The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America voted in the last couple of days to allow gay ordination. They needed a two-third's majority, and apparently got it by one vote.
There were about 1200 voters.
I am not a member of the ELCA, so I don't really care what they do.
I am a member of the Missouri Synod.
The reason I go to church is that I want guidance. As a kid, one part of the Bible that seemed pretty clear in that it appeared in the first passage in Genesis (1:28) was to "go forth and multiply."
We have four children. That's not that many, but it's all that will fit into the van. So Luther also argued that we have to get along in two kingdoms. So I think four will be where we stop. I mean we did technically "multiply" (4 x 1 = 4).
So I've been thinking all along that gay people are breaking that rule.
Since, by definition, they can't multiply.
But then I also wonder well if gay people don't like the other sex, why should they multiply with another person, if they won't stick with that person? And this is a conundrum.
I like rules and I want them to be clear, and the rule in 1:28 is pretty clear, at least to me. I thought it was a commandment, and binding. He didn't say, "Go and do whatever the Hell you want." I like the Ten Commandments as they are made clear in the Catechism, too. (I love the notion of the positive corollaries and try REALLY hard to follow them, though I often fail. But to have the church itself abrogate them??)
The new ruling doesn't really make sense to me, since, among other things, it seems to change the very first thing God says to Adam and Eve!
Now I admit that there is such a thing as overpopulation, and that the Malthusians among us believe that abortion and euthenasia, and limiting your output of children is probably far superior, on a logical basis, and that we should throw Momma from the Train. I know the more scientific than thou Evolutionists will show animal statistics with a pointer and show that when any animal population gets out of control then there is going to be death by starvation, and they will want to rap my knuckles with their logical ruler.
So be it. But I am following a different set of rules, and the First Amendment allows this, people.
We could change the First Amendment, and say that only Democrats can speak. That has been done in some places.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that God's rules change. So it's a question of whose logic is it that the ELCA has applied.
If the parameter is LOVE, then I just hope that that is held to so that those who love ten people, or twenty people, or an animal, are also accepted by the ELCA. If what they are afraid of is losing people, then they should take the multiple partner people in, as it's a three-fer. And there's probably at least a million people in the country that would be happy to have a church condone their marriages with ten and more people (San Francisco would sign up as one big marriage).
Right now, of course, it's only two people. But will they accept a grandfather who's 90 and is living with his granddaughter, who's 19, and they are sexually active even if not married? I mean, come on, it's LOVE!
I would just like to see a logical set of parameters in a church.
Other people can live without logic, or with just plain pleasure as their only sense of guidance. Good for them!
I'd go crazy.
And I'd leave any church that wasn't in some way logical, logical at least to the point that the central criteria are held throughout, systematically, in a way that I can at least understand, if not completely follow (I have trouble getting to church on Sunday and often prefer to work, even though I know it's a sin!).
At bottom, Lutheran Surrealism does make sense, if only to me. Otherwise, I wouldn't be its chief adherent.
The ECLA makes no sense at all to me.
And Catholics never made any sense to me either. By definition nuns and priests were seemingly breaking God's first imperative to his creations in 1:28. Being celibate. Where on earth did this celibacy thing come from? Does Paul trump God?
It seems like the strangest perversion of all, and yet it's at the very heart of Catholicism.
I am friends with Catholics, and members of the ELCA, and even gosh-darned Episcopalians, who may as well be Satanists since their church is founded on Henry VIII's thought that if he could remarry he could get a son (but the male sperm determines the gender of the baby, but the clod didn't know).
At any rate, it'll be fun to watch the ELCA over the next two years. I assume they will schism, and their numbers will drop precipitously. But who knows? They might grow! Already many congregations and people have left the ELCA. It started decades back with a drift to Catholicism (which never made sense to me) and a drift into the Eastern Orthodox, and now I assume the major emigration will be toward Missouri Synod.
The ECLA central office has already had to cut thirty percent of its staff over the last year as they no longer have the money to pay them. I assume that that will go on dwindling, and that ultimately the ELCA will completely rewrite the Bible, arguing that each verb isn't quite what it really was back in the day, until, of course, you've arrived at a version of the Bible that Martin Luther wouldn't have recognized. At that point, I just hope they will no longer call themselves Lutherans.
But meanwhile many young people who are going through the reeducation centers of the colleges will find the ELCA does make sense to them, since it is now another crypto-
Marxist institution.
I think if you are going to adhere to Christianity, you have to have a clear set of Christian rules, and hold fast to the rules and to the imperatives that God gave us, and tht means that we separate church and state ("my kingdom is not of this world").
If you don't, then just do whatever. Marry dogs and beetles, or move Christmas to a more convenient date when nobody else is shopping, like April 1st, and make foot-bathing holy (sorry, GM), and roll on the floor speaking Carthaginian.
As for me, I have to keep going with the logic as I understood it. I'm too far into the game to allow all the rules to change at this point. I'm just glad that the Missouri Synod hasn't changed much since 1520. Luther got most things right, and I'll stick with those parameters.
Thank you, Martin.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
138 comments:
Kirby, the rules on what you can and cannot do on the Sabbath are also quite clear, and I suspect you don't follow a single one of them. Jesus' commandments about wealth are also pretty clear. So I suspect you ought to begin following those rules before calling gay folks out on their failure not to multiply. (Plenty of straight folks can't multiply biologically either. So I guess God made them in such a way as to inevitably break His Commandment? Fun guy.)
Actually, the rules on what one can and cannot do on the Sabbath are far from clear. Moreover, Jesus threw them all into disarray when he went through the wheat fields "working" and again when the "worked" by healing someone.
Jesus had no commandments on wealth. He did have a lot of suggestions about what to do with money -- mostly, not worry about getting it and don't be proud about it -- but his most direct order was specifically to a wealthy man whose money was keeping him from God. Notice also Jesus immediately identified how difficult such behavior would be.
Kirby has his own planks, just like you and I do. We should "call out" anyone on anything -- UNLESS they are a member of the church and their behavior is harmful -- even then we have to do it in a way consistent with Jesus' teachings in Matthew.
Instead of being arrogant or full of despair when we are confronted with an inability to fulfill God's plans (like, your example, to multiply), what we are supposed to do is pray and consider why God has put us in this predicament and how we can serve God in said capacity.
Not decide that we should bugger men or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on quack treatments or start a new religion just because we can.
If people would stop trying to solve problems themselves and instead try to solve the problem with God, they would be a lot better off.
Then I suppose Jesus threw the commandment to multiply into disarray when he refused to touch women or multiply himself.
Did he refuse to touch women?
[citation needed]
And not Matthew 19, 'cause Jesus don't say so there.
Heck, he could be married, though that seems unlikely -- maybe he was widowed like Paul (as Stu thinks)
However, Jesus does acknowledge there that some folks can't/choose not to multiply.
Let's see,
some can't (born that way)
some can't (have been injured)
some won't (and choose to remain unmarried and follow God).
Hm. Perhaps those that "won't" -- like maybe homosexuals? -- should, instead of indulging their desires, sublimate themselves to the work of God?
Perhaps Kyle could bust in with the Buddhist perspective on this -- desire being the cause of all suffering, why would one ever give in to it -- or encourage others to?
The gay thing is an enormous conundrum. Growing up, I never heard about them, and didn't even know it existed. Then in highschool there were some rumors about the English teacher in 11th grade (which turn out to have been true).
I know some gay people now.
One of them is a Christian, and one of them is totally perverse.
I like em both.
I also like my Catholic and Marxist friends.
My post was really about how each person has to find a set of rules with which they are relatively comfortable and stick with them.
If the rules change too much, you have to find another bus.
Right now, I'm pretty comfortable in Missouri.
I hope others are comfortable in ELCA.
I don't just mean comfort as in cushy. I mean, your conscience will let you go on living.
Religion has to match your conscience about what's right, or else it's wrong.
Palmer, tell every straight couple only to have sex when they know they can conceive. Once they master Christian sublimation, then go tell gay folks to do so.
And perhaps you can explain *why* sex with any willing partner or partners is wrong. Christians might be the most sex-obsessed people in today's world. Get over it. Sex is no different from any other pleasurable activity.
You can't pick and choose your Old Testament rules, unless you think Jesus tossed out the entire set of OT commandments. If you believe gay sex is wrong, then you should also believe that there must be a regular Jubilee Year in which all debts are cancelled.
Loofa,
Did I say people couldn't enjoy sex?
I don't think I did. That would be awfully silly, especially in light of Song of Songs. . .
And I don't know about "wrong." I do, however, know about "complicated," "not useful," and "damaging." All the folks I know who engage in promiscuity are not better for it. They are generally a "modern mess" as Merlin would put it. If you doubt that, there's an xkcd comic that will gladly be my first example in teh debatez.
1) Heroin is pleasurable. I am entirely for the legalization (or rather de-criminalization) of all drugs right now. However, I still don't think folks should start smack habits, as it's bad for you.
But pleasurable. The heroin addicts I have known will readily tell you that heroin gives them the greatest feeling in the world. Better than sex, as Whoopie Goldberg would say.
Sex, however, is entirely different from any other pleasurable act. This is because, unlike other pleasurable acts, sex is also a procreative act -- which is to say it is hard-wired into our brains to engage in sex -- and to have expectations of those with whom we engage in intercourse.
Just like we expect those with whom we eat to behave in certain ways because of how our stomachs work, we expect those with whom we copulated to behave in certain ways because of how our bodies and brains work.
When this doesn't happen we are confused and hurt, at best.
I do tend to think that Jesus replaced or distilled the OT. In fact, I belong to a church that doesn't care too much about the OT as a rules-building document.
Jesus himself said that the OT can be broken down into two parts:
Love God
Love everyone else
I'll take that for sure.
I do, however, think there should be a Jubilee year in which debts are forgiven, especially since I view usury as a grave sin.
GM:
Interesting and jaunty responses to what amounts to (what?) Blisset, an anti-Christian Sphinx sans riddle. Or . . . ?
Yes, Palmer, that's exactly right: sex is like heroin. The former has no negative biological consequences, the latter destroys your organs and is highly addictive.
And promiscuity is not an issue related to sex, exactly. Over-eating chocolate has nothing to do with chocolate. It has to do with overeating.
Biological compulsions -- such as the alleged psychological connection between sex and certain relationship expectations -- are not convincing reasons on which to found an "ought" from an "is." My biological/instinctual reaction to fear is often to flee, but that gets me nowhere when I need to do something stressful or scary for work. Simple mental discipline helps in both cases. By the time you're 20, you should be able to have pleasurable sex without expecting children or marriage. If not, you're a slave to your instincts.
I'm also not convinced, biologically or spiritually, that the pleasures of sex can be subsumed under one of its purposes (i.e., procreation). Plenty of physical activities that can be sexual are not procreative. It makes sense that those monkeys who got a lot of pleasure out of sex would have more sex, and so spread their DNA. But such evolutionary connections are merely contingent, accidental. Again, there's no "ought" that can be derived from that "is."
Finally, to Jah deLater: if defending the idea that gay folks can be religious leaders is anti-Christian, then I suppose I am. If defending the rights of Christians to be religious leaders is anti-Christian, then I'm confused. What people do for three hours each day should not define who they are as individuals. Hopefully, being a Christian is a 24 hour a day position, while having sex with someone of the same sex is only occupying a few hours of our days.
Initially, to Luther Blisset:
"And perhaps you can explain *why* sex with any willing partner or partners is wrong. Christians might be the most sex-obsessed people in today's world. Get over it. Sex is no different from any other pleasurable activity."
And then, this:
"Finally, to Jah deLater: if defending the idea that gay folks can be religious leaders is anti-Christian, then I suppose I am. If defending the rights of Christians to be religious leaders is anti-Christian, then I'm confused. What people do for three hours each day should not define who they are as individuals. Hopefully, being a Christian is a 24 hour a day position, while having sex with someone of the same sex is only occupying a few hours of our days."
I'll trust LB the Sphinx to respond to himself, since I haven't the foggiest idea what he is going on about.
But fancying he is responding to something I wrote, would he admit that a promiscuous group, or children, or animals could be "willing"? If so, could even an etiolated moral conscience like Rousseau's go with LB's flow?
Or can LB legitimately say that in a supposedly sex-obsessed Christan world the strictures placed on women according to the practise of Muslim Sharia law are less onerous than the expectation that Lutheran pastors be monogamous heterosexuals? LB, as a pc multi-culti and thoroughly diverse person who's up-to-date-in-the-present-modern-world-today-now-as-we-speak, could you actually say this?
like telling a woman who loves to gossip to shut-up
j
Jah: Just responding to your claim that I was anti-Christian. Personally, I think the people who define others by their sexual orientation are unChristian, but that's just me.
And no, I have no problem criticizing any religious practices or beliefs, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or Christian. I don't feel the need to respect other cultures if I think a cultural belief or practice is stupid, wrong, or dangerous. Culture is just a nice word for ideology.
Luther Blissett isn't Christian, so he doesn't care about it.
He uses the word "ideology," which just means that he's a Marxist.
I think what happens in Christian denominations is only of real concern to Christians.
But within Christianity there are many Pelagians, especially now.
They think with their hearts, which gets messy.
Most of the gay men that I have known (I don't know too many), have told me that they absolutely despise women. They find them disgusting, filthy, horrifying, and can't even stand to look at them.
I don't know how widespread that is, but it's what I've noted in every gay man I've known. It seems to begin with some kind of absolute hatred for their own mothers.
If that's a general background to gay male psychology, it would be tantamount to breaking the fourth commandment.
I don't really know how widespread it is.
And at any rate, there are many twisted hateful minds out there who are still in some sense Christian. There are people who hate blacks, people who hate whites, people who hate the police, and so on, many of whom still go to church.
It's a big confusing problem.
But one thing we should be clear about in this discussion is that there are many who hate Christ Himself. Luther Blissett is one of these, which he makes quite plain in his first post.
So arguing with him won't get you anywhere, since there's no common source of appeal.
"But meanwhile many young people who are going through the reeducation centers of the colleges will find the ELCA does make sense to them, since it is now another crypto-
Marxist institution."
"He uses the word "ideology," which just means that he's a Marxist."
