The Parable of Speaking Truth to Power

The Parables of Jesus were spoken in symbolic language which lends them to a variety of different, though often interrelated interpretations. Indeed, the very structure of the words which form them make any one sole meaning impossible. It is this fact in particular that has made me skeptical of any church or any faith which stakes a claim to the "real" way. Biblical scholarship has revealed nuance and even irony in the original text itself, both of which must be taken into account before forming any one-sided reading. Jesus often spoke indirectly to avoid persecution by both Roman and Jewish authorities, but beyond the obvious, I have always seen the Parables much as I would an excellent work of poetry, one which provides a new, helpful, before unseen resonance with every subsequent reading. The intrinsic thread remains constant, but new permutations arise as I age and depending on what frame of mind I am in at that particular juncture in my life, I always glean something brand new.

When we talk about our own complicity in a system where those at the top dictate the course of action for those subservient to them, I return to the Parable of the Talents. In this day and age where we often believe that our own power, income, and sphere of influence owes its existence to making compromises with unethical major players, this Parable address our messy moral dilemmas. Here, the version in the Gospel of Matthew, which is cited most frequently.

14 "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17 So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18 But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19 "After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22 "The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24 "Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

A common interpretation of this parable, indeed the one in which I was schooled, states that dispersing moral lessons of fairness, justice, ethics, humility, and compassion requires one to push past fear and be courageous in spreading the positive message of unity and love. Though our "talents" might be unequal to others, we can still make the most of what we have in working collectively towards good. Though each of us have different degrees of skills and spiritual gifts, what matters more is how we use them, not how many of them we possess. I find it interesting that while few of us, especially religious liberals or secular humanists would call religion an activist movement, we use this same line of logic and ancient tactics in encouraging those of like mind to action and also in spurring ourselves to spread the good news to whichever Gospel of Social Justice we find most to our liking. In this particular reading, perhaps unsurprisingly, our sympathies are extended to the Master, not to the last of the servants, who we assume is too scared of failure and too cowardly to have invested his master's money. However, this does present something of a problem when one recognizes the depth and breadth of the master's response, which if we are to take the third servant at his word, is cold and cruel.

Luke includes a similar parable, albeit one where every servant is entrusted with the same amount of money. In his version, we also know up front that the master is deeply unpopular with some of his some of his citizens and that he is willing to put to death those citizens who oppose him. Our sympathies, then, are not with the unforgiving master but with the one servant who was unwilling to invest the money entrusted to him. If the master's business ventures were corrupt, illegal, or unfair then it is only the third servant, entrusted with the least amount (according to Matthew's account) who acted correctly and whose conduct is beyond reproach.

William R. Herzog II in Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as the Pedagogue of the Oppressed gives an interpretation that shows the risk of challenging the established authorities.

The servant's frank remark shows him to be a "whistle-blower". He calls the aristocrat harsh and merciless, which are not God-like qualities. He exposes the sham of what has occurred: the other servants have allowed themselves to be used for exploitative purposes, for which they will be rewarded by the wicked aristocrat.

According to Herzog's reading, the point of the parable is to show how much it can cost for an underling to expose the truth about injustice in society. Indeed, this parable is the last Jesus delivers before his crucifixion, the ultimate consequence of his own speaking of truth to worldly power.

Without asking Jesus directly as to what he meant, the true meaning of the parable is up for some debate and indeed Biblical scholars have puzzled over it for centuries and may puzzle over it for centuries more. If we view the parable through Herzog's lens, we recognize that while the master acknowledges that his business ventures may be dirty and unfair, he still insists that some money could have been made if the servant had bothered to invest it in a bank. A more conventional interpretation, outside of a religious context, might read that even in a flawed system, one should at least attempt to make some profit if one feels disinclined to resort to unethical standards. By the end, the master vindictively punishes the third servant by giving all of his money to the most profitable servant, the one who he trusted the most in the beginning. This is a curious way of teaching a lesson and, not only that, quite extreme, almost sadistic in its application. Still, in keeping with the whistle-blower view, such things frequently happen to those who do question the system, threaten established power brokers, and end up being excommunicated from society or even threatened with death in the process.

Since this was the last parable told before the Crucifixion, the ultimate placement of this allegorical story might have been designed to instruct all believers to keep the teachings of the Master (Jesus) and spread them throughout the world and/or to serve as a lesson that all who challenge the system will run the risk of being persecuted. Refusing to engage in worldly sins while simultaneously turning the mirror to reflect the hypocrisies of the powerful is as needed as adherence to a code of ethics, though this degree of sacrifice does frequently create confrontation and conflict. Either interpretation one cites is worthy of contemplation in this age where we understand, now more than ever, the importance of organization and the great need for a common voice to institute reform measures. We note soberly that a great risk still exists for those whose weapon of choice is the unvarnished truth and whose target are those who swear by lies and rationalizations instead. It is written that the truth will set us free, but though it is the path to liberation, truth often comes with consequences, deserved or not.

The Best of News

Dear Readers,

My apologies for not posting yesterday. I received some unexpected, but extremely welcome news which required my full attention. In brief, I have managed to achieve some degree of income along with health insurance, which were the two criteria that I needed fulfilled in order to finally relocate to DC for good. Both goals having been reached, I have now begun to settle in to a brand new life in our Nation's Capital. I am excited and also a little anxious, because now begins a drastically different chapter of my earthly existence.

What is worth rejoicing about, of course, is that a frequently frustrating seven month struggle has now concluded. There was once a time where I would have been jumping for joy, but I realize that the next several days will be packed full of things to do to relocate. I planned out all that needed to be done months ago. Now all I need to do is put those plans in action.

The "Civil" Wars

An article written in today's Washington Post posits whether or not the foul-mouthed chorus of immature slights and sharp elbows that characterizes an internet world shows a new degree of rudeness or whether said dialogue merely reflects a new awareness of the democratic insult. To cite a personal example, I myself received an tremendous number of hateful, childish comments when a few seconds of the iReport I posted online to CNN was chosen for broadcast and aired on the network itself. What I had been attempting to convey in my talk were the many complexities of the life of Ted Kennedy, but what I quickly noticed were that most of the personal attacks I received did not even come close to directly addressing what I said. Few were really listening to or even contemplating my words, rather they just wanted to vent and many seemed to believe that my video provided them another opportunity to castigate anyone who could be so inhumane to kill babies by advocating for abortion rights. I think the most bizarre and gratuitous insult I received was the poster who told me to "comb [my] f__king hair".

