items

[calimac]

1. At Rosh Hashanah services, the rabbi gave an impassioned sermon on the need for communitarianism. People who wonder why most Jews are Democrats should have come hear this.

2. Attended the reading by rozk (clever and allusive), Malinda Lo (thrilling) and Cindy Pon (atmospheric) at a tiny screening room in the back of the ground floor of an office building in downtown SF. Now I have to consider buying books.

3. Listening to an obscure overture by Rossini (there's more of them than you think) with a section that I'm sure comes verbatim in some other overture, but I can't remember which one. [Ed.: found it!]

4. Reading paper submissions for Tolkien Studies is reminding me of accounts of slushpiles at sf magazines. Chip Delany once recounted an academic who, when asked why he didn't mention Bester's The Demolished Man in his paper where it would have been relevant, asked "Is this something I should have heard of?" I just encountered a similarly yawning gap of knowledge by a purported Tolkien scholar, and my brain hurts.

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I've never much liked communitarianism, because too many people who advocate it make no distinction between freely chosen community, which is one of the joys of life, and imposed or compulsory "community," which is largely a source of burdens and an excuse for manipulating and pressuring people. And yet the difference is as straightforward as that between lovemaking and rape.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

It's the comparison of expecting the wealthy to give up a little money to alleviate the suffering of others in your own community to being raped that's so offensive, especially when it comes from the particularly rich (which you are not, but many of them also talk like that). Voluntary contributions do not have a high correlation with extreme tax aversion, either: the truly generous rich mostly pay their taxes with little complaint. (George Romney was a model citizen here.)

Besides the apocalyptic imagery, the flaw in this comparison is that each instance of love-making is a discrete act; other voluntary commitments require a continuing responsibility, whether you continue to feel like it or not. For instance, having children may be a freely chosen act, but once you choose it, you are then obliged to feed and clothe those little mooching slackers for 18 years whether you like it or not, whether it turns out that you like them or not. Even divorce will not release you. And choices may not always be so free. If you discover yourself pregnant inadvertently, you have a choice to give for adoption or (in some places) abort. But both those are heavy and difficult options, as is keeping the child. You may like none of them, but you've got to pick one; your choice may be free, in the sense of being allowed to choose any, but it's still burdensome.

In the same sense, if you don't like the customs of this society, you're free to emigrate. It may not be easy, it may in fact be very burdensome, but you're free to do it. And since every society imposes obligations upon its members, it's still possible in some places to live a solo hermit life. It may not be much fun, but you can do it.

And if you don't like being given such suggestions, then don't compare societal obligations to being raped. It's your free choice.

[rozk.livejournal.com]

Although we often disagree, I wish we had been introduced....

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

We've met before, at a couple of conventions. I tried to say hello as you passed by, but I was not forward enough to be noticeable if one's attention was elsewhere, and I figured that you just did not remember me on sight.

[eddyerrol.livejournal.com]

A major theme of much of John Dominic Crossan's writing is the concept, found in the Jewish scriptures, that the land (=all material resources on this Earth) belongs to God; in Leviticus 25:23 God says "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants." Many of the law codes in the Pentateuch (e.g., the remittance of debt and abolishment of slavery in the Jubilee year) were an attempt to help stem the inevitable growth of inequality amongst all of God's people. The point being, that ALL the resources of the Earth are on loan from God, as it were, so that any individual did not necessarily have the right to accumulate more and more of those resources at the expense of other people who also had a right (due to God's call for just distribution of the resources belonging to God) to those resources. This view has a quite a bit of resonance with me.

[eddyerrol.livejournal.com]

I should add that in Crossan's view, Jesus Christ was incarnating that very idea of the Jewish God in his words and actions, which leads to me to add that that's why I think most Christians SHOULD be Democrats (or at least not supporters of the Republican platform) as well!