Jonathan Chait is right, sorry

Jonathan Chait's much-discussed New York magazine piece titled Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say created such a spectacle throughout the lefty-internet last month, I momentarily believed there might be a real live discussion about it. SALON appeared to be collectively in shock, and printed Chait-hate pieces every hour for awhile, it seemed. There was a lively hashtag-debate that said it all: #Chaitgate. There are still periodic Two-Minute Hates being blasted at Chait for daring to express this opinion; it was a scandal.

Yes, a SCANDAL.

Free speech, free inquiry, demanding the Left explain the disgusting, ineffectual witch-hunting and open provocateur behavior of the past few years... is now regarded as a SCANDAL. Sit down and suck it up, obedient left-leaning androids, or go join the Right. (And you know, I think lots of disgruntled free-speech-purists indeed might choose to do that, but now I am getting ahead of myself.)

Most of the response to Chait was the same response I got when I mentioned Engels in an old Tumblr discussion: White hetero privileged guy! Bleat, bleat, bleat, WHITE HETERO PRIVILEGED GUY!

That's the response.

That's their WHOLE REPLY. That's IT.

None of these self-appointed "social justice activists" [1] (aka SJWs) actually explain WHY or HOW Chait's piece radiates or replicates whiteness or maleness, as (for example) James Baldwin or Kate Millett did in their social criticism. That requires actually engaging with the text. To some of the SJWs, the words of certain genders or races are automatically inferior and do not even rate direct replies. (And what does THAT remind me of? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.) In a recent discussion, I deliberately centered old people in my responses [2] and asked what SJWs thought when a certain historic event occurred (I was fully aware most hadn't even been born yet) and they instantly became furious. Thus, we see, some groups are worthy of being "centered"--and some are clearly not. [3]

In other words, if I just mindlessly bleated "you're young! you're young!" to END a discussion, in this same fashion? I'd be laughed at. It doesn't work for everybody, only for those with properly-trendy identities. (PS: Many young Jews are learning that in social justice circles, they do not have a trendy identity, as Christians also do not.)

From Chait's piece:

After political correctness burst onto the academic scene in the late ’80s and early ’90s, it went into a long remission. Now it has returned. Some of its expressions have a familiar tint, like the protesting of even mildly controversial speakers on college campuses. You may remember when 6,000 people at the University of California–Berkeley signed a petition last year to stop a commencement address by Bill Maher, who has criticized Islam (along with nearly all the other major world religions). Or when protesters at Smith College demanded the cancellation of a commencement address by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, blaming the organization for “imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.” Also last year, Rutgers protesters scared away Condoleezza Rice; others at Brandeis blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s-rights champion who is also a staunch critic of Islam; and those at Haverford successfully protested ­former Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who was disqualified by an episode in which the school’s police used force against Occupy protesters.

At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach “trigger warnings” to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “microaggressions,” or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses. Stanford recently canceled a performance of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson after protests by Native American students. UCLA students staged a sit-in to protest microaggressions such as when a professor corrected a student’s decision to spell the word indigenous with an uppercase I — one example of many “perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies.” A theater group at Mount Holyoke College recently announced it would no longer put on The Vagina Monologues in part because the material excludes women without vaginas. These sorts of episodes now hardly even qualify as exceptional.

Trigger warnings aren’t much help in actually overcoming trauma — an analysis by the Institute of Medicine has found that the best approach is controlled exposure to it, and experts say avoidance can reinforce suffering. Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her students’ sensitivity toward even the mildest social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma — or, more consequentially, violating her school’s new sexual-harassment policy — merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration. “This is an environment of fear, believe it or not,” she told me by way of explaining her request for anonymity. It reminds her of the previous outbreak of political correctness — “Every other day I say to my friends, ‘How did we get back to 1991?’ ”

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity. A year ago, for instance, a photographer compiled images of Fordham students displaying signs recounting “an instance of racial microaggression they have faced.” The stories ranged from uncomfortable (“No, where are you really from?”) to relatively innocuous (“ ‘Can you read this?’ He showed me a Japanese character on his phone”). BuzzFeed published part of her project, and it has since received more than 2 million views. This is not an anomaly.

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

For sure, let's not forget the wages of sin: blogswarms, mass defriendings, social isolation, flaming, the spreading of inaccurate rumors, doxxing, streams of sicko emails, etc etc. This shit has real-life consequences. (I once got this treatment over ONE QUESTION--not even a statement!-- in a post.) It is disgusting, evil, bullying behavior, and there is NO DEFENSE from anyone who imagines themselves about social justice. Social justice is not about threatening to torture people, in case you didn't know.

Chait continues:

Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. [Hanna Rosin commented] “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

Political correctness is a term whose meaning has been gradually diluted since it became a flashpoint 25 years ago. People use the phrase to describe politeness (perhaps to excess), or evasion of hard truths, or (as a term of abuse by conservatives) liberalism in general. The confusion has made it more attractive to liberals, who share the goal of combating race and gender bias.

But political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves.

And this is a major reason why its wrong--this demand for perfection is never directed at the enemy. It is always directed at other leftists and allies.

In this way, it is counter-productive and makes the Right stronger. As Chait says,

Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing. This has led to elaborate norms and terminology within certain communities on the left. For instance, “mansplaining,” a concept popularized in 2008 by Rebecca Solnit, who described the tendency of men to patronizingly hold forth to women on subjects the woman knows better — in Solnit’s case, the man in question mansplained her own book to her. The fast popularization of the term speaks to how exasperating the phenomenon can be, and mansplaining has, at times, proved useful in identifying discrimination embedded in everyday rudeness. But it has now grown into an all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man. (MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry once disdainfully called White House press secretary Jay Carney’s defense of the relative pay of men and women in the administration “man­splaining,” even though the question he responded to was posed by a male.) Mansplaining has since given rise to “whitesplaining” and “straightsplaining.” The phrase “solidarity is for white women,” used in a popular hashtag, broadly signifies any criticism of white feminists by nonwhite ones.

If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response — to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous. A white person or a man can achieve the status of “ally,” however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue. A community, virtual or real, that adheres to the rules is deemed “safe.” The extensive terminology plays a crucial role, locking in shared ideological assumptions that make meaningful disagreement impossible.

Read the comments, boys and girls. There is NO argument about the accuracy of ANY of these outrageous stories of censorship.... just a torrent of self-satisfied white guys streaming forward to brag that they can "handle it" and aren't "threatened" the way Chait is. There is absolutely NO discussion about whether this mode of "take no prisoners" discourse is decent or self-destructive behavior for the Left to engage in, just that THEY are cool about it all. Chait's piece provided the perfect opportunity for a veritable TORRENT of strutting, unbridled narcissism from the "social justice activists" -- as they all congratulated each other for not being like him and not agreeing with him... or if they did agree with him, they tried to make it sound like they didn't.

