likely not to that particular person's liking. (For a more balanced examination of the issue, check here.) Rather than engage in all that, I want to take up what Michael Gerson, W.'s former speechwriter, had to say in today's Washington Post. Mind you, Mr. Gerson had his "let's be fair" hat on today.

Gerson makes the very astute observation that, amidst all the "on the one hand, on the other" scholarly examination, when it came to Holocaust deniers, Pres. Obama got up on the highest echelon of his formidable bully pulpit. Here's the full quote: "Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve." Obama repeated these observations the following day while visiting the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany with Chancellor Merkel and Elie Wiesel.

Why does this matter? To put it simply (and to get back to Caine from Kung Fu), the Israeli-Palestinian debate has been like mental masturbation for a long line of autocratic dictators, and Holocaust denial has been their auto-erotic asphyxiation: a pleasurable distraction from everyday needs and responsibilities, coupled with the occasional foray into a truly desperate, and sometimes fatal, overkill. Ahmadinejad is the most petulant practitioner.

Too much? Too complicated? Too soon?

I'll only deal with the second of the three: rather than address systemic governmental autocracy, rather than deal with massive unemployment, rather than give up using religious difference as a rhetorical cudgel, rather than allow an open society, too often Middle Eastern autocracies have used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a means to distract their citizens from the disintegration of their own society. Want democracy in Egypt? Look! Homeless Palestinians! Want freedom for women in Saudi Arabia? Look! Israeli settlements! Want capitalism in Syria? Look! Israel "occupies" the Shebaa Farms! Want freedom of the press in Iran? Look! Israel has the bomb (and so should we)!

Those are tough words, but no tougher than confronting endemic denial, and no tougher than the reality of Mr. Carradine's death by masturbation. Want to engage with the Middle East? Speak the truth (and thank you, Pres. Obama). Want diplomatic ties with your neighbors? Make real progress on a two-state solution. Want peace in the Middle East? Get out of the closet, put away the sex toys, and get to work.

My sympathies in all this lie entirely with those innocent folk who've been victimized while their so-called leaders piddle away their seed. The kind and decent citizens of the Middle East--Muslim, Jew, and Christian--deserve better than this disgusting affair.

RIP Caine.

Religion and Violence, Part II

2009-06-02T23:20:00.000-07:00

Shit.

That about sums up my reaction to most of the news from the past couple of days. But in particular, I'm thinking of the news of two horrifying murders, the first of Dr. George Tiller while preparing to usher at his Lutheran Church, and the other of Pvt. William Long while at work at an Army recruitment center (along with the injury of Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula).

I'm not the first to think of these two crimes in tandem (Sarah Palin beat me to it), nor will I be the last: two dead, one at the hands of a Christian, the other shot down by a Muslim.

The question is, of course, do we call this "religious violence," and if so, how do we process the two acts? In a nation currently bemusing itself with Angels and Demons, are we even equipped to responded thoughtfully to the situation?

All of this is on top our born-again Christian President, Barack Hussein Obama's, departure for the Middle East, where he is expected to give an important address on US relations with the Muslim world at Cairo University. There has been a lot of back and forth about what Pres. Obama should say (stop apologizing! stop coddling dictators!), and I won't offer any further advice: he pays smarter people than me to do that.

What I do want to ask is, given all of this, do the citizens of our fair States know what we've gotten ourselves into? I suspect--and fear--that the reality is fairly bleak: we know so little about religion, about the purported links between religion and violence, so little about our own faith traditions, much less those of others, that we lack to the critical apparatus necessary to process and understand these events.

Scott Roeder, the suspect in Dr. Tiller's murder, was characterized by his ex-wife has having become "very religious, in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way . . . That's all he cared about anti-abortion. 'The church is this. God is this. Yadda yadda.'"

"Yadda yadda"?? That's what we've got? A quip from a largely Jewish, New York City-based sitcom as a stand in for explaining a religious disposition?

Or, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, aka Carlos Bledsoe, apparently "stated that he was mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past." Mad? Mad is what you when the police give you a speeding ticket. This is something else entirely.

I highlight these two quotes because they indicate a very basic inability to articulate how religious identity can lead to inexplicable acts of violence. Alas, the commentariat hasn't done much better in shedding any light this connection. Our nation's opinion-makers are nearly as illiterate in the face of religious violence as are the perpetrators themselves.

Thankfully, there are a few out there willing and able to rise to the challenge. Frank Schaeffer is one of them. Surely there are others. But as a society, it's incumbent upon us to do better.

Let's start with some basic education. There are a lot, and a growing, number of good websites where one can learn about religion: Beliefnet, Patheos, or Religion Dispatches. If you're interested in religion and science, you might try Search; the more irreverent can go to Killing the Buddha; or you might find interesting two new blogs by friends of mine, To Will One Thing and Eat the Bible.

At the very least, ask yourself or friends a simple question: What in God's name is going on? I hope it's more than yadda, yadda.

The Morality of Healthcare

2009-05-31T21:15:00.000-07:00

Today's post is in memory of George Tiller: may we all find our better angels.

I have a certain friend who has wondered about whether healthcare is a universal human right. She's answered no, from her perspective. To be fair, she's also said that she wishes everyone could have quality healthcare, she just doesn't think the government is the group to provide it. The obvious rejoinder is, well, if private insurance hasn't managed, why not?

There is a good answer in the most recent New Yorker: Atul Gawande examines the cost of healthcare at a few different locales and says, in effect, its the money, stupid. It's a long read, but worth it. Check back when you're done.

Ready? So, here's my thing (and not just because I'm a Minnesota native and proud of the Mayo Clinic): healthcare, like education, road repair, and national defense, isn't a typical commodity. Instead, it's one of those things we all need to be effective in order for our civil society to thrive.

(As an aside, I have a friend working at the State Department who was asked to explain the "American Healthcare System" to a visiting Chinese diplomat. My question was, we have a healthcare system??)

Yes, we could manage if private industry provided these services, but it wouldn't be the same--teaching children, insuring health, paving the way to work and home, and securing our nation are things that ought be the province of good government.

And yes, private industry can teach us a lot about doing so efficiently. But private industry, as per its nature, is most concerned about making a buck, as it should be. That's the point. There is a difference between public and private industry, as there is between public policy and religion (as I've said before). It's not simply a question of provision, or even of monetary gain, it's an issue of what is needed to make for the most dynamic, free society.

I don't mean to say the government does everything best: I mean to say that, as a nation, we should be concerned with a very Kantian the best-results-for-the greatest-number-of-people sort of thing, and that concerns efficiency, quality, and reach.

In the short, the US already spends more money on healthcare than any other nation, and yet we do not care for a huge proportion of our citizens. In this sense, private healthcare has failed. But it's not just private insurance--its the delivery of care, the manner of that care, and the reasons for it.

Healthcare IS a moral issue, finding our way to a solution is complex, and the government does play an important role. One route is to say that the government should take it all over. Another is to say (as we already do) that we should let the market sort it out (and continue to fail?). A third way is to start getting real: medical care is more than a simple means and ends, it is also a sign of who we are as a nation. We can do better. We know some of the ways forward. We need more bravery on the subject, and less fear about the government's role (that is, our ideologies will not help us here).

May there be no killing in churches, more births celebrated, more money saved, and more lives enhanced.

The Virtues of Disestablishment

2009-05-29T12:45:00.000-07:00

That's not a typo, it's a real word: disestablishment. I want to spend this Friday afternoon arguing that disestablishment is one of the most unique and powerful factors in American society, and a concept that needs more attention.

The thought isn't new, and isn't new to me. I was reminded of it, however, by this article examining a new book, God is Back by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge.

The book argues, in essence, that the separation of Church (or Mosque or Synagogue or Temple) and State is healthy for both nations and religions. The authors are not blind to some of the problems than can accompany religion, but they are also sensitive to the vast amount of good that religion can inspire. But separation, or disestablishment, is key.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is sometimes called the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This has, obviously, been interpreted and litigated over the years, but the effect has been essentially a disestablishment of religion and state: there is no state religion, and no religion controls the state.

The result has been, paradoxically for some observers, to make the US one of the most religious nations in the world, but also one where religion plays no official role in governmental affairs. Of course, religion is an issue in government, but the two remain separate entities.

This is not the case in many other nations, and to adverse effect. Many European nations have a state religion, from the Anglican Church in Britain to various Protestant Churches in Northern Europe. And, of course, no one goes to Church. Alternatively, religion and the state are inextricably bound in, say, Saudia Arabia or Israel, creating their own set of (unique to each nation) problems.

I, for one, prefer the American approach for a litany of reasons. And I think it means we need to revisit some recent trends in domestic policy, namely, school voucher programs and governmental support for religious affiliated service programs.

That is, I'm wary of the intermingling of government dollars and any religiously affiliated organization, but not because I'm stingy about spending tax money. Instead, I would suggest that religious groups, to the extent that they become dependent upon the state for income and also beholden to governmental policies, suffer an erosion in their religious identity. The government may choose to implicitly support these groups--through tax-free, non-profit status, for example--but once you've taken the golden hand out, that thin line between state and faith becomes ever more murky.

The other advantage of a state-religion split is in freeing religions to advocate on behalf of democracy. That might sound counter-intuitive (especially when considering the less than democratic versions of religion out there), but it is rather simple: any religion that is wedded to the state becomes more interested in maintaining the status quo than in seeing any real change in society. God is sacrificed for manna. Additionally, and here I sound like a free-market zealot, religiously neutral societies witness not only more religious pluralism, but more active and vibrant expressions of faith. When faiths must compete with one another, they too win, forced to articulate a more cogent vision of their tradition.

There are details galore that could round out this thought. I'd love to hear what any readers might think. Happy Sabbath!

P.S. Does any one else think that the attempt to paint Judge Sotomayor as both racist and stupid is not only an insane electoral strategy, but also an act of GOP self-immolation? Who's in charge there?

Taking out the Trash

2009-05-19T10:21:00.000-07:00

It's trash removal day here in our corner of NW DC, so I've got a collection of things to take to the proverbial curb of my blog.

Let's start here:

This is a snap shot from a recent splash page at the nytimes.com. Pakistan, if you've noticed, has been in the news lately: military offenses in the Swat valley against supposed Taliban forces, an announcement today from Sec. Clinton for a domestic aid package, and, in this image, an apparent expansion of their nuclear arsenal. But I most liked the story "Picking Up Trash, in a Flash of Rebellion." The story is about middle class youth who, tired of the snipping and complaining of their peers and parents, decided to actually do something: they starting going to a local neighborhood and pick up garbage. Some onlookers were completely flabbergasted: this is the job of the poor they complained. But the trash got picked up, and a glimmer of civil society shined through. More power to them--social change begins in one's own neighborhood.

How do we square this with the other, more violent images from Pakistan (which is, now, truly a front in our "global war on whatever")? It's difficult to see both sides, kids picking up garbage and a build up of nuclear arms, and reconcile them with easy assumptions about a place or a people. But this, I would contend, is the reality of any given place, the US included: belligerence and kindness, militarism and manners, all swirling about in the story of human life. It's useful to remember that these things so often exist side by side.

And speaking of trash: how about a trashy hairstyle? It's not a new thought, but God Bless Jesse Ventura, and Find That Man a Barber! Here he is, on The View, taking it to Ms. Hasselback (really, how does she do it?) on the issue of torture:

Torture is torture. We need to be clear about that. What's really extraordinary are the ways in which certain folk are trying to change the conversation. Yes, Speaker Pelosi is likely fudging the truth about what she knew and when, but as Jesse "The Mind" said, we wouldn't be having this conversation if he hadn't tortured Muslims in the first place. What's the greater crime, lying about what you knew about the government's policies on torture, or the torture itself? Either way, the former administration is complicit in both cases. Going after Pelosi, as Ta-Nehisi Coates illustrates, has rapidly descended into blatant misogyny. It's disgusting. And I don't think it's gonna win many votes.

Speaking of winning votes, the Prez pulled off, I thought, a rather impressive speech at Notre Dame. I'll leave it to others to discuss all the implications, but I was struck by one reviewer's observation that Obama excels at the well-crafted argument without recourse to rhetorical flourish. That is, there aren't many sound bites or memorable phrases offered up, but the force and intelligence of his arguments as a whole are pretty astounding. I'd concur.

Others don't, of course. David Brooks bends himself backwards and sideways by trying to link the success of "dull" CEO's to Obama's turn at the presidency. His point, oddly, is that good CEO's don't make good politicians and vice versus, and we should therefore be wary of Obama's attempts at getting us out of this economic mess (per Brooks, he's a good politician but has suspect credentials when it comes to being a CEO). The irony, of course, is that we just endured eight years of our "first MBA President" in Mr. Bush. Turns out, that MBA didn't serve him well in any capacity. He failed in the oil biz, won the brass ring, and then promptly drove that ship (our nation) studiously into the ground. Sigh.

Finally, to return briefly to my thoughts on the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, Jeffrey Toobin has a perceptive piece in this month's New Yorker about Chief Justice Roberts. I would suggest that his article illustrates the point I inelegantly tried to make that being a Justice isn't simply about knowing the law, and isn't simply about interpreting lawyerly minutia: there is a human element that matters, and changes our society. Disposition makes a judge, and we'll be stuck with Roberts' disdain for ordinary people for many decades. At least Scalia's in his seventies (along with most of the rest--I'm not sure this court could look any less like America as we know it).

May your trashcan never overrunneth.

Justice and the Law

2009-05-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

So, this is a question, in part, for my lawyer friends: what is the relationship between justice and the law?

I'm brought to this by the percolating discussions surrounding the imminent retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. What is the role of a judge? What are the tensions between the law and justice?

