Um.....

Taking on scholarship is never a bad idea, just a tricky one. However, taking on scholarship in a blog post is a bad idea; if only because there's little room for scholarly nuance in a blog post.

Bart Ehrman's position here is that pseudonym = lie, and even if we don't think so today, people did "back then." And we don't think so today. George Goodman called himself "Adam Smith" and penned a number of works on economics under that name. Everyone knew it was a pseudonym for the famous economist; no one called George Goodman a liar. "Betty Crocker," I was reminded this morning, was not only a fictional character but a radio personality; and I've yet to hear anyone call the creators of Betty Crocker liars. Ann Landers was also a pseudonym; were those columns all lies? I know of several modern novelists who publish so many books a year (some publish one a month) that it is impossible for one person to produce so much prose. Yet they are published under one person's name. All liars? Were the people of ancient times more scrupulous about these things than we are today? We know of a number of works attributed to famous names which were not actually the personal creations of those famous persons: are all those creations lies? And really, are all the biblical scholars wrong, and Ehrman alone has the true revelation?

We have lost, over time, a great deal of bibliographic material about creators and origins and sources. Indeed, the practice of bibliography is the preservation of this knowledge; but just because we've lost information and misunderstood ancient writings because of that loss, is no reason to call the creator of that work a liar. Is the writer of 1 Timothy a liar because he extended the rather conservative advice of Paul in 1 Corinthians to another community, and used Paul's authority to do so? Should we, by the same token, declare a lie the ancient claim that the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures are the books of Moses? Everyone knows they aren't; but they were accepted as such originally, or at some point in the creation of the canon. Does that mark them forever?

My personal opinion is that Ehrman has tasted the sweet honey of fame and notoriety, and he wants to go on tasting it, so rather like Karen Armstrong, he tries to make fashionably outrageous statements that pretend to take modern Biblical scholarship to the people, while still proving he's not a hidebound and pedantic scholar, but still "one of us." It's an awkward position to take, and he doesn't stand on it as well as he thinks he does.

Indeed, we don't really need that stance. Are there conflicts within the canon? They exist as early as the first history of the church, the second part of "Luke" known as "Acts." Peter and Paul disagree over whether the teachings of Jesus should go to Jews alone, or also to Gentiles. Even after a vision from God, Peter can never quite give up his conviction that the message of the Messiah was for the children of Abraham alone (not because they were superior to Gentiles, but because they were members of the covenant with God, from Moses on Sinai, from Abram in Genesis 12.). And the letters attributed to Peter emphasize matters Paul never discusses or expresses concern with. Some of that emphasis creates conflict between the teachings of the letters. Certainly 1 Timothy's admonitions against women conflicts with Paul's "legitimate" letters in the canon. And what church takes every word of every letter as binding law which must be followed in order to be "truly" Christian? And how many of us who profess Christianity think such restrictiveness is necessary to our confession?

Ultimately, Ehrman is trying to provide a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and to do it he wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I find it easier to disagree with 1 Timothy, or to understand its position in the canon and as a pseudo-Pauline work. Besides, scripture engages my mind, not my blind devotion to what is considered canonical.

Angels and Demons

We are beset by demons. We are in a period when the demonic has sway, has risen to power, is trying its best to take control.

No, I don't mean that metaphorically, or "mythologically," or in any but a concrete way. And yes, I do mean "demons."

When governors stand forcefully for the destruction of what has taken decades to establish; when public officials declare the nation, the government, the people, are "broke" and nothing can fix anything except to stop everything; when the culture of scarcity is the only culture possible, when fear is a rational response to the present and despair the only hope that will save us, there is no other explanation than the demonic. When rulers destroy their own people for their own ends, there is no other explanation than the demonic. We are not ruled by dictators with secret police and mercenary armies, but we are now in the hands of governors and Congresspersons who tell us our only hope is in not having hope, our only salvation is in selfishness, our only chance is to protect what is ours at all costs and allow nothing to go to anyone else. What other term for that is there than demonic?

Governors, especially governors, behave as if they were Byronic heroes bravely defying fate. The Byronic hero is an individual responsible only to himself, who accepts the judgment of the cosmos and defies it with his individuality even as he is crushed in his singleness of purpose. Governors are not individuals responsible only to themselves. When they refuse to listen to the pleas, the cries, the demands of the very people they represent, they are not heroes: they are demons. They are bent on destruction: of labor unions, of hope for their communities, even of art. They are not defying an arbitrary universe indifferent to the human soul; they are destroyers. Demons do not edify, establish, or illuminate; they bring only darkness and destruction. What else can we call these people who would set whole states back by decades, who do so in the name of an ideology (a false god) or a conviction (a false identity) or simple because their masters wish it (a false allegiance), except demons?

We should understand that "demonic" does not mean "inhuman." Human beings are perfectly capable of demonic activity. We don't have to understand "demonic" as supernatural puppet masters. Demonic can be simply the urge for destruction, the desire to assert your will over others, in blind opposition to facts, reality, their wishes, what have you. Demonic is destructive. It is willful in the worst sense of that word; imposing its will without care or consideration of the consequences, seeking only to have it done and then stand among the ruins, happy that it has prevailed.

