Saturday, January 23, 2016
Music For A Cold Dreary Winter Day - McCoy Tyner - La Habana Sol
McCoy Tyner, piano
Aaron Scott drums
Avery Sharpe Bass
I seem to get to this at least once a year around this time.
Update: In Walked Bud
Same performers as above
Not Quite Done With That Tune - Bobby Ramirez - Bluesette
Bobby Ramirez, flute
Ryan Ellis, piano;
Ivan Velasquez, drums;
Rick Doll, bass.
Brueggemann's Incredible Insight Into LGBT Equality
I have been gorging on what Walter Brueggemann has said for the past week and find that he not only had come to many of the same conclusions about things that I had, much, much earlier, he has gone a lot farther than I had. I got there through political thinking, he got there through rigorous and serious consideration of the Bible.
One of the things I'm always getting is the demand of how I can take Christianity seriously when I also am an LGBT equality absolutist. In this interview with Julie A. Wortman, he shows that fourteen years ago he had a more fully developed concept of the issue than I had at the time. Considering that Walter Brueggemann is a white, straight man, his developed, nuanced appreciation for what that equality means and his lack of unrealistic romanticism about that is rather stunning.
Julie Wortman: Do you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (lgbt) folks are sinners?
Walter Brueggemann: Yes, like we all are. So I think that our sexual interpersonal relationships are enormously hazardous and they are the place where we work out our fears and our anxieties and we do that in many exploitative ways. So I don’t think that gays and lesbians and so on are exempt from the kind of temptations that all of us live with.
Julie Wortman: Is their struggle for full inclusion in the life of the church a justice struggle?
Walter Brueggemann: Yes. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said that the arc of history is bent toward justice. And the parallel statement that I want to make is that the arc of the Gospel is bent toward inclusiveness. And I think that’s a kind of elemental conviction through which I then read the text. I suspect a lot of people who share this approach simply sort out the parts of the text that are in the service of inclusion and kind of put aside the parts of the text that move in the other direction.
Julie Wortman: And what do you do with those other parts?
Walter Brueggemann: Well, I think you have to take them seriously. I think that it is clear that much or all of the Bible is time-bound and much of the Bible is filtered through a rather heavy-duty patriarchal ideology. What all of us have to try to do is to sort out what in that has an evangelical future and what in that really is organized against the Gospel. For me, the conviction from Martin Luther that you have to make a distinction between the Gospel and the Bible is a terribly important one. Of course, what Luther meant by the Gospel is whatever Luther meant. And that’s what we all do, so there’s a highly subjective dimension to that. But it’s very scary now in the church that the Gospel is equated with the Bible, so you get a kind of a biblicism that is not noticeably informed by the Gospel. And that means that the relationship between the Bible and the Gospel is always going to be contested and I suppose that’s what all our churches are doing – they’re contesting.
Julie Wortman: You’ve done a lot of work on the Hebrew prophets. What do you think we can learn from the prophets about justice in this particular issue of lgbt people and their quest for justice?
Walter Brueggemann: As you know the prophets are largely focused on economic questions, but I suppose that the way I would transpose that is to say that the prophets are concerned with the way in which the powerful take advantage of the vulnerable. When you transpose that into these questions, then obviously gays and lesbians are the vulnerable and the very loud heterosexual community is as exploitative as any of the people that the prophets critiqued. Plus, on sexuality questions you have this tremendous claim of virtue and morality on the heterosexual side, which of course makes heterosexual ideology much more heavy-handed.
I have never, in the period of reading peoples' declarations on such issues online or before, come across such a fully developed appreciation for the meaning of LGBT equality, its promise and its problems, in such realistic terms.
I think that our sexual interpersonal relationships are enormously hazardous and they are the place where we work out our fears and our anxieties and we do that in many exploitative ways. So I don’t think that gays and lesbians and so on are exempt from the kind of temptations that all of us live with.
That passage alone, Breuggemann's equalization of gay and straight people as sinners whose sexual activities are equally fraught with the possibility of the corruption into inequality and exploitation, doing harm and worse, makes him more credible than most of the theoreticians and sex columnists I'm aware of. It is a radical realism which refuses to ignore that sex is fraught with dangers when it isn't kept in check by the full application of love and a commitment to the well being of both of those involved. That is only going to happen in a majority of instances when sex is within a committed, faithful relationship, marriage being the mere legal expression of that in contractual terms.
The alternative to that, the promotion of adultery - even that entered into by agreement - and all of the carny of free and kinky sex promoted by the champions of "freedom" turns out to have similar consequences in abuse and destruction of people. Whenever I've pointed out such things as that the most prevalent expressions of hatred of gay men is found in gay porn, that the model of promiscuous abandon practiced in gay oases such as New York City and San Francisco and in local anonymous sex venues across the country was a proven way of death, the reaction - especially from straight "leftists" has been uniformly hostile.
I long ago concluded that the pathological emphasis put on following rigid sexual rules by the "Christian" establishment was a means of deflecting attention from the radical economic questions and demand for equality which are found in far more verses of the Bible than those dealing with men having sex with men and the such. It was in the economic interest, the power of the establishments, political and religious, to keep peoples' minds off of the demands throughout the Bible for economic justice and equality, nothing served that purpose better than promoting an obsession with sex - the allure of thinking about sex is another of the perils associated with it. The legal treatment of such things was certainly not in line with what Jesus did when he had someone accused of sexual misconduct brought to him. It's entirely more in line with pagan "honor" customs than anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus. And I think it serves that purpose today.
I have only just begun to consider that the ends of the rigid sexual moralists and the libertines comes out in about the same place, inequality, exploitation, injustice, prescriptive sex roles as dominator and dominated, etc. Whatever could be said about that, they come out the same place. "Sex positive" "feminism" is remarkable for reinforcing exactly the things which the reviled second-wave feminism struggled against, the same thing can be said of the promotion of promiscuity among gay men.
