Affluence

Via Rick “Nixonland” Perlstein, I learn of a disconcerting article about the demographics of affluence in Ad Age, seen through the creepy lens of appetite for luxury goods.

Before the downturn, luxury marketers embraced the concept of “mass affluence.” Buoyed by fatter stock portfolios and exploding equity in real estate — and encouraged by easy credit — a larger portion of the population, mainly in the Aspiring tier, considered itself wealthy enough to buy luxury goods. But in 2011, these consumers no longer “feel rich,” and they are not particularly likely to graduate into affluence later on (and thus are not a particularly promising future market for luxury brands to seed). In 2011, those in the Aspiring tier firmly self-identify as middle class.

This article points to something that I suspect is going on in our current process of increasing income inequality. Lefties like me talk a lot about the stagnant wages and weakening security of the lower 80% or so, and the stratospheric wealth of the upper 1%, but I see a great deal of weirdness in the in-between of technocratic professionals where I live.

I'm sure that this is partly a symptom of living in left-ish San Francisco, but among folks like me I'm seeing an awareness that the unforgiving American economy is treating us relatively well combined with several kinds of anxiety. First, there's class anxiety that we directly experience in our working lives how we are the courtiers hard at work running the country for the benefit of wealthy oligarchs. Second, there's political anxiety that the majority of the American people rightly should see us as complicit in running the system that screws them. Third, there's the economic anxiety that our economic class lives on a slippery and shrinking ice floe, and it's easy to fall off of it; you see this particularly in the sense of barely contained panic parents have about their children's education.

There's also a weird frustration with what my relatively good income will and won't buy. I think I'm not alone in this. I'm conscious that not worrying about money day-to-day is a profound luxury, and I enjoy a number of small luxuries as well — more restaurant meals than are really responsible, a few nice pairs of shoes, some spiffy consumer electronics. But I cannot afford a fancy car or take elaborate vacations or enjoy many of the other trappings of “wealth.” I don't have as much money saved as I'd like. And I don't feel confident that my economic fortunes are secure in the long run.

I do indulge in one very big luxury, which is not living in the great American suburban wasteland. This not only makes my housing breathtakingly expensive, it also nickels-and-dimes me with every carrot and bar of soap. Suburban living is actually more resource-intensive than urban living, but we've made it cheaper through a whole range of public policies. It is decidedly weird that a smaller living space, relying on public transit, and encountering hungry, miserable people asking for spare change every day is an expensive luxury.

That last point is exceptionally frustrating. Being acutely aware of the systems of social injustice that I participate in, even benefit from, I make an effort to contribute to charities and such. But another one of the things which I want but just cannot buy with my relative wealth is social justice.

Manhattan Projects

In a couple of recent conversations, I've heard folks invoke the Manhattan Project as a demonstration that given a vigorous enough government commitment, scientists can be directed to secretly invent the seemingly impossible. Unfortunately, that's just not true.

I think a lot of people imagine that one sunny day in 1942 the US government came to the scientific community and said, “we need a city-busting bomb, and we'll give you resources to do it,” and the scientists quietly whipped up the Bomb to order. But that is the reverse of the way it happened.

Physicists had been designing atom bombs on blackboards as a “thought experiment” since the 1930s. Seeing the theoretical possibility of the Bomb wasn't hard to figure out. It was the scientists who came to the government, aware of the potential to make the Bomb and horrified by the prospect that the Germans might develop it leaving the Allies at their mercy. It wasn't the conceptual difficulty of the Bomb which necessitated the mammoth effort of the Manhattan Project. Yes, having a large team of scientists did help do it more quickly, and resulted in the team delivering two different successful Bomb designs. But it was the materials problem of separating the uranium isotopes that required the magnitude of the Manhattan Project. Scientific discovery and technological invention do scale with investment, but only to a degree.

And as a secret effort, the Manhattan Project may be unique. Obviously we still have secret military research in the US, and totalitarian nations can conduct big secret projects, but it's difficult to imagine keeping something as big as the Manhattan Project under wraps again. Scientists tend to be garrulous and iconoclastic; only the uniquely galvanizing threat of Hitler with the Bomb could have kept so many of them both engaged and careful to keep the secret.

Judeo-Christian

A few months back, I snarked to a friend:

few things say culturally conservative American Protestant hegemony with an “I’m not an antisemite” fig leaf like using the word “Judeo-Christian”

But I just learned from an article in Tablet magazine that it has complicated, interesting origins.

When and how did America start to think of itself as a Judeo-Christian country, rather than what it historically has been, a Protestant one? That is the question Kevin M. Schultz asks in Tri-Faith America: How Catholics and Jews Held Postwar America to Its Protestant Promise (Oxford), and he gives a very concrete answer. The change came about in the 1930s and 1940s, thanks primarily to the concerted effort of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, a lobbying and educational group founded in 1927.

[⋯]

The NCCJ had its origins as a reaction to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, with its anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic hatreds, and took new urgency from the rise of Nazism in 1930s Europe. Its most popular programs were the so-called Tolerance Trios, in which a priest, minister, and rabbi would tour the country conducting public discussions.

This was a vigorous propaganda effort.

the marching band formed into a Star of David and played a rousing version of “Ein Keloheinu,” before reforming as a cross and playing “Onward Christian Soldiers”

The past is another country.

Expanding on the theme later

I know that many people use the expression “Judeo-Christian” in naïve good faith. But it always raises my hackles, and I think it’s safe to say that many if not most American Jews feel the same. The people who turn to it most often are chauvinists for a certain conception of Christianity, who want to claim that their Christianity is fundamental to western civilization … but they want to hide the chauvinism so they add the “Judeo-” in order to sound inclusive and not-antisemitic. “Protestant But I Promise I Am Not An Anti-Semite Why Would You Think That No I Swear I Am Not No Way Not Me I Have Jewish Friends And I Love Israel Because Israel Is Necessary For Jesus To Come Back And Convince All The Jews To Convert To Christianity.”

Though the people most enthusiastic about talking about “Judeo-Christian values” are making that move, more people resort to saying “Judeo-Christian” in a more innocent way, talking about an understanding of western culture entangled with Christianity while trying to avoid the implication of antisemitism or Christian-ist politics. A wholesome error, but still a serious error. Christian culture, emphasizing how Christianity regards the Hebrew Bible as sacred as a way to counter antisemitism fails to understand how different Christian and Jewish sensibilities are. It is difficult for folks either coming from Christian religious practice or coming from the vaguely-Protestant baseline of US culture to register how deep these differences in outlook and texture are.

If one is thinking at a big enough scale, yes one can read Christianity and Judaism as having a lot in common when constrasted with dharmic religious currents (like the various strains of Buddhism and “Hinduism” ) or animistic religious currents or so forth. But at that level, the useful term of art for what Judaism and Christianity have in common is “Abrahamic”, because Islam along with Baha’i and Druze and other traditions belong in any box big enough to hold both Judaism and Christianity. “Abrahamic religion” is thus a term of limited, specific utility rather than simply a more polite substitute for “Judeo-Christian religion” because the work people use “Judeo-Christian” to do should not be done.

One difference is Judaism emphatically refusing final truths, while Christianity (generally) pursues them. A degree of dissent which would produce a denominational schism in Christianity is, in Judaism, a component of daily practice!

Folks unfamiliar with Judaism often ask about principles in common, including the rules for sex much-quoted by Christian conservatives. Contemporary Judaism inherits mitzvoth (blessings / commandments) from the Torah which do indeed include tight constraints on sex among other things. But one can no more understand Judaism simply by reading the Torah than one can understand Christianity simply by reading the New Testament. But Jewish practice wraps the mitzvoth in a very thick interpretive layer. So while there are a lot of mitzvoth which call for a penalty of death, the Talmudic tradition sets up conditions for actually following through on that penalty which are effectively impossible to meet. And in particular, Judaism and Jewish culture simply do not think about sex in the same way that Christianity and Christian culture do; sex itself is not a corrupting imposition on the human condition in the way that Christianity often understands it.

