Free speech

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Marines in Berkeley

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

"If only there was an organization that was sworn to defend that free speech..."

(Video was sent to me this morning by this former student.)

Can't Stop

The music video for the Red Hot Chili Peppers' song, "Can't stop" from their 2002 album, "By the way". If you see or hear anything that makes sense, you let me know.

"Hypocrisy"

The recent "scandal" involving Eliot Spitzer, the (now former) Governor of New York, calls for a bit of reflection. For readers who live outside the U.S. media bubble, Spitzer rose to prominence and power on his reputation as a crusader who fought to eradicate corruption, wherever it was found. He did this primarily in his previous elected position as New York's Attorney General.

According to the press, Spitzer did three things that are noteworthy: I. More than any other single individual, he helped advance the causes of shareholder control, and proper governance and oversight of corporations. II. He used public, vicious, personal attacks on specific individuals at these corporations as one tool for achieving these ends. III. He spent tens of thousands of dollars on prostitutes.

It has been noted in several articles that the individuals targeted by Spitzer were openly and vindictively gleeful at the revelation that Spitzer had spent huge sums of his personal money on high-priced hookers, and his subsequent resignation in shame. The American press, especially in New York, was quick to reflect not only this euphoric reaction, but also the commonly held belief on Wall Street that Spitzer's harsh tactics and degradation of women was demonstrable proof that his efforts to check corporate misconduct were invalid.

Say what? To understand this reasoning (that the governor's inclination to pay women for sex negates his anti-corruption work), you must comprehend the American view of integrity and hypocrisy.

America is a culture that craves consistency, and mistakenly equates this consistency to something like "integrity". We demand consistency in our leaders, in our foreign policy, and from our fellow citizens. We want consistency so badly that we presume it exists, even when it is plainly absent. We are not believers in Oscar Wilde's observation that "we are never more true to ourselves than when we are inconsistent". Quite to the contrary. For Americans, the opposite of consistency and integrity is hypocrisy. In fact, as Kenneth Johnson pointed out, in a culture where there are no shared values, the only sin is hypocrisy.

Consider this: cultural agreement on a foundational moral code (as in the "natural law" or "divine command" construction) provides individuals with a form of security. Life is more predictable when we can make certain presumptions about how each of us "should" behave, and "ought to" live, as indicated by our shared moral code. Conversely, in a society where this shared understanding does not exist - such as in multicultural, secular, western, liberal democracies - we feel a collective sense of instability because we do not have a framework to predict the behavior of the man standing next to us. The only way stability can be reclaimed is if we demand consistency relative to itself and live our lives equating consistency to morality and personal integrity.

It is for these reasons that in America, a person who says one thing and does another is seen as the incarnation of evil. We tolerate a great deal in this country, from prostitutes to white-collar thieves, but we will not tolerate a man who is inconsistent. We see the inconsistent man as the embodiment of randomness and volatility in our world. We see him as the threat that must be put down. Without a shared moral code, we are not a culture that can say, "Spitzer is a man who did wrong when he used a woman by treating her purely as an object. He did wrong when he attacked individuals harshly and personally. He did good by fighting corruption." No, in our effort to establish certainty and regularity where there never is any (inside one person), what we say is, "If we voted this man into office, that is because he was a predictable force for good. If he did something bad, he must therefore be a predictable force for evil. Therefore, everything he ever did was wrong."

To complicate matters is our rather blunt use of the word "hypocrite", a term that has become our shorthand for "inconsistent" or even "unclean". To be technical about it, "hypocrisy" is not "saying one thing and doing another", but believing one way and directing another. Put a different way: if Spitzer believed in his heart that engaging in prostitution was wrong, but did it anyway, his behavior is merely a demonstration of remarkable personal weakness, but not hypocrisy. However, if he believed in his heart that prostitution was acceptable, but spoke out publicly against it, then this could be actual hypocrisy.

The obvious problem - the missing variable - in all cases is that we do not know what any other man really believes in his heart. In order to get away with our use of the word "hypocrite", we presume that Spitzer's actions were in line with his beliefs, while at the same time knowing that every day we each do things that go against the convictions we hold most dear. As Betsy Holmes likes to remind me, when other people violate the moral order, it's because they are bad people. When I do it, I've got pretty good reasons.

Let's be more careful casting stones, shall we?

Superdelegates

The painting to the left is: "Freedom of Speech" (The Saturday Evening Post, February 20, 1943), by Norman Rockwell. An earlier study for this print is below.

As I suggested earlier, there has been a shameful void of both worthwhile reporting and relfective analysis during this perpetual presidential election cycle. I am thankful for the articles that buck this trend, such as the piece by Stanley Fish appearing in The New York Times this morning. The full text can be found here. The article looks at the history, moral standing and political requirements of the Democratic Party's "superdelegates". Here's a sample:


... when the group NoSuperDelegates urges the DNC “to not seat the Super-Delegates . . . and instead nominate the candidate leading in the delegate count,” what it is really urging is the jettisoning of the rules because its members fear the outcome that following them might produce.

Of course, they don’t see it that way. They see themselves engaged in a noble cause: “We are urging Americans to simply stand up for what is right and let democracy work the way it’s intended to.”

Whose intention and whose democracy would that be? Not the founding fathers, who were more fearful of democracy in 1787 than the Democratic elders are today. James Madison complained in Federalist 10 that “measures are too often decided . . . by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Democracies, he continued, have ever been “spectacles of turbulence and contention.”

