Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Alyssa Rosenberg, criticism, culture, gender, violence
Alyssa has an interesting pair of posts up about violence against women on TV:
Is it disturbing that some directors and writers treat violence against women as a joke, or as a form of glamor? Absolutely. But I’m not necessarily against all portrayals of women as under attack. If those portrayals illustrate and make clearer to people the hideousness of rape, of murder, of intimate partner violence, I’m hard-pressed to say they shouldn’t exist.
For me, the distinction here is really between exposure and endorsement. I think generally we liberals are more likely to criticize media for what they endorse (“that scene is a sympathetic portrayal or rape”), whereas conservatives are more likely to criticize media for what they expose us to (“that scene shows graphic sex”). I wrote more about this here. I’ll be the first to admit though that the distinction often becomes hazy in practice. Take Lars von Trier’s movie Antichrist: defenders claim its long graphic portrayal of extreme emotional and physical abuse of a woman really is sympathetic to her (or even that she is a stand-in for the male director); critics accuse the director of reveling in the misogyny and lacking irony when he has the victim say that maybe women deserve all their suffering because they are fundamentally evil. Personally I’ve found the criticisms more compelling, but I won’t come down strongly without seeing the movie. And I don’t want to see it.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: capitalism, democracy, Francis Fukuyama, freedom, ideology, markets, media, political science, Ross Douthat
I was surprised to see Ross Douthat, in commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall, invoke Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History, a post-Cold War tract whose star has fallen somewhat since 9/11. Fukuyama argued that whereas the 20th century was marked by intellectual crisis between liberal democracy and its ideological competitors, fascism and communism, once the Soviet Union fell, only liberal democracy was left standing. Now, Fukuyama argued, there is no viable, transnational ideology remaining to compete with liberal democracy, which satisfies a human aspiration for freedom that the Cold War proved to be universal. Thus: the end of history. Liberal democracy is here to stay, and things will not get too much better or worse from here on out. Since his book came out, of course, Fukuyama has gotten slammed by critics on the right convinced that with the Islamist Menace, what we’re actually in is not the End of History a la Fukuyama, but the Clash of Civilizations a la Samuel Huntington.
The stronger critique of Huntington, I’d say, comes from the left. Fukuyama describes, in Douthat’s words,
the disappearance of any enduring, existential threat to liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.
Like Huntington, Douthat places “liberal democracy” and “free market capitalism” in the same breath. Like two syllables on Sesame Street that inch closer together until they become a single word. On a global scale, the ideological competitor to democracy – to one person, one vote, people’s meaningful exercise of voice over the decisions that impact their lives – is laissez-faire capitalism.
Thomas Frank’s One Market Under God offers a great (and very funny) exploration of how acts of consumerism get rebranded by elites as the new acts of citizenship and the market is christened as democratic. But markets are not democratic. And as Michael Moore reminds us with a confidential CitiGroup memo in his new movie, the people who the markets award the most power know this (as he says, the bottom 99% of the population “have 99% of the votes”).
Who will decide what happens to natural resources or public sector jobs in a third world country? The majority of the people who live there, or international elites with structural adjustment plans and threats of turmoil? Who will decide whether a group workers for a union? The majority of the people who work there, or managers that wield the power to harass and fire them?
Those questions will make history.

Check out my first post at Young Philly Politics.

Just for fun, here’s how I’d rank tomorrow’s banner elections in descending order of likelihood the good (or at least better) guys win:
New Jersey Governor (Corzine)
Maine LD 1020 (Keep Equal Marriage)
New York Congress (Owens)
Virginia Governor (Deeds)
New York Mayor (Thompson)
I’m guessing one of these five (Corzine) will turn out well. If two do, count me happy (not counting the safe Democratic House seat in CA). But whatever happens, I won’t conclude anything big about the national climate from it.

Filed under: Uncategorized
The Inquirer’s Monica Yant Kinney wrote a weird, cheeky, somewhat sympathetic, mostly condescending piece on friends of mine who were arrested in civil disobedience for healthcare reform. The weirdest line:
I had to listen a few times before it hit me that the members of the Student Healthcare Action Network want the government to have more control over their lives. Aren’t college kids supposed to be suspicious of politicians and power?
Yant Kinney also suggests, in true Reason Magazine style, that the horrors of George W. Bush should have made kids more anti-government. Perhaps Yant Kinney is not aware that the students of the civil rights movement, her reference point for student activism, supported the dread hand of government regulation in the Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965. Or maybe she thinks the kids were confused then too.
Filed under: Uncategorized
It just occurred to me that, as a newly re-registered Pennsylvania voter, I have to plan when to go to the polls Tuesday. I must have been unconsciously waiting for a ballot to show up in the mail, like it always did in California, where I was a permanent absentee voter (along with about half of the state). Gotta say that, after once finding it anticlimactic when I didn’t vote in person, I’ve gotten pretty used to the convenience of always voting from home. Why don’t we do it in Pennsylvania?
