01.30.06
Posted in politics at 12:26 pm by Brandon
I was musing this morning on my drive in to East Lansing as I listened to The Diane Rehm Show. I was listening to Rep. John Dingell (D - MI) talk about contemporary politics, and I got to thinking about the last election. Now, Rep. Dingell wasn’t particularly talking about what I got to thinking about–so if you go and listen to the segment, you’ll be wondering how exactly my head works that I got to thinking about the topic of this post (and I’d recommend you NOT get around to speculating about how my head works, it’s scary.)
Anyway, like I said, I got to thinking about the last election. I’m sure you remember the one. One candidate muttered three word sentences (sometimes in indecipherably poor english), none of which lacked either the words or phrases: resolve, stay the course, culture of life, sanctity of marriage, or flip flopper. The other candidate blabbered on about his three purple hearts at length and told us about how he voted for the war before he voted against it. Naturally, we chose the “three-word-sentence” guy without diction.
We didn’t really have much along the lines of realistic options, so I suppose I can forgive a few of you Bush voters.
However, I’m wondering if a couple of you aren’t really pissed right now. Sure, some of you voted on along the lines of your “conservative” beliefs–more military spending, etc. (And, “conservative” was in scare quotes because, really, GWB isn’t much of a traditional fiscal conservative.) And, sure, you probably don’t have much to gripe about. BushCo has done pretty much what they promised along the lines of more military spending (though, you may argue about where the money has gone, you know, with soldiers running around getting shot at and hoping that the bullets somehow fortuitously ricochet off from a well-placed zipper, what with no flack jackets n’ all.)
Some of you should be pissed, though. And, frankly I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more of an outcry against the gay-marriage issue. I mean, if we rewind back to the last election season (oh, how we USians are awful at remembering) you’ll recall that a major issue for reelection was the push for the federal government to outlaw gay marriage. Frankly, I haven’t heard word one from the Bush League about banning gay marriage since the election!
The current administration–if you buy what they sold last election–should be concerned after all. I mean they told us all about how activist judges were undermining traditional American values, you know, values like “dicks are for chicks”, “homosexuals are commies”, or the foundational “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Things every red-blooded American should believe in.
Yet, there’s no word from BushCo on the “gay marriage Amendment”.
There could be a couple reasons for this:
First, GWB the Great could’ve decided he was wrong. You’ll have to forgive me if this doesn’t strike me as a very likely conclusion to arrive at.
Second, similarly unlikely, and related to option number one: GWB could’ve looked around and thought, “Heh, well, ah…looks like them there gays aren’t so bad after all. I spose’ as long as they pay their taxes and cease and deeesist from humpin’ in public, things’ll werk out.”
Third, and I fear more likely, GWB never really cared about outlawing gay marriage. He saw an issue that would bring out voters in droves, siezed on it, and used it to win the election.
So, my question is this. For all of you BushCo voters (all 1 of you who reads this blog) who went to the poles in part because of the promise of saving the “traditional” American family: Where’s the public outcry? Don’t you feel a little betrayed / hoodwinked?
Tags: 2004 Election, Gay Marriage Amendment, Election Year Politics, BushCo
Permalink
01.25.06
Posted in fun at 2:22 pm by Brandon
All you “would be” single gals look out. Seems there’s a kindly fellow named Josh who’s on the lookout for a foxy babe. Read the link and you’ll see just what I mean.
Hear ye, hear ye, single men at all the corners of the earth. Let this be a lesson to you: Thou shalt not self-disclose awkward amounts of information on the internet, thus saith the Lord, selah.
In the end, though, I feel bad for the fellow so I thought I’d send a little traffic his way.
Hat tip: The Feminarian
Tags: Personal Columns, Romantic Personal Ads
Permalink
01.23.06
Posted in culture at 3:12 pm by Brandon
I attended a lecture, of sorts, today. It was more of an exposition of storytelling that was rooted distinctly in the religio-ethnicity of the Jewish storytellers who told the stories. I loved it.
