US Christians make move to take Canada

BUFFALO, Ny., Nov. 16, 2008 - In a surprise move, the majority of the self identified "Conservative Christians" in the United States began a mass exodus to Canada today. Numbering about 23 million at last report, people coordinated through their Sunday services began a journey to Canada. At the time of this report, many had already crossed the border and were starting to cause a stir on the Canadian side. Crossing the border at open points far from typical crossings, they were simply walking in droves or driving in caravans.

One report filed by a local reporter near Niagara Falls quotes a Christian migrant saying "We are just trying to find a way to protect our faith and values". Most of the people asked would not say much more.

One very notable figure in this exodus is none other than Governor Sarah Palin, former candidate for the Vice President of the United States on the Republican ticket. When asked about her motivations, she commented at length for CNN. "Me and the family are just thrilled to be blazing new trails for our Lord and Savior," said Palin. "I would have loved to help save the United States, but it's just clear that that is not going to happen. It was pretty hard for me to keep the cat in the bag, but when Pat Robertson asked me to endorse and participate in his Mission Canada I couldn't resist." Pat Robertson and his organization were unavailable for comment at the time of this release. When asked for details about "Mission Canada", Governor Palin was sparse on details, "I don't think I know all the parts. At leats [sic], I haven't been told if I do. I know it will take some of those poor people in Texas a long time to join us up here in the new promise land. And I know that the Catholics and Mormons aren't welcome."

Simon Coakeley, Executive Director of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, was reached for comment in his home just outside Ottawa. "I have no idea what makes these people feel they can just walk into this country, but I'm afraid they're going to find it's not that simple. We welcome people of all faiths, races and creeds, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about joining the great Canadian family" said Director Coakeley.

It is widely being commented in various news channels that the loss of Senator McCain and Governor Palin in the 2008 Presidential campaign is to blame for the migration. One sound bite that is being circulated is a comment by Franklin Graham, son of Pastor Billy Graham. In the audio only clip, Franklin Graham is asked by a reporter what he thinks about the then falling numbers for McCain's presidential bid and he responds "These United States won't know what happened when all the good Christians they are slighting simply stop participating in the nation all together." The comment is now thought to be foreshadowing this exodus. Governor Palin also had a comment about the overall motives, "I sure did learn a lot in the recent campaign. I was shocked when I found out the the constitution really didn't say anything about Christianity at all and that all the references to God on US money and in pledges was [sic] put there in the 1950s. So that made it much easier for me to think about leaving to try again."

According to data collected in July 2007, the entire population of Canada is 33,390,141 persons. The vast majority of those concentrated in areas along the Canada's border with the United States. With the current known number of Christians leaving the United States in this "mission", it will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

the anti-cave

It's been a long time since a post, but I'll still be brief as I'm doing this waiting for other things to finish. I feel compelled to write a little bit because of watching THX 1138, the science fiction movie by george lucas that preceded his star wars fame. The movie is long and complex, but the important part for us, dear reader, is the very end. At the end, a man who has spent his life embedded in a strange, cavernous, underground city doing odd and seemingly empty tasks coordinated by a huge, faceless bureaucracy emerges into the sunlight of the surface world. This immediately evoked Plato's Allegory of the Cave for me. In brief, Plato's story is about people in a cave looking at shadows on the walls they are completely convinced are the whole world. The story tells us about one brave enough to break with the peer pressure and emerge from her cave and see the daylight and the real objects the shadows on the wall pretended to be. The similarity of Lucas's movie to Plato's Cave is striking, and I'm sure it's no accident either.

However, it seems to me that there is a huge shift in perspective between the two stories. Plato's point is that what we see in the cave is like what we see every day. The real world of our every day experiences is Plato's cave - according to Plato. The sunlight that we would emerge to see is the world of "forms". These are the universal truths that underly our universe. Almost all modern science descends from the basic principle Plato lays out here: the world is illusory but there are eternal truths to be discovered for those who seek them in the right way.

Not that I would put Lucas on the same plane as Plato, but it's interesting to me how his movie contrasts this. In THX 1138, the world is the city man has made and that is driven by all his inventions. These inventions, of course, are the products of scientific pursuits. Everything in this city is essentially the embodiment of an idea. Safe to say that it's an attempt to build a world more closely modeled after the universal forms Plato gives to the scientists. This world, based on the ideas of man and built by the engineers who make those ideas come to life, is so horrifying, so bleak that all the hero of the movie can do is contemplate getting out of it.

Is it just a sign of the times? Or are we damned if we do (go out into Plato's sunlight) or damned if don't (escape Plato's sunlight in favor of the actual Sun in Lucas's movie)?

Ask a hardened scientist and you'll likely get blame pointed at the engineers of the city for building it all wrong. The engineers will blame the scientists for not designing it correctly. Everyone will blame the philosophers for setting the bar too high - asking for the impossible. Almost no one will blame themselves. Yet another herd of oxen running full bore across the plains without any idea where it's going - just hoping they are following the right trail.

who cares how ignorant bliss is?