Charles Grassley, a Republican Senator from Iowa, has said recently that he hopes Pres. Obama nominates someone who treats the law in the manner of the iconic representation of Justice--blind. In a similar vein, Justice Roberts, during his confirmation hearing, spun the analogy of umpiring a baseball game, simply calling balls and strikes.

Now, notwithstanding the obvious blindness of umpires, I think this is a problematic issue. As I take it, a judge's role is not simply to interpret the law, it's to also decide whether a law is just; and in the US, justice is determined by the extent to which a given law coincides with the Constitution. Of course, there is an interpretive act in that as well, but Justice is said to be blind not simply because she feigns to not see the individual complainants in a case, but also because she weighs the scales of Justice, determining what is fair.

The fairness doctrine, supposedly, is what is at the base of Justice Antonin Scalia's call for a "strict constructionist" approach to jurisprudence: the Constitution is an unchanging bedrock of our society and we should interpret laws only based upon its original intent.

That, of course, is complete shit and makes the same error as certain "fundamentalist" interpretations of religious scripture. The time-warp necessary for such a view not only denies the prospect of human and social evolution, but also introduces the insanity of trying to decode meanings and intentionality that are both shrouded in time and subject to their own historical exigencies. Slavery, case in point, for both religion and the law.

The so-called "activist" judges derided by the right are said to make the error overthrowing foundational principles, as in the case of gay marriage. But this appeal foundations or fundamentals misses the more subtle call to justice: simply because something has been with us, does not make it just. Were that the case, only men would have the vote, and only white men would own property. This indeed was the intent of the Founders, but Justice has found it in her weighing to find these principles plainly unjust. Maybe it's because she is a woman.

So, when President Obama suggests he is looking for a justice with "real world" experience, the opposition suggests that instead he need find an individual who will be blind to political persuasion and exist only within the ethereal realm of the "law."

I do not want my umpires blind, nor do I want justices so blinkered by arcane law as to miss the call to justice. She is blind to bias, not to right and wrong.

Common Ground

2009-04-30T23:32:00.000-07:00

Real quick, before I leave for Istanbul and environs for a few days . . .

You might have heard of a new health scare called the "swine flu." For me, it's like "don't walk in an open field during a thunderstorm, lick a frozen flag pole, or walk outside during a hurricane": an obvious physical danger that is relatively avoidable (a tip of the cap to Pres. Obama--wash your hands, it's the best defense . . . no, really).

Anyhow, aside from Jon Stewart's suggestion that humans contracted swine flu by "fucking a turkey club sandwich," the best part of this episode (see, everything does have a silver lining) was Israel's decision to relabel the threat "Mexican flu" based upon the simple fact that "swine is not kosher."

Well, yes, I suppose not. Neither is fucking a turkey club sandwich for that matter, but this leads me to the common ground. Eventually, the ol' human on pork action is going to reach a Muslim nation, in which case it'll be relabeled either "Capitalist, Secularist Pig flu," or, for short, "Mexican flu."

You see, pork isn't kosher, and it isn't halal. Neither Islam nor Judaism allow for the consumption of pork. As Jules said, a pig's a dirty animal, and thus you'd never want to label influenza by its genetic precedent--it just wouldn't be, well, kosher. Or halal.

This is the good part: In the immortal words of Herm Edwards, "This is something we can build on!!!" Yes, Israel and Muslim nations should find solace in that they, together, reject the non-kosher, haram label of "swine flu." It's dirty. They both hate Arnold from Green Acres.

And that, my friends, is something we can build on!! In short, peace in the Middle East can begin with the shared repudiation of the swine flu.

May they all wash their hands repeatedly.

Purified by Panic

2009-04-28T23:30:00.000-07:00

In keeping with the theme of making analogies between seemingly unlike and unrelated things, this essay is about Pope Benedict's vision of 21st century Catholicism and the GOP's current struggle at arrest its electoral free-fall.

And, in taking the kind and wise suggestions of my friend Patton, I'll attempt to do so with a bit more nuance than my previous post. Onwards!

To wit, both the Church and the GOP are in crisis. The Catholic Church fears a growing shortage of priests, finds its European churches more empty than ever, continues to deal with the priest abuse fallout, and is in general disarray over how it should respond to the challenges of the present day. The GOP, after two straight electoral drubbings, finds itself in the minority struggling to retain a foothold in whole regions of the US, and responds to the proposals of a popular President by elevating its discourse from shouting "Socialism!" to screaming "Fascism!"

In short, they're both a mess, and not without reason. That reason is not, however, a burgeoning world-wide liberalism. Instead, the problems are ones of vision, articulation, and simple management.

Let's start with the Church. After his elevation to Pope, former Cardinal Ratzinger began articulating what he believed to be the proper response to the Church's many challenges: a return to purer faith. In an exceptional, if dense, article, Joseph Komonchak wrote in the Commonweal magazine about Benedict's plan: "The faith must be presented as counter-cultural, as an appeal to nonconformity." This meant, in essence, a return to a more pristine theology, a harder line against the challenges of modernity, a line in the sand, even if it meant alienating some of the faithful. For Benedict, a purer Church is a stronger Church, even if it must first become smaller.

The GOP has had something of a similar response to the excesses of the Bush II era: Let us return to our principles of limited government, limited taxation, and greater liberty. The rationale was that the GOP lost recent elections due to the singular phenomenon of Pres. Obama combined with its own abandonment of its core principles, as evidenced by Bush's deficit spending and interventionist foreign policy.

That's all well and good, as far as it goes. But the strain is showing. One day after the Jesuit periodical America published a call for re-examining priestly celibacy, the GOP was stung by the defection of Arlen Specter. Just as a conservative friend (as well as Bill Kristol) suggested that the GOP would be better off by eliminating the wayward elements of its party, I can imagine some within the Catholic hierarchy stating resolutely, "A priest is not a priest if he is isn't celibate."

But that's the thing with purity--you can never be pure enough. Ostensibly, both the Church and the GOP hope to exercise real power, one theologically and the other politically. But it is difficult to do so if you have rarified your air to the extent that your would-be supporters can no longer breath. While it may be the case that the occasional house-cleaning is in order, there must always be room for alternative visions, for different voices. Ironically but incontrovertibly, organizations are strengthened by diversity. The alternative is Stalinist purges and dictatorship.

Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that either the Church or the GOP should sacrifice their principles in the pursuit of power. But at the same time, neither should they make the perfect the enemy of the good. As it is, Catholics use condoms and Republicans appreciate well-maintained roads and schools. The trick is to appeal to one's principles while recognizing that there will always remain individual negotiations between reality and the ideal.

I wish both groups well as they struggle to define themselves for the 21st century. The potential for hubris and over-reach can only be tempered by faithful opposition. But if in opposition you can only stand and shout, you very soon find yourself alone in the wilderness. That makes finding the road to redemption all the harder.

P.S.--I seem to have scooped the NY Times on at least half this story.

Solutions!

2009-04-24T00:29:00.000-07:00

First, let me say, please comment. I really value them, even from the nutter "anonymous" who disparages me.

Second, this post is about Hamas and abortion, and how the "two-state solution" and the "pro-life" movement are one and the same.

Third, this post is not about Hamas or abortion.

Still with me?

I recently read (and forgive me for the lack of a link) that the so-called two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians doesn't make sense: without the spur of "Israeli aggression," groups such as Hamas (and even Hezbollah) would lose their reason for being. Rather than becoming responsible leaders of a nation-state, who would then have to respond to the pressures of actually leading a nation, groups such as Hamas would in fact prefer to remain a persecuted peoples, giving license to throw bombs and rockets and rocks: that is, to rabble rouse rather than find a real way forward.

The anti-abortion movement finds itself in the same place: after eight years with the "pro-life" Pres. Bush, there was no move to outlaw abortion, but only motions toward the edges (banning late-term abortions, restricting access to birth-control, limiting the extent of public funding for groups that might recommend an abortion). In short, no real clarion call, but simply the continued instigation of a fight.

They are the same. Neither Hamas nor "pro-life" politicians want to see a real change in the status-quo: in doing so, they would lose their reason for being. Two States means Hamas' anti-Israeli rhetoric becomes second fiddle to actually managing a state. No abortion means the pro-lifers would have to deal with the reality of human sexuality. Neither wants that, it's just too much work.

Abortion and Israel aren't going away. They also aren't the same, but the enemies of both, we should know, are only interested in throwing stones.

Addressing the reality of them is, well, too much to bear.

Existentialism Explained!

2009-04-22T00:16:00.000-07:00

Sigh. In the nearly two months since I've written here, the world has been . . . well, weird. The economy continues on its pogo stick odyssey, political punditry has become a mind-numbing screed, baseball has (gloriously) resumed, pirates have become endemic, and I've gotten older. I'm not so sure about wiser.

Oh, and now we know for sure that we (that is, us Americans, as yet unwilling to accept our collective complicity) tortured. Or not.

You see, they were just "enhanced interrogation techniques " (except when used by the Japanese during WWII, a crime for which we capitally punished said techniques), and, well, they worked (maybe), and the real outrage is that Pres. Obama dared to let the cat out of the bag that this whole mess extended so far up the chain of command.

I have a strange mash-up in my head of Allen Iverson and a friend speaking at a conference some years ago: imagine an academic-looking type, bouncing his child on a knee while while wearing a head band, saying, "Torture? We're talking about fucking torture?"

Yeah, its hard to believe. Like practice for an NBA vet, it's hard to believe that a nation like ours is talking about torture. How'd it come to this? (Wait--I'm not going to try to answer that. Allen Iverson had to go before the court of public opinion, all-star skills or not, and so do we.)

In a well-meaning article in the New Republic, Damon Linker tries to give some serious thought to the question of torture. His conclusion: it certainly was torture, and we'll never really know if it "worked" or not, but its moral legitimacy all depends on the extent to which we (again, the suddenly recalcitrant Americans) thought we were under an "existential threat." That is, torture may have been justified if we thought that, in doing so, we could avoid the greater harm of literally seeing our existence obliterated. Alas, clarity on this can only be known by future generations, when hindsight and as yet unreleased information give us vision and perspective.

It's an admirable attempt on Mr. Linker's part, and not without merit. But he misses the point (this is where the "existentialism" part comes in to play). Did al-Qaeda, or radical Islam, or terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, pose a threat to the very existence of America? If so, what sort of threat did that entail? Was it bombs and fear and planes flying into buildings? Or was it something else?

In a supreme irony, George W. Bush gave us the answer (though not an answer his administrators would now want to hear): "They hate us because of our freedom."

That trite, shallow, grammatically awkward enunciation is (forgive me) torturous because of its relevance. Yes, surely al-Qaeda wants to inflict further physical harm on the US, but that was not the threat to our existence that should have given us the most pause. We can deal with that sort of thing, painful as it is. Instead, the real threat to our existence was that, out of our fear and paranoia, we would somehow abandon those very principles that made us a target in the first place.

Among them is our freedom. And this is not just freedom to vote. In America, there is freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom to have legal representation and a jury of our peers. And freedom to know that we will uphold--under any circumstances--basic, common, yet hard-earned and easily betrayed, principles that limit our animal nature: we are not guilty until proven so, we will not be torture, and we seek to extend these freedoms all across the globe.

The existential threat was not another attack--as frightening as that possibility was--but rather that we would betray the very meaning of our existence as a nation by forgoing the principles and freedoms upon which this nation was founded.

We failed that existential threat, and it was our own doing. Now we have the heroic task of piecing that part our collective national soul back together. May we have more luck than all the kings horses and all the kings men.

Sick and Tired

2009-03-06T23:46:00.000-08:00

First, apologies, I've been sick and tired. Of a lot of things, but also sick, and tired. The comma is key there.

I'll reboot (again) with a grab bag of thoughts and observations. I'll also promise to eat my veggies and try to stave off a further bout with the common cold. Apologies in advance if I recycle some of this later--there's too much "meat" to leave undigested, but one has to start somewhere.

Speaking of meat and veggies, George Will seems to have gotten around to reading Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma. He writes in todays Washington Post about the industrial machinations that have contributed to America's soaring obesity and diabetes problems. This comes a week after Mr. Will went off the deep end by cherry picking scientific data to suggest that global climate change was not in fact occurring. (He's wrong on that account, by the way, but that's another story.)

It also follows a post from a couple weeks back based upon a rather odd study by Mary Eberstadt that suggests American's have come to fetishize food but are now consuming the equivalent of fast-food sex. Her basic argument suggests that we now treat food as we once did sex, and vice versa, perhaps to our digestive advantage but somehow undermining our moral character. Like I said, its an odd study. (And flawed, but again, another story.)

How to square these many facets of George Will? I'm not sure one can, at least not without violating some of Mr. Will's ideological totems. Food, sex, and the environment are all connected--they are the basic building blocks of civilization along with the rule of law. Let me just say that we can only hope for the advent of a "slow sex" movement akin to the "Slow Food" empire that has inspired much of the recent interest in food. I'm sure many folk could get into that, as it were.

But let us not forget the environment, which also brings me to Pres. Obama's new budget proposal. First, it ain't socialism. Really. Evidence for that claim? The extremes of both both conservatives and liberals are bitching--He's gone too far! He hasn't gone far enough! This sort of howling usually suggests someone has struck upon a sweet middle. I hope I'm right, but time will tell.

