Sunday, April 18, 2010

GODFATHER



One of the projects I have had recently is to read more novels set in New York City. Last week I picked up a dogeared copy of Mario Puzo's GODFATHER. I had seen all three movies by FF Coppolla, but had never read the tome. I was surprised at how fun it was to read. I am reading through Marianne Moore's letters, and can go through fifteen pages maximum before I have to do something else. But in the Puzo book I can easily do 150 pages. It's hard in fact to stop. On p. 324, Michael has shot the corrupt cop McCluskey, and also Sollozzo, who had tried to off his father.

He's in Sicily waiting for his heels to cool so he can go back to America and replace his father as Don.

"In this antique garden, Michael Corleone learned about the roots from which his father grew. That the word 'Mafia' had originally meant place of refuge. Then it became the name for the secret organization that sprang up to fight against the rulers who had crushed the country and its people for centuries. Sicily was a land that had been more cruelly raped than any other in history. The Inquisition had tortured rich and poor alike. The landowning barons and the princes of the Catholic Church exercised absolute power over the shepherds and farmers. The police were the instruments of their power and so identified with them that to be called a policeman is the foulest insult one Sicilian can hurl at another" (324).

I realized that part of the Lutheran tradition had been to separate church and state, and to allow one to play off against the other, so that absolute power did not create absolute corruption. There were checks and balances, one check being the individual conscience itself, which was to set itself against all other sources of authority. The fear of Papists that was generated by the Puritans and Protestants generally came not so much out of fear of the actual people, or their liturgy, but out of fear of the terrible power that the Catholic hierarchy created, how it dwarfed individual conscience, and turned the people under its thumb into conformist stooges afraid to think for themselves: illiterate baboons who acted with the coordinated savagery of a legion of animals.

"Justice had never been forthcoming from the authorities" (324), so the Mafia became a kind of Robin Hood agency. But in turn the Mafia was secretive, and became just another source of monolithic power. Michael doesn't trust the local doctor to reset his jaw that has been broken by the corrupt police officer McCluskey.

"Taza offered to treat his face but Michael refused. He had been there long enough to learn that Dr. Taza read everything but his medical literature, whch he admitted he could not understand. He had passed his medical exams through the good offices of the most important Mafia chief in Sicily who had made a special trip to Palermo to confer with Taza's professors about what grades they should give him. And this too showed how the Mafia in Sicily was cancerous to the society it inhabited. Merit meant nothing. Talent meant nothing. Work meant nothing. The Mafia Godfather gave you your profession as a gift" (325).

I suppose something similar could be said for communist societies, in which talent, and merit, and work mean nothing. What matters is how well you are regarded by the higher-ups. It is only that which matters. Good party members are preferred to good doctors, or good writers, or anything else.

Whereas God is supposed to be blind with regard to how well-connected someone is, and to prefer instead those who have real merit, the Mafia or the Catholic Church in Italy have historically been otherwise. Communists, too, regard their own corrupt system as above any other consideration, and it is difficult to get anywhere without the benefit of the larger organization.

"Michael thought about his father's organization. If it continued to prosper it would grow into what had happened here on this island, so cancerous that it would destroy the whole country. Sicily was already a land of ghosts, its men emigrating to every other country on earth to be able to earn their bread, or simply to escape being murdered for exercising their political and economic freedoms" (325-326).

Machine politics work. The Democratic machine under Tammany worked. The Language Poetry machine worked. But ultimately a certain crumminess prevails in which membership matters more than merit, and hard work of any kind is not rewarded, it is only affiliations that matter. But in the long run this corrupts poetry itself, as it corrupts society at large.

Bad doctors with good connections rise to the top and are well-paid under such systems. Poets with good connections are the ones that get paid. Creepy politicians who are connected to the big Chicago machine roll over those from smaller organizations, and they are able to pay off journalists, in order to arrange hit pieces against politicians from outlying states like Alaska, or Arizona.

People without brains get Ph.D.s from dissertations in which every word has been stolen from elsewhere.

And ultimately this corrupts & wrecks the very institutions they build.

Matthew 7:24-7:

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

93 comments:

Brett said...

Hypothetical:

You have two parties.

In one, a man whose family had no political connections becomes president.

In the other, a man whose father was president before him, and whose family has long been connected to sources of power, becomes president.

If forced to choose, which of these two parties would be more likely to be based on connections than merit?

Kirby Olson said...

Bush II definitely had the legacy effect. You could say the same about McCain, I think, what with all the admirable admirals.

Not sure about Palin. Craig claims she had an illustrious ancestry.

That isn't necessarily bad. Good genes do matter, I think.

They shouldn't disqualify or qualify someone.

Machines shouldn't, either.

I'm terribly afraid of machine politics.

Can't stand the steamrolling effect.

Did I mention that I have many illustrious ancestors? I think I'll provide a tree at some point.

It would only highlight the paucity of my own contributions.

Geoffrey Chaucer was my 17th great grandfather.

Brett said...

I'm related to William Wallace, a dude who signed the Declaration of Independence, Lew Wallace, the dude who led the Ford team that invented fuel injection, and a guy who invented a new dumpster and a new way to dump a dumpster.

So There, Chaucerman:-)

Kirby Olson said...

Apparently to be a made-man in the Mafia you have to have pure Sicilian heritage on both sides.

The Chaucer isn't very well-confirmed. Ancestry.com ranks reliability of each ancestor with a star-system from none to five. Chaucer link actually has none.

John Alden of the Mayflower has 4 stars. That link is my 9th great grandfather.

I'm also related by strange verbiage to Franklin Pierce, Rutherford Hayes (not Isaac), and about fifteen others.

I'll put it in maybe on Tuesday.

Maybe we're all related!

Craig said...

Palin's father, Chuck, is a direct line descendant of Major General William Heath, who was born and raised in Boston and commanded forces for the Continental army at Lexington and Concord. He later participated in a number of battles in and around New York, although Washington held his military capabilities in low regard. After a debacle or two leading up to Saratoga, Heath ran a prison camp for the six thousand British troops surrendered in that battle by Westminster Abbey playwright, John Burgoyne. Heath's family arrived in the colony in 1643, intermarrying extensively with Mayflower descendants.

Palin's mother is of German stock that came to America in the middle of the 19th century and moved from Wisconsin across Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho to the nuclear reservation at Hanford, Washington, before going north to Alaska shortly after Alaskan statehood. One of her German ancestors was a civil engineer who designed and built railroad trestles shortly after arriving in Wisconsin. Anchorage is Alaska's primary railhead, built forty years before any of Palin's family got there.

Obama's grandmother has New England roots and came to the northwest, by way of Kansas, before moving on to Hawaii when it became a state. She grew up mostly in Everett, Washington, a timber depot and mining railhead known for smelly pulp mills and bloody incidents involving the IWW. Bobby Darren first performed Mac The Knife at the Monte Cristo hotel ballroom in downtown Everett.

My parents attended college and were married in Chicago, but I don't feel any sense of connection to the machine politics of that city. Michelle Obama has roots in Chicago, the kind of roots that make Louis Armstrong's trumpet as iconic of Chicago as it is of New Orleans. I don't see how those roots have much to do with what the Daley clan inherited from Al Capone.

Wikipedia points out that activities attributed to Al Capone in 1933 in Puzo's novel were fabricated, as Capone was already incarcerated in Philadelphia at the time of the alleged incident.

Obama may look shifty, but I think his alibi, that he wasn't born yet and already had a law degree before he ever set foot in Chicago, could suffice as a basis for establishing reasonable doubt.

Kirby Olson said...

The general trend is to paint anyone on the right as a jerk and a lowlife who can't read and is some kind of guttersnipe that uses their sink for a pissoir.

Recent investigations reveal that the Tea Party is actually better educated than the norm. That's not surprising to me.

The attempt to paint Palin as some kind of Hillbilly gone wild did work in the last round, and who knows, may work again.

The attempt to paint the whole south as lowlife hillbillies is part of this image generation.

I think it's important to see how class is used as a critical framing device by the left, which claims to be Marxist, but has its elitist side, too.

It's amazing how there are all these currents in the left.

I was myself a Democrat mostly on green grounds until about when I entered graduate school and so all the machinations (the ch is pronounced like a k, according to a recent article in Reader's Digest or somewhere that I read, although I think the same word exists in French, and has of course a sh- sound in that language).

I don't think we know who Obama is. He says in Audacity that he went to college and "sought out Marxist professors." He writes this as if it was normal for a young man to do that.

I found it odd, because I have never had any interest in Marxism except to try to understand it as a plague on humanity, and why it always created horrific police states.

It's a totalitarian system that wreaks vengeance on anyone who opposes it. Part of the new stealthcare bill is that it provides for 16,000 new IRS agents who will be policing us as to purchase of the dreaded insurance.

Yes we can make you buy things you don't want, and pass legislation you don't want, and force you to accept it, and call you a hillbilly if you don't accept it, and turn increasing sectors of the economy over to Red China, and make you work half the year servicing the debt to a foreign nation.

When the Democrats went communist, I had to get out of the party and do my best to raise a warning cry.

Kirby Olson said...

Obama went to Chicago precisely in order to build connections. He connected with Bill Ayers and his enormous radical machine, and also with Reverend Wright and his enormous machine. His family may not have had any immediate connections, unless you include the poet Frank Marshall Davis, who had been a journalist in Chicago, and a member of the Communist Party for years.


Obama drank with Davis as a teen, and wrote poems about him. He's his real father-figure.

The MSM hasn't traced this, but that's the real orientation in Obama's thought. He's a Marxist from head to toe, and he's all about redistribution of wealth.

In communist societies that government owns everything and then redistributes from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need.

It's exactly what Obama is doing. He's just not saying that that's what he's doing.

The problem is that communist governments always redistribute unfairly (Stalin's homies came first, as did Ceausescu's), and anyone who stands up to the machine disappears.

Kirby Olson said...

Government thus becomes a kind of Mafia under communism. Government becomes the most dreadful police state on earth.

We're well on our way to that kind of state under Obama.

The stealthcare police state is just the beginning.

G. M. Palmer said...

In one, a man whose family had no political connections becomes president.

And who would this be?

Certainly not Obama, whose grandparents were friends of politically connected poets, whose father was deeply involved in the politics of Kenya and whose mother was essentially a state-department wannabe.

Carter, maybe?

Brett said...

RE: "Marxist"

'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'

Kirby Olson said...

I was watching MSNBC and a Pew Poll said that 82% didn't like government control of the economy.

Kirby Olson said...

Or I should have "the increasing government control of the economy."

It's clear to everyone from middle to the right that Obama is a Marxist.

I think some on the left either don't care, or that they approve of it, or think that Marxism and Democratic party politics are the same thing (CPUSA endorsed the Democratic party's ticket last go-round).

Craig said...

George Bernard Shaw's first bankable play was called the Devil's Disciple. The play was set in colonial New Hampshire during the American Revolution. It was made into a movie in 1959. The role of General Burgoyne, the hanging judge, was played by Sir Laurence Olivier, who incidentally also played MacHeath six years earlier in the movie version of the Beggar's Opera.

John Burgoyne was six years old when the Beggar's Opera premiered in London in 1728. He'd have felt right at home in the Monte Cristo hotel ballroom when Bobby Darin first sang Mack the Knife to a beat borrowed from Louis Armstrong.

The Brecht-Weill collaboration, adapting the musical to modern times on its 200th anniversary for a German audience in Berlin, was a hit on stage, but it didn't really permeate American popular culture until after the second world war when Armstrong's recording made it the quintessential Chicago style jazz trumpet solo.

Brett said...

I also don't like government control of economy.

Good thing we don't have a Marxist for president!

The only thing close to approaching anything vaguely Marxist this pres. has done was with the auto-industry...

The Health Care bill was center-right.

The Stimulus package was center. The financial policies are just about to become center-left, though they've been center-right 'till now.

Calling things what they're not, and using that labeling to declare them 'Marxist' is not a valid rhetorical strategy, but that's the only real approach that's been used as evidence for this president's Marxistness (that, plus guilt by tenuous past association).

(A healthcare reform bill based on Republican ideas gets called a 'government takeover of health-care' [it's not even a government takeover of health Insurance]) and is therefore called Marxist...a fun semantic game, but fallacious and wrong).

Letting unfunded Bush taxcuts expire is not Marxist...But the right would have ya think it is.

Same playbook, over and over again. It's like watching Stockton and Malone doing the pick-and-roll...except they're playing baseball. Ludicrous, but also repetitive and boring.

"It's clear that everyone from middle to the right that Obama is a Marxist."

Well, that's false, especially since Ron Paul calls him a corporatist, and since half of the country approves of the job he's doing. Unless you mean to say that 50% of the country is Marxist?

