Good Friday

"it is a constant temptation for a therapeutic quick fix, aspirin culture to leap quickly over Good Friday to Easter Sunday.

"I, too, would like for Easter Sunday to reign soon and wipe away the pain of crucifixion, but the healing and liberating power of Easter is real only when we have grasped the ugliness of the tomb and confronted the idols of death. No victory really worth having is cheaply won. No real hope is born out of lousy optimism, for optimism is not the wellspring of hope. There is no 'cheap grace' on the way to resurrection.

"The road to our Easter celebration is littered with daily crucifixions. To think of the crucifixion of Jesus in an absolutely unique and surrealistic fashion is to rob it of its power. It is the banality of the crucifixion of Jesus that draws suffering people into it. It is also this banality of daily crucifixions that makes a claim on the way we live as individuals and members of the body of Christ, the Church. We need to realize that our comforts are subsidized by the cheap labor of crucified people all over the world.

"It is precisely in the banality of the daily crucifixions, when crucifixions are ordinary, when society is colonized by the culture of death, and when psychic numbing has engulfed the land, that the power of the risen Jesus must be witnessed. It is here that the power of the resurrection must blossom."

-Eleazar Fernandez, "Reimagining the Human: Theological Anthropology in Response to Systemic Evil," p. 215

Rudolph the Red Nosed Victim

Earlier today, as I was driving from tutoring to the library, the song Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer came on my Christmas mix CD. This particular rendition comes from the wonderful Dean Martin collection, Christmas With Dino, and it got me to thinking about the lyrics.

After all, we know Rudolph’s harrowing tale of struggle for acceptance, and of the redemption he achieves upon becoming leader of the reindeer. True, we are never told the origins of his shiny red nose, nor of the social conventions among North Pole reindeer that rendered him marginalized and an outcast. What we do know, however, is that he was not accepted by his peers, perhaps out of fear, perhaps out of jealousy, until the chief figure of authority placed him in power.

Yet there are two things that typically go unquestioned in this story. First, that the reindeer have in some sense their own culture and society is clear. They have laughter, and thus humor, so they must have some sort of language and sense of contradiction or absurdity. Secondly, they have names they call him, meaning there are ways of being a reindeer that are looked down upon or viewed as “un-reindeer-like”. Third, they even have games, suggesting some degree of leisure time that allows them to cultivate interreindeer relationships outside of labor. Yet what is so troubling about the reindeer society portrayed in this classic, traditionalist song is that there is a non-reindeer hegemon who controls reindeer behavior. Do the reindeer live in an apartheid state, ruled over by an ethnically human minority? Are they instead like the Kurds of Turkey and Iraq, semi-autonomous yet still repressed by the dominant political authorities?

And if this in fact is the case, does this song intend to use the heroic tale of one outcast reindeer rising out of his station and leading all other reindeers to blind us to the deeper social forces at work? Are we to believe that, since one reindeer can ascend so high, then the real issue is the lack of ambition or work ethic on the part of the other reindeer? Are we meant to applaud Santa for his perspicacious selection of Rudolph as overseer over the other reindeer, rather than condemn him for his subjugation of the reindeer class?

Secondly, no one ever seems to note the implicit social logic beyond the lyrics. Rudolph has been rejected by his peers. Whether or not this is for a good reason (perhaps the red nose is a sign of contagion and they need to quarantine him) or a bad (racism), what’s important is the dominant social judgment is one of ostracism. Thus, it seems to make no sense at all that these same reindeer rejoice when Rudolph is placed in a position of authority over them. The song conveys none of the expected resentment that would normally result from a perceived inferior being made a de facto superior. Indeed, their “glee” seems at least to be false, an attempted defense mechanism for their own insecurities.

With these thoughts, I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Merrily We Roll Along

28 is a mathematically perfect number. This is so defined because it is the solution of the equation (2^n-1)(2ⁿ-1), where n=3, resulting in the number being the sum of all of its distinct factors (1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28). It is the second perfect number, the first being 6 (n=2), and the next is 496 (n=5). Thus, not only is 28 a perfect number, it is the only one that I will consciously experience as my age.

So if 28 is a perfect number, does it stand to reason (or to hope) that 28 will also be a perfect year for me?