That said, Charles Krauthammer revealed why, along with being one of my favorite conservatives, is also sometimes one of the dumbest. He complains that Obama is leading us off the cliff, complaining at length that the areas Obama seeks to shore up in his budget--healthcare, the environment, education, financial regulation--are not the causes of our economic downturn. I'm sorry, but is he smoking crack? Each of these areas are MAJOR factors in getting us in the pickle we find ourselves: without universal healthcare, American companies can't financially compete on the global level; without sound environmental policies, our economy is both inefficient and beholden to foreign interests; without educational overhaul, our workforce cannot compete with other nations; without intelligent regulation, greed games the gears of capitalism, grinding it to a halt (with Bernie Maddof, et al, running off with the loot). Again, I hope I'm right, but only time will tell.

Finally, an in an attempt to rehabilitate Mr. Will, baseball. Spring training is in full swing, we get the World Baseball Classic this year, the Yankees are spending not only like drunken sailors but like unrepentant financiers, the little teams have a chance again (see: Royals, Twins, Rays, Padres, and hell, let's through in the Nationals for good measure), and tulips, stolen bases, and Opening Day are just around the corner.

It may not be "Morning in America," but it is springtime. May all your flowers blossom.

True and Untrue

2009-02-17T23:21:00.000-08:00

A while back, I was on the bus to NYC when I saw an interesting billboard just outside of Baltimore that struck me as containing a statement that was simultaneously "True" and "Untrue." How could such a thing be? Well, there's more of that around than you might imagine.

The billboard: "Abstinence works every time"

True, if one hopes to avoid pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, possible heartbreak, or intense physical intimacy, abstinence works every time.

Untrue, if one hopes to establish a policy whereby people will avoid unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, possible heartbreak, or physical intimacy, abstinence works every time.

You see, that's the thing about life: it's rarely ever just this or just that.

Take another example: Unions are good for business. True and untrue, often depending upon perspective, but also quantifiably evident either way--lies, damn lies, and statistics. (When it comes to the auto industry, we might also look in our drive ways: is that American made you've got there? Why or why not?)

Or, a controversial favorite of mine: Islam (or your religion of choice) is a religion of peace. Sure, true. Also, untrue, if you wish to insist on certain connections between a particular religion and particular actions by particular self-identified adherents.

The unifying theme among all of these statements is that they all seem to miss the point. The billboard flattens to an unreal extreme the complexities of human sexuality in hopes of making a political point. The unions statement ignores all of the other factors that determine the relative success of any given business. The well-intentioned statement about Islam is, to my ears, non-sensical. Unless a religion is explicitly predicated upon some notion of "peace," we can only say that religion sometimes gets used to promote peace and sometimes to exhort violence. Like the old NRA slogan, its not religion that kills folk, its folk who kill other folk.

And what is my point here? I've been having a congenial back and forth with my blog writing friend Krista about government. In the hullabaloo about the stimulus package and the frustration over certain portions of it, I fear that too often it's not that we miss the forest for the trees but that we're looking in the wrong direction. One might cite Michael Gerson as a helpful corrective, or better yet David Frum, who reminds us that the faux-outrage over marsh rats in SF isn't right or wrong, it's idiotic. (I'd like to add that Gerson and Frum are conservative bona fides. The point of each, as I take it, is that we could fight all day about this or that and we'd just end up bloodied--it's time to think about what we might do now, because more will surely need to be done.)

So I'm going to put this out there again, with a tip of the hat to Bristol Palin for stating plainly that abstinence-only is "not realistic at all." What might we realistically do to reduce unintended pregnancy? What might we realistically do to improve our economy for both businesses and employees? What might we realistically do to promote peace and understanding without reducing real religious differences to simple sloganeering?

My take: comprehensive sexual education and a more open conversation about the realities of human sexuality and morality; promoting private enterprise while protecting the welfare of the public (yes, I know, the devil is in the details); teaching world religions to everyone while vigorously defending religious freedom.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. And if you can tell me what the hell Ms. Palin was doing giving an interview, I'd be thrilled!

For a Fistful of Dollars

2009-02-16T23:30:00.000-08:00

I grew up in a small Minnesota town that was, for a while, home to an extension of the University of Minnesota. U of M-Waseca was a two-year agricultural school, which included everything from plant biology (read in that, how to make a better soy bean) to veterinary studies.

In the early 90's, facing a budget crunch, the U. closed the extension, relocating its Ag Department to St. Paul (of all places), and leaving Waseca with a large, empty college campus. The city fretted about what to do with it, explored a couple of options, and then panicked, selling the land and buildings to the Federal Penitentiary System for use as a minimum security prison. For a dollar. One dollar.

Now, I might go on about what this says about a society where we turn our schools into prisons, or into the shortsightedness of a community that, only a few years later, pushed through a tax increase to pay for a new junior high school (Really? They didn't see that coming? Didn't we have a perfectly good place ready for retro-fitting?), but that's not what I'm thinking about today. Instead, I'm thinking about the economy and the gobs of money being thrown at our downward spiral.

I want the economy to get better, really. And I want many of the "green economy" elements that the stimulus package funds (see here). But the whole thing is a confounding mess, at least in terms of coupling the stimulus with the different banking and housing bailouts and the life-line to our pathetic domestic auto industry (and you'll have to trust me, I mean the corporate decision makers, not the assembly line workers. The Hummer? A "hybrid" Suburban? WTF?).

So I got to thinking about choices and their implications. How did Waseca swap a school for a prison? How did we go from projected surpluses to massive deficits? How did our banking sector go from cautious money management to wild, coked-out speculation? What were we thinking?

The political rhetoric around all of this isn't helping. I think Pres. Obama was dealt a bad hand and is doing his level best. I think the House and Senate are up to their old tricks, Republican and Democrat alike (besides, the vast majority of them were around for whatever initial decisions got us to this point in the first place). And no one can seem to agree if the responses will help, hurt, or are simply a waste of time. We just don't know.

But I do know that, as a society, we need to start taking a longer view of things. What are the sort of investments that, over the long haul, will save us money and better our nation? How might we avoid knee-jerk reactions that leave us stigmatized as a prison town while we watch our best and brightest leave for other options?

On the one hand, I say let GM finish rotting. On the other, I say let's invest in the physical infrastructure that our nation needs not just today, but decades down the line. The economic crisis is forcing our hand to make those decisions that should have been made years ago, but the danger is that, with all the fear and hand-wringing, we make those decisions poorly.

My hope is that we've gambled right. But it's still a gamble. In the meantime, we need to do the hard work of thinking about what sort of society we want to build for our children, and then have the courage to make those decisions in times of peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, history has shown that we only tend to step up when we've already squandered too much.

Maybe next time we won't be so greedy that we sell ourselves for a dollar.

In Defense of a Cheater

2009-02-09T23:06:00.000-08:00

In 1998, I spent a summer working as the beer man at the Tacoma Rainiers baseball stadium, a Triple A affiliate of the Seattle Mariners. (It wasn't as cool a job as you might expect. I often road my bike there while I rebuilt the engine of a '79 Buick LeSabre.) In previous summers, I'd had the pleasure of watching Alex Rodriguez in two brief seasons with the Rainiers before he was called up permanently to the Bigs.

A couple of years later, I was stunned that Rodriguez, following Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey, Jr., left Seattle for more monetary pastures: in Rodriguez's case, Texas, for 10 years and an incomprehensible $250 million. I resolved to despise him, despite his immense talent. Really, and especially in a minor league park, I'd never seen anyone cover more ground at short-stop (then his position), hit the ball harder, or get to first quicker than A-Rod. He was simply unreal, even as a skinny 19 year-old.

My distaste only grew with his move to the Evil Empire. I've cheered for Minnesota all my life but, having lived in both Washington and Boston, also developed a fondness for the Mariners and the Sox, so my displeasure should be evident.

You might then expect that I'd be enjoying a little schadenfreude over the revelation that A-Rod has admitted to using performance enhancing drugs for (at least) a three year period, one of which garnered him a Most Valuable Player award.

You'd be wrong. I'm here to write in defense of A-Roid, at least in part. I don't mean to justify or explain away what he did, but only to provide some (brief) context and mostly praise him for 'fessing up.

Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle: tax cheats. George W. Bush and Barack Obama: recreational drug users. Bill Clinton and Charles de Gualle: adulterers. In short, get a grip. The list is endless.

What was honorable--at least to the extent that such a situation could produce anything remotely approaching honor--was the confession: I did it. I screwed up. I'm sorry.

Those words are rare and, dare I say it, precious. Yes, he lied to Katie Couric two years earlier. At least he didn't perjure himself (again, an endless list).

In a season of discontent (as Pres. Obama hinted in his press conference today--watch the full hour, it's nice to have a President who has a command of both the issues and English syntax), its good to recall that honesty and penance are worthwhile. Hell, even the Catholic Church has gotten soft on that as of late. Maybe Mr. Rodriguez should seek an indulgence for himself--I'm sure he can afford the "donation."

P.S. I've got all sorts of stuff on my mind. Check back soon or RSS feed me if you're inclined. Food madness, economic woes, religiosity--it's all here.

America and the "Muslim World"

2009-02-02T14:24:00.000-08:00

I've said before that Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite op-ed columnists, and this recent posting about Pres. Obama's outreach to Muslims is a grumpy case in point.

Mr. Krauthammer (should we call him the "German Anvil"? It's better than the literalist "cabbage hammer") complains that the President is mistaken in believing both that our nation's relationship to the Muslim world is diseased and that it was better "20 or 30" years ago. He lists the American humanitarian interventions in Bosnia (successful) and Somalia (abject failure) and our military incursions into Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq as examples of how US foreign policy has been to the benefit of Muslims. He also notes 9/11, Lebanon, and Iran as, among others, times when the Muslim world has not treated us so . . . charitably. His main point, it seems, is that the US has bled on behalf of Muslims and we've seen little in return.

All that said, Mr. Krauthammer comes off as somewhat tone deaf to the situation we find ourselves in vis a vis the Muslim world. Despite our efforts--and in a number of cases, precisely because of them--the US is also seen as the cause of much Muslim death and suffering.

Its a complicated situation, and I think the problem with both the Anvil's analysis and with Pres. Obama's interview on Al-Arabiya is that the so-called "Muslim world" is a much more complicated place than political posturing or persuasion can easily deal with. There is a vast difference between Islam as lived in Detroit, Rabat, Cairo, Mecca, Baghdad, Tehran, Peshawar, and Jakatar. The liberation of Kuwait during the first Gulf War was not seen the same way by all Muslims, just as the events of 9/11 were not universally interpreted.

At the same time, the Muslim world is interconnected. Muslim Americans, to take one example, experience a wide range of emotions when it comes to US foreign policy, alternating between pride and horror, depending upon the situation.

That, I think, is the key point: the US acts not for the good or ill of Islam (or Christianity, Judaism, or Zoroastrianism), but rather out of national interest. And there are a lot of nations with Muslim majorities. Thus, we might act to protect Muslims in Kosovo while we bomb Muslims in Mosul while we prevaricate about Muslims in Palestine. Religion and national interest collide and intersect. We'd do well to note the difference.

In the end, however, I prefer Pres. Obama's rhetoric: we need to do more to listen to the needs of the world's citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And, we have an obligation to the citizens of our own nation. These multiple interests are not necessarily contradictory. Where there is justice and mercy, seek to preserve it. Where there is tyranny and hatred, seek to undo it.

Of course, how a nation goes about this is another issue altogether . . .

P.S. Sometimes David Brooks can sound like a real asshole. Besides, if he actually lived in DC he'd know members of the new administration are moving to Ward 1, where housing is affordable. Eugene Robinson provides a DCer's counterpoint. Like the lady said--idiot.

Friday's Roundup-Chemical free, plus vitamin C!

2009-01-28T12:26:00.000-08:00

Your occasional dose of bits of things . . .

As my brother in law pointed out, our bacon fetish was ahead of the curve.

I really wish Thomas Friedman, rather than deploying strained cliches about global economics, would stick to writing about things he knows something about. When he's on his game, there's a reason he won the Pulitzer Prize and became a NY Times columnist in the first place. Alas, all that other dreck about flat olive trees and crowds of Lexuses (Lexi?) has too often gone to his head. I say that with the love only one Minnesotan can give to another.

You probably don't know who Geert Wilders, Theo van Gogh (not the painter's brother), or Ian Buruma are. Maybe you've heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But they're important because they circle around a fascinating and maddening conversation about European identity, Islam, and human rights that is being played out--again--in the Netherlands. Mr. Buruma has some interesting thoughts in today's NY Times. His book is a quick read, if rather light. In the meantime, if you want the movie that caused all the ruckus--and murder--here it is:

Morocco is also part of this equation, as Mr. van Gogh's murderer was a Moroccan immigrant. That fact saddened me as it's a wonderful, safe, inviting, beautiful country full of good souls. And the food! I could eat there happily forever.

And vitamin C? Just 15 days until pitchers and catchers report . . .

Have a great weekend, and don't eat too many chicken wings.

You are WHERE you eat

2009-01-26T10:39:00.000-08:00

Growing up in southern Minnesota, one of my first friends was the son of a hog farmer. While hardly unique, this was no small matter. You see, hogs are BIG:

That beast there is "Sqeaky," a prize winning hog, resting comfortably at the Minnesota State Fair's "Swine Barn." I once took some city-dwelling friends to the "Swine Barn," and they were both horrified and amazed. I would beseech anyone to pay a visit, as there really is nothing quite like the sight of 1200 pounds of living, breathing bacon, pork chops, and ribs.

Miraculously, ol' Squeaky can be turned into all manner of gorgeous foodstuff, like this BBQ delicacy:

I'm sure you're aghast at this point, wondering what the hell a semi-health conscious, marathon running, Muslim-sympathizing gentleman like myself is doing glorifying pork. Let me explain.