Let me know when the government starts controlling all means of production, abolishes private industry, abolishes freedom of speech, abolishes freedom of religion, abolishes freedom of property, abolishes inheritance, and abolishes the distinction between town and country by forcibly redistributing all citizens.

Until then, it is clear that this word you use does not mean what you think it means.

Kirby Olson said...

Parties require a plan for their thinking. Race, gender class redistribution is pure Marxism, and it's become the secret narrative of the Democrats. Most of them don't realize yet that they've been hijacked. The right's narrative, and the narrative of the Tea Party Express, is the Protestant Work Ethic coming out of Calvinism. A petite version of this is in The Little Red Hen:

The Tea Party is just an outgrowth of The Little Red Hen which opens:

Once there was a Little Red Hen who lived in a barnyard with her three chicks and a Duck, a Pig, and a Cat...

She asks them to help her plant the seeds,cut the wheat, go to the miller, make the dough, and bake the bread, but the Duck, the Pig, and the Cat will not, but at the end, when she's done, they're very eager to eat the bread!

"No you won't," said the Little Red Hen.

"You wouldn't help me plant the seeds, cut the wheat, go to the miller, make the dough or bake the bread. Now my three chicks and I will eat this bread ourselves!"

And that's just what they did.

The Little Red Hen: A First Little Golden Book, 1981.

I think copies of this book should be distributed to the media and to people going to Tea Parties so that they have a clear simple narrative as to what they're about.

It beats Mao's Little Red Book that SDS was passing around and redistributing in the 1960s. Obama and Bill Ayers might not agree, as it seems that they do want redistribution even to those who didn't do any work, but the Little Red Hen story is the Protestant Work Ethic in 200 words or less.

It should be the Little Catechism of the Tea Party.

Whatever else Obama is up to, I don't think you could say that he's down with the Little Red Hen.

Brett said...

I think you need to tie in actual policy decisions to your little red hen story, because I think there's a gap in your understanding of the way zee world works...

The truth is, we liberals are kinda tired of the race, gender, class bullcrap that you righties keep harping on - we want gay people to have civil rights as partners, and want to do what's pragmatic to make for a strong economy.

In the little red hen story, you'd have to have a group of people with enormous control over the economic system that is used to represent value, and those people turn their section of the economy unsustainably high by using gimmicks and tricks that have yet to be regulated because they're emerging from a new, technologically sophisticated, globalized financial system...

You'd also have to have a group of people who run the gathering outfits, but don't do the manual labor, and make 400 times as much as the laborers...

And you'd have to have animals working their asses off who get sick and then go bankrupt because they can't afford treatment...

The reality is that the crash happened because our regulatory systems were obsolete...

The success that is the steady growth of the American economy post-WW2 came about because of financial regulation. But times changed, and the regulatory systems did not change with 'em, so we found ourselves in a big-ol' hole. Obama responded to this quite well (When Bush woke up, he did his parts - the bailouts were necessary, if avoidable and poorly regulated...but at least Obama came in and did a better job of keeping track of the money).

The DOW has almost doubled since Obama's policies went into effect - this doesn't seem to be the outcome of a Marxist gvmt.

With all of the bowingdown to our great past that the right does, y'all seem to often ignore history.

In the 50s, when our government was at its most anti-Marxist, we had a 90% tax rate on the rich, and we instituted huge infrastructure projects that had the government employing masses of people.

MARXIST EISENHOWER!!!

Kirby Olson said...

It's hard to get theory to match fact.

90% tax rate on the rich under Eisenhower?

Can you give a citation for this fact?

What was rich? Who had a 90% tax rate?

The Little Red Hen represents the small business owner, as against social leaches.

You are correct to bring up large entrepreneurs against this image of the small business owner because the work and the profits aren't shared proportionately.

stu said...

Kirby,

90% tax rate on the rich under Eisenhower?

No, the top rate under the Eisenhower administration wasn't 90%. It was 92%.

TruthAndPolitics.org, or
The Tax Foundation

The current income tax rates are at their lowest level in 60 years, a combination of Bush-era cuts and tax rebates built into the stimulus package.

The current highest marginal tax rate is 35%, on income over $373,650. In 1953, an income of $8,000 would get you a marginal rate of 38%, and the largest rate (92%) applied to income over $200,000. And so, another truth is that the current tax code is much less progressive than the tax code of the '50, and each successive tax cut have tended to make the tax code less progressive, whereas subsequent increases have tended to be neutral.

But it's also interesting and instructive to look at the medians. Combining US Census Data with tax data, the median income in 1953 was $4,242, which corresponds to $27,365 in constant 2006 dollars. This was taxed at a marginal rate of 29%.

Whereas, in 2006, the median income was $58,407 (representing more than a two-fold increase in real income), and was subject to a marginal tax rate of 15%.

The tables make computation of actual rates a bit tedious, but the lowest rate in 1953 was 22.2%, and this applied to the first dollar you made, so the actual tax rate was clearly substantially higher in the '50s.

I can see why you want to move back. Much lower incomes, substantially higher tax rates. What's not to like?

Brett said...

Here's one source:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Here's the wikipedia entry (a little more than half way down...do a word search for 'progressivity' to find it real quick).

It gives the same numbers, though adds in the tax rates for the first bracket, though doesn't list how much money you have to make to be in the top bracket...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States


It's not ones job to make the facts line up with a theory - it behooves one to look at the facts and then create theories based on them.

This inside-out vs. outside-in approach is one of the main differences I see between Obama and Bush, and Democrats vs. Republicans generally.

I think this is why some Republicans sometimes have a hard time understanding Dems...they assume we have the same outside-in approach...we don't , but they don't recognize this stark difference in our thinking processes... so they assume our 'outside' theory Must based on a theory that's the opposite of theirs, which means we're Marxist.

It's just a real drastic thinking error on their part, a lot of the time.

Kirby Olson said...

The big jump seems to have started under Roosevelt, and then slowly gathered steam, and then was brought back to some reasonableness by Reagan.

It's hard to know what's sneaking under the wire here in terms of the larger perspective.

I'll have to depend on Picklesworth sticking his head in here to back me up on this.

Until then, shall remain mum, while I ponder this data.

In terms of the more social issues:

I think that the Dems try to pretend that they are large-minded rather than selfish pricks when dealing with things like gay marriage, or trying to offer more bailouts to those who won't work but would rather inject their way to a better life.

Republicans are actually more sacrificial in terms of how they are willing to go to the mat for a principle. We saw it with Lincoln, for certain.

It's not like it did him any good to get all those slaves free.

Giuliani' crusade for the police of NYC over the Diallo case that the NYT was making against the police. It cost G. almost eveything to stick up for the police, but he saw the larger principle.

That guy scared them with his wallet, and the whole thing was an accident.

The people are the nicest people around, practically saints, usually.

Brett said...

What good does it do me to want to give homosexuals rights as partners?

How does that make me, or anyone else in the Democratic party, a selfish prick?

Why would it be selfish of a party to go to the mat for such a small demographic?

stu said...

Kirby,

The big jump seems to have started under Roosevelt, and then slowly gathered steam, and then was brought back to some reasonableness by Reagan.

Would it kill you to give Kennedy the credit he deserved?

It might be noted, too, that Roosevelt faced the Great Depression and World War II, far greater challenges than any of his successors. But it's no mystery as to why the establishment rich hated him.

An interesting alternative way to look at this is through the notion of Tax Freedom Day, which as an aggregate measure reflects the average burden of taxes. Tax Freedom Day was April 11th in 1960, at the end of the Eisenhower Administration. Despite the cuts at the top of the tax scale, the real effect of increased wages (due to both productivity growth and inflation) was to move the mass of the population into higher tax brackets, and so Tax Freedom Day was as late as May 1st in 2000. The effect of the Bush II cuts was to move this back to mid-April, and this year it was actually April 9th, a couple days earlier than at the end of the Eisenhower Administration.

The big difference is how that tax load is being borne. During the Eisenhower Administration, the rich bore a larger burden than the do today. Today, we do.

Certainly, the Republican party of the Eisenhower years had a commitment to social equality and justice that is all but absent in the Republican party of today. You can invoke the sacrifices of the Lincoln era all you like, they would not be made by today's Republican Party, which yells "socialism" at levels of governmental participation that are at historic lows, and which, if we re-fought the Civil War today, would be wearing butternut and gray.

Kirby Olson said...

Brett, it makes you feel good about yourself.

That is a tremendous motivating force, especially for younger people.

But what I can't understand is how everyone is simply willing to dispense with God in the OT and St. Paul in the new.

It must be Marxist zombification.

Kirby Olson said...

Stu, I need help on the facts here from James or Picklesworth, or someone else who cares to look into this matter. It's not an area I'm able to look into today, as I'm on the road.

G. M. Palmer said...

I'd like to point out (again) the two uses of Marxism that seem to create a problem.

In Brett's narrow definition, Marxism is a political-economic system of state ownership of business.

In Kirby's (and my and Wikipedia's) broad definition, Marxism is a "struggle between social classes" which manifests itself in identity politics.

Brett, this is the second time I've clarified this. Please remember it from now on. Under the broad definition, Obama is clearly a Marxist--and even self-identifies as such in his autobiography.

Brett said...

Doing good and right things always makes you feel good, Kirby...

If you use that as a way to disparage platforms and policies, you've kinda eliminated every possible viewpoint.

stu said...

Kirby,

But what I can't understand is how everyone is simply willing to dispense with God in the OT and St. Paul in the new.

This is because you've chosen not to listen to us, because we are not dispensing with God, nor ignoring scripture.

I do understand the argument from scripture against homosexuality. That said, I don't accept it, because I think that the argument from scripture for accepting homosexuals is much more compelling, and I'd be happy to quote St. Paul back at you, as I have before.

It seems to me that there's a deep hypocrisy in picking out one particular activity, and demonizing it beyond all rationality. It's a way of ignoring the deep challenge that faith in Jesus Christ should bring. It's a way of saying, "I'm o.k., because I'm not gay. Damn them, not me!"

Consider this:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9–14 NRSV)

Tell me, Kirby. Why do you dispense with the teaching of Jesus Christ on this?

G. M. Palmer said...

There is a third way, you know.

One that says yes, engaging in extra-marital sex of any sort is a sin as it turns your thoughts from God to your crotch.

But this sin is no greater nor less than lying or pride or general lustfulness or even thievery and murder--all of these make a god out of something that is not God.

And so, while we will never say "go out and do as thou wilt" as the pagans do, we will love you as you are and encourage you to be like Christ--as we hope you will encourage us.

stu said...

GM,

One that says yes, engaging in extra-marital sex of any sort is a sin as it turns your thoughts from God to your crotch.

Just out of curiosity, then. You don't believe that marital sex does this?

stu said...

GM,

I'd like to point out (again) the two uses of Marxism that seem to create a problem.

In Brett's narrow definition, Marxism is a political-economic system of state ownership of business.

In Kirby's (and my and Wikipedia's) broad definition, Marxism is a "struggle between social classes" which manifests itself in identity politics.

Brett, this is the second time I've clarified this. Please remember it from now on. Under the broad definition, Obama is clearly a Marxist--and even self-identifies as such in his autobiography.


Sanity test. Then by your definition, Pat Buchanan is a Marxist. Right?

Brett said...

GM: Kirby, unfortunately, makes a practice of conflating the two definitions - when he moans about government takeovers, he is referencing the first kind of Marxism, not the second...

By the broad definition, Tea Partiers are also Marxist...

And you are very much cherry-picking your wikipedia source...

The struggle between classes is only one of the three primary characteristics of Marxism right there at the top - the other two are 2) the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production

and

3) the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership.

Obama advocates for neither 2 nor 3.

And I'm not sure how specifically he jibes with #1, especially compared to the right of our country, who have set things up as a fight between the social classes of the 'real' Americans and the 'liberal elitists.'

(Socialist leaders in America, btw, like Palin more than obama).

I'd say it's a wash... Both the Dems and Repubs have the tendency to use struggle between social classes as ways of getting votes and followers. Of course, since you in some ways are more consistent in your political viewpoint than Kirby, GM, you probably would call Repubs Marxists too...

Kirby, on the other hand, continues to make a distinct and stark value difference between the Repubs and the Dems based on the Marxistness of the Dems, and he continually ascribes 2) and 3) to Obama and the Dems, when only 1) applies, and that tenuously, and without a value difference as compares to the Repubs.

G. M. Palmer said...

Stu:

1) Re: sex and God. Not if done correctly. Comingling is best when it's done in the spirit of becoming one.

