Mr. Rosen does not hesitate to explore Ms. Neiman's frustrations with the increasingly intellectual and cultural vapidity of her leftist peers vis-á-vis universal principles. One passage stands out:

Ms. Neiman points to many factors in the left's retreat from universal principles. The demise of socialism has played a role, as has despair over the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. But the real source, she suggests, is a "conceptual collapse," a self-destructive descent into identity politics, postmodern theory and victimology. Her peers have become paralyzed, she writes, by the view that moral judgments are, ultimately, little more than "a hypocritical attempt to assert arbitrary power over those with whom you disagree."

Part of Ms. Neiman's prescribed antidote is a call to the Great Books catalog of western civilization (often touted by conservatives, like the late-Allan Bloom, as curative of many social ills). No doubt her proposal will raise the ire of multi-culturalists and feminists committed to radical egalitarianism, but I would assume she is more than capable of defending herself before such critics. The only "danger" in Ms. Neiman's idea is that she opens the door to the value of Tradition; such backward looking interests do not sit well with progressives committed solely to what lies ahead. But tradition, and the intellectuals embedded therein, can be formidable pedagogues. That is scary to a lot of folks.

Of course, I am the first to admit that many of my conservative peers have also turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the so-called western canon. I have not completed it myself, though I was definitely educated in that canon's great tradition. There is much to learn; and many Americans are like many fundamentalists, as both the progressive and the fundamentalist act with little regard to the storehouse of knowledge available in the literature and traditions of the past. Both types of zealots forget that many of the questions of today have been amply discussed by our forefathers, civil and religious. In many cases, answers and solutions have been given. The trend to deify our own era at the expense of other times is rooted in conceit and arrogance. And it is, at present, a perilous conceit.

Peace.

BG

Will Marshall's article discussing spending recommendations drawn up by a coalition of economists from both the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation is a decent read. It is good to hear of bi-partisan efforts outside of Washington's inner circles aimed at solving many of the country's fiscal problems.

Let me know what you think of Marshall's "Let's Pop The Deficit Bubble" published in today's Wall Street Journal.

Peace,

BG

Peace.

BG

The essay which follows explores what I believe to be the case: that there is a clear racial divide in the Democratic Party. Pinko believes that Reverend Wright is not fomenting hatred, as I suggested in SIMPLY SAD. No doubt I disagree with Pinko, which is OK. But I think my opinion is not merely flung forth as some form of bombast. I am sincerely concerned about the safety of a presidential front-runner I respect; I believe we are in the midst of some very unsettling racial conflicts.

What Pinko may not understand is that I am a child of the 1960s. My heart knows the grief of that era; I still feel the anxieties of those times, especially when I spot certain current trends very reminiscent of those vile days. And as I mention in the post that follows, Barack Obama and I are the same age. Mr. Obama, then, knows what I know, at least in part, and I can't help but think he is unbelievably anxious, too. - BG]

The Worst Of Times Revisited

(Live blogging.)

Barack Obama is speaking to the press right now in a formal press conference. He has again expressed his consternation with his former pastor. He just called Reverend Wright's "performance" (Barack Obama's words) at the National Press Club yesterday nothing but a series of "rants not grounded in truth;" he even calls Rev. Wright's words an "insult" (among many other things).

What we are seeing, I am sorry to say, is something grossly reminiscent of the mid-1960s. The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, Dr. King: these were the backdrop of both Barack Obama's childhood and my childhood, as we are the same age. And, just like the 1960s, we are watching a battle over racial supremacy: which black man -- or black group -- truly speaks for minorities.

Over the weekend, Rev. Wright spoke at length to the NAACP about the different "learning styles" of European whites and African blacks. He defended an evolutionary difference between the two "races," and he went so far as to argue that whites respond to the first and third beats in a musical four-beat measure, while blacks respond to the second and fourth. Related to this, Rev. Wright used the device that blacks are "different but not deficient." Yesterday, in fact, he spoke at length about this very idea, that difference does not imply deficiency.

Most people, most THINKING people, would agree with Rev. Wright that different is not synonymous with deficient. I think his locution odd and unfortunate, and I suspect it is not something that most decent people have ever promoted.