In Minnesota, pigs are local. And I don't just mean that there are thousands of pig barns dotting the incessantly flat landscape. Instead, I mean that pigs have a niche in Minnesota. They eat everything, but especially love bits of leftover food unpalatable for their human cousins. And the farmers there grow all sorts of things, including thousands of acres of corn and soybeans that lead to inevitable waste product. Waste that is turned, through the miracle of biology, into bacon.

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating a modified Atkins, all-bacon diet. Far from it. But I am suggesting that it's important to think about how the food chain works, where stuff grows and thrives, and how the manufacturing of food is interdependent on land, crops, animals, water, and humans. The soybeans grown in Minnesota are processed to make tofu, the basis of many vegetarian or vegan diets, but the crop waste of those plants also make possible Spam and hot-dog eating contests. There's a reason Hormel's main plant was only 30 miles from my hometown.

Thus, growing up in Minnesota and eating the local fruits would mean a diet rich in both pork sausage AND Tofurky, the essential ingredients of which often reside on the same plot of land. And eating local is important. More than that, its getting to be essential.

You see, there's also a problem with how much of farming is now being done in the Midwest. Rather than farms that use chicken waste to fertilize corn, soy, tomatoes, watermelon, and pumpkins, the plant waste of which is then "processed" by the animate composting machine called swine, many farmers have gone over to severe monoculture farming, encouraged by that evil corporation Monsanto and its brethren. Instead of alternating fields of diverse crops, there are just miles and miles of genetically modified corn, reliant upon petroleum-based fertilizer, which then washes into the Mississippi, poisoning the shrimp habitat of the Louisiana Bayou.

But there is hope, and its not an elitist "shop at Whole Foods" clarion call, nor even a moralizing "eat your Brussel sprouts" issue (though I do love me some Brussel Sprouts! and asparagus, and kale, and broccoli . . .). More and more, people are waking up to the necessity of understanding where our food comes from, what goes into its production, and how that impacts both our personal health and the ecological and financial well-being of the nation.

You can start with these books by Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver, or Mark Bittman. Take Pollan's pithy advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Kingsolver takes that to an extreme, subsisting almost entirely on food she and her family--or their neighbors--grow for an entire year, but Bittman breaks down how to do this for your everyday suburban dweller. There are little things you can begin to do that will make a world of difference, for your body, the planet, and your taste buds.

And in the meantime, remember that Sqeaky's lipstick tastes like soy milk.

More Breaking News!

2009-01-14T00:35:00.000-08:00

In a shocking development today, Bristol Palin-Johnston filed for divorce from her husband of eight months, Levi, citing "irreconcilable differences."

When asked about the development that was shaking the bedrock of Wasilla's family-friendly foundation, Sherry Johnston--Levi's mother--said, "She just never seemed comfortable in our home. She was particularly baffled by my interest in amateur chemistry. Well, that, and she wondered why all our spoons were bent . . ."

I'm sorry, was that rude? I seem to have been dreaming of some future time when I've got leisure to read the tabloids. (ok, ok, the NYTimes is also a tabloid . . .)

Must be the lack of sleep. I meant to write about FOOD. Really. And I will, so I'm giving nothing away here.

But in the meantime, now that I'm on home-stretch of an overly long project, I thought I'd entice you with this beauty:

Come back Friday and you can read all about it

The Taint of Scandal

2009-01-07T12:09:00.000-08:00

You might have heard that my dear home state of Minnesota is on the verge of electing an alumnus of "Saturday Night Live" to the US Senate: the honorable Al Franken!

Of course, the election has not been without controversy--consider, its January, and the election is still yet to be decided. In the menagerie that has been Minnesotan electoral history, Franken ranks somewhere between Viking Hall of Famer and current state Supreme Court Justice Alan Page and former wrestler, actor, and radio host Jesse "The Mind" Ventura.

Interestingly, Franken would be the third consecutive Jew to hold this particular senate seat, following the deceased (and heroic) Paul Wellstone, and the current incumbent (and carpetbagger) Norm Coleman. All this in a state with less than 50,000 Jews out of a population of over 5 million. Franken likes to quip that he's "The only Jew in his race actually born and raised in Minnesota." (Care for other fun Minnesota Jewish facts? We're the birthplace of both Tom Friedman and the immortal Bob Dylan, nee Robert Allen Zimmerman!)

The recount of the election has tested the famous Minnesota Nice. But I found one quote from this story particularly amusing: "I think Franken would go in there with a taint, too." Of course he would--he's male.

Confused? Here's Stephen Colbert describing the taint-heavy political season that is upon us--in his words, the biggest taint since the election of Rep. Longcrotch.

Clearly, the only solution to ridding the Senate of taint is the election of more women to public office. Its too bad that Caroline Kennedy has been granted an honorary taint on behalf of her family:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Crisis in the Senate - Deliberative Disorder

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

In the end, may the best taint win.

But might I suggest adoption of the word "sullied"?

P.S. You've gotta read this other story from the frozen North. Amazing.

What You Talkin' 'Bout, Willis?

2009-01-05T23:25:00.000-08:00

So, I want to know what you're talking about, or rather, what you want me to talk about.

I dunno if you remember "Diff'rent Strokes," a "comedy" about a rich white dude who adopts the two African-American sons of his deceased housekeeper, but the most memorable recurring line was from Gary Coleman's diminutive character to this brother--What you talking about, Willis?

(As an aside, two things: first, its too bad more people aren't named "Willis" any longer, that's good stuff; and second, I'm old--someone recently said I looked like a certain celebrity (really? maybe it was the 'stache) and I responded that the only other celebrity I'd ever been compared to was John Cusack. She didn't know who that was. Or know of "Say Anything." Sigh. Someone else compared me to the Lone Ranger's horse because of my gray hair. Double sigh.)

Anyhow, my point: judging by the lack of comments on my last few posts, I'm wondering if I'm boring you. So, I want to send out an APB (that's "all points bulletin" for those of you too young to have grown up playing with cop radio receivers) and ask what you'd most like to read about. Short of having focus groups and media consultants and advertiser hotlinks, its the best way I can think of to figure out both who reads this damned thing and what it is that might interest you.

To make things easier, here's a short list of stuff I've thought about writing about but have been hesitant as it might be dull:

Pirates in Somalia!

Norm Coleman: Comedian, Statesman.

Samuel Huntington helped us hate Muslims.

Beef Smells Good!

Like I said, a short list. If there's a favorite there, let me know; if something I've written about previously appeals to you, let me know; if you want to hear about Sasha and Malia's first day at school, let me know; if you think I'm an asshole, let me know.

In short, I'm not fishing for ideas, I'm fishing for keepers--something you'd want to engage with. Dining options in DC? Great. Elections in Ghana? I've got a source. The necessity of an agricultural revolution in America? I could go on all day.

I want to hear from YOU, dear readers. What matters for you in 2009?

Dropping Bombs, not a Ball

2008-12-30T00:26:00.000-08:00

This Happy New Year note is brought to you courtesy of Hamas and the IDF--may you never know the fear of bombs raining down on you.

I really didn't want to write about this. I haven't written this week in part because I was avoiding it, hoping it would go away, but that's more than lazy, its immoral.

Meanwhile, civilians of all stripes, colors and religions have been caught up once again in the maddening cycle of violence that has been the insanely dysfunctional relationship between Israel and Palestine.

One of problems in saying anything about the situation is that its the same shit over and over again, the recurrence of a tired drama that seems to erupt anew every six months or so. What could anyone add?

In the past, I've blithely ascribed the continual violence to the Brits, whose wise leaders carved up this plot of land after WWI. Like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and in someways modern Turkey, the geographical boundaries of the contemporary Middle East were designed to group together disparate peoples in artificial nations, all the better to forestall unified states.

Well, it worked. Decades of internal war in Lebanon, mass genocide in Turkey and Syria (no, really, ask a Kurd), and that pleasant little clusterfuck in Iraq (no, not the current one, but that counts too).

But blaming the Brits (or French, see Lebanon) seems so . . . antiquated. So, in the spirit of holiday giving, I'm assigning the blame for this present round of mutual hatred to--President Bush!

Not fair? Tough. Every president since, I dunno, Eisenhower has been in some way involved in attempting to broker a lasting peace in the Middle East, to greater or lesser effect to be sure, but they've been involved. Junior, as per his wont, talks a good game come the State of the Nation and has then systematically failed to do anything productive, and in many ways antagonistic.

Its indefensible. Imagine finding a box of dynamite. You could call the fire department, or dump it in a lake, or if you knew something about explosives find a safe way to diffuse and store it. W. chose to think it was a good place to rest after clearing some brush and smoke a doobie.

Ok, ok, we should also blame the idiots in charge of Hamas (really, they started this round), or criticize the reactionary nature of the IDF who didn't seem to learn from their most recent visit to Lebanon that bombing terrorists tends to make more terrorists, and better armed and more politically popular ones at that. And I'm not saying we should police the whole world, but there's gotta be something he could do. Shoot, just setting up a perimeter and making sure no one came near with a lit match would've been better (actually, I think that's what he thought he was doing, but that really just invites trouble).

What has he been doing? Good question. It seems the Lame Duck-in-Chief has been busy wrapping up his agenda by doing what he's done best--avoiding pressing matters while at the same time systematically gutting key components of our civil society.

I could go on and on, but instead let me make this my first New Year's resolution: I'll write no more bashing President Bush. Its a new year, a new presidency on the horizon, and a time for new hope.

With that, I hope for peace for you and yours, peace in the Middle East, and pray that I won't be forced to find someone new to blame six months from now.

Happy 2009.

What should George do now?

2008-12-17T22:51:00.000-08:00

Well, he already did the most obvious thing: he ducked.

And quite nimbly, I might add. But the real question is, what should President Bush do now?

Ok, background first. Last week, the president embarked on his "victory lap" tour (yes, hear the snark) of Iraq and Afghanistan. While in Baghdad, he met with Prime Minister Maliki to commemorate the agreement on forces that promises to remove US military personnel from Iraq by 2011 (that's a whole other conversation, but we'll go with it).

During the news conference, Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi (working for an outfit based in Cairo), famously hurled his size 10s at the president, calling him the son of a dog. This is an insult--we should talk about that.

In the Middle East, shoes are dirty and insulting. This is a cultural thing, not religious. For instance, if you're having a business meeting with Kuwaitis, don't cross your legs and show the bottom of your foot--that's in insult. If you're meeting with, say, Indonesians, no big deal--it doesn't matter if all of them are Muslim, its the locale.

I was once told a possibly apocryphal story (that is, I couldn't find any YouTube evidence, so it must not exist) that Libyan "leader" Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi found himself pissed off at this fellow citizens. To indicate this, he insisted that all TV stations run, rather than Libyan game shows or what have you, an imprint of the bottom of a boot with the text "The Leader is Unhappy." Oh, Snap!

But you don't have to cite contemporary nutters to know this, you only need read the Bible! Remember that Jesus fellow, and what he was famous for? No, not being the coolest guest at a party where the keg has run dry--his big thing was washing feet. He washed everyone's feet--and most especially his disciples.

Why was this a big deal? Because he volunteered to clean the dusty, dirty, cracked soles (and souls?) of folk who'd been tramping through the desert for hours on end--and they hadn't been wearing the latest GoreTecs.

Jesus' act was one of humility, of lowering himself to the most base expression of care. Its like bathing your grandparent suffering from Alzheimer's. Its a big deal.

So what should George Bush do? Amidst reports that Mr. al-Zaidi has been imprisoned, possibly beaten or tortured (really? could anyone be that stupid?), our Dear Mr. President needs to do more than laugh this off. He needs to wash al-Zaidi's feet.

And then he needs to get a bigger wash tub: for the citizens of New Orleans, for all the troops who've served, for all the families who've lost their loved ones, for all America's hungry and homeless and foreclosed upon, for the members of his administration who've lost their moral compass by being encouraged to torture, for Al Gore and the polar bears, for the innocent inmates in Gitmo.

And he's not done yet. If President Bush really wants to follow the example of his favorite philosopher, he then needs to wash the feet of every member of al-Qaeda.

Have I gone too far? Here's the Gospel, Luke 6: 27-31: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

That's pretty fucking radical. I couldn't do it--I wouldn't do it. And I don't expect the president to do it. But maybe in the case of Muntadar al-Zaidi, it'd be a good move. And great television. And an even better example of Christian faith.

America could do with the PR.

The Weather Outside is Frightful

2008-12-11T23:48:00.001-08:00

Or at least its wet and miserable, if not the snow and cold I grew up with in Minnesota.

But on the topic of wintery weather, I thought you might like to hear a strange story about Jewish Christmas carol composers. As you may or may not know, the best of those soon-to-be-grating carols were, well, written by Jews. As the man says, don't forget "the mother of all Jewish-written Christmas carols, "White Christmas," by Irving Berlin."

And speaking of God, put me down in the "I'm surrounded by idiots!" camp. Mr. Douthat raises a good point about what it all means, but I've found it helpful over the years to remember the advice given me by one of the kindest, most godly people I've know: "People are stupid."

Speaking of stupid, and given the economic times, let's talk baseball. $160 million for an overweight and over eager pitcher? I think the Yankees are single-handedly trying to restart the economy. Its good to have the "old" Yankees back so that I can continue to hate them.

But when it comes to greasing the wheels, the columnist I most love to disagree with, Charles Krauthammer, steps up to the plate with a doozy of an op-ed on Obama's plans. That's one way to think about it. Hell, I hope he's right.

And on the topic of being right, I urge you to check my friend Patton's blog--he's been on a role as of late. I need to start taking blogging lessons (among other things) from him.