2) Buchanan's acknowledging a trend in group identification--this isn't Marxist unless it pits one group above the other ("wise Latina" style).

3) Yeah, Brett, most folks are poisoned by the identity politics entrenched by Marx. But again, the problem is when groups say "we're more deserving of _____ because of our inherent _____"

Kirby Olson said...

Brett, Obama's government has taken over one-sixth of the economy.

That seems to me to mean he's clearly interested in a governmental take-over of private property.

Banking, health insurance (with 16,000 new IRS agents to police it), student loans, the auto industry, are all now under government control.

Obama must be eyeing other industries, too, for governmental seizure.

He can't move all at once. It took him a year to take over the healthcare industry.

I have a hunch he will try to take food production, next. But he might wait until his next term. My guess is that he will attempt to outlaw lots of different kinds of farming that he doesn't like, and meanwhile he will mandate what people can eat, placing gigantic taxes on anything he wants to phase out.

I think Michelle Obama is the opening of that front with her obesity campaign. Overweight people will have to pay extra taxes, and also double up on their healthcare, but he can't announce his offensive against the American people on every front all at once. He has to slow down and appear to care about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for about three months before he opens a new battle against American industry.

My guess -- based only on the seemingly innocent intrusion of MO into the obesity issue, is that he's going to take over food production. We'll see.

If he does, you heard it first here.

If he doesn't, forget about it.

Brett said...

"Government takeover of HealthCare?"

Are you joking? We don't even have a public Option.

Health Exchanges and an individual mandate, I repeat (ad nauseam, since maybe if it makes you spew you'll finally see things clearly) are market-based solutions created by the Republicans.

We haven't 'taken over' the banking industry. We've saved it, to avoid a great depression (oh, and this was mostly done by Bush, to his credit, even if he was a bit willy-nilly about it) which Has been avoided (since March, the DOW has almost doubled).

And now we're going to regulate it - To claim this amounts to a government takeover is the same as claiming that because we have an FDA the government has taken over the production of food and drugs.

Again, you continue to label things what they are not.

I don't know if you do this as a rhetorical strategy, or because you've bought these false labelings...

But they're just that...false.

You can't lie in advertising. You can't sell poisonous food. You can't sell drugs without labeling clearly all of the adverse side effects. You shouldn't be able to tell your customers "you should put your money in these grrrreeaaaat investments" when you have set up those investments for the explicit purpose of failure, and then you get yo' money by betting against those investments.

My understanding of student loans is that the loans in question have always been government-funded, yet they used private companies for the actual lending. The recent changes just cut out the middle-man, which saves us moolah. So they've been unblackwatered.

Am I wrong? (I'm being sincere in that I only have a trace understanding of the issue).

And the government takeover of the auto-industry is, and always has been, the one area where I've said your !!!SOCIALISM!!!! criticisms are at least somewhat valid. Though to be honest, we hear so Little about it from Anywhere that I don't know What's going on with that, except that GM has started to pay back its government loan today...

But who's in charge of the day-to-day operations, and what role the government has other than owning 61 percent of the company while Canada owns 12 percent... I claim ignorance. I kinda wish the rightie talkingheads would complain about it more, though maybe the fact that a liquidation of Gm and Chrysler would've led to 1 million more unemployed folks is just too strong of a factor to be vocally against it...

stu said...

GM,

1) Re: sex and God. Not if done correctly. Comingling is best when it's done in the spirit of becoming one.

Seriously? If you're having sex with your wife and your crotch isn't really, really happy, then it is mistaken to credit your spirit for what is evidently bad technique.

But let me take your sex and God comments in another direction, away from simple high-school locker-room ridicule and in a direction of more a complex, theologically nuanced ridicule :-).

I think we would both affirm that sexuality is a gift from God, and that his intent for us is that we use it faithfully. But let me take seriously your somewhat different (and implicit) claim that marriage, rather than rather that faithfulness per se, is key.

What got this ball rolling right now was Kirby's attempt to sideswipe me over the ELCA's decision not to bar individuals who are in mutually-faithful same-sex relationships from serving as pastors. You also view these long-term same-sex relationships as sinful, and now explain this on the basis that the sexual relationship takes place outside of marriage. Yet marriage is a civil institution, defined by civil laws, mediated primarily through our civil institutions, and therefore one can imagine the possibility of marriage as such between same-sex partners. Indeed, this is no counterfactual hypothetical, as several states of our union permit this. Do you then view such relationships as being no longer sinful? If so, wherein lies the sin, if the moral content of an act depends not on God's law, but on man's? I can see Kirby buying the later proposition, but not you.

St. Paul (1 Cor 7:9) says that it is better be married than to burn. If so, how are we to interpret this clause in the context of those whose sexual desire burns for members of the same sex? Surely this passage applies to their circumstances. In such cases, a false marriage to someone of the other sex won't quench those fires (c.f., Ted Haggard, for a notorious recent example), so this cannot be what was intended. How are they to quench their fires?

Or are you actually a closet Presbyterian, who believes that God has predestined each of us individually for salvation or damnation, and that homosexual desire is simply one of God's many mechanisms for ensuring that those he's chosen to damn will act out lives worthy of damnation? If so, where then is their sin? Aren't they just living out God's will for their lives?

Buchanan's acknowledging a trend in group identification--this isn't Marxist unless it pits one group above the other ("wise Latina" style).

Not. Buying. It.

If merely naming "wise Latina" constitutes identity politics, as you and Kirby so vehemently contend, then naming "a new tribe" is prima facie identity politics. This is especially so because the intended referent of Sotomayor's comment was clearly herself as an individual, rather than Latinas as a group, whereas the intended referent of Buchanan's "new tribe" is manifestly white folk, or more properly, white folk who are as bigoted and ignorant as he is. You know, "real Americans." That is uncamouflaged identity politics, and you need to recognize it as such. Believe me, I have no trouble recognizing Sharpton and his ilk as indulging in identity politics, which I reject. Buchanan is your Sharpton.

Kirby Olson said...

Buchanan is no Sharpton. Sharpton has been convicted of slander, for instance. Buchanan is about thirty IQ points brighter than Sharpton.

And I'm not saying Sharpton is sharp. He's sharp.

Buchanan however is stellar.

He's the brightest mind in the conservative axis -- he's like the North Star. I grant he's a bit paranoid, but his mind is incredibly good.

Sharpton is just a canny hustler.

Buchanan's writing is amazing -- he has a common touch and yet can go into arcane minutiae.

He's way too sharp to fit into the Republican party. He's also affable and funny, and has an understanding of human darkness.

Sharpton is physically brave in a way that Buchanan isn't. Sharpton is purely street, and he doesn't care if an argument that he offers has any internal logic as long as it helps him and his constituency.

Buchanan tries to think of the aggregate: he tries to think about Americans.

Sharpton thinks only about African Americans.

stu said...

Kirby,

Sharpton thinks only about African Americans.

And you consider this damning. As do I.

And Buchanan thinks only of white Americans. I consider this damning, and you should, too. That he is more intelligent than Sharpton is given. That this makes his ignorance and racism all the more damning is as well. That you cannot see this, or will not admit to it, is proof (as if it was needed) that you do not hold your positions rationally.

G. M. Palmer said...

Stu, really? I think you should both reconsider the tone and content of your comments and reread your bible. I would start with the song of Solomon.

stu said...

GM,

Stu, really? I think you should both reconsider the tone and content of your comments and reread your bible. I would start with the song of Solomon.

Let me take this piece by piece.

(1) Tone. Terse textual communications, like these, are notoriously poor at conveying tone. I tried to indicate (with the annoying but seemingly essential emoticon) that I was trying for humor, not for personal attack. Anything else by way of tone you read into the text, rather than out of it.

(2) Content. This is a pretty broad brush. If you want to debate, more specificity would be helpful.

(3) Rereading the Bible. I've read it cover to cover a few times, mostly to acquaint myself more fully with various translations. And of course I encounter it in various sized chunks with greater frequency -- weekly liturgical readings, adult studies within church, adult studies in other contexts, personal studies, and of course in search of supporting texts in arguments like these. I'm about due for another re-read, but I've done it enough to understand what the commitment is. I believe my acquaintance with its contents is adequate for this discussion in this venue.

(4) The Song of Songs. Great book, although the connection to the faith life of Israel is tenuous, and while I think there's some legitimacy to the metaphor argument, it really does get pushed to excess. It's a poetry collection, mostly centered on courtship/marriage, but with a few odd bits thrown in (cf., Song 2:15). This is a book that I've read in individual translations, and the one I like best is Marcia Falk's in "Love Lyrics of the Bible." I think she does a great job from a poetic, typographic, and design point of view.

The typographic aspects are especially helpful, and worth noting. Briefly, the underlying Hebrew text is basically structured around three different voices: singular male, singular female, and a plural. Think groom, bride, and wedding party. She uses variations in the text face to convey the voicing, which I found interesting because the shifts can be very quick, and not always easy/possible to pick up in the English language texts.

I don't think you'll pick up any stunning new theological insights from Falk, but I do believe that you'll appreciate her poetic sense. E.g., I really think she nailed Poem 28 (a.k.a., Song 8:6-7). In comparison, all of the texts that derive from KJV seem like damp squibs, and this for one of the more important passages. And it's a short book, as befits the Song, at the other end of the spectrum entirely from Pope's book.

Kirby Olson said...

Stu, you may know something about Buchanan that I don't.

There is a journal called the Conservative -- I picked up their most recent number (it has a picture of BO and Netanyahu on the cover pointing fingers at one another with the caption, Will He Blink?).

There is an article in it by Buchanan. Buchanan's article argues that we should not do health care reform until we have the illegal immigrant situation squared away. He suggests that every job that an illegal takes is one that could have gone to an American.

With an unemployment rate still above ten percent in most cities, we need to get rid of the illegal immigrants by penalizing their employers and putting in a universal checking system.

While this largely would target Mexicans, and you might be able to put that under the heading of racism, Mexicans are very fierce about keeping Guatemalans and others out of their own hair so that what they have of a functioning economy aside from gun running, drugs, and other service economies to the US (Cancun cancan dancers) can function without interference from the even more demented economies just to the south of their own.

Buchanan is a Catholic. I've never seen him expressing racism.

I'm sure he likes Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Sowell, and all minorities who are faithful to their church and aren't acting outside of the ten commandments.

I'm sure he likes Israel, too.

His bag isn't race, as it is for Sharpton, where Tawana Brawley was right, even after she admitted that she lied.

Sharpton is a racist, pure and simple.

If Buchanan is (can you give me a single quote that would indicate that he is?), then he's surely not purely and simply a racist.

He's got an amazing intellect.

I saw him on a show about Churchill and he was able to hold his own with British academics who specialized in Churchill.

I don't know how he does this. He's a very impressive man.

Put Sharpton in that sphere and he would just start talking about race race race, as it's the only thing he knows or cares about.

G. M. Palmer said...

Stu,

This:

Seriously? If you're having sex with your wife and your crotch isn't really, really happy, then it is mistaken to credit your spirit for what is evidently bad technique.

is sophomoric and wrong.

Romans 14:23, Stu. Romans 14:23.

Kirby Olson said...

I googled Buchanan to see if there was any indication in Wiki or elsewhere that he is a racist. That's probably something that circulates in far left circles about anyone who is centrist or conservative.

Buchanan had a running mate in 2000 who was a black woman named Ezola something. I can't remember the last name. They won a big part of the vote, and actually got 4000 votes in one of the key Florida precincts where Gore lost several thousand votes to Buchanan. Buchanan didn't think he won the votes, and said that he thought that those votes had probably been Gore's, but the ballot was so badly designed people goofed it up and voted inadvertantly for Buchanan.

That's an example of Buchanan's principled honesty.

The Ezola lady has a Wikipedia page too (I can't remember her name, but keeping thinking of the Enola Gay -- the Bomber that hit Hiroshima?). Here's a quote or two from her:

"I was born black, I attended all-Negro schools including college, I grew up in the segregated South during Jim Crow. If anybody knows a racist, I do. Pat Buchanan ain't no racist."

"God brought African slaves to America so that their descendants would know freedom"

"This idea that you come to school hungry -- come on! It's crazy! It's just so they can bring in all these lunch programs, breakfast programs -- next, it's going to be dinner! . . . That's not the job of the schools -- to feed the children. Let them pay for it or let them bring their own."

"The illegals come over [the Arizona border] into the ranches. They kill their cattle. They rape their children. The children can't play in the yard anymore."

"These mental health programs are another thing that needs to be booted out of our schools! Every time there's a tragedy, they have to send for grief counselors. How totally ridiculous!"

"Our people were better off under the bondage of slavery than the Marxist 'Great Society' of Johnson."

