I spoke to two classes of communications majors today about digital PR and social media marketing. It was a wonderful experience. The University of Maryland undergraduate course was called Comm350:  Public Relations Theory and their communications professor, Sahar Mohamed Khamis, was amazing generous and welcoming, basically handing me the reins to her class, sight unseen.  The class is described as:

The historical development and contemporary status of public relations in business, government, associations and other organizations. Application of communication theory and social science methods to the research, planning, communication and evaluation aspects of the public relations process.

Everybody was super bright and super nice to me. One thing I was concerned about is that in both classes I taught today, both Comm350, only a couple people had Twitter accounts and I think there were just a couple folks who have a blog or who had every blogged.  And these are our future PR professionals.  Of course, when I asked, 100%  of the students in both classes were on Facebook.  Natch.

Well, I presented my A Guide to Blogger Relations slide show and then took questions.  I told them that blogging, Twittering, and participating in the wider conversation would almost guarantee them a good job at a local or national agency after college.  I told them that they should all, separately or in concert, start writing a blog about their take on communication, on advertising, on popular culture, on television, on PR, on social media — that the thing they learn in class every day would be interesting to the blogosphere, seen through their young eyes.  That there is no doubt in my mind that you can really and truly write yourself into the job of your dreams and if they didn’t blog, all of them, they were darned fools (well, maybe I didn’t say it — it was implied).

I receive quite a thank you note from one of student from the first class, Miss Chelsea Clark, who not only asked a question but also said the following nice things — a mixture of review, testimonial, and, I dare say, her first blog post once removed:

I walked into my Comm350 class on Tuesday expecting to sit there taking notes for an hour and a half like usual. Instead, our professor announced we were  having a guest speaker. I was thinking to myself that this could go one of two  ways: really interesting and way better than cramping my hand taking notes, or  really boring and put me to sleep.

Our guest speaker took the floor and introduced himself and described what his company does. I’ve learned about blogs in PR before, but I was never really able  to link the two together. Yeah, so blogs are a new media outlet, but how does  that help clients? How do businesses personally benefit from random people  around the country writing about their hobbies and interests? I never really  understood the connection until Chris’ presentation.

He described how he would have his team search for blogs that were written about topics that relate to his clients and then send out mass emails to the  bloggers to ask them to write about his clients. He was worried that we would  think he was a spammer, but, having made many annoying calls and emails to  reporters myself, I knew how he felt. He then showed us results of actual  bloggers that wrote about his clients. He got so excited! We all recognized this  feeling, for being PR people ourselves, we know how satisfying it is to have free  publicity.

I thought that Chris did a really good job with his presentation. I followed what he was saying the whole time and enjoyed some of his nerdy antics. I think  some of the people in the class were less interested or maybe didn’t follow what   Chris’ company is responsible for, either because they were pretending to take  notes while really checking their facebooks or because they are still a bit  unfamiliar with PR and got a little bit confused.

For me, the presentation was enlightening, exciting, and interesting and showed me new ways of getting publicity without necessarily resorting to TV and  newspapers. I would definitely recommend him to other PR college classes that  are looking for guest speakers!

That, Chelsea, really made my month.  I appreciate the kind words and thank you, again, to professor Sahar Khamis

who will soon be coming out with a really compelling new book you should all pre-order on Amazon,  Islam Dot Com: Contemporary Islamic Discourses in Cyberspace.  I look forward to it.

Also, if you’re curious as to the content of the slide show and the presentation I did, here it is inline for your enjoyment… however, I need to record one with my insight, wit, and wisdom one of these days soon:

The Ballad of Chris Abraham

With fingers strong he types the truth
With graceful words so slick
He opens eyes, and hearts, and minds
With his memetic tricks

Oh, once you read his graceful lines
You’ll see a different world
With thoughts that live, evolve, and change
In human minds a-whirl

He fights the endless hordes of fools
With sharpened sword of wit
Striking down the endless legion
A man of brains and grit

Remember him, Chris Abraham,
Historians to come
A man who rushed into the page
And fought the mindless scum

Via Ungab

I met experimental new media artist, Hasan Elahi, out at an expat event, had a wildly cool night out, and then lost track of him. Tonight I received a note on Facebook from him telling me that my name had just been mentioned in connection with a sensational story I wrote last week for AdAge, Pepsi Apologized to Me for Its Suicide Ads. Hasan told me that Harry Shearer mentioned me by name in the “I’m Sorry” Apologies of the Week © portion of his NPR syndicated show, Le Show, featuring the week’s apologies in the media: good, bad, and ugly. Well, I searched around and found a LeShow airing in Chico, California, (SUN @ 4PM on KCHO-FM 91.7) and listened streaming live from my Berlin Apartment. It was true and you can hear it for yourself, thanks to the quick wits of Phillip Rhoades and thanks to Matt Creamer for tapping me to write for AdAge Global Idea Network:

The answer, of course, is “it takes about ten years of suffering hard work to become an overnight sensation.” In the case of new media and Web2.0, you can so that in a lot less time. Being an early — the earliest — adopter doesn’t hurt, but it isn’t necessary, really. However, any way you slice it, with a few exceptions, becoming an overnight sensation on Twitter, YouTube, Plurk, QIK, Utterli, LinkedIn, Facebook, or MySpace is going to require a lot of your resources (time and/or money) and more time than you probably planned out for your boss or your client — or yourself!

I am pretty interested in seeing how my Twitter profile has gone from nothing to 2,511+ followers. Twitterholic has allowed me to figure that out in an easy-to-read format, which I appreciate. I joined Twitter on January 6th, 2007. By October 30th, I had 441 followers. It took until May 5th, 2008, to break 1,000 followers. It only took until September 11th for me to break 2,000 followers, and now, as of December 7th (a day that lives in infamy), I have 2,511 followers. I find that interesting to study but I don’t know what it means.

I think I will venture to explain its meaning: social media requires investment and time. Growing a social media profile is like growing a coral reef: after seeding the reef, there are so many things that need to happen before a reef blooms “in its own.” There are many things that can aid the reef: safety, cleanliness, warmth, nutrients, oxygenation, etc… however, one of the most important thing is time and commitment.

Social media cultivation makes most PR and marketing professionals cringe at the thought of trying to sell these solutions to their clients. A client generally wants metrics now and right away. Clients oftentimes spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a social network platform, a blog, or a spate of social media profiles that are world class and amazingly turned; however, when the six-month mark comes around and the community is not yet bustling, most clients get severe cold feet and oftentimes abandon all of the work-in (and money out) as a failed campaign — right before the reef blooms!

It kills me to see the number of corporate blogs, home-grown social networks, message boards, and social network profiles that are like those bare and barren rocks and wrecks that never in fact ever blossomed into an emergent community manifest in a coral reef. An ecosystem as delicate and hardy as any social media space, from Twitter to Facebook, from MySpace to your corporate blog.

I forgot to also add to the resources plus time equation: commitment, consistency, calmness, dedication, generosity, and compassion. When you invest in online community as much as I do (2,511 on Twitter with 11,200 tweets, 2,734 on Facebook, 1,496 on LinkedIn, and 5,321 posts on my blog, an online presence I have had since 1999, for example) then you need to be generous — give more than you take — and you need to be committed to the long term. You will need to learn what each community will allow, suffer, enjoy, or penalize. You will learn where the borders are and you will learn what works (and draws people in) and what doesn’t (making them flee).

Well, with no further ado, here’s a lot of work, time, creativity, hours, minutes, wit, mistake, missteps, business, play, Washington, Berlin, Slovakia, San Diego, and a hundred other places. If you want to have 2,500 followers and you’re not already famous, you’ll have to put in the work. If you can achieve tens of thousands of followers, you’re probably already somebody; in that case, it wasn’t just overnight: you just put in your licks elsewhere. Otherwise, put on those work-gloves and start working!

Visit Chris Abraham’s Twitter Page
Visit Chris Abraham’s Webpage

• Chris Abraham was the 608,473rd person to sign up for twitter!
• Chris Abraham is ranked 843rd on twitterholic! (by followers)
• Chris Abraham is ranked 1st in their location on twitterholic!

Bio: Web strategist and new media guru and president of Abraham Harrison LLC, http://chrisabraham.com
Joined Twitter on 2007-01-06 14:51:39

My friend wrote the following email to me. I asked her if I might be able to post it and she said yes, as long as I make it anonymous:

So maybe you’ll understand my irritation. Yesterday I found myself defending feminism to a couple of otherwise fairly liberal women. I’m not yet able to articulate precisely what about this conversation I found most disturbing. I’ll spare you the details, but one of them was arguing that feminism didn’t accomplish anything because women have always been able to do whatever they wanted to. To me, this just displays astounding ignorance (and how do you counter that, really?). Both of them, however, were arguing, essentially, that a woman’s primary purpose is to have and raise children. Really? And they weren’t so subtle in what they thought of me by way of implication. (It’s very possible I was reading more into this than I should have.)Now there are certain circles where I expect this sort of bullshit (and this is by no means a slight on women who choose to have/raise kids). And I’ve been distancing myself from those circles as much as I can. But it doesn’t look like I cant dodge this issue much longer, seeing as it appears unavoidable even amongst purported liberals. I’m hoping that with these women at least–I probably won’t see them again until after the new year–the issue is dropped, particularly because I don’t really feel that, in a professional setting anyway, I can really say what I think, in the way I really WANT to say it.Why, why, why in this day and age are women still most valued–even among other women–not for their brains, their wits, their gifts, their abilities, their accomplishments, but for their uterus? I had no idea this line of thinking, is this country anyway, went beyond the usual suspects. I thought that being valued for who one is, man or woman, should be a given. Or am I just pissed as an inherently flawed person because I’m not a nurturer? And what should I say/do the next time I run into this sort of thing?

Firstly, I am honored that I was included in the email — I am the only boy — with the subject line, “You’re enlightened people.”Secondly, I studied feminist theory in college and have always been a proponent of equal rights for women as they choose to define it.Thirdly, I would really love to get a discussion going about this issue because it means a lot to me, to my friend, and to loads and loads of women who value themselves for “their brains, their wits, their gifts, their abilities, their accomplishments” and not just for their uteri.

I would have never guessed that Camille Paglia would be in awe of Sara Palin or perceive her as follows, “Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.” Whoa. (Via Salon.com)

Fresh blood for the vampire

Rip tide! Is the Obama campaign shooting out to sea like a paper boat?

It’s heavy weather for Obama fans, as momentum has suddenly shifted to John McCain — that hoary, barnacle-encrusted tub that many Democrats like me had thought was full of holes and swirling to its doom in the inky depths of Republican incoherence and fratricide. Gee whilikers, the McCain vampire just won’t die! Hit him with a hammer, and he explodes like a jellyfish into a hundred hungry pieces.

Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain’s imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain’s credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain’s sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let’s turn the damned page.We need a new generation of leadership with fresh ideas and an expansive, cosmopolitan vision — which is why I support Barack Obama and have contributed to his campaign. My baby-boom generation — typified by the narcissistic Clintons — peaked in the 1960s and is seriously past it. But McCain, born before Pearl Harbor, is even older than we are! Why would anyone believe that he holds the key to the future? And why would anyone swallow that preening passel of high-flown rhetoric about “country above all” coming from a seething, short-fused character whose rampant egotism, zigzagging principles, and currying of the gullible press were the distinguishing marks of his senatorial career?

Having said that, I must admit that McCain is currently eating Obama’s lunch. McCain’s weirdly disconnected persona (beady glowers flashing to frozen grins and back again) has started to look more testosterone-rich than Obama’s easy, lanky, reflective candor. What in the world possessed the Obama campaign to let their guy wander like a dazed lamb into a snake pit of religious inquisition like Rick Warren’s public forum last month at his Saddleback Church in California? That shambles of a performance — where a surprisingly unprepared Obama met the inevitable question about abortion with shockingly curt glibness — began his alarming slide.

As I said in my last column, I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama’s efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin’ his g’s like there’s no tomorrow. It’s analogous to the way stodgy, portly Al Gore (evidently misadvised by the women in his family and their feminist pals) tried to zap himself up on the campaign trail into the happening buff dude that he was not. Both Gore and Obama would have been better advised to pursue a calm, steady, authoritative persona. Forget the jokes — be boring! That, alas, is what reads as masculine in the U.S.

The over-the-top publicity stunt of a mega-stadium for Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic convention two weeks ago was a huge risk that worried me sick — there were too many things that could go wrong, from bad weather to crowd control to technical glitches on the overblown set. But everything went swimmingly. Obama delivered the speech nearly flawlessly — though I was shocked and disappointed by how little there was about foreign policy, a major area where wavering voters have grave doubts about him. Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into “Star Wars” — a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.

After that extravaganza, marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s epochal civil rights speech on the Washington Mall, I felt calmly confident that the Obama campaign was going to roll like a gorgeous juggernaut right over the puny, fossilized McCain. The next morning, it was as if the election were already over. No need to fret about American politics anymore this year. I had already turned with relief to other matters.

Pow! Wham! The Republicans unleashed a doozy — one of the most stunning surprises that I have ever witnessed in my adult life. By lunchtime, Obama’s triumph of the night before had been wiped right off the national radar screen. In a bold move I would never have thought him capable of, McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his pick for vice president. I had heard vaguely about Palin but had never heard her speak. I nearly fell out of my chair. It was like watching a boxing match or a quarter of hard-hitting football — or one of the great light-saber duels in “Star Wars.” (Here are the two Jedi, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn, going at it with Darth Maul in “The Phantom Menace.”) This woman turned out to be a tough, scrappy fighter with a mischievous sense of humor.

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for president of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making. Our president also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation — a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.

As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women’s studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances. I have repeatedly said that the politician who came closest in my view to the persona of the first woman president was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose steady nerves in crisis were demonstrated when she came to national attention after the mayor and a gay supervisor were murdered in their City Hall offices in San Francisco. Hillary Clinton, with her schizophrenic alteration of personae, has never seemed presidential to me — and certainly not in her bland and overpraised farewell speech at the Democratic convention (which skittered from slow, pompous condescension to trademark stridency to unseemly haste).

Feinstein, with her deep knowledge of military matters, has true gravitas and knows how to shrewdly thrust and parry with pesky TV interviewers. But her style is reserved, discreet, mandarin. The gun-toting Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America’s pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War — long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did — which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end.

Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics — which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama’s campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don’t see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it.

One reason I live in the leafy suburbs of Philadelphia and have never moved to New York or Washington is that, as a cultural analyst, I want to remain in touch with the mainstream of American life. I frequent fast-food restaurants, shop at the mall, and periodically visit Wal-Mart (its bird-seed section is nonpareil). Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days. Ambitious professionals in those cities, if they want to preserve their social networks, are very vulnerable to received opinion. At receptions and parties (which I hate), they’re sitting ducks. They have to go along to get along — poor dears!

It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin’s boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.

Perhaps Palin seemed perfectly normal to me because she resembles so many women I grew up around in the snow belt of upstate New York. For example, there were the robust and hearty farm women of Oxford, a charming village where my father taught high school when I was a child. We first lived in an apartment on the top floor of a farmhouse on a working dairy farm. Our landlady, who was as physically imposing as her husband, was an all-American version of the Italian immigrant women of my grandmother’s generation — agrarian powerhouses who could do anything and whose trumpetlike voices could pierce stone walls.

Here’s one episode. My father and his visiting brother, a dapper barber by trade, were standing outside having a smoke when a great noise came from the nearby barn. A calf had escaped. Our landlady yelled, “Stop her!” as the calf came careening at full speed toward my father and uncle, who both instinctively stepped back as the calf galloped through the mud between them. Irate, our landlady trudged past them to the upper pasture, cornered the calf, and carried that massive animal back to the barn in her arms. As she walked by my father and uncle, she exclaimed in amused disgust, “Men!”

Now that’s the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism — a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

Here’s another example of the physical fortitude and indomitable spirit that Palin as an Alaskan sportswoman seems to represent right now. Last year, Toronto’s Globe and Mail reprinted this remarkable obituary from 1905:

Abigail Becker Farmer and homemaker born in Frontenac County, Upper Canada, on March 14, 1830

A tall, handsome woman “who feared God greatly and the living or dead not at all,” she married a widower with six children and settled in a trapper’s cabin on Long Point, Lake Erie. On Nov. 23, 1854, with her husband away, she single-handedly rescued the crew of the schooner Conductor of Buffalo, which had run aground in a storm. The crew had clung to the frozen rigging all night, not daring to enter the raging surf. In the early morning, she waded chin-high into the water (she could not swim) and helped seven men reach shore. She was awarded medals for heroism and received $350 collected by the people of Buffalo, plus a handwritten letter from Queen Victoria that was accompanied by £50, all of which went toward buying a farm. She lost her husband to a storm, raised 17 children alone and died at Walsingham Centre, Ont.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.

But what of Palin’s pro-life stand? Creationism taught in schools? Book banning? Gay conversions? The Iraq war as God’s plan? Zionism as a prelude to the apocalypse? We’ll see how these big issues shake out. Right now, I don’t believe much of what I read or hear about Palin in the media. To automatically assume that she is a religious fanatic who has embraced the most extreme ideas of her local church is exactly the kind of careless reasoning that has been unjustly applied to Barack Obama, whom the right wing is still trying to tar with the fulminating anti-American sermons of his longtime preacher, Jeremiah Wright.

The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.

Let’s take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women’s movement — leading to feminists’ McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women — an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.

The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society’s acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life. If McCain wins the White House and then drops dead, a President Palin would have the power to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, but she could not control their rulings.

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.

Camille Paglia’s column appears on the second Wednesday of each month. Every third column is devoted to reader letters. Please send questions for her next letters column to this mailbox. Your name and town will be published unless you request anonymity.

George Carlin was my first adult comedian. My dad — my parents — loved him. He was a true disruptor and free thinker, using comedy as his platform. Please check out George Carlin’s Wikipedia entry and the lovely obituary from the New York Times.

George Carlin, the Grammy-Award winning standup comedian and actor who was hailed for his irreverent social commentary, poignant observations of the absurdities of everyday life and language, and groundbreaking routines like “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” died in Santa Monica, Calif., on Sunday, according to his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He was 71.The cause of death was heart failure. Mr. Carlin, who had a history of heart problems, went into the hospital on Sunday afternoon after complaining of heart trouble. The comedian had worked last weekend at The Orleans in Las Vegas.

Recently, Mr. Carlin was named the recipient of the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. He was to receive the award at the Kennedy Center in November. “In his lengthy career as a comedian, writer, and actor, George Carlin has not only made us laugh, but he makes us think,” said Stephen A. Schwarzman, the Kennedy Center chairman. “His influence on the next generation of comics has been far-reaching.”

Mr. Carlin began his standup comedy act in the late 1950s and made his first television solo guest appearance on “The Merv Griffin Show” in 1965. At that time, he was primarily known for his clever wordplay and reminiscences of his Irish working-class upbringing in New York.

But from the outset there were indications of an anti-establishment edge to his comedy. Initially, it surfaced in the witty patter of a host of offbeat characters like the wacky sportscaster Biff Barf and the hippy-dippy weatherman Al Sleet. “The weather was dominated by a large Canadian low, which is not to be confused with a Mexican high. Tonight’s forecast . . . dark, continued mostly dark tonight turning to widely scattered light in the morning.”

Mr. Carlin released his first comedy album, “Take-Offs and Put-Ons,” to rave reviews in 1967. He also dabbled in acting, winning a recurring part as Marlo Thomas’ theatrical agent in the sitcom “That Girl” (1966-67) and a supporting role in the movie “With Six You Get Egg-Roll,” released in 1968.

By the end of the decade, he was one of America’s best known comedians. He made more than 80 major television appearances during that time, including the Ed Sullivan Show and Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show; he was also regularly featured at major nightclubs in New York and Las Vegas.