But we'll wrap up today's distraction with a bit of sad if lusty news. Bettie Page died last night. I think I knew she was a pin-up superstar before I knew what a pin-up was. While she represented the start of the sexual revolution, Ms. Page will be remembered as an icon from a more innocent era.

And even she posed as a genie.

Rest in peace, Bettie.

Pictures of Faith

2008-12-08T13:54:00.000-08:00

This weekend saw the start of the Hajj or annual journey to Mecca (sometimes written as Makkah), one of the five pillars of Islam that help demarcate the religious life of Muslims. This year, over two million people are expected to take part in the experience.

One part of this ritual, often also followed in other parts of the world by those unable to make the trip to Saudi Arabia, is Eid al-Adha, or the Festival of the Sacrifice. On that day, an animal is ritually slaughtered to thank God for the bounty one has received.

The Washington Post recently provided an evocative and somewhat problematic pictorial article on this occasion as it occurs in in the DC area. The thrust of the article focused upon the animal sacrifice, although its main imprint was to suggest that the brutality of the murdered goats and sheep, and its impact upon the young witnesses, was somehow endemic to Muslim life.

In so many ways I would beg to differ, but let me begin by saying this: every day, thousands upon thousands of animals are murdered to provide the most basic of foods for everyday Americans, but that sacrifice is committed in darkness. What one sees here is nothing more--and in fact significantly less brutal than--the way in which our industrialized food culture treats the cows and chickens that feed our insatiable appetite for Big Macs and Chicken Tenders.

In the blogosphere, this ritual has been used to suggest that Islam is steeped in violence, underscored by the images of children weeping at the sight of a murdered lamb. And yet we, I, eat them without compunction. Ask yourself this, what is better: to eat and never know the sacrifice, or eat in full knowledge of the transference of life? Sarah Palin knows the answer.

Ironically, this article was accompanied by a report that the "masterminds" of the 9/11 attacks had agreed to plead guilty to their charges. It is a strange turn of events, after so much violence, torture, innuendo, and complicity. Apparently the plea has been withdrawn, at least initially, because in pleading guilty the party would be forced to abdicate a death sentence, thus unintentionally avoiding a death sentence and the "martyrdom" they yearned for.

Perhaps strangely, this situation reminded me of reports from a few weeks back of a group of evangelical Christians praying for a resolution to our economic crisis over the golden bull of Wall Street.

The sublime irony of this image cannot be overstated.

What binds all of these events together? It is simply this: in an era of uncertainty, death and hope have become perversely entangled. How do we pray? How do we eat? How do we stand up for our ideals?

I would hope--and it is a small, quiet hope--that we pray more generously, eat more graciously, and stand up for our ideals more forcefully. Here in the United States of America, we are blessed to have a multitude of faiths, a civic and institutionalized enforcement of laws, a connection between city and state, an opportunity to choose.

I recognize that this post has been esoteric--perhaps to the extreme--but I hope your would ponder the images here. We can all be better people, more cognizant of our actions in the world, more honorific of our hopes, more steadfast in our ideals.

Let no Golden Bull go worshiped, let no meal go unrecognized, let no ideal go unrealized, let no justice left undone. In my hope of hopes, the world's Muslims find a call to peace in Mecca, we all find thankfulness in our evening meals, and a swifter and more just resolution is brought to thus both rightly and unfairly detained.

We could do worse than pray for forgiveness, eat in recognition of blessing, and sleep in soundness that liberty and justice are meted in fair accord.

At War with Ourselves

2008-12-04T23:19:00.000-08:00

I was stopped--no, wrenched--by this photo leading a recent NY Times article about the Israeli Army forcible evicting Israeli citizens from a building near the city of Hebron, located in the disputed area of the West Bank/Judea, near the so-called "Cave of the Patriarchs." This cave, said to house the remains of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their wives (or, if you prefer, Ibrahim, Itzak, and Yacub), is held as sacred by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. You can imagine the potential for conflict.

The details of the eviction, however, are less interesting than what the photo so graphically captures: a society or culture at war with itself. The state of Israel is negotiating between its political aspirations for a secure homeland and the religious beliefs of (some) of its citizens for an expansion of the Jewish homeland. In the midst of this are thousands of Palestinians--Muslim and Christian--holding on to their own dreams and faith traditions. The result is an Israeli soldier dragging an Israeli mother through rubble while clutched by her child.

Beyond this, I see in the photo the faces of so many other people struggling with their own selves, a visual metaphor for the human condition. In the States one might see the violence within the African-American community or the conflict between AIDS rates within the African-American community and homophobia, or a depiction of Thomas Franks What's the Matter with Kansas? and the struggle for working class Americans to choose between their religious beliefs and their economic and political self-interest, or even every civil war waged now or in the past. And beyond even this, there is the eternal struggle we all wage within our own psyches.

As the Apostle Paul writes, "Why do I not do as I want, but instead do the very thing that I hate?"

Puzzling through this--or within it--is akin to, and not unrelated, to my previous posting about the continued violence that seems to emanate from segments of the Muslim world: what are the needs that motivate behavior so seemingly antagonistic to our desired wants?

To be less psychological, and more personal, how can I act in accord with my own self?

There is an answer to that question, but not a solution: I am never in accord with my self, and am instead a raft of contradictions. At times, as Walt Whitman sounds, this irony is to be celebrated. At other times, it makes for the anguished screams of mother, child, soldier.

Perfect harmony is an illusion and potentially dangerous, but the hope for peace--or for a more perfect union--endures. It is a struggle worth having, but it exerts a heavy cost.

Religion and Violence

2008-12-02T23:55:00.000-08:00

There's something about the recent violence in India that I just can't shake despite the fact that I'm woefully uninformed about the precise details of what occurred there.

Perhaps my physical and psychological distance from it has allowed the idea to crystalize, or maybe its just the sheer repetition that has finally pounded the thought into my head, but I can't free myself from the notion that there is something unsaid--and desperately in need of saying--about the relationship between religion and violence.

Another way of labeling the issue is "religious violence," a term unencumbered by the distancing article "and," but I don't think that's helpful in this case. Let me explain.

Yet again, we have a situation where some people who happen to be Muslim have wrecked horrible violence on innocents. I don't mean to be flip, but what the fuck? Why does this keep happening?

There are all sorts of possible reactions to this scenario: Islam is a religion of peace, and these people are degenerate extremists who've dragged an innocent religion through the mud; the current situation is really about Pakistan and India's strained relations and not really about religion per se; there is a long history of violence perpetrated in the name of all the world's religious traditions, and in this sense what happened in Mumbai is no different than the Crusades, Northern Ireland, or Sri Lanka.

But none of these really seem adequate, none of them speak fully to the situation at hand.

The notion that "Islam is a religion of peace," put forth by President Bush in an act of charitable goodwill after September 11, is a banal and empty formulation meant to appease, not explain. Islam is not a religion of peace, nor a religion of war: it is a faith tradition used and interpreted by its myriad followers in all manner of ways. In this, it is no different than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, or any other religious "ism."

I should be clear, my soul aches for the millions of Muslims who watch as their faith is degraded and debased by acts of violence. My compassion for them is immense. But I think all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim, American or foreign, must look into the face of this violence and ask "why?"

I do not have an answer here, but I think it is of utmost importance to struggle with the question: Why has so much violence in our recent history come from those who purport to follow Islam? It should go without saying that I recognize the violence of American militarism to be a part the of answer, as well as radical injustices throughout the world in terms of political access, human rights, security, and even basic physical needs.

But I'm no longer sure that is enough. I yearn for clarity, but fear only continued confusion. Why such violence?

To be thankful for . . .

2008-11-26T21:57:00.001-08:00

This Thanksgiving, we as Americans have something for which to be thankful.

And there is much for which we can hope: solace, resolve, and healing in India; peaceful and quick transitions in Thailand; the safe return of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; forbearance during our economic crisis; the love of our families.

I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving.

Peace on Earth.

Um, yeah, that sounds good . . .

2008-11-24T14:01:00.000-08:00

Its not a turducken, its a turbaconducken. Care to learn more? The bacon acolytes at Bacon Today have the glorious details, and many other bacon-centric recipes. You know you want to try them.

I offer this glorious feast as an apology for my extended absence--really, no more disappearances without due notice, I promise (for those who know me, the reason couldn't be more wonderful!). As we draw closer to the holidays (Thanksbacon, Christmas, Festivus, Inauguration Day), I'll have all sorts of thoughts and recipes, while trying to keep some of the other madness in our world in perspective.

In the meantime, make yourself some homemade soup and enjoy the company of your loved ones. And don't forget to add the bacon.

2008-11-04T08:44:00.000-08:00

Vote!

What'll it be?

2008-10-30T00:19:00.000-07:00

I promise that this will be the final pre-election political edition, and I'll keep it short and sweet. In fact, by way of a much better and funnier writer, I offer my endorsement of the two presidential candidates.

David Sedaris, writing in a recent "New Yorker" article, imagines the choice of candidates as an entree option on an obviously overseas plane ride:

"The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat.

'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks.

'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?'"

I'll have the chicken, thank you. Even if it is an artificial hormone ridden, commie, radical, black, secret Muslim, subversive chicken.

Poultry in '08.

The Oprah Line

2008-10-27T08:59:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I became familiar with a new term: "The Oprah Line." And much to my delight, I beat it. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, Oprah famously ran the Marine Corps Marathon in 1994, finishing in a respectable 4 hours and 29 minutes.

If I can brag, I beat her by 3 minutes with a 4:26:04. I beat Oprah!

Alas, I've got some more work to do if I want to beat other famous celebrity marathon runners. In particular, I've got my eye trained on two people, Will Ferrell and his 3:56 at Boston and Sarah Palin with a 3:59 at something called the Humpy Marathon, presumably in Alaska. I obviously needed more cowbell or more moose meat.

For a quick recap, I should say that I absolutely trounced Mario Lopez (5:41) and Katie Holmes (5:29), and bested Bill Frist (4:54), Al Gore (4:58), Mike Huckabee (4:39), and even Pittsburgh Steeler Hall of Fame wide receiver Lynn Swann (4:26:21). George W. Bush and Michael Dukakis still have a significant edge on me, at 3:44 and 3:31, respectively. Sean Combs ran one in 4:14, which I'm sure I can manage a year from now, especially considering that I shaved 40 minutes off of my first marathon last year in Chicago's heat plagued race (at least I finished!). One needs to have goals.

As you can see, this is a resolutely bi-partisan list, but I would like to salute everyone who's taken the challenge. 26.2 miles is a long way to run and takes a certain dedication.

And, like everything else, it reminds me of this marathon election cycle we've all been forced to endure (whether we trained for it or not). I actually think both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are to be commended for their perseverance.

But there is a cost. I'm walking pretty stiffly today, and expect to do so for a couple more days. Similarly, the candidates, whether they are finishing strongly or limping toward the finish, should be expected to need some time for recuperation after this is all over. What does that mean in political terms?

Like me, I'm sure they are all going to need a good meal and a long nap. And they're gonna ache, psychologically if not physically. The hope, however, is that whatever respite they have includes some reflection on what they've just accomplished and what it means for the future. Whomever wins the election will have a monstrous task before them and they'll need whatever lessons of fortitude they learned along the way. America is in too precarious a state for either candidate to feel vindicated by an election--they'll need a resilience in knowing that the job ahead will require more.

Me, I've got Will Ferrell in my sights. My sympathies go out to the rest.

P.S. Many thanks to Jenn, Nick, Mike, Vanessa, Alan and all the rest of the crowds for their enthusiastic support, and a congrats to Katy in setting a fantastic personal best of 3:49!

Singularity and the Commonweal

2008-10-22T13:39:00.000-07:00

At my dissertation defense last week, the main criticism of my work was that I was not focused enough on my core thesis, often pausing to ask different questions or follow trails away from the main argument. I've long known this about myself, even going so far as to once bravely describe myself in a job interview as an "intellectual dilettante."

A more positive spin on this is that I'm interested in a lot of things, ask a lot of questions, and see connections between myriad things. Which, as it is the season, brings me to voting: I don't understand single issue voters.

Perhaps unbeknownst to them, I've been trying out this question on a number of people (Patton, Ali, and Krista to name fellow bloggers). More than I realized, it seems that many folks vote less along party lines than they do singular issues. Of course, those issues are not themselves singular: taxes, abortion, gay rights, the military, etc. For some, one issue or another will always trump all other considerations. Conversely, the mythic "undecided" voter is the citizen who struggles in weighing these choices.

So I'd like to propose another singular issue, my own trump card, as a guide to voting--the Commonweal. Unfortunately this elegant word is too often labeled obsolete or archaic, which could also describe our concern for its definition: the welfare of the public. That is, we seem to have lost concern for--and language to describe and debate--what it means to live in a shared, human society.

The commonweal is the antithesis of single issue voting; it is instead an attempt to apply a kind of Kantian ethic to civil participation: The greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

Of course, there are all sorts of possible objections to this--what about slavery, should that not have trumped all else?--but the beauty of the commonweal is that it can take into consideration all manner of issues, weigh and compare them, and help a voter find a way to bring themselves to the ballot box.

Candidates, political parties, elections, governments and, yes, voters are inherently imperfect. In fact, perfection is a fool's paradise. But I do not think it foolish to work hard toward making a "more perfect union." Such a place, still rife with suffering, would at least have in it a common goal of helping one another: The Commonweal.

Images of Islam

2008-10-20T12:07:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, during his endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Colin Powell referred to his image from the New Yorker in discussing the role of religious identity in the campaign. Gen. Powell asked the same question I posed on an earlier post: Barack Obama isn't a Muslim, he's a Christian, but so what if he was? As the photo shows, Muslim Americans have died in service of our--their--country. Maybe its time we examined the image of Muslims we have here in America.