"It’s a sad day in America when law makers side with law breakers [illegal aliens] against law abiding citizens"

Kirby Olson said...

Now there is one thing I found: buchanan admired Robert E. Lee, and has some relative who fought for the confederacy.

I don't know anything more than that. I think even Grant admired Robert e. Lee.

Lee fought well, and when he surrendered, he surrendered. He didn't try to create a protracted guerilla war.

He was a gentleman.

It helped America heal.

G. M. Palmer said...

Notably, Lee also only went to war against the Union because he felt his loyalty first to his State--not because he supported slavery.

stu said...

GM,

OK, I've looked at Rom 14:23, and I deny you have a point. My point, which you seem so intent on denying, is that a faithful, faith-based relationship is compatible with giving and receiving pleasure through sex. Indeed, the later seems designed to support the former.

Your position seems to be that pleasure plays no significant role in sexual relationships within a faithful, faith-based marriage. This is ridiculous, and worthy of ridicule. What I've given you in this regard, you've earned.

G. M. Palmer said...

Stu,

You are either naturally stupid (which appears to be untrue) or being willfully stupid.

Either way, you are wrong.

My original point was that extra-marital sex drives us away from God because sex within the bounds of marriage should be an act done in faith that brings both partners closer in relationship with each other and with God.

Yet you appear unable to actually read what I have written because you are so obsessed with finding permission for men to fuck each other in the ass.

Kirby Olson said...

I debated with myself over whether to put GM's comment through. It seemed unnecessary to call Stu stupid.

It obviously isn't true.

He's just a liberal.

Like Brett.

We need liberals here in order to argue with them.

We can't play basketball with only one team on the court.

Kirby Olson said...

But I also thought that Stu shouldn't have resorted to "ridicule" in terms of finding out about GM's viewpoint with regard to the act.

Everybody has their own viewpoint, and ridiculing it won't change it.

The only way to understand anybody is to keep listening to them.

G. M. Palmer said...

Thank you, Kirby--and that's why I used the word "stupid."

Kirby Olson said...

But I think the problem traces back even further in the thread when we use the Bible to thump one another as in some kind of slapstick farce, citing only chapter and verse, and expecting the other to be sufficiently whacked around.

The deal is I think that every person sees these verses differently.

Needs, in some cases, to see them differently.

And is supported by their congregation, or their pastor, or whatever.

And so there's lots of this Bible-thumpin' going on in Christian arguments.

It's a kind of Sumo wrestling, perhaps, where we try to knock one another out of the inner circle.

Well, you supported slavery.

Well, you support anal sex.

Well, you are into pleasure.

And so on and so on.

It's quite funny, I guess.

It's hard to know how seriously to take it.

A play could be turn in which four or five people took turns bashing one another's Christianity at a backyard barbecue.

I hate plays, but it would be watchable, maybe, somewhere where the audience knew the in-jokes.

You'd have to have an Episcopalian, a Baptist, a 7th day adventist, and a few others.

And have them get together in a friendly NEIGHBORLY barbecue, and roast one another for an hour or so in blank verse.

Brett said...

I wasn't really following GM and Stu's argument all that closely - So I've reskimmed, and from my reskimming I 'side' with GM, but really it seems that there's a miscommunication happening -

I don't think GM ever said that ones crotch wasn't happy during marital sex, yet Stu strawmanishly seems to have claimed this.

I think the point is that it's really only in marital intercourse that the crotch-happiness and Godliness are aligned - that those moments of intimacy aren't distractions from holiness, but actions of holiness.

So of course, when you're humpin' your wife I'm sure your crotch feels nice And it's an act bringing you in closer communion with God.

When you're humpin' extramaritally, your crotch is of course happy, but the second part ain't quite as likely to be true, since it's a physical act that isn't tied to a spiritual, committed, devoted relationship/covenant...

RE: Kirby - yes, it's interesting the way Christians use bible verses as slegehammers for their viewpoints...it is at once necessary for theological discussions and often self-serving and amusing.

In my bible church days there was oft an emphasis on knowing verse and chapter by heart - this generally doesn't seem all that important to me... The motivation seemed to be so that you could drop those bible verses in arguments to support your side...but If I've gleaned a new perspective or inspiration from a passage, that seems to be the point, not so I can pull a Jack Van Impe and lay down all the chapters and verses willy-nilly.

The original texts didn't have chapters and verses (right? or am I misremembering something)...Maybe we should take them out. They turn the bible into a shopping mall for ideological weapons, instead of letting it be the collection of stories, poetry, and law that it is...

stu said...

GM,

Alrighty, then. Let's go bit by bit. I'll spare you escalation of invective. If that's how you want to argue, be my guest, but understand that it will be a solo act.

My original point was that extra-marital sex drives us away from God because sex within the bounds of marriage should be an act done in faith that brings both partners closer in relationship with each other and with God.

Then your point appears to make more sense than it actually does. Let me start with points of agreement. I agree that sexual relationships should occur in the context of mutually-faithful life-long relationships. I distinguish this from marriage out of theological rigor, viewing marriage as a civil institution. I agree that sex within such relationships should be mutually respectful and affirming of one another. We are all children of God, and he would wish for us to be treated as such, especially in our most intimate relationships.

Lapsing a bit into the vernacular, to avoid unduly cumbersome theologian-speak... I'm not sure I buy the proposition that sexuality within marriage brings the partners closer to God. It sure is a high-falutin' theological ideal. I just don't think it makes much contact with the real world. It's enough that sex strengthens the partnership, and gives us some hints as to the meaning of joy. Strengthened partnerships have other tools for bringing themselves into closer relationship with God. And there's no logical connection that enables you to prove the proposition "extra-marital sex drives us away from God" from arguments as to how sex within marriage is supposed to drive us closer to God. Your conclusion may be true, but your logic is stone-cold bogus. It's kind of like arguing that since Frenchmen eat frog legs, Germans don't. The hypothesis and conclusion are both mostly true (modulo the Alsatians), but the one doesn't have a logical relationship to the other.

But let's get to the ridicule thing. I work with pompous asses, I know pompous asses, on my good days I sometimes play a pompous ass, and on my bad days, I am one. I'll own that sin. That said, my tolerance for pompous asses isn't infinite, and these days, it's pretty slight. I think Kirby would affirm that ridicule is the first arrow in the academic's quiver against pomposity, and by far the most moderate.

And here you come down the pike, basically saying, "my wife and I are so spiritual that we pray during sex, and don't even notice whether we're enjoying ourselves or not." Not a direct quote, mind you, but I think a fair representation of what you've been saying. And I give you three chances to crack a smile, and admit that spiritual aspects not withstanding, sex in marriage feels good. Damn good. And you keep doubling down on the spiritual, and denying the physical. To me, this just about pegs the pompous ass meter, and has zero credibility. Zero.

If you're going to sustain the position that sex within marriage isn't pleasurable, you're going to get ridicule from me, and you should count yourself as lucky that your wife isn't in on the discussion, because all you'd get from her for saying something so insulting about her sexuality would cold shoulder for at least two weeks. Very cold shoulder. I would spare you this.

This doesn't need to become a casus belli. I'm not looking for a fight, just an admission that you got a bit carried away with yourself, a bit of a laugh at our pompous selves, and the opportunity for the discussion to proceed on a more realistic basis.

Yet you appear unable to actually read what I have written because you are so obsessed with finding permission for men to fuck each other in the ass.

Project much? It seems to me that you're so eager to read this into what I'm writing that you're not bothering to read what I've written.

Let's see if you do any better this time.

stu said...

Regarding Buchanan.

First off, I consider the "new tribe" article that I've already linked to to be prima facie evidence of racism. This is not an accusation I make lightly, nor one that I would make of conservatives in general. No, this is a specific, targeted criticism. I know lots of conservatives who are not racists, and a few racists who aren't conservative.

Secondly, let me point out Buchanan's argument that the first and second world wars were as a result of failures of British statemanship, specifically Churchill's. For starters, Churchill was SecNav for the beginning of WWI, and so was not in a direct foreign policy role. I think that Massey's analysis (a variant on the traditional interlocking treaties explanation, with a special dishonorable mention to the Germans) makes more sense. But that's not actually the issue. It is with WWII that I think Buchanan has gone completely off the rails. Arguing that British statecraft could have avoided WWII with Hitler already in power, is a de facto argument for the Holocaust, for the Nazi domination of Europe, and therefore for Nazism per se, which was undeniably racist through and through.

There is no alternative, and if you think there is, consider this one line alone, from Bonhoeffer's Ethics, "Shakespeare's characters are among us." If that doesn't make your blood run cold, you own no claim on Bonhoeffer as an ethical fore-bearer.

You say that Buchanan is too smart to be a Republican. I wouldn't put it that way, since there are plenty of smart Republicans. I would say that his politics are not actually compatible with Republicanism, which is conservative, but within a broad American consensus. Buchanan, simply stated, is an American Nazi. It's no violation of Godwin's law to call your opponent a Nazi if he actually is one, and Buchanan is in sympathy and intellect, if not name, courage, or salute.

And that whole Ezola B. Foster thing, that's just the "good nigger" ploy. Let her say all the racist things that you're trying to distance yourself from. Spiro Agnew, all over. Maybe it's good enough to fool you, but I'd hope not.

Sin is all around us. I'll own mine. Will you own yours?

G. M. Palmer said...

Brett:

Thank you.

Stu:

Alrighty, then. Let's go bit by bit. I'll spare you escalation of invective. If that's how you want to argue, be my guest, but understand that it will be a solo act.

You started that, spanky. Don't go getting high and mighty.

My original point was that extra-marital sex drives us away from God because sex within the bounds of marriage should be an act done in faith that brings both partners closer in relationship with each other and with God.

Then your point appears to make more sense than it actually does.


Only because you insist on dragging extra-biblical justifications into your theological argument. But we go on. . .

Let me start with points of agreement. I agree that sexual relationships should occur in the context of mutually-faithful life-long relationships. I distinguish this from marriage out of theological rigor, viewing marriage as a civil institution.

Que? Jesus certainly didn't:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So either you're somehow more "theologically rigorous" than Jesus or wrong.

I agree that sex within such relationships should be mutually respectful and affirming of one another. We are all children of God, and he would wish for us to be treated as such, especially in our most intimate relationships.

Lapsing a bit into the vernacular, to avoid unduly cumbersome theologian-speak... I'm not sure I buy the proposition that sexuality within marriage brings the partners closer to God. It sure is a high-falutin' theological ideal. I just don't think it makes much contact with the real world.


Point 1: Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Point 2:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

G. M. Palmer said...

It's enough that sex strengthens the partnership, and gives us some hints as to the meaning of joy. Strengthened partnerships have other tools for bringing themselves into closer relationship with God. And there's no logical connection that enables you to prove the proposition "extra-marital sex drives us away from God" from arguments as to how sex within marriage is supposed to drive us closer to God. Your conclusion may be true, but your logic is stone-cold bogus. It's kind of like arguing that since Frenchmen eat frog legs, Germans don't. The hypothesis and conclusion are both mostly true (modulo the Alsatians), but the one doesn't have a logical relationship to the other.

Because you're conflating them, not me.

Extra-marital sex drives us away from God because it drives us to selfish and self-destructive behavior.

Marital sex, done in faith (as we should do all things), brings us closer to God because it joins us to our spouse in the way that the church is joined to Jesus. I didn't think I needed to explain that, but there you go.

But let's get to the ridicule thing. I work with pompous asses, I know pompous asses, on my good days I sometimes play a pompous ass, and on my bad days, I am one. I'll own that sin. That said, my tolerance for pompous asses isn't infinite, and these days, it's pretty slight. I think Kirby would affirm that ridicule is the first arrow in the academic's quiver against pomposity, and by far the most moderate.

Well I would disagree with both of you. Ridicule is simply a rude dismissal.

And here you come down the pike, basically saying, "my wife and I are so spiritual that we pray during sex, and don't even notice whether we're enjoying ourselves or not." Not a direct quote, mind you, but I think a fair representation of what you've been saying.

It's not at all what I was saying. You're the one who brought up my wife. "Strawmannishly," as Brett said.

And I give you three chances to crack a smile, and admit that spiritual aspects not withstanding, sex in marriage feels good. Damn good. And you keep doubling down on the spiritual, and denying the physical. To me, this just about pegs the pompous ass meter, and has zero credibility. Zero.

Bull. Shit. I don't NEED to say sex is enjoyable. That's a priori knowledge. Duh. It's like saying heroin feels good. Dumb, dumb, dumb--and, moreover, unnecessary.

