The Shakespearean Spirit

It is interesting that Rousseau was convinced we are free and that the world can be fixed if only we will it. I came up with an aphorism that I gave to my fictive hero Tyler Parker. It goes:

There are only two kinds of fools in this world: Those that think we can't change anything, and those that think we can change whatever we want.

If Rousseau had been a deep Shakespearean, a Fierce Bardolater, he would have realized that all of Shakespeares greatest villains feel themselves free in the universe to do as they please. Hamlet believes in fate. There are solid objects in the world and there are hard walls that we come up against. Mere thinking doesn't make anything so -- doesn't get rid of it either. Who can add a cubit to his height by thinking, Jesus asks. There is something essentially conservative about this -- at least at the philosophical level. We may want to change things -- and we should -- but there are some things that will never change and that are forever beyond our capacity. These things work to shape us. Limits define us. Finis means an end. This is the paradox of Hamlet, both the play and the character. We could scarcely ever end mining either. Certainly the play has a limit that puts the character through a tragic plot. His death is not as horrifying as the death of Cordelia, yet no death would be fitting for the vital prince. He shows us both the evil and the necessity of death for each individual because he is more alive than most of, who, paradoxically, have actual lives. To be human means to live under threat of death, and then to die. The rest is silence -- and no amount of will can change that. We all have to die, but how shall we live?

That is the question.

twL

Abortion: The Short Version

If we are under moral obligations to protect every human embryo, then we are under similar obligations to very elderly and severely brain damaged individuals. This would mean that all of us ought to be rushed onto life support at the end of our lives, if we can expect any end. Therefore, the Terri Schiavo predicament is not a dilemma our families will face but the destiny of us all. We can imagine an argument suggesting that it would be morally reprehensible to ever opt to die rather than opting for a new organ regenerated in a petri dish -- this is the future of medical technology.

Let's agree that early-term abortion is murder. This would make it some sort of misdemeanor manslaughter even if we agreed that an embryo is a full human being. But if we were to "go after" the doctors who perform early-term abortions we can expect one day to file murder charges against doctors who refuse to give a 90-yr-old a heart transplant grown from the patient's own cells.

twL

When My Grandma Died

My Grandma was 82 when she died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. After her initial regimen of chemo failed to put the cancer in remission, the doctors all but refused to further her treatment. There was little point in doing anything more agressive to stop the cancer. The type of chemo she received was considered cutting edge medicine but it failed to work for her. My granmother understood that this was a bad kind of cancer to get and that her old body wasn't in much of a position to fight with anything experimental. The reasoning was that it would have only marred her final days. One has to ask, What is preferrable, dying from the disease or its treatment, which may not work very well anyway?

The logic of those who claim that life begins at conception are missing the fact that, were this true, my grandmother's death would have been a suicide. Her doctors would have been guilty of malpractice, or worse -- murder perhaps. What language is out of bounds in this war of words? My grandma didn't die of cancer. She didn't die of the treatment. She starved to death, wasted away. This is a much better way to go than one could imagine. It turns out that we waste away pretty quietly. It takes weeks. And she didn't refuse to eat. She just couldn't eat enough to keep her strength up. After a while she couldn't eat at all. The only thing going in was water and morphine. For her this was as close as she could get to mercy. Cancer is a pretty merciless thing. Clearly though, we could imagine technology intervening in circumstances like what my grandma faced as she lay dying. We can imagine hooking people up to all sorts of machines that keep life in some sort of technical sense present in the body. But who would that serve.

To the way we normally think about what life is and what dignity is, talk about a few brainwaves and a microscopic cluster of cells -- this is not talk that makes a lot of sense. Why are we under so many obligations to embryos that we are apparently not to convicted felons? Why is war not problematic but an early abortion such a great evil?

I think the real problem for the religious right is that they can't live without knowing there is a soul. When does the soul get hooked up with the body? Well, it must happen at conception. The soul has to start with an event. They have no imagination for a soul that is an effect of the brain. This is so troubling to them that they have to insist everyone agree that conception is the divine moment when God fuses flesh and spirit.

If the abortion battle was not really about this great fear, this great imaginative crisis that the far right refuse to acknowledge, then it makes little sense why they insist on a law. Why not simply protest the action? Why not satisfy themselves with reducing the number of abortions? Why not compromise and start out demanding an end to the late-term abortions only? There is no room for compromise becuase compromise does not defend their dogma. The dogma that life begins at conception protects them from the fear that there may be no soul. Maybe all we are is a mass of cells. This is an idea they can't live with. It is so horrifying that many are willing to kill those that suggest it.