As most of my readers know, I've been obsessed with this question for a long time, and recently (and successfully!) defended my dissertation on the topic. My thesis was really rather simple: the most prevalent and ubiquitous image of Islam and Muslims for Americans and Europeans comes from a collection of folk tales, A Thousand and One Nights.

In other words, Disney's Aladdin and Robin William's giant blue genie are the most popular representation of Muslims that most folk know. That image has been complicated, of course, by current events. Particularly since 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, another image of Islam has become increasingly regular. The deal was sealed, as it were, on September 11. Now, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, guns raised, have challenged the fanciful cartoons of the Arabian Nights as the most common image of Islam.

But this is not to say these images are unrelated. In fact, I think its important to understand that Islam as a religion of violence and Islam as a religion of magical fancy are ideas that stem from a common source. In the US, we have rarely had a well-rounded representation of Islam. Instead, we have cartoons or jihadists or veiled Saudi women or faux-Moroccan belly dancers, but rarely anything that a Muslim American could look at and say, "Yes, that is a picture of who I am."

What would such a picture look like? The mother at her son's tombstone above is one necessary addition to the pastiche of Islam in America. It needs to be imprinted on the soul of our nation if we are to remain the land of the free.

P.S. My thanks to Patton Dodd for his shout out!

The Ol' Stiff Arm

2008-10-16T00:29:00.000-07:00

This, in a picture, is my summation of Sen. Obama's debate performances. Come on, why wouldn't you want to vote for a man who can "give the Heisman"?

This post will be brief and eclectic, as I have a dissertation defense for which to prepare. First, a shout out to the Phillies and their trouncing of L.A. I don't have anything against the Dodgers per se, but its always satisfying to see Joe Torre leave the post-season empty handed, even more so given Manny Ramirez's tank job in his last months with Boston. Besides, L.A. stole the Minnesota Lakers. Didn't know that? Think about it--how many lakes are in L.A.? And where is the land of 10,000 Lakes? In respect for the great George Mikan, they could have at least become the L.A. Cacti. Sheesh.

In completely unrelated news, I've been meaning to follow up on my insistence that Pakistan is not in the "Middle East." The term itself is problematic--and has a long and tangled history--but the short explanation is that, today, Americans tend to conflate "Middle East" with "Muslim." A friend of a friend, thankfully safely back from a tour, had this to say about Afghanistan: "Know what Afghanistan is? You know when you sweep up a floor that's been long overdue for a sweeping, and you end up with some fucking huge dustpiles, with all sorts of trash and useless crap stuck in them? Well . . . Afghanistan is the biggest one of those, EVER. Fuck that fucking place, and the entire rest of the Middle East, while you're up."

I don't necessarily share the sentiment, but haven't been so I can't offer my own assessment. But the reaction has two interesting points: One, we've been involved in foreign wars without resolution much too long--its either time to come home or figure out what the hell the mission is; and two, like Pakistan, Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

But I can understand the confusion--what would be the middle of the east? Geographically speaking, if the US is the center of the west (a highly egotistical view, I might add), sure, Afghanistan is in the Middle East. But that makes maybe Egypt, and definitely Morocco, nearly Western. Instead, we tend to think of a large swath of land from the northwestern tip of Africa all the way to northern India as the Middle East.

Why? Because the people in those countries are mostly Muslim. This obviously calls for a longer discussion and so I'll shelve it until I've got funky graphics, but in the meantime, think about it: where does the West end and the East begin? Did you know Casablanca is west of Paris? And of London?

Finally, a few random thoughts: drink more wine, may your marriage last longer than Madonna's (cloistered Catholics should surely think "Huh?"), make squash soup, and remember that election days is less than three weeks away. Be sure to vote.

Moderating the Middle East

2008-10-13T11:36:00.000-07:00

I was strangely heartened by today's Washington Post editorial, though not in the way you might expect.

Unsurprisingly, large majorities of the world's population support Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain in the upcoming election. World opinion is an odd matter for the US electorate. Sen. Obama's overseas trip shortly after the primaries was a case in point: for some, the sight of an American politician being cheered in Europe was a welcome reprieve from the disdain that Bush's presidency has engendered; for others, Sen. Obama's seeming presumptuousness was ridiculed, and he was mocked for putting world concerns at the forefront of a national campaign.

But that isn't the issue that most concerns me, although it would be nice to no longer be reviled by the rest of the planet.

Instead, as the WaPo's editors briefly note, Sen. Obama is viewed with some suspicion by both Israel and Middle Eastern nations, as well as in Pakistan (which, we should note, is NOT in the Middle East--its in Asia, next to India. This matters.).

Anyways, I think this is a good thing. Some Israelis fear Obama will be too soft on Iran, while citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt fear he'll be too soft on Israel. Whatever "too soft" means, it can only be productive when the far ends of any given perspective share a common sense of unease--this is usually the sign that someone has articulated a sensible middle ground.

Just to be clear, there are certain things that are non-negotiable: Israel must remain a free, secure, modern, intact nation; aggression against one's neighbors cannot be tolerated; dictatorships should not be coddled.

However, if the endless morass that has characterized Middle Eastern geopolitics is to find a new direction forward, what is needed is a leader (and let's be honest, the US is the only nation with real sway on either side) who can tell the truth to both sides and help navigate a path to peace, security, and prosperity. The citizens of Israel are owed security, the people of Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan are owed democracy, freedom and citizenship. Achieving this isn't going to be easy, but only someone not seen as unfairly partisan can hope to make some headway.

An Obama presidency isn't going to "solve" the Middle Eastern "question," but it might create a more productive middle ground, where everyone's needs are heard and from which new directions might emerge.

My prayer is that, someday soon, "Peace in the Middle East" becomes neither naive nor utopian, but real.

On Death and Patriotism

2008-10-08T00:23:00.000-07:00

Ok, maybe not so much on death, unless we mean the death of serious political discourse. Sometimes, watching the news, one gets the sense that there isn't any real reflection about what passes for political campaigning these days, but that might just be a result of my own simpleton hopes.

No, I wanna talk about taxes. As my fellow Minnesotan, Tom Friedman, writes today in the New York Times (oh, that bastion of . . . news), paying taxes is an inherent part of citizenship. I asked yesterday "What is the role of government?" and awkwardly tried to suggest that good government negotiated between the needs of the many and the individual. Today, I want to suggest that the role of the citizen is to participate in the good of the whole.

Friedman cites Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." Without taxation, which believe it or not is the most efficient, fair, direct, and pervasive form of governmental participation (everyone pays taxes on a soda, not everyone votes), we'd all be wrestling for the conch in a nightmare version of Lord of the Flies.

Taxes are patriotic, if not always pleasant, particularly when they aren't supporting the aims we see as honorable. But that's the thing: we all pay, and we all (mostly) get to vote. Coupled together, that's how one builds a nation. When conservatives rail against taxation--the theft of their "hard earned money"--I wonder if they plod through fields to get to work. Usually, they drive, and on roads we all pitched in for. When the military goes off to war, that's taxes. When people get an education, that's taxes. When water runs cleanly, that's taxes. We need to be honest about that.

I'm not arguing that our system--or any system--is perfect, but without it, we wouldn't have a chance. Do you want a say in how your tax dollars are spent? Vote. Run for office. Petition your representatives. (Oh, wait, we DCers don't have one. Hmmm . . .)

Don't like it still? You're welcome to go live off the grid. Otherwise, know that your taxes built the interstates and my taxes police your streets. We're in it together.

P.S. While I try hard to make the case for political candidates rather than against them, this article in Rolling Stone is a remarkable, and frightening, indictment of Sen. McCain. Its worth a read.

On Governance

2008-10-07T09:04:00.000-07:00

I had hoped to debut a dialogue yesterday between myself and an acquaintance debating the proper role of government. Alas, it shall not be, but I thought it still useful--in the midst of all the political distractions--to ask some serious questions about how and in what arenas government ought to function.

There is, of course, a long school of thought debating this issue, but I am not a historian of government. Rather, I approach the question as a citizen, as someone who is affected by what does and does not happen in the corridors of power. Living in Washington, DC, I find myself in a peculiar position: as Anne Applebaum notes, living in Washington does not make one of Washington. Too often, it is the immigrants from "Main Street, USA," who have created the the quagmire of modern DC politics.

It is best to begin with two simple propositions: conservatives distrust government, seeing in it a violation of individual freedom; liberals embrace government as a means to limit the excesses of human folly.

Of course, neither of these propositions are true in any quantifiable sense, but they are useful rhetorical poles. On the right, government should guarantee individual liberty, support freedom through low taxation, encourage private enterprise, and maintain local and national security. On the left, government should guarantee individual liberty, support freedom through the provision of basic necessities, encourage access to employment, and maintain security from oppression.

As I've phrased it, both sides elevate individual liberty, but place different emphasis on how that is expressed: is liberty freedom from government, or freedom of government? Is freedom collective or individual? For example, are taxes bad because they take our hard earned money, or are they good because they pay for roads, and schools, and national defense?

The answer, of course, is to achieve a healthy balance, and the two dominant politic parties tend to mix and match their policies in the hopes of cobbling together a winning combination.

I think the question of the campaign, at its essence, comes down to this: which candidate seems to understand that balance? The polemic of "government and taxation are bad" is disingenuous, and maybe even dangerous: after all, a candidate who runs on this platform is wanting to BE the government. What is needed, I think, is better governance, competency, professionalism, a healthy respect for the balance of individual liberty and collective liberty.

One cannot exist without the other. Good government understands that.

Threat Down--Bears!

2008-10-01T10:49:00.000-07:00

Ah, a bear's life. I could go for some of that.

Of course, it's also a visual metaphor for the economy--the bears have made themselves at home on our property, and made it unsafe to go outside. That bear looks much too relaxed, no wonder the markets are nervous. And its no wonder Stephen Colbert fears the bear. (You do watch the Colbert Report, yes?)

Anyhow, the weather is gloomy. Not only the economic winds, but the Chicago *$%@#$^&! White Sox rained all over the what should have been my beloved Minnesota Twins' parade last night. That's just plain wrong.

Add to that this lovely illustration of my academic job prospects and the pelting rain here in DC, and one can understand why Gov. Palin installed a tanning bed in the Alaskan governor's mansion.

In the spirit of making lemonade, does this mean I cheer for the Cubs? They are the smaller, cuddlier version.

Or there's Celestial Seasoning's Sleeping Time tea that I grew up on--the bears on the box look kind and gentle. Of course, the Grizzly Man thought so too, and his bears ate him.

I guess the question is, how do we get the bull back, the return of del Toro? Maybe the bailout will help (er, I mean, "rescue"). In the meantime, don't panic, work hard, and be sure you're registered to vote. Ole.

(Hammock Bear photo, J. Larry Ashmore, Selley Lake, Montana)

The Fear of Failure

2008-09-29T09:27:00.000-07:00

I was buying some groceries yesterday and noticed a magazine at the checkout whose title was something along the lines of "Why Failure is Good for You."

Its an interesting, and I think good, notion. Too often, fear of failure leads to timidity, a reluctance to act, which is in its own way a kind of failure, an unwillingness to take a chance at success. The lack of action is failure through absence. Taking a chance, alternatively, can lead to either outright success or the valuable lesson of learning through failure. You've gotta pick yourself back up and try again, but you're wiser for the experience.

Now, I'm not talking about a willy-nilly role of the dice, the craps game of speculation that has lead to the current economic meltdown. That's just stupid. Instead, think of that time you set aside your fears asked that secret crush for a date, or applied for a job seemingly beyond your reach, or bravely chose to move from a comfortable but deadening situation for that chance at something better. You're either turned down or disappointed or a little lighter in the purse, or with the love of your life, thrilled with your job, and reveling in new friends and environs. I got one and half of the above, and am all the richer for it. My wish is that I can learn to be braver still. I think my own failures have strengthened me for the next phase.

This leads, perhaps incongruously, to the other thing I saw yesterday: atop a BP gas station up the street, I noticed solar panels on the roof. A little like this:

My friend Nick remarked, "BP is smart enough not to power their stations with gasoline--but they're happy to use solar energy to sell it." We can't do it today, or even tomorrow, but wouldn't it be something to have self-sustaining fueling stations channeling the sun directly into automobiles? To say this can't be done is a failure of both imagination and will power.

The intersection of oil, green technology, economics, and politics creates a mess of issues, but I think they coalesce into a statement about the fear of failure.

America is afraid of Muslims. Afraid of change. Afraid of economic uncertainty. Afraid of a black man in power.

This fear is used by both parties in their political rhetoric: Be afraid of Islam, we'll keep you safe; Be afraid of the markets, we'll protect Social Security; Be afraid of untested technology, we'll drill here and now.

Alas, the rhetoric masks the wealth of opportunities facing us. We've got a big damned mess on our hands--now is not the time to retreat into hovels. Its time to reach out, to meet our Muslim neighbors, to re-engineer our infrastructure, to re-vitalize our spirit.

Its not all going to work, and we're going to stumble along the way. But to risk failure is the only way to have a chance at success. Its time to be brave, America.

Be not afraid.

Manischewitz!

2008-09-25T21:26:00.000-07:00

Alright, you're probably tired of hearing me talk politics. So, for the most part, I'll let someone else do it tonight (see below). But I've got one thing to say, inspired by the lovely Jenn Rogers: Barack Hussein Obama.

If you've been dead, he's the Democratic Party's nominee for President. He's not a Muslim.

But so what if he was?