As they told their stories and sang their songs, I got to thinking. Particularly, I was struck by the ways that folktales tend to pop back up into the rhetoric of the day. Folklore is a particularly fascinating set of stories that relate the moral lessons of a society, religion, or culture into a popularly palatable tale.
In introducing these folks to the community of hearers their introducer made a passing comment about the “soundbyte” nature of 21st century culture. The person giving the introduction made it seem as if the fine art of storytelling was nearly dead. On one level, I agree with his assessment. After all, the act of remembering stories together seems to be quickly falling to the wayside in the medium of television. More and more reality TV, the portrayal of real life, real time circumstances is becoming the preferred subject matter for the US subculture. After all, it’s much easier to seamlessly add a product placement into a reality tv show than it is during a sit-com. Advertisement may well prove to be a damning blow to the act of storytelling on television.
On the other hand, it seems that popular folklore is alive and well in some genre. Now, it’s rare that you’ll find the out and out portrayal of traditional folktales in television media; however, what’s more common is the portrayal of particular character types that come directly out of traditional folklore–whether the audience realizes it or not.
In what I hope will become a series (thus the volume 1 designation of this post), I’d like to take some time to explore these character types in the modern media and muse a bit about the use of these pre-fabricated characters in modern storytelling. Because of the use of these ancient character roles and the reliance on these cultural stories, it is my contention that the act of modern storytelling is alive and well in the contemporary media. Yet, despite the prevalence of the telling of stories in the media, our cultural values are often frighteningly present in the stories of our mass media. I will look at the good and the bad of contemporary cultural portrayals in order to find those cultural values that are being delivered into our homes.
Any thoughts on this exploit would be coveted! I hope you’ll join in the discussion!
And, as a teaser, I’ll tip you off to my first topic. Bart Simpson - Trickster extrordinare. This should be fun.
Tags: Storytelling, Media, TV, Folklore
Permalink
01.19.06
Posted in faith, pet peeves at 12:09 am by Brandon
Dear God,
Brandon here.
Please have mercy on us for this “Christian-wear”:
And this:
Not to mention this:
Or this:
And who could forget this:
Or this:
Oh heavens there’s more, here:
And here:
Or here:
Or even here:
I’d like to make a joke here, but this shit’s got me so positively depressed that I don’t know if I can bring myself to make the appropriate “sackcloth and ashes” joke. What a sad display.
Permalink
01.18.06
Posted in politics at 5:30 pm by Brandon
I’ve got a humble goal for this entry. I’m going to lay out a plan that should all but eliminate abortions in this country. And, wonder of all wonders, I think it’s practical. That is, it should garner support from both sides of the aisle.
Are you ready for my idea? No, seriously, it’s kind of off the wall.
First off, I think we need to acknowlege what’s not going to work. Overturning Roe v. Wade–that’s just not going to stop abortion any time soon. It’s unrealistic–even one of George W. Bush’s appointees to the Supreme Court, John Roberts, said Roe v. Wade was settled law. (After all, it’s been decided favourably upon something like 38 times since Roe v. Wade.) Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned that would take millions of dollars, and years of further litigation which could result in another reversal of the decision. All the while, babies are dying.
Then, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, there would be yet other opportunities for women to terminate the lives of their fetuses. Some through doctors who refused not to do the procedure, other women would take to the back alleys and pursue other methods of terminating their pregnancies. And, I don’t think anybody wants that to happen. In the end, we can put a lot of energy into overturning Roe v. Wade or we could look for a better option.
You see, when you get down to brass tacks, neither pro-lifers or pro-choicers are really wild about abortions. I’ve never heard of an organization (not even NOW or NARAL) who think abortion is a particularly good option for birth control. Those organizations are pretty much out there to ensure that women are given the choice of having an abortion. That is not to say that they think abortions are good idea.
So, what if the pro-lifers just laid off the whole “let’s overturn Roe v. Wade” crap. Rather than seeking to OUTLAW abortion, what if we just tried to STOP it.