I have been so upset by the invasion of the Left by these fascist wannabes, that I have lost considerable sleep over it. I have considered not bothering at all, leaving the net entirely to the bullies. Only my sheer stubbornness keeps me coming back.

And I know I am not the only one. Chait reports--

“It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” [Michelle] Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism] — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.”

And is that what we want the Left to be? The land of the Thought Police?

How on earth can we arrive at solutions if we are not allowed to discuss anything?

~*~

As one on liberal talk radio in the most conservative county in the USA, I can't use esoteric internet political in-group terminology and expect the local Baptists to understand me. Further, as an older person, I frequently use unfashionable or antiquated words. This crime alone, in the current hyped-up politically-correct climate, is enough to get a well-meaning but unsuspecting newcomer savaged [4], as I have witnessed numerous times. Once the social justice police have applied the Mark of Cain, it means anything the stigmatized say (or any political event we report on) is either attacked relentlessly or totally ignored. Remember the early internet, where people argued for days at a time? Where minds were actually CHANGED? (and mine was one, so I know) Well, that's all over now. Many once-lively, fun places are now just battlegrounds where no ideas or nuance can be seriously developed or mulled over [5]. For example, the once-exciting FEMINISTE blog is now mostly a place for trans women to police cis women for various ideological crimes; a blog that once might have hundreds of comments per thread, now routinely gets 3-10 per thread, if that. Reddit calls the political correctness situation "Metareddit Cancer" (since it has spread to the moderators). And as Chait reminds us, this phenomenon now extends to powerful news organizations; The New York Times and CNN both censored the Charlie Hebdo cover with the drawing of Mohammed, showing themselves to be craven cowards, and giving the terrorists exactly the censorship they demanded. (No negotiation with terrorists, huh? Major news organizations excepted!)

I have become so upset with the Left in this regard, I could barely summon up the strength to blog... I've simply entered my snarky comebacks on Tumblr, enjoyed the cute animals photos (the main reason Tumblr exists) and grumbled. It is Chait and his guts that made me decide to speak up here, now that the smoke has cleared.

He's right. The Left is becoming a cartoon of itself.

And another thing... a message I got from a sister Tumblrite, after another of the fabled arguments in which I was told how dumb I am, how wrong, how bad, please go away. Remember how I once said Women's Movement pioneers are mostly shit on, while Civil Rights pioneers are lauded and praised as precious? (And I wonder what that's like?)

I really don't understand so much about this epidemic of self-righteousness and narcissism (which is what I think characterizes so much of the most extreme PC babbling), and began chatting with another feminist who had some amazing insights (and shall hereby remain anonymous).

She certainly inspired some deep thinking here at DEAD AIR:

The social justice sector may skew younger, because the ethos of instant moral certitude and endless identity-gazing would appeal to adolescents, the profusion of stupid neologisms less offensive to eyes and ears that haven’t known much discourse. It helps my sanity to bear in mind that a lot of these people are 9th and 10th graders who’ve never had a moment of real-world political activity (or offline interaction with the identity communities they claim to represent, for that matter) in their lives. What’s more, many of them probably never will. Because it is a subjective enterprise conducted primarily by those who are privileged to endlessly indulge their subjectivity.

For many reasons, “social justice” cannot be equated with what we would have once called the radical left. I’ve been thinking about your comments on sabotage and agents provocateurs. Sadly, I think very few of them are being paid or otherwise extrinsically motivated. I think most of it is organic and sincere, which is worse.

For the past week or so I’ve been coming across posts warning white people away from police brutality protests because “it’s not about you,” accompanied by extensive instructions for all the self-examination white people should do it rather than join the movement. What a brilliant trick that would be from a deliberate saboteur! But horribly enough it’s absolutely sincere - SJWs who don’t understand that it’s not “about” any of the protestors; who honestly mistake mass protest for an arena for the elaboration and display of identities. Which again, suggests less than robust experience with actual protests.

The emphasis on subjectivity and invisible ideological purity is, I’m sure you realize, the reason they attack people who are “on the same side” - if your subjectivity isn’t PERFECT, you aren’t actually on the same side. They are for the most part just too dumb (or less uncharitably, too naive) to comprehend the opportunity that the endless goalpost-moving and ratcheting up of standards creates for those who are up to no good.

And here is where I remind everyone that there are still wars going on. Obama is seeking further war authorization as we speak. Here is your golden opportunity to GET OFF YOUR DERRIERE and start a real live anti-war movement, instead of a pretend-movement on Tumblr.

Let me know when you are ready for real politics. As long as this extended silliness continues, I will treat it as the mindless din that it is.

I have serious work to do.


~*~



[1] I put quotes around the term since this is what they call themselves, even though as I have pointed out before, the vast majority have actually done NO activism at all. (Asking for a resume is a good way to shut them up and call out the hypocrisy.) "SJW" is nothing more than a label and requires no one do anything risky in real life, otherwise we wouldn't have 2-3 wars going on at once, apparently without missing a beat or noticing this imperialism enough to even remark about it on their extra-special SJW sites... let alone actually attempt to, you know, STOP THE WARS.

[2] Social justice activists habitually claim they are "centering" this or that oppressed group and therefore do not have to argue with any political criticism on the opposite side of the divide. So, I decided to use this tactic myself as an old person, and re-center baby-boomer experience.

And I guess you know how well THAT went over.

[3] I was told that I am too old to be on Tumblr, and that it is automatically "suspect" (!) when any older person is there. Also: "ageism is not a thing"--yes, I swear, these two statements came from the SAME PERSON. But in short, treating old people like shit is still fine, same as it ever was. Somehow, age has not entered that sacrosanct category of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and all the other social justice status-labels.

[4] It has been deemed "racist" to use the word "savage"--even as a verb. I tell them: stop doing it, I'll stop using the word. What other words do you prefer? Barbarism? Bullying?

I am committed to bringing back the word McCARTHYISM.

[5] When I asked some critical questions of anti-sex-work feminists, it was assumed (with a nasty, snarky vibe) that I must think sex work is fabulous and great. Um, no, I don't, I just think sex workers need basic protections from arrests and harassment. It was then decided that I must believe women are "empowered" by sex work (language I don't even use!) ... In short, SJWs assume everyone is sharply PRO or CON (meaning: their very limited version of PRO and CON positions, usually a rehash of what they've seen on CNN or something)...they never see political positions as evolving, undecided, nuanced, changing, learning... which is where the vast majority of people live out their political realities on a day-to-day basis.

The SJWs live on Planet Certainty, and most people don't. Further, most people aren't sure they want to live there.