Hofstadter would call this the 'Paranoid Style in American Politics'. Me? I say he was just another marxist.
i really don't know what to say about all this
i think if you trace a historical line from the reformation to the enlightenment to modernism it is possible to see the connection to luther...luther sort of pried open the pandora's box of personal causality...by disposing with the imperative to live into and with the great traditions of thinking...after luther none of the portestant denominations took aristotle or aquinas with any sort of seriousness....and i think with that door forever jammed open by the hairbrained ideology of french social humanism...well anything goes
luther i don't know if your retort was directed at my comment or not
but the fact remains in catholic teaching that we do not use the categories of modern behavioural science ie psychology
it is the people claiming their identities using the descriptions of freud nad jung and the beaviourists who use this sort of classification....and i've always thought that this is a terrible thing to do....i could see it as a phase in development or a result of some early experience but i cannot for the life of me understand why people would want to classify themselves this way....the other thing is it tends to create a false dichotomy...us vs them....homo vs hetero....and i for one absolutely refuse to enter into that dynamic
from the outset of the christian story there have been men and women who decided to define their lives by a complete and total commitment to the life and work of christ...to follow in his footsteps as closely as possible...and this has been met with both praise and debasement...both from within and without
millions of people have over the centuries embraced this as a viable and important way of life
i'll say nothing more on the matter here
prudence would have it that on certain topics silence is the best commentary
i'll pray for the ELCA
but i can never again in good conscience step into their places of worship...in much the same way i've abandoned the anglicans
it's very pitiful and i am sorry about it all it is just pathetic
j
Kirby, you do not have the right to police who is Christian and who is not. The absolute hubris involved in your statement is perhaps even more unchristian than your lack of love for and charity toward gay people. Nothing I have written here displays a hatred for Jesus, either as a historical personage or religious figure. If people would follow Jesus's teachings (and not those of, say, the Old Testament or Paul), I think the world would be a pretty great place.
Furthermore, the word "ideology" predates Marxism. It simply means "system of ideas." Marxism involves the notion that ideologies are reflections of material economic conditions. But plenty of non-Marxist thinkers use the idea of ideology or worldview or frame or whatever to describe the system of an individual's or group's beliefs. What we call religion or culture is part of a person's system of ideas. Just as a person can have wrong ideas about how to make a pizza, s/he can have wrong, stupid, or dangerous ideas about how the world came to be or how women should behave or how to relate to sexuality. My point is that I refuse to "tolerate" or "respect" any belief -- cultural or religious or whathaveyou -- if I think it is wrong, stupid, or dangerous.
JH, I work for a Catholic institution, and I can say that plenty of Catholics use modern psychological categories to understand individual behavior.
It's very hard to know what or who opened the can of worms.
I lay it all at the foot of Marx who created the notion of identity politics, and the war of one faction against another called Class War.
We now realize that class hatred is not just the rich for the poor, but also the poor for the rich; and we know that it isn't just whites who are racist, but also blacks; and we know that gender hatred is not just something for men, but also for women against men; and that disgust toward homosexuals is frequently returned with just as much vehemence toward the heterosexuals by the homosexuals.
Who started it?
Maybe Satan started it in the Garden of Eden when he first turned Adam & Eve against God.
I think it started right there, at the very beginning.
In terms of my own experiences with homosexuals, they've largely been ok on a one-to-one basis, but I have certainly also felt the hatred of homosexuals esp. toward my status as father of children, but even before that, I was often treated with contempt as a "breeder." Esp. in Seattle and esp. at the U. of Washington.
It's one of the reasons I went so heavily into French literature and theory. Generally, that area was safe from politicos because you actually had to master another language, a requirement too stiff for many of the mere activist types.
It's hard to know what to say if anything, about the ELCA vote. Like JH, I won't be going into ELCA chambers henceforth.
At church today we talked about it, and sang, "Onward Christian Soldiers."
And just went on. I think lots of ELCA people will come our way, and in some cases, whole congregations, if not many congregations. We'll see. It's going to be a long long time before they are all processed.
I think the battle of the ELCA is now over, and with it, the conversation will be stopped. For years the Bishop, a man named Mark Hanson, who is described as having never turned the calendar page past May 1968, has been funding Sexuality Research. Now that this has been accomplished though, I imagine that all such research will now come to a full-stop, and that there will never be another vote on it.
"It's been decided," he will say.
And thus, it will finally end all discussion.
So the only thing is for those who don't like the terminus to leave their churches. It's sad because it requires several generations of church-going to establish a congregation, but now many will split. This might be the real driving instinct in the churches -- to drive them apart. But it's funny because the ELCA was one of the most liberal churches already. But I suspect they have now gone too far, and there will be a general disruption which will in fact serve the more conservative Protestant and even Catholic conversations.
(Even if JH doesn't see it this way, most Lutherans see themselves as closer to the Catholics than to anyone else among the Protestants. It's one of the main places to which conservative Lutherans emigrate -- as now dearly departed Father Neuhaus did so long back.)
Hrmm, the gay men I know tend to love their mothers, and almost universally love women..Their brains work in a more feminine way, so they usually relate more easily to the fairer gender. Working at an all-boys' camp, they get anxious after a while and yearn for 'girl time,' since their brains work differently than straight dudes'...
God also commanded that men rule over the fish of the sea.
Which means if you don't have an aquarium, or are not a fisherman, you can't be a pastor!
And folks, please stop with the straw man of 'as long as they love each other it's okay!'
We all know that the movement is about adult humans who are of age to make decisions about their own lives - this is often assumed instead of expressed specifically, but if you equate homosexuality with bestiality then you miss out (entirely) on one of the main principles that governs modern relationships...
Which is having the mental acuity and maturity to make decisions, and for those decisions to be shared by both parties.
Children and animals necessarily don't have this ability.
So please please please stop with the lamefalse analogies! Just because the line's not drawn at "man&woman" doesn't mean there's no line at all!!!
There IS an underlying principle, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Silly you!
This is all different than in the past, when women (who were often children at the time) were not privy to the decision, but rather property to be traded. (and often to be one of many wives, something God didn't seem to have a problem with for a lot o' years).
Or when slaves' lives were manipulated by their owners.
In other words, let's stick to Locke and give liberty its proper place when it comes to relationships, and acknowledge that there's no direct line from 'be fruitful and multiply' to 'you can't be gay and a Christian pastor.'
Kirby, you talk about logic, but that argument takes quite a leap. (It is EXACTLY as much of a leap as my facetious aquarium argument).
Blisset shows his invincible ignorance of most orthodox Christian doctrine (though a high-school teacher in a parochial school) here:
"Then I suppose Jesus threw the commandment to multiply into disarray when he refused to touch women or multiply himself." [ignores the unique event of the Incarnation]
And here, more obtuseness: "Culture is just a nice word for ideology." ["'Culture'" is an omnibus word and ought to be defined and contextualised; e.g., most of the cultural artifacts studied by the anthropologist can hardly be called "ideology." Of course we know that A L C Destutt de Tracy coined the term round 1800 to stand for his "science of ideas."]
The rest of Blissets anti-Christian rants are mostly self-righteous puffery. . . .
Rest assured that in any discussion of anything whatever--auto transmissions, walnuts, dinosaurs, weather, French grammar, sports, all--leave it to Brett to mention slavery (which can easily describe abortion) in a cheap and ever-tedious attempt to crawl up the "high" moral (but more the rhetorical) ground. Now that's "ideology" at work; it's Brett's "fatal Cleopatra."
JA - do I mention slavery all that often? Not too much, really - there was a time when we had a lot of conversations about relative 'moral' states of now and then, and since slavery is a massively evil thing, I brought it up a lot...otherwise, we had the civil war conversations where of course it needs to be talked about...
I don't bring it up as much as, say, Kirby's hypocrisy in that he puts on a pedestal those states that are more socialist than we while at the same time denouncing that which even has a hint of socialism. (and by the way Kirby, every advanced country in the world has universal health care of some kind 'ceppin' us, and none of 'em are Hitlerian).
and the slavery salvo seemed pertinent here, though, don't you think? Just a short little line as one of a few examples of how the modern idea of relationships is fundamentally different than what came before?
I will point, however, to the conservative's much more frequent and annoying use of their fall-back knee-jerks - "illegals! Abortion! Hitler! Socialism!"
Which apply to every conversation, and they do so seriously.
And I don't see how abortion is slavery.
If I were of the belief that an embryo had the same inherent rights as you or me, I would compare it to genocide.
The one thing that actually disappoints me lately, though, is that Kirby has recently proven himself to be unprincipled - for so long he lambasted (rightly so) members of the left for comparing Bush to Hitler, and now not only does he sit passively by as others do the same RE: Obama, he actively draws the line himself.
luther
i will agree that in the ranks of catholic servants especially in USA this is the case many have adopted the rhetoric and ideologies of humanism and positivism
but as far as doctrinal statements go this is not the case
bishops are by and large very careful to not use the sexual classifications...they tend to refer to the behaviour and not to the social identification used in modern parlance and practice
this was also true during the scourge associated with abuse
people were screaming...pedophile pedophile
but bishops tended to see priests and religious who fell into all that as persons suffering...and worthy of redemption...perhaps they erred on the side of pastoral care...and payed for it..the world tends not to understand this sort of thing...they want to peg people and then condemn them
yes i know
after the second vatican council there was this huge rush toward the human sciences...a rush to anything that helped explain humanity anything other than the tradition of deep philosophy and theology...only recently arte beginning to see a serious return to the early church fathers to augustine and to aquinas...where i am in our graduate program it is still possible to go through a theology course and not look at thomas at all...i find this horrendous but that's the way the chips fall these days
and in my eyes this has been one of the great disparagements of our faith
luther you can read into any of the statements that have come from the vatican on this and any matter relating to human sexuality and you will never find the term "homosexual person" or "homosexual" used as a descriptive noun
the theology is still very much person oriented and the moral teaching is inclined to see it as a predilection rather than a classification
i simply cannot speak with people anymore who use the modern psychological categories
it makes no sense to me
sorry
glad to have you with us
wherever you're serving
no matter what
j
brett
if we're talking about human beings in the womb
it is genocide
with a smile
j
oh
and i want the word "gay"
to return to it's actual meaning
i want that word back dammit!
j
I have a basic question:
how come
when her daughter became sexually active
in them long Alaskan night
that caring
mother Sarah
did not tell her teen age daughter how babies are made
ANd
how come
like real mothers would do
get her naive teen-age daughter on
birth control pills?
and
where in the hell was the father?
out killing whales and/or bears!
is Sarah Palin a moron mother?
or just another greedy politician?
I enjoy gay people. This is one of those issues where I just don't feel very passionate. I'm all for civil recognition of a homosexual relationship, but I'm not entirely sold on which form that ought to take one way or the other.
It isn't true that homosexuals can't be fruitful and multiply. A gay best friend has made many a married but infertile couple happy parents. I'm not sure where the Church stands on this, but it seems like a good thing to me.
Brett--I don't think it is quite fair for you to say that gay men are cognitively different than straight men, or that they need "girl time." I thought that bit was just a smidge insensitive and prejudicial.
Also, one COULD compare abortion to slavery when one considers that a unique human life (albeit in a different stage of development) is in the hands of the "owner" of that life who has the "right" to take that life whenever she pleases.
Jah: I meant "touch women" euphemistically. Jesus' refusal to have sex either means (a) he broke the commandment to multiply or (b) a life without sex could be spiritually rewarding. The Incarnation is not a sexual event for Jesus, to my knowledge. For Mary, perhaps, the culmination of something both physical and spiritual. But for Jesus? Christ, he was just a child. Maybe you go to a different church than I?
And yes, cultural artifacts are part of ideology, loosely conceived as a "system of ideas." Sand is sand, and it took an idea and a technique to make it glass. I'm happy to define ideology as a set of beliefs and practices, though, but it's a bit more to type. You're worth the effort, though, Jah. Jah rule!
I'd love Jah to identify one anti-Christian notion I've stated on this thread.
Oh, and Jah: not all Catholic schools are parochial schools. Some are independent of any parish or diocese.
So the laundry basket I'm looking at is "ideology" for Blisset--it's everything--and therefore nothing. . . .
JA
Yeah, Jah, it's a really difficult idea. Everything in the human world is the embodiment of some ideas, beliefs, and practices. The laundry basket is *certainly* an expression of ideology, as is the code of personal cleanliness, ablution, etc. in every culture. Bad example if you're trying to show this concept to be silly.
More specifically, we'd probably want to talk about ideology as ideas, beliefs, and practices shared by and therefore providing some sense of unity and identity to a group.
Your laundry basket might not make sense to a lot of different people at many different times. It's the product of . . . an ideology!
Kirby, even though many are not yet ready to receive the Gift of Jesus (that is, enjoying their life), it's still our job as Christians to treat them as if they were.
Hence my engagement with Loofa Blandross.
My sermon notes from Sunday are up, btw, if you want to read them.
Wow, Palmer, sanctimony *and* hubris. You can judge who is ready to receive the gift of Jesus? Remind me to keep clear of you and the townsfolk when we pass that pile of sharp stones . . .
Kirby:
Now along with Blisset's sophomoric "ideology is all" rubbish and anti-Christian rants (e.g., imagine an orthodox Catholic theologian trying to sort this conceptual confusion: "The Incarnation is not a sexual event for Jesus, to my knowledge. For Mary, perhaps, the culmination of something both physical and spiritual. But for Jesus? Christ, he was just a child. Maybe you go to a different church than I?" Yes, Blisset, an RC Church where we recite the Nicene Creed--what's yours?--Temple of Post-human Antinomian Ideology?)
we have Brett's usual farrago of hyperbolic and sloppy rhetoric (that he sometimes admits is simply self-indulgent hey-what-about-me? venting).
Luther,
I clearly state that we are, as Christians, to treat everyone as if they are ready to receive the gift of Jesus -- the fulfillment of life.
However, no one is ready until they are called by God.
Or did you read my sermon?
Or do you have a different reading of the end of John 6?
I was engaging you under the assumption that you are ready. Perhaps you are not. It's not my call.
KM:
Blisset promiscuously throws around more "anathema sint"'s than Innocent III against those he presumptuously and with hubris a' plenty calls "unchristian."
typo: "GM," not "KM"
When Blissett, in the first post, describes God sarcastically as a "fun guy" I thought this showed a distance between him and God. The ideology notion no doubt has a longer history than that of Marxism, but it's especially used within Marxism, as a substitute, or as a way to erase, aesthetics, and other values.
It takes a work of art, or a laundry basket, and places it on the football field of Marxist thought, and then decides whether it is progressive (up toward their goal) or conservative (tending not to serve their goal.
Their goal being a bland dumb world in which everybody is equal, and the party rules.
There are of course many so-called Catholic institutions which are rather pluralist. Most American colleges which call themselves Catholic are not approved of by the Pope (I think there are only three at most).
Many Catholic high schools have a similar distinction of claiming themselves to be Catholic, and yet they aren't under any supervisory board that would recognize the Pope as the ultimate arbiter of values.
Many of them are crypto-Marxist madrassas, fomenting the same race, gender, class wars that are happening in every other secular venue, and they use the same exact football grid to decide whether something is progressive or conservative, and there is no other aesthetic or ethical thought within them.
They are fundamentalist in that they reduce every aspect of culture to a very simple set of guidelines, with a single end point in sight -- equality, with no regard whatsoever to quality.