So Scott Walker crows that he has eliminated collective bargaining among public unions, even as his law is challenged in state court. Rick Perry declares he is not responsible for Texas independent school districts laying off teachers, even as the State over the decades has piled more and more requirements on those school districts, and refused to give them money to hire people to meet those requirements. Rick Scott in Florida boldly refuses Federal money to help Florida improves it's public transportation, a move that will only hurt the people of Florida. Public education is being especially targeted, and not just in Texas. If it isn't education, it is public art and who rooms are named after. Which is almost more absurd than it is demonic, if it weren't so reflective of the prevailing attitude of destruction. All to which the demons stand opposed, or which is perceived as opposition, must be destroyed. 12,000 protesters showed up at the Texas State Capitol to object to cuts in education funding, but the GOP majority in the Legislature insists they are not responsible when teachers get laid off, even as those same legislators refuse to allow school districts to raise taxes in order to make up the shortfall their tax policies have created, and which they insist they must protect at (literally) all costs.

Watch this Jon Stewart clip, and overlook the humor in favor of what the candidates said, and what they are now doing:

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Even the avuncular Stewart has trouble not declaring these governors destructive rather than misguided, deliberate rather than merely incompetent. This is beyond ideology; it is well into fantasy. These political leaders do not imagine themselves the vanguards of a new and purer way of thinking. They imagine themselves the only authority on earth, their power the only power that is needed. What is that if not beyond delusional, and simply demonic?

How, then, should we live? I honestly think naming this for what it is, is important. Dangerous, of course, if we try to make this a public meme, as one would be literally guilty of demonizing one's opponent. But the understanding must be clear; there should be no equivocating about it. What is being done in the name of governance is evil. In Wisconsin the governor is dismantling the public school system. In Texas, the cuts will be "catastrophic," and yet the Governor and the GOP leaders continue to blame school administrators for the problem. The cuts, of course, will savage the state economy. (The job losses in Texas are predicted at up to 190,000.)* But that's okay with the Governor, because he's keeping his promise to cut taxes and state spending. The effect will be good because he insists it will be. Which is pretty much the attitude of every governor mentioned in Jon Stewart's clip, above. To put it in stark terms:

"Help me understand ... that we're going to spend millions of dollars on tourism and movie production, but we're going to be cutting back Medicaid, letting teachers go?" Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, asked [Milton] Rister [Gov. Perry's director of administration] when he asked for the money. "Help me understand how you sit there and ask for those kinds of feel-good programs that might create some jobs, but at the same time we're letting medical students go, residential residents go, state employees, help me?"

If Perry's approach cannot be described as demonic, what can?

*UPDATE: A newer study nearly doubles that amount to 335,000 jobs (state and private) lost due to the budget pending in the Texas House. And yet:

Republican Rep. Jim Pitts, the chief House budget writer, has warned that lawmakers in that chamber have little appetite for increasing proposed spending levels.

Oh, Good Grief

Rev. Franklin Graham thinks the tsunami that hit Japan might mean that Jesus is returning to earth soon.

Graham said that Jesus told his followers that earthquakes were one of the signs of the second coming.

"Maybe this is, I don't know. But regardless, all of us need to be prepared to stand before almighty God," Graham said.

As he explained, an increase in natural disasters was just like how "as a woman gives birth to a child, those labor pains as they begin they start intensifying with more frequency."

Sometimes you just want to say: "Shut up! Will you just please shut up!!"

The Lorica

I arise today through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, through belief in the Threeness, through confession of the Oneness of the Creator of creation.

I arise today through the strength of Christ with his Baptism, through the strength of His Crucifixion with His Burial through the strength of His Resurrection with His Ascension, through the strength of His descent for the Judgement of Doom.

I arise today through the strength of the love of Cherubim in obedience of Angels, in the service of the Archangels, in hope of resurrection to meet with reward, in prayers of Patriarchs, in predictions of Prophets, in preachings of Apostles, in faiths of Confessors, in innocence of Holy Virgins, in deeds of righteous men.

I arise today, through the strength of Heaven; light of Sun, brilliance of Moon, splendour of Fire, speed of Lightning, swiftness of Wind, depth of Sea, stability of Earth, firmness of Rock.

I arise today, through God's strength to pilot me: God's might to uphold me, God's wisdom to guide me, God's eye to look before me, God's ear to hear me, God's word to speak for me, God's hand to guard me, God's way to lie before me, God's shield to protect me, God's host to secure me: against snares of devils, against temptations of vices, against inclinations of nature, against everyone who shall wish me ill, afar and anear, alone and in a crowd.

I summon today all these powers between me (and these evils): against every cruel and merciless power that may oppose my body and my soul, against incantations of false prophets, against black laws of heathenry, against false laws of heretics, against craft of idolatry, against spells of witches, smiths and wizards, against every knowledge that endangers man's body and soul.

Christ to protect me today against poisoning, against burning, against drowning, against wounding, so that there may come abundance in reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ in breadth, Christ in length, Christ in height, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me, Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.

Idle unsustainable thought

In the oft-imagined future, the world we will live in is never re-shaped by natural disasters. All the lingering effects that create dystopia or apocalypse are always imagined as man-made. No one envisions the effect of an 8.9 earthquake that shifts an island 8 feet eastward and affects the tilt of the earth's axis.

We have become as gods since the Industrial Revolution, and we still aren't comfortable with it. When the earthquake destroyed Lisbon, 18th century Europe was shaken to its deistic core, and blamed God for no longer being God, or no longer being benevolent (how could such bad things happen to such good people?) We no longer think that way, but every time we envision the future in our fiction, it is bleak, inhumane, and human-created.

Natural disasters that destroy whole cities and reshape the land, never seem to be that critical. Perhaps we don't like to be reminded that we are not in control, even as we fear we are.

