Ok, so my roommate (the loving and wonderful Amanda, without whom I probably would have starved to death long ago) spends a lot of time ranting about the media's and social pressure on female body image. This is a good thing to rant about and I give her kudos.
But, just as importantly, if not more so because it applies to me, is the almost Nazi-era devotion to the perfectly sculpted male in the media and society. Everywhere you look any picture of a man modeling clothes, a product of some kind, or even just appearing in an advertisement for insurance is a tall, sculpted Adonis reminiscent of the idealized masculine of early 20th century fascist ideologues. He has to have that chiseled jaw line, a full head of hair, ZERO body fat (this is more demanding than what the media wants out of women, mind you), and be absolutely ripped. Not overly so, but definite musculature must show through. Can I tell you a secret? Unless you are at the gym every day or at least four or five times a week for a couple hours, you'll never have that Adonis like body. These people have devoted their lives to beauty and being physically perfect. And strangely, quite often, especially in car ads and investment ads, physical perfection in men is equivalent to financial success. And now, thanks to Braun, it also equals sexual prowess.
http://www.braun.com/us/bodygroomers/bodycruzer-with-gillette-fusion-technology.html?gclid=CMiXnprM_aECFRCfnAodogoJFw
This handy little gadget will trim, shape, shave, slice, dice, masticate, and even fraternize with your body hair. And it has a handy little attachment for "sensitive" areas (the ad shows arm pits. We ALL know what sensitive area it's discussing). The model is trim, not too bad looking (I'd like to go on a date with him), well dressed, and apparently the most successful thing to hit the meat market since...well, meat. He even turns all of those easily-objectifiable women into minxes who are all over him.
There is nothing in this ad to suggest that he even has a job (except that he just bought the new Bodycruzer by Braun), let alone a personality. He just walks around looking dopey as all get out and suddenly is covered in women who WANT him. And the website says that body hair is out and that men must buy their product to be beautiful. Well...I don't know about you, but I don't go around the street with my shirt off or even open. Unless you're picking up guys at the gym or going out and sleeping with everyone, I can't imagine what activity this product is designed to enhance. Oh. Right. Remember that "sensitive areas" attachment?
MEN! Without this product, you will never get laid ever again. Ever.
As a gay man, I am especially sensitive to overly promoted standards of beauty. The sheer level of shallowness within the gay community would make the stereotypical 1950's greaser look like a desperate puppy. You're in a relationship? Oh, that's fine. Seven minutes later you'll be single because a hotter piece of ass just walked by and your boyfriend went off with him, instead. Stable relationships are rare in the gay community and usually reserved for the newly outed who are two young for the club scene or the older gentlemen who have had their fill of the shallow assholes that fill the bars and clubs. This product is a god-send for those who have bought into this mythicized standard of masculine beauty because, as gay men, in order to be happy, they have to be hotter than everything else. And, unfortunately, I think this mindset is much more pervasive and much more accurate than the similar mindset cultivated for women. Gay men have been condititioned to believe that love is sexual, not emotional, so physical attraction trumps anything else. Body grooming products, while their ads may be predominantly heterotic, are designed to entice the homosexual crowd. For once, the virtues and attributes of a product trump the visual. Oh. Wait. The man was mostly naked for most of the ad and the women's faces were pretty much all you saw of them. Yeah. This ad is totally geared for the homosexual crowd.
Anyway, at the end of the day, I have to ask myself: why are people so eager to buy into the mythicized masculine ideal while at the same time shouting from the mountain top about how women need to be shown there are alternatives to Barbie? Why is Axe allowed to come up with ridiculous stunts as the "Double-pits to Chestie" that ALWAYS show a ripped young man (usually between 18 and 25 by his appearance) tearing his shirt off and performing a rather difficult physical feat successfully and earning the admiration of all the girls?
My question is: Why is NO ONE up in arms about male body image?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Belated Easter Post
So....yeah, I'm late on posting about Easter. But you know, when you're this fabulous AND concerned about your soul, you have quite a big plate to fill. Plus I've been moving some stuff out of my parents' house (they're selling it and I can no longer be that college student living away using my parents as a storage unit) so I've been kind of busy.
Anyway. Easter. Easter, Easter, Easter. What is it? Obviously, it's the single most important day on the Liturgical Calendar. It is the fulfillment of prophecy and the proof of our salvation through the resurrection of Christ. But it's more. For Catholics, it is the core of our celebration in the Eucharist. As Christ symbolically gave us his body at the Last Supper, he literally did so upon his crucifixion and resurrection. This union of bread and body, wine and blood, that we call transubstantiation is present at every mass, every day, every year, and has been since day one, and will be until the end of time. This miracle, this single act of the miraculous power of God is central to the mass, especially at Easter, for it is then that we are not only celebrating Christ's resurrection after a sombre Holy Week, but we are also celebrating the moment that his divine nature and his human nature became eternally fused in the hypostatic union. Easter is a celebration of all that makes us Catholic. Which brings me to the next, not so celebratory point.