The title is a line from "How Little It Matters, How Little We Know" (Words & Music by Carolyn Leigh & Phillip Springer; Recorded by Frank Sinatra in 1956). The song talks about chemistry - the lab coat and bubbling liquids kind - right alongside romance. People didn't seem to think that was odd. Most people know the song "Swinging on a Star" (Words & Music by Jimmy Van Heusen; recorded by Bing Crosby in 1944, but I like Tony Bennet's version best). The song admonishes that if you don't like to go to school you may grow up to be a mule, apparently a rebuke to a whining child at the Crosby dinner table - which of course has it's own oddities to imagine now. Swinging on a Star also talks about bringing back moonbeams in a jar, a reference to the space program and the possibility of being an astronaut if you live right and make good choices. These songs, and many from this generation of songwriters and "crooners" were considered very challenging to societal norms for presenting their ideas in such a casual way. That little element of romance and that suave attitude of being upward moving in society were enough to make them seem slightly irksome to many. But they were not telling people to screw their friends, go for the bucks any way they could or live for today and nothing else.

Am I not in touch with new music enough to find more mindful thoughts in today's music? I hear way too much of the Disney output thanks to having an adolescent daughter. There is surely no good advice being doled out there. It's harmless in part, irreverent in the bad, directionless way for some parts and generally mindless for the vast part. I know pop music isn't talking about living a good life and thinking about your future mindfully. I still listen to a lot of the music of my college days. There is some intelligence in it to be sure. But it all seems soured, cynical. Any talk about the future is negative and there is no room for advice other than "get yours". That sounded more genuine at some point. But now it seems like a cop out. There are problems. There always will be. Shouldn't some portion of art discuss how to get on with life, how to live as best as one may?

Music, literature and poetry in the West has always been an odd thing. Chaucer and Shakespeare wrote to the common people of their times. Chaucer was practically a comic book writer. But they always told well rounded stories and had things to say about all aspects of life. Of course, we only know they existed because their work happened to survive. Were the "indy" playwrights, authors and musicians with this same cutting edge we'll never know? Without knowing, can we say that its more cynical now than it was before? It seems at least the most popular and enduring tales were at least well rounded. Future generations will have to puzzle over us. It seems that everything from our time and many years before will all endure. Everything has been recorded, cataloged, indexed and stored for what will be tantamount to forever compared to things prior to 1950 or so.

Of course, it's hard to ignore the role of religion in art through the ages. If all I wanted to find was some kind of advice in art, then the Christian industry in the US today could provide that by the bucketful. It was just the other day, right here in NJ not even an hour from my house, that I saw a car with so many Christian rock bumper stickers that it barely showed the brake lights. And walking from the PATH train yesterday I saw three different Christian books being advertised in the heart of midtown. And one need only visit the Met or listen to Bach to see how much religion has been in the mind of the artist since the start of recorded history in the West. But I'm looking for something else. I'm not seeking preaching. Shakespeare advising other people of his day is more on the mark. One person to another with no presumption of divine force.

What is the function of art? Does that question even make sense? If art serves nothing, then is it worthwhile? Or is art like so much else and simply needs balance to be in harmony with the world? Should there always be room for Frank Sinatra and Kurt Colbain? Has the passing of shared mores resulted in the passing of art treading on that ground as well? If it's all relative, does that mean artists can't grasp on well enough to depict any of it? I'm left feeling like it's just me - but I don't have evidence for that either. Does this amount to yelling at the wind saying "it was better in my day!" But it didn't really seem better in my day. I had more bliss, but I didn't realize what was making me happy. Youth is an elixir, to be sure. And since it's colorless, tasteless and odorless one doesn't even realize how quickly and deeply it's being drunk. It makes the cynicism seem wise and the mundane seem cool. It may also make the mindful seem boring or long-winded. C'est la art? Maybe I should ask a poet to re-write this.

But if you want money for people with minds that hate; all I can tell you is brother try Wal*Mart aisle 8.

Politics is everywhere today. And in the chats about this party or that, this policy or that, the same ideas float by in many different forms over and over again. This is, among many other places, where I see the stunning lack of and lack of interest in the idea of a well rounded education. So few people, even those with the opportunity to have done so, benefited from a well rounded education. There is a basic lack of connecting ideas to history and history to ideology. This comes up most when people choose sides without any real knowledge of the true differences on the two or more sides in the debate they are entering.

One of the fun things in the news today is the Olympics and all the controversy about China's role as host. One of the things that people always fail to mention is that China had to fight hard to get this role. They didn't just invite the world in, they begged, cajoled and likely even bribed their way into getting people's nose into their nation. Why would they do this? There is no way they could not have predicted the strong and visceral reactions some would have. And by "they" I mean the government officials that would have petitioned the Olympic committees. The people may have been quite unaware in many cases. So if they knew the reaction, why do it?

One sub-topic for this is Tibet. I have always had many issues with the "free Tibet" clan. I do not deny that there has been wrong done by the China regime over many decades. But the story is not as simple as big bad China and little red Dali-Lama-hood. How many people know the role Xinjiang, Quinhai, Islam, Turkey and other influences in the region have played? I don't claim to understand it all, but I do know enough to say I'm not going to make simple sweeping statements because Richard Gere goes on CNN and does his holier than thou act. When looking for materials for this post I stumbled on a very interesting blog that talks a lot about these issues.