One of the things I'm always getting is the demand of how I can take Christianity seriously when I also am an LGBT equality absolutist. In this interview with Julie A. Wortman, he shows that fourteen years ago he had a more fully developed concept of the issue than I had at the time. Considering that Walter Brueggemann is a white, straight man, his developed, nuanced appreciation for what that equality means and his lack of unrealistic romanticism about that is rather stunning.
Julie Wortman: Do you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (lgbt) folks are sinners?
Walter Brueggemann: Yes, like we all are. So I think that our sexual interpersonal relationships are enormously hazardous and they are the place where we work out our fears and our anxieties and we do that in many exploitative ways. So I don’t think that gays and lesbians and so on are exempt from the kind of temptations that all of us live with.
Julie Wortman: Is their struggle for full inclusion in the life of the church a justice struggle?
Walter Brueggemann: Yes. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said that the arc of history is bent toward justice. And the parallel statement that I want to make is that the arc of the Gospel is bent toward inclusiveness. And I think that’s a kind of elemental conviction through which I then read the text. I suspect a lot of people who share this approach simply sort out the parts of the text that are in the service of inclusion and kind of put aside the parts of the text that move in the other direction.
Julie Wortman: And what do you do with those other parts?
Walter Brueggemann: Well, I think you have to take them seriously. I think that it is clear that much or all of the Bible is time-bound and much of the Bible is filtered through a rather heavy-duty patriarchal ideology. What all of us have to try to do is to sort out what in that has an evangelical future and what in that really is organized against the Gospel. For me, the conviction from Martin Luther that you have to make a distinction between the Gospel and the Bible is a terribly important one. Of course, what Luther meant by the Gospel is whatever Luther meant. And that’s what we all do, so there’s a highly subjective dimension to that. But it’s very scary now in the church that the Gospel is equated with the Bible, so you get a kind of a biblicism that is not noticeably informed by the Gospel. And that means that the relationship between the Bible and the Gospel is always going to be contested and I suppose that’s what all our churches are doing – they’re contesting.
Julie Wortman: You’ve done a lot of work on the Hebrew prophets. What do you think we can learn from the prophets about justice in this particular issue of lgbt people and their quest for justice?
Walter Brueggemann: As you know the prophets are largely focused on economic questions, but I suppose that the way I would transpose that is to say that the prophets are concerned with the way in which the powerful take advantage of the vulnerable. When you transpose that into these questions, then obviously gays and lesbians are the vulnerable and the very loud heterosexual community is as exploitative as any of the people that the prophets critiqued. Plus, on sexuality questions you have this tremendous claim of virtue and morality on the heterosexual side, which of course makes heterosexual ideology much more heavy-handed.
I have never, in the period of reading peoples' declarations on such issues online or before, come across such a fully developed appreciation for the meaning of LGBT equality, its promise and its problems, in such realistic terms.
I think that our sexual interpersonal relationships are enormously hazardous and they are the place where we work out our fears and our anxieties and we do that in many exploitative ways. So I don’t think that gays and lesbians and so on are exempt from the kind of temptations that all of us live with.
That passage alone, Breuggemann's equalization of gay and straight people as sinners whose sexual activities are equally fraught with the possibility of the corruption into inequality and exploitation, doing harm and worse, makes him more credible than most of the theoreticians and sex columnists I'm aware of. It is a radical realism which refuses to ignore that sex is fraught with dangers when it isn't kept in check by the full application of love and a commitment to the well being of both of those involved. That is only going to happen in a majority of instances when sex is within a committed, faithful relationship, marriage being the mere legal expression of that in contractual terms.
The alternative to that, the promotion of adultery - even that entered into by agreement - and all of the carny of free and kinky sex promoted by the champions of "freedom" turns out to have similar consequences in abuse and destruction of people. Whenever I've pointed out such things as that the most prevalent expressions of hatred of gay men is found in gay porn, that the model of promiscuous abandon practiced in gay oases such as New York City and San Francisco and in local anonymous sex venues across the country was a proven way of death, the reaction - especially from straight "leftists" has been uniformly hostile.
I long ago concluded that the pathological emphasis put on following rigid sexual rules by the "Christian" establishment was a means of deflecting attention from the radical economic questions and demand for equality which are found in far more verses of the Bible than those dealing with men having sex with men and the such. It was in the economic interest, the power of the establishments, political and religious, to keep peoples' minds off of the demands throughout the Bible for economic justice and equality, nothing served that purpose better than promoting an obsession with sex - the allure of thinking about sex is another of the perils associated with it. The legal treatment of such things was certainly not in line with what Jesus did when he had someone accused of sexual misconduct brought to him. It's entirely more in line with pagan "honor" customs than anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus. And I think it serves that purpose today.
I have only just begun to consider that the ends of the rigid sexual moralists and the libertines comes out in about the same place, inequality, exploitation, injustice, prescriptive sex roles as dominator and dominated, etc. Whatever could be said about that, they come out the same place. "Sex positive" "feminism" is remarkable for reinforcing exactly the things which the reviled second-wave feminism struggled against, the same thing can be said of the promotion of promiscuity among gay men.
It All Began With Lies: Citizens United Is Only Half of the Disaster
Joe Conason wrote a scathing column about Anthony Kennedy and his crucial role in destroying what little semblance of American democracy was left standing before the Citizens United decision in 2010. He notes that Kennedy, before being installed as a judge by Ronald Reagan worked in his fathers crooked lobbying firm in Sacramento so there was never any reason to suspect he was ever anything like an honest "moderate conservative". Conason states the truth of it, thanks to Anthony Kennedy and the Citizens United decision, handing the American government over to billionaires, the worst of the Republican far right run the Senate and House and may well soon run the whole thing. Look at the Republican pack at the next debate, all of them trying to outdo the others to be pathologically unhinged so as to appeal to the Republican voters.