That early success and celebrity, however, was as dinky and hollow as a gratuitous pratfall to Mr. Carlin. “I was entertaining the fathers and the mothers of the people I sympathized with, and in some cases associated with, and whose point of view I shared,” he recalled later, as quoted in the book “Going Too Far” by Tony Hendra, which was published in 1987. “I was a traitor, in so many words. I was living a lie.”

In 1970, Mr. Carlin discarded his suit, tie, and clean-cut image as well as the relatively conventional material that had catapulted him to the top. Mr. Carlin reinvented himself, emerging with a beard, long hair, jeans and a routine that, according to one critic, was steeped in “drugs and bawdy language.” There was an immediate backlash. The Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas terminated his three-year contract, and, months later, he was advised to leave town when an angry mob threatened him at the Lake Geneva Playboy Club. Afterward, he temporarily abandoned the nightclub circuit and began appearing at coffee houses, folk clubs and colleges where he found a younger, hipper audience that was more attuned to both his new image and his material.

By 1972, when he released his second album, “FM & AM,” his star was again on the rise. The album, which won a Grammy Award as best comedy recording, combined older material on the “AM” side with bolder, more acerbic routines on the “FM” side. Among the more controversial cuts was a routine euphemistically entitled “Shoot,” in which Mr. Carlin explored the etymology and common usage of the popular idiom for excrement. The bit was part of the comic’s longer routine “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” which appeared on his third album “Class Clown,” also released in 1972.

“There are some words you can say part of the time. Most of the time ‘ass’ is all right on television,” Mr. Carlin noted in his introduction to the then controversial monologue. “You can say, well, ‘You’ve made a perfect ass of yourself tonight.’ You can use ass in a religious sense, if you happen to be the redeemer riding into town on one — perfectly all right.”

The material seems innocuous by today’s standards, but it caused an uproar when broadcast on the New York radio station WBAI in the early ’70s. The station was censured and fined by the FCC. And in 1978, their ruling was supported by the Supreme Court, which Time magazine reported, “upheld an FCC ban on ‘offensive material’ during hours when children are in the audience.” Mr. Carlin refused to drop the bit and was arrested several times after reciting it on stage.

By the mid-’70s, like his comic predecessor Lenny Bruce and the fast-rising Richard Pryor, Mr. Carlin had emerged as a cultural renegade. In addition to his irreverent jests about religion and politics, he openly talked about the use of drugs, including acid and peyote, and said that he kicked cocaine not for moral or legal reasons but after he found “far more pain in the deal than pleasure.” But the edgier, more biting comedy he developed during this period, along with his candid admission of drug use, cemented his reputation as the “comic voice of the counterculture.”

Mr. Carlin released a half dozen comedy albums during the ’70s, including the million-record sellers “Class Clown,” “Occupation: Foole” (1973) and “An Evening With Wally Lando” (1975). He was chosen to host the first episode of the late-night comedy show “Saturday Night Live” in 1975. And two years later, he found the perfect platform for his brand of acerbic, cerebral, sometimes off-color standup humor in the fledgling, less restricted world of cable television. By 1977, when his first HBO comedy special, “George Carlin at USC” was aired, he was recognized as one of the era’s most influential comedians. He also become a best-selling author of books that expanded on his comedy routines, including “When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?,” which was published by Hyperion in 2004.

Pursuing a Dream

Mr. Carlin was born in New York City in 1937. “I grew up in New York wanting to be like those funny men in the movies and on the radio,” he said. “My grandfather, mother and father were gifted verbally, and my mother passed that along to me. She always made sure I was conscious of language and words.”

He quit high school to join the Air Force in the mid-’50s and, while stationed in Shreveport, La., worked as a radio disc jockey. Discharged in 1957, he set out to pursue his boyhood dream of becoming an actor and comic. He moved to Boston where he met and teamed up with Jack Burns, a newscaster and comedian. The team worked on radio stations in Boston, Fort Worth, and Los Angeles, and performed in clubs throughout the country during the late ’50s.

After attracting the attention of the comedian Mort Sahl, who dubbed them “a duo of hip wits,” they appeared as guests on “The Tonight Show” with Jack Paar. Still, the Carlin-Burns team was only moderately successful, and, in 1960, Mr. Carlin struck out on his own.

During a career that spanned five decades, he emerged as one of the most durable, productive and versatile comedians of his era. He evolved from Jerry Seinfeld-like whimsy and a buttoned-down decorum in the ’60s to counterculture icon in the ’70s. By the ’80s, he was known as a scathing social critic who could artfully wring laughs from a list of oxymorons that ranged from “jumbo shrimp” to “military intelligence.” And in the 1990s and into the 21st century the balding but still pony-tailed comic prowled the stage — eyes ablaze and bristling with intensity — as the circuit’s most splenetic curmudgeon.

During his live 1996 HBO special, “Back in Town,” he raged over the shallowness of the ’90s “me first” culture — mocking the infatuation with camcorders, hyphenated names, sneakers with lights on them, and lambasting white guys over 10 years old who wear their baseball hats backwards. Baby boomers, “who went from ‘do your thing’ to ‘just say no’ …from cocaine to Rogaine,” and pro life advocates (“How come when it’s us it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken it’s an omelet?”), were some of his prime targets. In the years following his 1977 cable debut, Mr. Carlin was nominated for a half dozen Grammy awards and received CableAces awards for best stand-up comedy special for “George Carlin: Doin’ It Again (1990) and “George Carlin: Jammin’ ” (1992). He also won his second Grammy for the album “Jammin” in 1994.

Personal Struggles

During the course of his career, Mr. Carlin overcame numerous personal trials. His early arrests for obscenity (all of which were dismissed) and struggle to overcome his self-described “heavy drug use” were the most publicized. But in the ’80s he also weathered serious tax problems, a heart attack and two open heart surgeries.

In December 2004 he entered a rehabilitation center to address his addictions to Vicodin and red wine. Mr. Carlin had a well-chronicled cocaine problem in his 30s, and though he was able to taper his cocaine use on his own, he said, he continued to abuse alcohol and also became addicted to Vicodin. He entered rehab at the end of that year, then took two months off before continuing his comedy tours.

“Standup is the centerpiece of my life, my business, my art, my survival and my way of being,” Mr. Carlin once told an interviewer. “This is my art, to interpret the world.” But, while it always took center stage in his career, Mr. Carlin did not restrict himself to the comedy stage. He frequently indulged his childhood fantasy of becoming a movie star. Among his later credits were supporting parts in “Car Wash” (1976), “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989), “The Prince of Tides” (1991), and “Dogma” (1999).

His 1997 book, “Brain Droppings,” became an instant best seller. And among several continuing TV roles, he starred in the Fox sitcom “The George Carlin Show,” which aired for one season. “That was an experiment on my part to see if there might be a way I could fit into the corporate entertainment structure,” he said after the show was canceled in 1994. “And I don’t,” he added.

Despite the longevity of his career and his problematic personal life, Mr. Carlin remained one of the most original and productive comedians in show business. “It’s his lifelong affection for language and passion for truth that continue to fuel his performances,” a critic observed of the comedian when he was in his mid-60s. And Chris Albrecht, an HBO executive, said, “He is as prolific a comedian as I have witnessed.”

Mr. Carlin is survived by his wife, Sally Wade; daughter Kelly Carlin McCall; son-in-law, Bob McCall, brother, Patrick Carlin and sister-in-law, Marlene Carlin. His first wife, Brenda Hosbrook, died in 1997.

Although some criticized parts of his later work as too contentious, Mr. Carlin defended the material, insisting that his comedy had always been driven by an intolerance for the shortcomings of humanity and society. “Scratch any cynic,” he said, “and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.”

Still, when pushed to explain the pessimism and overt spleen that had crept into his act, he quickly reaffirmed the zeal that inspired his lists of complaints and grievances. “I don’t have pet peeves,” he said, correcting the interviewer. And with a mischievous glint in his eyes, he added, “I have major, psychotic hatreds.”

In memory of George Carlin, here they are:

• Shit
• Piss
• Fuck
• Cunt
• Cocksucker
• Motherfucker
• Tits

My friend Momotaro, the fellow who created the banner for Memes.org, was so amused by the first comment that someone posted onto my blog post, Don’t Save the Whales and Don’t Save the Rainforest Either, that he created the following anthology of really intelligent put-downs, I Hope a Whale Beaches Itself On You — it is bloody brilliant!

1. 1. jenn wrote:

      i think you are a fucked up person considering you dont care about anything but your self i hope a whale beaches it self on you

      Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 6:46 pm #

   2. Saul wrote:

      One thing is true if you are an extremist you are off balance. If you are a fundamentalist in any direction you are off balance. All this needs is a holistic approach. Make money, but don’t sacrifice your children for it. Save whales but make sure to not be depressed by the fact that you might not. Fucked up is what happens when you forget what is most important to your existence and your families existence – which is in the here and now.

      Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 7:14 pm #

   3. johndoe@aol.com wrote:

      blow me, bitch! you need a brain.

      Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 4:04 am #

   4. Chris wrote:

      johndoe@aol.com »

      Charming.

      Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 5:06 am #

   5. Jessie wrote:

      I just happened to come across this essay because I was looking for an animal to write about for English class. I clicked on the logo because I am absolutely terrified of whales. I think your writing is very good, and I do agree that one should not focus on one single cause, forgetting about one’s loved ones. However, there are a large host of people who manage to care very deeply about vital causes such as hunger or poverty, and still put much devotion into family and personal life. I think I am going to traverse your writings, Chris.

      Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 10:38 pm #

   6. taylor wrote:

      u r sick and u should not be so cruel u selfish thing!

      Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 10:17 am #

   7. John wrote:

      Good job! A+

      Friday, February 8, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

   8. noneyabuisness wrote:

      YOUR STUPID. YOU MUST BE AN ANIMAL HATER YOU FACKOO. how can you not feel bad for them? your such a…gosh

      P.S. (save the polar bears) wolfs are awesome!

      Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:00 am #

   9. logan wrote:

      save the d*** whales this guy dosen’t now what he is talking about the dumb A** what the H**l is your prob. beach a whale on him.

      Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 6:57 pm #

   10. logan wrote:

       jhon shut the heck up you dumb A** gosh!

       Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 6:58 pm #

   11. logan wrote:

       jessie you shut up to what is your guyzes problem save whales

       Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:00 pm #

   12. Jennifer wrote:

       WAT DA HELL IS UR FUKIN PROBLEM U DUMASS UR SICK AND STUPID!!! HOW DO U NOT FEEL BAD FOR THEM, U DON’T HAVE A FUKIN HEART AND AND UR SELFISH SO GO TO HELL!!! IT’S FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT WHALES ARE IN DANGER
       GO SUCK A DICK!!!!!

       Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm #

   13. Saul wrote:

       Jennifer – you really made me laugh. You are so eloquent in your deep discussion of a relevant topic. What have you done for the whales today?

       Monday, February 25, 2008 at 8:48 am #

   14. Chelsea wrote:

       I think you are the biggest low life i have ever heard of the Whales and the rainforests deserve to be saved. how dare you write that appalling colunm it’s disgusting!!!!!!! I’m 13 and i think thats saying something

       Monday, March 3, 2008 at 8:12 am #

   15. Chris wrote:

       Chelsea »

       Cheslea, did you read the article?

       Monday, March 3, 2008 at 10:00 am #

   16. Emiily Scott wrote:

       Hey you need to seriously sort ya self out! Why the hell don’t you care about anything but yourself! I hope you sometime need a transplant and dont get one and then ypu need someone but nooo we shouldn’t SAVE YOU!

       Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 3:00 pm #

   17. Nancy wrote:

       YOUUUUUUUUUU ARE GAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

       Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 3:01 pm #

   18. Abe wrote:

       BAHHHH HUMBUG!!!
       SAVE THE WHALES!
       NOT YOU!
       YA STUPID WITCH

       Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 3:02 pm #

   19. Ben wrote:

       Not that i agree with him, but he has every right to express his opinion on the subject, he does have some good points, but…

       Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 12:51 am #

   20. Sydney wrote:

       KILL THE CHRIS!! KILL THE CHRIS!! cMON EVERYBODY, DONT SAVE THE CHRIS ABRAHAMS!!! considering he doesnt care about anything but himself. hes gonna ruin the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

       Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

   21. Sydney wrote:

       SCREW U TOO BEN!!

       Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

   22. Chris wrote:

       Sydney, you mean “Kill the Humans,” right? I never named any particular whale, such as Shamu or Willy, right?

       Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

   23. Chris wrote:

       Oh, and I should also add, “Don’t Save the Humans,” either.

       Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

   24. Cecily wrote:

       I AGREE WITH JENIFER!!! WHOO-HOO! I SAY EVERTHING SHE SAYS!!!

       Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:00 pm #

   25. sydney wrote:

       u r a total psycho!!! If u dont want to help save the wonderful, beautiful, gorgeous planet god gave u to live on, u have mental issues!! U shouldbe locked up somewhere in SOLITARY DETENTION!!!!! SAVE THE WHALES!!!!!!!! and dont listen to this stupid idiot fag chris abraham, who says “kill the children!!” u were a kid once, how would u feel if u were a kid browsing the web, and came cross a site saying ‘kill the children’?? Whats wrong with you?? ur momma musta dropped u on ur head or something when u were a kid. peace!!

       Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:22 pm #

   26. korney wrote:

       ur a fag it is porple like u that kill the world off!! if someone to have there world stay around for awhile then that is there buisness dont tell them how to live there life so go kill ur self

       Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 12:01 am #

   27. Tookie wrote:

       i think that u should have a heart for creatures lives and u should balance it out with ur family. whales and other animals have lives just like us and have families too but r being hunted and seperated from them. u can do simple things at home too u know. by the way, why did u bring this subject up anyway sam? is it something related to u?

       Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 8:40 am #

   28. Tookie wrote:

       hey jerks! leave him alone! mhe can freely express himself. i dont agree with but dont put him down for his personal opion!

       Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 8:55 am #

   29. Bobby wrote:

       Tookie, we are not jerks, WE are just freely expressing ourselves, and i think that when Chris was a baby his momma dropped him on his head, fed him stupid juice, and then sucked his brain out with a vaccum. TO CHRIS: YOU ARE A STUPID RETARDED A** H***!!! I hope one day, you need serious help, but the people say “No we are using that to save the whales.” Than ‘technically’ we are not sayng “KILL THE CHRIS” But we are still killing you. Go to hell. I agree with anyone who says chris is a dick.

       Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

   30. Thomas wrote:

       I agree with Bobby, if he means a DIRTY dick.

       Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

   31. Andrew wrote:

       You are a FART, SHIT

       Monday, March 10, 2008 at 8:21 am #

   32. and wrote:

       You DA BIAN

       Monday, March 10, 2008 at 8:22 am #

   33. Chris wrote:

       I call all you crazy 14-year-olds the Whale-Qaeda!

       Monday, March 10, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

   34. Melissa wrote:

       okay i think there needs to be a balance. You should be able to spend the majority of your time in your life, but also take the time to help others, including the whales. Yes, the theme of saving yourself first and the world will follow suit, is a popular one, and if you think about it, it makes sense. You can do your best and until you can be your best, and that includes home life.

       so i agree with you Chris (guys don’t freak out on me), but maybe you could have said this in a less offending and extreme way.

       Save the whales, but save yourself and the people in your life too, is what i think you’re trying to say.

       okay i’m done ahha

       Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

   35. Sydney’s BFF wrote:

       Whatever Chris you’re a jerk. There’s a difference between expressing your opinion gently and then there’s just insanity. You’re nowhere in between, you’re a psycho person. In your quest to kill off the children and whales and all things beautiful just because you’re not, you have proved to everyone who visits this psycho site that you actually do care by attracting more attention to the cause. Thanks Chris, for helping save the whales, but you still belong in a strait jacket somewhere until you see a poor whale being harpooned and you’ll see what it’s really like. Until then, read all these messages people leave you and PLEASE, PLEASE reconsider you opinion. Suppose someone was looking for a house in your neighborhood and shot and killed you because they wanted your house to be yours. Well that’s what it’s like to be harpooned by some jerk-off fishermen
       SERIOUSLY DUDE TAKE SOME DEEP THINKING TIME FOR YOURSELF AND RECONSIDER. SAVE THE WHALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

       Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 11:55 pm #

   36. Sydney’s BFF wrote:

       Oh and in my previous message I meant to say they wanted your house to be theirs.

       Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 11:56 pm #

   37. Lasse wrote:

       wow, thats what i call a discussion! @ all you radical americans talking about saving the world while driving huge ass cars to the next steak house drive-in; whales are just animals and they deserve to live and than to be eaten like any pig and cow you guys have for breakfast. enjoy everybody

       Friday, March 14, 2008 at 4:49 pm #

   38. elly wrote:

       ur an ass.fuck u

       Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 9:14 pm #

   39. Chris wrote:

       What does “ur” mean and what is “u?” Fuck University? What are you trying to say to me, Elly?

       Monday, March 17, 2008 at 12:04 am #

   40. fsdasjkfsdfjk@hotmai wrote:

       thats rite dont save those bastards

       Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2:51 am #

   41. Sydney wrote:

       “ur” is an abbreviation of youre and “u” is an abbreviation of you. idiot.

       Friday, March 21, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

   42. Chris wrote:

       Duh.

       Friday, March 21, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

   43. What the hell wrote:

       u sicko how could you be so fucking fucked up in the head. whales deserve a right to live, unlike you. fuck you

       Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 10:33 am #

   44. Chris wrote:

       You did not read the article, did you? Can you read? I am beginning to think that we need to save the children, save the teens, and work on sub-literacy and illiteracy in the US, Australia, and other English-speaking nations that suffer under the weight of such ignorant activists.

       Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 12:31 pm #

   45. Syzmatomtia wrote:

       98% of all species on earth have fallen to extinction, without the help of man. The other 2% will eventually face extinction as well. It is indeed a natural progression of any ecosystem for old species to pass away and new species to be born.

       Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm #

   46. Ashley wrote:

       U R A ass hole 4 not saving the whales u should be more caring. U need to get a life and a personality.&&&&&&U should go and fuck yourself…………….
       ……………………
       THANK 4 NOT CARING ABOUT ANYTHING BUT YOURSELF (((((NOT))))

       Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 2:48 am #

   47. J. Miller wrote:

       Request permission to use the image ‘don’t save the whales’ for a university newsletter cover with theme ‘taboo’. Please.

       Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 4:34 am #

   48. Chris wrote:

       Yes, please use it as often and as freely as you like!

       Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 10:46 am #

   49. Lila wrote:

       People’s pathedic lives are not half as important as that of the whales, rainforests, and etc. Go fuck yourself and save the fucking whales you cock sucker

       Friday, March 28, 2008 at 12:04 am #

   50. Monica wrote:

       Is this a social experiment?

       Friday, March 28, 2008 at 12:16 am #

   51. sarah wrote:

       Dude, love the whales and stop being a hater. How would you feel if people took you out of your home and killed you?! It wouldn’t feel good would it?

       Friday, March 28, 2008 at 5:10 pm #

   52. Chris wrote:

       sarah »

       That was a very persuasive argument.

       Friday, March 28, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

   53. Ashely wrote:

       WHAT THE SAM HELL R U THINKING DUMBO IF U WANNA THREAT THOSE ENDANGERED CREATURES U’LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ME AND THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WROTE ABOUT UR STUPID PARAGRAPH AND JUST SO U KNOW WHALES R MY FAVORITE ANIMALS SO INSTEAD OF NOT SAVING THE WHALES LET’S KICK U OFF OF EARTH AND NOT SAVE U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!U SHOULD DO A WEBSITE CALLED http://WWW.CHECK OUT HOW STUPID I AM.COM U SHOULD REALLY DO THAT U WILL NEVER WIN

       Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 12:08 am #

   54. Chris wrote:

       Did you read the article? Do you know how to spell? Can you take your finger off the shift key, please?

       Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 8:58 am #

   55. Smilee wrote:

       rele have u got nuffin better to do wiv ur life than write horrible stuff about whales. if u hate whales so much y not keep it 2 urself?? anyways i love whales and i dont kno how any1 can want them 2 b killed … so plz stop writin horrible stuff!!!

       Monday, April 7, 2008 at 5:25 pm #

   56. alley wrote:

       You are a sick person. Don’t save whales? How cruel. You should think twice.

       Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 2:15 am #

   57. Aman wrote:

       Chris Abraham kill that bicth.

       Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

   58. Aman wrote:

       Theres a bicth named Chris Abraham
       He should die

       Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

   59. Aman wrote:

       Chris Abraham does not have the right to live.

       Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm #

   60. Chris wrote:

       Whale-Qaeda!

       Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

   61. nunyabusiness wrote:

       Chris, I understand the ability to express your feelings, but maybe you should do it in a better way. I AM A CHILD, AND WHAT YOU JUST SAID SICKENS ME!!! I also feel the need to say that whales are my favorite animals, and this is so out of line and wrong. They are part of our ecosystem and you should be ashamed of yourself. What people are doing is taking mothers away from their babies, or taking away a wife or husband. Do you have a wife? A kid? A mom? How would you feel if someone shot one of them? Not to good, huh? I think that you should really reconsider and think about how whales are one of the smartest mamals and have feelings and families too before you write such things.

       Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 3:49 pm #

   62. nunyabusiness wrote:

       oh, by the way, I’m not the same “NONEYABUSINESS” as one of the earlier ones, I didn’t see that one. By the way, I also agree with sarah.

       Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 3:52 pm #

   63. Chris wrote:

       What you you mean by child? 8? That is the age of a child.

       Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 10:30 pm #

   64. nunyabusiness wrote:

       actually, I’m seven. so think of how smart i am— unlike you. i was looking for whales because i like them, and i found this.

       Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 11:46 pm #

   65. nunyabusiness wrote:

       oh, and you also, you must have no come back because all you said was the child thing.

       Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 11:47 pm #

   66. chris abraham wrote:

       It was not a come back. 7 is very young and you are brilliant. No, I would not want my family to be shot. And, if you’ll read the article I wrote, I never said one thing about hurting whales. I sort of said, “don’t let your family get shot before you save the whales.” My blog is too sophisticated for someone your age. I am pretty sure my site is blocked by the net nanny software your parents should be using.

       Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:11 am #

   67. bree wrote:

       wow ur fucked up whales are the best and its because of ass holes like you that our animals are becoming endangered and extinct

       Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 12:11 am #

   68. Dannii wrote:

       You are so mean, and i hope u rot in hell bcoz u r so mean n u dont vcare about anyone but yourself bcoz ur so selfish!!!!

       Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 11:04 am #

   69. Kaitlyn and McKenna wrote:

       CRAP YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

       Monday, April 28, 2008 at 8:02 pm #

   70. Chris wrote:

       Crap me?

       Monday, April 28, 2008 at 9:26 pm #

   71. shmo wrote:

       YES U!!!! WHAT DO U THINK!! U ARE SOOOOOO RETARDEDLY STUPID!! I WISH I COULD MEET U IN PERSON WIT SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT HATE YOU SO WE COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE UR FACE!!!!!

       Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 10:23 pm #

   72. SHMO wrote:

       good job nonyebussiness, i spelled that wrong. its good that young people are taking an intrest in saving our world!! keep it up!

       Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 10:25 pm #

   73. shmo wrote:

       hey anyone who hates chris lets almost kill him to see howq he likes it them feed him to the whales!!!! that will show him!!!

       Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 10:30 pm #

   74. Chris wrote:

       Yes. That would be fantastic, you Whale-Qaeda!

       Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 11:52 pm #

   75. Chris wrote:

       Shmo, you amuse me.

       Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 11:54 pm #

   76. shmo wrote:

       glad i do cause i will be writing stuff quite often. FYI!!!

       P.S. what does Whale-Qaeda mean?

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 12:04 am #

   77. shmo wrote:

       ugh.. u piss me off soooo much!!!! u arogant, retarded, stupid fool!!!!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 12:05 am #

   78. Chris wrote:

       

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 12:35 am #

   79. wafflez wrote:

       i cant believe that u would make a website based on not saving the whales…u wanna kill whales? u might as well just fuckin kill me! better yet, kill urself! the world doesnt need bastards like u here to ruin it! ppl wanna help keep the world a better place and help the enviornment!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 12:44 am #

   80. SHMO!!!! wrote:

       WOO HOO!!!! I LOVE U WAFFELZ! ( THATS ONLY CAUSE I KNOW U!) WE SAID! WE DONT NEED TO CHRIS, GO DIE IN A HOLE. AND I AM VERY LITERATE THANK U VERY MUCH!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 1:33 am #

   81. SHMO wrote:

       ooops! spelling errors. it says well said.
       and we dont need u chris

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 2:05 am #

   82. Cola wrote:

       you are one fucked up person. people like you should be extinct. i’d much rather have whales, rhinos, manatees, pandas, koalas, tigers, dolphins, elephants, ect. than assholes like you!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 2:58 am #

   83. LOEN! wrote:

       seriously.. where does all this hate cum from? answer that!! ugh u r so fukin retarded! GO TO REHAB!!!!!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:02 am #

   84. I LOVE WHALES!!! wrote:

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:15 am #

   85. I LOVE WHALES!!! wrote:

       [IMG]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii46/xoxlucylou11xox/my%20sayings/whales-1.gif[/IMG]

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:18 am #

   86. I LOVE WHALES!!! wrote:

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:18 am #

   87. SHMO!!! wrote:

       GO TO THIS AND READ IT!!!! IT TOTALLY APPLIES!!!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:19 am #

   88. I LOVE WHALES!!! wrote:

       GO TO HELL!!!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:22 am #

   89. I LOVE WHALES!!! wrote:

       CLICK ON MY NAME AND READ IT U BASTARD!

       Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:22 am #

   90. I LOVE WHALES!!! wrote:

       Click on this! how does that make you feel? what if you were a whale? do u want me to HARPOON u?! huh?!

       http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/whales-sl-06_small.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/whales.html&h=273&w=200&sz=9&hl=en&start=46&tbnid=Ea4oBdMsazeAsM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=83&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkilling%2Bof%2Bwhales%26start%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 1:50 am #

   91. Queso wrote:

       you are a fucking dick hole and you need to go die in hell!!!!!!!! how would you feel if i came to your house and used all your fat for oil ( the world would never run out) so wat we cant save our own problems ( im 14 i dont have a family so if i want to save the world nothing is stopping me) go to HELL FAG

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 2:01 am #

   92. SHMO!! wrote:

       WOO HOO!!!! U SAID IT QUESO! ugh!! chris u r such an asshole!! i f dont care about this planet, then y dont u die!!! cause noone would miss u and its people like u killing the world, while my frends and i are trying to save it!!

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 3:19 am #

   93. kerryraine@yahoo.com wrote:

       you are pathetic, and i was not going to respond at all, you are one person, on this planet, you are just a protazoa, a germ, and most of all insignifficant , do you honestly thibk that what you say means anything to anyone.

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 10:10 am #

   94. Chris wrote:

       No, Kerry, I don’t.

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

   95. Chris wrote:

       You guys make me crazy but I just laugh. Please, read the article.

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 5:57 pm #

   96. Phillip J Rhoades wrote:

       I LOVE WHALES!!!, those photos make me hungry. I only eat dolphin aggressive tuna.

       Queso and SHMO!!, the world doesn’t need your saving. Get over your sense of human importance. Get over the idea that extinction isn’t natural. It is natural. We are natural superpredators and it is our purpose to cause extinction. 98% of every life form that has ever been on this planet has become extinct, even before we arrived.

       yes Kerry, we are all unimportant, so is the whale in the ocean, and the sea turtle, and the great bald eagle. They are just species waiting for the natural end, and that end is extinction. It will come with or without us.

       Death is normal. Creatures attacking and eating other creatures is natural. This is life. This is nature. And as part of nature this is also what we do.

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 9:09 pm #

   97. Queso wrote:

       we make a choice to kill or not so if i want to save the world I WILL AND I CAN so you can go fuck chris abraham! you are perfect for each other! how can whales and dolphins taste good? they are blubber…you are a disgusting pig!

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 10:08 pm #

   98. I LOVE WHALES!!! wrote:

       are you kidding me?! THOSE PICTURES MADE ME GO FUCKING VEGETARIAN YOU FAT CANIBLE! YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO EAT YOUR DOG OR YOUR MOM! AFTER SEEING THAT MEAT IS DISGUSTING AND I REGRET EVER EATING IT! OMFG YOU MOTHER FUCKER DICK SUCKERS ARE SO GROSS!

       Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 10:12 pm #

   99. SHMO!!! wrote:

       WHAT THE HELL IS UR FUCKIN PROBLEM PHILIP!!! YES EXTINCTION IS NATURAL, BUT THE REASON THAT THE WHALES ARE GOING EXCTINCT, IS BECAUSE OF FUCKIN DICK SUCKERS LIKE YOU THAT EAT THEM!! THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT! WITHOUT ASS HOLES LIKE YOU!, THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM!! YEA… U AND CHRIS SHOULD GO OUT, ITS PERFECT. UGH!!! U PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKIN SCREWED UP!! GO DIE IN A HOLE U ASS HOLES!!

       Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 1:05 am #

   100. Chris wrote:

        Mark, is that you? Mark, are you SHMO? You’re SHMO, right? Come on, you can tell me. It’s so good! You almost had be fooled. Good one!

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 2:46 am #

   101. Shmo! wrote:

        WHAT THE HELL U RETARD?!?!? MY NAME IS NOT MARK! I SWEAR TO THE WHALES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE!
        I’M NOT MARK

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 2:59 am #

   102. Phillip J Rhoades wrote:

        We are natural too. It doesn’t matter if we’re the cause for extinction or not, because all species meet extinction at some point or another. It is normal and natural for species to become extinct.

        Also, I (like two thirds of the world) have no problem eating dog meat. A dog is just another beast and just more food for me.

        The world doesn’t need saving, because the world will continue without you, without whales, without any of what is now. All that is now will fade away. All that is now will move on into non-existence. It is normal. It is natural for what is to pass away, to give way to what comes after.

        Let me say this one more time:

        Extinction is natural.

        We are natural.

        We are a natural cause of natural extinction.

        It is okay for things to die and species to end.

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 7:50 am #

   103. Phillip J Rhoades wrote:

        It is only the human ego that makes us believe we are the caretakers or destroyers of the world. We are not so important.

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 8:03 am #

   104. Queso wrote:

        God made us to be the caretakes of the world he did not want us to be the destroyers of this wonderful world we have made into a a living HELL for every thing that we think is not as smart as us so yes it is up to us to save animals from dum fucking dicks like you all.Phillip, if your so hungry why i dont come HARPOON you and your family so then you all and have a nice big dinner! how would that make you feel! oh you would be ded so i guess that would not matter!!!!! and i would feel just fine!!!

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

   105. shmo! wrote:

        Phillip, it is niot our ego that wants to save the world, we simply want to preserve it! becuase of retards like u and chris, the world and many of it animals are going to die, NOT IN A NATURAL WAY!!! THEY ARE DIYING BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LKE YOU THAT WANT TO EAT THE WHALES! WITHOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD… THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM!! get it? or is that to confuzing for your stupid little head? u r such a fuckin pig!! u need help if u want to eat ur dog. yea y dont we just cum harpoon u and chris and them feed u to the whales?? HUH??? how does that sound?
        and dont talk to us like we are five! we are very intellegent teenagers THAT ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE OUR WORLD UNLIKE DICK SUCKER LIKE U!!!

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 4:22 pm #

   106. penny wrote:

        so u Kill the Manatees, Kill the Children, Kill the Tigers, Kill the Dolphins, Kill the Bay, Kill the World, Kill the Koala, Kill the Pandas, Kill the Rhinos, Kill the Elephant or Kill the Whales. Y???? if u kill them, then u will die too! ever thought of that smart ass? yea cause even if we loose plankton, our whole ecosystem will be screwed up!! so if u kill all those animals then u will die and go to hell! God would not want u to be in his kingdom later for u to screw that up to.

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 5:08 pm #

   107. penny wrote:

        so u Kill the Manatees, Kill the Children, Kill the Tigers, Kill the Dolphins, Kill the Bay, Kill the World, Kill the Koala, Kill the Pandas, Kill the Rhinos, Kill the Elephant and Kill the Whales. Y???? if u kill them, then u will die too! ever thought of that smart ass? yea cause even if we loose plankton, our whole ecosystem will be screwed up!! so if u kill all those animals then u will die and go to hell! God would not want u to be in his kingdom later for u to screw that up to.

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 5:09 pm #

   108. Phillip J Rhoades wrote:

        It does not matter if humanity becomes extinct. We are also a natural creature and that is an end we must face. So, no I don’t care if the current world passes away. There is no problem. People cause extinction, like any dominant animal in an ecosystem it will cause a hardship on the other creatures. This is normal and natural. We are natural creatures and eating and killing other creatures is natural behavior for human beings. Stasis is not natural. The world changes. Life forms and species pass away and new species are born from what is left behind. The survival of any species currently on this planet (including the human species) is not of paramount importance. The ecosystem will recover. It will change into something new, with life forms that have never existed before. Species die out and it is normal and natural. When they die out from us (a natural creature just like any other creature) it is also normal and natural. When we meet our own extinction it will be normal and natural. Life on this planet does not need us and will continue despite what we do to the current set of plants and animals on this planet. The worst we can do is end what is, but that does not end the future of life on this planet. Life has survived ice ages, meteors, volcanic ash laden skies, and more. This world will survive us. the individual species that exist now do not matter. Their fate, our fate, it is of no consequence. The world will simply change and grow, old will pass away and new will thrive. Weak will become extinct and strong will evolve. What you lack is a full vision of the world, of life, of the universe.

        Humanity is a natural creature.

        Extinction is natural.

        Extinction caused by a natural creature (such as humanity) is natural, normal, and okay.

        The extinction of the human species (or any species) is of no great importance in the world.

        The continuation of the human species (or any species) is of no great importance either.

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm #

   109. shmo wrote:

        SHUT THE HELL UP!! O my god.. yes it is natural, but the way that the whales and other animals are dyeing is NOT! so shut up! idc if its natural, th whales and other marine animals cannot go extinct if we want our ecosystem to survive without major issues. stop acting like a smart ass!

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 7:59 pm #

   110. Phillip J Rhoades wrote:

        The current ecosystem will simply be replaced by a new one. The whales may not be a part of it, we may not be a part of it. That does not matter. Change is normal. Extinction is part of that natural change. We are part of the natural order. That which we do is natural.

        The way the whales are dying is in fact natural. It is caused by the natural creature that is humanity.

        Species dying out is normal, natural, and okay. It is the way things have always been. It was this way before the human creature arrived, and will be this way long after we depart.

        The mistake in your thinking, is the idea that humanity is somehow not a natural creature. The idea that humanity is somehow outside of nature. That is simply untrue. WE are a natural product of the ecosystem. We are a natural result of what came before. What we do is part of nature.

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 8:19 pm #

   111. shmo! wrote:

        there is no dounght in my mind that we are natural, but they way that the whales are dying IS NOT NATURAL!without us, they would be fine! how do u not c this? yes things die and new things replace them, but in this case when a certain species hat is sellfish becuase they want to eat an endangered aimals, this is not natural. WHY ARE U THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES NOT SEE THIS?

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 9:07 pm #

   112. shmo wrote:

        How old r u any way? cause u act like u r some old smart fart! but ur not!

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 9:08 pm #

   113. Phillip J Rhoades wrote:

        Without us they would simply die off from some other reason or creature. Species eat and decimate other species. It is in fact natural for one species to obliterate other species. Why are there so few who realize this? The reason would be the mass media propagation of the idea that ecological stasis is the norm. In fact, ecological stasis is neither normal or natural.

        Ecological change, disaster, and rebirth are normal.

        Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 9:15 pm #

   114. shmo wrote:

        so u get it? that without the humans they would not by extinct right now? o finally ur stupid liitle brain takes in some sense. that i what i have been trying to say, that yes the whales would have died without us, but the fact of the matter is that they are dying right now! yes all creatures eat eachother, but the human race is way to universal and we eat creatures that we dont need to eat, and that are supposed to live longer. GET IT YET??? if not i will be back later!!

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 2:08 am #

   115. Phillip J Rhoades wrote:

        The point being, it does not matter if humans are the cause or a meteor or some other creature. Extinction is normal and natural. Human beings are a natural creature leading to the natural extinction of other creatures. We are not outside of the ecosystem. We are part of the ecosystem. Nothing that we do is unnatural. Everything that we do is a natural extension of the ecological system. If we’re causing an extinction or many extinctions that is only a normal and natural progression of life and evolution. We are not above nature, and what we do is a part of the natural cycle.

        It is completely and totally okay in the grand and massive scheme of life on this planet for creatures to become extinct. yes, it’s even okay for a natural creature, like humans, to cause the extinction of other creatures. It is the norm. It is the way it has always been. It doesn’t matter if it’s us or something else. Everything meets extinction eventually.

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 4:14 am #

   116. somebody wrote:

        This is awfull. of course we must save the whales!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 6:32 am #

   117. no name wrote:

        SAVE THE WHALES!!! I am with shmo we HAVE 2 HELP THEM I MEAN WITHOUT THE HUMANS WHALES WOULD BE FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 6:35 am #

   118. Will Litchfield wrote:

        Don’t save the whales?

        What the hell is wrong with you, jesus christ. If whales are the devils servants then you are the devil!

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 3:38 pm #

   119. Chris wrote:

        Will Litchfield » What does that even mean? And, please don’t call me Jesus Christ.

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

   120. Chris wrote:

        somebody » How are you saving the whales today?

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

   121. shmo! wrote:

        thank you no name! as to you phillip… i dont inderstand why you need to wirte such long blogs, its really qite annoying! we need to save the whales becuase someone said before even if we loose plankton, you know those tiny miniscule things in our ocean, we willl be in big trouble. so imagine what would happen if we lost the whales or the manatees, or penguins, polor bears, etc. get my onsomble?

        Chris will litchfield is just a name it doesnt mean anything, dont be a wise ass. and i bet “somebody” is figuring out what to do, you cant expect everyone to just start something right away!

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 9:43 pm #

   122. 36987 wrote:

        wow! that was insightful!

        Monday, May 5, 2008 at 10:32 pm #

   123. shmo wrote:

        ok i think that was a waste of time and space if i do say so myself

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 2:21 am #

   124. Chris wrote:

        shmo! » That logic doesn’t work, Shmo. The lower the order the more important the species is: plankton and coral are essential ingredients of undersea life while whales and manatees; penguins and polar bears, higher up in the chain, are really less essential. Losing bees is a big deal, losing man isn’t. Losing algae is a big deal, losing the blue whale isn’t. That said, as we have been discussing via email, I am not a proponent of whale-killing and am in fact more of a green freak now that I have ever been. I moved to Europe, gave up a car, ride by bike, go to the green grocers and buy veggies without plastic bags and carry them home in a reusable cotton bag. When I need to go far, I choose the train, when I need to go close, I take the subway or mount my bike. My footprint is low and I am active in my community.

        What have you done for he whales or for the environment lately — besides attacking me?

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 6:46 am #

   125. Chris wrote:

        shmo » Well, I am some old smart fart! I am 38! 38 is old!

