Today is the feast of St. Akepsimas, a fourth-century Persian bishop who was martyred during the persecution of King Shapur II.
Speaking of that part of the world, it seems that Hillary Clinton is as much of a hawk as her votes on the Iraq war and the Kyle-Lieberman amendment have indicated she may be. She said today that if Iran were to attack Israel using nuclear weapons during her presidency, "we would be able to totally obliterate them." This continues what she said last week concerning the same hypothetical situation would result in "massive retaliation," which she clarified last night by saying, "their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."
Now, I agree that a nuclear-armed Iran is far from desirable, and I deplore Ahmadinajad's rhetoric about Israel. Still, if Iran were to have that technology and were to use it against Israel, Israel would be both capable and willing to respond itself. Iran knows this, so it's unlikely that they would attack Israel. At any rate, there's no need for a US guarantee of any sort. Even if we had to retaliate, do we want to speak so easily about "totally obliterating" a large country?
Iran has a population of 65,875,223. Almost a quarter of that is fourteen years old and under. "Totally obliterate." Makes me feel sort of sick.
Today is the feast of St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who was both a great churchman and a great theologian. I am particularly fond of his ontological argument for the existence of God. He also put forward his form of atonement theology, and although I know it hasn't been that popular in this corner of the blogosphere, and though I don't accept it fully, I still think it's brilliant intellectually and, taken in its context, should still give us food for thought.
William tagged me for the six-word meme, and I promise -- I have thought about it a little bit. Of course, the joke is that my life in six words is "dissertation, teaching, dissertation, teaching, dissertation, teaching." Apart from that, I don't know. My life has been somewhat crazy, and now the things that fill it up -- my wife and stepson, my scholarly career, my newfound devotion to God, my friends -- seem to spill out at the seams of a six-word sentence. That's not even taking into account things I have parked on the side right now, like poetry. The sad truth is that grad school leaves me very little time to reflect deeply on myself and what I am. That's okay -- I'm going through a kind of boot camp and it's almost over. But right now, my life is "dissertation, teaching, dissertation, teaching, dissertation, teaching," with an occasional break for other valuable things. I will return to this question in about a year and a half.
We still need to cast "W." (See below). But meanwhile, there' a good article in the New York Times about our parish, where Imperatrix pulcherrima Africae occidentalis and Filius eiusdem were baptized, and where the former and I were wed. Check it out.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of Stone's work, but I then again haven't seen much of it. I remember liking Salvador, and I thought The Doors was a great musical comedy (though I don't think that was the director's intention). I saw about two minutes of Natural Born Killers, and that was enough to give me the idea that it was a monumentally self-indulgent and sensationalist piece of garbage. So I don't know if I'll see W., but I am intrigued by Kevin's observation that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove have yet to be cast. The possibilities dizzy me. I want my readers to offer some nominations of actors for each of these parts, and then we'll have a poll. Any ideas?
Satan and Beelzebub, from Gustave Dore's "Paradise Lost," 1870.
As I have argued below, the accusations against Obama for a few statements by his pastor are troubling in their implications. Obama himself, in an historic speech, addressed these accusations and explained their context in a subtle and insightful way. He turned a moment of political necessity into an opportunity to bring difficult questions about race into a sane and tolerant dialogue. Of course, we know that some people would refuse to join this dialogue and instead continue to exploit a bad interpretation of the situation for demagogic ends. Bill O'Reilly, yes, Pat Buchanan, yes, but also:
"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."
The Clinton campaign has refrained from getting involved in the controversy, but Clinton herself, responding to a question, denounced what she said was "hate speech."
UPDATE: Apparently several people from the Clinton campaign are making similar comments, even going as far as comparing Wright to David Duke. This is foul. In my opinion, it's much worse than the Geraldine Ferraro comments.
Happy Easter, everyone! I've been sick as a dog, so I haven't been able to respond to everyone's comments on the last post -- I hope I will have a chance soon. In the meantime, a blessed Easter to everyone.
Exsultet iam angelica turba caelorum exsultent divina mysteria et pro tanti Regis victoria, tuba insonet salutaris.
There has been a bit of dust raised in the media and the blogosphere concerning the leader of Barack Obama's church in Chicago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Tapes of his sermons have been combed for polemical soundbites, and polemical soundbites have been found. Rev. Wright's patriotism and opinions on race have been questioned. Some of Obama's supports in blogspace have been concerned, and his opponents have leaped on Rev. Wright as the silver bullet against Obama's seemingly unstoppable rise.
Of course, if we want to know how Obama feels about race and his country, we can consult the two books and a number of speeches he has written. So is there a need to investigate his preacher? He has been clear about how he feels concerning Wright's declarations. Still, I think the interpretations of Wright's statements (which were cherry-picked from forty years of preaching) can be revealing.
