Every day I'm accosted now with the remark, "Are you with the 99%?"
I'm actually not, I'm with the 1%.
I hate the way we spark scapegoating in times of trouble. The 1% remind me of the way the Jews were treated. It's never fair to go after a small minority and seize their things, while accusing them of being vermin, and tossing them into the "dustbin of history." Each person deserves to be seen as an individual with a personal history, with parents, a birthplace, a childhood, and loves and joys and sorrows. Once we start turning people into a number, the transport trains are ready to rumble.
I reject this response.
82 comments:
What kind of trains will be used to restore the top bracket to 39% instead of 36%? I thought the Bush tax relief for billionaires was set to expire automatically unless Obama gets his arm twisted.
Kirby,
I'm with the 1%.
You may support them, but unless you've misrepresented your circumstances to a remarkable degree, you're not with them.
After all, no one in the 1%, for that matter, no one with a first clue about capitalism, would refer to the stock market as "organized gambling," as you did a few threads back.
No, from their perspective, you're just another government employee, a parasite on the body politic, living from paycheck to paycheck.
They'd reject you.
Where does the 1% begin? At a million, or at a billion? How many billionaires do we have in this country? There can't be more than about a thousand of them. Take all their billions away, and you'd still have only one trillion. We need 14 trillion to pay off the national debt.
If we take away every penny from every billionaire (beginning with buffet, since he seems to want the nation to feast on his fortunes), how much would we then have?
something isn't adding up.
The 1% begins at $350,000 a year.
The largest group in the top 1% of earners is industry executives (30%). The next group is medical professionals at 16%.
And Kirby means "with them" as in he stands with them. It's a perfectly acceptable use of language.
Kirby,
Where does the 1% begin?
There's a helpful article up by Matthew Yglesias, What Percent Are You?.
The definitions being used are based on income rather than wealth. The ticket to the 1% is an annual income of $350K. Of course, the disparity in wealth is much, much greater than the disparity in income: if you're poor, you're living paycheck to paycheck, and you don't have much to spare for the purpose of accumulation.
Indeed, for the 1%-ers, often much of their income comes from dividends and capital gains. The disparity in earned income in this country is great. The disparity in actual income (accounting for income derived by investment) is much greater, and the disparity of wealth is much greater still.
How many billionaires do we have in this country?
According to a Forbes count released today(!), there are 1011 billionaires world-wide, of whom 403 reside in the US.
Your focus on the magnitude of the debt shows a real economic confusion. It is not the size of the debt that matters, it is its affordability, and this is a function of both the magnitude of the debt, and the income available to service it. The debt/GDP ratio will come down, but most of the contribution should be expected to come from increasing the GDP. More debt now, if it enables a more timely recovery of the GDP, is actually better financial stewardship than simply paying down the debt.
Maybe Bernie Madoff should have to pay $60 billion in back taxes. But then I understand the $60 billion was just a number he made up to impress potential investors. His actual fleecings only amounted to about $10 or $20 billion, according to some reports. Or maybe the $60 billion he had was only worth $20 billion after the real estate bubble popped and that's why he lacked the cash to keep his Ponzi scheme going. What they don't often mention about Madoff is that between 1971 and 2001 he turned what used to be the Over The Counter Exchange OTC into the NASDAQ and he did it by listing speculative hi-tech stocks that no reputable exchange was willing to touch and he computerized it, forcing NYSE and AMEX to do likewise. Madoff went to college in the 50's. He didn't have a clue what to do with a computer, but he listened to people who did and it gave him a competitive edge.
My investments go up or down on a daily basis, but they move in synch with the NASDAQ, not the Dow or the S&P or the NYSE. Madoff was a confidence man from the word go, but isn't entrepreneur just French for conman?
GM,
And Kirby means "with them" as in he stands with them. It's a perfectly acceptable use of language.
"With" implies reciprocity. It's a perfectly naive use of language.
Well, that's hurtful, Stu. Still, I think they appreciate my solidarity even if you want to continue to scapegoat a group. Sure, let's get out the rat poison and pour a dollop for each rich person. Killing them all and taking their stuff won't make us rich. There are no starvnig people in this country, but there will be if we go socialist. North Korea is socialist, and that's the kind of place they have famines.
It's important to love and protect the structure of capitalism. Some people get very rich and that might excite the envy of a few, but it pulls everyone along in its wake. Socialism just kills the motor that makes people WANT to work.
The universe was organized for life, and it's built on capitalist schemes. We compete for carbon.
Stu: 'I'm with' is generally a term that is used to mean 'I support' in many contexts.
'I am the 1%' or 'I am of the 1%' actually mean what you are insisting 'I'm with' means.
This is a blog - don't be wackjobby about language.
That being said, I will reiterate the idea that a cause And effect of our economy's f'd-upness is the disparity in wealth and the reward of huge amounts of money for things other than productivity.
This means that Some of the 1% represent and/or are partly to blame for our economic woes.
It is simply a matter of course that countries with Huge disparities in wealth have unhealthy economies - Whether that disparity is the cause or the effect, it's a sign that 'things ain't right 'round here.' (I'd say it's both a cause and effect).
Also, it's f'n stupid to believe that Clinton era tax rates = Marxism, or that Nixonian healthcare laws = Marxism.
I miss the USSR - this gave us a real, substantial example of active Marxism, so that you really couldn't go around saying 'raising taxes on millionaires 3 percent is Marxism!' because Real Marxism was alive and well and well-understood.
Now, anything that's to the left of Rush Limbaugh can be viewed as Marxist.
The views of Obama and the views of 90s Republicans are oft very much aligned.
Maybe 90s Repubs were 'too liberal' for your tastes, but to call them Marxist is simply not-sane.
Stu, do you really think an artificial group made on annual income is so insular and lock-step? Of the three folks I know well who are 1%ers, one is a flaming liberal, one is a libertarian in a liberal city who has been at the OWS protests in solidarity with his friends and the other is a mainstream conservative who nonetheless is extremely generous with his money. Perhaps you need to meet more people.
Kirby,
Well, that's hurtful, Stu
Get a thicker skin.
Still, I think they appreciate my solidarity
I'm doubtful. They'd assume you're positioning yourself for a handout, and it would get their defenses up.
even if you want to continue to scapegoat a group
That's projection.
It's important to love and protect the structure of capitalism.
Clearly you're not paying attention. The attacks on the status quo are coming from the right, not the left. Social security was an uncontroversial part of the status quo in your beloved 50's and 60's, and the highest marginal income tax rate was much higher than it is today (80-91%, vs. 35%). It is your side that is pushing the lie that Social Security cannot be sustained, and it is your side that is arguing that the historically low upper marginal tax rates of the present are still too high.
The issue isn't whether we will retain capitalism or replace it by one of the other -isms. The question is, if we assume that we will preserve a society along the lines of what we've had for the past 80 years, how with the public costs of that society be allocated? Will we continue the trend of the past 30 years of shifting these costs away from the rich and towards the middle class and poor, or will we reverse that trend?
I was over in Providence Rhode Island this weekend for a conference on liberty with Gordon Wood, and some others at Brown University. It was good. I got a chance to ask Gordon Wood why the courts have ended up as the final arbiter even though we didn't elect them, and is that what the Founders intended. I think he said that this is what Madison wanted: to get matters out of local hands (he didn't trust the yokels of Virginia, much less the yokels of Alabama) and so the idea was to force decisions up to a higher and higher level (which meant people who had been educated at Princeton, like himself). It was fascinating.
I liked Providence, and liked the conference (I'll explain more later).
Just drove back 6.5 hours in incredible snowstorm. Massachusetts had plowed but hadn't salted so the cars were all going about 30 mph. I wonder if this was another PC decision by the Massachusetts folks (salt kills frogs, or something). As soon as I got to NY state the roads were perfectly black, and salted, and all kinds of shovels were going every which way and I could go 70 all the way home.
What if we're not interested in preserving FDRs New Deal welfare state?
I listened to three very nice concerts on the way home: Mozart -- it had a highly technical name like concert 415B, and another piece by Debussy called Jeux (about tennis), and a marvel by Vivaldi, and an absolutely fascinating piece by Bach called Air on a G-String (the potential pun of which did not make me laugh).
I don't think we care enough about the rich. We should mollycoddle them more, and care about them. They are often lonely under all their minks and jewelry and fine art and silver. The poor are going to inherit the earth. What the rich get is nothing by comparison.
They might not have enough salt yet. . .
Bernie Madoff went to Hofstra. They don't have a football team this year. They always used to have a football team. Bill Cosby became fabulously wealthy making jokes about playing football against Hofstra. Did they change their philosophy of education? Usually football generates enough revenue to finance a school's entire athletic program. Why is there air?
GM,
Stu, do you really think an artificial group made on annual income is so insular and lock-step?