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, came under fire in the runup to Easter concerning a German priest who molested several boys (one paper said over 200 without a citation. Yellow Journalism anyone?). When the story first broke, one of the Papal representatives (not sure if it was a Nuncio or not) made statements to the effect that while this priest was in Benedict's diocese (then only Bishop Ratzinger) that His Holiness knew nothing about it. Then it was found out that he did know. So what are we to do? The Holy Father tried to defend himself when he presided over the Easter Mass. The media has actually kind of dropped off it since Easter, making me feel that it was staged quite carefully to embarrass the Church during its holiest time. So why did we allow them to do so?
I have had my issues with the Holy Father, but I have also found much in him that is commendable. My whole life I only knew one Pope, the epically awesome Pope John Paul II. But as I grew older and grew in my faith, I realized that Pope John Paul's celebrity was primarily concentrated in the West--specifically America and Canada. In more religious communities in Europe, Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe, he fell under a much greater amount of criticism. America lauded him for helping end Communism. Europe scorned him for allowing far-reaching liturgical abuses. America lauded him for his humanitarianism. Africa scorned him for not doing more for the AIDS pandemic (Africa has the highest growing Catholic population in the world, BTW). I came to realize that Pope John Paul II had his flaws as well, and what makes Benedict commendable is that he has his priorities straight...for the most part.
He is working on revising the English Liturgy. I say scrap the English and put Latin in the Novus Ordo (I'm not really a fan of the passivity of the Tridentine Mass...but I like Latin), then we won't have this problem. He is also working on reinstating a number of traditional practices and institutions that disappeared after Vatican II. He is primarily concerned with furthering Catholicism, building the universal church, healing the Schism between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church, and healing the Schism between Anglicans and Catholics (which is apparently seeing much greater success). So when it becomes apparent that he allowed a priest to continue working with those parishioners who were under the greatest risk, what do we think?
First, there is a sense of betrayal. That the Holy Father, guided by the Holy Spirit, has let us down. Maybe some feel anger. Maybe some threaten to leave the Church (sorry sister, but it doesn't work that way. God won't let you boycott the One Holy Apostolic Church because a priest did something bad). But ultimately, just as we celebrate all that makes us Catholic at the Easter Mass, we must forgive. God gave his only son for us that we might live in Him. When we allow a scandal to determine whether we live in Him or we live for ourselves, we obviously do not have our priorities straight. Dogma is the highest Catholic teaching. It is law. We are required as Catholics to believe it. Doctrine is next. Tradition influences and follows. Scandal is pretty much at the bottom in importance. Scandal should be avoided, as the Cathechism points out, but those that allow it to govern their feelings of the Church are ignoring the principle Dogmas of the Church. They are ignoring the personage of Christ and the all-encompassing love of God.
Those children suffered. This no one can deny. And just as Nietsche refused to believe in God "so long as a single child suffers" (sic), we must remember that for every child that suffers, God weeps exponentially more. He gave us free will. Part of our capacity in regards to free will is the ability to choose to do wrong. Unfortunately, someone who is innocent of wrongdoing must be at the other end of this. And God weeps for them. We know He weeps because we are moved to such emotive responses when we hear of these things. If we, passive bystanders are moved to such responses, what is the response of our Creator? What must His burden of pain be when such a scandal begins? Remember--we just found out. He's known all along. God forgives all who do not die in Mortal Sin. And he removes the pain of those who suffered and brings them to the Beatific Vision. The Holy Father is guided by the Holy Spirit to an extent that Bishops and Priests and the Laity are not. What went on when Bishop Ratzinger was in charge is not the fault of Pope Benedict XVI. The man who wears the robe will have some questions to answer, I'm sure, but the person of the Pope is different from the person of the Bishop, and we must remember to forgive and pray that the Holy Spirit guides him to wisdom.
So that's my Easter post. Belated, but reminding us all that Easter is the epitome of what it means to be Catholic, and a reminder of the harder tasks we have as Catholics to forgive, to understand, and most of all, to love. Too often we see the churches filled to the brim on Christmas and Easter and the nearly empty for the other 50 Sundays of the year. How heavy our crosses must be, but heavier still when we seek to emulate Christ and bring ourselves to fulfill our duty not only as Christians but as Catholics. They are heavy crosses indeed, but when brought to bear against the evils of the world, especially those that purposefully attempt to besmirch God's holiest institution on the planet, they will prevail and the light and wisdom of truth will shine as that proverbial city on a hill.