And on that note, let me clarify: JUST BECAUSE I AGREE WITH JONATHAN CHAIT ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, does not mean I agree with everything he says about everything. It seems obvious and ridiculous to have to say such a thing, but in the climate we are describing, it is required. If you like a blog post, its obvious you must love the author and love everything they say (see above)-- so you are accountable for something they wrote in 2006 too.

Odds and Sods - Night of the Hunter edition

I love how Halloween has taken over October. For one thing, it's lots of fun. For another, it stops the capitalists from foisting Christmas on us too soon. Without Halloween, Macy's would be decorating Christmas trees in September.

And the best thing: OLD HORROR MOVIES.

If you have never seen Robert Mitchum's deranged preacher (movie still at left) in Night of the Hunter, your big chance is tonight at 8pm on Turner Classic Movies:

The Night of the Hunter (1955) is a truly compelling, haunting, and frightening classic masterpiece thriller-fantasy, and the only film ever directed by the great British actor Charles Laughton. The American gothic, Biblical tale of greed, innocence, seduction, sin and corruption was adapted for the screen by famed writer-author James Agee (and Laughton, but without screen credit). Although one of the greatest American films of all time, the imaginatively-chilling, experimental, sophisticated work was idiosyncratic, film noirish, avante garde, dream-like expressionistic and strange, and it was both ignored and misunderstood at the time of its release. Originally, it was a critical and commercial failure.

Robert Mitchum gave what some consider his finest performance in a precedent-setting, unpopular, and truly terrifying role as the sleepy-eyed, diabolical, dark-souled, self-appointed serial killer/Preacher with psychotic, murderous tendencies while in pursuit of $10,000 in cash. Lillian Gish played his opposite - a saintly good woman who provided refuge for the victimized children.

The disturbing, complex story was based on the popular, best-selling 1953 Depression-era novel of the same name by first-time writer Davis Grubb, who set the location of his novel in the town of Moundsville, WV, where the West Virginia Penitentiary (also mentioned in the film) was located. Grubb lived in nearby Clarksburg as a young teenager.

Once you start watching, you won't stop. The movie literally sparkles in some places, the black-and-white cinematography gleaming and beautiful. And Mitchum is utterly incredible. His serial-killer/preacher was famously tattooed with the words "Love" on one hand and "Hate" on the other, which has since become part of pop-culture legend--later resurrected on Robert DeNiro's hands in Martin Scorsese's remake of Cape Fear:

Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing (1989) referenced the love/hate, left and right hand theme, when Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) explained the love/hate dichotomy. In The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), LOVE and HATE were tattooed on Eddie's (Meat Loaf) knuckles, and in The Blues Brothers (1980), the two brothers (John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd) have their names tattooed on their knuckles. In The Simpsons episode "Cape Feare", the menacing Sideshow Bob (voice of Kelsey Grammer) had similar tattoos on each set of knuckles as well - but since the characters in the cartoon show had only three fingers and a thumb, the tattoos were humorously "LUV" and "HAT" - (with a bar over the A).

The hands war with each other, love vs hate, and which will triumph?

Don't miss the movie, if you've never seen it.

~*~

Over at Twisty's blog, I blame the Patriarchy, there was a discussion of Meghan McCain's boobs. OOooops... I mean, McCain's Twitter photo. And for a bunch of feminists, it got kinda rough in there, as "advanced patriarchy blamers" (a group I am not sure I can claim I even belong to, as a bad Catholic) sounded just like my dear, deceased Aunt Mae:

Looks to me like the requisite lips out, head tilted downward but eyes up’ boob showin’ crap teenage girls post on myspace all day long. A joke, perhaps? Or just business as usual. How old is she anyway?

... which promptly set off a fascinating conversation. Go read! Warning: the thread is now up to 170 replies.

And then, Twisty outdid herself in her subsequent post on the conversation:

[Certain feminists commenting in the aforementioned thread] seem to be placing a pretty high premium on McCain’s intent. And they seem pretty comfortable in asserting an infallible familiarity with McCain’s innermost nature, for they have somehow divined this intent precisely. Maybe they have access to 8th-dimension vortex-portals through which they may mind-meld with Internet personalities. They assert, peering through their vortex-portals into the mind of Meghan McCain, not just that her intent was to titillate, but — and here is the critical jump — that this odious species of intent (slutism!) releases them from their oath of feminist solidarity.

You know how when a rapist is prosecuted, and the slutty intent of the victim is so acutely divined by the defense (’she didn’t fight back hard enough; she must have wanted it,’ etc) it may be used as a psychbomb to dehumanize her to the jury? It’s like that.

Or take women who post self-portraits on the Internet. Say we get our hands on one of those vortex-portals, so we know without a doubt that their intent is to titillate. Does it logically follow that they then desire a torrent of sex-based hate speech? Meanwhile, do even the feminists buy the whole women-are-masochists myth and just sit idly by while misogynists rip the titillators to shreds?

Anyway, intent, schmintent. I would urge the reader to recall how little intent has to do with anything. Particularly with the experience of the end user. The result is all that matters. Your boyfriend — if you haven’t taken my advice and dumped him yet — possibly loves you, but when he farts in bed and flaps the covers, who gives a flip about his intent? Do you not gag and think him a Philistine?

Which, before all you fart-flappers get lathered up, is my little metaphor for the metaphorical odor that metaphorically drifts, unbidden, from the condition of male privilege into the metaphorical nostrils of the oppressed.

That last paragraph may be the best thing I ever read.

Check it out.. the follow-up thread is up to 77 posts already.

~*~

More on what we in South Carolina are calling "Jim Demint and the Jews" from David Paul Kuhn writing in Real Clear Politics:

The Op/Ed was published Sunday in the South Carolinian newspaper The Times and Democrat. Chairmen Edwin Merwin, of Bamberg County, and James Ulmer, of Orangeburg County, wrote:

There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves. By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation's pennies and trying to preserve our country's wealth and our economy's viability to give all an opportunity to succeed.

This is only one small story from one small town newspaper. But it is likely to make some national news.

That news will not be well received by the national Republican Party. The GOP has long attempted, albeit with little success, to make inroads into the Jewish vote. Of course, this incident will not help. And it may not be big enough to hurt that much. But the news comes in the context of the GOP's macro push to portray itself as a more inclusive party of late. And every anecdote exemplifying otherwise undermines that push.

That the offensive language was penned in an Op/Ed, rather than made in an offhand remark, makes it all the more politically foolish (and almost too stupid to believe).

Not if you live around here, it sure isn't.

~*~

And finally, the coveted Dead Air literary award goes to my favorite mom-blogger, Sheila, for her very gifted, postprandial haiku.