I don't believe I every claimed that the 1% was insular or lock-step. I know four people whom I believe to be billionaires. They vary tremendously in personality and political outlook. I know far more folks who clear the 1% threshold. Again, there is tremendous diversity.
But there are always people with their hands out. Fortunes can be dissipated, and the easiest way to do so is to simply and uncritically give money to everyone who's asks. Most of the 1%-ers I know, and all of the billionaires, don't enter into relationships lightly. The notion that Kirby would be welcomed as a fellow-traveller by the billionaires requires more than the usual suspension of disbelief, and I think this is a point worth that needed making. Not all "I'm with you guys!" are well received, and I'm skeptical that Kirby's would be.
But I think it should be clear to all that the 1%-ers broadly are not the targets of the OWS movements -- it's more like the .01%-ers, that would just make for an overly wonky slogan -- no one wants a motto that can easily be twisted into "we're Ivory Soap." And the issue is not, contra Kirby, that the objection to the rich is that they're rich, it's that there's a large loud fraction of the rich who are denying the traditional societal role that the rich have to play. They've forgotten their place, while demanding we consent to ours. In as much as being rich is ultimately requires the consent of society, we'll see how that works for them.
Stu, I don't necessarily want to be actual friends with any particular rich person, or with anyone in fact. I have lots of friends, and don't really need any more, to be honest. I am friendly with all kinds of persons, but see no reason to find more real friends. It's more like I just think the superrich should be left alone. If they decide to give away their money as Gates and Buffett have, then that's their business. If they decide to hoard it, and continue to grow it, that's also their decision. I believe in private property.
I don't think we should nationalize their money, as it sets a poor example and leads to nationalization of everyone's money. This leads in turn to a total focus of power within a small and usually not very broad-minded elite, who then proceed to turn the rest of us into their slaves.
Kirby,
I don't think we should nationalize their money, as it sets a poor example and leads to nationalization of everyone's money.
We are all responsible for a portion of the public burden. I think it sets a poor example if the people who benefit most from an orderly society are legally enabled shirkers.
I also object to lying about the terms of the debate. No one is arguing that we should nationalize the wealth of the rich. The argument is entirely over what constitutes a fair share of the commmon burden of society.
In the 50's and 60's, the upper marginal tax bracket was as high as 92% during the Eisenhower administration, and as low as 70% during the last years of the Nixon administration. These days, the upper rate is 35%, and it does not apply to long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate still (15%).
Evidently, you want a society in which the rich have taken everything. I want a society in which justice rolls down like water, and righteousness like an everflowing stream. One of these visions comes from God, and one does not.
Kirby, there's an illuminating short exchange between an economic reporter and NYU Law Prof Richard Epstein on PBS about income equality in the US.
Of course the PBS announcer has to label Epstein as a "libertarian" and "contrarian" (as they usually don't do for liberals, which shows both that liberal views on PBS are the fall-back norm and that PBS wants viewers to be impressed only by the expertise and bona fides of the liberal spokesperson interviewed).
Nevertheless, Epstein's pretty game in answering the reporter's sceptical remarks and "contrarian" body language.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2160792049
Stu, you have to watch the real idea, because the notion that we should just raise taxes a little isn't mentioned. The idea is raise fury at the 1% but the real idea is to erase private property. Many of the occupiers believe in socialism. I think it was 30% in the Schoen poll, but it may well be higher.
In the same way, higher education now pretends to be about diversity of education, but it is really about the utter and total eradication of people of faith. Almost every university and college is now set up to completely exterminate religious faith in favor of the new progressivism of the secular elite, who want us only to believe in Them.
I do think it's possible that the rich are too rich in this country, but on the other hand no one is starving (except Karen Carpenter and a few supermodels).
I could be wrong about this. There may also be starving children or some adults who are homeless who are starving.
But what the elites want now is to destroy any last pockets of interference for the government takeover of education, health, etc. Or at least that's my worst-case scenario take.
Meanwhile, the government gets bigger and more powerful with each step. And ultimately we're getting end up with a progressive prick like Obama lording it over us, exactly as his father's dreams led him -- but which other elites in Kenya prevented him from achieving.
Here, he just may make it. First four more years, and then dear leader for life.
That seems extreme, and hopefully it is, but every step and every move he makes seems to be heading in that direction.
Jesus is silent on how we should run a country.
He is quite vocal on how we should run our lives.
If the aim is the 0.1% or only billionaires, then be honest about it.
JADL,
I saw the whole of the Epstein interview and LOVED it. Finally someone in academia who makes sense. I especially loved his last sentence: you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor -- Lincoln.
I also liked his response to Stu and Brett constantly claiming that in the 50s there was a far higher rate of taxation. He said yes there was but there were also tax shelters for those same people -- a variable that neither Brett nor Stu were seemingly aware of.
I also liked that he stated that if you make the financiers poor it destroys the liquidity of capital.
We used to spend more on infrastructure. Now we're spending it on cutting checks.
He said that if the government sends out checks willy nilly it doesn't do any reliable good, whereas if parents do it, they check carefully to see if their kids are going to make wise use of the investments. I know that many of crypto-communists want everybody to start at the same place, which disincentivizes (nice word) parents' concern for their children's welfare.
It was a neat vid.
Hope this isn't double posted--the Wifi service is "iffy" again.
While there may be admirable aspects to American society of the 1950s (stronger families and faiths), stu is pleased to wax nostalgic over the high post-WWII federal marginal tax rates!
And I don't think he'd be so nostalgic over the less convenient aspects of American society of the '50s, such as prejudice against racial minorities, or sexual prejudice against single mothers or women praticing certain professions, or union nepotism, gangsterism, and racial exclusivity, or the exclusion of Jews from certain housing projects or civic clubs, etc.
Those on the nostalgic left Matthew Continetti in a recent article in The Weekly Standard (7 Nov issue) calls, not "progressives," but "the reactionary left."
He says the left's economic nostalgia concentrates on the tax rates and less income inequality when the greatest part of federal government revenues went to defence and Social Security--no Medicare, Medicaid, and interminable "Great Society" welfare programmes).
Continetti says that the left's political nostalgia reaches further back--to the class politics of the 1930s and the concentration of political power in the federal government (especially in the executive branch).
He concludes: "The longing for the culture of the ’60s, the economy of the ’50s, and the politics of the ’30s is evidence of the left’s failure. No longer able to inspire with a utopian vision of the future, the left has been forced to return to its past. The left’s failure, then, is the right’s victory, because a return to the past is what we’ve been calling for all along.
But which past? Certainly not the left’s. But neither should conservatives indulge in their own nostalgias. What Americans should be trying to recapture is not any particular set of historical social, economic, or cultural conditions but a lost philosophy of government, a missing understanding of politics. In this understanding, the equality that matters is the equal protection of natural rights. The government that levels inequalities of property or condition necessarily intrudes on those rights. Lucky for us, this view of government depends on self-evident truths that are the same in every time and every place."
Oy. Let's start with GM,
Jesus is silent on how we should run a country.
Jesus's ministry involved a continuous mocking of Roman rule, and its Jewish collaborators/enablers. He was executed by the Romans for treason, specifically, for his use of titles reserved by the Romans for Caesar. Jesus was not silent; you're just finding it a bit inconvenient to listen.
Then Kirby writes this:
I also liked his response to Stu and Brett constantly claiming that in the 50s there was a far higher rate of taxation. He said yes there was but there were also tax shelters for those same people -- a variable that neither Brett nor Stu were seemingly aware of.
Not much point talking about things that haven't changed much. Tax shelters still exist: muni's, life insurance, and preferential treatment of long term capital gains are important shelters. Did you think they went away?!
JADL writes,
While there may be admirable aspects to American society of the 1950s (stronger families and faiths), stu is pleased to wax nostalgic over the high post-WWII federal marginal tax rates!
I was actually thinking more about the availability of work that provided a reasonable standard of living, and the expectation that pension obligations would be honored. These actually go hand in hand with higher upper marginal tax rates -- there's of a cult of "superstar" CEOs who pretty up balance sheets on the short term and weak boards who consistently overcompensate them, and more of a sense that business should be built buy delivering valuable services, and hiring more people to perform them.
One of the things we haven't talked about which I believe actually matters a lot is the "maximizing shareholder value" mantra which contaminated our political and economic discourse beginning in the 80's. It used to be that companies (and their employees) had more of a sense of shared fate and mutual shared responsibility. This sense is now lost at all but the most enlighted companies.
And I don't think he'd be so nostalgic over the less convenient aspects of American society of the '50s, such as prejudice against racial minorities, or sexual prejudice against single mothers or women praticing certain professions, or union nepotism, gangsterism, and racial exclusivity, or the exclusion of Jews from certain housing projects or civic clubs, etc.