One of the claims is that Rev. Wright is unpatriotic and anti-American. I personally am careful before I call an ex-Marine unpatriotic, for more than one reason, but here's the headline from the ABC News webpage story on Wright: "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11." Well, that sounds pretty bad. Let's take a look at the first part, as reported by ABC, in context:
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
This is passionate rhetoric, and it seems to be in the tradition of Old Testament prophets who denounced Israel when it was unfaithful. To me, it questions how frivolous and empty statements such as "God bless America" can be when not followed by a desire to create a more just society. It also follows a tradition of African-American thought that addresses the marginality of the black experience and the awareness that experience creates, the awareness that America is an unfinished project that needs a critical self-examination in order to fulfill its promise of liberty and justice for all. From Kevin, a similar passage from Frederick Douglass:
"This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn...your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."
Wright has also been criticized for seeing the attack of September 11th as a result of U.S. policies from Hiroshima to Palestine. The biggest problem I have with this is the timing -- only a few days after the attack. At the same time, I remember how after 9/11 any discussion of the motivations of hijackers that was more reflexive than "they are evil" or the vacuous "they hate our freedom" was greeted with tremendous scorn, as if even trying to understand what had happened would be to question the obvious evilness of the act. Once again, what is patriotism, flag-waving or a search to improve the country?
Another common refrain about Rev. Wright is that he is "hateful" and "racist." (While I was writing this post, I happened to see a "talk radio debate" on CSPAN. Some right-wing talk radio guy used both these words, and when Al Sharpton asked him to explain what Wright had said that was racist, the right-wing guy could only quote the two statements above, confusing the context of each one, neither of which had much to do with "hating white people." Sharpton called him on it and his only answer was to shout incoherently. Nice.) I've seen this over and over again in blogland, from Republicans and some Democrats (mainly Clinton supporters).
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
The arguments goes, "well, if you substitute 'White' and 'Europe' for 'Black' and 'African,' the church would rightly be condemned as white supremacist and racist. Doesn't that make the church racist against whites?"
This is an important point, because it reveals the way many, if not most, white people think of racism. It is for them a simple matter of individual perception. They might say, "Racism happens only when a specific person rejects another because of his or her race. As a society, we overcome racism by changing attitudes one person at a time. Now, of course, there is much less racism in American society because we all grew up watching the Cosby show and we love Tiger Woods and Will Smith and we all listen to hip hop now." From this point of view, it's easy to think that diversity problems like Affirmative Action are unfair, because they aren't "colorblind," and that a lot of blacks complain too much about race relations in the U.S.
African-Americans, for the most part, do not complain too much. They talk about their own experiences. White people do not have to think about their racial identity if they choose not to, because it is the norm in our society. A black person, however, has to deal with race being the first part of their identity that is processed by their fellow citizens in any given public situation. He or she is defined as "a black person" before any other aspect of his or herself can create an impression. Race is extremely pervasive in American society, and even if it lies on a subconscious level for most whites, it is painfully obvious to most blacks.
A black person thinking about black identity is then essentially different that a white person thinking about white identity, because in our culture the latter is the norm and the former is "the other." All minorities have to deal with this, but the African-American case is unique because of the legacy of slavery. Slavery and its consequences not only created the context for a particularly noxious form of racism, but it also created an underclass with a problematic sense of identity. Ripped long ago from a different culture and then living first not as citizens, and then as second-class citizens, African-Americans have learned what they are not (white) before they have learned what they are. Searching for a positive sense of black identity is still an urgent task, and that's why talking about "black identity" and "white identity" is talking about two completely different things. As Rev. Wright himself said:
The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.
As I understand it, Rev. Wright's black liberation theology developed from the same roots as Catholic liberation theology in Latin America. The basic idea behind it is that an oppressed group, whether black Americans or the Latin American poor, are given a religion by their oppressor, and recognizes themselves to be especially positioned to appreciate the message in that same religion. Who did Jesus preach to, if not the poor and marginalized? What do the prophets of the Old Testament rail against, if not the powerful crushing the humble? Reflecting on the implication of this identification with the oppressed of the Bible means a frank look at oppression, the oppressed, and the oppressor. That's the context of this particular sermon of Rev. Wright's:
...who cares about what a poor, black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich, white people. Somebody missed that. You got nervous, because we’ve got some white members here. I’m still in Bible country. I’m still in the text. Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country, and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich, white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italians, which means they were European, which means they were white, and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.
The identification of the Romans as "European" and "white" in this quote is a bit heavy-handed, but once again, from the African-American point of view, the question of race in structures of oppression is inescapable. This is not a question of biological determination, it is a question of the reality of the cultural construction known as race in the United States. It is a question of the reality of prison population, income, and infant death in this country, the statistics of which break radically along racial lines. That is how Jesus is black and the Romans are white, in the sense of the structures of our society.
Even if my analysis is not correct, how does this affect Obama? What do people mean when they fault him for attending this church? The common complaint is, "If I went to a church and the minister was spewing out this kind of hateful speech, I would leave. But he stayed there for twenty years." Of course, this is assuming that these few quotes are typical of Rev. Wright's preaching and that his preaching really is "hateful." Still, what are they trying to say? What's the implication for them of Obama going to this church?