We must pray for the people of Japan, and do whatever else we can.

Obligatory Texas History Lesson

Prompted by TPM, who almost gets the whole story. True, when the Texas Senators (no, not a baseball team) fled in 2003 to thwart DeLay's mid-cycle redistricting plan, one Dem returned to Texas and the law finally went through. But they knew to flee to Oklahoma (basically the closest state from Austin, and still quite a distance) because of the Killer Bees in 1979.

And, as the story at Time notes, that time the tactic worked, even though the Senators holed up in a house in Austin not far from the Capitol. So while I sometimes think the entire country wants to be too much like Texas (a right to work state with almost no union representation, and right-wing politics that would make a Neanderthal think twice), in this case the Senators from Wisconsin clearly learned something from the Senators from Texas. Here's hoping they learned it from the Killer Bees.

Palmface

TPM:

Some frequent visitors to the Texas Capitol in Austin are obtaining concealed handgun licenses in order to gain quicker access through the building's security screening, Reuters reports.

Concealed handgun license holders can enter the Capitol via an expedited "CHL access" line, while "schoolchildren and tourists" have to pass through metal detectors, according to the report.

The metal detectors were installed last year, after a gun was fired on the Capitol's steps. State troopers are stationed in the "CHL Access" line to ensure the licenses are valid.

....

Carrie Kroll, director of advocacy and health policy for the Texas Pediatric Society, recently got her concealed handgun license in order to gain quicker access.

"Do I think it's silly?" she said. "Yes."

Some lobbyists and even journalists have also applied for the licenses, despite having no intention to carry a gun.

State Sen. Dan Patrick (R) said he carries a handgun with him at the Capitol at almost all times.

"I don't ever want to be in a situation where I don't have the chance to defend myself, my family or my friends," he said. "We live in a world where you can encounter danger at home or work or on the street."

The gunman from last year, Fausto Cardenas, visited Patrick's office before firing shots on the Capitol steps, according to the report. No one was injured.

"Around here, it's not that big of a deal (to have a gun at the Capitol)," said Richard Robertson, who visited the Capitol over the weekend. "Someone from out of state may think we're a bunch of yahoos."

Born here, raised here, lived here almost all my life (including a very long stint in Austin, where I never worried about someone pulling a gun on me.) And based on this story, I think you're a bunch of yahoos.

Waiting for the Big One....

NPR this morning:

In Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, two authors present a study that followed 2,300 students at 24 universities over the course of four years. The study measured both the amount that students improved in terms of critical thinking and writing skills, in addition to how much they studied and how many papers they wrote for their courses.

I would like to say my educational experience doesn't bear this out; but it does.

I'm not sure how much "critical thinking" education has ever encouraged. It was fairly well encouraged in my pre-college experience, but not so much that I learned early on to challenge too many prevailing opinions. I seem to have done that on my own, through a peculiarly hard-headed notion that anything I didn't agree with and couldn't discard out of hand, I had to face head on and either accept as valid, or find a good reason to reject. Somebody must have taught me that at some point, because I'm sure I didn't spring sui generis from the brow of Zeus, much less my father. Still, "critical thinking" means, well, being critical; and it's a classic anecdote of college students that they come back home having learned to denounce everything their parents raised them to believe was true.

An exaggerated anecdote, but one with some connection to reality nonetheless. The seminary version of that is the student who comes into seminary a devoted Christian, and leaves a committed atheist. The UCC variant on that at my UCC seminary was that such a student was still ordained into the UCC ministry.* Such stories tell more about the experience of a truly rigorous education where critical thinking is not only encouraged but required, than it does about critical thinking. But try to imagine that outcome in any college today.

The anti-war movement of the '60's was prompted as much by professors challenging the accepted reasoning of the "Best and the Brightest" and the Man in the Grey Flannel Suit as it was a reaction to the horrors of war (because most people experiencing those horrors, or likely to experience them, were not in college). If there is a reason we don't have another '60's generation among us today, it's because no one is emphasizing the kind of critical thinking that should be basic to education. Then again, it's hard to build bricks without straw.

I taught English briefly, in the late '70's when I was a graduate student. I have noticed, in the interim, some decline in the quality of college students, but to be fair I'm now teaching at a community college, not a university. And while the university I taught at was hardly Ivy League, it's possible a slightly better caliber of student attended then than I see now. On the other hand, I'm constantly amazed at instructors whom I see assigning no more than 6 papers in a Freshman English class in a semester, and then requiring each paper be submitted in multiple drafts for review and approval before final grading takes place. I understand the theory of improving composition by editorial review, but can't help thinking it sounds far too much like middle school, and far too little like college-level work.

"If you go out and talk to college freshmen today, they tell you something very interesting," Arum says. "Many of them will say the following: 'I thought college and university was going to be harder than high school, and my gosh, it turned out it's easier.' "

On the other hand, and before you decide I am upholding the standards of academic rigor while my peers collapse into appeasement, consider how many students come to community colleges and need to take Developmental English before they can take Freshman English. I still remember my professors in the '70s', telling me how English majors were once the brightest, most capable students on campus, the most academically gifted and driven among the enrolled. They lamented that, 40 years ago, many students, English majors and non-English majors, needed remedial English classes on grammar and basic sentence structure, before they were ready for Freshman English. This decline has been going on for over a generation now. But if you take students with little preparation and subject them to college standards, you might as well toss them out of school and save everybody the time and effort. The sad fact is, far too many students simply aren't ready to do college work. I understand why my peers assign only 6 papers and then review those extensively before accepting them for grading. They are simply trying to teach people who have not yet been taught.

