Guess What?

As recently as 5,000 years ago reading wasn’t even a leisure option because, as far as we know, no symbolic writing system existed before then. With the invention of the movable type 500 years ago books proliferated and reading became so important and so widespread that we have practically sewn it into our moral code. You would leave your kids with someone who smoked before you left them with someone who admitted they didn’t like to read. And it is not just your local librarian that will look at you askance if you confess that you don’t read much. Even Jerry Seinfeld said that “a bookstore is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking.” Coolio, that “educated fool,” said that he always walked to school with his nose buried in a book. Joseph Brodsky took it a step further: 'There are worse crimes than burning books,” he said. “One of them is not reading them.' So Koran-burning may be bad, but people who skip the book and watch the movie or the sparknotes video...they are the real criminals. Whether you like it or not, literacy is the key that will open most of the doors you’d like to walk through in life.

So, my one-year-old daughter Miette would like to share with you a little tip to make reading more fun. It has to do with anticipation. First I should explain that Miette has not been the most responsive baby in the world. Sadly, she doesn’t seem to appreciate my charisma and charm. My attempts to entertain her with jazzy song-and-dance routines or captivating facial contortions are usually met with a vacant stare, an open mouth, and a quick dash toward mommy. Sure, I may not be the world’s greatest showman, but I have noticed something as I have experimented with Miette. Tickling her in the standard way will usually get you nowhere also. But if you are truly desperate to look at her ghoulish smile or to hear her squeal with delight you have to try something else. Hold your hand up about four feet away from her and slowly, steadily bring it toward her. She will fixate on it, anticipating what is about to happen, and when her expectations are finally fulfilled with your fingers poking her all over in the same way as before, the snaggle teeth will make a gleeful appearance and the most delightful giggle will burst from her trachea.

Perhaps some types of reading invoke a response in you like tickling does in Miette, rendering you mildly nauseous or making you want your mommy. For those dull reading situations, may I suggest a similar tactic. Start anticipating. Make predictions about characters, plot, setting, or even things like vocabulary, the author’s hubris, or who is going to die next. Make bets with yourself. If this guy makes one more misogynistic character reference I will make dinner for my wife tonight. If, by the end of this article, all evangelicals are still lumped in with James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jim DeMint I will eat another cookie. If I ever read anything by David Sedaris that is not intellectually self-effacing and literarily brilliant I will buy myself a Porsche. You don’t have to do it quite like this, but if you don’t start a dialog within yourself about what is going on in the stuff you have to read you will never get anything out of it. If you do start an inner dialog that fosters anticipation, engagement, and awareness of what might be coming up next, you might find that even the most mundane tickling becomes a source of joy.

Did You Hear About the Tornado in Brooklyn!?!

Extra! Extra! We interrupt this series of political posts about religion to bring you a political post about the media. I know I promised some religious thoughts on Cordoba House, but I must digress because I was struck by how the media blew up this whole Koran-burning thing into a full-blown circus last week. I mean why on earth does anyone know the name Terry Jones right now? Well, the short answer is that it is the media’s fault. The long answer is that it is your fault.

Before I start this little diatribe I would like to assure you all that I am a huge fan of having a free press. Huge fan. Hooray for a free press! That being said, there are those little quirks she has that are hard to ignore. The biggest one stems from the fact that the news media has to make her way in the world by holding our attention. To do so she has to put on make-up and make herself attractive, so to speak. I think women (my wife in particular) are beautiful and I think the free press is beautiful, but I have to admit that when they dress themselves up I take a bit more notice.

To some degree that’s okay - presenting yourself well is important. I mean, who wants to watch the news if the camera is out of focus or the news anchor is incoherent? And who would want to hang out with my wife if she let snot drip down her face and ate party streamers like our baby girl? But the trouble is that often when we start to focus on appearances, we unleash a flood of competitive cosmetology. I’m not saying we should throw all our eyeliner and lipstick in the garbage, but we should be wary of the fact that our society is forcing women (and men to some degree) to buy cosmetics not as simple adornment, but as war paint in a brutal competition for sexual partners, job opportunities, and attention. (The global cosmetics industry now generates $170 billion dollars per year, enough to give every person on the planet $20 each Christmas.) No matter how much my wife or the media dress themselves up, their real beauty and true value is something that make-up can sometimes obscure rather than enhance.