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 6:48 am #

   126. shmo wrote:

        geeezz!! what the heck! someones angry today?! thats good and i am gld that u are doing that. it doesnt madder where on the food chain the whales are. they obviously had a purpose on this earth, or they would not be here. why is that so hard for people to understand?? it doesnt madder where they are they are here and important, maybe not as important as other species, but they are still. After reading ur “posts” my friends were very alarmedd, and so we have been making flyers, that we are actually going to give out at school today! what do u think about that? huh? public awarness? we arent adults, so we cannot do as much, but we ARE DOING ALL THAT WE CAN WITH WHAT WE ARE GIVEN!!!!
        O and by the way, about my last six blogs were not directed to you, they were to Phillip! but thank you for telling me ur age, becuase i was wondering about that!

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:47 pm #

   127. Chris wrote:

        shmo » I appreciate you for engaging with me and for opening yourself up to this conversation and for calling me out on being controversial — really, the title of my article has very little to do with the whales or the rain forests, it has to do with family, but I knew that “Don’t Save the Whales” and the graphic would get a lot of attention. How old are you?

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

   128. shmo wrote:

        it doesnt madder what the objective is, you diplayed this on the iternet,and now you have to live with the consequences.
        I don not need to reveal my age, that is of no importance.

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 5:53 pm #

   129. Chris wrote:

        shmo » Well, je ne regret rien.

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 10:33 pm #

   130. shmo wrote:

        what the heck does that mean?

        Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 10:40 pm #

   131. Chris wrote:

        shmo » “je ne regret rien” means, “I regret nothing.” In French.

        Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm #

   132. shmo wrote:

        and how do u think that i would know that?

        well ok then, becuase u better be prepared for people to continue hating you for what you have said and posted, especially if the whale situation becomes worse.

        Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 10:04 pm #

   133. Chris wrote:

        shmo » Well, I do expect illiterate and ignorant people to continue to write poorly-written sub-literate comments full of swearing and very little thought, that’s for sure. It has been happening for well over 3 years.

        Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 8:16 am #

   134. shmo wrote:

        i think that the people that write on here are very literate, intellegent, and that swearing is common, becuase of the posts that u have posted. just shut up… u write on here too!

        Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 1:00 pm #

   135. shmo wrote:

        and there is a lot of thought that goes into writing, i should think that u know that… but maybe not!

        Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 1:00 pm #

   136. Chris wrote:

        shmo » There is no literacy or intelligence. The English and grammar is appalling — including your grammar and spelling. You should be ashamed. I hope you get into college.

        Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm #

   137. shmo wrote:

        what the heck! this is only cause it doesnt madder! if i was turning in a paper for a grade then it would be good. when people are on here we dont care if the spelling is wrong!
        I’m not ashamed! idc.
        and i will get into college. there is still thought that goes into it, whether u believe it or not!

        Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 11:39 pm #

   138. kevin wrote:

        BLOW ME!!!!!!………. A BUBLE!!! I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT SHMO HAS SAID! THERE IS THOUGHT THAT GOES INTO THESE (WELL NOT REALY MINE) BUT WIT EVERYONE ELSES! AND YES I AM NOT USING GOOD LANGUAGE, BECUASE I DONT CARE WHAT U THINK! U NEED TO RECONSIDER UR IDEAS AND HOW U DISPLAY THEM!

        Friday, May 9, 2008 at 3:21 am #

   139. shmo wrote:

        well thank u for ur agreeing, but ur words did not really prove my point. but thats ok! thanks! i think so too!

        Friday, May 9, 2008 at 3:22 am #

   140. Chris wrote:

        shmo » You undermine all of your arguments because you communicate sub-literally… it really does madder (sic) — all the time. There is never a time when it doesn’t madder (sic). The entire world will dismiss comments like these — dismissing you as poorly-versed and poorly-informed. Ignorant, really, although I know you aren’t, Shmo.

        Friday, May 9, 2008 at 7:04 am #

   141. shmo wrote:

        shut up!! therea re times where u can use akranims and poor spelling ( like i just did) cause it

        Friday, May 9, 2008 at 9:43 pm #

   142. shmo wrote:

        noone cares!i am not poorly literate! infact i love to write and english is one of my best subjects. i will admit that i am a bad speller, but thats ok, cause WHEN I CARE ABOUT IT… i will fix it and re-read my work, but on here, iam not going to waste my time! get it?

        Friday, May 9, 2008 at 9:46 pm #

   143. shmo wrote:

        no one cares!i am not poorly literate! infact i love to write and english is one of my best subjects. i will admit that i am a bad speller, but thats ok, cause WHEN I CARE ABOUT IT… i will fix it and re-read my work, but on here, iam not going to waste my time! get it?

        Friday, May 9, 2008 at 9:46 pm #

   144. lizzy wrote:

        well, i would first like to say that i have borwsed this web all over and have read every blog, so that chris could not call my uninfromed.
        Now, why would you evoke such an image on the web if ur point was totally different? i guess for attention- public awarness- but dont complain now.
        My family is complete. i have two wonderful children, i live in australia where i am a marine biologist, and my husband studies mamal existence. so why should we not save the world? even if my family was messed up, i would still save the world, becuase i care. all the “stupid wahle queadas” as u say are doing the same thing, but in smaller picture, as they cannot do as much as us adults. i do not agree that you descriminate against them, becuase they are trying to make our future bright and becuase they care. if we dont trust them… then who will? and who will fix our previous mistakes?
        as i have read these blogs, i can agree with both sides. not the family issues, but if we should get involved. as few have said, god has made us care takers of this world, but is it our job to fix it? i mean there are two sides, a) that god has everything planned out that we fix what has been odne, or b) that he has the future organized that we dont need to help. now to decide which one to go with, you need to follow what you believe, and stick with it, dont give up.
        as to the teenagers, keep up your commitment to our planet and follow you dreams, they will come true.
        Chris, i would appreciate if you would stop bashing my fututre and yours. they are literate and i see shmos point of how puncuation and speeling doesnt madder, i dont care right now either.
        Phillip~ i have to agree that you have some excelletn points! but then again i am back to my spiritual ways of believe what you believe.
        chris i must say that your arrogance is very… excentutating. it shows that you will commit to what you have started, and that is good even though you get so much grief. i do believe however that the grief you get is very apprehensive and undersatndable.
        thank you for reading my long speil, feel free to blog back to me for info and advice of how you can help.

        Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 4:02 am #

   145. shmo wrote:

        wow! lizzy i am so glad that you have said that! you are seriously living my dream, i mean australia, thats my goal! well thank you, i am glad that adults see us as a bright beacon for them in the future! and that some think we contribute a lot! thank you

        Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 4:04 am #

   146. Chris wrote:

        lizzy » How can you be an adult woman with children and a scientist husband and be able to write like this, “My family is complete. i have two wonderful children, i live in australia where i am a marine biologist, and my husband studies mamal (sic) existence. so why should we not save the world?” Mammal! Mammal! The job your husband does every day is studying Mammals, with two els. Besides, “excentutating” isn’t even a word, so I don’t even know what my arrogance is! Egad! The future is ruined if the entire island of Australia is subliterate, even the wives of marine biologists! Good lord! Please tell me that you’re a 14-year-old girl just pretending to be a mom and wife because otherwise you’ll make my cry.

        Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 7:28 am #

   147. Chris wrote:

        shmo » What is an “akranims?”

        Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 7:29 am #

   148. shmo wrote:

        see like i said, i am bad at spelling. like a.k.a. or t.t.y.l how they satnd for stuff. c’mon use some common sense and sound it out.

        Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

   149. lizzy wrote:

        i hope you do cry, i am speaking like this to prove a point. i’m not going to say what it is, or you would never have to find out. we also have differnet ways of speaking, learn that you bone head!

        Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

   150. cody wrote:

        yes, why try and save the world. After all it is the only planet in the solar system capable of supporting life!

        Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 12:51 am #

   151. shmo wrote:

        thank you! exactly! well… actually so far! but thats still so true!

        Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 1:48 am #

   152. Chris wrote:

        lizzy » There may be different ways of speaking but there is a dictionary for a reason and when speaking English, mammal is always spelled mammal and never mamal, especially when that personal supposedly has a husband who studies aquatic mammals. So, you’re just plain wrong, sub-literate, and — to be frank — either lazy or wrong.

        Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 12:59 pm #

   153. Chris wrote:

        shmo » I will use common sense next time if you spend the little bit of time trying to sort out what I am trying to say, too. Meet me half-way.

        Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 12:59 pm #

   154. shmo wrote:

        no! ok i am done trying to undertand what is wrong with you.
        to everyone that reads these, dont listen to chris abraham, do as much as you can to help our world and dont let anyone stear you away from what you believe.

        Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 7:14 pm #

   155. Chris wrote:

        shmo » Oh, egad!

        Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 10:49 pm #

   156. lizzy wrote:

        i am with shmo, there is no point in this website. afternoon chap! good bye!

        Monday, May 12, 2008 at 1:58 am #

   157. Chris wrote:

        lizzy » I appreciate it. Thanks for coming.

        Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 2:35 pm #

Every Monday at 10CET, NPR Worldwide plays Le Show with Harry Shearer (yeah, you know the guy). At first, I started grinding my teeth since one can tell he’s simply reading the paper to us, his audience, rife with “snarky” comments and cheap shots. I guess he’s supposed to be funny and Le Show is supposed to be a comedy show. But, how could it be? It doesn’t seem well prepared. Shearer halts, pauses, and tries to keep his wit ahead of the stories, which he can’t. Yes, I love Harry Shearer, but he is an actor and needs to be fed lines. During the uncomfortable, pregnant, pauses, you can hear his mind scream, “line!”

That said, I have become a devoted addict! How often do you hear this bizarre, amateurish, and foolish, ad hoc, train wreck for an entire hour once-a-week? He isn’t funny but I am now a devoted fan. I will try desperately to never miss it. It is on my calendar. Maybe his wit is too cultivated and the entire show is ironic commentary. Maybe Le Show is sort of a public radio “mockumentary” like This Is Spinal Tap. Could be I have been seduced into Shearer’s radio simulacrum. Wouldn’t put it past him!

Line!?

While I would dare say that Harry Shearer’s Le Show is downright banal, I will never miss another episode to the best of my ability. He’s shameless and I love it! What a freak!

Harry Julius Shearer (born December 23, 1943) is an American comedic actor and writer. Shearer, a voice actor on The Simpsons (1989 to present), provides the voices of Mr. Burns, Waylon Smithers, Ned Flanders, Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, Kent Brockman, Dr. Julius Hibbert, Dr. Marvin Monroe, Lenny Leonard, Principal Seymour Skinner, Otto Mann and Rainier Wolfcastle among others.

Shearer was born in Los Angeles, California, the son of Dora Warren (née Kohn), a bookkeeper, and Mack Shearer. His parents were Jewish immigrants from Austria and Poland. He was married to Penelope Nichols in 1974, divorcing in 1977. Shearer has been married to singer-songwriter Judith Owen since 1993. Shearer attended UCLA and Harvard. In May 2006, he was awarded an honorary doctorate from Goucher College.

He began his career as a child actor in 1950s movies (The Robe) and radio (The Jack Benny Program). Shearer also played the precursor to the Eddie Haskell character in the pilot episode of the TV series Leave It to Beaver. Shearer was later a member of Los Angeles radio comedy group The Credibility Gap, 1969–1976, at stations KRLA (where he also interviewed Creedence Clearwater Revival for the Pop Chronicles) and KPPC.

He also wrote for such television shows as Fernwood 2-Night and Laverne and Shirley. In August 1979, Shearer was hired as a writer and cast member on Saturday Night Live, an unofficial replacement for John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, who were both leaving the show. According to the book Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live, Shearer did not get along well with the other writers and cast members, who regarded him as “prickly.” His first tenure on the show ended when Lorne Michaels left SNL, taking the entire cast with him.

Shearer returned to Saturday Night Live in the 1984–1985 season, leaving for good in January 1985 over “creative differences.” When reached for comment over the nature of his departure, Shearer replied “I was creative; they were different”.

Shearer co-created, co-wrote and co-starred in Rob Reiner‘s 1984 film This Is Spinal Tap with Michael McKean and Christopher Guest. The three of them also collaborated on the acclaimed 2003 spoof A Mighty Wind, which was written by Guest and Eugene Levy (but largely improvised by the cast members) and directed by Guest, and Shearer had a major role in the Guest-directed parody of Oscar politicking For Your Consideration (2006). Shearer’s television work also includes two specials for Cinemax, “It’s Just TV”, and “This Week Indoors” (co-created with Merrill Markoe) and “The Magic of Live”. He directed the entire six-episode cable series, “The History of White People in America”, co-created by Martin Mull and Allen Rucker, as well as the two-hour feature finale of the series, “Portrait of a White Marriage”. He also co-wrote and directed Paul Shaffer‘s fantasy special for HBO, “Viva Shaf Vegas” (with Shaffer and Tom Leopold). His first theatrical feature, which he wrote and directed, was “Teddy Bears’ Picnic“, a dark comedy loosely based on the workings of Bohemian Grove, the secret retreat of the elite.

Shearer has three books published, “Man Bites Town” (a collection of his Los Angeles Times Magazine columns), “It’s the Stupidity, Stupid”, and “Not Enough Indians”, a comic novel about Native Americans and gambling.

Shearer may be best known for his prolific work as a voice actor on The Simpsons (1989 to present), where he provides voices for Mr. Burns, Waylon Smithers, Ned Flanders, Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, Kent Brockman, Dr. Julius Hibbert, Dr. Marvin Monroe, Lenny Leonard, Principal Seymour Skinner, Otto Mann and Rainier Wolfcastle among others. He was one of three Simpsons voice actors to guest star on the show Friends (“The One With the Fake Monica“); the other two were Dan Castellaneta and Hank Azaria. He also appeared in Godzilla with Hank Azaria, which had a cameo appearance from Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson. (In a SFGate Podcast, Shearer said one person who took him under his wing during his early days in show business was voice actor Mel Blanc, who voiced many animated characters such as Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, and Tweety Bird, just to name a few.)

Since 1983, Shearer has been the host of the public radio comedy/music program Le Show on Santa Monica’s NPR-affiliated radio station, KCRW. On the weekly program Shearer alternates between DJing, reading and commenting on the news of the day after the manner of Mort Sahl, and performing original (mostly political) comedy sketches and songs. The show airs on public radio stations throughout the country, and is offered as a podcast. Shearer is the regular announcer for TV Land and, since May 2005, has been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post. Shearer has homes in both Santa Monica, California and the Faubourg Marigny of New Orleans, Louisiana. According to a telephone call on Ask Mr. KABC, his house survived Hurricane Katrina.

In 1995 Shearer appeared in the Australian comedy series Frontline, in the episode “Changing the Face of Current Affairs”. In it he played the character of Larry Hadges, employed by the Frontline team to improve the look and style of the show, with hilarious results.

In 2006 Shearer appeared with Brian Hayes in a six-part BBC Radio 4 sitcom called Not Today, Thank You, in which he plays Nostrils, a man so ugly he can’t stand to be in his own presence.

Recurring characters on SNL

• Tom Clay, a spokesman for several fake commercials on SNL
• Vic Raker, a Weekend Update commentator

Celebrity impersonations on SNL

• Alan Thicke
• Carl Sagan
• Curt Gowdy
• Frank Reynolds
• Franklin Roosevelt
• Jack Perkins
• Joe Garagiola
• Mike Wallace
• Mr. Blackwell
• Robin Leach
• Rod Serling
• Ronald Reagan
• Tom Brokaw
• Tom Snyder
• Vin Scully (Shearer also impersonated Vin Scully on several episodes of The Simpsons.)

Filmography

• The Simpsons Movie (2007)
• Not Today, Thank You (2006) (Radio)
• For Your Consideration (2006)
• Chicken Little (2005)
• A Mighty Wind (2003)
• Teddy Bears’ Picnic (2002)
• Haunted Castle (2001)
• Out There (2001)
• Haiku Tunnel (2001)
• Catching Up with Marty DiBergi (2000) (V)
• Edwurd Fudwupper Fibbed Big (2000)
• Dick (1999)
• Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)
• Encounter in the Third Dimension (1999)
• Edtv (1999)
• Small Soldiers (1998) (voice)
• The Truman Show (1998)
• Almost Heroes (1998)
• Godzilla (1998)
• My Best Friend’s Wedding (1997)
• State of the Union: Undressed (1996) (TV)
• Blazing Dragons (1996) (VG)
• The Show Formerly Known as the Martin Short Show (1995) (TV)
• Sliders (1995) (TV) (uncredited)
• The News Hole (1995) TV Series
• Speechless (1994)
• Little Giants (1994)
• I’ll Do Anything (1994)
• Wayne’s World 2 (1993)
• Comic Relief: Baseball Relief ’93 (1993) (TV)
• A League of Their Own (1992)
• Spinal Tap: Break Like the Wind – The Videos (1992) (V) (as Derek Smalls)
• The Fisher King (1991)
• Blood and Concrete (1991)
• Pure Luck (1991)
• Oscar (1991/I)
• Sunday Best (1991) TV Series
• Hometown Boy Makes Good (1990) (TV)
• The Simpsons (1989 – present)
• My Stepmother Is an Alien (1988)
• Plain Clothes (1988)
• Portrait of a White Marriage (1988)
• Spitting Image: The Ronnie and Nancy Show (1987) (TV)
• Flicks (1987) (voice)
• The History of White People in America: Volume II (1986) (TV)
• Spitting Image: Down and Out in the White House (1986) (TV)
• Viva Shaf Vegas (1986) (TV)
• The History of White People in America (1985) (TV)
• This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
• The Right Stuff (1983)
• Million Dollar Infield (1982) (TV)
• Likely Stories, Vol. 1 (1981) TV Series
• One Trick Pony (1980)
• Loose Shoes (1980)
• Animalympics (1980)
• Saturday Night Live (1979-80, 1984-85)
• The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh (1979)
• The T.V. Show (1979) (TV)
• Real Life (1979)
• Cracking Up (1977)
• American Raspberry (1977)
• Serpico: The Deadly Game (1976) (TV)
• Leave it to Beaver (1956) (pilot only)
• The Jack Benny Program (1955) (guest voice) TV Series – Member of Jack Benny’s “Beverly Hills Beavers”
• The Jack Benny Program (1953) (guest voice) TV Series – Jack as a Child
• The Robe (1953) (uncredited)
• Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953) (uncredited)

Video games

• Science Vessel/Magellan in Starcraft

Bibliography

• Shearer, Harry (1993). Man Bites Town. St Martins Press. ISBN 0-312-08842-6.
• Shearer, Harry (1999). It’s the Stupidity, Stupid : Why (Some) People Hate Clinton and Why the Rest of Us Have to Watch (Library of Contemporary Thought). Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-43401-3.
• Shearer, Harry (2006). Not Enough Indians. Justin, Charles and Company. ISBN 1-932112-46-4.

I got caught in a silly Facebook App sent to me by the lovely Diane Grzyb. I am a sucker for her so I added the app and hassled some folks and got the answer to What Does My Birthday Mean? Well, here it is:

Based on your birthday …
You have pleasant and friendly personality. People look up to your wit and imagination. You are unpredictable and hardly complete what you started, which sometimes create negative impact to people around you. Your Love, Falling in love becomes your routine. Most of the time, you are lucky. You fascinate people with good taste but you never have enough with one. Although your love progresses very fast, it never lasts.

Your greatest STRENGTHS …
Dynamic, intelligent, always opportunity-taking and enterprising.

Your greatest WEAKNESS …
Avoid responsibility.

Jobs you should pursue …
Teaching and sales.

Before coming to NLADA I received a Jury summons in the mail. Not being worldly enough to know that there was such a massive difference between petit jury and grand jury, I really didn’t make much of it. It would be a couple days at most, and I am sure I would be passed over. I was, after all, working for an association known for its position helping poor folks find good legal assistance. What prosecutor would want to put up with such a loose cannon?