Kirby:
Now extending Blisset's blanket "ideology" assertion to our knowledge of the natural world (and to the scientific study of human artifacts, BTW) could land him in the post-mod anti-science miasma that is rightly dismissed as obscurantist rubbish by real scientists like Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in "Intellectual Impostures." And for good reason.
Brett, I'm sorry if you feel I fell into the very trap I had fulminated against in terms of the president is Hitler thing.
I didn't actually do this.
I was making an implication that socialism can be Hitlerian, esp. when it is a ONE-PARTY STATE. This is Hayek's thinking, and I believe he is correct.
There are some precise lines drawn in the sand there which you are willfully skipping over, perhaps.
I think there is one thing that still defines America.
With the exception of the very tiny National Socialist parties (which continue to exist, but which have a very small membership, and most of whom are probably in prisons), everybody thinks that Hitler is bad.
Even Nancy Pelosi thinks that Hitler is bad.
He's partially bad because he killed the Jews.
He's also bad because he forced a one-party state on his nation.
He's also bad because he murdered all opposition.
And yet there are some ways in which he was good. He was a delightful watercolorist, for instance. And his design for the Volkswagon was rather rudimentary but suggestive. He liked opera. He had some pretty good military ideas and he loved his homies, and was loved by them.
Still, the ways in which he was bad overwhelm the ways in which he was good, and still provide perhaps the only landmark which remains common to left and right.
Probably everyone here in this discussion hates Hitler, or hates him as a symbol of oppression, intolerance, hatred of the Christian church, or as an expression of single-minded fanaticism.
Maybe he's a Rorshach blot of hatred. What people hate in him defines who they are.
I hate his haircut.
His moustache is ok.
He had a wonderful speaking ability, and was a terrific leader. He could speak to hundreds of thousands of people, reaching into their hearts, and touching upon common ideals, forging them into a powerful fighting force.
There's a lot to be said for that.
He had some small problems with impatience, and had perhaps a tad too much beer in his diet, and then of course, there was the genocide issue.
Overall, he was a monster, but one that has never been defined by left and right. Do we really see him in the same light? What exactly are the principles we can develop together that are things that we can fight against, using Hitler as the symbol of abomination?
(No reference to Obama Nation intended.)
Perhaps a vocabulary of good and evil is still possible between left and right that will allow us to talk with one another productively instead of simply throwing missiles at one another across a massive differend between the Pelagian left and the Augustinian right.
Can it be settled peacably?
Please note that ultimately Augustinians simply destroyed the Pelagians.
I'd rather it didn't come to that pass, but the more the left spits in the face of Christians (as they have since the sixties) and the more that orthodox christians ignore or belittle the left, the further apart we become -- a nation divided --
Also (to blissett) I never "called out" the ELCA. I simply said they are operating on a different set of commands or principles, and bully for them.
I think each group decides how they are going to set their parameters, and each group is going to be different, based on different priorities.
We probably can't have and can't expect, any universals, with the possible exception of the ten commandments.
I think that even the ELCA has not abrogated the ten commandments. Even the Episcopalians haven't done that.
Hitler did, in spades. He killed like crazy.
And his haircut needed help.
The moustache was probably a local fashion.
It's funny to me that however aberrant Hitler was, he still kept to local custom. The moustache would probably have been quite ordinary and acceptable in his native Austria. The part in the middle of his hair was also a norm.
And he didn't allow himself to become obese -- which is increasingly the American norm.
I saw a woman at the county fair the other day who was easily 6 hundred pounds. I couldn't believe it. She might have won the blue ribbon prize for that category. And yet, she was only a visitor, not on exhibition.
Increasingly, it seems to Americans ok to be absolutely E-NORM-OUS.
Hitler was operating out of a different set of norms, and he felt (I think) that he had to adhere to the haircut and moustache rules. Quite funny, if you think about it. Even Hitler had to behave, after a fashion.
I say this simply to argue that Hitler wasn't crazy, as some believe. If he was crazy, his hair would have been crazy, and his moustache would have been an aberration.
But he was completely within the norms of his community in terms of his appearance.
communities just set different norms.
To us, the Hitlerian norms were abnormal.
He's also bad because he forced a one-party state on his nation.
No Kirby he did not force this upon the Germans, rather the Reichstag approved The Enabling Act of 1933, which essentially suspended the constitution, allowing for a rule under successive emergency decrees.
Note Article 3:
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.
Article 4:
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
Von Hindenburg also signed this decree implying bi-partisan support as he was really not a Nazi. He handed the Chancellery to Hitler with great trepidation.
Yes, political and physical intimidation did play a part in passing the law, but it did legally pass. Let's not forget that the majority of the German population had a positive view of him up and until the war really hit home.
You consistenly fail to understand key details of the Third Reich.
"Perhaps a vocabulary of good and evil is still possible between left and right that will allow us to talk with one another productively instead of simply throwing missiles at one another across a massive differend between the Pelagian left and the Augustinian right."
How about we pragmatically look at each issue, examine the facts, and arrive at a rational response rather than issuing rhetorical responses based upon tedious ideological stances? When I write ideological, it connotes a rigid standpoint impervious to facts and nuanced arguments.
Kirby,
Another issue I have is your conflation of logic with Christianity. How can you establish the validity of phenomena when you are taking a leap of faith to arrive at your worldview? I think you mean you seek consistency in the church? It's an honest question and I'm not poking fun.
If I can completely digress, go see Inglorious Basterds, it's a great cinematic experience!
But Tom he killed many of the leaders of the other parties. He even had leaders of the Nazi party killed when they threatened his own power (the leader of the brownshirts whose name I forget) among many others. He killed everybody who threatened his power, just as Stalin did. It's the same story.
The legal structure of the two nations merely became a rubberstamp for his will. And where there's a Will, there's a way.
You need to see a bigger picture here with Hitler. Law was a second thought at best.
But I don't think we want to get into all the legal details of the third Reich, do we? I mean, law had basically disappeared for all practical porpoises.
Ironically Kirby, only the Communists threatened his powers; maybe it's one instance when you would actually welcome the Communists with open arms. 3 months into rule he hardly "killed" his opposition. Rather, he sent them to Dachau and told them if they spoke of it, they would be killed! There were still many other parties operating in the Reichstag and the act did not garner 100% of votes, Center party and influence of industrialists, clergy, millitary etc...
I bring this up because you frequently misunderstand Nazi Germany and then try to bring it up in debates on your blog. Your association of the Nazis with Socialism is specious and tiresome. Am I to believe that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is actually a functioning democratic republic? You seem to give too much credence to the name of a country or party. Hell the USA hardly seems united to me.
Tom,
About the only good the deconstructionists did is demonstrate that all systems of logic are based upon a "leap of faith" -- that is, upon some accepted system of belief.
There's no such thing as logic without an artificial definition of existence.
M
I generally do like parties until they attain power, and then I generally hate them.
I think if it was primarily Republicans in academia, and they wouldn't let anybody else in, I would hate that, too.
I hate it when people have all the power and won't share it. It's icky.
And out of power, most people are fairly charming, since they have to be.
I don't know all the details about the Nazis, for sure.
I can barely take the bare outlines of the Nazis.
The moustache is now of course a symbol of Nazism, and of Hitlerism, but my guess is that moustaches were probably widely distributed in 20s Austria.
Hitler could decide everything except the local fashion?
He could determine it to an extent, but he was also trapped in it. I find that funny in a way.
Kirby—
I hate it when people have all the power and won't share it. It's icky.
Does the phrase "permanent majority" ring any bells?
Kirby:
stu brings up an interesting point about a "permanent majority," since in effect that's what the Demos had (with sometimes well over 2 to 1 majorities in one chamber or another, sometimes both) from 1933 till the 1994 shocker (with only brief and bare exceptions along the way). Of course stu brings this "permanent majority" stuff (any close student of politics knows this to be an unfulfilled wish) to chide the Repubs, though the reverse be true.
Tom makes some justifiably apt reminders about recent German history, though tendentiously interpreted at times; e.g., what centrist--like you, Kirby--would prefer the communists to the Nazis? (BTW, Roehm, Ernst, of the Brownshirts, whose organisation was disbanded and its leaders and some followers massacred by Hitler's minions in 1935, I think). The situation for me is different with Franco (whom I of course should have supported; and he proved to be a great irritant to Hitler during WW II).
There are of course many points of comparison between Naziism and communism and socialism, so I'd dispute that point with Tom, and a quick perusal of Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" can be instructive on that score.
The Demos have probably already demolished their chances in 2010. If the vote were today, they'd be out of their majority, and if you put up someone like Huckabee, who can not only talk, but has substance, against the Big O., I think even the Big O. would be out.
There was a kerfluffle recently between Obama and my own state's governor. Paterson complained that he isn't liked because of racism, and Obama threw a fit or something because the Big O. said Americans just aren't like that, or something. I only got a reference to it on Fox -- but couldn't stick around to watch the segment -- there was a cool tornado on the Weather Channel and I wanted to watch it.
There have also been some interesting waves in Maine.
I'm sorry about the little girl that died, though.
She did die, right?
JA—
stu brings up an interesting point about a "permanent majority," since in effect that's what the Demos had (with sometimes well over 2 to 1 majorities in one chamber or another, sometimes both) from 1933 till the 1994 shocker (with only brief and bare exceptions along the way). Of course stu brings this "permanent majority" stuff (any close student of politics knows this to be an unfulfilled wish) to chide the Repubs, though the reverse be true.
I had two points, actually.
The first is that recently the R's held pretty much unfettered power, and I don't recall Kirby having the same sort of reservations about their one-party rule that he now expresses about the D's. So his objection isn't to one-party rule, despite what he says, it's to one-party rule by parties that he doesn't approve of.
The second is that I don't recall the D's ever actually aspiring to permanent one-party rule in the way that Rove did. And of course, Rove did more than merely aspire.
I certainly don't expect the current Democratic dominance to be permanent. History proves that dominant parties ultimately become corrupt, and that our political system is fully capable of removing a corrupt party from power. As it just did, and as it will again.
History also shows that parties that are out of power eventually clean up their act, and generate new ideas and new leaders. Eventually, the R's will have both, and we'll all be better for it.
A quiock note on a few of the Seven Deadly Sins: "Lussuria," or "luxuria" (luxury) is sometimes associated with lust or fornication (a discrete affair may be seen by many as somewhat different from sex orgies) as well as conspicuous waste, and it's usually listed as the least of the deadly sins, as is "gola," "gula," or gluttony. Of course "superbia" or pride (the kind that affects to rival God, as did Lucifer) is the chiefest sin, and envy ("invidia") is a grave one, for it not only spurs a lust for others' possessions, but joy at others' misfortunes. Sloth (accidia), avarice (avaritia), and wrath (ira) round out the list. Of course there are longer or shorter lists with different placements and descriptions, but above seems to be the most common. All these sins are in their own way deny love its proper place and/or object(s). For the immortal Dante, of course, love acts as a kind of cosmic motor, i.e., "L'amor che muove il sole e l'altre stelle" ("Love that moves the sun and other stars").
Well, stu, for one, the Repubs didn't have anything close to the kind of majorities Roosevelt of LBJ had (the "one-party rule" tag is much too strong, and Bush was too much of a compromiser to allow Repubs really to push their advantage--as did Roosevelt and LB Johnson in pushing the welfare state). And two, Obama (who hails from the very cynosure of political corruption) has reinstalled and must work with nearly the same corrupt crew now held over from the Clinton yrs.
JA—
Well, stu, for one, the Repubs didn't have anything close to the kind of majorities Roosevelt of LBJ had (the "one-party rule" tag is much too strong, and Bush was too much of a compromiser to allow Repubs really to push their advantage
I don't see it that way, but I'll grant that people of good will can disagree on this. From my side of the fence, we saw tax cuts pushed through via reconciliation (tit-for-tat will probably come in the form of health care legislation), and the "nuclear option" for Alito. It sure seemed as though your guys got their way on everything they cared about.
What part of the R's legislative agenda do you believe was blocked by the D's?
And two, Obama (who hails from the very cynosure of political corruption) has reinstalled and must work with nearly the same corrupt crew now held over from the Clinton yrs.
I'd argue regarding Chicago corruption (and just to be clear, I actually live out of the city, and so have a neighbor's view of Chicago politics). Part of this is due Patrick Fitzgerald (US Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois), who is tough minded and efficient: he's taken down two Illinois governors already [Ryan, R; and Blagojevich, D], a few of Richard Daley's aids (but not Daley himself -- weird though it may seem, I think that Daley is personally clean, he just tolerates too much in his associates), etc. The etc., of course, including Scooter Libby, but that's another story, as well as the John Gambino and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman while Assistant US Attorney of New York. He's a keeper. Also presumably a Republican; in any event, he was nominated by Republican US Senator.
There is a more general problem of the "pay to play" culture in Illinois generally, but no evidence that Obama was a part of it. Truth told, he wasn't in the Illinois legislature long enough to become valuable enough to corrupt, and the "pay to play" guys know about economy of means. And "pay to play" isn't just a Democratic problem here -- witness George Ryan. It is truly a bipartisan effort.
In terms of Obama's rise out of Illinois, this had a lot to do with two huge blunders by the Illinois Republican party. First, Jack Ryan (no relation to George) was his opponent going into the US Senate race, and he ended up in a very public, very nasty divorce mid-campaign, and had to withdraw. Second, knowing that the race was lost, the state Republican party decided to bring in someone who would "dirty up" (their words, not mine) Obama. So they brought in Keyes, and this was a disasterous choice. Keyes was not only a carpet-bagger, he was consistently outrageous (which played poorly against Obama's calm). By the time all was said and done, it seems likely that Obama won more Republican votes than Keyes in 2006.
JA—
Sorry to follow up on myself, but...
And two, Obama (who hails from the very cynosure of political corruption) has reinstalled and must work with nearly the same corrupt crew now held over from the Clinton yrs.
Yeah, and I've got a bone to pick with your guys over that. They should have been in power long enough for us to shake out more of the corruption. But your guys screwed up way too quickly and profoundly. So we're stuck with some left-overs, and they're going to be hard to dig out while we're in power. At least Jefferson's out. You should hope for the same for Vitter. Now there's a corrupt culture to put Illinois to shame.
Be careful what you wish for—too quick flip back will leave you in the same pickle.