The use of “Judeo-Christian” by Evangelical Christians today is a reversal of the origins described in the article I linked above; early on they opposed the expression.

Evangelicals, meanwhile, resisted the encroaching pluralism. In 1947, and again in 1954, working with political allies, the National Association of Evangelicals introduced the Christian amendment into Congress: ‘This nation devoutly recognises the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of all nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God.’ Out of step with the burgeoning postwar pluralism, the Christian amendment was not passed.

This misrepresentation of history and ideas is destructive.

Ultimately, no attempt to treat two disparate cultures as one is productive or useful — but were we to do so, there’s very little reason (aside from supersessionism and anti-Judaism) to try and conflate Christianity and Judaism. When we talk about a Judeo-Christian civilization, we demean and endanger both Judaism and Christianity, and we do neither of them any favors by continuing to reference such an idea.

More history:

The modern use of the term is another step in the grand evolution of Christian erasure of Jews; a faux inclusion while speaking over and erasing Jews, all the while muddling, obscuring, and hiding Jews and our very different beliefs from the narrative. Most people using this term have an agenda and that agenda serves the needs of the Christian majority — Jews and our beliefs be damned.

On the transparency of what the loudest voices using the term mean.

So if you insist on using the term “Judeo-Christian” to identify your values as superior to others, then I will require you to show your work.

And so I set limits on the question.

The value must be uniquely Judeo-Christian, it cannot be common to any other value system, secular or non-secular. The value, whatever it is, must be common to both Jewish and Christian belief systems, i.e. it must be Judeo-Christian.

Be specific. Show your work. Don’t make vague hand-waving pronouncements.

And out of a thousand answers, from Christians, from Jews, Muslims, atheists, agonistics, from Rabbis, from Preachers and Shit Shakers and Holy Rollers, I got … nothing.

On unwholesome implications and more:

To respect and value Judaism means to do so on its own terms, and not only if it conforms to Christian ideas about what religion should be. Ignoring these differences (and to pretend that Jews and Christians believe the same things) risks subsuming Judaism into Christianity. It risks viewing Judaism as an archaic precursor to Christianity rather than a continuing unique and vibrant tradition.

[⋯]

Indeed, the phrase “Judeo-Christian” erases Judaism by implying that Christian values are Jewish values. Erasing Judaism by subsuming it into Christianity is called supersessionism, a tactic of Christian polemicists for centuries, and one that is currently in use by the Christian religious right.

So please, just do not use the expression.

… as American democracy once again grasps for root metaphors with which to confront our country’s diversity and its place in the world, the term’s recuperation should rightfully alarm us: It has always divided Americans far more than it has united them

A few favorite Twitter threads

Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg:

“Judeo-Christian” isn’t a thing. It

1. positions Jews and Christians against Muslims, is Islamophobic
2. elides Christian oppression and murder of Jews over more than 1000 years
3. ignores Jewish civilization worldwide, and facts of key Jewish developments in the Middle East and North Africa

And yes, Jesus was a (brown-skinned, Middle Eastern) Jew, but his followers were not. Jews changed their liturgy to be clear about that differentiation pretty early. And guess what? Judaism has continued to evolve since the Second Temple was destroyed! The Mishnah (check Wikipedia on terms you don’t know) was (depending on your theology) either given at Sinai or developed organically in the Land of Israel sometime when we were under Greek/Selucid/Roman occupation. The Talmud (Bavli natch) was composed and redacted in what’s now Iraq. Lots of scholarship on whether and extent of e.g. Zoroastrian influences. The Geonim were living under the Abbasid Caliphate. The Rif lived in Algeria, Tunisia, and possibly Morocco. Maimonides fled Spain and wound up living in Morocco and Egypt, wrote in both Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic. The Shulchan Aruch (which, along w/Maimonides’ Mishnah Torah, are the bedrock of post-Talmudic Jewish law) was composed in Sfat, Land of Israel, under Ottoman Empire. Its author, Joseph Karo, was born in Spain and expelled in 1492 when the Catholic monarchs kicked out all the Jews. And yes, then there was an Ashkenazi gloss—the Rema was from what’s now Poland. And Rashi was from France. And Rebbeinu Gershom lived in France and Germany. Etc. But to say that even half of the major moments that shaped Jewish thinking happened under Christian rule is way off.

When we were under Christian rule, it generally wasn’t so great for us. Go learn some history if you think otherwise. And while life in Muslim countries wasn’t always great either, it was often much better than under Christians; we had a protected status as People of the Book. #NotAllChristians, obviously. I have a ton of amazing Christian friends (actually tho), have spent years reading Christian spiritual wisdom, have great admiration for and have learned from Christian progressive movements today and in history; some of y’all do a great job following Jesus.

But it’s important for interfaith dialogue, coexistence, basic respect and historical accuracy to not conflate Judaism and Christianity. Two different faiths, traditions, theologies, histories. The origin and relationship to text is overlapping in some cases, yes, but …

There’s no Judeo-Christian tradition. And that’s ok.

For those asking about “Abrahamic faiths” re: Judaism / Christianity / Islam, sure, but when do you really need this? And what’s implied about Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, etc etc? Not saying it’s never applicable but better to check yourself first.

For everyone who wants to argue with me about the second tweet in this thread and thus totally miss the larger point I’m making:

Within not very long after Jesus’ death, Christianity and Judaism had gone off on different paths — including with Jews taking pains to differentiate themselves from followers of Jesus. I am referring to the separate paths of the last 1900 or more years ….

Also philosophically, legally, ritually, in so many ways, Judaism and Islam have much more in common than Judaism and Christianity. Yes, some Jewish sacred texts are also Christian sacred texts, yes Jesus was a Jew. Just … be nuanced. Learn comparative religion. Don’t conflate.

Today I learned that the phrase “Judeo-Christian first appeared in 1821 to talk about Jewish converts to Christianity and then for the second time in 1829 to talk about churches that would observe some Jewish traditions in order to convert Jews. Toxic to us? Yeahhhh.

See also: Christian Zionism.

Jews, the Christian Zionist endgame is Armageddon / bringing the end times, during which they believe we will not be saved. We’re a tool to help them get there. Even if you like their “support for Israel” (I don’t, it’s pro-Occupation), you are cannon fodder to them.

What fascinates me is the ultra-Orthodox Jews who ally with them, which I think can be read as both groups using each other. Christian Zionists thinking the Jews will help hasten the Rapture and they’ll get zapped, that’s fine. Jews thinking, like, obviously the Rapture won’t happen, but this is great for helping Israel make the Occupation permanent (and, depending on their theology, maybe will hasten the Messiah-who-is-not-Jesus coming and they don’t really care where non-Jews fall in that equation.)

Anyway. Christian Zionists often appropriate our stuff and make Big Jewish Noise but they are not our friends, do not wish us well. (NB Christian Zionism is a movement, a thing, I don’t mean just “Christians who happen to believe the State of Israel should exist in whatever way”)

They wish us ill, they wish queers and trans folks and probably most people of color ill (never mind Jews who are also queer and/or Black etc etc), they, unlike the guy they claim to follow, do not bring love and compassion to the world. They are dangerous and they are running this country.

For those of you talking about how some Jews will be “saved,” aka convert to Christianity, won’t get killed — my friends, you misunderstand if you think that’s better. It’s roughly same difference viz valuing Jews and our humanity, autonomy, faith. We only matter if we convert. We have a whole martyrology literature around “sanctifying God’s name,” aka preferring death to forced conversion.

The Yom Kippur liturgy includes language specifying explicitly that we’ll let those who pretended to convert under duress to pray with us — because it wasn't obvious that the answer was yes. In fact, the Kol Nidre prayer may be a formula to annul those conversions. “Saved” isn’t better.

We didn’t survive the Inquisition and the Crusades and all those expulsions and pogroms and the Holocaust just to give up at this so-called end. Not gonna happen. End of the world can come and go and there’ll still be a couple of Jews somewhere in some corner studying Torah.