But what I want to assert is that the conflict we see is over what it means to be racist. Traditionally, racism has been attributed to those folks who do not believe that one race is equal to another. If I think being white is superior to being black, I am a racist, because, essentially and unequivocally, I do not believe blackness is equal to whiteness. That is traditional racism, and I believe that is the model of racism under which MOST Americans, including Barack Obama, operate.

Alas, what Rev. Wright has done is to flip racism on its head. His "different but not deficient" slogan now means that the racist is he who believes whites and blacks are EQUAL. Wright's response to this idea is simple: No, no, no. Not equal. Different. To Rev. Wright, whites learn in a different way from blacks, and it is wrong of whites to think blacks are equal to the task, whether that task be learning to speak English or to understand European music.

I am inclined to aver that Rev. Wright has actually advocated a type of intellectual and cultural apartheid, American-style. His is a twist on separate but equal. He maintains that the separation is due to the fact that we are all "different."

Hence, what we are seeing is a race war between African-Americans. This is a massive, and truly scary, disagreement. And it is as scary as those sorts of disagreements that led to the sorrows of the 1960s.

Just some thoughts, offered in sorrow with much anxiety.

Peace, pray for peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008. All Rights Reserved.

The essay that follows is overtly theological, and for good reason. Rev. Wright opined the other day that theology informs politics. Such a dictum merits analysis, or so I think. In fact, I believe it behooves us all to examine the political components of religious beliefs and the religious components of political beliefs. My sole credential in this matter is that I once studied for the ministry.]

The Gospel Of Guilt: The Wright Way To Preach

I can't resist writing a few theological responses to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech and subsequent comments at yesterday's National Press Club. Of course, I would not be interested in Rev. Wright if he were not undermining what I initially took to be a noble goal in the campaign for the presidency of Barack Obama. That goal was not racial harmony. It was that America would transcend race; that our politics and related discourses would get us past the bitternesses of our fathers. But Rev. Wright has sabotaged all that. Now, like a bad LSD flashback into the heart of the 1960s, race is everything. According to Rev. Wright, God is on the side of the oppressed -- solely. According to Rev. Wright (who cites, in passing, white "evangelical" Jim Wallis) America has not even repented of its sin of slavery. America, be damned.

Let me be the first to assert that "America be damned" is not one whit inaccurate. I say this for the simple reason that both blind nature and Christian eschatology admit that everything is "damned," damned by the great cosmic implosion or God's building of a new heaven and new earth. This point may seem glib and even silly, but it isn't, as it points to a very leveling moral and social principle: death equalizes us all. And at the very least Rev. Wright is all about leveling, about equality.

Also, I would not be pursuing Rev. Wright had Mr. Obama not given his permission to do so, as he himself believes Rev. Wright's religious views are fair political game.

THE BIBLICAL HISTORY QUESTION

I think it wise to quote Rev. Wright's remarks about the Holy Bible which he offered during the press club's Q&A period following his speech. Note that he is defending the black liberation idea that God is the God of the oppressed:

"In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression. The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus is born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed. They weren't in charge of the world. It sounds like some other governments I know."

Those of us who possess some biblical literacy should immediately see the falsehood of Rev. Wright's assertion. It is NOT TRUE that every word of the Bible was written under some form of political oppression. Many of the words of the Torah (or Christian Old Testament) were penned during relative political and social calm. The words of Solomon -- the wildly rich king and revered "wisest man on earth" -- drafted proverbs and poems that were written while he and his kingdom were, in effect, in charge of a whole region. King David's famous psalm of contrition, Psalm 51, was penned while he was in power, despite the fact that he might have been at war. Ecclesiastes appears to have been penned during a period of relative ease, and I think it clear that Job, arguably the oldest of the biblical texts, was not penned by someone under political oppression. And even some of the New Testament is arguably penned by men who were not under oppression either, men like Luke, a Greek physician, or Paul, a Roman citizen of rather high standing. In the end, just one exception, and there is more than one, devastates Rev. Wright's sweeping and dogmatic assertion. (It should be noted that Rev. Wright does not acknowledge that much of the biblical record was written under brother-on-brother or Israel-on-Israel oppression.)

Hence, it is safe to conclude that Rev. Wright is flat-out wrong, and is seeing Christianity through a sieve, one not justified by either Christian tradition or its sacred texts.