Of course, the US itself is tied to China in any number of odd and sundry ways which makes so much of this reaction so terribly absurd. China is to the US what the US is to itself 40-50 years ago. Large, polluting, self-aggrandizing, self-driven, world weary and ultimately tied to the idea that it's "their turn". But ignore the historical comparison and you have the intimate industrial and commercial bond we have. No China, no Wal*Mart. I would love to go around these protests checking tags on clothing to determine the number of people that would be naked without Chinese labor.

I'm not surprised by any of this. When you follow the connections of history and look at the ideologies driving these reactions and factions, it all fits into place. The West, which the US is likely at the forefront of these days, is driven by extreme ideas. It has been for ages. Christianity is a great example. Some people honestly seem to think that there was no religion in Europe before Christ. Or they think the religion was simply some stone age grunting around camp fires. The truth is there was rich and complex and diverse religion. But the West loves a rock star and when a good enough one comes along, they toss over everything that came before in his name. The history of the West can be partially understood as the perfection of this process through technology driving ever faster communication. Christ could never have gone platinum without Roman roads. Luther would never have been such a smash without the printing press. JFK would never have beaten "the man" without TV. Witness the pinnacle of all this: our current consumer culture. We have a new rock star being born, getting crucified and falling dead (and maybe risen on reality and late night TV) at the pace it takes the E! network to put on each night's show. Consumerism is the economic and sociological expression of a revolution addiction. Thank the Hippies (turned Regan Democrats) and their blue jeans for that. They taught the man how to sell their revolution back to them as fast as they could make it up.

So the news pumps out Richard Gere, people takes sides as they like and they get to feel smart. And then things move on to the next big flare up. People want it to move on. People want that next flare up. And now it goes so fast they only hang on for the rush. They are there in the square for the battle - and maybe some stay to declare victory. Most move to the next battle to scream and yell again, though. They are addicted to rebelling. They don't care if they see it through. Most don't even understand the forces driving it. They show up to protest for Tibet in Wal*Mart sandals. They drive 100 miles in their SUV to protest war in Iraq. They scream for abolishing government waste and control while they tap in their vote on Diebold machines. Maybe I'm silly, but I think if they had paid attention more in school, if they had learned to connect ideas together in long chains, they may see their own silliness. I don't hate them. I think they are very silly. I laugh at the absurd, not weep. Sic transit gloria mundi - but they would have had to pay attention in Latin to get that.

bliss by any other name

With the holidays comes a season of social interaction on a level I always face with fear. It's the worst kind of social interaction where norms are so strongly enforced and my paranoia of being truly and deeply offensive is at odds with my instinct to be nothing but open with my loved ones. As always, my fears far out pace reality and the season was a lot of fun. Not surprising to you, who are statistically likely to know me very, very well, my family is generally very intellectual and conversation is always interesting.

After a few whiskeys and a huge meal, I said to my godmother that I fear all who say they know anything. It was embedded in a conversation about religion which descended from a conversation about politics. It's a thought I have always and express seldom. Socrates was on the money as far as I am concerned. We know nothing. We have faith to form axioms and belief to give us the rest. The "knowledge" we have is highly contextualized. This belief of mine gives me a deep mistrust of those that say they know the origin, purpose and future of the universe without any doubt - from any source secular or divine.

We hosted yet another meal and a guest told me I know too much to be happy. We'd been discussing the fed and how the interest rates, tender and other financial aspects of the US government work. After I spent a while going on about it, apparently I'd proved I was too much in the know to qualify for any ignorance benefits. If knowledge is power and power grants right, I guess I have the right to be miserable. Of course, knowledge is only power when it's knowledge of the right kind. What kind of knowledge counts for power has changed over history. Knowledge of how our government's financing works is useful to a point. But what could I *do* with that? Could it give me power over something to know this?

Our ancestors knew the stars better than we do now. They made monuments to track them and to signify their impact in the world as they saw it. And they had great stories to pass this knowledge on. Why? I believe that knowledge was the power to farm, navigate and do many other things with great success through careful planning. Success begot growth, growth begot specialization, specialization begot civilization, civilization begot cities and cities begot good for nothing loafers who didn't need to navigate or farm. But they still knew the stories that came from the stars. In many cases, they used that knowledge to wield new power. The stories had power because they were revered, and they were revered because they have delivered the ability to do things so well in the past. These new keepers of the stories established their right to power by showing they "know" what the stories mean - never mind that the meaning lay back on the farm or out on the plains.

What is knowledge when it is only for the sake of knowing? What did all that knowing get us today? Power suddenly disconnected from its original right. Power used for other things. People who "know" the stories still hold the power. And so I fear them a little bit. Mostly because I believe they don't understand what they think they know. I fear those that follow them a lot more. Those who believe in those who think they know are very dangerous. Even if all they do is live in bliss.