Category Archives: Faith

Sorry, boys, but I’m with the feds on this one

This just in from our friend Wesley Donehue on behalf of the SC Senate Republicans:

SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE AND SENATE MAJORITY LEADER ISSUE JOINT STATEMENT ON U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S INJUNCTION AGAINST S.C. IMMIGRATION LAW

MCCONNELL AND PEELER: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORCES THE STATES TO ACT ON IMMIGRATION BUT SHOOT THEM DOWN WHEN THEY DO

Columbia, SC – November 2, 2011 – This week, the United States Justice Department challenged South Carolina’s new immigration law, preventing it from going into effect. The Justice Department argues that the new law preempts the federal government’s overview of immigration. Both Senator Glenn McConnell and Senator Harvey Peeler believe that the federal government would be the perfect governing body in the country to initiate immigration policy, but for years it has been failing to act.

Senator McConnell said, “I wish that the federal government was as vigilant in protecting the country’s borders and enforcing our nation’s immigration laws as they are in attacking states like South Carolina that try to step up to the plate and act because the federal government refuses to do so. South Carolina has a duty to protect our citizens and our budgets from the problems caused by unfettered illegal immigration and I believe that we have done so in a lawful manner. But if the federal government wants us to quit acting in this area, the solution is simple – do your job.”

“The federal government’s inaction on this issue has forced states across the nation to react to the growing problem of illegal immigration. However, when the states pass laws that address this problem, the federal government rushes in to stop them. It’s time for Washington to stop focusing their energies on those trying to solve the problem and start addressing the real problem of illegal immigration on a national level,” Senator Peeler said.

It has been over half a decade since the United States passed a broad immigration law. Since then, immigration has continued to be a problem for states. In response, states across the nation have enacted immigration laws to help combat this problem in our country. These laws vary, but the federal government has thus far seemed intent on removing key enforcement provisions through federal court cases, rendering the laws ineffective.

Senator McConnell and Senator Peeler have always been strong supporters of legal immigration. They believe illegal immigration cheapens the value for all immigrants who come to the United States through legal means. South Carolina’s immigration law will help provide one more disincentive for those looking to illegally immigrate to the U.S.

“Immigration has been part of our nation’s heritage from the beginning. However, the federal government’s inaction is tarnishing this national tradition. If those in Washington are unwilling to act, they must support states in their efforts to do what is best for their citizens,” Peeler continued.

###

Sorry, boys, but I’m with the federales on this one.

Chalk it up to my Catholicism. Last night, after E.J. Dionne’s lecture, a few of us went to Yesterday’s to talk religion and politics and other stuff polite folks don’t talk about.

At one point E.J. invoked our Mass readings from Sunday before last:

“You shall not molest or oppress an alien,
for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.
You shall not wrong any widow or orphan.
If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me,
I will surely hear their cry…”

Note that it doesn’t say, “… as long as they have the proper documentation.”

Now, before Doug gets on his high horse about legality… Folks, I want immigration laws enforced, too — but I also want just immigration laws that recognize economic realities and that are consistent with our being a nation of immigrants, a nation of people who welcome the stranger.

And the popular pressure for South Carolina to usurp federal powers on this issue arises from a very different impulse.

E.J.’s here — y’all come on out and hear him

Just to let you know — I collected E.J. Dionne from the airport earlier this afternoon, and left him in the custody of Charles Bierbauer.

So he made it to town. Now, y’all do your part. Come on out to hear him at 6 p.m. over at Capstone at USC.

Here’s the info again.

Come hear E.J. Dionne tomorrow night

Hey, y’all — anyone interested in hearing E.J. Dionne speak at USC tomorrow evening on the intersection of faith and public life should come over to Capstone on the USC campus at 6 p.m.

Dionne, for those of you not familiar (which you should be) is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, but you probably know him better as a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post. He’s also a professor in the Foundations of Democracy and Culture at Georgetown University. And you may have seen him on the tube now and again.

E.J.’s topic is,”Reweaving the Seamless Garment: Cardinal Bernardin’s Living Legacy to American Public Life.” This is the 2011 Joseph Cardinal Bernardin Lecture. I’ve been on that committee for a decade or so. He’s brought to you by The Department of Religious Studies, the College of Mass Communications and Information Studies, President Pastides’ Civil Discourse Initiative, and Samuel Tenenbaum and the Tenenbaum Lectureship Fund.

I had the honor of making the initial contact, early this year, asking E.J. to come speak to us. He was happy to do so, not only because he’s a fellow Catholic, but because Chapter Five of his recent book was entitled, “What Happened to the Seamless Garment? The Agony of Liberal Catholicism.”

I look forward to hearing him. Assuming I get him here on time — I’m supposed to pick him up at the airport.

I first met E.J. at an API seminar. Our class had lunch with some of the WashPost opinion writers, including (as I recall) Charles Krauthammer and Robert Samuelson, and E.J. was kind enough to give me a tour of the Post. He later visited me in my office at The State when he was here covering… oh, I forget what. The 2004 Democratic primary, perhaps.

I appreciate his arranging his schedule to come speak to us. And I hope some of y’all will come hear him.

I agree with Bachmann: God is definitely trying to send us a message

Just read this a few minutes ago:

Bachmann Says Irene, Earthquake Were Messages From God

“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of politicians,” the GOP presidential hopeful said over the weekend at a campaign event in Florida, the St. Petersburg Times reports. “We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

I agree completely. God IS wondering what it will take. He’s all like,

Yo! Down there! What’ve I gotta do to convince you people that you’re totally screwing up the Earth here? Can you say, “global warming”? Can you say “hurricane hitting New York, of all places?” Can you say anything? More to the point, can you hear anything? I gave you ears! Or is it just that you don’t want to? I’m starting to have second thoughts about the Free Will thing…

And we’re all like,

Wha…? Did you hear somethin’?