But I would like to highlight one absolutely essential point, one that debilitates much of Rev. Wright's liberation theology, and it is this (I have written about this HERE): Jesus Christ, who was indeed born as a Jew living under Roman oppression, NEVER mentions that He or His disciples live under occupation. OK. That might be extreme. But it is not extreme to assert, with all due confidence, that Jesus clearly ignores the Roman occupation. And He clearly ministers to those occupiers without once asking them to denounce either their Roman citizenship or their positions.

Hence, Rev. Wright is not only wrong about the biblical record, He is wrong in averring that Jesus came to emancipate ANYONE from social oppression. Jesus's concerns, made clear in statements that His kingdom was not of this world and that "the poor you will always have with you," were not political or even societal concerns. They were concerns for the heart, soul and mind of individuals. He was not a social liberator, nor was He revolutionary in any political sense. His political influence was accidental (I mean this philosophically) to His message. His intent was to free humanity from sin, primarily the pervasive, ubiquitous sin of envy.

THE EXCLUSIVITY QUESTION

Here's another excerpt from yesterday's Q&A at the National Press Club:

MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?

WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."

(APPLAUSE)

I have to inject here that Rev. Wright's body language, tone, and countenance showed utter contempt for his interlocutor during much if not most of this exchange. To me, Rev. Wright was thuggish, condescending, arrogant and -- immature.

But let us note the problem. Rev. Wright has been asked if he believes whether Jesus Christ, the Man He purportedly believes is the Savior of the whole world, is the only way to God. Alas, acting like some pompous smart ass, Rev. Wright, in a most self-satisfied manner, replied that Jesus referred to "sheep ... not of this fold." With that, Rev. Wright pulled away from the microphone, satisfied that he has shown not only his superior wit but that his sense of irony has no bounds: he, too, can make Jesus say whatever he wants Him to say. Of course, the real irony is lost on the smug Rev. Wright, as his obscene citation of the "other sheep" only supports Christ's claim as being the exclusive Savior of the world: Jesus is the Shepherd of the other sheep who still must come to God through Him. Jesus, only to augment His point, also argues that He is the Gate of the sheepfold, so no one enters that fold -- irrespective of whether they are OTHER sheep or not -- unless they pass through Him.

Rev. Wright's inanity is indicative of his fear of estranging his black Muslim friends, who share his identity politics. Muslims, who deny that Jesus IS the Christ, the gate-keeper, or the "way and the life," are the other sheep to which Rev. Wright refers. And this from a man described even by Barack Obama as a "renowned" biblical scholar. Rev. Wright's curt reply merely avoids the question by obfuscating simple Christian passages. Jesus claims to be the way for ALL sheep, irrespective of whether they are of the Jewish fold. Rev. Wright intimates, utterly and completely erroneously, that there are "other sheep" who do not need Christ.

And let us put this in boldest relief: Rev. Wright, or so it was reported yesterday, is getting security help from the Nation of Islam.

THE SOCIOLOGY PROBLEM: Standing Black Liberation Theology On Its Head

Let us again return to something that Rev. Wright said in his speech. Here he is talking about how our ideas of God influence us:

"Dr. Jones, in his book, God in the Ghetto, argues quite accurately that one's theology, how I see God, determines one's anthropology, how I see humans, and one's anthropology then determines one's sociology, how I order my society. Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens. My theological lens shapes my anthropological lens. And as a result, white males are superior; all others are inferior."

Let us review the sequence: God-ideas influence our views of mankind, and our views of both influence how we order society.

Rev. Wright goes on:

"To say 'I am a Christian' is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.

How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say 'I am a Christian' is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us."

Now, look at what Rev. Wright says about black liberation theology, a theology he gladly espouses:

"Now, in the 1960s, the term "liberation theology" began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.

"Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.

"Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed."

I hope you can see the problem. Rev. Wright tells us that we should start our theology at the top: how we view God informs not just our theology, but our anthropology and sociology. In sharpest Christian terms, it is indeed asserted by all orthodox Christians that God defines for us Who and What He is and What He is like. To God, our relation is responsive: He reveals, we respond. He is Who He Is, or so even Moses reported thousands of years ago. Christianity's starting point is the God Revealed.