This was inspired by her first trip to Sonic:

anticipation
cold crappy food wrong order
tarnished cravings

DeMint like 'a Jew watching our nation’s pennies’

About two weeks ago, I brawled over at Alas, A blog over the issue of antisemitism. Do I see it everywhere I look? Am I over-reaching?

Well, gee, wonder where I could have acquired a habit like that.

The following is from JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)--some of you may have heard it on Rachel Maddow's show or read it on HuffPo.

Yes, this involves my senator!

SC GOPers: DeMint like a Jew watching our nation’s pennies’
October 19, 2009

Two South Carolina Republican officials defended Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) by likening him to Jews who "take care of the pennies."

Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County GOP Chairman James Ulmer wrote the Orangeburg Times and Democrat to defend DeMint after a Democratic politician said he didn't help direct enough funds to local projects.

"There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves," the chairmen write. "By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation’s pennies and trying to preserve our country’s wealth and our economy’s viability to give all an opportunity to succeed."

The Palmetto Scoop, a conservative website in the state, said such comments underscored the Republican Party's difficulties.

"It's people like Ulmer and Merwin that make many folks fear for the future of the once Grand Ole Party," it said.

Ya think?

PS: And it's people like this that make some of the rest of us in South Carolina a bit hyper-vigilant.

What You See Might Not Be Real, indeed

A work of art, which I will not reproduce here, depicts Bernie Madoff with horns. (The sculpture by Chen Wenling is titled "What You See Might Not Be Real," and is on display in Beijing.)

On Alas, the blog that posted this image, I objected. Depicting "Jews with horns" is gross, antisemitic and disgusting. I gave some famous examples. (Moses with horns, Trotsky as the devil.)

Well, I got taken down a notch. Shut up, ignorant white trash!

Although I belong to the same Big Church that Michelangelo did (and have consequently had Pieta prayer cards foisted on me at more funeral masses than should be allowable), I was nonetheless patronized by someone of another faith who thinks I don't know (you silly redneck!), Michelangelo didn't mean it like that. (Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't--have you spoken with him directly?)

Granting the point that Michelangelo probably did not mean that Moses had devil-horns, I clarified that I was speaking of the way his work was subsequently USED, not how his work was INTENDED.

And finally, I am lectured that the Jews-with-horns/Jews-as-devils trope is "relatively obscure" (!!!) so knock that silly shit off.

From the link above:

"Holy shrines were erected to honor innocent Christian victims [of satanic rituals said to be conducted by Jews], and well into the twentieth century, churches throughout Europe displayed knives and other instruments that Jews purportedly used for these rituals. Caricatures of hunchbacked Jews with horns and fangs were depicted in works of art and carved into stone decorating bridges. Proclaimed by parish priests to be the gospel truth, each recurrence of the blood libel charge added to its credence, thus prompting yet more accusations. This vicious cycle continued to spiral."

Italics mine.

Not obscure. APPROVED BY THE CHURCH.

Now, if yall want to praise sculptures of Jews with horns (progressive, anti-capitalist sculptures, of course!), well, who am I to argue with that? Obviously, nobody. What do I know?

Yes, I know my place. Never mind! (This is my usual experience at the blog in question, which is why I rarely post there now.)

First, I offered the Trotsky example too (no horns, just devil). Second, this isn't "relatively obscure" at all (see above paragraph) and the horns reference even made it into the Oscar-winning (that is to say, not obscure) movie NORMA RAE. Then again, she was white trash too, wasn't she?...so never mind!

Further, if a religious believer dared write about our "Spidey senses tingling" --in judging whether something is offensive, they'd EAT US ALIVE. (The educated atheists and agnostics can be as irrational as they wanna be and it's okay. But us uneducated, dumb hillbillies better back everything we say up with copious links and footnotes, or we are stupid.)

Duly noted! Another day, another lesson in Elite Blogdonia Etiquette.

...

Just wondering: why does everyone at that blog talk down to me like they do? If I changed my commenting name to "OxfordGrad"--would they instead thank me for my quick eye and sensitivity, and gush all over me like they do those other people?

What other name should I choose for my next visit to ALAS? VassarGal, OrangeCountyTennisChamp, YachtMan (oh wait, they already have the popular "Sailorman"--one of the Head Patronizers), HarvardRadical, YaleGrrl, something catchy like that?

With one of those dynamite handles, I'll bet they'd even ask me to come back! That's certainly never happened before! ;)

Odds and Sods: 2nd Bloggiversary edition

Buddha statue at DIVINE CONNECTION, Black Mountain, NC.

~*~

I totally forgot about my own Bloggiversary--Dead Air is now officially two years old! Here is what I wrote last year, which really hasn't changed too much.

I am still amazed an old broad like me is doing this, and actually keeping it up. Two years? You gotta be kidding! :P


~*~

Required reading for your Thursday--

Kikipotamus the Hobo writes about her Buddhist retreat:

Every thing in the universe is transient. Each of us rises, stands for a while, then passes away. Ajahn Chuen rose, stood in this life for a time, then passed away. The same with thoughts. When you are meditating, a thought will come. Maybe a thought from the past, a memory. Maybe a good memory or a bad memory. Know that you are thinking. Thinking, thinking, thinking. Then back to the breath. Let the thought go. Some thought might come about the future. Know that you are thinking. Thinking, thinking, thinking. And let the thought go. Everything in life is like this. You let it arise, stand, and pass away.

Politico tattles on Senators' pricey airfare, paid for by guess who?:

Sens. John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer each spent more than $140,000 in taxpayer money on travel in the first half of the fiscal year — roughly 10 times as much as some of their thriftier colleagues.

Cornyn, a Republican, racked up the highest travel bill in the Senate by spending more than $38,000 on a St. Michaels, Md., retreat for 59 staffers and by taking expensive, multicity charter flights throughout his home state of Texas.

Schumer, a Democrat, ran up the second-highest bill by routinely flying private charters to cities in New York served by commercial airlines.

[...]

Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said his boss’s Texas-size airfare tab stems from the size of Texas itself.

“It has to do with travel around Texas ... the realistic ability to use commercial flights to get him where he needs to be, when he needs to be there,” said McLaughlin. “I’ve driven from Austin to El Paso, which is easily an eight-hour drive. It’s unbelievable how far it is.”

But other big-state senators manage to get around much more cheaply. Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison spent about $88,000 on travel in the first half of the fiscal year; Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski spent about $65,000 on transportation — less than half of what Cornyn spent.

I am happy to report that Dead Air's highest number of hits this year on any one image is my Aum/Om tattoo, which I assume means other people are copying it. I am flattered and very pleased! The color has held up remarkably well.

My advice to anyone getting tattoos is: choose very vivid, bright colors, because the sun washes them out and they fade over time. (They won't always be technicolor!) Mine have faded but remain bright; this is also because I am neon-white and unable to tan, so I guess there is a bright side to pallor, haha.

