I've been thinking about re-branding a little. "Kurtharsis" is amusing--or at least was mildly amusing enough when I started posting here--but I'm starting to think I've outgrown it. My given name is short enough to be easily remembered and unique enough to be SEO friendly. And I've got a lifetime of SEO work already done in that direction.
Although oddly enough my top search result is my page on Atheist Nexus--how did that work? I have since deleted my profile there. Don't worry, I haven't had a change of heart. I'm still soundly godless. It's just a pretty piss-poor social network that I just don't have time for. And I worry about how it might affect job prospects, were I to start looking for jobs. But the cure for bad SEO is better SEO--give the Google something else to look for.
Not sold on the idea yet, but getting there. We'll see what the month of May holds.
]{p
Monday, April 30, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Book Review: Mechanique: A Tale of the Circus Tresaulti
Mechanique: A Tale of the Circus Tresaulti
by Genevieve Valentine
Set in a bombed-out world of nondescript location and era, Mechanique is the story of a group of mechanically-augmented circus performers who seek to bring a little light to war-torn cities. The narrator, insofar as there is one, is Little George, the circus barker, but the heart of the story is Boss, the ringleader. She is at once guide and mother to the performers, especially Little George. The circus is still reeling from the loss of Alec, the man with mechanical wings who plummeted to his own death in the middle of a show. Alec's memory and the mechanical wings hang over everyone.
Despite the infusion of metal into people's bodies, this isn't really a science fiction story. It's much more of a poetic novel about the nature of life and art. This is the sort of book where the main characters have only nicknames, and the side characters only have titles. It actually reminded me quite a bit of Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf--another poetic novel that I'm exceedingly fond of. Hesse took his narrative into drug-fueled obsession and madness. Valentine, on the other hand, starts out with almost a series of character sketches told in flashback and ends up with a more traditional narrative with fighting, loss, victory, growth, et al. But it never feels like a normal book. Important plot points are glossed over in a sentence, because this is not the sort of book that's about plot. It was as if the story were being told by Little George in a public forum, shouting out the story to passersby while layering in his own pithy asides (of which there are many, and they are frequently paragraphs long).
While I have to consider this book a success in terms of author's vision, I didn't really love it. It's less than 300 pages long, yet it took a long time for me to get into it, and once the plot ratcheted up sufficiently that I was engaged, it was over. So it's a book for many, but not really for me. 4/5
]{p
by Genevieve Valentine
Set in a bombed-out world of nondescript location and era, Mechanique is the story of a group of mechanically-augmented circus performers who seek to bring a little light to war-torn cities. The narrator, insofar as there is one, is Little George, the circus barker, but the heart of the story is Boss, the ringleader. She is at once guide and mother to the performers, especially Little George. The circus is still reeling from the loss of Alec, the man with mechanical wings who plummeted to his own death in the middle of a show. Alec's memory and the mechanical wings hang over everyone.
Despite the infusion of metal into people's bodies, this isn't really a science fiction story. It's much more of a poetic novel about the nature of life and art. This is the sort of book where the main characters have only nicknames, and the side characters only have titles. It actually reminded me quite a bit of Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf--another poetic novel that I'm exceedingly fond of. Hesse took his narrative into drug-fueled obsession and madness. Valentine, on the other hand, starts out with almost a series of character sketches told in flashback and ends up with a more traditional narrative with fighting, loss, victory, growth, et al. But it never feels like a normal book. Important plot points are glossed over in a sentence, because this is not the sort of book that's about plot. It was as if the story were being told by Little George in a public forum, shouting out the story to passersby while layering in his own pithy asides (of which there are many, and they are frequently paragraphs long).
While I have to consider this book a success in terms of author's vision, I didn't really love it. It's less than 300 pages long, yet it took a long time for me to get into it, and once the plot ratcheted up sufficiently that I was engaged, it was over. So it's a book for many, but not really for me. 4/5
]{p
Friday, April 27, 2012
My Brain Is Full
I need to clean out the cobwebs in here--a little spring cleaning for the mind. Anyone know how I can go about doing that?
Before you answer, I should warn you that hard drugs aren't really in the budget right now.
]{p
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Batmen
With all of the hype surrounding The Dark Knight Rises, I thought it prudent to revisit the first two movies that Christopher Nolan directed. I found some interesting things that might have some implications for the film's finale. This... will get spoilery.