If you're going to sustain the position that sex within marriage isn't pleasurable, you're going to get ridicule from me, and you should count yourself as lucky that your wife isn't in on the discussion, because all you'd get from her for saying something so insulting about her sexuality would cold shoulder for at least two weeks. Very cold shoulder. I would spare you this.

Again, you are being ignorant and unfathomably rude. Were this the 19th century, I would take you out in the front yard and shoot you. Fortunately, we've realized that dueling is as stupid as the assumptions you're making.

This doesn't need to become a casus belli. I'm not looking for a fight, just an admission that you got a bit carried away with yourself, a bit of a laugh at our pompous selves, and the opportunity for the discussion to proceed on a more realistic basis.

You, Stu, are the one making assumptions about not only my sex life but my relationship with my wife as a whole. Sounds like a causus belli to me.

Yet you appear unable to actually read what I have written because you are so obsessed with finding permission for men to fuck each other in the ass.

Project much? It seems to me that you're so eager to read this into what I'm writing that you're not bothering to read what I've written.


No, I've read and understood your every word.

Let's see if you do any better this time.

stu said...

GM,

I'm making no assumptions about your sex life, only about your pretense. I meant no adverse reflection on your wife, and sincerely regret it if you took my remarks as such. You've granted admission, finally, of a few obvious realities hithertofore evaded. I'm happy to leave it at that. There are a few issues left on the table that we might discuss productively, but I think we've both contributed more heat than light, so let's let things cool down a bit before we try again.

BTW, In the 19th century, both guys got guns. Maybe you'd have gotten me, and maybe I'd have gotten you. More likely, given the accuracy of the weapons and conventions of the era, we'd have both missed, and deemed honor satisfied.

Brett said...

Whoa. Stu and GM! Y'all are going at it.

Three things:

1) Stu: "Sin is all around us. I'll own mine. Will you own yours?" Is about as pompous as it gets.

2) GM: Saying you'd Like to kill someone, even though you Won't because it's not a good idea to engage in duels, is creepy, and a wee bit scary.

3) I don't know how this got so personal, but y'all should take a step back - There was a miscommunication somewhere, methinks, based largely on the difficulties of transmitting tone via the intertubes. You should probably both state clearly (and in, like, less than 50 words, to keep things focused and simple) what you believe. And then state what you believe the other guy is saying. Because my inclination is to think that y'all might differ on your views wrt homosexuality, but your views wrt to pleasure in marital sex are probably more similar than you realize (I think the role of pleasure in marital sex is what you guys are arguing over, for the most part, even though you probably mostly agree on the subject?)

Kirby Olson said...

Buchanan is more or less an isolationist.

I don't see how this makes him a Nazi.

He sees China as a rising superpower, and America as having lost its game, and now we're being invaded by illegals, and no one has the nerve to put their foot down.

Does this make him a Nazi?

I found the assertion not only ludicrous, but slanderous.

Likewise, to remarks that Ezola Foster is a a mannekin for Buchanan's ideas is likewise ludicrous, as if people of color can only say what we want them to say, or else they are brain-washed, clearly, and are laboring at best under false-consciousness.

Stu, you're getting icky.

There ARE black conservatives. They exist. This doesn't mean they're stupid, or brainwashed, or tools of the right. They are just conservative. There have always been black conservatives.

There's lots of them. Maybe 15% of that population is conservative.

Each person is an individual, and we have to listen to them, and see where they are coming from, and not just dismiss them as tools for some other power just because we don't agree with them.

For heaven's sake.

Thanks, Brett, too, for your intervention on the side of sanity and peace here.

Stu is getting very pompous, and is being just plain icky.

G. M. Palmer said...

Brett--

Stu "got" the duels comment. Again, not that I would "want" to--but that would have been the proper response.

I don't think we should kill anyone--except child molesters and rapists.

stu said...

Kirby,

Buchanan is more or less an isolationist.

I don't see how this makes him a Nazi.

He sees China as a rising superpower, and America as having lost its game, and now we're being invaded by illegals, and no one has the nerve to put their foot down.

Does this make him a Nazi?


No, but I mentioned neither of these in my bill of particulars. But even in these, there are hints. The first basis of my claim is his white supremicism, which I believe is manifest in the "new tribe" article. His concerns about an ascendant China have much more to do with his concerns about the Chinese as a race, than about either their governmental or economic system. And if you don't think so, how do you think Buchanan would react to a (hypothetical) ascendant Germany? Do you believe he'd react the same way? Or do you think he'd be puffing with pride, and pointing to "the German approach to political and socal issues" as the answer to our challenges of the moment? Likewise, his concerns about illegal immigration have much to do with the fact that the preponderance of illegal immigrants today are Mexican. If our challenges of illegal immigration came from Swedes and Germans, do you think he'd be reacting the same way, or would he be celebrating these "new, vigorous people" who are adding to the greatness of America by coming?

There is also the issue that I raised about his belief that Churchill ineptly lead Britain into WWII. Churchill did not become prime minister until '40, as a result of the crisis caused by German invasion of the low countries and France. So his argument is that "proper diplomacy" on Churchill's part would have left continental Europe under Nazi control, and the machinery of the Holocaust undisturbed.

These is the bases of argument. If you want to argue against me, proper procedure would be to either refute the bases, or to argue that my conclusion does not follow from them. Raising arguments that I haven't, and then claiming that they're inadequate, doesn't do it.

Likewise, to remarks that Ezola Foster is a a mannekin for Buchanan's ideas is likewise ludicrous, as if people of color can only say what we want them to say, or else they are brain-washed, clearly, and are laboring at best under false-consciousness.

I made no claims about universality, only about particularity. About this person, and this election. Your extrapolation from what I said is unwarranted.

There ARE black conservatives. They exist. This doesn't mean they're stupid, or brainwashed, or tools of the right. They are just conservative. There have always been black conservatives.

I don't know about always, but I certainly agree that there are black conservatives on the scene today. But saying that Ezola Foster was a puppet says nothing about Thomas Sowell and others. Indeed, let me put it this way. Have you ever heard about Ezola Foster in any other context? Are you aware of any other accomplishments to her credit? Generally speaking, VP candidates are expected to bring something to the ticket, and they usually have some sort of national reputation, e.g., they're senators, or governors, or something. If Buchanan was looking for anything other than a black face, don't you think he'd have picked someone who would have added a pre-existing reputation to his ticket? As you point out, there are plenty of principled black conservatives of national reputation who would have fit that bill. But he didn't pick them.

Kirby Olson said...

The left constantly shifts an ideological debate to a racial conflict in order to unfairly demonize the opposition.

This what Carter did to those who were standing up to Obama over Stealthcare.

More recently, Pelosi and others demonized the Tea Party as a bunch of Nazis.


This debating strategy is dubious and is itself a kind of mindless demagoguery.

Clarence Paige went to a Tea Party and said he was perfectly safe, although he didn't like hearing that Obama was the "communist in the White House."

But he said that race is not the thing that's on the minds of the Tea Party people. He's balck. does this make him an Oreo, a creepy idiot like Ezola Foster, or Michael Steele, or Condoleeza Rice, who have all been practically necklaced by the left for having a mind of their own?

The necklacing tactic does work, but it also burns those who stand up to the left (often all too literally) and in enforcing solidarity, it also reduces the left to a pack of screaming dolts involved only in groupthink and mindless uniformity.

Reducing Buchanan's deep and serious thinking to "he's afraid of the Chinese" is just another awful trick.

We should be afraid of the Red Chinese. They have a terrifying track record in terms of human rights. Has anybody heard of Tibet? Has anybody heard of China's client states: Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and North Korea?

The Red Chinese have a record of unspeakable atrocities behind them: Tianamen Square is one of the few that even leftists are familiar with. But they don't even connect it with the horror that IS leftism.

Everyone should leave the left. The left has the worst track record on human rights in the history of the last century, and it's terrible that anyone should consider themselves would want to be an animal on that farm.

Buchanan's thought is simply individualistic. He doesn't like the Balkanization of America by racial groups that use Marx as their ideological focus. He thinks it's bad for America.

And so those people, and their liberal backers, scream "Racist Nazi!" at him.

The left is an embarrassment to humanity.

stu said...

(1 of 2)

Kirby,

I've argued that Buchanan is a Nazi, or more properly an American Nazi theoretician, but only because he is. I recall making no claims that any other contemporary mainstream conservative deserves to be called such. Certainly, I consider American Nazism extremely rare, even within the conservative subpopulation.

You've not engaged the "new tribe" article, nor his arguments about Churchill in WWII. I can only assume that it is because you're unable to do so.

Let's take that "new tribe" article apart, because the basis for my claim is particular clear there, moreover, as the article has a byline of April 20, 2010, it clearly represents of Buchanan's current thinking.

A key notion in the article for Buchanan is "ethnonationalism," which he defines as "the recognition of an embryonic people that they are different from their neighbors, and the concomitant drive to live apart." To give an air of legitimacy to the notion, he refers to no less of a liberal icon than JFK's speechwriter, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and puts into his mouth the notion that this is "a more powerful force than any ideology."

He leaves the reader with the impressions that (1) the word ethnonationalism actually occurred in Schlesinger's speech, (2) that it is a neutral or even positive emerging concept of political science, (3) that it is not an ideology, and (4) that Schlesinger actually approved of the notion.

As regards (1), "ethnonationalism" does not appear in the OED, and therefore it is safe to assume that it does not occur in Schlesinger '91 either. Google finds it only in Buchanan's mouth. So it is most likely his own coinage. What it means is (2) indistinguishable from "ethnic purity" as his definition makes clear, a concept that has a long and dishonorable history, and is very much at the heart of Nazi political theory. Clearly (3) the very notion "ethnicity" is a social construct, and therefore any manifestation of "ethnonationalism" is prima facie ideology. And (4) Schlesinger was raising the alarm about ethnic tensions, and their danger to world peace, and so was speaking with anything but approval.

Buchanan writes, as if to absolve himself of the claim of racism, "The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal." Let's examine this, because this is his pre-emptive defense against the charges of racism that he knows will be coming.

How does he refer to the people who are forming what he calls "the new tribe?" Does he use a cultural signifier, like "European American?" Never. Instead, he uses a racial signifier, "white," six times (not counting his quote of Kelefa Sanneh). Does he refer to the descendants of former slaves by a cultural signifier, like "African American?" Yes, once. But he uses the racial signifier "black" twice (again, not counting his quote of Sanneh). He uses the ethnic signifier "Hispanic" once, but immediately ties it to "the flag of Mexico" which is clearly indented to specify a subpopulation of the Hispanic culture, and one that happens to coincide with a racial distinction.

stu said...

(2 of 2)

Ethnicity and race often coincide. We agree that Buchanan is smart. I would argue that he's smart enough to know the distinction between an ethnic and a racial signifier, yet his choices of racial over ethnic signifiers (whether they were instinctive or intentional) speak volumes.

Indeed, it is interesting to look through Buchanan's entire article and see how often he refers to an ethnic group that is not a racial group. He alludes to the disintegration within the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, and the later was a ethnic rather than a racial conflict, although the former is generally not (the critical divisions are between the Slavs and Central Asians, who racially have a significant Chinese/Mongol component). He refers the creation of the self-identification of "American" that occurred in the years prior to the Revolution, which is curiously telling, but that was neither an ethnic nor a racial division, but instead a purely geographical one, and so this example is devoid of relevance to the argument he is making, but instead is intended to invoke feelings of patriotism in his readers so that they'll be less critical in their reading of the rest. [Oddly enough, I think it can be argued that there was a quasi-ethnic component to the Civil War, in the distinction between the more egalitarian North vs. the more aristocratic South.] And he refers to the Palestinians, which are distinct only in ethnicity and not in race from their Jewish enemies. But the vast preponderance of the examples he brings forward are racial as well as ethnic.

To me, it is clear that his claims of ethnic rather than racial significance are simply intellectual camouflage, belied by his vocabulary, and good enough to fool only the intellectually credulous.

If you want to claim that there's a theoretical distinction between the "white ethnonationalism" that Buchanan seeks, and the "Aryan purity" that Hitler sought, you'll need to argue that the phrases have distinct meanings. I do not believe they do. And even if you do succeed at this, you'll have to explain to me why "ethnic purity" is any more a reasonable basis for political theory in today than "racial purity," and why the distinction is adequate to absolve Buchanan of the charge of being a Nazi theoretician. Again, I don't believe that you can, and even if you can, I don't believe it does.

Kirby Olson said...

Stu, I think Buchanan's argument is far simpler and is a response to the Balkanization of the country by race and gender that the left has offered.

By left, we must always mean Marxist, since I don't think there is any other left that counts (yes, there are five anarchists living in a tree in Oregon, etc.) but basically the only real leftist theorist is Marx.