The answer to that is the Grand Jury system of Washington, D.C., which doesn’t care much about who or what you are in the world, just that you are eligible. Unlike most juries, the Grand Jury is an investigative group, voting not on sentencing or penalties, but the legitimacy of a case to proceed from the US Attorney’s Office to the Court and Jury.

And since there are four Grand Juries convened at overlapping start- and end-dates, each with twenty-three Jurors, only 16 of whom are needed to form a quorum allowing a vote, the system can afford to be draconian. By draconian, I mean to say that no matter how much I hinted as to my compassion and passion for the equal service under the law for the poor and indigent, it was all for naught; in fact, I could have well twitched wildly and hinted that I was receiving messaged from Betelgeuse and it would have really mattered little. Since there are so many, attrition and poor voting have been assumed and I was sadly too square to really subvert such a stalwart system.

It took three weeks for my fellow Jurors and I to realize that our job as Grand Jurists was not to do what the Prosecuting Attorneys told us to do. From the beginning of our five-week commitment, we were told that the Assistant United States Attorneys were our legal counsel and there to help us decide the fate of upwards of 125 lives: would the case be indicted and end up in court or would the case be thrown out. We were never advised that the personal lives of anyone we indicted would never be the same again; we were never warned that these private investigations would in fact become public record if we made a choice to pursue the case in the courts. We were constantly being reinforced that it was in fact about the victims and about the case; we were insured that our decisions were a formality and were an indictment in fact made against an innocent man, the court would be able to discern the truth and justice would be upheld. The innocent would go free and the guilty would pay their price to society. All we had to do was decide that there was a possibility that there might have been a viable crime committed and that was good enough because it was not our job to deal with sentencing or particulars.

I indicted a majority of the cases we investigated during the first few weeks. It took two weeks for us to become conversant in the acronyms and lingo of criminal law. For example, ADW/WA is short of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon While Armed and PWID-PCP is short for Possession With Intent to Distribute PCP. During the last couple weeks I became better at recognizing the different moods of the AUSAs.

They were all rock stars, each with his or her own stage presence. One female attorney showboated and I referred to her as a pit bull. She seemed indefatigable as he worked the system hard, making sure her cases received priority attention; she was a real rock star, but one Jurist made the observation that she seemed to be putting is on: she was neither our ally nor our counsel, she was a state employee trying to move cases through the system past nameless, faceless Grand Juries, none of which really knew what was going on. It seemed to me that over time, the system has really come to forget about the true nature of what the Grand Jury is there for. Funnily enough, I was told by the Liaison to the Grand Jurists that the Attorneys preferred the mature Grand Juries much more than the greenhorns. That sounded plausible to me since there would be less frustrating hand-holding and remediation. It seemed true enough until I saw how we voted over time. As the end of our duty approached, we challenged the AUSAs over details, the detectives over their credibility, the witnesses over their consistency, and oftentimes kept the interrogations focused and on-track.

My Grand Jury was a fast track Grand Jury. We were given priority to homicide, sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic cases. By the end of the five weeks, my fellow Jurists and I were rubbed raw. We watched as other Grand Juries planned parties for the last days, a two hour lunch. We were so burdened by the proceedings that we rejected the party and used our time to get the hell out of 555 4th Street, NW, and into small groups and away to lunch. Even our Secretary, who worked in a methadone clinic, started to burn out. I asked the court reporter how he was able to release the emotions of listening to so many worse-case-scenarios; firstly, he said he ran ran ran, secondly, he said that the rotation for most of the court reporters and attorney’s was pretty short. Even so, there were lifers. So I started going to the gym for a couple hours every night.

I wanted to explode; I wanted my innocence back! The streets were darker, the news stories less gray scale and more black and white, and my sweet liberal nature was starting to calcify, chip and crack. I am not na’ve and have been a backpacker and photographer through many of the world’s cities; even so, I felt a lot less safe in my own DC than I had felt before. Now, it is less severe since I have been sharing my feelings, fears, and some of my venting with friends and family. I am one of the lucky ones. What happens to the witnesses after their usefulness is expired’ What happens to them in their community, in their family, and in their home’ What services, support, and trust can one find after taking upon one’s shoulders Herculean task of standing up to your abuser or the abuser of someone in your community; what support for the witness who comes to the courthouse to defend the reputation of an accused when he knows that there is little chance of it mattering. I can see now why so many communities have become insular: it doesn’t seem like the system is there to prevent crime or to protect them, it merely serves to clean up many of the messes that the system enabled in the first place. A lot of amputations happen, it seems to me, that were unnecessary were the limbs better cared for.

Although some of the Attorneys have excellent bedside manner with the witnesses, nobody thought to make sure there were boxes of Kleenex beside the witness stands. As Sergeant-at-Arms, I rushed downstairs to the convenience store before the first week and bought a large box that lasted the entire five-weeks.

Even though I am not at liberty to discuss any of what transpired in the secret investigative hearings, I will say that despite what Hollywood feeds us, one punch or one bullet or one beating usually doesn’t kill a man. The human body is amazingly ‘ if not too ‘ resilient. Some of the physical, mental, and sexual abuse was so massively destructive that I almost wished some of these victims would have at least blacked out or passed on; but no, there I was in a room with someone who had in them something unexplainable. Some sort of vacancy; some sort of resignation that did not take the body but removed some sort of essential flame from the eyes.

When all was said and done, I recognized the Grand Jury system as something amazing and awful to experience on one level; on another level, it is too secret, it is too powerful, and it is essentially a bureaucratic system that has fallen into a rut. There was no reason why our Grand Jury had to field all of the violent cases and there was no reason why we couldn’t have spent a full day with a third party educator who might have been a better job at priming us than the attorneys who’s job it was to make a case against the accused. It was always US vs. Accused; their prime agenda never veered: get violent criminals off the street. At what cost? Justice?

Posted Jul 22, 2002 – 10:43 AM

I got to spend some time hanging out with Martin Marty at Renaissance Weekend a couple years ago. All I knew about him was gleaned from lunches, dinners, and panels together. During last night’s run, my friend Marty Marty started speaking into my iPod earbuds in the form of an interview on Speaking of Faith, America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty Download MP3, Listen, Podcast, and uncut interview with Martin Marty (1:38). God bless Martin Marty and thank you, Krista Tippett.

Transcript of America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty

Billboard:

Krista Tippett, host: I’m Krista Tippett, today a conversation about religion in America, with one of the great public theologians of our time, Martin Marty. For decades, Martin Marty has been watching developments that are now the stuff of daily headlines: the rise of religious fundamentalism across the world, the decline of the Protestant majority in American culture, and the vigor of evangelical Christianity in American life. Marty offers historical and personal perspective.

Mr. Martin Marty: I’ve often thought — I’ve often said, ‘If Billy Graham had been born mean, we’d be in terrible trouble,’ because he had so much power, so many gifts, and so on. One of my distinctions in religion is not liberal and conservative, but mean and non-mean. You have mean liberals and mean conservatives, and you have non-mean of both.

Ms. Tippett: Martin Marty on America’s changing religious landscape. This is Speaking of Faith. Stay with us.

[Announcements]

Ms. Tippett: I’m Krista Tippett. For decades, Martin Marty has been watching developments that are the stuff of daily headlines and partisan rhetoric: the vigor of evangelical Christianity in politics, the decline of the Protestant majority in American culture, and the rise of religious fundamentalism around the world. Today we’ll probe the historical perspective of this leading scholar of religion. We’ll discuss what’s really new in religion as a force in American culture, politics, and daily life.

From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Today, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty.”

Martin Marty has been called the foremost interpreter of religion in America today. The National Book Award, the National Humanities Medal, and the Medal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences are just a few of the honors he has amassed. He’s served on U.S. presidential commissions and directed a visionary research project on religious fundamentalism. The University of Chicago Divinity School, where he taught for 35 years, has created the Martin Marty Center to continue his work on public religion.

But for all his celebrity and scholarship, Martin Marty draws crucial insight from his own personal grounding in the mainstream religious life of American culture. He began his working life not as a scholar but as a pastor. He was born into a Lutheran family in 1928, in the Nebraska of Dust Bowl and Depression, where his father was a teacher and a church organist.

Mr. Marty: We were a churched family, of course, it was my father’s profession, and I’ve reminisced with some folks about how I got babysat next to the organ bench and had to sit through long funerals as a child, and somehow it didn’t turn me off from it all. I have a brother and a sister, and the three of us were well-schooled in literature and music and art, and also a very close basic sense of the faith of ordinary people, and I’ve tried to keep some sense of that in my lifework.

Ms. Tippett: Much of Martin Marty’s investigation into American religious life has centered on the dominant majority religion at the heart of our culture, the many denominations of mainline Protestant Christianity. But in our time, surveys show that majority is disappearing even as many Americans perceive the influence of evangelical Protestant Christianity to be growing. In his 2004 book, The Protestant Voice in American Pluralism, Marty describes the centuries from 1607 to 1955 as an era in American history in which “Protestants ran the show.” That began to change and take on new dimensions in the 1960s, an era vivid in the American popular imagination for political movements and the Vietnam War. For Martin Marty, it was also a decade of astonishing religious turning points whose significance went unnoticed. I asked him to walk me through the religious watersheds of the 1960s that began to erode the dominance of mainline Protestantism.

Mr. Marty: The biggest single event that hit this country happened in Rome, and that’s the Second Vatican Council. That is, Protestantism always knew what it was because it knew what Catholicism was, and it was over against that. Suddenly, Catholicism is friendly. It moves out into the public sector. The GI Bill puts Catholic young people into universities. They soon became the most educated group in the country, and Protestants were thrown off balance by that.

Secondly, it’s the beginning of the surge of evangelicalism within Protestantism, which — in those days, I imagine a lot of the Protestant leaders kind of sneered at Billy Graham and looked down their nose at tent revivals and so on and didn’t pay much attention to see how it was coming. And suddenly in the ’60s, I visited Berkeley, you had the Jesus People, little girls getting baptized in their bikinis, and change of worship from a certain kind of formality. The rock bands were coming in. And another huge infusion was an awareness of the religions of the East. You might keep going to your Presbyterian church, but you start doing yoga and you start doing Buddhist disciplines, etc. And you didn’t stop being Presbyterian, but you were of a different sort. You didn’t take it all for granted.

Ms. Tippett: I also think that something we’ve lost a memory of is how much tension there was between Catholics and Protestants, right, in this country, between different kinds of Christians, in a way that is absolutely unimaginable now. And I mean, personally for you, was that shift surprising?

Mr. Marty: I, in 1956, was invited to join the staff of The Christian Century, which was the towering Protestant voice. Today it still is, if not towering, a strong voice, but it’s ecumenical. It has a lot of Catholic writers; it has a lot of evangelical writers. But at that time, it was Protestant, and it was anti-Catholic. In 1950, on the cover of The Christian Century, there was an article, “Pluralism, A National Menace.” Pluralism was they’re worried about Catholicism. When I joined the staff five years later, pluralism was the best game in town. My first visits to campus, you always had one priest, one minister, one rabbi; that was called pluralism back then. But through that all, the Protestant still was in a privileged position. It simply was a kind of a reflex: ‘We’re the largest. We’re the ones who left our stamp on America’s literature, its poetry, its statecraft, etc.’

I’m going to say something in case I’m sounding critical.

Ms. Tippett: You can sound critical if you’d like to.

Mr. Marty: I’d be happy to be critical, but I don’t want to be distorting what I want to be. And that is to say, for all of that reflexive sense of establishment, I think I’m being a neutral, value-free historian when I say I don’t know any time in human history that somebody that powerful yielded that gracefully. In the previous century, Protestantism was often used — white Protestantism — to enslave, and it was used to justify the reservating of the Indians. But in the 20th century, Protestants have sort of said, ‘All right, you’re making your case. We’ll make room for you.’ They weren’t doing that much before the mid-’50s, but from then on in, they have done it even at the expense to their own identity.

Ms. Tippett: And I’m sure you’ve read these statistics that are now coming out, that perhaps today or tomorrow or six months from now, there will no longer be a Protestant majority in this country. And it depends on how people measure these things but, still, it seems significant when what is replacing the number of people who say that they’re Protestant are more people who say that they have no religion at all. In fact, it’s very high among people who were born in 1980 or later. And then there’s a category that’s doubled, of people who call themselves just Christian, right, who don’t identify with a specific tradition. How do you explain these statistics?

Mr. Marty: First of all, I think that Protestantism and Catholicism have very common fates here. They both have had trouble holding their younger generation. In some respects, the Protestants, Catholics, and Jews of the northern part of the United States share a lot with Canada, which is far less involved with church, or Western Europe, which is far, far less involved. Incidentally, that little section, I call it the spiritual ice belt: Western Europe, the British Isles, Canada and the northern U.S. We are really exceptions in the world, and we are really having a hard time catching up with understanding the rest of the world.

Protestantism is not in trouble around the world. I am a Lutheran, and we’ve had 300 years to get about eight million people. In 15 years from now, the African Lutheran churches will have added as many people as it took us 300 years to get. And that’s true of many other Protestantisms and Pentecostalisms. Every day there are 23,000 new Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, and half of them would be called Protestant, if often in the Pentecostal version. So around the world, it’s not a losing force. No longer, however, does it make the reference it once did to Western Europe and its daughter, the United States.

What will that mean for the United States? I don’t think we’re going to wake up some day and see total change. There’s a strange thing that hundreds of years after the vital life of a religion is past, there’s still a strong influence. We’re still living off some of the Greek religious influences. We’re living off a lot of medieval Catholicism. Our very universities are inventions of that. Our hospitals are inventions of that. So in a sense, meanings, ideas — in this case, ideas of liberty, freedom — that came very often from Protestants will live on even if not everybody goes to church. Still, the churches have been the places where these stories get renewed regularly.

Ms. Tippett: OK. I mean, I just wonder, personally, is this something that troubles you?

Mr. Marty: I don’t think I wake up in the morning having great worries about that. You can tell from what I’ve said I have a global view of humanity and of religion, and it moves around a lot. In the 1930s a great Catholic, Hilaire Belloc, said, “Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe.” Well, that was true then. Now the cathedrals are empty, but their granddaughters are full in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. I certainly think that some things borne by the Protestant message would be a great loss. One of its gifts to America was its sense that we’re scripted. It’s a scriptural faith, it’s a Christ-centered faith, but it doesn’t mean that all virtue and all morality goes with you. And I think that’s been a nice irritating voice in classic Protestantism, which is, no matter how far along you’d come, God was holding you to a higher standard.

Ms. Tippett: Religious historian and author Martin Marty. One of the most popular of his over 50 books is Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in American. He is considered by some to be a bridge between the devotional and scholarly worlds of liberal mainline Protestantism and evangelical Christianity.

Ms. Tippett: Let’s talk about evangelical Christianity, which at the same time that there are some statistics of people becoming less religious, there’s certainly a sense that religion in some ways is more of a force now. I mean, I think there would be people who would take your phrase, “When Protestants ran the show,” and say that a certain kind of Christianity is becoming almost a controlling force or, you know, we have an evangelical Christian in the White House. I mean, how are you observing what’s happening now, with your broad view of things and of history?

Mr. Marty: I think those of us who write this kind of history are a little puzzled by the naiveté of the — well, people in journalism, in the media, in the general public, who think all this just got invented in the last four years and couple months. It has very deep roots. I trace it not to the ’20s. Nobody cared about the religion of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover. And Roosevelt was a mainline Protestant, Episcopalian, and he could draw upon these themes very much. Harry Truman was a salty Baptist. Truman and Carter and Clinton, the three Baptist presidents of the century, know the Bible best. They can just recite reams of it at any moment. Eisenhower started having Billy Graham come by. When we say “evangelical” today, it’s almost a long shadow originally of Graham. Today, evangelicalism is multi-headed. It’s all over the place. You can’t really generalize about it much anymore, but in its purer form, it came up in that way.

And, yes, in ’64, they really galvanized around Barry Goldwater and the kind of conservatism. And they didn’t get very far because he didn’t get very far, but they got angry about being dismissed and so on. In 1976, when Jimmy Carter ran, he’s the first one who would say, ‘I’m born again,’ first one to say, ‘I had a personal experience with Jesus,’ but they soon dropped him because they didn’t like him politically. Ronald Reagan was not born again, but he was friendly to them. But you could see this long trend coming.

Robert Handy, one of our major historians, once wrote a little book on The American Religious Depression, 1925–1935, because the mainline churches were already beginning to lose some of their membership, their status. They were depressed. But Joel Carpenter, another historian, has since pointed out, through it all the fundamentalists who’d been disgraced in the 1920s started organizing. They bought radio stations. They started Bible colleges. They had magazines. And they were building a world inside the world. And suddenly along come people like Billy Graham and presidents who favor it, and you have a very different kind of pattern, so that by the time — I would say by the time of Ronald Reagan, it became so vivid that the normal clergy in the White House would be evangelists, usually, until recently, of a rather moderate sort.

Ms. Tippett: It also seems to me, though, that a mistake is made in media in lumping together — as you said, evangelicalism is a — there’s a multiplicity of evangelicalism, and evangelicalism has a very different history and theology in some cases from Pentecostals and certainly from fundamentalists, although there is some overlap. How would you explain the distinctions?

Mr. Marty: All right. To the sociologists, the slightly more than one-fourth of America that would be called evangelical includes fundamentalists, evangelicals, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, and conservative Protestant denominations. And they really have tremendous differences except when they converge on highly focal and, let’s say, useful political points: gay marriage or something of that sort. But for the most part, they’re much more diverse.

Until around the turn of the last century, all Protestants were called evangelicals; all evangelicals were called Protestant. During the century, though, you started having the liberal churches accenting more the Biblical story applied to social life, economic life, cultural life, whereas those who were evangelical started dealing with private life, personal life. That still goes down in our own time.

Ms. Tippett: Why did that happen? How did that happen?

Mr. Marty: Well, I think the Protestants who ran the show had the sense that you can pass a law and get rid of slavery, you can join secular people to get antitrust laws, you could have child labor laws. All the while then, the revivalists, Billy Graham’s ancestors — the greatest being Dwight Moody, a Chicago evangelist — looked out at the world and saw it in trouble, and he said, ‘The world is a flood, and God gave me a lifeboat and said, “Moody, rescue all you can.”‘ And I think they concentrated on heaven, on saving souls. And then on moral issues, they chose those over which an individual could have control: You shouldn’t gamble. You shouldn’t swear. You shouldn’t drink.

Now what’s so interesting today is, what have come to be called social issues in recent campaigns are not social, they’re personal enlarged. In other words, the evangelicals and the fundamentalists and the Catholic conservatives concentrate on what goes on in the bedroom, and they don’t talk much the way classic Protestants did about should the government be involved with poverty, with waging peace, all of those kinds of things. It’s been their genius to organize that in our own time so they have great political power. The Republican Party in particular has seen that that can be amassed and help get votes for things outside of the bedroom.

Ms. Tippett: Although there certainly are Catholics and evangelicals who are mobilized around poverty and those more classic kinds of social justice issues.

Mr. Marty: Oh, my, yes. Catholics are very much upfront. And some of the strongest social involvements of today are among evangelical Protestants. But that kind of Catholic and that kind of evangelical and that kind of Protestant are themselves in a kind of a loose coalition today. Not as powerful as the personal morality people, but there’s a lot of power there. A lot of witness goes on.

Ms. Tippett: Religious scholar and author Martin Marty. I’m Krista Tippett and this is Speaking of Faith from American Public Media. Today we’re exploring Martin Marty’s historical and personal perspective on the changing religious dynamics in American culture. For a half-century, he has studied the effect of increasing pluralism on American Christianity. He’s also been a visionary scholar of religious fundamentalist movements around the world.