But according to Rev. Wright's own words, he actually inverts the paradigm: black liberation theology begins in sociology, the sociological status of the oppressed. The oppressed, beginning in the mire, see God from the pit, defining Him as their liberator and the judge and damner of those who have enslaved them. God, then, is defined not by His own fiat, but by the conditions of the lowest social group. God is coming to judge, and the top social group shall be tossed down and the bottom elevated: the last are now first, the oppressed are now the judges.

That is why Rev. Wright can say, essentially, that the oppressors pray to a different God, even if those oppressors are Christians.

But the FACT IS THIS: All people are prone to manufacture God in their OWN IMAGE! And Rev. Wright has done EXACTLY that!

Alas, this is what passes, at least in Rev. Wright's world, as the prophetic voice. Curiously absent is any sense of proportion. Yes, Rev. Wright concedes that God loves the whole world, as he remarked in his talk, but his concession seems almost reluctantly offered. It even smacks of elitism, as it suggests that God prefers to love the oppressed but, almost despite Himself, He can love, well, "others" too.

Let me say with all due candor: this stuff is preposterous.

THE GOSPEL OF GUILT

In the end, we are left not with a gospel of liberation preached by Rev. Wright, but one of oppression, even extortion. Despite the fact that Rev. Wright is supposed to represent a faith that proclaims that Christ has paid our debts, that He forgives with abandon (assuming folks want forgiveness), that He absolves us of our guilt, Rev. Wright brings the glad tidings that Americans are still guilty, still reprobate, still WRONG. He has not forgiven, nor has he offered that forgiveness. Instead, he brings the gospel of extortion, of indebtedness: America, you still OWE! America, you still must pay! And this is not merely directed at institutions, as institutions cannot be divorced of their constituents. This is aimed at people, individuals.

This is not the gospel. We are not hearing the voice of Christ. We are hearing the voice of envy, resentment, anger, entitlement. This, believe it or not, is imprisonment dressed as liberty.

It is not the gospel at all.

Peace to you.

©Bill Gnade 2008/All Rights Reserved.

But I will steer clear of the obvious and the snark, primarily since I am not a Manchester resident (and because I avoid the town at all costs, though solely because I am a dirt-roads kind of guy). However, I will not steer clear of the demonstrably dopey statements found at the UL's online report (found HERE) on the controversy, particularly the comments thread that follows.

You see, not a few passionate defenders of Rep. Scannell's position have suggested that the mayor's action -- a mere letter requesting Scannell's resignation -- is somehow tantamount to denying the legislator his right to free speech. Even Rep. Scannell has raised the specter of such an egregious offense, or so reports the UL, with Scannell hinting he may even take legal action to protect his job and his speech.

Curiously, Scannell and some of his supporters seem to overlook one simple fact: His speech was not thwarted at all. In fact, he freely spoke without hindrance when he pressed the YES button in his seat at the state house. Had Mayor Guinta sent his police force out to arrest Rep. Scannell solely to prevent him from his duty and his right, THEN we could be talking about calling Amnesty International or the ACLU. But as it stands, the record proves that Rep. Scannell was wildly successful in speaking his mind and voting his conscience.

Moreover, it seems equally clear that Mayor Guinta is ALSO exercising his free speech rights: he has freely called for the resignation of Rep. Scannell, arguing that Scannell's vote disqualifies him from being a spokesman for a school district whose policies and philosophies are aimed at denouncing marijuana use in the strongest possible terms. Critics of the mayor have called for HIS resignation; amazingly, they are blind to the irony, and the fact, that by their own definitions, they are denying Mayor Guinta's right to speak.

But the broader point is that the mayor's critics are not advocating speech rights consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they want free speech that includes protections against the consequences of free speech. The argument put forward in defense of Rep. Scannell is that he really should not bear any responsibility, accountability, or consequences for his opinions. Despite that calls for Scannell's resignation come as a result of his freely speaking without censure -- that he was never thwarted in his voting whatsoever -- his defenders want him to be able to live without repercussions. How sad, really, that folks do not understand that the laws of the land do not protect us from the consequences of our own words. The laws only permit us the freedom to say them.

Germane to all of this, and lost in the free speech rhetoric, is that certain analogies do apply. For example, if Rep. Scannell was the Manchester police chief and yet voted at the state house to decriminalize cop-killing, he may have problems keeping his job. If Mr. Scannell was fire chief and yet voted to decriminalize "small" arsons, my guess is that he might experience no small blowback. If he was appointed head of the city's task force on pedophilia and child abuse and yet voted to reduce sentences for convicted sexual predators, I doubt we'd be wondering if his vote might influence his status on the task-force -- or his moral authority everywhere.