I'll say this again, more slowly, here: #NotAllChrisitians are trying to manipulate Jews to bring the end times and don’t care if they’re obliterated (whether death or conversion) in the process. I’m talking about a very. specific. movement. here. Christian Zionist Evangelicals. This eschatological theology we've been discussing depends on supersessionism, which is inherently antisemitic. But also this particular branch of toxic Christian Zionist Evangelicals is also not the only place where supersessionism / replacement theology shows up.

So if you are Christian and reading this thread it would be a good and helpful form of allyship to Jews to interrogate the places where it might show up in your own community's thinking, and to do some grappling with that. Even if you're not actively trying to bring the Rapture.

PS

Some versions of this Evangelical end-times involves a massive war, battle of Armageddon-type stuff. Some would welcome the outbreak of war in Israel/Palestine in anticipation of it bringing all of this to a head.

And of course care and concern for Palestinians is totally absent from these scenarios.

(I have a few words of my own on an example of ultra-Orthodox Jews and anti-Zionism.)

Jessica Price:

There’s no such thing as “Judeo-Christian ethics.”

Judaism and Christianity’s ethical systems don’t have any more in common with each other than Christianity and Islam’s ethical systems, so all this phrase is is a roundabout way to shit on Islam.

Plus, “Judeo-Christian ethics” almost always gets trotted out in a vague, Golden Rule sort of way. Which is basically just shitting on every other major world religion, since they all have “treat other people with compassion” teachings.

But wait! I hear you saying. Christianity has its roots in Judaism, so surely we can speak of some sort of ethical tradition common to both, but not to other religions, that’s more robust than “just treat people with compassion.”

… can we, though?

Okay, well, in order to define what’s unique about a purported “Judeo-Christian ethics,” we first have to define what was — I’m not going to say unique, but — different about Judaism’s ethical system from other major religions around the Mediterranean at the time.

So, okay, what were Judaism’s innovations as a religion. If you’ve taken a high school world religions unit, like, ever, you’ve probably heard the term “ethical monotheism.” One of the defining features of mainline Judaism around the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age was the idea that its deity was the only deity (or at least, the only one worthy of worship), and that what that deity wanted wasn’t just allegiance and sacrifices, but ethical behavior. I’m not saying that idea was absolutely unique in the world at the time or anything, but it was kind of a big deal in the world of the late Bronze Age Mediterranean milieu.

And the other one was the primacy of law. One of the most enduring negative stereotypes about Judaism is that it’s “legalistic.” That’s a weird flattening of everything it is, but absolutely the idea of law holds a central place of honor. It’s a huge deal. Law was the province of kings — and in most of the ancient Near East, commoners didn’t have a right to know what the laws governing them were. Law was basically whatever the king said (or wrote) it was. So the idea that everyone gets to know what the law is, and everyone is responsible for upholding / teaching / enforcing it was a huge deal. When Moses starts his final speech to the Israelites about moving on without him, he doesn’t start with a bunch of religious stuff. He starts with: ok, you're going to build yourself a legal system, and you're going to make sure it applies equally to everyone.

So, okay, what are the defining features of Jewish ethics, as they existed when Christianity split off (so that they can accurately be said to be part of the same ethical tradition)?

^#1 divine desire = ethical behavior

💕💖💗🥰 LAW LAW LAW ❤️💕❣️😍

So, if Jewish Ethical Characteristic ^#1 is that the primary divine desire is for ethical behavior, not pure allegiance to the deity, Christianity skipped off into the sunset shouting “byeeeeeee!” almost immediately on that one.

Like, Christianity is pretty clear that Thing ^#1 is allegiance to Jesus, and then the result of that is supposed to be the desire to do good works.

For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.

Jesus said to him “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

And it’s only doubled down on that over time. At least in Catholicism, you still have the idea of faith and works existing more or less equally and in tandem, but Protestantism goes all sola fide and ends up developing “works righteousness” as a term of contempt.

So if the first and foremost thing the Eternal wants in Judaism is ethical behavior, in Christianity, it’s for you to be saved, and then you’re supposed to want to do good works to be more like Jesus. These are two completely different bases for an ethical system.

And then we’ve got the primacy of law.

There are a million and one debates about how antinomian Christianity is, and I’m not going to rehash them. I don’t think there’s a single right answer. I do think, however, that this is pretty clear that law isn’t a primary focus.

So no, I don’t see a single unbroken line of descent from Jewish ethics to Christian ones. Christianity incorporated Jewish texts, certainly. But the bases of the systems diverged immediately. And I’m hard-pressed to find a single major principle in Jewish ethics that’s shared by Christianity but not Islam, or even, in broad strokes, but every major world religion. “Judeo-Christian ethics” aren’t a thing.

Rabbi Mike:

Tonight, let's chat about the oversimplification of “Jews and Christians have more in common," and that “one just thinks the messiah has come, and one hasn’t.” None of this is true, and it’s time we all learned!

A lot of this goes back to the old ideas of Judea-Christian values, which, don’t exist. For more on that, read this.

But what’s most important, is that no Jews and Christians don’t share the same values, not even about the scripture we “share”. We don’t have the same book. The Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible are in different languages, from different manuscripts.

So what does this mean? Quite simply, the values inside Biblical Judaism were (and are) interpreted through a Jewish lens by the rabbis, the books of law and interpretation, and finally into law codes and responsa that now form Modern Judaism. Parallel to this were the values that Christians interpreted from Biblical Judaism focusing on their theological ideas, such as, for instance, the typological predictions of Jesus, and seeing the laws and stories of the “Old Testament” through the lens of a “new” one. In other words, there never were any Jewish-Christian values, nor can there ever be, because as soon as the Jesus movement began in the 1^st century CE, the followers of Jesus began to rework and reinterpret Jewish values into their own.

Now, one might ask, “what about the moral statutes in Judaism and Christianity that we can bond together?” These are perfect examples. Let us take one of the more simple and well known commandments of the Torah, “You shall not murder.” This commandment, which occurs in the “decalogue” in Exodus 20 and in its similar retelling in Deuteronomy 5 is a wonderful place to start. For one, most Jews and Christians alike have mistranslated the Hebrew to be “You shall not kill,” which is incorrect as “killing” is a prescribed punishment for countless sins in the Torah and elsewhere. But more to our discussion, most laypeople would argue that both the Jewish and Christian “value” is to not murder. However, those doing so make a critical error in theology, particularly that of the reason for morality, the reason to not murder. In Christian theology, sinning has a specific punishment (Hell), and in some cases a specific remedy (forgiveness), but in Judaism there is no such system: Jews do not believe in a God who would use “hell” as an incentive to make them moral. Jews are moral because that is the proper way to live. Unlike “fear,” this is a fine incentive … Further, we deny hell altogether as barbaric and contrary to the nature of God.

Therefore, while Jews and Christians follow the law to “not murder,” it is for different reasons, and thus different values are placed behind the following of that law. This is the same for all “laws” and “values” found in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (and beyond). Jews and Christians may want the same things at times, but for different reasons. As I said in my podcast, if Jews and Christians agree on something, it’s not from our past, it's a fluke, that somehow our separate interpretations matched for once.

And as for the messiah, I’ve written this before but our ideas of the messiah don’t match, so we can’t just say “you think they’ve come, and we don’t.” “Messiah” (from Hebrew) is a Jewish concept that, today has come to mean God’s agent who brings an end to war, famine, disease, discrimination, and suffering. Since these ills still afflict our society, Jews cannot accept any historical figure (including Jesus) as the Messiah.

That “Christ” (Greek for Messiah) is supposed to forgive sins or bring salvation is a Christian, not Jewish, idea — and it is one that redefines the Messiah’s agenda away from what Jews intended when they originated this concept.

Additionally, Christians are unaware that all books in today’s Hebrew scriptures were complete in themselves before anyone even had projected the kind of “Christ” figure that Christianity later came to propose. Jews never imagine their Bible standing on its own, serving any additional purpose Christians view the Jewish Bible’s purpose solely as lead-up to the Gospel accounts

Finally, A common denominator of Jewish biblical books is uncompromising denunciation of idolatry. A lesser known kind of idolatry — “Bibliolatry” — worship of the Bible as God (or in lieu of God). Even if the Bible did identify any individual as a Messiah, modern Jews need feel no compulsion to accept that person. No more so in the case of Jesus than in that of Cyrus of Persia. The Biblical identification was wrong, thus destabilizing the missionary’s tactics.