Awful Titles
Let's get this out of the way: Batman Begins was a stupid name for the first movie. It was certainly honest--BB was pure origin story. We didn't even see the fully developed Batman for the first hour. The Dark Knight was better named, and the way it tied in to the theme of the film was pure brilliance. I have mixed emotions about The Dark Knight Rises. I'm sure it's relevant to the film, but it's clunky as all hell.
Intro to the Villains
The opening sequences of both TDK and TDKR are purely an introduction to the primary villain, and it's easily overlooked, but this happens in BB as well. BB starts with a flashback that turns into the prison fight at which point we meet Ducard (who turns out later to be Ra's al Ghul--see, I told you it'd get spoilery). The only real implication here is that the role of Catwoman in the third film will probably be lesser to that of Bane. But we pretty much knew that from interviews with Nolan. This is probably for the best because...
Questionable Female Casting
There was a lot of guff handed out over the choice of Katie Holmes to play Batman's love interest in BB. And yes, she and Christian Bale seem like an odd pair. Although Maggie Gyllenhaal paired up with Aaron Eckhart doesn't make much more sense to me. Nolan's been criticized in the past for his female casting, and all this adds up to: regardless of her acting chops, there's a decent chance Anne Hathaway is going to suck as Catwoman. But at least we get to see Marion Cotillard standing around being French.
Gotham City
I kept trying to figure out what city this is supposed to be. I understand that it's fictional, but I can't wrap my head around the geography. "Gotham" implies New York. Wayne Manor is in an area called the Palisades, which implies New Jersey. According to Lucius Fox, the city has 30 million people in it, which is bigger than New York by... well... about 22 million people. It's coastal, since it receives container ships. And yet Thomas Wayne has a Chicago accent and Nolan doesn't do much to hide the fact that it was filmed there. But then Alfred says Wayne Manor was part of the Underground Railroad, which would place it in the Southeast of the country. Is it possible for a setting to be too anonymous?
It's also worth pointing out how much the city changes between movies. The Gotham of BB is brown and filthy and rundown. A big part of that film takes place in an area called "The Narrows" which isn't mentioned at all in the TDK. The monorail that dominated the first film is absent in the second. The Gotham of TDK is blue and vibrant and kinetic and very clean. The color palette of the third film looks to be more in the lighter spectrum. The trailer and prologue show a lot of green and yellow and white. So, I guess this means the third film will end on an uplifting note?
Themes
The theme of the first film was fear. Wayne must overcome his own fear. Batman uses fear against those who prey on the fearful. The bad guys are using fear as a literal weapon. Pretty thick. Thankfully the themes of TDK were more subtle--or at least more artfully constructed. It goes more into the nature of heroism. We have both Batman and Dent turning from heroes into villains in one form or another. Possible themes for the final installment could involve "rising"--Bane is nothing if not an ubermensch. And from the title we know that Batman will rise in some form or another.
Killing People
There was an interesting through-line that I hadn't really noticed between the films involving Batman's willingness, or rather unwillingness, to kill people. His entire war with the League of Shadows in BB starts because he would not execute a murderer. In TDK, his "one rule" against killing is the rule that the Joker attempts to make him break, and ultimately does make him break when Batman kills Dent. I hesitate to speculate how this will play out in the third film, but since this is the end of the trilogy, it's safe to assume that death will play some sort of role.
Commissioner Gordon
Another through-line came in Gordon's relationship with Batman. At the end of BB he says "I never thanked you" to which Batman replied "You'll never have to." At the end of TDK, Gordon thanks Batman who say "You don't have to thank me," to which Gordon replies "Yes, I do." It was a nice little moment between them.
Gordon's role in these films is notable, since BB was largely inspired by the comic Batman: Year One which followed a young Gordon closely. In BB we see a Sgt. Gordon promoted to Lieutenant. Then in TDK he becomes Commissioner. In the trailer for part three we see him as an old man, past his prime.
Fanboyism
BB made sure it hit all the requisite fanboy moments. We get the Batmobile, Batman says his immortal catchphrase: "I'm Batman". We get the Batcave, complete with secret entrance from Wayne Manor. We get the cape and cowl, copious use of bats. Thankfully the second film shied away from this a bit. We lose the Batmobile in favor of the Batpod (in one of my favorite cinematic sequences ever). Bruce Wayne lives in a luxury penthouse and his Batcave is more of a clinical workspace with good lighting. From the trailer for the third, we can see some variation on the Batwing, Wayne Manor is back, etc, etc, so we may see more nods to the comic in this one. Hard to say.