I can hear the naysayers amongst you, they’re clucking their tongues saying, “Ah, Brandon, this mythical land you speak of where people just do good of their own accord is just that: mythical.”
Well, I’m not so sure it is only mythical. First, let’s put to bed the myth that OUTLAWING something prevents people from doing that thing. We should’ve learned our lesson from the days of prohibition. Yeah, we outlawed alcohol, and before the ink on the 18th amendment was dry there were black-markets popping up for the untaxed sale and distribution of alcohol. Furthermore, the alcohol was unsafe and in many cases caused death.
If we’re not going to OUTLAW abortion, how are we going to stop it? Good question, right? I think that in order to answer this question we need to have a little discussion about where babies come from. Let’s be honest, people don’t have abortions as a regular form of birth control–and if those people are out there, they’re the outliars. So, if we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies we’d reduce the number of abortions. Seems pretty logical, right?
Yes, it does seem logical.
There are, of course, two ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. First there’s the way that doesn’t work: abstinence education. Then, there’s the way that works: making birth control more readily available and helping pregnant women to feel that they’ll be taken care of.
Let me be frank. Who do we think we’re kidding with abstinence education? What do we really need to educate kids about…it’s a pretty simple syllabus and lesson plan.
It goes like this:
You: “Hey, Kid, don’t have sex.”
Kid: “Yeah, right.”
or
You: “Key, Kid, keep your pecker in your pants and you’ll stay out of trouble.”
Kid: “Yeah, right.”
We talk about abstinence education as if there’s some big fucking textbook or something and a hellish final exam to study for. Come on. Abstinence education doesn’t work, it’s like handing a kid a roadmap and then telling them not to drive down a certain road…even though he’s genetically programmed to drive down the road and driving down the road will feel VERY good…but he shouldn’t do it (and then, most abstinence instructors can’t even give a good reason to wait…and we’re shocked that “abstinence education” doesn’t work.)
Anyway, then, what does work? Well, available methods of birth control, for one. Another thing that helps reduce abortions is having social programs available to at risk pregnant women. I know, I know, I said that bad word (no not “fucking”) you know the one, “social programs”. Yes, in order to reduce abortions, and do it quickly, we’ll need to start taking care of our poor and at risk populations.
It’s time for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers to come off of their stupid issues and start pursuing the greater good. Frankly, I don’t care if there’s a law that says that women can have abortions. What I care about (considering I believe that life begins at conception) is as a nation providing a safe and healthy environment for our weakest and most defenseless population: the unborn.
The next time you get a phone call from the local pro-choice agency encouraging you to vote for the latest pro-choice candidate, be sure to ask them what they’ll be doing to reduce the number of abortions in the country (because, of course, this has nothing to do with being pro-choice).
And, the next time Right to Life calls, be sure to ask them the kinds of things the candidate they’re supporting will be doing to reduce the number of abortions in America (beyond just opposing abortion rights legislation).
A startlingly low number of Americans actually think abortions are a good idea. Yet, because of the bull-headed stupidity of those on both sides of the aisle, babies keep dying. And, if you asked me, that’s fucking messed up.
Tags: Abortion, Pro Life, Pro Choice, Ending Abortion
Permalink
01.17.06
Posted in beer at 7:58 pm by Brandon
Let me just say this once: Holy shit has it been boring around here lately. I mean, wow, really boring. I don’t think I can handle another post on politics for a while. And, if I’m boring myself, any of you who’re still left must be REALLY bored. I mean, political philosophy is cool and all, but seriously, it’s not as cool as beer.
It seemed prudent to me in this entry on one of the great loves of my life–yes, beer is one of the great loves of my life–to talk a bit about some of the beers I really DON’T like. Some of them just taste bad to me, others well, even saying their name just makes my skin crawl.
