Month: April 2006

Question for the parents out there. The Dish readership seems like a theologically diverse bunch. Anyone out there in a situation similar to mine‚Äîa lapsed Catholic, a fallen Methodist, a disenchanted Anabaptist? If so, how have you opted to handle the issue of faith with your kids? There are myriad advantages to raising one‚Äôs tots in the bosom of a religious community (though I‚Äôd certainly prefer something a little less damnation-focused than the Southern Baptists of my youth). But when you‚Äôre not remotely sure of your own beliefs, how do you begin to address the mysteries of the universe with the preschool set? —Michelle

As someone reared in a religion that doesn‚Äôt exactly thrive on theological debate, I‚Äôm encouraged whenever a serious controversy breaks out over something like the Gospel of Judas‚Äîor even a less serious one over something like ‚ÄúThe Da Vinci Code.‚Äù Having once held but then lost the comfort of a strong faith, I‚Äôm just short of obsessed with matters of the soul. I envy the certitude both of those convinced they know the will of the divine and of those convinced that there is no divine. Impassioned argument over the history and shape of Christianity‚Äîwhich, for all its merits, too often can seem pinched and unreasonable in what it demands that its adherents accept on faith‚Äîoffers a comforting reminder that I‚Äôm hardly alone in my uncertainty. —Michelle

The retiring head of Exxon-Mobil has just been awarded a compensation package worth an estimated four-hundred million dollars. This is the same man who on Capitol Hill last fall testified that soaring gasoline prices were uncontrollable and that “We’re all in this together.” But not together in the same way, of course. This man and his lieutenants made lots of money off of expensive petroleum products. I lost some.

But I do begrudge him his mammoth windfall? No. First I’d have to be able to conceive of it. The wealth piling up in some individuals’ hands these days passeth all understanding. They may as well be infinitely rich — unless, that is, they’re thinking of using their cash to assemble private air forces and navies. I think they should be required to, in fact. Once upon a time, the oligarchs had a political obligation to fund (beyond the payment of normal taxes) fighting forces for the kings and emperors under whose protection they’d grown so powerful. Let’s revisit that practice. The First Exxon-Mobile Mountain Division. The Seventh Microsoft Fleet.

Half a billion dollars, huh? Out here in the west (I live in Montana) it’s not uncommon to come across the many-thousand-acre ranches of non-resident commercial titans. At the ends of their multi-mile driveways are largely un-lived in palatial homes — or so I assume, since I can’t cruise down to see them due to all the ominous “Keep Out” signs. All one sees of the ranches’ mythic landlords are their jets swooping in around Independence Day, when the big guys throw barbecues for other big guys featuring famous country-western singers and private fireworks displays that are more splendid than any our little towns can throw. The skybombs sparkle surreally against the mountainsides as I drive to town to buy lemonade and hot dog buns for my own backyard festivities. A sense of being in things together doesn’t come over me as I watch the light bursts. It’s more a sense of being on my own in a land of unimaginable giants.

–Walter

Alright, I give! I have been chastised by many of you for not properly appreciating the value of knowledge for knowledge’s sake regarding my wonderment over who thinks up (not to mentions finances) studies about things like whether short or tall gals are more inclined to breed. I was thinking there were probably more urgent issues to be explored, but I in no way want to come across as anti-science. A few of you also demanded to know if I might have an undisclosed bias. I’m a shade over 5’4”. I’ve got two kids and a career. Add me to the research sample and do you worst.

—Michelle

In the previous post’s first line I meant to write “just dissed” and not “dust dissed.” But inaccuracies creep into all texts, even the holy one in question.

–Walter

All I know from the radio is that the Pope has discounted, or dust dissed, the so-called Gospel of Judas, a heterodox new piece of the old puzzle that shows Jesus and his betrayer as confidantes with a complex, interwoven relationship that doesn’t align with the Sunday school verities. I admit that I haven’t done the research that would allow me to join the fray on this, but today, Good Friday, I do find myself reflecting on the labor that has gone on for all these many hundreds of years to keep the door shut on the Bible such that nothing new comes into it and nothing old goes out. This all-too-human effort, carried out in the name of the divine, has been, I suppose, a boon to orthodoxy but has done a disservice, perhaps, to the Creation. It’s created a book of one-dimensional fixity in a world of creative uncertainty. And now here comes a point of view on Jesus that seems incompatible with the accepted stories. I understand the threat this represents to the iron editors of scripture, but I don’t understand why it should bother anyone else. The universe, God’s universe, was made with depths and angles unfathomable. A testament that reflects this truth doesn’t frighten me at all.

–Walter

I don’t know all the ins and outs of the current uproar over Democratic Rep. Alan B. Mollohan and his finances. Hopefully, federal investigators can promptly determine whether or not the honorable gentleman from West Virginia did, among other alleged outrages, help funnel upwards of $178 million in federal funds to nonprofits run by a few of his more reliable campaign contributors. And if he is indeed guilty, Democrats should promptly force Congressman Mollohan to commit political hara kiri on the House floor in front of God and C-SPAN.

In the meantime, however, Nancy Pelosi should go ahead and ask Mollohan to take a break from his duties on the ethics committee. In part, I don’t want to see Mollohan become a tool for GOPers hoping to put Dems on the defensive about ethics and thus take the “culture of corruption” issue off the table altogether.

But I also don’t want Mollohan to become a scapegoat for an increasingly worthless ethics committee. Already Denny Hastert has suggested that Mollohan’s personal situation is at the root of the committee’s recent inactivity. It’s a lovely theory—especially if you’re a Republican tired of making excuses for Delay, Ney, Cunningham, etc. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that the House ethics committee may be the single most useless, if not downright counterproductive entity operating in Washington—which, yes, I know, is saying quite a bit. I am on record calling for the dissolution of the entire committee. And while I realize my hope is little more than a fantasy, I hate to see Mollohan even for an instant allow anyone to use the one-bad-apple argument to take the heat off a truly pathetic congressional institution.

—Michelle

Today’s Washington Post mentions a recent study by a pair of British researchers who found that shorter women are more likely to value having children than taller women and less likely to value their careers. (For more details, check out this October piece from The Scotsman) Question: Who comes up with these studies–and how on earth do people get funding for them? What exactly is the practical use for such findings? Should employers start weeding out all applicants under 5′ 5" on the assumption they’ll eventually abandon the fast track to make babies? Should men longing for multiple offspring dump their Amazonian girlfriends? In any case, my bet is that the folks at eHarmony are already scrambling to incorporate this information into their infamous compatibility profiles.

—Michelle

Today’s New York Times leads with two more retired military chieftains calling for Rummy’s head. That brings the total up to six–not counting various anonymous assaults. But please let me know the moment someone else piles on. It may be time to start the betting pool on exactly how many retired generals must publicly kick the don of Defense before Bush gets the itch to send Rumsfeld the way of Andy Card.

— Michelle

It may still be too early in the morning to talk about Jennifer Aniston’s private parts, but what the hey. Check out this cultural tidbit from Ross Douthat. (Caution: It has nothing to do with Christianists or the civil-rights movement.)

—Michelle