	Bob Hostetler > Writing

The Times, They Are A-Changin

by Bob Hostetler

"The Times, They Are A-Changin,'" sang Bob Dylan forty years ago, and as true as his words were in 1964, it seems they couldn't be more true than today.

It seems like only yesterday that the cultural elite (or, if you prefer, the "chattering class" which dominates academia, the news media, and the entertainment industry) were saying that marriage is irrelevant, obsolete. You know, "who needs a ceremony, a piece of paper, a legal formality?" All you really need is love.

Not so much. Now that homosexual marriage has become a cause celebre, that's all changed. Now, marriage is important-indispensable, as it turns out. Who knew? Of course, when it was an institution that represented a union of a man and a woman and the foundation for passing on property, providing the optimal environment for raising children, and mutually protecting adults and children, well, that was trivial. But marriage is once again important, it seems, because it's now about homosexual rights.

The times have changed when it comes to film violence, too. Bob Bennett and Joe Lieberman's past efforts notwithstanding, I seem to remember a time not long ago when the cultural consensus on violence was…well, a yawn. It was no big deal. It was harmless. It was all pretend, anyway, okay? Until, that is, the release of Mel Gibson's blockbuster movie, The Passion of the Christ. Suddenly, violence was an issue, and with some of the most surprising people ("I felt abused," said David Ansen in Newsweek, and Boston Globe columnist James Carroll called the movie "obscene," for example). Just as surprising, however, was that no one got whiplash when few (if any) of those same people raised a hue and cry about subsequent violence in Kill Bill, Vol. 2, and Dawn of the Dead. I'm not sure what the lesson is. Maybe some people are just more offended by a suffering Jesus than by flesh-eating zombies or amoral assassins.

Which kind of leads to the next apparent sea change in current culture. Remember when blacklisting was bad? Yet The New York Times's Sharon Waxman matter-of-factly reported that the chairmen of major Hollywood studios said they would avoid working with Gibson or supporting his future projects in any way because of The Passion of the Christ. Of course, the record-setting success of The Passion has since shown their blacklisting attempts to be not only petty but hollow, in the light of Mel Gibson's bajillions of dollars in profits from the movie. They may be asking him for a job in the future.

Oh, and remember how bad President George W. Bush was for his doctrine of "pre-emption" in Iraq? Oh, how evil and irresponsible it was for him to change centuries of policy to attack and invade an enemy that France and Germany felt confident could still be persuaded to play fair. But now, thanks to the 9/11 Commission, the times have changed a hundred-eighty degrees. Now some believe that (as Richard Clarke made clear) Bush is evil and irresponsible because he didn't pre-emptively strike Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. It was bad in 2003, but it would have been good in 2001.

Hate is making a comeback, too. If you've seen the signs that protestors carried in April's "March for Women's Lives" (a demonstration in support of abortion rights), you may know what I mean (and if you get your news mainly from major "mainstream" media outlets, don't be surprised if you have no idea what I'm talking about). Signs like "Abort Bush" and "Too Bad John Ashcroft's Mother Didn't Believe In Abortion" make it clear that some of the marchers don't just disagree with the other side, but actively hate them (and those were some of the kinder sentiments). Even some of the speakers, including U.S. Congresspersons, spewed hate in this gathering (which The Washington Post's Hank Stuever labeled "congenial"). To be fair, there were also some pro-life protestors with thoroughly reprehensible slogans on their signs, such as "God Hates You." But one lesson to be learned from the marchers and speakers themselves: hate seems to be O.K., as long as it's directed at Bush or Ashcroft (or pro-lifers in general), a sentiment that seems to energize many on the political left these days.

I also found interesting Ashley Judd's t-shirt in that march: "THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE." Madeline Albright didn't wear that shirt. Hillary Clinton didn't. Whoopi Goldberg didn't. They are all paragons of the very qualities feminism holds dear: success, intelligence, and power. But it was Ashley Judd, the pretty one, whose shirt proclaimed, "THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE." Interesting. I remember when feminism was supposedly not about beauty, nor even abortion, but dignity, respect, and equality.

But then, the times, they are a-changin'.

This article appeared in the May 7, 2004 edition of the Hamilton Journal-News.

More articles by Bob Hostetler...