Thank you for raising these issues. This is exactly the sort of thing that I've argued in the past. Love of the 50's and 60's isn't my gig, and I'm well aware of the flaws of that era. But it is Kirby's ideal, and therefore something that can be used effectively in debate. And certain aspects of the 50's and 60's were better (cf., my remarks of the previous paragraph). Some things have been gained, and some things lost. We do well to be honest about both.
He says the left's economic nostalgia concentrates on the tax rates and less income inequality when the greatest part of federal government revenues went to defence and Social Security--no Medicare, Medicaid, and interminable "Great Society" welfare programmes).
There is some truth to this. Just as there's also truth to the fact that your side is eager to default on pensions that two generations of Americans have earned. The real debate should be over the health entitlements. My side tried to have that debate in 2009, and your side decided that it was more important to defeat Obama for a second term than to participate constructively in that debate.
Stu:
Let's see some quotes "mocking Roman rule."
Then let's see how those explain the strictures of governance.
GM,
Let's see some quotes "mocking Roman rule."
Words, not deeds, speak louder. But there are words, too.
Well, the big example, of course, is the triumphant procession into Jerusalem on an ass—on the very day Pontius Pilate and his retainers were making their triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on war horses via the opposite gate. That, my friend, is social commentary via mocking.
Then there's whole overturning of the money changers at the temple. What money do you think they were changing? Jesus was attacking the commercial link that had been erected between God's house and Roman rule.
But you want quotes. Will Matthew 5:38ff do? “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Let's deconstruct.
The passage is a description of passive resistance to occupying rule. Certainly, Gandhi took it that way. It is very much an argument against violence, either by the Romans themselves, or by the Zealots. Jesus is trying to take violence out of the interaction between Romans and Jews. He's referring here to a few fairly specific issues. A Roman soldier could compel a civilian to carry his armor for a mile. Jesus preaches that they should carry it for two—this reflects going from resistance as a strategy to a passive shaming. In effect, the civilian becomes the person who controls the interaction. "No, brother. I will carry it a mile farther."
Or consider the reference to Gentiles. This is explicitly inexplicit. You see, in an occupied country, direct criticism of the occupiers is the kind of thing that gets you a one-way ticket to either a political prison (if enough people know and care about you, so that you'd make a useful hostage) or to a landfill (if not). So "gentiles" is the kind of reference that provides both explicitness and plausible deniability. "Oh no, officer. We were talking about the Greeks." The Apocalypse is an exercise in this style of communication.
Jesus here is exhorting his followers to remember that Israel is supposed to be a holy nation, and that the response to occupation cannot be to become a profane nation. Instead, the proper response is to subvert the occupiers, using love as a means to pull their allegiance from Rome to God.
Would you like more?
Jesus does recognize allegiance to Caesar in the account of the coinage in which he says, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," so he's not entirely mocking the Roman Occupation of Israel. He does admit that we owe them tribute money.
You might argue that deep inside he's saying that nothing is really owed to Caesar -- and that the whole exchange is ironic. But Augustine and Luther thought it implied two kingdoms.
Two equally worth kingdoms.
I see the OWS as mixing the two kingdoms. Wall St. must exist in order to create investment, as Epstein put it.
We need the financiers. I loved JADL's vid link.
Kirby,
Jesus does recognize allegiance to Caesar in the account of the coinage in which he says, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," so he's not entirely mocking the Roman Occupation of Israel.
On the contrary. What is the right answer to the question, “What is Caesar's?” Nothing. For the whole of creation, and everything in it, is God's, as any good Jew would have known. And the rest of the quote makes this painfully explicit.
You might argue that deep inside he's saying that nothing is really owed to Caesar -- and that the whole exchange is ironic.
Not ironic. Pointed. Explicit to the point of risking adrenaline overdose in those of his listeners that he was speaking to, and misdirecting to those of his listeners (the Roman soldiers) that he didn't want to understand. And for a collaborator to explain to the Romans what Jesus really meant would have required great care on the part of the collaborator, who had a higher priority in arguing that Judaism was compatible with subservience to Roman rule. It wasn't, and Jesus had just given a very plain, very public proof of that, before the religiously supercharged crowd that had gathered at the temple for Passover.
Stu, but he also says my kingdom is not of this world.
That implies separation, again.
I think you are denying the Lutheran doctrine of Two Kingdoms.
Are you?
John 18:36.
on the very day Pontius Pilate and his retainers were making their triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on war horses via the opposite gate.
That's in the Gospels, is it?
Recorded in the Roman annals somewhere?
Irrespective of its factuality, if it is a political statement it is still not a statement on how to run a state if anything, it is a reiteration that we should not concern ourselves with running a state but rather with following Christ.
You want me to help the poor? I'll do it all day long out of a sense that it is serving Christ. I will never support compelling others to do so at the point of a gun, however.
A Roman soldier could compel a civilian to carry his armor for a mile. Jesus preaches that they should carry it for two—this reflects going from resistance as a strategy to a passive shaming.
Here, your bolded section, is where you go wrong in interpreting. Our aim is not shame but love. If we are compelled to give our cloaks or to go a mile then we do so not out of obligation or to shame but out of love.
Regarding rendering, you are again missing the point.
Yes, everything belongs to God--most importantly in the passage the people who are listening (including us). But, in so much as anyone can own anything, the coins very much belong to Caesar. Jesus is also saying that if we are to participate in a monetary system that we should not shirk from the rules of that system.
Kirby,
Stu, but he also says my kingdom is not of this world.
The precise reference here is John 18:36, in the context of Jesus's trial before Pilate. Different translations render the specific choice of proposition differently. KJV/RSV says "of," NRSV says "from." Translating propositions is always a pain.
But clearly, Jesus's presence argues that whereever from, or whatever of, the Kingdom of God was present before Pilate. You're trying to use Luther's two kingdoms to read the Kingdom of God out of the world. This will not do. I don't deny the Lutheran doctrine of Two Kingdoms, but I surely deny your interpretation of it.
Remember that Luther said he'd rather have a COMPETENT Muslim run the state than an INCOMPETENT Pope. It's a similar kind of statement about two kingdoms. That this world is about competence and law, while the next is about grace.
I'm not saying that they don't touch. There are moments of kairos in which they interpenetrate, but they cannot be subsumed without poisonously mixing the two.
Sometimes you strike mas Eastern Orthodox.
GM has very good arguments. Shaming is not Christian. you should go the extra mile out of love. That is REALLY a test, if you ask me!!
GM does make a good point regarding shaming, albeit in the category of arguing in much the way I would.
Look, there's shaming and there's shaming.
There's a public shaming, which is destructive of relationship, and which serves to injure. This clearly is not what Jesus had in mind, as it is both unproductive and a clear inducement to a violent response.
Then there's a kind of private shaming. The sort of thing that isn't obvious to the person at the time, but which emerges on reflection. "Why did that Jewish yokel volunteer to carry my armor an extra mile?!" The answer ultimately raises the question of "who is really civilized here?" that reflects surprisingly well on said yokel. This is consistent with a long thread in scripture, that places an obligation on all of us to correct and reprove those around us when they're in error. The name of the game here is not one-up-man-ship, but a sincere desire to bring the other to a path away from sin and towards God.
We'll have to disagree on the rest, I fear. You ask about Pilate's annual migration from Caesarea to Jerusalem. This is documented in Josephus, IIRC (I don't a copy, so this is from secondary sources) specifically regarding Pilate, but also in Acts 25:1, albeit in the context of Pilate's successor Festus, and the trial of Paul. I disagree at almost every level w.r.t. your interpretation of the upsetting of the money changers. I see no path to common ground there, at least for the moment.
Kirby,
Sometimes you strike mas Eastern Orthodox.
I'm not, but I'm not offended that you see a resemblance. Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodox have some serious points of contact. Consider, if you will, Jaroslav Pelikan.
Pelikan went over when women were ordained.
Kirby,
Pelikan went over when women were ordained.
I call bullshit.
The LCA and ALC, predecessor bodies to the ELCA, first ordained women in 1970. Pelikan and his wife converted to Orthodoxy in 1998. You missed by only 28 years: years during which Pelikan was highly visible, highly respected historian of the church.
I cannot find a single reference that ties Pelikan to any controversy that existed within the ELCA. His public explanation was "he had not as much converted to Orthodoxy as 'returned to it, peeling back the layers of my own belief to reveal the Orthodoxy that was always there,'" per Wiki. The wiki article does not contain the word "women."
You do yourself a disservice when you "invent facts" simply because they have a transient rhetorical utility.
I heard this from a theologian who knew Pelikan. The timeline is fishy no doubt because of the lag but apparently he had to think it through. Theologians are like that. Three decades is about right.
Kirby,
I heard this from a theologian who knew Pelikan.
