Providence, Rhode Island, 12.29 pm
Month: December 2011
Following The Bible
David Lose, who preaches and writes about the Bible for a living, doesn't think the book is a very good moral guide:
Shall we just pick and choose the laws and commandments that appeal to us and disregard the others? Curiously, I'm tempted to answer a qualified “yes.” I do so largely because I suspect the Bible was never intended to serve primarily as a moral reference. Rather, I think that the Bible comes to us as a collection of confessions of faith of the ancient Israelites and Christians about the nature and character of God and was intended to invite readers into relationship with that God. From that relationship flows a commitment to leading a certain kind of life.
Jason Rosenhouse doesn't understand what the Bible contributes to moral development:
If you must begin your reading of the Bible with an already finely-honed moral sense, then, forgive my bluntness, but what good is it? … If certain verses bluntly condemn homosexuality, while others provide circuitous reasons for being tolerant, and if it's purely a matter of personal preference which we consider to be more important, then what is the Bible contributing to the discussion?
A Poem For Sunday
The end of "I Measure Every Grief I Meet" by Emily Dickinson:
The Grieved – are many – I am told –
There is the various Cause –
Death – is but one – and comes but once –
And only nails the eyes –There's Grief of Want – and grief of Cold –
A sort they call "Despair" –
There's Banishment from native Eyes –
In sight of Native Air –And though I may not guess the kind –
Correctly – yet to me
A piercing Comfort it affords
In passing Calvary –To note the fashions – of the Cross –
And how they're mostly worn –
Still fascinated to presume
That Some – are like my own –
(Photo: A Shi'ite worshiper bleeds after cutting his scalp in a ritual display of mourning during an Ashura commemoration ceremony outside Kadhimiya shrine on December 6, 2011 in Baghdad, Iraq. Ashura marks the death of Prophet Muhammad's grandson the revered Imam Hussein in Karbala, Iraq in 680 AD. Shi'ite festivals were prohibited during the time of Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein's rule. By Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Suffering Alongside The Flock
Timothy Stanley praises the compassion of medieval monasteries:
True charity must surely display "compassion", which means "to suffer with". … it is the personalized nature of monasteries which enabled them to show the appropriate degree of compassion. When the countryside was hit by famine, the monks starved with their flock. When plague came, they exposed themselves to the pestilence by taking in sufferers; whole monasteries were wiped out this way. What they could not offer in physical sacrifice, they provided in existential comfort. … This was not a distraction for the gullible, but a way of reinforcing the physical reality that the Church suffered with its people.
Faith In Many Routes To Salvation
An Ipsos MORI survey (pdf) from last summer found that belief in a One True God is less common than many assume:
Razib Khan reflects on this finding:
Even in Saudi Arabia 25 percent of the population would not sign on to a very exclusive reading of their religion. This is not surprising to me. Very exclusive adherence to the proposition that all non-believers are damned is often hard to adhere to in any marginally cosmopolitan circumstance. Obviously there are people who will agree that Gandhi is in hell (this is a litmus test used to smoke out heterodox deviation in some fundamentalist Protestant churches in the USA), or that their close friend is going to hell, but when push comes to shove most people flinch. There seems to be a wide range in responses to this question about religious exclusivism, and I think that’s probably due to differences in priming.
Iowa Debate Reax
Mitt Romney didn't do very well. He made a major mistake offering a $10,000 bet to Rick Perry. It trivialized what is a large amount of money to most families and highlighted that Romney lives a very different life than most Americans. He's in a real danger.
Romney didn't just give President Obama grist for a campaign ad—he'd also lose the bet. Romney did, at least until recently, believe that his Massachusetts health care plan offered a model for the rest of the country.
This is not the dumbest thing Mitt Romney's ever said. It's not even the most outrageous thing he said at the debate tonight. But it could be the most damaging 35 seconds of his entire political career. Americans don't mind if their presidential candidates are filthy rich, but they sure don't like to be reminded that their presidential candidates are filthy rich. Romney's gonna have to have a whole lot of great days between now and January 3rd to make people forget about this.
This exchange over Israel is really the key exchange. From the point of view of the intended audience, I think both of them had good points. It pointed to a lot of Newt's problems, but in a way that I'm not sure will damage him in a GOP primary audience. But Mitt got a chance — which he hadn't remotely up till now — to make his basic point which is that Newt's a "bombthrower", a person who is just not temperamentally suited to be president — something that is unquestionably true.
Josh scores the debate as a win for Gingrich overall. Richard Adams focuses on the same moment:
"I'm not a bomb-thrower, rhetorically or literally," says Romney. Gingrich smiles like someone who has been offered a large plate of shit to eat. That was Romney's best play: subtle but underlined his differences with Gingrich: that he's got a big mouth who says dumb things and then claims he's just got the big ideas.
Tim Carney tackles Gingrich's claim that he worked in the private sector:
Gingrich was paid to help drug companies win new subsidies through Medicare. Gingrich was paid to protect and expand ethanol subsidies. Gingrich was paid to help protect Freddie Mac, which, thanks in part to that protected, blew up and pocketed millions in taxpayer bailouts. In all of these cases, Gingrich was profiting, at taxpayer expense, by increasing the size of government.
Gingrich showed again that he's a formidable debater no one should want within 100 yards of the nuclear football. Mitt Romney didn't look great when Diane Sawyer baited him into tussling with Newt, but mostly he stuck with sticking to the economy and sticking it to the president, and he had the second-best hair. Who won? I dunno. Barack Obama?
Best Performance: Romney for independent voters, Gingrich for Republican conservatives who are Tea Party members or sympathizers or talk show groupies. Gingrich was not cut down by the debate. His front runner status REMAINS. Romney didn’t advance himself.
Romney had the most to lose tonight, and he certainly did.
Live-Blogging The ABC News Debate
10.54 pm. Tapper is playing up the $10,000 Romney bet – and I suspect he’s right to. It leapt out at me, along with the “Newt Romney” line from Bachmann. Other than that, Newt wins; Romney loses; Paul rises. Have yourself a shot. I sure will.
10.50 pm. So this is the end? Or not the end? Does Sawyer get to talk some more? That last round was congenial, like a group hug on American Idol. I think both Gingrich and Paul emerged the strongest frm this debate, while Romney failed to do or say anything to change the dynamic of his listless campaign. So … Gingrich could well win Iowa. I don’t see the trajectory changing any tonight.
10.48 pm. Newt: “If we do survive …” Wow. Does Gingrich really believe that the US faces an existential threat from Iran? Or is he running for the Likud party?
10.43 pm. Politifact has judged Newt Gingrich’s statement that he has never supported cap and trade as a lie. Meanwhile, I loved this tweet:
Sometimes I think Rick Perry gets halfway through an answer and sees a Frisbee.
10.38 pm. A reader writes:
What it must feel like to be a lifelong Republican at this point? My girlfriend’s grandma is watching, and you know what she keeps saying? “You go, Newt! Tell the truth! Someone needs to!” with the utmost excitement.
Another writes:
I’ve been laid off since 2009, but luckily my wife is gainfully employed as a university librarian. We have 2 kids and have had to scrape by, figuring out how to feed them the last week of each month. It’s clear to me, more than ever, these candidates are very out of touch with the economic pain put here. They haven’t had to feel any pain or sacrifice.
And, we’re the lucky ones. We have a house. These clowns have no idea what it’s like to feel the white-hot shame of selling family heirlooms or borrowing from friends. I have no real representation, and don’t really see it coming.
10.34 pm. Sawyer tells us she has a cold and what she did today. Ron Paul runs with it. A great digression that will send a thrill up the libertarian leg – and firm up his support among the young, where the oldest candidate is strongest. Perry seems looser and more relaxed, if just as clueless.
10.31 pm. Back to healthcare mandates, and Newt Romney’s longtime support for them. Romney does okay, but his position is still excruciating. Newt ducks, then we get a classic: we need to “fundamentally re-think the entire health system.”
10.23 pm. Which of these candidates are struggling in the recession? Seriously? Perry scores with a truthful account of his modest upbringing. Romney tackles a no-win question rather well. Ron Paul charms as usual, at least he does me. Then we get another Fed riff.
10.21 pm. A reader writes:
Maybe it’s just that I’m waxing sentimental because I made my drinking game every time Sawyer speaks (and she won’t shut up so I’m about 5 minutes from a crying jag. I kid I kid.) but can you imagine what it must feel like to be a Republican – a seriously life long and earnest Republican – right now? Watching this.
This is it. That is it. That’s all that showed up.
Merry Christmas GOP.
10.17 pm. This has so far been a feisty debate and I’m pretty sure Diane Sawyer is hoping for a lift in Iowa. I mean she is running, isn’t she? It feels like she’s spoken more than most of the candidates.
10.13 pm. Santorum backs Romney: truth with “prudence.” Then he says we didn’t have allies against the Soviet Union! Then Santorum says that the entire West Bank is Israeli. Perry now accuses the president of treason, and responsible for all the woes in the Middle East. The crowd roars. Yes, the one abiding, unifying passion: contempt for the president.
10.05 pm. Ron Paul sums Gingrich up: “stirring up trouble.” Gingrich doubles down with the full AIPAC, and seems utterly indifferent to diplomacy. Stephanopoulos doesn’t note how Gingrich’s one-state solution differs from every single administration since 1967. But his total identification with Israel against Palestinians will work very well with the Christianists – even if it wrecks US diplomacy. Romney presses Gingrich on being a bomb-thrower. Newt invokes Reagan’s Evil Empire. This is a win for Gingrich. But it reminds us how terrifying it would be to have Gingrich with his finger on the button.
10.04 pm. Nothing interesting on immigration, despite Sawyer’s endless blather.
10.01 pm. Sawyer is making Charlie Rose seem brusque.
9.57 pm. Newt, for a change, doesn’t get pissy, and just all but pleads forgiveness. Now Sawyer is droning on and on again, the verbal diarrhea now piling up and up. She’s still talking? That was a 3 minute question.
9.55 pm. Josh Romney has those dilated Puss In Boots eyes as he looks at his dad.
9.53 pm. Ron Paul says character doesn’t have to be talked about. It should show through anybody’s life. I love the guy. Then he pivots to the salient oath: the oath of office. A great little Ron Paul riff.
9.51 pm. Perry says he made a vow to God when he married. He’s up-Godding Newt. It’s really on now. Perry: “If you would cheat on your wife, why wouldn’t you cheat on anybody else?” Ouch. Santorum says “trust is everything” and doesn’t have to look at Newt Romney.
9.49 pm. Some reader notes. One writes:
Since when did Mormons become cool with gambling?
Another:
Rick Santorum: “I believe in bottom up.” Quoted without comment.
Another:
Is Diane Sawyer high?
9.46 pm. So far, I’m surprised by Gingrich’s aggression – being the front-runner seems to make him less restrained; by Bachmann’s very smart “Newt Romney” line; by Newt’s ad hominem about Romney’s career out of public office; and Romney offering a $10,000 bet over a small debating point. Now we’re getting instant replays!
9.45 pm. Can someone tell Sawyer we are not in the slightest bit interested in her pointless, droning blather?
9.41 pm. Newt Romney just slapped Bachmann down rather hilariously, if ineffectively. The dynamic is Santorum, Bachmann and Perry versus Newt Romney. And Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.
9.39 pm. Romney offers a $10,000 bet to Perry. I wonder how many voters in Iowa have a spare $10,000 to settle an argument. That from a man who only has $100 bills in his pocket. That was a big booboo.
9.38 pm. Newt rightly reminds us that Obama’s healthcare proposal is considerably to the right of Clintoncare in the 1990s.
9.35 pm. Romney intends to go after Obama for cutting Medicare. Yep: the GOP is complaining at the tiniest cut in Medicare from Obama, but favors the Ryan plan. Perry and Bachmann focus on the individual mandate.
9.32 pm. Gingrich gets a little pissy once Bachmann exposes his long-held support for an individual mandate. And Bachmann comes back against “Newt Romney” again. From her position in the polls, this is exactly the right tactic. A litle desperate. But effective.
9.31 pm. Bachmann targets Newt-Romney as one liberal blob. Very effective riff, I’d say. The best parry I’ve ever heard from her.
9.27 pm. Ron Paul plays the Freddie Mac card hard against Gingrich. Accuses Newt of indirectly taking tax payer’s money! Gingrich now says he offered “strategic advice” to Freddie Mac. He’s no longer a “historian”. Bachmann calls Newt a K Street insider. He sure is.
9.24 pm. Newt kills off Mitt with one swipe: telling him that the only reason he hasn’t been a career politician is because he lost to Ted Kennedy. Maybe he’s been reading the Dish. Gingrich goes after Romney with the passion and energy of an underdog, not a front-runner. He’s on fire. I think the dig about Newt’s trip to the moon probably set him off.
9.21 pm. Ron Paul contrasts the cost of the Baghdad embassy with the payroll tax cut. Then Romney accuses Barack Obama of wanting to kill off the opportunity society – and almost has a Perry moment when asked to say where he differed with Newt Gingrich.
9.19 pm. Bad Romney joke. Same Romney blah.
9.17 pm. Bachmann opposes the payroll tax cut in the first place and its extension now, as well.
9.16 pm. Sorry to keep hammering on this, but why does Diane Sawyer talk so much and treat us and the candidates as if we were eight years old?
9.07 pm. Gingrich argues for more tax cutting and not regulating the private sector as his distinctive policy for cutting unemployment. Surprise! What will they shock us with next? Mitt has seven – count them, seven – ways. I have forgotten them already. Ron Paul argues for shock therapy: cutting $1 trillion in a year. We’ve heard all this before. Their prescriptions are the same ones we had under George W Bush for eight years. Sawyer is deeply irritating; is there something abou network news that turns people into pious condescenders and pablum peddlers? Bachmann’s spiel is pretty close to her Bad Lip Reading special. Santorum argues for a manufacturing industrial policy. As to the regulations argument, go read David Brooks.
9.05 pm. When will Diane Sawyer shut up?
9.02 pm. Another reality show intro. But some things don’t change: it’s snowing in Iowa.
(Photo: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)
Sleeping With Teacher
A college professor's advice on whether it's ever a good idea:
I don't have a problem with students asking out their former instructor, provided the grades have been turned in. But I try to warn them that the reality of an actual relationship is likely to be disappointing. Students fall in love with a fantasy; the professor who seems so cool and commanding in the lecture hall is rarely so charismatic over dinner — or as mind-blowing in bed as one might have fantasized. …
Two decades in the classroom have taught me that when it comes to students and teachers, we don't get crushes on people whom we want sexually as often as we get crushes on people whom we want to be like. Yes, some crushes are purely physical. But more are what I'd call aspirational: the objects of the crush represent something students want for themselves.
(Photo via Blackboards In Porn)
The Sad Sex Life Of The Naked Mole Rat
Ed Yong tells you more than you ever wanted to know:
Rather than the sleek, smooth tadpoles that other mammals have, the mole rat’s sperm had all manner of abnormally shaped heads. Some are squashed, others long. Some have bulbous lobes all over them. There are sperm with shrunken heads, two heads, conical heads. The DNA inside them isn’t packaged properly. Most are asymmetrical. And all the males – whether breeding or not – had the same misshapen sperm.
The theory is that because only two mole rats (the queen and her male consort, usually) will reproduce in any single colony, there's no evolutionary draw to have competitive sperm. Or as Yong put it, "The rats won’t be lovers, so there’s no point for their sperm to be fighters."
(Photo by Smithsonian's National Zoo)
Faces Of The Day
"Andy 1964 & 2011 Los Angeles," from photographer Irina Werning's second installment of her "Back to the Future" series. The first half covered here.
The Dish 