Anyway. Easter. Easter, Easter, Easter. What is it? Obviously, it's the single most important day on the Liturgical Calendar. It is the fulfillment of prophecy and the proof of our salvation through the resurrection of Christ. But it's more. For Catholics, it is the core of our celebration in the Eucharist. As Christ symbolically gave us his body at the Last Supper, he literally did so upon his crucifixion and resurrection. This union of bread and body, wine and blood, that we call transubstantiation is present at every mass, every day, every year, and has been since day one, and will be until the end of time. This miracle, this single act of the miraculous power of God is central to the mass, especially at Easter, for it is then that we are not only celebrating Christ's resurrection after a sombre Holy Week, but we are also celebrating the moment that his divine nature and his human nature became eternally fused in the hypostatic union. Easter is a celebration of all that makes us Catholic. Which brings me to the next, not so celebratory point.
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, came under fire in the runup to Easter concerning a German priest who molested several boys (one paper said over 200 without a citation. Yellow Journalism anyone?). When the story first broke, one of the Papal representatives (not sure if it was a Nuncio or not) made statements to the effect that while this priest was in Benedict's diocese (then only Bishop Ratzinger) that His Holiness knew nothing about it. Then it was found out that he did know. So what are we to do? The Holy Father tried to defend himself when he presided over the Easter Mass. The media has actually kind of dropped off it since Easter, making me feel that it was staged quite carefully to embarrass the Church during its holiest time. So why did we allow them to do so?
I have had my issues with the Holy Father, but I have also found much in him that is commendable. My whole life I only knew one Pope, the epically awesome Pope John Paul II. But as I grew older and grew in my faith, I realized that Pope John Paul's celebrity was primarily concentrated in the West--specifically America and Canada. In more religious communities in Europe, Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe, he fell under a much greater amount of criticism. America lauded him for helping end Communism. Europe scorned him for allowing far-reaching liturgical abuses. America lauded him for his humanitarianism. Africa scorned him for not doing more for the AIDS pandemic (Africa has the highest growing Catholic population in the world, BTW). I came to realize that Pope John Paul II had his flaws as well, and what makes Benedict commendable is that he has his priorities straight...for the most part.
He is working on revising the English Liturgy. I say scrap the English and put Latin in the Novus Ordo (I'm not really a fan of the passivity of the Tridentine Mass...but I like Latin), then we won't have this problem. He is also working on reinstating a number of traditional practices and institutions that disappeared after Vatican II. He is primarily concerned with furthering Catholicism, building the universal church, healing the Schism between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church, and healing the Schism between Anglicans and Catholics (which is apparently seeing much greater success). So when it becomes apparent that he allowed a priest to continue working with those parishioners who were under the greatest risk, what do we think?
First, there is a sense of betrayal. That the Holy Father, guided by the Holy Spirit, has let us down. Maybe some feel anger. Maybe some threaten to leave the Church (sorry sister, but it doesn't work that way. God won't let you boycott the One Holy Apostolic Church because a priest did something bad). But ultimately, just as we celebrate all that makes us Catholic at the Easter Mass, we must forgive. God gave his only son for us that we might live in Him. When we allow a scandal to determine whether we live in Him or we live for ourselves, we obviously do not have our priorities straight. Dogma is the highest Catholic teaching. It is law. We are required as Catholics to believe it. Doctrine is next. Tradition influences and follows. Scandal is pretty much at the bottom in importance. Scandal should be avoided, as the Cathechism points out, but those that allow it to govern their feelings of the Church are ignoring the principle Dogmas of the Church. They are ignoring the personage of Christ and the all-encompassing love of God.
Those children suffered. This no one can deny. And just as Nietsche refused to believe in God "so long as a single child suffers" (sic), we must remember that for every child that suffers, God weeps exponentially more. He gave us free will. Part of our capacity in regards to free will is the ability to choose to do wrong. Unfortunately, someone who is innocent of wrongdoing must be at the other end of this. And God weeps for them. We know He weeps because we are moved to such emotive responses when we hear of these things. If we, passive bystanders are moved to such responses, what is the response of our Creator? What must His burden of pain be when such a scandal begins? Remember--we just found out. He's known all along. God forgives all who do not die in Mortal Sin. And he removes the pain of those who suffered and brings them to the Beatific Vision. The Holy Father is guided by the Holy Spirit to an extent that Bishops and Priests and the Laity are not. What went on when Bishop Ratzinger was in charge is not the fault of Pope Benedict XVI. The man who wears the robe will have some questions to answer, I'm sure, but the person of the Pope is different from the person of the Bishop, and we must remember to forgive and pray that the Holy Spirit guides him to wisdom.