So, given that case, and given that Marx separates humanity into two classes, and argues that one should destroy the other, and given that race and gender leftists who follow Marx have basically argued the same thing, then it means that what Buchanan is arguing (I think) is that this constant pressure of a genocide first through culture followed by a probable assault on actual people, is that Buchanan believes that the whites must finally realize that their culture and they themselves have been targeted as the object of a genocide.

This, in turn, of course, was an argument against the original Nazi theorists.

It's hard to know how far back to go.

What I'm arguing for is a larger thinking about the institution of america, and how to get it to function again.

I don't have time to sketch that uot again here.

But basically anyone who thinks of less than the country is a traitor to the country. Anyone who puts the personal above the whole, is a traitor.

stu said...

Kirby,

By left, we must always mean Marxist, since I don't think there is any other left that counts

I disagree vehemently with this. As a trivial refutation, let me note that the American (and indeed French) revolutions are traditionally (and rightly) framed in left vs. right terms, and clearly precede Marx.

Indeed, the OED has citations of the word "liberal" in the sense of "generous" going back to 1387(!), and in the allied senses of "free from narrow prejudice" going back to 1781, and "free from bigotry, open to new ideas" to 1823, "favorable to constitutional changes tending in the direction of freedom" to 1801.

Whereas Karl Marx lived from 1818-1883.

And I have not even gotten into liberality that is based on Christian ethics.

Your whole argument, not just here, but throughout this blog, rests on a false premise, the equation of liberality with Marxism.

Buchanan is arguing (I think) is that this constant pressure of a genocide first through culture followed by a probable assault on actual people, is that Buchanan believes that the whites must finally realize that their culture and they themselves have been targeted as the object of a genocide.

No, Buchanan is advocating the formation of an racial/ethnic consciousness on the part of whites, followed by a living apart (his words), i.e., ethnic cleansing, because it should be clear that Buchanan does not intend for us to go anywhere, but rather for the "other" to be removed. He states no mechanism for the latter, but clearly he is driving for a white racial conscience, and its evolution into an ethnically/racially pure white nation.

There is no on-going genocide. This is ridiculous claim. Even at the cultural level, it is far from clear that the changes and challenges that our culture is facing today come from other cultures. It seems to me that they have much more to do with rapid improvements in communication and transportation technologies, and the concomitant globalisation of the marketplace. As regards the later, our nation has done quite well, but not all of our citizens individually have done well. There is a legitimate problem there, but it is not caused by having too many Mexicans or blacks, and so can't be solved by getting rid of them.

What I'm arguing for is a larger thinking about the institution of america, and how to get it to function again.

Point 1. Capitalize America, please. Point 2. America is working politically and economically. Unfortunately, we're seeing unprecedented redistribution of wealth in this country away from lower 90% of the population economically, and into a small fraction of the top 1%. This is part of what I find so frustrating about the support of the Republican Party by the economically dispossessed: they're so afraid of their bosses that they're actually willing to work work for a future that will further impoverish them. For example, you recently equated taxes with slavery. Isn't this an odd position for someone to take whose salary is paid by tax revenues? And this brings me to another point. You accuse the left of being re-distributionalist, while ignoring the policies of the right are also re-distributionalist.

But basically anyone who thinks of less than the country is a traitor to the country. Anyone who puts the personal above the whole, is a traitor.

An interesting argument in your mouth, as it is far more of a hard left position than anything I'd commit too. I am, after all, willing to give a contingent blessing to Adam Smith's position that individual interests working in aggregate in the context of a well-regulated market will tend to advance the good overall. Yet you just directly contradicted this, and branded the underlying mechanism of Adam Smith's argument "treason."

Do you care to clarify, because honestly, this sounds pretty communist to me...

Kirby Olson said...

Stu, I only had two minutes last night to formulate and respond to your argument last night as the computer at home is in the baby's room, and I didn't want to wake her, and the wife said, "Two minutes," and actually watched the clock.

This morning I have about eight minutes, because I have to shave yet, and church is in 35 minutes.

Your arguments are fun, especially the last one, and they are things I thought about, and wondered if you would pick up on them. I am not normally quite so slipshod, but the time pressure crunched my arguments down too narrowly.

You have to see the larger argumentative context in which Buchanan is working. With all the hyphenated Americans running around, Buchanan's argument has been for years that it's only a matter of time before whites start to play the same game. We are rapidly becoming a minority, and by 2050, are expected to be the minority. Buchanan's question then, is -- will we receive the same dignity we've given the others?

Looking around the world in places where this has happened -- Zimbabwe -- for instance -- it appears that we will be thrown to the curb, or actually ejected from the country.

At least that's how he has seen it in articles in the past.

Already at this point, you can make fun of no one except whites. Blondes are a special target.

This is the beginning of a cultural genocide. You have to perhaps have a bit of a paranoid edge to see this, but many on the right do see it. We are also the only non-hyphenated group. Every other group has formed into a very strong political lobbying group and they see themselves as separate from the rest of America.

When the black congressman walked in a block past the Tea Party on the mall two weeks ago, it was such a manifestation.

Latinos and Asian Americans have formed similar power blocks, and seem in many cases to be rivalling African-Americans in terms of arguing only for their own interests.

This is anti-American, I think.

You have another argument that contends that liberalism is leftist. There are no liberals left in the left. The Republican party is liberal, at least liberal in the sense of Madison and Jefferson and Locke.

Leftists are Marxist. They want to control speech, and control the economy.

I think an important part of the problem in terms of dealing with the left is dealing with this nomenclatural mishap in which left and liberal have become synonymous.

Liberals believe in the primacy of the individual's possessions (it comes out of Locke's four rights: life, liberty, health and PROPERTY).

Marx denies at least two of those: liberty and property.

I see the left as also denying those same two.

But this is a left that I see within academia.

It's the left of the Duke 88.

My argument that Americans should be for America as a whole is a hard concept to sketch, and has only two minutes left to be sketched in. It's not that I don't think that people should be out for themselves and their families. I do.

But they should want the playing field to be level for all. This means that you should be a legal player (an American citizen) in order to reside here. You should also care about the laws here (which is why you should be legal inthe first place, and if you're not, you should leave). You shouldn't commit crimes. If you see crimes being committed, you should report them. You should be willing to provide testimony against criminals.

You should help your neighbors keep their lives, their property, and their health.

Bu at the same time it's ok to make a living, and to save your money.

We shouldn't steal from the functioning communities in order to give to the non-functioning communities.

Kirby Olson said...

Marx's great idea was that the proletariat outnumbered the bourgeoisie. Therefore they could appropriate their factories, and distribute the income. The problem was that a party hack was no match for Andrew Carnegie.

In Seattle I had a Marxist friend who hated Bill Gates and said that we should run a broken broomstick through his guts and take his money and redistribute it. I didn't think he was serious or I would have reported him.

I was appalled by the shortsightedness of this viewpoint, more even than I was by the appalling resentment. Gates is one in a million. He has incredible knowledge and capacity for creation. He's making stellar products.

He's also made more millionaires in the northwest than anyone else. He was the goose laying golden eggs.

To think that just any party hack could achieve that is insane. Special conditions pertain in America that allow for the emergence of a Bill Gates. Private property, freedom of inquiry, clear laws, a legacy of entreprenurial competitiveness. I tried to argue with my friend, and he would get mad and say, I should ram a broken broomstick through YOUR guts.

I resented this, but it's how Marxists are. They aren't liberals. They're not mental patients.

They're something else.

They're run on resentment. It's the same resentment that you find in Obama's church among the Reverend Wrights. It's not -- let's see what we can do -- rather -- it's envious -- let's knock down what others have done it and take it from them.

It's wrong in every sense.

It's as wrong as the sick idiots in the Mafia are wrong to shake down law-abiding small shopowners in order to provide for whores and booze.

Just plain wrong.

If the left is necessarily Marxist, as I think it is, the right is necessarily Calvinist.

I'm with the right because their principles are sound.

But I am also not quite either. That is why I am a Lutheran surrealist.

I'm five minutes over my time: must book.

Kirby Olson said...

I suppose another way to think about Buchanan vs. someone like Ward Churchill, or someone like Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright, is to think about how they come out of a context of victimization.

But it's also probably important to think about how our own awareness has been shaped. In my background, for instance, I have been most worried about freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression.

This has meant that I have not cared as much for groups that have been extinguished unless they left a significant artistic record.

So, East European holocausts (not just the Jews, but also their avant-gardes, including those who managed to get out of places like Romania and into France -- people like Benjamin Fondane have left an enormous mark on me).

While I'm seriously concerned about the erasure of literature classes in Cambodia, I don't have specific individuals in mind when I think about that holocaust.

Partially because the notion of an individualist literature was not so deeply planted.

Likewise, with Native Americans and other indigenous groups that may have had their cultural heritage destroyed -- it doesn't bother me so much because they did not have an avant-garde.

While this is probably ridiculous, it's nevertheless where I'm coming from.

People who are outside of any Judeo-Christian universe in which something like an individual thinker might be recognized, are probably difficult for me to recognize.

I'm especially leery of Marxism, but am also leery of Jacobins in any format, since they destroyed their cultural heritage.

I'm leery of Roundheads of any kind, any sort of religious movement that seeks to destroy humorous elements -- the banning of the theatre under Cromwell, the destruction of humorists under Stalin, the terror of the cultural revolution under Mao.

Many of the new hyphenated groups strike me as humorless and thus, terrifying, because they recall the humorlessness of the Marxists "Cultural Revolutions" which were actually cultural genocides.

Isee the Duke 88 as enacting a cultural genocide on a campus, and the world turning a blind eye to it.

It horrifies me.

The continuing denial of the Armenian holocaust is terrifying, especially now that Obama referred to it, but not in terms that I would have done.

He sort of half-gets everything.

Bush was much more clear in this regard, perhaps because his wife is a librarian.

almost everyone who understands universal human rights agrees that Bush was far superior in this regard to Obama.

Obama is a partisan. He's only too willing to deny rights of expression to Fox and to the Tea Party. He'd like to crush them.

It's frustrating to him that he can't have the final say on absolutely everything.

He pays lip service to rights of freedom of inquiry, as does the left in general, but they really don't want it.

They want to destroy any culture that is not their own either through ridicule, or by any other means necessary.

Duke 88 represents this to me. That almost no one within academia raised a voice against them is symptomatic I'm afraid of a larger denial of the rights of anyone who is not a leftist to exist.

This is in turn clearly a legacy of the Marxist viewpoint.

It's also a legacy of the Jacobin viewpoint.

The American viewpoint at its founding was checks and balances, and balancing one faction against another, along with freedom of inquiry for all.

This is denied by the majority of the left.

That Ezola Foster is almost unheard of is because she wasn't allowed on any channel except Fox.

She was too threatening. A woman who is not a shrill leftist, and also an African American. Not permitted.

Necklaced with silence.

Kirby Olson said...

Another way to put it:

If a community did not have good colleges and universities, I would not have wanted to live there, so I would not bother to defend it.

If, in addition, they didn't have a decent Bohemian underclass, I would not bother to defend it.

Also, if they didn't have Lutheran churches (or the equivalent) in which to rue the previous week's activities, I wouldn't care terribly much about that society.

While these are not universal needs, they are mine, I suppose.

I think that Lutheran surrealism grows best in capitalist societies in which freedom of inquiry is a guaranteed right.

People have their own interests. They should investigate them.

It's almost very interesting.

stu said...

Kirby,

You have to perhaps have a bit of a paranoid edge to see this, but many on the right do see it. We are also the only non-hyphenated group.

Really? German-American. Italian-American. Irish-American. Polish-American. I suppose you could say that we're not a hyphenated group, we're many hyphenated groups, some of which have been subject to intense prejudice in the past.

But I hold to the notion that these hyphenated groups are Janus like. The first part looks to the past, the second part to the future. We are all Americans, in various degrees of assimilation. As our children marry across boundaries that once seemed inviolable, the backward part stops meaning as much to them as the forward part. The mixing pot will continue to mix. This isn't cultural genocide, it is cultural formation.

In the meantime, we are in a state of imperfect assimilation. As long as we think of ourselves as hyphenated Americans, we are not yet fully Americans. And to a certain extent, the converse holds too. Fellow citizens who, because they perceive themselves prejudged to be less than full Americans, often take on that additional cultural identity as a shield. The Buchanans and the Sharptons of the world create one another. It is our place to reject both.

I suppose another way to think about Buchanan vs. someone like Ward Churchill, or someone like Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright, is to think about how they come out of a context of victimization.

These are different classes altogether.

Pat Buchanan's victimization is delusional, like Hitler's. He's a member of the socially, politically, and economically dominant group, and he views any challenge to that dominance as something he must fight.