Just Say Xtian:

Let’s talk about the non-existence of “Judeo-Christian” values, using the PRRI 2019 American Values survey. It’s convenient, because the whole purpose of the survey is literally to ask people what their values are!

A caveat before we begin — not that long ago I was dragging someone for drawing conclusions from tiny sample sizes. In this survey we have data from 1,678 Christians and 35 Jews. That’s a tiny sample of Jews. Take all of this with a statistical grain of salt.

I’ve included real numbers along with percentages to try to drive that point home. That said — the differences are significant enough that we can still compare the results to get a general picture of how the populations differ. Let’s begin with [drumroll please] ...

• Is it necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values? Christians are nearly perfectly split on this question, 50/50. Jews come down hard on “no” with 80% generally disagreeing and roughly 60% completely disagreeing.
• Christians are again split 50/50 on whether discrimination against white people is as bad as discrimination against other minorities. Jews think it’s not a thing - 75% disagree, and a plurality (42%) completely disagree.
• Christians are generally opposed to removing Confederate leaders’ names from public buildings and statues (70%). Jews are split on the issue, but lean towards removing them (54%/42%).
• 40% of Christians would like to prevent refugees from entering the US. Only about 20% of Jews would do so, and about 50% are strongly opposed to doing so, compared to 20% of Christians.
• 40% of Christians are generally opposed to legal gay marriage, compared to only 10% of Jews. 60% of Jews strongly favor legal gay marriage, compared to only 25% of Christians.
• Christians are split 50/50 on legal abortion. 90% of Jews think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. 42% of Jews think abortion should be legal in all cases, compared to 17% of Christians.
• This is my favorite one. Christians and Jews roughly agree on whether America is or has ever been a Christian nation. But — among those who think it was Christian once but isn’t now 80% of Christians think that’s a bad thing, and 72% of Jews think it’s a good thing.

Let us wrap up with a funny little story:

My student was abashed that he hadn’t put the obvious two-and-two together. To be clear, it wasn’t that he had thought “Jewish” was a subsect of Christianity — he knew Judaism was its own religion — it just genuinely never occurred to him to link “Judeo-” and “Jewish” (it seems obvious, I know, but I can absolutely imagine it being one of those things you just never put together until it’s stated and then it slaps you in the face). There were, he had thought, Jews and Christians, and then among Christians there were Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christian and Assyrian Christians and Judeo Christians.

Limbaugh as Schrödinger’s Asshole

I originally blogged a link to this article here back when. It is paywall’d but old, so in early 2025 I feel justified in transcribing the whole thing here for convenience, since it is so useful.

In a way, it is now old news. The Discourse is now awash in far right propagandists speaking in bad faith by saying foul things, then dissmissing criticism by claiming that they are just “joking”. On the personal scale, one may recognize this as a classic emotional abuse pattern. Rush Limbaugh was a master at it, a model for countless far right trolls who came after. There is ultimately no truth of what these folks “really” mean when they say things; it’s rhetorical strategies all the way down.

As a rule I don’t share things from Conor Friedersdorf. He is often the kind of “center-left” mainstream political commentator who degrades our ability to understand the political challenges we face. But this examination of a particular example of how Limbaugh worked this playbook is instructive and clarifying.

Rush Limbaugh’s Strategically Ambiguous Monologues

Conor Friedersdorf 3 May 2011

---

Was the talk radio host being earnest or sarcastic when he praised the president for killing bin Laden? Neither answer is correct.

---

Osama bin Laden’s death caused a bunch of curiosity seekers to tune into Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. Would the man who said he wanted President Obama to fail congratulate him on this success? The talk radio host was in a tough spot. He’s long insisted that Obama is opposed to the U.S. asserting itself as an arbiter of justice. But there the president was: weighing America’s options, ordering a unilateral military operation, and glorying in the death of Civilizational Enemy No. 1.

For Limbaugh, this was potentially devastating. President Obama is a flawed leader, no matter his recent success. His critics are right to keep saying so. But the particular criticisms Limbaugh regularly voices? “Obama doesn’t believe we have the moral authority to do anything other than mouth a bunch of words,” he said just weeks ago. “He doesn’t look at America as the solution. We’re the problem.” That narrative was shown by dramatic real world events to be utter nonsense.

And he knows it. But to admit as much?

His problem was that he couldn’t come out Monday morning swinging. Sure, some of his listeners would stick by him. But the Limbaugh audience is largely made up of nationalistic War on Terror hawks who wanted bin Laden’s head on a pike as much as anyone. Opening with a direct attack on Obama after an event that brought out the jingoism in NPR listeners wasn’t going to play.

Longtime Limbaugh watchers won’t be surprised by his ingenious if cowardly solution. This is a man who often makes self-contradictory remarks that would evoke cognitive dissonance if uttered by a less talented broadcaster. (A recent example is his brazen about face on the war in Libya.) Over the years, he’s gotten around this problem by putting ever more weight on his intellectual crutch of choice: deliberately ambiguous monologues that cannot be pinned down.

Did a segment have its intended effect? Then Limbaugh was totally serious. Is it generating more heat than anticipated? Oh, he was only joking. Isn’t it just like humorless liberals to have missed that? His audience always buys these weak explanations because they’re told that they’re sophisticated enough to understand the nuance of his radio program, something his critics in “the drive-by media” lack the attention span and intelligence to grasp. The fact that he is often misunderstood by his least sophisticated critics only helps him get away with this clever feint.

That brings us to the way that he started his Monday program (transcript below):

We need to open the program today by congratulating President Obama. President Obama has done something extremely effective, and when he does, this needs to be pointed out. President Obama has continued the Bush policies of keeping a military presence in the Middle East. He did not scrub the mission to get Bin Laden. In fact, it may be that President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off. You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb like they always do. They wanted to go in there and drop missiles and launch bombs, a number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces. No one else thought of that. Not a single intelligence advisor, not a single national security advisor, not a single military advisor came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any of the Special Forces.

Our military wanted to go in there and just scorch the earth, leaving no evidence of anything after the mission. But President Obama single-handedly understood what was at stake here. He alone understood the need to get DNA to prove the death. Obama alone understood the aftermath, alone understood that there would be doubting Thomases if the place was just obliterated and no evidence was to be found. According to news reports, not one member of the military, not General Petraeus, nobody in the intel community, nobody had the slightest idea of going in there and using Special Forces. It was President Obama, single-handedly and alone, who came up with the strategy that brought about the effective assassination of Osama Bin Laden.

On Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Twitter, and elsewhere, folks were debating whether Limbaugh was being earnest or sarcastic in that segment. It’s easy to understand their confusion: The “Osama is caught” monologue isn’t a coherent example of either approach. Various aspects of it don’t work as sarcasm. After all, President Obama did reject a military plan to reduce the compound to rubble, and actually deserves credit for ordering an attack that would leave proof of bin Laden’s death. Plus there’s all that stuff about how he continued George W. Bush-era policies, and being proud of the troops (more on that in a moment) — just what you’d expect an earnest Limbaugh to say.

On the other hand, it’s obviously silly to say that nobody else in the U.S. government saw the merits of using a raid rather than bombs. The hyperbole used to describes Obama’s role wasn’t delivered with an obviously sarcastic tone, but it made no sense as an earnest statement.

Especially considering the man voicing it.

Where should observers come down? Early on, media outlets reported on the monologue as if it was totally earnest. A debate on Twitter ensued, where even savvy media observer Glenn Greenwald wrote, “Rush Limbaugh’s Obama praise today is unquestionably sincere, not sarcastic — not even a close call.” But the talk radio host couldn’t let himself be quoted in mainstream media articles earnestly praising Obama as singularly deserving of credit. Imagine what some of the hard core anti-Obama callers were saying after that first ambiguous half-hour!