The nod and the wink? Deconstructing Perry’s comments about Bernanke

I didn’t really notice Phil Noble’s release earlier about Rick Perry and Ben Bernanke (I’m drowning in email), until it was also forwarded to me by Samuel Tenenbaum today. Here’s the full release, and here’s an excerpt:

Noble Calls on Perry to Apologize for ‘Unacceptable’ Attack on South Carolina Native Son Bernanke

Gov. Rick PerryIn response to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s continuing suggestions that South Carolina born-and-bred Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke is not acting with America’s best interests at heart, SC New Democrats president Phil Noble is calling on the GOP front-runner to apologize.

“In the last few days,” Noble said, “Rick Perry has called our native son Ben Bernanke ‘treacherous’ and ‘treasonous’ and has questioned what his ‘true goal is for the United States.’ Somebody needs to tell Mr. Perry that we don’t talk that way about central bankers here in the South Carolina, and we certainly don’t talk that way about central bankers who happen to be Jewish.”

Noble continued, “The stereotype of the ‘treacherous” or ‘treasonous’ Jewish banker is one of the most poisonous slurs in all of recent Western history. And whether Rick Perry is exploiting this anti-Semitic stereotype today out of true malice or simple ignorance of that long and tragic history doesn’t really matter. Either way, it’s completely unacceptable, and he needs to apologize to Mr. Bernanke and all the people of our state for this grossly inappropriate attack on one of our most distinguished native sons before his Texas boot heel touches South Carolina soil again.

“Or, to put this in terms that even the Governor should understand: Gov. Perry, don’t mess with South Carolina.”

Samuel offered his own observation, which I’ve heard him make before in different contexts:

Remember Campbell and his political anti-Semitism [a reference to the campaign against Max Heller]? It is the old nod and wink game here. Call it the “nink.” Those who have the correct receptors get his message and those who do not, never would associate anti-Semitism with his statement.

True, as a goy, I did not at first associate what Perry said with Bernanke’s Jewishness. But then, I had not initially heard that one bit of comment from Perry, “… I think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States.” To a Catholic, that sounds familiar. But still…

Samuel and I have a lot of discussions about stuff like this. We went to see “The Passion of Jesus Christ” together, along with Moss Blachman, on Saturday in 2004, and then we all went to lunch and debated it. We did not see it the same. But we agreed about one thing: We didn’t like the movie.

Bottom line, I don’t think Perry is going after Bernanke because he’s Jewish any more than because he’s from South Carolina. I think Perry is going after him because a section of the electorate he’s trying to woo deeply dislikes the Federal Reserve, and Bernanke just happens to be its current chairman. The Fed chair could have been a gentile from Oregon, and for that matter could be pursuing policies completely different from Bernanke’s, and Perry would still be on his case.

That’s what I think.

I dig my window

It's not that it's a beautiful view or anything. It's all the light it lets in. (And, when I want it, air.)

For days, I’d been in a foul mood.

Chalk it up to the feckless debt non-deal, the nonsense that led up to it, the madness in the stock markets that ensued, the credit downgrade, getting rid of HD TV and the phone line we’d had for 24 years,  etc.

I told my wife Monday night that it’s bad. How bad? So bad that I am actually letting economic news get me down, or at least ticked off. Which didn’t happen even when I was laid off. It’s just the long continuation of this sequence of events that just suck more and more as time goes on, with no one seeming to be inclined to do what they should to make it better. That included everyone I castigated in this post, and anyone else you can think of.

See the picture at right. Here’s how I happened to take it: I was waiting at a long light (Huger and Taylor) and wondering just how hot it actually was, and pulling out my iPhone to glance at it — a two-click process. But at the first click, I saw it was in camera mode, and for some reason in reverse-camera mode, so I just clicked the shutter and then stuck it back in its holster. Later I looked back at my pictures for the day, and this just seemed to capture well my mood. I look sort of like “Heisenberg,” halfway through the process of breaking bad. (Of course, my wife might say I always look like this.) I was not putting on for the camera. If I had been posing, I might have taken off my dorky clip-on shades.

So, you have the background.

But then, Tuesday morning, I came into the office, and there was all this… light. Light that I’d never seen before, and it made all things new in the offices of ADCO. I’d never seen any of these things this way before. The light was revelatory, serendipitous, and apocalyptic (in the original, positive sense). It was an epiphany. I’d give you more quasi-religious big words if I had time right now to think of some.

There was a crew washing the windows, inside and out, and they’d taken down all the blinds and screens and storm windows, and ADCO is in this old house with these really tall, crystal-clear windows… and behold, the light made all things new. It revealed new possibilities: See, things don’t have to be the dark way that you think they are. They can become brilliant, quite suddenly.

I’ve written before how much I appreciate my office window, since I had never, ever worked before in a building where it was possible to open the windows before. Well, this just deepened my appreciation considerably.

I’ve been in a much better mood ever since. Not an awesome mood. Not giddy or anything. Just not as ticked off.

Weird, huh? I don’t even like to think that I am such a malleable creature that such simple shifts in physical surroundings can affect me on such a level, shifting my life attitude from negative to positive, even if only briefly. I’m not an animal. I’m a thinking creature. (Also, I’m not one of these sun people. I felt very much at home in the winter drizzle of England.)

But there it is. I feel better now. Not great, just not so ticked off. How are you?

A word from someone who knows PART of what the Norway killer was thinking

When I saw this headline this morning in the WSJ — “Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer” — I thought, “Here we go again, with someone presuming to know something he couldn’t really know.”

I was wrong. You might want to go read it. It’s written by a guy who apparently helped inspire the shooting suspect:

But I was stunned to discover on Saturday that Breivik was a reader of my own work, including my book “While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within.” In comments posted in 2009 on a Norwegian blog, document.no, Breivik expressed admiration for my writings, but criticized me for not being a cultural conservative (although he was pleased that I was not a Marxist, either)….

In his manifesto, which is written in such good English that one wonders whether he had the assistance of a native speaker, Breivik quotes approvingly and at length from my work, mentioning my name 22 times. It is chilling to think that blog entries that I composed in my home in west Oslo over the past couple of years were being read and copied out by this future mass-murderer in his home in west Oslo.

