Chappie Says Kim Davis Needs a Corner Office

As any of the well-informed but mildly misguided folks who would be reading Chappie's blathering (That's YOU!) would obviously know, Kim Davis is the former nonentity in Kentucky who has become a darling of some members of the Religious Fundament (ie. her neighbors and kin in Morehead--specifically members of her Solid Rock Apostolic Church) for her unyielding stance against "gay marriage" and her defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Ms. Davis has also become an entity via her blatantly illegal and cynical manipulation of the sympathies of her cognitively challenged co-coreligionist minions.

Lest I should sound dismissive of the Solid Rock sect, a look at their web site will show that they are a sophisticated movement unimpressed with the "mystery" of The Trinity which the Roman Catholics having been dining out on forever AND have at least one terrific music video of a rousing choral number (Follow the link and check out the video of "Nothing is Impossible.") called presumably "Through YOU, I can do anything!" (which at first hearing I recoiled at what I thought was "Screw you, I can do anything...")  Actually, I am inclined to wonder if Kim Davis, a relatively new convert (2011), who left her life of multiple marriages and god knows what sins to cleave to this sect's version of the gospel, didn't mishear it, as well. "Screw you, I can do anything!" does seem to sum up her current interpretation of her public/divine mandate. Alas, her confederates seem to agree:

OOOps.  Wrong image....(Image credit: NASA)

Protesting respectfully on a hot day (AP photo)

Actor Rob Lowe's twin, Jethro, is a Davis supporter along with Louis CK's twin, Lars CK (WLWT5-NBC)

          

Kim Davis is, according the the Wikipedia, the highest paid public official in her county. She is a Democrat but we don't want to talk about that now. Joseph Goebbels was a Christian, after all. She is, in fact, the inheritor (via election--not Election!) of her mother's former position, to which KD ascended in January of this year after serving 24 years as a deputy to her mom. One of her children is currently serving as one of Ms. Davis's deputies. Anyone notice a tendency here, Jeb?  But not to worry--rampant nepotism and cronyism, two of the delights of small town life, are not my topic today. Today I'm urging common sense and preaching from the Gospel.

There is an excellent piece on the need for Ms. Davis to actually read the Good Book in The New Yorker.  This article demonstrates a couple of interesting insights into the scriptural world of Ms. Davis and the Hard Rockers. For one thing, they tend to choose their Ur verses from the old testament and ignore the Gospels themselves. The second part follows from the first and true of all literalist religious traditions: the Bible contradicts itself more exhaustively than Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky interview. All religious texts of sufficient length or from a sufficiently wide range of sources do the same. This is why people who claim they derive their moral compass and operating instructions exclusively and dogmatically from any of the world's good books tend to chase their own tails and bite off portions of their own bodies.

Ms. Davis seems to be such a person. I am inclined to ask her how she understands the text of the New Testament's Acts 5:29 ("We must obey God rather than any human authority.") and if she understands its context (it referred to the Roman occupiers--not an elected government--an election that chose Ms Davis for one!) I would also like to ask her if she uses Wen? Sorry, off topic--what does she think of  the famous line found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto god that which is God's"? The fact that it's in three gospels leads me to guess that He actually said it whereas this stuff in Acts is...well, what is Acts, anyway? Enough of my pseudo theological ramblings. I'll render unto those of the cloth with seminary training that which they know how to speak of...

   "I don't want to be a whipping post." (Timothy D. Easley/AP)

                                          

So, from the Faith side of things, I was very impressed with a blog entry from Pastor Jonathan Davis (no relation to Kim) of Urbanna, VA at Baptist News Global .  Pastor Davis cites the Christian tradition begun by Tertullian, who urged believers to avoid membership or service in institutions that could act negatively on their faith. Alas, for Kim Davis, she pulls down $80K a year in a dirt poor part of the country, so the call of Tertulliam is faint and unpersuasive. Pastor Davis then comes at the problem with real effect by citing the example of TRUE & HONORABLE sworn officers of the government (like county clerks--she took an oath!) known as military chaplains. He says this of the chaplain's role"

Military chaplains have known this for centuries. They exist to provide care and support for people in their own tradition (i.e., Protestant, Catholic, Islam, and Judaism) but must facilitate the free expression of worship for those outside their tradition. This means that a Christian chaplain does not have to lead an Islamic worship service, but they must help ensure that adherents to Islam are able to practice their religion freely. One of the key functions of military chaplains is ensuring First Amendment free exercise of religion for all military personnel, no matter their values and no matter their faith.