For all the debate and the analysis, true civility might very well be an ideal rather than a reality. The instant feedback and information deluge of our internet age gives us the realization that human discourse provides us equal, ample evidence of every conceivable shade of good and bad. Nowadays, we often believe we live in the worst of all possible worlds. A pessimistic approach does not provide much in the way of comforting, helpful answers, but neither does the kind of radical optimism rightly savaged by Voltaire in Candide. As the article addresses, looking into the past to find evidence of a time where the trains always ran on time, every imaginable need was cheap and readily available, and people treated each other with courtesy and respect is wistful nostalgia for times that never really were.

Mary Schmich's opinion column entitled "Advice, Like Youth, Probably Just Wasted on the Young" includes this bit of advice.

Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.

There have been as many pronouncements that society is on the brink of self-destruction as there have been prophetic sureties of the imminent Second Coming of Christ or the End of the World according to calendars of ancient indigenous peoples. The Post story addresses how the conservative pitchfork rabble falsely accused a DC area author and government worker of having some secret connection to the now infamous rap song, recorded in a New Jersey school over the summer by students, the lyrics of which dared to praise the President. The unfortunate subject of this massive knee-jerk, Charisse Carney-Nunes, voices how many of us feel when subjected to another pitched volley of irrationality hurled at us by an army of plate glass window-smashing malcontents.

Carney-Nunes spends a lot of her free time teaching children how to bridge divides, but she has no idea how to build a dialogue with those who attacked her.

"How can I talk to those people?" she said. "These are people who persist in believing that Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he isn't a citizen of this country. You tell me: Where is the beginning of that conversation?"

Contentious times produce contentious disagreements. We still believe, as did those who shaped this nation, in a liberal line of logic that insists, provided enough education, people can become self-aware, rational beings. The flaws in this argument are particularly glaring now, when education alone, or as the Right likes to call it, indoctrination, seems to be insufficient in the face of emotional excess. From a distance, it is interesting to observe the internal conflict within many people now up in arms over something that shows itself whenever passions are overheated. As though at war with both hemispheres of their brain, they bounce back and forth from uncivilized raw emotion to some degree of civilized restraint. That they themselves seem incapable of recognizing this is problem enough.

"Completely false allegations incubate in the fringe and jump within days to the mainstream, distorting any debate or progress we can have as a society," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which released a report last month noting a rise in the "militia movement" over the past year. "What's different is that a great deal of this is real fear and frustration at very real demographic and cultural changes."

I believe that we are on the right side of history and that our cause is just and good. Yet, I resist strongly the temptation to gloat or to condescendingly dismiss those who fear that reform, any reform, means destruction and that change, when enacted, can never be undone. Being snide and condescending only makes matters worse. Every meaningful conservative has one foot in the past and values the sanctity of the status quo. But as we have seen, merely returning to old ways does not provide simple solutions. The past is too messy and composed of too many ironies to be anyone's Golden Age, either for us or for them. We ought to take the lessons of the past as they are, without smoothing away its rough edges or glossing over the bits that don't serve our purpose. The Past, in its pure form, has no bias to Left or Right. It can be frequently be instructive, so long as we know that it calls us out as much as it calls out our opposition.

Returning to the subject of common decency or the lack thereof, driving much of this conservative grassroots backlash is the reality that this nation will soon consist of an ethnic and racial plurality, and many on the Right fear that balancing authority among separate identity groups, each with its own cultural peculiarities and goals, will lead to disunion and strife. Pat Buchanan and others have advanced this argument before and I fully expect to see more instances of it as the Caucasian majority in this country begins to slowly, but surely recede. We portray these people as foolish or intent on selfishly benefiting from a sense of white privilege and entitlement at our own peril. Fighting fire with fire in this instance is the surest way to eventually cause an inferno. Anyone with an itchy trigger finger is merely looking for a reason to pull it. And as for us, any self-contained group does an excellent job of talking to itself, but finding a way to know how to converse with the broader universe is the key challenge. Much of our discourse could be rightly described as choir practice, which is good to some extent, but we would probably be better served by developing ways to speak to the vast majority of Americans who do not embrace the politics of the conservative nutroots.

Quote of the Week

Have no fear of perfection, you'll never reach it. - Salvadore Dali

Shutting Pandora's Box

Democrats, particularly Progressive Democrats, have been collectively incredulous. The motives and tactics driving the rancor and bile spewing forth from Republican politicians, Fox News, talking heads, pundits, entertainers, and conservative citizens seems so unjustified and so irrational. Looking back to what we recently came through might be the best way to understand this reactionary response. We must believe that one election cycle or one President can undo the blight upon the human psyche or the sustained abuse upon our sacred institutions, sense of safety, and peace of mind. President Obama has been Chief Executive for less than a year, but what we've all learned, much to our chagrin, is that change that you can believe in is slow and incremental.

The reaction of conservatives is directly proportional to the massive amount of fear-mongering, manipulative tactics, and irresponsible governing perpetrated by the Bush Administration. That we on the left are not as affected by this steady barrage of fear and loathing is merely a reflection of the fact that we were hardly the ones to believe in it in the first place. We were the target of scorn, not the targeted audience. One cannot discount for a second the combined evil we were all exposed to for eight long years and that this degree of emotional torture cannot be whisked away with the stroke of a pen, an award, or a sizable agenda. It did not arrive overnight, nor will it depart like a thief in the night.

The old adage of how to cook a frog comes to mind. As the story goes, one doesn't place the frog immediately into boiling water, else the animal would jump out. Instead, one places the frog in lukewarm water and incrementally increases the temperature, allowing the animal to slowly adjust. Eventually the frog is tricked into staying in water hot enough to kill and then thoroughly cook it. This is what has happened to the conservative movement and why we face such a challenge in reversing course. They have been subtly and not-so-subtly manipulated by the doctrine of opportunist neo-conservative thought to the point that conservatives cannot see any common ground with the left. What made this strategy particularly effective and insidious is that it was implemented little bit by little bit until the combined evil was much greater than any individual part.

It should surprise no one then that we've seen this degree of nonsensical, uncompromising, petty, sheer hatred of liberals and President Obama. The Bush/Rove Doctrine might as well have been a a commandment to despise that which opposes you, forsake common humanity for single-minded gain, use any means necessary to win, and never accept the blame for mistakes. We on the left have mentioned this battle plan upon the American public in oversimplified, outline form so frequently that it borders on platitude, but we haven't gone much deeper. For Republicans and conservatives, however, Bush Administration tactics have left a devastating legacy than will not easily be corrected. We need to ask ourselves if there is anything much we can do to refute it. The GOP itself must recognize the damage and make ends to reverse it. If they do not, then this perspective will further calcify and we ought to expect more of these ridiculous nontroversies and petty partisan attacks. Shelving our skepticism for a moment, we need to understand that humans are much more impressionable and easily duped than our frustration with immediate results will allow. We are clamoring for systemic change, but that comes with time. No President ought to have to clean up messes he or she didn't create, but that's the foremost challenge facing our current President, and one that has and will continue to impede what he wants accomplished.