This is so far from the essence of Christianity exemplified in the life of Jesus as to be not only unrecognizable but a deep insult to anyone who takes Jesus seriously. Jesus pretty clearly distanced himself from all violence and certainly all retaliation. So why the hate-speech if it isn't out of fear that they and their savior are wrong and after death is an abyss of nothing?

This is pretty heady anthropological stuff, but this is the current American moment. We live with a group of religious people who live without faith. The insist on religious facts. If you deny these "facts" they are ready to curse you. And maybe ready to kill you.

I can't help how at odds the spirit of the times is with the quiet death of my peaceful Christian grandmother.

twL

Song from *Yeshua Crucified*

Some are never made to bleed
And yet they still succeed.
A thousand more answers
Than there are dancers.
But the dance unfurled,
Rejected by the world.

In secret you exult,
Bearing the hardest thing,
Knowing what’s most difficult:
An unappreciated song you sing.
To stony caves you run away,
Alone in failure there you play
On harp or drum
Immortal tunes through night and day.

twL

The Morals of Abortion

The religious right is about to shoot itself in the foot. The did this once before by providing rhetoric that played into the murderous logic of a couple of young men who decided to be judge and jury for doctors who performed abortions or those who worked at abortion clinics. We've seen less of these folks since then. Clinton was in office then. He was of course followed by W. Bush and the religious right felt they had their man. And to an extent they did. That is, if it all comes down to the Supreme Court and Roe, which it probably won't. The conservatives may never be able to get more than a 4/5 decision on Roe. Even were they to overturn Roe, it is not at all clear that this would mean the end of abortion. George W. certainly did his dead level best to stack the court in favor of defeating Roe. He probably did more for stacking the lower courts, but I haven't studied that yet. I'll have to come back to Bush and the appellate courts in a future post.

But most Americans are against stripping women of all rights to an abortion. I think there is a very clear reason for this. Few people are convinced that a fertilized embryo is a baby. But in the language of this culture war, the right doesn't seem to mind sounding like Lenin demonizing his enemies (real and perceived). By writing this I could earn the name of a supporter of murder. A killer by one remove. Maybe you could call me a bloodsucker. The only ethical thing is to treat such a person without mercy -- or at least that is the Leninist way of talking. To them the termination of a mass of cells that will one day be a viable fetus is the same as killing a child. Babies aren't safe with Obama in office, they say.

Let's suppose that Mr. McCain had it right that life begins at conception. If we are under moral obligations to an embryo, something we cannot even see with the unaided eye, then clearly we are under similar obligations to people at the other end of the extreme: the very old and those in vegetative states. As technology increases, this obligation will increase. If it is immoral to stop the development of an embryo, then it is wrong to let the elderly die when we are in a position to prolong life.

This would mean that the Terri Schiavo situation was not a dilemma for one family but the destiny of us all. This would mean that anyone who has turned off a respirator should be charged with murder. In the future we will have to rush anyone near death to the hospitals to be put on machines. This is the logic of opposing all abortions. This is the logic of demanding we see an embryo as a full human being.

Most people figure if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, by golly. But the religious right has gotten us into a really weird area where we have to make moral choices about situations we never imagined or want to imagine, about objects we cannot see or experience. Experience, however, is the least of concerns when one is all but ready to go to war over a theory. It is a war of words. As the language and furor gets ratcheted up we can expect bullets to fly somewhere.

I hope it isn't in your town or mine.

If Obama does decide to expand abortion rights in his first year as president he will have a fight on his hands, for sure. But by fighting him the right will further sour the rest of us to them. They will look even more out of touch. Fighting Obama will only make them look as backward as they are. There is no way they can get out with racism rubbing off on their hands. It will appear those wormholes to the Fifties are really up and running. Gary Bauer will look even more a cretan as he fights the "Negro" president.

twL

How often have I held your tender hands?
Too few the times. Too many chances lost.
Consuming time, that nothing live withstands,
Pearls all the harm of age, or like a frost
That decorates a winter pane with freeze,
Its intricacies steal our steady minds
From what it means to drown in wasted seas,
Distracting us from where the journey winds.
I greatly doubt that ruling cautious bunch,
With charts and numbers, charting sterile plans,
Tippling predictions over bloated lunch,
Thus mark their days a little digit spans.
I wouldn’t with the billionaires make trade
Because our works and hands too soon will fade.

