Posts tagged `social`

I will be at the Chicago Humanities Festival until sometime on Sunday. When I get a chance, this post will be expanded into a write-up.

The Chicago Humanities Festival is in its 17th year, having grown from a small, one-day event for Chicago residents to a multi-week festival that draws students from all over the Midwest. My professor had mentioned it last year, and what fun she had at it, and so when she told me that she wished to nominate me for an ACI Fellowship—basically, a way to cover the costs of tickets and lodging—I said yes. For a while, it seemed as though I wouldn’t be selected: I imagined that as a computer science major, I would be a lower priority than other English, History, or Poli. Sci. majors who wished to go.

Despite all that, however, I received a letter in the mail saying I had been chosen, and a few days later, I received a package of tickets, a program brochure, a dorky name tag necklace, and information about special events. I was going after all.

When the time drew near, I was somewhat leary: the previous weekend had been my 4th anniversary, and I had done enough driving to last me a long time. I was tired. I wanted to spend my weekend sitting in my underwear, drinking coffee and blogging. I knew it was a good opportunity, though, and besides, I had already sent in the forms agreeing to go. I knew that I merely had to overcome my inertia—the sort of mental inertia that prevents me from doing a lot of things and going a lot of places—and I would be fine.

Read more…

§1496 · November 7, 2006 · 9 comments · Tags: , , , ,

This wasn’t your Daddy’s religious revival. Last Saturday morning, 200 Christian men gathered in a downtown warehouse in Nashville for a day-long spiritual extravaganza. Inside, strobe lights flashed, and tracks by the Killers thumped from speakers stacked on either side of a stage. Four large video screens showed clips of karate fights, car chases and Jackass-style stunts [...]

The event was the first of what Stine and other organizers hope will be a series of testosterone-fueled Christian men’s gatherings across the country. Their purpose: to reassert masculinity within a church structure that they say has been weakened by feminization.

It’s bad enough when blathering fools like James Dobson are trying to tell me that my manhood is under attack by gays and feminist—hey, Jim, my manhood is just fine. Believe it or not, you don’t have to be a Bible-thumping, queer-hating misogynist to be considered comfortably male.

But apparently that brand of dick-shaking Christianity is still alive and well, at least in GodMen. Now how, you might ask, can you possibly believe that the church has been “weakened by feminization” when it’s one of the few institutions that can apparently legally bar woman from holding office? In fact, if there’s any part of culture that’s been less feminized than church, I can’t think of it—the porn industry has more evidence of female influence, for goodness’ sake.

Stine and his friend and manager Mike Smith dreamed up GodMen after reading David Murrow’s 2005 book, “Why Men Hate Going to Church.” In it, Murrow points out that on any given Sunday, 13 million more adult women than men attend church in America. “We have to find a way to give [men] something that matters to them,” says Stine.

Point of contention: church has been boring since time immemorial. If 13 million fewer men than women are attending church, what’s more likely: there’s something wrong with church? Or there’s something wrong with the men? Either you justify getting up on Sunday mornings and going, or you don’t. It’s church, not daycare: your congregation never has and never will provide you with entertainment. Either it matters to you, or it doesn’t. If you feel as though you need to add explosions to feel close to Jesus, you might want to rethink your stance on religion.

One way is to create a worship space where guys can be guys. “In most churches, you’ll see flowers and ferns at the front,” says Stine. “That’s saying, ‘This is a place that a woman has composed.’” So GodMen sought to create a place where men could admit to flaws without being judged bad Christians and be unapologetically male, including plenty of rock and roll and sex talk. “There’s this idea if you don’t drink or don’t say bad words, you are doing your Christianity appropriately, and meanwhile, that same guy is on the Internet looking at pornography,” Stine says. “It’s all a smoke screen. We need to admit these issues in order to be free.”

Here, Stine is both crazynuts and actually coherent. When he insists that the flowers and plants that decorate many church altars is the work of females, and that it makes an environment unsuited for males. It is just as ridiculous to associate flowers only with females as it is to associate excesses of alcohol and explosions to males. This is a movement that seeks to encourage stupid males by apologize for ever bothering them with such niceties as floral arrangements.

But something else that Stine says rings true: there’s a sense that one has to dichotomize the Church life from the rest of life. On Sunday mornings, you spiff up, tithe, and try to pretend as though you didn’t watch any dirty movies or swear this past week. There’s a spectre of Christian moralism hanging over people, trying to guilt them into giving up arbitrary vices. Masturbation, for instance, is a favorite boogieman—though it’s really only harped on by the Catholic Church, even though Protestant denominations officially discourage it as well. There’s a pervasive, stifling sort of atmosphere that proceeds from the Christian ideal that drives these vices underground and into stubborn hiding. But many of these things really have nothing to do with faith or the lives of the faithful.

The article goes on for several more pages, raising up a graven image of Rambo Jesus for all the manly men to worship—to pretend that Jesus was a truck-driving, shotgun-toting Republican is much easier for them than to think he was a Liberal). It’s much easier to justify male excesses and tendencies to anger and violence when you can pretend that Jesus’ upsetting of the merchant tables in the temple is his defining moment—as opposed to, say, Jesus’ stopping Simon Peter from physically defending him in Gethsemane, or his defense of an adulteress from being stoned to death.

At the same time that the US is becoming more fundamentally Christian than any other developed Western country (in terms of religious conservatism, we technically sit beside Middle Eastern countries), its churches are apparently struggling to remain relevant to people. If they think it has something to do with the flowers on the alter or the hymns, maybe they’re looking in the wrong place.

§1494 · November 1, 2006 · 5 comments · Tags: ,

The Worst Person in the World The Worst Person in the World by Keith Olbermann
Publisher: Wiley
Year: 2006
Pages: 272

You likely either hate Keith Olbermann or you love him. If you’re a regular watcher of Fox News Channel, you probably fall in the former category. If you’re part of the same crowd that adores Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann’s probably your cup of tea. Despite all the conservative ranting about the “liberal” media, there of course is no such thing. Olbermann’s just about the only unabashedly progressive fixture on network news, which is likely where he gets a lot of his viewer base. Plus, he’s just a good journalist.

The Worst Person in the World is just over 200 transcripts from the similarly-named segment on Olbermann’s show, Countdown. The segment is a mixture of Darwin Awards, News of the Weird, and a fair amount of political venom as well. Olbermann skewers everything from stupid robbers to oblivious school boards to crooked politicians. His favorite, however, is hammering his ratings and ideological opponent, Bill O’Reilly. The FNC star has a habit of saying stupid things, and Olbermann quotes him, shames him appropriately, and we all laugh later when O’Reilly refers to such quoting—quoting, mind you—as “smear campaigns.”

Olbermann also includes a prologue and an epilogue that I at first assumed were original pieces for the book, but I realized that the epilogue, anyway, is a slightly modified transcript of Olbermann’s castigation of O’Reilly’s repeated and stubbornly impenitent mistake with regards to the slaughter of US troops at Malmédy during WWII (see a video of that segment on YouTube here).

The piece, though moving, naturally paled in comparison to Olbermann’s baritone delivery on the air—say what you want about the man’s politics, but he actually has a grave delivery like that of his hero, Edward R. Murrow. Most of the book is like that: the segments are curious and funny for the silly antics they unearth, but watching the Worst Person in the World segment on Countdown is a significantly more fulfilling experience.

It’s worth a read if you haven’t seen many episodes of Countdown, but there’s certainly nothing new in The Worst Person in the World, and nothing to make it better than its broadcast counterpart. It’ll take you all of a night to read, too, so if you spot it at your local library and feel like a laugh, pick it up.

§1487 · October 28, 2006 · 3 comments · Tags: , , , , , ,

Snow

Snow Snow by Orhan Pamuk
Publisher: Knopf
Year: 2004
Pages: 448

Possible minor spoilers below!

I was blissfully unaware of Orhan Pamuk’s existence until he won this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature. Being shallow and weak-willed, I went out and picked up Snow, his latest novel, the next day (I’ve no idea if Snow is his best or not).

Having only recently finished Snow, I am unable to talk about it with the sort of fullness I’d like. Part of this has to do with the fact that I haven’t fully digested it yet, but mostly it is because Snow is not the sort of novel that reveals its secrets in a single read.

The novel’s premise is that Ka, a Turkish poet exiled to Germany, returns to a small Turkish town called Kars just in time for the entire city to get buried in a blizzard, cut off from everything, for two days. During this time, he manages to fall in love with an old friend, Ipek, and also get caught up in a minor revolution.

Pamuk was chosen for the Nobel largely because of his ability to highlight conflict of every sort, and if there’s conflict anywhere, it’s in Turkey: though Islam is the predominant religion, the nation is officially secular after Atatürk—the first president of the Republic of Turkey—effectively Westernized it… kind of like Peter the Great and Russia. The plot of Snow centers around the conflict between Kars’ secular government and many “atheist” citizens and its fundamentalist Muslim citizens. Prior to Ka’s arrival, there had been a rash of suicides by young Muslim women, either because they were “unhappy” or ostensibly because of the other controversy in Kars pertaining to expulsion from school of any girls who wore head scarves to class. There are conflicts on every level—the physical conflict of the armed revolution, the spiritual conflict of the secular and the religious, the cultural conflict of Turkey’s simultaneous Middle Eastern and European natures, the intellectual conflict of European intellectuals (Ka, the poet, is perceived as one) and the entrenched traditional modes of religious learning, the economic conflict of the unemployed and destitute residents of Ka, the personal conflict of best friends, the romantic conflict of the love-smitten—I could go on, but you get the idea.

One of the interesting things to me was the manner of narration: one does not realize it until midway through the book, but Snow is actually a frame narrative of “Orhan” the novelist from Istanbul, who is compiling a biography of sorts of Ka, who is murdered in Frankfurt, after the action of the book has taken place. This frame narrative only exists in occasional asides by “Orhan” and sometimes entire chapters dedicated to “Orhan’s” search for Ka’s notebook of poetry. Most of the novel is about Ka’s experience as he attempts to convince Ipek to return to Germany with him, all the while attempting to play both sides of the conflict. Importantly, I noticed that certain plot devices of the inner narrative were also present in the outer narrative—the characters of Necip and Fazil, two religious boys whose relationship is literally the stuff of science fiction, have a great deal in common with Ka and his biographer friend “Orhan”: lovers of the same women, and each seems to inhabit the other after death.

I didn’t like Ka: he was a truly annoying person, because he himself was like Turkey, divided between the atheistic and the devout, the poetic and the pragmatic, the European and the Turkish. His own eventual disillusion, abandonment, and death may be a clear indication of Pamuk’s diagnosis of his divided nation. But what began almost entirely as a snapshot of snowy Kars through the eyes of a poet became a bloody game of intrigue, betrayal, and lies. The very character of the novel seemed to change on me, which was both unexpected and bewildering.

I should also note that I wasn’t impressed with the style of writing. However, because I read a mere translation and not the original text, I cannot say with any certainty whether I find Pamuk’s writing ability to be decidedly average, or whether there is a distinct loss of quality that accompanied that change from Turkish to English. It was “poetic,” to be sure, but in a shoe-gazing way that detracted from its poignancy.

Translation isn’t the only thing which makes reading “foreign” literature difficult. I’m glad that Snow is my 52nd book—thus fulfilling my “contractual” obligation to the meme—because it really highlights what the spirit of 52 Books in 52 Weeks is: a chance to expand and challenge myself. Reading a book about Turkishness is hard because I know nothing about Turkishness. I have to stop and realize how I react to Pamuk’s descriptions of fundamentalist Muslims. When they are intractable and violent, do I nod my head in agreement? When they aren’t, do I think that they must have been westernized, and this explains their good behavior? How do my preconceptions as an American semi-intellectual compare to those of a native Turkish intellectual?

Snow hardly stands as one of my favorite books, but I’m immensely glad that I read it, because it’s the sort of work that needs to read by Americans who have little, if any, understanding of foreign culture. Despite the resulting opinions about the work, it’s clear that it stands on its own, and its author’s recent Nobel prize makes a lot more sense.

§1478 · October 24, 2006 · (No comments) · Tags: , , , , ,

Boy Scouts in the Los Angeles area will now be able to earn a merit patch for learning about the evils of downloading pirated movies and music. [...]

The movie industry has developed the curriculum.

“Working with the Boy Scouts of Los Angeles, we have a real opportunity to educate a new generation about how movies are made, why they are valuable, and hopefully change attitudes about intellectual property theft,” Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said Friday.

…. Does this seem just a bit creepy to anyone else, or am I on my own here?

A few problems:

Allowing an industry to develop a curriculum is a recipe for disaster (or should I say “flop”?). I would no more allow the MPAA or RIAA to tell me about copyright than I would allow Exxon to tell me about alternative energy or Microsoft to tell me about “embrace and extend.” Remember, the MPAA’s the same organization that said you aren’t allowed to make backups of the DVDs you buy—if it gets damaged, you simply have to go out and buy another copy. Apparently, this sort of stricture is perfectly OK, but it strikes me as odd, given the Boy Scouts’ fear of homosexuals: apparently, getting fucked in the ass is only all right if it’s a litigious media conglomerate doing the mounting.

Glickman, ever stubbornly flogging the same dead horse, is right when he concludes that the attitude toward intellectual property theft needs to be changed—yes, by consumers, but just as much by the studios and the soulless abysses which represent them. I think people know the value of movies, and that is precisely the problem: certainly, they don’t seem to be worth buying anymore. At least, not when they suck, hard, and are available on digital media that was designed to give consumers the shaft.

The article goes on to that say that prospective badge-earners must also choose from a list of activities which include visiting a movie studio “to see how many people can be harmed by film piracy.” I love this, because I’m quite certain these children will be told that for every movie they download, some humble janitor or assistant to the assistant director will lose their job and return home, Bob Cratchit-like, to tell his starving family that there’ll be no Christmas presents this year—piracy has ruined the movie industry and it tireless, selfless constituents. No one will tell the Boy Scouts, of course, that the people who really care about piracy are executives whose salaries won’t be affected. The truth is that this tack by conglomerates to stem piracy with appeals to pathos is little more than people like Dan Glickman holding a pistol to some lowly worker’s temple and screaming that Dammit, if the piracy doesn’t stop, then Mr. Cratchit here gets it!

Dan Glickman is an asshole. And his merit badge isn’t worthy to wipe my ass with. Fín.

§1473 · October 23, 2006 · 2 comments · Tags: , , , ,