Abortion and Picklehood.

Are you pro-pickle? At precisely what point does a cucumber immersed in brine become a pickle? I mean, when does picklehood start? Is a cucumber automatically a pickle as soon as vinegar is poured over it? Or does it have to gestate for a few days in the refrigerator? I’ve been reading a lot of pickle recipes lately, and I’m sorry to report that pickle-making is rather an inexact science. Who SHOULD decide whether or not a cucumber has become a viable pickle?

Sin for Jesus

I’ve been watching a Netflix series entitled “The Last Czars,” (in which, historical authenticity be damned, the Czarina talks like a Californian—“You’ll be OK”—and prays before a crucifix with a very unOrthodox three-dimensional Jesus). Well, anyway, despite the occasional oops moments, I’ve learned a lot of fascinating history. For instance, Rasputin’s special understanding of Christian redemption theology, i.e., redemption is reserved for those who have SINNED, and the greater the sin, the greater (obviously) the redemption. It is therefore necessary for true believers to sin mightily and often—in order to be fully deserving of forgiveness, salvation and eternal life. This theology found considerable favor among the Russian aristocracy, especially women, who did their best to Sin For Jesus—often with Rasputin himself.

Trump's Inferno: The Nine Circles of Trumpster Insanity

Levels of Trumpster Insanity

1.  LIMBO.  Only intermittently insane. Mostly just clueless. Probably voted for Trump because they heard of his steaks.

2.  LUST. Mildly insane. Passionate about everything. Partiers. Voted for Trump because he grabbed someone's pussy.

3. GLUTTONY. Quite insane. Gobblers and guzzlers and indulgers of every appetite. Voted for Trump because he likes to pig out on Big Macs and ice cream.

4. GREED. Solidly, gold-platedly insane. Approve of exploiting others for personal gain. Voted for Trump because he’s rich (like they want to be) and doesn’t care about poor people (which they refuse to admit they are).

5.  ANGER.  Substantially insane. Pissed off at the world and everybody in it.  Voted for Trump because he banned Muslims, put Mexicans in cages, and made fun of handicapped people.

6.  HERESY. Talking-in-tongues insane. Think Trump is God’s chosen vessel. Voted for him because he opposes abortion and gay marriage and horse-faced prostitutes.

7.  VIOLENCE.  Dangerously insane. Want to overthrow all existing institutions in which they do not own stock. Voted for Trump because he was enthusiastic about exercising his 2^nd Amendment right to shoot someone--preferably with an assault rifle--on Fifth Avenue.

8.  FRAUD. Extremely, like totally, insane. Lie and cheat habitually and blatantly. Condemn truthfulness and authenticity as Fake News. Voted for Trump because HE behaves exactly like them.

9.  TREACHERY.  The nadir (or "apex") of insanity. Think only of themselves and are loyal to nothing or no one else. Will betray "friends," family, commitments, oaths, and especially NDAs. Will even BETRAY Trump, himself, by not attending his super-spreader rallies in order to selfishly avoid possible death by Covid. Can't be trusted to vote for Trump. Maybe didn't even vote for him the last time.

Could We Please End the Civil War?

Undoubtedly because of my intellectual somnolence, it has only recently dawned on me (and, I suspect, a great many white Americans living in the North) that an entire pantheon of Confederate “saints” has long been honored and venerated by the very Union they fought to destroy. I do not believe in censorship, but I DO believe in censURE. And now that I know who Bragg, Benning, and Hood WERE, now that I’ve actually paid notice to those dreary racist icons in Statuary Hall, I certainly want to censURE the less-than-subtle, dog-whistling message this public canonization/idolatry sends to American citizens. 

When decoded, here’s the real message: “Never mind our official doctrine of E Pluribus Unum, racial equality, justice for all, etc., etc. All that is cosmetic—to make folks feel good and keep them calm. In actual fact, there are lots of ‘good’ racists and traitors who deserve to be included in our list of national saints and venerated in our national holy places. We need to be fair. C’mon.”

It’s as if the Vatican had erected statues of demons and devils in St. Peter’s Basilica—right there next to Jesus and Mary and Joseph. As if various supposedly Christian sites had been named Mephistopheles Seminary, Beelzebub Academy, Lucifer Meditation Center, Antichrist Chapel. 