It is also chilling to see the way he moves from a legitimate concern about genuine problems to an unspeakably evil “solution.”…

That’s gotta make a guy think twice about what he’s written.

It did not change the writer’s mind, however. And it would be facile to say that it should have. Of course, he may advocate many offensive ideas — I don’t know, not having read his books. But the fact is, Islamism does present a challenge to liberal societies. The main challenge being how to absorb large numbers of people whose cultural frame of reference is at odds with liberal values, without losing sight of those values.

Onion: “God Urges Rick Perry Not To Run”

Speaking of Rick Perry, which we were doing in passing back here

I don’t go in for blasphemy, which means I don’t like it when politicians (usually conservatives) claim to be tighter with God than other people, or when critics (usually liberals) make fun of them for it. I especially, speaking from my own brand of conservatism, don’t like it when people presume to put words in God’s mouth.

But I must confess to you, my brothers and sisters, that I did find the point brought up by The Onion here at least worth discussing:

July 21, 2011 | ISSUE 47•29

AUSTIN, TX—Describing Texas Gov. Rick Perry as grossly unqualified for the position, God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, urged Perry not to run for president of the United States Wednesday. “I prayed last night and asked the Lord to support my candidacy, and He said no,” Perry told reporters outside the Texas Capitol, explaining that God had cited the governor’s rejection of federal stimulus funds to expand state jobless benefits, his irresponsible speculation about Texas seceding from the union, and his overall lack of concrete solutions to nation’s problems as reasons why He could not endorse a Perry presidential bid. “I believe God made some valid points about my lack of credentials, and He’s absolutely right. My extreme beliefs when it comes to social issues and states’ rights are not only disturbingly narrow-minded, but would also make me a horrible president.” When reached for comment, God said He would not be present at Perry’s much-talked-about Christian day of prayer on Aug. 6, calling the governor’s use of his public office to endorse a religion both “irresponsible” and a violation of the Constitution.

OK, it’s not as funny or creative as some Onion stuff. I’ll confess that, too. I think they sort of called this one in. They thought, “Somebody needs to make this point, and it might as well be us.” What keeps it from being brilliant is that the writer couldn’t resist making serious points, and even doing it in a sort of preachy manner.

But hey, I thought that referring you to it would be one way of bringing up the topic of Perry suggesting that he is on a mission from God. So we could discuss it.

Personally, I don’t think God wants to get involved in the Perry candidacy one way or the other. I am, of course, not positive about that. I could ask Him, in order to make sure, but I really don’t like to bother Him with stuff like that.

The Perpetual Adoration of the Dysfunctional

I’m at Barnes & Noble, engaged in my favorite leisure activity of getting a cup of coffee and wandering among the books and maybe blogging a bit. And moments ago I got a text from my wife. She is out of town, has been for several days. She’s somewhere in the Ozarks having a reunion with her high school friends from St. Agnes Academy in Memphis (37 in the graduating class, all girls). Here’s what she texted:

Who directed & starred in easy rider & supported andy warhol?

This is my function in the world. Perhaps it is why she married me. Anyway, I quickly responded, “Dennis Hopper. Why?” That was an easy one. We just saw him in that Warhol thing last week.

It was at Spoleto. There was this show that was very, um, Warhol. It was called, “13 Most Beautiful…Songs for Andy Warhol’s Screen Tests.” We went with my artist daughter and a friend of hers. It was enjoyable, even artistically impressive. But if you thought about it too much, it was disturbing. And I tend to do that. That’s the other thing I do. I keep trivia in my head, and I think about stuff until I ruin it.

Warhol did these things he called “screen tests” in which he had various people in his orbit sit in front of a camera loaded with a short piece of film — I want to say about 100 feet; in any case, it would last exactly four minutes. In this way, the artist fulfilled his own prophecy to a certain extent — immortalizing these people for at least four minutes of their allotted 15. He shot people he thought were beautiful in one way or another. Some were quite conventionally beautiful the way I would use the word, such as this one (who bizarrely kept her eyes open the whole time, causing tears to flow). But all were interesting.

You had Dennis Hopper doing his thing. Jane Holzer brushing her teethLou Reed drinking a Coke. Edie Sedgwick being big-eyed and lovely. The live, original music performed on the stage below the screen was very engaging. The hall was pretty full, and the crowd seemed engrossed. On the row in front of me I thought I recognized Allison Skipper from the Ports Authority. And sure enough, after we exchanged Tweets about it, she was to share this account with me:

13 MOST BEAUTIFUL…SONGS FOR ANDY WARHOL’S SCREEN TESTS

Call Andy Warhol what you will – genius, whack job, or some combination of the two – the man certainly had an eye for pretty people.

In 13 Most Beautiful, indie rock/pop musicians Dean Wareham and Britta Phillips pair hypnotic musical compositions against a backdrop of black and white projections of some of Warhol’s famous (or infamous) screen subjects. The footage itself is grainy and subjects range from the familiar (Lou Reed, Edie Sedgwick, Dennis Hopper, Nico) to the obscure. You can imagine Warhol himself off-screen, directing the subject to spontaneously cry, drink a Coca-Cola, look melancholy, or choreographing a slow curl of cigarette smoke or light reflected from the lens of sunglasses. Wareham and Phillips give an understated performance, demonstrating a conscious effort to take a backseat to the screen stars. The music serves to connect the audience with the subjects, in doing so achieving what they wanted all along. We love them, we adore them, we are fascinated by them. They are all famous, for at least 13 songs.

Our arty barometer says: It’s Warhol. It’s weird. Embrace it – with or without some mind-altering substance.

While the screen is dark for the show’s run at Spoleto, a recorded version is available to Watch Instantly on Netflix. Happy viewing.

