http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:45:59 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/17/124559.php Eric ScheieYesterday, I posted what follows at my blog, and today that I see that the key news report I cited has vanished! While the story may reappear, I decided to offer this post as a lesson in the importance of obtaining a Google cache.Which foreign leaders are endorsing Kerry? Well, shortly before his election last week, Spain's new president-elect Jose Rodriguez Zapatero said he wanted Kerry to win: But opinion in Spain, as in Britain, is divided. The Spanish opposition leader in the general election this Sunday, the socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, said yesterday: "I think Kerry will win. I want Kerry to win." I think when you say you want someone to win, that's an endorsement. I hope no one is denying this.... (I first heard about this on the G. Gordon Liddy Show, which led me to find the Guardian article.)UPDATE: More details here (from the Majorca Daily Bulletin) on what Zapatero actually plans to do for Senator Kerry: Zapatero fights losing battle"THE latest opinion polls are like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. A complete fabrication." This was socialist candidate for Prime Minister Jose Luiz Zapatero in buoyant form in Palma on Thursday night. Zapatero is well behind in the opinion polls and looks set to be defeated by the conservative Partido Popular leader Mariano Rajoy in the general elections on March 14 but he certainly got his message across. The words too little too late come to mind because what he said in Palma should touch a chord with many voters. "The first thing I will do when I am elected is to go to the United States and support John Kerry, my allies will be the students and families who can't afford their own home," and on the question of the Balearics "the PP's model for these islands is build without limit". The party faithful just loved it and he will certainly have raised morale. But barring any last minute change Zapatero will not be going to the United States, well not as Prime Minister anyhow. His comments on Kerry come as no surprise; he is a socialist and naturally a Democrat in the White House would suit him quite nicely. Zapatero is fighting a losing battle against a Partido Popular machine which is modern, forward thinking, and very much Madrid based and big on the international stage. The socialist leader could do with a helping hand. Who better to help Zapatero than another socialist candidate who was even more impressive than the young Spaniard. Of course I am referring to Mr. Anthony Blair who has not uttered a single word of encouragement for his Spanish counterpart, in fact he wined and dined Rajoy at Number 10, just recently. You can understand why there is no love lost between the Zapatero camp and Blair. Surely a socialist government in Spain would be better for Blair?Obviously not. So, this isn't just a passing remark; coming to the United States and working for Kerry is the "first thing" Zapatero will do!At least, that was his campaign promise....Once again, I have not read my local newspapers in detail, and it is possible that all of this is being reported. (I have not see it anywhere in the American press, though.) When I find out that it has been, I promise to update this post. Till then, should I hold my breath? MORE: Here's the cached version of the Majorca Daily Bulletin report -- along with the cached Guardian story. (I'm not feeling very trustful these days....) MORE ON THE GUARDIAN: I'm glad I posted the cache of the Guardian article because, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the Guardian's policy is one of "complete moral nihilism in the face of unspeakable violence": In Europe, there are no bad guys, even those who deliberately murdered almost 200 innocents and threaten to murder countless more. Ask yourself: If the Guardian cannot call these people "bad guys," then who qualifies? And if the leaders of democratic societies cannot qualify in this context as "good guys," then who qualifies? What we have here is complete moral nihilism in the face of unspeakable violence. Then we have the absurd canard that there is a "divide between Muslim and Christian communities." There is no such divide. There is a divide within Islam between a large majority and a small minority of theocratic, extremist mass-murderers, men and women who have killed Muslim, Christian, and Jew alike, young and old, and almost always innocent bystanders in free societies. That small minority has terrorized large populations, enslaved women, killed Jews and homosexuals, launched a war against Western civilians, taken over whole countries, and targeted individual writers and thinkers for murder. With them we need a dialogue? With them we need an unremitting, unrelenting, unapologetic war. (Via Glenn Reynolds.) Appallingly, the Guardian said that "We need to get beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys." I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that a newspaper refuses to call the killing 200 innocent civilians "bad" might alter its records. It's very worrisome to me that there are so many people who think wars can be voted out of existence. MORE: According to a UPI report, the election had less to do with Al Qaida than Aznar's machinations: [I]nterpreting these events as Spain's surrender to terrorism would be gross oversimplification of the facts. By voting Aznar and his Popular Party out of office and opting for the Spanish Socialist Labor Party -- or SPOE -- to lead them through these tumultuous times, Spaniards did not capitulate to terrorism -- domestic or international -- as many pundits have professed. Instead, Spaniards have chosen to send a clear message to their elected leaders. The message is: "Stop lying to us."As workers continue to untangle the twisted remains of Madrid's ill-fated trains, another story is also starting to rapidly unfold -- one of how Aznar tried to manipulate Thursday's unfortunate events to his electoral advantage.While all signs pointed to Islamist terrorists, Aznar incessantly tried to railroad public opinion into supporting the Basque thread. Aznar now stands accused of "manipulating" the press following last Thursday's murderous bombings that claimed 200 lives and wounded about 1,500 morning rush-hour commuters. (Link from Harry's place, vis Glenn Reynolds.) Manipulation of the press? Can't two play at that game? Who did "the press" favor before? Were they in fact "manipulated"? Independent polls carried out on Wednesday, the day before the bombings, showed the Socialists ahead with a slight majority. If this is true, then why the claim now of manipulation? It seems to me that this claim would have been made regardless of who won the election. Surely Al Qaida realizes they had absolutely nothing to do with it. Maybe Bush is behind it all.I don't expect to hear much more about Zapatero and Kerry. It's none of my business. IMPORTANT UPDATE: I guess I wasn't paying enough attention, but the real issue seems to have finally surfaced. David Kaspar reports, via Germany's number one news agency, that ZAPATERO IS CUTE: Zapatero is a little like what many women imagine as the ideal son-in-law. He comes accross as charming and friendly with his boyish face. On top of that he is athletic, thin and good-looking. I'm glad that's settled! Appearances are everything! EVEN MORE -- AND EVEN MORE UNBELIEVABLE: Thank God for Google! The Majorca Daily Bulletin site from which I got the above story has pulled it. (At least it no longer works today, so you have to go to the Google cache. Unbelievable!) This is almost enough to engender linkophobia. Surely the Spanish press isn't trying to "Kerry" favor? Sci/Tech13817@blogcritics.org Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:45:59 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/16/171311.php Eric ScheieHere's one of the best Amazon.com reviews I have seen so far. While it is written by the author about his own book, the man was way ahead of his time: Bad News was written over a period of a dozen years in response to Richard Nixon's disgrace. It contrasted John F. Kennedy's disastrous foreign policy (Bay of Pigs, Vienna summit, Berlin Wall, Vietnam war) with Nixon's brilliant one that left the Soviet Union dying, until it was revived temporarily during Jimmy Carter's tenure. I had covered many of the events in it.NOTE: The above is posted simultaneously at my blog. I argued that Nixon's Watergate cover-up did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, but the news media, led by The New York Times and Washington Post and backed by Hollywood, became what I called a jackal pack. The last page predicts the demise of the Soviet Union. The book's working title was Style and Substance: Kennedy and Nixon. But during research The New York Times turned up so consistently, I put the newspaper in the title, breaking another tabu. In the years following