In the world of military chaplaincy, part of ensuring religious liberty for all involves not forcing one’s faith on others. County clerks should operate with the same understanding, or in my opinion, explore a career change. If Kim Davis valued religious liberty, she would either do her job, or find another one.

Thank you, Pastor Davis.  And you, Kim Davis, get thee to a corner office and sin no more.

Chappie Says of Matt Damon's "Merit"...Shmerit!

I don't know what has happened to me. All my enthusiasm of six months ago...?  Ou sont les boules de neige de d'antan?  Yes, Chappie knows a little French and stuff. I'm going to keep it short as I jump back and forth from first person to third in some silly attempt to manage my altered ego.  Each post will usually be about one thing, one discrete observation. Anyone who knows Chappie knows what a tall order this is: to stay on topic and finish the thought?  Wow.

My question today concerns notions of "merit" nurtured and broadly and thoughtlessly applied by privileged people of every hue.  I am inspired by the brouhaha caused (rightfully so) by comments (and the manner in which he made them) uttered by Matt Damon on an episode of a reality show, Project Greenlight, which he apparently produces with his brainiac friend and fellow Harvard man, Ben Affleck. (See, I'm already going off topic with a swipe a BA who really has no obvious place in this discussion except that he should have spoken up and said what I am about to say.)  Matt Damon clearly interrupted producer Effie Brown, like Damon a Hollywood veteran, but unlike Damon a woman of color. Ms. Brown was making a interesting point when she was cut off and  (I hate to say it) put in Matt Damon's idea of her place.  She behaved with dignity and panache throughout.  Damon acted like some one correcting another person's spelling or grammar. Since I do this often, I know how obnoxious and basically unhelpful it can be.

(US Magazine)

                                                                                                             

Speaking as a sometimes clueless life-long privileged white man himself, Chappie must say that he really got it for once in this instance...  and yes, I still like Matt Damon. But I'm appalled at his lack of discernment regarding words and the notions they embody. Maybe that's what happens when you have your own show? Ms Brown, by virtue of her response to Damon, is the one who really interests me, however.

The public kerfuffle, which has not been quelled by Damon's reply, an expression of regret for hurting feelings but not a retraction or apology for his statements, is and was caused by his assertion that diversity should manifest itself in the casting of the actors (the visible portion) and not in the casting of "the show" which seems to mean the creative and crafts people--the writer/director component (the invisible/power portion.) At the same time that this seems like a lame distinction to draw (and one which revels the surprising shallowness of Damon's vision), it is really beside the point. Damon says at the conclusion that the issue is, "about giving someone this job based entirely on merit and leaving all other factors out of it," he said. "It's just strictly a film-making competition." Is that like "only" a film-making competition?

(Time, Inc)

                                                                                                         

This entire argument about merit and how it is allocated and rewarded can be disposed of (put into proper focus) if one addresses the issue of what merit (as in an imagined meritocracy) IS and how merit is determined. Actually, I am not going to address these two questions because even they don't really matter. The point is that, in a given context, someone decides what merit references and then they decide how to discern this "merit" in any candidates who apply. What everyone knows is that there are few instances when ONE candidate clearly and decisively outstrips all others and earns the top spot. There is always a choice to be made. We all know in our beady little hearts [sic!] that at the top of the range of all degrees of merit, there is a special place where a small number of candidates vie for number one. These are the finalists, the one's from among whom the winner is chosen--any of them by definition is qualified and who is to say will not do a creditable job? So whither merit? Another way of putting this is to say that the existence of an abstract "number one" prior to the decision being made is usually a fantasy. At the very least, a meaningful #1 is a distillation of outstanding performance over time.