–Allison Skipper

I pretty much agree with that. But at first, I didn’t think I would be able to sit through it. The very first “test” consisted of the totally impassive, androgynous Richard Rheem doing nothing but staring at the camera for the full four minutes. The band had not yet come out, so I didn’t have them to watch (of course, when they did come out, the stage was dark enough that all you could see really clearly was the whiteness of Britta Phillips’ shapely legs below her very short black dress as she played guitar and sang, but that was quite enough to make up for anything lacking on the screen), and this period was extremely tedious.

But it got better. Lots better. We weren’t bored again. And the experience was greatly enhanced by Dean Wareham’s narration, telling us a bit about the subject we were to see or had just seen.

And we watched, and were fascinated, as master showman Warhol had intended us to be.

But as for the disturbing part… well, look no further than “Ingrid Superstar’s” obsessive fingering of her face (and giving us the finger, but we don’t mind, the poor girl) throughout the four minutes, in which we see her with her hair cut to look like Edie Sedgwick. Right after we were told she was a junkie. And a sometime prostitute and temp (I liked the way he added “temp” anticlimactically). She was to go out for cigarettes years later and not come back — presumed dead, but her body never found. Her dysfunction is on display on the screen, we stare at it almost as unblinking as Ann Sheridan. Her being so obviously f___ed up is a source of entertainment for us, or of aesthetic edification if we choose to dignify it that way.

Then there was the guy who that same summer, deep in his own problems, was taking a bath at a friend’s house when he heard his favorite piece of music playing in the next room, upon which he leapt from the bath, ran into the room and danced about naked to the music, then jumped out a window to his death.

And here we were, staring at him making self-conscious faces for the camera. And I thought about this. Eventually, I was struck that what we were doing, sitting there so patiently, was a form of worship. Modern-day secular worship of celebrity, of hipness, of the various forms physical beauty can take, and of tragedy and dysfunction. I got to thinking of the Catholic practice of Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. This is a practice I’ve never been able to get into — not that I’ve ever tried. As a post Vatican II convert, it is alien to me, and smacks of idolatry. I recently heard that Pope Benedict wants it to make a comeback, which does not surprise me. But hey, I didn’t vote for him.

But while Perpetual Adoration to me seems strange and even vaguely wrong, here we were staring, for a period lasting longer than a Mass, at all these seriously messed up, self-involved people. And I found it fascinating, even enjoyable. What does that say about me, about us? I decry Reality TV, but I got into this.

It suggests that my priorities are seriously out of whack.

But at least it helps me keep the part of my brain devoted to cultural trivia sharp and active. My wife relies on me for that.

Slight delay in the end of the world

A couple of quick pop-culture references, and Kathryn will be grateful that neither is to “The Godfather” (don’t worry, fans, I’m sure I’ll get back to the Corleones soon enough). The first is that I’m feeling sort of like Billy Jack

I want you to know… that I try. When Jean and the kids at the school tell me that I’m supposed to control my tendency to be a wiseacre, and be passive and respectful of other people’s beliefs like they are, I try. I really try. Though when I see this guy… who should know to keep quiet after this weekend… and I see him speaking up again, and getting quoted, and I think of the number of months that we’re probably going to have to keep hearing about it… I just go BERSERK!

I’m referring, of course, to the news that this Harold Camping guy is saying, Oops, the Rapture’s gonna come in October now.

The second cultural reference is more obscure. It’s to The Dirty Dozen. No, not the movie, but the (much superior) E.M. Nathanson novel on which it was based. The novel is so little-remembered that I had trouble finding a full preview of it on Google Books to check my quote. But near the end of the book, when Samson Posey, a Ute Indian, tries to perform a Sun Dance to get the weather to clear over Normandy, and one of the other 11 guys starts making fun of him, suggesting he’s doing a rain dance by mistake, an Army chaplain standing nearby says “Don’t mock him, fellow! Whatever your beliefs — if you have any — do not mock him!”

Which I’ve always thought was a pretty good thought to live by. (Look, if you want a blog that quotes Shakespeare, there are plenty of them out there.) A lot of people believe a lot of unlikely things. In this case, we have some people believing something that is directly refuted by the Bible. Which is inexplicable. OK, so Camping isn’t a biblical literalist. Cool. But we’re talking about a quote attributed to Jesus Christ himself saying No one knows the day or the hour

But I try, I really try, not to make fun. You’ll note that I did not do so last week.

But this guy is really, really trying my patience, and my resolve to be tolerant and respectful…

Let’s double the downloads on this one, OK?

Today at the Columbia Rotary Club, Jim Sonefeld, of Hootie and the Blowfish fame, was our main speaker. He and David Kunz of the Cooperative Ministry were talking about the ministry’s efforts to help our community’s working poor. Mr. Kunz spoke a bit at the beginning about the plight of the working poor in our community — something he said is far more extensive, and has a much greater impact on us all in terms of our overall economic and social health, than homelessness.

Mr. Sonefeld spoke glowingly of the Ministry’s work, and told the story of how he was blown away when he heard the Benedict College Gospel Choir’s a cappella rendering of Hootie’s signature hit, “Hold My Hand,” and decided immediately that he wanted to get the choir into the studio so that everyone could hear it. That led to asking his bandmates to go along (the four co-wrote the song) with an idea for helping the working poor in our area…

A video was commissioned, which you can view above. Watch it. And read more at the website.

And then, click here to go download the song from iTunes (or from the platform of your choice) — and the .99 you pay will go entirely to Cooperative Ministry.

I think Jim Sonefeld said it had been downloaded about 1,700 times. (I say “think” because I didn’t write it down, wrongly thinking I could see on iTunes how many times exactly.) I figure we could double that. Don’t you?

And it’s not hard. Even I did it. Actually, that is the FIRST thing I’ve ever downloaded from iTunes. I mean, you know, I own most of the music I want on vinyl, and what with my USB turntable, I can digitize any of that…

I really felt old when Jim Sonefeld started talking about how HE was kind of old for this downloading stuff, that he is still a vinyl kind of guy… because I think of him as a kid. So I saw that as a challenge to demonstrate my adaptability.

Which I just did. So should you.