Ward Churchill's victimization is made up, as he's taken on an identity (that of an American Indian) that is not biologically his, and a culture of which he is not a part, to claim himself entitled to a victim's restitution.

Bill Ayers was a revolutionary/terrorist, someone who chose violent means to accomplish political ends. Was is a key word here, he's establishment today. Arguing today that we should reject Ayers for who he was, without any consideration of who he is, amounts to denying the possibility of redemption. This isn't to say that skepticism in the present is unwarranted, but rather that it should be proportionate, and willing to give fair consideration to the man as he is. But Ayers is no victim, and never believed himself to be one. He believed he could effect change, and although the means have moderated, I suspect he still believes he can effect change. This is not a victim's stance.

Wright sees himself as a prophet speaking the word of God to a persecuted people. You don't see the persecution, but then, you didn't live in Chicago's South Side in the '40s, '50s, '60s, and '70s. There are two points I would emphasize here. The first is Wright's world view could stand a bit of revision. What his people are dealing with today is less prejudice and persecution than its equelae. What you need to understand, though, is that his world view rests on a valid foundation. Wright did not chose victimization as Churchill has, nor is he deluded about it as Buchanan is. At worse, he's sustained it a bit past its due date.

Separately, I just want to sustain my objection to your stance on left vs. liberal. I'm certainly no Marxist, and while this may mean that in your mind I'm a liberal and not a leftist, let me note that as a liberal, I still reject the Tea Party, I still support Obama over any Republican alternative, I still identify with the Democratic Party has having the better vision for what America should be. The notion that the Republican Party still deserves any part of the mantle of "liberal," especially given the lengths that Mr. Reagan went to to make that word toxic, is ridiculous.

stu said...

Kirby,

Simple question. If you're so opposed to victimization, then why do you approve of Buchanan's "hey, we're victims here, too!" shtick?

Even if you don't reject his delusions of ethnic purity and ethnic cleansing, sure you must reject his delusion of white victimization.

Kirby Olson said...

That said, I'm still willing to listen to GM and his hatred of Lincoln. I find it pathological, but I am also interested in pathology. I like it!

I think we have to try to understand the symptoms of others, and maybe we can figure out something about ourselves, too.

I consider everyone somewhat pathological.

It's only when they're breaking laws that I get worried.

It's legal to romanticize the old south or to even fly the confederate flag. Would you make a law against this?

I think it's legal for the hyphens to form themselves into mindless groupthink covens of ideological hatred even if they do it in the bosom of a church.

But attacking people like Ezola Foster for having different views, or slandering the Duke lacrosse players, should be denounced, and vigorously.

we need laws that are clear, and we need to respect the laws.

Anyone who doesn't needs to be separated from the rest of us until they get it. And if they don't get it, then they need to remain separated.

anyone coming over the border from Mexico without going through an authorized transit point is an outlaw. I think we need feel no embarrassment over putting up a serious wall, or three.

And anyone who hires illegals should be thrown in prison.

It's ok on the other hand for people to protest this belief of mine. They just can't physically threaten me for thinking differently.

Speech is an individual right. Only the state should have recourse to violence.

stu said...

Kirby,

He's [Buchanan] not for Hitler.

Of course not. But he's for the things Hitler was for: white racial consciousness, ethnic cleansing. That's the bar for American Nazism, Kirby. Buchanan clears it.

He thought rather that Hitler's real design was against Eastern Europe. He thought that had the Brits stayed out of it, the two totalitarian countries (Hitler and Stalin) would have destroyed one another.

Part of this is correct. Hitler's war objectives boiled down to two: (1) unifying all ethnic Germans into a single nation, and (2) stealing the Slavic lands, and enslaving their people. His operational error in the end was a gross underestimate of Russia's actual and potential military power.

You consider Buchanan to be smart? The European lands that did not come under Soviet control were, to a first approximation, the lands freed by the Western Allies. The tide had already turned by Normandy. Once the Soviets survived the first winter, and got their Eastern Armies into play (the units that had been positioned along the Mongolian border), the die was cast. It was going to be hard, and expensive in men and material, but it was over. Stalin was more than willing to fight a war of attrition. The battle of Stalingrad ended February of '43. Kursk was over by July of '43. Non-involvment by the Western Allies means a Soviet dominated Europe.

There are both intellectual and moral failures to Buchanan's argument, but the biggest intellectual failure to in refusing to acknowledge that the Russians won the European Theater of the Second World War. The Western Allies helped, and they helped a lot. There is no doubt of that. But we did not effectively intervene against the Germans until they'd already turned the tide, and fixed the outcome. We just brought about a quicker end, and an end that kept Western Europe out of Soviet control.

It was a close match.

In Buchanan's dreams.

Carter wasn't even sure what to do about Iran. He was just confused about everything.

Carter got unlucky. He committed the Delta force, and could not have predicted or prevented the helicopter failures or the collision that doomed that attempt. Nor could he have predicted well-documented treason on the part of Reagan's staff, negotiating with the Iranians in the months prior to the election. Carter was not a great President, but neither was Reagan.

It's legal to romanticize the old south or to even fly the confederate flag. Would you make a law against this?

No. The right of free expression that allows Buchanan to try to sell repackaged Nazi racial theories also allows people to fly the flag of treason. I would just make it clear that I'm not going to tolerate lectures on patriotism from anyone who does so.

I think it's legal for the hyphens to form themselves into mindless groupthink covens of ideological hatred even if they do it in the bosom of a church.

True, but an odd segue. Weren't you just talking about Confederate-Americans? Maybe its not a segue at all...

jh said...

ok buster put up your dukes
i've had about enough of your
flippant rhetoric go ahead put on those boxing gloves you and me are going to go a few rounds no more rhetoric buster brown it's time for duookkin ittt out
world wide championshipwrestling goes fisticuffes brass rings wranglin in the ring

life was better for everyone when the border was porous
just ask the locals
it's folks like golfcourse owners and hoity toitiy horse ranchers and high end gated communities that are getting upset
most people had no problem with the hispanic workforce coming and going if that's the way they have to be let them walk long distances to work and go home to their hometowns and families when they get some money

living in america is a treacherous and shakey proposal it always has been we've found better ways to dress it up but it's always going to be a precarios perch...so much presumption breeds excess and people are attracted to excess

the only violence worth getting excited about is the violent resistance to state violence
all other forms of violence are well
what should we say
banal

i had forgotten all about ezola foster

sexeTHix pOlItIcAl EthiX

still bretts' initial question remains unanswered

i think the answer is simple
the democratic party is chock full of big book educated high achievement smart reading people the republicn party only has one guy who reads and i can't remember his name...all the other republicans are basically automatons and they're put in place because of insider slap on the back good ole boy republican connectons i knew yer daddy he and i used to trade oil wells

you can be a dingbat lady and be up for careful consideration as president amongst the republicans because you're well connected but never could a dingbat be a democratic contender no siree they want thinkin ladies ladies who read ladies with a good idea and a way to say it they don't like dingbats in the democratic party you might say what about pelosi but she's actually a bright lady and she's got mafioso connections all over the place and the church protects them so we have the big end of the stick in the catholic world we have pelosis cousins so watch out anyway everyone and their dog knows you have to be smart to work the street with mafiosi eey eye eey eye O
when push comes to shove in the historical synthesis of social styles the paterfamilias will win out again it always does

there i've said enough
don't piss me off dude
i'll take you into the ring and
really check your block off the old nut off knockin

i'll dance like a bumblebee

jh

Kirby Olson said...

Without Picklesworth and James it's hard for me to prop up my side of the argument against Stu, JH, and Brett, with Tom popping in from time to time, and others, but I'm doing my best. Glad to see JH pop back up.

I'm so bizarre in my prejudices, and also, rather alone in them. Most Lutherans wouldn't go after the Catholics as I do. I alienate everyone.

Call me Caspar, I don't mean to be such an unfriendly host.

Kirby Olson said...

Hatred is all you need, la de da de da.

That's my answer to Stu. Identity politics of all kinds are focused on hatred and stoking of resentments.

I think culture should be about building brides between peoples. I do think that Buchanan has an odd assortment of thoughts, and I am certainly no expert on his thought.

He's a kook to some degree, but a fairly bright kook.

But he's still a kook.

Too many kooks spoil the

A. Goths
B. Moths
C. Sloths
D. Broth

jh said...

what do you think we should build these brides out of what should we build brides
i thoroughly agree that more brides should entail between people and we should bring back the whole idea of the harem that idea worked so well for so long how did that good idea ever falter
brides between peoples
that is a sure way to beauty the most beautiful people are people of mixed race this is not to say that pure blacks or pure bloods or pure chinese or inuits or guareni (sp) aren't pleasing to behold it's just that when people mixitup a lil the kids turn out looking beautiful and they grow up to be beautiful
mix the gene pool
ever more mixin
brides between peoples
that's an idea which's time iz come

there's a new color
catholic pink

jh

G. M. Palmer said...

Stu,

It is rather odd to think of World War II doing any damn good when it was ostensibly begun to "free Poland" and ended up sentencing Poland to a death sentence.

But then again, you do prefer titular freedom to being alive, so I suppose you view this as a plus.

Kirby Olson said...

At any rate, Stu may be right about Buchanan. I've been troubled his affiliation with the sons of the Confederacy. I thought his remarks on white identity politics were meant to be a humorous assessment of the hyphenated resentment groups. But maybe he really does believe in white power. anyone who thinks their race or gender or class makes them wiser in any way is a complete jackass. What an absolute creep if that's what he thinks.

Christianity transcends race (one need not be a Jew) or a member of any ethnic group that considers itself superior, or some kind of master race. The idea is completely idiotic that demographics of some kind makes one superior, or wise.

It has to do with one's intellectual commitments, heart commitments, not outer criteria.

Marxism rallies people are race, gender, and class, based on hatred and resentment of an outer group. This is why Reverend Wright is not a Christian. He's a Marxist.

"God DAMN America!"

It's similar to the Mafia in which you must be a double Sicilian and works on the same identity politics. You have been put upon by the powers that be, and yet you are more clever and wiser than all the others. Identity politics is a closed Mafia.

Against this, true religions transcend such nonsense. Early Islam did this -- and still does it today -- people with blue eyes and blond hair can be Muslims -- as Malcolm X discovered at the end of his hateful life when he went to Cairo and figured out that anyone can be a Muslim.

Identity politics people just got down from the tree and are still acting like chimpanzee tribes.

The idea since St. Paul has been to transcend this narrow identity politics and to affiliate instead through love, with the church as a bride building bridges across nations, through commitments.

Right?

Biggest area in which new Christian recruits are coming: Asia and Africa. No one sees them as separate or somehow inferior due to the race or gender or class.

We're all the same in that we were all made in the image of God.

G. M. Palmer said...

When he makes comments on race, I don't know if Buchanan is:

1) being satirical
2) being a racist
3) being a "race realist" (or proponent of human bio-diversity--though Stu may not recognize the difference between 2&3).

It's always problematic to use such language, tho.

stu said...

GM,

It is rather odd to think of World War II doing any damn good when it was ostensibly begun to "free Poland" and ended up sentencing Poland to a death sentence.

This is a curious view of history. Most folks date the beginning of WWII to the Marco Polo bridge incident. Even if you want to limit the discussion to the European Theater, it's hard to view the German posture leading up to the Munich accords as anything less than an act of war, albeit one pursued by bluff and diplomacy rather than bullets and shells.

But yes, a formal state of war between Germany and the Western Allies (specifically France and Britain) was triggered by German's invasion of Poland. The Western Allies could not have known or predicted the secret provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that made Russia a party to the reduction of Poland.

Asking whether or not WWII "did any good" is an extremely prejudicial framing the policy alternatives that faced the Western Allies, as it rests on the false assumption that war was their choice. Bonhoeffer makes a good point about this: the choice between good and evil is easy, but the world often requires us to make the choice between evil and evil, or good and good, and that is where the important questions of morality lie. In terms of the range of policy decisions that were available to the West, the earlier German expansion was checked, the shorter and less damaging the inevitable war would be. A firm stand at Munich might have "saved" Poland. By '39, the appeasement strategy had already doomed Poland. Further delay would not have avoided war, nor improved the likely range of outcomes.

Tell me, among the range of policy options that were available, what would you have chosen in '39? There were basically three. (1) Immediate hot war, for which the Western Allies were poorly prepared. Moreover, freeing Poland would have required conquering German and defeating Russia. The Western Allies did not have the requisite military power to do this. (2) False war, which amounts to an economic blockade of Germany together with military mobilization. This is this historical alternative. (3) Letting Poland go. This doesn't "save" Poland either, and it's far from clear that it plays out much differently than the historical scenario. Hitler still has his eyes on Russia, and there's no way he's going to take on Russia before he makes sure that France is out of the fight.

