Christmas: A Defense

I hear much from my colleagues in academia about how horrible Christmas is. Their complaint is a valid one. The problem is that their complaint is limited, one-sided and narrow.

In brief, the standard academic critique of mChristmas is that it trivializes our emotions with false and shallow sentimentality, and helps to foster a culture of greed, commercialism, excess, and rampant spending on things we neither need or want. No observer of the contemporary Christmas season can deny that there really is much false sentimentality and corrupt consumerism at Christmas time. This is true and those things are rightly condemned.

The problem is that academics are very narrow-minded. They reduce everything to a singular phenomenon, a unified purpose, and they are often incapable of seeing outside the colored goggles of their favorite ideology. In general, anything enjoyed by a majority of people is frowned upon and dismissed by the professors who sit atop their ivory towers feeling smug and superior, above the common and duped rabble.

They might try looking more deeply.

I know few - if any - people who are really concerned with presents and hallmark card sentimentality. Most people find Christmas a time to remind them that what matters most in life is Peace on Earth and Good Will toward all. Yes these phrases have been abused and over used. That does not drain them of their meaning.

Christmas reminds us to cherish our loved ones, to value our relationships, to reach out to those in need. Undoubtedly we should do this all year long. We should always value our relationships, cherish our loved ones, help the poor and needy. No doubt the pretentious critics of Christmas will bellow at me that "we don't need a special day for this stuff! We should always bear peace and good will." Indeed we should. But reminders help.

A special season devoted to what is best in human nature is a reminder to always be our best. We too easily get lost in the hustle of everyday life. Setting aside a day, indeed, an entire "season" to remember what matters most in life, can be a powerful motivator for the rest of the year.

By all means let us damn consumerism. Let us fight false sentimentality tooth and nail and refuse to participate in it. But this is only a superficial surface. What Christmas has always been about is none of these vile things.

This Christmas let us turn to the message of Peace, Joy, Love, and Good Will that Christmas is really all about. Let us join Ebenezer Scrooge and learn to honor Christmas in our hearts and keep it all the year.

Norad Follows Santa around the world

This has become one of my favorite Christmas eve traditions:

Olbermann: Ruined Senate bill unsupportable

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dickens reminds us what Christmas is really about; and it's not what you think!

[What follows was originially posted last year]

Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is rightly heralded as a classic that expresses the true meaning of Christmas. But not often for the right reasons.

Most film versions of the classic are overly sentimental. But the Scrooge we meet in the original novel is a man who is utterly devoid of any genuine relationships with other people. He is both dead to himself, and as a consequence dead to others. As Dickens remind us, he is "secretive, solitary, and self-contained as an oyster."

A Christmas Carol is not a Hallmark card about a stingy fellow who learns to be jovial and kind. It's a tale about the willing blindness of a man who will not listen to himself and thus shuts himself off from his fellow human beings.

The larger point is that for Dickens personal growth and transformation is inseparable from social justice and communal responsibility. If we ignore ourselves we will ignore the plight of our fellows. If we awake to ourselves, we cannot help but be moved to aid others when we can. Personal transformation and social justice are intimately linked.

In this vein the following 1972 Animated version of Carol is the best representation I have seen of the book. The film even uses as the basis for its "look" original illustrations from the 19th century.

This film not only gets the novel's concern with social justice and the plight of the poor, but also provides us with images that are very surrealist, reminiscent of a Dali painting or a Bergman film in some ways. The novel itself has these qualities, but they are not usually well captured in the various films.

Enjoy it! And remember what Dickens' Christmas Carol really has to teach us about the holiday season:

Santa Claus

The Christmas Holiday is flooded with images of Santa Claus. I have been thinking a great deal about this lately. No image is a better center for negative and positive reactions to the Christmas Holiday.

For those who see Christmas as too commercial, Santa is an easy target. The rotund and Jolly image of Kris Kringle is used to market and sell just about everything and then some. Clearly a big commercial plug, the Saint is often thought to be nothing more than a sales pitch.

Santa has also been a favorite target of some Christians who think that the modern Christmas is a purely pagan or secular celebration, with Santa usurping the role of Christ and leading our Children astray.