So that's my Easter post. Belated, but reminding us all that Easter is the epitome of what it means to be Catholic, and a reminder of the harder tasks we have as Catholics to forgive, to understand, and most of all, to love. Too often we see the churches filled to the brim on Christmas and Easter and the nearly empty for the other 50 Sundays of the year. How heavy our crosses must be, but heavier still when we seek to emulate Christ and bring ourselves to fulfill our duty not only as Christians but as Catholics. They are heavy crosses indeed, but when brought to bear against the evils of the world, especially those that purposefully attempt to besmirch God's holiest institution on the planet, they will prevail and the light and wisdom of truth will shine as that proverbial city on a hill.
Monday, April 5, 2010
YouTube - Agnes - Release Me
YouTube - Agnes - Release Me
Agnes makes me happy. :) Thank god I accidentally clicked the ad for the White Party (huge gay dance party. Craziness probably. Never been). Had I not clicked the ad, I'd never have been exposed to this wonderful woman. Lady GaGa may be fun, but Agnes is genuine. LOVE. her.
Agnes makes me happy. :) Thank god I accidentally clicked the ad for the White Party (huge gay dance party. Craziness probably. Never been). Had I not clicked the ad, I'd never have been exposed to this wonderful woman. Lady GaGa may be fun, but Agnes is genuine. LOVE. her.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
In Memoriam
I found out the other day that one of my best friends had died. From what I've gathered, he died of an aneurism. He was 20 years old.
Conrad Gardner, you were and are one of my closest and dearest friends, and I never said it to you enough. I love you and will love you always. You're in my prayers man, and I'm raising a glass to you.
There will be a Mass said for him at St. Joseph's Cathedral in Columbus, Ohio on Saturday, May 1st, 2010 at 5:15pm. I'm going to be singing "Perfect Day" by Lou Reed from now until the pain goes away, because it expresses exactly what I would want to say to Conrad.
Just A Perfect Day,
Drink Sangria In The Park,
And Then Later, When It Gets Dark,
We Go Home.
Just A Perfect Day,
Feed Animals In The Zoo
Then Later, A Movie, Too,
And Then Home.
Oh It's Such A Perfect Day,
I'm Glad I Spent It With You.
Oh Such A Perfect Day,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On.
Just A Perfect Day,
Problems All Left Alone,
Weekenders On Our Own.
It's Such Fun.
Just A Perfect Day,
You Made Me Forget Myself.
I Thought I Was Someone Else,
Someone Good.
Oh It's Such A Perfect Day,
I'm Glad I Spent It With You.
Oh Such A Perfect Day,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On.
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow,
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow,
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow,
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow...
Drink Sangria In The Park,
And Then Later, When It Gets Dark,
We Go Home.
Just A Perfect Day,
Feed Animals In The Zoo
Then Later, A Movie, Too,
And Then Home.
Oh It's Such A Perfect Day,
I'm Glad I Spent It With You.
Oh Such A Perfect Day,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On.
Just A Perfect Day,
Problems All Left Alone,
Weekenders On Our Own.
It's Such Fun.
Just A Perfect Day,
You Made Me Forget Myself.
I Thought I Was Someone Else,
Someone Good.
Oh It's Such A Perfect Day,
I'm Glad I Spent It With You.
Oh Such A Perfect Day,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On,
You Just Keep Me Hanging On.
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow,
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow,
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow,
You're Going To Reap Just What You Sow...
Monday, March 29, 2010
Communist Revolution today
This has little to do with being gay or catholic, but I wrote it just now for Facebook and thought I'd share it here.
Copy and Paste--you're my friend!
So I'm sitting in SEL between classes and decided to visit my old favorite website, marxists.org. Gotta love the extensive library they have. And all for free! In the purely communistic spirit of communal ownership of the intellectual endeavors of the people, you can read whatever you want concerning class struggle, militarism vs. passivity, etc. It's wonderful. But I started reading Rosa Luxemburg (I am such a Luxemburgist) as I am wont to do, and settled into her article "The Militia and Militarism." (You can find it here: http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1899/02/26.htm ) And now I'm going to discuss the conditions of our country that mimic the conditions of Germany at the end of the nineteenth century when she was writing. Ahem.
Rosa Luxemburg as do all socialists from this period talks a lot about the working man. Specifically, she is discussing the issue of establishing a German militia, giving every man a gun, and how the Reichstag denied this possibility because it wouldn't be able to pay for it. Rosa's critique is primarily critical of privileged taxation, as the Spartacan League was advocating at the time for a graduated income tax that would tax more heavily the wealthy. The Reichstag didn't even entertain this idea. In America we do have a militia (called the National Guard you right-wing Second Amendment gun nuts!) and it is paid for by the graduated income tax. The issue here is that even with the graduated income tax, wealthy Americans generally do not pay the full amount according to law, and the insanely convoluted tax code of the American system is to blame.