Its hard to say where the rot runs deeper. I suspect we'd lay money down on opposite sides of that bet, but that's hardly dispositive.
stu:
Yeah, the Demos outed the divorce dirt on Ryan, somewhat like the Chuckie Schumer operatives fishing round in dumpsters for credit bills of Michael Steele (the real "crime," like with B Clinton, was his getting caught at it). Don't know much about Vitter, 'cept he hired a prostitute--comparable to Jefferson taking a 100K bribe? Kilpatrick? Marion Berry? Rep. Conyers's wife--ring a bell? Scooter Libby (you actually compare him to the truly vicious criminals in this list?--through months of lib-left agitation 'bout Rove, et alii, the whole claim by Plame was lame--all the same)--for Libby, inconsistency in testimony=perjury, 'cept not of course for Clinton, where lying under oath to win a court case is no big deal; your faith in Daley is childishly naive--maybe he's just good at hiding the ev when you 'burbers come to town? What to do about Chris Dodd or Barney Frank when foxes meet in the committee henhouse? You know, the 1994 Contract with America wanted term limits, but both parties let us down.
What had the Demos blocked?--First answer: dozens of judicial appointments, including Janis Brown's and Miguel Estrada's, who might today have been the first fully Hispanic justice on the SCOTUS. A just way (with Prez Bush's wavering) of dealing with illegal aliens. A just way of dealing with voter fraud (ACORN's specialty). The halting of mandatory union dues going for political campaigns that some members don't support. A big one: dissolving the thoroughly corrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac housing giants (a Demo treasure chest for Demo crooks like Franklin Raines that makes the Enron scandal seem tiny by comparison) before they contributed mightily to an eeconomic recession (uh, oh, too late!). For a start.
JA—
Yeah, the Demos outed the divorce dirt on Ryan
No. His ex-wife (TV actress Jeri Ryan) took it public. Turns out your man Jack had a thing for Paris sex clubs, and Jeri didn't want to play that way. Also turns out that this is exactly the sort of information that is useful in a divorce, and she was way past the point of keeping things private. Jeri is also notably photogenic, and sex sells news better than news sells news.
I'll skip your list. We can both generate lists, it won't settle the question. As for Jefferson vs. Vitter, I think Jefferson is the worse public servant (for the reason you mention), but Vitter's sins are far too easily mocked, and moreover play into a narrative of sexual misconduct that the R's have successfully wrested from the D's. He has other issues too, and he's by no means the worst on your side (nor was Jefferson the worst on ours).
What had the Demos blocked?--First answer: dozens of judicial appointments, including Janis Brown's and Miguel Estrada's, who might today have been the first fully Hispanic justice on the SCOTUS.
Tit for tat. The R's did the same to Clinton. You guys seem to have consistent difficulty with the concept of precedent. We have difficulty with party discipline. So we both have something to learn from one another.
A just way (with Prez Bush's wavering) of dealing with illegal aliens.
I don't think that Bush wavered a bit. He was just completely out of sync with majority of your party. Our guys didn't even need to say where they stood on the issue. This was a classic "own goal."
A just way of dealing with voter fraud (ACORN's specialty).
ACORN followed the law. There was this problem with some earlier voter registration groups not submitting registrations for individuals who declared the "wrong" party. Voter registrations groups are now required to submit everything. My understanding is that ACORN marked the registrations it felt might be fraudulent, and no state identified as fraudulent any registration not so marked by ACORN. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
The problem here that "dealing with voter fraud" has long been camouflage for voter suppression. You'd have never gotten anything past the courts because of it. And yes, voter suppression efforts were not as successful in '08 as they were in '04.
The halting of mandatory union dues going for political campaigns that some members don't support.
The problem here is obvious enough. The big union PCs always make sure to give money to incumbents of both parties. Your problem here is that you're viewing every legislative issue as R's vs. D's. This one isn't. When it comes to campaign donations, it's incumbents vs. usurpers, at least from the incumbent's point of view.
A big one: dissolving the thoroughly corrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac housing giants (a Demo treasure chest for Demo crooks like Franklin Raines that makes the Enron scandal seem tiny by comparison) before they contributed mightily to an eeconomic recession (uh, oh, too late!).
Actually, the economists generally say no. The FM's dialed back early, and weren't actually that badly exposed. Yeah, they needed help, but they didn't do the real damage. You'd have to look to Countrywide, Lehman, and Bear Stearns for that. It would not surprise me if it turns out that Goldman-Sachs played them (and us) all.
Look at the current recession honestly, and what you'll see is ordinary greed in the financial sector, coupled with unmanaged adverse risk. After all, if you bet a trillion dollars even up, and don't have a trillion dollars to lose, it isn't a bet. Get a bunch of people making correlated bets of this form, and you've got a house of cards in a strong wind. I think that failures of regulation in the financial industry hurt us badly, and that (once again) politicians of both sides were bought off. Another fine bipartisan success. Isn't this where you were supposed to include your rant about Chris Dodd?
stu:
Thanks for the nutshell lib-Demo talking points on the economy, recession, scandals, etc., but I prefer to turn to Paul Krugman (your "the economists"?) for these.
Is this what you call a "rant"?:
"What to do about Chris Dodd or Barney Frank when foxes meet in the committee henhouse?" (If you call this a rant, you ain't seen nothin' yet, bro!).
Given that talkin' politics can be an endless series of "tu quoque"s; there's some indication that many likely voters are pretty fed up with your side, and even the almost universal Demo spin the major media "puts out" (take that how you care to) for your side might not be enough in next yr's off-yr elections. We'll see.
Why I bother to engage with Jah is beyond me.
My whole take on the Incarnation, Jah, was a joke. You used it as some sort of evidence that Jesus did, in fact, touch a woman, missing the euphemism of that phrase. My point was not about Jesus as an embodied god; it was about his celibate life.
Kirby, just because the Marxists have one way of explaining the fucntion of ideology in social life does not mean that any use of the word is Marxist. It also does not neglect aesthetics. Elizabethan dramatic style is part of that moment's ideology, its system of ideas, beliefs, and practices.
Finally, there's nothing relativistic about such a concept of ideology. In fact, I brought it up as an antidote to the usual relativism of culture and religion. Once we recognize all ideas as parts of systems, once we recognize religious or cultural ideas as capable of being right or wrong, true or false, beautiful or ugly, useful or useless, etc., then we can move beyond tolerance and relativism.
Finally, the Hitler moustache was quite fashionable before Hitler. Charlie Chaplin, of course, had one, and was always bitter that Hitler stole his moustache and made it a symbol of Hitler's evil.
Nearly every European political system before the French Revolution was a one-party system. Parliament in England was an interesting exception to the rule. But Queen Elizabeth, I suppose, was Hitlerite, if we go by Kirby's equation of Hitlerism with one-party rule.
Blisset, the Greeks had a word for those whose "jokes" and notions were only known to themselves alone. It's where we get words like, um, "idiosynchratic" (etymologically, a kind of peculiar mixture) and a shorter, less complimentary word that may apply to those who laugh at their own jokes, but which are unfathomable to all others--garde-toi, mon vieux!
Blisset--funny guy--like God, right, Kirby?
"You used [the Incarnation] as some sort of evidence that Jesus did, in fact, touch a woman, missing the euphemism of that phrase." [Haven't the foggiest what this means--guess that's where I started with this guy's remarks to me]
" . . . ideology . . . I brought it up as an antidote to the usual relativism of culture and religion. Once we recognize all ideas as parts of systems, once we recognize religious or cultural ideas as capable of being right or wrong, true or false, beautiful or ugly, useful or useless, etc., then we can move beyond tolerance and relativism" [Not sure that the religious consider their creeds and beliefs a matter of relativism as usual--I don't. Like Ariosto's English knight in "Orlando Furioso," perhaps we'll find the key to such cryptic and gnomic remarks by Blisset in some jar on the moon]
Blisset, when are you going to start studying literature on its own terms in context and not as anachronistic parts of a "system" or "ideology"?
Blisset, I'm beginning to think that Chesterton's characterisation of Hardy actually applies better to you: "[He] became a sort of village atheist brooding and blaspheming over the village idiot."
But still, give us another Fichtean "sun-clear report," so's we will know what to make of your previous sun-clear reports. Better yet perhaps, don't, for we mere mortals have yet to be translated to Plato's Isle of the Blessed. Well, bless my ideology, il se fait tard. . . .
Jah: You not only can't read, but you can't recall what you yourself have written.
Jah wrote: "'Then I suppose Jesus threw the commandment to multiply into disarray when he refused to touch women or multiply himself.' [ignores the unique event of the Incarnation]."
Thus, Jah argued that the Incarnation is somehow proof that Jesus did not refuse to touch women or multiply himself.
My joke was that if the Incarnation was sexual, then that's weird. Because if the Incarnation means that Jesus did touch women and multiply himself, then it's a sexual event. (This was perhaps less a joke than it was simply making fun of what you wrote.)
So Jah, care to explain how the Incarnation was a sexual event?
LB,
Please do not write that folks have limited English proficiency when you yourself cannot tell the difference between "or" and "and."
luther blisset
if i may intrude on the argument
insofar as the incarnation is narrated to us as an event involving the "begetting" of christ the pregnancy of mary the real birth -- then of course it is sexual...in a very mystical divine sense...not sexual of course in the neofreudian modern sense...recognizing jesus as fully human forces the question of his thougts his attractions his desires
god chose to enter into human life in a family way
the grail legends take this to another place which was never understood as mainstream or even valid from a historical perspective
the earliest theological observations surrounding the easter event carry the idea of "divine eros"
the earliest christian and christians up until the reformation nd counter reformation were never squeemish about the human body nor about sexuality
as the art from the dark ages through teh modern day reveals
peter brown's
"the body and society" is instructive in this regard
peace
j
Blisset:
Still don't know what you're on about, pal. "Born of the the Virgin Mary and became man. . . ."
--Immaculate Conception (for us RCs, so Mary "multiplied" without sex, just as nuns become the Brides of Christ without sex), the Incarnation, Jesus's uniquely sinless and chaste life, His death and Resurrection, His Second Coming--where's my suggestion that Jesus "touched" women? Or is "touched" actually better applied to describe someone much "closer to home," LB?).
Suggestion, LB: For those checking only the last few blog entries it might have been fairer and more accurate to have distinguished between your (unbracketed) words in the quotation and my few (bracketed) words. In the words of Austen's Anne Elliot to Captain Wentworth, LB, "you should have distinguished." Ever have a Bibliography and Research Methods seminar in grad or doc school?
Stu, you've only been around for about a year, so when the Republicans had their clear majority under Gingrich was quite a while back (is that the time you were referring to?) but back then I was actually a Democrat. In fact I voted my whole life for Democrats or third parties until Bush 04. Last time around I voted for McCain.
Both times I did so with some trepidation.
However, I couldn't stand Kerry's hair in 2004. I just wouldn't have wanted to look at that mess for four years. I couldn't stand his double-negatives and wandering diction. Bush was at least forthright and comprehensible, if a bit folksy, so I went with him.
Kerry got Swiftboated, and I sided with the Vets, especially when I saw Kerry back in the 70s ratting out his men, and trying to make friends with the Hollywood left.
In the last round, it was the remarks to Joe the Plumber that I thought revealed Obama's hand. He really does want to "redistribute" money, and I think that's dumb.
So I went with McCain although I had some reservations about Palin. Not huge reservations, but reservations. I also had reservations about McCain.
I have reservations about everybody at the top.
I rather like Giuliani but suspect that he is sick, and tired, or he wouldn't have placed rabbit to the tortoises in the last race, waiting in Florida for everybody to catch up. It may have been that he didn't have enough money up until that point.
I like his clarity when he speaks.
Palin too often goes berserk and gets kind of nuclear, revealing a kind of impatience.
McCain is occasionally quite sentient, but I think he's also too belligerent. He calls his wife the c word when he gets mad at her, and he does this in public. I don't like that kind of thing.
But Obama is really steeped in the Saul Alinsky school, and slowly I think his cards will be revealed, and at least some of them will have Lenin on their face, as the cards he holds the dearest.
I can't remember what I read about Lennon that really turned me off. It wasn't just the drinking and fornicating, although committing adultery against his wife's wishes, and directly in his face is something I do think is beyond icky.
It seems to me it was in a huge biography of which he was not the central figure. I can't recall.
I had a colonoscopy this afternoon. No polyps. They gave me the drug that Michael Jackson died on -- papafol or something -- and the anaesthesia team was joking about it, saying it really does provide a good sleep.
Problem is I'm still a bit sleepy.
But I don't have to go back for five years. Then, if I pass that one, ten years.
Funny thing about Luther Blissett (this isn't his real name -- it's a collective name that was used in English avant-garde and neoist circles clear back in the 90s and was often used by the Marxist writer Stewart Home), is that he seems to often repeat my points. I said that the Hitler moustache was around, and was a fashion. He says it was around, and was a fashion, as if he's contradicting me.
Still, he's sometimes smart, and might make a nice new addition for the seculars here.
(He claims to have a touch of Christianity going on because he works at a Catholic Institution -- but I don't think he argued with my point that such institutions are rarely until pontifical jurisdiction or supervision, and are very pluralistic, and in many cases, fraught with secularists -- Villanova for instance, is about as Catholic as Hollywood -- even if there is still a core of people at Villanova who actually are Catholic, and rather Augustinian).
Our institutions have almost all been marched upon by the secular left (I think it was Gramsci -- who wrote the essay entitled The March Through the Institutions -- i the 60s -- that appeared in Sartre's journal back in the day).
they've arrived.
They now own the ELCA, and no doubt many other institutions will fall to their crypto-Marxists who will claim to be anything but what they really are. Even Obama is part of that whole insidious levelling that is going on from the inside, and in the name of Lenin, but using Lennon's music for the marching since it's a lot more palatable.
Kirby—
I was actually thinking of 2001-2006 or so. That said, I'm glad to see your skepticism of some of the primary figures of the right -- that doesn't often come through, but the overall impact is of far greater balance than I would have expected, and so throws my internal models of you into disarray.
But the truth is more important than any model.
I still think you're wrong on Obama, but it's easier to take your concerns if they're based on a general skepticism of those in power. As such, it's guilty until proven innocent for all, and with no proof of innocence possible until death, but at least its evenhanded.
Peace
Jah:
Let's just present the info clearly.
1. I wrote that Jesus's celibate life suggested that the commandment to go forth and multiply was no longer relevent after Christ. A fruitful life could be had without sex.
2. Jah wrote that this iugnores "the unique fact of the Incarnation"
3. I asked what the Incarnation had to do with Christ's sexual life
4. Jah acts confused and then asks when he suggested that Christ touched women, forgetting that he suggested that the Incarnation somehow went against the notion that Christ did *not* touch women, which is what I wrote to begin with
************
Kirby: I never suggested that working for a christian institution made me at all christian. I am not a follower of any faith.
LB,
I bet 5to1 you're a follower of environmentalism.
That's really neither here nor there, tho.
Stu & Kirby,
the trepidation over being anti-Obama as if one were fully pro-neo-conservative irks the crap out of me.