Surely that heretical message should be promptly brought into line with  orthodox doctrine by purging our revered places of racist/secessionist taint.The Capitol should be cleansed, the confederate statues removed to a museum, the confederate names effaced from military sites. Total decontamination is imperative. And now!

Dear Lost Cause Folks: by all means, excercise (if you must) your First Amendment right to discuss, praise, worship, erect altars to these “saints”—who betrayed their oaths to the Constitution just as surely as Judas kissed Jesus. But do this in appropriate, non-official, non-consecrated places—museums, talk radio, a soapbox in the park, your own back yard or a cemetery plot you purchased. Just NOT, please, in the Capitol—our nation’s equivalent of St. Peter’s Basilica—or in military establishments dedicated to preserving that nation. 

Could we please end the Civil War! Now!

Desultory Iconoclasm

      About the removal of public statues of historic personages whose character and/or achievements are now considered “dubious.” Well, I am only a very desultory iconoclast. Most of these statues are of limited artistic value anyway, so if they could be dismissed as mere pigeon perches (like most park statuary), I would simply say “who cares?”. But, alas, their function is not purely ornamental, because their PURPOSE is not to serve as space-fillers. Rather, they were erected with the deliberate intent of indicating the approval, even veneration, of the public—for what? Surely for the OVERALL contribution to the general welfare/culture made by the depicted individual. This, therefore, seems to me the best criterion for deciding whether a statue should be erected or removed. Was this person’s OVERALL contribution to the community legitimately worthy of veneration—and (with regard to removal) is his-her contribution STILL seen as positive? By this measure, the statues of Robert E. Lee (in Richmond, VA) and of Edward Colston (in Bristol, England) probably DO deserve to be removed. Lee betrayed his oath to the Constitution, and his primary claim to fame is that he led a rebellion against the United States (a rebellion intended to preserve the institution of slavery). Colston made his fortune as a slave-trader and is—apparently—remembered primarily for that nauseating “feat.” Since neither treason nor slave-trading is today considered a venerable accomplishment, it seems justifiable to remove these statues from places of honor (though, surely, they should be preserved, as articles of historic interest, in museums or archives). Now, about Jefferson and Churchill. Yes, Jefferson was a slaveholder with a black mistress. Not admirable. But his overall contribution to American culture remains, in the popular mind, overwhelmingly positive. Likewise, Churchill is known to have harbored notions of the White Man’s Burden. Not easily condoned. But for his OTHER deeds, he deserves to be admired. In short, let’s not cease to honor those whose overall contributions were, and remain, positive. I vote to keep Jefferson and Churchill, despite their views on race, which we are nonetheless justified in condemning.

Columbus and the Right Side of History

Here’s a Columbus Day reminder to those who moralize about being on the “right side of history”:  the “right” side of history is nothing more than the WINNING side. And Columbus, among others, WON. We do not necessarily have to admire or honor his victory—we can virtuously condemn his immorality—but HISTORY doesn’t care. We act in bad faith when we smugly claim that history will vindicate US because WE are “right.” (Yeah, I know:  I, too, am virtue-signaling here. So, go ahead, cut off my hand.)

Is It Really All About the Benjamins?

In a couple of tweets last week, newly-elected (Muslim) Congresswoman Ilhan Omar suggested, not very subtly, that AIPAC and “Jewish money” were buying the pro-Israel votes of congress members. Surely there were elements of both sanctimony and snark (“all about the Benjamins”) in her remarks. But was her condemnation intended for Jews and Jewishness in general (which would indeed constitute anti-Semitism) or was she merely decrying the political action of an organization funded by some Jews? The distinction matters. It is neither unreasonable nor unjust to disparage policies advocated by a PAC, any PAC, and AIPAC is certainly a very rich and powerful PAC. But it IS unreasonable and unjust to denounce those policies if you are doing so because of WHO advanced them (Jews) rather than because of WHAT outcome was being sought (unqualified support for Israel).