One of the critiques mentioned in the audio version of that story is that few students report having taken any one class which required them to write 20 pages over one semester. If you assign only 6 papers, and don't assign anything over 3 pages, it's easy not to make that mark. On the other hand, if you assign 6 papers and make each at least 5 pages long, one of two things will likely happen: students will drop your course, or they will turn in papers well under the minimum length. And, most likely, the ones turned in will mostly be garbage. I know some of the problem is motivation: that is, they won't do it. But a large part of the problem is ability: they can't do it. And why not? Because they don't have the apparatus to do the critical thinking necessary to generate enough content to fill 5 double-spaced pages.

5 pages, by the way, is about the minimum length of the research paper I assign every semester; and at the end of the semester I always have students who cannot make that much progress, despite having all semester to work on the paper and presumably having done the research which will pretty much generate the content. They don't do the research, of course, or don't do it very well, because they lack the critical thinking skills necessary to assess and evaluate data, much less to seek it out or to know what to do with it when they get it.

I teach in high school as well, and I can tell you the daily schedule is a crucial difference between high school and college. Meeting the same class 5 days a week gives the teacher ample time to guide the students, or even drill them, on the fundamentals they need to learn (yes, I know some high schools work on a schedule that doesn't require meeting the same class 5 days a week; but the total immersion in school, being on that campus for 8+ hours a day, is the crucial factor). A college schedule assumes the student already knows how to learn, and will attend class having done the work beforehand. Think of it as sharpening a knife edge until it is a razor's edge. You can't do that if the knife is just a blunt piece of steel; or if there isn't a knife there at all.

And yes, I think it will get worse before it gets better; in no small part because of the "consumer culture," the idea that colleges should advertise and entice and serve students the way Wal-Mart is supposed to do:

According to the study, one possible reason for a decline in academic rigor and, consequentially, in writing and reasoning skills, is that the principle evaluation of faculty performance comes from student evaluations at the end of the semester. Those evaluations, Arum says, tend to coincide with the expected grade that the student thinks he or she will receive from the instructor.

"There's a huge incentive set up in the system [for] asking students very little, grading them easily, entertaining them, and your course evaluations will be high," Arum says.

I've been berated for poor course evaluations. It always struck me as odd that you would go to someone because you want to learn from them (i.e., they know something you don't), and simultaneously you could know what they needed to teach you (because you know what you need to learn). I've also been critiqued because my students' grades over several semesters didn't meet the averages of other instructors. Is this evidence I am a poor teacher? Or is it evidence my standards are too high, my expectations too rigorous? Both and a little bit of neither, I'm sure; but drawing too firm a conclusion from such data is a dangerous thing, indeed. And drawing conclusions from such evidence encourages what Arum identifies: pass your students, make them like you, and all will be well; for you as the teacher, anyway. If the students don't actually learn, or more importantly learn to think, well....

They'll be in good company, eh?


*UCC pastors still love to explain "UCC" as: "Unitarians Considering Christ." But we do so cautiously.

Addendum: And yeah, maybe it's just where I live:

Despite significant improvements in test scores both for math and reading, the portion of Texas' adult population with at least a high school education has gotten even worse than it was ten years ago. The percentage of Texas' population with a white collar job has decreased more than 3% between 2000 and 2009, the fourth worst performance by any state. Texas also experienced one of the smallest increases in higher education, ranking 45th in bachelor's degrees and 42nd in advanced degrees.

Population Change (2000-2009): 2,967,222 (14.2%)
Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 25.5% (30th)
Population With White Collar Careers: 12.5% (32nd)
NAEP Math: 18th
NAEP Reading: 34th

Regarding the Suffering of Others

Stay with me, this gets complicated fast.

On Tuesday, Texas started experiencing "rolling blackouts," planned power outages, across the state, due, we were told, to cold weather. Hmmmm....

Texans faced eight hours of rolling electrical blackouts Wednesday and could see more outages Thursday as the coldest weather in 15 years caused power plants to break down.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas called off the longest period of planned outages in state history Wednesday afternoon. But the state grid operator warned it could initiate outages again Thursday morning if power plants, including three new coal plants owned by Energy Future Holdings, don’t get fixed.

The situation outraged some electricity customers, who overwhelmed call centers. Several top lawmakers said they would hold hearings on the incident and urged Texans to conserve.

I do like how "conserve" is the solution when the power system fails; but seldom otherwise. This isn't the coldest Texas has ever been, nor the first time Texas has ever had winter weather. Conspiracy theories abound, of course:

In the mean time, the average consumers will be screwed (with the blessing of their state government) by what appears to be a psychological operation and a massive electrical grid test. If you live in Texas, don’t be surprised if your electric bill goes up (so they can supposedly build more distribution lines and ‘upgrade’ the grid). After all, you want to avoid experiencing more power outages, don’t you?

Enron was notorious for engaging in this practice in order to increase profits during the ‘California rolling blackouts’ in the late 1990′s, for which the company was investigated by congress. Today, in Texas, electrical power companies engage in the same scam. Furthermore, they do it openly and nothing happens to them. What does that say about the state of affairs in this country? Did we really sink this low in our own complacence and ignorance in just one decade?

But that's mostly because ERCOT (the agency charged with regulating electricity in Texas) has done such a poor job of explaining what's going on:

The blackouts were widely blamed on the cold. This strikes me as preposterous. Yes it’s cold, for Texas. Houston got down into the 20s Wednesday morning, with single digits up in Abilene, but I have a hard time believing that power plants aren’t more robust than that.

