Cobb

Mining Hollywood

For the first time in memory, I watched the Oscars. What happened to Billy Crystal?

I have no understanding of the nuances of celebrity. They all seem to be pallid frail cute cutouts of what's cool now. Nothing seems so incongruous to the thankfulness and confession of actors in their moment of celebration as their swift, almost instantaneous conversion to excoriating hubris. Where else does one thank their mother in one minute and then tell everybody what think and do about the fate of the planet in the next? 

I cannot think of a third event that makes for the kind of television event that the Oscars and the Super Bowl are. Both cover subjects that are the background noise of my normal life. And yet occasionally I will go to a theater and see a movie, certainly more eagerly than I sit through a televised football game. Then again, this years Alabama vs Clemson game was a superb affair.  This year I watched the Super Bowl with my family. I can say without question that the snacks were better in January.

I've decided that Hollywood is the business of mining. They scour through mountains of dreck and dross to find human gems of enduring beauty and talent. Then they suffer them to the unique drills and polishes that the Hollywood machine exacts. Out come celebrities whose public franchise is thusly guaranteed. All of the little people, the craftsmen and assistants are the cogs in the machine run by big wheel producers minding the fuel that is public fascination. But in the end it's all just mining, not so much creativity as the exploitation of the natural resources that are Charlize Theron's looks, Chris Rock's cheek, Lady Gaga's voice. Let's take Whoopi Goldberg for example. How many times has her gem been remounted? She is still 'Ghost'. 

Reparations Redux

(from the archives - June 2003)

I have given a lot of thought to the matter of reparations and I'd like to be blunt about my conclusions for the sake of brevity. The answer is that blackfolks will settle for anything they can get because they are so accustomed to not getting what they deserve. African Americans deserve reparations, they won't get them, and the issue will hang around indefinitely with no resolution - rather like the Catholic Church's edict against the use of birth control. It won't matter how well thought out the moral case, it just won't mean shinola here in America. People will go about their own lives knowing that there is a compelling argument against what they are doing, but they won't look closely at the argument itself.

The simple case for reparations is this:
1.There is no statute of limitations on debt. It is either forgiven or not.
2. A man and his progeny have a right to the rewards of his labor.

3. A government, most especially a government of and by the people, should not conspire in the theft of those rewards. The descendents of slaves, through the legal institution of slavery itself and the Jim Crow laws that followed, are the only Americans who have been denied, by government, the inheritance their own forebears energy and creativity would have bequeathed them.

How can conservatives, who are so outraged by taxes, not be outraged by this?

I think conservatives and Republicans are not outraged about anything, they are just calculatingly greedy. I know I am. They care most about the integrity of a system of producing and maintaining wealth. The idea of reparations, taken as a 'transfer of wealth' seems to violate a principle of propreity which in fact it defends.

I think far too many people object to reparations for African Americans because it suggests that they would get wealth in a different manner than everyone else. I believe this to be a racist argument because it doesn't invalidate the claim for reparations, it simply sets up an arbitrary standard of how blacks should behave with no regard to their actual condition or history. It simply says 'not the Irish way, therefore not legitimate'.

What I believe should be done is that serious consideration be given to the form and substance of the reward itself. I strongly believe that African Americans, given some coordination and discipline, could and would develop several strong and well-accepted uses for any reparation payments. In fact, these would be desirable in any case and applicable to the needs of African American anyway. Why then limit the justification of these needs to the political impossibility of a reparations settlement?

When I first thought about Republicanism for myself, one of the first things I asked seriously was, what's in it for me? Where is my patronage and what kind do I want? I have been disappointed to the extent to which, in the African American case, Republicanism is a psychic thing. People seem to get the most kick out of the existentials of calling themselves black Republicans, and calling others fools and vice versa. Blacks are so hung up about wearing the label (or not) that nobody cares about the policies and practices. I exaggerate but you know what I'm saying. My point is that we should be outlining what our political desires are in concrete policy terms first, then worrying about how we can get them second. Instead of reserving all of our energy into theoretical issues like reparations and affirmative action we should be more concerned with the practical benefits owing to party work.

So I'm saying that if one congresscritter can slip in last minute riders on a bill that is going to sail through congress give x billion to y corporation, we shouldn't be spending our resources trying to convince the entire American public about the validity of reparations. Reparations are valid. It's as simple as one, two three, but public opinion is the path of greatest resistance and least reward. Buying a congressman or two is a lot simpler, especially since there is this thing called the Black Caucus. Understand that 15% of America is racist and another 25% on top of that is stupid and apathetic. Instead of trying to convince them that the sky is blue and reparations are good, we should be directing those agents we already control to do what they are already capable of doing. In other words, reparations are an impractical justification for better schools. If you wan't better schools than say so and figure out a way to get them that doesn't require (white) America to strain itself with moral thinking.