"The Fight" 1971

                                                                                                             

Number one is determined by results, not by the original selection of finalists ("among the very best"). Most "next big things" fall flat on their faces. Sure, there have been a few who were clearly The Greatest, but even Muhammad Ali was beaten in the ring after he had survived his four year bout with the US government (which he won when the U.S.Supreme Court overturned his conviction for draft evasion 8-0.) Joe Frazier, Ali's smokin' nemesis, was not chopped liver: he was a fighter of the same stature and pugilistic character as Ali but without quite the gravitas, the naked heroism. Without Joe Frazier's part, we would think much less of The Champ and remember him as only one of the best. 

The highest merit always exists along a continuum of shifting positions, and anyone who gets far enough to be positioned along that continuum is of merit and potentially as good as any other and capable of equal or better results. And no one knows who it will be, despite the arrogance of prognosticators and universal geniuses and masters of the universe. Muhammad Ali only beat Frazier 2 out of 3 and it might easily have gone the other way. Similarly, anyone who gained a place in Damon's Greenlight competition is surely as capable as any other of producing excellent film art. Establishing merit is only the first stage of the selection process. It is followed by ideal fitness and special qualities. These are not my subject today...

  January 28, 1974

                                                                                                       

Even Ali, who is widely regarded as the greatest ever, was not the greatest at every moment. Merit and accomplishment is also partly a matter of longevity and endurance once basic skills are assured.

The Thrilla in Manila, 1975

                                                                                               

Damon's comments reveal the obvious fact that, when he is being lazy, he thinks of merit the way most people do--as a tangible and measurable and finely discernible substance which can be given an exact position in placed in a meaningful hierarchy. The Ten Hottest Bond Girls! Yeah, Baby... When Damon says the issue is, "about giving someone this job based entirely on merit and leaving all other factors out of it," he is overlooking the obvious fact that ALL the contestants in his show have been pre-selected to assure their basic merit. Merit, as measured by graduate degrees, resumes and charm, is a given. But might not "all other factors" have something to be with merit? Remember Howard Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences? Damon ignores the fact that merit is a complex and incomplete notion in the least complex of situations, and that a social art project like film is hardly lacking in complexity. Flipping a coin might be considered as viable a way of making the final choice as any other because Matt and Ben don't come close to knowing the secret of making a sure-fire successful film. Both have made stinkers and will again (but part of their merit as producers is the experience of having made terrible movies and having learned from the experience.) Luck is just another word for the depth of our ignorance and incapacity. And so it goes.

But still, we really DO fool ourselves into believing that we somehow know what is best in all manner of instances and situations--we ALL do it every day and it is not because of our privilege or lack thereof but because we are human beings and don't think very well at the best of times. Does anyone really believe that the valedictorian is the smartest person in the class? Or that the president is the most qualified and capable person in the land, or that the best novel you have ever read or film you have viewed is in any meaningful sense "best"?  "Favorite" is a barely meaningful concept--"best" is poppycock. 

What the occupants of these positions of respect and influence (the contestants in the final draw) have in common is that they all come from a ZONE of quality and capability, and there are a number of occupants in that zone and ANY of those occupants on a given day might come across as the best.  Let's give up on the dumb fanaticism that insists that the things we like, approve of or feel comfortable with are more than "some of the best." Surely that's enough. Merit...shmerit. Flip a coin now and then!


Donald Trump will tell us that he is The Best. I really believe he will. Clearly The Best People are in his corner! He probably already has made this claim. Perhaps the coming spectacle of Trump and his followers and their discombobulation will get a critical mass of humans thinking about these destructive ways we have of NOT thinking when we think we are thinking? Or something...




[ My efforts to learn the identities of the photographers, the best sports shutter-men of all time, who made the three astonishing boxing images above has not yet borne fruit, but I am still on the hunt...]