The Ancient Greek fable of Pandora's Box is an allegory to explain the paradox human nature. Simultaneously blessed and cursed with the gift of curiosity, Pandora opens a particularly tempting box and unwittingly unleashes a plethora of ills upon the human race. However, it must be mentioned that what is last to leave the box is the gift of hope. A more Biblical illustration would be that of Adam and Eve, who ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and in so doing were banished from the Garden of Eden. I find a Jewish interpretation to be most instructive in this instance.

According to the Jewish tradition God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree that was to give free choice and allow them to earn, as opposed to receive, absolute perfection and intimate communion with God at a higher level than the one on which they were created. According to this tradition, Adam and Eve would have attained absolute perfection and retained immortality had they succeeded in withstanding the temptation to eat from the Tree. After failing at this task, they were condemned to a period of toil to rectify the fallen universe. Jewish tradition views the serpent, and sometimes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil itself, as representatives of evil and man's evil inclination.

Perhaps each of us must toil to rectify our own sin or even take the time to rectify someone else's sin. I believe this to be a function and a role we must all take on as part of being human. It might not be fair, but life is rarely just as we would wish it to be. In this instance, the President, the Congress, and we ourselves are going to have to first reverse trends that have now become entrenched. Some of them have their Genesis eight years prior to today, some of them came into being in 1980, and some of them date back to the 1960's. The hope lies, I firmly believe, with a strategy of persistence and steady pressure that ought not to be perceived as a failure if it does not garnish immediately discernible results. Sometimes it doesn't take an Act of Congress to make a major impact on someone or even on the debate itself.

Saturday Video

A Means of Atonement: The Nobel Peace Prize

President Obama's awarding of the Noble Peace Prize may be more about making a strong statement condemning what came before than it is a desire to reward the man who will benefit from the news. At a time when Obama is facing the sharpest criticism of his still-nascent Presidency, the Noble win temporarily distracts from Afghanistan, Health Care Reform, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, banking regulation, Guantanamo Bay, and a variety of other items on the agenda. It will dominate the news cycle at least for today and likely into the weekend, with all the usual suspects chiming in to comment. Obama's resume towards world reconciliation and peace activism around the globe, up until now, has been on the thin side, though he has certainly taken much care to begin to undo the damage of the Bush presidency. I welcome the announcement, though I wonder if perhaps those with a lower profile might have been more deserving.

One also wonders what impact this award will have on the President's domestic approval rating or the public support for his substantial agenda. The Nobel Peace Prize has a long history of courting controversy, and one expects to see no small degree of backlash from conservatives along the same lines as when Al Gore won in 2007. My initial thought is that this event, notable though it is, really won't make much difference either way. It will be a short-term matter that Obama will rightly use to bolster what he wishes to accomplish, particularly in a diplomatic context. The Republicans will scream bloody murder and the Democrats will release complimentary press releases which politely reveal nothing more than safe, unsubstantial praise.

Contemplating why the awards themselves were established explains something of their presumptive function. The Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel, the inventor of the explosives dynamite and gelignite, set up a series of separate prize designations in his will. Winners of these prizes would also be rewarded with a substantial cash prize paid out of Nobel's personal fortune. Upon his death, a committee was instructed to award the most deserving person who had to advanced human improvement in a each of a variety of areas. Ever since their establishment, the committee has often broadly interpreted Nobel's rather vague directives.

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

It was a premature obituary published in a French newspaper that led Nobel to establish these prizes that bear his name.

The obituary stated Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death is dead") and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday." On 27 November 1895, at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris, Nobel signed his last will and testament and set aside the bulk of his estate to establish the Nobel Prizes, to be awarded annually without distinction of nationality.

Nobel himself was the owner of a large factory which designed war munitions and combined with his brilliant discoveries regarding explosive substances, he is a reminder that human progress and innovation can be used to kill millions of people in open combat. Not only that, he is a sobering example that we ourselves might prove to be our own undoing when we selfishly advance our own sordid motives at the expense of our brothers and sisters. Thus, the Nobel Prizes are a lasting testament to one man's atonement and his desire to seek forgiveness. This is an unselfish gesture I do not believe was made to whitewash over past sins. It would be wise to keep that solemn fact in mind when we contemplate the very intent of the awards themselves. Though we need and must continue to cite instances where the wealthy and powerful destroy human unity on behalf of the pursuit of profit, there are those like Nobel who aim to leave a lasting legacy behind them as more than butchers, or amoral profiteers, or purveyors of anguish. Political footballs aside and back and forth arguments aside, we shouldn't let petty grievances detract from the power and grave reverence these awards demand.

Medicaid is No Public Option

The news broke late yesterday afternoon that the Senate Finance Committee sought to broker a compromise measure regarding the Public Option. Giving each individual state a choice of whether or not to provide a public option appeals to fiscal conservatives and red state legislators whose most coherent reservation regarding health care reform is a concern over cost. Still, these kind of messy federal/state mandates reinforce substantial inequality. A Medicaid-style measure like this would mean that those who lived in most well-funded blue states would have superior health care coverage, while those who lived in most, if not all red states would have their health care costs still largely dictated by private carriers, many of which hold near-monopolies in individual states. If the aim of reform is to level the playing field for every American, this falls well short of the stated objective.

Today's Politico contains a brief, but noteworthy column written by Ben Smith, which underscores the controversy regarding Medicaid reform.

The Medicaid expansion would, in a stroke, add 11 million people to the program's ranks by raising the income cap, and one key negotiating point at the moment is the share of that cost the federal government will pick up.

The income cap, however, is only one facet to increasing eligibility. Many states, particularly red states, do not extend coverage to single adults at all, no matter how dire their need. Coverage is often provided only to adults with children and sometimes Medicaid coverage is granted to children only, leaving their parents with nothing. As a result of this, many adults are forced to file for SSI disability to obtain Medicaid coverage, since doing on is the only means by which they might attain any health care coverage at all. However, this removes individuals from the workforce, reduces tax dollars paid into the tax system as condition of employment, and places a drain upon the never-ample General Fund out of which all Medicaid expenses are paid. Removing these strict qualifying factors might costs more in the short term, but the long term consequences are much more detrimental. Someone pays the cost when a person goes bankrupt from enormous medical bills or visits the Emergency Room without insurance, having no means to pay at all. Still, to simplify this unnecessarily as another annoying example of the red state/blue state divide would not be a fair telling of the truth.