Since what Obama has said and written is less polemical that these comments from Rev. Wright, less concerned with Black identity and more concerned with American unity, are we to assume that everything he's said has been a lie, that it has been a mask for some kind of crypto-Black Nationalism? Is it that easy to make Barack Obama a black supremacist?
Only if you really want to. I sense in all these blog posts and comments and radio rantings an immense relief now that the Wright sermons are making their entrance onto the scene. There's a ring of "I knew it!" Obama used to be the Islamic Manchurian candidate, now he's the Black Panther Manchurian candidate. If he associates with a "racist," then suddenly we're on an even playing ground. White people can now feel that Obama resents them because of their whiteness and thus he has become the "other," the angry black man, the threatening black man.
Of course, any African-American could tell you that our culture sets us up for this and creates the threatening black man in our consciousness without us even knowing it. Orlando Patterson has been criticized for an Op-ed in the Times in which he decries Hillary Clinton's "3:00 am" ad as having a racial subtext suggesting that the threatening black man will go after the sleeping blond children. Well, in my household, my initial response was "this is Bush-like fear-mongering," but that of my lovely wife, Imperatrix pulcherrima Africae occidentalis, was "this is the trope of the threatening black man." Was that really a conscious effort on the part of the Clinton campaign? It's hard to say, but the majority of us in this country are ill-prepared to see how pervasive racism is. Those that understand that are those that experience it, and perhaps things would be better if we'd listen to them with a kinder ear.
UPDATE: Apparently, Obama will give a speech on race in the campaign tomorrow. If you want see an example of people who are bursting with glee because they feel they can call Obama a racist, and if you have a very strong stomach, read the comments on the post I just linked to.
Liturgically, at least in New York, today is St Patrick's Day. Because of the extremely early date of Easter this year (this what comes from not listening to the Irish at the Synod of Whitby, I'd say), March 17 falls on the Monday of Holy Week. Feast days can't be celebrated during Holy Week, and Patrick is the patron of the Archdiocese of New York, so it was celebrated today. The Mass, that is. The parade is on Monday.
So Happy Liturgical St. Patrick's Day, everyone!
In case anyone's interested, I found an interesting post on TPM that I think clearly addresses the question of Obama's qualifications and really explains well the problem with Geraldine Ferraro's comments.
Also, I need a new laptop. Any advice? I'm looking at Dell.
Today I have promised myself that I will finish my section on the charter commemorating the translation of St. Isidore to the Leonese church that would later be named after him in 1063. I will, or I will die trying. Still, it is the feast day of Saints Perpetua and Felicity, and if you haven't read the acts of their martyrdom in 203, you should. Much of it was written by Perpetua herself, and it comes from a time when some people (especially women) had a role as visionaries in the Church:
Then said my brother to me: Lady my sister, you are now in high honor, even such that you might ask for a vision; and it should be shown you whether this be a passion or else a deliverance. And I, as knowing that I conversed with the Lord, for Whose sake I had suffered such things, did promise him nothing doubting; and I said: Tomorrow I will tell you. And I asked, and this was shown me.
I beheld a ladder of bronze, marvelously great, reaching up to heaven; and it was narrow, so that not more than one might go up at one time. And in the sides of the ladder were planted all manner of things of iron. There were swords there, spears, hooks, and knives; so that if any that went up took not good heed or looked not upward, he would be torn and his flesh cling to the iron. And there was right at the ladder's foot a serpent lying, marvelously great, which lay in wait for those that would go up, and frightened them that they might not go up. Now Saturus went up first (who afterwards had of his own free will given up himself for our -sakes, because it was he who had edified us; and when we were taken he had not been there). And he came to the ladder's head; and he turned and said: Perpetua, I await you; but see that serpent bite you not. And I said: it shall not hurt me, in the name of Jesus Christ. And from beneath the ladder, as though it feared me, it softly put forth its head; and as though I trod on the first step I trod on its head. And I went up, and I saw a very great space of garden, and in the midst a man sitting, white-headed, in shepherd's clothing, tall milking his sheep; and standing around in white were many thousands. And he raised his head and beheld me and said to me: Welcome, child. And he cried to me, and from the curd he had from the milk he gave me as it were a morsel; and I took it with joined hands and ate it up; and all that stood around said, Amen. And at the sound of that word I awoke, yet eating I know not what of sweet.
And at once I told my brother, and we knew it should be a passion; and we began to have no hope any longer in this world.
The fun times never stop in Utah. What's the newest business motivational technique in Provo? Waterboarding! (Thanks, Kevin). And where does that guy who was making Ricin live? Riverton!
Okay, I have had enough of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Today she called a press conference, and almost shaking with rage, denounced mailers from the Obama campaign:
"Enough with the speeches and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook," she said, alluding to President Bush's former chief political advisor. "This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged."