Kennedy's martyrdom, the media regarded it as blasphemy.Henry Regnery published it against the advice of an editor, who tried to kill it. It received excellent reviews from Joe Sobran, Tom Bethell, Herbert London, Philip Gold, Stan Evans, James O'Malley, C. Lowell Harriss, Bernard Norling, Lev Navrozov, Michael Grossberg, and Medford Evans, and was praised by Arnaud de Borchgrave, Midge Decter, Brian Crozier, and British historians Paul Johnson and Jonathan Aitken. Major media did not review it, and the only slam I saw was a parenthetical remark by Elizabeth Pond in a Christian Science Monitor piece on disinformation.It is still timely, as an antidote to Ted Turner's 24-episode falsification of Cold War history on CNN (see Charles Krauthammer). It is also a perfect fit with today's news media support of Bill Clinton's White House, where many on the Watergate prosecution team now work, or lurk in the bushes, including Charles C. Ruff, Terry Lenzner, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum, Richard Ben-Veniste, or are planted in the enemy camp, Sam Dash.If the openness of Amazon.com had existed in 1984, the book would have had a chance. Go Amazon! The publishing establishment could use a shakeout. Russ Braley January 3, 1999 I bought the book in 1997, and it did much to confirm what I suspected. The heirs of Walter Duranty continue their rule. Hence, I was honored to jump at the opportunity to join in the successful parody. I would do it again in a heartbeat. Anyone seriously interested in the much-covered-up background of the New York Times should must read Mr. Braley's book!The only thing I would add to Mr. Braley's review is "If the openness of the blogosphere had existed in 1984, the book would have had a chance." Books13784@blogcritics.org Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:13:11 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/21/230522.php Eric ScheieIn a fascinating post last month, Randall Parker discussed scientific data showing a possible connection between "spirituality" and serotonin receptors in the brain: Once it becomes possible to control what genetic variations people pass on to their offspring and once genetic variations are discovered that alter personality then at that point the average personality types born to people of different regions, countries, occupations, economic classes, and religious beliefs will diverge. People will make decisions to make their children more like what they want ideal children to be. Imagine religious believers choosing to make their children have personalities that are highly spiritual while at the same time scientists and engineers choose to have children who are highly rational and skeptical. This could lead to genetic religious wars.If people in some regions of the world decide to make their children more spiritual and other regions make their children more rational and skeptical then one can imagine wars being fought as a result of conflicts of values that flow from fundamental differences in brain wiring. One can also imagine wars fought to stop the people or governments of opposing countries from creating offspring that are either seen as a security threat (e.g. a highly willing deeply spiritual suicide martyr personality type) or as a blasphemy against god. Religious "freedom" may become an anachronism if the statisticians have their way. I would like to know exactly how strong the correlation is. I tend to distrust statistical correlations. There are always too many exceptions. I still haven't gotten over that study which showed statistical correlations between homosexuality and eye blinking. (I'd be willing to bet that men who masturbate blink at a different rate than men who don't -- and that there are additional physical as well as emotional differences!)Purportedly, the study showed that serotinin "binding potential" (an "index for the density of available 5-HT1A receptors") correlated inversely with scores for self-transcendence, a personality trait covering religious behavior and attitudes Self transcendance? Here is the "scientific" definition: CharacterSelf-Transcendence quantifies the extent to which individuals conceive themselves as integral parts of the universe as a whole. Self-transcendent individuals are spiritual, unpretentious, humble, and fulfilled. These traits are adaptively advantageous when people are confronted with suffering, illness, or death, which is inevitable with advancing age. They are disadvantageous in most modern societies where idealism, modesty, and meditative search for meaning might interfere with the acquisition of wealth and power. People who are low in Self-Transcendence are described as practical, self-conscious, materialistic, and controlling. Such individuals are expected to be well adapted in most Western societies because of their rational objectivity and materialistic success. However, they consistently have difficulty accepting suffering, loss of control, personal and material losses, and death, which lead to adjustment problems particularly with advancing age. This is scientific? This is supposed to be measurable on tests?The authors of the religion-and-serotonin study seem to associate it with religion, but I would associate it with much more. But here is how the study authors describe it: The spiritual acceptance scale measures a person's apprehension of phenomena that cannot be explained by objective demonstration. Subjects with high scores tend to endorse extrasensory perception and ideation, whether named deities or a commonly unifying force. Low scorers, by contrast, tend to favor a reductionistic and empirical worldview. Really? What happened to the "meditative search for meaning"? Instead, we get a bunch of fruitcakes looking for ESP and "unifying forces." And how about the "practical, self-conscious, materialistic, and controlling" people who "consistently have difficulty accepting suffering, loss of control, personal and material losses, and death, which lead to adjustment problems"? Now, in the serotonin study they have been transformed into people who favor "a reductionistic and empirical worldview." Like the test authors, perhaps?Sorry folks, but this stuff ain't science to me. It strikes me as highly judgmental.And, while I don't mean to defend spiritual people, I would wonder how they could even begin to define that. Why wouldn't a believer in an imaginary Communist Utopia be considered "spiritual" for having transcended ordinary mortal feelings? The ability to transcend the self is at the core of Utopian thinking. Subordination oneself to the state (and forgetting about oneself in the process) has led to enormous self-sacrifice, as well as to sacrifice of others.QUERY: Might not "the Good" itself involve self transcendence?(See my previous post on Communism and Christianity: "We are killing to build a world in which no one will ever kill. We accept criminality for ourselves in order that the earth may at last be full of innocent people") It occurs to me that "self-transcendence" is by no means synonymous with religious belief. Most of the religious people I know do not speak in terms of self-transcendance, out of body experiences, talking with God, or anything like that. People who've had LSD trips (and some of the Ecstacy crowd) sure. But religion is more a matter of belief than transcending the self. It's a bit like the old saying, "If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're crazy." I submit that very few of those who call themselves "religious" hear God talking to them, or leave their bodies. I am deeply suspicious of the assumptions underlying the search for biological differences in the brain as an explanation of non-conforming thoughts, and I think it is entirely possible that these differences might beg the question as to whether they were caused by, and not a cause of, the self-transcendence under observation. If I may illustrate by personal experience, I have noticed certain common patterns in the behavior of bad drivers. For example, I have seen that old men who wear hats often tend to drive much too slowly, and in the middle of the road. Might the wearing of hats have something to do with the behavior? Or does the bad driving cause the wearing of hats? Similarly, I have also noticed that drivers whose back window ledges are cluttered with stuffed animals are usually very unpredictable in their habits -- and should be given wide berth. Again, did the stuffed animals cause the bad driving? Might there be differences in the brain which account for the bad driving? Are studies needed?This is not a new idea, of course. Brain receptor chemical changes have been noted in relation to the "runners high", the psychedelic drug high (receptors up!); and, of course, with the dream/religious/drug state. Are they all -- one way or another -- just naturally "turned on, tuned in, and dropped out"? Might daydreamers somehow be different too? Wow. And how about PMS? (Or were these possibly religious PMS sufferers?)Will science