By the way, a word about Mr. Sonefeld… Why does he do this? Well, he’s motivated to a great extent by his faith, to which he made numerous references. But someone asked how he got involved with public service. I think they were thinking that there was a road-to-Damascus story involving a hedonistic rocker suddenly seeing the light and becoming a servant to the poor — perhaps about the time he cut off all that hair and went for the David Carradine in “Kung Fu” look.

But no — he said that’s just the way his parents raised him. He always saw them doing for others, and so that’s what he tries to do.

I like that story…

‘Hypocrite’ isn’t the right word for Sanford

There’s a discussion about character going on right now on “Talk of the Nation:”

We’re often taken aback when a respected governor or political candidate, or our own husband or wife, cheats. But psychologist David DeSteno argues that a growing body of evidence shows that everyone — even the most respected among us — has the capacity to act out of character.

… and I was struck by the fact that the segment started off with Mark Sanford as exhibit A.

Inevitably, talk turned to his “hypocrisy.”

I don’t see him as a “hypocrite.” But then, I didn’t see him as a guy who would so brazenly and spectacularly cheat on his wife (or do so on Father’s Day weekend), so what do I know?

But I still don’t see him as a “hypocrite.”

That’s a word that gets bandied about a good deal in our politics, particularly by social liberals talking about social conservatives who turn out to be human (and, as I said, sometimes spectacularly). It tends to reflect a couple of mutually-reinforcing elements of a world view: People who espouse traditional moral values are not only wrong, but they don’t even mean it! I mean, how could they, really? So it’s relevant to discuss.

Andy Griffith’s character on “A Face In the Crowd” was a hypocrite — a super-folksy alleged populist with a deep contempt for the masses. But Sanford — I think he always believed what he espoused, including “family values.” And still does, in his own weird way.

However, there were OTHER things they were saying on the show that were dead on, with regard to Sanford and the rest of us. Yep, he is a towering monument to rationalization. And yep, human character does tend to be “dynamic.” In spite of the root of the word, character is not stamped on us as indelibly as the image on a coin. It’s something you have to work at every day. And just because you act inconsistently with what you say on Wednesday doesn’t mean you didn’t believe it on Tuesday. Or on Thursday.

What Sanford revealed in my own far-from-omniscient opinion was a startling lack of depth, mixed with narcissism.

The narcissism shouldn’t have been a surprise, given his profoundly Randian (as in Ayn Rand, author of “The Virtue of Selfishness”) political views. Actually, it WAS a surprise, but it shouldn’t have been.

As for the lack of depth — the guy’s analysis of himself and what he openly acknowledged as his sin didn’t even go skin deep. He went around apologizing to everybody, but with an unrepentant blandness that seemed to take it as a matter of course that we were obligated to forgive him, while he blithely went about continuing to consort with this mistress. Because, you know, that’s what he wanted to do.

But “hypocrisy”? That both oversimplifies, and misses the mark…

And now for something completely different: Some Holy Week Ezra Pound

Today there was a review in The Wall Street Journal of a book compiling letters that poet Ezra Pound wrote to his parents, which I read with some interest.

I don’t really know all that much about Pound. I remember something about him boxing with Ernest Hemingway, I recall that he was sort of a godfather to some of the young expatriates of that generation, and the fact that he took an EXTREME wrong turn when he came to support Fascism.

But my horror at his politics doesn’t keep me from appreciating an interesting piece of writing, any more than I dismiss Lindbergh’s achievement as an aviator because of his political sympathies.

And not being an English major or anything, I’m only familiar with one thing about his work. My uncle had this anthology of English literature lying about at the family home in Bennettsville, and I read this poem by Pound in it, back in my college days. And it’s always stuck with me as one of the most distinctive and iconoclastic portraits of Jesus I’ve ever read, even more so than Anthony Burgess’ version. Aside from the words, I like the rhythm of it; it’s almost like a sea chanty or something. I tend to like things that cause me to think a little harder and question my assumptions about someone, especially someone as important as Jesus. Even when it comes from a fascist.

This being Holy Week, I thought I’d share it:

Ballad of the Goodly Fere

Ha’ we lost the goodliest fere o’ all
For the priests and the gallows tree?
Aye lover he was of brawny men,
O’ ships and the open sea.

When they came wi’ a host to take Our Man
His smile was good to see,
“First let these go!” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Or I’ll see ye damned,” says he.

Aye he sent us out through the crossed high spears
And the scorn of his laugh rang free,
“Why took ye not me when I walked about
Alone in the town?” says he.

Oh we drank his “Hale” in the good red wine
When we last made company,
No capon priest was the Goodly Fere
But a man o’ men was he.

I ha’ seen him drive a hundred men
Wi’ a bundle o’ cords swung free,
That they took the high and holy house
For their pawn and treasury.

They’ll no’ get him a’ in a book I think
Though they write it cunningly;
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere
But aye loved the open sea.

If they think they ha’ snared our Goodly Fere
They are fools to the last degree.
“I’ll go to the feast,” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Though I go to the gallows tree.”

“Ye ha’ seen me heal the lame and blind,
And wake the dead,” says he,
“Ye shall see one thing to master all:
‘Tis how a brave man dies on the tree.”

A son of God was the Goodly Fere
That bade us his brothers be.
I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men.
I have seen him upon the tree.

He cried no cry when they drave the nails
And the blood gushed hot and free,
The hounds of the crimson sky gave tongue
But never a cry cried he.

I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men
On the hills o’ Galilee,
They whined as he walked out calm between,
Wi’ his eyes like the grey o’ the sea,

Like the sea that brooks no voyaging
With the winds unleashed and free,
Like the sea that he cowed at Genseret
Wi’ twey words spoke’ suddently.

A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea,
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.

I ha’ seen him eat o’ the honey-comb
Sin’ they nailed him to the tree.

Two kinds of (mildly) offensive on Palm Sunday

Two Tweets bugged me, just a little, on Sunday. I respected this special sabbath by not commenting on that day itself. But since I think it offers some insight to how both the left and right alienate me (and therefore help to define this blog), I offer them now. The first was from our governor:

Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley)
4/17/11 1:43 PM
Spending the day appreciating the sacrifices He made for us and our blessings on this beautiful Palm Sunday in South Carolina.