Republican governors haven't been the only ones raising doubts.

Tennessee Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen has been an outspoken foe of the plan, and a senior Republican aide notes that two more left-leaning Democrats are also raising complaints. According to the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland "warned on a recent visit to Washington that the 'the states with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities.'

"Strickland said that he wants a health care package that is inclusive and provides for all citizens', but he adds that if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes to see the Federal Government assume the greater portion of the costs, if not the total costs.'"

And New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch last week refused to sign a letter than other Democratic governors sent to congressional leaders urging passage of a health care bill this year, because it failed to "address concerns regarding potential cost shifting to the states," according to a spokesman for the governor quoted by the media.

States do have to adhere to balanced budgets and in times of economic famine like these cannot resort to deficit spending. However, budget priorities are often disproportionately skewed away from social services and relegated to other matters, which are just as wasteful, if not more so than any pork barrel project pushed by a House or Senate member. Before Republicans and Democrats criticize Washington for its excesses or its financial demands, they would be wise to start first in their own backyards. Citing specific instances of pork barrel projects is a rhetoric device which borders on cliche, so I will spare you another retelling of it. Needless to say, room could be made even in a much reduced year of tax revenue. The obscene amount of tax breaks and concessions made to foreign automakers in order to entice them to build auto manufacturing plants is a good place to start. Those states who have never made an attempt to reform their image as little more than an endless supply of cheap labor have shortchanged themselves in ways they seem incapable of comprehending.

A more streamlined approach would, in my opinion, be best. Each state sets its own criteria regarding Medicaid in accordance to how the program was set up in the 1960's and I have no doubt that similarly messy compromises would likely typify the efforts the states willing to institute a public option. Most red states would opt out altogether, of course. I will note that a complete reliance on the superior wisdom and judgment of the Federal Government might be naive, but I have rarely seen any state government be more efficient. What I have seen is a multitude of red states whose efficiency and collective wisdom resembles a Banana Republic combined with a slap-stick comedy routine. That they are the ones who are so quick to shoot barbs at Washington, DC, strikes me as biting the hand that feeds you. Many of these states would have nothing if it hadn't been for the generosity of Capitol Hill and many of their universities would find themselves without needed funding if they couldn't achieve Federal Government grants. So it is here that I'm afraid I can't muster much sympathy for those Governors who rarely pay more than ten percent of the cost of Medicaid anyway. The real lesson to be learned here is that long-term gain is much more important than the facade of short-term cost reduction.

Humans Behaving Humanly

Maureen Dowd's recent column takes on the David Letterman controversy and the power dynamics that shape romances between superiors and subordinates, particularly on the job. She stakes claim to a middle ground between those eviscerating the long-time late night comic and those who find nothing much objectionable about his behavior. To me, Dowd's columns are often hit or miss, but this one does hit on some interesting and pertinent points. Still, what I find most off-putting is her reliance on a different school of feminist critique that is, in my humble opinion, several decades out of date. Our own generational mindset forms our opinions and may still be relevant to those of our age range, but staying resolutely within these parameters does not often allow one to remain current or even pertinent.

Dowd writes,

In an ideal world, bosses would refrain from sleeping with subordinates, so as not to cause jealousy and tension in the office. But we’re not in an ideal world. Otherwise, we’d already have health care for everyone and Glenn Beck wouldn’t have any influence over the White House.

Some have been quick to criticize Letterman for his dalliances. I am not among them. In truth, I myself have broken the unwritten rule of office politics and engaged in a relationship with a co-worker. It should be noted that I was not in an subordinate position either time and once even dated a "superior", though the lines separating chain of command at that workplace were rather fluid. It has been my experience that while such behavior might not necessarily be problematic in and of itself, in stable work environments, it need not be a major issue. In dysfunctional work environments, however, it is courting disaster.

The most contentious assertion to be lifted out of Dowd's entire column is this one.

A few years ago, I wrote that 40 years of feminism had done nothing to alter the fact that older men often see young women in staff support as sirens. For some men, it’s the very inequality of the relationship that’s alluring, the way these women revolve around them and make life easier, the way they treat Himself like the sunrise and sunset of their universe.

Temptation lies inside of each of our hearts and whether we merely lust in them or actively engage is a decision purely ours. What I object to in Dowd's line of logic is what it implies. As she posits it, young women have no defenses and no say against the sinister designs of an older man in a position of authority. This is a tad insulting to women, because it implies that men pull the strings and that a woman's individual intentions are somehow predestined to be superseded and overruled by the men in charge. Women certainly have every right and capability to object and decline an offer of sexual intimacy if it is made. They are not powerless to guard off the insatiable carnal lust of any man, nor somehow obligated to fall into bed with him, whether or not he is their boss. There is often something attractive about authority figures for all of us, regardless of gender, and this is when power dynamics enter the picture and influence our decision-making process.

Part of the argument advanced by Dowd is rooted in a paternalistic belief that the young are too immature and too childish to know how to make correct decisions for themselves. While I know that I made foolish choices in my past out of a combination of youth and inexperience, I do recognize now that age has brought things into focus that were once blurry and uncertain. It would seem that the matter we are discussing now is not consent, rather it is judgment. Even so, I never saw instances where some magnetic, voodoo force compelled my female friends to engage in sexual relationships with their professors or bosses. If I was even aware of such things, what I saw was highly consensual and if immaturity was present, it was frequently present within both parties, age notwithstanding. Still, the ancient motif of the vampire older man with sinister intentions preying on the innocent, virginal young girl/woman still persists to the current day and it's a caricature as deeply insulting to men as it is as women.

Dowd continues,

But it’s absurd to compare a jester (unmarried at the time) to Bill Clinton and other philandering pols. Officeholders run as devoted family men upholding old-fashioned values. They have ambitious public agendas and loyal acolytes whose futures depend on whether these leaders succumb to reckless dalliances.

As Craig Ferguson, whose show is produced by Letterman, joked: “If we are now holding late-night talk-show hosts to the same moral accountability as we hold politicians or clergymen, I’m out.”

This arises from a hypocrisy we all carry. Though we rarely hold ourselves to a standard of perfection, because we recognize all too well how exhausting and impossible it is, we certainly hold others to this same unfeasible expectation. This isn't just illogical, it's also completely nonsensical. In my real life as well as my online existence, I have seen this sort of matter destroy whole communities or severely compromise unity. In a Feminist internet community I regularly frequent, a mini-drama has recently broken out over matters of semantics. A member has taken much time, energy, and effort to file a protest, accusing the moderators of not adequately monitoring and refuting numerous instances of offensive, and anti-feminist language. While I can tell that the protest is motivated out of good intentions, I also am aware that within any movement which feels a compulsion to bring to light to a multitude of enemies lurking insidiously in the in the shadows, sometimes aiming to find every instance of genuine injustice can be taken a bit too far.