But what does this have to do with Terry Jones?

Everything. Let’s start where his fame started: on the local news. At its best, the local news investigates and reports on issues that affect us at a not-so-national level. It gives us useful information about trends, changes, and corruption that are provincial and might not otherwise be brought to light. But at its worst, local news is a cloying prostitute who tries to lure you in with attractive stories like car wrecks, shootings, and fires, and other sensationalism that minimally affects our lives except that it gives us something to talk about in awkward social settings. Incidentally, it seems like lots of things that pop up in awkward conversations (you know, weather and sports) figure prominently on the local news.

But national news seems to have the same problem, especially on radio and TV. The topics may be more cosmopolitan and the stories more consequential, but it is really hard to find much variety. Instead, we hear over and over again about the oil spill, Cordoba House, Afghanistan, and Terry Jones. It just gets so boring so fast. But we must be asking for it because media outlets don’t make money unless those snakecharmers get us to take a second glance. Even public radio is a victim of this. They too must fight to expand their viewership if they want to prove their relevance and earn more donations.

In this case of Terry Jones the media isn’t covering the story, they are making the story. Like north shore surfers they battle for position to ride the next sensational story. The way it must have happened for Terry Jones was like this: some producer on a major network, perhaps during a lull in real news, decided to air a story on some guy who doesn’t like a particular book. It turns out that some people on the other side of the world really like this book and were so pissed off about it that they started rioting. Suddenly an event that was supposed to attract the attention of 40 people in a small town congregation has attracted the attention of the whole world. Soon every newsroom executive realized that if they didn’t publish a story on Terry Jones people would click over to the other news station or that loyal Tribune readers would pick up a copy of the Times and maybe make the switch because they have to have all the “important” topics fresh in their mind when they hit the breakroom. No one wants to make awkward situations even more awkward because their newspaper hasn’t told them about the Terry Jones incident. So news outlets, like 13-year old cd collectors, can afford to omit the important, but they can never afford to omit the popular.

The problem is that we have lots of offensive people in our country. Terry Jones probably isn’t even in the top 10%. Are we really supposed to collectively denounce all of the potentially offensive things that people in our country do so that people in other countries don’t hate us for it? If the mainstream media could dare to leave back page stories on the back page, then we wouldn’t have to worry about the rest of the world getting the wrong impression. Proof of the media’s error came about midway through the Terry Jones circus. He said he would consider halting his planned Koran burning if the president called to chat with him. In a sense he tried to call the media’s bluff. I’m pretty sure he is still waiting by the phone. The media said he was important. The President said, no, he’s not. Obama can’t call this guy because thousands of other yahoos will pull stunts like this just to get B.O. on the phone (they should just wipe it under their arms).

So it’s the media’s fault, right? Nope. It’s ours. We vote with our remote controls and our mouse clicks and we are obviously voting for vapid stories usually tied to one or another culture war: things that are really easy to get our minds around and form an opinion on. The news media is not just making itself pretty for us, but it is doing whatever it takes to hold our attention, which means that the news media often must take entertaining more seriously than investigating and give us all the latest grown-up gossip rather than giving us useful information.

Perhaps I have been a bit too harsh. Despite all its faults, the news media can and often does take a higher road even when we don’t follow them with our mouses and remotes. Rather than dressing up their gossip to make it look newsworthy, they can redefine beauty with a dose of moxie, poise, compassion, self-examination, humanity, and humility: the same things that make my wife so beautiful. Rather than finding ways to get me to consume their product, they can find ways to make me a better person.

So next time you are in the breakroom ask your coworker if they think Lee Kuan Yew has created something in Singapore that could inform American democracy. You are bound to get an entirely blank stare. (I don’t even know how to pronounce his name.) We are all woefully under-informed about topics like that, but perhaps you and your coworker could pledge to find out what you think about it and meet regularly to think it through together. While you are finding out, your mouse clicks and magazine purchases will imperceptibly, but gradually, move the news media toward the higher road.