Ms. Tippett: I want to talk about the Fundamentalism Project that you did but, I mean, before we actually talk about fundamentalism, I’d like to note something that I thought was very interesting. I was reading your address that you gave at the conclusion of that project to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. You titled it, “Too Bad We’re So Relevant: The Fundamentalism Project Projected.”

I’ll just read this quote: “The Fundamentalism Project scholars have found that fundamentalists tend to turn intimate and private issues into public affairs. Concern for the zones of life closest to the self — world view, identity, sexuality, gender differentiation, family, education, communication — tend to take priority over macroeconomic concerns.”

So my question to you is, is there something at the origins of fundamentalism that is also moving our culture as a whole right now?

Mr. Marty: OK. One quick word about fundamentalism. The fundamentalism we studied, to which you’re referring, is not your friendly neighborhood fundamentalist down the block. Our assignment was to study the militancies. When we started this, a historian friend said, ‘When you’re studying American fundamentalism, Marty, remember there are no machine guns in the basement of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.’ We were really studying a different kind of thing there, and yet there are certain things everybody had in common.

In the roots of fundamentalism in our culture, it started, of course, anti-evolution, anti-biblical criticism, and then it started taking a moral cast. But its moral cast, again, was the things that you should take control of. Virtue, advice were their big terms, not social justice and social change. Take what is a virtuous person; pass laws to promote that virtue. And I certainly am leaving a wrong impression if I’m suggesting that bedroom and clinical issues don’t have social consequences. They have huge social consequences. If divorce becomes more easy and grows and families disintegrate and children don’t have models in the parental world and they’re not educable, it’s a huge difference in the culture. So they don’t have a monopoly on it either in its invention or its present carrying out, but I think more of them restrict their energies to that and, again, it’s a very politically popular thing to do.

Ms. Tippett: But here’s my question: This description that you gave of fundamentalism, that people turn to intimate and private issues and that these take priority over macroeconomic concerns, could actually, I think, describe maybe a majority of Americans this year. So what I’m wondering is if there’s something that you see that gives rise to that tendency within fundamentalism that is actually alive in our culture as a whole right now.

Mr. Marty: I think two things are going on. On one level, around the world people are having trouble with their identity, their belief — whom do I trust, who trusts me? And so a phrase we used in The Fundamentalism Project, around the world, there is a massive, convulsive ingathering of peoples into their separatenesses and over-againstnesses, to protect their pride and power and place from others who are doing the same thing. Now, look at American life. We don’t do it the way they do it in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. We don’t veil women or anything like that, but we’re clustering more tightly. ‘We’re the virtuous, and they’re the vicious. We’re the good, they’re the evil.’

Ms. Tippett: I guess I’m still wondering how you understand the human and spiritual–maybe not theological, but the spiritual roots of this focus that seems to have become so definitive in our public life, on private issues of morality as the issues of morality.

Mr. Marty: I think that all through Christian history, anything related to sexuality was troubling and exciting. Clerical celibacy for 1700 years in Catholicism shows this, how much of an upheaval was caused when Martin Luther got married and when the Protestant clergy married. Every change in sexual mores is troubling because that’s so close to the roots of creation and transmission of life. Now what’s happened in our own time, I argue, every church body from the Mennonites to the evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church are torn up over two words: sex and authority. By sex, I mean everything in the biological cycle, from in vitro fertilization or stem cell research, abortion, birth control, cohabitation outside of marriage. All these things are troubling all the churches, some of them sweeping…

Ms. Tippett: And dividing people in them.

Mr. Marty: Oh, yes. Some people sweep these things under the rug or close their eyes to it or whatever. But I think it’s very hard to get to the root of your part of the question as to why this longtime concern for personal morality, sexual morality, suddenly became so politically powerful. On one level, let’s be honest, it’s very exploitable. Everything else I’ve talked about — caring for peace, caring for justice, caring for feeding — these are all relative things. How much foreign aid budget you’re going to put into it, how much energy you’re going to put into it. With abortion, you either have an abortion or you don’t. You either perform gay right marriage or not. So it can be a big matter of identity and boundary, and I think that’s very popular in a time when people lose their identity and their boundary. I always say that the laws on gay rights and the practices toward them will be changed when every tenth evangelical minister’s daughter comes out. That is, when it gets close to you, you see these differently.

Ms. Tippett: So liberal — let’s say, Democrats and even liberal religious people who also have been struggling to find a voice in this last period will often hearken back to the days when it was the social justice issues that mobilized people and that had political force. Did those issues somehow achieve that force in the ’60s because they became more personal for people and, I mean, could you imagine that happening again?

Mr. Marty: Oh, I think so. The personalization of civil rights, you suddenly had a face: Martin Luther King. You suddenly had causes: the four little Birmingham girls who were bombed. These are very, very vivid things so that the president of the United States had to get on television one night, and after you’d seen the pictures of the dogs attacking children and police attempts to put down blacks in the South, suddenly it did become personal.

I should also say in fairness — I’m really trying to be as accurate as I can — these involvements of white Protestants in peace movements and civil rights movements that was never massive. That was often leadership. Some people would call them generals without armies. And there’s where I think we historians have kept saying a lot of evangelicals were up close, they were getting their hands dirty. The Salvation Army, for example, is an evangelical movement, one of the oldest. So we don’t have any absolute lines here at all. I just think that the sudden choice to organize on the virtue-vice line, the ‘we’re entirely right and they’re entirely wrong’ line, was very exploitable in politics, and in many, many states that has come to prevail as the main political agency. Nobody would have dreamed of that 20 years ago.

Ms. Tippett: Historian and author Martin Marty. This is Speaking of Faith. After a short break, more of his reflections on the nature of fundamentalism, separation of church and state, and the future of religion in America.

Mr. Marty: I once spoke in eastern Iowa and they said, ‘Well, you live in pluralism.’ I said, ‘Where’s the oldest mosque in American? It’s in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.’ And they have Postville Lubavitcher Jews north of them, and they have transcendental meditation south of them, and they have gypsies east of them, and Amish west of them. That’s the America we have. It doesn’t mean it’s all easy, doesn’t mean everybody likes everybody.

Ms. Tippett: Visit our Web site, speakingoffaith.org. Subscribe to our free weekly podcast so you can listen to this and other archived programs again. Listen when you want, wherever you want. Discover more at speakingoffaith.org.

I’m Krista Tippett. Stay with us. Speaking of Faith comes to you from American Public Media.

[Announcements]

Ms. Tippett: Welcome back to Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas. I’m Krista Tippett, today exploring America’s contemporary religious landscape with Martin Marty.

Martin Marty is a celebrated historian and interpreter of American religious life. This hour he’s been reflecting on the religious dynamics of contemporary America from his perspective of half a century of scholarship. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the present, he’s been involved in many large-scale analyses of American Protestantism in particular, including its cultural influence and its pluralistic impulses.

And from 1987 to 1993, well before religious fundamentalism had become a feature of daily news headlines, Marty directed a global fundamentalism project that was commissioned by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. That project studied militant religious fundamentalist cultures around the world, and resulted in a five-volume publication. I asked Martin Marty what he learned that surprised him and what shapes his reaction to fundamentalism now.

Mr. Marty: The first thing we learned was that it is religious. That is, we didn’t let the psychologists in the first couple of years. This was a six-year study. We wanted to make sure that we caught the religious dimension and were convinced of that. And therefore fundamentalists, by and large, saw us as being fair. Our main instrument was the tape recorder. We sent out a couple hundred scholars around the world and they would ask, ‘Why are you this?’ and ‘Why do you raise your family that way?’ We studied it in 23 religions, by the way, Jains and Sikhs and everybody; it wasn’t just Christians and Muslims and Jews.

What else did we learn? Number one, fundamentalism is not the old-time religion. Fundamentalism is a very modern packaging. That is, it’s born when there’s an assault on values that you have and are uncertain about. There has to be a threat to you as a group identity or to you as an individual. So the most important word in fundamentalism is you react. Very few fundamentalists are concerned about things that traditionalists and regular conservatives and orthodox are. You can’t get a phone booth full of an argument on the most important Christian doctrines like the divine trinity and the two natures of Christ and the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. They care about evolution. They care about being left behind as the world ends. But there’s a very selective agenda. The whole left-behind theology is not the old-time religion. It was invented in the 1840s, which is really the modern world.

Ms. Tippett: For someone like you.

Mr. Marty: That’s right. I move glacially, not with a hurricane. And many other features were modern. Everywhere we studied them, they were better at the use of mass media than modernists were.

Ms. Tippett: Now, that’s interesting.

Mr. Marty: Yes. I once spoke in a church in — I think it was Dallas, and the pulpit looked like a 747 panel. A red light would go on, a baby’s crying in nursery 23C, and another blue light and that means a Jaguar’s lights were left on in parking lot D, and I could raise the temperature and the volume and everything else. And the minister in his sermon later on blasted technology, which he was using. In other words, he blasted the energy put into it, I suppose you’d say.

Well, I can go to a liberal Methodist church and I’m pretty sure the microphone won’t work. I’m kidding, I’m kidding, but Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution was done through tape recordings from France. Al-Qaeda is very much at home with the Internet.

Ms. Tippett: Very savvy, yeah.

Mr. Marty: Mass media helped produce fundamentalism because — first stage was born in the early radio; the second stage, Billy Graham, early television; the third stage now, Internet. What do you do? It comes at you with full force. You might try laws against obscenity and pornography. You might try to boycott Disney World. That doesn’t do much. You’re better off starting your own television networks. ‘Mass media are what messed up the intimacy of my family life; I’ll turn it right back upon itself.’

Ms. Tippett: So as late as on September 11th, 2001, the word “fundamentalism” became a part of our public vocabulary. And I’m curious, as you watched that happen and have watched all the discussion since then, having spent this good block of time studying fundamentalism a decade earlier, what have you found to be missing in our analysis of fundamentalism recently?

Mr. Marty: I think, unfortunately, the word is used to clump everybody together. The overuse of the word “fundamentalism” — I should be claiming a patent on it because we did those five big fat books on it. But one of the themes of those five books was there are an awful lot of things out there and there’s a lot of internal diversity. We would remind people — for example, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s had 450,000 members in Indiana, in the North, and every meeting had a Protestant minister, it had a cross, it had the open Bible, it had prayer, and the rest of Protestantism and the rest of Christianity would say, ‘That’s not a bit representative of the one billion of us out there.’ So I think when al-Qaeda came on the scene that was our first message: Show the diversities. Make it easier for moderates to be moderate. Don’t demonize the enemy. Do all that you can to show their varieties and to make it easy for them to be diverse.

Ms. Tippett: Esteemed religious historian and author Martin Marty. I’m Krista Tippett, and this is Speaking of Faith from American Public Media. Today, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape: A Conversation with Martin Marty.”

Ms. Tippett: You’ve lived a good long time as a public theologian and a religious thinker, and you quote a lot of great thinkers in all your works. I wonder, if I asked you who you think of as the most formative and influential religious figures in American life in the 20th century, who would you want to describe?

Mr. Marty: Among the well-known people, I would have to say the two Niebuhr brothers, Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr, who towered at Union Seminary and Yale when Protestantism was strong. They both were strong for the prophetic principle. They weren’t good at leading you into worship, though they did write prayers. But they were up close. They were in the thick of things.

Reinhold was a “cold warrior.” He was a consultant in the Truman era to the Dean Achesons and then the John Foster Dulleses. He’s there. But his interpretation of human nature — on one level, there was a group called Atheists for Niebuhr, but he once said, ‘You’ll never understand me if you don’t know that I believe in Christ crucified.’ He always went back to his roots in the gospel, but they also appreciated his analysis of human nature was so realistic, and his interpretation of history and the place nations played.

Ms. Tippett: Here’s a favorite quotation of the 20th century theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, with which Martin Marty ended an address at the White House in 1998.

Reader: “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true, or beautiful, or good, makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, could be accomplished alone; therefore, we must be saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint; therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.”

Ms. Tippett: From Reinhold Niebuhr.

My guest, Martin Marty, is describing some of the most interesting and influential religious forces in his lifetime.

Mr. Marty: I certainly would have to put Billy Graham in the front rank. And I may not have always been in the same camp, we’ve exchanged a few nice letters and have never had a sour word in 30, 40 years, but there’s no doubt about it that I’ve often thought — I’ve often said, ‘If Billy Graham had been born mean, we’d be in terrible trouble,’ because he had so much power, so many gifts and so on. One of my distinctions in religion is not liberal and conservative, but mean and non-mean. You have mean liberals and mean conservatives, and you have non-mean of both. But he’s not a mean. And I think you’d have to say that’s just been an enormous influence on many people.

Paul Tillich, of German import, was highly influential theologically. But I really think that people whose names you’ll never know were influential.

Ms. Tippett: Right. And who are some of those that are important to you?

Mr. Marty: Well, a custodian at a high school I went to. You’d come there in the morning and, as busy as he might be pushing a broom, he read your face better than the counselors did as to what your trouble was.

I personally have a lot of interest in the arts and I have hung out with people who are in music. Recently I was at the dedication of a new organ in honor of Paul Manz, a great, great organist who brought back something as corny-sounding as hymn singing into the great cathedrals. He and I have been on a couple of CDs together. I assure anybody listening that I don’t sing, I narrate. But certainly Paul Manz would be in my front rank of people who shaped me.

A theologian named Joe Sittler, not among the best-known theologians in America, blind in the last years of his life, nearly deaf, had a way with words and a way of discernment and a good-humored understanding of ethics that made the world richer for me.

Reader: A reading from Joseph Sittler in the 1986 book Gravity and Grace:

“St. Augustine, at the beginning of his Confessions, makes a great and beautiful statement: ‘Thou has made us for thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.’ Back of that statement lies a proposition which says that the human is created for transcendence … that we are by nature created to envision more than we can accomplish, to long for that which is beyond our possibilities.

“We are formed for God. …Faith is a longing. Humankind is created to grasp more than we can grab, to probe for more than we can ever handle or manage.

“…This restlessness may make us want to throw in the towel — or to pull up our socks. You can either be creatively restless, as before the unknowable, or you can simply collapse into futility. One of the goals of the Christian message is to join together the people of the way, the way of an eternally given restlessness, and to win from that restlessness the participation in God, which is all that our mortality can deliver.”

Theologian Joseph Sittler, from the book Gravity and Grace.

Ms. Tippett: You often mention a Dutch philosopher.

Mr. Marty: Oh, yes.

Ms. Tippett: How do you say his name?

Mr. Marty: Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, who was a Swiss-German Jew and Christian. He’s one of those geniuses that you can quote 20 pages of and then the 21st page is so nutty you’re not sure you can use it. But I’ll give a quick illustration of what I get from him. For example, he says — and this is extremely important in my life. He says you can write the history of learning in the western world in three Latin phrases.

The first is, in Latin, Credo ut intelligum — “I believe in order that I may understand.” It’s the birth of the universities in Europe, Bologna, Paris, Oxford. You believe to apprehend the universe; truth is divinely revealed and can be appropriated. And that’s the charter that believers should never be afraid of learning.

Secondly, modern learning, without which we couldn’t do, is Descartes. René Descartes. Cogito ergo sum — “I think, therefore I am.” Modern university is born on skepticism and doubt and inquiry and criticism, and you want that. I don’t want a med school in which they’re just taking things on faith. I want them to be extremely critical. But he said, ‘That, too, gets sterile.’ And so he says, in the 20th century, that we also have to learn that truth has a social character. I’m learning from this conversation with you. We learn from conversing with someone else, we learn from the meaning of “I” and “thou.”

And his third motto was Respondeo etsi mutabor — “I respond although I will be changed.” I’m not changed when I argue with somebody because I know an answer and I got to defeat them. I’m always changed in a conversation because they’re going to surprise me. It’s kind of a game, it’s kind of play. And I think that that’s the kind of learning we need more in the churches, in theology, in politics, and in personal life.

Ms. Tippett: You’ve done a lot of projecting in your life. I mean, I found one book written in 1971 where you were projecting the church in that century, and there was projecting in The Fundamentalism Project. I wonder what you have been wrong about, as you look back, and also I wonder, as you look forward, where you are finding your hope and nurture.

Mr. Marty: Well, looking ahead, it’s a very foolish thing for a historian to do because we have nothing to say until something’s happened. I mean, our specialty is the past. But when you’re involved in the worlds in which I’m involved, you do hang out with the people who do projecting and you go along with them. My biggest misses were I didn’t foresee three huge things: One, the explosion of evangelicalisms; number two, the highly individualized spirituality of which you spoke earlier, the people who are on a spiritual search but they’re doing it at the coffee shop, at the mega bookstore, or they’re doing it in a little chanting group, and they’re not doing it in the churches. That’s certainly a force I hadn’t foreseen. And then I think the vitality that has come with the new pluralism, and that’s because I did a lot of writing before 1965 when the immigration laws changed.

Ms. Tippett: That’s another one of those points in the ’60s that you say how important that was for our religious life, that we never talk about as a turning point in the ’60s.

Mr. Marty: Well, it’s huge. It was the year of the Selma March. It was the year of the engagement in Vietnam. It was the year of all the LBJ Great Society legislation, and Congress made a little change in the immigration laws, after 41 years. And it was just in time for all the boat people. It’s just in time for people from Africa to come direct, and so on. And it was just a huge change…

Ms. Tippett: Because it gave rise to a pluralism and a multiculturalism in a new way.

Mr. Marty: Yes. It makes new demands on hospitality, etc. Lewiston, Maine, suddenly has people from Somalia. I once spoke in eastern Iowa and they said, ‘Well, you live in pluralism.’ I said, ‘Where’s the oldest mosque in American? It’s in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.’ And they have Postville Lubavitcher Jews north of them, and they have transcendental meditation south of them, and they have gypsies east of them, and Amish west of them. That’s the America we have. And when you go to a hospital today, your doctor’s probably Pakistani and your nurse is Filipino, and your clinician is Jewish, etc. That’s our future. It doesn’t mean it’s all easy, doesn’t mean everybody likes everybody, but it does mean that your interpreting is being done on a larger scale.

And, again, the two biggest of those — and I guess you could say I probably didn’t foresee that either, since we’re talking about what I didn’t foresee — is that half of everything we’re talking about today is done by women. And that was not true in the ’50s. When I was writing the third volume of my three-volume work on American religion, I said to my class, half of whom were women, ‘Help me out. I need women who are big in religion in the ’50s. I can’t have an index of all men.’ And they couldn’t find hardly anybody. And then one of them said, ‘I’ll bet they were seething.’ And I said, ‘OK, Julie, you’re going to right a history of seething women of the ’50s,’ and she found interesting stuff. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Catherine Marshall, all these people whose husbands are up front, and they’re seething. They’re all ready to change along the way. So I didn’t foresee how sudden and total that is.

It’s hard to think your way back to when very few women added work outside the home if they had children at home. And I think the…

Ms. Tippett: That’s a piece of pluralism we don’t really think about, in terms of how people are active in our public life. Women are more of a force in that way.

Mr. Marty: Oh, yes.

Ms. Tippett: Religious historian Martin Marty. We’re exploring how his historical and personal insights shed light on the religious dynamics of contemporary America.

Ms. Tippett: I think that there is a real sense among many people in our time that the whole relationship between church and state–as we define that, it’s not really just church and state anymore, right, it’s mosque, synagogue, church, and state, and many other variations of religious expression, but that that is shifting profoundly. But I wonder, with your perspective as a historian, you know, how new, how profound is this shift and how do you view this?

Mr. Marty: On one level, the image of the wall of separation never worked. We did never have a wall. For example, tax exemption of churches probably pays more to the churches in America than being established governmental churches in Europe ever did. I like James Madison’s word, there’s a “line of distinction,” a line of separation between religion and civil authorities.