But that’s what we’re being told. Apparently 50 out of Texas’ 550 power plants went down Wednesday morning, knocking off 8,000 mw, or about 12% of demand. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said the problem appeared be inadequate winterization and that the trouble centered on two new coal-fired plants owned by Luminant (a subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings, formerly TXU) which suffered a broken pipe and a frozen pipe. What about the other 48? Still unclear.

Also compounding troubles: another 12,000 mw worth of plants were offline with scheduled maintenance. As of Thursday morning 3,000 mw of plants were reportedly still offline because of the cold.

Texas needs to know why this is happening and who is responsible for allowing this weakness in our power grid. If Wisconsin can keep the lights when temperatures drop to -30, Texas ought to be able to deal with temps in the teens.

It really is a matter of life and death. Cutting the power to important hospitals is irresponsible, and Oncor, the north Texas power distributor has apologized. While in Houston the death of Stephen Caldwell is blamed on the outages. Caldwell, 29, reportedly required an oxygen machine to help him breathe. When the power went out he called his family for help, but by the time they got there he was dead.

So far the grid-managers at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, haven’t given an adequate explanation of what happened and how to fix it. Lawmakers say they’ll get to the bottom of it. The last time Texas faced rolling blackout was during a 100-degree heatwave in 2006. Finger-pointing after that one caused the head of ERCOT to step down.

I've produced all this by simple Google searches. What I haven't produced is any better explanation than I've found in that quote. I do have to note the forcing the head of ERCOT to step down in 2008 didn't really fix the problems in 2011....

Nor has the situation improved today; and note what is meant by "conserve", at least in El Paso:

Due to the extreme weather conditions over the past several days, El Paso Electric has not been able to restore a significant amount of its local power generation.

El Paso Electric continues to operate under a curtailment plan and we are asking all customers, business and residential, to immediately reduce as much electrical usage as they can.

El Paso Electric is asking businesses to curtail their usage except in situations of critical needs.

El Paso Electric is also asking customers to curtail usage in their homes.
Do not use appliances such as the washing machine, dishwasher, or electric clothes dryer Turn off extra lights, electric water heater and other electric appliances that you do not absolutely need. Minimize the use of your electric range or oven when preparing meals.

As I write, the temperature in El Paso is 34F.

I said this gets complicated; following the bouncing ball:

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, a Republican, declared a state of emergency due to gas shortages, closing government offices not providing essential services, according to a statement posting on her website. New Mexico Gas Co. said rolling blackouts in West Texas and “other problems” had cut gas deliveries to the state, forcing supply interruptions to customers in several towns, according to a statement posted yesterday on its website.

El Paso Corp., owner of a gas pipeline in the state, said in a statement on its website that demand is unusually high due to cold weather. Additionally, blackouts in Texas shut down processing plants and well freeze-offs slowed supply.

“We’re seeing situations where company X or company Y scheduled a certain quantity of gas and may be taking more off the system than their nominations,” said Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Houston-based El Paso Corp. "Normally we have enough gas in the pipeline system to counteract that kind of situation; we can move gas around."

I know about the natural gas shortage in New Mexico because I have family and friends living there. What happened? The rolling blackouts in Texas:

Some 25,000 New Mexicans were without natural gas after a freeze in west Texas led to rolling power outages that interrupted electricity to natural-gas compressor stations.

"We had natural-gas supplies," said Monica Hussey, spokeswoman for New Mexico Gas Company. "But we couldn't get the supply on hand out of storage and to customers because it needs to go through compressor stations."

Which is ironic, since:

New Mexico is a prime natural-gas producer and is ranked fourth nationally.

But they didn't count on Texas not being able to generate electricity during a cold snap. And this is one of the coldest winters on record in New Mexico. So this isn't an inconvenience; it's life threatening.

This may be, despite conspiracy theories, an infrastructure problem. It is in Mexico, anyway:

Mexico said Thursday it was temporarily suspending an offer to provide electricity to Texas to help the U.S. state weather an ice storm that forced rolling blackouts, because of severe cold in Mexico's own territory.

Mexico's Federal Electricity Commission had said Wednesday it had agreed to transmit 280 megawatts of electricity to Texas.

But on Thursday, the commission said it was temporarily suspending the transfer because below-freezing temperatures in northern Mexico have caused some damage to the generating capacity of its own plants, causing some power outages in several parts of Chihuahua state and a reduction of about 3,800 megawatts in generation.

The commission also said Mexico needed to ensure there was enough electricity to meet domestic demand, in the face of a severe cold snap that dumped snow on the border city of Ciudad Juarez, across from El Paso, Texas.

Is this due to Texas' population growth, up over 20% since 2000? Maybe. What's really interesting is the interconnectedness of us all, connections our public discourse pays no attention to. Had you heard New Mexico was without heat? The entire state? I haven't found any reporting on the blackouts in Texas that mention how we've harmed New Mexico and even California. This isn't a story out of New York, or the East Coast, or California, or even the second most populous state in the Union (which would barely be noticed this winter were it not for Super Bowl XLV in Dallas), so it isn't a story at all.

Are we connected when we pay no attention to the connections?

Regarding King Canute....

So, Egypt is in revolt because of Tunisia, and Tunisia is in revolt because George W. Bush spread the seeds of democracy. Right?

Or is Egypt in revolt because of Obama? Both David Axelrod and the right wing say so, for very different reasons.