I love the black-and-white photographs of kitties featured today at Magic Lantern Show, especially the kitties asleep on cars!

I briefly considered introducing Wordle as a fancy new feature here at Dead Air for my Bloggiversary, but I like my tried-and-true tag cloud better. Still, Wordle is cool, so you might want one of your own!

I watched the breaking news-coverage of the Holocaust Museum shooting whilst sitting in the doctor's office yesterday, if you can believe it. (The entire waiting room was stunned.)

Media Matters reports that Fox News is still divided on whether the shooting validates the recent Department of Homeland Security report about an increase in rightwing extremism:

Fox News commentators disagreed about whether the shooting validates a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report alerting law enforcement to an increased threat from "rightwing extremists," including "white supremacists." Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters rejected the notion "this tragic incident at the Holocaust museum somehow validates the disgraceful report from the Department of Homeland Security," saying: "It had nothing to do with the Department of Homeland Security report. What it did have to do with is this: We're seeing a very dangerous convergence between the extreme haters on the right and the extreme haters on the left -- those on the extreme right who have always been anti-Semites, and now the anti-Zionism sentiment on the left." Additionally, after referring to the DHS report, Fox News host Glenn Beck said: "This is not the work of right-wing conservatives. This is the work of somebody today who is racist, crazy, or most likely both. Common sense tells you there are very hateful people on the right and the left."

By contrast, after reading a message from a viewer saying, "Shame on you and [Fox News correspondent] Catherine Herridge for perpetrating the obscene Department of Homeland Security report on military extremists," anchor Shepard Smith stated: "[T]his is a former military guy and he's gone extremist. They were warning us for a reason -- not about something political or social or anything else -- except they see signs that this sort of thing is bubbling up. They saw the signs, and now it has begun." Smith later said of the DHS report: "It was a warning to us all. And it appears now that they were right." Later that evening, Herridge said of the DHS report: "[Y]ou have to see those reports or assessments in a somewhat different light. I know from having interviewed every person who's been the secretary of Homeland Security since 2001 and also the FBI director that it's this type of lone wolf attack, which frightens the most, because of course it's a conspiracy of just one."

And speaking of rightwing extremism, Renee reports that a preacher prayed for Obama's death on Fox News.

No wonder they don't notice it, they ARE it.

And even more extremism: What do you think of publishing private information (on a blog) about scientists doing research on animals? (A little too similar to publishing the name of Dr Tiller's church?)

The brawl continues at Feministe, as the person publishing the information defends her rights to do so. The thread is aptly titled Dear animal rights activists, please stop taking your cues from the anti-choice movement. (170 comments as of this writing!)

I recently complained that women delete their blogs, but men don't. (This piece was linked in several places, so I am not the only one who noticed!) And Kim musta heard me, because she's BAAACK! I am so happy to see one of our best bloggers has returned to Blogdonia.

Kimsies, how about you stay here this time, pleeeeease?

PS: The Bitten Apple, a Christian feminist blog I particularly enjoyed, is also gone now. (((frownie))) (While the guy-bloggers just keep nattering on!)

For this reason (sheer stubbornness), I will stick around a bit longer. Certainly it ain't due to my astounding popularity as of late.

And simple addiction of course. I love yall!

*Here's hoping I can manage a whole nother year.*

In this life, one thing counts, in the bank, large amounts...

Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel in GONE WITH THE WIND, for which McDaniel won an Oscar, the first for an African-American.


Discussion question:

What do we do about works of art that engage in harmful stereotyping, but we don't want to get rid of the art?

I have included one example below, for no other reason than it was the example that started me thinking--and because it's on Turner Classic Movies today. Whether you think this musical necessarily constitutes great art, is not where I want to go with this. I chose this for the example of stereotyping, in this case, pretty blatant antisemitism. What is pertinent is that this movie got the Oscar for Best Picture (1968) and is a staple of mass-culture; the musical OLIVER! is also performed by high-schools and small-town theater groups throughout the land.

It is also notable that the movie was based on the novel OLIVER TWIST by Charles Dickens, still widely read and circulated. Also notable is that the (Jewish) actor who plays Fagin (Ron Moody) was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor, and won a Golden Globe award. (For all of the talk of Jews running Hollywood, can anyone explain that?)

In this discussion, we could also add such mass-culture staples as (of course) GONE WITH THE WIND and John Ford's numerous John Wayne-kicks-Indian-butt movies. I love THE SEARCHERS, but I have very mixed feelings about loving it. (I am smart enough to know that if I were Native American, I would NOT love it.)

What about old movies/plays that display severe sexism? I am terribly partial to (example) the old Doris Day movie THE THRILL OF IT ALL. Doris really shows herself to be a first-class comedienne, and brings down the house. But by the end, would-be career-mom is dutifully chastened, quits her job and goes back to being James Garner's obedient wifey, and my blood just boils. But until this happens? The movie is funny and very good.

(sigh)

And so, what's a mother to do? And indeed, as a movie-addict, I always wanted to show my daughter these movies, but felt like I had to conduct a freaking political seminar every time.

Okay, at the risk of offending, here are the OLIVER! clips... And to make it worse, I just love this, too. (There, I admitted it.)

But I have guilt for loving it. Does that count?

WARNING: DO NOT WATCH IF YOU WILL BE OFFENDED. FAGIN IS AN ANTISEMITIC STEREOTYPE. Even the music (by Lionel Bart, also Jewish) is designed to "sound Jewish"--as Fagin's hat is also an obvious reference to his station in life. In the novel, Dickens actually referred to Fagin as "a merry Jew"--but the movie never does, using these cultural symbols instead. (And as always, there is Fagin's obsession with money.)



Check out Ron Moody's fabulous singing and dancing in this one. (Watch how the boys salute the flag as they leave; I just love that.) Moody made no apologies for playing the role.



What is your guilty pleasure? Yes, we all have them. Don't fib to me! :P

What can we do about this situation? Any ideas? Just continue the endless political seminars?

Okay, consider this post as one.

More on Israel, Gaza, antisemitism and Armageddon

Although I have written before about having a "black" first name, I have never before written about having a Jewish last name, as I did for over 6 years.

I loved the combination, which made everybody just stare at me... and this was before Whoopi Goldberg became famous, using a similar fun name.

As I have written here, my father and I never got along, and I was therefore happy for the opportunity to dump his name. At age 19, I married a Jewish man, and decided it was my golden opportunity. I changed it as fast as I could. I didn't think twice. Good riddance, I thought, and I have never regretted it. [1]

I liked the double takes I got, from my African-American-associated first name, coupled with the Jewish last name. People would just *blink*--and it was fun and exotic to me.

