Yesterday the Atlantic Yards project sold a ton of bonds to finance a new arena in Brooklyn for the awful New Jersey Nets, and possibly the awful New York Islanders. I will not attend a game at that venue, ever, because its creation is, whether our jurist intelligentsia wish to admit it or not, an abuse of the power of eminent domain. A taking of property from private land- and home-owners for the benefit of a few politically connected developers and athletes. Not to mention buffoons like Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and similar self-aggrandizing, "visionary" politicians (using other people's money.) "Economic development" by the government is an illusion. The same abuse of economic development was justified to revitalize the area now occupied by the politically connected New York Times -- struggling to stay alive. The government has no crystal ball to tell which businesses will "revitalize" an area and which won't. This is a lie, and yet another movement away from the unique founding principles of our country.***
Everything that can be said about Tiger Woods' moral implosion has been said. And more. As an average golfer and a confused person, I am no doubt tempted like everyone else to experience schadenfreude over Tiger. His super human golf skills didn't irk me nearly as much as his apparent mythic self-knowledge, springing forth from the womb with a driver in his hand knowing he was to dominate professional golf worldwide. I don't know from one golf swing to the next who I am. As it turns out, neither did Tiger. We see a young man who, while facing the rigors of his father Earl Woods' disciplined approach to golf and life, never really had anything he loved denied to him that would bring him closer to himself. With a billion dollars in his pocket and access to women nearly every moment he was off the golf course and away from his apparently troubled marriage, he consumed in mass quantities, taking whatever was there with no regrets. Until now, when he departs, reportedly, on a mythic journey to Sweden; a descent to a Nordic netherworld, to find out who he truly is. There will be more arc to Tiger than just his swing, there will be an arc to his character. On the next phase of the journey, I wish him, his wife and family well, whatever they choose.
***
As I watch the Tiger Woods saga unfold in the media, I wonder, seriously: who "owns" marriage? Marriage, defended and praised by clergy, politicians and pundits, is an inexhaustible resource for moral back patting. Yet, who among marriage's "defenders" will take responsibility for marriage's defects? If marriage were a product, with a near 50 percent divorce rate and untold frustration and difficulty in so-called happy marriages, would anyone bring it to market? So, while individuals own their own happiness, who, if anyone, has the onus to fix marriage as an institution?
Among political conservatives, there is strain of thinking espoused by Edmund Burke that holds that the "wisdom" of our institutions can be difficult to justify to "rationalists," armed with their destructive, deconstructive metaphysics. I find this thinking increasingly troubling. Does this mean that marriage shall remain forever elusive, its defects and suffering and scandals to the children we love so much, acceptable, because of its barely expressible, non-rational wisdom?
In the churches, the barest resources exist to understand and control the defects of marriage. In my church, a weak, almost comically embarrassing "Pre-Cana" conference might be followed years later by a patch-up "Marriage Encounter." And what else?
The New York Post will inform its readers about this apparent scandal against marriage by publishing picture after picture and detail after detail about Tiger Woods liaisons. So will many other "conservative" tabloids, magazines and television shows. All so we can cluck about marriage, with a few cheap thrills thrown in. The Rupert Murdoch formula.
As I ponder both practical politics, and the myths I teach my students this semester, such as the founding American myth of Daniel Boone, I am becoming increasingly conscious of how unique our times are historically. First, there is nowhere else to go for the sake of an idea. No westward expansion through "virgin" territory to create a new world. What does that mean for our increasingly aging world? Secondly, myth- and ritual-based communities are breaking down in the face of an explosion of media technology. Culture is becoming increasingly heterogeneous and consumer-driven. If ritual and myth played a central role in establishing a person's identity, what will the new world of "chosen" identity look like?
With our massive, unscientific, undisciplined incursions of government debt, increasing political polarization and disgraceful lack of statesmanship in Washington -- if you agree legislation is an emergency measure, should you really hold out until you extract your slice of pork? -- I think it is quite possible to say that the United States might not exist in its current form in 100 years. There seem to be too many people in the political class who believe and act in a way that assumes that the Republic is immortal.
***
Among political conservatives, there is strain of thinking espoused by Edmund Burke that holds that the "wisdom" of our institutions can be difficult to justify to "rationalists," armed with their destructive, deconstructive metaphysics. I find this thinking increasingly troubling. Does this mean that marriage shall remain forever elusive, its defects and suffering and scandals to the children we love so much, acceptable, because of its barely expressible, non-rational wisdom?
***
In the churches, the barest resources exist to understand and control the defects of marriage. In my church, a weak, almost comically embarrassing "Pre-Cana" conference might be followed years later by a patch-up "Marriage Encounter." And what else?
***
The New York Post will inform its readers about this apparent scandal against marriage by publishing picture after picture and detail after detail about Tiger Woods liaisons. So will many other "conservative" tabloids, magazines and television shows. All so we can cluck about marriage, with a few cheap thrills thrown in. The Rupert Murdoch formula.
***
As I ponder both practical politics, and the myths I teach my students this semester, such as the founding American myth of Daniel Boone, I am becoming increasingly conscious of how unique our times are historically. First, there is nowhere else to go for the sake of an idea. No westward expansion through "virgin" territory to create a new world. What does that mean for our increasingly aging world? Secondly, myth- and ritual-based communities are breaking down in the face of an explosion of media technology. Culture is becoming increasingly heterogeneous and consumer-driven. If ritual and myth played a central role in establishing a person's identity, what will the new world of "chosen" identity look like?
***
With our massive, unscientific, undisciplined incursions of government debt, increasing political polarization and disgraceful lack of statesmanship in Washington -- if you agree legislation is an emergency measure, should you really hold out until you extract your slice of pork? -- I think it is quite possible to say that the United States might not exist in its current form in 100 years. There seem to be too many people in the political class who believe and act in a way that assumes that the Republic is immortal.
No comments:
Post a Comment