So he comes back in hour three, springs the traps he set, and laughingly mocks the media sources that quoted him as if he was speaking in earnest. It’s exactly the outcome he wanted. Limbaugh, put in an intellectually precarious spot, always does his utmost to change the subject into a meta-conversation wherein he critiques the media. It’s the only way a man unable to defend so many of his utterances can survive. If it’s Rush vs. the MSM, the audience will always take his side.

In order to fully grasp his mastery of the strategically ambiguous monologue, let’s go back to the line I flagged before: “Last night I was as proud as I have been of the U.S. military in I don’t know how long.” Earnest praise for the troops? Sure seems like it on first listen. Mocking allusion to Michelle Obama’s controversial “proud of my country for the first time” remark? Also plausible! Especially in context. Certainly some of his listeners heard it that way and chuckled. But also totally deniable if necessary! The important thing to realize is that there is no right answer, other than whatever happens to be more convenient for Limbaugh at a particular moment in time.

It is unimportant to him that there even be a true meaning. He is a bullshit artist in the strictest sense of the term:

There is surely in his work, as in the work of the slovenly craftsman, some kind of laxity which resists or eludes the demands of a disinterested and austere discipline. The pertinent mode of laxity cannot be equated, evidently, with simple carelessness or inattention to detail … It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth — this indifference to how things really are — that I regard as of the essence of bullshit.

This failure to articulate and defend a single coherent position is the tactic of an intellectual coward, one who has abandoned any pretense of adding to the discourse, and satisfies himself by being an especially adept manipulator. In a man as smart as Limbaugh, it is a perilous course, for it can only end in self-loathing. But credit where it’s due: he is damned good at the game he plays.

Noir magick

James Ellroy is to noir fiction what Herman Melville is to fishing stories, and the word is that his life is not so different from his stories.

I've just started reading his memoir The Hilliker Curse: My Pursuit of Women and it contains this striking passage.

The overall text buttressed religious lore I believed in then and believe in today.

There's a world we can't see. It exists separately and concurrently with the real world. You enter this world by the offering of prayer and incantation. You live in this world wholly within your mind. You dispael the real world through mental discipline. You rebuff the real world through your enforced mental will. Your interior world will give you what you want and what you need to survive.

I believed it then. I believe it now. My many years in the dark have confirmed it as a primary article of faith. I was nine then. I'm 62 now. The real world has frequently intruded on my spells in the dark.

I thought some of my occultist readers might recognize the sentiment.

Iggy

Curse you, internet! Ordinarily I would never have known about Iggy Pop's surreal, mortifying performance on American Idol. But there was no escape.

Understand: “surreal, mortifying performance” is part of the point of Iggy, right? A friend insists that she's never seen any other performer project as much energy from the stage as he does, and I know better than to argue with that. Say what you will about the American Idol nightmare, Iggy is unmistakably still working it, which is more than you can say for most graying punks.

Checking the “Official” Iggy Pop Shirtless Aging Timeline you can see that Iggy retained his louche glamour dancing shirtless into a much more advanced age than anyone could reasonably expect, especially considering the punishing demands upon his own health of his lifestyle. I used to say that he looked a kind of good-yet-scary that you can only look through sustained regular drug abuse. But then it appears that sometime in 2004 he decided that the only way to maintain his vigor was to allow himself to be bitten by a zombie.

Footnotes from a boozy afternoon

House of Games was the first film David Mamet directed, featuring Joe Mantegna as a con artist. My favourite line in the film is when he says, “It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine.” Some of the best management advice I've ever heard.

Howard Rheingold's Wired magazine on the Amish and their debate over whether they would adopt cellphones, Look Who's Talking, is an instructive meditation on the cultural impact of cellphone technology that was years ahead of its time.

Ray Kurzweil is the leading prophet of the Singularity, the idea that within our lifetimes technology will accelerate to transform our world beyond what we can imagine. Ninety percent of the time I think he's full of shit. I hope I'm wrong.

James Howard Kunstler is more likely right that Peak Oil is going to make advanced industrial civilization impossible, knocking us back to mostly nineteenth-century level technologies, though this won't be an entirely bad thing since it will destroy the suburbs, the creation of which he calls “the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.” His mini-website Eyesore of the Month chronicles the horrors of our built environment; I have a favourite entry, of course.

James McMurtry sings the political song “Can't Make It Here Anymore” about the breakdown of American society, though my favourite song of his is, of course, the wicked redneck saga “Chocktaw Bingo.”

Sex at Dawn is a book about sex and human biology which is astonishing both because of what it says and because it dips into evolutionary psychology without turning into bullshit.

The Infamous Brad has an essay Not That the Actual Forbidden Knowledge is as Interesting as That There Is Forbidden Knowledge which explains Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. You may not want to know.

The Starship and the Canoe is a fascinating book about the physicist Freeman Dyson and his son George. There's an anecdote in there that I call the ninety second intelligence test. I won't tell you what it is, but if you meet me in person I'll perform it on you.

And I think that Digby is the most important political commentator in America.

Naming convention

• Who
• What
• I don't know
• Why
• Because
• Tomorrow
• Today
• Don't give a darn

Third base!

The Homosexual Agenda

You've heard of the “homosexual agenda,” right?

On this week's episode of Glee, we got a proper kiss between two gay characters. Broadcast television has been giving us gay characters for a while, now, but while they talk a good game, they are uncannily chaste when they're actually on stage. So this was no small thing, and occasioned a little visitation from the shade of Vito Russo when I saw it.

But gay characters kissing on television isn't the homosexual agenda. This is:

The agenda isn't to celebrate a liberating breakthrough in gay representation in media. (Bless the makers of Glee, they resisted the temptation to telegraph that they were planning to make history.) The agenda is this: Those kids are just happy that two characters who were Meant For Each Other have finally had their kiss.

Inconceivable when I was their age.

OK, there's lots left to do to make a just and loving world. But seeing that makes me feel, at least for a moment, like we really can get it all done.

What are games about?

I don't have answers, but I like the questions these games ask.

• Brenda Brathwaite's Train
• John Tynes' Power Kill
• FPS Mod on XKCD (as always, hover your cursor over the image to get the ALT text)
• Jason Rohrer's Passage
• Ken Levine on BioShock

Bradley Manning

President Obama says he accepts the Pentagon's assurances that Bradley Manning's treatment in custody is right and appropriate:

No it isn't. Manning, who has yet to stand trial, has been locked up in a cruel insanity machine. He has been accused of helping leak documents that compromised not the security of our people but the dignity of our leaders.

I'll say it again: I was ready for Obama to disappoint me. I was not ready for him to horrify me.

In reference to this clip of Senator Paul complaining about his toilet.

Men's reproductive rights

Preface: This post was an attempt to lay out my thinking about a difficult topic. I don’t think it works well. I leave it up for posterity, and need to revisit it properly.

---

This morning I got into a Twitter discussion with feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte about her recent article mocking Men’s Rights Activists, and came smack up against the limits of what can be discussed in 140 character snippets, so this very long post is an attempt to outline my thinking on a touchy subject.

There was a lot to like about her article. I agree wholeheartedly that the way to address most MRAs’ concerns is more feminism. And MRAs are eminently mockable misogynists. But I confessed to her that I was disappointed that she didn't grapple with some of the more meaningful and tricky questions that MRAs raise, offering feminist alternatives to their horrific solutions.

The key example in my mind is that MRAs commonly propose that fathers be given strong legal rights to control a partner’s decision to have an abortion. “She shouldn’t be able to abort my baby without my consent,” and “I should be able to make her abort a fetus if I don't want that baby.”

This invasion of women making decisions about their own bodies is of a piece with countless patriarchal invasions of womens’ autonomy; it casts women as empty vessels for the exercise of men's wills. I take it as beyond debate that women’s right to control their own bodies and destinies requires that women have total autonomous discretion over abortion. A woman must not be compelled to take an unwanted pregnancy to term. A woman must not be compelled to have an abortion. That MRAs reach for these solutions reflects their misogynist contempt for women.