This is itself a kind of Sisyphean struggle for perfection, a kind of wack-a-mole activism that will only create frustration, hair-splitting, and nitpicking in the end. One could conceivably devote full-time hours specifically to highlight inflammatory, objectionable instances of societal evils---the sort found in every corner of this big, broad world and even broader internet, but still be no farther towards resolution. There is no sin in admitting that we ourselves are imperfect people and that we ourselves are limited in our scope of influence. If identifying a problem were sufficient in and of itself, we would have put behind many stubborn problems long before today. Admitting our limitations does not mean that we are impotent or incapable, but it does insist that we recognize that we have the capacity to accomplish a few things very well before it comes our time to pass away to the next life. Life is short and I myself would rather devise a way to do a few things exceptionally well than spread myself so thinly that I unintentionally dilute my efforts to making improvements and pushing badly needed reforms.

Without Any Further Delay

As part of the award bestowed upon me yesterday, I was asked to highlight fifteen worthy blogs.

1. a La Rob
2. Freida Bee
3. Last Left Turn Before Hooterville
4. Mock, Paper, Sissors
5. Sisyphus
6. Surviving the Workday
7. That's Why
8. Utah Savage
9. Boxer Rebellion
10. Dark Black
11. Distributor Cap
12. The Chalice Blog
13. Vagabond Scholar
14. Menopausal Stoners
15. Know Your Its
    

Behind Enemy Lines

As I have been unemployed, or at least severely underemployed for the past several months, I decided yesterday to make another attempt at making some income. A job poster advertised the need for rudimentary data entry, an activity that, with time, usually turns one's brain to gelatin, but at least it pays. After being ushered in to a well-furnished and crisply professional business waiting room, I was taken to a much less well-furnished interior comprised of the maze of the stereotypical generic office. With a bland name like CMDI, I didn't have the foggiest notion of what sort of work was needed or even what the nature of it would be. The matter-of-fact, perfunctory demeanor and expensive clothes of the receptionist provide no indication of what one ought to expect when one's name is called.

When I noticed a McCain/Palin poster adorning the walls of a cubicle, I at first thought nothing of it. I reflected that every workplace had at least some proud Republicans in it. It wasn't until later that I realized that as contentious an issue as politics is, particularly at work, the fact that a poster like that was so prominently and unashamedly displayed ought to have been my cue. As I walked into a back room full of fifty computers and people typing madly away, I noticed that ringing the entire space were cardboard boxes holding forms. Upon these boxes the names of most every major Republican challenger for the 2008 nomination were listed, as were PACs set up to aid each contender's efforts, as were general Republican party causes. It was at this point that I realized that working here would require some ethical calisthenics, the likes of which I wondered I could ever muster. Still, even if I am even offered a job and opt to decline, there will be someone else with these very same reservations who will have no choice but to accept the devil's nickel and work for chump change.

The company in question takes great pains to call itself something utterly innocuous and seemingly unrelated to politics altogether, but, as an employee informed me, all of its clients are Republican. Yet, the company implies on its website that it handles more than merely political clients, which is something that I never discerned from my own observation and in asking questions of employees. It left me wondering if the Democratic party resorts to similar tactics when it comes to the businesses of inputting fund-raising data from individual donors and keying in the results of internalized surveys---surveys that attempt to gauge the political sentiments of those who give money to the party. It was, however, at least interesting to contemplate how the RNC sets policy priority and how it categorizes those who keep it in business. I also wonder about the legality of the practice, since if there was nothing objectionable about its cozy relationship with the party in the first place, why would it feel a need for a cover?

Since I was one of a vast number of desperate job seekers that day, I had ample time to consult the company's health insurance policy. Though benefits would never have been offered to a part-time employee like me or any of other presumptive candidates, one could not help but see how full-time employees were provided probably the most unfair and restrictive group policy I have ever seen. Heavily capped dollar amounts made it easy for even healthy people to quickly supersede their coverage limits and end up paying an obscene amount out of pocket. Anyone with a chronic ailment would quickly hit the coverage ceiling and be forced to pay 50% of visits to a specialist, which would quickly add up with the passage of time. This was in addition to a prohibitively high deductible, to add insult to injury. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a Republican company would offer a plan like this.

I feel sorry for the worker bees, clicking and clacking away in a dark room with no windows, inputting the information of yet another stranger. Having lined it up everything neatly, this internalized data will be then synchronized, analyzed, and showcased in software packages with cute names or short, memorable acronyms. Even with the latest impressive-sounding and professional-looking presentation, aside from reducing clutter, I really wonder how this helps anyone. Any business will proclaim the indispensability of its products, of course, but beyond the cheerful hyperbole, whose agenda does this support? Clearly this must justify someone's existence. Aside from having a better understanding of the nature of political contributions and some kind of hierarchical system that ranks from highest to lowest the most pertinent concerns among the rank and file, I have to say I'm not convinced of the logic of the system. I am skeptical of polling data for the same reason. No Child Left Behind is evidence that numerical data can be manipulated to say anything anyone wants it to say and that statistics can be easily cherry picked to set out a self-serving agenda that strongly deviates from the truth.

I Have An Award!

Thanks to Dr. Zaius of Zaius Nation, I have been given the One Lovely Blog award. Now I am supposed to tag fifteen other worthy blogs for the same award, which I promise I will do tomorrow. I'm actually writing this post in between bites of my lunch!

The Olympics are for The World, Not the Most Powerful

What has gotten much attention the past few days is the hypocritical Republican response to the United States losing a bid to host the Olympic Games. What is not being discussed is why it is, in my opinion, altogether fitting and proper that Rio de Janeiro and South America won the right to host the games. If we believe in any such thing as fairness and equality, we would concede that it is time that a country beyond our own receive some positive publicity and be able to showcase its strengths for once. It is not as though we haven't had our time in the sun many times before and I believe that giving this privilege to other deserving cities is worthwhile. In instances like these, those of us who believe that world harmony involves giving every country a seat at the table can find much in the decision upon which to rejoice.

If, however, you are so tactless as to mention this notion in conservative circles, prepare to have your patriotism questioned. If you dare to believe that this country ought not to bill itself or carry itself as the epicenter of everything, they'll claim you're trying to give away our political power on a world stage out of misguided guilt. This fact, above all others is what enrages me most about the Right. The fear of losing something intangible and poorly understood at best is what has driven so much invective recently. It would seem that the party of no is also the part of me first.