These reactions are perhaps understandable, but they are historically inaccurate. Santa Claus has been around far longer than the companies that use his image to sell products. Commercialism is neither the origin nor essential nature of Father Christmas.

Furthermore, Christmas has never been an exclusively Christian holiday. The pagan, Christian, and secular have long and happily co-existed as part of the yuletide season. Be that as it may, if people find Christmas too secular, too commercial, too sappy, or too ... whatever, that is their prerogative. I have no interest in defending the Holiday against those who do not care for it. Neither do I care to defend Santa Claus to those who do not wish to "play Santa" for their children. There are many parents who teach their children that Santa brings them gifts on Christmas eve and there are many who do not. I see no evidence that either practice is harmful or damaging to the children in question. So whether one likes Christmas or not, whether one embraces Saint Nick or not, is not my concern.

What I would like to address is what Santa Claus is about. What makes us tell our children stories about a magical saint who brings them toys? What makes children embrace the idea with so much joy? Why do we participate in this odd ritual of pretend? What, exactly, does Santa Claus represent for children?

An easy answer is that Santa brings toys and kids love toys. But that will not do. If it were just about toys, kids would love toys from whomever and not particularly care about Santa himself. But this is not what we find. Just talk to a child at Christmas time and you will see that it is the big man himself that matters to them, far more than the toys he brings. Why should this be so?

I have though long and hard on this matter over the years, and it seems clear to me that Santa is an an image of divinity. This may sound a little silly and strange. But it is actually not too hard to believe. Children approach Santa with just that mixture of awe, love, reverence, and fear, that most peoples traditionally approach their deities.

Santa, furthermore, clearly has the qualities of divinity. He is immortal, he lives in a magical place "up there," he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The Saint flies through the sky, can enter any home, "sees you when you're sleeping, knows if you've been bad or good," he even judges you "naughty or nice." To top it off, Santa even has the long white beard of the traditional sky-father deity!

Children, of course, would not call Santa divine; they would not think he was a god, or an image of God. But that is irrelevant. The attitudes children have toward Santa Claus, the qualities he possesses, make him an image of the divine.

So for those who do enjoying sharing Santa Claus with their children, think about what you are really sharing ... without knowing it you are imparting to your children a conception of divinity. A conception that, at its best, is really a rather positive one. In most portrayals Santa Claus is a kind, non-judgmental, and generous man. Perhaps by sharing him with our children, we are helping them to value these qualities, and to see them as the path toward the divine.

Bill Moyers on Obama's Peace Prize

Well said Mr. Moyers!!

Saint Nicholas Day a day for Social Justice

Today is St. Nicholas' Day. I think it is good on this day to take some time to reflect on generosity, love, care, and giving. But more than that. Today is also a day for reflection upon social justice and helping those in need.

Nicholas is remembered primarily as the protector of children and the poor, those who could not defend themselves and needed a protector. It is little remembered sometimes that St. Nick is not simply a figure who gives gifts to children, but who helps those who are socially marginalized and in real danger of slipping through the cracks.

The most famous story about St. Nicholas tells of his "gift" of gold in the stockings of three daughters. The gift prevented the girls from being sold into slavery! St. Nicholas did not simply bestow trinkets but battled for social justice. Another famous tale informs us that Nicholas raised back to life three abandoned children who had been murdered by an inn keeper. In both cases St. Nicholas comes to aid and protect those who have been abused and neglected.

Let us reflect upon those who suffer from injustice and poverty. Let us call upon the spirit of justice, care, and generosity that St. Nicholas embodied. Let us try to let that spirit live and work in us this holiday season.

Here you can see the Saint himself arrive to greet adoring admirers:

Sound and Fury

My Blog turned a year old on November 20th. My readers may have noticed a sharp decline in the number of posts I write.

This is partially due to the fact that I'm applying for tenure-track teaching jobs and trying to finish my dissertation. But there is another explanation.

NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!

By that I mean that the Obama administration has made no important changes in policy. Climate change? Nothing. Health care? We shall see, but nothing much to report yet, foreign policy? More of the same. The economy? Look around you! It's no better either.

The political debates that people seem to care about are Sarah Palin and Levi Johnston, or perhaps the drama of John and Kate!

It's a sham.

I will have more posts up once the dissertation is done, but in the meantime let us hang our heads at the lack of progress of this administration and the continuing foolishness of the media.

