I have not posted a blog in a while, so you'll have to forgive me there. I've been busy / lazy / had things on my mind which don't easily fall form into a coherent blog (as though there were such a thing). But, I thought I should post today if for no other reason than so you'll know I'm still alive and won't come searching for the body, only to discover me in the buff playing backgammon with a robot (it could happen).
The biggest problem with being a news junkie is that the most easily accesible news, and the most reported, is also the most sensationalistic (i.e., depressing). For instance, the story of the teenage boy in Alabama who got in an argument with his brother over a girl and in retaliation decided to rape his own mother. How did that happen? Well, she was passed out drunk on the couch in the middle of the day, and when she awoke, the kid wanted to finish. Seriously, I share a planet with these people?
And then because I didn't learn my lesson after reading that, I read an article about a mother who hit her adopted son on the head with a hammer, causing trauma that took a week to kill him. And the husband never took the kid to the hospital because he didn't want to get in an argument with his wife.
But the news isn't all bad. I for one am very excited, and hopeful, about the elections next week. I'm not the kind of person who thinks things will instantly become better overnight, but I'm hopeful that a step in the right direction might help to make things better. Here's the part where I normally would tell you "no matter who you vote for, make sure you vote" but we all know that's a crock. If I had my way, everyone who was eligible to vote would, and would take it seriously enough to be informed and actually think about their decision. Sure, I'd think it would be great if everyone voted for the people I want to win, but it's also simple-minded and childish to say "I'm going to vote for whoever the guy is who isn't Republican" or "I'm going to vote for whoever is against the war". When electing someone to a position for a term of years where they will vote on any number of bills and issues and wield power and influence, it's stupid to pick the person based solely on their party affiliation or a single issue. That really bugs me. Almost as much as people who say "what election? Didn't we just have one?" That's the problem with the heavy-handed executive, that people start to forget about the other branches. Anyone who only votes for President and neglects to care about their other representation should be forced to only eat one meal each week, forgoing all others. If they survive, then they are free to continue being lazy simpletons.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 9, 2006
Is This Your Beer?
A few tiny things that annoy me on an average day.
When people pronounce the word "Alzheimer's" as though there were a "T" in it. I think it helps people remember because it's like "Old Timer's Disease", but of course, that's not what it's called. This wouldn't bother me as much, except newscasters do it all the time, and they should know better because a.) they are supposed to research these kinds of things and b.) they are reading it off of a teleprompter, so they can see it right there.
When people step onto an escalator that isn't running, and wait several seconds before realizing that it isn't moving and then start walking down/up because they are oblivious to the world around them. Most people have used an escalator enough times to be able to tell just by looking whether or not it is moving, and even if they can't they should know immediately that they are just standing still. Really, when an escalator is turned off, it magically turns into stairs, and after all this time if you don't know how to use stairs without needing to think about it, perhaps you should just stop leaving your house in the morning.
When people sit on the floor in the aisles of a Barnes & Noble, thus blocking access for both walking and for paying customers to get to the actual books. If you are spending enough time reading in Barnes & Noble that your legs can no longer support you, you're not browsing...you're stealing. Buy the damn book already, or go to a library (and don't sit on the floor).
When people leave their garbage just lying around, especially in a city where you are almost never more than ten feet from a garbage can. This applies to the people who take 20 napkins at a movie theater/starbucks/fast food restaurant and then leave the 1 dirty one and 19 slightly dirty ones on the table along with their empty cup and the gum wrappers they emptied out of their purse before leaving. It's even worse when they do it in a park. I'm sure that empty cup and snickers wrapper is weighing you down, but seriously, just carry it until you get to a garbage can. You were able to carry it while it was full, so now it should be easier since it's empty. Why should other people clean up after you, when clearly you wouldn't do it.
When politicians complain about things being politicized. Who do they think politicized it? They did. And if they weren't politicizing it, it would simply be called "governance", and Fox News isn't going to put their face on TV for that.
and finally....
When people talk about how everything changed after 9/11. And yes, the lives of the people involved and the people they knew changed. And certainly the political climate changed, and then we went and started our global rampage. What I mean is when politicians and pundits say it, implying that before 9/11 the world was a happy and peaceful place and then the day after, terrorists just appeared from thin air and we had to do something about it. In fact, there were many terrorists and many terrorist attacks before 9/11. North Korea had nuclear weapons programs (and rudimentary weapons) before 9/11. Iraq was ruled by a dictator and Iran was ruled by a hardliner all before 9/11. Afghanistan was a hotbed of terrorist activities long before 9/11. The world didn't change on 9/11, we just started paying attention to all the bad things that we'd been ignoring before 9/11.
Mind you, each of these thoughts pops up for about 2 seconds out of my day, and the rest of the time I am content to listen to my iPod, enjoy the beautiful weather, and read a good piece of fiction. It would just be extra nice if these little speed bumps didn't pop up in the middle of my great day.
When people pronounce the word "Alzheimer's" as though there were a "T" in it. I think it helps people remember because it's like "Old Timer's Disease", but of course, that's not what it's called. This wouldn't bother me as much, except newscasters do it all the time, and they should know better because a.) they are supposed to research these kinds of things and b.) they are reading it off of a teleprompter, so they can see it right there.
When people step onto an escalator that isn't running, and wait several seconds before realizing that it isn't moving and then start walking down/up because they are oblivious to the world around them. Most people have used an escalator enough times to be able to tell just by looking whether or not it is moving, and even if they can't they should know immediately that they are just standing still. Really, when an escalator is turned off, it magically turns into stairs, and after all this time if you don't know how to use stairs without needing to think about it, perhaps you should just stop leaving your house in the morning.
When people sit on the floor in the aisles of a Barnes & Noble, thus blocking access for both walking and for paying customers to get to the actual books. If you are spending enough time reading in Barnes & Noble that your legs can no longer support you, you're not browsing...you're stealing. Buy the damn book already, or go to a library (and don't sit on the floor).
When people leave their garbage just lying around, especially in a city where you are almost never more than ten feet from a garbage can. This applies to the people who take 20 napkins at a movie theater/starbucks/fast food restaurant and then leave the 1 dirty one and 19 slightly dirty ones on the table along with their empty cup and the gum wrappers they emptied out of their purse before leaving. It's even worse when they do it in a park. I'm sure that empty cup and snickers wrapper is weighing you down, but seriously, just carry it until you get to a garbage can. You were able to carry it while it was full, so now it should be easier since it's empty. Why should other people clean up after you, when clearly you wouldn't do it.
When politicians complain about things being politicized. Who do they think politicized it? They did. And if they weren't politicizing it, it would simply be called "governance", and Fox News isn't going to put their face on TV for that.
and finally....
When people talk about how everything changed after 9/11. And yes, the lives of the people involved and the people they knew changed. And certainly the political climate changed, and then we went and started our global rampage. What I mean is when politicians and pundits say it, implying that before 9/11 the world was a happy and peaceful place and then the day after, terrorists just appeared from thin air and we had to do something about it. In fact, there were many terrorists and many terrorist attacks before 9/11. North Korea had nuclear weapons programs (and rudimentary weapons) before 9/11. Iraq was ruled by a dictator and Iran was ruled by a hardliner all before 9/11. Afghanistan was a hotbed of terrorist activities long before 9/11. The world didn't change on 9/11, we just started paying attention to all the bad things that we'd been ignoring before 9/11.
Mind you, each of these thoughts pops up for about 2 seconds out of my day, and the rest of the time I am content to listen to my iPod, enjoy the beautiful weather, and read a good piece of fiction. It would just be extra nice if these little speed bumps didn't pop up in the middle of my great day.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The Mafia in the Music Industry
So running up to the midterm elections, I'm wondering why we even bother ending elections, because it seems that politicians start running for office again earlier and earlier, leaving a smaller and smaller window of time during which anyone feels comfortable doing real work. Take for example the most recent bill passed by the Senate: the "compromise" between the President and his rivals...Republicans. Wait, what? Anyway, he wanted to be able to define what "torture" was and hold "enemy combatants" without trials. John McCain and friends said "NO!" and came up with a bill to challenge him by...allowing him to define what "interogation" techniques are allowed and setting up military courts to try combatants without congressional oversight or a right of habeas corpus. Totally different than what the President wanted. He must be fuming..."Damn John McCain, ruining everything" he must say as he twirls his mustache.
I'm surprised they were able to get this passed, what with those cut-and-run Democrats trying to add on crazy amendments...like one that would guarantee the Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus and one that would give Congress (the people who passed this bill) oversight over C.I.A. interrogations. Who'd want those things? Oh, and the other amendment that luckily they didn't pass would have required the State Department to inform other countries of what interrogation techniques we thought were permissable on captured American soldiers. Thank god that didn't pass, because then otherwise our soldiers might have been treated humanely and other countries might have found out what types of interrogation techniques we might possibly be using. It's really better if all captured soldiers everywhere are kept hidden, without rights or oversight, and that we don't tell people what we do with them or what they tell us. It just makes sense.