The sooner we get on that track, the better off we are.

I have given a lot of thought to the matter of reparations and I'd like to be blunt about my conclusions for the sake of brevity. The answer is that blackfolks will settle for anything they can get because they are so accustomed to not getting what they deserve. African Americans deserve reparations, they won't get them, and the issue will hang around indefinitely with no resolution - rather like the Catholic Church's edict against the use of birth control. It won't matter how well thought out the moral case, it just won't mean shinola here in America. People will go about their own lives knowing that there is a compelling argument against what they are doing, but they won't look closely at the argument itself.

The simple case for reparations is this:
1.There is no statute of limitations on debt. It is either forgiven or not.
2. A man and his progeny have a right to the rewards of his labor.

3. A government, most especially a government of and by the people, should not conspire in the theft of those rewards. The descendents of slaves, through the legal institution of slavery itself and the Jim Crow laws that followed, are the only Americans who have been denied, by government, the inheritance their own forebears energy and creativity would have bequeathed them.

How can conservatives, who are so outraged by taxes, not be outraged by this?

I think conservatives and Republicans are not outraged about anything, they are just calculatingly greedy. I know I am. They care most about the integrity of a system of producing and maintaining wealth. The idea of reparations, taken as a 'transfer of wealth' seems to violate a principle of propreity which in fact it defends.

I think far too many people object to reparations for African Americans because it suggests that they would get wealth in a different manner than everyone else. I believe this to be a racist argument because it doesn't invalidate the claim for reparations, it simply sets up an arbitrary standard of how blacks should behave with no regard to their actual condition or history. It simply says 'not the Irish way, therefore not legitimate'.

What I believe should be done is that serious consideration be given to the form and substance of the reward itself. I strongly believe that African Americans, given some coordination and discipline, could and would develop several strong and well-accepted uses for any reparation payments. In fact, these would be desirable in any case and applicable to the needs of African American anyway. Why then limit the justification of these needs to the political impossibility of a reparations settlement?

When I first thought about Republicanism for myself, one of the first things I asked seriously was, what's in it for me? Where is my patronage and what kind do I want? I have been disappointed to the extent to which, in the African American case, Republicanism is a psychic thing. People seem to get the most kick out of the existentials of calling themselves black Republicans, and calling others fools and vice versa. Blacks are so hung up about wearing the label (or not) that nobody cares about the policies and practices. I exaggerate but you know what I'm saying. My point is that we should be outlining what our political desires are in concrete policy terms first, then worrying about how we can get them second. Instead of reserving all of our energy into theoretical issues like reparations and affirmative action we should be more concerned with the practical benefits owing to party work.

So I'm saying that if one congresscritter can slip in last minute riders on a bill that is going to sail through congress give x billion to y corporation, we shouldn't be spending our resources trying to convince the entire American public about the validity of reparations. Reparations are valid. It's as simple as one, two three, but public opinion is the path of greatest resistance and least reward. Buying a congressman or two is a lot simpler, especially since there is this thing called the Black Caucus. Understand that 15% of America is racist and another 25% on top of that is stupid and apathetic. Instead of trying to convince them that the sky is blue and reparations are good, we should be directing those agents we already control to do what they are already capable of doing. In other words, reparations are an impractical justification for better schools. If you wan't better schools than say so and figure out a way to get them that doesn't require (white) America to strain itself with moral thinking.

The sooner we get on that track, the better off we are.

Obligatory Seriousness on the Tubman Twenty

Well, here's one that I cared a little about and hoped it would go a particular way. Hey it did!

I'm not a particular hater of Andrew Jackson, but I am a particular lover of Alexander Hamilton, and that's going back more than 20 years before the musical. In fact, it was about 1992 when I used to hang out at Hamilton Terrace in NYC on weekends teaching kids in a Church School. I came to learn about Hamilton and found him an admirable character. But even before that, I was partial to the ten dollar denomination when it came to spending cash. That's from when I used to work in a bank back in the 80s and could get any kind of cash that I wanted. I held a lot of silver dollars and a lot of Hamiltons in my pockets back then. Do you remember when ATMs used to give out 10s?

As far as symbols go, I've learned that you cannot trust or train the American public. They're a rowdy crowd and accustomed to being undisciplined. They call this 'freedom' and think that's what this place is all about, so long as they interpret that my freedom is appropriately balanced with their freedom. Which is to say they think that I do what I want and they are suspicious of me. But that's just some extra thought I've been doing about the American public, having recently taken a short midwestern holiday. The likeness of Harriet Tubman makes for a fine set of symbols, but she will always represent to me what she does now, a gun-toting spy with balls of steel. Generally, my kind of badass. Add Teddy Roosevelt to the 500 and we'd really have something to crow about. 