But while you're looking at that, note that the great American media, the "free press" will not be noting in any decisive way that these men and woman are dangerously evil people who are appealing to the mental illness of a decisive margin of the Republican electorate. Even if most Republicans are not as insane as their rabid tire biters, they are amoral to the extent that most of them will enable them in order to gain power, cut taxes for the rich, do things like poison entire cities such as Flint Michigan, and the myriad of other evils that the press has enabled on behalf of those same billionaires because they own the vast majority of the media.
That is what is commonly left out of the liberal-leftist analysis of the corruption that came from Citizens United, that the American media, the "free 'press" is hand in glove with the corrupt figures like Kennedy, enabling the politicians who install them in the judiciary, covering the corrupt brothel of the Supreme Court with a veil of sanctity and secular, civil mysticism placing them and their obvious corruption above question. The media has been the medium through which all of this corruption happens and, as I will never stop pointing out, it all began by the liberals of the Warren court giving the media a carte blanche for lying in the Sullivan Decision a half a century ago. The string of decisions permitting the media to lie has been used by them to attack liberals and liberal politicians, even moderates such as Hillary Clinton. It is the same New York Times on whose behalf the Sullivan Decision was issued which has been publishing lies about even someone as unradical as Hillary Clinton, lies which have enabled the worst of cabloid media to push lines which will become installed in the common widsom of the American people and may give us a President Trump or Cruz. There was a good reason that 1964 and 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act is the high mark of liberalism in the United States, it is because it was also when it became possible for the media to lie on behalf of the wealthy without having to face any consequences. It's been on an accelerating downward slope ever since.
The idiotic, romantic view of the 1st Amendment that became common place in the 1950s and 60s among liberals is as much of the problem as the use conservatives made of that idiocy in the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. And for that we also have the media to thank, they, no doubt knowing the financial boon it would be to them to be able to lie for the highest bidder pushed that line of self-interest.
The largest venues of media, especially the electronic media in a market system will always serve the interests of billionaires because they have the most money and will own the media. They will never employ any reporters or commentators who endanger their money except for the odd eccentric who believes in such quaint notions as self-government by an accurately informed public. And its been my observation that even such eccentrics will, when push comes to shove, almost always go with their own self-interest.
I don't see much outside of the miraculous that is going to save us from having to go through a total disaster before we, in decisive numbers, get over the idea that a a myriad of lies is the price for someone being able to whisper one truth. Lies have to be made illegal, they have to be made actionable, they have to have the protection given them by liberals in 1964 removed from them or they will sink democracy as surely as Citizens United, the product of lies, will. Maybe the people who survive the calamity that our country is certainly headed for will come to realize that it all begins with lies.
But while you're looking at that, note that the great American media, the "free press" will not be noting in any decisive way that these men and woman are dangerously evil people who are appealing to the mental illness of a decisive margin of the Republican electorate. Even if most Republicans are not as insane as their rabid tire biters, they are amoral to the extent that most of them will enable them in order to gain power, cut taxes for the rich, do things like poison entire cities such as Flint Michigan, and the myriad of other evils that the press has enabled on behalf of those same billionaires because they own the vast majority of the media.
That is what is commonly left out of the liberal-leftist analysis of the corruption that came from Citizens United, that the American media, the "free 'press" is hand in glove with the corrupt figures like Kennedy, enabling the politicians who install them in the judiciary, covering the corrupt brothel of the Supreme Court with a veil of sanctity and secular, civil mysticism placing them and their obvious corruption above question. The media has been the medium through which all of this corruption happens and, as I will never stop pointing out, it all began by the liberals of the Warren court giving the media a carte blanche for lying in the Sullivan Decision a half a century ago. The string of decisions permitting the media to lie has been used by them to attack liberals and liberal politicians, even moderates such as Hillary Clinton. It is the same New York Times on whose behalf the Sullivan Decision was issued which has been publishing lies about even someone as unradical as Hillary Clinton, lies which have enabled the worst of cabloid media to push lines which will become installed in the common widsom of the American people and may give us a President Trump or Cruz. There was a good reason that 1964 and 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act is the high mark of liberalism in the United States, it is because it was also when it became possible for the media to lie on behalf of the wealthy without having to face any consequences. It's been on an accelerating downward slope ever since.
The idiotic, romantic view of the 1st Amendment that became common place in the 1950s and 60s among liberals is as much of the problem as the use conservatives made of that idiocy in the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. And for that we also have the media to thank, they, no doubt knowing the financial boon it would be to them to be able to lie for the highest bidder pushed that line of self-interest.
The largest venues of media, especially the electronic media in a market system will always serve the interests of billionaires because they have the most money and will own the media. They will never employ any reporters or commentators who endanger their money except for the odd eccentric who believes in such quaint notions as self-government by an accurately informed public. And its been my observation that even such eccentrics will, when push comes to shove, almost always go with their own self-interest.
I don't see much outside of the miraculous that is going to save us from having to go through a total disaster before we, in decisive numbers, get over the idea that a a myriad of lies is the price for someone being able to whisper one truth. Lies have to be made illegal, they have to be made actionable, they have to have the protection given them by liberals in 1964 removed from them or they will sink democracy as surely as Citizens United, the product of lies, will. Maybe the people who survive the calamity that our country is certainly headed for will come to realize that it all begins with lies.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Because I Need Something To Make Me Smile - Toots Thielemans & Elis Regina, "Bluesette"
And More Reason To Smile - Bluesette Ludovic Beier Quartet Live
Ludovic Beier, accordion and accordina
C.Cravero
D.Imbert
S.Huchard
SAMSON SCHMITT
LUDOVIC BEIER
PIERRE BLANCHARD
DOUDOU CUILLERIER
BRIAN TORFF
PETER BEETS
I don't know any of these players so I'm not sure who plays what except Ludovic Beier.