Omar's blunder was twofold. On the one hand (actually the more superficial mistake), her imprecise Twitterspeak inadvertently conjured up a particularly vile anti-Semitic trope--the notion that the Jewish "race" in general is somehow engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to use money (unfairly acquired, it is assumed) to buy political power and thus impose their dominion. Almost certainly, that is not what Omar meant, but it is what many wary students of history heard. And it is undoubtedly what Omar's adversaries gleefully chose to hear and to immediately weaponize against her. She "sounded'' anti-Semitic, and for many, that was enough.

To Omar’s credit, though, as soon as she realized the misunderstandings her careless language had  occasioned, she unequivocally apologized and endeavored to clarify her comments (have you noticed how frequently Twitter users must do this?). While it is pretty difficult to know whether the congresswoman, personally and deep-down, harbors any anti-Jewish prejudice, she has credibly insisted that her Twitter comments were intended to denounce, not Jews in general, but only the policies and monetary machinations of a pro-Israel PAC—AIPAC. Omar surely knows, as should all rational people, that American Jews are not a monolithic bloc of true believers who vote automatically, with ballots and money, for any and all policies approved by AIPAC and the Israeli government. That is nonsense, and Omar, lest she be labeled both anti-Semitic and stupid--was pretty much obligated to acknowledge her embarrassing lapse in judgment.

As I implied earlier, however, Omar's poor judgment about “Jewish money” was only PART of her blunder. To my mind, her bigger mistake was erroneously assuming that the uncritical pro-Israel stance of so many congress members is DUE TO or CAUSED BY the “Jewish money” from AIPAC (and that, in consequence, stopping the flow of AIPAC contributions could somehow stop “bought”

congress members from uncritically supporting Israeli policies). Such fallacious post-hoc reasoning— mere coincidence does not prove causation—can only lead to untrustworthy conclusions. Yes, of course, campaign war chests cheerfully welcome big infusions of AIPAC cash, but in truth, all those lovely “benjamins” are probably more superfluous than decisive—mere frosting for an already-baked cake. That’s because the so-called “bought” politician has most likely already committed himself, a priori and for reasons having little to do with lobby money, to pro-Israel positions.

In short, Congresswoman Omar seems to entertain a simplistic, even naive, understanding of American attitudes toward Israel. Is she not aware that a clear majority of Americans, regardless of their political or religious affiliations, view the state of Israel as a kind of otherworldly, spiritual “child,” conceived and birthed by America in a fit of geopolitical love-making? And doesn’t she see that, like most parents, Americans are predisposed—viscerally and unconditionally— to protecting and supporting their “kid,” even if that means turning an occasional blind eye to the offspring’s misdoings? And, finally, isn’t she aware of the belief held by many Evangelical Christians (a formidable bloc of voters) that a “restored” and secure Israel must be established as a necessary precondition for their much-desired Second Coming of Christ?

Yes, all this seems a bit rich—And yet, and yet...I think it rings true. No, Congresswoman Omar: despite what I consider your admirable intention of denouncing knee-jerk American support for very dubious Israeli policies, your underlying assumptions are wrong: the prevailing pro-Israel attitude has not been "bought'' by Jewish money and it cannot be magically “'unbought'' by regulating or discrediting the AIPAC lobbyists. That is a simplistic Twitteresque explanation for a complex, deep-seated, and largely irrational tangle of emotions, prejudices, beliefs, fears. AIPAC does indeed
possess enormous power to do harm—mostly, I think, to politicians whom it judges “insufficiently” pro-Israel. But even if AIPAC’s monetary temple were to be miraculously destroyed by some latter-day Samson, I doubt that America’s profound, almost religious, loyalty to Israel (identified by many as the divinely ordained New Jerusalem) would be much shaken.

Sadly, therefore, I remain one of those who think it almost impossible to “talk sense” about Israel.  And certainly, I would advise against trying to do so in a 280-character tweet.





* As a fellow Minnesotan, I have been following Congresswoman Omar’s career with interest, and I find her fascinating. She’s not easily pigeonholed: a Somali refugee with an odd marital history, a devotion to hijab (and, I suppose, to Islam), and a very progressive, left-wing social agenda. Not smooth but edgy. A bit cocky, a bit self-righteous, a bit introspective. Really, a work in progress.