The second is from someone I never heard of — she was retweeted by Howard Weaver, a former McClatchy VP:

Annie Heckenberger (@anniemal)
4/17/11 1:19 PM
dreamt I stood in mass & told off a priest, closing w/ “ur the reason This Brand is failing in the western world.” James Franco was there.

Can you see, without my explaining, why these examples of typical attitudes on the left and right would put me off? If not, I’ll briefly explain…

The first is, simply put, an example of public prayer of the sort that was proscribed in Matthew chapter 6:

“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

Frankly, I have what some might regard as a conflicted view toward that passage, although I prefer to think of my position as “nuanced.” For instance, someone who doesn’t understand my view might say I should also be put off by my friend Warren Bolton when he writes such a column as his Passion Sunday reflection. Or they might wonder why I quietly return thanks before eating in public places. It’s because, in our cases, I see it as countercultural.

Jesus was speaking within the context of a culture that rewarded public piety. You advanced your position in society by praying on a street corner. In the United States of the 21st century, you’re asking to be regarded as a nut if you do that. Big difference. And if you’re a newspaperman, well… if you’re not, you probably don’t understand the degree to which that is NOT the way to get ahead in the world. (Of course, being a newspaperman, period, is no way to get ahead in the world, but I’m speaking of the times when Warren and I were coming up in the business, before the collapse.) So I always encouraged Warren to write columns like that, for the same reason I encouraged him and other board members to write columns, period (and to some extent why I started blogging) — so that readers would know the people behind the editorials. And that is definitely who Warren is.

But there are certain subsets of society where Pharisaic behavior is to your advantage. And that is the case among Nikki Haley’s political base. So I see something like that from her, and I think, “That’s exactly what Jesus was on about.”

Now, if she had done something WITH it — made some original observation or something, that somehow played off the liturgy — I wouldn’t have bridled at it. But what she said was so bumper-sticker, so unoriginal, so “Look at me; I’m a Christian,” that it saddened me to see it. (And yes, I know that judging other people’s expressions of faith doesn’t seem like something that puts me in too well with the Lord, either. But I thought there was some relevant commentary to be made here. I hope I’m right.)

Then there was the second Tweet, which is just a pointless little fling at religion (particularly the flavor to which I subscribe) that was SO gratuitous, and in its own way SO like what Nikki did, that it helped inspire this post. How, you ask, was it like what the gov did? Here’s how: This writer ALSO had nothing to say to the world except to declare, to a certain subset of it, “Look at me! I’m one of you!” In her case, it was, “I have generalized hostility to organized religion, and particular to those atavistic creatures, Catholic priests!” Or perhaps it was simply, “I am a thoroughly modern young woman!” to put it on its most basic level.

The thing that got me about it was that the object of her scorn in the dream wasn’t a particular person with a particular narrative that the reader might join her in condemning. No, he was merely “a priest,” making her dream diatribe a blanket condemnation of all priests — which was all that was needed to establish her credentials with the social subset she was appealing to.

Now, fact is, this one does have some extenuating features. For one thing, it includes self-deprecating humor, with the addendum about James Franco. That lightens up the whole tweet. (I mean, I assume it was self-deprecating. If I had a dream about James Franco, and told the world, I would certainly be holding myself up to ridicule.) And her bit about “the Brand” makes me slightly curious to hear more. Is she saying she cares about and wants to protect and/or improve The Brand, and how does she define that brand? Such a discussion might prove productive.

For that matter, I can defend the governor’s Tweet, too, as being innocuous, even positive. I certainly don’t disagree with anything she said. And I realize that criticizing her for it can be seen as nitpicking of a low order. I also realize that honest, praiseworthy expressions of faith can easily, and unfairly, be mistaken for cynical, self-serving public piety. There can be something wonderful and uplifting about pausing to say “Behold this beautiful day that the Lord has made,” and I’d hate to inhibit anyone from doing so. (And if Nikki had sent that Tweet back before she became the darling of the Tea Party and so nakedly, obviously ambitious, I might have retweeted it with an “Amen.”)

But as it is… I’m just sharing with you how I reacted to those two Tweets, which came within moments of each other — and soliciting your thoughts as well.

Rev. Charles Jackson of Brookland Baptist gives invocation in Congress

I enjoyed this video, shared by Luther Battiste. Luther is chairman of the board of the Capital City Club, on which Rev. Jackson and I both serve. It’s hard to imagine a better choice Congress could have made than Rev. Jackson. It makes me think better of Congress.

If you watch it past the invocation itself, and the Pledge of Allegiance, you’ll get another treat — or at least it was a treat to me, by UnParty standards — both Joe Wilson and Jim Clyburn agreeing in praising Rev. Jackson and the wonderful witness to the community that Brookland Baptist provides. I’ve long regarded Reps. Wilson and Clyburn as the two most partisan members of the SC delegation. At least, I thought that until the recent election. And in the conventional sense of party, they still may be the most fiercely orthodox Republican and Democratic members. I’m not sure those new Tea Party guys fit in that category.

In any case, even if you say they are just being polite, I enjoy watching and hearing them get together on something.

I know where the governor got the idea for THAT

Meant to say something about this Tweet a couple of days ago, but forgot until now:

Palmetto Family@palmettofamilyPalmetto Family
Gov. Haley’s SC Prayer Breakfast text: Jeremiah 29:11. #fb

Betcha I know where the gov got the idea for that!

That happens to be a favorite passage of her friend and mine, Nathan Ballentine.

If you’ll recall, the prophet Nathan brought that verse to my attention back when I first got laid off two years ago (has it been that long?):

Anyway, my point is to share what Nathan sent me. He e-mailed me to say I should consult Jeremiah 29:11. Which I did:

For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope.