(My first vote: 2002, Ed Rendell for Governor and Dan Wofford for House – voted absentee from college)
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: comedy, culture, George Bush, humor, media, Stephen Metcalf
Lest it be said that I only transcribe Slate’s Culturefest for the sake of criticism, I wanted to highlight this insight from Stephen Metcalf from last week:
…The real function of satire right now in American life, which is sort of two-pronged. One is it’s a psychic compensation for those of us who look at American public life and regard it as insane, ridiculous, and completely unsatisfying. By way of compensation, we tune into Colbert and the Daily Show, and maybe whatever other sources, Saturday Night Live. And we laugh. I don’t want to minimize that at all, but as an agent of change, or a place to place one’s political hopes, I think one is going to walk away extremely amused and very disappointed.
And then secondly it’s an avenue of forgiveness for everybody in American life almost regardless of what they’ve done. I mean one half expects to turn on Saturday Night Live and discover that Charles Manson is hosting and doing funny skits about Sharon Tate and we’re all expected to forgive him. The ability to poke fun at yourself has become now a universal absolution really in American life. And the best example being George Bush, who takes us on a hopeless war that kills thousands of Americans and god knows how many Iraqis, and somehow he’s still likable because he can make fun of himself because he makes a short film skitting about how he can’t find the weapons of mass destruction…There is a way – Dana am I completely wrong about this, am I just being a total grouch – there is a way in which satire has become politically neutralizing, which is exactly the opposite of what it’s supposed to be.
No, Stephen, you are not just being a total grouch. Beyond that, I’ll just say for now that I’m ambivalent about prong #1, and I totally agree about prong #2.
Filed under: Uncategorized
First, the Family Research Council held its “Values Voters Summit” on Rosh HaShanah. Maybe they figured it was a good way to avoid the embarrassment of having any Jews show up because they thought “Values” actually meant “values.” Or more likely none of them knew or cared when Rosh HaShanah was. That, or they were looking for a way to keep the liberal media away from their conference.
Now, Glenn Beck is calling for a day of “fast and prayer” on…Yom Kippur? Are the right-wingers trying to win us back?
Wonder what the right-of-right-wingers are cooking up for Sukkot…
In unrelated news, Norman Podhoretz just spent a book puzzling over Why Are Jews Liberals?

Filed under: Uncategorized
Here’s a sermon I put together back in the day for Rosh HaShanah:
Yehuda Amichai, contemplating the same issues of suffering, sound, and sympathetic human experience that bring urgency to the shofar, once wrote:
“The diameter of the bomb was thirty centimeters
and the diameter of its effective range about seven meters,
with four dead and eleven wounded.
And around these, in a larger circle
of pain and time, two hospitals are scattered
and one graveyard. But the young woman
who was buried in the city she came from,
at a distance of more than a hundred kilometers,
enlarges the circle considerably,
and the solitary man mourning her death
at the distant shores of a country far across the sea
includes the entire world in the circle.
And I won’t even mention the crying of orphans
that reaches up to the throne of God and
beyond, making
a circle with no end and no God.”
During Musaf of Rosh HaShanah, we stop and shift gears for a portion of the service which expounds three themes: Malchuyot (God rules), Zichronot (God remembers), and Shofarot (God redeems). Each theme, after the recitation of related texts, is accentuated by nine blasts of the shofar. This morning, I want to share a few thoughts, from a Reconstructionist perspective, about how these three themes inform and grow from our conception of God and our work in repairing the world.
In Malchuyot, we affirm the sovereignty of God. We declare that God rules, and therefore, that God’s law rules. If we follow Mordechai Kaplan’s formulation of God as “The power that makes for…” then here we celebrate God as the Power-That-Makes-For-Justice. Indeed, human societies across the globe, despite obvious disincentives, have developed and nurtured a concept of moral justice, a sense of obligation and imperative to take action irrespective of, or directly opposed to personal or communal self-interest. I see God both as the source of that miracle and as that miracle itself. We often disagree about what constitutes justice. But that’s another issue.
In Zichronot, we invoke God’s remembrance. Here God is That-Which-Hears-the-Tree-That-Falls-In-the-Forest. More important is the implicit and explicit corollary: that God cares, and God acts, be it from above or from within, in the most physical sense or the most abstract. Hence, everything matters, and everything counts: Every act, every pain, every life. God’s memory gives God’s justice some muscle and some meaning.
In Shofarot, we celebrate God’s redemption. Specifically, we recognize God in sound. Here again Judaism enshrines the voice and the word – be they human, divine, or both – as the instruments of social change. Having declared that God is Just, and that God is Knowing, we affirm God as The-Power-That-Makes-For-Change. Let there be light.