Confidence
In keeping with the move towards gritty realism from BB to TDK, Nolan's hand as a director has become more sure. He felt less need to lean on things like "I'm Batman" and is more comfortable taking risks. and the second film is a much better piece of work. It gives me pause for the third. Just playing devil's advocate, there is such a thing as over-confidence. It's possible he will take some risks in this third film that won't play well at all. We've already seen, for example, that he doesn't really care if Bane can be understood. So, this could come back and bite us.
Time will tell,
]{p
Confidence
In keeping with the move towards gritty realism from BB to TDK, Nolan's hand as a director has become more sure. He felt less need to lean on things like "I'm Batman" and is more comfortable taking risks. and the second film is a much better piece of work. It gives me pause for the third. Just playing devil's advocate, there is such a thing as over-confidence. It's possible he will take some risks in this third film that won't play well at all. We've already seen, for example, that he doesn't really care if Bane can be understood. So, this could come back and bite us.
Time will tell,
]{p
Monday, January 2, 2012
X Marks The Jesus
Not too long ago I saw a car with two magnets on the back. One was an outline of a Nativity scene that implored the reader to keep the "Christ" in "Christmas". The other was a Jesus Fish. This is hilarious, for reasons I will outline below.
First, let's get one thing out of the way. The "War on Christmas" is a fake conflict. Christmas is a thoroughly secularized holiday. At my office, they put up a Nativity display in the lobby. But they also put up a Menora and a tree and a few other symbols of the holiday. Most businesses have switched to non-religious greetings in their decoration as a matter of practicality, on the grounds that Jews spend money too. Others don't, but no one cares. There's an office complex near me that puts up a giant light-up creche every year. There's not picketing or objection. It's on privately held property, the owner can put up whatever he or she wants. I actually enjoy seeing that display, because it makes the one put up by the Assembly of God church down the road look chintzy. I can only see this causing consternation in schools, but everything causes consternation in schools. I knew a teacher in Texas who was asked to take down a "Jesus is the reason for the season" sign in her classroom, but I doubt that's an issue anymore in the state that's leading the fight to teach Intelligent Design in every classroom in the country.
This is not to say that there aren't Christmas opponents. Tom Flynn is rather famous for advocating against the holiday largely on economic grounds. He suggests that without the Christmas spending-rush, mall parking lots could be 20% smaller. His book on the subject is so popular that there are 23 copies available on Amazon through third-party distributors. That is to say, it's not very popular at all. But it's also worth noting that there are opponents to every major holiday. Christopher Hitchens denounced Hanukkah as a celebration of "tribal Jewish backwardness". Some take issue with Kwanzaa because it is a modern invention of the civil rights movement--it's a purely American holiday celebrating African-ness. As for Ramadan... I don't actually know anything about Ramadan.
So putting all of this aside, let's examine the ridiculous claim the abbreviation Xmas is an attempt to secularize an already secularized holiday. Drumroll... The abbreviation "Xmas" dates back to the 1700's. The use of "X" to mean "Christ" is older than the English language. This is because the word Christ in Greek starts with the letter Chi, which is rendered as an X. The Chi-Rho, a stylized X over a P, is an important part of religious iconography dating back Constantine (although the symbol is actually about two-hundred years older than Jesus... if you want to wrap your brain around that for a while).
Clearly, Xmas is not a secularization. In fact, a preacher once explained to me that, because X is going back to the original Greek, in a way "Xmas" is even more religious of a spelling. I don't actually agree with that. But I would argue that we don't have any need to keep our holiday practices adhered to their namesakes. The days of the week all come from Norse Mythology, but you don't hear anyone talking about keeping the Thor is Thursday. Actually, I hear this quite a lot, but I enjoy the company of some very sarcastic people.
Now I know what you're thinking. All of this is amusing, but I promised you hilarity. For that, we must examine the other magnet, the Jesus Fish, also known as an ichthys. Did you ever wonder how a fish ended up being a symbol for Christianity? Well, it's because of an acronym. "Ichthys" is the ancient Greek word for fish, spelled Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma. If you see an ichthys with letters in it, those are the letters you're seeing. They stand for "Iesous Christos, Theou Yios, Soter", which translates to "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior".