Not as if her campaign hadn't sent out misleadingmailers itself. The list of "tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook" used by the Clinton campaign is very long. I've mentioned some of them before, but Kevin provides an extensive catalog of them. This move, like the absurd plagiarism accusation, reeks of desperation. I think she's just hoping that the splash made by the conference will bounce around the media echo-chamber just enough to tarnish Obama before the next primaries. Going negative has not worked for her before, and I hope it backfires this time. The hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign is breathtaking.
was seduced, at the age of 16, by revolutionary Islamist ideals that flourished at the heart of educated British culture. Yet he later shrank back from radicalism after coming close to a murder and watching people he loved become suicide bombers. He dug deeper into Islamic spirituality, and now offers a fresh and daring perspective on the way forward.
Husain's insights are very instructive. One of the points he made touched on something that I have been thinking about for awhile, which is the huge resource for change that is American Islam:
Ms. Tippett: Tell me what you discovered that really did change your life at this later point, as an adult, what you discovered in Islam.
Mr. Husain: Much of this goes back, I must say, to American Muslim influences in that you've got fascinating scholars such as Imam Hamza Yusuf Hanson from California who I was exposed to here in Britain in the late 1990s. In him and in others, I saw Muslims who were Westerners, who were American, who were English-speaking, who were intelligent and deeply erudite and connected to a sense of prophetic Islam, connecting themselves right back to the prophet Mohammed. And they embodied that persona of compassion, of justice, of love, of humanity, and it was really getting more and more sort of involved and close to people like Imam Hanson and others here in Britain that helped me intellectually come to terms with Islam, away from Islamism, the political ideology, and more importantly, discover a spiritual tradition that sits comfortably with other spiritual traditions and looking at human beings as just that, as fellow human beings, and it's not our duty to judge others and ultimately it's them and their relationship with God. It's having that inner sense of relationship with God that manifests in your actions on the outside that I personally found worked for me. I'm not suggesting this is a panacea for everyone, but it's something that worked for me, and it very much set at home with my parents and my family and friends.
Ms. Tippett: I wonder if you have a sense of why the North American Muslim experience is so different from the experience you had as a British Muslim?
Mr. Husain: My impression is that it's the fact that you have a very strong national identity that people who, as you say, fresh off the boat can come and sign up to something in America.
Ms. Tippett: And the fact that identity is more porous somehow?
Mr. Husain: Yeah, it's there. It's palpable. The American Muslims are deeply patriotic and deeply proud of being American and being Muslim. Here, we don't have that. You'd be hard pressed to find Muslims in the north of England saying that they're British Muslims. It just doesn't happen.
Ms. Tippett: So there's a different kind of foundation that new generations of North American Muslims are building on, um-hum.
Mr. Husain: Well, exactly, yes, and you see that. I mean, take, for example, the large conferences you have in America among American Muslims. I think one of the motions that was passed was that the Jewish synagogues in America were twin with Muslim mosques. Phenomenal.
Ms. Tippett: Right. The Islamic Society of North America.
Mr. Husain: Yes, exactly. ISNA conference. That's a fascinating example from which not just Europeans, but also Arab Muslims can learn in terms of maintaining positive ties between different faiths. Try suggesting something like that to the British Muslim Council here. Almost impossible. Only after six years of kicking and screaming have they decided to attend Holocaust Memorial Day. I mean, that's what we're up against. It's a good marrying up of English anti-Semitism, which is very much hush-hush, which is still out there, and then that's married up with that being very vocal from among certain sections of the Muslim community.
The creativity that a number of American Muslim have shown in reconciling an authentic approach to their religion with their American and Western identity could be a huge force for smoothing out the confrontation between the West and the Islamic world. Unfortunately, there seem to be too many people in the US that enjoy having a clearly-defined enemy so much that they refuse to let go of their misinformed prejudices. So a religion of one billion people with 1,500 years of history, two major divisions and countless numbers of schools is distilled into one simplistic formula that, to its detractors, is corrupt and violent by nature. Uninformedbigots never tire of informing us about the danger of Islam. American Islamic groups such as CAIR are regularly demonized. Here at Columbia, the McCarthyite troglodyte David Horowitz held an event called "Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week" (imagine an event critical of the Israeli right wing called "Judeo-Fascist Awareness Week"? How well would that fly? Or an event aimed to raise awareness of how many Christians are fascist, except, of course, "the good ones"). Charlatans and lunatics command thousands of dollars in speaking fees and appear on CNN and (of course) FOX as "terrorism experts."
Of course, I don't underestimate the danger of Islamist terrorism nor do I consider that cultural differences between Muslim countries and the West are easily bridged. Still, when it is time to decide what Islam is, perhaps we should listen to the Muslims. Not Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the ones who aren't shouting so much, people like Ed Husain. The bigots will say that he doesn't represent real Islam, which is presumptuous --of course, non-Catholics have told me I'm not a good Catholic because I don't agree 100% with the pope on every issue. Putting one billion people in the same basket seems both foolish and dangerous to me.