Why is this a waste of time? Well, it's so broad and seemingly in violation of the Constitution and various international treaties that many of the Republicans who voted for it commented that the Supreme Court will almost definitely overturn it, adding that they wished they weren't rushing this before midterms so that they could do it right because they're going to have to do it again once the Supreme Court knocks it down. So, the House and Senate have passed a bill that even they are pretty sure will never become law just so they can say they are doing something to combat terrorism and to make Democrats (and one or two Republicans) look like they are coddling terrorists by giving them things like "trials" and "humane treatment". We can't be bothered being ethical when we have information to get, through means that would make that information insubmissable in an American court but not in a secret tribunal.
At times like this, I just want to put on Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" and wipe my tears with an American flag.
I'm surprised they were able to get this passed, what with those cut-and-run Democrats trying to add on crazy amendments...like one that would guarantee the Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus and one that would give Congress (the people who passed this bill) oversight over C.I.A. interrogations. Who'd want those things? Oh, and the other amendment that luckily they didn't pass would have required the State Department to inform other countries of what interrogation techniques we thought were permissable on captured American soldiers. Thank god that didn't pass, because then otherwise our soldiers might have been treated humanely and other countries might have found out what types of interrogation techniques we might possibly be using. It's really better if all captured soldiers everywhere are kept hidden, without rights or oversight, and that we don't tell people what we do with them or what they tell us. It just makes sense.
Why is this a waste of time? Well, it's so broad and seemingly in violation of the Constitution and various international treaties that many of the Republicans who voted for it commented that the Supreme Court will almost definitely overturn it, adding that they wished they weren't rushing this before midterms so that they could do it right because they're going to have to do it again once the Supreme Court knocks it down. So, the House and Senate have passed a bill that even they are pretty sure will never become law just so they can say they are doing something to combat terrorism and to make Democrats (and one or two Republicans) look like they are coddling terrorists by giving them things like "trials" and "humane treatment". We can't be bothered being ethical when we have information to get, through means that would make that information insubmissable in an American court but not in a secret tribunal.
At times like this, I just want to put on Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" and wipe my tears with an American flag.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
I Feel Safer Already
A classified intelligence report concludes that the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat to the United States, something that I could have told them, if only they had thought to ask. The newly revealed document is the first formal report on global trends in terrorism by the National Intelligence Estimate, which is put out by the National Intelligence Council. This, also coming during the same week when U.S. casualties in Iraq have reached the point of being double the casualties of 9/11 which precipitated this whole thing (and dozens of times more if you include the Iraqi civilian deaths, but who cares about them, right?).
So now we have professionals in the intelligence community telling us what we already knew, that we've only been creating more resentment and fueling terrorist action and recruitment. As for how our nation building is going, the Associated Press reported today that some U.S. soldiers working in Shiite neighborhoods say the Iraqi troops are among the worst they've ever seen. That's fine, though, because we can just stay there for 20 or 30 years until all of the kinks are worked out. Even Senator McCain acknowledged on "Face the Nation" that the war in Iraq is a rallying point of terrorists and that at this point we're fueling terrorist organizations, but that also failure now will lead to a greater threat than we ever had pre-Iraq.
So, when we began this little "War on Terror", it was to eliminate the threat of terrorists and bring justice to the people who perpetrated the attacks on September 11th. Five years later we have failed to bring the terrorists to justice, especially the guy at the top, and we have since increased the terrorist threat. Oh, and we've taken a country that was so weak that we were able to topple its government in the span of a long weekend and created a hotbed of chaos and violence where, if things continue as they have been, terrorists will have a fertile training ground. Awesome. Mission accomplished.
So now we have professionals in the intelligence community telling us what we already knew, that we've only been creating more resentment and fueling terrorist action and recruitment. As for how our nation building is going, the Associated Press reported today that some U.S. soldiers working in Shiite neighborhoods say the Iraqi troops are among the worst they've ever seen. That's fine, though, because we can just stay there for 20 or 30 years until all of the kinks are worked out. Even Senator McCain acknowledged on "Face the Nation" that the war in Iraq is a rallying point of terrorists and that at this point we're fueling terrorist organizations, but that also failure now will lead to a greater threat than we ever had pre-Iraq.
So, when we began this little "War on Terror", it was to eliminate the threat of terrorists and bring justice to the people who perpetrated the attacks on September 11th. Five years later we have failed to bring the terrorists to justice, especially the guy at the top, and we have since increased the terrorist threat. Oh, and we've taken a country that was so weak that we were able to topple its government in the span of a long weekend and created a hotbed of chaos and violence where, if things continue as they have been, terrorists will have a fertile training ground. Awesome. Mission accomplished.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
You Just Got F'ed in the A
After talking about Bill O'Reilly yesterday, that got me thinking about torture. Like when I go home to visit my parents and have to walk through the gauntlet of televisions in the house tuned to The Factor. As you may know, there's discussion in the Senate, and especially in the media, about a bill that would "define" torture, or to be more accurate, would legalize some types of torture. There are of course the arguments that torture is ineffective and only gets people to tell you what they think you want to hear and not the actual truth. There's the argument that if we torture people then we'll have no clout in demanding that our own soldiers not be tortured. There's also the argument that human decency doesn't allow torture no matter who or why. But, just in case our government decides to do the weaselish thing, I'd like to suggest some alternative forms of torture that won't leave any marks (because as we all know, it doesn't hurt if there's not a bruise).
* Make them watch hours of speeches given by President Bush, giggling and fumbling over the English language, and then show them a copy of his diploma.
* Subject them to a normal American diet by attaching an IV of corn syrup directly to their heart.
* Drive them around the country and make them enter every single children's beauty pageant. (Torture if ever there was)
* Ask them a question, and then when they try to answer, shout "Shut up, shut up!" before they can say anything (also known as the O'Reilly method)
* Lock them in a house with all of the kids from MTV's "My Super Sweet Sixteen". Then tell all of the kids that all of the other girls have nicer clothes than them. Stand back and watch the chaos ensue.
* Dress the victim in a suit and tie, make them work in an office for 40 years. Force them to take weekly diversity and sexual harassment seminars and engage in "casual fridays". Require them to go for happy hour at Applebee's with the gang from accounts payable. When they go to retire, tell them they don't have a pension. (More a long term strategy, but proven to break spirits).
* Sit them in front of a bank of monitors showing all of the 24 hour news channels for 3 months straight. Then tell them that they can go free if they can fill one index card with the list of topics discussed (one per line). When they can't, show them a picture of Chris Matthews with his shirt off. Repeat.
These are just a few ideas, but I'm sure I can come up with more. That's why, I offer my services to our president as "Torture Czar". I'll be in charge of all torture operations whether they be "enemy combatants", "evil-doers", or "dirty, hippie, liberals". I've watched enough episodes of 24 to know how to torture someone, and enough clips of American Idol to know what it's like to suffer.
* Make them watch hours of speeches given by President Bush, giggling and fumbling over the English language, and then show them a copy of his diploma.
* Subject them to a normal American diet by attaching an IV of corn syrup directly to their heart.
* Drive them around the country and make them enter every single children's beauty pageant. (Torture if ever there was)
* Ask them a question, and then when they try to answer, shout "Shut up, shut up!" before they can say anything (also known as the O'Reilly method)
* Lock them in a house with all of the kids from MTV's "My Super Sweet Sixteen". Then tell all of the kids that all of the other girls have nicer clothes than them. Stand back and watch the chaos ensue.
* Dress the victim in a suit and tie, make them work in an office for 40 years. Force them to take weekly diversity and sexual harassment seminars and engage in "casual fridays". Require them to go for happy hour at Applebee's with the gang from accounts payable. When they go to retire, tell them they don't have a pension. (More a long term strategy, but proven to break spirits).
* Sit them in front of a bank of monitors showing all of the 24 hour news channels for 3 months straight. Then tell them that they can go free if they can fill one index card with the list of topics discussed (one per line). When they can't, show them a picture of Chris Matthews with his shirt off. Repeat.
These are just a few ideas, but I'm sure I can come up with more. That's why, I offer my services to our president as "Torture Czar". I'll be in charge of all torture operations whether they be "enemy combatants", "evil-doers", or "dirty, hippie, liberals". I've watched enough episodes of 24 to know how to torture someone, and enough clips of American Idol to know what it's like to suffer.
Friday, September 22, 2006
There's a Communist in my Soup
A recent article in Child magazine listed J.K. Rowling as one of the 20 people who have changed childhood forever, stating that her Harry Potter series has entertained children and instilled a love of reading in them that extends beyond her own books. In many ways, fiction author Bill O'Reilly has done a similar service for the Fox "News" crowd, teaching them that you don't need facts or consistancy to write or enjoy a book. My dad is already camped out for the Monday release of Bill's latest yarn, "Culture Warrior" wherein he identifies all of the people that are destroying America...minus all of the people who are actually trying to destroy America such as terrorists or leaders who violate our own Constitution and civil liberties.
For instance, who is "enemy number one" according to Mr. O'Reilly? You guessed it, Osama Bin Laden. Oh, wait, no, he's not an enemy to American culture. I was wrong. Enemy number one is George Soros. He's a real left-wing nut job who finances crazy, liberal initiatives like scholarships for Black students in apartheid South Africa and defeating communism in Poland and Czechoslavakia, though I'm sure those aren't the reasons he's enemy number one. It might just have to do with the fact that he's a progressive who gave a lot of money to organizations who attempted to defeat George W. Bush in the last election. Luckily, Bill O'Reilly is an "independent" and wouldn't base his decision on something so partisan.