Note: By mistake I briefly posted a draft which I worked on a while back and haven't finished and may not. I took it down because it isn't finished.
I will be writing less for a while as I have to take care of a relative, thanks to a lack of single-payer he lost his insurance and the hospital isn't keeping him for a second longer than they have to.
Hillary Clinton isn't doing herself any favors by attacking single-payer. As more people are finding, thanks in no small part to the Roberts Court, that Obamacare isn't what it needs to be, lots of them are ready to support a candidate who backs the only rational and democratic health insurance system, single-payer.
I will be writing less for a while as I have to take care of a relative, thanks to a lack of single-payer he lost his insurance and the hospital isn't keeping him for a second longer than they have to.
Hillary Clinton isn't doing herself any favors by attacking single-payer. As more people are finding, thanks in no small part to the Roberts Court, that Obamacare isn't what it needs to be, lots of them are ready to support a candidate who backs the only rational and democratic health insurance system, single-payer.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Brahms Liebeslieder Walzer Op. 52 - What I Was Doing Exactly Four Decades Ago Tonight
playing the 1st piano part. It was pretty funny because the guy who played the 2nd piano part was six feet four and extremely good looking, in contrast to me. Alas, he was officially straight. Don't know where he is today.
I haven't played these since then. They're not my favorite Brahms but they're a crowd pleaser. This recording is one of the best of the many good performances online, even if the sound quality isn't the highest.
Irmgard Seefried, soprano
Kathleen Ferrier, alto
Julias Patzak, tenor
Horst Günter, bass
Clifford Curzon, Hans Gal piano 4-hands
a historical recording, recorded LIVE at the Edinburgh International Festival in 1952 just one year before Kathleen Ferrier's tragic death in 1953.
I haven't played these since then. They're not my favorite Brahms but they're a crowd pleaser. This recording is one of the best of the many good performances online, even if the sound quality isn't the highest.
Irmgard Seefried, soprano
Kathleen Ferrier, alto
Julias Patzak, tenor
Horst Günter, bass
Clifford Curzon, Hans Gal piano 4-hands
a historical recording, recorded LIVE at the Edinburgh International Festival in 1952 just one year before Kathleen Ferrier's tragic death in 1953.
The Disappearing Of The Religious Left As A Symptom Of A Left That Has Failed
Something came up. Just when you figure you know how bad things can get, you find out it can get worse. But, whatever.
In listening to more of Walter Brueggemann, being struck with how really radical his Bible based political thinking is, I wondered why in my decades and decades of reading radical literature and magazines, I wasn't familiar with him. I did a little experiment this morning of plugging his name into the search engines of various leftish magazines I have subscribed to and read, the Progressive, In These Times, The Nation.... and found that other than one quotation from him in The Nation, those searches came up empty. Considering the frequency with which other names, such as Christopher Hitchens come up in the same kind of searches, considering that, unlike so many of the big names and frequently found lefties active during the same period, Brueggemann is more radical and more enduring in his radicalism, his absence and their presence is an indictment of their commitment to real radical change. And not only him but a range of truly radical Christian thinkers who I have to conclude are black balled by the anti-religious owners and managers of those magazines and sources.
As I've noted any number of times, the "left" for most of the period after the martyrdom of The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. has been secular, if not actively anti-religious. You can consider the past half-century as an experiment run on that model of leftism and the results are decisively disastrous for the left. We have been in political exile for about a decade longer than Moses had the Children of Israel wandering in the wilderness. The record of Exodus and the other books shows they were learning something while they were wandering, apparently our leaders don't intend for us to learn anything from our experience of exile because they're still pushing the same failed lines and ideologies and con jobs that have so notably failed, miserably, with little to no sign of success likely in our lifetimes.
It is time for a new leadership of the left, it's time for new journalistic venues of the left. A leadership and journalism that isn't wedded to failed ideologies and ideologues of the past, one that isn't so obviously stuck on itself and its presumed superiority. I don't see any sign that the old ones work, I don't see much evidence that they ever did. It was the religious left that won the victories of the past, or at least a left that wasn't allergic to religion. I don't see any evidence that the secular left will ever get us anywhere. It's better to dump it, now. They are the pharaonic establishment we've got to free ourselves from.
One of the pieces of hate mail I got over my postings on Brueggemann note his accent. They called it a "bible belt" accent, it sounds distinctly mid-western to me. They don't address what he said, personally, I doubt they listened to more than a few minutes of him, they don't go into any substance. I don't doubt there are people with north-eastern accents who might be saying the same things, but I do know there are lots of people in the north-east, alleged leftists, liberals, for whom the accent something is said in makes all the difference. Just to highlight my point about what snobs so many on the pseudo-left are. The real left, the real leadership of the left, won't be so stuck up in that kind of stuff.
In listening to more of Walter Brueggemann, being struck with how really radical his Bible based political thinking is, I wondered why in my decades and decades of reading radical literature and magazines, I wasn't familiar with him. I did a little experiment this morning of plugging his name into the search engines of various leftish magazines I have subscribed to and read, the Progressive, In These Times, The Nation.... and found that other than one quotation from him in The Nation, those searches came up empty. Considering the frequency with which other names, such as Christopher Hitchens come up in the same kind of searches, considering that, unlike so many of the big names and frequently found lefties active during the same period, Brueggemann is more radical and more enduring in his radicalism, his absence and their presence is an indictment of their commitment to real radical change. And not only him but a range of truly radical Christian thinkers who I have to conclude are black balled by the anti-religious owners and managers of those magazines and sources.
As I've noted any number of times, the "left" for most of the period after the martyrdom of The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. has been secular, if not actively anti-religious. You can consider the past half-century as an experiment run on that model of leftism and the results are decisively disastrous for the left. We have been in political exile for about a decade longer than Moses had the Children of Israel wandering in the wilderness. The record of Exodus and the other books shows they were learning something while they were wandering, apparently our leaders don't intend for us to learn anything from our experience of exile because they're still pushing the same failed lines and ideologies and con jobs that have so notably failed, miserably, with little to no sign of success likely in our lifetimes.
