A political, social, literary
journal,
Ernest Cassara,
Editor, with Contributing Editors
John R. Turner & Larry Hamby
Editor’s Note: This is the archive
edition, which includes the main
features of the
current issue, click on:
www.harvardsquarecommentary.org
In this issue
■ From
■ The
■ Essay: “Any Man who Hates
Dogs and Children Can’t Be All Bad. The
Career of W. C. Fields.” By Larry Hamby
■ “Our History of Violence.” By James K. A. Smith
■ “The Wit and Wisdom of Tom DeLay”
■ Jesus on Prayer at
Football Games, Graduations, etc.
■ Letters to the Editor
■ “Invictus.” By William
Ernest Henley
■ Wisdom from Polonius
■ Websites of Our Contributors
From
By John R. Turner
Time and Its Uses
Now that we have entered a new year, it seems
I should write something moderately philosophical about time and its uses. The
average life now extends over eighty years and that adds up to 29, 220 days,
which are a kind of bank account from which, like all bank accounts, we can
spend either foolishly or wisely.
It’s a common understanding that most
people don’t spend their days well. But it’s not a common undertaking to try to
figure out why they don’t.
One of my own convictions about our
society is that most people are fixated on secondary things, so much so that
they exclude nearly completely primary things. Over a long career in higher
education I found that to be almost always the case. My colleagues spent far
more time worrying about grades, and credits, than they did asking themselves
what was happening in the minds of their students and whether whatever that was
could be seen as an enhancement of education. The reason mostly was
intellectual laziness. Grades and credits are easy. Education is difficult. It
requires what Matthew Arnold used to call “fundamental brainwork.” And that
seems to be something we are always going to get around to tomorrow.
A second reason people squander their
days is a passion for appearing busy. Somehow it has come to be that busy
people are thought to be important people. Leisure, which was once the mark of
aristocratic attainment, is now viewed as shameful. I have many friends with
whom I have never had an adequate conversation because they are too busy to
have one. We will begin and within ten minutes out will come their pocket
calendars to remind them that they’ve got to get to the cleaners, or the
drugstore, or to the post office and so they set off saying that we’ll finish
this later, which we never do.
Many people are convinced that they
should get the little, practical stuff out of the way first so that, then, they
can turn to more important endeavors. But the problem with the little,
practical stuff is that it’s endless. It’s designed to be endless. Nobody is going
to make much money from your getting up first thing and reading Plato. But if
first, you’ve got to get the laundry done, that requires detergent, and
somebody does make money off it. If you’ll watch your TV attentively you’ll see
that the totality of little, practical stuff that is supposed to be done every
day far exceeds the time the day offers. And so, if you become a practical
person you ensure that you’ll seldom have a significant experience.
Propriety is another ravenous thief of
time. It is continually telling us that we must do things we don’t want to do
and that would make no sense at all if they weren’t proper. Cocktail party
chitchat falls into this category. People congregate, they chatter, and then
they go home feeling that the whole business was a waste of time. And yet, most
people are more ready to accept an invitation to a party than they are to
accede to a friend’s request that they get together over a cup of coffee. It
seems less proper to refuse a bid to a gathering than to tell a friend you’re
too busy to have coffee with him.
All these evasions of the primary speak
to the truth that it’s rare for people to ask themselves how their bank account
of days should actually be used. What are these days for, anyway? It’s a
frightening question and one that we often shove aside in pursuit of the
trivial. What percentage of people, as they crawl into their beds at night, ask
themselves if the day has been well spent, and, if they think it has, on what?
The difference between an account of
days and an account of dollars is that the former declines regularly through a
force beyond our control. We can’t horde up days like we do dollars. They go
away at a steady pace regardless of how much we would like to hold onto them.
All we can do is decide what they’re going to be spent on. The most grievous
mistake a person can make is to let somebody else make that decision for him.
We hear lots of blather in this country about our being a land of freedom. But
unless we become a people who decide for themselves, on the basis of genuine
personal inquiry, how we dispose of our days, talk of freedom is pretty much a
travesty.
What I hope for 2006 is that we’ll all spend
our days more sensibly than in 2005. Our days, after all, are all we have.
The
Civics 101
I don’t know if you live in a city
favored with the journalistic efforts of a Metro newspaper. Boston is favored
with one, as are
The
Whenever possible, I get one. It gives
a quick review of stories that one finds at length in the rest of the media. I
particularly look forward to scanning the letters to the editor. Same reason
that I often tune in to the
I am amazed and
shocked that Republican senators would turn traitor to side with the Democrats
in opposing the extension of the Patriot Act. Liberals need to realize the war
in
The
senators who opposed extension of the Patriot Act have won a battle for the
terrorists. President Bush should just declare the Patriot Act a law and have
the opposing senators arrested. Friday was a sad day for freedom.