This leads me into the usage of "working man" in today's American economy. We no longer have an economy of the wealthy vs. labor. Instead we have an economy that is predominantly service-oriented, one that generates enormous amounts of wealth for a lot of people. One could almost argue that the American dream is that which allows anyone to tap into this enormous amount of wealth regardless of background. But is it really so easy?
I am currently in dire straits as far as funding for my schooling is concerned. I was on academic probation because I was an idiot and failed a few classes. I did everything that was asked of me in regards to getting off probation, but instead of getting a 2.0 I got a 1.993. Now my financial aide is in jeopardy. Attending Ohio Wesleyan, I was privileged to watch some of the wealthiest children of the wealthiest Americans pay for their schooling in cash...and reap the rewards of the vast amounts of scholarships and grants given to them because of their parents' alumni status. Many of them were investors in the university as well. Given this, I can only assume that other schools, notably state universities that have less liquid income generally without donations and legacies, would have a bigger issue with this. Anecdotally, I have heard stories of this same exact thing happening at Ohio State.
So, the working man is no longer based in a factory, but is instead based in the lower-income brackets of American service industries. They work diligently to send their children to school so they can have an easier time of it later. But their children are discriminated against because their parents are not a) alumni or b) beneficiaries of the university at which their children are attending. So financial aide becomes paramount and the policies of FDR and other rather socially-minded administrations comes into play.
The Federal Government legislated that federal aide is given to students who need it. Universities set standards of academic performance and punish those who fail to meet them. The question is, when does punishment administered by an institution include withholding governmental awards?
When the person in question is poor, without connections, and lacks any chance at academic nepotism. The problems of the class system that were so obvious in Luxemburg's day have become hidden by the shadowy promise of a university degree. Foreign students have a higher tuition to attend, but they receive grants and scholarships that are paid for by the poor students' taxes. Yet a poor student who genuinely wishes to learn but has no way to pay for his schooling outside of financial aide is denied even after he meets the basic requirements of lifting his punishment. The class struggle suddenly becomes much harder to pinpoint because this could be anyone who has lapsed in his academic rigor and suddenly finds his future being held hostage over less than a hundredth of a percentage point.
Luxemburg advocated the application of the parliamentary system to all institutions, especially those funded by the state. Universities are notoriously anti-democratic, even as they champion the cause of student governments. The board of trustees controls the money and the policies, student government pretends to influence these decisions. When student government comes in conflict with the trustees, the trustees know they only have to wait a few years for the troublemakers to be gone. And if it's undergraduate student government, they can pay even less mind to the little upstarts.
As an analogy, the trustees can be thought of as the gentry of pre-republican Europe, and the student government the local organizations of labor and students. The former is content to keep things the way they are and the latter is the primary cause of agitation. Just as the labor organizations and peasants made the money for the gentry, the students who are present in student government (along with the rest of their peers) make the money for the university. The trustees are paid out of our tuition, the university is maintained with our tuition, and the football team (which I loathe with such a virulent passion) is paid for, maintained, and kept in part because of the university's all-pervasive sports worship. This trickles into the community and draws in extra-university funds into the university. So the trustees which represent the university to the larger community are doing things to appease the wealthier gentry outside the board and ignoring the plight of many within their hallowed halls.
Here, again, we see a muddling of the class struggle. Who amongst the student body is feeling the persecution of the ransom of financial aide? Who amongst the student body feels the tensions between trustee and student? Who amongst the student body realizes that they, as the primary source of university income, have almost no say in how the university is run? Parliamentarianism in the university would do away with the trustees and have an institution for the students of the students and by the students. Does it not make sense that a government that is supposedly a vox populi should be the model for all other institutions? If the customer is the driving force behind corporations and commercialism in general, why is the student not considered the driving force behind his education? The failure of the university to realize where the power should lie contributes in large part to the poorest sections of our society failing to even attend university, and further propagates the larger class struggle outside the university walls. Those of us within the university are so intermingled its hard to distinguish those who are unfairly profiting from the system from those who are unfairly being hindered by it. This miraculously successful tactic keeps discussion of these issues at a minimum and prevents too much agitation from reaching the ears of the trustees.
Even now we see the ongoing riots at UCLA and UCS over tuition hikes, in which hundreds of students were arrested after several buildings on their respective campuses were taken over. There the students have shown how little control they actually have in the day-to-day management of their education which they have to pay for. But why do students only get upset over tuition hikes? Why do they not get upset at the system itself? Because angering the system endangers this idyllic future that is promised by that degree. Unfortunately, as the percentages of degree-holders go up, it becomes harder and harder to achieve that idyllic goal without even more degrees, more schooling, more money, and more slavish devotion to a discriminatory system. Much in the same way that the Jews in Nazi Germany failed to rise up against a system hell-bent on destroying them, students feel no compunction in assimilating into the system that is actually designed to mold a supposedly free-thinking individual into the perfect model of the status quo.