twl

Praise God and Pass the Ammo

What about being a conservative means one has to rush out an buy a shotgun before Obama takes office? Nothing, I'd say. But the reports are in of gun sales going through the roof. This is more of the paranoia that I was talking about. There is little reason to believe that Obama's tenure will mean results on gun legislation very different from Clinton's, but there are nuts out there running to the stores to stock up in fear. Yep, that's right -- fear. The idea that Congress is about to pass laws forbidding the purchase of shotguns is so far out there that is scarcely demands notice. What does get my attention is the fact that the other Republicans aren't distancing themselves from these extremists. But where are the Republicans on this issue? Does most McCain supporters think Obama wants to take away our twenty gauge and your twenty-two? I doubt it. I also think these fearful people are afraid that a black man might want to take guns out of their racist hands. Clinton didn't do it but the n*gger will, they "reason." Come on, you freaks, isn't John Kerry a hunter? Aren't lots of Democrats? I think so. And with the power of the NRA, I don't think BB guns to say nothing of assault rifles are about to be outlawed any time soon. It's just more fear-mongering. To think otherwise is to throw all reason out the window. Seriously, let's imagine for a second that these Obama-haters are right. Are you trying to tell me Obama is going to raise his head from the scads of real problems on his plate and attempt to shove legislation through that no one is even considering right now? Even if a politician wanted such a fight he couldn't win it. Where does such irrational fear come from if not Fox News? It is up to the Republican realists to denounce these rumors and fears -- that is, if any of them are left with any sense. I don't believe in secret conspiracies for the most part and I don't believe big blocks of the population can be this duped for very long -- not when the truth is so ready at hand. If they are, it's because lots of people are working hard at hiding the truth and playing into racist fears that have for long plagued America.

twl

Where the hell are the real conservatives?

GOP -- that stands for Grand Ole Paranoia. Since when does being a conservative require such nastiness? There are lots of angry Republicans out there today. These are the right-or-wrong do-or-die dyed-in-the-wool partisan people. They're Nazties. The naztier the better. Obama doesn't believe in the sanctity of life, they claim. Therefore, expect summary execution of people blocking traffic or dawdling in line. Where is it written that to be a conservative you have to hate gays and that you have to refuse them rights afforded to straight couples? If gays want a fifty percent divorce rate like the straights, how does it adversely affect me? Will everyone go gay if we pass gay marriage? Will we stop having cute little babies? That's doubtful. Well, I just don't like 'em, they say. Yeah, how do you feel about ugly, pig ignorant, thieves and lie-abouts getting married -- does that make you happy, Mrs Republican? Do I really need to think about the sexual practices of my neighbors to approve of them as neighbors? Besides, how do the paranoiacs on the far out there religious-nut right know that straight people aren't having anal and oral sex? Should we break out the bedroom police to make sure? The whole thing against gay marriage makes no rational sense unless one admits that the GOP wants to be the party of hate, needs to be the party of hate in order to stay in office. But why do they want to be in office if not to be in bed with Big Business? And let me tell you, when Mrs. Republican gets in bed with Mr. Big Business, there ain't nothing she won't do. That goes for Mr. Republican too. They even like a three-way. They say screw traditional family values -- this is Business.

twl

A Sonnet For His Sons

When every other bond in life has broken,
Like the oldest ropes, so past their good
That now their worth’s a worthless rotted token;
When bareness stands where branching life once stood;
When petty friendships fail your dearest heart
And sell you cheap, use you to rant and laugh,
And freeze you out to play their warmer part;
When friends spread gossip of your sinful gaffe;
Remember what we have —and always had:
Easy conversing, more than ease of talk
Alone, but trading thoughts, and sorting bad
From good: an aiding hand held as we walk.
This loyalty is all: I’ll hold above
All worldly stuff our wounded, human love.

twl

taxes taxes taxes

I think it helped Obama win that he assured people he was not going to raise taxes on the middle class. If I had been in his position I would have been tempted to say, Read my lips -- no new taxes. But he's a cool character and not so easily tempted to grand gestures. McCain sure was. But that's another story. Four years from now new taxes to the middle class will kill a re-election bid. The other thing to expect is that the Repulicans will blame Obama for any continued economic woes. How can Democrats stave off this eventuality? We need to consider that we may need to raise taxes a little in order to fix this economic mess. Either that or we better hope that Obama and the legislature can get as much done in a progressive, humane, and green manner as possible before the Party of Paranoia takes back the reins in 2012.