Specifically regarding developing nations, we rarely see much news or attention devoted to their affairs beyond natural disasters, instances of shocking social injustice which we have long set aside, or the occasional eccentric spectacle. We enjoy the sensationalist aspect of the man with four wives and twelve children, for example, but almost never are we informed about any good, meaningful news that occurs in a developing nation. Those who spread, make, and shape information dispersal never feel much of a compulsion to explain or cite the style of governance and policy matters of other countries, unless, of course, it's meant to provide some needed contrast to our own system and our own way of doing things. To wit, issues of dire importance to Brazil frequently never make it into the American consciousness. As a result, the view we hold of most countries besides our own is a romanticized one full of as much fiction as fact. Frequently, it is also years out of date. Due to our own response and to the way that substantive concerns of other nations are summarily placed at the bottom of the deck, it is hardly surprising that, with time, resentment has built.

I feel as though I understand this attitude somewhat. As a native Southerner, it wasn't until I traveled North and West that I realized how much of our national discourse and national identity is formed by the large cities found up and down the East and West Coast. One rarely sees much news or attention devoted to the South beyond natural disasters, instance of shocking social injustice supposedly long put aside, like racism, and the occasional eccentric spectacle. Those who spread, make, and shape media rarely feel any compulsion to broadcast good news about the region. Unless meant to provide some sort of needed contrast to the rest of the country, Southern policy decisions or viewpoints rarely find their way into substantive conversation. As a result, the view we hold of the South is a romanticized one, likely forty to fifty years out of date, and comprised as much of fiction as it is of fact. And again, because of this, resentment has built.

Our attitudes may be frequently thoughtless and condescending, but they are not deliberately malicious. We don't mean to snub other countries of the world or regions of our country, for that matter, but we get caught up in our self-importance and inadvertently leave others out in the process. When major challenges arise, they are those of misunderstanding and ignorance first, not of destructive intent. They could be corrected so long as we made a concerted effort to get out of our own head space and take into account that being truly fair and balanced means a little additional legwork on our part. With as much going on in Washington, DC, or New York City, or Los Angeles, it is easy to merely frame the context and the debate based on our largest metropolitan areas. In doing so, however, we leave out the contributions of those without the economic or political clout or population size to suck up enough of the air in the room. If we collectively did our homework and examined areas not particularly well-examined, we might even shockingly concede that people in other countries and even in other parts of our own aren't really that different from us after all.

If we believe that the phrase "Citizen of the World" is more than just a smiley-faced, feel-good platitude, then it might be wise to devote more of our increasingly divided attention to other areas. If we believe that "United Nations" is what its name says it is, we'd take care to live it in our waking existence. In saying this, I do recognize that it would be unnatural for any country to not devote most of its focus on itself, but what I do notice when I survey the news of other countries is how predominate our presence is and how it exists, a bit uneasily at times, equally and at times with frequent dominance alongside their own native concerns. I'm not sure the American ego will be quite so gracious if someday we are no longer Number One. That would definitely be a humbling experience, one which I have no desire to neither prophecy nor to propagate. Ultimately, if we were a world community, that fear among many would be irrelevant anyway.

Quote of the Week

"Self realization is the first encounter with reality."- Nirmala Srivastava

Saturday Video

Friday's Offering

I have lots to do today. I hope this will suffice.

The Polanski Case: Morality Play Aside, What are the Real Motives?

Roger Simon in The Politico writes today about the extradition drama surrounding the arrest of director Roman Polanski. Simon's greater point is, of course, that those who are blessed with great talent are not always those who are blessed with the greatest moral fiber. When a person who has achieved great fame for high artistic achievement gets in trouble, he or she suddenly finds himself or herself with a multitude of apologists and sycophantic admirers. And yet, I would be remiss if I neglected to add that until fame is achieved, however, society and the creative class views any unknown artist as merely another odd bird either unable or unwilling to conform and certainly worthy of no one's pity.

Beyond a simple argument regarding the nature of cult of celebrity or the brutality of childhood sexual abuse, Polanski's case concerns our own yearnings for attention and desire and how quickly we sell into the lies and cheap attention of fame. Not only that, this contentious issue promises great appeal to those wishing to use it to pad their own resumes, insert another feather into the cap, or use the topic as a bargaining chip to strengthen a hand at the diplomatic table. We have been contemplating one side of the issue, but I'd like to know more than the superficial. These instances where art and law intersect are much more interesting.

To begin, a friend of mine, then enrolled in art school, expressed constant frustration to me and to anyone who would listen that the professors encouraged a high degree of eccentricity in each student, feeling that being weird for weird's sake was a conditioned and necessary virtue. The famous Irish wit Oscar Wilde, himself of no small ego and put on trial for his part in a sex scandal, noted that "no great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did he would cease to be an artist." Most of these students needed no encouragement in this area but I suppose the implication was that in a world where "starving artist" was a label frequently pinned to even the most talented at the craft, one needed to do something to stand out. Those who adhere to this philosophy never require much in the way of introduction. We know some of them by their first name alone.

Simon's column makes light of several less than stellar human beings who were championed by Hollywood, writers, actors, and other well-connected individuals for their talents but were dismal failures regarding ethical and legal conduct. One could, I suppose, also add Charles Manson to the list, as several members of The Beach Boys believed him to have genuine musical skills and even were willing to pay for demo sessions to record his ramblings onto magnetic tape. If one surveys poets, playwrights, recording artists, composers, sculptures, painters, and the like one can easily find example after example of misanthropic, borderline criminal behavior. The Beat Poets, for example, were a rowdy bunch of social defectives and proud hell-raisers. I believe there to be at least two reasons for this: the prevalence of mental illness is high among the creative and those who perceive of the world around them so acutely and with such unyielding, high sensitivity have a tendency to be unable to know how to guard themselves properly against an unceasing stream of emotion. Some manage to find healthy ways to control and channel this simultaneous blessing and curse and some do not.

My point in all this is neither to defend nor to accuse Polanski for his actions. While I agree that his directorial work has frequently been genius, I don't feel much of a compulsion to let that fact whitewash the serious crime which he himself has admitted to taking a starring role. The morality of the matter has already been talked to death by voices better connected and more eloquent than mine. I am, however, much more interested in the reasons WHY this matter has come to light now, after the passage of thirty years. What are the motives this time behind bringing the French/Polish director back to the United States to serve out his sentence? Who truly seeks to gain from this? Whose reputation will be padded by having brought Polanski to justice? Who are the major players, what are their names, and what is their compulsion to prosecute now?