Also high up on the list of people destroying America with their progressive secularism are the liberal press, including the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Houston Chronicle, and The Denver Post even though all three endorsed George W. Bush for president. Damn liberal newspapers, always trying to get Republicans elected to the highest office in the land. What sinister plot do they have planned? But, it's true, because it's in a book. Another new fact that Bill was kind enough to invent for us all to know is that liberal newspapers outnumber conservative papers 10 to 1. He doesn't cite any source for this
"fact", but it FEELS true, especially when I hop on the subway and everyone is reading Rupert Murdoch's liberal New York Post (oh, if you don't live in New York, you might not get the sarcasm that the New York Post is what you would get if Fox News and The National Inquirer made sweet love).
I could probably spend hours writing about all of the falsehoods in his book wherein he makes up things that people never said or takes things entirely out of context, not to mention the things he says which are just stupid, but honestly I have a broader point to make. He's not the first one to write a "book" about the "culture war", in which he tells us that George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin are trying to murder baby Jesus in his crib. The concept of the Culture War is inherently flawed and mostly a political wedge, but if you are going to talk about people destroying our wholesome, Christian, Capitalist culture, are the biggest enemies really Al Franken and Bill Moyers (who, by the way, he refers to as "fanatical" which, if you've ever seen Bill Moyers is like calling a lump of clay "fanatical")?
How about the people at his own network who have further sensationalized and polarized news like when they displayed banners such as "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?" on their broadcasts? How about the folks at American Idol who are dumbing down our children and our culture with shallow, vindictive, and cookie-cutter personas?
Who is hurting our culture more: George Clooney who makes a thoughtful movie about Edward R. Murrow that not many people see, or the people who make movies like Jackass and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which tons of people see? Well it must be George Clooney, because even though Johnny Knoxville teaches people that it's funny to watch a man take a baseball to the groin or to make fun of fat people and midgets, at least he doesn't do something horrible like talk about politics in front of people.
This isn't about people attacking American culture; it's about people attacking the Conservative movement, and those are most definitely not the same thing. When Bill O'Reilly hears someone on the radio with a liberal viewpoint, he thinks to himself "this man is a traitor and a lunatic". When I hear someone on the radio with a conservative viewpoint, I think to myself "I disagree with this person". Then, there are the people like Bill and Rush and Sean Hannity who I hear and think "these guys are liars and hypocrites and are lowering the level of public discourse." The threat to American culture and American values is not differing opinions, but blowhards who create false culture wars to distract from real issues.
Bill, I know you are "independent" and "a washington outsider" and "a journalist", but let me clear up a few things for you. First off, secular progressives are not trying to kill Christmas, and if they were, they are doing a terrible job of it because everyone I know got presents last year. Second, nobody cares about Barbara Streisand's opinion on anything, so the only way she is a threat to our culture is with her music. Third, the idea that there is a "liberal" media is laughable considering the fact that the majority of media outlets in radio, print, and television are owned by giant corportations mostly run by conservatives like your buddy Rupert, and also since for every Al Franken there is a Bill, Rush, Sean, Michael Savage, and 5 other conservative pundits. Yes, so some newspaper editors are liberals, but not every editor and the majority of newspapers do not have a liberal slant.
And, just to round this off, stop telling tales out of school, because no one is buying.
This past week on his show, Bill O'reilly mentioned how his publisher prevented liberal news organizations from getting advance copies of his book, but guess where I read excerpts of your book? That's right, liberal news organizations. This week he also mentioned on air that the FBI came to Fox "News" headquarters to inform him personally that he was on al Qaeda's hitlist, a "fact" that was then disputed by other people at Fox and the FBI who said he's not on any list and that the FBI never went to Fox News and told him anything. So, if you want to give us your opinions about why The Passion of The Christ is better for our country than The New York Times, go right ahead. But try not to make up so many lies and try not to insult people for being name-callers and then call them "cowards" and "far-left zombies".
You really are making our culture glitter like a diamond.
For instance, who is "enemy number one" according to Mr. O'Reilly? You guessed it, Osama Bin Laden. Oh, wait, no, he's not an enemy to American culture. I was wrong. Enemy number one is George Soros. He's a real left-wing nut job who finances crazy, liberal initiatives like scholarships for Black students in apartheid South Africa and defeating communism in Poland and Czechoslavakia, though I'm sure those aren't the reasons he's enemy number one. It might just have to do with the fact that he's a progressive who gave a lot of money to organizations who attempted to defeat George W. Bush in the last election. Luckily, Bill O'Reilly is an "independent" and wouldn't base his decision on something so partisan.
Also high up on the list of people destroying America with their progressive secularism are the liberal press, including the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Houston Chronicle, and The Denver Post even though all three endorsed George W. Bush for president. Damn liberal newspapers, always trying to get Republicans elected to the highest office in the land. What sinister plot do they have planned? But, it's true, because it's in a book. Another new fact that Bill was kind enough to invent for us all to know is that liberal newspapers outnumber conservative papers 10 to 1. He doesn't cite any source for this
"fact", but it FEELS true, especially when I hop on the subway and everyone is reading Rupert Murdoch's liberal New York Post (oh, if you don't live in New York, you might not get the sarcasm that the New York Post is what you would get if Fox News and The National Inquirer made sweet love).
I could probably spend hours writing about all of the falsehoods in his book wherein he makes up things that people never said or takes things entirely out of context, not to mention the things he says which are just stupid, but honestly I have a broader point to make. He's not the first one to write a "book" about the "culture war", in which he tells us that George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin are trying to murder baby Jesus in his crib. The concept of the Culture War is inherently flawed and mostly a political wedge, but if you are going to talk about people destroying our wholesome, Christian, Capitalist culture, are the biggest enemies really Al Franken and Bill Moyers (who, by the way, he refers to as "fanatical" which, if you've ever seen Bill Moyers is like calling a lump of clay "fanatical")?
How about the people at his own network who have further sensationalized and polarized news like when they displayed banners such as "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?" on their broadcasts? How about the folks at American Idol who are dumbing down our children and our culture with shallow, vindictive, and cookie-cutter personas?
Who is hurting our culture more: George Clooney who makes a thoughtful movie about Edward R. Murrow that not many people see, or the people who make movies like Jackass and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which tons of people see? Well it must be George Clooney, because even though Johnny Knoxville teaches people that it's funny to watch a man take a baseball to the groin or to make fun of fat people and midgets, at least he doesn't do something horrible like talk about politics in front of people.
This isn't about people attacking American culture; it's about people attacking the Conservative movement, and those are most definitely not the same thing. When Bill O'Reilly hears someone on the radio with a liberal viewpoint, he thinks to himself "this man is a traitor and a lunatic". When I hear someone on the radio with a conservative viewpoint, I think to myself "I disagree with this person". Then, there are the people like Bill and Rush and Sean Hannity who I hear and think "these guys are liars and hypocrites and are lowering the level of public discourse." The threat to American culture and American values is not differing opinions, but blowhards who create false culture wars to distract from real issues.
Bill, I know you are "independent" and "a washington outsider" and "a journalist", but let me clear up a few things for you. First off, secular progressives are not trying to kill Christmas, and if they were, they are doing a terrible job of it because everyone I know got presents last year. Second, nobody cares about Barbara Streisand's opinion on anything, so the only way she is a threat to our culture is with her music. Third, the idea that there is a "liberal" media is laughable considering the fact that the majority of media outlets in radio, print, and television are owned by giant corportations mostly run by conservatives like your buddy Rupert, and also since for every Al Franken there is a Bill, Rush, Sean, Michael Savage, and 5 other conservative pundits. Yes, so some newspaper editors are liberals, but not every editor and the majority of newspapers do not have a liberal slant.
And, just to round this off, stop telling tales out of school, because no one is buying.
This past week on his show, Bill O'reilly mentioned how his publisher prevented liberal news organizations from getting advance copies of his book, but guess where I read excerpts of your book? That's right, liberal news organizations. This week he also mentioned on air that the FBI came to Fox "News" headquarters to inform him personally that he was on al Qaeda's hitlist, a "fact" that was then disputed by other people at Fox and the FBI who said he's not on any list and that the FBI never went to Fox News and told him anything. So, if you want to give us your opinions about why The Passion of The Christ is better for our country than The New York Times, go right ahead. But try not to make up so many lies and try not to insult people for being name-callers and then call them "cowards" and "far-left zombies".
You really are making our culture glitter like a diamond.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Something to Talk About
The other day, Wednesday to be precise, I was up far earlier than any person need be, especially one who has the entire day off with nothing to do. Given that my options at that point were watching Matt Lauer's sexual discomfort with his new co-host or watching the Fox morning gang giggling about whatever it is that those darned celebrities are up to, I put on C-SPAN while I ate breakfast and then when I sat down to read (and since this all makes me sound like a grandparent, I then bought a cat and knitted an afghan throw). Sometimes its interesting to see the day-to-day process of governing that most people don't hear about because it doesn't involve aborting immigrant emryos with burning flags at a gay wedding.
Anyway, during this day of varied debates including issues of disclosure of federal funding and "Indian" gaming (and isn't it stupid that centuries after we realized this wasn't India as Columbus thought, we still refer to them in legal Congressional records as "Indians"?) there was extensive debate on HR 994.