I remember telling people back in January of '02 that Bush was a dangerous hack put in place by ideological nightmares who would drive the country into the ground.
I was right
and I feel the same way about I'm-still-going-to-practice-extraordinary-rendition-Obama.
Until we have elected officials who take their eye off the world and focus themselves on the US we are going to continue living in an ever-growing shithole -- the entire country slowly approaching Detroit, California, or the abandoned towns of the fly-over states (depending on where you live).
Kirby:
Great posts! If read rightly (aux "folksy" and dry) you've out-Garrison Keillored Garrison Keillor. . . .
Yeah, I've sometimes tangled with Blisset over on Erin O' Connor's "Critical Mass" ACTA blogsite (where Berube, AKA "Broob" once pursued me 'cause he got his butt kicked on his own site [before he banned me--after only 36 hrs on his site--"Menin aeide, Thea!" while the eminently reasonable Kirby lasted a month and a half before being banned by Broob] and wanted more, which he got--I thought he was on the verge of going apoplectic on me--henh, henh. Erin closed the comments pretty quickly over that guest apppearance by Broob, who was getting pretty personal in his remarks about me.
Erin, who's a reasonable, independent-minded, and moderately conservative academic who gave up a tenured position at UPenn (where my acquaintance--a fellow Huet scholar and co-founder of FIRE, the intellectual historian Alan Kors teaches) knew Blisset and seems to have had some trouble with him, perhaps when they were at UPenn together [discretion and respect for Dr O' Connor forbids I say more]). Now Erin, who seems, as I said, to have been acquainted with Blisset (his real Christian name is Matt something-or-other), who teaches high-schoolers at some Catholic school. Since he's not very forthcoming with details about himself, I just thought I'd supply something of what I know. He's a smart fellow and does teach classical works in translation (albeit with an apparent post-mod twist), but following the Blisset mould, his mission seems to be to problematise every other commentator's views. Of late he's been arguing Yale U P's case for refusing to publish the Danish illustrations of Mohammed in a book on the controversy (the reason?--the potential threat from radical Muslims against employees of the publisher. My own view is that if every current gutless wonder like the NYT, Time, Newsweek (which started the baseless rumours of the Koran-flushing incident), WaPo, et alia published them, then that would "leave everything as it is" (to paraphrase Wittgenstein), and radiqal Muslims could resume their random attacks on Jewish and Western targets, as they are wont to do anyway).
GM—
the trepidation over being anti-Obama as if one were fully pro-neo-conservative irks the crap out of me.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. My annoyance with Kirby regarding Obama is his repeated insistence that Obama must be Marxists, that Democrats in general are Marxists (or Socialists, if it's Thursday), which he asserts with no evidence at all in the former case, and only the ordinary (FDR-like) in the later. Kirby does have a tendency to come across as paleo-conservative (c.f., his recent posting on health care), but he's developed a sudden nuance that is refreshing.
As for Obama's decision on rendition, I'm disappointed too. I remain hopeful that he'll reverse this in time, as I think the notion of a "monitored" rendition is meaningless. We wouldn't be outsourcing it if we didn't expect our laws would be broken.
He's done a lot to dismantle the illegal and immoral handling of prisoners established under the Bush administration, but after a very fast start, he's slowed down. I think that the proper strategy is to keep pressure on him to do the right thing, because I believe (given support) he will.
Jah:
Thanks for the shoddy and shady bio details! I never knew so much about myself.
You might learn to read more carefully, though. Your recent confusion over what I actually wrote about the Incarnation notwithstanding, I never once argued YUP's case for refusing to publish the cartoons. I was pretty unequivocal about my disgust at their actions.
I teach high school English, so yes, I teach a few classical works in translation. However, I don't teach anything from a post-modern perspective. First, that's a meaningless term, given that everyone from Richard Poirier to Harold Bloom to Michel Foucault to Stanley Cavell is considered postmodern. Second, I teach almost strictly in formalist terms, because I think that's the foundation for any literary study. Third, I teach from a sort of general rhetorical angle (what is the author trying to do and how does s/he do it?) because that's the emphasis of the AP English Language exam for juniors. We don't have time for much socio-historical background, so I'll often just lecture on that material.
Finally, I wrote a 350 page dissertation that barely references Theory or postmodernism -- and it's on contemporary American fiction. So be sure you get your facts straight before pulling some bullshit ad hominem attack.
Luther, why don't you just tell us who you are and use your real name. You're certainly smart enough to join us, and I think would make an excellent addition to the seminar here.
Please do join us for real, with real name, and real location, and a real bio.
I think it would improve understanding and improve the comments generally.
Best,
Kirby
I'm a little late to this conversation, but I do want to throw in one point.
Kirby, you are incorrect in stating that the ELCA now allows ordination of gays.
The ELCA has allowed gays to be ordained for years, as long as they remain celibate.
The only change now is that the ELCA is allowing gays to openly have partners in committed relationships.
This seems to me to be a far less hypocritical stance than previously held.
WW
Wendy
but how does that serve anyone apart from the gay pastors?
Christians are supposed to be all about service to others.
Instead, these pastors are thinking with their dicks.
A shame indeed.
Wow maybe public opinion should not be taken seriously anyway...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/poll-republicans-think-government-should-stay-out-of-medicare.php
A new national survey from Public Policy Polling (D) illustrates the profound levels of ignorance that currently interfere with the debate over health care.
One question asked: "Do you think the government should stay out of Medicare?" Keep in mind that this is a logical impossibility, as Medicare is a government program, which was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson, to provide guaranteed health care to the elderly.
As it turns out, 39% of voters think government should stay out of Medicare, compared to 46% who disagree.
Among Republicans, 62% say the government should stay out of Medicare, compared to only 24% of Democrats and 31% of independents who agree.
Blisset, I remember on this very blogsite you once felt compelled to reveal my actual name (J A DeLater, which I now use here, in part because this blogsite's been under attack of late, and it's best for regular contributors to declare themselves) in what seemed to be a fit of frustration over my opposition to your position on some issue. Do you remember, sir?
I also remember that Erin O' Connor showed more discretion about revealing details about your former dispute with her at UPenn (I believe she mentioned to you that her "Critical Mass" blogsite didn't seem the appropriate venue for airing old and personal grievances, right?) than did you, sir. Now I've no interest in revealing any "shoddy and shady bio details" (as you aver)--at any rate, all this is archived on the blogsites and can be checked for false claims and interpretive discrepancies.
As Kirby mentioned, you'd definitely be an intellectual asset to this blogsite, though I realise that you (as you said once) blog on a number of sites (if you are the same person who blogs under your blogging monicker), but then again perhaps you wish to keep it on a de temps en temps basis. We'll see.
DeLater: I don't recall outing you here. I recall that Berube outted you on his site a long time ago when you went under the nomiker "Jacques Albert."
I don't hide behind the "Luther Blissett" tag. I once did, when I started getting involved in blogs. At the time, there was a lot of fear that academic hiring committees would hold private on-line materials against candidates for jobs, so I went under the anarchist group name. But after many years, and after leaving the academy behind, it's now just convenient for me. Lots of folks, especially at The Valve, have met me in real time, know my name, etc. But Luther Blissett remains my blog name for the sake of consistency.
My name is Matt, I teach at an amazing Catholic high school in the Pacific Northwest, and I completed a Ph.D. in English at Penn (as well as a Masters degree there and a Masters of Secondary English Education elsewhere).
And now I have to finish my lesson plans for *Pride & Prejudice*. Goodnight, all.
Good morning, Luther Blisset. Your remark about "The Valve" crew brought back memories:
"Lots of folks, especially at The Valve, have met me in real time, know my name, etc."
"The Valve" is the blogsite of the Association of Literary Scholars and Critics (ALSC), an organisation designed to concentrate on the literary aspects of literature (sounds odd, or at least redundant, but in these days where lit profs presume to preach leftist politics in place of a contextualised formalist approach, it's not). Once administered by an English prof at Emory U, Mark Bauerlein, a moderate conservative, it then seemed open to the full spectrum of American political opinion when literary politics was touched upon. It soon transmogrified into a leftist coterie site under the editorial management of John Holbo, a philosopher, who, after disinviting me to the site (though I was then an ALSC member), banned me from the site (some of my posts had already been inexplicably "lost," as I was told in private emails by a prevaricating Valve operative named Bill Benzon, who seemed proud of the fact that he wasn't even an ALSC member. A second editor, Scott Eric Kaufman, also a smarmy leftist, was later added to the site's staff). Though later unbanned (with a jokey, half-hearted apology from Holbo), I no longer even care to look at the site and have left the organisation altogether despite the occasional blandishments of the ALSC's president trying to get me to rejoin.
Contrast this incestuous coterie with the present blogsite of Kirby's, which is much more inclusive--where left, right, and centre truly mix (and mix it up).
Again, thanks, Kirby, for this blogsite, and LB, thanks for the memory.
Kirby,—
The reason I go to church is that I want guidance. As a kid, one part of the Bible that seemed pretty clear in that it appeared in the first passage in Genesis (1:28) was to "go forth and multiply."
We have four children. That's not that many, but it's all that will fit into the van. So Luther also argued that we have to get along in two kingdoms. So I think four will be where we stop. I mean we did technically "multiply" (4 x 1 = 4).
I think, in your case, 2 x 2 = 4. But as a mathematician, I'll note that 2 x 0 = 0 is no less multiplication than 2 x 2 = 4.
I misunderstood. I thought the prime directive was divide and conquer.
More memories, LB--thanks again:
A couple of yrs ago, before Em and I went to live in Piran, Slovenia (and before me mum's heart ailment brought us back after only six months to care for her), it took an effort by a dozen or more of Broob (Michael Berube of Penn State, Black Prince of Intolerant Leftists)'s Boobs (his smarmy leftist minions, like the charmingly-named "j p stormcrow," "Bitch, PhD" et multi alii on his site to find out who I was--they first thought me a certain Canadian university engineering prof, Jacques Albert, whom I'd never heard of before, even though Broob later accused me on several academic blogsites of stealing this chap's name. Fact is, I'd been signing letters and doing some odd translations under that name for decades, though Broob didn't listen, for I'd wound him up so tightly on his own blogspot before his own rapt audience of epigones that his faculty of reason was seriously impaired.
Em and I had so much fun spinning these "sway-dough intuhlechuhl" poseurs round that our sides ached with laughter! I did propose an actual face-off (with a specific time and place designated) against them all in Hell . . . well, actually, yes--at the infamous tavern (for which I've been considering doing a tout on the hard-drinking readers' gold standard, "Modern Drunkard Magazine Online") in Hell, Michigan, where customers are asked to check their brains at the door. . . . Neither Broob nor any of his minions appeared, probably 'cause they'd nothing to give the tavern's porter. . . . So Em and I drank toasts to Broob 'n' his smarmy ghosts and told the story behind our appearance there to the delight of Rose the Bartender and not a few sportive customers, one of whom regularly appears at my VFW Friday-night fish fry. What a hoot!
Then Broob got molto serioso and sent his hatchetman, post-structuralist pimp, and his own Sparafucile (for those of you who're not opera buffs--the paid assassin in Verdi's "Rigoletto"--his name literally means "Shoot-gun"), John the Con Protevi, in the French Studies Dept at LSU, though he indifferently practises philosophy and brain physiology without portfolio or license. This cheap thug of class ressentiment tried to take me into his confidence before shivving me in a dark alley and cutting off my ring finger, but found that he'd taken the blade in his own ribs first and he breathed out his last bottom-of-the-parrot-cage breath after my last scorching email to him--"You're a fraud!" he gasped out--I gritted out between clenched teeth: "You're a Freud!-- much worse, turkey!" as he with his dying groan felt only the heel of my shoe in his treacherous
face--word got about that he'd been lashing himself into insensibility in academic purgatory by forcing hisself to reread his own worthless Deleuzian anti-science rubbish.
Ah, die gut alte Zeit! Dafuer bin ich dir dankbar, Herr Doktor Blisset!
3rd para (omission): "sent to 'get' me his hatchetman", etc.
Dear GM,
You asked the wrong person.
I have many Lutheran ministers in my family, including a grandfather who was a Bishop in the American Lutheran Church (which joined with the Lutheran Church in America to form the ELCA, which Kirby's church just left).
I can give you plenty of names, dates, and actual circumstances of heterosexual males, ordained as ministers, who ran off with their mistresses, molested children, and/or committed other acts of sexual misconduct/deviancy. My favorite incident was the Bishop (he's dead now so I can say his name: Gaylord Falde) who was arrested late at night in a back booth of a strip club, wet wash cloth in hand. The Tribunal that was convened to determine whether he should be defrocked or not, voted 12 to 1 to forgive him and let him keep his job.
My point: heterosexual, male ordained ministers are just as capable of thinking with their dicks as are homosexual males.
We do in fact pick and choose what laws to follow in the Bible. For example, we no longer stone women who are caught committing adultery. Presumably because we would not be able to find the one person without sin to throw the first stone.
However, we do not pick and choose what to believe or follow in two areas of the Bible: The 10 Commandments, and the words of Jesus.
And in those two areas I find nothing that says a gay person cannot preach about God's love.
Instead, I find that the most despicable person in His time (tax collector) was personally chosen by Christ to be an apostle and spread the good news.
With all the sexual scandals lately, especially with the RCC hiding pedophile priests, I'll take honesty in our relationships within the body of our church family. And I'll give the ELCA some credit here for promoting honesty and transparency. I read the ELCA statement that now allows it's homosexual ministers to openly have committed relationships (they stopped short of using the word "marriage.") The issue is far from over. This was not a final decision. Instead, the ELCA will continue to discuss the pros and cons, and has issued a statement committing the church to respecting both sides of the debate, even as the debate continues.
I'll take that stance, and honesty and openness, any day over criminal pedophile priests, and lying, cheating heterosexual ministers.
WW
Wendy
Strawman is strawman.
Those ministers should not have been men of the cloth either.
Just because tu quoque is easy to say doesn't mean it's justification for a further worsening of behavior.
It's difficult to follow Jesus. But it does make for less visits from the drama llama.
stu:
Evidence for Marxism and socialism among members of Obama's party is easily found--if you haven't already, check out the recent statements of hard-left socialist race-baiting numbskulls like Rep Maxine Waters, who slavers over a Hugo Chavez-style nationalisation of the oil industry--for a start. There're more left-authoritarians like her in the woodwork jes' waitin' to be flushed out. . . .
JA—
You can find slavering insanity in any party. The question is whether the beliefs in question are exceptional for that party, or central. E.g., nationalizing the petroleum industry is a fringe view within the Democratic party.
I do not think that it is accurate or useful to characterize the Republican party in terms of the beliefs held by its most extreme members. We have our loons, you have yours.