But I submit that MRAs are not speaking only from a desire to control women; they also have a motivating concern that I think deserves a thoughtful response. Thanks to women’s access to abortion, men have categorically less control over their reproductive parenting destiny and responsibility than women do. [Change added after the original post.]

Now it’s important to note that access to abortion isn’t all it should be. It’s a serious problem, and for the record, I’m someone who has contributed money to NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and I mailed my first coathanger to a politician during the Reagan administration. I understand that women's control over their reproductive destiny is really only true of some women. But let’s talk about those cases, which are reasonably common.

If Alice and Bob are unmarried lovers and Alice gets pregnant, she now can make a decision. If Alice does not want a child, she can abort the pregnancy without consulting Bob, however ardently he may want a child to care for. On the other hand, if she decides to bring the pregnancy to term, he is legally responsible for eighteen years of financial support, however unwilling he may be. This requirement is very strong, as demonstrated by extraordinary legal cases like a woman who fished the condom out of the wastebasket to impregnate herself.

Recall also that men have fewer birth control options than women do. There’s condoms, sterilization, and abstinence. The first has a host of disadvantages; for the purposes of this discussion, most important among them their imperfect reliability. The second is permanent, and young men often have difficulty getting access to it even if they choose it. And I’ll have a word about the last, beyond its obvious disadvantage, in a bit.

I have found that few women have given any real thought to the fact that men can be subject to a decision with such big consequences completely outside their control. But I assure you that most men have given this a great deal of thought. That feminists — who have a central preöccupation with reproductive rights — should ignore it is puzzling. I believe that having MRAs and creepy Cathy Young be the only folks who prepared to address this nudges otherwise reasonable men toward sympathy with MRAs and antipathy toward feminism; I really wish we had a feminist take that wasn't just dismissive.

MRAs’ answer to addressing this imbalance — giving men control over the abortion decision — is unacceptable. But I submit that it is not the only possible response. I imagine a reform something like this:

• A pregnant woman has an absolute right to have an abortion or not. No one else may affect this decision.
• If a married woman gets pregnant, her husband is responsible for the support of the child if she brings it to term. That’s part of the package when you get married.
• If an unmarried man gets a woman pregnant, he has a short span of time — say, 48 hours — after he learns of the pregnancy in which to decide if he’s going to take responsibility for the child if she brings the pregnancy to term. If he decides he won’t, he can never make a claim of any parental rights afterward. If he decides he will, he cannot change his mind afterward either. If he doesn't make an explicit decision, it defaults to him having taken responsibility. [Bold text added after original post; see Update 3 below.]
• If an unmarried woman does not inform her partner that she has gotten pregnant, he is presumptively not financially responsible for a resulting child until she informs him. If he is informed about the pregnancy after it’s too late for abortion to be a meaningful option — including years after a child’s birth — he has the same choice about whether to accept the package of parental responsibilities and rights, with a longer window of time in which to make the decision.

I’m not necessarily attached to this particular solution, but it’s the best that I can come up with, and has a number of virtues that I do consider important. It’s not equal — given the material realities, it cannot be — but it’s more fairly unequal. It protects women’s right to control their bodies. It ensures that neither men nor women are compelled to childrearing responsibility they didn’t choose. The short decision-making window for men ensures that a woman in this situation makes a decision about what to do that's meaningfully informed. I think any serious response to this question needs to address those virtues, or justify why they’re not important.

There are several responses to this kind of proposal that I find particularly galling when they come from feminists:

He should have thought of that before he had sex; he has to take responsibility for a possible baby if he engages in sex

The penny drops about abstinence. That argument isn’t funny when antis say that to argue that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. I don’t see why it should be kosher when it's applied to men; in fact I think this drifts into sexist rhetorical territory that assumes that sex is something men take from women.

You're arguing for men having more ways to walk away from supporting their children

Point taken; we have a lot of men doing that without strong enough enforcement to stop it. I agree that we need to do a categorically better job there. My proposal presumes and supports that, and I think it might help make the case that men walking out on their children are breaking a commitment they made explicitly.

This argument also implies that a pregnant woman’s fetus is a “child,” and it should be obvious why that is a bad idea.

Patriarchy visits injustice against women, not men, so who cares?

Patriarchy certainly visits much more injustice against women. But I submit that this is an injustice against men. I don’t believe that the reality of male privilege means that anything unjust we do against men is therefore OK.

Maybe this is unfair, but men are going to have to wait in line; there are bigger injustices to correct first

Feminists are familiar with this argument. “Your issues will have to wait until we’ve corrected the greater injustices of racism first.” Or the class system. Or homophobia. Or whatever. It’s nonsense; we should be addressing all injustices; indeed, fighting any injustice helps address other injustices, rather than hurts.

Ms Marcotte, I hope you’re reading this, because I love a lot of your work. And I hope you have a serious response; if my thinking is screwy, here, I’d like to have it laid out for me.

---

Update

Over at Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte has a long post largely concerned with this question and our dialogue a about it on Twitter. (I am @miniver, she is @AmandaMarcotte.) Unhappily, I believe that she has significantly misrepresented my comments in both places.

I'll try to resist the temptation to respond point-by-point to what she says there. I think I actually predicted much of it in my original post above, and responded briefly to some key points. But the centerpiece of her argument is a clarifying description of the legal argument for abortion rights, which she says is grounded in women’s bodily autonomy.

Reproductive rights are derived from the right to bodily autonomy. Becoming pregnant or impregnating another person is a big deal, so your right to exercise bodily autonomy over these aspects of your body is a fundamental right.
....
Abortion rights are about the right to terminate a pregnancy, not to say no to parenthood.
....
If abortion rights were actually about getting a “window” to say no to parenthood, then women who give birth without knowing they were pregnant would be offered this option, but they’re not.

Legally, abortion rights may not be “about” getting to say no to parenthood, but I think it’s very clear that the urgent importance of abortion rights is about this very question.

A woman risking her life with a coathanger in 1955 (or 2005) isn’t doing so to protect some abstract concept of her bodily autonomy. She’s likely doing it out of an awareness that if she births a child she will not be able to care for it properly, and she takes that responsibility seriously enough that she’ll risk her life rather than take on a responsibility she cannot meet. As an aside, I have long found it profoundly offensive that so many anti-choicers frame this as “selfishess” when it is exactly the opposite.

My fundamental argument is that, given our level of medical technology, we should think of “reproductive rights” not simply as the right to control over your reproductive organs, but the right to control over your reproductive destiny. This is not some fanciful new idea I’ve invented to rationalize what I want; it's as old as Margaret Sanger.

But there is a fundamental limitation in the control over their reproductive destiny that men have, because women’s bodies are so much more profoundly involved in the process of reproduction that their right to bodily autonomy trumps any right men might claim. I don’t know how I could have been more clear that I take that with the gravest seriousness.

Marcotte’s post counters the claim by some unnamed MRAs to a right to “paper abortion,” allowing them to shirk responsibility for born children at will. She lays out the objections to this quite well, and I agree with her that this straw argument that I didn't make is awful. That’s why my proposal tries to tread carefully, and creates a very tight limitation on how and when men may declaim responsibility for their offspring. It’s an attempt to balance situation which is inherently imbalanced by the mechanics of reproduction. Maybe my proposal is still a lousy idea. But it isn’t the lousy idea she attributes to me.

One last thing: Marcotte refers to me as

a guy claiming to be sympathetic to feminism freaking out because men don’t have “reproductive rights”

I'm not freaking out. I’m raising the point. As she says, there are a lot of other things more urgent. But it's nonetheless a real issue, and I confess that I am frustrated that it's so difficult to get to the point where we’re actually talking about it.

And I confess that this “claiming” business gets right up my nose. I invite readers skeptical that I'm not at least sympathetic to feminism to check out the contents of the feminism label on this blog [since consolidated under kulturkamph] (which applies to more stuff than my blog is configured to show you at that link; disappointingly, my attempt at a definition of feminism doesn't make the cut) and the tweet I addressed to Ms Marcotte about Victoria Woodhull just yesterday.