It is time for a new leadership of the left, it's time for new journalistic venues of the left. A leadership and journalism that isn't wedded to failed ideologies and ideologues of the past, one that isn't so obviously stuck on itself and its presumed superiority. I don't see any sign that the old ones work, I don't see much evidence that they ever did. It was the religious left that won the victories of the past, or at least a left that wasn't allergic to religion. I don't see any evidence that the secular left will ever get us anywhere. It's better to dump it, now. They are the pharaonic establishment we've got to free ourselves from.
One of the pieces of hate mail I got over my postings on Brueggemann note his accent. They called it a "bible belt" accent, it sounds distinctly mid-western to me. They don't address what he said, personally, I doubt they listened to more than a few minutes of him, they don't go into any substance. I don't doubt there are people with north-eastern accents who might be saying the same things, but I do know there are lots of people in the north-east, alleged leftists, liberals, for whom the accent something is said in makes all the difference. Just to highlight my point about what snobs so many on the pseudo-left are. The real left, the real leadership of the left, won't be so stuck up in that kind of stuff.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Carla Bley - Ojos de Gato
Paul Bley, solo piano
Ida Lupino .
Paul Bley: piano
Steve Swallow: bass
Barry Altschul: drums
"This is a deliberate program of inadequate productivity that leaves everybody unsatisfied and eventually ruthless."
Instead of just letting that lecture I posted yesterday go eventually under the top page of my blog, as happens, I'm going to go over some of the points Walter Brueggemann made in it.
The idea I find most stunning in the lecture is his contrast between the prophetic writings of the Hebrew scriptures and the official, temple institution which is just an arm of what Brueggemann calls the contemporary "national security state" under Solomon. He explicitly related that ancient imperial-intellectual complex to our own, contemporary one. If you haven't listened to it, the place he does that most plainly is when he mentions Dick Cheney, who was the de facto head of the Bush II regime at the time the talk was given in 2007. It comes early in the talk. I will say that it is the most convincing analysis of both the scriptures describing the Solomonic security state and the prophetic reaction to it, including the variance of that with what Brueggemann notes was the original social safety net, especially in the book of Deuteronomy which I know of. It makes me think I should rethink converting to the United Church of Christ, except I think it's probably better to have an Irish Catholic who is being influenced by such protestant thinking than to have just another protestant.
I will be taking some time with this, which will involve a lot of transcription but, for now, I'll consider what he pointed out about the rules of two those parts of our imperial religion which have the most influence, today, business and sports. After talking about how both his own son and a football coach point out that even if you do what you're supposed to do, meeting or exceeding the stated goals of those jobs, you are expected to exceed even more or you are a failure. The ethic of competition, what is presented by the media, by business, the turning of winning over others into one of the major ethical holdings of American society is guaranteed to lead to evil. Here is what he said.
You're never good enough [under the rules of capitalism or sports]. This is not an accident in our society. This is a deliberate program of inadequate productivity that leaves everybody unsatisfied and eventually ruthless.
Brueggemann's linking of that to the ancient and contemporary imperial trinity of might, wealth and wisdom is something I am certain will leave me with a lot to think about, it is certainly relevant to my thinking about politics and why the left has failed. I am sure some of the fashionable folks who might read this will scoff at the inclusion of "wisdom" which is certainly an idol on the nominal left, with a position far greater than any real and serious pursuit of effective equality and real social leveling. The academics who have had such an influence, much of it obviously unwise and counterproductive, so often have an attitude of managing the great unwashed masses instead of real equality. They and so many of those who they have allegedly educated might love the idea of equality but not at a cost to their own status and asserted superiority. Their ruthlessness in protecting that status isn't far from that of the football coach whose income and influence they might very well resent - as do I for different reasons - and the vulgarity of the businessmen who they may also disdain as they silently envy. If that were not the case then the use to which they have allowed themselves to be made by the professional liars in the media would have been far less successful. Even uneducated people know when people are looking down on them, it's not as if the real feelings of the alleged intelligentsia aren't casually expressed by so many of them. Especially the students of those wise men who work in the media. The entire careers of some of them are one big inside joke about how stupid the masses of humanity are as compared to themselves.
Though I am certain that there are many who work in academia and elsewhere who will know what I'm talking about. You're less likely to hear them in the media than you will at synods and from pulpits. What Brueggemann said about Abiathar, the priest exiled to the back woods by Solomon, is also important. There have always been those who saw behind the false front that is put up to cover the corrupt imperial state, even that which is erected by its PR operation, its wisdom establishment. But a priesthood that is in cahoots with the imperial system and, in leftist terms, academics who lobby for that imperial establishment or another one will just continue the same thing. The way out of the wilderness for the left is not through supporting an alternative holder of the imperial throne, it's through something entirely different. The secular-atheist left is not that alternative, it is, if anything, a force for continuing the spiral of the past half-century after the murder of The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
The idea I find most stunning in the lecture is his contrast between the prophetic writings of the Hebrew scriptures and the official, temple institution which is just an arm of what Brueggemann calls the contemporary "national security state" under Solomon. He explicitly related that ancient imperial-intellectual complex to our own, contemporary one. If you haven't listened to it, the place he does that most plainly is when he mentions Dick Cheney, who was the de facto head of the Bush II regime at the time the talk was given in 2007. It comes early in the talk. I will say that it is the most convincing analysis of both the scriptures describing the Solomonic security state and the prophetic reaction to it, including the variance of that with what Brueggemann notes was the original social safety net, especially in the book of Deuteronomy which I know of. It makes me think I should rethink converting to the United Church of Christ, except I think it's probably better to have an Irish Catholic who is being influenced by such protestant thinking than to have just another protestant.