That's right, the Jesus Fish utilizes the same X = Christ formula that Xtians (see what I did there?) have been denouncing for literally decades because they don't understand their own history. The woman driving the car with those two magnets denounced X as an abbreviation on one side of the bumper and then used it as an abbreviation on the other.
Happy Holidays,
]{p
First, let's get one thing out of the way. The "War on Christmas" is a fake conflict. Christmas is a thoroughly secularized holiday. At my office, they put up a Nativity display in the lobby. But they also put up a Menora and a tree and a few other symbols of the holiday. Most businesses have switched to non-religious greetings in their decoration as a matter of practicality, on the grounds that Jews spend money too. Others don't, but no one cares. There's an office complex near me that puts up a giant light-up creche every year. There's not picketing or objection. It's on privately held property, the owner can put up whatever he or she wants. I actually enjoy seeing that display, because it makes the one put up by the Assembly of God church down the road look chintzy. I can only see this causing consternation in schools, but everything causes consternation in schools. I knew a teacher in Texas who was asked to take down a "Jesus is the reason for the season" sign in her classroom, but I doubt that's an issue anymore in the state that's leading the fight to teach Intelligent Design in every classroom in the country.
This is not to say that there aren't Christmas opponents. Tom Flynn is rather famous for advocating against the holiday largely on economic grounds. He suggests that without the Christmas spending-rush, mall parking lots could be 20% smaller. His book on the subject is so popular that there are 23 copies available on Amazon through third-party distributors. That is to say, it's not very popular at all. But it's also worth noting that there are opponents to every major holiday. Christopher Hitchens denounced Hanukkah as a celebration of "tribal Jewish backwardness". Some take issue with Kwanzaa because it is a modern invention of the civil rights movement--it's a purely American holiday celebrating African-ness. As for Ramadan... I don't actually know anything about Ramadan.
So putting all of this aside, let's examine the ridiculous claim the abbreviation Xmas is an attempt to secularize an already secularized holiday. Drumroll... The abbreviation "Xmas" dates back to the 1700's. The use of "X" to mean "Christ" is older than the English language. This is because the word Christ in Greek starts with the letter Chi, which is rendered as an X. The Chi-Rho, a stylized X over a P, is an important part of religious iconography dating back Constantine (although the symbol is actually about two-hundred years older than Jesus... if you want to wrap your brain around that for a while).
Clearly, Xmas is not a secularization. In fact, a preacher once explained to me that, because X is going back to the original Greek, in a way "Xmas" is even more religious of a spelling. I don't actually agree with that. But I would argue that we don't have any need to keep our holiday practices adhered to their namesakes. The days of the week all come from Norse Mythology, but you don't hear anyone talking about keeping the Thor is Thursday. Actually, I hear this quite a lot, but I enjoy the company of some very sarcastic people.
Now I know what you're thinking. All of this is amusing, but I promised you hilarity. For that, we must examine the other magnet, the Jesus Fish, also known as an ichthys. Did you ever wonder how a fish ended up being a symbol for Christianity? Well, it's because of an acronym. "Ichthys" is the ancient Greek word for fish, spelled Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma. If you see an ichthys with letters in it, those are the letters you're seeing. They stand for "Iesous Christos, Theou Yios, Soter", which translates to "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior".
That's right, the Jesus Fish utilizes the same X = Christ formula that Xtians (see what I did there?) have been denouncing for literally decades because they don't understand their own history. The woman driving the car with those two magnets denounced X as an abbreviation on one side of the bumper and then used it as an abbreviation on the other.
Happy Holidays,
]{p
Friday, December 30, 2011
A Tale Of Two Nativities
We all know the Nativity Story.
Nice story, but can you tell me where this complete tale can be found in the Bible? This is a trick question, of course. This whole story does not exist in one place in the Bible. It is, rather, a harmonization of the only two accounts of Jesus' birth, given in Luke 1-2 and Matthew 1-2. You probably knew this. But what you might not realize is how little the two accounts have in common. Let me illustrate. Here is the same passage, but now I've highlighted the text to indicate its source. Passages from Matthew are red, passages from Luke are blue, and overlapping story elements are purple and bolded.