Alexander Hamilton was even harsher in his judgment. Replying to the assertion that “pure democracy” would be “the most perfect government,” he declared, “no position is politics is more false” because “the ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government.” Indeed, he concluded, “their very character is tyranny.”

Federal laws exist to ensure transparent and orderly elections that adhere to certain principles. This I get. What is not clear to me is why some (not Stanley Fish) expect a similar, constitution-level standard of justice governing internal party processes. The two-party system that dominates our country today is not addressed in the U.S. Constitution, so while the method that a party uses to nominate a contender is fair game for criticism, only the members of that party can determine the party rules, and evaluate whether or not it is a "good" process for their members (and, I hope, for the country as a whole).

The fight over Superdelegates is interesting because it highlights an argument often heard in this country: Rules that have resulted in acceptable outcomes are good rules, but rules that have resulted - or may result - in unacceptable outcomes (the Electoral College in 2000, for example) must be discarded. This, clearly, makes the whole idea of pre-existing rules a) meaningless, b) dependent upon each individual's willingness to compare long-term consequences against short-term results, and c) dependent on each individual's current preference for things "acceptable" or "unacceptable".

One wonders if we are still a country with a long vision for stability.

Hurt

One of the final recordings - and the last video made - by the late Johnny Cash was of the song "Hurt", written by Nine Inch Nails / Trent Reznor. The story of how Cash came to cover the song, and Reznor's emotional reaction to it, is found here.

I hurt myself today,
to see if I still feel.
I focus on the pain,
the only thing that's real.
The needle tears a hole,
the old familiar sting.
Try to kill it all away,
but I remember everything.
What have I become?
My sweetest friend.
Everyone I know,
goes away in the end.
And you could have it all,
my empire of dirt.

I will let you down,
I will make you hurt.

I wear this crown of thorns,
upon my liar's chair.
Full of broken thoughts,
I cannot repair.
Beneath the stains of time,
the feelings disappear.
You are someone else.
I am still right here.

What have I become?
My sweetest friend.
Everyone I know,
goes away in the end.
And you could have it all,
my empire of dirt.

I will let you down.
I will make you hurt.

If I could start again,
a million miles away.
I would keep myself.
I would find a way.

Afternoon snack

All recipes posted on Sed Digressio are tested thoroughly by credentialed professionals in our specially designed laboratory.

Now that the sun is setting later, a man's thoughts turn to afternoons on the deck. Just about my favorite thing to do is to sip on a margarita, enjoy some guacamole and deconstruct the world around me. So, mix up a set, go outside, and give me a call.

The Cadillac Margarita - a recipe I have modified over almost 20 years of testing - is an outstanding choice, but if you plan on going somewhere later, this is not for you. Serve it in a martini glass to get the point across to the uninitiated.

1.5 oz. of a nice tequila (Astral is my current choice.)
.5 oz. Cointreau
.5 oz. Grand Marnier
1 oz. freshly squeezed lime juice
.5 oz of honey (or agave nectar)
Salt

Rim a chilled martini glass with lime and coat with salt. Combine the tequila, Cointreau, Grand Mariner, lime juice and sweetener in a shaker with ice, shake, and let it sit for a minute or two. Shake again and serve. Repeat.

Making an incredible guacamole depends on one's ability to find fresh ingredients and the willingness to experiment with spices. I include various Indian curries (yes, really) in addition to a teaspoon of chili spices in order to give it a warm (but not too hot) contrast to the cool avocado. Don't be afraid to use more spice: Most guacamole is mediocre because it's too bland. If you can plan ahead (who has the time?), guacamole always tastes better on Day II. You'll need:

2 avocados (the more you use, the more spices you'll want to add)
1 small, chopped and strained tomato
.5 cup of minced shallot
4 cloves of minced garlic
1 teaspoon of fresh chilies, or 1 teaspoon of chili powder (at least, to taste)
2 limes, juiced (to taste)
Salt and freshly ground pepper to taste
Minced cilantro leaves for garnish

It's good to mince where it says mince. If you have a potato masher, this is the best tool for combining the ingredients, but a hand mixer will do well, too. Leaving the final product in a mostly mixed state - as opposed to fully pureed - is more pleasing aesthetically in the same way that mostly dead is preferable to all dead.

Serve with salted blue corn chips.

Call The Digressor to discuss your visions of the eternal.

Cherry Blossom

"Cherry Blossom" (2005)

One significant benefit of my move back to Atlanta is a comparatively early Spring. While Washington, DC (and let's not even talk about Montana) lingers in darkness and cold, my current home is already surrounded by flowers and green grass. It's hard not to gloat, but I freely admit that one thing I will miss about being in DC during this time of year is The National Cherry Blossom Festival. If you're nearby, take a Wednesday afternoon off from work and enjoy the beauty.

Spring Training

Design by "Busted Tees"

Spring training is upon us, and a theological reminder is in order.

The Onion

The Onion never fails to get a laugh. This is one of my favorite articles by the online satirical magazine, The Onion.

Anytime a publication wants to write like this, I'm reading it:

"Then again," Pafko added, "every day is Hump Day, really." Later, as he does every day, Pafko headed to the company bathroom and sat for 20 minutes with a loaded gun in his mouth. Once the shakes subsided, he removed the bullets from the gun and returned to his desk.