Month: December 2010

Choire Sicha ruminates on the shape of obituaries:

I tend to think of obituaries as having a funnel-shape. They start off wide and broad, and usually pretty, with the big announcement—whether they start with the news announcement of a death or not or not, the fact of the obituary itself serves the purpose. Then we go circling inwards, like in a comic book version of a black hole. It's the twisting and turning where obituaries often get odd. One obituary style that's popular is the news obit, which circles down in distinct phases: Big Broad Sketch; Details Revisited; and then Further Minutia As My Editor Has, Bizarrely, Asked For Three More Inches. …

And so here we have the strange case of the Times obituary of Elizabeth Edwards. In times past, there would (wrongly) be little mention of the popular scandal of her marriage; still, now, to have the word "infidelity" appear in the first paragraph seems nearly shocking. That her husband's affair circles around and around as the obituary spirals down seems even odder—so much so that , in the end, this seems like a cruel and cold remembrance. Although, to be fair, perhaps that's the most accurate take?

In response to the Lincoln Tunnel atheist billboard (which reads “You Know It’s a Myth. This Season Celebrate Reason.”) Rami Shapiro responds:

The characters found in myths represent aspects of our own psyches. The Virgin Birth is neither a miracle nor a biological act of parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction). It is a story about how something new and potentially redemptive comes into the world. As a myth Christmas speaks to all humans. As science and history it makes no sense at all.

If we reclaimed the power of myth, and understood its role in our lives, we could reclaim the world’s religions as keepers of myth and train clergy to be guides to myth who can help us live out the mythic and imaginal dimensions of our lives through acts of compassion and contemplative spiritual practice.

The Christmas stories in the Bible – and they are multiple and contradictory – are obviously myths. They are obviously not to be taken literally. They are meant as signs to the deeper, profounder truth that Christians hold to: that the force behind all that exists actually intervened in the consciousness of humankind in the form of a man so saturated in godliness that merely being near him healed people of the weight of the world's sins. This is so enormous and radical an idea that it is not suprising that early Christian writers told stories to bring it more firmly to life. But they were stories, telling of a deeper more ineffable truth. If only contemporary Christians could let go of the literalism in pursuit of the far more extraordinary fact of the Incarnation.

(Painting: the journey of the Magi, by Sassetta.)

Why are Mormons so good at keeping their children within the faith? Eve Tushnet explains:

Parents who show, by their words or their actions, that the tenets and practices of their faith are vague, unimportant, or only tenuously related to daily life, produce teenagers whose faith is vague, marginal, and unlikely to shape their actions and plans in any significant way … 

Mormons, by contrast, challenge their teenagers and require a lot of time, study, and leadership from them. Mormon parents rise at dawn to go over their church’s history and doctrine with their children. More than half of the Mormon youth in the study had given a presentation in church in the past six months. They frequently shared public testimony and felt that they were given some degree of decision-making power within their community. They shape their plans for the immediate future around strong cultural pressures toward mission trips and marriage. Whatever one thinks of the actual beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it seems obvious that both adult Mormons and the teens who follow them really, really believe.

I've had many criticisms of the Obama administration's tardy and milque-toast efforts on civil rights for gays and lesbians. But at this point, the peril facing repeal of the military's gay ban is not the administration's fault. In fact, it seems to me the events of the last month or so reveal that the Obama administration has finally delivered the goods for the military, which is hobbled by this dated, counter-productive policy, and for the gay community, by moving the issue deliberately through the Congress before the executive branch or the judicial branch. And the fact remains that in the current Congress, we have essentially achieved repeal, with the military's support and blessing – only to be foiled by tricky parliamentary maneuvering by a hard Republican faction that is impervious to reason. That's some achievement, however tragic the possibility of defeat.

I mean: look at it. We have the support of the Joint Chiefs, the Republican defense secretary, the majority of the troops, a hefty majority of the public, a majority in the House, and 57-40 majority in the Senate and a president ready to sign the bill. What more – to be frank – could we ask of the administration? Yes, I know there are executive branch ways forward, and judicial intervention looms as well. But it is far, far, far preferable that DADT be undone the way it was done – by the Congress.

All that stands in the way is the filibuster and those Republicans supporting it. But those Republicans must surely know, as defense secretary Gates has warned, that if they do not act with care and deliberation in the Senate, the courts at some point will – with far more damage to military readiness than a careful and deliberate phasing in of this overdue reform. I suppose the far right could try and use a potential court ruling to burnish their view that the courts are the source of all evil, especially gay evil. But if they deny gays equality by the legislative route through a parliamentary maneuver that clearly overrules the plain will of the Congress and the majority of the public, they can hardly complain that a tiny minority, essentially checkmated by one faction of one party with a filibuster, would seek recourse in the courts instead. And if they really want to save the military from disruption, the path charted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon Report and defense secretary Gates is obviously the responsible way forward.

We are so close it would be truly insane to let this moment pass. So we mustn't let it pass. I agree with Capehart here:

If Congress, particularly the Senate, doesn't want the courts to do its job for it, lawmakers should move heaven and earth to pass the stand-alone measure. Stay over Christmas. Stay over New Year's. Udall is willing to. So is Lieberman. As one activist told me this week, it would be a massive failure for Congress to walk away for the holidays while 65,000 continue to serve in silence and others aren't even allowed to serve at all.

What we all need to do is to contact Senators – especially liberal Republican Senators like Scott Brown and conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin – to ensure that the sane middle is heard this time. This is not the time for resignation or resentment or fatalism. It's the time for a final push to take the knife out of the back of a small but honorable minority of US servicemembers. Let us finally do them justice.

Yes, we can.

(Photo: Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) listens while Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill December 9, 2010 in Washington, DC. By Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images.)

Sean Carroll considers Randy Olson's argument that Al Gore may have done more harm than good with his climate change agenda:

Between January and September of 2010, Jay Leno made more jokes about Al Gore than about Sarah Palin. You read that right. This is while Palin was promoting books, making TV specials, stumping for candidates, and basically in the news every day, while Gore was — doing what exactly? Once Al Gore became the unofficial spokesperson for concern about climate change, it was increasingly inevitable that Republicans would deny it on principle.

(Photo of the "world’s first graffiti on polar icebergs" via Buzzhunt)

"People such as [Denis] McDonough, Michelle Gavin and Samantha Power in the White House, along with Johnnie Carson, Scott Gration and Princeton Lyman at the State Department, are employing American power to noble purpose. I mention their names (none of them secret) because they represent how skilled, effective government officials can shape history, improve the lives of millions and bring honor to the country they serve," – Mike Gerson.

It's almost the full complement of those of us who produce the Dish every day. Conor, alas, is on the West Coast and couldn't make it for the photo. That's from left to right: Zoe holding Dusty, Chris beaming, Eddy posing, some clapped out old bear with glasses, and Patrick, a rampart of the Dish for so long. We don't have the staff and resources of a big magazine – although we now have more readers than most opinion journals online – but we make up for it in passion and a work-ethic that would make Max Weber proud.

Which is part of a plea to ask you to support us in the coming year by doing some of your Christmas shopping at the Dish. We've put together an array of merchandise from $5.95 to $50, and all of it of the highest quality.

First up, some good news. We heard your complaints about $50 T-shirts – although, believe me, the quality and uniqueness of these hand-printed shirts (you can see us modeling them above) really do pay for themselves they last you so long. You can still buy them here. But we asked the team Rogues Gallery to come up with some cheaper ones and here they are – with the price slashed in half to … $24!

Yes, that hard-to-read one says "To See what Is In Front Of One's Nose Needs A Constant Struggle" – but you have to put one's nose very close to the shirt to read it. Maybe not the most inspired of sight-gags, but we enjoyed it. A bargain at $24! The beagle one is also a classic. For women's sizes in these unisex t-shirts, just drop the size one level. So for small, pick x-small. I'd like to thank Alex Carleton, the design genius behind Rogues Gallery – whose entire site is worth perusing – along with Sean Safford, Timmy Powers, and Justin Briand for their enormous help in making this happen – and their amazing creativity and panache. Here's that link again.

If you prefer a more literary offering for your Dishhead friends or yourself, The Cannabis Closet is available from Blurb for a low $5.95 and shipping that keeps the total cost to under $10 (use promo-code DISH at checkout for a savings of $3).

You can preview the book here, and buy it here. As I wrote introducing the book yesterday, it's a compilation of first-person pot use testimonials, from top executives to responsible parents, from entrepreneurs to A-students, from unwinding suburbanites to the very sick. In more than 120 personal stories, it demolishes every hoary "stoner" stereotype of the regular pot-user. It doesn't glide over the downsides of pot-use, but it does explain more graphically and powerfully how marijuana-use has become as American as, er, brownies and milk. It shows how responsible pot-use is already compatible with middle-class life and its obligations. Browse and buy it here.

Reading it as a whole is a totally different experience than reading it one email at a time. When I got Chris's first draft, I couldn't stop reading it, and couldn't help but be strangely moved by it all over again, even though I had read every single word of it before. There's something about the cumulative impact of so many heart-felt testimonials that does more to change the mind than any abstract argument, and Chris has shaped it into a compelling narrative – from shame and doubt to a form of liberation and success – that packs a real punch. It's a truly powerful way to persuade anyone of the rightness and sanity of this cause – created by the anonymity and free expression of new media, now re-purposed into the classic staple of old media: a simple, short, easily pocketed paperback.

The book and the Rogues Gallery merchandise will help us finance future efforts in online book publishing, and the Dish in general. We have lots of plans but not that much funding as of now. So think of your purchases as a way to help us keep innovating. So if you're looking for holiday gifts, please think of us. If you add up the hours you have spent the last year reading the Dish, buying something for as little as $5.95 or as much as $50 might seem a cool way to give a little love back. We work extremely hard, seven days a week from dawn till past dusk.

And VFYW fans: don't miss the Dish's four-color classic coffee table book of window views. It's still available here at Blurb – and you can preview it here.

It's a stunning book – covering the world from dawn to dusk. You can read reader reviews here. They were all raves. And for a four-color book, $33.95 is about as cheap as it gets. Great for bathrooms and coffee tables. We get no profit from this as we attempted to keep the price as low as possible. But it's still a wonderful way to share the Dish love this holiday season.

And from all of us, a Merry Dishmas and the very best for what's shaping up to be a transformative 2011 for the Dish itself.

Joseph Postell thinks so:

He is a brilliant, intellectually honest legal thinker who understands better than most the history of our 20th-century movement towards activist government and away from founding principles. He tends to come up with creative solutions to legitimate public problems, rather than clinging to progressive orthodoxies. But he does not reach questions of core principles. If one wishes to explore the fundamental questions that define American politics—competing conceptions of first principles such as liberty, equality, democracy, and the rule of law—one will be disappointed with Sunstein's arguments. His pragmatism is a convenient cover for effacing the foundational debates of our republic. Not only is he uninterested in debating these fundamental questions; by defining his own position as the pragmatic one, he seeks to end reasonable debate about our principles altogether.

The notion that American politics should be grounded in regular debates about first principles is arguably appealing in the abstract. Unfortunately the way those sorts of debates play out in practice make it difficult to wish for more of them. Take the Claremont Institute, where the above piece appears. Ostensibly dedicated to returning the United States to the principles of the Founding, it raises money by trading on nostalgia for the framers and Abraham Lincoln, but spent the Bush years as apologists for the Cheneyite view of foreign policy and executive power.

Isn't it understandable, if theoretically regrettable, that people like Sunstein lack interest in foundational debates? The available interlocutors in the conservative movement are so often difficult to take seriously.