Ultimately, what this story is about is Rep. Scannell's lack of political savvy. Savvy politicians are quick to spot potential conflicts in the dock or on the agenda. What he should have done is quietly supported the bill, and then NOT voted at all. Surely MANY politicians have learned this simple skill.

In the end, I am not arguing for either side in this case. I am merely addressing the issues raised by this incident. But if I am to cast blame, I will not first see this as a partisan attack by a Republican on a Democrat. I will simply blame Rep. Scannell for being imprudent and naïve. That, really, is the bottom line.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008

But I did find a Feb. 18 Keene Sentinel editorial on the matter of the death penalty, reprinted in the Nashua Telegraph (see here), rather curious, not so much for what it represented, namely, opposition to the death penalty for humane and economic reasons, but for what it ignored. For what it ignored is astonishing, and is indicative of the sort of moral blindness that occurs when people begin to talk about tough issues. And what is it that the Sentinel editorialist cannot see? Simple: He can't see that he supports executions, though only slower ones than hangings, electrocutions or lethal injections.

Here's what the editorialist wrote:

"Today, the idea of the state strapping people down and killing them over in Concord strikes some people as not altogether civilized. How would we explain it to the kids? The eye-for-an-eye justification may make superficial sense, although the state is supposed to behave better than violent criminals. Think of the moral dimension, the fact that many killers are deranged to begin with and the frightful string of cases in other states where innocent people have been convicted.

"Then, because so many mistakes are made, there is the cost. If Gov. Lynch wants to make New Hampshire hospitable to executions once again, he may have to start looking for donations. What little state tax money there is could probably be put to better use. New Hampshire is running a budget deficit, and it costs a lot more to prosecute and defend capital-punishment cases than it does to lock people up under the state's tough life-without-parole statute."[emphasis mine]

Surely we all see the problem here, and it is not an economic one. Emblematic as the editorial is, bearing many of the iconic moral ideals of anti-death penalty activists, it nevertheless does not represent a higher, or more civil, moral sensibility. Why? Because it merely advocates for death over a long period of time: this "more moral" stance is nothing more than choosing to kill the guilty by imprisonment. For that is what the writer is advocating when he mentions the "state's tough life-without-parole statute," and he submits it as some sort of proof of moral superiority.

But, pray tell, how are parents supposed to explain to their tender children the civility of putting "bad people" in cages until they die? How is that "tough statute" an improvement over a swifter means of execution? Is New Hampshire morally superior to Texas, for example, because the Granite State executes its prisoners slowly?

Indeed, one should ask whether the editorialist believes death by lethal imprisonment is still too swift for his moral convictions. Is it?

All this I submit to readers NOT because I support swift executions of those guilty of capital murder. I don't. My point is that the practice of death by terminal imprisonment is morally indistinguishable from death by terminal hanging: the state is killing its worst criminals. Supporters of swift execution are no better or worse than the seemingly more civil writer at the Keene Sentinel. Swift or slow, executions can always be perceived as barbaric. But the fact remains that the barbarism is a response to someone else's self-initiated barbarism. The state is not killing people willy-nilly, in a fit of drunken or jealous rage. Capital punishment is a sad response to a sadder reality. It is like a surgeon amputating a gangrenous limb: his act is barbaric, but it is a life-saving barbarism that comes in response to something that is not at all life-saving, the infectious bacteria that care for nothing but themselves.

So where do we arrive in all of this? Nowhere, really, except perhaps in a place of moral humility. Of course, that's a good place. There is no 'civil' or 'morally superior' position one can take in the wake of the violent incivilities perpetrated on the innocent we read about every day.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008

The news cycles pass over so fast we often don't have time to process what we need to process. After former Governor Eliot Spitzer's indiscretions were publicized, we were inundated with other news, including the recent revelation that Mr. Spitzer's successor is also guilty of adultery, even serial adultery.

But I feel it's important to examine some of the moral issues that may be buried in the Eliot Spitzer story. Part if not all of Mr. Spitzer's story has indeed been buried by the media avalanche which is the Barack Obama/Rev. Jeremiah Wright insanity, but that will not shake our resolve to look more closely at the underbelly of American sexual obsession and addiction.