Or is Egypt in revolt because Mubarak is a dictator the U.S. backed for 30 years because of Israel and Camp David (and fear of the Muslim Brotherhood), and because of the example of Tunisia, and the uprisings in Tunisia and Jordan are because of unemployment and rising food prices? That seems much more likely.

Which, oddly enough, sort of makes it our fault, doesn't it? Funny how thinking everything revolves around you, obscures the fact that you are involved in everything. Whether you like it or not.

The Most Uninteresting Man In The World

I don't always watch TeeVee, but when I do, I prefer to watch "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."

So now what am I gonna do?

No, who is my neighbor, really?

Okay...

As Zachary Roth reported, Bossier Parish is home to Sheriff Larry Deen, who last year launched "Operation Exodus" -- an effort to arm volunteers with "shotguns, riot shields, batons, and a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a 'war wagon.'" Deen explained at the time that "recent terror threats" have shown that there are "homegrown terrorists are in our midst."

"Over the past several years, the violence has gotten worse and worse" said Jim Middleton, one current trainee. "I'd rather be proactive than working after the fact. We're all in God's army, and you don't see any army going to war unarmed."

Louisiana State Rep. Henry Burns (R), who wrote the original legislation, visited the class, and told the trainees that "each and every one of you here are patriots because you care to provide protection to the innocent. We should be able to worship our Lord without fear."

Burns told TPM last May, after the legislation passed the state House, that the law was for "those unique situations where maybe a church can't afford law enforcement," but churchgoers want to protect themselves.

A church is "really no safe haven," he said.

First, the whole notion that one more gun will make you safe is nuts:

I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

Yes, and so were a lot of other people that day in Tucson. Now, how many shootings in churches have occurred recently? Google tells me there were shootings in 2008, 2009 and 2010 (about one a year). I don't think that makes churches less of a "safe haven" than anywhere else in American society. Allowing people to carry guns into church certainly makes them less safe. But the real question is: what are we so afraid of?

And there's a theological issue here, as well: aren't churches supposed to be places of hospitality? Isn't hospitality supposed to be the very heart of the Gospel? Maybe we need John Donne again:

Show me dear Christ, thy spouse so bright and clear.
What! is it she which on the other shore
Goes richly painted? or which, robb'd and tore,
Laments and mourns in Germany and here?
Sleeps she a thousand, then peeps up one year?
Is she self-truth, and errs? now new, now outwore?
Doth she, and did she, and shall she evermore
On one, on seven, or on no hill appear?
Dwells she with us, or like adventuring knights
First travel we to seek, and then make love?
Betray, kind husband, thy spouse to our sights,
And let mine amorous soul court thy mild Dove,
Who is most true and pleasing to thee then
When she'is embrac'd and open to most men.

--John Donne

Or maybe we need to wrestle again with how we sing the Lord's song in a strange (sorry, Louisiana; you know I love you) land? And does that song end with a bang? Or a prayer?

In answer to the question:

Who is my neighbor? Gov. Bentley says: only my fellow Baptists:

"If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way," Bentley said Wednesday.

Bentley, who spoke at the church during a King holiday event after his official inaugural address, said no one should hate anyone else because of color or religion.

Speaking with reporters after meeting with several members of Alabama's Jewish community and other faith leaders at his Capitol office, Bentley said he will be a governor for everyone, not just Christians.

So, we're left with this: either Gov. Bentley meant what he said, but didn't mean by it that his words actually meant anything. "Brothers and sisters," in other words, is an empty phrase devoid of any real application. Or, Gov. Bentley meant what he said, and only those Christians who share his particular confession are worthy of his attention and compassion and even interest, as Governor or as a human being.

Or Gov. Bentley didn't mean any of it, and even his confessions of faith are hollow and meaningless. Or, finally, he meant it, but he's sorry the rest of us heard it. And, in fact, that last one may be the correct explanation, according to no less an authority than Gov. Bentley:

He said he was speaking as an evangelical Christian to fellow Baptists.

The rest of us really shouldn't have been listening.

State of the State of Texas

Burnt Orange Report gives a bit of a reason to be optimistic:

More than half of Texas' voters want lawmakers to spare public education and health care programs for children and lower-income families from spending cuts during the legislative session that starts this week, according to a new poll commissioned by the Austin American-Statesman and other newspapers.

[...]

Some 70 percent of respondents said lawmakers should not cut school spending, and 61 percent said they want no spending cuts on health care programs for children and low- to moderate-income families.

But cuts are coming. Massive cuts. "Scary" cuts.

School districts have known this for over a year, but the proposed cuts are deeper than they ever imagined. This even gets discussed at school board meetings; but what newspaper, what TV news show, covers local school board meetings and puts the results on the front page or at the top of the 10 p.m. news? So it hasn't been reported, and what's going to happen is: teachers are going to be laid off in droves. The cuts are going to be absolutely savage, and no one will notice until their favorite teacher is fired, until class sizes balloon, until programs are eliminated and perhaps even schools closed (there is much talk of that in at least two cities in Texas. The school boards, as I say, know what's coming.)

Perry said today:

As Texans, we always take care of the least among us.

The frail, the young, the elderly on fixed incomes, those in situations of abuse and neglect, people whose needs are greater than the resources at their disposal – they can count on the people of Texas to be there for them.

We will protect them, support them and empower them, but cannot risk the future of millions of taxpayers in the process. We must cut spending to keep our economic engine on track.