Faith and Health Care reform

As we get closer to the something called "health care reform," let us take another look at the moral case for health care as a human right, as well as the question of religious faith and "health care for all:"



I'm quite fond of Rev. Adam Hamilton and I find his claim that justice - and for those who believe it, the God of justice - demands that all be cared for to be undeniable. No decent human being can deny this.

The Other fellow seems to have no argument at all. He simply repeats lame and false claims about "big government" and "paid abortions" and other nonsense. I really wish that one of these "anti-health reform" folks would for once actually consider the facts, offer a real argument, or provide at least some accurate data!

The weakest aspect of the argument offered by Lou Dobbs and by Hamilton's opponent is a failure to distinguish between the quality of care provided by the United States top notch doctors and hospitals as opposed to the lack of coverage provided for millions of Americans.

The argument is that America has the best health care because we have the best doctors, so why change it? We do have great doctors and wonderful hospitals. But the argument here completely misses the point. The Problem with our health care system is not the skill of our doctors, but the fact that millions of people don't have health insurance, or have health insurance that denies their claims. The issue is NOT the quality of care, but the lack of coverage.

Finally, the idea that health care must be rationed if it is extended to all and sundry, is absurd. Some countries, most notoriously Canada, have long waits. But many others countries (check out Japan, France, and Germany) have wait times as short as ours but still have universal health care coverage that costs less than ours.

Ladainian Tomlinson shines again

I just want to celebrate the fact that the great Chargers running back, Ladainian Tomlinson, still has a little something left.

Perhaps its because he learned just before the game that his wife is preganant and he will be a dad for the first time. Surely something has put fire in his step again:

Bonfire Night: The Fight against Authority

The English tradition of Bonfire night, celebrated tonight, remembers the FAILED attempt to blow up the king and Parliament by angry religious Zealot, Guy Fawkes. It has its place I'm sure.

But ever since the graphic novel - and especially the film - V For Vendetta, the Fifth of November has taken on a new meaning. Bonfire night has become a night to celebrate defiance of authority in the name of individual freedom.

As a graphic novel, and more so as a film, V for Vendetta is an enjoyable but flawed product. It is in turn silly, delusional, and cheesy. But I like to be reminded that we must be wary of power structures, and ready to stand against them.

We must remind ourselves that power structures are everywhere. These structures attempt to decree from on high, how we must life, what is wrong and what is right, what is normal and what is "beyond the pale." We give them too much power. It is we, and not the power structures and systems of domination that should determine how we live and what we are.

Reflect a little this November 5th. Think about how power structures stifle freedom and what we can do to change that in our own lives and communities.

Remember, Remember the fifth of November .....

Three Days of Death

For those of you who follow the liturgy, today is All Souls Day. Yesterday was All Saints Day, and the day before, of course, was Halloween.

I don't make it to church all that often. I attend a little more than the Easter & Christmas type, but not much; maybe 6-8 times a year. But I usually make it on All Saints day. I have find it interesting to contrast the two folk (as opposed to religious) holidays that fall on the last day of October and the first day of November respectively.

Halloween is largely about death and our fear of it. Halloween treats death as something terrifying, evil, and often coming to get us. Images of ghosts, zombies, skeletons, and other undead creatures abound. They are always vile, horrific, and ready to make us like them. Halloween reminds me that we fear death and run from it, but that we are ultimately doomed to be overtaken by it. Death is scary.

We should not downplay this aspect of death. We are frightened by it, we are uncomfortable with it. Halloween allows us to recognize and explore this fear. It is important that our radical unease with death be experienced first.

What comes after Halloween, however, changes the picture. The Mexican celebration of the Day of the Dead is also marked by images of ghosts and skeletons. These images are, however, not so scary. For the Day of the Dead, death is something to be embraced and celebrated, reflected upon. We remember our dear departed and celebrate the fact that, though no longer living, they remain powerfully with us. Death need not be scary, but is a natural part of the celebration of life.

All Saints Day and All Souls Day have the same theme as the Day of the Dead. We celebrate not only the memory, but the continuing presence of the departed in our hearts, minds, and lives. We honor their memory and continue their work. When our time comes, we to will depart this life, but we also will leave a legacy and a presence behind.