reach what Joseph Hertzlinger calls a "consensus"?Mr. Hertzlinger also comments on Randall Parker's religion and serotonin post as follows: "There are different ways of being spiritual. I suspect adherents of most traditional religions will be wary of the sort of spirituality that causes one to join the Cult-of-the-Month Club." I don't know -- but I am suspicious of the endless search for scientific explanations of behaviors and people who are judged "different." This, of course, begs the question, WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY? Looking for designer genes for something so ill-defined strikes me as about on the level of the search for the Holy Grail of Designer Gay Genes. But such things are certainly considered fair game for politicians. And recent remarks by Howard Dean begged the question of whether there might be "designer genes" for both God and gays!Let's start with Dean's remark (that homosexuals were born that way): The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people. Naturally, this created quite a stir among religious Christian bloggers: I will make a bold, inflammatory statement: Any Christian who thinks it is vital to affirm that homosexuals are not born that way is severely deficient in his or her understanding of a vital Christian doctrine: Original Sin.Question for those who argue that homosexuals are never born that way: Do you presume they were born innocent? Do you know what original sin means? Do you know in paedobaptism what the water signifies?Because of original sin, we all are natural born sinners. And each of us is responsible for the consequences of his own sins, in spite of the fact that we are predisposed to commit them. Tough rules, but this is the only game in town. Of course, the gospel is the good news that shows the way out of the pit into which we enter the world.The scientific question is really just a secondary-cause issue. God uses gravity to move the planets around. No doubt He could use our genes to encode original sin. Christians who argue, in the face of evidence, that no homosexual is born that way display exactly the same ignorance regarding this basic doctrine of the faith (original sin) as does Dr. Dean.God, being just, would not punish homosexuals for being born that way. Yes he would. And He would also punish adulterers, coveters, liars, thieves, idolaters--in fact everyone on the planet for being born a sinner. There is only one way out: a saving faith in Jesus Christ. (Via Josh Claybourn.) For similar views, see this blog. For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to the genetic theory per se. But even if it could be shown that every homosexual was "born that way" it would make no difference at all to matters of religious doctrine. This argument is a waste of time. It comes down to whether or not people think a behavior is sinful. If that behavior is judged sinful by the human beings who claim to speak for God, then no amount of scientific evidence is relevant. Let's move to something a little less sexually inflammatory; something more people can relate to. How about masturbation? Let us assume that a gene is found which creates a propensity for men (and women, for that matter) to masturbate. No one makes anyone masturbate, but let's face it; without a sex partner, most normal men will eventually yield to the temptation and BINGO! There goes their wad. Let us further assume that masturbation is a sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that it is a sin. I don't know what the Bible says, but I think I recall something about spilling one's seed on a rock. Onanism or something like that. This would mean that God created the masturbatory gene just to tempt everyone into sin. You might say that this makes God an asshole, and then you might question the infinite wisdom of those who claim they know what's in God's mind. But the gene would change nothing. Would the evidence that there is a gene for religion (or spirituality) make any difference? Might God have deliberately created people who are programmed from birth to be True Believers? Why not? It makes things easier, doesn't it? I mean "predestination" and all that stuff. To establish the right "kingdom" here on earth, all we need to do is manage the genes so that only the "elect" are born! At last, science and religion merge!What a wonderful utopia! The problem is that I believe in free will, and I am not buying the gene stuff. Not even if they find the proper "statistical correlations." Of course, I lied about masturbation being less inflammatory than homosexuality....Yes, dear friends, yes! There is solid evidence that masturbation causes homosexuality. Almost 100% of homosexuals started with masturbation. I think if we can isolate the gene for that, we might be able to make some progress....Might there be some correlation with tight genes? NOTE: The above post is also posted at my website. Politics11916@blogcritics.org Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:05:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/18/214406.php Eric ScheieA recent plethora of blogging activity (plus, I suppose, the capture of Saddam Hussein) is pushing Iran into the spotlight of the blogosphere. Iran is Persia, of course, and more than perhaps any country, Persia looks both East and West. This has been the case since antiquity. I have discussed Persian history before in this blog, and I wish I had the time to really study it in detail, because unlike Western history (punctuated as it is by a major cultural gap between the ancient period and the Renaissance), Persia has remained Persia -- a proud and rich culture -- for thousands of years. While it isn't especially the purpose of this post to discuss Iranian-Indian relations, studying the inextricably interrelated history these two countries share was an eye-opener in itself. Religions, philosophies, art, literature, architecture, language -- all of that which we call "culture" has been in a constant state of mutual influence over the millenia. For a very rich summary of the history of the Iranian-Indian relationship, I highly recommend reading parts ONE and TWO of this gem. It's a shame Americans aren't taught more about this subject, as it is very rich. Clearly, Iran occupies a very special place in the history of human culture. It is a shame that the country is still dominated by medieval mullahs whose system of tyranny has so little popular support that it must rely on terrorism to maintain its tentative grip on power. Most of the Iranian regime's support for terrorism is so well documented that to discuss it in detail would bore my readers. Besides, this is not a foreign policy blog, but offers radical American centrism from an ancient perspective. And right now, the ancients seem to be demanding that I do my damned job, and I dare not refuse. For I have a terrible feeling that if I could summon a Roman general -- let's say, Agrippa -- from the grave today and present what we know (or strongly suspect) about Iran to him, he would say that the time has come for some type of urgent action. Here's why: the worst case scenario America could face is not a repeat of September 11, but a nuclear attack by terrorists. No government is crazy enough or strong enough to launch a nuclear attack against the United States -- and that is what it takes: craziness plus capability. Terrorists have the craziness in spades. They'd love to nuke us, and have said so many times. They lack the nukes to do it. (So far, at least.)Consider the following two points:Point One. Iran is close to having a nuclear arsenal. Whether or not it is secretly enriching uranium, it has precursor materials as well as a nuclear reactor. According to the Department of State, Iran has acknowledged both the heavy water production plant at Arak and the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, but did so only after their existence was disclosed to the press in August 2002 by an Iranian opposition group.Aside from a small IAEA-safeguarded "zero-power" research reactor located at the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center, Iran has no known heavy water reactor and no need for an indigenous source of heavy water. Iran's only nuclear power reactor expected to become operational within the next decade is the light-water reactor under construction with Russian help at Bushehr. This raises serious questions about Iran's intentions in constructing an industrial-scale heavy water production plant at Arak. Heavy-water moderated reactors are better suited for plutonium production than are light water reactors. We believe Iran's true intent is to develop the capability to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, using both the plutonium route (supported ultimately by a heavy-water research reactor) and the highly enriched uranium route (supported by a gas centrifuge enrichment plant).Iran has also confirmed to the IAEA that it is constructing a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility near the town of Natanz. Although Iran initially delayed the visit, IAEA Director General ElBaradei visited the Natanz site in late February and found what appeared to be a "sophisticated" centrifuge uranium enrichment program. We are deeply concerned at Iran's efforts to build that facility clandestinely, and believe there is no logical reason for Iran to pursue uranium enrichment other than to support a weapons capability, especially in light of Russia's pledge to provide all the fuel for the lifetime of the Bushehr reactor. There has been a great deal of speculation as to why Iran would be developing nuclear power considering its oil reserves, and Stefan Sharkansky has questioned whether a weapons program makes any sense in light of Israeli deterrence. Of course, Ayatollah Rafsanjani has urged Muslims to use nuclear weapons against Israel, but that is not the same as saying Iran intends to do it directly. Well, how about indirectly? This leads to my other point.Point Two There is accumulating evidence that the top leadership of al Qaida is now located in Iran. Accounts vary as to exactly who is there, how long they have been there, or the details of their residence, but I think there are too many reports to be ignored. (See al Jazeera, Fox News, Two stories in The Hindu, WorldNetDaily -- as well as BLOG-IRAN.)What alarms me the most is the presence -- for some time now -- of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's partner, a man considered more dangerous and more intelligent than bin Laden. I doubt there is anyone alive who would be more delighted at any chance to obtain nuclear material for use in the United States. The fact that Iran has nuclear material of any sort is cause for major concern. The fact that Iran has the brains of al Qaida there is cause for even more major concern.But, taken together, the two are intolerable. Whether Zawahiri left or not (this report states he left together with the notorious psychopathic torturer Imad Mughniyah) does not really matter. Rather, the evidence establishes friendly relations between al Qaida and the Iranian government.There are too many ways to move nuclear material in this world. The Iranian mullahs, if they are smart (which I think they are) could well be contemplating a sort of indirect nuclear blackmail program to save their regime. The United States government (at least, according to this reasoning) would do almost anything to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack, including make a deal to keep the mullahs in power. And if the deal included handing over al Qaida leaders (with purloined material), the Iranian "moderates" could come out smelling like a rose. And the Iranian people would continue to live under tyranny.(I hate to be so cynical, but it wouldn't be the first time the United States fell for Iran's good-cop/bad-cop routine....) What would Agrippa do? He'd go Roman on 'em, of course. He wouldn't wait around for nukes....Of course, the Romans didn't have to worry about things like International Law.They were International Law. NOTE: The above post can also be read at my blog. Politics11095@blogcritics.org Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:44:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/08/163848.php Eric ScheieHas Dick Morris suddenly become a non-person to Republicans?I noticed his absence at the usual places which once carried his column, so I'm just wondering....Then I happened to catch this. Morris recently advised the Republican Party to "terminate" the Christian right. What fascinated me the most was his contention that religious conservatives have what amounts to veto power: the Republican Party has paid the price for its coalition with the advocates of bedroom regulation. The Christian right has so alienated women that it has opened up a gender gap that often swells to more than 20 points, crippling Republican candidates.The upset victory of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California shows what the Republican Party could do if it broke with the pro-lifers and abandoned their intrusive efforts to regulate private behavior. Moving to the center on the social issues, demonstrating a libertarian commitment to privacy, the actor/governor held the gender gap to less than 10 points, winning 43 percent of the female vote. Schwarzenegger won the top job in the solid Democratic state of California by carrying the women's vote, a feat that would have been impossible had he embraced the social agenda of his party. ....It is about time that the Republican Party realizes that the Christian right is doing to it exactly what the radical black Rainbow Coalition of Jesse Jackson did to the Democratic Party in the '80s -- making them unelectable. Their embrace is the kiss of death. It is not that the religious right is wrong. Right or wrong, it gets in the way of so much good that the Republican Party could achieve if it were not in the Christian right's grasp.Will the Republican Party escape from the embrace of the pro-lifers so that it can nominate candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? Likely not. Those who see each election as an opportunity to hold candidates to litmus tests on key social issues are not likely to relinquish their hold or relax their vigilance. Is this true? Does the conservative fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party have what amounts to veto power? The large-margin Schwarzenegger victory must have come as a serious shock to the Republican leadership -- whose party, it should be remembered, barely won the last presidential election, and whose majority in Congress is razor-thin. That Schwarzenegger did so well with women despite the "groping" charges must especially irk moral conservatives, because it was one of the few times they joined the chorus of "feminazis" and agreed upon something, yet the alliance failed. The McClintock forces (dominated as they were by radical Christian Reconstructionists) also formed an unholy alliance with the left by urging a "No" vote on the recall itself -- placing both McClintock and Bustamante in the odd position of running in an election they opposed "in principle." I think California voters demonstrated that they are capable of seeing past such shenanigans. As I noted previously, Lou Sheldon's outfit (the name of which tends to whitewash ancient history) went all out to stop Schwarzenegger: born-again Christian conservatives are mortified by the actor's liberal views on abortion and homosexuality and wary about allegations of drug use, infidelity and juvenile sexual antics. The Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the ultra-right Traditional Values Coalition, warned in a statement last week of a "moral vacuum" in Sacramento. "It is hard to imagine a worse governor than Gray Davis," Sheldon said, "but Mr. Schwarzenegger would be it." Sheldon's group has launched an anti-Arnie project called Californians for Moral Government. James Lafferty, a consultant for the group, said its work is just the first rumbling of an earthquake to come.NOTE: Readers having difficulty getting the entire Salon article cited above can read the rest of the text here. Naturally, this made me love Arnold all the more, and I think it brought the guy a lot of voter sympathy. In other words, a voter backlash. Such a phenomenon is nothing new; the Democrats have tried to capitalize on it for years. What is truly remarkable is that here, the same voter backlash helped elect a Republican. It is equally remarkable that even a double digit McClintock vote failed to thwart the overall will of the voters -- something which must strike terror into the hearts of people whose arrogant assumption has long been along the lines of: "Republicans can't win with us, but we'll show them they can't win without us!"In the future, the Democrats cannot count on automatically getting the votes of ordinary voters who fear political dominance by religious theocrats. These voters are smart enough to spot a con game by either side.It also means that the Republicans need to be very careful. Morris asks, Will the Republican Party escape from the embrace of the pro-lifers so that it can nominate candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? Likely not. Those who see each election as an opportunity to hold candidates to litmus tests on key social issues are not likely to relinquish their hold or relax their vigilance.Hillary Clinton is counting on Dick Morris being right. Of course, no one is suggesting that Republicans kick religious conservatives out of their tent or in any way disrespect them. But showing others respect does not mean obeying all their demands. Inclusion in a Big Tent does not mean being its gatekeepers. And as I keep saying, disagreement is not disrespect. Silencing speech is.And some of the religious conservatives have demanded that people who disagree with them be silenced -- and not spoken to at all. According to this view, dissenters on abortion or gay