I think of it more, too, as zones. Most people know when you’ve really overstepped. Most people don’t want religion utterly in a box. When the astronauts looked at the Earth on Christmas Eve, they read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” I think Madalyn Murray O’Hair and one or two other people protested, but most people thought, ‘That’s great.’ And when you have the space shuttle disasters, the president gets up and is at his most eloquent invoking religious language. Well, if you read real separation of religion and the state, you wouldn’t do that.

It gets more complex in some other areas. There is much more eroding of that line than there had been. I think, though, again, many of us who are nervous about crossing the line are also interested in religion in public life. I’m all for the teaching about religion in public schools. I think you should know that Martin Luther King was a black Baptist and what that did for him. You should know why the Puritans came. You should know why your Hindu neighbor does something different. But a lot of people want to convert that and say, ‘But we should teach the majority religion as the truth about life, and we should worship in that tradition.’ And that’s where we get nervous, and yet there’s a strong popular appeal. ‘If only we had prayer amendments. If only we had stipulated prayer.’ And here’s where a Protestant of the old school or a real Protestant would say, ‘Watch out. Give religion privilege and it gets corrupt. And look at Europe if you want a sample of that.’ So in my view, religion has its place all over the public sphere as long as it is persuasive and voluntary. And the minute it gets to be coerced and privileged and assumed, somebody’s going to run it at the expense of others or it’ll get fat and corrupt.

Ms. Tippett: Where do you look for nourishment and hope? Where do you look around and say, ‘This is exciting. I’m happy for my grandchildren to be living in this time’?

Mr. Marty: The most important thing in my world, when I mention public life I don’t mean only politics. A lot of people equate the two. Politics is one branch of it. Public life is town meeting, it’s the mall, it’s the supermarket, it’s the college, it’s all those things. And I’m greatly cheered by artists, by musicians, by people who live out their vocation. It’s almost a hobby for me to pursue people who just never get their name in print and do heroic things.

I’m cheered by — I never know how to speak without proper nouns. I like a group called Opportunity International, which is one of a number of microeconomic ventures around the world that lends money, put 140,000 people around the world to permanent work last year. Now, they’re religiously motivated people and they give me tremendous hope, as do the people on the other end, 92 percent of whom pay their loans back in two years, which inspires me. That kind of thing.

In the city where I live, Chicago, there are all kinds of groups that provide leadership in the inner city without condescension, without imposing on them. There are others that train people. In one of these groups, the Christian Industrial League, trains people, mainly Mexican men, to start their landscaping companies and women to start their homemaking companies — not just to do the work, but to start companies. And they plant the flowers that we see in the city of Chicago. Come see them.

And family is very important. I draw nurture from the family. We love friends. I can’t say enough — I once wrote a book about friendship. In a cold, brutal world, you can’t do much better for somebody else than to stimulate friendship. And the model there again is God. As distant as God’s supposed to be, God also condescends and is our 3:00-in-the-morning friend. So I’m nurtured by all those kinds of things.

Ms. Tippett: Martin Marty is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago. The Martin Marty Center has been founded there to promote public religion endeavors. He’s the author of more than 50 books, including, recently, The Protestant Voice in American Pluralism, When Faiths Collide, and the Penguin Lives volume on Martin Luther.

Contact us at speakingoffaith.org and read listeners’ reflections on this conversation. Also, sign up for the free Speaking of Faith podcast. You’ll never have to miss another program again. Listen on demand, when you want, wherever you want. Discover more at speakingoffaith.org.

The senior producer of Speaking of Faith is Mitch Hanley, with producers Colleen Scheck and Jody Abramson and editor Ken Hom. Our Web producer is Trent Gilliss, with assistance from Jennifer Krause. Kate Moos is the managing producer of Speaking of Faith, the executive editor is Bill Buzenberg, and I’m Krista Tippett.

I am a feminist. I studied postmodern feminist theory at Uni and felt confident that the progress and passion behind feminism offered by deconstructionism — the cultural and linguistic tools a women would need to redefine her story and her self — would result in a female self-empowerment much more substantial than the hyper-sexual self-objectification of Manolo Blahnik feminism. I am not the only one asking the question, “What Ever Happened to Feminism?” Check out Body Politic by Ingrid Sischy from the T Style Magazine (yes, I read it).

“Body Politic
By INGRID SISCHY
Published: February 25, 2007Last fall I was stopped in my tracks as I walked into a show in Milan during the collections, and a male friend, who’d just witnessed the same debacle that I had, raised his eyebrows and asked, “What happened to feminism???? It’s a question that is being asked repeatedly these days, and for good reason. The only word for the fashion collection we’d just seen was “bimbo??? — clothes put out on the runway without irony, without quotation marks, without any raison d’être other than saving money on material. Over the course of the next two weeks I gave myself a little assignment. I’d watch the runways in Milan and Paris and check off those clothes that signified a throwback to the long past of objectifying women. And on the other hand I’d put a little star down when the designer seemed to be wanting to take us into the future with a view of women that reflected self-possession.

Good thing I still like swings. Of course there were exceptions, designers who were true to the present, but by and large it was backward and forward and backward and forward. Then there were the designers who left earth entirely and showed a universe of female droids and cyborgs. These were the ones who, intentionally or not, illuminated the big challenge facing women’s fashion, best described by tweaking the famous tag line from “Star Trek???: women’s fashion, the final frontier . . . to boldly go where no one has gone before.

That’s easier said than done. As Miuccia Prada said to me, “The problem with new ideas about feminism is that there has been so little public discussion of the subject.??? Well, that’s changing, big time — if not in fashion at least in the art world, which has historically been the first place where a new perspective begins. In fact, after it seemed as though the subject of feminism had been put on simmer, the art world is cooking with gas again, not just for a new generation of feminist artists but in retrospect too. The year started out with a symposium at the Museum of Modern Art, once such a perfect target for feminist critics, who felt it was stuck in the Stone Age as far as the representation of women goes. Now there are bicoastal extravaganzas planned for this spring: the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles will stage “WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution??? from March 4 to July 16, and the Brooklyn Museum opens “Global Feminisms??? on March 23. The show celebrates a new center for feminist art, anchored by the permanent installation of Judy Chicago’s famous “The Dinner Party.??? How these exhibitions will loop back to fashion and the creative/commercial balancing act that designers have to do is anybody’s guess, but bets are that there will be a trickle-down effect, as there often is.

What’s interesting is that if one goes through the iconic works of the first, second and third waves of feminist writers, there is so little that actually addresses fashion. Rereading Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millet, Shulamith Firestone, Germaine Greer, Lucy Lippard, Linda Nochlin and so many others, I was struck by the dearth of attention to this subject, which after all has everything to do with how identity is constructed for the outside world. There’s no lack of thinking when it comes to inner life, working life, creative life and public life, but when fashion comes up, the attitude tends to be knee-jerk and programmatic. Take Greer’s climactic moment at the end of “The Female Eunuch,??? where she creates a sort of bill of rights, inciting women to: “. . . refuse hobbles and deformity and take possession of your body and glory in its power, accepting its own laws of loveliness.??? In fact some of the most powerful, liberated women I know choose to hobble around in the craziest skyscraper shoes. “The higher the heel,??? they say, “the better I feel.???

But the other part of Greer’s declaration — that women have the right to control their own bodies — is as resonant today as it was when she wrote it nearly 40 years ago. One can see that drama being played out in the fashion arena right now, with the debate over skinny models brought to a head by the deaths last fall of two South American catwalkers from complications of anorexia. The hysteria that resulted led to a spectacle of ignorance, hypocrisy and bureaucracy. If the issue weren’t so serious, some of the solutions proposed by bureaucrats — like models being weighed in like boxers or jockeys — would be funny. But unfortunately they don’t just infringe on everything that we are supposed to hold dear in the department of human liberties, they also display so little understanding of the disease they are trying to combat that it is frightening. So is the tendency to lump together girls who are naturally skinny with those who are sick, two very different realities. Hey, as someone who likes her fries, I’m all for bringing back a Rubenesque shape as the height of fashion, but the fact is that perceptions of beauty cannot, and will not, be dictated by laws. That’s where consciousness comes in. At the center of it all, for anorexics, but also for each of us, lies the issue of control, or as Barbara Kruger wrote in one of her most unforgettable artworks: “Your body is a battleground.??? Hopefully you win.”

Manolo Blahnik Feminism: The Right to Choo’s

I call the new feminism Manolo Blahnik Feminism, which is a super-sexual, super-sexy, and super-confusing form of self-empowerment. Ariel Levy calls it “raunch culture” and I believe that it is going to blow up in American women’s faces.

I believe very strongly that there are too many dangerous contradiction in the new feminism, in the new American woman.

I attended a panel on gender differences in the new feminism and my question to the panel was, “I understand how empowering strappy stilettos, butt jeans, bare bellies, and camisole tops are for the modern woman. It is all about taking back the sex, taking back the gaze, reclaiming the control of what is cute, what is hot, what is sexy, it about taking back control, reclaiming feelings of pride in the body, pride in the shape and tan earned from an active, outdoorsy life. That’s all fine and good. Unfortunately, we men never got the memo. I never got the memo.”

In fact, I feel sort of like a fox in a hen house. Why? Well, all of my old-world, unenlightened, seduction techniques work now better than ever! In fact, the truth is, I am really too nice for the Manolo Blahnik k feminist.

The Manolo Blahnik feminist wants to be taken, wants to find a real man, wants to take risks and have a great time; she pursues a doctrine of devil may care.

Well, no matter what the Manolo Blahnik Feminist thinks she wants and no matter what she thinks she’s doing, she is actually walking into a very dangerous trap.

We men are not responding to this self-empowerment with amazement and respect, we’re responding to it by licking our lips, by taking advantage, by rubbing our hands together, and by trying not to jinx this out of being. We are pretty well convinced that what is happening won’t last: the Manolo Blahnik feminist fancies herself the aggressor, the buyer, the pursuer, the seducer. And we men are what she is after.

All we see is, “man that girl is fine — I’d like some of that.”

As men in such a seller’s market, we don’t have to choose. We can date another willing girl every night. We can push sex much faster than we ever could believe. The three-date rule? Ha! That’s the official rule, but now the first date counts from the night we first met. Oral sex on the first date has sort of become de rigueur — if you want a second date.

Instead of getting control, the Manolo Blahnik Feminist has relinquished control to us men.

And even worse, this is a very dangerous game. We men are bigger, stronger, and not all of us are so nice. I personally have a lot of experience with women who are survivors — survivors not just of dating or their 20s, but survivors of sexual abuse and rape.

I have loved them, I have befriended them, and I worked through relationships with women who have survived sexual abuse and rape.

Its always an ugly story and the world is never the same. We just have not received the memo. This kind of exciting, naughty, passionate, irresponsible, reckless indulgence in “raunch culture” is going to result in one hell of a cultural hangover.

Many women will be unable to recover from this self-indulgence with any semblance of faith, trust, hope, or intactness.

And many men, too.

When it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?

Not I.

I am not sure if modern women have it very good. Not nearly as good as would be expected. I attended college at a high point for feminism an academia, when a woman would still identify with being a feminist.

Not any more.

Not Liberating, After All
How did feminists end up in bed with Hugh Hefner?

BY WENDY SHALIT
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ariel Levy attended Wesleyan University in the 1990s, and she doesn’t feel the better for it. It was a place where “group sex, to say nothing of casual sex, was de rigueur.” It was a place where they had “coed showers, on principle.” When Ms. Levy suggested to a department head that it would be nice to have at least one course in the traditional literary canon, she was dismissed with icy contempt. Yet elsewhere on campus a professor of the humanities taught a course on pornography featuring, um, detailed textual analysis.

It was all supposed to be so liberating. But it wasn’t, as Ms. Levy argues forcefully in “Female Chauvinist Pigs.” It was merely the academic groundwork for what she calls “raunch culture,” now so ubiquitous that we take it for granted. Young women wear shirts emblazoned with “Porn Star” across the chest. Teen stores sell “Cat in the Hat” thong underwear. Parents treat their daughters’ friends to “cardio striptease” classes for birthday parties. This is liberation?

Ms. Levy is baffled. “Why,” she wondered, “is laboring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering?” Why did female Olympic athletes pose for Playboy before the summer 2004 Games? Why did Katie Couric feel the need to point to her cleavage and gush “these are actually real!” when she guest-hosted “The Tonight Show” a couple of years ago?

Some sort of pervasive pressure, apparently, requires “everyone who is sexually liberated . . . to be imitating strippers and porn stars.” Ms. Levy describes the perfect distillation of this impulse–a social group called CAKE that hosts steamy, hooking-up parties in New York and London. CAKE makes big bucks advertising “feminism in action”–it claims to be the place where “sexual equality and feminism finally meet”–but its events are indistinguishable from those held at the Playboy Mansion.

The surface logic of such conduct is fairly simple, notes Ms. Levy. “Women had come so far,” or so the thinking went, that “we no longer needed to worry about objectification or misogyny.” If male chauvinist pigs “regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.”

Well, Ms. Levy is having none of it, and she is not the only one. Even Erica Jong seems to feel that something has gone wrong. Known for popularizing the idea that a woman may want consequence-free sex, Ms. Jong today declares: “Being able to have an orgasm with a man you don’t love . . . that is not liberation.” It isn’t? Someone should tell this to Annie, a blue-eyed 29-year-old who admits to Ms. Levy that she “used to get so hurt” after a night of sex that didn’t yield an emotional bond. Now she has gotten over it, or tried to: “I’m like a guy,” she brags.

How did this happen? Why did feminism sell its soul to the sexual-liberation movement in the first place? After all, the original feminists were fighting to be taken seriously. Hugh Hefner, by contrast, said that his ideal girl “resembles a bunny . . . vivacious, jumping–sexy.” There seems to be a contradiction here.

Ms. Levy’s answer is that, after a brief and failed fight against pornography, feminism joined forces with Hef & Co. to fight for abortion rights. This is a plausible explanation, as far as it goes. Abortion has indeed assumed a primary importance in both feminist “rights” thinking and in the whole culture of soft-core libertinism: Mr. Hefner is a big fan of abortion, for obvious reasons.

But something else may be going on. Feminism grounded itself, in its early days, in the idea that there were no differences between the sexes. A girl wanting to keep her virginity was bad, for sexual reticence amounted to asserting a separate standard, a Victorian one at that. To Hef, modesty was a “hang-up,” and to the feminists it was a “patriarchal construct.” Ms. Levy believes that feminism was on the right track but then veered off-course: “What has moved into feminism’s place . . . is an almost opposite style, attitude, and set of principles.”

But maybe feminism’s foundations were weak from the start. Everyone in Ms. Levy’s book–whether it’s middle-class girls who feel anxiety about appearing “hot” or grown women who confess to Ms. Levy that “accumulating sex for its own sake . . . is not that sexual”–shows that a woman’s experience of sex and love is very different from that of an adolescent boy or a man. Indeed, the more a woman imitates a man, the clearer these differences become.

Paris Hilton tells Rolling Stone: “My boyfriends always tell me I’m not sexual. Sexy, but not sexual.” (Ms. Levy reports that on one of the infamous videotapes she takes a cellphone call during intercourse.) Plainly, the sexual revolution has not brought fulfillment for women. Even its mascots experience boredom, and for the civilians there is distress and heartache.

It may be that, like Ms. Levy, a lot of feminists now regret getting in bed with Mr. Hefner. Yet if you mention the word “modesty” within 20 feet of them their heads spin around like Linda Blair in “The Exorcist.” This is where they get stuck. Only if feminism can embrace the more traditional ways that men and women have courted throughout the ages can it have anything practical to offer young women. To the extent that feminists dismiss as worthless anything that is perceived as “backtracking,” they only help to perpetuate the “raunch culture”–even as they deplore its effects.

Take a beach scene that Ms. Levy recounts, when the male “friends” of two girls pressure them to take off their suits. Soon surrounded by a circle of 40 screaming men, the girls say “no way!” but eventually give in and spank each other to appease the crowd.

Such a girl requires, in addition to perhaps Mace, a compelling alternative to the Female Chauvinist Pig. Otherwise she may well give in to social pressure–not to mention professorial nonsense–and then wonder what’s wrong with her when she is not happy with the pig in her bed or the pig she has become.

Ms. Shalit is author of “A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue.” You can buy “Female Chauvinist Pigs” from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

September 20, 2005

Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?ex=1127966400&en=3f7348e314a603ee&ei=5070&emc=eta1

By LOUISE STORY

Cynthia Liu is precisely the kind of high achiever Yale wants: smart (1510 SAT), disciplined (4.0 grade point average), competitive (finalist in Texas oratory competition), musical (pianist), athletic (runner) and altruistic (hospital volunteer). And at the start of her sophomore year at Yale, Ms. Liu is full of ambition, planning to go to law school.

So will she join the long tradition of famous Ivy League graduates? Not likely. By the time she is 30, this accomplished 19-year-old expects to be a stay-at-home mom.

“My mother’s always told me you can’t be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time,” Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. “You always have to choose one over the other.”

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation’s most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others, like Ms. Liu, say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.

Much attention has been focused on career women who leave the work force to rear children. What seems to be changing is that while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, their daughters, while still in college, say they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children.

“At the height of the women’s movement and shortly thereafter, women were much more firm in their expectation that they could somehow combine full-time work with child rearing,” said Cynthia E. Russett, a professor of American history who has taught at Yale since 1967. “The women today are, in effect, turning realistic.”

Dr. Russett is among more than a dozen faculty members and administrators at the most exclusive institutions who have been on campus for decades and who said in interviews that they had noticed the changing attitude.

Many students say staying home is not a shocking idea among their friends. Shannon Flynn, an 18-year-old from Guilford, Conn., who is a freshman at Harvard, says many of her girlfriends do not want to work full time.

“Most probably do feel like me, maybe even tending toward wanting to not work at all,” said Ms. Flynn, who plans to work part time after having children, though she is torn because she has worked so hard in school.

“Men really aren’t put in that position,” she said.

Uzezi Abugo, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who hopes to become a lawyer, says she, too, wants to be home with her children at least until they are in school.

“I’ve seen the difference between kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn’t, and it’s kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it,” said Ms. Abugo, whose mother, a nurse, stayed home until Ms. Abugo was in first grade.

While the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year.

The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.

Two of the women interviewed said they expected their husbands to stay home with the children while they pursued their careers. Two others said either they or their husbands would stay home, depending on whose career was furthest along.

The women said that pursuing a rigorous college education was worth the time and money because it would help position them to work in meaningful part-time jobs when their children are young or to attain good jobs when their children leave home.

In recent years, elite colleges have emphasized the important roles they expect their alumni – both men and women – to play in society.

For example, earlier this month, Shirley M. Tilghman, the president of Princeton University, welcomed new freshmen, saying: “The goal of a Princeton education is to prepare young men and women to take up positions of leadership in the 21st century. Of course, the word ‘leadership’ conjures up images of presidents and C.E.O.’s, but I want to stress that my idea of a leader is much broader than that.”

She listed education, medicine and engineering as other areas where students could become leaders.

In an e-mail response to a question, Dr. Tilghman added: “There is nothing inconsistent with being a leader and a stay-at-home parent. Some women (and a handful of men) whom I have known who have done this have had a powerful impact on their communities.”

Yet the likelihood that so many young women plan to opt out of high-powered careers presents a conundrum.

“It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?” said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s.

It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

It is less than clear what universities should, or could, do about it. For one, a person’s expectations at age 18 are less than perfect predictors of their life choices 10 years later. And in any case, admissions officers are not likely to ask applicants whether they plan to become stay-at-home moms.

University officials said that success meant different things to different people and that universities were trying to broaden students’ minds, not simply prepare them for jobs.

“What does concern me,” said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, “is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn’t constructed along traditional gender roles.”

There is, of course, nothing new about women being more likely than men to stay home to rear children.