So, with no further adieu, my least flavourite beers–and no, that wasn’t a typo:
- Leinenkugel Creamy Dark Lager - Some beers look like they should be good on the bottle. This beer promised smooth drinkability with a nutty finish. All I got was a mouthful of overpowering malt with a nearly non-existent hop finish that left LOTS to be desired. Now, to be fair, it’s been over a year since I’ve given Leinie Creamy Dark a try…of course that’s because I thought it tasted like shit last time I tried it. (Reader’s Note: Brandon doesn’t really do overly malty beers well, feel free to have your own opinion.)
- Bud Light - My cat Thelma drinks beer (only from the bottle, of course) and even she knows the difference between Bud Light and beer. She simply refuses to drink Bud Light, I love her for it. Bud Light is one of the only beers that when I see people drinking Bud Light, I actually think much less of them. No, seriously. I have a running monologue that mumbles something to the effect of “sad excuse…(harumph)…they serve it so damn cold cos’ it tastes like elephant urine warm…(mmmrumph)…pseudo-Pilsen…(grrr)…sad excuse for a beer drinker”. You get the idea.
- Sam Adams - Oktoberfest - When I was in Boston this November, I thought to myself, “Hey, maybe Sam Adams is better in Boston than it is elsewhere!” Friends, I’ve got news for you: It’s not. Once again, I find Sam Adams, particularly their Oktoberfest, to be either significantly underhopped or too heavy.
- Harper’s Micro-Brewery Beers - Now, I’m hesitant to cast an overarching claim of shitty beer on all the beers in a brewery, but when your micro-brewery only brews about 8 or so beers, and I can try them all, I feel that I’m in a good place to comment. First off, I’ll probably keep going to Harpers, because, for the love of God, when you can get yourself 4 pints of beer and walk out of the pub only 7 dollars later, you’ve got yourself a winner, Matilda. But, though the price is right, the beer just sucks. I’m pretty sure that the Spartan Wheat (their most popular brew) was watered down last time I was there. Their brown ale is actually on the border between a Porter and a Stout, their amber is more appropriately labelled a brown ale. Plus, the porter…oh, wait…brown ale I had was doused with so much Black Patent malt it was barely drinkable. I had to order a water…oh, wait…Spartan Wheat to wash it down. I can’t even tell you how much this beer sucks. If you must drink beer go with the Raspberry Wheat (which is okay because it’s flavored so heavily that the crap-tastic rest of the beerflavor won’t bleed through the Raspberry.)
- PBR - I know, I know, all the kids are drinking PBR like it’s going out of style. It’s the latest hip thing. I’m just going to say it first, it has gone out of style and second and most importantly, the stuff tastes like shit. I don’t care if some marketing campaign can convince 18 to 24 year olds that it’s the coolest thing to by themselves a 30 pack of PBR cans for like 9 bucks and drink themselves into oblivion, the stuff tastes worse than the can it comes in. The only way I can even manage a gulp of this crap is if it’s served at a temperature approaching absolute zero.
Now, lest you think I’m a beer snob…oh nevermind. I wear the beer snob badge proudly. If I had my druthers I’d be drinking beer that costs about 10 bucks per 750 mL bottle. However, I don’t get my druthers. Somedays, I have to drink beer that is probably less up-to-snuff than I would prefer. If I have to choose, I tend toward Labatt Blue and Molson Canadian (those Dual Molson Canadian labels get me every time–my favorite is “I’m a scientist. Let’s experiment.”)
Permalink
01.16.06
Posted in faith, politics, culture at 8:46 pm by Brandon
I’m hardly an apologist of any sort. And, to be fair it may be a bit confusing to call me a progressive Christian. It’s not that I’m not liberal or progressive (pick your label), and it’s not that I’m not a Christian–I am. Yet, it’s not so much my Christianity that is progressive as my political viewpoints. I think it’s worthwhile to make a distinction on this point as so many “progressive” Christians are actually relatively conservative when it comes to the tenants of their faith. Anyway, I digress–already.