What exactly is House Resolution 994, you might ask? Well, for those in the know, not only does the House of Representatives vote on things like bills and appropriations, but they sometimes vote on Resolutions that simply make a statement, such as showing support for Black History Month or the color Green and its importance in American history. In that way, HR 994 was a resolution recognizing "that the American people will never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the loss of innocent lives that day, will continue to fight the war on terrorism in their memory, and will never succumb to the cause of the terrorists."
And they spent hours debating that. I'll quickly jump past the fact that its fool hardy to think (or in this case imply) that without the House of Representatives on top of this that Americans might actually forget the significance of Sept. Eleventh, or might in fact decide to invite the terrorists over to America to take over and maybe have a spot of tea with us. Also, imagine listening to hours of debate in which most of it was Congressmen recounting the facts we already knew and finding new ways to add adjectives to the word "tragedy". It was a terrible day, we all remember that, and we don't need you repeating it over and over which will, as they say, "wear it out". The more you mine it for political gold, the more desensitized we become.
The reason there was so much debate was because wedged in the middle of this Resolution, which no one in their right mind would vote against because then it looks like they are personally saying "screw you" to each and every widow and parentless child, were some incredibly partisan and manipulative statements. Namely, apart from recognizing the valiant efforts of rescue workers and the terrible sacrifice of ordinary Americans, this resolution recognizes legislative acts such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. So, unless you want to vote against recognizing the heroism of Americans who died on September 11, you also have to vote to recognize all the wonderful things Republicans are doing to make us "safer" while those damn Democrats are selling nuclear secrets to Osama.
Republicans know that Democrats have problems with some of these bills which allow people to be held without trial or have their phones tapped, so they put it in this resolution in order to force Democrats to show support for them. If ever their was a sick, election-year ploy, this is one of them (don't worry, there are more to come). The resolution essentially states that the House of Representatives will support everything the President has done and will do to fight the "War on Terror". Oh, and did I mention that the resolution also refers to the war in Iraq as being on the "frontlines of the global war on terrorism", which is funny since most of the terrorists in Iraq showed up AFTER we invaded the country and dismantled their army and infrastructure. I guess it is now on the frontline, a frontline we created.
Nancy Pelosi gave a great speech that day about how we should be coming together across party lines to recognize the tragedy and to come up with real solutions for making us safer, which we certainly are not (despite what the resolution states). She even points out while she's speaking that "of course" the Democrats will vote in favor of this resolution (and nearly all of them did), but that they did so to recognize the heroes who died that day, and not the accomplishments of this administration which has put us in greater danger, not less. And I agree.
Growing up near the end of the Cold War, there was always a palpable feeling of threat and destruction. People were paranoid; annihilation seemed plausible. And then the Cold War ended and, for a brief while, things seemed to be getting better. In the past five years, that palpable feeling has returned, and every action taken has not made us feel more secure or decreased the terrorist threat, it's increased it. Even progress we were making, such as the toppling of the Taliban and improvements in Airport security, have been rolled back. Afghanistan is still not a stable country, and the Taliban is making inroads every day, and as you can learn by watching just about any special report on any news station, contraband still gets through at airports. Five years later, and we're not safer, and yet our Government is wiping away a tear with one hand and patting itself on the back with the other. I cannot wait until midterm elections.
Anyway, during this day of varied debates including issues of disclosure of federal funding and "Indian" gaming (and isn't it stupid that centuries after we realized this wasn't India as Columbus thought, we still refer to them in legal Congressional records as "Indians"?) there was extensive debate on HR 994.
What exactly is House Resolution 994, you might ask? Well, for those in the know, not only does the House of Representatives vote on things like bills and appropriations, but they sometimes vote on Resolutions that simply make a statement, such as showing support for Black History Month or the color Green and its importance in American history. In that way, HR 994 was a resolution recognizing "that the American people will never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the loss of innocent lives that day, will continue to fight the war on terrorism in their memory, and will never succumb to the cause of the terrorists."
And they spent hours debating that. I'll quickly jump past the fact that its fool hardy to think (or in this case imply) that without the House of Representatives on top of this that Americans might actually forget the significance of Sept. Eleventh, or might in fact decide to invite the terrorists over to America to take over and maybe have a spot of tea with us. Also, imagine listening to hours of debate in which most of it was Congressmen recounting the facts we already knew and finding new ways to add adjectives to the word "tragedy". It was a terrible day, we all remember that, and we don't need you repeating it over and over which will, as they say, "wear it out". The more you mine it for political gold, the more desensitized we become.
The reason there was so much debate was because wedged in the middle of this Resolution, which no one in their right mind would vote against because then it looks like they are personally saying "screw you" to each and every widow and parentless child, were some incredibly partisan and manipulative statements. Namely, apart from recognizing the valiant efforts of rescue workers and the terrible sacrifice of ordinary Americans, this resolution recognizes legislative acts such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. So, unless you want to vote against recognizing the heroism of Americans who died on September 11, you also have to vote to recognize all the wonderful things Republicans are doing to make us "safer" while those damn Democrats are selling nuclear secrets to Osama.
Republicans know that Democrats have problems with some of these bills which allow people to be held without trial or have their phones tapped, so they put it in this resolution in order to force Democrats to show support for them. If ever their was a sick, election-year ploy, this is one of them (don't worry, there are more to come). The resolution essentially states that the House of Representatives will support everything the President has done and will do to fight the "War on Terror". Oh, and did I mention that the resolution also refers to the war in Iraq as being on the "frontlines of the global war on terrorism", which is funny since most of the terrorists in Iraq showed up AFTER we invaded the country and dismantled their army and infrastructure. I guess it is now on the frontline, a frontline we created.
Nancy Pelosi gave a great speech that day about how we should be coming together across party lines to recognize the tragedy and to come up with real solutions for making us safer, which we certainly are not (despite what the resolution states). She even points out while she's speaking that "of course" the Democrats will vote in favor of this resolution (and nearly all of them did), but that they did so to recognize the heroes who died that day, and not the accomplishments of this administration which has put us in greater danger, not less. And I agree.
Growing up near the end of the Cold War, there was always a palpable feeling of threat and destruction. People were paranoid; annihilation seemed plausible. And then the Cold War ended and, for a brief while, things seemed to be getting better. In the past five years, that palpable feeling has returned, and every action taken has not made us feel more secure or decreased the terrorist threat, it's increased it. Even progress we were making, such as the toppling of the Taliban and improvements in Airport security, have been rolled back. Afghanistan is still not a stable country, and the Taliban is making inroads every day, and as you can learn by watching just about any special report on any news station, contraband still gets through at airports. Five years later, and we're not safer, and yet our Government is wiping away a tear with one hand and patting itself on the back with the other. I cannot wait until midterm elections.
Friday, September 8, 2006
Mmmm.....That Smells Crazy!
On his September 6th broadcast, syndicated radio hate-monger Michael Savage had this to say about the imminent threat of terrorism:
"So I want every able-bodied man and woman who is licensed to carry a firearm or who knows how to use a weapon, I want you to organize in your neighborhood. We don't want you to commit violence, but we want you to learn how to create a homeland defense system in this country."
Yes, because we all know that when al Qaeda strikes, it will be with a massive army that will come in across the sea that we'll be able to fight off with a well-maintained militia. There are any number of problems I have with this, but no matter how organized your neighborhood gang is, unless they are trained in surveillance and intelligence, they are not going to be any help detering a terrorist attack. Any attack is going to come in the form of an unannounced, quick, and small terror cell that will most likely blow themselves and/or something else up. By the time you know they're doing something, it'll all be over, and then you'll just have a group of people standing around with guns with no one to fight. A neighborhood militia would be helpful if we were getting invaded by Britain, or Russia in one of those bad 80's cold-war movies. Not against terrorists.
He then went on to advocate:
"They're training their sons to use an AK-47, and we're teaching our sons how to swing a baseball bat. Tell me who wins that fight. I have nothing against baseball, but the times don't call for an obsession with sports. They call for a militarization of our children."
There are so many layers of crazy on that paragraph, I'm going to need a shovel to dig through them. Apparently he thinks that the best way to fight nut-jobs who indoctrinate and arm their children to fight mindlessly and inhumanely is by...wait for it...training our children to be just like them. What the hell is wrong with this guy? He's right though, our kids are wasting time with this little league bs. They should be spending their after-school time fighting the good fight and training in heavy arms and hand-to-hand combat. They're going to need those skills when they get sent to fight the unending War in Iraq. In fact, school is a waste of time. What value is learning math and history? If the terrorists take over America, they won't even be able to use that knowledge. Let's teach them important skills in school, like how to clean a rifle or interrogate a prisoner of war. Instead of "Elementary Schools" we can call them "Military Schools", or better yet, "American Patriot, and anyone who says otherwise is a terrorist, Schools."
So, no, Mr. Savage (an apt name if ever there was one) I don't think I'll join up with other gun nuts in my neighborhood to start training to repel an invasion force. And no, I don't think I'll start getting together with the children at the park to teach them how to fire an AK-47 at a moving target. Because you know what it means when we start doing that? It means that the terrorists have already defeated us. It means we have compromised our values, our beliefs, our morals, and it means that we are just like them except with a different name for God. Why don't you just save us time (and do your part) by going over to the middle east and fighting the terrorists there, so we don't have to put up with you here.