It is important that we come to a place where we accept death as natural. We must learn to embrace it and to end our fear of it. But we cannot do this without fully confronting our fear of it, without recognizing this fear, without battling our demons.

It is very important that Day of the Dead and All Saints Day follow Halloween. We cannot make peace with our mortality until we have looked at it and our fear of it head on.

Happy Halloween

History of Halloween

As we go into Halloween Weekend, I thought I would share this video from the History Channel on the History of Halloween. Let us celebrate the holiday with a little perspective on its past and meaning:

Senate Bill retains Public Option!

The Public Option will be in the Senate Bill! The compromise? States can choose to back out. So that means that you Rick Perry and you Bobby Jindal will be the ones who get to choose to harm the people of your states and sell them out to your insurance company overlords!! Ha!!!! In more sane states, we will finally have some relief from corporate villains who have been denying our claims!

Harry Reid announces the decision:



I think this is a reasonable move. Let states who fear "big government" refuse the option if they wish. They will quickly learn that they need and want a public option after all. In a couple years, the states that have a public option will being do much better with coverage and costs than those who refuse it.

To be honest, however, and despite the tea-baggers, I don't think may States will refuse the public option.

The Origins of the Financial Crisis

Water World: The Future is NOW

Bangladesh is on of the first countries suffering the worsts of Global Warming; it won't be the last.

Halloween Movies

As we approach Halloween I find myself watching the classic films of the holiday. Not Jason, Freddy, and Michael Myers, but rather the Universal horror films of the 30s and 40s: Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolfman, and the Mummy.

These films are rather cheesy of course. The acting, largely the result of actors of that era being trained for stage and silent films, is poor by our standards, the effects far outdated, and the story lines are often rather weak - although I confess I find these films endearing for these reasons.

But these films have shaped what Halloween monsters are. The Draculas and Frankensteins we see trick or treating every year are the versions from these films. They have had a remarkable cultural impact. There are a number of factors that explain their enduring appeal.

These films are rather primal, touching basic fears and struggles.

First, each of the classic universal horror films deals squarely with death, fear of death and longing for death. The lines are a bit campy, hence Bela Lugosi's Dracula tells us "To die, to be truly dead ... that must be wonderful," and "there are far worse things awaiting man than death!" But most films of that or any era could not face death so head on. The fact that these are "monster films" gives them free leeway to actually explore our struggle with mortality.

Second, the power and danger of sexuality is strongly dealt with. Whether it's the Wolfman's desiring to "devour" his love interest, or the strongly implied lesbianism of Dracula's Daughter (an odd, but must see film), sex is presented as something bubbling below the surface. The characters try to control their libido, attempt to master it, but all too often fail as the force of their passions carries them to a dangerous place.

Third, there is a fear that science and technology may harm us. We hear again and again in these films that "modern science" does not permit the existence of this or that monster. Most tellingly, in The Mummy we are told that one must violate ancient graves because of "science you know." Each of these films fears that we have lost something ancient and essential because of our advances, and we are in real danger for having lost it.

Fourth, and finally, the classic horror films question and examine the notions of "normalcy" and "the other." In some, e.g. Dracula, "the other" is dangerous and must be destroyed. In many others - see Tod Browning's Freaks especially - , e.g. Frankenstein, the other is simply misunderstood and it is the "normal" people who are dangerous, vile, and destructive. The angry mobs in Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are eerily reminiscent of today's "Tea-baggers" who fear shout and hate.

Because these films are "horror" or "fantasy" they explore issues that more mainstream films at that time did not. They remain worth watching for this reason. They look at issues we must still examine, they wrestle with conflicts we still struggle to understand.

So, do yourself a favor and watch some of the classic Universal Horror films this Halloween.

I have not forgotten Health care reform

My readers may have noted that I have not posted on Health care reform for a while now. In part this is because I am attempting to finish the initial draft of my dissertation and also because I have started the process of applying for Tenure-Track jobs. Also, I've needed a break from the political battles of our world in order to restore a little sanity to my life.