rights do not even belong in the Republican Party. And, if Republican leaders even meet with them, speak to them, or have them on their staffs, there'll be hell to pay. Not long before the Schwarzenegger victory, a dire threat was directed to to the White House after RNC Chairman Marc Racicot dared to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans:Social conservative leaders told Mr. Racicot they had been pleased generally with Mr. Bush's words and actions on social-policy issues but couldn't assure that their rank-and-file members would retain the same degree of enthusiasm for Mr. Bush if the president and his party appeased the homosexual lobby."If the Republicans continue to drift in that direction, we will walk," the Rev. Donald Wildmon, president of AFA, told Mr. Racicot. Mr. Wildmon's AFA owns and operates about 200 radio stations across the country and provides programming to about 20 affiliated stations. Well, that was the threat. Were President Bush politically astute enough to call him on it, and if Wildmon really made good on it, the Schwarzenegger equation would likely mean a net Republican gain. According to this conservative analysis, [A] welcoming attitude toward gays can be a winning strategy since almost 9 out of 10 Americans agree that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.Also, exit polls showed 4% of voters in 2000 self-identified as gay or lesbian (and nearly 75% voted for the Democratic Gore-Lieberman ticket). Exit polling in congressional elections have showed a gay electorate of more than 5%. That's a larger demographic than the Jewish vote. Even shaving just a small slice away from Democrats could prove pivotal to cementing the GOP's status as the majority party. Moreover, many independents are turned off by anti-gay rhetoric, negatively viewing it as a broader barometer of intolerance.Yet the FRC spent a week recently using its website to expose the Bush administration's ties to the "homosexual agenda." One online installment was "Homosexual Lobby: Follow the Money" -- which, apparently, leads to Republican coffers. What better example of how the religious right's paranoia mirrors the gay left's dementia?It remains to be seen if the White House can continue to reach out to gays, however tepidly, without making the religious right even angrier. NOTE: I left in the above link to illustrate another example of a pattern by anti-homosexual activists. They apparently don't want people like me to be able to read or cite their links -- a phenomenon noted by Mike Silverman earlier. Why would any organization be afraid of its own words? For the same reason that some Republicans are now afraid of Dick Morris's words, perhaps? NOTE: The above essay can also be read at my blog. Politics9949@blogcritics.org Sat, 8 Nov 2003 16:38:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/31/191908.php Eric ScheieThe anniversary of Antinous's death (October 30, 130 AD) seems remarkable in its proximity to Halloween, and I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that even today we are still dealing with the fallout from a war between sex and religion started long, long ago.Part Three: the Fall and rise -- of sex (Readers who are interested may click here for Part One and here for Part Two of this series.) Sex and prayer.....At first blush, these two things would not seem to have much in common. But in the identity politics-driven world of modern America, sex and prayer have a very important thing in common.They are political.Politicization of sex is not new, of course. (More links.) Neither is politicization of prayer -- although I hate to see it becoming a new form of "conservative" identity politics. Halloween is being similarly politicized, and the way things are going, I would not be surprised to see all official references to it eliminated. This whole late October/early November season is ridden with pagan as well as Christian overtones: October 31 - Goddess month of Samhain begins - Samhain or Halloween or All Hallows Eve - commemorates the onset of a darker, introspective time of year when the veil between the otherworlds is thin and access to these other worlds is easier November 1 - Cross-quarter day, the first day of winter in the natural year - Festival of the Dead - Samhaim, light fires in memory of the dead and to commune with the underworld, building hope for the future - All saints Day, a day to honor dead saints 2- All Souls Day, a day to honor all departed spirits 3- Day of St. Malachy - an Irish prophet of medieval times - In the Celtic tradition, start new enterprises this day for success. Day to bring cattle down from the highlands for winter 5- Guy Fawkes Night, burn effigies of evil spirits and bad memories to allow the new year to unfold into happier days By any standard, there are enough religious references present above to offend most fundamentalist Christians, most Muslims, many atheists, and even pagans. In fact, some pagans are upset about certain forms of Halloween celebration deemed degrading to Wiccans. How did Halloween, originating as it did with the pagan celebration of Samhain, ever become standard fare in Christian countries? The general consensus is that Pope Gregory instructed his missionaries to coopt local customs and holidays by folding them into the Catholic Church. Ditto for the later cooptation of Aztec traditions into the Day of the Dead.This continued an earlier Roman tradition of melding holidays of conquered peoples into the Roman pantheon (the Church coopted cooptation itself, from the experts): By 43 A.D., Roman armies had conquered the majority of Celtic territory. During the course of the following 400 years that Rome ruled the Celtic lands, two festivals of Roman origin were combined with the traditional Celtic celebration of Samhain. The first of these was known as Feralia, a day in late October when Romans traditionally commemorated the passing of the dead. The second Roman festival to be incorporated into the Celtic Samhain festivities was one which honored Pomona, Roman Goddess of Fruit and Trees.And I guess that takes me back to Antinous, and the age-old struggle between religion and sex. The cult of Antinous was extremely problematic for the early church, because not only did if offer life after death, and resurrection through the spirit of a idealized young man, but the sexually attractive nature of Antinous presented problems not easy to coopt, and which would not go away.Some readers may find this as unbelievable as I did, but there was a serious attempt to transform the stubbornly resilient Antinous into a Christian icon! This Fourth Century statue (scroll down a bit) depicts Antinous holding a Christian cross. Not only that, but the city built to honor Emperor Hadrian's lover, Antinoopolis, became a major center for Christian monastic life, and remained so right up until the Muslim conquest. And as I discussed previously, Antinous persisted as a major influence on Western art and culture, helping to define male beauty through the centuries, and even influencing Christian iconography to this day: Antinous also had an effect on the shaping of early Christianity. The early church fathers, deeply disturbed by the resemblance of the dying savior god Antinous to the dying savior god Jesus, went to great pains to create some significant distance between them. Thus, Antinous influenced not only early church writings, but perhaps also the iconography of Jesus himself. (195) There is also some evidence that devotees of Antinous were among the last pagan holdouts as Rome converted to Christianity. Cultural icons like this are tough to stamp out by any standard, even by determined church authorities. Even I was touched to read about how the statues were considered too beautiful to be destroyed, and were carefully preserved in the Vatican. (Hell, I even saw one at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville! Sadly, I must refuse to say exactly where it is located, or provide any link to the hotel, lest some misguided Christians show up and demand the statue's removal. Such dangerous beauty is best left undisturbed and unsuspected....) I have cooked up a crazy theory of my own, and most of the time when this happens, I find one scholar or another has beaten me to it. But this time, nothing. At least, nothing on the Internet. (Pssst! Someone want a Ph.D. thesis?)In a previous post, I blogged about the cult of Sebastian, noting its homo-erotic aspects, and the controversy over the centuries: Let's move from Falwell's sissy concerns to Saint Sebastian, a favorite theme in Renaissance art. There must have been hundreds if not thousands of versions of that particular martyrdom.Here are some typical examples.For more Sebastian iconography and its interpretation over the years, see this. Much has been made of the choice of Sebastian (favorite of the Emperor Diocletian) as a homo-erotic theme by furtively closeted Renaissance artists. This, I think, is more of a commentary on Renaissance