I'm doubtful. For one thing, Pelikan was not a theologian per se, he was a historian of theology. I've read several of his books. They're not easy reading, by any means. But I can't say that I've had the slightest hint in any of them of reservations to the ordination of women.
And a Google search brings up absolutely nothing.
If this was some sort of protest, it was a pointless one, because he managed things so that there was no public record of a connection between the deed and the cause. He was too smart a man for that.
So I'm not buying this. The evidence you present is hearsay of the worst sort, as it is anonymous and unverifiable. And the public record preserves an entirely different account, and one that is eminently credible.
You're in the position of making an extraordinary claim, and you don't even meet the test of ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence. My opinion is unchanged, this is BS.
Suit yourself, but stay open to the possibility. Perhaps a letter or something will eventually surface. Such an important author will leave letters and emails that might give us more of an understanding of his need to leave the Lutheran nest.
It's an extraordinary thing to leave a church. It requires a fantastic funk, not just some attraction from somewhere else.
Church is a home.
If someone leaves, it's because of some fantastic problem at home, typically. I have no other info to offer, at least in the public eye. I could probably tell you more by email, but it can't be done here as I don't have authorization from the source.
I don't think he hated women. I just think he thought it wasn't authorized, and would lead to a lot of latter day unauthorized authorizations. Which it has. Soon we will have two-headed brothers who are into incest speaking from ELCA pulpits. All you need is love.
I don't know Pelikan personally. I have one of his books but found it awkwardly written. Didn't finish it.
Kirby,
Suit yourself, but stay open to the possibility.
Sure. Bring some evidence, and I'll consider it. But anonymous hearsay ain't evidence. Until then, no. It's BS, and it makes no sense.
It's an extraordinary thing to leave a church. It requires a fantastic funk, not just some attraction from somewhere else.
This is not at all clear. I've known two reasons for people to make a big change (as in, from Christianity to Judaism). One is a sense that the new faith has something specific and crucial that the old faith lacked. The other is as a means of establishing independence by hitting someone below the belt.
And the other part of this is that the experience of the LCA, ALC, and ELCA with ordained women has generally been seen as a successful, and certainly so post-1980. There was essentially no controversy over this issue in the 90's. There was controversy over the draft statement on human sexuality, which was rejected at the time (only to reappear in 2009). Again, it's hard to see something in the arc of that story that would have lead someone to leave the ELCA in '98, after the rejection of the draft statement, and long before reconsideration.
It's widely thought that the decision to deny scripture and allow women to be ordained opened the door to anyone and anything being ordained. God says quite clearly to A & E in Genesis that he was meant to be in charge. On the trip from Egypt Moses' sister Miriam asks why it was he, and not her, who got chosen to be the leader. She turns into Snow White from leprosy. Luther did to an extent change the notion of men and women. He said priests could be married. He also implied that they might be spiritual. But until 1970 this wasn't passed (notice the year). Now the ELCA has Bethel church in San Francisco which is painted purple and in which the deity is described as female. That church is never punished. Your bishop, Mark Hanson, has turned the church on its head. At least 400,000 people have left the ELCA since 2009. Hanson is insane. He's the one making bizarre points. Now he's (this year) changed the rule by which churches can leave. It's like the way the Marxists put up a wall in East Germany (do you remember that) to keep people from fleeing psychotic tyranny. I say take down this wall, Mr. Hanson. Give people liberty of conscience.
Kirby,
You might do well to take a deep breath, and to wipe the spit off of your monitor.
The notion that ordaining women is somehow "denying scripture" is absurd. Yes, there are confessions that interpret scripture and tradition so as to deny ordained roles to women, as there are confessions that interpret scripture and tradition so permit them. It is possible to have a rational debate over these interpretations. It is not possible to have a rational discussion if your starting point is that those who disagree with you are unfaithful.
Now the ELCA has Bethel church in San Francisco which is painted purple and in which the deity is described as female
The color you paint the church building is adiaphora. Somehow you find theological significance in the choice of purple as a color. This speaks volumes to preconceptions on your part, and not a word to theological truth or doctrinal purity.
As for God's gender, I don't see a problem with describing God as female as well as male. Certainly, Jesus was male, and so it seems futile to deny male characteristics to God. But Jesus is one part of the triune God, leaving plenty of room for female characteristics too, and there's a very long tradition within the Church for doing so.
As it is, I've long since learned never to take your statements of fact at face value. You're simply too careless and uncritical of what people who share your blindered views say. Please source this, and point me to material that you consider problematic, so that we can have a grounded discussion as to whether it is compatible with the Lutheran faith.
Your bishop, Mark Hanson, has turned the church on its head. At least 400,000 people have left the ELCA since 2009.
This is unsustainable. ELCA membership has declined, and from the statistics page, it has indeed will have declined by about 400K from 2009 through 2011. But that said, it was declining by roughly 70K per year since 2002, which speaks to a broader trend of declining enrollments in mainstream protestant churches. Church losses attributable to the statement on human sexuality appear to be about 200K. This is not inconsiderable, but it is no more than 3%. Honestly, if the ELCA needs to lose 3% of the membership who are blind to the way that God is working in the world today in order to grow again, that seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me.
I have not been able to find such statistical transparency at the LCMS, but I did find an article from 2006 which claimed about a 1% loss from 2005 to 2006. That is roughly twice the ELCAs loss rate from 2002 until 2009, which leads to a very real "glass house" question about what our respective synods are doing.
Now he's (this year) changed the rule by which churches can leave.
I know this far better than you, because I've been involved in a constitutional revision in my congregation. The language regarding leaving the ELCA has changed, but it's misleading to say that this reflects a fundamental change in the process. The process is still is based on two meetings, with a 2/3rd supermajority in favor of leaving voting at each meeting.
The changes are essentially technical, around notification requirements, and around giving the bishop or the bishop's representation voice at these meetings. There is also a new cooling-off provision, which prevents a congregation from re-initiating a failed exit process for six months. In one important and significant respect, it is easier for a congregation to exit the ELCA under the new rules, as C6.05(g) permits the synodical council to allow a congregation to exit the synod even if it's exit process has been constitutionally defective.
To portray these changes as anything other than technical, or that they represent some kind of fundamentally new process, is dishonest.
Stu,
I don't know why we are asked to sacrifice for God. In Leviticus there are all kinds of people who aren't permitted to be ordained -- including midgets and hunchbacks.
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understand scripture to outlaw women as priests.
You argue that the ELCA knows best, and that not to affirm Bishop Hanson's preferences is "absurd."
Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Kierkegaard pointed out that this was absurd. Belief is often a leap into the absurd. You seem to always want to legislate reasonableness as the only way you can be faithful. You seem to indicate you want judicial review of God's choices. If they don't accord with what you want, you feel that you have the right to override God's preferences.
Funny Kirby -- Here you're saying 'we have to do what God says no matter what in the Bible, follow the rules to a Tee'
But your whole spliel has been 'well, certain things apply, and certain things don't. That Sermon on the Mount was a joke, you see? Whereas the Bible's vague stance on women's roles as leaders, THOSE are important.'
Kirby,
My argument is that the ELCA respects scripture and tradition, but it interprets some parts of both differently than the RCC, Orthodox, or LCMS churches. I can note this difference while affirming that those that I disagree with also respect scripture and tradition. It is your unwillingness to accept that the ELCA respects scripture and tradition that is absurd, not the differences of interpretation that separate us.
You seem to always want to legislate reasonableness as the only way you can be faithful. You seem to indicate you want judicial review of God's choices. If they don't accord with what you want, you feel that you have the right to override God's preferences.
This is exactly the sort of dishonest, lying projection that I object to. I decline the privilege of joining you in this gutter.
Brett, I never said the sermon on the mount was a joke. I never did that. I just don't think it can be considered the whole tradition.
Stu, when you wrote:
"As for God's gender, I don't see a problem with describing God as female as well as male. Certainly, Jesus was male, and so it seems futile to deny male characteristics to God. But Jesus is one part of the triune God, leaving plenty of room for female characteristics too, and there's a very long tradition within the Church for doing so."
You seem to forget that Christ calls his dad "father."
At any rate, you will have to fill me in on the long tradition of Christ calling God "mother" or "sister." I realize the gnostics called God "Sophia" in places, but I didn't think the ELCA was openly gnostic. Perhaps there is some other place that the ELCA has discovered Christ saying God was his mother and sister, or has found a pronoun somewhere that was open to misinterpretation, but I wouldn't know where it would be. I am always trying to follow the latest loopholes that have been discovered in the patriarchy.
At any rate, you mentioned a long tradition. I'm assuming you mean gnostics?
http://lutheransurrealism.blogspot.com/2009/02/jesus-was-idiot.html
That's not directly about the sermon on the mount, but shows your views on prioritizing certain things in the bible over others, and your tendency to jokingly belittle Jesus' more 'hippie' tendencies.