Not very much in common at all. Why the difference? Well, the biggest reason is that Matthew and Luke were written for two different audiences. Luke tends to emphasize Jesus' holiness and his role as a servant. It is fitting, then, that Luke's Jesus would have a humble beginning: born in a barn and worshipped by shepherds. Luke traces Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam, and has him descended of David through his son Nathan. Matthew, on the other hand, emphasizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic prophecy. Jesus is attended by Kings. His persecution under Herod echoes that of Moses, further emphasized by his flight to Egypt. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage only as far back as Abraham, going through David's successor Solomon. Two distinct lineages, two distinct coherent narratives with contrasting themes.
This begs the question: is it even appropriate to harmonize the stories into one? Personally, I don't think so. Not only do they differ in narrative and tone, but there is one detail that could be read as a direct contradiction. The Magi visit Jesus in a house, but they visit him in Bethlehem, at a time when Jesus and Mary and Joseph were staying in a barn. See, in the Matthean account, there is no mention of Joseph and Mary leaving Galilee. When the narrative has the family return to Israel from Egypt in Matthew 2:22-23, it says that Joseph was warned in a dream not to return to Judea (where Bethlehem is) and instead he withdrew to Galilee, to a town called Nazareth. The implication here, according to Matthew, was that Joseph and Mary already lived in Bethlehem. They only moved to Nazareth to avoid Herod's son. Whereas in the Lukan account, Joseph and Mary were Nazarenes who temporarily journeyed to Bethlehem for a census.
So how do we reconcile this? How did we end up with two disparate accounts of Jesus' birth? The key may be in their few similarities. In each story, we see that Jesus is a Nazarene, born in Bethlehem to a virgin who conceived through the Holy Spirit. That is the sum total of their similarities. It may be that those are the only details that the two authors had, and each constructed a birth narrative in keeping with their individual messages. The idea that someone could be from Nazareth and Bethlehem merits some explanation, so each author contrived a way for that to happen.
We certainly have no reason to accept the historicity of either account. There is no record of Luke's census conducted at that time or in that manner. Sending people to their home towns is a pretty ludicrous census-taking method anyway. Historically it makes no sense, but it works as a literary device to give Luke's Holy Servant a humble beginning. Likewise, there is no record of Herod the Great murdering Jewish babies (keep in mind that at this time the Hebrews were not slaves, but Roman subjects). Historically this makes no sense, but it works as a literary device to emphasize Jesus' connection to Judaism. Each author took the sparse details available and worked them into their unique depiction of Jesus' birth.
In a way, the tradition of harmonizing the Nativity into a single account is a bit of a tragedy. Luke's Jesus and Matthew's Jesus (to say nothing of Mark's or John's) are substantially different characters. When we try to blend them, we muddy the individual portraits, blurring the edges as a conceit to make the myriad appear whole. What does that get us? Three Wise Men in a barn--the idea is absurd, and it certainly isn't biblical. But most believers would rather have a single thematically incoherent narrative than a series of cohesive ones that disagree with each other about the unimportant details. At some point, the church decided that there is nothing to be learned from a story that can't be taken at absolute face value, and that is the truly great irony of fundamentalism. In the attempt to preserve the man, you distort the message. Perhaps it is better to think of the Nativity stories as parables. This didn't actually happen, but what can it teach us?
Just something to keep in mind next year when you sit down to watch your child's Christmas Pageant.
Happy Holidays,
]{p
The Archangel Gabriel appears to Mary. Mary conceives as a virgin. The angel of the Lord appears to Joseph. Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem for a census. The inn is full, so they stay in a barn. Jesus is born in Bethlehem in Judea. Jesus is wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. Angels appear to shepherds who then worship baby Jesus. Magi from the East see the star over Bethlehem and attend Jesus, bringing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt to avoid persecution from Herod. Finally, they travel to Nazareth in Galilee.
Nice story, but can you tell me where this complete tale can be found in the Bible? This is a trick question, of course. This whole story does not exist in one place in the Bible. It is, rather, a harmonization of the only two accounts of Jesus' birth, given in Luke 1-2 and Matthew 1-2. You probably knew this. But what you might not realize is how little the two accounts have in common. Let me illustrate. Here is the same passage, but now I've highlighted the text to indicate its source. Passages from Matthew are red, passages from Luke are blue, and overlapping story elements are purple and bolded.