I will return to the topic of health care reform very soon. For now I want to wait and see what the final bill ends up looking like. That Olympia Snowe voted for the Baucus bill does not encourage me. That bill does not encourage me. There is nothing in it to control costs or ensure that claims submitted to insurers are actually covered. A health care bill is not reform simply because a member of the other party casts a vote for it. Health reform in reality, and not merely in name, would actually lower costs and expand coverage; it would actually help the people.

Let us wait, however, and see what happens. The Senate HELP bill is far promising, as are the bills in the House. For now, let us call, email, write, sign petitions, and protest. Let our Senators know that we demand a strong public option, an employer mandate (with small businesses exempt), and real change for a broken system and an ailing populace.

More on this to come as the bills reach their final form.

Ken Burns: Beauty is Democratic

I was unable to see all of Ken Burn's National Parks: American's Best idea on PBS, I watched 3 of the 6 Episodes. I did manage to see clips from the other episodes and plan to watch them all when the Public Library gets a copy.

I'm mixed on Ken Burns. His documentaries are far too long, too sappy at times, and can have long stretches of sheer boredom (The exception here is Burn's Baseball, which was fantastic from start to finish). On the other hand, his documentaries always include fine interviews, great images, and remarkable observations. They are always worth watching despite the problems. National Parks is standard Ken Burns in all respects.

Two things stood out for me. First, there was a great deal, particularly in the first episode, about finding God in nature. John Muir played a large part here. The nature mysticism in the first episode was never sufficiently developed, but it was quite well done. Americans like John Muir and Walt Whitman developed a particularly American theology in which God is to be found right here in the beauty, power, and sheer grandeur of nature. That Burns touched on this tradition at all is remarkable, for Americans have lost much of it. As the documentary stressed, finding divinity in the land is the defining feature of Native American spirituality. A continent as beautiful as North America naturally gives rise to such a theology of divine immanence.

Second, the major idea of the film is that "big government" is not always bad. In fact, Burn's documentary makes a strong case that only a strong federal government can protect the public good.

James Poniewozik, writing for time Magazine, captures this perfectly:

The miniseries starts in the mid — 19th century, when nature lovers began urging that the expanding nation set aside areas of wilderness to remain undeveloped and unspoiled. Their cautionary tale was Niagara Falls, which by the 1860s was "almost ruined" — overrun by hucksters and tourist traps, with nearly every good view privately owned. Unless the government acted, advocates like naturalist John Muir warned, Yosemite and Yellowstone would end up the same way. "To Europeans," reads narrator Peter Coyote, Niagara "was proof that the United States was still a backward, uncivilized nation."

Government intervention! Private-sector-bashing! Americans trying to impress Europeans! These and other pinko motivations would secure a permanent federal handout for Yogi Bear and his picnic-basket-redistributing comrades. You can imagine how the proposal might go down were the parks starting from scratch today. Socialized nature, controlled by tree czars?

And in the decades that followed, there were battles — with drillers, ranchers, developers — over and over (and over: The National Parks is gorgeous, but at 12 hours, it sometimes gives new meaning to the term geologic time). When FDR created Jackson Hole National Monument in 1943, a Wyoming Senator likened the plan to Pearl Harbor, while a local journalist compared it to Hitler's Anschluss.

Burns and writer Dayton Duncan make plain which side they're on. (The subtitle is a hint.) A section on the battle to create a park in the Smoky Mountains contrasts schoolkids collecting pennies for the effort with logging companies bankrolling ads and "frantically cutting the old-growth forests ... to extract everything they could before the land was closed to them." Speaking to critics this summer, Burns said, "If there were no national parks, [the Grand Canyon] would be a gated community."

The national parks — and The National Parks — are based on ideas that are classically, if not radically, communitarian: That the free market doesn't always act in the public interest. That it's good that every American shares ownership of and responsibility for the most exclusive properties in the country. And that it is right for people — through government — to protect them from business interests and even from the people themselves (like the early visitors who shot game and scratched their names on ancient rocks). A series on a public-TV network that calls a government program America's best idea? Has no one alerted Rush Limbaugh?

It is a good time to remind Americans that federal government is not always bad. To the contrary, big business is a serious threat to Democracy. Privatization puts power, wealth, and property into the hands of a few, public services and resources - like National Parks - spread power, wealth, and property to all of us. "We the People" own the national parks. This is a truly democratic idea. And that idea makes Ken Burns new documentary well worth viewing.