In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
He goes on to say how he worries about division turning the Democratic party into "Nixonland." Of course, it's true that we've seen the race card pulled, threats of terrorism to inspire fear, and a desire to change the rules halfway through the race in Michigan, Florida, and Nevada, and all of this behavior is perfectly Nixonian. Still, who does Krugman see as the culprit?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
I respect Krugman, but he must be smoking too much dope at this point. I think any one example of the Clinton's race-baiting can be explained away as misinterpreted (and of course he only refers to one), but you really have to have some blinders on not to see the whole set as calculated. The same thing goes for every low road the Clinton campaign has taken to counter Obama's success. To turn around and use the adjective "Nixonian" to describe Obama supporters is a twisting of reality that approaches doublespeak. I also think both Hillary and Obama have personalities and stories that raise a great deal of passion, much more than our last couple of Democratic nominees (Gore has developed a personality now that was not evident in 2000). Supporters of both candidates are truly inspired by them, and that's not a bad thing. By referring to a "cult of personality" and then bringing up "Operation Flight Suit," Krugman not only explicitly compares Obama to George Bush (!), but to Josef Stalin (!!!!). Paul Krugman is dangerously approaching an Ann Coulter style of "journalism," and that's way beneath him.
UPDATE: Almost immediately after I posted this, I checked sitemeter and saw that someone at Princeton had came by, connected to the site from a search on "Paul Krugman -- NY Times." I don't know if it was one of Prof. Krugman's students or the man himself, and as I said I do respect Krugman a great deal. I even share with him some of his reservations about Obama's health plan. Still, I think he did stoop low with this column. I checked out some of the other links on the search page, and it's interesting how emotional this is getting for supporters of both candidates. It makes me wonder what Krugman meant by "supporters of Obama" in his column. Most of the problems I have with statements supporting Hillary Clinton against Obama come from Hillary herself, her husband, from people in her campaign, or from people close enough to the Clinton campaign that it's hard to imagine their talking points were not vetted (I'm thinking about remarks made by Andrew Cuomo or Bob Kerrey, or the op-ed in the Times by Gloria Steinem). As far as other comments go, like the crazed rant against Ted Kennedy by Marcia Pappas of NY-NOW, who knows? I'm not sure it's fair to blame the Clinton campaign for those. I would like to know what supporters Krugman is talking about.
On my run through blogs concerning this column, it was interesting to see that there were people excoriating Krugman and others praising him. A comparison to Frank Rich's Sunday column came up a couple of times, which was either denounced as trash by pro-Hillary bloggers or held up as the good to Krugman's bad by Obamamites (I personally tend towards the latter opinion). One thing that surprised me was one pro-Hillary blogger who talked about how Obama's race-baiting was despicably low. Look -- the LBJ/MLK comment could have been misunderstood (though it was horribly insensitive to civil rights activists, black and white, who literally put their lives on the line during the Civil Rights movement, something that Krugman just does not get), and Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment may have been taken out of context (though once again, there is an insensitivity issue here), but there were just too many racial references coming out of the Clinton camp for it to be random. They introduced race into the campaign to brand Obama as the candidate for (and only for) the African-American population. That is wrong, and as one Clinton surrogate might put it, they can't "shuck and jive" their way out of it.
DOUBLE UPDATE: This column by Jason Linkins makes a couple of good points about Krugman's column: 1) he does not substantiate his claims in anyway, and 2) although it is true that some of the press has taken some nasty pot shots at Hillary Clinton, Obama's campaign has nothing to do with that. A side note: Linkins talks about how his wife has a problem with the chants of "Yes, we can." My wife, Imperatrix pulcherrima Africae occidentalis (who is a fervent Obama supporter) couldn't help pointing out that the crowds at Obama's speeches chanting "we want change" sounded a bit too much like "Imhotep... Imhotep... Imhotep..."
(Although to tell the truth, just watching Obama's speeches on TV, I find the energy of the crowds almost as exciting as his speeches -- the energy of the "we" that Obama always talks about, as opposed to the "I" that Hillary tends to use).
Politics: John McCain appears to have the GOP nomination in his pocket. He is not an ideal candidate. A Time poll show him losing to Obama, but by a thin margin, and tied with Hillary. I still think Obama is the stronger candidate against McCain, but it's very early to see how the general election will play out. Conservatives have a huge problem with him even though he has been sucking up to him. Many of them are so intransigent that they may not vote for him, even against Hillary. Democrats should remind the independents who apparently still see him as a "maverick" that he has flip-flopped tremendously in order to get his party's nomination. They should ask him which John McCain he is: the liberal (!) that the right sees, or the man who is trying to appeal to people so ideologically blinded that they cheer when Bush tells them, now that the country is slipping into recession and mired down in two badly-managed wars, that they must vote Republican because "Prosperity and peace are in the balance."