Just the right words, the ones I needed to hear. In this context I also love to read Matthew 7:7-11. (Look it up.) But I already knew that one. Nathan pointed me to a source of inspiration I had missed, and for that I am very grateful. I bookmarked it on my Blackberry, and take heart from it each day.

I also very much appreciate the verses that precede it, which I recently cited in my “Stand in the place where you live” post (1/17/11):

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon: Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses to dwell in; plant gardens, and eat their fruits. Take wives and beget sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters. There you must increase in number, not decrease. Promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to the LORD, for upon its welfare depends your own.

I’m sorry I missed the prayer breakfast. I would have liked to have heard that.

Have some fun in the Sistine Chapel

The guy who did the ceiling.

Before I forget about it totally — go check out this cool interactive Vatican site that Burl brought our attention to in a comment the other day. You can spin it around 360 degrees in three dimensions, and do so all sorts of different ways by changing the mouse

setting down in the left-hand corner (where you’ll also find the buttons that let you zoom in and out).

Very cool. And much cheaper than a trip to Rome. I enjoyed it, anyway.

Michelangelo did a pretty awesome job. I wonder what he would have charged, say, to do my TV room?

3D Politics: And that puts the UnParty… smack dab in the middle, more squarely than ever

As you know, I strenuously resist any attempt to place me along America’s left-right political spectrum, even to the extent of being in the middle. Personally, I just don’t feel comfortable anywhere on that line, and “middle” suggests always being somewhere between the two extremes (or, to use another paradigm I reject, between the two parties), which I most certainly am not. Depending on the issue, sometimes I’m in the middle, sometimes I agree with Democrats, sometimes with Republicans, and sometimes I’m out beyond either of them on their respective “wings.”

That’s because I think about each issue and the various factors bearing upon it, rather than buying a prefab set of values selected by someone else to appeal to some variation on the lowest common denominator. I passionately believe that that’s an inadequate, and intellectually dishonest, way to approach important public issues.

Considering all of that, I was intrigued by a chart Herb Brasher shared with me, which was compiled by his son, a teaching fellow in political science at Indiana University.

Here’s the description. The chart itself is above:

I’ve been thinking about messing around with a 3-dimensional model of partisan ideology for a while. Usually we only talk of right vs. left, although some political science literature works with two dimensions. While somewhat difficult to display for an artistically challenged person like me, I make a rough shot at placing European, Canadian, and American parties in a more complex political spectrum. Any thoughts, suggestions?
1) Parties / Party Families
a) SOC: European socialists
b) SOD: European Social Democrats and some socialists; British labour; Canadian NDP;
c) Green: Greens/environmental parties
d) CD: European Christian Democrats
e) DEM: American Democrats
f) CON: European and Canadian conservatives
g) LIB: European liberals
h) CLIB: Canadian Liberals
i) REP: American Republicans
j) TEA: American Tea-party
2) Partisan Ideology Dimensions:
a) Some assumptions:
i. Instead of the common left-right model, or even two-dimensional one in some political science literature, a three-dimensional one; added complexity, but also better representation of reality?
ii. Note: all parties fit within the liberal democratic framework – I’m not including parties that want to get rid of democratic regime form
b) Dimensions
i. Free vs. social market – degree to which party advocates government involvement in the economy, and social welfare policies
ii. Environment vs. Growth – degree to which party advocates environmental protection, quality of life vs. growth of economy (particularly jobs) – this is separate from the
above issue – strong interventionist parties, like the social democrats, are not traditionally known as pro-environment (blue-collar jobs, etc.)
iii. Secular-Religious – degree to which party/party family either rhetorically or programmatically promotes traditional vs. progressive values; or situates itself as a secularizing force, or protective of religion, etc.
3) Interpreting Party Position
a) Position: I place the parties in the figure based on a quick and dirty assessment of its ideological positioning vis-à-vis each of these dimensions
b) Size: I’m assuming that each party ‘box’ is the same size; however, in order to get a 3D effect, the bigger the box appears in the figure (and the bigger the font), the closer it is to the front, and the smaller, the further back it is. In this case, since the secular-religious dimension is the third dimension, the more secular a given party/party family is, the further up front it is, the further back, the more religious.

Unfortunately, this did not help place me, really — except, if you assume that these are the three axes that must be considered, to put me right in the middle, even in three dimensions. Here’s why:

  • Free vs. Social Market — This just doesn’t cause a flutter in my heart either way. The libertarians on the blog will cry, “He’s a statist!,” but I’m not. I sound like it sometime because the prevailing wind in South Carolina is radically libertarian, libertarian to a harmful degree, and I resist it strenuously in an effort to pull the conversation toward a neutral middle ground. I believe there is nothing inherently superior about either the public or the private sector (which is why I’m always arguing with people who believe, ideologically, that the private is inherently better — I never run into anyone on the opposite side of that equation to argue with). There are simply issues that are better solved one way, and others that are better solved another.
  • Environment vs. Growth — I’ve cared deeply about the Earth since before the first Earth Day, when I was in high school. But I think some people take some really ridiculous, harmful positions in the name of love of the Earth. I reject those who reflexively reject nuclear power, for instance. And of course we should drill in the ANWR and offshore — taking care to do so safely. In fact, my whole Energy Party Manifesto sits squarely along the center of this axis. Or perhaps I should say, borrows from various points along it. And one of the reasons why is that I think the country’s strategic position in the world is tied up with, and just as important as, the two issues on this axis. That affects the way I look at both.
  • Secular-Religious — No question that I endorse the First Amendment and the liberal democracy it makes possible. I also think secularists are off their trolleys with their oversensitivity about religion in public life, seeing every small expression — a nativity, a blue law, a public prayer — as some sort of establishment of a theocracy. So again, I can’t be comfortable in either camp.
  • The thing is, I think a lot more than those three factors are involved, and I try to take all the other factors into account as well. So does the UnParty, bless them.

    Stand in the place where you live

    Strong misgivings: Yossarian and the chaplain.