For clearly this Spitzer tale is about obsession and addiction in more places than in Mr. Spitzer's personal and public life. American AND European media, and their consumers, are also obsessed with sex, sex scandals and the like; and not a few -- whether media producer or consumer, it matters not -- are addicted to sex as commodity, often in its most salacious forms.

Let us take note of something curious. There is a rather pervasive idea that sexual sins are private matters. One never heard the end of this particular defense when President Clinton was in office. In fact, the rather glibly spoken trope that Clinton's private life was irrelevant to his role as president was trundled out even before he was elected. And Eliot Spitzer tried to remind us all, in his resignation speech, that his sin, too, was private.

I am not here to quibble with the privacy defense, other than to point out that it is rotten and foolish to the core. What I am here to note is how our culture simply does not believe this sort of thing at all. We are a prurient and voyeuristic lot, perhaps so empty of soul and spirit that we are titillated by the sights and sounds of others' titillation. Privacy be damned!

How else to explain that thoroughly inhuman evil, the sudden interest in finding the prostitute with whom Mr. Spitzer had his dalliance? How else to explain that pornographers, like Penthouse and Hustler, want to PAY this prostitute to expose her body for their probing, salacious eyes?

It's amazing that so many folks can take the high road against those men who have sinned with prostitutes, and yet are curiously silent when those same prostitutes are paraded nude through video and print so they may incite lust and lubricity among tens of thousands. It is wrong, no doubt, for Mr. Spitzer to use prostitutes; but it is, apparently, OK for the snickering masses who denounce him (and men like him) as hypocrite to later go and salivate and secrete at the sight of the same exploited prostitutes in magazines and movies. Remember tele-evangelist Jim Bakker's 'paramour,' Jessica Hahn? Sure you do. Perhaps you remember her from her Playboy pictorials and videos that followed that scandal.

And one can never forget the great fall of that other tele-evangelist, Jimmy Swaggart, who was busted frequenting a prostitute not so he could have intercourse with her, but so he could watch her in various poses in order to whet his beastly appetites. Recall the great hue and cry over this scandal; recall the righteous multitudes denouncing (rightly so) the flagrant hypocrisy of Mr. Swaggart. "How could men of such allegedly high moral standing fall to such depravity?" many of us asked.

Curiously, that was about as deep a moral question we could ask, because our culture went suddenly silent as Mr. Swaggart's prostitute posed in Penthouse, hovering over the camera to reveal to the world how she serviced Mr. Swaggart's lust (yes, I saw that issue years ago, when I visited the men's room -- there was a stack of magazines -- at a tire warehouse while waiting for my company truck to be fixed). No one seemed to care that this bit of 'journalism,' too, was a form of prostitution (as is all pornography), or that millions of men were consuming in public print what had been so roundly condemned only weeks before when Mr. Swaggart's 'private sin' was a headline.

Again, I am not a person who stands on high ground in this matter. Ever since I was shown my first Playboy when I was about to enter the 6th-grade, pornography has been a difficult temptation for me (as it is for millions of men). It is, indeed, an addictive product, and pornography's peddlers know it. It is also a gross product, and it is every bit as immoral and empty as prostitution. Gratefully, I have been spared the greater temptations: I've never been to a strip club (and I pray I never will), nor have I ever sought the comforts of a prostitute. But this is more a function of God's grace, and not any function of my personal constitution.

Let me put it this way for anyone who does not get the power of the visual image for men. Please note the next time you drive down the freeway: notice the chrome, two-dimensional silhouettes of women, bearing virtually NO RESEMBLANCE to any woman in three dimensions, that are affixed to mud flaps on tractor-trailer trucks. Why are those there? In part, they are there to incite lust among an invisible fraternity of men: it is code that hot babes are what all men crave. It is a reminder of sex, of copulation; it is really a subconscious trigger reminding men they are designed to fertilize (a compulsion that never really sleeps). And it is a reminder that men, too, are reduced to sex objects, susceptible to the slightest temptations.