"So I want every able-bodied man and woman who is licensed to carry a firearm or who knows how to use a weapon, I want you to organize in your neighborhood. We don't want you to commit violence, but we want you to learn how to create a homeland defense system in this country."
Yes, because we all know that when al Qaeda strikes, it will be with a massive army that will come in across the sea that we'll be able to fight off with a well-maintained militia. There are any number of problems I have with this, but no matter how organized your neighborhood gang is, unless they are trained in surveillance and intelligence, they are not going to be any help detering a terrorist attack. Any attack is going to come in the form of an unannounced, quick, and small terror cell that will most likely blow themselves and/or something else up. By the time you know they're doing something, it'll all be over, and then you'll just have a group of people standing around with guns with no one to fight. A neighborhood militia would be helpful if we were getting invaded by Britain, or Russia in one of those bad 80's cold-war movies. Not against terrorists.
He then went on to advocate:
"They're training their sons to use an AK-47, and we're teaching our sons how to swing a baseball bat. Tell me who wins that fight. I have nothing against baseball, but the times don't call for an obsession with sports. They call for a militarization of our children."
There are so many layers of crazy on that paragraph, I'm going to need a shovel to dig through them. Apparently he thinks that the best way to fight nut-jobs who indoctrinate and arm their children to fight mindlessly and inhumanely is by...wait for it...training our children to be just like them. What the hell is wrong with this guy? He's right though, our kids are wasting time with this little league bs. They should be spending their after-school time fighting the good fight and training in heavy arms and hand-to-hand combat. They're going to need those skills when they get sent to fight the unending War in Iraq. In fact, school is a waste of time. What value is learning math and history? If the terrorists take over America, they won't even be able to use that knowledge. Let's teach them important skills in school, like how to clean a rifle or interrogate a prisoner of war. Instead of "Elementary Schools" we can call them "Military Schools", or better yet, "American Patriot, and anyone who says otherwise is a terrorist, Schools."
So, no, Mr. Savage (an apt name if ever there was one) I don't think I'll join up with other gun nuts in my neighborhood to start training to repel an invasion force. And no, I don't think I'll start getting together with the children at the park to teach them how to fire an AK-47 at a moving target. Because you know what it means when we start doing that? It means that the terrorists have already defeated us. It means we have compromised our values, our beliefs, our morals, and it means that we are just like them except with a different name for God. Why don't you just save us time (and do your part) by going over to the middle east and fighting the terrorists there, so we don't have to put up with you here.
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
An Open Letter to Users of YouTube
Yes, we're all very proud of you. Your parents bought you that video camera you wanted/you hooked up that new webcam. You've got just so much to say and share with the world, and we're all very excited to hear it. In fact, I can just imagine spending hours away from my friends and loved ones in order to watch you and your friends lip sync to your favorite songs in a poorly lit basement, preferably if I can only see the top half of your head.
Hey, while you're at it, you know that clip from the Daily Show? You know, the really funny one that everyone's been talking about? You should put that on there. What? It's already on there? Well, put it up again, it can't hurt. Don't worry if you're not technically savvy, just point the video camera at the television, glare or no, and upload that shit. We'll be forever grateful if you do.
Hold on a sec, I'm looking for that new Ok Go video. They are such a good band, and their videos are really clever. You know, I bet I could imitate this video and it would be pretty fun. Hey, look, some other people did that. That's neat. I've always wondered what all the 8th graders are doing for their talent shows...now I know. This is great. Why share the brilliance of a song/video/television show when you can just imitate it for people. That's almost the same, which is why I never go to actual concerts, only cover bands.
I wish I could tell you face-to-face just how much I appreciate all of your hard work. If only there were some way, other than typing, to let you know how I feel. Maybe I could hook up a camera and speak right to it, telling you what I think of your video of you talking to a camera. Then I could upload that, and if you watched them back-to-back, it would be like we were having a conversation. That would sure be neat. Plus, I wouldn't have to shower or put on nice clothes or leave my room to do it. Awesome!
Thank you, YouTube. At first, I just thought this would be a great way to share significant news clips or funny bits from our favorite shows. It could even be used to promote up-and-coming bands or give people an inside look of the war in Iraq. Boy, would all that have been boring. Now we finally have something worthy of the internet...a network where anyone with a computer can upload clips of their favorite anime videos or video game cinematics scored to a popular rock song. Finally I have a place where I can go to see strangers teach themselves to play a piano version of the Mario Brothers theme or play the guitar solo to that new hit song I heard on MTV. And, the cherry on top...I can see people's video blogs so that finally I can hear what's going on in the life of the guy who gained 50 pounds because he spent all day in front of his computer posting video blogs.
I feel like I'm wasting my life away just doing this stupid written blog, just typing for five minutes and using my knowledge of grammar and spelling and thinking about stuff. If I were smart, I'd just set up a camera, put on my least stained t-shirt, and ramble on for 8 minutes about what I did today, namely sat in front of a computer, watched videos of people sitting in front of computers, and posted video blogs. Thank you, YouTube. I love you.
Hey, while you're at it, you know that clip from the Daily Show? You know, the really funny one that everyone's been talking about? You should put that on there. What? It's already on there? Well, put it up again, it can't hurt. Don't worry if you're not technically savvy, just point the video camera at the television, glare or no, and upload that shit. We'll be forever grateful if you do.
Hold on a sec, I'm looking for that new Ok Go video. They are such a good band, and their videos are really clever. You know, I bet I could imitate this video and it would be pretty fun. Hey, look, some other people did that. That's neat. I've always wondered what all the 8th graders are doing for their talent shows...now I know. This is great. Why share the brilliance of a song/video/television show when you can just imitate it for people. That's almost the same, which is why I never go to actual concerts, only cover bands.
I wish I could tell you face-to-face just how much I appreciate all of your hard work. If only there were some way, other than typing, to let you know how I feel. Maybe I could hook up a camera and speak right to it, telling you what I think of your video of you talking to a camera. Then I could upload that, and if you watched them back-to-back, it would be like we were having a conversation. That would sure be neat. Plus, I wouldn't have to shower or put on nice clothes or leave my room to do it. Awesome!
Thank you, YouTube. At first, I just thought this would be a great way to share significant news clips or funny bits from our favorite shows. It could even be used to promote up-and-coming bands or give people an inside look of the war in Iraq. Boy, would all that have been boring. Now we finally have something worthy of the internet...a network where anyone with a computer can upload clips of their favorite anime videos or video game cinematics scored to a popular rock song. Finally I have a place where I can go to see strangers teach themselves to play a piano version of the Mario Brothers theme or play the guitar solo to that new hit song I heard on MTV. And, the cherry on top...I can see people's video blogs so that finally I can hear what's going on in the life of the guy who gained 50 pounds because he spent all day in front of his computer posting video blogs.
I feel like I'm wasting my life away just doing this stupid written blog, just typing for five minutes and using my knowledge of grammar and spelling and thinking about stuff. If I were smart, I'd just set up a camera, put on my least stained t-shirt, and ramble on for 8 minutes about what I did today, namely sat in front of a computer, watched videos of people sitting in front of computers, and posted video blogs. Thank you, YouTube. I love you.
Monday, September 4, 2006
I Love a Crusade!
Isn't it interesting how some people can ruin things for everyone? Like poltics. People choosing to devote their lives to looking out for their fellow citizens seems pretty noble, and yet the terrible actions of a few makes everyone think of politicians as liars, fools, and weasels (which, granted, many are). Same thing with religion. Organizations devoted to helping others and answering people's deep, unanswered questions...also sounds pretty good. Of course then you have your religious terrorists, and your religious hate-mongers. In both of these cases, what should be valuable discussions about the best ways to make our world a better place to live in turn into hateful arguments and name-calling.
The difference being that Republicans and Democrats get along better with Independents than with each other sometimes. In religion, the person who believes your god is a fake and their god is real is more your friend than the person who sits the whole thing out. That's something I never quite understood. I mean, I understand that having a belief system and faith in a higher power connects people across religious lines, but it also puts you on opposing teams where you can't both ultimately be right about everything. Yet, it's Atheists and Agnostics who are viewed by both sides as misguided, immoral, and untrustworthy.
In a Newsweek poll, 92 percent of Americans said they believe in God, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell, giving how awful most people act throughout their days. 6 percent said they definitely didn't believe in a god, and 2 percent said they didn't know. Talk about minorities, that's a big one, and also seems to poke a hole in the idea that there's some huge liberal secular army coming to destroy Christmas and make your kids worship Kevin Federline instead of Jesus. Even more shocking is that only 37 percent of people said they'd be willing, not even likely but willing, to elect an Atheist as President. More people said they'd be willing to elect a homosexual President, meaning that there are people who actually believe someone who's life is considered sinful to them is better than someone who may lead a moral life but just doesn't believe in an all-powerful being that he can't see. And despite what some people would have you believe, the number of respondents who say they believe in God is going up, and the number of people willing to accept an Atheist is going down.