The coverage thus far has been predicated on a very small focus of what could be an enormous matter. That we have not yet been provided with the names of those driving extradition proceedings is telling and likely deliberate. Aside from the diplomatic wrangling between France and United States, the politics and the ulterior motives of this drama have been obscured and unrevealed. That the media seems content to let us talk to death one sole facet amongst ourselves and amongst itself is quite interesting. This either means they have nothing further to go on themselves or are being instructed to not give light to a detailed, complex analysis of the case. When matters of International Law are concerned, complications frequently arise and specific issues remain resolutely thorny. It could also be that precise details of this case will be rolled out one by one over the coming weeks, at which point the media will hash them out to exhaustion, only to be presented with the latest batch of compelling information.

I myself have grown tired of debating morality as regards Roman Polanski. Polanski's offense has highlighted how eager we are to forgive significant offenses in our heroes, especially those who have found their way into that small, elite club we call celebrity. I honestly understand those in that tight circle who defends him, because their motives are a result of both self-preservation and sympathy. They're aware of the obscene pressure of living in a fishbowl and having any shred of privacy destroyed by the effects of a society desperate to poke into their personal business. They understand how easy it is to break down, resort to drug addiction, or come completely unglued under the pressure of the omnipresent white hot spotlight. Moreover, they know how easily reputations can be destroyed by spurious rumors and allegations of misdeed. Even so, they also know that the "Get Out of Jail Free" card often extended to those who have the financial means loses its potency whenever any celebrity is sent to prison, no matter how open and shut the case may be. Viewpoints such as these require us to rethink the idea of fame and acknowledge its impact upon our society and we ourselves.

Does Intellectual Discourse Influence the Health Care Debate?

In what is proving to be an interminable struggle to establish health care reform, one that seems to determined prove that all glass houses, slaughterhouses, and sausage-making factories have see-through walls, I thought it might be instructive to contemplate a related contentious issue this country has dealt with in a prior age. Specifically, I thought I might allude to the series of essays our Founding Fathers penned to skeptical citizens to justify and validate the establishment of a strong central government. While many reference The Federalist Papers, sadly, few read them much these days. This is unfortunate, because many of the same arguments made in 1787 are tremendously relevant to the current day. In another in a series of ironies, the same right-wing critics who cling to the Constitution now as a means of justifying their opposition to "government mandates" or "government-run" programs would probably have been the same ones in another age to actively oppose its ratification and enactment.

Alexander Hamilton, who now moonlights as the old dead white guy on the ten-dollar bill wrote an introduction to the essays which speaks to our current quandry.

After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the union, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. (Italics mine) If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

The importance of these essays, which of the Federal system still in force and are still cited by the judiciary to back up their own decisions, cannot be underestimated. Indeed, they were wildly popular with the public in their day and sold thousands of copies. Scholarship since then has romanticized their impact and scope, believing them to be the deciding factor in placating the concerns of reluctant states. What is often forgotten is that the Papers themselves were originally undertaken by Hamilton to combat misinformation about the Constitution and Anti-Federalist arguments that had shown up in newspapers.

The Federal Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the Confederation Congress, which at the end of September 1787 submitted it to the states for ratification. Immediately, the Constitution became the target of many articles and public letters written by opponents of the Constitution. For instance, the important Anti-Federalist authors "Cato" and "Brutus" debuted in New York papers on September 27 and October 18, 1787, respectively.[7] Hamilton decided to launch a measured and extensive defense and explanation of the proposed Constitution as a response to the opponents of ratification, addressing the people of the state of New York. He wrote in Federalist No. 1 that the series would "endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention."[8]

Our current President has saturated the airwaves with his visage, addressed a Joint Session of Congress, pushed reform from any available surrogate, and still we are a House divided against itself. Yet, if past is prologue and this comparison is not entirely fatuous, do understand, as well, that it took over a year for each state to ratify our current Constitution; the debate quickly became heated, contentious, and stayed that way. Though news back and forth from the Capitol traveled much slower in those days, ratification was ultimately a state matter, not a Federal one. The decision was handed off to the states to decide amongst themselves, the matter to was to be debated among state leaders in state chambers on their own timetables. Then as now, the issue was resolved without reservation by some and with great reservation by others. Certain states ratified unanimously and others gave their cautious consent in very narrow decisions. By contrast, what some conservative voices have failed to recognize is that Health Care Reform is a decision in which states themselves have a limited voice beyond their Representatives or Senators. Whether or not this is "fair" is irrelevant. Those who cleave to the Constitution would be better off calling to change it instead of holding it fast to their breasts in some kind of mock-patriotic display.

The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a bill of rights to the constitution was originally controversial because the constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.

Hamilton's fears were, unfortunately, prescient. Within conservative arguments and discourse, from the mouths of politicians, pundits, and wingnuts today is a reliance upon the Bill of Rights as some last gasp defense against an overwhelming liberal infringement of personal freedom. To my eyes, this is a ridiculous contention, but one that state legislatures appear more than willing to use as justification for "protecting" themselves from supposed Washington, DC, interference in their own affairs. Personal rights go well beyond the Bill of Rights, but some are clearly unhappy unless these rights go hand in hand with their demands. At no point is government supposed to function according to the personal whims of those out of power and unwilling to deal with it in an adult fashion.

The Federalist was written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable. Separate ratification proceedings took place in each state, and the essays were not reliably reprinted outside of New York; furthermore, by the time the series was well underway, a number of important states had already ratified it, for instance Pennsylvania on December 12. New York held out until July 26; certainly The Federalist was more important there than anywhere else, but Furtwangler argues that it "could hardly rival other major forces in the ratification contests"--specifically, these forces included the personal influence of well-known Federalists, for instance Hamilton and Jay, and Anti-Federalists, including Governor George Clinton.[21]

Despite all of its noble sentiment and notable eloquence, doubt still exists as to whether The Federalist essays were responsible for turning the tides in favor of ratification. The Wikipedia source I cite above believes that the personalities of individual politicians seemed to do the most good in bringing the issue to a resolute and satisfying close. One wonders if in this day and age we have the Congressional leadership we need to force passage and put a decent bill on President Obama's desk. One would also hope that, unlike then, it doesn't take a full year of deliberation before enactment. We have lamented, quite rightly, a Democratic party which places factionalism ahead of unity and cannot speak as one voice. If Congress proves itself unable to push forward, then the only person with enough character and force of will would be our President. Though I myself would like to believe that ideas and civilized discourse might be the tipping point, then as now, it might not be enough.

Reducing Your Nation's Carbon Footprint Is Not A Matter of Buying Everyone Smaller Shoes

A treatise, upon which the author shockingly agrees with David Brooks (mostly) and uses Homestar Runner as inspiration for his title.