Now, your reaction may be that I should
have tossed the paper onto the floor of the subway car, along with the other
rubbish. But, nay! This is a good example of the irrationality of a portion of
the American public. Note that the gentleman — yes, a man, ladies! You would
know better, I trust! — apparently has never read the
Constitution of the
In fact, it would be interesting to
know whether President Bush has read the founding document. It is said that he
does not read the newspapers, but has the news filtered by a member of the
staff. Yes, I use the word “filtered” advisedly. Anyone who has read
quotations from the letters of Harriet Miers, White
House Deputy Chief of Staff and ill-fated nominee for accession to the Supreme
Court, quotations in which she exudes that the boss is the greatest, the most
brilliant guy ever, etc., etc., can well imagine how much of the news critical
of him and his positions gets through that filter.
But, back to the
letter writer in the
The illiteracy of the public on the
founding documents of our country, not to mention the writings of the fellows
who established the republic, is appalling. One hears perfect examples of this
on call in programs, where ignorant citizens speak of the president as their
“Commander in Chief.” Someone should inform them that he is no such thing. He
is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, not of the rest of us. It would be useful
for such folks to read the informative book, The Enlightenment in America,
by one Ernest Cassara. In its pages, they will learn
of the influence of the new world view as a consequence of the rise of modern
science and how it permeated all areas of life, including government. The
Potpourri
You may have read that Wilfred Romney is not running for
reelection as governor of
His latest obeisance to the right wing
of the Republican party, which he hopes will support
him in his run for the presidency, is to accept federal government money for a
sex education program that promotes abstinence. At the risk of repeating
myself, I’d like to know whether Wilfred, Bush, and the others who promote such
foolishness, were ever teenagers. Had they been, they would know that 90% of
the attention span of youngsters of that age is concerned with sex. And, they
had better be taught how to avoid pregnancy, not to mention venereal diseases.
The idea that kids are going to fight off the hormonal attacks their bodies are
subject to 24 hours a day for the sake of Wilfred and his fellow illusionists
is utterly laughable.
●
Having spent a year as a Fulbright
Professor History at the University of Munich, at the same time that my Better
Half was doing research as a Fulbright scholar on the status of women faculty
members in the universities in Berlin, I was delighted to read in the Boston
Globe (12/29/05) of the revival of the Jewish communities in Germany,
especially Berlin. Since I spent long weekends with my Better Half and our son
in
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/12/29/a_jewish_renaissance_takes_root?mode=PF
●
Crackers at Christmas! As usual, my
Better Half and I spent Christmas day with one of our daughters, her husband,
and our grandchildren. At the start of the New Year, perhaps we need a bit of
cheer. Thus, I share some of the slips of paper that, along with our paper
crowns, tumbled out when we pulled the bands of our crackers:
What clothing does a
house wear?
Address!
What did the necktie
say to the hat?
“You go on a head and
I’ll just hang around.”
“Doctor, I keep
thinking I’m a bell.”
“Take these pills and
if there’s no improvement in two days, give me a ring.”
Man: “Please call your
dog off.”
Boy: “But, sir, I
always call him Spike.”
How many feet are
there in a field of 300 sheep, 2 cows, 7 horses, a farmer and 3 dogs?
Two (2) — all the rest
have hooves or paws.
Customer: “Do you
serve crabs here?”
Waiter: “Please sit
down sir, we serve anyone.”
Essay
Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of essays by editors
and contributors to the
Any Man who Hates Dogs and Children Can’t Be All Bad. The Career
of W. C. Fields, by Larry Hamby
Our History of Violence
By James K. A. Smith
David Cronenberg’s most recent film, A History of Violence, interrogates violence on a number
of levels and includes various modes of disturbance — from sadomasochistic
eroticism to violence against children, along with key scenes involving bodily
fluids and injured flesh. Cronenberg is clearly out
to de-aestheticize the violence that is a staple of
Hollywood and, increasingly, our cultural practices. He is trying to wake us up
to what we might call, loosely paraphrasing Hannah Arendt,
the banality of violence.
But the final sequence of the film is highly ambiguous, spurring
viewers to ask what Cronenberg is after (and here
I’ll issue a spoiler alert). The closing scenes, set in the city of brotherly
love, invite, even demand, theological reflection. They are launched by a
Cain-and-Abel encounter between brothers Joey Cusak (Viggo Mortensen) and Richie Cusak (William Hurt), invoking the “first violence” of
Genesis 4. As Richie peers up the barrel of Joey’s
pistol, he pleads, “Jesus, Joey.” Joey responds with a bullet to Richie’s forehead. Looking over his brother’s body, he
mutters under his breath, shaking his head: “Jesus, Richie.”
We can’t be sure whether these invocations are blasphemies or prayers. The
scene that follows, however, invites the latter interpretation.