Socialism in Luxemburg's time was easier to define as Marxism has inherent in it an us vs. them mentality. But when it becomes incredibly difficult to determine who is us and who is them, how then are we to agitate for socialism in the very place it was born? I'm at a loss on how to go about figuring out this problem. I've advocated free education before free healthcare for a while, but apparently, nobody in this country wants that, least of all the philandering politicians. Instead of arming everyone with guns, lets arm everyone with an education. How are we to pay for it? Simplify the tax code. Be done with owing taxes and be done with getting refunds. Everyone pays according to their tax bracket and that's that. Make the wealthy pay their share. Make the poor pay their share. Alleviate the burden on the only class that actually pays--the lower middle. This is a concept that is revolutionary in the fact that those with the power to enact it have never thought of it, just as the Reichstag could not conceive of a graduated income tax in Luxemburg's time.
So I guess if we were to continue our parallel with Luxemburg, we'd say "The Intellect and Intellectualism." Arm everyone with an education. Pay for that. Then, when we're all living our idyllic degree-granting fantasies, we can afford to offer free health care without tax increases. Everyone gets what they want, and the trustees can rest easy knowing that their agitated student bodies are placated for a while longer.
Rosa Luxemburg as do all socialists from this period talks a lot about the working man. Specifically, she is discussing the issue of establishing a German militia, giving every man a gun, and how the Reichstag denied this possibility because it wouldn't be able to pay for it. Rosa's critique is primarily critical of privileged taxation, as the Spartacan League was advocating at the time for a graduated income tax that would tax more heavily the wealthy. The Reichstag didn't even entertain this idea. In America we do have a militia (called the National Guard you right-wing Second Amendment gun nuts!) and it is paid for by the graduated income tax. The issue here is that even with the graduated income tax, wealthy Americans generally do not pay the full amount according to law, and the insanely convoluted tax code of the American system is to blame.
This leads me into the usage of "working man" in today's American economy. We no longer have an economy of the wealthy vs. labor. Instead we have an economy that is predominantly service-oriented, one that generates enormous amounts of wealth for a lot of people. One could almost argue that the American dream is that which allows anyone to tap into this enormous amount of wealth regardless of background. But is it really so easy?
I am currently in dire straits as far as funding for my schooling is concerned. I was on academic probation because I was an idiot and failed a few classes. I did everything that was asked of me in regards to getting off probation, but instead of getting a 2.0 I got a 1.993. Now my financial aide is in jeopardy. Attending Ohio Wesleyan, I was privileged to watch some of the wealthiest children of the wealthiest Americans pay for their schooling in cash...and reap the rewards of the vast amounts of scholarships and grants given to them because of their parents' alumni status. Many of them were investors in the university as well. Given this, I can only assume that other schools, notably state universities that have less liquid income generally without donations and legacies, would have a bigger issue with this. Anecdotally, I have heard stories of this same exact thing happening at Ohio State.
So, the working man is no longer based in a factory, but is instead based in the lower-income brackets of American service industries. They work diligently to send their children to school so they can have an easier time of it later. But their children are discriminated against because their parents are not a) alumni or b) beneficiaries of the university at which their children are attending. So financial aide becomes paramount and the policies of FDR and other rather socially-minded administrations comes into play.
The Federal Government legislated that federal aide is given to students who need it. Universities set standards of academic performance and punish those who fail to meet them. The question is, when does punishment administered by an institution include withholding governmental awards?
When the person in question is poor, without connections, and lacks any chance at academic nepotism. The problems of the class system that were so obvious in Luxemburg's day have become hidden by the shadowy promise of a university degree. Foreign students have a higher tuition to attend, but they receive grants and scholarships that are paid for by the poor students' taxes. Yet a poor student who genuinely wishes to learn but has no way to pay for his schooling outside of financial aide is denied even after he meets the basic requirements of lifting his punishment. The class struggle suddenly becomes much harder to pinpoint because this could be anyone who has lapsed in his academic rigor and suddenly finds his future being held hostage over less than a hundredth of a percentage point.
Luxemburg advocated the application of the parliamentary system to all institutions, especially those funded by the state. Universities are notoriously anti-democratic, even as they champion the cause of student governments. The board of trustees controls the money and the policies, student government pretends to influence these decisions. When student government comes in conflict with the trustees, the trustees know they only have to wait a few years for the troublemakers to be gone. And if it's undergraduate student government, they can pay even less mind to the little upstarts.