I will be taking some time with this, which will involve a lot of transcription but, for now, I'll consider what he pointed out about the rules of two those parts of our imperial religion which have the most influence, today, business and sports. After talking about how both his own son and a football coach point out that even if you do what you're supposed to do, meeting or exceeding the stated goals of those jobs, you are expected to exceed even more or you are a failure. The ethic of competition, what is presented by the media, by business, the turning of winning over others into one of the major ethical holdings of American society is guaranteed to lead to evil. Here is what he said.
You're never good enough [under the rules of capitalism or sports]. This is not an accident in our society. This is a deliberate program of inadequate productivity that leaves everybody unsatisfied and eventually ruthless.
Brueggemann's linking of that to the ancient and contemporary imperial trinity of might, wealth and wisdom is something I am certain will leave me with a lot to think about, it is certainly relevant to my thinking about politics and why the left has failed. I am sure some of the fashionable folks who might read this will scoff at the inclusion of "wisdom" which is certainly an idol on the nominal left, with a position far greater than any real and serious pursuit of effective equality and real social leveling. The academics who have had such an influence, much of it obviously unwise and counterproductive, so often have an attitude of managing the great unwashed masses instead of real equality. They and so many of those who they have allegedly educated might love the idea of equality but not at a cost to their own status and asserted superiority. Their ruthlessness in protecting that status isn't far from that of the football coach whose income and influence they might very well resent - as do I for different reasons - and the vulgarity of the businessmen who they may also disdain as they silently envy. If that were not the case then the use to which they have allowed themselves to be made by the professional liars in the media would have been far less successful. Even uneducated people know when people are looking down on them, it's not as if the real feelings of the alleged intelligentsia aren't casually expressed by so many of them. Especially the students of those wise men who work in the media. The entire careers of some of them are one big inside joke about how stupid the masses of humanity are as compared to themselves.
Though I am certain that there are many who work in academia and elsewhere who will know what I'm talking about. You're less likely to hear them in the media than you will at synods and from pulpits. What Brueggemann said about Abiathar, the priest exiled to the back woods by Solomon, is also important. There have always been those who saw behind the false front that is put up to cover the corrupt imperial state, even that which is erected by its PR operation, its wisdom establishment. But a priesthood that is in cahoots with the imperial system and, in leftist terms, academics who lobby for that imperial establishment or another one will just continue the same thing. The way out of the wilderness for the left is not through supporting an alternative holder of the imperial throne, it's through something entirely different. The secular-atheist left is not that alternative, it is, if anything, a force for continuing the spiral of the past half-century after the murder of The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
Hate Mail
I think The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. put it best:
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about the things that matter."
He was bravely not silent, at ultimate risk to himself, during his lifetime, it is those who handled his estate who silenced him in death. If they had not done that his position in both history and current effectiveness would be far higher than it is today. I can't believe for a minute he'd have consented to that if he had suspected that they'd do what they have to his legacy. As it is, his sons have sued his surviving daughter so they can sell his physical legacy to the highest bidder, in reports I've seen a private collector. They had originally sued to strip the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change of its rights to use the name "Martin Luther King Jr." to exhibit memorabilia concerning him or to even the right to allow viewing of his crypt.
I can't help but think of King Lear only The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. didn't have an earthly kingdom to squabble over, his estate is made of moral insight which can be laid waste through silencing it and commodification of it. That is exactly what has happened to it.
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about the things that matter."
He was bravely not silent, at ultimate risk to himself, during his lifetime, it is those who handled his estate who silenced him in death. If they had not done that his position in both history and current effectiveness would be far higher than it is today. I can't believe for a minute he'd have consented to that if he had suspected that they'd do what they have to his legacy. As it is, his sons have sued his surviving daughter so they can sell his physical legacy to the highest bidder, in reports I've seen a private collector. They had originally sued to strip the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change of its rights to use the name "Martin Luther King Jr." to exhibit memorabilia concerning him or to even the right to allow viewing of his crypt.
I can't help but think of King Lear only The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. didn't have an earthly kingdom to squabble over, his estate is made of moral insight which can be laid waste through silencing it and commodification of it. That is exactly what has happened to it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Hate Mail - Stupid is Easier
I am sent this story about a "church" put up by what is clearly taken to be some kind of religious authority by sophisticated online atheists, the local government officials in the Southwest Coast National Scenic Area, a prominent tourist area in Taiwan.
The several stories about the "church" that I've read mention "worship" though, apparently, the word in the context of the intent of the local tourism officials would seem to mean worship of shoes. Oh, yeah, unsurprisingly, the "church" is supposed to appeal to women and things that are supposed to appeal to women. Something tells me that the local officials are all if not mostly men.
One of the comments I've seen said it had about as much to do with a church as a Las Vegas marriage chapel. While there have to be allowances made for cultural differences that, somehow, may make the whole thing seem less offensive, insane and vulgar in that area of Taiwan, I think it's probably as offensive to many people, especially women in Taiwan as it is to anyone who gets it sent to them by ignorant atheists as an example of the pathology they believe religion to be.
It has nothing to do with religion, it is pure Chamber of Commerce stunt architecture, as significant as the World's Biggest (I so wish I could insert the appropriate "Corner Gas" episode)* with about as much thought put into it.
That anyone would seriously try to turn this tourism stunt into an example of religion only shows how stupid the current anti-religious invective is. If you want to listen to it, the lecture by Walter Breuggemann posted below has a description of Solomon's Temple which, as he points out, was another example of the same kind of thing which the prophets called out and condemned in the plainest of terms. Though you have to read a lot of the Hebrew scriptures and think hard about them to understand that. It's not something I expect to see gain wide influence online because, as the high heel "church" shows, stupid is easier.
* As Hank might say, "Two words, Youtube."
