Targuman Rotating Header Image

Commentary

What is Wrong With America?

It isn’t CNN or The Daily Show.This is really old news. I mean really old news since I am about to comment on a three year old story. My wife is teaching a communications course at PSU this semester and one of the assignments required is to watch the video below and to answer questions about it (since every PSU student must take it the assignments are standardized by the department). The questions include things like “is this an example of civic engagement,” “who do you sympathize with the most in this piece,” and “who do you find most trustworthy in this piece.

“The piece is from 2004 when John Stewart, host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, came on Crossfire and lambasts Tucker Carlson and Peter Begala for “hurting our nation.” Crossfire was canceled soon after this and many credit Stewart’s appearance with bringing this about.So, what is my beef? After all, I am a big fan of The Daily Show and Jon Stewart and I do not like at all (or didn’t before it went off the air) Crossfire. My beef is that Stewart tried to have his cake and eat it too and he failed to understand that it is all about genre. JS brought his righteous indignation and challenged the two CF hosts to “stop the hate” because they were “hurting the country” by exacerbating the deep political divides in our nation. We have heard this from many people, but there are a number of problems with this and I will start with the substance of his challenge before moving on to his manner of engagement.

Shows like Crossfire reflect our country’s views they do not mold them. If we look historically politics and political divisions have always been deep and acrimonious in the US (or the UK or Germany, most countries really). It is just that now we have the modern media of TV and the internet to bring opposing views face to face and available for all to see. In the past, this would have happened in buildings or debates that a few would see. But that didn’t make them less heated, just more localized. After all, the Civil War didn’t start over an amicable disagreement between gentlemen.

Stewart tries to be the funny man, claiming that he should not be held to the same standards as Crossfire and yet he wants to be taken seriously as well. A study of that election period has shown that TDS does contain as much news content as the other news programs. Is that an indictment of major network news? Yes, but it is clear that Stewart and his show have fostered their image as a source of humorous yet real information. John Edwards understood that clearly enough to declare his candidacy on TDS in that election cycle and now John McCain has as well.

But in the clip below, when Begala and Carlson points out that their show is all about debate and opposing views (i.e., we are what we pretend to be, you are just criticizing us for being what we set out to be), JS argues they should be a real news show, i.e., something they do not claim to be. And then when Carlson challenges JS for not asking hard hitting questions of John Kerry when he had a chance to interview him, JS responded that my show is a comedy show, “we come on after puppets making crank calls!” Stewart understood fully the power of context yet failed to grasp (intentionally or otherwise) the context of Crossfire. CNN is a “news network” but it also carries content that is about the news rather than reporting the news, just like The Daily Show.

Finally, when Carlson continued his critique of Stewart JS retorted, “How old are you? You are still wearing a bow tie.” In full disclosure I should point out that I, at times, wear a bow tie, but this is just childish on his part. Did it get a laugh? Yes, but if Stewart wanted to be taken seriously then he should not have engaged in cheap ad hominem attacks. Stewart wanted to “have his cake and eat it too.” He wanted to be funny and accepted as intelligent commentator all at once, yet he didn’t want to do the hard work of engaging in real debate. He is willing to press others until they press back and then out comes the one-liner. Zing!

I love The Daily Show and Jon Stewart and I was not sad to see Crossfire go. But Stewart’s criticisms were woefully misplaced and revealed his own inability to move beyond school yard antics, granted it is the yard of an intelligent and highly ranked school, but childish nonetheless. So after three years I have gotten that off of my chest. Thank you. Now you can make up your own mind:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

 

One Billion Dollars Later, New Orleans Is Still at Risk – New York Times

That is the rather ominous title to a sometimes alarmist but otherwise good piece in the NYTimes. The video is excellent as well. The story points out that while there is still lots of reconstruction that needs to occur in NOLA the Army Corps of Engineers has been working very hard and is building a system that is better than what was in place. Is it perfect? No. As the Commander who ends the video says, “Nature will always get the last at bat.” The point is that we can never completely protect a city from such a natural disaster.

All of that being said, and more could be said like the fact that differing topography will greatly affect how much water can be pumped from different regions of the city and that higher ground has always been more expensive thus going to the wealthier citizens of NOLA, but there is still much more to be done on the rebuilding of the city, not just the levees. We are still hearing of homes that have not been gutted 2 years after the fact. We are still hearing about the money provided by the federal government never making its way out of Baton Rogue of City Hall. There is much work to be done. As Jim W would say, “lest we forget.”

One Billion Dollars Later, New Orleans Is Still at Risk – New York Times

 

Christopher Heard’s First Article: “Hearing the Children’s Cries”

I hope that we can do more of this. I am still waiting for an unnamed (because I still want to publish with them ;-) ) publisher to grant me permission to post some of my articles.

“Hearing the Children’s Cries”

Ten years ago I published my first article in a significant scholarly journal, Semeia. A number of issues of Semeia are available online, either in the Society of Biblical Literature’s own Semeia archive (vols. 79–91, except for 82) or in the older RelTech archive (vols. 19 and 60–72). However, my article, “Hearing the Children’s Cries: Commentary, Deconstruction, Ethics, and the Book of Habakkuk,” was in volume 77, which is not in either archive. With the kind (and quick!) permission of the SBL publications office, I am pleased to now make this article freely available for your enjoyment and edification; just click on the link above.

(Via Higgaion.)