or even modern culture than Roman culture, as once again the Romans did not think in such terms. But then, religious themes have always been used as a "cover" for various works of art which might otherwise have generated controversy. (Cf. Bosch, Bruegel, et al.)In the film "Carrie," Saint Sebastian was featured as a statue in Sissy Spacek's prayer closet. Carrie's fiercely fundamentalist mom ended up pinioned by knives in almost exactly the same position, echoing a theme of Saint Sebastian as a sort of protest saint (if such things are possible). Protest saint or not, I see little evidence that Protestants ever cared much for Sebastian; I would not be surprised if Sebastian played a part in the development of Calvinist austerity.Wow. I really ought to do more research, because the above turns out to be more than my own speculation. Seriously, I just learned that indeed, the Calvinists didn't much care for Sebastian. When they found Saint Sebastian's shrine, they trashed his bones, throwing them into a watery ditch! Similar fates were meted out to Rasputin by the Commies, and to Buddhist statues by the Taliban. I didn't stop to think about it at the time, but right now, the similarities between Sebastian and Antinous are more than striking. Why, Antinous could have been a model for Sebastian. Now, let's put ourselves in the place of an early Church leader. Applying Pope Gregory's principle of cooptation, you discover a stubborn cult, and at first you attempt to coopt it by placing the Christian cross in the old god's hand. Fine as far as it goes, but what about the presence of these statues everywhere, and the ineradicable historical evidence that the god was not only very handsome, but, apparently, celebrated homosexual practices? Might the best solution lie in recognizing the pragmatic reality that there is a human ecological niche to be filled? That a sizable segment of the population wants to worship a beautiful young man? And, because for obvious reasons this cannot be the chief deity, nor the young pagan of uncontrolled sexuality, why not create a new one? In every respect, Sebastian filled the bill perfectly. Consider the evidence:Sebastian appeared on the scene at precisely the same time that problems with the Antinous cult were at their peakhe was said to be a "favorite" (not so subtle hint right there....) of the Emperor Diocletian, the last great persecutor of Christiansunlike Antinous, he defied the Emperor and died as a Christian martyr, so by definition he cannot be homosexual, because homos aren't allowed in heaven, right?his iconography built upon and helped immortalize the new male beauty ushered in with Antinoushe was not a god, but the next best thing, a SaintSebastian, while officially sexless, is penetrated by arrows fired into him by his former buddies (What would Freud say?)If you ask me, this has all the hallmarks of a good psy op. I think it worked, for a time. The militant Calvinists saw through it, though. In their narrow minds, religion was supposed to be the implacable enemy of sex, and Sebastian (along with much of Renaissance art) was an impermissible compromise with dark forces of a sexually suggestive nature. The stubborn beauty of Antinous remains. So does the war between religion and sex, religion and pleasure. A war which, I hasten to add, should never have been fought, and which must be ended. War against sex is a war against human nature -- even and especially when it claims to be fighting to uphold the very "nature" with which it is at war. That which was perfectly natural to the ancients was called unnatural, and those who were at war with nature declared their enemies to be at war with nature. Once natural interests were transformed into unnatural interests, the resultant madness lent itself perfectly to a reign of truly unnatural interests -- a malignant inquisition into private sexual matters now being called "natural." With lots of trouble since. (OK, so here come my slogans.....)End the war of Religion versus Sex! Restore Classical Values!HAPPY HALLOWEEN! NOTE: The above post can also be read at my blog. Politics9740@blogcritics.org Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:19:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/30/073439.php Eric ScheieThings are getting to the point where if you dislike socialism as much as you dislike moral conservatism, you have no place in either the Republican or Democratic Party. American politics are now driven primarily by socialism and moral conservatism. Libertarianism is a joke. And an especially cruel joke at that, considering that the majority of the country (the "middle," if such a term may be applied to people so profoundly disenfranchised by the American political system) are in fact libertarian. (That's with a small "l" folks; they prefer common sense to ideologues or ideology.)Hidden agendas dominate politics, and neither "side" wishes the public to see the dreadful ideological venom which poisons their parties' rank and file. If you don't believe me, just get involved at the local level. You will quickly learn that the people who staff the tables, distribute leaflets, knock on doors -- in short DO ALL THE WORK -- are activists. Socialist, feminist, environmentalist, gun grabbing radicals on one side; religious fanatics who think God is guiding their every move and Christianity is defined by an obsessive hatred of homosexuality on the other. Ideologues on both sides will generally be very nice to anyone naive enough to be tricked into working for a political campaign or organization, and therein lies the hook. Fanatics know full well that ordinary people who might want to make a difference are not fanatics. So, the goal becomes one of trying to convince them to become fanatics (a mild form of brainwashing often justified as "ideological training.") Those with real power in the two major political parties know what is going on and look the other way. Who else will staff the tables and do the dirty work? Ordinary people who get bamboozled into working on these campaigns are sometimes fooled by the niceness and claims of friendship, and, not wanting to offend their "friends," they either go along with the bullshit, or remain silent. Hidden agendas are everywhere. A recent example is the Terri Schiavo case, where a brain damaged woman is being "saved" by activists who have a primary goal of messing with homosexuals (in the name of "saving" them, of course, by submission to religious-based shame). I am not exaggerating; the organization paying the legal bills on the Schindler side is a notorious Christian Reconstruction outfit called the Alliance Defense Fund -- headed by James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Don Wildmon and others who want homosexuals imprisoned. Their "victory" will be claimed as a "Christian" victory against the dark forces of homosexuality.For an inside look into these thought processes, here is another fun website.NOTE: At least two members of the Alliance Defense Fund's Board (Wildmon and Kennedy) are known members of the Coalition on Revival.Lest anyone think I am out to bash the right here, let me give you an example from the left. At a San Francisco Lesbian Gay parade years ago, a large crowd was suddenly treated to a long harangue by a woman named Inez Garcia. No gay rights figure, she had simply killed a man who had raped her -- some weeks after the alleged rape. Her position was that any woman who is raped has an absolute right to kill in return, at any time. Not quite an eye for an eye, but good enough for the feminists of the time. So there we were, listening to Inez Garcia, and being counted as a crowd in "support" of her. While I wasn't completely unsympathetic to Ms. Garcia, I felt manipulated at the time.Let me step back and narrow the focus. Might I be over-generalizing when I characterize the Big Split in American politics as Marxism versus Fundamentalism? Might it be more evolving into something more specific? Something more along the lines of Identity Politics Left versus Identity Politics Right? Homos versus Christian Reconstruction, for example? Let's take a look at the "sides." Identity culture politics is one of the most tyrannical aspects of modern American society. It begins with labeling. Under the philosophy of identity politics, there is no individuality, no right to be left alone to be yourself. Instead, you must be charted and analyzed. Your race must be identified, and you are not allowed to decide whether it matters or not. It matters. Your religion (or lack thereof) matters as never before. One would think that human sexuality -- what it is that turns a person on sexually -- would be one of the most private matters there is. Even more than race. But no. Even such a personal matter is subject to an inquisition by religious maniacs and sexual activists. I defy this system, and I always have. But most people won't and can't. Heterosexual or homosexual. According to many religious people, that's the choice. According