The point is that I wanted to take a few paragraphs to respond to Jacke’s recent post in response to my post about faith and politics and so forth. I’m glad that Jacke and I have been able to have this conversation. I think one of the really cool things about discussions that happen in the blogosphere is that you meet–and have to explain yourself to–people with such divergent opinions. Doing this self-introduction really forces you to get to know and explain yourself. And, to tell the truth, I’ve been able to, once again, think through the things I believe and clear up, for myself and others exactly what it is that I’m thinking about life, faith, and the confluence between the two.
So, the goal of this note is to go through Jacke’s post and answer her main question: If Conservative Christians are redefining Christianity, I would like to know how? This is something I asserted earlier, that Conservative Christians, just like Progressive Christians, are trying to redefine their faith in order to suit their own political ends. Here’s a quote from Jacke’s post:
Okay, my problem is this. If Conservative Christians are redefining Christianity, I would like to know how? By believing that God’s Word is true? By believing that we can draw conclusions from God’s Word based on implications regarding other subjects which can be reasonably applied to modern day issues which are not mentioned, specifically, in the Bible? How is that redefining Christianity? How is believing in widely accepted interpretations of the Bible which have a long history in our faith somehow redefining Christianity? I would like more specificity on how, exactly, Conservative Christians have redefined Christianity by continuing to believe in time tested interpretations of theologians and Biblical scholars for ages. I would like to know how remaining committed to trying to live one’s life according to our understanding of scripture we are somehow redefining Christianity.
First of all, we need to take a step back, here. My comment that Conservative Christians are redefiniing Christianity was embedded in the understanding that it wasn’t ALL Conservative Christians doing so. And, Progressive Christians are playing the same game. In fact, my statement endorsed the life views of a Conservative Christian whose conservative politic grew out of their desire to pursue Christ.
But, what about this other contingent of folks. This group of people whose politic grows from the fact that modernism / Christianity / conservatism are inextricably linked rather than any desire to become more like Christ–How are these Conservative Christians redefining Christianity? By choosing which parts of scripture the’ll view as important and which parts they’ll view as unimportant.
They redefine Christianity as a modern religion. That is, they redefine Christianity as a religion that is fundamentally and essentially a product of a specific period of human existence–particularly, the period of culture humans formed in the US in the first 80 or so years of the 20th century. Christianity is not a modern religion. Christianity, though a culmination of cultural traditions, is bigger than just what mankind brings to it. I believe Christianity to be fundamentally divine.
So, yes, while Christianity is a religion in which God seeks to reconcile with man and does that in different ways and in different cultures, it fundamentally supercedes culture. What I think that many USian Conservative Christians have done is to, if you will, create an idol out of one historical period in Christianity.
Here’s what I mean: take alcohol for example. Many Christians use biblical principle to support their belief that drinking is either wrong or better not done. Now, this of course, is a cultural artifact more than it is a Christian artifact. Yet, Christians have redefined what it means to be Christian. Fundamentally, because of this cultural artifact, many Christians will tell you that it’s a sin to drink.
I think that the part about Jacke’s rhetoric that riles so many of us progressive Christians is that it takes the position of the rhetorical high ground. That is, it fundamentally uses language that presumes that progressive christians don’t believe the Bible is true or that we don’t believe that it can be used to understand how we, as Christians, are to behave. Progressive Christians, too, believe that the Bible is true, and we believe that one can extrapolate good things about how to conduct oneself in the work-a-day world from the Bible. Many progressive Christians believe in scriptural truth that have long traditions in our faith (for example, the traditionally progressive perspective on simplicity and living a non-ornamental life and worshipping in simple ways goes back to early protestantism in europe).
Just because modernism has been around for the past 100 years or so doesn’t make it THE traditional way to interpret Christianity.
If we cannot stand up in the face of those things of which God clearly did not approve, and in fact condemned in His Word, before they get a foothold and change our entire American society and value system how can we then claim that we are pursuing radical orthodoxy? It makes no sense to me.