 

Blogging the Bible: Call for Contributors

Kevin Wilson of BlueCord.org has contact a few of us and is calling for more contributors to a book project on Blogging the Bible. Although I am down for “Blogging for Scholarly Writing” (i.e., will it help one get tenure?) I am also intriqued with idea that blogging has, in a way returned us to an earlier era when rabbis, clerics, and academics would collaborate far more freely, in spite of the physical challenges of carrying on such conversations over great distances. (The “Blogging as Discourse between Scholars: A Talmudic Approach to Scholarship” category below is getting at this, I think.)

In the last 150 years or so I think the emphasis has been upon individual insight and creativity (in order to gain tenure, there it is again!) rather than on being a part of a tradition and community. The responsa literature of the rabbinic age (that continues today), for example, grew out of a desire to understand the historical and communal reading of texts and practices. It is a bit of a paradox, as I understand it. In this earlier era of which I speak the church and the rabbinate had far more influence and so “originality” was not a goal in and of itself and, let’s be honest, was in fact discouraged. The result was that scholars of the day would work more collectively, sharing ideas and readings so that it was not a single voice but the community that would put forward interpretations. There were always notable exceptions and strident, singular voices of course.

In more recent times, and here I speak of the humanities since scientists and other disciplines must collaborate in order to be sucessful (have you ever seen how many authors are on their papers?!), the push towards “original scholarship” means that we are pushed into a situation where we survey other scholars’ work in order to make sure our bibliography and footnotes are complete (and to make sure someone didn’t pip us to the post) rather than to pick one anothers’ mind. Conferences have always offered, for me, that rare exception. But even then I have been given the “advice” to only present completed research lest someone else “steal” my idea. The Jesus Project that has garnered some unwelome attention latley, at least has at its heart the goal of bringing scholars together in a collaborative effort.

I think blogs are changing this. A few of us have not only begun to post thoughts about events as they transpire (Charlesworth Genesis text, the Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet) but also to post works in progress, inviting feedback and contributions to their research. I find this envigorating, even if I am an irregular contributor to the conversation.

So I look forward to more discussion and seeing what we all have to say about Blogging the Bible!

Blogging the Bible: Call for Contributors

This post is a call for contribution for a new book to be entitled Blogging the Bible: Scholars, Scriptures, and New Media (or something to that effect). The book is intended to explore questions related to blogging as an academic discipline.

The following essays have been proposed (authors who have already asked to write or are considering writing certain chapters are in parenthesis):

  • Blogging as Academic Activity (Kevin A. Wilson)
  • Blogging as Scholarly Writing (Christian Brady)
  • The Weird and the Wonderful: Blog Carnivals and Tangential Topics (Tyler F. Williams)
  • Beyond the Academy: Blogging for a Popular Audience
  • Blogging as Review (Chris Heard)
  • Blogging the Breaking News
  • Blogging as Discourse between Scholars: A Talmudic Approach to Scholarship
  • Blogging Off Topic: Letting the Personality of the Professor Come Through
  • Blogging Every Day: Academic Writing as a Way of Life

These are obviously not the only topics that could be covered. Anyone is free to suggestion new topics, especially if it is a topic you are interested in writing about. I want the process of writing this book to reflect the blogging ethos, so I expect this book to evolve and grow through conversations.

Contributors should meet the following qualifications:

  • Ph.D. in biblical studies or a closely related field.
  • Blog should be focused on the academic study of the Bible.
  • Been blogging for at least a year with a significant number of posts.

The purpose of these guidelines is not to exclude people, but to ensure that the contributors are scholars who have significant experience with what it means to blog on the Bible.

If you would like to be a contributor, please let me know. I can be contacted at my e-mail address. Questions, comments, and suggestions are welcome via e-mail as well.

(Via Blue Cord.)

 

The Deathly Hallows – A Very Good Read

Deatlhy Hallows…especially if you have 9 hours in a plane. So yesterday morning I set out from my hotel in Slovenia at 5:30 (yup, AM) for a 7:45 flight to Zürich from whence I would go to Philly and then on to State College. But shortly after checking in I was told that my flight had been canceled, they were rerouting me through Frankfurt and I would miss my connecting flight. In the end, I rented a car and drove the last 3.5 hours rather than stay a night in Philly (there are only so many flights to State College).

So, what does this have to do with HP7? Well, let’s just say, I had some time on my hands and the sandwich shop in Concourse C had a copy of the UK version of The Deathly Hallows. I will not give away any details. I don’t believe in spoilers, I just read them. (I found the epilogue on line last Friday. I tend to start at the end anyway. As I said to someone who objected to this: “We know that Jesus is crucified and raised from the dead, but we read the story anyway, don’t we?”) So I read all but about 200 pages on the plane (I am a slow reader) and finished it just now. I will only say that Rowling has done a very good job. I have never felt her prose was the best or her created world the tightest or most consistent, but this is a thoroughly satisfying book and conclusion to the series.

Oh, I also saw The Order of the Phoenix the night before leaving Slovenia. This book is the longest in the series yet the movie is (I believe) the shortest. It is not the best movie of the lot. It is OK, but so much has been left out that is in the novel that I wonder if those who have not read it will understand the import of various elements. It is also pretty dark, so our 3.5 year old is staying home with me tonight while the girls go and see it. Definitely worth seeing, but don’t get your hopes up.

(BTW, I was right about Snape!)