On one hand, there are certain things I can more or less count on. I’ll finish up coursework in my doctoral program, study for and take my comprehensive exams, try to get some sort of presentation done at a conference, and generally grow in my professional vocation. I’ll throw some awesome parties (starting with today’s chili cook-off), travel to other parts of the country and globe, meet new and interesting people, and possibly even write the screenplay I have kicking around in my head. I will continue to bake amazing cookies, make some solid pasta sauce, and possibly even start making my own wine.

Nonetheless, it seems that the real magic of growing older rests in the unknown, the unexpected, the inevitable and oncoming mystery. Almost daily I am reminded of how vulnerable my life is. I live thrown into a world that is profoundly beyond my control and understanding, trying constantly to grapple with my context and conditions in which I find myself. Even the big decisions I make, such as coming to Boston, only recast this reality with different scenery, different people, different events, all of which I engage freely but not autonomously.

The reality of our freedom is certainly finite, but not only because of the limits of our mental, physical and spiritual capacities. Such finitude is most seriously found in the simple fact of everyone else’s circumscribed freedom. I am unable to determine who I am, what I do and think, outside of my complex of relationships, and thus the question of “I” is only sensible within community. (Indeed, this is one of the ways I make sense of Ricoeur’s hermeneutical circle.)

So what does this mean for my year of being 28? I hope to grow more in community, particularly in the many close friendships I’ve formed over the last many years (including you, trusty blog-readers). I hope particularly to find a church community I can settle into (I think I’m almost there). I hope to grow in formation with my colleagues at BC as we seek out careers in academia. I hope to see plenty of my family.

And of course, it wouldn’t hurt if I met a special lady. That would definitely help make for a perfect year…

General bloggery

I promised Andrea I would post, and then Zak gave me some guff-ish comments, so fair enough. Largely, I think I am done talking about politics - I think this election, for as long as I was able to care about it, has worn me out. I will share the following thoughts, and then stay silent on these matters for awhile.

(1) If McCain picks Romney as his running mate, I will not vote for him. I like McCain, I've liked him for years, and I still wish he would have won in 2000. But Romney is disgusting on many levels, and the thought of him in office again gives me the willies. Part of my pleasure in the Republican primary this year was watching Romney go down.

(2) If Obama picks Evan Bayh as his running mate, I'll think that's a good thing. Indeed, if both (1) and (2) happen, it is even conceivable I'll vote for Obama (but conceivable in the 20:1 against kind of way). I like Evan Bayh, I think he was overall a good governor for Indiana (despite his unfortunate selection of Lt. Gov), and has been a decent senator. I don't really think Obama will pick him, but it would be the first time in forty or so years that Indiana has voted for a Democrat.

Beyond that, I am developing some posts on more theological things, but they're in the gestatory phase. No promises on speed or regularity, but I wanted my three loyal readers to know that I'm still there for them.

Clinton compares self to Rocky

Apparently she missed the part in Rocky where he loses in a split decision...

First, Republican Giuliani goes away...

...now maybe Democratic Giuliani will too.

I have to admit, I have had no personal experience with Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York, outside of the compliance training I had to undergo while working at Aon. Perhaps it would be petty of me to dislike the man just because he somewhat improved the reinsurance industry by forcing me and others, who like me at the time never had the capacity or clout to make promises to clients anyway, to sit through some combination of three hours of listening to a lawyer and half an hour of a "webinar" about corporate compliance. And yes, in the office, it was known as Spitzer training. It was, in the insurance world, like those martial arts that emphasize evasion rather than ass-beating, which at least I found disappointing.

Anyhoo, perhaps it's just my overdeveloped sense of schadenfreude, but I nearly laughed out loud earlier today in Bapst Library (the quiet reading room alternative) when I pulled up the story on CNN. It seems that his interest in humanity's oldest profession is both prurient and prosecutorial. I can't deny the partisan side of me loves seeing one of the Democratic Party's rising stars blow his career as easily as he blew thousands of dollars just to get, well, you know. Indeed, it's also nice to be reminded that the Republican party isn't the one with scandalous sexual misfits, even if it does have the more amusing ones (I'm thinking here of Senator Craig's airport bathroom tap dancing).