Also, didn't you (and maybe Luther) say that some certain book of the Bible was basically hogwash? Which one was that again?
some other quotes from you:
"Communists generally believe in the Sermon on the Mount jazz. The hippies liked it, too, and wanted to look like Jesus freaks."
I feel like there are more, similar (and more specifically in line with my claim) quotes from you out there on the internets, but can't find 'em at this point.
(I wonder if JH found any in his goingbackthroughtime thing he was doing for a while).
In any case, even if the specific claim (that you think the sermon on the mount is basically a joke) is unverifiable, the fact is that most of your tenure here at LS has been about how you value certain parts of the Bible as higher than others, and about how you view certains statements by Jesus et al. as inapplicable to our lives today.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but to turn around and play the whole uber-conservative "If you have woman pastors you're making decisions without regard to God! You must follow every word literally and to a TEE!" is totally at odds with most of everything you've ever said here.
Kirby,
At any rate, you will have to fill me in on the long tradition of Christ calling God "mother" or "sister."
Aren't you aware of the more or less continuous debate within the Catholic tradition about whether or not it is appropriate to ascribe divinity to Mary? This is in effect a subtext of the encyclical "Ineffabilis Deus," which it might be argued was intended to focus the debate on the status of Mary in such a way as to ascribe to her grace just short of divine. From a Lutheran point of view, we view "Ineffabilis Deus" as Catholic theological overreach, without comprehending that was a compromise intended to hedge against positions that we'd see far more extreme.
Indeed, if you consider contemporary Catholic veneration of Mary, it is clear that the question of Mary's divinity or lack thereof is not a closed debate for the Catholic laity, Ineffabiliis Deus or not.
If you consider the wiki article, "Gender of God," consider specifically the section "Gender of the Holy Spirit," and the gloss on Shekhinah.
Indeed, you raise the issue of Sophia (wisdom), and attribute it exclusively (and thereby, in error) to the Gnostics. Consider Hagia Sophia and the many scriptural references to "the wisdom of God," i.e., "σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ," and the myriad associations that come from ascribing a feminine-gendered attribute to the divine.
I didn't think the ELCA was openly gnostic.
The ELCA is not gnostic, openly or otherwise. It is remarkably rude of you state such a knowingly bold lie, especially as this is a church body to which you belonged for many years, and into which your children were baptised.
At any rate, you mentioned a long tradition. I'm assuming you mean gnostics?
No, I'm sticking to the mainstream of orthodox/catholic thought.
Of course, the fundamental issue here is that is limiting (and a bit peculiar, in like of the absence of suitable consorts) to ascribe a gender to either of the non-incarnate persons of the Trinity. The Wiki article op. cit. quotes the Catholic Catechism, "God is neither man nor woman: he is God." Here, of course, the "he" necessarily must be interpreted as a gender-neutral use, lest the first clause be stripped of its clear meaning.
I'd argue here that the approaches of "both" and "neither" when it comes to the divinity of God reflect a very similar theological intuition, and that is that we project too much of ourselves and our priorities onto God by ascribing a fixed gender to God. It is, in fact, your view, which is essentially an attempt to read the scriptures through the lens of Bachofen's peculiar theory of patriarchy vs. matriarchy that stands outside of the orthodox/catholic mainstream.
I'll note that you still haven't met your rhetorical burden w.r.t. Bethel. I doubt you can.
Brett, to quote the Kinks' song, "You really got me."
I can't believe I wrote all that stuff. I laughed and laughed while I read it. Then I read your and GM's and other responses, and felt that it was all just wonderful.
Stu, I don't have a lot of time tonight. Have you looked up Bethel? It's like the revival of Carpocratian Gnosticism!
At least in a simple biological sense, I think God has to play the part of the Father in terms of Jesus, because Mary is the Mother.
I have no idea how the Catholics attempt to make her into a divine person. That seems just plain weird... I've never heard of such a thing.
She seems like a nice woman. She's one of at least three Marys who are at the foot of the cross. And Jesus gives a fairly weird instruction to Simon Peter when he tells him that now she is Your mother. That's whacked. And the text says that Simon Peter takes her home.
What the heck? She got reassigned to Peter as His mother?
I know that some of the communists say that there is not enough mom in God so they want to import a bit of Mary into Godhead. But if he was a mom, he would have given birth to Jesus Himself.
Besides, if Mary is part of God then we no longer have a Trinity. We've got some kind of a foursome. That's golf.
And that isn't cricket.
Kirby,
Have you looked up Bethel? It's like the revival of Carpocratian Gnosticism!
I tried, and found a Bethel in Cupertino, but not in SF proper. It had a very ordinary looking church website, although I didn't dig especially deep. In any event, the burden of proof is on you to sustain the claims you made.
At least in a simple biological sense, I think God has to play the part of the Father in terms of Jesus, because Mary is the Mother.
I don't see a problem here. I'm inclined to the "both" alternative. For God, being father doesn't exclude being mother. God is what God wants to be.
And Jesus gives a fairly weird instruction to Simon Peter when he tells him that now she is Your mother.
That's "beloved disciple," usually understood to be the author of the Gospel of John, cf., John 19:25-27.
What the heck? She got reassigned to Peter as His mother?
In ancient Israel, sons were responsible for maintaining their parents in their old age. Think of this as Social Security, Judean style. Jesus had a responsibility he could not discharge. He assigned it to his disciple. This isn't whacked or weird. It's responsible and loving. Even at the brink of death, Jesus's concerns were for others.
I know that some of the communists say that there is not enough mom in God so they want to import a bit of Mary into Godhead. But if he was a mom, he would have given birth to Jesus Himself.
Confused at two levels.
I. Communists are supposed to be atheists. No, the desire to, as you say, "import a bit of Mary into Godhead" is something that comes from within Christianity, in recognition that an over-identification of maleness with God projects a human limitation (gender determinancy) onto God.
As for why God arranged the special effects around Jesus's birth the way he did, we can look to scripture, and we can speculate. I tend towards the view that the whole virgin birth story is ultimately rooted in the LXX translation of Is. 7:14, and an achronistic interpretation of παρθένος. What is important about the story of the virgin birth isn't the virgin birth per se, it is what that claim meant to the people who made it, which is, that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in Isaiah.
II. The question before us isn't whether or not God should be conceived of as mother, it is whether or not there are long mainstream traditions of ascribing female characteristics to God. I have established that there are. And therefore, that the claim that you made of Bethel, whether or not it is actually true, does not necessarily place it outside of the Christian mainstream.
Besides, if Mary is part of God then we no longer have a Trinity. We've got some kind of a foursome. That's golf.
A pretty typical Lutheran perspective: attempts to deify Mary can't be reconciled with the Nicene Creed. But you'll recall that my rhetorical obligation was to fill you in on mainstream Christian traditions ascribing female attributes to God. I've met that obligation. The fact that I've been able to document such traditions does not mean that I endorse them. My views of Mary are pretty typically Lutheran, too.
Kirby,
Have you looked up Bethel? It's like the revival of Carpocratian Gnosticism!
Ah. Ebenezer/herchurch. Found it.
On one hand, I have sympathy for the notion that a male-only view of God is limiting. On the other hand, I think that replacing a male-only view by a female-only view amounts to making the same underlying error of letting human limitations frame our understanding of God. As Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." For me, the take-home of this passage isn't to be found in the masculine pronoun for God (which an English language rendering also forces), it is the notion that both male and female are equally in the image of God.
I don't doubt that this sort of thing pisses you off. I also don't doubt that that's intentional—to get into the face of folks like you who insist on a male-only view of God. From my perspective, attempts to pigeon-hole God into such a simple interpretive framework is bound to lose more than it gains. And in fact, Ebenezer does not commit itself to an exclusively female-gendered God. Here's a quote from their web page: "We at Ebenezer/herchurch Lutheran have a different paradigm. We want to acknowledge the feminine persona of the Divine. We utilize both female and male imagery for the Holy One."
You're certainly mistaken to characterize this as Gnostic. There's no "secret knowledge" here. There's no creation of demiurge. I don't see a rejection of the divinity of Jesus, nor a rejection of Trinitarian belief. I do see an intentional effort to seek and embrace feminine as well as masculine language, pursued with a single-mindeness that arguably goes beyond the point of diminishing returns.
You don't like it. Whoop-de-doo. I think it's humorous, you're getting some of your own medicine.
It's not that it pisses me off. It just seems to be about contemporary concerns about equality. I don't think this is what God had in mind. He wasn't egalitarian. Especially not in the early going -- I just loved the hierarchical messages in the early chapters on Moses. He chose a people, and in particular he chose Moses. In Leviticus He is quite clear about what he expects in a priest. He chooses only the best tuna.