Characterizing the Democrats as Marxist makes about as much sense as characterizing the Republicans as Fascist. And it seems to me that if your arguments depend on inaccurately characterizing the position of your opponent, you've already lost.
stu:
I'd say it's much easier to find Marxist socialist-style collectivisation schemes among the Congressional Demos (they're of course rife in academia, where the real web-footed far-left loons paddle about) than to find any evidence of "fascist" tendencies among Congressional Repubs--couldn't your rhetorical and argumentative "fatal Cleopatras" be those of false equivalencies? But I'm waiting to be corrected and instructed on this score.
"why am I so against the Democrats, after a lifetime of being on their side? I think it is because they are acting like Nazis"
?
If a lefty'd said 'republicans are acting like nazis,' you would have rightly condemned that talk...
JA—
I'd say it's much easier to find Marxist socialist-style collectivisation schemes among the Congressional Demos (they're of course rife in academia, where the real web-footed far-left loons paddle about) than to find any evidence of "fascist" tendencies among Congressional Repubs
I tend to think of fascism as an outgrown of a wounded nationalism, centered on cultural myths and ethnic identity. There are certainly parallels to this in the "birther" movement, as well as in the ravings of Michelle Bachmann and others.
But I would emphasize, again, that I don't believe these are mainstream Republican beliefs. My point here is not to beat up on the R's, it is to respond to your view that fringe beliefs are somehow prevalent among the Democrats, and almost wholly absent among the Republicans.
stu:
Didn't really think you could give me a straight answer about Repubs in Congress representing "fascist" tendencies--now you could try to dig up some dirt on Ron Paul MD, but then he's a strong libertarian, right? And what fascist "ravings" of Rep Michelle Bachman (JD, LLM--tax law) were you referring to, pray tell?
I've seen nothing at all so far even to challenge my suggestion that you're attempting to present false equivalencies in service of pooh-poohing some socialist Demo extremists catered to by the current Demo leadership.
Polls indicate that at this point Harry "We-don'-wan'-no stinkin'-citizen-tourists-here!" Reid's in trouble in Nevada. If so . . . Whee!
Jacques, we must balance our position. The police forces of the country are predominantly Republican. I don't know which has a greater influence, or greater numbers, academia or the police force, but I've heard it said that if you are a member of the police, and you are not Republican, you are a black sheep.
There are many towns without academics, but few without police.
Why the two professions should see the world so differently, is another question.
JA—
I was thinking of her proposed investigation of members of Congress for "anti-Americanism." And her birtherism. She may have degrees, but as you've noted regarding faculty, degrees are no guarantee of sanity.
As for Reid, yeah, he's facing significant electoral challenges. Right now, he's #4 on the 538 list of senate seats most likely to flip, and that's not a good place for him to be. If he loses, then Durbin most likely becomes Senate Majority Leader. I don't see this as making a huge difference in Senatorial direction—certainly not one large enough to justify a "Whee" on your part.
The question for 2010 and the Senate isn't whether the Democrats will retain their majority, it's whether they'll maintain 60 seats.
Kirby—
The police forces of the country are predominantly Republican.
Interesting observation. But I suspect that most police are "law and order" Republicans, and don't share much ideologically or culturally with contemporary neo-cons, movement R's, or their apologists. This fight isn't their fight, and I suspect they'd look at pretty much any of the contributors to this blog, and our passions, with an amused skepticism.
They have ambivalent attitudes w.r.t. the NRA (teflon bullets and assault rifles are great if you want to kill cops, and not much use for anything else, and they know it). They're skeptical about "the war on drugs," but totally committed to stopping the violence that "war" generates. They also tend to see the world in terms of hard categories: there are police (them), citizens (the folks they protect), and criminals (the lowlife scum they have to protect the citizens from).
stu
that is an exceedingly ideal view of the police.
having a friend in law enforcement, i can say that -- according to him -- the average officer views the world in three categories:
police
criminals
potential criminals
GM—
Correction accepted. Now I have to go clean my monitor.
Pursuant to Wendy's comment, and also to Stu's list of what Paul "really said," on another thread.
The Bible is a kind of talking puppet that can allow anyone to say just about anything it seems, and say that "God" said it.
Remember that old adage, "Even the Devil can quote Scripture."
I think that's at least one problem with the Bible. It's too big. And now the tradition is so big, and keeps stretching in just about every direction.
If the whole world was Christian, we still wouldn't agree on much.
Luther even wiped off the first commandment against images, claiming that Jesus was himself a kind of image, of God, which made making images ok by His example.
So while we're getting all theological on each other's asses, we might as well remember that probably some of this comes out of the very self-interest that Helen (Deadmule) claims we are capable of rising above.
About as much as a frog can rise above the swamp he's floating in.
I think the views of law enforcement probably differ greatly based upon their geographical/socio-economic context. Let's not generalize too much here. The police in San Francisco seem very different than the Orwellian maniacs in Seattle that hand out jaywalking tickets and acted out their police state fantasies of order during the WTO protests. I live in a very rough are of San Francisco, the Tenderloin. The police are faced with difficult urban problems and seem more relaxed.
Oh, and did anyone notice that the Mexican government just legalized possession of small amounts of pot, heroin, cocaine, LSD etc.? What is really interesting about this is that American government said nothing about it. As the economy worsens, the downward pull of prison costs may force the hand of the USA to do the same.
stu:
I think what seems to be your smiling condescension toward the police (that may extend to the military as well) is misplaced. I know you'll say that testimonials are anecdotal but actual police or military families' testimonials I know are, with respect, representative of many thousands more (though opinions do vary) and usually more valuable than general assertions by those with no actual experience. And Tom is right to point out geographical variations, though in San Francisco and many other cities (including college towns) the police tend to be much more hampered by far-left or just liberal "soft-on-crime" mayors. For example, if San Francisco Mayor Newsom denies his police force the power to do citizenship checks on criminal suspects (as well as inviting illegals to "his" city, then his admin should be cut off from all federal funding to the city (as I hope will be the case if and when Repubs regain control of Congress and the presidency.
My father was career US Navy (in the WW II Pacific, Korea, and Vietnam), me mum was for several yrs a police officer in California, I served in the Army (Vietnam), and Emmy's papa served in the Air Force (Korea, Philippines, and Vietnam) and is a district judge, so I think our testimonials might stand for hundreds rather than just a few. They all thought or think little of liberals or Democrats and even less of radical-liberal college profs' attitudes (though I and Emmy's papa were college profs). And again, such significant areas of many American cites are so crime-infested and dangerous that only National Guard or regular army units are capable of maintaining peace, order, and basic citizen safety.
JA—
I think what seems to be your smiling condescension toward the police (that may extend to the military as well) is misplaced.
Any condescension is a figment of your imagination.
Of course there is variation, both geographical and from individual to individual. But this doesn't mean that there aren't typical views within sub-populations, and there's nothing the least bit condescending about trying to characterize them.
Actually, 4 out of 5 of my male first cousins are in fields relating to criminal justice (not including my brother who is a CJ major [soon to be in the Air Force], and my father who is a judge and professor of history). One of my cousins is a police officer, one is a court guard, one is private investigator, and one is a prison guard.
I would say that according to my cousins' experience, what they've told me, and the way they talk about law and order issues, four categories about covers their view on the subject:
Not-guilty civilians
Law enforcement personnel
Potential/reformed/likely offenders
Criminals
The persons in the first category are to be protected. The persons in the second category are charged with their protection. The persons in the third category can be gotten through to before they commit a crime and if they do commit a crime are more likely to benefit from correction. The persons in the fourth category could possibly become reformed and join the 3rd category but the law enforcement personnels' primary concern is to make sure that the criminals are kept off the streets to avoid letting them harm those in groups 1 & 2, or leading those in group 3 back into a criminal lifestyle, or tempting them to it in the first place.
People who live under pressure in their occupations often make such categories to make difficult choices a bit easier. That's not to say that the above scheme provides a complete picture, but when you have to make snap decisions in the blink of an eye it certainly does help. For example choosing when to use lethal vs. non-lethal force.
One cannot whip out a notepad and study a list of pro's and con's of each course of action during, say, a hostage situation.
I have no problem being considered a not-guilty civilian or even a potential offender (and don't we all have the potential to fall into error) just as long as the justice system presumes my innocence. Call me naive, I suppose, but that's the way I've come to think about it.
Emmy—
I think this is right, and that actually, we're in substantial agreement. The nature of the law enforcement often requires quick decisions, and discretization (viewing the "objects" of your world as belonging to a small number of classes) is an effective, responsible strategy.
The question of whether there are three categories or four in their classification scheme is a detail. If you say four, I certainly won't disagree. But it's probably not five—as five discrete categories forces you to make three binary decisions in the worst case, whereas four requires only two.
Peace
stu:
I'd add that violent criminals (including e.g., terrorists, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, repeat armed robbers, etc.) are mostly irredeemable (aside from the matter of justice for the crimes they've already committed) and in much greater numbers be executed--and with greater speed--twenty-five yrs on "death row" is scandalous--without highly extenuating circumstances. We forgive them as Christians, but should let justice and protection of the public be our practical guides. I agree with the great Dr Johnson that the sight of the gallows can also signify a nation that has a respect for human life.
If the Obama admin thinks they can save public money by coaxing old, feeble, and disabled vets to an early death, perhaps they could save more by promoting the executions of many more violent criminals than they presently do.
JA
Instead of our half-assed attempts at statism and socialism (which are really just the same thing anyway), I'd much prefer a system in which police were not necessary (as in, oh, any time before the 17th century or so) as people defended themselves.
M
JA—
You're really not keeping up.
That "VA death book" was about the hows and whys of writing a living will, a routine part of estate planning. I've written mine. The intent isn't to encourage people to shuffle off quickly, it's to avoid Terri Schaivo-like cases. If you think that all heroic measures should be used to preserve life, irrespective of quality or likely duration, say so. It's a standard option. It's not the option I chose, though.
The language of the Obama directive is unaltered from 2007 language written by GWB's administration. And the book itself was available from VA sources throughout the Bush administration.
And here's the really funny thing: I saw this first on FOX yesterday morning, while on the treadmill at the gym. I've since seen confirmation from other sources.
Anyway...
You may be surprised to know that I actually partially agree with your main point on criminals. There exist people who simply have no regard for the rights or well-being of other people. I am doubtful that these people will every be able to function in normal society. For these people, I think the our only reasonable strategy is long-term incarceration. I know you'd kill them, but this suffers from several flaws in my estimation: it is irrevocable, it is expensive, and it diminishes us as a society. I don't think that all murders, rapists, terrorists, etc., necessarily fall into this class, but it's a reasonable initial presumption, and judgments otherwise should be evidence based.
There are also people in our prisons who committed non-violent crimes out of economic desperation, or crimes against one's self (drug users fall into this category). For these people, there is hope: effective job training, and transitional counseling for the first class; detoxification and addiction counseling for the second.
I also think that building an active faith can help these folks, but I don't trust the state to do it. I would, however, support measure that provided such people the opportunity to participate in faith communities, and benefit from them.
Indeed, I know that this is sometimes done. One of the fellows in diakonia (lay religious instruction) with me has a ministry in which he takes young offenders from a half-way house to church every Sunday. They don't have to go, and he doesn't have to take them (he won't if they've ever "gone missing" on him). He's realistic about this. Most of the guys are just happy to be out of the house, and the service doesn't matter. But there's are always a few who get hooked, and he's in long-term communication with quite a few. This is God's work.
Stu:
"There are also people in our prisons who committed non-violent crimes out of economic desperation, or crimes against one's self (drug users fall into this category)."
Yes! I agree--with the reservation that simply because one is poor one does not have to be a law-breaker, and that when one person has broken the law and is not punished, another who has obeyed the law and has suffered hardship on account of it is cheated. I am reminded of my husband's experience in Vietnam when his unit's Mama San (who was a war widow and had three children) refused to prostitute herself even though she would have made more money doing that than washing GI's clothes.
That aside, as I've said, I have many close family members in various levels of law-enforcement and judiciary positions. Another family member who is a judge has never, ever, given jail time for the simple use of marijuana. If the offender is a juvenile, the bench requires that he maintain an immaculate school attendance record for x-amount of months, and that he attend addiction counseling depending on his level of consumption.
The moment a violent crime is committed in the procuring of drugs or during the period that the individual is under the influence, that's when things get nasty and penalties get stricter.
I think, especially, for young offenders, the emphasis should be on straightening a young life out rather than punishing him or her for bad decisions which only had consequences for that young person. We all know that the adolescent mind is generally unable to perceive the broader implications and/or long term effects of his or her actions, especially those without the benefit of a sufficient education.
The minute you get a kid "in the system," you can almost count on that kid to be a future offender. If one gets used to a life of crime and punishment and it becomes a cyclical lifestyle for that individual, one can not expect much but more crime and more violence.
Of course there are people who are so degraded and so wicked and inhumane that they ought not to be a part of society. For them, often, there is no hope in the secular world and but for the grace of God they'll remain abject criminals. God's Church ought always to be that last lifeline, reaching out to where the secular world has failed to reach--into the soul of the offender. Then, she might find some peace and some purpose.
Unfortunately, many young people are made to feel that because they were born into a certain milieu, society has low expectations of them and they have come to live down to those expectations.
If, however, that person can be made to feel that she has value outside the low and dangerous world she's found herself in (likely, through no fault of her own--for many, being born in the wrong neighborhood is enough) then she will live up to the standards set for her.
If we approach children as life-long criminals, we run the risk of them living down to our expectations of them, and that is the thing that ruins lives.
Emmy—
We are in substantial agreement, which is the most important message here. The remark below is the merest of quibbles.
I agree--with the reservation that simply because one is poor one does not have to be a law-breaker...
Exactly right.
...and that when one person has broken the law and is not punished, another who has obeyed the law and has suffered hardship on account of it is cheated.
I wouldn't phrase it this way. Let's suppose we have three people: Alice, Bob, and Carol. All three are equally poor. Alice breaks into Bob's house, stealing his groceries. Does it make sense to say that Carol was cheated? She's now at a disadvantage relative to Alice, but saying that she was cheated amounts to looking at life as a race, and I don't think that's the right model. [For one thing, I think that viewing life as a race actually encourages cheating.]
Moreover, if you think (and I do so think) that Alice ought to make restitution, saying that Carol was cheated is a dangerous distraction. Alice doesn't owe restitution to Carol, she owes restitution to Bob!
I understand that using the language that "Alice cheated Carol" has utility in that it might make her feel that she has a stake in seeing justice served. For example, if Carol witnessed Alice stealing Bob's groceries, we'd like Carol to come forward. The appeal, "you were cheated too" has some traction here, but I think it is a cheat in its own way—confusing justice with mere self-interest. I think that we'd do better encouraging the opinion in Carol (and others) that justice matters, and that as part of Alice and Bob's community, she has a responsibility to all to seeing that justice is done.
