Shorter Facebook Terms of Service

"We're your good buddy & we want to know everything about you. We want to go through all your e-mail and all your files, so we can know everything about you. Since we're your good buddy, it's OK. Just give us your passwords and everything will be fine." Krawk!

The Last Step: On the Murder of Dr. George Tiller

Perhaps he had also always known, somewhere in the deepest recesses of his mind, that he would indeed eventually take that last step into Satanism, but if so, he had very successfully suppressed it.*

In the stunned shock that followed the murder of Dr. George Tiller, I found myself reflecting on Christian morals. Jesus, it is said, died for our sins, and since that was first said his followers have taken willing self-sacrifice as one of their models of virtue. To go from the willingness to give up one's own life, if that is what is needed, to the willingness to kill, is a complete inversion of a core tenet of Christian belief. It is as if, somehow, the murderer (apparently a violent psychotic) had decided that god's love and god's law were not powerful enough, and so turned to Satan. He is not alone, of course: he took seriously the claims of the various radical sects that Dr. Tiller was a mass murderer and so he believed that he was doing god's will. But the Christian teaching has always been self-sacrifice, not violence against others. It was that which, finally, won Christianity its moral authority.

I've said in other places that I think Christianity--and many other religions--has fallen out of touch with our world. Apparently its more radical followers think so, too, and so they are turning to what they call evil. There is even one church, in repudiation of another Christian tenet, that is advocating weapons ownership. If they give up their ancient sources of moral authority, what is left to them?

Let's Found a New Party...

...and replace some conservative Senators.

Well, why not? The Republicans are a rump party--they're not willing to move to the left, and the right's discredited itself. They're so far out of power, they're never coming back. So lets move in on the left side of their turf!

Moving the Overton Window

Progressives talk about the "Overton window"--the intuitive political spectrum that emerges as a result of public discourse. Obama is expanding the Overton window in the progressive direction, even if he does nothing else. Even if Obama is not changing anything--yet--he's putting progressive ideas back into public discourse, and this may be more important and effective, in the long term, than specific dramatic acts, which are likely to rebound on him, especially in the Senate. I croak the virtue of rhetoric!

Further croaks on Sotomayor

NYT account of her. And Scotusblog. Nothing about her religion. It think it would be best to stop referring to her as "Latina." She calls herself "Nyorican"--Puerto Rican parents, grew up in NYC--and Puerto Rican culture is very different from Mexican. About the most striking characteristic from her accounts of herself, as well as Scotusblog's review of her cases, is her genuine sympathy for the working poor. Unlike Clarence Thomas, who comes from a working poor background but aligns his judicial philosophy with wealth, she has chosen to align herself herself with poverty.

Sotomayor: preliminary croaks

It is Sotomayer, an apparent centrist, though one with experience of both sexism and anti-Latino bigotry. My impression of her is that she is rather a Latina version of Sandra Day O'Connor--a tough woman from a hard background, who places a great deal of emphasis on personal effort. Her youthful education was in the New York Catholic school system, her undergraduate degree was from Princeton, and her law degree is from Yale. She apparently (like many Latinos) has been raised by a very conservative Catholic family. She does not appear to be a pious hypocrite in the mold of Scalia, but I am concerned about the influence of her upbringing and early education on her stands on abortion and gay rights, as well as her view of state authority.

¡Viva La Revolucíon!

[In reply to Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing. I have been slammed for not understanding the situation, but from my viewpoint, Ms. Jardin and most of the activists she supports are terribly naïve about Latin American politics and history. Latin America is a graveyard of popular democratic movements.]

The movement, Xeni, the movement. This is a political movement. That's what I'm asking if you trust. Will it lead to justice, or will it instead provide an excuse for the military and the police to step in and "restore order?" Or even, is it being nurtured to provide an excuse for that?

It is easy to cry, "¡Viva La Revolucíon!" And in all of Latin America, not only Guatemala, there is 500 years of injustice to revolt against, so there is always a reason for La Revolucíon. But to win... In Mexico, the liberator Juarez was followed by the corrupt dictatorial Diaz. Zapata and Villa won their battles, and were assassinated. It is not different in Guatemala--aren't you making that point?

There are some hopeful signs here. One of the most hopeful is the non-violent activism. My heart goes out to the people of Guatemala. But for a movement to succeed in Latin America, it needs courage, strategy, political theory, broad-based support, and ethical leaders. So far (admittedly there is little reporting) I just hear "¡Viva La Revolucíon!" It isn't enough to get out into the streets--you've got to go somewhere better once you're there.

[2009.08.04 Edited for clarity and force]