Altogether, it’s a nice package. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which we are daily forced to call into question each of the above suppositions. Where is God’s justice? God’s memory? God’s redemption? Is God unjust? Does God forget? Is God silent? I have no good answer to these questions, and I doubt I ever will. But I’m learning to ask other questions as well. The more I see God not only as an entity, but also as a force, a verb, or a process, the more burden and the more questions fall on me and on us. So there are even more questions.
I believe, as many of us do, that there are actions which are objectively right, and actions which are objectively wrong. That doesn’t mean that we can always tell which are which. But let’s say we know – what are we doing about it? If Malchuyot makes God the Power-That-Makes-For-Justice, that means that God is the Power-That-Makes-Justice-Possible. But that power must be actualized. The extent to which justice is absent in the world is both the extent to which God has not brought justice and the extent to which humanity has left that potential dormant.
Ditto for God’s memory. Or make it even simpler. Rather than awareness of the past, we can stay for the moment just with awareness of the present. We live in an age where this is easier than ever – we can turn on the TV and find out on a minute-to-minute basis what’s going on on the other side of the globe. But like God, we are judged not by how much we know but by how much we do. If we know and don’t do, we’re probably better off claiming we didn’t know at all – the implications aren’t quite as bad. Torah, our collective Jewish memory, tells us that God remembered God’s covenant with the Israelites when they were enslaved in Egypt. There are a lot of people out there waiting to be remembered. There are a lot of covenants either never kept or never made.
The Shofarot service, in which the congregation or members of it call out names of shofar-blasts, and the Ba’al Tekiah responds with the desired sound, brings home a point that for me is central to Jewish theology: Religion is a dialogue. A cursory glance at the world we live in suggests that there must have been a breakdown somewhere in that process. But I’m not yet sure what that process is. Maybe it’s we that have been given the giant Shofar of redemption, and are even being hinted what to play – but we can’t hear the signals. We’ve forgotten which is a Tekiah and which is a Shevarim. We’re afraid to make a loud noise. We find comfort in mumbling. Or maybe God has the Shofar, and all we need to do is call out, at the top of our lungs, the words which generations have preserved: Tekiah. Shevarim. Teruah. Maybe the answer is both. But clearly something’s out of sync. We’re not on the right frequency. The resonations we should be hearing, in the crashing of waves and the falling of dew, we’re not picking up. We’ve missed our cue. Or we hear our cue, as loudly as ever, but we forget our next line.
To truly hear and to truly speak are one and the same. Either is incomplete without the other. If we hear the Shofar – a divine mating signal of sorts – and don’t act, we didn’t hear it. If we act, if we speak, without listening, then our words are empty. When we are described in Rosh HaShanah liturgy as a people “who hear the sound of the Shofar,” we are commanded to be a people who gets it in the most profound sense. When we remember the communal experience of the shofar at Sinai, it is through a Torah text that describes us not only as hearing, but as seeing the sound of the shofar. The processes of malchuyot, zichronot, and shofarot each require that we see, hear, feel, even taste that profoundly natural and unnatural sound. We are commanded to blow the shofar and to call out its blasts. Jewish tradition teaches that speech can be murder. What we’ve learned by now is that silence can be murder too.
Michael Walzer concludes his book Exodus and Revolution with three lessons of the Exodus: first, wherever you are, it is probably Egypt; second, there is a better, promised land somewhere out there; and finally, the only way to get there is by marching. It was Abraham Joshua Heschel who described his participation in the March on Washington as “davening with my feet.”
The Talmud debates whether a two-headed child is one or two people. The answer: pour boiling water onto one head, and see whether the other one screams. A Polish peasant who lived adjacent to a death camp was quoted as saying, “When I cut my finger, I feel it. When you cut your finger, you feel it.” That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Not only do we not scream – we don’t even register the pain.
That is, for me, the universally evocative, subversively revolutionary message of the shofar: We must listen, and we must speak. And whether listening or speaking, we must do so with all our heart, and with all our might. We must yell, and we must scream. We must make a beautifully, hauntingly broken sound. And we must do so with all the intensity of the group of Kabbalists who once planned to stand, one on the other’s shoulders, and reach up into the heavens and violently pull the Mashiach down from the sky and onto earth. Only thus, someday, can it be said that God rules, God remembers, and God redeems.
Adoshem, Source of Peace, who makes one all the broken pieces of our world, Adoshem who chose the children of man as partners in the work of creation and redemption – in this broken time, give all of us, all the children of man, all the inhabitants of the earth, the ability to seek, to pursue, to search for, and to make peace in every minute, in every moment, and in every breath, and in all of our actions in the image of G-d.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Amanda Marcotte responded to my 30 Rock dialogue with Alyssa with a thoughtful take on the show’s portrayal of mental illness.
Alyssa then offered an interesting discussion of the Grizz and Dot Com characters.
Finally, Alas, A Blog chimes in.
Thanks to all three of them, and to the folks who jumped in in the comments too.