But it's true that Jesus reverses a lot of this. He says for instance the meek shall inherit the earth. And he denies that the rich have a very good chance of getting into heaven.
Does the concept of quality completely disappear with Jesus before the concept of equality?
Does aesthetics itself disappear?
In Leviticus there is an incredible emphasis put on aesthetics: bumpy noses and midgets are out. Leviticus normativizes.
Jesus on the other hand seems to privilege outsiders. Not only prostitutes but also tax collecters are suddenly looked at from an interior rather than an exterior viewpoint. It seems that a whole new emphasis is placed on the spirit, and away from the outer aspects. Jesus never turns anyone down for having a bumpy nose or being excessively short.
All the focus on exact aesthetics that goes into the building of the ark of the covenant seems to disappear. Jesus doesn't seem to care what anything looks like to the point that he actually seems to prefer the blind. And to use blindness as a metaphor for being able to see inner things.
I can't think of any descriptions of beauty that Jesus works up at all. His clothing is purple (John notes this). Perhaps this excuses the purple of the church at San Fran.
Just curious: but who invented polka dots?
I imagine that the ability to make polka dotted clothing was developed more recently with industrial processes that were not available in ancient Judea.
Are Christians allowed to care about the latest fashion?
The 1% is a direct reference to hierarchicalization. It asks us to pull them down off their high horse and enforce equality. Would Jesus want Maoism of this kind? Would he want the beautiful to cover their faces as the Muslim women have to do? Does he want us to forget about things like fashion?
Would polka dots be out in favor of a Maoist universal costume that enforces equality?
Kirby,
It just seems to be about contemporary concerns about equality.
Let me suggest that Newton's first law of psychology is at play here: for every over-action, there is an equal and opposite over-reaction. Contemporary conservative Christianity pushes male images of God exclusively, and pushes a social agenda that makes women subservient to men. This is not of God, and you can quote 1st Timothy until you're blue for all I care, Gen 1:27 gets us closer to the heart of the matter. It an abuse of religion to make it into tool of oppression. Obviously, there will be an over-reaction, and that's how I view Ebenezer/herchurch. As an over-reaction, and indeed, as a predictable over-reaction.
Does the concept of quality completely disappear with Jesus before the concept of equality?
Not at all. But I see Jesus as placing impossibly high standards for all of us to meet, and offering us grace enough if we'll have it when we fail. The point, really, is that the bar is a mile high, so how significant is it that the prostitute has an inch of merit, and the pharisee six? He's still 5279 1/2 feet short of the mark. The pharisee should be no less grateful for God's grace than the prostitute, because neither is going to make it on their own.
But the bar is still there, and it's still clear, as is our calling. Not to earn our own salvation, but to live our lives as those whom God has saved.
The 1% is a direct reference to hierarchicalization. It asks us to pull them down off their high horse and enforce equality.
You're misunderstanding the OWS. The argument isn't that we should "pull down the 1%," it's that the 1% should pull their weight, and stop being such self-entitled shirkers. It's that the 1% (or, more properly, a small but vocal minority of it) wrecked the economy to profit themselves, they've escaped justice, and now they demand that everyone else suffers for their malfeasance. OWS isn't demanding a leveling, it's demanding accountability, it's demanding justice.
But why don't they go directly to the White House? It was Obama who bailed them out. Of course the 1% will do whatever they can to make themselves rich. And they are accountable to no one and have no conscience to which anyone could appeal. Obama is electable or not on this issue. It seems to me that OWS is barking up the wrong tree.
Kirby,
But why don't they go directly to the White House? It was Obama who bailed them out.
No, for the thousandth time. The bailouts were done under Paulson, during the Bush administration. Obama did vote for them.
My argument with Obama (or indeed, with Paulson) isn't that the bailouts took place. It's that the people who made the decisions that resulted in large institutions requiring bailouts were not held accountable. Nor where other stakeholders in those institutions (excepting, the automotive industry bailouts, where shareholders were in fact held accountable for the maladministration of the companies in which they'd invested).
Obama was interested in pursuing an agenda of healing and compromise. He wanted to rebuild civility in the public discourse, and he understood that attempts to hold the people who wrecked the economy accountable would have been seen as partisan warfare, and would have been prejudicial to civic healing. What he didn't understand, at least until the moment when accountability would have been timely and cathartic had passed, is that your side was categorically unwilling to participate in healing. Its guilt is too great to accept grace—it is determined to seek justification or damnation.
While stu fancies the Occupy rabbles are pursuing "justice," it's quite obvious that their overweening senses of entitlement, resentment, and class war fervour are fueling the protests.
Remember the outrage at and contempt on the left for the supposedly extremist and dangerous Tea Party supporters? But now even the President pleases himself to compare the patriotic, law-abiding Tea Party supporters to the Occupy rabbles in order to compliment the latter.
Yet how do they compare?
Well, the Tea Partiers have been active for well over two years, the Occupiers for but two and a half months. Rest assured that the step-'n'-fetch-it major media for Obama and the Democrats hard-scoured the Tea Party rallies for what they fancied were offensive signs, words, gestures--anything that might justify their ignorant prejudices--but to their infinite disappointment, they actually came up with little spin material against the Tea Partiers.
In stark contrast, the Occupiers' rabbles have racked up well over 3000 arrests, a repulsive record of internal (reported "camp" robberies, assaults, drug trafficking, rapes, etc) and external (attacks on police, threats against and harrassments of news reporters, damage to public and private property, shutting down of a major western port, hindrance to ordinary citizens, workers, shops, and businesses, etc) nuisance, squalor, and criminality. And this aside from the extremist rhetoric frequently exalting radical socialism, communism, and occasional anti-Semitic bigotry.
As Kirby says, the Tea Partiers and Occupiers may share an opposition for crony capitalism (one of the Obama administration's distinguishing features), but their comparative behaviour and tactics are worlds apart. And it was amusing to hear Jay Carney, Obama's mouthpiece punk, say that the millions in bonuses paid to the utterly corrupt Fannie Mae bosses (ever-bleating for more billions in taxpayer bailouts--totaling at least $120 billion by modest estimates) were an internal matter and not subject to the President's commentary, while the President just a couple of years ago was railing against executive bonuses of bailed-out firms that have already repaid the bailout money).
I think too many Americans have unfortunately become inured to the President's endless lies and prevarications such that I fear they've grown indifferent to the evidence of his disastrous rule. I hope they'll shed their Ivan Denisovitch-like stupour come next year's election.
JADL,
While stu fancies the Occupy rabbles are pursuing "justice," it's quite obvious that their overweening senses of entitlement, resentment, and class war fervour are fueling the protests.
There are legitimate questions of how the responsibilities and benefits of citizenship are allocated among us. The view of your side is that the rich are entitled to all of the benefits, and none of the responsibilities. The view of my side is different. Needless to say, each sees the other as arguing from a position of entitlement, resentment, and class warfare. My side feels entitled to meaningful jobs that provide a living wage. Your side feels entitled to maximizing the gap between the rich and the poor, so there will be no doubt as to who are masters, and who are the servants.
But now even the President pleases himself to compare the patriotic, law-abiding Tea Party supporters to the Occupy rabbles in order to compliment the latter.
This deeply misunderstands both the parallel that is being drawn, and the message. The parallel is that both are populist movements. The message to our people is, "we can do populism too." And the message to your people is pure schadenfreude: you've sowed the wind, prepare for the harvest.
As for 2012, there's an old saying in politics: you have to have somebody to beat somebody. And you guys don't have much. Romney's your best, and the effect of a Romney administration would likely be a bit to the left of Obama's, if only because the Republicans in the Congress would feel some small obligation during a Republican administration to participate productively in the solution of our nation's problems. But I remain dubious that the Mormon Romney will be able to hold the current Republican coalition together. Romney is playing a different game than the other candidates. They're trying to win the nomination by preaching to the Tea Party, a strategy that all but guarantees defeat in the general election. Romney's trying to avoid a strong Tea Party identification, because his goal isn't to win the nomination, it's to win the Presidency. The question is whether or not he can do it by holding the Tea Party (which is to say, the Republican Party base) at arm's length. It didn't work for McCain, who I believe was a stronger candidate, albeit in a more difficult electoral climate.
stu, I can agree with your first sentence, but from there on, of course I can't agree.
I might counter with the claim that my side better represents equality of opportunity as against a state-coerced equality of results that blindly ignores the diversity inherent in human nature. Even more, while your side demands increased tax rates, it also favours reducing deductions for charitable contributions, a clear sign of disingenuousness. (But by the way, for the charity Emmy and I give, we do not claim deductions.)
And of course one of the major responsibilities of a citizen is to abide by the laws, a responsibility all-too-often brazenly defied by the disorderly rabbles of the Occupy movements.