Brooks begins his argument in terms that an Enlightenment era thinker along the lines of Edward Gibbon would be pleased. This short essay, which could be entitled The Decline and Fall of the American Empire points out the complicity among all Americans in building a decadent society.

Centuries ago, historians came up with a classic theory to explain the rise and decline of nations. The theory was that great nations start out tough-minded and energetic. Toughness and energy lead to wealth and power. Wealth and power lead to affluence and luxury. Affluence and luxury lead to decadence, corruption and decline.

Once upon a time, this country prided itself on its flinty, self-sufficient character but decades of mass consumerism and mass communication have made us highly dependent both financially and emotionally on the constant acquisition of things. I also agree with Brooks that we've gotten caught up in a counter-productive pitched battle over morality that gets us nowhere, while we, regardless of allegiance end up sinking farther and farther into debt. I even agree that some degree of widespread irresponsibility and wholesale complicity had a large part in building this less-than-perfect beast, but I do strongly disagree with several of the conclusions he draws. He grasps the facts and the motives well, but his bias gets in the way, as well as his desire to fit profundity into simplistic talking points. Facts are stubborn things, and they are too ironic to ever easily fit inside any one particular ideological persuasion. Resolute, one-sentence conclusions and deductions do not do justice to the complexities of an already complex matter. If Brooks didn't have much of value to report, then I wouldn't bother to respond to it in some details.

Here, a few examples. Brooks can't help but get in at least one dig at the detrimental effects of big government.

Government was limited and did not protect people from the consequences of their actions, thus enforcing discipline and restraint.

Government in another age might have been smaller, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it worked more efficiently. In the past, people were clannish and more insular, particularly immigrant groups, which is much unlike the more multicultural, plurality society in which we live now. The citizen's role in government reflected this fact. Provincialism dominated before but now national politics and national decisions have a much broader scope, span, and influence. But those who believe that that the rich, well-connected, and powerful didn't frequently escape the consequences of their actions then, as now, are obviously smoking something and inhaling. It is a well-worn-out conservative talking point that the size of government is what makes it easy to bring down the financial sector and cause massive mayhem, but in this instance as in all others, wealth and power trump everything. Unless we can regulate that ancient problem, then it doesn't matter how big or how small or how anything government will be. So long as profit is in question and of paramount importance, money will make friends with anything. For the record, government has ALWAYS protected some people from the consequences of their actions.

Brooks is also not above name-checking Boomer Parenting Guilt™.

Waves of immigrant parents worked hard and practiced self-denial so their children could succeed.

As the child of baby boomer parents, periodically I am exposed to a familiar, guilt-laden, deadly serious discussion comprised of panicked faces and nervous body language. In this sober chat, which meets every six months or so, my parents ask me if I was given too much, pampered too much, or corrupted beyond all hope of ever being corrected as a direct result of some failed parenting strategy on their part. While I appreciate the concern and the sentiment, my response is inevitably the same: "You both did a good job. Don't worry about it." Bad parents and bad parenting will always exist and it has been my experience that the ones who hardly feel any compulsion to give themselves ulcers second-guessing themselves are the ones who have every right to worry. I myself have sounded the alarm that a kind of socially acceptable narcissism might be a result of cultural slovenliness but like all character flaws, the distribution is unevenly delegated and what is true for one is not true for everyone.

If there is to be a movement to restore economic values, it will have to cut across the current taxonomies. Its goal will be to make the U.S. again a producer economy, not a consumer economy. It will champion a return to financial self-restraint, large and small.

This, however, is sound advice. Yet, to accomplish it, we will have to find a way to block out the constant crush of advertising, marketing, and commodifying that forms an insidious, barely conscious part of our national conscience. We have been told for years that we are what we buy and that every solution to every problem we might run across can be easily rectified by purchasing a consumer good. Resolving to block out the morass of ad content that bombards us every conceivable instant is a good start, but part of the matter now is that our entire economy is driven by the very same major problems that created this recession. Consumer spending is the engine that drives the machine and when Americans began cutting back, the recession deepened precipitously. If we thought accomplishing significant change with health care was a major issue, imagine what it will be like to revamp our entire underlying economic theory. When so much of our self-esteem as people is wrapped up in our possessions and in idle expenditure, it should come as no surprise to any of us that we feel so out of it, collectively. Women are expected to drown their sorrows in retail therapy, but men find themselves trolling electronic stores and hardware stores to achieve the same effect. Without the degree of disposable income we've been accustomed to, we feel lost when we can't assuage our anxieties in the time-honored way.

Brooks concludes,

It will have to take on what you might call the lobbyist ethos — the righteous conviction held by everybody from AARP to the agribusinesses that their groups are entitled to every possible appropriation, regardless of the larger public cost. It will have to take on the self-indulgent popular demand for low taxes and high spending.

A crusade for economic self-restraint would have to rearrange the current alliances and embrace policies like energy taxes and spending cuts that are now deemed politically impossible. But this sort of moral revival is what the country actually needs.

Our own conditioned selfishness is what needs to change first. If, what the historians predicted 400 years ago was true, then it is inevitable that we've gotten to this ruinous epoch. Smaller government might be an option if we were truly intent on making it smaller across the board. Liberals want government to be big in the ways they want it and conservatives, the primary hypocrites in this matter, want government to big in the ways they want it. As this country grows in population and in complexity, government will have no choice but to adapt, though we will continually bicker about what its adaptive response should be. Peoples' occupations, portfolios, and savings have been built around the current model. What we must avoid at all cost is a self-centered mentality whereby we believe that even our very ideas and potential solutions are ours alone, and moreover, ought to be treated as though we have exclusive copyright and distribution privileges over them. Imagine if the Holy Teachers of any faith closely guarded their messages and words of wisdom to those who paid a monthly fee, or worse yet, sold them off to the highest bidder. I have always been a huge proponent of the internet because, even though there is a tremendous amount of superfluous noise to sort through, there is also the capacity to find inspiration and impetus for reform. This is why I blog and why I enjoy reading the substantive contributions so many are making. I really believe that it will take a collective effort to lay the groundwork for the change we need and I know I can't do it alone. Indeed, I think the fact that we believed we could do it alone is what got us into this mess.

Instead of a Post, Here's a Poem

Captain Hook must remember
Not to scratch his toes.

Captain Hook must watch out
And never pick his nose.

Captain Hook must be gentle
When he shakes your hand.

Captain Hook must be careful
Openin' sardine cans

And playing tag and pouring tea
And turnin' pages in his book.

Lots of folks I'm glad I ain't--

But mostly Captain Hook!

-Shel Silverstein