Indeed, there is a responsibility to Alice here, and this ties into and reinforces other themes in your note. The way to avoid the cycle of crime and punishment is by intervening quickly and appropriately at the earliest possible moment. Letting Alice get away with this crime may well end up injuring Alice most of all.
Stu,
I think you missed it.
Carol is cheated if Alice "gets away" with crime.
Bob need not be in the picture.
Perhaps Alice constantly brags to Carol (and Carol's children) how she sells her food stams and wic food for cash, xboxes, air jordans, etc.
Carol, meantime, is struggling to improve her children's life through available means.
Since "snitches get stitches," Carol is reluctant to "rat out" Alice, but at the same time is triply cheated:
1) her children are exposed to a horrible influence
2) she is dis-motivated and dis-couraged by the behavior of both Alice and those institutions who look the other way when it comes to Alice's behavior
3) she is mistreated by folks who assume that all on government assistance engage in fraud and theft.
Not enforcing the law is the second worst crime a government can make, having bad laws being the first.
GM—
I think you missed it.
Let me cordially disagree. Emmy said, “when one person has broken the law and is not punished, another who has obeyed the law and has suffered hardship on account of it is cheated.”
I think the referent of the italicized ‘it’ is ‘the law.’
You've added quite a lot to the scenario in order to establish a plausible justification for the notion that Alice cheated Carol. Carol is suffering hardship, not because she followed the law (Emmy's scenario), but because of the additional elements you've added to Alice's behavior.
stu:
Guess my post didn't get through after all (ca ne fait rien!). When you say I'm "not keeping up," I'd have to respond that I'm at the VA hospital in Ann Arbor, MI every week and I both observe and read the literature I'm afforded there. Now I obtained a pamphlet there the other day called "End-of-Life decisions--Making the right choice for you" (Channing Bete Co, 1997)--are we talking about the same VA literature? I'm pleased that you stay au courant, that's up-to-date on VA issues and that you profess to teach me about Vets' affairs. . . . And
when's the last time you were at a VA Hospital, sir?
stu -- the antecedent of it is "following the law"
C has suffered hardship b/c she follows the law and is yet unable to succeed.
A breaks the law and profits.
C both feels and is treated badly because of A's actions.
Or was my pregnant wife not harassed by a uniformed police officer until the point of weeping and vomiting yesterday morning for no other reason than we live in a "bad neighborhood" and had a yard "violation" which meant we must be "bad people"?
JA—
When I said you weren't "keeping up," I was not referring to the status of the VA hospitals, but rather, to which of the right wing talking points are still "operative."
In response to your question, I've never been in a VA Hospital. I'm not a vet, and my relatives and friends who are have generally sought private-sector healthcare, so I've not had occasion to go as a visitor. I'm sure that you are much better informed than I am about the state of VA Hospitals.
I believe we are talking about the same booklet. The claims I saw regarding distribution during the Bush administration did not pertain to hard-copy distribution, but rather to distribution through the web, with multiple links to on-line copies, verified through the standard web-archives as having been active continuously through the Bush administration.
An interesting question here is whether this was in any way atypical. Was it the case, e.g., that a large number of materials, previously available in print form were only available electronically during the Bush administration? This seems plausible, but I don't know, and the stories I've read haven't addressed this issue. I'd ask you, but since I've yet to observe you make a single damaging admission, I don't see why I'd be under any obligation to believe you if you said that this document was unique in being suppressed. In any event, the written guidance given to VA doctors and administrators by the Bush administration (which you objected to as so characteristic of Obama's lack of respect for veterans, when you thought it was authored during his administration) argues otherwise.
GM—
Or was my pregnant wife not harassed by a uniformed police officer until the point of weeping and vomiting yesterday morning for no other reason than we live in a "bad neighborhood" and had a yard "violation" which meant we must be "bad people"?
All argument aside, is this autobiographical truth? If so, it is shameful, and exactly why police departments have community relations officers and ombudsman. My sympathy and support go out to both of you.
Just like other forms of criminality, police abuse is best addressed early, before it gets out of hand.
Yes, autobiographical truth.
What's better, he and two of the city workers (who were taking a break from mowing down my watermelon patch) pointed and laughed at her.
stu:
Check Kirby's archives for the claim you said I made that the "end-of-life" propaganda disseminated by the VA dates from the Bush admin--it doesn't, and you won't find it, 'cause it doesn't exist, as I've said several times (it dates from the Clinton admin). Faites-attention, Monsieur, Le Docteur! If we have the same source (you haven't yet confirmed that yet) perhaps we can debate from there. . . .
JA—
The booklet dates from the Clinton administration. No question, never questioned. It was also disseminated during the Bush administration, but possibly only in electronic form. We do not know how exceptional that was, and so whether or not there was any signal in the fact that there appears not to have been paper-based distribution. It is consistent with everything I know that the Bush-era administrators simply decided that web access was sufficient for a broad collection of material directed at vets.
The language I was referring to was the instructions to VA doctors and administrators (not the booklet, per se), which you thought was generated by the Obama administration, and was indicative of its lack of respect for vets. This language has been proven to have originated in 2007, and was written by Bush-era bureaucrats, and thus far has been retained unaltered by the Obama administration.
I can go back into the archives if you like. Are you up for crow?
stu:
Nowhere did I say that the Obama admin originated this document--show me if I've made a false claim--as I said several times before in giving the publication specs for the document, it was published originally during the CLINTON ADMIN--savvy?
GM:
That's shameful. Police oughtn't to go about mowing down a man's watermelon patch and laughing at his pregnant wife. Don't they have things like...assault and robbery and rape and possibly even murder cases to be working on? I would most certainly complain to their superiors, and when you do complain to their superiors make sure you take copious notes and get the name of the person you're talking to. Hell, even ask if you can record the conversation--THEY do it all the time.
Reminds me of the library security people who are more than happy to fulfill their duties of waking up old ladies who've fallen asleep in the easy chairs, but suddenly become shy when it comes to "moving along" a shady hobo in a trenchcoat who's playing with himself in the kid's lit section.
Law-abiding people who make harmless mistakes are easy targets. Sociopathic exhibitionists are not so easy.
I must say that I find myself more in agreement with GM on the point of "those who obey the law are cheated." Part of my concern is that if the law is not applied and the guilty are not punished then others become incentivized to break the law because breaking the law is more profitable and possibly easier than pulling down a 3rd shift at McDonald's.
But Stu, I'm quite impressed that we've found so many points of substantial agreement. The liberal and the conservotarian finding common ground! Hooray!
JA—
I think we're agreed, and have always agreed, that the booklets themselves (and there actually appear to have actually been two, "End-of-life Decisions," and "Your life, your choices") were written during the Clinton administration.
I refer you to this FOX debate on the issue, and particularly Assistant Secretary Duckworth's remarks in the second half of the debate.
You have previously written:
Keeping track of the Obama administrations's touchy relationship with the military (most soldiers and ex-soldiers well know that the Obama administration will be their "winter of discontent"), I'm informed (by the Wall Street Journal that recently the VA has been redirected to push hard for the use of a 52-page pamphlet called "Your Life, Your Choices" in which "end of life decisions" figure prominently in the "choices" disabled and elderly ex-military personnel are expected to consider. This pamphlet appeared in 1997 during the Clinton administration and was abandoned as an option during the Bush administration. Imagine the effect of this "counseling" on vets whose family lives have been shattered, who are heavily medicated, who've lost limbs or are blind, who are feeble and weak.
I've admittedly some more investigating to do on this score, but I'm probably the only one of us (perhaps other than Wendy) who regularly associates with vets (in the Vets' hospitals, the VFW, the county Vets' office, and socially), and let me say that it's difficult to read of such outlandish stuff about the VA "counseling" services without clutching my throat in disgust.
and
The pamphlet from the VA I was seeking about "End-of-Life Decesions," (obtained by me at my Vets' Hospital today), issued in 1997 during the Clinton administration and suppressed by the Bush administration, is outrageous in its pandering (know the origin of this one, stu?--but a quick google check solves all!) to what amounts to a soft-core appeal to wounded, disabled, and feeble vets to rid the world of their noisome presence. It's disgusting and perverse! But Obama is, in spite of stu's leftist bleatings, a prince of the "culture of death"--abortion, late term abortion, infantacide, and euthanasia.
in separate comments in the thread What Are We Fighting For.
In point of fact, these books wre continuously available during the Bush administration, but only electronically. They were by no means "suppressed." That is "no longer operative."
The current policy under which VA doctors advise vets to do end-of-life planning, and to consult available documentation (which may include these materials) was made in '07, by Bush administration. At the same time, limits in the materials were noted, and a decision was made to review them. The policies regarding end-of-life planning remain in place, using exactly the Bush-era language. Likewise, the review that started under his administration is on-going, with the expectation that the revised book will be available in '10. And Obama did not start the "push," it started back in '07. Again, that part is "no longer operative."
The only change I can see that the Obama administration made was to decide to distribute the book in printed form too. Oh, and to be a target for wingnuts. That too.
stu:
That the Bush admin didn't push this piece of "death wish" garbage in print is to their credit (tell me straightway--have you read it, stu, or not, for I have it "in mano" if you wish to argue your points further!?). I oppose any attempt (from Presidents Bush or Obama) to "push" "easeful death," as Keats has it, on vets rather than on terrorists, killers, and rapists.
Your proposal is for lifetime incarceration (at 27 K a yr a pop--but I well know the lib-line 'bout "differential," or racially "insensitive" sentencing, regardless of the stat that young black males commit 55% of the homicides in the US--that's one reason possibly why you live outside the city and don't walk to work, right?).
In all fairness, I found the pamphlet to be a bit creepy. It goes far beyond the acceptable limits of describing how to set up a living will and last will and testament and even presumes to pass moral judgment over certain end-of-life choices in subtle and overt ways which are detailed below.
Regardless of when it was published, and when it was reprinted, I think it shows veterans (or all people facing difficult end-of-life choices) disrespect.
For some, I think palliative and comfort care is a good option. Provided, of course, it is the patient who chooses that option for himself and not a bureaucrat in D.C. who, in his estimation, thinks that the patient's quality of life is limited and that it might be too heavy a burden on the federal coffers to keep him alive.
But the thing I found most distasteful--not only distasteful but repugnant--about the pamphlet is the way it tries to portray the receipt of life-saving and life-prolonging treatments as an aberration, and unnatural. As if the will to live is unnatural!
Page four lists two treatment options:
"*Keep patients alive longer--even when their bodies no longer work on their own
*Control pain and maintain comfort--and allow a peaceful death."
Are those really the only two options?
This is what the pamphlet has to say about life-sustaining treatments, parentheses mine, from page 6:
"What this option may mean:
*Continuing treatment, even when there is little hope of improvement.
*Relying on artificial means to sustain life.
What it may involve:
*artificial ventilation--to take over breathing (a breathing tube? Those come standard with any by-pass operation! The example they give in the pamphlet is a miserable looking woman wearing an oxygen mask. Asthmatics get oxygen, too!)
*tube feedings and hydration--when nutrients and fluids can't be taken by mouth (scary, threatening description of an IV)
*chemotherapy--using chemicals to destroy cancer cells (is this pamphlet really discouraging the use of chemotherapy to kill cancer? In favor of what? Pain pills?)
*antibiotic therapy--to help treat infections resulting from an underlying condition, such as an advanced cancer. (Right--those demonic antibiotics are being given to people with infections! Clearly this is a dastardly plot to prolong their suffering!)
*renal dialysis--using a machine to do the work of the kidneys. (Certainly wouldn't want dialysis in the event of, say, KIDNEY FAILURE!)
*cardiopulmonary resuscitation--an emergency procedure that restores heartbeat and breathing (Every swim instructor knows it, every daycare worker knows it, and every nurse and doctor in the whole WORLD knows it. But clearly, this is only a means by which to cruelly prolong the suffering of a patient in the event of choking on a chicken bone, or a heart attack.)
*surgery (ouch! Now who would want surgery if one had the option of dying instead? I mean, no choice there--I know what I'm pickin!)"
Sustaining life by these means only offers three possible benefits while threatening four dangers:
"*prolong the dying process--causing suffering for both the patient and loved ones. (Prolonging the dying process is the whole point of medicine, isn't it?)
*cause pain and discomfort--for example, feeding tubes can be uncomfortable, some forms of chemotherapy may cause nausea, etc.
(Umm, yeah, and getting a blood draw might sting a little.)
*make it hard to spend meaningful time with loved ones--especially if the patient is unconscious or uncomfortable. (Even so, one is more likely to get quality time when one is, oh I don't know, alive?)
*lead to dependence on tubes and machines to live. (I know plenty of people who choose to live with colostomy bags, with dialysis treatments, with insuline injections. Who is to say that their quality of life isn’t just as high as mine?)”
Continued:
Now keep in mind that accompanying these bullets are fairly threatening images of surgeons in masks, miserable people with tubes taped to their faces strapped down in bed, and someone in the ICU whose family is standing outside a window watching them being kept alive on a respirator. Turn the page and we have two pages on the benefits (four are listed) of choosing to stop life-sustaining treatment. Even the NEGATIVES (only two are listed) are phrased as positives. For example: “Some pain medication may cause grogginess or unconsciousness. Your health-care provider can adjust your medication so you have an acceptable balance of pain relief and alertness.” Accompanying these bullets are images of a happy family looking at photos in an album and laughing together, and a mother in bed, her two children sitting next to her, celebrating a birthday.
Seriously? Think this isn’t weighted toward choosing death? In some places, the effect is more subtle, and the questions are leading: “Do you believe people should always fight to the end?” Whenever we see “always” or “never,” our immediate response is “no.”
“Which is more important to you—sustaining life at all costs or living independently?”
“At all costs” is quite a severe phrase when earlier we were talking about the pain of an IV needle stick, possible nausea from chemotherapy, and the possibility of having to use an oxygen mask. These basic treatments aren’t “at all costs,” and I believe this is a false either/or statement.
The whole thing is creepy. Totally creepy. After they get the person reading the pamphlet so depressed they can’t see straight, then there’s a page on assisted suicide and why this “shouldn’t” be an option.
If their intention was to distribute a pamphlet on the objective pros and cons of different courses of action at the end of life, I wish they would have been a bit less biased in favor of death. There is nothing in here about practical information on how to write a living will and where to have it registered to see it carried out. There is nothing in here on a last will and testament, either. It makes death look easy, natural, and attractive, and modern medicine look painful, threatening, and destructive and I think that’s morally wrong.
JA—
I don't feel any particular need to defend the booklet. I took a quick look at it when this first blew up. I'll grant that it's not what I'd have written. But that's not really the issue, is it?