Given the choice of having a woman or a non-woman on the specie is just about meaningless to me. After all, look what happened to the Sacagawea Dollar coin. Its complete disappearance has not affected the status of women in American society. But you would think, listening to the many numbskulls, such a causal relationship exists. 

That reminds me. I'm off to take MIT OCW 18.05

The Moral Hazard of Blessing the Marginal Gift

Ephialtes of Trachis knew he wasn't a soldier worthy of King Leonidas. If he were an honest man, he would not have fell for the flattery sold to him by the enemies of his King. But those Persians had a different religion, and so they sold him a blessing. What I am trying to convey is the hazard of selling virtue, of deflecting an individual from the path of his best understanding by offering him a blessing. 

If you believe that you cannot cheat an honest man, then you would find that the honest man will not respond to your entreaties. If a man truly believes that his honest work is the sum of his moral contribution to society and that his integrity is to be found solely there, then he becomes that honest man. A charlatan cannot sell him the Brooklyn Bridge. A counterfeiter cannot sell him a fake watch. A flatterer cannot sell him phony honor. A whore cannot sell him false love. No priest, poet or politician can sell him the kingdom of heaven, peace of mind or prosperity in our time. The honest man simply cannot be sold, and thusly he cannot be cheated.

The Protestant Church exists because honest men realized that they were being sold the kingdom of heaven through authoritarian dignitaries. Martin Luther saw through it. He determined, in so many words, that the conversations between God and man needed no intermediaries. I like the aphorism that you may trust a man who says he speaks to God, but you should never trust a man who tells you God speaks to him. And so it is not simply with spirituality, but all sorts of honors offered to mankind. I am particularly attuned to this set of honors and I am triggered(!) by the following style of argument:

"If by this act you improve the life of only one person, then the world will be a better place.”

Let it be known that I have a sensitivity to this particularly unctuous solicitation. Whenever I hear it, I see nothing more than an invitation down a slippery slope and a great moral hazard. It is by this clever little tool that pennies are extorted from the masses and aggregated into irresponsible millions. I say every simple kindness is its own reward and no man who is not a child ever need be reminded what is good and what is not. So let the judgment of men be upon men. Who is cruel and who is vicious and who is gentle and who is gracious is for all of us to see plainly. But let the good man be shamed for not giving the extra penny and who then is beyond our arrogant reproach? Let the murderer be redeemed by writing a children’s book and what cruelty can we not accept? 

It seems to me that only religion can motivate men to amplify the value of the marginal gift. And perhaps that is the insight I have needed to find in writing this out. For who but the priests of either earthly or heavenly religious disciplines can be the poet, priest or politician who bestows honor upon the common man and his marginal gift? And who needs such blessing? Well only the dishonest man, because any ordinary man can clearly see how significant is his extra kindness. You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh. These fundamental things apply since the beginning of time. Oh but the politician will sell you in no uncertain terms that a kiss by his opponent is the most vile act imaginable. Or some priest will sell you the that the act of kissing his ring will purchase treasures in heaven. We are told that the LGBTQ kiss is the most dangerous act of human courage. I say these are all marginal acts amplified through arrogant authority of religions. Fetish regimes. The dollar spent brushing flies from the face of the African child. These are false moral economies funded by the credulity of mostly honest men and their extra pennies who have bought into P.T. Barnum’s utopia to come. 

But the religion will silence the judgment of man on the moral authority of its conniving canon. The political religion will forgive their candidate’s lifetime of lies for the sake of his marginal truths. And what truth could he tell that an honest man doesn’t already know? 

I say let a man do his work, and let him not be seduced into the false economies of human bestowed blessings. Let the man know his own virtue, and if God watches and cares, then God knows exactly as the man knows himself. No other man could possibly know, and only charlatans presume to know. The one thing I have learned that has singularly animated my trust in Christian ethics is the understanding that God has given man free will, without which he would be a mere beast. Inherent in that free will is the absolute and Godlike clarity in the difference and the distance between good and evil, without which man could be neither. This is what is meant by creating man in his own image and the entire import of Eden's apple. So let the judgment of men be upon men. It is fully sufficient, because the absence of men’s judgment upon men is in fact the invitation to evil and chaos. Beware the man who says he brings blessings upon you for your marginal gifts. He is the seducer. 

I am impressed by the fact that Catholicism does not evangelize. It merely presents itself. And it presents its rituals and sacraments as a way of understanding and expressing the self in an effort to be Christlike. I simply appreciate that the Catholic Church humbles itself to invite men inside that they might listen to their confessions rather than to send ministers out to preach their exhortations. In this, it tends avoids the moral hazard inherent in selling. But the Catholic Church like all religions, broadly speaking, does bestow blessings. They like all of us should take care to avoid the seductions of flattery, for the honest man will not be sold.