The Archangel Gabriel appears to Mary. Mary conceives as a virgin. The angel of the Lord appears to Joseph. Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem for a census. The inn is full, so they stay in a barn. Jesus is born in Bethlehem in Judea. Jesus is wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. Angels appear to shepherds who then worship baby Jesus. Magi from the East see the star over Bethlehem and attend Jesus, bringing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt to avoid persecution from Herod. Finally, they travel to Nazareth in Galilee.
Not very much in common at all. Why the difference? Well, the biggest reason is that Matthew and Luke were written for two different audiences. Luke tends to emphasize Jesus' holiness and his role as a servant. It is fitting, then, that Luke's Jesus would have a humble beginning: born in a barn and worshipped by shepherds. Luke traces Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam, and has him descended of David through his son Nathan. Matthew, on the other hand, emphasizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic prophecy. Jesus is attended by Kings. His persecution under Herod echoes that of Moses, further emphasized by his flight to Egypt. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage only as far back as Abraham, going through David's successor Solomon. Two distinct lineages, two distinct coherent narratives with contrasting themes.
This begs the question: is it even appropriate to harmonize the stories into one? Personally, I don't think so. Not only do they differ in narrative and tone, but there is one detail that could be read as a direct contradiction. The Magi visit Jesus in a house, but they visit him in Bethlehem, at a time when Jesus and Mary and Joseph were staying in a barn. See, in the Matthean account, there is no mention of Joseph and Mary leaving Galilee. When the narrative has the family return to Israel from Egypt in Matthew 2:22-23, it says that Joseph was warned in a dream not to return to Judea (where Bethlehem is) and instead he withdrew to Galilee, to a town called Nazareth. The implication here, according to Matthew, was that Joseph and Mary already lived in Bethlehem. They only moved to Nazareth to avoid Herod's son. Whereas in the Lukan account, Joseph and Mary were Nazarenes who temporarily journeyed to Bethlehem for a census.
So how do we reconcile this? How did we end up with two disparate accounts of Jesus' birth? The key may be in their few similarities. In each story, we see that Jesus is a Nazarene, born in Bethlehem to a virgin who conceived through the Holy Spirit. That is the sum total of their similarities. It may be that those are the only details that the two authors had, and each constructed a birth narrative in keeping with their individual messages. The idea that someone could be from Nazareth and Bethlehem merits some explanation, so each author contrived a way for that to happen.
We certainly have no reason to accept the historicity of either account. There is no record of Luke's census conducted at that time or in that manner. Sending people to their home towns is a pretty ludicrous census-taking method anyway. Historically it makes no sense, but it works as a literary device to give Luke's Holy Servant a humble beginning. Likewise, there is no record of Herod the Great murdering Jewish babies (keep in mind that at this time the Hebrews were not slaves, but Roman subjects). Historically this makes no sense, but it works as a literary device to emphasize Jesus' connection to Judaism. Each author took the sparse details available and worked them into their unique depiction of Jesus' birth.
In a way, the tradition of harmonizing the Nativity into a single account is a bit of a tragedy. Luke's Jesus and Matthew's Jesus (to say nothing of Mark's or John's) are substantially different characters. When we try to blend them, we muddy the individual portraits, blurring the edges as a conceit to make the myriad appear whole. What does that get us? Three Wise Men in a barn--the idea is absurd, and it certainly isn't biblical. But most believers would rather have a single thematically incoherent narrative than a series of cohesive ones that disagree with each other about the unimportant details. At some point, the church decided that there is nothing to be learned from a story that can't be taken at absolute face value, and that is the truly great irony of fundamentalism. In the attempt to preserve the man, you distort the message. Perhaps it is better to think of the Nativity stories as parables. This didn't actually happen, but what can it teach us?
Just something to keep in mind next year when you sit down to watch your child's Christmas Pageant.
Happy Holidays,
]{p
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Obama/Bush Flip-Flop Political Thingie
I should know better than to make political predictions or analysis, because I'm genuinely horrible at it. In the past I've supported Mike "I Throw Rocks Into The Water" Gravel and John "Cancer Wife Love Child Debacle" Edwards. Even as I write this I'm drinking from my John Kerry coffee mug. Yeah, 2004 was a tough year.