The several stories about the "church" that I've read mention "worship" though, apparently, the word in the context of the intent of the local tourism officials would seem to mean worship of shoes. Oh, yeah, unsurprisingly, the "church" is supposed to appeal to women and things that are supposed to appeal to women. Something tells me that the local officials are all if not mostly men.
One of the comments I've seen said it had about as much to do with a church as a Las Vegas marriage chapel. While there have to be allowances made for cultural differences that, somehow, may make the whole thing seem less offensive, insane and vulgar in that area of Taiwan, I think it's probably as offensive to many people, especially women in Taiwan as it is to anyone who gets it sent to them by ignorant atheists as an example of the pathology they believe religion to be.
It has nothing to do with religion, it is pure Chamber of Commerce stunt architecture, as significant as the World's Biggest (I so wish I could insert the appropriate "Corner Gas" episode)* with about as much thought put into it.
That anyone would seriously try to turn this tourism stunt into an example of religion only shows how stupid the current anti-religious invective is. If you want to listen to it, the lecture by Walter Breuggemann posted below has a description of Solomon's Temple which, as he points out, was another example of the same kind of thing which the prophets called out and condemned in the plainest of terms. Though you have to read a lot of the Hebrew scriptures and think hard about them to understand that. It's not something I expect to see gain wide influence online because, as the high heel "church" shows, stupid is easier.
* As Hank might say, "Two words, Youtube."
Tuesdays Are My Mondays
RMJ put me on to the Old Testament theologian Walter Brueggemann the other day. I've been listening to his lectures and interviews and sermons and am finding that, as usual, good theologians are people of remarkable breath of learning and depth of thinking. The typical atheist slams against theology are made in total ignorance of the literature by people who usually couldn't master enough of the topic to understand what is being said. After several years of reading theology more seriously I don't find it is usually an easy read or listen. It's like reading serious philosophy with an additional layer of prerequisite material on top.
Here is an address he gave at the General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 2007. It is on the same material covered in an address Brueggemann gave earlier that year which RMJ wrote about. I'm intending to read some of his books and articles. I don't believe that history is cyclical but we seem to have made the same mistakes, over and over again. It is one of the conceits of atheists that there is no reason to listen to what "bronze age goat herders" wrote thousands of years ago. Other than to show that atheists don't know the first thing they're talking about - these were iron age people as the most superficial reading of the Old Testament proves - and that their kind of arrogance prevents us from learning things that they had figured out way back then and which later generations valued enough to copy, preserve and study seriously.
We are in a period which is remarkably like the one he talks about.
Here is an address he gave at the General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 2007. It is on the same material covered in an address Brueggemann gave earlier that year which RMJ wrote about. I'm intending to read some of his books and articles. I don't believe that history is cyclical but we seem to have made the same mistakes, over and over again. It is one of the conceits of atheists that there is no reason to listen to what "bronze age goat herders" wrote thousands of years ago. Other than to show that atheists don't know the first thing they're talking about - these were iron age people as the most superficial reading of the Old Testament proves - and that their kind of arrogance prevents us from learning things that they had figured out way back then and which later generations valued enough to copy, preserve and study seriously.
We are in a period which is remarkably like the one he talks about.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Silencing The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. Then and Now
The spiritual and intellectual legacy of The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. could have been a lot more influential than it has been. His cause of equality, economic justice and peace have had to largely get by without his words due to choices made by his family and the establishment at the King Center, their decision to sue anyone who have presented his words without their permission and, in some cases, payment. The decision to use his words as an economic resource for those with a legal claim to them instead of the raw material from which a movement to push his causes has silenced his witness for the very things he sacrificed his life for. I think it has also distorted and diminished his place in history.
The King family pushed making a holiday out of The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. ironically, in the context of the great Civil Rights Movement an occasion to close schools, a day to mount empty ceremonies and parades or, in most cases, to just have a day off from work if even that. That the greatest success of those with a legal claim to his words and voice is the pushing of the holiday instead of fighting against the reversal of what he lived and died for is nothing to celebrate.
I think their activities have, if anything, diminished the legacy of the man and his position in the world today. I suspect it is a product of lawyers and other advisers giving bad advice to his widow and children and seducing them with promises of riches. That decision doesn't take into account that those with the greatest interest in The Reverend Martin Luther King jr.'s words being heard had no money, the causes he promoted aren't profit making, they are wealth distributing, they are on behalf of people who have no money to spend for the use of anyone's words. That is something I'm certain he would have known and I can't believe he would have agreed with the decisions that they made and still push as an automatic policy. I can think of many of his words I'd rather post instead of this piece but I can't afford to pay for their use or to challenge the King Center for the right of people he struggled for to read or hear them. I wonder what he would have charged an audience to hear him speak the words that in so many cases he had to fight against the racist establishment to say. It is the cruelest of ironies that, now, it is his family and their business associates who do to his words what the racists tired to do while he was alive.
The King family pushed making a holiday out of The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. ironically, in the context of the great Civil Rights Movement an occasion to close schools, a day to mount empty ceremonies and parades or, in most cases, to just have a day off from work if even that. That the greatest success of those with a legal claim to his words and voice is the pushing of the holiday instead of fighting against the reversal of what he lived and died for is nothing to celebrate.
I think their activities have, if anything, diminished the legacy of the man and his position in the world today. I suspect it is a product of lawyers and other advisers giving bad advice to his widow and children and seducing them with promises of riches. That decision doesn't take into account that those with the greatest interest in The Reverend Martin Luther King jr.'s words being heard had no money, the causes he promoted aren't profit making, they are wealth distributing, they are on behalf of people who have no money to spend for the use of anyone's words. That is something I'm certain he would have known and I can't believe he would have agreed with the decisions that they made and still push as an automatic policy. I can think of many of his words I'd rather post instead of this piece but I can't afford to pay for their use or to challenge the King Center for the right of people he struggled for to read or hear them. I wonder what he would have charged an audience to hear him speak the words that in so many cases he had to fight against the racist establishment to say. It is the cruelest of ironies that, now, it is his family and their business associates who do to his words what the racists tired to do while he was alive.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
MARY LOU WILLIAMS - Willow Weep For Me
I can't find a reliable listing for who she was playing with - my brother has my copy of her biography which has a pretty full listing of her discography - but I'm sure that's Mary Lou Williams playing piano.