I erred however, in incorrectly stating the numer of reported arrests of occupiers at something over 3000--it's at present actually over
4000, including assault, sexual assault, burglary, rape, drug trafficking, resisting arrest, public indecency, public intoxication, arson, etc. I know you don't approve (but I hope as well not excuse) these crimes, and I've no interest in laying them at your feet, as in a excess of passion you did--in full error--to our side after the Tucson shootings.
As for sowing the wind, this is precisely what the President, many Democrats, and union leaders have done in their increasingly divisive, outlandish, and dangerous class war rhetoric. Their demogogic approval of the often unlawful and disorderly occupiers' activities has especially whipped up the extremist and criminal elements among the protesters with only an very occasional official request diffidently mumbled out about having the slightest regard to the laws that protect life, liberty, and property. Your side seems to know what potential the mobs have for doing its dirty work of promoting intimidation, fear, and class hatred. I'll grant that your side *is* busy--"busy" like Iago.
Your remarks on the politics of the Republican race seem like a return to sanity; though Romney's perhaps not my favourite, I'll probably go with whomever the party chooses to defeat this failed president--Nobama!
There was an encouraging bit on radio coming in -- ABC. The Occupation Movement is morphing into a political party and has already filed its party status in Ohio, PA, and NY. NY will go Democratic probably no matter what, but the other two will be close and a split ticket would be a huge relief.
Sorry I've been off the grid for two days at a conference over at Harvard. I shall report on it later.
It's so funny to learn more about the protesters. Not only are they being arrested in incredible numbers, but they are stupid beyond belief. Here's a woman who thinks people in North Korea are better off than people in South Korea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L088WJ9c98
Not untypical OWS rubbish talked to an emigrant from the USSR by a pathetic old dope who's obviously learned little in her long tenure upon the earth. Same goes for her young dopey communist sidekick and the old fool who starts shouting at the immigrant.
Noted also the Che Guevara images they were brandishing as if in approval of the horrific crimes committed by this mass-murdering psychopath.
Whatever Stu might try to say, I will fully recognize that extreme OWSers are far worse than extreme Tea Partiers -- that much is clear.
Brett,
Whatever Stu might try to say, I will fully recognize that extreme OWSers are far worse than extreme Tea Partiers -- that much is clear.
No doubt. But is this a consequence of politics, or is it just that 20-somethings tend to be more rambunctious than the Geritol set? I tend to the latter view.
There's also a difference in tactics. The Tea Baggers generally don't do overnights, whereas the occupy movement does. Given the inevitable phenomenon that mass movements attract all folks with all kinds of agenda, they've just had more time to accrete at Occupy sites. And then, of course, there's the natural consequence that police typically view authentic protest movements as enemies of public order, there's been a mutual distrust of the Occupiers and the Police, not helped at all by the unfortunate actions of a few on both sides.
There is some evidence that cooler heads are starting to prevail on both sides. In any event, the real challenge for the Occupy movement isn't the police. It's winter. There is precedent for the challenges that they will face, but the question is whether this winter will prove to be their Valley Forge, or their Berezina? I tend to the view that authentic radical credentials will be forged this winter, and that twenty years from now, after the Tea Party has moved on to its great reward, those who persevered through the winter will be as veterans of Agincourt:
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Brett, I agree that OWS is far more out of control and far less willing to think about law and order than the Tea Party. This is partially about age and about the length of the occupation, as Stu says.
But the incivility of the left is far greater, and they think they've earned the right to be unruly because of their perception of the 1% as demonic and completely and entirely on the take.
They are working on the "property is theft" principle enshrined by the youthful anarchist Proudhon (Proudhon as he got older declared that property is the first and most basic right, and realized that without private property the state owns everything, and that this means no one has any defense against the powers of the state -- something Marx never realized).
Stu posits the cheerful band around Henry Vth as the archetype for the OWS movement. I would not like to characterize them further, but would like to point out the unruliness of the Penn State crowd as an analogue. Young people trash things, whether they are there for one day or for a month or two. This is partially due to their youth and high spirits, and partially due to their lack of respect for law.
Against this, I see the Tea Party group (which Stu mischaracterizes as the Geritol set -- an ageist presupposition even if it were true).
I'd like to see the Tea Party as more like the women who waited all night for the body of Christ at Gethsemane. They waited silently and obeyed all the laws, and only asked for the return of their dead son, friend, and Lord.
I think in similar way the Tea Party merely wants the economy back. It was snatched by Obama and his merry crew, and sacrificed on a lot of self-righteous rhetoric. The Tea Party would like it back, in order to either give it a decent burial if the left has truly killed it, or to herald it once more if it is able to resurrect. I think most of us are still hoping we can have it back, and with it the laws and the sense of respect for private property that it once enshrined.
Thanks to Brett for acknowledging the sometimes destructive and lawless elements among the Occupy protests.
While Brett's a defender of liberal views, he's often willing to look at the evidence honestly, and his acknowledgement of the Occupy movement's contrasts with the Tea Party's generally exemplary behaviour is one more instance of fairness. In contrast, stu and I must seem more like party-line guys.
But lawless behaviour should be called out for what it is, and stu's antiseptic glosses over the occupiers' manifold crimes (well over 4000 arrests) are pretty feeble defences.
Comparisons of the Occupy movement's antics and its rabbles of protesters with real battles with real soldiers are a joke.
Same goes for comparing Shakespeare's Henry V and his men before Agincourt to the protesters when an apter comparison would be to the murderous Jack Cade rabble of Henry VI pt 2 (where knowledge of the law, literacy, and Latin are punishable by death). As a messenger reports to the king on the rabble:
"Jack Cade hath gotten London Bridge:/The citizens fly and forsake their houses:/The rascal people, thirsting after prey,/Join with the traitor, and they jointly swear/To spoil the city and your royal court."
For what it's worth I was very soothed by Brett's willingness to call his own side on this. But then he was from the beginning somewhat uncomfortable with the ragged band of protesters making up OWS. I think Brett wants a genuine discourse which is why he comes here, and when JADL and Stu take up the party line positions, it allows others to move toward the center of the maypole, for want of a better image.
But let me intervene if I may in this once more. There are some groups that have gotten detached from the law itself. Black men say that they will get picked up for "driving while black," something Stu is always anxious to cite. And of course the prisons are chock full of black men. I believe it's one in four who will serve time. One in five will be shot and killed.
The numbers are atrocious. The rate of unmarried births is 80%.
But I think one thing I could say for Obama's presidency is that he brought many blacks back into the fold. they started to think -- hmmm -- it's possible to be black and to be president. Clarence Thomas didn't help in this regard because he's part of the wrong party, and the rabble that make up the Democrats won't honor him as a result, so they treat him as a traitor to their race.
But Obama is a hero, because he's black AND a Democrat.
Other groups that have gotten disaffiliated with the law itself include the southern Italians that make up the Sicilian aspect of the Italian mafia. There are reasons for this disaffiliation. If the law will only protect the wealthy, and the only way for the poor to have protection is to fight in a dirty underhanded way they will do it.
Mussolini nearly wiped out the mob so they came here in the 30s.
I'm not saying all Catholics are corrupt nor even that all Italians are corrupt. But there is a slightly greater chance that they will be disaffiliated with the law. And not trust it. I really think this is part of Paterno's lack of cooperation with the law. I think many Italians do not trust the law and prefer to deal with things in another way. This is partially the law's fault in their heritage, not any fault in their ethnicity itself.
The secrecy and corruption of the Catholic church which Luther fought ended up creating more honest societies, and more egalitarian societies. Finns do feel equal, and do feel the law is fair. They love their country unreservedly as a result. It's a wonder to see.
We watched this country go bad during the war in Vietnam. The communists didn't want that war and tired very hard to heap scorn on the authorities that did.
We are reaping the whirlwind with the OWS and the various green anarchist groups that plant pipe bombs, and even the Penn State riots. An enormous disrespect for law and order has grown in this country. Few are attached to the prevailing regime, few feel represented, and it's only getting worse. We do need someone who can bring us back together and get us all talking about this again.
I think the very nature of law and order is what Christ brought into the world, and how he destroyed Rome.
Stu thinks of the OWS "radicals" as heroes. JADL thinks of them as heels along the lines of Jack Cade and his murderous rabble.
Capitalism does have flaws. I watched a program about the clearcuts of the redwoods on National Geographic last night and they referred briefly to Judi Bari and her attempt to pipe bomb the authorities (she blew herself up, much as some Weathermen such as Bill Ayers did).
And we are looking for someone who will bring the country together and unite all of us into a respect for law and order and fairness. We need this.
I had hoped it would be Cain, but women will feel enormously disaffiliated if he wins based on what appears to be his groping of women.
Romney may be the best hope.