They included the Gambino family’s acting boss, John D’Amico, 73, who is known as Jackie the Nose, and underboss, Domenico Cefalu, 61, who is known as Greaseball, and the consigliere, Joseph Corozzo, who is known as JoJo, the officials said.
Okay, I know everyone has been waiting for this. John Edwards and Bill Richardson have been calling me, saying they're waiting for S & C to make an endorsement before they make theirs. So here goes...
Please, please vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday if you have a primary in your state.
I had been torn between Obama and Edwards. Obama's policies do not always go far enough in the progressive direction for me. I prefer both the Edwards and the Clinton health care plans to Obama's. I am concerned that Obama might be too conciliatory to stand up to Republicans who are too accustomed to having their. Edwards is out now, though, and the choice for Democrats is down to two.
Hillary Clinton is intelligent, knowledgeable, and determined. She would make a better president than any of the candidates from the GOP. Many of those who oppose her do for the wrong reasons. Still, the way she has run her campaign has shown a disturbing lack of integrity. The use of surrogates to inject questions of race into the campaign, her attempts to change the rules halfway through the game, and the continuing misrepresentation of Obama's views and statements are far too close to the kind of politics employed by Karl Rove.
There are other issues that are important -- Hillary's connections to big business, her support of the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, and her inability to explain her vote on authorizing the Iraq war to name a few. Even putting these aside, Hillary has serious electability problems, especially against John McCain. Frank Rich has pointed out the dangerous shadow of Bill Clinton over Hillary, which seems even worse now that the Borat affair has been revealed. Hillary Clinton could also mobilize right wing voters who otherwise would be too demoralized to leave home on election day.
If John McCain wins the Republican nomination, which seems likely at this point, his aura of "integrity" will stand in sharp contrast to Hillary. I don't think that's fair, especially since I think McCain has sold his soul to advance his candidacy in the GOP, pandering to groups on the far right that are dangerous and that he previously denounced. Still, the press will continue to portray him as the "maverick," and it will convince a lot of independent voters. McCain would be a disaster as president. This is a man who has promised more wars, claimed that a hundred-year occupation of Iraq is acceptable to him, and tastelessly joked about bombing Iran. At a time of recession, he admits not understanding economics. McCain's approach to stimulating the economy is similar to George Bush's -- tax cuts. If he is more interested in reducing the deficit than Bush, as he claims, and he's paying for all of his wars, the only alternative is brutal spending cuts on social programs, infrastructure, and education, further widening the gap between the rich and the rest of us in this country.
So, back to Obama. The important question that is raised by his candidacy is that of substance. It's all very good to talk about change and hope, but don't we need more than talk? Yes, of course, and Obama has his policy ideas which are on his website -- some, not all, don't go far enough for me (e.g., his ideas on Iraq and his health care proposal). Like many other people, however, it's the intangible excitement around his campaign that gets my attention. Is that shallow? I don't know. I do believe, however, that Obama was right in the New Hampshire debate when he said, "words do inspire." Words and expressions like "if you're not with us, you're against us," "axis of evil," and "terrorist" have been very powerful over the past seven years. I think one of Hillary's low points was when, Giuliani-style, she invoked the threat of a terrorist attack to support her candidacy. I am tired of politics of fear and divisiveness, and for all my doubts, Obama can electrify me. He won't solve all the country's problems, but it's time for a change of style. If you have a few minutes, watch his victory speech in South Carolina:
Not bad, huh?
By the way, thanks to Kevin for many of the links. I highly recommend his blog, Ghost in the Machine, for those following this election.
Today is the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus, one of the great minds of the Middle Ages and patron of us academics and teachers. As I am a busy academic and teacher, I will just leave you with St. Thomas' great Prayer Before Study (English following the Latin), from the Thesaurus Precum Latinarum.
CREATOR ineffabilis, qui de thesauris sapientiae tuae tres Angelorum hierarchias designasti et eas super caelum empyreum miro ordine collocasti atque universi partes elegantissime distribuisti: Tu, inquam, qui verus fons luminis et sapientiae diceris ac supereminens principium, infundere digneris super intellectus mei tenebras tuae radium claritatis, duplices, in quibus natus sum, a me removens tenebras, peccatum scilicet et ignorantiam. Tu, qui linguas infantium facis disertas, linguam meam erudias atque in labiis meis gratiam tuae benedictionis infundas. Da mihi intelligendi acumen, retinendi capacitatem, addiscendi modum et facilitatem, interpretandi subtilitatem, loquendi gratiam copiosam. Ingressum instruas, progressum dirigas, egressum compleas. Tu, qui es verus Deus et homo, qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
O INFINITE Creator, who in the riches of Thy wisdom didst appoint three hierarchies of Angels and didst set them in wondrous order over the highest heavens, and who didst apportion the elements of the world most wisely: do Thou, who art in truth the fountain of light and wisdom, deign to shed upon the darkness of my understanding the rays of Thine infinite brightness, and remove far from me the twofold darkness in which I was born, namely, sin and ignorance. Do Thou, who givest speech to the tongues of little children, instruct my tongue and pour into my lips the grace of Thy benediction. Give me keenness of apprehension, capacity for remembering, method and ease in learning, insight-in interpretation, and copious eloquence in speech. Instruct my beginning, direct my progress, and set Thy seal upon the finished work, Thou, who art true God and true Man, who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.