Real Estate Reconquista

A few nights ago my wife and I got in a fight. Well, it was more of a heated discussion. Usually I have no trouble seeing both sides of an issue. I sometimes get frustrated because I wish there were more things I was sure of in this world. When I listen to the news I often sympathize even with the most unsympathetic characters. Sadly, I even have a defense for democracy-suppressing dictators. Perhaps I will dare to share that defense with you some day if you promise not to hate me.

Anyway, on the particular issue that my wife and I were discussing I don’t understand the counter-argument at all. No, it wasn’t about cleaning the bathroom more than once a month or tending to the baby just because she happens to have chosen a particular moment to wail inconsolably. But my wife, operating under the customary assumption that I am wrong, took up the counter-argument, partly by asking me some honest questions and partly just to play devil’s advocate. She’s really good at advocating for him. Anyway, I’m going to present my argument here. If you goad her, perhaps you can get her to give a response to whatever I’m about to write on her blog, but I doubt that will happen because her blog isn’t as pugnacious as mine.

So the issue is Cordoba House. As you may or may not know an Imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf has a vision for an Islamic community center a couple of blocks from ground zero. Some see this as normal real estate development and some see this as an insensitive gesture akin to rubbing salt in America’s deepest collective wound. In May, when a community board committee approved the project, conservative bloggers (the most popular of whom is named Pamela Geller) called for protests which have lasted to the present day. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose the building of Cordoba House so politicians are all choosing their words carefully, but luckily I don’t have to choose my words carefully because nobody reads this. It is frightening to think that perhaps I have lost touch with the majority and turned into the left-wing radical that my mom always hoped I would be. But since when was it left-wing to let somebody build a religious center wherever they want?

I should preface my argument by saying that I empathize with people who suffered unspeakable loss because of what happened on 9/11 and are subsequently angry and suspicious of Islam. I can only try to understand what you have been through. But other than the understandable visceral response that some feel, I would urge the protesters not to let their grief impede the cause of liberty. Two wrongs will not make anything right.

I believe that there are religious overtones here (thank you Terry Jones) that I may address in a subsequent post, but for now I will limit my argument to the cultural/political arena. I will mostly respond to this statement by Newt Gingrich because a friend of a friend recently posted it on Facebook saying it was the most persuasive and historically accurate argument against allowing the Cordoba House to be built.

So, here’s my argument. It is not pro-American to protest the center because America was founded on the principal of religious freedom. I feel like that should be the end of the argument, but it appears that more needs to be said on this. In essence, Gingrich’s essay argues that Cordoba House is a deliberate insult to Americans and that our toleration of it would be shamefully timid, passive, and historically ignorant. So how should we respond to this “Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization?” Newt obviously thinks we should respond with force, by imposing our will on would-be mosque builders. I disagree. I would rather that America responded with dignity, by rising above the situation. Even if Cordoba House is a deliberate slap in America’s face, if we love America we should help her choose her battles wisely. Rather than responding like a petulant playground bully, we should be like a wise and seasoned teacher. If some kid comes up and smacks me in the face on the playground, sure, I would like to twist his little arm until something goes snap, but that’s not what grown-ups do. Discretion really is the better part of valor, even in the culture wars. So if American political ideals are really better than Islamic political ideals then we should demonstrate it, by allowing freedoms even if Saudi Arabia would deny them to us.

So, aside from taking a collective breath and counting to ten, we should remind Newt that culturally we are anything but timid and passive right now. We are occupying other countries, actively trying to spread democracy, and militarily all but untouchable. I’m not arguing that these things are wrong. But I am saying that whether or not we are walking softly in this world we are carrying an enormous stick. We spend $700 billion on defense every year, almost as much as the rest of the world combined. (By the way, that is over $2,000 per person per year, $6 per day) The point is that we can afford to be the grown-ups here. In fact, we can’t afford not to. The world is watching and wants to know if our ideals are really something worth fighting and dying for in their own countries. All the military might in the world will not buy you a single friend, but if that military might defends an area of the globe that truly values liberty, everyone’s liberty, then people will take notice.