You can't do both, of course. Texas can't cut spending it doesn't spend anyway, and still support education and the poor who need medical care. It's simply impossible. (Not that Texas hasn't tried.) So the poor and the children will suffer for Rick Perry's determination to keep his campaign promise. And Texans might even take notice.

But only after schools have closed, and teachers and others have been laid off. Only after the bloodletting is so massive it can't be ignored. And it's all so Rick Perry can run for higher office:

During this session, Texas will prove again that fiscal responsibility, sound policy making and a passion for individual liberty are essential to the success of employers, institutions and families.

If we cannot exercise fiscal discipline in governing Texas, I doubt it can be achieved anywhere least of all in Washington.

With our nation mired in more than $14 trillion of debt, accountability and fiscal responsibility will not come from Washington – it will come from places like Texas.

Texas is still the engine of America’s economy, and we’re proud to lead the nation in Fortune 1000 companies, international exports and job creation.

For how much longer, though?

Last night Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell released a statement saying: "The prospect of closing the successful central city schools clearly runs counter to our community's long term planning goals.” He added he does not believe parents will move into or stay in Austin neighborhoods if there are not good schools there.

None of that job creation is going to include a teacher. None of those Fortune 1000 companies is going to pay to keep a school open. The inaugural barbecue business can pay for. But business is not going to fill the gap in Texas' Medicaid funding. Private interests are not going to pay teacher's salaries, or make up for the money the state won't provide to schools. So maybe we'll have a few more jobs; but whether that gain will outweigh the loss of school employees, and the pain and suffering of the poor who will have an even harder time getting health care in Texas, is something Gov. Perry has not addressed.

Update: keep the above in mind, because here we go:

Texas lawmakers got their first glimpse of what the next state budget might look like late Tuesday, including a staggering $5 billion cut to public schools, as Gov. Rick Perry and his supporters were dancing at an inaugural celebration.

...

The budget draft, which is expected to be filed as legislation in the House later this week, would cut funding entirely to four community colleges and would generally eliminate financial aid for incoming freshmen and new students. The Texas Grants scholarship program would drop by more than 70,000 students over the next two years.

The proposal also would reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percent for physicians, hospitals and nursing homes that participate in Medicaid - a decrease that could eventually dry up participation in the program for poor and disabled Texans.

In total, 9,600 state jobs would be eliminated over the next two years.

"It's a catastrophe. No financial aid for kids to go to college. No pre-kindergarten for kids to learn their numbers and their letters. Health and human services slashed," said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine. "No Texan can be proud of this."

Perry took the oath of office earlier Tuesday for his third term in office. After a day of parties, he spent the evening at a celebration in downtown Austin, just a mile from the Capitol. Donors are picking up the $2 million tab for the 2011 inaugural. The Legislative Budget Board was required by law to release the budget to leaders on Tuesday, the fifth business day after the session starts.

Some analysts say the true shortfall could be much higher than $15 billion - closer to $27 billion - to account for enrollment growth in public schools and on Medicaid rolls, cost increases and other variables. That figure amounts to almost a third of discretionary state spending in the current budget.

A $4 billion reduction to the Foundation School Program - the pot of money distributed to schools based on daily attendance - means the program would be short almost $10 billion below the amount required to fund the school finance formulas under state law. That would make school finance reform legislation almost inevitable.

The proposal also recommends cuts to arts education, teacher incentive pay, money for schools to administer steroid testing and pre-kindergarten programs.

....

Rep. Jim Pitts, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he would explain the proposal to the chamber on Wednesday.

"There are no sacred cows for this next biennium for our introduced bill," Pitts said last week. "So many people said, 'You cannot cut education'. You can't not cut education . We will be cutting every article within our budget. We will be cutting health and human, we will be cutting education and we'll be cutting our own budget in the Legislature."

"But who is my neighbor?"

Via TPM:

Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the very church where Dr. King once pastored, new Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley gave a speech in which he said that those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior are not his "brothers."

Bentley spoke at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church in Montgomery just minutes after taking the oath of office on Monday. The new governor, who has been a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, first said that though he ran as a Republican, once he took office he "became the governor of all the people."

"I am color blind," Bentley said, according to The Birmingham News.

But Bentley then said that only those who are Christians and "saved" like he is are his brothers and sisters.

Not just "Christians," of course, but anyone who doesn't confess the theology Gov. Bentley confesses. So Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Copts, me...a lot of us are not his "brothers and sisters."

The really sad part is the effort to draw lines, to exclude people, to make clear who is acceptable and who isn't. Which, as I read the Gospels, is precisely what Jesus lived, and spoke, and acted, against doing.

"Which of these three, in your opinion, acted like a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?"

He said, "The one who showed him compassion."

Jesus said to him, "Then go and do the same yourself."

Luke 10:36-37, Scholars Version.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day-2011

Remembering Dr. King today, I redirect you to a post I've used for two years now.

My local news tells me some of the schools around teach the lessons of tolerance and non-violence that we associate with Dr. King. I would hope they teach this lesson, too; although I rather doubt it. I hope they teach many more lessons about Dr. King's legacy, in fact. It is a legacy that would really repay more attention by all of us. Because this is what Dr. King was about, beyond "tolerance" and "non-violence":

I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here," that we honestly face the fact that the Movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's market place. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two thirds water?" These are questions that must be asked.

...

What I'm saying to you this morning is that Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.