Think, then: if mere chrome stickers are known to trigger something in the brain of a man, how much more powerful the images of women on the cover of Cosmo, or in the newest Victoria Secret catalog? (And why do you think so many TV news shows have gorgeous anchors? We all know the answer, but think what it means: men can hardly go ANYWHERE where they can get a break from being reminded of what they "really want.")

Many men know that they've been trained by peer support, and the Madison Avenue push of high couture and sexually suggestive advertising, to become visual predators, stalking women they pass with their eyes, women they might see for but a moment. I have talked with enough men to know that this is indeed a real problem; I have sat in cafés, or in my car on a busy street; I have watched men in the fitness club, and I have seen how they move their eyes: I HAVE SEEN HOW THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES. Some men will walk out of their way while grocery shopping to catch a glimpse of the woman they spotted at the end of aisle 3.

It is, in fact, a nightmare for many of us. And I have not even touched on the fact that the internet is in our homes allowing us access to the world's darkest imagery. (And the technology is still in its primitive form.)
___________________

How is it not a matter of broad cultural denunciation that the pornography/news/internet industries are trying to find Eliot Spitzer's prostitute so they can exploit her (of course, they'll compensate her handsomely) again and again and again; so that they can use her body to exploit millions of men for financial gain? And think of the motive, which is not mere profit: the idea is to show her naked wonders solely to judge them, to see if she is "worthy," to see if she is "hot" enough -- or not. This is precisely why images of Mr. Spitzer's prostitute have been shown on even the pages of the New York Times; editors and readers -- and I've already heard radio comments along these lines -- are responding to the pictures with a "would YOU spend $5000 to have sex with ... this?" The very reductionism should send us out in the streets in riotous rage.

But it won't, and it doesn't. We are too dulled, too inured, to care. We can't think of it; we just leave this all to 'privacy' and 'free speech' and 'market forces' (and, for not a few, 'boys will be boys' and even 'female empowerment' are suitable excuses).

We are fools, killing ourselves, our souls; we are grinding all that is romantic and beautiful and transcendent about sex beneath our feet, grinding it into a mundane mash of culturally permitted abuse. We denounce on Monday morning what we condone Monday night; and we do not care, really, that there are millions of men and women, men like me, women like you, who are imprisoned (or have been), or will be imprisoned, by the trappings of pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of sexual oppression.

The deep cultural hypocrisy is seemingly insurmountable. It is, in the end, like a pervasive blindness, a narcotic that has stolen our time and killed our inability to feel what is perhaps our most noble emotion: moral outrage.

'Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.'

Peace to you.

Bill Gnade

Come November, as Ann Coulter stands in the voting booth (where?), the checked box alongside Hillary Clinton’s name will not be the mark of Coulter. It'll REALLY be the mark of McCain.

Really, it’s almost too much to bear.

What I hear in all of this frenetic fuss is not a call to true conservatism, particularly since no one knows exactly what true conservatism is. What I hear is more political posturing. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jay Severin -- or even sundry bloggers at Redstate.com -- are no doubt sincere and honest: they earnestly want a ‘true conservative.’ But the McCain complaint seems to me to be as much about a wounded conservative psyche as it is a defense of some political ideal. As such, I find it curious how many Republicans find this all very curious, as if they are surprised anyone would find the presumptive front-runner unacceptable. No candidate is perfect, nor is everyone ever happy -- at least at the same time.

It is all rather simple, and since simplicity is probably my wont, I will simply state it: conservatives currently opposing John McCain are hoping he’ll hear them, forcing him to move right. In 1992 and 1998, my little state of NH saw something remarkably similar, as conservatives in ’92 rallied around Pat Buchanan in the NH primary, when he placed second to George H. W. Bush; four years later he’d take first place over Bob Dole. Buchanan’s successes were naught more than the conservative base asking to be remembered; it was a strong plea that the presumptive front-runner move rightward.†

And now that the apparent last great hope, Mitt Romney, has left the campaign trail, we will see Mr. McCain do exactly as predicted: He’ll make his move to the right, Rush will rally the troops, and Ann Coulter will stop twitching.

©Bill Gnade 2008

†Of course, I note that in neither year, '92 or '96, did the Republicans fare very well in their bids for the White House; perhaps Bush I and Dole should have moved even further right -- and more quickly (John McCain, please take note). I note too that NH primary voters chose the apparently left-of-Republican-center candidate this time around. I have no idea what this means for November.