That reminds me of one of the most memorable moments I had just before my Catholic Confirmation. As anyone Catholic would tell you, and as anyone else could probably assume, confirmation is a big to-do as it represents a coming-of-age in the church. So, as one of the steps leading up to that big day, to make sure you know exactly what you're getting into and to make sure that you're worthy of it I suppose, at my church they had one of the higher-ups interview each person. Really, it was more of a discussion than an interview, though for some reason they required a Resume and a headshot (it helped that I could pray 75 wpm). Keep in mind, I was all of 14 around the time.
Anyway, towards the end of our discussion about morality and faith, he asked me something that surprised me, and I'm not easily surprised. He asked me if I thought someone could be a good person, but not a good Christian. My answer, which seemed very clear to me, was yes. A person could be kind, honest, hard-working, self-sacrificing, abstinant, moral, virtuous, and all the things that make you a good person and still not believe in Jesus Christ - essential to being a Christian by definition. Many of the things that make you a good Christian also make you a good person, but without that whole "God/Jesus/Bible" part of it, you would never be a good Christian, just a good person. He listened and then not angrily, just matter-of-factly, stated that he didn't believe that at all. He actually believed that it was impossible to be a good person if you weren't a Christian. You could be an alright person, I suppose, or an okay person, but not a good person. I was appalled. He might as well have just slapped me in the face with a Bible, because apparently I had been living in some delusion all those years going to Church when they preached openness and acceptance. Apparently it was "join us or live in depravity" with no middle ground.
There is a polarization going on in the world today, and it's only getting worse. Whether in discussion of politics, religion, economics, values, even science and history, people are being asked to take sides and turn on one another. Where's the middle ground with people who "don't know" or "aren't sure" or who want to come to a consensus? Instead of focusing on whether someone is Muslim or Christian, Republican or Democrat, Rock or Country, can't people focus on what it is that makes people good across these divisions? Because what happens when people focus on beating the other team rather than on improving themselves? They cheat, they lie, they compromise their integrity, and ultimately, the end up hurting themselves.
The difference being that Republicans and Democrats get along better with Independents than with each other sometimes. In religion, the person who believes your god is a fake and their god is real is more your friend than the person who sits the whole thing out. That's something I never quite understood. I mean, I understand that having a belief system and faith in a higher power connects people across religious lines, but it also puts you on opposing teams where you can't both ultimately be right about everything. Yet, it's Atheists and Agnostics who are viewed by both sides as misguided, immoral, and untrustworthy.
In a Newsweek poll, 92 percent of Americans said they believe in God, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell, giving how awful most people act throughout their days. 6 percent said they definitely didn't believe in a god, and 2 percent said they didn't know. Talk about minorities, that's a big one, and also seems to poke a hole in the idea that there's some huge liberal secular army coming to destroy Christmas and make your kids worship Kevin Federline instead of Jesus. Even more shocking is that only 37 percent of people said they'd be willing, not even likely but willing, to elect an Atheist as President. More people said they'd be willing to elect a homosexual President, meaning that there are people who actually believe someone who's life is considered sinful to them is better than someone who may lead a moral life but just doesn't believe in an all-powerful being that he can't see. And despite what some people would have you believe, the number of respondents who say they believe in God is going up, and the number of people willing to accept an Atheist is going down.
That reminds me of one of the most memorable moments I had just before my Catholic Confirmation. As anyone Catholic would tell you, and as anyone else could probably assume, confirmation is a big to-do as it represents a coming-of-age in the church. So, as one of the steps leading up to that big day, to make sure you know exactly what you're getting into and to make sure that you're worthy of it I suppose, at my church they had one of the higher-ups interview each person. Really, it was more of a discussion than an interview, though for some reason they required a Resume and a headshot (it helped that I could pray 75 wpm). Keep in mind, I was all of 14 around the time.
Anyway, towards the end of our discussion about morality and faith, he asked me something that surprised me, and I'm not easily surprised. He asked me if I thought someone could be a good person, but not a good Christian. My answer, which seemed very clear to me, was yes. A person could be kind, honest, hard-working, self-sacrificing, abstinant, moral, virtuous, and all the things that make you a good person and still not believe in Jesus Christ - essential to being a Christian by definition. Many of the things that make you a good Christian also make you a good person, but without that whole "God/Jesus/Bible" part of it, you would never be a good Christian, just a good person. He listened and then not angrily, just matter-of-factly, stated that he didn't believe that at all. He actually believed that it was impossible to be a good person if you weren't a Christian. You could be an alright person, I suppose, or an okay person, but not a good person. I was appalled. He might as well have just slapped me in the face with a Bible, because apparently I had been living in some delusion all those years going to Church when they preached openness and acceptance. Apparently it was "join us or live in depravity" with no middle ground.
There is a polarization going on in the world today, and it's only getting worse. Whether in discussion of politics, religion, economics, values, even science and history, people are being asked to take sides and turn on one another. Where's the middle ground with people who "don't know" or "aren't sure" or who want to come to a consensus? Instead of focusing on whether someone is Muslim or Christian, Republican or Democrat, Rock or Country, can't people focus on what it is that makes people good across these divisions? Because what happens when people focus on beating the other team rather than on improving themselves? They cheat, they lie, they compromise their integrity, and ultimately, the end up hurting themselves.
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Life's Tough in the Aluminum Siding Business
As a former earner of the minimum wage and a future dependent on retirement benefits, I feel confident in saying that we deserve more. Everyone wishes they had more money, whether they deserve it or not. Republicans would like to keep more of their taxes, while Democrats would generally like to get paid more up front. Obviously some people are overpaid and milking the system, and it's hard to judge the value of things as abstract as ideas or customer service. How do you decide the exact worth of an hours-worth of answering phones or a years-worth of accounting? Obviously their are factors to consider and a fair amount of guess-work that smarter people than I have figured out long ago. But, I think it's fair to say that it might be less than precise.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, productivity has risen 67 percent in the past 25 years, most of that during the late nineties. As a nation, we've all been working harder, and accomplishing more in less time. This is all evident from the huge economic expansion that's occured, and the growth of everything from e-commerce to commodities markets. Yet, during this time when our nation has been producing more and making more profit, wages have only risen 8.9 percent. I'm the first to admit that maybe in 1979 people were being paid too much and working too little so there was some catching up to do as far as productivity is concerned, but still that's a huge gap. And, since 2001 the median wage for college grads has stagnated while the median wage for people without degrees has actually begun to go down. Growth in real wages, including benefits, adjusted for inflation have slowed, and in some cases decreased. And to top it all off, fewer employers are offering retirement plans and most have decreased pensions and medical coverage.
There are no easy answers here, and fluctuations in markets and the economy are going to have effects on wages that aren't always fair or predictable. However, these trends represent a larger problem, that overall the American worker is giving more and getting less. In a nation where our highest ideal is to give our children a better life than we received, its a big let down to have each generation facing more difficulty and less reward.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, productivity has risen 67 percent in the past 25 years, most of that during the late nineties. As a nation, we've all been working harder, and accomplishing more in less time. This is all evident from the huge economic expansion that's occured, and the growth of everything from e-commerce to commodities markets. Yet, during this time when our nation has been producing more and making more profit, wages have only risen 8.9 percent. I'm the first to admit that maybe in 1979 people were being paid too much and working too little so there was some catching up to do as far as productivity is concerned, but still that's a huge gap. And, since 2001 the median wage for college grads has stagnated while the median wage for people without degrees has actually begun to go down. Growth in real wages, including benefits, adjusted for inflation have slowed, and in some cases decreased. And to top it all off, fewer employers are offering retirement plans and most have decreased pensions and medical coverage.
There are no easy answers here, and fluctuations in markets and the economy are going to have effects on wages that aren't always fair or predictable. However, these trends represent a larger problem, that overall the American worker is giving more and getting less. In a nation where our highest ideal is to give our children a better life than we received, its a big let down to have each generation facing more difficulty and less reward.
Saturday, September 2, 2006
Hippies Need to Take a Bath
Sometimes I think all people could benefit from working in certain fields, like the service industry, so that maybe when they went back to their normal life they wouldn't be total a-holes to cashiers at Best Buy. I think people could also benefit from working in advertising so that they could learn a few things about selling ideas.
I took Katherine Harris to task for trying to get people to vote for her by calling non-christians immoral legislators and saying that God chooses our rulers rather than, as is the common misconception, the people choosing our leaders. Seems like a bad sales pitch to me.
Well, far worse than that and far more insidious is the sales pitch from the firm of bin laden, Gadahn, and al-Zawahiri. Their latest video release (don't they have DVDs in those caves?) features al Qaeda's "second-in-command" (which I think might be the title of everyone in al Qaeda) as well as an American-born, FBI-wanted member of everyone's favorite terrorist organization. In this video they once again encourage everyone to embrace Islam and are even inclusive enough to invite former Bush and Blair supporters/emloyees to join in all the Islamic fun. For 48 minutes on this tape they talk about just how great Islam is and what it has to offer ("...all for one low, low price...but wait! There's more!") And then, to top it all off they add: "Decide today, because today could be your last day."