to the sexual identity political activists, it isn't a choice. Under either approach, you must define yourself, so that you can be manipulated and then tyrannized some more. You must either be a homosexual or a heterosexual, and you must declare this. According to your answers, you will be either welcomed or shunned in various places. You cease to be an independent human being. You are now a something-sexual. It is fascinating that religious identity activists and sexual identity activists are increasingly in agreement about the need to ask, to identify, and then play the include/exclude game. In a recent example, religious school authorities asked a boy whether he was gay, and when he answered in the affirmative, demanded he submit to the shame cure, and then expelled him. Religious identity politics is a more recent development, but one which is growing rapidly thanks to a ruthless juggernaut called Christian Reconstruction (another link here -- and here is a statement of some of the core beliefs of the Committee on Reconstruction). Getting unbiased information is problematic, because Christian Reconstructionists believe in obtaining power through stealth, and conservatives are loathe to criticize those who help them. Especially fellow travelers. This brings up a central point: the similarity of Christian Reconstructionists to Communists. I have been around Communists and worked with them, and it amazes me how similar they are in their methods: Working in the backgroundStealthBelief in a highly disciplined elitework in coalitions through a variety of "fronts"poised to take powereducate and indoctrinate young people for a future power takeoverfrighten critics and potential converts by a combination of carrot (work in your campaign and give you money) and stick (threats, ostracism, ad hominem attacks) Techniques quite similar, I might note, to what Arthur Silber describes here.While there appears to be somewhat of a genuine theological split between Christian Reconstructionists and other fundamentalist sects, the stealth nature of the Christian Reconstructionists tends to obscure its nature. (All the more reason to promote not only the First Amendment, but the reasoning behind it.)But stealth and hidden agendas are what give these minorities the power to dominate majorities. Through stealth, minorities on the left and the right are able to dominate most of the American political process. Americans do not especially like identity politics, because it is profoundly un-American. But when the fanatic identity politicians are able to grab control of each major party, they can then pose as representing the entire country by pointing to each other as "alternatives" -- to the exclusion of the majority. A lot of people have been talking about third parties. Arnold Schwarzenegger might as well have been a third party. In a normal election, the Republican minority activist consensus would have guaranteed a primary victory for McClintock (whose campaign, not coincidentally, was run by a Christian Reconstructionist) -- and, ultimately, another Democratic victory, not because the voters love the Democrats, but because the Democrats' version of rule by multiple identity politics groups is less threatening than the Republicans' "Party of God."Fuller voter participation is the best way to stop this tyranny by activist minorities. It won't happen through the primaries. Voters need, simply, to have alternatives to those who hide behind cutthroat identity politics. Identity politics is like gang membership, born out of a desire to belong, and a form of mob rule. It is based on emotion rather than thought. Voters reject it if given a chance, but it is very powerful -- and not always what it appears to be.Just don't make the mistake of thinking it's limited to the left. NOTE: The above post can also be read at my blog. Politics9628@blogcritics.org Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:34:39 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/17/161334.php Eric ScheieThis general does not get it. "Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers.... His name is Satan." Atheists do not get it.Christian fundamentalists do not get it. Islamic theocrats who have declared war against this country did far more than declare war on Christianity. Or on Judaism. Or on Judeo-Christianity. They also declared war on atheism, secularism, agnosticism, and paganism. NOTE: Atheists and pagans are often considered synonymous by Muslims. While traditional Islam considers Judaism and Christianity to be infidel religions, once they are conquered, they are nonetheless permitted to maintain their religions, but in a subordinate status which means payment of special taxes, legal imposition of second class citizenship, prohibitions on public religious practices and proselytization, etc. Not so for atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, and pagans. Unless they convert to Islam, these groups are to be exterminated. Fundamentalist Christians have trouble recognizing that they are considered less of an enemy than many of their fellow citizens, and this makes me wonder whether they have trouble facing the simple fact that this is a secular country, and we are hated more for religious tolerance than for religious intolerance. Likewise, atheists seem to have trouble with the idea that a radical fundamentalist religion has attacked Judeo-Christianity along with atheism, secularism, and all other religious or non-religious beliefs which do not conform to the beliefs of radical Islam. It is not in the interests of anyone to call this a religious war, precisely because so many divergent groups of Americans would then have to see themselves as being allies whether they like it or not. Atheists no more want to defend fundamentalist Christians than fundamentalist Christians want to defend atheists. However, I have not seen too many atheists declare that this is a war between atheism and Islam -- even though a lot of Christians paint it as a war between Christianity and Islam. But logically, one can make the claim that it is both. And, considering the total annihilation promised atheists, in contrast to the second class status promised Christians, one could make the argument that atheists have more to lose in a defeat by Islam of the West. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that "Islam" is in fact at war with "the West" because Islam is not the monolithic monster it is so often claimed to be. (For starters, there is a distinction between radical Islam and moderate Islam.) So I am not arguing that "we" are at war with "Islam." But, let us assume for the sake of argument that a radical Caliphate is somehow established, and all Islam is united under radical Islam, which then declares war against "the West" -- or against the United States and Israel as "Great" and "Little" Satans. Characterizing this war as between Islam and Christianity distorts reality, and leaves many millions of Americans (along with many Israelis) unspoken for. Atheists and fundamentalist Christians facing a common enemy -- and one which considers atheists the worse threat of the two?No wonder there is a consensus against calling this a religious war. That would be far too messy for the various ideologues.... ADDITIONAL NOTE: The above post can also be read at my blog. Culture9277@blogcritics.org Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:13:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/15/172402.php Eric ScheieIs this country headed for an irreconcilable culture war -- something which will dwarf the best efforts of this blog to stop? I mean, despite the soothing remarks by many bloggers, it is harder and harder to ignore the seething rage just beneath the surface of so much that passes for ordinary politics. It has become quite ordinary for simple dialogue to be only barely possible -- as Paul Wolfowitz found when he addressed an audience in New York, and was almost heckled off the stage. How does one reconcile such views as people on one side who believe it is self apparent that Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleeza Rice epitomize evil, with people on the other who think "liberals" have declared "war" on "Christianity"? Is the gap too wide? Where do libertarians fit in this gulf? I honestly don't know (and I certainly don't sleep on the right couches), so I guess that is why I am writing about it. Libertarians are hated by the socialist, deconstructionist left because they have a definable and articulate anti-socialist moral compass. At the same time, they are hated by moral conservatives because the libertarian moral compass is not grounded in the absolute truth the latter claim can only be found in a particular interpretation of a particular religious text. Yet I see more and more evidence that libertarians are tiring of their "politically homeless" status, and hence, many of them would gravitate towards the socialist camp so that at least part of their agenda is embraced. Human