Update: Just You Just Me
Mary Lou Williams - Piano
Buddy Banks - Bass
Gerard Pochonet - Drums
Johann Kaspar Mertz - Wasserfahrt am Traunsee - Duo Savigni
Enrica Savigni, romantic era guitar, "Hijos de Gonzalez", Madrid, 1868
Laura Savigni, fortepiano "Clementi & Co.", London, 1820 c.ca
Score
The guitar is either a terz-guitar, tuned a minor third higher than a regular guitar or a guitar with a capo at the third fret. I would guess that Enrica Savigni is using a capo since she's using the same guitar she has for the other recordings. Some of these pieces also were published in versions for a terz guitar with a standard guitar. You can find them online.\\
Update: The title means Voyage on lake Traunsee in Austria.
The Spotlight Deflected If Not Burned Out
I noticed that a comment that was way down in those that I never get around to moderating challenged me to go see the movie "Spotlight" about the Boston Globe team who exposed the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere. I hadn't seen it, didn't intend to and don't intend to. As I noted a couple of months back, I've got a severe allergy to the movies dealing with history, not because they can't do it but because they hardly ever make an attempt to get it right. And, in this case, there is absolutely no reason for me to go see it. I've been a life-long reader of the Boston Globe as my family have been since back into the 19th century. I believe I read every one of the Spotlight team's stories on that and other investigations they did, it was some of the best reporting I've ever seen. I don't need a movie to tell me what it was all about. Nor is the Boston Globe as it is, today, deserving of the same attention. Under Brian McGrory and its present ownership, after the pillaging of it under the ownership of the New York Times corp, the glory days of the Globe are long gone.
No, I don't need to see Spotlight, I would doubt it is better than the original it's based on. That was great reporting. Great reporting is ever so much better than any movie.
But, since you bring it up, I have to ask where the attention of Hollywood and the newspaper industry is when a far bigger industrial business of child abuse flourishes in plain sight, online, is there to stumble across with the most innocent of web searches. The images of children being raped by men on Tumblr and other so-called social media sites makes what the Catholic hierarchy ignored pale by comparison, in terms of numbers of children raped and tortured, damaged and destroyed, the viciousness it encourages, the encouragement of incest themed narratives and I'm sure worse is coming, porn always needing to ratchet up the attention getting content.
It was a huge scandal that there were bishops, cardinals and, yes, popes who ignored the evidence that there was a real problem of priests molesting and raping children. The number of those priests is significant, I've seen a high estimate of 5% of priests who may have been involved with that. But if it was a scandal for the Catholic hierarchy to ignore it, how much more of a scandal is it for the alleged news media to ignore what's right there in front of them, a web search away. I doubt that many of them are unaware of the marketing of pedophile porn, sex tourism servicing child rapists and the trafficking in children that has been facilitated by the internet. Where's the Spotlight team in the media who are going after that multi-billion dollar industry in child rape? Apparently there's a huge difference when a religious institution can be reported on, especially the Catholic church. Commercial child rape is granted an indulgence by the secular media that doesn't seem to bother much of anyone. They would, it seems, have been granted permission to peddle the stuff through the same "free speech" "free press" that is another of Hollywood's favorite themes, as seen in other movies. I'll bet anyone who seriously challenged them on their acceptance if not participation in the sexual abuse of children would have those slogans thrown at them.
Update: I decided to experiment with ignoring the boys and bints at Baby Blue and their daddy Duncan, too. Lent's coming up on February 10, I'm going to get an early start. I might give in to temptation if they get really ridiculous..
No, I don't need to see Spotlight, I would doubt it is better than the original it's based on. That was great reporting. Great reporting is ever so much better than any movie.
But, since you bring it up, I have to ask where the attention of Hollywood and the newspaper industry is when a far bigger industrial business of child abuse flourishes in plain sight, online, is there to stumble across with the most innocent of web searches. The images of children being raped by men on Tumblr and other so-called social media sites makes what the Catholic hierarchy ignored pale by comparison, in terms of numbers of children raped and tortured, damaged and destroyed, the viciousness it encourages, the encouragement of incest themed narratives and I'm sure worse is coming, porn always needing to ratchet up the attention getting content.
It was a huge scandal that there were bishops, cardinals and, yes, popes who ignored the evidence that there was a real problem of priests molesting and raping children. The number of those priests is significant, I've seen a high estimate of 5% of priests who may have been involved with that. But if it was a scandal for the Catholic hierarchy to ignore it, how much more of a scandal is it for the alleged news media to ignore what's right there in front of them, a web search away. I doubt that many of them are unaware of the marketing of pedophile porn, sex tourism servicing child rapists and the trafficking in children that has been facilitated by the internet. Where's the Spotlight team in the media who are going after that multi-billion dollar industry in child rape? Apparently there's a huge difference when a religious institution can be reported on, especially the Catholic church. Commercial child rape is granted an indulgence by the secular media that doesn't seem to bother much of anyone. They would, it seems, have been granted permission to peddle the stuff through the same "free speech" "free press" that is another of Hollywood's favorite themes, as seen in other movies. I'll bet anyone who seriously challenged them on their acceptance if not participation in the sexual abuse of children would have those slogans thrown at them.
Update: I decided to experiment with ignoring the boys and bints at Baby Blue and their daddy Duncan, too. Lent's coming up on February 10, I'm going to get an early start. I might give in to temptation if they get really ridiculous..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)