A new Nick Cave album will come out on March 3rd. Here's the first video, "Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!":
Here's Nick Cave on Lazarus, from the website:
"Ever since I can remember hearing the Lazarus story, when I was a kid, you know, back in church, I was disturbed and worried by it. Traumatized, actually. We are all, of course, in awe of the greatest of Christ's miracles - raising a man from the dead - but I couldn't help but wonder how Lazarus felt about it. As a child it gave me the creeps, to be honest. I've taken Lazarus and stuck him in New York City, in order to give the song, a hip, contemporary feel. I was also thinking about Harry Houdini who spent a lot of his life trying to debunk the spiritualists who were cashing in on the bereaved. He believed there was nothing going on beyond the grave. He was the second greatest escapologist, Harry was, Lazarus, of course, being the greatest. I wanted to create a kind of vehicle, a medium, for Houdini to speak to us if he so desires, you know, from beyond the grave. Sometimes, late at night, if you listen to the song hard enough, you can hear his voice and the sad clanking of his chains. "I don't know what it is but there is definitely something going on upstairs", he seems to be saying. It is, most of all, an elegy to the New York City of the 70's."
A twelfth-century miniature that has absolutely nothing to do with last night's primary election in New Hampshire.
Well, it certainly is a season of surprises. I suggest that until November we stop listening when the professional bloviators in the media tell us something is a sure thing. Hillary was finished, nothing could stop Obama. Well... Still, it's important to see that she only won by two percentage points in a state she was supposed to win anyway, and that she and Obama both came out of it with the same number of delegates.
There has been a fair amount of discussion at William's and Jeff's about the primaries and the candidates. I still feel closest to Edwards, but I don't see him going very far at this point. Perhaps he could surprise us in South Carolina, but if he doesn't I'd rather see the voters who are concerned about Hillary put their weight behind Obama.
For the record, I will vote for Hillary if she does get the nomination, but not terribly happily. If nothing else, I'm tired of the Bush-Clinton alteration -- do you realize that 18-year-old voters in this election were born under Bush I? I could list the other problems I have with Hillary, but Kevin has done so very well already here (though I feel more sympathetic to Edwards' populism than he does).
One thing I have noticed in talking to people is how much this nomination is about personality and our reactions to personality. For example, William and I have differed with Crystal about Edwards' sincerity. Each of us has tirelessly explained why we like him or not, but in the end it comes down to a gut feeling that really can't be debated. It's the same with Hillary. I personally don't see her as soulless and fake as some people do (though I wonder about her opportune show of emotion this weekend), but I do feel (emphasis on the word "feel") that she lacks vision and that her brand of politics is too divisive and cutthroat. On policy, I'm probably closest to Kucinich, though I see that it is unlikely that he could implement it and impossible that he could be elected. I prefer the Clinton and Edwards health-care plans to Obama's, and Richardson's approach to foreign policy. Still, Obama's speech after winning Iowa really moved me. My brain says it's all just pretty words, what about his policies, will he be too conciliatory to people who are willing to eat him for breakfast... but still, maybe there is something to what he said in last weekend's debate:
And, you know, so, the truth is, actually, words do inspire, words do help people get involved, words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power. Because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, "Yes, we can," and that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.
Getting away from the politics of fear is something I think we're all longing for. I'm about ready to throw my weight behind Obama.
In the meantime, it's interesting to see the breakdown of NH voters. Once again, wealthier and better-educated people like Obama more. Less well-off people are not responding to Edwards' populist message. Clinton and Edwards both did better than Obama among people who said they voted for the candidate "who cares for people like me." Very oddly, Clinton, the most hawkish of the Dems, did best among those who wanted troops to be withdrawn immediately from Iraq, whereas Obama did overwhelming well with those who want troops to stay in Iraq "as long as they're needed." On the religious breakdown, Obama and Clinton did equally well among Protestant voters, but Clinton dominated among Catholic voters with 44%, and Edwards did better with Catholics than with any other religious denomination, getting support of 24%. There are more interesting tidbits there, take a look at it.
Santo Domingo de Silos, by Bartolome Bermejo, fifteenth century.
Today is the feast of St. Dominic of Silos -- not to be confused with St. Dominic of Guzman, the founder of the Dominican Order. Dominic was the eleventh-century abbot of the monastery of Silos in the province of Burgos. The monastery is famous for its Romanesque cloister and chart-topping singing monks. There is a connection with the other Dominic, as described by the Franciscans at American Catholic:
Our saint today, Dominic of Silos was born in Spain around the year 1000 into a peasant family. As a young boy he spent time in the fields, where he welcomed the solitude. He became a Benedictine priest and served in numerous leadership positions. Following a dispute with the king over property, Dominic and two other monks were exiled. They established a new monastery in what at first seemed an unpromising location. Under Dominic’s leadership, however, it became one of the most famous houses in Spain. Many healings were reported there.