If you want to say that the Clinton-era bureaucrat who approved this in the first place screwed up, I might even buy that. But it looks to me as if the subsequent history is that that the Bush administration just kicked the can down the road until '07, and then someone woke up and said, "is this really the message we want to send." That person deserves thanks, and whoever it is started a process that still continues, and hopefully will produce a better result. I can't explain why these things take as long as they do, but if a year and a half wasn't enough time for the Bush administration to finish the task, then why do you expect the Obama administration to have completed it in the next six months?
You say that the Bush administration didn't push this, and it's to their credit. I think it is more likely that the Bush-era administrators decided to allocate resources away from printed materials for veterans, and to other things (e.g., a nurse). They may well have felt that web access was "good enough." But I'm not aware of any evidence that this particular material was singled out for non-publication. Merely that it wasn't published. Clearly, the Obama-era administrators have made a different resource allocation decision, and educational materials are being printed again, and this material is coming along for the ride.
There's really not a story here. The WSJ article that got you wound up missed a few pertinent facts, and they've since come out. If FOX is "walking the story back," maybe its time for you to stop flogging it?
As regards incarceration, $27k/year is a lot, but that's what it costs. But it is unhelpful to criticize one option for its cost, without considering the cost of its alternatives. Death penalty cases cost (on average) an extra $2M to try. The effect is that for the additional cost of a single capital case, you can endow three prisoners for eternity. The economics wholly favor lifetime incarceration.
But my concern about the death penalty has more to do with its irrevocability than its cost. Capital cases have been found incorrectly. Indeed, as we've passed into the era of DNA analysis, retrospective analysis of capital cases from the pre-DNA era has demonstrated a depressingly high error rate. Innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit. At least with incarceration, the state does not steal the person's entire life when it makes a mistake. The possibility of restoration and restitution remains.
There is no need to invoke racial differentials, etc., in the arguments against the death penalty. The death penalty is morally dubious, and economically profligate.
As for why I live in the suburbs. I won't say that personal safety wasn't a consideration, but it was way down on the list. The drivers were financial. In '83, as a young assistant professor, I could buy a three bedroom townhouse in the suburbs for what it cost to rent a one-bedroom apartment in the city. A few years later, as our children were approaching school age, it made sense to move to a better school district. Again, the economics strongly favored remaining in the suburbs. So I take the train into work, and walk the 7/10ths of a mile from the train station to my office.
stu:
Since the Constitution guarantees us a speedy trial, I'd simply like us to carry out the sentence speedily as well; if it's dear, make it less so then.
OK, we'll give the Big O some more time to reconsider the apparent cheapness with which he values innocent unborn, newly-born, and infirm human life. Perhaps he after all can be weaned from the tender care he's wont to lavish over terrorists, murderers, and rapists (I'll not include drug-dealers, for the Big O may find hisself in a conflict of interest on that score).
Considering that the "quality of life" in prison is not supposed to be posh (like the easy life, say, tenured profs have by comparison), wouldn't it be a blessing to provide prison inmates convicted of crimes with violence an "easeful" alternative?
Now if the shining legacy of that senatorial demi-god, the late Sen Edward Kennedy (requiescat in pacem, vere) is to be honoured then I'm afraid racial "sensitivity" is de rigueur, for he sponsored a bill to convict and incarcerate criminals more in accord with percentages of the US population of each ethnic group, rather than according to the offence committed. But perhaps you demur from this view, and perhaps Sen Kennedy was already suffering from the brain tumour that sadly ended his life at the moment he conceived this bill. I was saddened that such a man hadn't more time to repent for his manifold transgressions. But then we know that true conversion can take place in the "twinkling of an eye" . . .
Truly I'm pleased that you and your family are and were living in the relatively safe burbs outside Chicago. That's one reason why Emmy, I, and me mum are going to St John's, Newfoundland next spring. It's very, very safe and civilised. Perhaps someday you'd care to join us then. . . ?
JA—
Request #1. When you guys are settled in Canada, can you try to save enough money in order to buy two computers. It's a bit unsettling to read a post from Emmy, and try to figure out if it's actually from her, or from you.
I recognize that this can't be a first priority, but computers are a heck of a lot cheaper than they used to be. (Even for folks like me, who wouldn't touch Windows with a 10 foot mouse.)
Anyway... A few thoughts.
(1) I'd like to see speedy trials too. Not so speedy as to distort justice, of course. Railroading shouldn't be anyone's plan. But quickly enough so that those involved can move on. Again, this argues for prosecutorial choice for life imprisonment over death. Death penalty cases grind very slowly, and have mandatory reviews, etc.
(2) I'm glad you'll give Mr. Obama a bit more time. His administration is relatively new, whether it is to last 4 years or 8. A lot has happened. As for his attitudes w.r.t. abortion, that black church that you so hate opposes it. I don't know what his stance will be, nor what Ms. Sotomayor's stance will be. Nor do you. It may take a couple years to find out. Your comment regarding Mr. Obama and drugs is completely unfounded, and very much to your discredit. You're a better man that this.
(3) If you think Mr. Obama has lavished tender care over terrorists, murderers, and rapists, you'll have to give some specifics. And forget that tired Ayers thing. I've long thought it's a distraction (I know a classic establishment R who was on the Annenberg board with Mr. Obama, so I know that dog's got no teeth). What has he done since becoming President that gives aid and comfort to any of these classes?
(4) Regarding the quality of life of long-term inmates... I've not addressed this at all. My opinion is that there should be routes available to them for such redemption as they can find: be this through church or rehabilitation. But we don't need to be fools. If they're playing the system, time them out, which is to say, close these alternatives. A year the first time, two the second, four the third. You get the idea. Beyond that, we don't owe them much besides the essentials of life: food and shelter. If giving them the opportunity to have greater rights (TV, etc.) makes it easier for the prisons to manage them, that's their business. It's not a civil rights question.
(5) Our attitudes on the late Senator Kennedy will differ. That he had his flaws was manifest, but you don't compute the balance on a ledger by just looking at the debits. We value the credits very differently. Get over it. It's bad manners to talk evil of the dead.
(6) Regarding Newfoundland. My folks vacationed there, and liked the place. Not so much as to move there; they'll stay in Florida. I was disappointed to hear that you're moving -- I do get to Michigan from time to time, and the Ann Arbor area isn't that far from East Lansing. I'd have liked to have met you, but I was more than busy enough during the last trip (my daughter's wedding). We might not agree on much, but I suspect we could have consumed a couple of beers (and maybe a brat or two) without war breaking out. If I get to St. John's, I'll look you up. If you get to Chicago, please feel welcome to do likewise. I know all the good breweries.
stu:
Sorry for the confusion--I tried to set off my posts at the bottom with "JA" so as to distinguish my posts from Em's, but I'd didn't always remember--nor does Em in the heat of rhetorical combat. For your convenience I'll be more scrupulous about it in future--just scroll to the bottom first to check, though a message can gain (yes, or lose) something when one's unsure of the author in that one tends to concentrate more on the substance of the message itself. Now we've to practise pretty Scottish economies of late, given Mum's care and such, so I think we'll have to stick with one computer, as apparently Kirby must--it's also more ecologically resourceful.
Thoughts on thoughts:
(1) I think reformation of the trial and appeals process is overdue to prevent justice from being compromised, as I believe it is for most "death row" criminals. And I think capital punishment is both just for certain crimes and a deterrent to some. As I've said, my mode of thinking on this is greatly influenced by the great diplomat, jurist, philosopher, Catholic monarchist, and counterrevolutionary, Comte Joseph de Maistre (see especially his first "soiree" in "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg" (for your convenience there is an English translation by a Canadian friend of mine, Professor (Emeritus) Richard LeBrun of the U of Manitoba).
(2) My suggestion to give President Obama more time refers to the time offered him to repent of his far-left agenda that threatens significantly to damage this country's social, economic, and political institutions. I don't recall expressing "hate" for Obama's former church, only for the hateful anti-Semitic and anti-American views of his former preacher, whom he conveniently jettisoned during his presidential campaign. The joke at the end was a reference of course to Obama's self-confessed and once regular use of illegal drugs that he was politic to confess in his book, perhaps in order to preempt any potential damage to his candidacy if later revealed by others. Yes, black churches tend to deplore abortion of black babies especially (it now runs at about 50% of all pregnancies among African-Americans); my own conscience in the matter of abortion is of course guided by my church. I also deplore the politicisation of Supreme Court selections that the Demos began during the hearings on Judge Bork's candidacy years ago.
(3) The proposal to bring Gitmo prisoners to the US (specifically to Michigan) and to afford them certain legal privileges granted to US citizens and to legal residents is bad enough. Now I didn't think of the Ayers-Dohrn running sore, but now you've mentioned it, rest assured I'll never give it up until Professor Ayers first gives up his vile anti-Americanism and his attempt to use our schools (and captive schoolchildren) to propagandise for odious anti-American causes. And I'm not sure to what these comments of yours refer: "If they're playing the system, time them out, which is to say, close these alternatives. A year the first time, two the second, four the third." A yr the first time for what? I ask. Convicted felons should never be allowed to vote, nor should those who are illiterate, who cannot read English, or who cannot pass a basic American civics test.
(to be continued)
(continued)
(5) My RIP for Sen Kennedy was sincere for the person (I am sorry for what must have been his suffering, which I assure you I took no secret pleasure in whatsoever), though I believe his policies (and especially his immigration policies) have done great damage to this country--damage that we shall be hard-pressed to "get over" for many yrs henceforth.
(6) is the best part of your post. We're moving, yes, but not till spring. Tonight we'll be at my VFW fish fry in Hamburg, MI and tomorrow (Saturday) Em and I are taking Mum (and meeting there an old school girlfriend of Em's who's in med school in East Lansing) to the Renaissance Fair in Holland, MI. If you were by some odd chance planning to attend, we'll be easy to spot. I'll be in kilt and wearing a whitish summer coat and Panama pushing me mum in a wheelchair--she'll be wearing her new fleur-de-lys dress we bought her for the occasion (Vive la Bastille!). Despite our many differences I too should like to meet you, stu, and I'm sure we could find far more congenial topics and stories (I'm an inveterate storyteller and am always keen to hear more of them from others--I've a couple-three great baseball stories . . .) punctuated by regular attention to another fistful of good ale or beer. So, stu, Cheers!(as I drink the rest of a glass of wine so rudely neglected since last night--yes, I know it's early--but I just have to have three or four in the morning, see, to help me get going . . . Hey!--it's not a problem, though I'm thinking of anteing up regular layaway payments on a new liver . . . Plaisanterie! ("Joke!" or "Just kidding!"). But the "Cheers!" is not. Yr humb srvt, JA
Pax tibi,
JA
JA—
Thank you for your very nice note. A few quick thoughts...
(2) Corrections noted and acknowledged re: Obama's church. I don't really think Obama is far-left. More of a pragmatic center-left. He certainly does have a liberal view of social justice, but his governance seems to be based more on sound long-term governance. I know that you're looking at the short term debt, which to me is just stock-in-trade Keynesian policy. I'm looking more at a budget process that puts everything above the line, e.g., if we're going to go fight silly wars out in the middle east, at least we owe it to ourselves not to pretend we're not paying for it.
Re: Obama's drug use. (a) There's a big difference between using and selling, and no evidence that I'm aware of that hints at the later. (b) GWB is proof you can brazen through past drug use, and stare the media down. Yes, there were reports from time to time (cocaine?!), but this story never really entered the national conversation. I'm raising this, not to flog horses that have left the stage, but to point out that disclosure was an option, and other candidates have followed other options.
(3) IIRC, Michigan wanted them, and they have to go somewhere. Gitmo's going to close, and we'll be better off for it. As for the legal protections, those that are being afforded are simply those that our laws afford to everyone under our jurisdiction, irrespective of citizenship status, and the issue isn't that Obama is applying them, it's that Bush did not. Gitmo, no matter what he said, was under our control, and therefore under our jurisdiction.
(4) And I'm not sure to what these comments of yours refer: "If they're playing the system, time them out, which is to say, close these alternatives. A year the first time, two the second, four the third." A yr the first time for what? I ask.
This was within the context of handling prisoners under long term incarceration. I believe that opportunities for church, or rehabilitative services, ought to be just that. Opportunities. Made available to those who are inclined to take advantage of them, and not to those who aren't. If a prisoner decides to go to service, but then disrupts worship, or spends the service hanging out in the john, etc., some time should pass before the opportunity becomes available again. And they should get to spend the time counting holes in the ceiling.
(6) Not till spring? There's a decent chance I may get up there before you go. I'll let you know. I don't know about this weekend, but I'll drop you a note if we head up. Sounds like fun.
stu:
Thanks for your easeful message back--on the political issues that divide us, I can but say, as you Lutherans are wont to, "Here I stand," but it'd also be a pleasure to stand you and . . . the first beer or . . . sometime. Take care, mon adversaire,
yr humb srvt,
JA
stu:
Just a quick correction: The Renaissance Festival is in HOLLY, MI, not Holland--sorry!
JA
JA—
That makes it easy. Holland was something I was thinking about. Holly's not feasible. I was imagining the conversation with my wife, "Let me get this straight. You want to drive 2 1/2 hours to meet up with someone that you argue with on the internet, and then 2 1/2 hours back?!" Yeah, pretty much.
OK, now try it with 4 1/2 instead of 2 1/2 :-/.
Thanks for the update.
Just a note -- the footwashing service is all about service to each other.
I know Luther thought that was all a suckers game and the real money was in convincing princes that it was still cool to have armies but whatevs.
GM—
Kirby notwithstanding, foot washing is a standard part of the Lutheran Maundy Thursday service, and my current congregation (perhaps, it would be more accurate to say, my current Pastor) does this.
Our interpretation is a bit different from yours, but I think it is because we tend to take place our Pastors on a higher pedestal than you do. It is an opportunity for them to remind themselves that their job is to be servants, not princes. Human nature being what it is, it's only that Pastors who don't actually need to get that message who do the foot washing :-).
stu:
Yes, a droll comment of your wife's, though there's much other than politics to talk of or experience (for the odious would-be snob in "Emma," Mrs Elton, on the day she called a picnic a "fete champetre" at which "strawberries and only strawberries could be talked of." Having played high-school baseball and basketball in Southern California and a yr of small-college basketball at 17-18 yrs, I can still talk sports a bit, even though I really like the U of Chicago's traditional attitude about them--no seedy semi-criminal entertainment operations masquerading as legitimate parts of a higher ed mission.
Em and I are also keen amateur mineralogists and collectors, and we're short season ticket-holders at the Toronto opera (Madama Butterfly, Otello, and Maria Stuarta we've chosen for this yr). We're planning a four or five-day trip around the Puccini on Oct 14.
Cheers,
JA
Post a Comment