True Lies

It is only we who play badly who love the game itself. - G.K. Chesterton

Well, I made it halfway through The Birth of Britain, the Winston Churchill book I promised to read. The main thing I find refreshing about it is that it is the work of an amateur with nary a footnote. Now I have nothing against footnotes, but they tend to give readers a false sense of security. I think it’s exciting when someone has the temerity to write without them, like a 12-year-old going commando on a school day. I also like amateur historians because they love stories and they love to tell stories. Professional historians love to interrupt the people telling stories with shrewd corrections. You can guess which ones are more fun to have over for dinner.

Because they like stories, amateur historians (and all other good storytellers) occasionally tell lies. Churchill admits it on page 202. It was told for centuries that Henry II’s wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, tracked down his mistress Rosamund in a maze at Woodstock (palace not concert) when she happened upon a silken thread. Deep in the bower, Eleanor dispatched Rosamund by giving her the dreadful choice between a dagger and a cup of poison. Ah, sweet revenge! But it sounds just a little too poetic to be true, doesn’t it? You’re right, it was made up by those overzealous Elizabethan poets. Yet Churchill complains that “tireless investigators have undermined this excellent tale, but it certainly should find its place in any history worthy of the name.” Really? Shouldn’t history be all about weeding out these fanciful tales? Churchill willingly admits that, as far as history goes, he values imagination as highly as fact accumulation and I admit that I want to kiss him for saying it (and also for saving the free world from Nazism).

Why, you ask? Well, I’ve always thought that historians are too quick to dismiss compelling stories for being factually false, though on some deeper level they are psychologically meaningful and maybe even “true.” I mean, sure, Rosamund may not have met her end thus, but perhaps this story is the perfect expression of what Eleanor actually wanted, or what we would have wanted in her place. Consider: Eleanor’s attention is miraculously drawn to the tiniest of clues to lead her to the perfect place to fulfill her deepest desire. Not only does she get what she wants, but in a sense she gets divine approval for her action because a red carpet is rolled out to lead her there. The story may not be literally true, but like a good myth, it hints at unexplored truths about the human psyche.

Professional historians often try to figure out what drives people to do what they did. Usually they can summarize their hypothesis of someones’ motivations in two or three sentences without ever using any phrases like “his eyes were limpid blue pools of desire” or “realizing her terrible mistake, she was paralyzed with a quaking fear of death.” Instead they will make a series of qualified and usually materialistic guesses about, say, why Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine in the first place. He married her to acquire her lands. He married her to spite Louis VII. They might even say he married her because she was a remarkable woman. But they will never say anything real about the sense of boyish wonder he probably felt when this female heir to vast tracts of land in France flashed the first flirtatious smile in his direction or sighed as she snuggled up to him in bed after they conceived Richard the Lionheart. Of course there isn’t much evidence for these details so it’s hard to blame these professional historians for focusing on the bigger picture items. But it seems like professional historians might be perpetually missing something important by sticking to the facts without envisioning and evoking the dramatic details.

I remember that a mentor of mine, Alex Kettles, once said “Look around you. There’s a drama behind every face.” I always found that a compelling and humanizing approach to life. People tend to hide most of their inner drama from the rest of the world. Sometimes they even hide it from themselves, but it’s there nonetheless and for most of us it is the most interesting thing about living.

If amateur historians tell lies because they play up the drama more than the facts warrant, then professional historians tell lies because they play down the drama. I don’t blame them for doing this because they are trying to be precise. But rarely do I read them and think I have tasted the world they are describing. I’ve had the taste described to me, but I haven’t tasted it. It’s like describing a good microbrew to someone. You can explain Total Domination until you are blue in the face, but if a person has never had a beer then you might as well put a PBR in their hand and start from there.

So I say Homer may be more true than Hobsbawm. The movie Blow may tell you more about George Jung than Wikipedia. And Shakespeare probably knows as much about King Lear as anybody.