About 100 years after Dominic’s death, a young woman made a pilgrimage to his tomb. There Dominic of Silos appeared to her and assured her that she would bear another son. The woman was Joan of Aza, and the son she bore grew up to be the "other" Dominic—the one who founded the Dominicans.
For many years thereafter, the staff used by St. Dominic of Silos was brought to the royal palace whenever a queen of Spain was in labor. The practice ended in 1931.
Abbot Dominic was part of the reforming spirit of the eleventh century. He was the subject of an extensive Latin vita written around 1100 by a French monk named Grimaldus and another in Spanish verse by the great thirteenth-century poet Gonzalo de Berceo. The monastery, originally dedicated to St. Sebastian, was renamed for its most famous abbot soon after his death. The monks there have dedicated themselves to the quality of their Gregorian Chant and have become quite famous. You can listen to some samples at their website.
I will leave you with a youtube video with some great footage of the cloister:
I have been tagged by William and retagged by Talmida, so here is my "eight" meme.
8 Passions in my life:
Imperatrix pulcherrima Africae occidentalis Medieval History Latin Spain Liturgy Music Cooking Poetry
8 Things to do before I die:
Camino de Santiago Return to Jerusalem The Silk Road on camelback See the Aurora borealis Learn Greek Roast a whole lamb in my yard Finish my dissertation Dine in Lyon and Bologna
8 Things I often say:
I'm so tired. &%@+*&%! Hot sauce and white sauce. Amen. I love you (see first entry of first list). Have you done your homework? Mishea,* let's take a nap. Mitt Romney is a d*******g.
8 Books I read (or reread) recently:
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis The Historian Antichrist Snow Crash The Clouds Medea The Iliad
8 Films that mean something to me:
Casablanca Caro Diario Intravista The Road Home Black Cat, White Cat Galaxy Quest The Night of the Hunter Simple Men
8 Songs that mean something to me:
Pale Blue Eyes (The Velvet Underground) A Love Supreme (John Coltrane) (what Garpu said) Didi (Khaled) Pe' Dispietto (Nuova Comagnia di Canto Popolare) Any one of a number of Nick Cave songs Any piece by Palestrina You're Innocent When you Dream (Tom Waits) It's All Right, Ma (Bob Dylan)
8 Living people I'd like to have as dinner guests:
Nanni Moretti Nick Cave Tom Waits Seamus Heaney Lauren Bacall Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, SJ Sister Helen Prejean, CSJ A really good medium, because there are a lot of dead people I want there.
Despite the long lines at the turkey leg stands at medieval fairs, their were no turkeys in medieval Europe. Here is a bestiary illumination of a goose.
The Judgment of Solomon. English, thirteenth century.
Dear Senator Schumer,
Reading today about Mr. Mukasey's testimony before your committee, I was dismayed to see he shares some of the same misguided ideas about torture and presidential power being above the law that have led to some of the worse excesses of this administration. I am sure Mr. Mukasey is a fine man and I know you have spoken well about him in the past, but I urge you to vote against his confirmation and insist that the president nominate someone who is clear and passionate in his commitment to the balance of constitutional powers and the most basic human rights.
Still trying to keep my head above the ocean of work. In the meantime, I leave you a great video of an aria from Claudio Monteverdi's "L'Orfeo" -- one of the first operas. It is conducted by one of my favorite early music directors and a mean viol da gamba player, Jordi Savall, and sung beautifully by his wife, Montserrat Figueras.
Oh, and the guy in the balcony with the drum and the beard is the coolest guy on earth.
UPDATE: As you can see, they won't let me show this on the blog. It's worth going to YouTube for. Here's the link.
According to sitemeter, people have been visiting s&c from all over the world (Malta, India, Ireland, Australia) looking for information on today's feast, and reading my post from last year. Cool.
I discovered Estrella Morente after I moved back from Spain, although I was already familiar with her father's music. She is a great, soulful flamenco singer who is both very traditional and very individual in style. Here she is, accompanied, apparently, by some Portuguese musicians:
She's from Granada and is married to a bullfighter! That's hardcore!
This next song is one of my favorites. The video is just still photos:
The first flamenco singer I ever got into (I bought a cassette of his songs outside the Madrid bullring) was the great Pepe Marchena. I always found the delicacy of his voice and style to be extremely moving:
I've started teaching and am working hard on my dissertation, so it's Homer and Fernando I all the time. I'm just going to let you know what I've been listening to lately. Rasputina is a cello-based rock group with an Edward Gorey feel. I think this video captures their style pretty well.
St. Akepsimas.