According to a 2000 survey of Yale alumni from the classes of 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994, conducted by the Yale Office of Institutional Research, more men from each of those classes than women said that work was their primary activity – a gap that was small among alumni in their 20′s but widened as women moved into their prime child-rearing years. Among the alumni surveyed who had reached their 40′s, only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90 percent of the men.

A 2005 study of comparable Yale alumni classes found that the pattern had not changed. Among the alumni who had reached their early 40′s, just over half said work was their primary activity, compared with 90 percent of the men. Among the women who had reached their late 40′s, some said they had returned to work, but the percentage of women working was still far behind the percentage of men.

A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30′s and 40′s.

What seems new is that while many of their mothers expected to have hard-charging careers, then scaled back their professional plans only after having children, the women of this generation expect their careers to take second place to child rearing.

“It never occurred to me,” Rebecca W. Bushnell, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, said about working versus raising children. “Thirty years ago when I was heading out, I guess I was just taking it one step at a time.”

Dr. Bushnell said young women today, in contrast, are thinking and talking about part-time or flexible work options for when they have children. “People have a heightened awareness of trying to get the right balance between work and family.”

Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women’s plans to stay home with their children.

“A lot of the guys were like, ‘I think that’s really great,’ ” Ms. Currie said. “One of the guys was like, ‘I think that’s sexy.’ Staying at home with your children isn’t as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30′s now.”

For most of the young women who responded to e-mail questions, a major factor shaping their attitudes seemed to be their experience with their own mothers, about three out of five of whom did not work at all, took several years off or worked only part time.

“My stepmom’s very proud of my choice because it makes her feel more valuable,” said Kellie Zesch, a Texan who graduated from the University of North Carolina two years ago and who said that once she had children, she intended to stay home for at least five years and then consider working part time. “It justified it to her, that I don’t look down on her for not having a career.”

Similarly, students who are committed to full-time careers, without breaks, also cited their mothers as influences. Laura Sullivan, a sophomore at Yale who wants to be a lawyer, called her mother’s choice to work full time the “greatest gift.”

“She showed me what it meant to be an amazing mother and maintain a career,” Ms. Sullivan said.

Some of these women’s mothers, who said they did not think about these issues so early in their lives, said they were surprised to hear that their college-age daughters had already formed their plans.

Emily Lechner, one of Ms. Liu’s roommates, hopes to stay home a few years, then work part time as a lawyer once her children are in school.

Her mother, Carol, who once thought she would have a full-time career but gave it up when her children were born, was pleasantly surprised to hear that. “I do have this bias that the parents can do it best,” she said. “I see a lot of women in their 30′s who have full-time nannies, and I just question if their kids are getting the best.”

For many feminists, it may come as a shock to hear how unbothered many young women at the nation’s top schools are by the strictures of traditional roles.

“They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they’re accepting it,” said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women’s and gender studies at Yale. “Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

“I really believed 25 years ago,” Dr. Wexler added, “that this would be solved by now.”

Angie Ku, another of Ms. Liu’s roommates who had a stay-at-home mom, talks nonchalantly about attending law or business school, having perhaps a 10-year career and then staying home with her children.

“Parents have such an influence on their children,” Ms. Ku said. “I want to have that influence. Me!”

She said she did not mind if that limited her career potential.

“I’ll have a career until I have two kids,” she said. “It doesn’t necessarily matter how far you get. It’s kind of like the experience: I have tried what I wanted to do.”

Ms. Ku added that she did not think it was a problem that women usually do most of the work raising kids.

“I accept things how they are,” she said. “I don’t mind the status quo. I don’t see why I have to go against it.”

After all, she added, those roles got her where she is.

“It worked so well for me,” she said, “and I don’t see in my life why it wouldn’t work.”

Thanks to Carrie for sending me this article.

My dear friend commented on this part of the article, “And when it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?”

Her response was, “….Therein lies the pitfall…. Once you start tasting of that forbidden apple, the garden of romance can all too easily dissapear! This, i think, is why many parents of our generation divorced — lack of faith in love is a direct result of the “free love” movement. Someone needs to warn the young!!! They need to be made aware of the booby-traps. Otherwise we are all just walking around with broken flowers, feeling numb to the pain we don’t even realize we are entitled to have.”

May 19, 2002, Washington, DC – When you are 32 and charmed, its pretty difficult to leave the Mister Magoo world of happy obliviousness. Well, being on the Grand Jury with our focus on Murder, Mayhem, and Sexual Abuse is like a boot camp for getting out of my guilded carriage to see what it is down that dark alley.

Well, I have finished three-of-five weeks of being a Grand Jurist. I am the Sergeant-at-Arms and one of 23. We are down to 22, but a quorum is 16. Let me tell you, this job sucks and my soul has been a casualty. Thank God to have had this experience.

I have already made a comparison, although clumsily, between this Grand Jury experience and Buddha’s realization that his world was a charmed illusion, a manufactured gentility created by his rich family.

I don’t know who my rich family is, but its certainly a protected demographic. My racial profile protects me, I am sure. The world is not so gentle, I fear, in many places and in many ways that I have been totally unwilling to entertain until this unending and merciless barrage of hate, numbness, and desperation washed like Chinese water torture from a fire hose over me and I feel vaguely numb and vaguely nauseous.

I was pretty much in denial until I slept most of the weekend away. My body and mind and soul were punished. I have been drinking more and also smoking and looking around to hang out with friends almost every night. But I cannot say much because everything that goes on is Secret and Private.

And the lives of many people AKA witnesses are at risk. Many of these people take their lives into their own hands every time they come to sit in our arraignment hearing.

There might be around six rounds from a .380 with their name on it. Some people pop caps over some of the most stupid ass things. In many places in the world, one cannot assume that there is terribly much value associated with the human life. Luckily for some, the human body can really and surprisingly hold on to life through heightened levels of brutality I could not hitherto even imagine.

Ignorance is bliss. I have so much respect, admiration, and even Love for the system. Its an Emergent system. Each person genuinely have the common good in mind: cops (under cover, vice, drug, beat), advocates (some of whom are mighty cute and all are rock stars!), support staff, paralegals, security guards. I have yet to meet incompetence. Its very comforting.

Well, I never knew what an astute intellectual Adolf Hilter was because I just assumed he was a monster. Surely a monster, a madman, a devil, and also an evil genius,

“All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed . . .”

“. . . Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there is question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence, as happens in the case of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot be paid to the necessity of avoiding a high level, which presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence among the public.”

Whenever I work for PR, I am reminded to keep the language in the message at a 7th grade level.

The entire chapter, VI, War Propganda, is posted below. Very current and very important in understanding the current war’s propaganda strategy and campaign.

Mein Kampf Chapter VI, War Propaganda, by Adolf Hitler

In watching the course of political events I was always struck by the active part which propaganda played in them. I saw that it was an instrument, which the Marxist Socialists knew how to handle in a masterly way and how to put it to practical uses. Thus I soon came to realize that the right use of propaganda was an art in itself and that this art was practically unknown to our bourgeois parties. The Christian-Socialist Party alone, especially in Lueger’s time, showed a certain efficiency in the employment of this instrument and owed much of their success to it.

It was during the War, however, that we had the best chance of estimating the tremendous results which could be obtained by a propagandist system properly carried out. Here again, unfortunately, everything was left to the other side, the work done on our side being worse than insignificant. It was the total failure of the whole German system of information – a failure which was perfectly obvious to every soldier – that urged me to consider the problem of propaganda in a comprehensive way. I had ample opportunity to learn a practical lesson in this matter; for unfortunately it was only too well taught us by the enemy. The lack on our side was exploited by the enemy in such an efficient manner that one could say it showed itself as a real work of genius. In that propaganda carried on by the enemy I found admirable sources of instruction. The lesson to be learned from this had unfortunately no attraction for the geniuses on our own side. They were simply above all such things, too clever to accept any teaching. Anyhow they did not honestly wish to learn anything.

Had we any propaganda at all? Alas, I can reply only in the negative. All that was undertaken in this direction was so utterly inadequate and misconceived from the very beginning that not only did it prove useless but at times harmful. In substance it was insufficient. Psychologically it was all wrong. Anybody who had carefully investigated the German propaganda must have formed that judgment of it. Our people did not seem to be clear even about the primary question itself: Whether propaganda is a means or an end?

Propaganda is a means and must, therefore, be judged in relation to the end it is intended to serve. It must be organized in such a way as to be capable of attaining its objective. And, as it is quite clear that the importance of the objective may vary from the standpoint of general necessity, the essential internal character of the propaganda must vary accordingly. The cause for which we fought during the War was the noblest and highest that man could strive for. We were fighting for the freedom and independence of our country, for the security of our future welfare and the honour of the nation. Despite all views to the contrary, this honour does actually exist, or rather it will have to exist; for a nation without honour will sooner or later lose its freedom and independence. This is in accordance with the ruling of a higher justice, for a generation of poltroons is not entitled to freedom. He who would be a slave cannot have honour; for such honour would soon become an object of general scorn.

Germany was waging war for its very existence. The purpose of its war propaganda should have been to strengthen the fighting spirit in that struggle and help it to victory.

But when nations are fighting for their existence on this earth, when the question of ‘to be or not to be’ has to be answered, then all humane and æsthetic considerations must be set aside; for these ideals do not exist of themselves somewhere in the air but are the product of man’s creative imagination and disappear when he disappears. Nature knows nothing of them. Moreover, they are characteristic of only a small number of nations, or rather of races, and their value depends on the measure in which they spring from the racial feeling of the latter. Humane and æsthetic ideals will disappear from the inhabited earth when those races disappear which are the creators and standard-bearers of them.

All such ideals are only of secondary importance when a nation is struggling for its existence. They must be prevented from entering into the struggle the moment they threaten to weaken the stamina of the nation that is waging war. That is always the only visible effect whereby their place in the struggle is to be judged.

In regard to the part played by humane feeling, Moltke stated that in time of war the essential thing is to get a decision as quickly as possible and that the most ruthless methods of fighting are at the same time the most humane. When people attempt to answer this reasoning by highfalutin talk about æsthetics, etc., only one answer can be given. It is that the vital questions involved in the struggle of a nation for its existence must not be subordinated to any æsthetic considerations. The yoke of slavery is and always will remain the most unpleasant experience that mankind can endure. Do the Schwabing 12) decadents look upon Germany’s lot to-day as ‘aesthetic’? Of course, one doesn’t discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God’s image in His creation.

Since these ideas of what is beautiful and humane have no place in warfare, they are not to be used as standards of war propaganda.

During the War, propaganda was a means to an end. And this end was the struggle for existence of the German nation. Propaganda, therefore, should have been regarded from the standpoint of its utility for that purpose. The most cruel weapons were then the most humane, provided they helped towards a speedier decision; and only those methods were good and beautiful which helped towards securing the dignity and freedom of the nation. Such was the only possible attitude to adopt towards war propaganda in the life-or-death struggle.

If those in what are called positions of authority had realized this there would have been no uncertainty about the form and employment of war propaganda as a weapon; for it is nothing but a weapon, and indeed a most terrifying weapon in the hands of those who know how to use it.

The second question of decisive importance is this: To whom should propaganda be made to appeal? To the educated intellectual classes? Or to the less intellectual?

Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. For the intellectual classes, or what are called the intellectual classes to-day, propaganda is not suited, but only scientific exposition. Propaganda has as little to do with science as an advertisement poster has to do with art, as far as concerns the form in which it presents its message. The art of the advertisement poster consists in the ability of the designer to attract the attention of the crowd through the form and colours he chooses. The advertisement poster announcing an exhibition of art has no other aim than to convince the public of the importance of the exhibition. The better it does that, the better is the art of the poster as such. Being meant accordingly to impress upon the public the meaning of the exposition, the poster can never take the place of the artistic objects displayed in the exposition hall. They are something entirely different. Therefore. those who wish to study the artistic display must study something that is quite different from the poster; indeed for that purpose a mere wandering through the exhibition galleries is of no use. The student of art must carefully and thoroughly study each exhibit in order slowly to form a judicious opinion about it.

The situation is the same in regard to what we understand by the word, propaganda. The purpose of propaganda is not the personal instruction of the individual, but rather to attract public attention to certain things, the importance of which can be brought home to the masses only by this means.

Here the art of propaganda consists in putting a matter so clearly and forcibly before the minds of the people as to create a general conviction regarding the reality of a certain fact, the necessity of certain things and the just character of something that is essential. But as this art is not an end in itself and because its purpose must be exactly that of the advertisement poster, to attract the attention of the masses and not by any means to dispense individual instructions to those who already have an educated opinion on things or who wish to form such an opinion on grounds of objective study – because that is not the purpose of propaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their reasoning powers.

All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there is question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence, as happens in the case of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot be paid to the necessity of avoiding a high level, which presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence among the public.

The more modest the scientific tenor of this propaganda and the more it is addressed exclusively to public sentiment, the more decisive will be its success. This is the best test of the value of a propaganda, and not the approbation of a small group of intellectuals or artistic people.

The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. That this is not understood by those among us whose wits are supposed to have been sharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof of their vanity or mental inertia.

Once we have understood how necessary it is to concentrate the persuasive forces of propaganda on the broad masses of the people, the following lessons result therefrom:

That it is a mistake to organize the direct propaganda as if it were a manifold system of scientific instruction.

The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. If this principle be forgotten and if an attempt be made to be abstract and general, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public will not be able to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way. Therefore, the greater the scope of the message that has to be presented, the more necessary it is for the propaganda to discover that plan of action which is psychologically the most efficient.

It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as the Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of doing in their propaganda. The very principle here is a mistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results. Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had been deceived by the manufacturers of the information which had been given him. Therefore, instead of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite the contrary effect. Finally he lost heart.

On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The most terrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmed the information that they had already received and their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their respective governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred against the infamous foe was increased. The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was only another illustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of the Entente no time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their own weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feel that the information which he received at home was untrue. Unfortunately the opposite was the case with the Germans, who finally wound up by rejecting everything from home as pure swindle and humbug. This result was made possible because at home they thought that the work of propaganda could be entrusted to the first ass that came along, braying of his own special talents, and they had no conception of the fact that propaganda demands the most skilled brains that can be found.

Thus the German war propaganda afforded us an incomparable example of how the work of ‘enlightenment’ should not be done and how such an example was the result of an entire failure to take any psychological considerations whatsoever into account.

From the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could be gained by those who kept their eyes open, whose powers of perception had not yet become sclerotic, and who during four-and-a-half years had to experience the perpetual flood of enemy propaganda.

The worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda; namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with. In this regard so many errors were committed, even from the very beginning of the war, that it was justifiable to doubt whether so much folly could be attributed solely to the stupidity of people in higher quarters.

What, for example, should we say of a poster which purported to advertise some new brand of soap by insisting on the excellent qualities of the competitive brands? We should naturally shake our heads. And it ought to be just the same in a similar kind of political advertisement. The aim of propaganda is not to try to pass judgment on conflicting rights, giving each its due, but exclusively to emphasize the right which we are asserting. Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side.

It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who was responsible for the outbreak of the war and declare that the sole responsibility could not be attributed to Germany. The sole responsibility should have been laid on the shoulders of the enemy, without any discussion whatsoever.

And what was the consequence of these half-measures? The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. As soon as our own propaganda made the slightest suggestion that the enemy had a certain amount of justice on his side, then we laid down the basis on which the justice of our own cause could be questioned. The masses are not in a position to discern where the enemy’s fault ends and where our own begins. In such a case they become hesitant and distrustful, especially when the enemy does not make the same mistake but heaps all the blame on his adversary. Could there be any clearer proof of this than the fact that finally our own people believed what was said by the enemy’s propaganda, which was uniform and consistent in its assertions, rather than what our own propaganda said? And that, of course, was increased by the mania for objectivity which addicts our people. Everybody began to be careful about doing an injustice to the enemy, even at the cost of seriously injuring, and even ruining his own people and State.

Naturally the masses were not conscious of the fact that those in authority had failed to study the subject from this angle.

The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly that. English propaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and put what they understood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might have given rise to some doubt.

Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats. Further, the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsible for the war – which was a brutal and absolute falsehood – and the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed.

The effectiveness of this kind of propaganda is well illustrated by the fact that after four-and-a-half years, not only was the enemy still carrying on his propagandist work, but it was already undermining the stamina of our people at home.

That our propaganda did not achieve similar results is not to be wondered at, because it had the germs of inefficiency lodged in its very being by reason of its ambiguity. And because of the very nature of its content one could not expect it to make the necessary impression on the masses. Only our feckless ‘statesmen’ could have imagined that on pacifists slops of such a kind the enthusiasm could be nourished which is necessary to enkindle that spirit which leads men to die for their country.

And so this product of ours was not only worthless but detrimental.

No matter what an amount of talent employed in the organization of propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not taken of these fundamental principles. Propaganda must be limited to a few simple themes and these must be represented again and again. Here, as in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and most important condition of success.

Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid æsthetes and blase intellectuals should never be allowed to take the lead. The former would readily transform the impressive character of real propaganda into something suitable only for literary tea parties. As to the second class of people, one must always beware of this pest; for, in consequence of their insensibility to normal impressions, they are constantly seeking new excitements.

Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always long for change and will always be incapable of putting themselves in the position of picturing the wants of their less callous fellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone trying to understand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first to criticize propaganda, or rather its message, because this appears to them to be outmoded and trivial. They are always looking for something new, always yearning for change; and thus they become the mortal enemies of every effort that may be made to influence the masses in an effective way. The moment the organization and message of a propagandist movement begins to be orientated according to their tastes it becomes incoherent and scattered.

It is not the purpose of propaganda to create a series of alterations in sentiment with a view to pleasing these blase gentry. Its chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.

Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. In this way alone can propaganda be consistent and dynamic in its effects.

Only by following these general lines and sticking to them steadfastly, with uniform and concise emphasis, can final success be reached. Then one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a persistent policy secures.

The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.

In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.

But in England they came to understand something further: namely, that the possibility of success in the use of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and that when employed in this way it brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.

In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest hero type.

Taken all in all, its results were negative.

When I was “32 and charmed,” I spent five weeks as a juror on Grand Jury Duty.

Well, I have finished three-of-five weeks of being a Grand Jurist. I am the Sergeant-at-Arms and one of 23. We are down to 22, but a quorum is 16. Let me tell you, this job sucks and my soul has been a casualty. Thank God to have had this experience.

I have already made a comparison, although clumsily, between this Grand Jury experience and Buddha’s realization that his world was a charmed illusion, a manufactured gentility created by his rich family.

I don’t know who my rich family is, but its certainly a protected demographic. My racial profile protects me, I am sure. The world is not so gentle, I fear, in many places and in many ways that I have been totally unwilling to entertain until this unending and merciless barrage of hate, numbness, and desperation washed like Chinese water torture from a fire hose over me and I feel vaguely numb and vaguely nauseous.

I was pretty much in denial until I slept most of the weekend away. My body and mind and soul were punished. I have been drinking more and also smoking and looking around to hang out with friends almost every night. But I cannot say much because everything that goes on is Secret and Private.

And the lives of many people AKA witnesses are at risk. Many of these people take their lives into their own hands every time they come to sit in our arraignment hearing.

There might be around six rounds from a .380 with their name on it. Some people pop caps over some of the most stupid ass things. In many places in the world, one cannot assume that there is terribly much value associated with the human life. Luckily for some, the human body can really and surprisingly hold on to life through heightened levels of brutality I could not hitherto even imagine.

Ignorance is bliss. I have so much respect, admiration, and even Love for the system. Its an Emergent system. Each person genuinely have the common good in mind: cops (under cover, vice, drug, beat), advocates (some of whom are mighty cute and all are rock stars!), support staff, paralegals, security guards. I have yet to meet incompetence. Its very comforting.