You see, your definition, Jacke, of the things of which God did/does not approve is inextricably rooted in modernism. I’m arguing from a different place–probably best described as postmodernism (though, I think that’s a little incomplete). I’m simply saying that the grace of God is bigger than what makes sense to you, or me. Frankly, I have no clue how a conservative Christian can call themselves a “follower of Christ” and support a war effort that kills innocent people the world over, I haven’t any idea how a person could call themselves a “follower of Christ” and not support legislation that has the best intentions of the disenfranchised and marginalised at heart.
And, further yet, I have no idea how a person who says that they “follow Christ” could ever vote for a person who has used the racist fears of a white majority to win a political election for the office of President of the United States. I have no idea how a person could do these things which seem to me to be so “anti-the-will-of-God” and call themselves a pursue-er of radical orthodoxy. But, you know what, I still believe they can.
Just because something makes no sense to me, doesn’t make it wrong. And, the same is true for all of us. Sometimes things that don’t make sense are true.
So, how are Conservative Christians redefining Christianity? In short, I believe some of them are doing so by idolizing one particularly comfortable cultural context for Christianity (namely a modern understanding of Christianity) and treating that as if it were orthodoxy. They use modern Christianity as if it were some holy baseline from which to both look forward and back. As if the cultural platform that offered them their vantage point on all of scripture was somehow holier than any other cultural vantage point. And, it offers them a perspective that allows them to more correctly (than it does for others) look at all of Christianity. Their bias is that their perspective is traditionally historical (when, in fact, ancient Christianity and modern Christianity have a cultural ocean of differences between the two.)
Now, it’s also true that postmodernism is but another man-made platform from which to observe and (for some) to interact with Christianity. It’s not perfect, either. From these various platforms, Christians tend to form their political views. Some of those views are progressive, others liberal. I’m not arguing that ALL moderns idolize modernity. I’m simply saying that it’s a common pitfall for some.
I may have more on this later, but for now, I’ll take a break and let you respond if you wish!
Tags: Postmodernism, Modernism, Christianity, Politics, Political Christianity
Permalink
Posted in life at 2:31 pm by Brandon
In addition to being admitted to a doctoral program (and accepting that offer) this past Friday, and it being a national holiday of iTunes worthy celebration, I just found out that I’ve had a blog-o-sphere first. My first blog-friends had a baby.
In reading over at Greg’s blog, I found out that Micah and Kristen of McCarty Musing fame have welcomed to the world a brand new family member. Please go wish them congratulations and whisper a prayer of thanksgiving for their little blessing Harper Grace.
Praise God, another feminist has entered the world.
Permalink
Posted in faith, life at 12:02 pm by Brandon
In honor of the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I only thought it appropriate to make up a little playlist of what I’ll be listening to today. Some of this has a more direct connection to Dr. King. Others are simply some of my favorite tunes that relate to the themes that I think of as most descriptive of the life of Dr. King, often by artists whose work I hold to be understanding of the deep struggle Dr. King exemplified. That is, they talk about the struggle for redemption, justice, and renewal that was ebodied by Dr. King. Still others relate thee exceptional courage required to continue down the path Dr. King forged years ago–and the lack of courage that I sometimes feel I have to pursue that path.
In the end, these are a collection of songs that I really like that, when taken in the context of the life of Dr. King, take up renewed meaning.
P.S. If you’d like to play along with your own MLK day iTunes tributes, feel free to trackback here or leave a comment to your lists…even if you don’t get around to it for a few days!
Permalink
01.14.06
Posted in life at 10:12 am by Brandon
Since a couple of you shared your good thoughts, and–rumor has it–there even may have been an unconfirmed prayer or two, I thought I’d let you know that yesterday, I did get the hoped for offer of admission and funding. So, the good news is that I can keep going to school next year and putting off the inevitable job hunt for a few more years. Now, all we need to do is get Jen admitted to her program and we can both enjoy our blissfully concurrent unemloyment.
For any of you who were curious. Our hopeful move to East Lansing would in no way encumber the blogvention activities that may happen at our current home. Anyway, both Jen and I are encouraged and hopeful that we may just get to live out our little dream of being in the same town at the same time. At very least, we’re one step closer to the realisation of that dream.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