---

Update 2

The Twitter conversation between Marcotte and me remains lively, and at the time I write this it has evolved to a point that better addresses my proposal here ... including some interesting criticisms of the legal implications of what I've said. When time permits, I’ll find a way to transcribe the tweetstream into a relatively readable form here, and comment more thoughtfully than the Twitter medium permits.

---

Update 3

I just added a snippet of text clarifying that a father who refuses responsibility for his offspring must do so when he learns of the pregnancy, rather than after the child is born. Evidently some MRAs advocate something like the latter meaning, calling that a “paper abortion,” an idea so stupid and mortifying that it simply hadn't occurred to me as a possible reading of what I'd described. It certainly explains why Marcotte seemed so intent on a seemingly willful misunderstanding of what I’d suggested.

---

Update 4

Discussion here and elsewhere has made it clear to me that my original proposal was embarassingly irresponsible in failing to talk explicitly about how we should provide for children's needs. Taken in itself, giving unwilling fathers the legal power to evade responsibility for the costs of childrearing harms children. That’s an unacceptable bottom line.

But if we accept that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that children’s needs are supported—and I believe that it does—then we should ask not only whether compelling unwilling fathers to provide that support is better than leaving those children unsupported; we should ask whether unwilling fathers are the best solution altogether. And framed that way, I find it impossible to claim that it is. Depending on unwilling fathers is, in fact, a sloppy and ineffective solution for ensuring children's welfare. Setting aside the questions of enforcement and father’s willingness, imagining that all unwilling fathers nonetheless provide what support they can, the vagaries of fathers’ fortunes will too often leave children wanting.

I was wrong to ignore the problem of children's material needs in my proposal, but to say “let fathers take care of it” and leave it at that is dismissive of the same fundamental problem. We need a better solution that provides for all children, and it's hard for me to imagine such a solution which doesn’t involve a categorically greater level of government investment than we have now. That is a necessary precondition for the kind of policy I proposed above.

Supporting reproductive freedom for men isn’t the most important reason to make a government commitment to ensuring that children's needs are provided for, but it is a nice side benefit.

Budget

TomDispatch offers an expansive accounting of the military budget that tallies it at $1.2 Trillion/year. I'm not sure if I buy those figures, as I've not looked at them closely yet, but I'm posting the link here so I don't lose it.

Coördinate systems

Cartesian bears can be found in temperate climates closer to the equator, where longitude lines can be treated as approximately parallel. Further north, as this approximation begins to introduce significant errors, polar bears have the significant advantage of using much simpler trigonometric terms.

The speech it's not too late for Obama to make

Good evening to the American people, the people of Egypt, and the people of the world.

Hosni Mubarak's government in Egypt has long been a valued ally of the United States. On the world stage, a nation must often respect and work with governments one does not always agree with. That is not just a callous pragmatism. It reflects a humble awareness that it is right and necessary for a people to chart their own course, without undue interference from their neighbors. And in the spirit of that respect, I have hesitated to speak against the Egyptian government.

But that was a grave mistake, and I will correct that mistake now. Because more important than loyalty to governments who have been our allies is loyalty to the principle of democracy which is the bedrock of our nation. And so I cannot ignore the dedication, the commitment, and most of all the courage which the Egyptian people have shown in demanding a government which truly represents them.

It was this commitment to the principle of democracy that led the American people to support the invasion of Iraq. We believed that we might liberate that country from a brutal despot, and birth a democracy. But it is not so simple, as we have seen vividly demonstrated the years since that invasion. Though I remain hopeful that the Iraqi people will build a vibrant, democratic nation, their future remains compromised by the scars of war. The United States remains committed by both our will and our duty to help bring Iraq to the future it deserves, but America should not try again to grant democracy to a people at the point of an American sword.

It is far better for a people to claim democracy for themselves than to try to build it in the wake of another nation's intervention. We should know that, having created our own nation in rebellion against the greatest colonial power of its time.

Better for a people to claim democracy for themselves, and best for them to do so without raising a gun at all. There are those who will say that to stand up against an oppressor without shedding their blood is too idealistic. Despots' grip on power is too great, they say. Only military force can break their grip.

But we have seen it happen in Eastern Europe in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Empire. We have seen it when India stood up for independence. And we have seen the power of nonviolence right here in these United States in our own Civil Rights Movement.

The United States simply cannot stand behind a tyrant who refuses when his nation's people call for him to step down. Nor can we oppose a nonviolent democratic movement like that we have seen in Egypt. To do so would be to break our covenant with the Founders of our own nation.

So tonight I say to the people of Egypt: the people of the United States stand with you. Tonight I say to Hosni Mubarak, who can hold no legitimacy with the free people of the world, the government of the United States is no longer your ally.

I say to the people of the world: the United States stands with every nonviolent movement for democracy in the world, today and tomorrow, wherever it may arise.

I say to the world's tyrants: the United States may meet with you in diplomacy and trade, but we will never stand with you against your people. Where democratic movements arise, we will remember what America stands for.

I urge the American people to join me in praying for an Egypt liberated without bloodshed. I urge the Egyptian people to accept an offered American hand of friendship. And I urge the people of the world who yearn for democracy to stand up with the courage of your Egyptian brothers and sisters.

Thank you, and good night.

---

Update: What the President actually said later that day.

Via Ben Jervey at Good magazine.

Protest

Cairo yesterday:

Washington DC 1967:

True Hollywood story

I stumbled across an old interview with Gary Wolf, the author of the original novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit? My favourite little bit.

I can say that Bugs has a tough agent. He and Mickey had to appear on screen for the exact same amount of time, they had to be in every scene together, and they had to have exactly the same number of words of dialog.

Why am I not surprised?

Bertie Wooster, Batman

Alfred Pennyworth has so much in common with Jeeves.

“Enough talk about that, Jeeves. I think I’ve made it quite clear that the cape represents my bat-wings, for I am a child of the night, and so forth.”

“Could not some other form of abstraction suffice, sir?”

“Well, without the wings, I’m hardly a bat, am I? I’m sort of a black badger.”

“I understand badgers can be quite nasty in a pinch.”

“Yes, but it’s not like a great roaring badger came smashing through my window at Brinkley, is it? It was a bat. That’s an omen, Jeeves. Can’t mess about with omens, that’s bad luck.”

PasswordCard

Via @acrylicist, I learn about PasswordCard, a cunning little web utility that helps with the problem of remembering lots of strong unique passwords. Frustratingly, I find it almost useful. But I have some ideas for how to make it so that it would be a great solution for me, and I think a lot of other people.

PasswordCard generates a unique batch of random alphanumeric characters for you, arranged in a grid:

The idea is that you keep your PasswordCard with you, and then any time you need a password you use this proceedure, described on the PasswordCard website:

• Pick a direction. You don't have to go from left to right to read your passwords, you can go from right to left, up or down, or even diagonally. It's probably a good idea to pick one direction though, even if you use your PasswordCard for multiple passwords.
• Pick a password length. Eight is pretty secure and usually acceptable. Again, it's a good idea to pick one length.
• Pick a colour and a symbol for each password. You can use one password for all your sites, but that still wouldn't be very safe. It's a good idea to at least have different passwords for very important sites, such as Internet banking sites.

So if you use 8-character passwords and read to right-to-left, and you remember that your Facebook password is “green diamond”, then you know that your Facebook password is r8tzkE5H.

It's a very clever idea, but I have a problem with it. You need to remember the color and symbol for each password you have. If you're like me, you have a lot of passwords; I would not feel confident that I will remember the mnemonic for every password I create.

But with a slight change to the design of the card, that's easy to fix:

With the grid organized this way, you can have the name of the thing for which you need a password act as the mnemonic that tells you where on the card to start. So let's say you do the first letter of the name of the site from the top list of columns, and the second letter of the name of the site from the side list of rows; that makes your Facebook password jdFQqeea. This makes your passwords a bit more exposed if someone gets hold of your card, since the key mnemonic isn't in your brain, but you could be clever about where you start: instead of the first and second letters of the site name, you could use the third and fourth ... and shift over by two from there ... and so forth.