If you will let me be a preacher just a little bit - One night, a juror came to Jesus and he wanted to know what he could do to be saved. Jesus didn't get bogged down in the kind of isolated approach of what he shouldn't do. Jesus didn't say, "Now Nicodemus, you must stop lying." HE didn't say, "Nicodemus, you must stop cheating if you are doing that." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, you must not commit adultery." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, now you must stop drinking liquor if you are doing that excessively." He said something altogether different, because Jesus realized something basic - that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down in one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, "Nicodemus, you must be born again."

He said, in other words, "Your whole structure must be changed." A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will "thingify" them - make them things. Therefore they will exploit them, and poor people generally, economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I am saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!"

Striving after Emptiness

What is success?

Is it playing a piano concert in Carnegie Hall? Amy Chua's daughter accomplished that, according to news reports. I studied piano for 8 years, mostly enjoyed it, am glad I did it, even considered (briefly) majoring in music in college. Yet I never played in Carnegie Hall, never even imagined I would. Did I not succeed at my piano lessons? (For the record, I never learned to play by ear, play jazz piano, or play whatever was on the radio when I was in high school. I really wasn't much of a performer (ironic; music is performance), but like every high school kid, I wanted the attention the right performance could bring. So I never felt like a "success" at music. Never occurred to me to play Carnegie Hall or consider my efforts pointless, though.)

I agree with this assessment of "success" and "achievement," at least in part. I am perplexed by the concept of "parenting" and the idea of success for children. What is the success everyone chases? A good first job? A secure future? A guaranteed income?

Who has those things?

When I was in college, the mantra was: "To get a good job, get a good education." Well, yeah, but how many college students can get jobs just now? If only the top 10% can "win," then the other 90% are just cannon fodder, people there to make that top 10% possible. Is this so difficult to understand? If I had played Carnegie Hall at age 18, what would I be doing today? Would I be guaranteed an income as a classical pianist? Or would I simply have been a "success" back then? And is "success" really so superficial, so shallow, so determined by circumstances? Is there no wisdom in Chinese or Eastern culture to teach me that success flows from a state of being, or mind, or "inner contentment," and not from external circumstances over which I have little control?

The irony here is I've taught one of Amy Chua's essays in English composition for a few years now, and I've always considered it a remarkably weak work full of tendentious and conventional (i.e., "received") reasoning and a refusal to take the positions she asserts to logical conclusions, to explore all the ramifications of the ideas she purports to stand by. She is clearly intelligent, but she is not very wise. I remember an interview with Jerry Seinfeld, where he remarked on his boyhood idol, Superman. But he said Batman was superior, because while Superman has "super-intelligence" (according to the comic books of his childhood, and mine), Batman was "the world's greatest detective," which meant, said Seinfeld, that Batman was "wise." Better to be wise than just to be smart, Mr. Seinfeld concluded.

Music enriched my life, and someday I may even return to the level of piano skills I once enjoyed. Am I not successful, though, because I was not a musical prodigy? I have decades of education, but am I wiser for it? I know, even as I don't quite live in the knowledge, that happiness and success flow from what I can control, not from what I can't control. Am I a failure? When I left the practice of law, most of my lawyer friends said they envied me having the courage to give it up. I never felt I was courageous, or that such a step moved me any closer to being "successful." Many of them have succeeded in their careers, and I'm glad of it. But did I fail? Maybe by Amy Chua's standards; but, and this is, to me, the heart of the controversy: who is Amy Chua, and why should I care what she thinks? Especially when it comes to my relationship with my child?

Is success only what other people say it is?

Nor am I above ending this with a bit of scripture I often passed on to high school graduates about to go to college:

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

The words of the Preacher. Amen!

"Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?"

Huffington Post:

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday that he wishes one additional person had possessed a firearm in Tucson on Saturday, presumably to use on Jared Lee Loughner.

"I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person, that's all I have to say," Franks said at a briefing, according to Politico.

Let's be plain about this: it's very doubtful Jared Lee Loughner drew a bead on 9 year old Christina Taylor Greene to make sure she died when he started emptying a 30+ round magazine through a semi-automatic weapon. He just wanted to empty the clip, and after putting one through Gabriel Gifford's head, he probably wasn't aiming carefully anymore. But bullets do that: they go where physics leads them, not where intent or will or any other human emotion might wish them to go. They follow the immutable laws of nature.

And anyone else with a gun that day would have sent bullets in the same direction: the wrong one. Houston had an incident recently where a man was pulled over on suspicion of being a criminal, and he was eventually shot on his parents' front lawn by an officer who drove up, pulled his weapon, and emptied a nine round clip. A trained police officer, and out of nine rounds, only one hit the suspect. One.

Imagine what would have happened in Tucson if there had been "one more gun" present. How many more people would be dead, or wounded? And who would be blamed?

And what difference would it make, to the dead and the wounded?

On the Eighth day of Christmas....

The real issue here is not responsibility, but responsibility v. authority.

Authority says I will take all of your possessions, take your liberty, take your children, in order to punish you for being poor.

Responsibility answers the question "Who is my neighbor?" with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Authority says there are people undeserving of even our attention. Responsibility says: "Do you see this woman?"

Authority says there is a scarcity of goods and a plenitude of wants, and the only prudent course is to hoard what you have and to turn away the stranger. Responsibility says, so long as you respond with hospitality to the stranger, your own needs will always be met.

Twelve Days of Xmas

Christmas is not quite over. Received one of these yesterday, as a Christmas gift. It's Soren Kierkegaard, if you can't tell.

I'm thinking about getting Hegel, to keep him company. But they'd probably just fight....