But if you flip the parties, 2004 isn't all that different from right now. We have a polarizing incumbent with really poor numbers. The people who support him are disappointed, the people who oppose him do so with outright loathing. Yet Bush squeaked out a victory in 2004. How?
Well, a big part of it had to do with his opposition, the aforementioned John "I'm on Kurt's Coffee Mug" Kerry. In general, primary elections mean candidates are playing to their base. Once they've secured the nomination, they race back to the middle, because that's where the undecided voters for the general election live. So who was John Kerry? He was an articulate, personality-deficient, anti-war, liberal elitist with military experience. He was the anti-Bush, almost to the point of parody, because that's what the left wanted. They were so upset with Bush that they nominated his diametric opposite, and he lost because he couldn't steal the middle away from Bush. And also because he looked French. Possibly. Anywho.
Fast forward to today. The GOP nominations have been a contest between Romney and whatever flavor-of-the-week is leading in the polls. Romney is so moderate as to be nearly (note, I said "nearly") indistinguishable from Obama, who despite Tea Party efforts to paint him as a liberal, is painfully, disappointingly centrist. But the GOP voters keep bouncing from also-ran to also-ran, and each is a different variety of anti-Obama.
There's Michelle "Googly Eyes" Bachman, who was the living embodiment of Poe's Law, radically Christian in opposition to Obama's perceived anti-religiousness. Then there was Rick "Brokeback Jacket" Perry, who seemed to be a throwback to Bush more than anything else. Next it was Herman "Our Black Guy" Cain, and finally they seem to be settling more on Newt "I'm Seriously Just Winging It Here" Gingrich, who was written off months ago for his lack of organization and discipline. And staff.
The conventional wisdom for the Dems is that a Gingrich nomination will secure the re-election for Obama. Why? Because he's John Kerry.
This is interesting and all, but what are the broader implications? Well, one could make the argument that the best course of action for an incumbent is to be as partisan as possible. This will energize the opposition to nominate someone who is polarizing in the opposite direction and therefore unelectable. In fact, Obama's strategy of being both centrist and divisive may be his greatest asset.
But what do I know? I'm horrible at this.
]{p
But if you flip the parties, 2004 isn't all that different from right now. We have a polarizing incumbent with really poor numbers. The people who support him are disappointed, the people who oppose him do so with outright loathing. Yet Bush squeaked out a victory in 2004. How?
Well, a big part of it had to do with his opposition, the aforementioned John "I'm on Kurt's Coffee Mug" Kerry. In general, primary elections mean candidates are playing to their base. Once they've secured the nomination, they race back to the middle, because that's where the undecided voters for the general election live. So who was John Kerry? He was an articulate, personality-deficient, anti-war, liberal elitist with military experience. He was the anti-Bush, almost to the point of parody, because that's what the left wanted. They were so upset with Bush that they nominated his diametric opposite, and he lost because he couldn't steal the middle away from Bush. And also because he looked French. Possibly. Anywho.
Fast forward to today. The GOP nominations have been a contest between Romney and whatever flavor-of-the-week is leading in the polls. Romney is so moderate as to be nearly (note, I said "nearly") indistinguishable from Obama, who despite Tea Party efforts to paint him as a liberal, is painfully, disappointingly centrist. But the GOP voters keep bouncing from also-ran to also-ran, and each is a different variety of anti-Obama.
There's Michelle "Googly Eyes" Bachman, who was the living embodiment of Poe's Law, radically Christian in opposition to Obama's perceived anti-religiousness. Then there was Rick "Brokeback Jacket" Perry, who seemed to be a throwback to Bush more than anything else. Next it was Herman "Our Black Guy" Cain, and finally they seem to be settling more on Newt "I'm Seriously Just Winging It Here" Gingrich, who was written off months ago for his lack of organization and discipline. And staff.
The conventional wisdom for the Dems is that a Gingrich nomination will secure the re-election for Obama. Why? Because he's John Kerry.
This is interesting and all, but what are the broader implications? Well, one could make the argument that the best course of action for an incumbent is to be as partisan as possible. This will energize the opposition to nominate someone who is polarizing in the opposite direction and therefore unelectable. In fact, Obama's strategy of being both centrist and divisive may be his greatest asset.
But what do I know? I'm horrible at this.
]{p
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)