dignity may depend on such things; John Adams observed that there is no state so intolerable as the state of not being listened to. The present administration is, rightly or wrongly, perceived by many libertarians as antithetical to just about every libertarian principle -- as well as unwilling to engage in dialogue. Some Democrats (Howard Dean in particular) are seen as at least partially libertarian, and open to dialogue. Additionally, there is a sense among libertarians of having been taken for granted by the Republican Party. ("They'll never vote Democrat!") Yet, true libertarians are not in favor of socialism. That guarantees future trouble if they enter Democratic Party politics, because like it or not, the Democratic Party is the party of socialism. As things stand right now, both parties favor a modern, powerful, ever-centralized American federal state. Because there is agreement that this must remain, neither party can be said to be the party of "small government." This feeds the Culture War, because each side fears the other side gaining power and using it against its opponents. Human idiosyncrasies such as sexual desire or religious beliefs, and accidents of birth such as race, have been completely politicized, with otherwise innocent individuals made to fear that they will be oppressed if the wrong side gains power. Had the federal government remained small as originally envisioned, there would not be as much fear of power as there is now. A vastly powerful federal government now is accepted as a fact of life. It is a tragic fact of life that religious fundamentalism fuels moral relativism, and I don't know what can be done about it. Simple logic would dictate that there is such a thing as truth, but the blind assertion that it is to be found only in one literalistic interpretation of one particular text -- when there are other interpretations and other texts -- renders truth illusory and arbitrary, and subject to a guessing game of which version of god is right and which book is the one god wrote. This fuels the moral nihilism of Foucault and others because it seems to "prove" their assertion that truth varies according to culture. Asserting that only those who think what is written in your group's book possess "The Truth" -- well, that puts the Koran, the Bible, and the Little Red Book on an equal footing, making all truth relative. Because I do not believe truth is relative, I cannot buy into any philosophy which demands irrational acceptance of an argument by authority. Whether one is religious or not, and whether there is a God or not, the incontrovertible fact is that man is not God, and cannot speak for God. Books, all of which were written and produced by man, do not become the word of God simply because men so assert. Illogic like this (in my view at least) fuels the irrational belief that there is no truth. There is, of course, the possibility that I am wrong, and that absolute truth may only be found in one of the particular texts -- which did in fact come from the God to whom the text is attributed. If that is the case, it means that God amuses himself by making the world's billions play guessing games and meanwhile slaughter each other in his name. If the hell described in some of the books turns out to be his place for "infidels" who refuse to be bullied into following a particular group, I guess I would just have to go there. Amazing, though, that in the enlightened, modern United States of 2003 that I feel compelled even to discuss this. The fact that I do shows how far these things have gained entry into politics. Fundamentalism versus Marxism! Which side will drive the modern Leviathan? Not a very healthy "choice." Libertarians, in my view, should choose neither. (Certainly not in the philosophical sense.)I'm afraid I have raised more questions than I have answered, but now I am afraid I must conclude on a dark and cynical note. For years I studied the Watergate affair, and as I began to shed my emotional outrage over the duplicity and disloyalty displayed at the highest levels of government, I came to realize something which so many people seemed to miss. Regardless of what anyone thinks or thought of Richard Nixon, he was the last president who seemed to possess the ability to control the executive office. (And in the end, he found that he didn't control it.) As government power grew, the president was reduced to a mere figurehead without much real power. Presidents today cannot control the State Department, and they hold office according to the whims of the CIA and other agencies. It does not matter who the president is. The real power is not located there anymore. Might as well allow the British to elect a new queen. Is the "Culture War" a largely diversionary tactic?Is the apparent choice between Fundamentalism and Marxism a red flag being waved by a matador? Where are the "smart bulls?" For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the American voters found someone (say, in the spirit of a Ventura or a Schwarzenegger) believed to be a smart bull, and managed against all odds to place him on the throne. Would he discover that because real power lies elsewhere, that his office only allowed him to be a figurehead or role model? That his accountability was not to the voters, but to those really capable of shaping and spinning events in a way that maintain the illusion that the voters are in control? So where does the smart bull go to find these elusive matadors? NOTE: This essay is simultaneously published at my blog. Politics9215@blogcritics.org Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:24:02 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/07/191628.php Eric ScheieThis is also posted at my blog site.Is Stephen W. Stanton a prophet? My clairvoyant skills are not what they should be, so I cannot predict today's California election results. But I am pretty good at predicting retrospectively, and I think I can fairly state that if Schwarzenegger wins, his victory will be in no small measure a result of the influx of "South Park Republicans" into the electorate.When he used the term -- exactly one year ago today -- Stephen W. Stanton offered this uncannily prescient definition:South Park Republicans are true Republicans, though they do not look or act like Pat Robertson. They believe in liberty, not conformity. They can enjoy watching The Sopranos even if they are New Jersey Italians. They can appreciate the tight abs of Britney Spears or Brad Pitt without worrying about the nation's decaying moral fiber. They strongly believe in liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. However, they do not live by the edicts of political correctness. The South Park Republicans are an incredibly diverse group encompassing a variety of nontraditional conservatives, such as the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Bruce Willis supported Republicans because of their commitment to lower taxes and fiscal discipline. Rap artist and movie actor LL Cool J recently endorsed NY governor George Pataki. (And here's a more recent look at the phenomenon, also at Tech Central Station. Link thanks to Instapundit.)Might the California election spell an emergence of a new generation gap? Back in the 1960s, when the term was coined, it referred to the "60s generation" and their slogan "Never trust anyone over 30!" Well, now that 60s generation has hit their 60s, is there a new generation gap? Never trust anyone under 30?Looking for clues in today's San Francisco Chronicle, I found two articles.Here's the 60s perspective: John Hanley, head of the San Francisco Local 798 firefighters union, drew cheers as he shouted: "So help me, you touch my daughter, and you are in deep trouble, young man." Hey, what would Cartman say? "The fireman is very magical. Rub his helmut and he spits in your eye." --Eric Cartman And here's the Chronicle again, with a fretful appraisal of the growing "South Park" threat: The estimated turnout -- including 2.1 million absentee voters who already have cast their ballots -- would be 30 percent higher than the 7.7 million who voted 11 months ago in the 2002 election, when Davis was re-elected, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. Field issued the projection Monday. The boost in participation is likely to come from younger, occasional voters drawn to the polls by Republican actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that could mean trouble for Davis, said DiCamillo. So, what will happen? Let me return once again to the prediction of the prophet, one year ago today: Hopefully, the South Park Republicans will shatter the unfair stereotype and set the record straight. As Cartman would say, "That would be pretty sweet."Yeah, it would. Or, to quote Cartman directly, "Follow your dreams. You can meet your goals. I am living proof. Beefcake! BEEFCAKE!!!"Hey, this South Park stuff is almost Jeffersonian! Politics8992@blogcritics.org Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:16:28 EDT