Here's the issue. As Ms. Silverman so eloquently says below, someone named "Manischewitz Gooberman" might understand that names don't make the person. My own full name, Martyn Allebach Oliver, sounds like I'm some sort of Welsh leprechaun. Really, I'm mostly German.

But so what if I was? Would that rat bastard Adolph disqualify me from being President? If it were 1948 it might, but not today. And that's the point. My own grandparents, may the God of the Mennonites bless them, Clyde and Verna each, weren't keen on their own children learning German in the 40's and 50's. I can understand why, but am now, awkward of foreign language tongue as I am, saddened. Nazis killed non-blondes, not German. A few wacked out radicals brought down the towers, not my friends Mbarek, Yusuf, Lhou, Nadine, Khalil, or Shakir.

Barack Obama is not Muslim. In fact, he sounds Irish. But so what if he were? This is supposed to be the country of religious freedom, where the marketplace of ideas--religious, economic, cultural--rules the day. If a Muslim were the best candidate running, we not only should have the right, we would have the duty to vote for her.

Yes, her.

Anyways, on with the videos!

(Be warned, not all of these are polite. Some even crass. They're usually the one's most worth watching.)

Where in the world is John?

An extended reminder of why this matters, from a few years ago:

But remember, Yes We Can.

If you're feeling anxious, watch again with a shot and a beer.

Have a great weekend.

Strange Fish

2008-09-24T23:28:00.000-07:00

I'm not a big fan of my last entry, so consider this a do-over, if you will. Sometimes, the brain gets muddled, or at least can't articulate what might have been an interesting idea. So I thought I'd tell a funny story about myself.

In my other life, I'm a waiter (alas, no Waiter Rant for me). Tonight, as I poured water, I overheard one guest tell his companion something along the lines of, "You won't want to order the halibut, its from Alaska!" In the context, he was clearly suggesting that her political persuasions would forbid her from contributing to the Alaskan economy.

Violating all norms of the service industry, I piped in, "You'll be glad to know the fish was caught by the hands of the Governor." Bad server.

"Careful," the gentleman replied. Now, if I was clever, I would have added, "And Sen. Biden talked it to death." Instead, stuck in a track, I said, "Actually, the First Dude caught it on his boat." Bad waiter!

"Careful!" came the reply. I quickly apologized and said no offense was meant, only that I hoped to add a little levity to the very serious campaign we have on our hands. (Between themselves, nasty back and forth about Obama marrying his boss ensued.)

Happily, everyone was mollified, I played "Purple State Patriot" the rest of the way, and was rewarded with smiles and a generous tip. Good customers.

But it makes me wonder, why the hang ups about all this, politics, sex, and religion? Granted, as a server, it's not my role to interject politics, but where's the harm in a little good natured ribbing? I haven't, nor shall I, disparage Gov. Palin as a person, though I'm not so generous with the good Senators McCain and Obama (that said, I'm sure its clear where my sympathies lie). But really, why can't we make an honest joke?

I've been told by more than one person that I tend to poke the bear (or moose, what have you). Perhaps its a personal flaw (and reason enough to get out of the service industry), but sometimes bears need poking. My friend and soon-to-be brother-in law, Nick, wonders how to have hard conversations. My approach tends to the more abrupt--thanks, Mom.

But I insist we need to have these debates--openly, fairly, with civility--but have them we must. Its our nation, and our future.

P.S.--Roger Cohen is worth a read today. There is a danger when the exceptionalism that IS America goes too far--we always tread on the edge of hubris. Lately, we've fallen completely off it.

Abstracting

2008-09-24T11:32:00.000-07:00

I've promised not to discuss my dissertation travails too much, but today I needed to summarize my 265 pages into a 350 word Abstract. It's kind of a trick, but made easier since I've only just recently figured out what it is I've been writing about.

I'm moved to mention this because it seems America is in the midst of summarizing an immense financial crisis into a short, comprehensible sound bite. The Fed's conclusion: we need $700 billion (more, not counting the $80 billion to AIG) to bailout the banking system. What's this about, you may ask?

It seems that two things happened: people accepted loans for which they did not have the resources to pay back, and banks provided loans to people they KNEW could not likely pay them back in return for short-term gains through fancy accounting. Its a damn mess.

Of course, there's all sorts of political hay to be made about this, and both candidates are busy doing their best. I'm not even going to pretend that I understand an ounce of the details or wider economic consequences--John McCain and I at least share one trait: the economy is not our strong suit.

In these circumstances sometimes its useful to ask an expert. Or at least have a few around when the shit hits the fan. Both Sec. Paulson and Chairmen Bernanke strike me as competent fellows who at least know "what" they are talking about. But that isn't always enough.

I find it aesthetically difficult to listen to the President talk, but I'd encourage you to watch the whole of this news conference. And then ask yourself this: Is confidence really the solution? Confidence in who? In what? Where were the experts when this snowball to hell got rolling? Who gave it the first shove?

The President said now is not the time to debate the causes of the crisis. I couldn't disagree more. Before we can solve anything, its imperative to know the cause--otherwise, well, its putting lipstick on a pig (as we're no longer allowed to say). My hunch? The President doesn't want to debate causes, because for seven and a half years, he's been at the helm. The American people's judgment on his and the GOP's navigation comes on Nov. 4.

In summary: Heckuva job, Bushie.

Back in the Saddle

2008-09-21T22:18:00.001-07:00

I always like cowboy references. I'm not sure what it is, but there's something very appealing about the Old West. Some of my friends probably find this odd coming from me--East coast urban dwelling, public transit riding, marathon running, PhD pursuing, wine drinking . . . hell, I'm the conservative liberal-bogey man, what am I doing evoking cowboys, the great Western mythos of conservative, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, go it alone, John Wayne and Ronald Reagan swagger?

Maybe its the coffee. I'd just as soon drop an egg in a boiling pot of water and coffee grounds than buy a latte (though they ain't bad, to be sure). Or the camping? Chewing tabacco? I'd say that I like horses, but then someone might make a joke about the Peter Schaffer play "Equus" and we'd get off track. Or maybe I'm the only one who'd make jokes about horse-obsessed, psychologically tormented teenagers . . . but I digress.

Mostly, I needed a title for today's post, and that's what came to mind. Partly, its because I got back to serious running today, but also because I FINALLY submitted my dissertation for defense (anxious about that, but I'm sure its dull enough as it is that I won't subject you to my fretting). What it all means is that, I'm back, and can really start giving this blog some attention.

Order of business number one, a plug for my friend and colleague, Patton Dodd, who's got a cool blog started at beliefnet. He's always worth reading.

Next, I wanted to give a shout out to a late night comic whose show I never watch: Craig Ferguson. He's an odd Scotsmen who most of you don't stay up to watch, but he recently became a US citizen, which is cool. As such, like any one newly converted, he's extra motivated to do good by his new faith. Check it out:

Finally, I've got a couple of projects in the works for this site, so come back every once and while to see what's new. I'll try not to be so abysmal about keeping to my schedule. And I'll try to be a straight-shooter.

Sorry, just needed one more cowboy reference!

Memorium

2008-09-11T11:33:00.000-07:00

For everyone lost and hurting, for America.

No man is an Island, entire of it self; every man

is a piece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if

Clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the less,

as well as if a promontorie were, as well as if a Manor

of they friends or of thine own were; any mans death

diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And

therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;

It tolls for thee.

--John Donne

Dreams of Transgression

2008-09-10T11:50:00.000-07:00

Maurice Sendak turns 80 this year. Blessings to him. There's a great, if short, story about his struggles as an artist and as a person that should be required reading for anyone who was ever entranced with "Where the Wild Things Are."

Andrew Sullivan gets angry today. He claims to have lost all respect for Sen. McCain, an opinion in percolation since the 2004 elections.

Why post these two things together? Well, they got me thinking about fantasy and reality, about imagination and lying, about innocence and arrogance.

I don't want to live in the world of the Wild Things--I want to live in Max's bedroom, where the soup is still hot. That's a vision of profound love and familial care. Its important, and transformative. But there is also something subversive in that vision, that without the wild rumpus, coming home could not be such sweet relief.

My hope is for America to come home this fall, to put the dispeptic animosity behind us, and start to value the things--big and small--that matter.

May you all have warm soup on the table tonight.

I Say!

2008-09-08T22:44:00.000-07:00

Just a quick shout out to my soon to be brother in law, Nick, thanks for the link!

Since I had to work, I had been unaware that Foghorn Leghorn and Droopy Dogg were speakers at the RNC. That explains it.

Going Long

2008-09-08T00:17:00.000-07:00

In honor of the start of football season and the stretch run for baseball, I thought it appropriate to offer some thoughts on going deep and playing for the long haul. I also ran 17 miles today, so have endurance on the brain.

One of the most perplexing aspects of all the political hoopla over the last week is how, when we step back from the enormous curiosity and short-term uproar over the selection of Gov. Palin, it seems the media--and, I fear, the electorate--has lost sight of what is actually going on in America and the world.

Sen. McCain's campaign advisor has said that issues aren't what this election is about. Really? I had foolishly thought that our continued involvement in two different wars, the housing and economic crises, the inflationary rocket that is healthcare, America's lost international standing, the woeful state of our infrastructure, and education are what actually matter. Not, I hope, about who is more skilled gutting a moose.

There are a couple of interesting articles that struggle with this question: Frank Rich, as always, reflects upon what the choice of Palin tells us about what sort of president McCain would make; Maureen Dowd imagines what could be a horrifying possibility; and the conservative David Frum, in the surprise of the weekend, suggests that Republicans should actually start giving a damn about people.

What these and other thoughts suggest for me is that the long slog that has been his presidential campaign is now at a critical pass: either we decide to care that we've been in Iraq for six years, or we decide to whistle our way past the point of no return; either we care about the impact of government, or we continue to fool ourselves into thinking that if we ignore it it'll just go away; either we show up and vote as a referendum on the incompetence of the past seven-plus years, or we doom ourselves to live through it all again. In short, this matters.

Less than 60 days. Less than two months to decide to fight lies, ask uncomfortable questions of our friends and neighbors, and take a stand and demand that we can do better, or we succumb to a cynicism that will only further debase the sanctity of life. That's right. People are dying and hurting and falling between the cracks, and yet so many Americans treat elections as less momentous than American Idol. It would be sad were it not so real.

So, buck up, go the extra mile, take a chance on third and long, grind it out. More than a sporting event is on the line.

Moments of Sanity

2008-09-05T11:48:00.000-07:00

Hey folks, sorry I've not been on my blog--I've been working on actually FINISHING a dissertation (kind of a big deal for me).

Anyway, two quick links to take you into the weekend and I'll be back on Monday.

First, Jon Stewart--the Jonathan Swift of the 21st century--brings it home.

More sobering--and in its way, more horrifyingly funny--conservative commentators Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy betray their real opinions.

Be well.

What's up, Whitey?

2008-08-27T11:47:00.000-07:00

Its a little difficult to find a story, angle, or observation about the Democratic Convention that not only hasn't been covered, but not been beaten completely to death. Bill's mad! Hillary still wants the job! The Dems are gonna fight themselves to second place--again! Obama needs to attack! Attack ads are bad!

In all of the hoopla that preceded Hillary's gracious and evocative speech last night, a few themes emerged. One, Barry and Hill owe each other, lots. He owes her for toughening him up, reminding the Republicans that he's young and "inexperienced" (a bizarre canard), for getting all the potential dirt out long before November (goodbye Rev. Wright), but mostly he owes her for being a woman of uncommon skills who touched a sensitive nerve with millions of voters. She owes him some respect for knowing how to win (Roger Simon at Politico has a fascinating account of the primary, which should also provide some assurance that Obama knows what he's doing). Last night, she started making good on that debt.

Other oddities are the supposed former Clinton supporters claiming now to support McCain--are they insane? Rachel Maddow, the new, liberal, pugnacious, smart, lesbian MSNBC anchor, accurately labeled this phenomenon "post-rational."

There's also the emergence of Candidate McCain, POW. Jay Leno: "For a million dollars, how many homes do you own?" McCain: "Did you know I was a POW?" America: "Sen. McCain, how will you balance national security with the challenge of our tanking economy, the result of seven years of Republican incompetence?" McCain: "Did you know I was a POW?" This is just gross.

Or, did you know Obama was a "community organizer"? Um, I'm sorry, but what is that? It must belong to the same job category as "consultant," except that you do good work for no pay rather than no work for lots of pay. At least there's that.

But the one thing flying under the radar, and the one thing that is most remarkable, is this: The Democratic Party nominated a BLACK man named Barack Hussein Obama.

Um, hello, shouldn't this be news? Isn't this just an extraordinary turn of faith and (yes) hope and a challenge to a long and sordid history of slavery and racism? As great as Michelle's speech was two nights ago, I sorta wish she could have come out on stage wearing the Black Panther get-up the New Yorker cover had her wearing--and that'd we'd all be able to laugh from a position of confidence.

But we can't, because this is news, but news that is only touched upon through malicious innuendo. Let's face up to some facts: no Democrat has received the majority of the white vote since Lyndon Baines Johnson. Really. The Dems, knowing they "lost the south" with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, wised up and started nominating ever whiter candidates: Peanut Farmer Carter, Corn Fed Minnesota boy Mondale, New Englander Dukakis (whoops, too short, too "ethnic"), Bubba Clinton, Appalachian Gore, Blue Blood Kerry.

Not this time. The Dems made history with this primary, twice. A woman and a black man, all the way to the end. Everybody can talk about Hillary's near-miss, but no one wants to talk about Obama's completely unexpected, improbable, audacious victory. But we need to--because otherwise, whitey won't vote.