As an analogy, the trustees can be thought of as the gentry of pre-republican Europe, and the student government the local organizations of labor and students. The former is content to keep things the way they are and the latter is the primary cause of agitation. Just as the labor organizations and peasants made the money for the gentry, the students who are present in student government (along with the rest of their peers) make the money for the university. The trustees are paid out of our tuition, the university is maintained with our tuition, and the football team (which I loathe with such a virulent passion) is paid for, maintained, and kept in part because of the university's all-pervasive sports worship. This trickles into the community and draws in extra-university funds into the university. So the trustees which represent the university to the larger community are doing things to appease the wealthier gentry outside the board and ignoring the plight of many within their hallowed halls.
Here, again, we see a muddling of the class struggle. Who amongst the student body is feeling the persecution of the ransom of financial aide? Who amongst the student body feels the tensions between trustee and student? Who amongst the student body realizes that they, as the primary source of university income, have almost no say in how the university is run? Parliamentarianism in the university would do away with the trustees and have an institution for the students of the students and by the students. Does it not make sense that a government that is supposedly a vox populi should be the model for all other institutions? If the customer is the driving force behind corporations and commercialism in general, why is the student not considered the driving force behind his education? The failure of the university to realize where the power should lie contributes in large part to the poorest sections of our society failing to even attend university, and further propagates the larger class struggle outside the university walls. Those of us within the university are so intermingled its hard to distinguish those who are unfairly profiting from the system from those who are unfairly being hindered by it. This miraculously successful tactic keeps discussion of these issues at a minimum and prevents too much agitation from reaching the ears of the trustees.
Even now we see the ongoing riots at UCLA and UCS over tuition hikes, in which hundreds of students were arrested after several buildings on their respective campuses were taken over. There the students have shown how little control they actually have in the day-to-day management of their education which they have to pay for. But why do students only get upset over tuition hikes? Why do they not get upset at the system itself? Because angering the system endangers this idyllic future that is promised by that degree. Unfortunately, as the percentages of degree-holders go up, it becomes harder and harder to achieve that idyllic goal without even more degrees, more schooling, more money, and more slavish devotion to a discriminatory system. Much in the same way that the Jews in Nazi Germany failed to rise up against a system hell-bent on destroying them, students feel no compunction in assimilating into the system that is actually designed to mold a supposedly free-thinking individual into the perfect model of the status quo.
Socialism in Luxemburg's time was easier to define as Marxism has inherent in it an us vs. them mentality. But when it becomes incredibly difficult to determine who is us and who is them, how then are we to agitate for socialism in the very place it was born? I'm at a loss on how to go about figuring out this problem. I've advocated free education before free healthcare for a while, but apparently, nobody in this country wants that, least of all the philandering politicians. Instead of arming everyone with guns, lets arm everyone with an education. How are we to pay for it? Simplify the tax code. Be done with owing taxes and be done with getting refunds. Everyone pays according to their tax bracket and that's that. Make the wealthy pay their share. Make the poor pay their share. Alleviate the burden on the only class that actually pays--the lower middle. This is a concept that is revolutionary in the fact that those with the power to enact it have never thought of it, just as the Reichstag could not conceive of a graduated income tax in Luxemburg's time.
So I guess if we were to continue our parallel with Luxemburg, we'd say "The Intellect and Intellectualism." Arm everyone with an education. Pay for that. Then, when we're all living our idyllic degree-granting fantasies, we can afford to offer free health care without tax increases. Everyone gets what they want, and the trustees can rest easy knowing that their agitated student bodies are placated for a while longer.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Changes in the Mass
Catholic Answers is possibly my favorite site for getting new and amazing information about what's going on in the Church. Click the post title to go to catholic.com's appraisal of the changes about to appear in the English translation of the Mass.
As many probably are already aware, the English translation of the Liturgy is going to change beginning at Pentecost, 2011. That's just under a year from now. It's a revision of the current Liturgy, bringing it closer to the original Latin. Being one who prays his rosary in Latin, I was naturally very curious when I first heard this. And I was excited as it coincided with a renewal of the Tridentine Mass being practiced in many more parishes throughout the world. However, the more I paid attention and the more I read, the more I began to question what's going on.
Most Catholics of my generation aren't aware of what happened in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II. Latin was discarded, altars were turned around, etc. etc. We all know this. But what we don't know and what our parents probably try to forget are the insane amount of liturgical abuses that entered into the Mass. Priests were empowering themselves to change wording and prayers and a lot of people left the Church. Well, by the time my fabulous self rolled out of the confessional for the first time, I was pretty aware of a rather standardized form of the English Liturgy. With family in various parts of the country, I had the opportunity to attend Mass in many states, and apart from some slight almost imperceptible differences, the Liturgy was almost universally the same.