As of this post, Governor Spitzer hasn't resigned, and I am curious to see when and if that will happen. He always seemed a bit of a jackass to me, and I won't be sad to see him go (nor do I regret that the American political media has been distracted, if only for fifteen minutes, from the still ongoing presidential election). Indeed, the only thing I find sad in the whole sordid deal is the public disruption of a family of five and the perhaps inevitable consequences thereof. Sorry girls, but your dad is a douchebag.

Returning, for politics

So a couple weeks back I got a note on Facebook from an old friend to the effect of "it seems like we're the only people on here that aren't supporting Obama." And, by and large, I think she's right (yes Jess, I know you love Hilary). In point of face, I've been pulling for McCain, and not just since this election cycle started. I've liked him since about '98 or '99 when he was first pointed out to me by a buddy of mine at the Naval Academy. Now that McCain has the Republican nomination locked up in a definite sort of way, I've been reflecting a little bit on the election more generally and what matters to me going into this November.

In the '92 election, Bill Clinton was able to ride "It's the economy, stupid" all the way to the White House. Realistically, the economy is always going to be a major, perhaps the most important, motivating factor for voters (despite the debatable amount of influence a president has over it). And these days, the economy is at best questionable and at worst sauntering vaguely downwards. But that's not it, at least not for me. Similarly, the next president will probably get to pick a few Supreme Court justices, make some big decisions regarding the environment, and if we're terribly, pull off some tax reform. All important, all overlooked in their own way, but still not what got me to vote in the primary and not what will get me out there in November.

It's the war. Just the war. When it started to become clear in 2002 that we would be invading Iraq, I supported it. I thought it made sense at the time, I had always thought Hussein was a threat, and it seemed like there would be some form of WMD there. And so I was wrong, and I regret it, and I wish this war hadn't started. Sometimes I wonder what we would be doing if we weren't at war, and to be honest I have no idea.

Perhaps it seems then that I have some sort of dissociative reality problem, supporting a candidate who wanted more troops in Iraq and who staked his political career largely on the "surge" last year. But honestly, he seems to me the best candidate for it, all around, and not because he's the one with military experience or because he came from a military family or because he was a war hero. Actually, I think, had he won in 2000, like I had hoped for at the time, we wouldn't be in Iraq now. He doesn't have the same personal stake in Iraq that the Bush family did, he wouldn't have picked Cheney or Rumsfeld for his inner circle, and he would have listened to someone like Colin Powell, rather than setting him aside and making him embarrass himself in front of the world. And even if he had started the war, he likely would have sent a much larger and stronger force rather than following the still unproven Rumsfeld theory of modern defense.

But then again, that's over, that's done, and there's no real value in the wishful thinking and the dreams of two elections ago. The fact is we're there now, we're in Iraq now, we're in the middle of an extremely complex military, political, and economic morass. Even if we are less secure than we were five or six years ago, I don't think that pulling out a combat division a month is going to improve that.

In the Ohio Democratic debate two weeks ago, both Obama and Clinton said that they would leave a residual force of US military in Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda (on the conditions of course that the Iraqi government did not demand the US leave). They didn't say, nor were they asked, how big that force would be or how long they are prepared to leave them for. Back many months, McCain was asked about the possibility of being in Iraq for fifty years, and he quickly and unhesitatingly responded "maybe 100." Rhetorically, not his best move, but it's realistic. He's said repeatedly since then that he believes Iraq will become a situation somewhere on the spectrum of Germany and Japan on one hand and South Korea and the DMZ on the other. Over fifty years later, we still have US military - a residual force, you might say - stationed in other parts of the world, with no calls whatsoever from presidential candidates to bring them home. Indeed, it seems to me that, in the longer run, in the 8+ years term, all three candidates are probably talking about roughly the same thing. And despite their vast rhetorical differences, the only substantive one seems to be what's going to happen in the next five years.

Most reports coming in from Iraq seem to indicate the surge has been successful. US and coalition deaths and injuries have dropped, the number of Al Qaeda killed has grown, and Sunni and Shiite militias seem to be targeting each other less and protecting their own areas more.
As the Iraqi police and military improve, it will take pressure of our own troops and we'll be able to bring some home. But it doesn't seem to me at this point that committing to backing out of the situation and likely sacrificing the gains we've made is the best move. We're there now, and I think we should want the best outcome possible out of it.

And at the end of the day, I think McCain is best able to make that happen.