We cut to Joey at the lake behind Richie’s
mansion, peeling off his blood-stained clothes (casting off the “old man”) and
washing himself in the baptismal waters of the lake. He then makes the long
trip back from
But I think that such a reading is taking Cronenberg’s
bait. In other words, I think that Cronenberg is
playing with us here, inviting us to see redemption where there is none. The
utter ambiguity of the final scenes — including remarkably illegible
expressions on the face of Tom and Edie — invites a quite different reading,
one that is much more cynical.
On this reading, Cronenberg
is slyly inviting us to see our implication in violence, our own history of
violence. (The portrayal of sex in the film compels us into being erotically
charged by violence, which is exactly what
Joey’s washing in the lake is thus not a redemptive cleansing, but more a
matter of “washing one's hands” — the wistful illusion of being done with
violence, when in fact it is violence that nourishes all our practices and
privileges. And his silent welcome to the table at home is not a matter of eucharistic hospitality and forgiveness, but rather the
silent complacency that wants to act as if we weren’t implicated, as
if the violence never happened, as if we can just get on with our
lives and not talk about it. At the heart of this reading is a heightened sense
of the banality of violence — that the pristine peace of every Mayberry is
built upon a history of violence.
This second reading seems especially appropriate given recent
revelations about the submerged violence that is quietly accepted as necessary
for our national “security.” After all, isn’t the price of sitting at the table
of American security and prosperity the quiet acceptance of Abu Ghraib? Who are we to be aghast at the Cusak
family’s complicity when we live under the regime of an Attorney General who
has defended the President’s right to authorize practices that clearly violate
the
These questions suggest that the real theological import of A History of
Violence will only be found in refusing the easy, almost trite,
identification of Christian symbols. In other words, we should read Cronenberg’s film not as a Christian tragedy, but as a
pagan drama revealing how we are implicated in our own histories of violence.
References and for Further
For background on American participation in
torture, see William Pfaff, “What We’ve Lost: George
W. Bush and the Price of Torture,” Harper’s (November 2005).
———
James K. A. Smith is
Associate Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids,
Reprinted from Sightings (
The Wit And Wisdom Of Tom Delay
These
quotations have been checked and are accurate.
1) “So many minority youths had volunteered that there was
literally no
room for patriotic folks
like myself.” — Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP
convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not serve in the
Vietnam War.
2) “Now tell me the truth, boys, is this kind of fun?” — Tom
Delay, to three
young hurricane evacuees from
Sept. 9, 2005.
3) “I AM the federal government.” — Tom DeLay,
to the owner of Ruth’s Chris
Steak House, on why he should have been allowed to smoke a cigar, despite
federal government regulations banning smoking,
4) “We’re no longer a superpower. We’re a super-duper power.” —
Tom DeLay,
explaining why
News.
5) “Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting
taxes.” — Tom DeLay,
6) “Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The
causes of
youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the
teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth
control pills.” — Tom DeLay, on
causes of the Columbine High School
massacre, 1999.
7) “A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide
structure. To provide stability. Not that a woman
can’t provide stability,
I’m not saying that. It does take a father, though.” — Tom DeLay, in a
radio interview,
8) “I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I
think the
Constitution is very clear. The only separation is that there will not be a government
church.” — Tom DeLay.
9) “Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on
$4.25 an
hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families
do not exist.” — Tom DeLay, during
a debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage,
10) “I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer.
My job is
the Constitution of the
(Sent by a reader.)
Jesus on Prayer at
Football Games, Graduations, etc.
“And when you pray, you must not be like the
hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street
corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received
their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray
to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward
you. And in praying to not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they
think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for
your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (The Gospel According to
Matthew, 6:5-8)
Letters to the Editor
An open forum awaiting
your message. Editor’s e-mail: ecassara@aol.com
Invictus
By William Ernest Henley
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole
to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my
unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried
aloud.
Under the bludgeonings
of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the
shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me,
unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments
the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.
Polonius
“Change does not roll in on the wheels of
inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten
our backs and work for our freedom.”—Martin Luther King Jr.
“Democracy is not something you believe in or
a place to hang your hat, but it’s something you do. You participate. If you
stop doing it, democracy crumbles.”—Abbie Hoffman
“It is not enough to profess faith in the
democratic process; we must do something about it.”—Ella Grasso
“Our country offers the most wonderful example
of democratic government on a giant scale that the world has ever seen; and the
peoples of the world are watching to see whether we succeed or fail.”—Theodore
Roosevelt
Websites of Our Contributors
See the latest issue of The Chickasaw
Plumb: Politics and the Arts Online, edited by John R. Guthrie, which
features:
“THE CORPORAL AND THE CONGRESSMAN: A True
Story of Death and Dishonor,” by John R. Guthrie
“HERB SILVERMEN CARRIES THE DAY at The
For more commentaries by John R. Turner, visit
the website:
www.wordandimageofvermont.homestead.com
Editor’s Note: This is
the archive edition, which includes the main
features of the
current issue, click on:
www.harvardsquarecommentary.org