So...why the hullaballoo? According to Catholic Answers, it's the "traditionalists" versus the "progressives," something anyone who listens to Catholic Answers Live on St. Gabriel Catholic Radio or pays attention to the catholic.com forums would get bombarded by all the time. You have the traditionalists on the forums ranting against the Novus Ordo and the progressives ranting against outdated traditionalism such as limbo and the passivity of the Tridentine Mass. It's exhausting to go through the Traditional Catholic forum and read what people say to each other. But I digress.
The United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was nice enough to give us a preview of some of the approved textual changes. You can see them here. While looking at my mom's old missal, I can definitely see an almost direct translation from the Latin, but I have to agree with the National Catholic Reporter when they say that it is awkward and often grammatically incorrect in English. Latin is just one of those languages whose grammar and syntax does not translate directly into English. Being a Russian language major, I'm aware of the difficulty in maintaining purity of meaning while at the same time keeping the text clean in translation. Often times you have to simply get the closest approximation and leave it at that. I mean, how long have we been bickering over what different passages of the Bible mean? It's proof of the difficulty of translation between languages that are separated by centuries in their development.
While I like the idea and the intent behind this change in the Liturgical language, I'm not happy with the way it's happening. The USCCB which originally had jurisprudence over this kind of thing is having to have Papal sanction on the translation. This seems more appropriate concerning the sanctity of the Liturgy, but if Vatican II was supposed to make the Mass available to the people and created the USCCB in the first place, why in a post-Vatican II atmosphere is the Mass being rearranged at the highest level? According to NCR, it's because the traditionalists have finally trounced the progressives (the NCR is generally opposed to the traditionalists and rather biased in favor of the progressives--an obvious bias at that). I think it's that no one really anticipated the long-term impact of what Vatican II actually did, and now that the generation that came of age during Vatican II is in charge of the various councils and diocese, they're trying to revise some of the less desirable effects of Vatican II.
"Reform the reform" in a way is the message of the Papacy of Benedict XVI. He has revived many trappings of the Papacy that had long been discarded (I still want to see him adorn the Papal Tiara), he has revived the Latin Mass, and he has continued John Paul II's work in reigning in the regional CCB's and rebuilding central authority within the Church. But now he's going further and targeting one of the most progressive regions within the Church--the US. Revise the Liturgy, revise the Missal, revise the way the message is sold and received. That's what's going on here, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. In an earlier post I discussed how politicized the American Church really is, and it's really unfortunate that American Catholics have to feel pressured to merge politics with their faith. Faith should inform politics, not the other way around, and sometimes it seems that Americans allow their politics to inform their faith (how many remember the people during the height of the sex-abuse scandals saying that it had destroyed their faith? Poser Catholics if you ask me). This is a noble exercise by the Vatican in an attempt to reign in a problem area, but I'd be interested to see what Roman Rite Liturgies in other non-Romance language-speaking countries look like. It's easy to translate Latin into French and Italian. Not so easy to do so for Welsh or Gaelic or English or Russian (though the Russians are usually Eastern Rite if they're not Orthodox, which is based on the Greek Liturgy). So what does the Roman Rite look like in Finnish? Are there similar problems that need to be addressed? If so, why aren't they being addressed? If Liturgical errors exist only in the English translation, then there's not a problem. But my suspicions lead me to believe that this is largely in response to the politicized American Church, and it is being targeted by traditionalists primarily because of how progressive the American faithful tend to be. If this is so, then the motive is wrong and I can't support any changes made in the name of this "reform of the reform." If there are no Liturgical errors elsewhere or they have already been dealt with, then there's no problem.
The problem is that I haven't seen anything discussing German, Polish, or Latvian errors in the Roman Rite. Given that Vatican II was a complete dismantling of the universality of the Liturgy, I would expect there to be some. But, apparently, there aren't. So we'll see what comes out of the woodwork in 2011. It'll be interesting watching some of the more liberal Bishops' responses to this reigning in from Rome. Rome is always calling her faithful home. Let's see how we respond.
Jason Frisbee Rocks my Socks
Recently I met one of the most wonderful people in the world--Jason Frisbee. I be friends with him on Facebook. By the way, congratulations to him for getting his grant to study at OSU. Hooray! He apparently read something here or on Facebook where I ranted about people believing that sexuality is a choice because he posted on my wall that I have as much choice about my sexuality as he does about his skin tone. Then he suggested we go to confession and seek to do penance for these obviously sinful choices.
I don't have much to put here except that I am absolutely in love with Jason. =) BFFs for ever. Sass and sarcasm will get a gay man anywhere!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