For folks who still want to use the card the old way, I've left the colored rows.

The weird extra set of characters at the bottom of both formats of card is a seed number which will produce the PasswordCard again at the website. That way, if you write down just that seed number somewhere secure, if you lose your PasswordCard you can reproduce it exactly. But it would be nice if you could use any arbitrary key you want, that you already have memorized, and then have the option to leave that off of the card.

Slices of film

The New York Times Magazine offers us a beautiful piece: Fourteen Actors Acting: A Video Gallery of Screen Types, a series of little vignettes. They offer about the minimum of what you need to qualify as “cinema:” each features a single actor shot in black-and-white in a single take that lasts about a minute, with a simple music score. Each repeats a cinematic trope you'll undoubtedly recognize.

I have a soft spot for this sort of thing in part because it provokes a confrontation with the nature of the medium. How little can a scene contain and still tell us something? What comes from story, and what from pure action? Why do we love these iconic scenes so much that we create them again and again in films? What makes them work? And what makes them work again and again, in countless movies, without becoming stale?

And, apropos of the collection's title: What do actors do, really? I started asking that after I read Stephanie Zacharek's review of Monster, which she opens with that haunting question. All of the performances in these micro-cinematic efforts impressed me with the magic of acting, and they act as meditations on what makes film actors interesting. Robert Duvall's clip gave me a chuckle because he reminded me of showrunner Ron Moore talking about how Edward James Olmos shaving constituted one of the major themes of Battlestar Galactica. Vincent Cassel reminded me of my theory that God gave us movies so we could watch people dancing beautifully, which explains why we make so many action movies these days — they provide a substitute for the musicals which have gone out of style. James Franco manages to make a two-character scene work through the use of a mirror. Matt Damon revealed a series of thoughts and emotions without benefit of either his voice or much time on screen. (I've sung the praises of Damon's gifts as a physical actor since I saw the scene in The Bourne Identity in which, early in the film, his amnesiac character gets awakened on a park bench by a cop's nightstick, and Damon communicates with a little shrug hey, I just realized that I know how to take this cop's nightstick away from him and beat him up with it, which I find both astonishing and disturbing. How did he do that?)

And Michael Douglass provides an utterly compelling performance by pretty much just sitting there.

Which brings me to If We Don't, Remember Me. When I started writing this post, I had meant to call it a different take on the same project, but I realize that in truth it has a profoundly different project.

Remember offers a series of animated GIFs made from great movies. I ordinarily think of animated GIFs — a technology for showing brief looping animations — as the scourge of the web, but Remember does something marvelous with them. Stills taken from movies generally seem surprisingly sterile; movement plays such an essential part in what makes well-composed film shots work that taking a single frame out, even if we choose carefully, loses much of the magic. Remember gives us not stills but what we want from stills: a single, atomic moment, including the essential movement. And by essential movement, I do mean essential: often the faceless author of Remember has included only the movement in one part of the frame, or has the image hold perfectly still for a second or two before showing something small move in a flicker, or includes just a tiny sway or flick of an actor's eyes.

The moments captured by Remember don't really show us acting at all, I think. Acting means revealing a character through action. (There it is, lurking in the word itself!) The moments of Remember don't do that, they show no progression, else they would not work as endless loops the way they do.

But they often do show a thing that film actors do — the thing that Michael Douglas did in his Fourteen Actors clip — which has only a loose connection with acting: exhibiting screen presence, that subtle and mysterious quality by which some actors can hold our attention. Some actors, indeed, have very modest acting abilities but an extraordinary screen presence: think of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ruth Gordon, Keanu Reeves, or countless classic-era stars like Bogart, Hepburn, John Wayne, Rita Hayworth, Jimmy Stewart. I suspect that skilled actors can cultivate this, but some actors just have it.

How the heck does that work?

---

Update: I cannot resist adding a little video essay of closeups, plus these animated movie posters.

---

Update: Tech Noir is another collection of almost-stills like If We Don't, Remember Me, and Scènes Cultes de Films en GIFs Animés is similar, with little GIFs.

Airport groping

Furry Girl at Feminisnt gives us what may be the blog post of the year: My experience mocking TSA security theater at Seatac as a nearly-naked enfant terrible. Like Dancing Matt, it's delightful in part because it is at the intersection of so many things of our particular historical moment: security theatre gone haywire, sexual politics, the democratization of video, feminism, situationist social criticism ...

The TSA wanted to feel me up or see what I look like without clothes. I get it. I'm a sex worker. My main porn site gets about 3 million unique visitors a year, and clients pay ^$4 a minute to see me naked on my web cam, so the TSA's interest in me came as no surprise. Normally, I would charge for such a service, but this one was on the house. Duty, country, sacrifice, patriotism, all that.

So that link is, as the saying goes, Not Safe For Work.

(And Furry Girl, if you're reading? It breaks my heart that you feel like you can't fit into a “silly feminist framework.”)

---

Update: The wittiness of her blog post is not matched by the video she took of the incident, in which her enthusiasm for stripping down for the search seems forced on her part, rather than an organic absurdist response to security theatre.

Deficit spending

Brad DeLong explains why deficit spending is a very good idea right now.

The principle to which Interfluidity refers is that when times are bad--when your present and expected future resources fall--you should cut back on your commitments. The fact is that these are bad times for private economic actors: their current incomes have fallen, and the high interest rates charged them means that their future resources are worth a lot less than they used to be when translated into claims on today.

But things are completely different for the government.

The terms on which the U.S. government today can borrow are extraordinarily, unbelievably good. The government's current resources have declined with the decline in tax revenue, but the taxes the government will receive in the future are--according to a bunch of calculations John Cochrane made when he came to Berkeley to give a seminar--worth roughly four times as much when translated into claims on goods, services, and labor today as they were worth three years ago. The resource constraints binding private economic actors have become much tighter. But the resource constraints binding the government have--because of the extraordinary falls in interest rates--become much looser. And high unemployment and slack capacity mean that the terms on which the government can get goods, services, and labor are significantly more advantageous than they were three years ago.

Every single particle of logic is crying out that now is the time for the government to pull its spending forward from the future into the present and push its taxes from the present back into the future.

The argument that “governments should be prudent in the same way as households” is not a moral argument: it is a stupid argument. It blindly closes its eyes to the reality that times feel very different for credit-worthy governments than for potentially insolvent private economic actors, and that what is prudence for the second is sheer idiocy for the first.

Tea Party

A terrific, sharp-tongued summary of the Tea Party's principles Digby:

• hatred of government
• a loathing for liberals (and other assorted unreal Americans)
• the Bible
• a cartoon constitution
• a fantasy America in which everyone agrees with them and does exactly what they want

Passion

Michael Been
1950-2010
Singer and songwriter

I just discovered that Michael Been, songwriter for The Call, died a few months back. I’m saddened, and selfishly disappointed that this means he won’t be gifting me with any more songs.

I am by no stretch of the imagination a Christian — though I’m syncreticist enough to refer to תפארת, अनाहत, Buddha Compassion, or Christ Love as occasion demands — but that surely isn’t Mr Been’s fault.

I have never heard a better love song than “I Still Believe”.

Just as Johnny Cash sang about the severe American Christ the Judge so that even if you didn’t believe in Him you could see how it felt if you did, Been sang about a universal Christ of Glory and Mystery. And like Cash, he didn't do it so it was a chore, taking your medicine — The Call was a rock ’n’ roll band, and they rocked.

I’m badly outvoted on how the cosmos works. If they’re right and I’m wrong, I expect that Been is now standing at God’s right hand now and singing His praises. And someday Peter will ask me in life, did you accept Jesus Christ into your heart? If that does happen, I think I might be able to get away with answering Peter that no, I did not … except during the time I spent listening to Micheal Been sing.

Update

A little magic in the handwriting of Been’s co-songwriter Jim Goodwin: