First Impressions

Today may not have been the first time I heard the name David Patterson, but it’s certainly the first time I paid any attention.

I know next to nothing about the man, and the bulk of that has been learned by watching the local news. But here’s my first impression of the man.

Three days after the story broke, he has changed the story, at least locally. They’re now talking about Patterson, who he is, and what he will do. He asked Spitzer to resign on Monday, which I think is wonderful. Patterson gets to be sworn in as an actual governor, not sneaking in during the wake of a controversy.

I do not know soon-to-be-Governor Patterson. But I am intrigued, and look forward to seeing what happens next.

[And yeah, I'm trying to expand the things I might post about with the goal about posting about more things.]

I had a Thought

A coworker said that she wanted her daughter to go through First Communion, not for any religious reasons (she left the Church herself some time ago), but just so they could get all the presents.

So it occurred to me that I should offer to let her join my church. By the time the girl is old enough I could certainly have a suitable right of passage ceremony ready. It could be quite entertaining, although a number of sweet and touching ideas presented themselves as well… a sort of Initiation into the Mysteries, no answers of course, just questions.

My friend would likely not go for it. The people from whom she hopes to get presents are ultra-Christian and something so decidedly un-Christian would probably not be appreciated. There’d probably be more efforts to convert the girl and more unwanted pressure.

But I still like the idea. Maybe I’ll work on the ceremony for my own entertainment. And my friend would likely appreciate the sentiment if nothing else.

Let’s not talk about abortion!

So, Rob, does it matter what you think about abortion?

No, not at all. But for a couple different reasons.

The first reason is that nobody gives a damn what I have to say, so anything I have to say is completely irrelevant.

The second reason is that abortion may become a dinosaur issue, meaning one that while it has value in the current climate, it will largely only be trotted out by people who have failed to see the shift in the generational makeup.

See, the abortion debate is very much an artifact of the 1980s. While it was, and remains, indicative of the culture-gap that has existed within the country since before its founding, the debate that reached new ground in the ‘80s. Why did it become an issue in the ‘80s? Because in the ‘70s the Thirteeners were being born in an anti-child culture. The ‘80s saw the start of a pro-baby golden-child Millennial generation.

The Thirteener generation, born from about 1960-1981 was the most aborted generation in American history. There was a decidedly anti-child tone to the country as Boomers still sought to put themselves first. It was the era of The Omen and The Exorcist [1]. Things happen to shift this movement in the early ‘80s. Read “The Fourth Turning” or “Millennials Rising” by Neil Howe and William Strauss to find out what and why. But ultimately, all of the sudden the children that were being aborted stopped being Thirteener and started being Millennials.

While the issues at the root of the abortion debate remain, it is no longer a crisis because the Millennials are born, abortion rates are steadily declining. It’s a debate, but it has stopped being an issue and people who cling to it as a defining issue will become marginalized. They will be dinosaurs, trumpeting an issue which is done and gone.

It matters, sure, but it is no longer relevant.

The Millennials have been born. The heroes have arrived.

Hip hip fucking hooray.

Commandments

I’m not that big on commandments. Don’t get me wrong, don’t kill, cheat, lie, are good guidelines, and I’ll give you honor your mother and father in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases. But call me humanistic; I just can’t get behind the idea of not doing things because you’ll be punished as opposed to not doing them because they are wrong.

I have greater respect for the man who does right when no one is looking, than the man who does right only because God is.

That being said, I like Jesus’s take on the commandments. While not repudiating the Big Ten completely, he challenged us to a greater one, a harder one. One that to my view may be a more noble one. “Love one another.”

Man, is he kidding? He expected us to live up to that one? That one is hard! That means loving the jackass who cut you off in traffic. That means loving the guy who didn’t tip. That means loving the stranger who you never met, and will never meet again. That’s hard!

But all in all, it’s a good one. One that I fully support, even if I fail to live up to it on a regular basis. I have a minor quibble of course. It’s often translated as “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” This presumes that one loves oneself, something that anecdotal experience suggests isn’t a given. Also it opens the question, “Who is my neighbor?” Now, Jesus addressed this and, as typical, did it in a parable which has been misinterpreted and misapplied for millennia. The answer I like to think he meant to give was, “Everyone.”

I heard a variation of this commandment once years ago that stuck with me. “Be excellent to one another.” What does it mean to love? Here one is asked to act. Who should we treat this way? “One another,” everyone, yourself included.
Now, that’s what I call a commandment.

Let's talk about abortion! No, really, it'll be fun!

So, Rob, what is your personal opinion on abortion?

Yikes. For real? You want to know?

No, of course you don’t, because you are a figment of my imagination, a rhetorical device.

And yet, you’re certainly thinking about it. You clearly have an opinion.

Well, that’s just because Fred Clark who posts the inspirational blog The Slacktivist brought up a wonderful point regarding the issue. He equated his inability to understand the point-of-view of supporters of torture with other people’s inability to understand the point-of-view of people who view abortion as permissible. Kind of. I may not have gotten that completely right. You should read it, though.

Oh, come on. There’s got to be more to it than that.

Well, yeah, I guess. I mean, it’s a pretty important issue, and I’m pretty sure that it’s going to become even more divisive and could well sunder our country in a way not seen since the civil war.

Isn’t that a little drastic?

Drastic? Yes. But I’m serious. In Generations: The Future History of America Strauss and Howe posit that we are heading towards such a major, shattering event. The so-called “culture war” seems the most likely candidate. Let’s compare abortion to 19th-century views on slavery.

Must we?

You brought it up.

Okay, so first off, they are both issues that some people see as moral and other people see as political. There were those who saw slavery as morally wrong, an abomination, something which must not be tolerated. Likewise, the anti-abortion movement sees abortion as infanticide, an abomination, which must not be tolerated.

Meanwhile, an opposing quarter saw them as political issues. Proponents of slavery saw the anti-slavery movement as challenging state’s rights, just as the pro-choice movement considers the decision of abortion a matter of privacy and a woman’s right to choose.

Second, slavery and abortion both tie into sectional concerns. Kind of.

There has always been antagonism between the New England/Northern “Intellectual” and the Southern Genteel Aristocracy. It’s the same Will & Grace vs. Blue Collared TV split that we have today. It’s the New Yorker vs. NASCAR. It’s the Liberal Media Elite vs. Mid-America.

But this time it’s slightly more complicated than that. In part because there isn’t the economic issues of slavery. Slavery was key to the southern economy leading up to the eighteenth century, and then even more so with the advent of the cotton gin. Thus even people who otherwise might otherwise agree that slavery was bad, or not have much of an opinion had a vested interest in keeping slaves in the south, while the north had no such interest.

So, it’s not going to be as easy as the North vs. South, or Liberal Coast vs. Conservative Mid-land. Because within each region I’m pretty sure we’re healthily divide anyway. The Associated Press ran a nation-wide poll in February-March of 2006 (except Hawaii and Alaska). 52% said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. 43% said abortion should illegal in all or most cases. 52-43. I find it hard to believe that the distinction will be neatly drawn between states. It’s most likely that means you probably disagree with the person living next door.

Or sharing your home.

But the real problem, the real issue, is that for the 16% of the population who said it should be illegal in all cases, it really is that absolute. I mean, how nuanced a view can one have when one believes the question involves killing babies? How much room for compromise is there?

You can’t really compromise. Just like, if you believe slavery is wrong, you can’t compromise on the issue a whole lot. So you do your best… and ignore it. You make a political compromise (slaves are 3/5 a person for purposes of elected officials) and you ignore it for the greater good.

But it can only be ignored for so long.

We ignored the issue of slavery for a whole generation. But as the political power of the South and specifically the Old Dominion waned, it became harder and harder. More compromises were reached, until at last there came a generation who wouldn’t compromise anymore. And it split the country apart.

Is it really that unimaginable to see the same thing happening? For thirty years the anti-abortion movement has been gaining power. The 43% has influenced control over all three branches of the government. What will be the reaction of the other 53%? How can there be any compromise on the part of the 43% (And lets admit that the “most cases” is a bit of a compromise already.)

The slavery problem snapped the country in a great bloody half, thanks to the sectional nature of the question. But what will happen with the forces are within and all around? Where there is no point or fulcrum to split?

Is it so hard to imagine we will be not split, but shredded?

Everything I Know I Learned From Battlestar Galactica

“The gods don’t answer prayers. We’re here on our own… We have to find our own answers, our own way out of the wilderness without a nice little sunny path all laid out in front of us in advance.”

Man, that pisses me off.

See now, wouldn’t it be nice if I had an interesting, coherent, thoughtful response? Nope. It just pisses me off.

A Truth About Blogs

This blog is making me aware of how little I have to say.

It has been a condition of my life, I want to express myself, to write something, create something... but when I try to, I have nothing to say, nothing to contribute.

I'm reading a book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. Its talking about the letters written between early Christians. How cool would that be? To have something to care about and write about and to send messages to one another discussing it. Along with that one, I picked up a book of quotes from John Adams, all coming from letters with prominent men of the day and, of course, his fascinating wife Abigail.

The closest I come is talking about Battlestar Galactica on a web forum. (And even then I don't have a lot to say, except that I generally like it.)

When I was in college I e-mailed my friend a lot. I'd write these long e-mails about life and the travails of getting a girlfriend and all the things I was learning about movies. I even had a pen pal. He was a seventy year old jazz xylophonist. But I lost touch with him, and while Eric and I still stay in touch, I just don't have the same things to say.

I think this is all apart of the same void that started, in a way, this blog. I have this tremendous amount of want, but I don't know what for. I feel this deep, compelling void, and have not a clue what to fill it with.

Likewise, I have plenty of blank pages, and nothing to put on it.