At first, anyway.

I won't give the name here, but I will say the kind of name it is: Steinberg, Seinfeld, Silverman, Goldstein, Rosenthal. There isn't any question what kind of name it is. [2]

I like to think I catch on quick; it took me no time at all to figure out that there was significant negative fallout from having a Jewish surname. And I was totally unprepared for it. After all, I didn't grow up with the name. Who knew?

In school; on the job; in the Philadelphia airport or the Pittsburgh Greyhound depot; in a doctor or dentist's office; in an argument with some activists in D.C.... and countless other instances I have undoubtedly forgotten. The name would get exaggerated for effect: STEIN-BERG, dragged-out, an unexpected emphasis on the syllables, a certain weird facial expression... showing unmistakable surprise, quickly followed with barely-disguised contempt. A narrowing of the eyes, an unexpected glare or coldness from one who had been friendly only seconds before hearing the surname. In one instance, a superior who engaged in an ongoing, deliberate mispronouncing of the name in endless variations, virtually daring me to correct him.

I learned.

Therefore, let me assure you, I would never argue, in a million years, that antisemitism isn't real or is not a force to be reckoned with. In fact, over the years, I have repeatedly had to argue with skeptical, enlightened-liberal gentiles that YES, IT IS.

And so, in the giant monster thread over at Feministe (the first of a several-part series), I was more than willing to listen to David Schraub's analysis of how Israel's attack on Gaza, of which I have been very critical, must include an analysis of antisemitism.

Unfortunately, I don't think he made the case very well. Which isn't to say he isn't right.[3]

~*~

I moved south in 1987, where there are far fewer Jews than there are in the north, apart from certain long-standing enclaves in the cities (Charleston, Savannah, Atlanta)[4] and retirement areas (Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head). As in the movie Norma Rae (wherein Sally Field suddenly blurts out "You a Jew?"), there can be a free-floating hostility to Jews for reasons nobody can really explain. (In Norma Rae, she adds "I never met a Jew before! I thought yall had HORNS!") Since there has been so little previous interaction, the antisemitism is mixed with general xenophobia. Jews are regarded as weird strangers with strange ideas, and usually liberals.

But not always.

In moving to Greenville, South Carolina, I learned I was moving to a smallish southern town that had elected a Jewish mayor back in the 70s. (Max Heller)

You say what?! I was stunned; certainly, there are plenty of northern towns and cities that can't make that claim. At my first area gig, I learned that wasn't odd at all... local Baptists often regard Jews as special and 'chosen'...after all, they are Jesus Christ's own relatives. And from then on, I discovered a whole fundamentalist Christian cult around Jews and Jewishness, that I had not known existed.

This cultish devotion permeates modern Protestant evangelical theology today. It is most obvious in the whole LEFT BEHIND [5] cult, but is also apparent in the feverish obsession with eschatology in general.

And let me be very clear: this theology prizes the state of Israel, almost as much as it does the USA.

Israel is the crucial cornerstone of this theology. Without Israel, Christian end-times prophecies simply can not happen. Making sure these events DO happen, is regarded as one of the charges to fundamentalist and evangelical Christians; something they have literally conflated with The Great Commission.

Conservative writer Rod Dreher, back in 2002:

It may sound strange, but it's true: Aside from Jews, the strongest American supporters of Israel are Evangelical Christians, many of whom fervently believe God has granted the Jewish people a divine right to rule over historic Palestine. At times like the present, when the Jewish state is largely friendless in a hostile world, the Israelis depends on the backing of this politically potent bloc of American voters to exhort Washington to look favorably upon its interests.

"I think it would be fair to say that Evangelical support for Israel and its legitimate security interests has been paramount to Israel's support in Congress and in many administrations, second only to the Jewish Committee itself," says Republican political consultant Ralph Reed. "The Jewish community has played a strong role in keeping the Democratic party strongly pro-Israel, and Evangelicals have played a similar role among Republicans."

In 1998, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then prime minister of Israel, was not falsely flattering an Evangelical audience in Washington when he said to them: "We have no greater friends and allies than the people sitting in this room." Indeed, as Columbia University religion scholar Randall Balmer puts it: "Evangelicals have been very charitable, to say the least, toward Israel, because they believe the Jews are the Chosen People of God, even though they failed to recognize Jesus as Messiah. They believe that God's promises to Israel are still good, and that any nation that doesn't line up with Israel is against God."

In this climate, to hold the opinion that Israel is out of line to attack Gaza, is to attack Christianity itself. (As one who took that position a couple of weeks ago, my subsequent emails are a testament to that very strong conviction.)

Thus, when I criticize Israel, I criticize the wedding of Christian theology to government... the unholy union of Church and State, which I think is unfailingly catastrophic for both Church and State, as history has repeatedly shown us.

I am very, very disappointed in David Schraub and other liberal apologists for Israel, who look the other way when this is pointed out to them.

My comments directed to Schraub (blogger at The Debate Link) during the Feministe brawl, echo my exasperation that the conversation remains focused on Israelis vs. Palestinians, overlooking that sticky issue of WHERE THE MONEY TO MAKE WAR COMES FROM in the first place. I was pretty much ignored by people (including Schraub) who don't want to look at that... and having just had a long and convoluted conversation with a fundamentalist Christian who wears a Star of David (really), I am then astounded to go to a thread wherein people say things like "Jews are hated by most"... say what?!?

The juxtaposition of these world-views (my daily-existence here in hyper-Baptist upstate SC/the version of reality reflected in the thread) makes me dizzy. Erasure does that to people. I finally get it: This is New York, the East coast, the West coast, people with highfalutin educations talking. They have no idea what's going on out here. Clueless as hell. They don't even know the lyrics to "Our God is an awesome God"--I should not be surprised. These were the people who were slack-jawed at Sarah Palin's rise; these are the people who argue about Gaza at elite cocktail parties, not with people of faith.

But you know, when you count the votes, they start to add up. There are a lot of us that don't live on the coasts. There are a lot of us who don't even go to fundamentalist churches, yet can give you the 1-2-3 of apocalyptic events, right after the Rapture. It's just osmosis. Of course we know. We know what the Book of Revelation says, what the antichrist is supposed to do, what the Tribulation will involve. This is second-nature if you live in certain corners of the south; how do you avoid hearing about it? I am Catholic, and I was officially told that the End of Days would be, you know (dismissive wave of the hand) a long time from now. I have never heard a single Catholic sermon on the End Times, unless it's to warn you to stop obsessing about it. (My priest, whom I have criticized here before, actually told people in our parish to stop reading the dopey Left Behind books, unless they properly understood it was all fiction.) Everything I know about the Rapture, was communicated to me via Bible tracts, personal conversation, radio, TV, emails, and numerous intense sermons delivered face-to-face.

And as I attempted to tell the intrepid David Schraub: These people are all 100% pro-Israel. Schraub talks about "gentile privilege"--and then refuses to see that the backing of Israel by these Christians, is part and parcel of that privilege.

On the tumultuous thread in question, I wrote:

And I believe an understanding of fundamentalist Christian prophecy, (The Book of Revelation, Armageddon, The Rapture and Tribulation, the antichrist, false prophets, et. al.) is necessary to understand exactly why many Christians will gladly pay any amount of money necessary to do what they believe is crucial to Israel’s survival, which of course means mowing down the heathens and infidels that surround it. No questions asked… I mean, that IS part of the prophecy…you know that, right?

I’m amazed at how many people don’t.

The Southern Baptist Convention (to name only the largest denomination that subscribes to these prophecies) has over 16 million members and more than 42,000 churches. And this isn’t counting the Sarah Palin Pentecostals and countless other fellow-traveler denominations. Now, imagine all those votes, from very politically active people, deciding where the money goes.

Do you see now?

And then David replied:

Daisy: I’ll be talking somewhat about the role Christians have been playing in constructing the norms of philo-Zionist discourse in America a little bit in parts III and IV (short answer, I think what they’re doing is horrific), but the better discussion would be found in my post Can Zionism Be Defended by Proxies?

And if you go to that linked post, you basically get David saying, Wow, we wish the wacko Christians wouldn't use us like that...

You sure?

Rod Dreher again:

...tens of millions of Protestant Christians (though not all Evangelicals) [believe in the Rapture], and they tend to back Israel with an uncritical fervor that exceeds that of even some American Jews. The Israeli government tapped this deep, unlikely vein of support in the 1970s, and has assiduously courted these Christians for a generation — especially because many self-described "Christian Zionists" back Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as part of God's prophetic plan. One of the leading Christian Zionist organizations is the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, a nondenominational Protestant group (without diplomatic standing) which established a presence in the Israeli capital in 1980.

"We're trying daily to encourage the Israeli people," says Susan Michael, director of ICEJ's Washington office. "The Israelis are very depressed. We want to let them know that they have friends who understand the battle they're in."

Esther Levens is a Jew and a Kansas Republican who founded an ecumenical group called National Unity Coalition for Israel, a network of over 200 Jewish and Christian congregations who pray for, donate to and lobby on behalf of the Jewish state. She chides American Jews for being "a little short-sighted" in not properly valuing the efforts Christian conservatives make for Israel.

What is David Schraub saying to Esther Levens and her friends? Anything?

I replied, in part:

David–no offense, but I found a lot lacking in that post you linked to. I’ll be writing more about this myself, because I think it’s a major paradox that needs illuminating when we discuss these issues.

If you want to discuss “gentile privilege”–then understanding that the present agenda has little to do with you, and everything to do with the gentiles, is a necessary first step. You don’t seem ready to do that, since this discomfiting reality disturbs you. Of course, the gentiles will use Israel as the gentiles see fit. That’s what privilege is.

FACT: Zionists are actively collaborating with hard-line fundamentalist Christians, who seek to bring about the conditions necessary for the Second Coming. Period. You don’t get to tell them to back off. They have the privilege, remember? They are calling the shots; you have helped to create a monster. What are you going to do about that, besides pointing at Rick Warren and Mike Huckabee and going “Ew!” –? (PS: They don’t care what you think, they have a prophecy to fulfill.)

You have reminded me of the joke about the southern Baptist preacher who was asked if he believed in infant Baptism.

“Are you kidding?” he said, “I’ve SEEN it done!”

…

“Can Zionism be defended by Proxies?”

“Are you kidding? I’ve SEEN it done!”

Of course, this whole discussion is far from over, and Part II up already, titled Anti-Semitism and Subordination Part II: The Myth of Jewish Hyper-Power...in which Schraub writes:

Folks talk about the way the Christian Evangelical community defends Israel. But as far as I’m concerned, their defenses are anti-Semitic too – the glee they hold at the prospect of Israel being the front-line of the “clash of civilizations” is taking pleasure in Jews dying for their cause.

No, their defenses are not textbook antisemitism... again, Schraub doesn't live here, and has obviously never spoken to these people he thinks he knows.

It is IDEALIZATION of Jews that marks the Evangelical approach, the idea that they are the Chosen People and can therefore do no wrong. [6]

The dominance of the Christian narratives amongst the defenses of Israel considered acceptable in the global sphere isn’t proof of Jewish power, but Jewish irrelevancy. Our voice gets superseded by Christian speakers who claim to be speaking on our behalf, but in fact are articulating a vision of “pro-Israel” that is very hostile to Jewish interests (this is one of the reasons I find groups like AIPAC allying with such speakers to be utterly unforgivable).

How is supporting Israel hostile to Jewish interests? In my humble opinion, that appears to be THE major Jewish interest right now, as evidenced by Schraub's whole series.

~*~


By coincidence, I wrote some of this when I was exhausted from cleaning up a huge mess of Acai berry juice, cheerfully flung across the floor of the store where I toil... by a 3-year-old ball of energy, a human pinball he was, bouncing off the walls and into the produce bins.

"Zion!" his mama kept calling, sternly, "Zion!"

Zion's beleaguered mama was wearing Quiverfull clothes and had five or six other energetic children to tend to.

In short, I very much doubt his name was a reference to THE MATRIX.




~*~



[1] I have been married three times, and I have had three last names. This, of course, echoes my mother, married four times, with four names. She always told me, if you want to be cool, you have the right to use all of them together, just as the Hollywood media has sometimes referred to my idol as Elizabeth Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton Warner Fortensky. Sometimes, I like to put them all together like that, just to see how it sounds. It makes me sound either like a floozy or worldly, can't decide which.

(Since Liz was married to Richard Burton twice, does that mean we should repeat "Burton" twice? Do any of you Miss Manners fans know the answer to that one?)

[2] Lots of jolly fun at THIS WEBSITE... where you can find out the ethnic derivation of names, and where in the world they are concentrated. My maiden name, for instance, is most concentrated in Waimate District, New Zealand and Leeds in the UK.

This website is as addicting as Hershey's Kisses and you will eventually end up entering every name you know.

[3] Other participants in the thread asked why we had to talk about antisemitism, specifically. What about the concurrent hatred of the people under attack? Are we discussing hatred of Palestinians also? I think this is an excellent point, never sufficiently addressed by Schraub. In any event, I am putting this question on the back-burner for now, to better address my subject. But I do want to acknowledge the importance of this point, and underscore it here.

[4] For those who don't know about the lynching of Jewish factory-owner Leo Frank in Atlanta in 1915, educate yourselves.

[5] The co-author of these billion-selling books, Tim LaHaye, is a famous alumni of Bob Jones University, frequent subject of this blog.

[6] I find this whole sentiment to be reminiscent of the ancient claims about the Merovingian monarchs, recently popularized by the novel, The Da Vinci Code. The concept was that the Merovingian kings of France were actual descendants from the bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. If this were true, of course, overthrowing them would have been 'blasphemous' and impossible. (This is likely one reason that the royal family never debunked the rumors, even as they regarded themselves as devout Catholics.)

The Evangelical concept that Jews are "Jesus' family" and (as I once heard a local preacher say) have "His actual blood running through their veins"--seems based on the mystical idea that Jews are holy simply by virtue of being related to God Himself. And if Israel is their ancestral home, then Israel is holy, too, and must be defended at all costs.

Ruminations on Obama's preacher

Left: The Hierophant, from the Rider-Waite tarot deck.


Ah, yes, religious authority. Incredible this is all happening during Holy Week--irony, anyone?

Today, Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of his preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. The preacher gets exercised and says things, as (God knows!) preachers are wont to do.

As pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he is the Christian servant responsible for bringing Senator Obama to the Christian faith. I doubt very much he could have succeeded at this goal by delivering boring and well-mannered sermons, but now I'm getting ahead of myself.

Last night, I attempted to make a list of outlandish things I have heard priests say. I have kissed the relics of (Maronite) St Rafka, as well as St Francis Xavier. I own a 3rd class relic supposedly touched to the tomb of St Philomena, who may or may not have existed. I have heard of saints levitating, eating vomit* and everything else. I heard one priest lambaste Jews at every available opportunity, usually honing in on various bad acts in the First Reading at Mass (always from the Old Testament) and then going on something of an antisemitic rant. I used to cringe if the First Reading had any "bad Jews" in the passage, usually those Jews partying while Moses is trying to tell them how to behave properly. Golden calves, disobedience, lack of faith! Oh no, I thought, here it comes. And he never missed a chance, in this regard.

And yes, there's more. I've heard priests trash-talk the sacrosanct USA, usually starting with the mortal sin of abortion (extremely few priests challenge birth control or divorce; hey, the collection plate might suffer, okay?) and moving on to the usual suspects, porn and gays. They often quote 2 Chronicles 7:14 (NIV), which states:

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Heal it? Is it sick? Is America sick?

And then there is that perennial favorite, which I am also quite partial to, from Deuteronomy, Chapter 30:

Here, then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom.

If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live and grow numerous, and the LORD, your God, will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.

If, however, you turn away your hearts and will not listen, but are led astray and adore and serve other gods,

I tell you now that you will certainly perish; you will not have a long life on the land which you are crossing the Jordan to enter and occupy.

I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.

This passage is used by the right and the left, with clockwork regularity. The right sees abortion and wild sex; the left sees war, poverty and genocide (as Rev. Wright also does). This is basic Christianity, people. And besides that, the traditional concept that people will pay for their sins is common to most major faiths.

Why are conservatives allowed to say this, but liberals are not? Is it the diagnosis that we are disagreeing about? Reverend Wright has frightened the horses, announcing from the pulpit "God damn America!"--actually using the term in it's proper context, not as profanity... he meant America's acts lead to damnation in the Christian sense. Why is this any worse than the fundamentalists who warn that unbelievers who are ruining the country will all be swept up in the Great Tribulation, and will not be Raptured with the Righteous?

The last person expected to carefully separate himself from his faith was Mitt Romney. "How Mormon is he, anyway?" seemed to be the operative question. Catholic politicians and presidential candidates are not expected to answer for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, known to make extremely controversial statements on both the right and the left. Why not?

If I am 50 years old, and I've heard these outlandish and possibly unpatriotic homilies, as hit-and-miss as I am in attending church--what do you suppose other politicians and presidential candidates have heard in their respective churches? I assume they have heard as much or more than I have. Does anyone care? No. They care if you are Mitt Romney. And they care if you are Barack Obama. Why?

I think we all know the answer to that, don't we?

All of us who have attempted to be devout and faithful at any point in our lives, have had arguments with spiritual advisers, preachers, priests, rabbis, etc. We do not necessarily agree with everything they say, and we ask ourselves (if we are thoughtful and intelligent, as the Senator certainly is)--how far can we go with this? What is demanded of us? Can we deliver? Can we be good Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus? What does it mean to be devout?

The same priest that might electrify us when speaking passionately of injustice, can drone on like an old boring puritan about abortion. The same preacher who inveighs against lack of charity and lack of volunteers for the soup kitchen, can suddenly turn petty and draw already-sullen teenagers aside and hiss disapprovingly at them, that they are dressed like gangstas... (PS: this is not helpful when they are already looking for an excuse to stay home!) Spiritual leaders are human beings, and they err. Does this truly shock anyone, that most people decide for themselves what they believe, their pastor being only one of many factors that influence them? Indeed, I think this is taken for granted among affluent white people. Well, of COURSE you choose. And yet, Barack Obama is expected to disassociate himself from the person who brought him to the faith??????

Why is he being put through the ringer, because he has a big-mouthed pastor, as many (most?) of us do?

Lotus offered the wise opinion that he couldn't see what the big deal is about, since most of what Rev. Wright said was true anyway. (Spoken like a true lefty!) Bonnie Erbe, holding forth on CNN this afternoon, announced that Obama's speech today had not properly distanced himself from Rev. Wright; the so-called Reagan democrats won't be convinced, she said. Convinced of what? Why is Obama expected to answer for his pastor, when probably every single presidential candidate has some pastor in the background, saying otherworldly, disturbing things?

I think we all know the answer to that, don't we?

When asked why I don't leave the Catholic Church, I reply it would be like leaving the United States. I wouldn't know how. It is part of who I am. And why am I expected to leave? Why can't I stay and fight for what I want the Church/the USA to be?

Why is Barack Obama expected to show his mettle by disowning his one-time spiritual mentor? Worship style in the African-American community is all about a radical appreciation of justice and the cultural custom of fiery rhetoric and music that dramatizes and underscores this appreciation and attendant spiritual knowledge. This is an established American tradition, and it is not for CNN, FOX NEWS and MSNBC to judge whether that tradition is expressed "correctly" or not, just as I really don't care if anyone objects to my relic of St Philomena. I don't own it for your approval, I own it because of what it means to ME, thanks.

The fact that one tradition is accepted as a given, regardless of how outlandish it might be, and one is still being judged and picked apart, speaks volumes.

Last month, I wrote a post about religious bigotry, and obviously, I spoke too soon.

Or is this really about something else?

But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! (Amos 5:24)

~*~

*The Autobiography of St Margaret Mary Alacoque