    For the longest time, I didn’t have a quotation on my Facebook profile. This didn’t seem right. I’m all about words. I’m all about pithy expressions of one’s world view, yadda, yadda. (Although I fear that now that I no longer have the discipline of writing a weekly column, I’ve gotten somewhat lazy about it, hence the “yadda, yadda.”)

    Loads of other people — people who were not overly thoughtful students of rhetoric, judging by the quotations they chose — had multiple quotations. They had all sorts of things they wanted to say — or rather, things they wanted to let other people say for them.

    But the thing is, I like so MANY things that I read — one of my problems in reading books is that, as I read them, I follow people around reading great passages aloud to them (and a well-written book will have at least one such passage per page), which is why people avoid me when I’m reading books — that the idea of singling out one, or two, or even 10 such quotes just seemed too restrictive. I thought, What is that good that I’m willing to have it almost as a personal epitaph? People will see that and think this sums me up. What quotation is there that I like that much?

    It would need to be semi-original (obviously, if it were entirely original, it wouldn’t be a quotation). It couldn’t be trite. I couldn’t have seen anyone else use it. It needed to say something I believe. And it needed to be something that has truly stuck with me over time, as opposed to, say, the funniest recent thing I’ve read on Twitter.

    So one day it struck me that I should post this:

    “I wouldn’t want to live without strong misgivings. Right, Chaplain?”
    Yossarian, in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22

    So I did.

    And for the longest time, that stood alone, and I was satisfied to let it do so. I liked it on a number of levels. For instance, in a day when our politics are dominated by people who are SO DAMNED SURE they’re right and other people are wrong, it had a certain countercultural UnParty flavor to it. At the same time, it’s not an existential statement of doubt — the fact that he’s saying it to a chaplain, one who certainly believes in God (although in an unorthodox way, being an Anabaptist), anchors it in belief, but still expresses the idea that one should always be willing to question one’s assumptions.

    It also said something I wanted others to know about me. Because I tend to argue whatever position I’m arguing rather tenaciously, even vociferously, people tend to think I’m inflexible. They’re wrong about this. I can usually think of all the reasons I might be wrong just as readily as they can, perhaps even more readily. (After all, one of the main steps in building an argument is imagining all the objections to it.) For instance, take our arguments over the Iraq War, or the debates I have with libertarians. My interlocutors think I’m a bloodthirsty war lover, and a rigid authoritarian. But I’m not, not really. I have a tendency to argue very insistently with your more radical libertarians because I think they go overboard, and that I have to pull REALLY HARD in the other direction to achieve any balance. And on the subject of the war, well… when you reach the conclusion that military action is necessary, and that action is initiated, I feel VERY strongly that you have to see it through, and that the time for debating whether to initiate it is long past. At least, that’s the way I saw the Iraq situation. That doesn’t mean I didn’t think there were viable arguments against it in the first place — I was just unpersuaded by them.

    I suppose I could go on and on about why I like the quotation, but that’s not what this post is about.

    This post is about the fact that I thought that quote was sort of lonesome, so I added another today:

    “Stand in the place where you live.”
    R.E.M.

    And here’s why I picked this one.

    I’ve always had a beef with people who constantly tear down the place where they live. You know, the whiners who always want to be someplace else. The people who seem to think that if it’s local, it’s no good. These people are destructive. They’re not good neighbors to have.

    You know that I’m a born critic, and I’m constantly expressing dissatisfaction with aspects of Columbia, or South Carolina. But I do it from a love of my home, and from a determination to make it better. If there’s something you don’t like about your home, you should be trying with all your might to make it better.

    To me, this is a fundamental moral obligation. And like most true believers, I can find Scripture to back it up. Remember the passage that Nathan Ballentine came up with to encourage me when I got laid off? It was Jeremiah 29:11:

    For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope.

    Well, when I looked that up, I found that I liked what preceded that just as much, the passage in which the prophet told the people not to whine about being in exile, but to affirmatively embrace the place where they were, and get on with life in it:

    Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon:
    Build houses to dwell in; plant gardens, and eat their fruits.
    Take wives and beget sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters. There you must increase in number, not decrease.
    Promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to the LORD, for upon its welfare depends your own.

    Let’s repeat that last:

    Promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to the LORD, for upon its welfare depends your own.

    Amen, I say unto you. Stand in the place where you live.

    Bad Things Arising (got to shake these from my head)

    Over the weekend, I had some silly be-bop song running through my head, after hearing it on a CD my wife was playing in the kitchen. Perfectly harmless, and no permanent damage. I’ve already forgotten what song it was.

    Today, something more ominous has gripped my mind… I’ve got two songs from “Jesus Christ Superstar” running through my mind — “This Jesus Must Die” (which is bad enough) and “Judas’ Death.”

    This is what I get, I suppose, for not going to Mass yesterday. I had a cold, I was scheduled to administer the Eucharist, and under the circumstances I thought it best not to show.

    Now this.

    Sample lyrics from the first song:

    Caiaphas:

    Fools! You have no perception
    The stakes we are gambling
    Are frighteningly high
    We must crush him completely
    So like John before him
    This Jesus must die
    For the sake of the nation
    This Jesus must die
    Must die, must die
    This Jesus must die…

    And a sample from the second:

    Judas
    My God, I saw him
    He looked three-quarters dead
    And he was so bad
    I had to turn my head
    You beat him so hard
    That he was bent and lame
    And I know who everybody’s
    Going to blame
    I don’t believe he knows
    I acted for our good
    I’d save him all the suffering
    If I could
    Don’t believe
    Our good
    Save him
    If I could

    Now, in my defense, the first song really has some appealingly clever lyrics, before you get to the bloodthirsty ones:

    Annas
    What then to do about Jesus of Nazareth?
    Miracle wonderman, hero of fools

    Priest
    No riots, no army, no fighting, no slogans

    Caiaphas
    One thing I’ll say for him, Jesus is cool…

    What then to do about this Jesusmania?
    How do we deal with the carpenter king?
    Where do we start with a man who is bigger
    Than John was when John did his baptism thing?

    But nevertheless, this is not a good way to start the week…