Obama's "problem" is not with women voters, or middle-class voters, or Southern voters, or older voters: its with white voters. And, this isn't Obama's problem, its America's problem, a legacy of hate that maybe, just maybe, there is a chance of disrupting.

Talk to your neighbors, talk to your friends, talk about race. White folk don't need to be reminded that Obama is black, just as women don't need to be reminded that Hillary is female: everyone knows it. What we need to be reminded of is the depth of an internalized racial fear--and the only way to overcome that is to shed some light on it. Barack Obama is black. And a candidate for the US Presidency.

The real shame would be that in agitating about non-issues, we don't talk about a real issue, and then lose, once again, because we're too polite to talk about the fact that, yes, black men scare whitey. Let's face that.

Then get involved.

PS--Biden. Fine pick, meant for whitey. And I can only wish this hilarious, obscene blog weren't fiction.

Hitting the Wall

2008-08-25T12:37:00.000-07:00

I've got a lot on my mind, but also a lot on my plate. There are six or seven different ideas in their nascent stage that I'm wanting to post here, but between finishing my dissertation (inshallah, by the end of this week!), planning a wedding, looking for work, and training for a marathon, I'm having a hard time finding time to do anything properly.

This was hammered home for me a week ago when, rather blithely, I went out for a 15 mile run. I'd eaten breakfast, hadn't run in a couple of days so was feeling strong, and (errantly) thought the weather was seasonably cool. The first six miles were good, even strong, the next six were decent considering that it was 93 degrees. And then, in the no-man's land of Haine's Point, I hit the wall.

Technically, this happens when lactic acid in your muscles builds up and your glycogen levels drop below what you need to function, much less run. In other words, I ran out of fuel. It was all I could do walk/amble/jog the rest of the way home, where I collapsed.

Metaphorically, I'm feeling lots of this depletion, both personally and in what has been happening in our world. Polls say people have "heard too much about Barack Obama"--that is, media overload. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are relegated to the back pages, so weary have we grown of the carnage. Hell, even the trains are out of fuel. People are tired, with too many worries and not enough sustenance.

Ironically, thinking about this gives me hope. When there is both too much and not enough, the only thing to do is gather your resources and focus them on the most pressing task at hand. This isn't a matter of the tough getting going, its about simplifying living--be in the moment, do what needs to be done, and--thanks, mom--take your vitamins.

So, I'm off for an 8 mile run. Then I'll talk to my dissertation advisor, cook and eat dinner with my beloved, and sit back down at my desk. Someone once said writing was the simple task of sitting at your desk until you sweat blood. I've not found it as messy as that, but there have been lots of sweat and tears--running makes me bleed enough (fun photos until you get 3/4 down).

In the words of the great Edward R. Murrow, Good Night, and Good luck.

Breaking News!

2008-08-17T23:20:00.000-07:00

John McCain has won the election!

Oh, wait, its still August. But you wouldn't know it if you read this or this or this.

The event, as you might have heard, was a conversation held at Rick Warren's Saddleback (mega) Church, equal time with both candidates, moderated by the man who wrote the best selling non-Bible book of all time, "A Purpose Driven Life." This book is so powerful that a hostage once used it to persuade a homicidal maniac to give himself over to the police (or maybe it was the meth she gave him, hard to say).

The general opinion of opinionators has been that McCain was honest, funny, engaging, and sufficiently anti-abortion, while Obama was cerebral, complicated, intelligent and ungentlemanly towards (a clearly bitter, vindictive) Supreme Court Justice Pubes-on-my-Pepsi Clarence Thomas.

Personally, I might wish that the American voters interpret this event in a less nostalgically surreal manner, but there isn't much I can do about that. And I could, and later might, specifically address some of the finer points that these two parallel conversations raised, but that's more than tonight's time allows.

Instead, I just want to ask one thing: what happens when faith becomes certainty? The short answer, as Genesis tells us, is that we try to murder our children. Ask Abraham and Isaac.

My theological hero, Soren Kierkegaard, sees in this story the radical demands of faith. Preachers often laud the devotion of Abraham to his God. Derrida ponders in it the contradictions of obedience. Me, I wonder about what else we sacrifice when faith makes us murderers. Fortunately for Abraham, he never literally got to this point, and that, I think, is really the message of the story: God stayed his hand. The divine, on occasion, might seem to suggest that we transgress all bounds of decency, but the lesson I hear is that we should hesitate at any doctrine that asks us to violate our basic humanity: the hard won hope of a future means too much.

So rather than fight for the right to sermonize, perhaps it would be better to take a page from Maya Angelou, who, when she meets people eager to tell her that they are Christians, thinks, "Already?"

Capitalism, Damnit!

2008-08-14T02:17:00.000-07:00

Better (very) late, than never . . .

I saw this article on Boston.com and was flummoxed. I lived in Boston for five and a half years and took the T (their subway/light rail/horse and buggy system) nearly every day. I usually paid my fare with a monthly pass, but often with lovely little antique tokens or, idiosyncratically, the Sacagewa dollar coin. It worked, if slowly, and I was happy to live somewhere with usable public transportation.

Anyway, the controversy now is over the T's new "CharlieCard" system, meant to be fully automated. The problem is that those brainy, odd kids over at MIT found a way to hack the cards and ride for free. My first response: Good on 'em.

My second response, when hearing about lawsuits and disparagement of the T's management, was: What the hell is wrong with these people? Don't sue, HIRE the bastards!

I don't normally go all in on capitalism, completely distrusting folks who say "Let the market work" as actually meaning "Let me screw you out of dollars, homes, and health." But there is a time and place, and this is one of them. If somebody knows how to do something better than you, but you're the big dog, then just buy them off. It works for Google, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola, it can work for the T.

This leads to a more general issue. Too often, it seems, we let the market work in places it has no business, and litigate at those times when we should be thinking like Thomas Hobbes, or at least, John Keynes. For instance, Blackwater and other private contractors have no business running security operations in Iraq--I have friends stationed out of sense of duty, and they do the job better, for less, and with a higher ethical standard. You're telling me wannabe ninjas are better than Captain America? Conversely, when poor immigrants want to come and pick green beans in southern California without papers, we harass them, imprison them, deport them, build fences, wax idiotic about borders and American jobs, and are subjected to Lou Dobbs' "enraged Mr. Potato Head" routine. Where's Don Rickles when you need him?

In short, too much happens backwards, particularly when it comes to the implementation of an enlightened capitalist system. Without too much effort, sheer economic incentive should have us driving clean-fuel American-made automobiles, eating happy grass-fed cows (or tofu, your choice), writing notes on cheap hemp paper, and "spreading democracy" without running both a conventional army and paying for bands of mercenaries.

Capitalism could do all of this, but we've settled for the mirror image of Stalinist communism: proclaiming ideals while we engage in ever more counter-intuitive acts.

Those kids at MIT should be directing traffic and designing fare cards. Instead, we have them making Apple Widgets and figuring out how to put a VW Bug atop their classroom building. What a waste.

Tend Your Garden Well

2008-08-11T00:46:00.000-07:00

A note to my readers: apologies for the shaky lift off of this blog. From here on out, you can expect the following format. The week will be divided into three parts. Monday will be about the body—be it sports, sex, food, or recreation. Wednesday is about the mind, typically an essay on current events. Friday will be for the soul, short meditations about religion, spirit, or the arts. Occasionally, posts will be brief reactions to other material with an accompanying link. It’s simply impossible to have something worthwhile to say in any extended form three days a week. I don’t know how Maureen Dowd does it.

A second note: what the hell is wrong with the Olympic announcers on NBC? Despite watching the finals, "Women's Saber" remains a complete mystery; gymnastics' new scoring system is baffling and is never given explanation; the only question I have about rowing is the one never answered--how in the world do they steer? NBC needs to have Bob Costas explain some of these things. Otherwise, all I know is that Michael Phelps and rest of the US swimmers are amazing, and everything else is an esoteric exercise understood only by those who compete.

Anyways, the posting . . .

The title of this post quotes the final line of Voltaire’s Renaissance masterpiece Candide. The story, if you’re not familiar with it, involves the mis-adventures of a young man who, stymied at every turn, is consoled by a philosopher-mentor to remember that he lives in “the best of all possible worlds!” Candide is, clearly, a satire lambasting the theological notion that a just and benevolent God must obviously have created the best possible existence. For Voltaire, the proof of the pudding is in eating the turd sandwich that life often serves for dinner. His own turd sandwich was the Lisbon earthquake that killed tens of thousands. We've had our own recently with tsunamis, earthquakes, terrorism, drought, HIV, and certain misbegotten wars.

Well, I’m trying to tend a garden—literally. I have few actual hobbies, but for the past three summers, I’ve tried to grow an ever expanding urban garden. This year, my big project was tomatoes. It’s August 11, and I have no fruit. True, my tomato plant is over four feet tall and has recently blossomed, but my dreams of home grown basil and tomato for a caprese salad have thus far been for naught. But every day, around noon, I go out to my little patio, faux-vintage watering can in hand, and try to tend my garden.

Despite my abject failure as a farmer (which further dashes my hopes of a retirement career of growing grapes and making wine), I’m finding that the simple act of caring for my herbs and jalepenos has become a metaphysical exercise in good living. It reminds me to tend to my body by running regularly, eating well, and sleeping soundly. It requires the same perseverance as sitting down at my desk every night to keep writing my dissertation. While applying for jobs, I’m reminded that not every sprout or bud or application produces fruit, but if I produce enough of them, something will eventually grow. And most importantly, I know that I must also nourish my relationships; without care and sun and water, things wither, but if you can find the right mix of nutrients, then life and vitality and love grow and flourish.

Its not all roses, and even they have thorns (which, incidentally, is the point of roses—the thorn-less versions so often sold today entirely miss the existential lesson of that flower). But if we tend our gardens well, we can create a little oasis of repose and happiness that can shelter us and provide a measure of fortification in this messed up world, that instead of all the crap we so constantly consume, real sustenance can be had—but only with effort and attention.

And by September, I might even have a tomato.

In Defense of Conservatives

2008-08-01T00:51:00.000-07:00

Nearly four years ago, living in Atlanta, we threw a little November Election Night Party. Most of our friends attended what rapidly became a wake, and we were confronted with the proverbial situation—“How could Bush win? Nearly everyone we know voted for the other guy!"

I hate this sort of situation—and I don’t mean the losing, though the results of that election have proven to suck a lot, too. What I hate is the circumstance of being surrounded completely by like-minded people, which so often leads to a delusional perspective. John Kerry wasn’t going to win in Georgia, he never had a chance. The question was, as Mr. Stephen Colbert might put it, how could I better know our nation?

Liberals and conservatives like to like themselves, and even more like to dislike the other folks. That’s a problem, and a serious one, though verbally thrashing the opponent is often good fun. But what I want to suggest is that I think its incumbent upon all of us, as Americans, to not just “work across the aisle,” but to make friends with people who share drastically different opinions.

Sometimes this is difficult and illustrates why politics—like sex and religion—aren’t “polite” conversation topics, even though they’re really the only things worth talking about. I've been known to ruin a good party or two by insisting on a respectful conversation about the nature of religious belief. But if we approach the challenge with a good-humored sense of duty, we’d all be the better for it.

One of my oldest friends is someone with whom I’m not sure I’ve ever shared a political opinion. But when the shit piles up, he’s often the first person to whom I turn, and not just for the joy of argument. Instead, having serious conversations with someone with whom you passionately disagree enables you to understand the very rational reasons behind that opinion, even when he’s wrong. And it gets to the heart of the matter.

For example, the “abortion debate” isn’t about abortion, its about sex. And sex is a problematic, personal, very gray arena. Its often easier, if completely unhelpful, to scream about choice versus life as a way to avoid the uncomfortable fact that people are usually stupid when sex is involved. Talking about the realities of sex doesn’t solve policy disputes, but it does allow us to realize that we’re all in this together, and if we were a little more honest about our own stupidity we might make a better go of it. And then I can convince you that abortion must remain legal and safe.

So in the spirit of fostering conversations that actually allow for some substantive results, I suggest you occasionally listen to the other side--I like to read conservative editorialists--not just because it confirms my opinion that they're stupid, too, but also because it often saves me from believing something stupid myself.

Debating without thinking

2008-07-08T00:17:00.000-07:00

I had the pleasure of recently attending the Center for American Progress' forum on "Debating the Divine," which purported to examine the role of religion in our current political dialogue.

But like so much else I see and read, this was a debate lacking in fundamental understanding.

What does it really mean to "debate the divine"? Is this a Mosaic confrontation with God? A dispute between antagonistic religious factions? What it was, in fact, was a conversation about the role religious interest groups play in the media-driven political chaos that envelops the Beltway echo chamber.

By way of example, think to the recent charge that Sen. Obama has been "shifting toward the center" since he locked up the Democratic nomination for president. After a speech saying he would refine our role in Iraq based upon consultation with our military leaders, he was forced by the resounding agitation to return to the lectern and say, in short, "Nobody is listening to me, this is exactly what I have always said."

This, it seems, is a real struggle for our time--we are losing all ability to think and listen. On a personal level, I pride myself on the ability to read closely and carefully, but I find now that I cannot even read an article while on the toilet without skimming hectically. What was once time for concentrated solitude is now no more than one more moment away from some other hastily completed task. What a shame.

To debate the divine takes time, and concentration. To think about a more intelligent plan for achieving a just end to our military over-reach takes reflection, and compromise. To appreciate Malcolm Gladwell, or even Bill Simmons, requires that I actually read the damn words.

When we no longer think about the world, we lose out on living.