There is little reason to think that an Obama administration will share the fate of Clinton in 1992. It's not political deja vu all over again. Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. And this Congress is riding in on the Obama wave of optimism. They will be beholden to him in a way the entrenched Congress Clinton came into was not. That is a big deal. Also, I doubt Obama will make the kinds of early mistakes Clinton did in '92. I don't think he will hand off health care reform to his wife -- nothing against Hillary Clinton, but how likely is it she was the best person for that very specialist kind of job? It was, however, classic Bill.

twl

Buzzword: socialist

Last week Geoff Nunberg had a piece on "Fresh Air." He seemed to be saying that "socialism" was not a very powerful slur against Obama's politics. I e-mailed him and asked what the heck he meant. The people we are talking about are riled by the term "activist judges." Geoff said, essentially, so what? Calling somebody a socialist is about as dull as calling her a "fellow traveler," no? Well, maybe, but I don't think so -- and here's why: "Socialist" is a word that you can look up in any dictionary. "Fellow traveler" is not simply because most dictionaries do not enter multi-word terms. With Wikipedia this will change. And anyway, fellow traveler was always kind of a euphemism for a Communist. It sounds like one at least. I've heard graduate students use the term not disingenuously as a synonym for an ally or a friendly colleague, as in: Is your dissertation reader open to your position on epistemology? -- Oh, yeah, she's a fellow traveler. Another thing that contributed to fellow traveler going the way of the dodo is the way it lends itself to over use and other applications. Socialist will always be tied to socialism. There is always the problem of socialism being a part of the name of the Nazis and the USSR.

"Socialist" will always have some connection, for those on the right, with Karl Marx. Many liberals are under the impression that you can have socialism without any theoretical tie to Communism -- and, come on! they say, the Soviets weren't real Communists. I say this only to point out that we are at a weird historical moment. What happened along the road from 1968 to 2008? When did kids in the classrooms stop wearing their Che T-shirts? I'm not an anti-intellectual but I do have a problem with American universities being rife with Marxist-Foucauldians. All Democrats are college people, and yet none of them seem interested in theory. What is the philosophical basis of liberalism? Not everyone would agree with my response to that question, but I wonder what their answer is. What books would they recommend I read. I have a list of my own for them. It would not include anything by Etienne Balibar or Immanuel Wallerstein, I can assure you that much. I might start with Simon Schama's Citizens. The first thing that Democrats need to do is sever all connection with Marx, with a hate of wealth and power. America has great wealth and power and we have a responsibility to use them wisely. History is watching.

I'm not suggesting that Obama has any real debt to Marx. Nor do I think that the paranoid right needs to given that much attention. I'm worried that the swing voters will be given a little dose of doubt by the Republicans. Blush Lameballs was not succesful in poisoning the mind of enough Americans this time around -- but next time? Namecalling -- we are about to hear a lot of it from the far right. They will try to say we may as well have elected Jesse Jackson. They will say that this guy wants to tax the life out of you and give a free lunch to gays. They will cast aspersions everywhich way. And for some Americans the dirty words will work. They will be looking for a scapegoat. The times ahead will be strange and dangerous. It is for us in the center to point out that there is nothing else we can do but face our problems. We must address global warming and our need for fuel and energy. We must insist on the full benefits of citizenship to gays and minorities.

The future will be watching that too.

twl

It is a great day for America. There are, however, lots of fears out there and lots of fearful people. Many think al-qaida will be breaking down our doors because a Democrat is in the White House. They think the economy is going to fall into a bottomless pit once Obama starts his "socialist" tax hikes. Obama is a bomb-throwing Muslim Marxist determined to ruin America because he and his lefty friends are ashamed of hierarchy, hegemony, Power. These people want to level everything, the Fearful claim. I think it is unlikely that Obama will raise taxes much. I also think he will not accomplish enough to please many of his current supporters and this will make re-election very difficult. I hope he can do enough to start something great because McCain-Palin would have been a big step backwards.

--twl