As if the actions of al Qaeda and the fact that they are a bunch of muderous hypocrites who live in caves and slums wasn't already enough to turn people off their personal brand of Islam, we also get the added barrel of a gun stuck in our face. Why not just say "Behold the Glory and Love of Allah...or else motherf*ckers!" Most people in marketing would tell you that people don't respond well to threats (especially not explicit ones). It reminds me of the time I was at Blockbuster and the clerk told me "You can rent 'Bring It On' for just $1.99. You really should, because otherwise I'm going to rape your family." Religious beliefs are deeply rooted, based on a lifetime of indoctrination, personal experiences, and introspection. It's not the sort of thing that people change or abandon overnight, and certainly not when they are being threatened. If you wanted people to convert to Islam, maybe you could go into some of the ways it is similar to their present beliefs, and some of the ways it promotes morality or tranquility. Instead, they decided the best pitch they had was that if you don't turn your back on a lifetime of faith, then you're going to get blown-the-hell up. Well, I'm going to tell you right now, people ain't buying, and you should probably just give up with your tapes. People are so afraid of everything now from immigrants to fast food that you're not scaring anyone any more than they already are, and you certainly aren't making any converts. All you're doing is pissing us off more, and everybody knows you don't pick a fight with a big, fat drunk.
I took Katherine Harris to task for trying to get people to vote for her by calling non-christians immoral legislators and saying that God chooses our rulers rather than, as is the common misconception, the people choosing our leaders. Seems like a bad sales pitch to me.
Well, far worse than that and far more insidious is the sales pitch from the firm of bin laden, Gadahn, and al-Zawahiri. Their latest video release (don't they have DVDs in those caves?) features al Qaeda's "second-in-command" (which I think might be the title of everyone in al Qaeda) as well as an American-born, FBI-wanted member of everyone's favorite terrorist organization. In this video they once again encourage everyone to embrace Islam and are even inclusive enough to invite former Bush and Blair supporters/emloyees to join in all the Islamic fun. For 48 minutes on this tape they talk about just how great Islam is and what it has to offer ("...all for one low, low price...but wait! There's more!") And then, to top it all off they add: "Decide today, because today could be your last day."
As if the actions of al Qaeda and the fact that they are a bunch of muderous hypocrites who live in caves and slums wasn't already enough to turn people off their personal brand of Islam, we also get the added barrel of a gun stuck in our face. Why not just say "Behold the Glory and Love of Allah...or else motherf*ckers!" Most people in marketing would tell you that people don't respond well to threats (especially not explicit ones). It reminds me of the time I was at Blockbuster and the clerk told me "You can rent 'Bring It On' for just $1.99. You really should, because otherwise I'm going to rape your family." Religious beliefs are deeply rooted, based on a lifetime of indoctrination, personal experiences, and introspection. It's not the sort of thing that people change or abandon overnight, and certainly not when they are being threatened. If you wanted people to convert to Islam, maybe you could go into some of the ways it is similar to their present beliefs, and some of the ways it promotes morality or tranquility. Instead, they decided the best pitch they had was that if you don't turn your back on a lifetime of faith, then you're going to get blown-the-hell up. Well, I'm going to tell you right now, people ain't buying, and you should probably just give up with your tapes. People are so afraid of everything now from immigrants to fast food that you're not scaring anyone any more than they already are, and you certainly aren't making any converts. All you're doing is pissing us off more, and everybody knows you don't pick a fight with a big, fat drunk.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Take That, Poor People
Five days ago on Rush Limbaugh's syndicated radio program, the one that my dad is such a fan of (he has an autographed picture of Rush and, I wouldn't be surprised, probably a tattoo of Rush on his person,) he unleashed this insight worthy of Confuscius:
"I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government."
'Oh no he didn't' Oh yes, he did. We all know there is an obesity crisis in this country. In fact, you can't watch a local newscast without seeing at least one of those montages where they just show fat abdomens walking around city streets while a reporter talks about fast food. To be fair, this same obesity crisis is occuring throughout much of the western world, being that we now have a greater abundance of food than ever before, the food we have is chock full of sugar and corn syrup, we have the wealth to buy a lot of it, and thanks to modern technology we only have to do a minimal of physical exertion to get through a day. My pal Rush, though, seems to think that rather than this being a systemic problem due to bad personal choices and a change in the way we live, it is in fact the fault of the "liberal welfare state", and I'm certain also probably the personal fault of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Recent studies have found a link between poverty and obesity, I'm guessing in part because the same poor decision making that can lead to eating poorly can also lead to making bad economic decisions. There's also the fact that while wealthy people can afford quality food and gym memberships, poor people not so much. There are complexities, and also many exceptions (you've seen tons of thin poor people and plenty of hefty rich people). But Rush seems to think it's all the fault of food stamps, because as you know, the government hands out so many of them and that the people who get them can just afford reams of food with them. A single food stamp in fact can be used to purchase over 3 tons of delicious Chewy Chip A-Hoy (it's true, look it up).
For some reason Rush thought it would help his argument to point out that the states with the highest incidence of obesity are also states with high poverty rates, and the states with the lowest incidence of obesity are states with lower poverty rates. Those poor states? Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Yes, those five, liberal states. Oh, wait, those look like awfully Red States to me; states where Republicans hold a majority, and who support a Republican president and hold to Republican values. The five least obese states? Colorado, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and root-of-all-liberal-evil Massachusetts. This list looks a little bluer to me. Do I think there's any connection? Honestly, no, but if Rush is going to make this a partisan food fight, maybe he should make sure he's not whipping cupcakes at his friends.
His argument is that because people are poor, they must be getting handouts in the forms of food stamps, food drives, soup kitchens...and we are just overfeeding these poor bastards (pun intended). I wonder how many food stamps the government is forcing on Rush Limbaugh each week, because he's not so trim himself (though he did lose a lot of weight when he was illegally abusing prescription drugs). Correlation does not equal cause and effect, and I think the correlation in this case has more to do with the individuals and with cultural values than with welfare. It also doesn't help that you can buy a 2 litter bottle of soda for less than a bottle of water, or a bag of chips for less than a bag of apples. When people are forced to make choices based on a limited income, they tend to go for quantity rather than quality, and it's not because we're giving them too many food stamps, Rush.
So Mr. Limbaugh, if you'd like to have a discussion about our warped values system or about a health crisis in the United States, we're happy to have you at the roundtable. If however you'd like to talk about how liberals are making people fat, then first perhaps you should push yourself back from the dinner table and have a good look in the mirror.
"I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government."
'Oh no he didn't' Oh yes, he did. We all know there is an obesity crisis in this country. In fact, you can't watch a local newscast without seeing at least one of those montages where they just show fat abdomens walking around city streets while a reporter talks about fast food. To be fair, this same obesity crisis is occuring throughout much of the western world, being that we now have a greater abundance of food than ever before, the food we have is chock full of sugar and corn syrup, we have the wealth to buy a lot of it, and thanks to modern technology we only have to do a minimal of physical exertion to get through a day. My pal Rush, though, seems to think that rather than this being a systemic problem due to bad personal choices and a change in the way we live, it is in fact the fault of the "liberal welfare state", and I'm certain also probably the personal fault of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Recent studies have found a link between poverty and obesity, I'm guessing in part because the same poor decision making that can lead to eating poorly can also lead to making bad economic decisions. There's also the fact that while wealthy people can afford quality food and gym memberships, poor people not so much. There are complexities, and also many exceptions (you've seen tons of thin poor people and plenty of hefty rich people). But Rush seems to think it's all the fault of food stamps, because as you know, the government hands out so many of them and that the people who get them can just afford reams of food with them. A single food stamp in fact can be used to purchase over 3 tons of delicious Chewy Chip A-Hoy (it's true, look it up).
For some reason Rush thought it would help his argument to point out that the states with the highest incidence of obesity are also states with high poverty rates, and the states with the lowest incidence of obesity are states with lower poverty rates. Those poor states? Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Yes, those five, liberal states. Oh, wait, those look like awfully Red States to me; states where Republicans hold a majority, and who support a Republican president and hold to Republican values. The five least obese states? Colorado, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and root-of-all-liberal-evil Massachusetts. This list looks a little bluer to me. Do I think there's any connection? Honestly, no, but if Rush is going to make this a partisan food fight, maybe he should make sure he's not whipping cupcakes at his friends.
His argument is that because people are poor, they must be getting handouts in the forms of food stamps, food drives, soup kitchens...and we are just overfeeding these poor bastards (pun intended). I wonder how many food stamps the government is forcing on Rush Limbaugh each week, because he's not so trim himself (though he did lose a lot of weight when he was illegally abusing prescription drugs). Correlation does not equal cause and effect, and I think the correlation in this case has more to do with the individuals and with cultural values than with welfare. It also doesn't help that you can buy a 2 litter bottle of soda for less than a bottle of water, or a bag of chips for less than a bag of apples. When people are forced to make choices based on a limited income, they tend to go for quantity rather than quality, and it's not because we're giving them too many food stamps, Rush.
So Mr. Limbaugh, if you'd like to have a discussion about our warped values system or about a health crisis in the United States, we're happy to have you at the roundtable. If however you'd like to talk about how liberals are making people fat, then first perhaps you should push yourself back from the dinner table and have a good look in the mirror.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Forging the Erudition of the Foibles of Fission
And other scientific inquiries.