To get back to Bonhoeffer's point, all of these choices involve considerable evil. To reject the one that was made in isolation because of the evil it contains without considering the alternatives and the evil they contain isn't a valid moral approach.

stu said...

Kirby,

Nice post. I think we've made progress.

There's still work to do regarding Wright, and I'm still learning the tools it's going to take to do it properly, but I am making progress. My recollection is that you (somewhat grumpily), GM, Brett, and I are in on this project. Right?

The idea since St. Paul has been to transcend this narrow identity politics and to affiliate instead through love, with the church as a bride building bridges across nations, through commitments.

Right?


Well, I don't think that St. Paul would have used the phrase "identity politics." But he was certainly all about bringing the word of God through the Lord Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. And he did play off Jew vs. Gentile quite a lot, arguably a bit more than was really seemly, so there was just a whiff of identity politics about his approach.

St. Paul also limited his missionary activity to the Roman Empire, although he moved pretty freely across ethnic boundaries within the Empire.

Biggest area in which new Christian recruits are coming: Asia and Africa. No one sees them as separate or somehow inferior due to the race or gender or class.

We're all the same in that we were all made in the image of God.


I'd like to note my strong agreement and approval of this remark, since we so often find ourselves in disagreement.

It's an interesting question -- what is it about the contemporary Asian and African experiences that are different from the contemporary US experiences? Part of this is that we're talking about areas where Christianity is coming out of persecution. This is particularly clear in the former USSR, where Orthodoxy is blooming. I think this may be behind the efforts of some conservative churches to portray Christianity in our country as being under attack. But this is a silly, Ward Churchill kind of made up persecution, not a real persecution.

I think it is appropriate to remember that the first Gentile convert to Christianity was a black eunuch. BTW, the OT passages regarding eunuchs are pretty clear, yet Philip's answer to the question "What is to prevent me from being baptized?" was to baptize him.

G. M. Palmer said...

Stu,

That's certainly a fascinating question. By '39 there were no good choices. But 1939 is 71 years dead. What we should do is learn from those mistakes.

The two largest problems that lead to the debacle of World War II were political reassurances and unchecked democracy.

Why could Poland not defend herself from Germany? Because she was promised defense from Britain and France. Washington was right to warn against entangling alliances. What purpose is served by swearing the debt of the defense of Taiwan? You can't argue "freedom" or "preventing death" because we can't even ensure the safety of our own citizens, let alone our direct neighbors--imagining we can of distant nations is absurd.

And unchecked democracy is what led directly to Hitler's rise to power--from the inept politics of Wilson and the Senate Republicans to the French thirst for revenge, the outside democratic forces created the pressure cooker that would lead to mobs of German citizens gleefully voting a monster as their king.

So the question is how do you avoid entangling alliances and wanton, ignorant mob rule? Certainly not by anything we've done in the last seven decades.

stu said...

GM,

The two largest problems that lead to the debacle of World War II were political reassurances and unchecked democracy.

Predictably, I'll disagree, although I think you do have a point here.

The Second World War was driven by dictatorships in German, Italy, and Japan. In all three cases, there was a nominally parliamentary government, but in none of these three cases was the democratic tradition of much strength. In all three cases, war was a vehicle for unifying a population in the face of domestic unrest, and in all three cases, the emerging dictator had the active support of the oligarchic elements of society. I would say that the common element of all three is that they were failed transitions to democracy. The same could be said, e.g., of Napoleon and his wars. Certainly I agree that the Treaty of Versailles doomed the Weimar Republic, even as it was being founded.

It does appear that there has been a historical instability in the formation of democracies. This was evident even in the US, in the proposal that Washington be made King. It is interesting to think about how US history might have differed if he'd put his support behind that proposal. Likewise, it is interesting to reflect on the UK's experience, where the transition to democracy has taken place over a period of almost eight-hundred years.

But I think the real argument against your point here is, if not democracy, then what? Certainly, the era of Kings produced wars at a greater rate than the era of Democracies. Even the so-called Pax Romana was a period of wars in Germany, Parthia, Britain, and Judea. Our wars are notable only in that we now pursue them with far more powerful technologies.

As for political reassurances, your belief that Poland would have been able to defend itself against German and Russia, simultaneously, if only they hadn't entered into alliances with France and Britain, is hard to credit. The strategic problem that the Poles faced was enormous. First, there's the Danzig problem, i.e., the fact that there was no clearly defined historical border between Polish and German lands, creating an incentive for an ascendant German to go to war with them even without considering German Slavophobia.

Indeed, it is hard to see how the Poles could have defended themselves against Germany alone (even without the Russian betrayal). Poland did not have Germany's heavy industry, hence limited national production of armored fighting vehicles, and they were way behind Germany in aeronautics. It is important to realize that modern Poland did not exist as an independent state prior to WWI, and that the British and French guarantees were natural under the circumstances.

I don't see how Poland would have fared any better without those guarantees than with them. Nor, indeed, how WWII would have been avoided without them. Hitler is still going to attack Russia. He's still going to have to take out France first.

What purpose is served by swearing the debt of the defense of Taiwan?

Leaving aside economic and moral questions, not a lot. But I wouldn't expect you to advocate setting aside moral questions.

Kirby Olson said...

Stu, Philip didn't ordain the eunuch, he only baptised him.

Everyone should be able to be baptised so long as they wish it, or their parents wish it.

A far smaller group should be ordained.

I, for instance, should not be ordained. I don't know enough, and it's not my calling.

It's important not to be extremist, but to be somewhat sensible about our positions, and down deep, I am somewhat sensible, as are you.

I don't have any positions that I'm 100% certain about.

Abortion for instance is black and white for many people. For me, it's not.

1. It gets rid of unwanted babies, who might later be a problem on the street if they had been born to a mother who either couldn't, or didn't want to, take care of them.

2. There are already too many people.

3. It disproportionately kills Democrats, which means that Republican candidates are more likely to win in the future.

4. It's a good electoral strategy for Republicans since most people are against the practice. You can mobilize the electorate by throwing this card down. If Democrats were to stop aborting their kids, there would be fewer slam-dunk Republican issues.

5. It keeps doctors and nurses employed, and keeps hospitals in business.

6. Otherwise, people would go to Mexico, which is dirty, and many of them would die as in Brautigan's novel, The Abortion: An Historical Romance.

7. -- well, I could go on forever.

I'm still opposed to the practice, but I can usually see the opposite viewpoint.

I can usually see your viewpoint, but I argue for the sake of it, to see what kinds of new synthesis we can develop together.

I do have different viewpoints than yours, but mine are not generally hard and fast. Yours have merit.

As do JH's, and most of the others here.

stu said...

Kirby,

Again, a nice post. A few remarks.

Stu, Philip didn't ordain the eunuch, he only baptised him.

Everyone should be able to be baptised so long as they wish it, or their parents wish it.


I think there were just apostles, deacons, disciples, and believers at this point. This particular Philip appears to have been one of the deacons [c.f. Acts 6:1-6]. And deacons didn't ordain deacons, only apostles ordained deacons.

A far smaller group should be ordained.

I, for instance, should not be ordained. I don't know enough, and it's not my calling.


Agreed. But now we're down to actual qualifications. Certainly knowledge, and an authentic call are necessary qualifications. Within the Lutheran Churches, the historical attitude is that a sense of call is not "self-proving," but instead needs to be vetted. [N.B., I recall reading when researching Ward Churchill a comment by a University of Colorado administrator that claims of racial identity are "self-proving." I thought this was particularly horrifying.]

Historically, Lutheran clergy have had to agree to behavior statements, and these are pretty broad, but amount to providing a witness to a Christian life. Sexual continence has always been a part of this, and likely always will be. The disagreement at hand has much to do with how we define sexual continence, and was largely anticipated in discussions over how to handle clergy divorce, which presents parallel theological difficulties (in your synod as well as mine). For my part, I think that divorced pastors are more problematic witnesses than faithful homosexual pastors. YMMV.

Regarding your remarks on abortion, there's a telling sense that the Republican stance on abortion is cynical rather than principled. I can only agree :-).

G. M. Palmer said...

Kirby, number two is bullshit (Malthus was a dipshit) and number six still happens here in clean old America. They just write the cause of death down as something else.

Kirby Olson said...

There are some deeply faithful people who object with all their hearts to abortion.

I like their viewpoint and think it's valid and correct.

But I'm more pragmatic than that. I happen to think that all the reasons I provided are good reasons, but finally, appalling.

And that the good idea is that no one should have abortions.

However, I understand that people respectfully disagree. I enumerate some of the more valid talking points of the left, and a few of the more cynical positions of the right which might in turn also validate abortion.

I personally think human rights have to be begin at conception and end only at death by natural causes.

But I recognize that there are lots of other viewpoints. And I look at them and just think:

Quel horreur.

At the same time, I am not about to shoot anybody over these differences. Persuasion is my bag, although I don't think I'm very good at it.

That is, I've never actually persuaded anyone of anything that they didn't already believe.

My one real victory at this blog after six years of blogging is that Brett has accepted Two Kingdoms.

I think he needed it as a tool for what he already thought, though.

I will never probably ever convince anyone of anything that they don't already want for whatever reason to believe.

But for the record: I think abortion is absolutely appalling. At the same time, I recognize that others feel differently, and think differently, and have some good points. They just don't sway ME.

In fact, I find other viewpoints absolutely abhorrent.

But I recognize that people do hold them in good faith.

If human rights are universal, I think children are the most precious of humans. I think Jesus thought so, too.

Kirby Olson said...

It amazes me when St. Paul goes into Ephesus and can convert the whole city.

Or that Philip can talk the eunuch into baptism.

I don't even understand this.

It's very miraculous, if miraculous can take such an intensifier without becoming ridiculous.

I believe that my attempts to witness have been an abject failure thus far.

Re babies: they are radiant at birth, which must mean that there is no darkness at all in the womb.

Emmanuel!

stu said...

Kirby,

It amazes me when St. Paul goes into Ephesus and can convert the whole city.

I don't think there's scriptural witness that he converted the whole city. Indeed, it seems quite clear that the Artemis cult (and the economy associated with it) was still very strong when Paul left Ephesus (cf., Acts 19:23-20:1).

Or that Philip can talk the eunuch into baptism.

This is comprehensible. The eunuch was studying scripture—specifically the suffering servant passage from Isaiah. He was clearly a "God fearer," someone who was drawn to Judism, but either unwilling, or (as in the eunuch's case) unable to convert. What Philip provided to the eunuch was an opportunity to belong to the faith witnessed in Isaiah, a faith that Philip had explained by indentifying the suffering servant as Jesus Christ.

Kirby Olson said...

Ok, I was exaggerating a bit. I mean, I knew that he didn't get the whole city, but huge parts of it were transformed. Doesn't say exactly how many, but enough to upset the silversmiths who lived off of hammering Artemis idols.

I should be precise, I guess, in terms of exact number of conversions in Ephesus.

But I don't even know how many people lived there, or what they ate, or what they wore, or the percentage of those who turned from Artemis.

Maybe some were half-converted. If we had fifty of those, would they count as twenty-five?

stu said...

Kirby,

According to Wiki, the population of Ephesus in 100 CE was somewhere in the 400-500 thousand range, and was second in size only to Rome. By contrast, Rodney Stark estimates that the total number of Christians world wide in the year 100 was a mere 8,000.

I can't find an estimate for the population of Ephesus in 50 CE, but it seems unlikely that it could have been much less than 100k.

I've always assumed that Paul's congregations were small, "house churches," of probably not much more than 50 people each. Indeed, I suspect that once they grew to about this size, he felt it was time to move on, and plant seeds elsewhere. One of the points that Stark makes is that early Gentile Christianity propagated through networks of the young and rich, so their influence was greater than their numbers. In a way, this also explains the early persecutions, which took place at times when the number of Christians was negligible. Rich pagans didn't want their children to grow up to be Christians, and as always, had access to the power of the state.

Kirby Olson said...

The Harbor at Ephesus silted up. I don't know when it did this. Today no one lives there but it's still a major tourist site for Turkey.

And the great Temple to Diana stills stands there.

My college president went there and said it was impressive.

The eastern part of Turkey is going Muslim. They killed a lot of their Armenians who once graced eastern Turkish cities such as Kars.

Obama sort of mumbledy-pegged past that one earlier this week, making everybody mad. He seems to increasingly have foot in the mouth disease.

Which I think is good. His feet are made of clay. I wonder how that tastes.

 
Site Meter