Obama has been extremely hard on the business community, and clearly doesn't believe that the business of America is business. I don't know what he thinks it is. I really don't. Perhaps it's an enormous hospital or something that's paid for by the government. Some kind of giant therapeutic center where everybody can have a massage.
I haven't got a clue what he thinks.
Perry and Paul and some others now want to throw entire agencies into the Potomac. How smart is this? We do need some regulatory oversight to prevent chaos.
A lot of people don't believe in law and order.
I myself was relieved that some part of the redwood forest (an area called Headlands, I think it was called) was saved and put aside. I really don't want fracking to destroy the groundwater.
but we also have to be reasonable and cooperative and work together with a minimum of radicalism. We should try to be centrists.
In this, I think we all salute Brett for taking a brave stance to bring us together again. Thanks, Brett!
Kirby, I think at least theoretically Tea Party adherents and the more sensible supporters of the Occupy movement share a distrust of some big banking and investment operations (remember that a majority of conservatives, myself included, opposed the bailouts without exception).
It's well known, for example, that Wachovia Bank (now assumed by Wells Fargo) and Bank of America were for years blithely laundering many billions in drug cartel money (and for which they also reaped billions), for which the former only paid a paltry $110 million fine. Another example: Obama's buddy, former NJ Gov Jon Corzine (formerly capo of Goldman-Sachs--a veritable treasure chest for the Obama campaign) has just seen his investment house go belly-up with $600-700 million of supposedly separate customer account monies "unaccounted for" and over a thousand employees dumped as a little pre-Christmas "gift"--freedom from job. Add to these examples others like the Solyndra, SunPower, etc. scandals, the Fast and Furious "gunwalking" scandal (proving Holder's an incompetent at best--or a perjurer) or, the outrageous NLRB threats to Boeing, all the attendant lies attributed to the ObamaCare debacle, etc. and you've a ugly portrait of an administration so vicious and corrupt that it's a waste of time to try to defend it in any way.
One problem we have in the Obama administration is "big" in several senses. The top-down method of "governing" in this failed administration is big government relentlessly favouring big labour and extracting huge campaign donations from big labour and big business in return for special "favours." Tea Party supporters, many of whom are workers or employers in small businesses (which provide the majority of jobs in the country, at least until the Obama presidency), are being sacrificed, beggared, and regulated to death in the interests of this corrupt big government-big labour-big business nexus. It's "pay to play" the Chicago "Shakedown-City" way.
I'm hopeful Obama can be dislodged next year, though it's evident that as before in 2008, he'll have a "big" advantage in "big" money. Much as I liked Cain, I don't think he can survive the media assaults on him (and I thought him lacking in knowledge on some issues). The major media won't provide cover for a Republican accused of sexual harrassment (or divorces like Gingrich) as they (and even notorious feminists) covered for a lascivious perjurer like Clinton, who was accused by several women of sexual assault and rape.
And since the thoroughly corrupt and lying Obama administration has so few arguably positive accomplishments amid a plethora of domestic and foreign setbacks, I expect simply attacking Republicans in every way--personally as well as politically--will be their main strategy. At present it looks like Romney and Gingrich are coming to the fore; they've certainly more experience than Obama when he ran for president and who, before he discovered the magical kingdom of politics and its attendant riches and power, seemed but a casual stroller through life.
JADL, it may be that OWS and the Tea Party share a description of the bailouts and those who got them, and are angry, but I think they have a different prescription.
The OWS wants socialism. They want the government to bail THEM out, and to work day and night to help them.
The Tea Party doesn't want anybody bailed out by the government and wants to shrink the size of the government and get business going again.
OWS isn't interested in business. They want the government to cut checks and send them to them.
The Tea PArty wants to work and keep their own money.
Is this accurate?
Kirby, I think that's right. And in addition to the contingents of "occupying" socialists and communists, there are the oxymoronic "anarchists for big government." Funny, that.
JADL makes much of the arrests at Occupy sites, pushing implicitly the idea that arrests can be taken as a surrogate for lawlessness. Yet most of the arrests have taken place in the context of police efforts to evict occupy protesters from Occupy sites. I'd like to remind both JADL and Kirby that among the enumerated rights are those of free speech, peaceable assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. Police forces universally tend to view large assemblies of protestors as threats to civic order, and have responded with force to prevent constitutional protected speech, to break up constitutional protected peaceable assemblies, and to silence constitutionally protected petitions for redress of grievances.
As I've said before, the Occupier's tactics seemed tuned to provoke a police reaction against lawful behavior, as a means of illustrating just how thoroughly "the fix is in." It seems to me that the number of arrests are foremost a barometer of how successful these tactics has been, and so I draw exactly the opposite conclusion from them that JADL does. These aren't new tactics. They can be effective tactics, but only in contexts where the side that is subjecting itself to police action has a sufficient moral and morale advantages to see them through. I think it is far too early to make judgments about the effectiveness of the Occupy movement on this score, but I do think it is telling that they feel that they have these advantages.
As I've said before, I believe the winter is the real test that will make or break the Occupy movement, because winter doesn't care about moral advantages. And outside of Maricopa and Alameda counties, I'm doubtful that the Occupy movement will find police chiefs with enough hubris to play Bull Connor's role.
But it does seem to me that the Occupy movements have changed the national conversation in a productive way, in that they've brought the discussion of income inequity back into the national conversation, and they've kept up the political and to a certain extent financial pressure on the big banks. Certainly, the BoA capitulation on monthly debit card fees is a concrete victory for consumers that is a direct consequence of Occupy action.
No surprise that I agree with JADL here and just can barely understand Stu's viewpoint. Without private property, there is only a rabble, a kind of Mongolian horde dissipating everything as it goes. OMG. The police and the Tea Party saw eye to eye because they were both sane. They broke up the OWS movement today after a moiduh in Oakland. OMG. There is a right to peaceful assembly but OCCUPY is an inherently violent term straight oiut of military language. This isn't any kind of peaceful assembly. It's about rape and pillage even in the very language it uses. Plus, they use drums to whip up the speakers. These are not Democratic groups. It's the revival of some kind of psychotic tribalism with human sacrifices.
stu's wrong about many of the occupier camps in parks being constitutionally protected assemblies. Occupiers have the right to assemble, but most city parks are now illegally occupied after hours in violation of city ordinances that courts (including SCOTUS) have found constitutional. Same goes for blocking streets, bridges, invading or destroying private property, etc. Thus stu's suggestion that the police in general are acting unlawfully against lawful assemblies is patently false.
Unfortunately a number of lib-left leaning urban mayors and city councils have (by playing politics or just through pusillanimity) sacrificed the health, safety, commerce, and convenience of ordinary law-abiding citizens in order to pander to these lawless rabbles by not enforcing reasonable city ordinances.
I hope voters will ask for political sacrifices from these misguided politicians in return.
stu's wrong about many of the occupier camps in parks being constitutionally protected assemblies. Occupiers have the right to assemble, but most city parks are now illegally occupied after hours in violation of city ordinances that courts (including SCOTUS) have found constitutional. Same goes for blocking streets, bridges, invading or destroying private property, etc. Thus stu's suggestion that the police in general are acting unlawfully against lawful assemblies is patently false.
Unfortunately a number of lib-left leaning urban mayors and city councils have (by playing politics or just through pusillanimity) sacrificed the health, safety, commerce, and convenience of ordinary law-abiding citizens in order to pander to these lawless rabbles by not enforcing reasonable city ordinances.
I hope voters will ask for political sacrifices from these misguided politicians in return.
Bloomberg asked police to clear Zucotti Square. The occupation ruins the local parks for local residents, and creates a nightmare in terms of policing: hygiene, noise, and crime levels are soaring in that park, and in the others that the communists have stolen from the rest of the public.
Housing can't just be set up in encampments as the occupiers have done. Oakland's mayor has acted too thanks to murder last week in the park.
Zoning ordinances and other constitutionally protected legalities will be brought to bear on the protesters. Obama will be with the protesters in defiance of local laws. He always is in defiance of law and for his own whims. It's one aspect of his rabble rousing that I find particularly objectionable and dangerous.
Less than a year left for him. Dear God, may it speed past without him doing much more damage to the country and its laws.
"Fight for the laws as you fight for the walls of the city." -- Heraclitus (this is from memory, so isn't exactly correct).
I cannot understand how Christians would side with the protesters. The Tea Party did make brief protests, but then they got back to work. OWS doesn't seem to have any real work, and are filled with hatred toward an imaginary group (a group without a face, which they imagine as responsible for all sin).
Paul says in Romans, ""Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; Not slothful in business" (12:10-11).
Laziness seems to be the central underpinning of OWS, but the other deadly sins are also readily apparent: envy, in particular. If "greed" is in the 1%, does it justify all the other sins?
Zizek even said they were allowed to have sex with animals.
Post a Comment