Today on CNN.com, a featured article discussed advances being made in the field of cancer eradication, namely, in creating a "smart-bomb for cancer" (a phrase which caught my eye in part because it was used on The West Wing about four years ago). Though still in it's early stages, and not wholly successful, a promising new study has found that the human immune system can be genetically enhanced to target cancer cells, something it doesn't normally do. Not only is that bad-ass in a science-fiction sort of way, it's also incredibly inspiring and a little terrifying. Essentially, what they do is extract some white blood cells. Then they genetically engineer them by mixing them with a lab-created virus which seeks out and attaches itself to cancer cells. Then, with traditional chemotherapy, they wipe out the person's existing immune system, and then re-introduce the new Jack Bauer immune cells, which then go about eradicating the cancer. In the study it only worked in 2 out of 17 subjects, but in those subjects it worked completely. Tell me science isn't amazing.
And this very week the new Pope is meeting with some former theology students to discuss that. They will be meeting for a three-day discussion/debate on the subjects of evolution and creationism. Of course, they won't be coming to any definitive answers or making any proclamations of one over the other, but it will be a discussion which is refreshing given the climate here in the United States where it seems people have no room for concession or understanding. Even the last Pope gave some credence to Darwin's assertions. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle could learn a lesson from these Popes, that religion and reason are not mutually exclusive, and that discussion and investigation do not denote a lack of faith. Obviously, Pope Benedict doesn't believe that evolution is an entirely random process, and he certainly believes that God created everything, but all the same, any discussion on the merits of both evolution and creationism (or its modern guise of intelligent design) concedes that there is a possibility for truth and faith in evolution. My point: science is a great thing. Also, breaking news: Ice cream is delicious.
Today on CNN.com, a featured article discussed advances being made in the field of cancer eradication, namely, in creating a "smart-bomb for cancer" (a phrase which caught my eye in part because it was used on The West Wing about four years ago). Though still in it's early stages, and not wholly successful, a promising new study has found that the human immune system can be genetically enhanced to target cancer cells, something it doesn't normally do. Not only is that bad-ass in a science-fiction sort of way, it's also incredibly inspiring and a little terrifying. Essentially, what they do is extract some white blood cells. Then they genetically engineer them by mixing them with a lab-created virus which seeks out and attaches itself to cancer cells. Then, with traditional chemotherapy, they wipe out the person's existing immune system, and then re-introduce the new Jack Bauer immune cells, which then go about eradicating the cancer. In the study it only worked in 2 out of 17 subjects, but in those subjects it worked completely. Tell me science isn't amazing.
And this very week the new Pope is meeting with some former theology students to discuss that. They will be meeting for a three-day discussion/debate on the subjects of evolution and creationism. Of course, they won't be coming to any definitive answers or making any proclamations of one over the other, but it will be a discussion which is refreshing given the climate here in the United States where it seems people have no room for concession or understanding. Even the last Pope gave some credence to Darwin's assertions. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle could learn a lesson from these Popes, that religion and reason are not mutually exclusive, and that discussion and investigation do not denote a lack of faith. Obviously, Pope Benedict doesn't believe that evolution is an entirely random process, and he certainly believes that God created everything, but all the same, any discussion on the merits of both evolution and creationism (or its modern guise of intelligent design) concedes that there is a possibility for truth and faith in evolution. My point: science is a great thing. Also, breaking news: Ice cream is delicious.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Notes from the Campaign Trail
It's hard to keep track of all the goings-on in an election year, especially a mid-term election year, especially when we have all this breaking news about how Hurricane Katrina happened a year ago and a guy falsely confessed to a single murder a decade ago. So, I thought I'd help you cut through the treacle with a little clip of the kind of thing we find in this election season.
From the party of inclusion, we have Katherine Harris, belle of the Bush coup. Some of you may remember her from the 2000 election when she was co-chair of the Bush Florida Campaign while simultaneously being the Secretary of State for Florida and thus the person who certified Bush's electoral victory in Florida, a decision later overturned by the state supreme court (then even later overturned by the national one) and then again by any number of non-partisan studies since. Before I continue, I should also mention that she is so crazy, many of her own party don't support her.
Her most recent madness came while she was campaigning and giving an interview to the Florida Baptist Witness publication. Just so I can't be accused of taking things out of context, here's what she said...
"...that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
and also...
"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they dont know better, we are leading them astray and its wrong."
I guess I'll start from the top...that old "lie" that is our concept of the seperation of church and state. It's just like that story about Washington chopping down the apple tree...pure poppycock. Our founding fathers never wanted there to be separation of church and state. That's why when they wrote our laws, based in part on English law, they decreed that the Anglican church would be the official state religion and then proceeded to copy the bible word-for-word onto what we would later colloquially call our "Constitution". God already has a grade A form of governance. He's like the President, but for life, and Jesus is like his Vice President. And the Holy Ghost is like the Speaker of the House I guess. They never wanted these things separate. They wanted religion to dictate our laws, and for the law to enforce religion. That's why murder is a crime. That's why stealing is a crime. That's also why it's a crime not to honor my father or to desire my neighbor's possessions. Oh, wait a minute...
Sure, religion influences and is entwined with a person's moral and political values, and certainly if a person believes that something is a sin, then they would probably also think it should be illegal. However, there is the small matter of the fact that not everyone has the same religion, and even the ones that do often disagree, and that unless Jesus was elected to the House of Representatives, that no one in our government is capable of speaking for God or Allah or Vishnu and dictating how we should choose to live. The separation of church and state ensures (in theory) that decisions in government are based on reason and the good of all people and not simply the religious assertions of a few, while at the same time making sure that government never interferes in people's free expression and practice of their religious faith, whatever that may be (unless it harms another, which is why we no longer have sacrifices). But, you know what, I guess it is all a lie, because God has chosen our leaders, and as a Representative of both her district and the one true God, she must know what she's talking about.
So let's get into that. She says that our leaders are chosen by God. Not that God encourages people to run or gives them a calling, or that God informs people's decisions...no, God has hand-picked all of our leaders, and doesn't He just think it's adorable how we go through the motions of holding elections when it's so unnecessary. In fact, on election day, I usually head on down to the pulpit and pray "Dear Lord, in your infinite wisdom, please use your infinite power and wisdom to fill out millions of ballots across the country and tell us who you have decided we want to lead us." And you know what, God always elects someone, and whether I know it or not, that person is the best person for the job, and who am I to question the creator of all things.
It's an odd campaign strategy in a democracy to go out and tell people that they don't choose their leaders. Why is she campaigning then? If God chooses our rulers, then shouldn't she show some faith and let God decide whether she should be one of them? Is she doubting the power of Yahweh by thinking that she, and not He, can convince the voters? If God wants her to rule, it'll happen, amen.
Which then brings us to the part that really inspires. Apparently, only Christians are wise enough to rule. Not Jews, or Muslims, and most definitely not Hindus or Buddhists. Nope, only Christians, because everyone who is not a Christian believes that every woman should be required to have an abortion and that the fetus should then be eaten whole before going out and stealing, murdering, and engaging in forced sodomy or, as non-christians call it: Friday night. Its true though, it really is. All Christians always do the right thing, and all non-christians are constantly trying to make sure that everything sinful and debaucherous is legal, if not legally required. That's why the Jewish people in Congress are always trying to overturn federal murder statutes, and why Atheists are always complaining about how it should be legal to steal. Note to Mrs. Harris: IF YOU HAVE A MORAL PROBLEM WITH ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY, JUST SAY SO. Don't call everyone else a godless sodomite, and don't call any Christian who disagrees with you a false Christian. Though she backtracked and said she supports other religions, especially those wonderful Jews, she still believes that Christians hold the moral high ground.
You know what the difference between a good person and a good Christian is? A belief in Christ. Really, that's what it boils down to, meaning that it's possible to be a good and moral person and still not be a good Christian, so why can't people vote for a non-Christian and still be voting for a capable and noble person? Well, according to my buddy Kathy, it's because when you elect people who aren't true Christians, they legislate sin which then leads the average, dumb people astray by making them think sin is a good thing. Perhaps her Lexicon is out-of-date or her Dictionary has a tear across the page in the "A" section where the word "average" appears, but I think by definition it means, in the case of people, "typical, the norm". You know what is typical in the United States? Christians. 77 percent of the population of our country identify as Christians. 77 percent sounds pretty average to me. Considering that the next highest representation (aside from 'no affiliation') is Jewish with 1.3 percent, seems like the average person in the U.S. is Christian. Most of our leaders are Christian. So, is she saying that the average citizen, a Christian, is being led astray by the Christians in government, the ones that God appointed? Is she saying that the whole world is now going to become a new Babylon of abortions and gay marriages because Christians aren't electing enough Christians?
So after all that, I guess my point is that if you have objections to things, be they abortions, gays, liberals, social programs, free speech in the media, etc., and you expect to do something about it in Congress, perhaps it's best to start forming a real argument and deciding a.) why it is you believe what you do, b.) whether that's the best thing for all Americans, and c.) what's the best way to convince the people who disagree with you. Instead, your friend and mine in Florida decided it would be best to call people stupid, to call people heathens, and to tell people that Christians, and only Christians, are good people and that if you let a single Muslim get elected, that you are killing an unborn child.
From the party of inclusion, we have Katherine Harris, belle of the Bush coup. Some of you may remember her from the 2000 election when she was co-chair of the Bush Florida Campaign while simultaneously being the Secretary of State for Florida and thus the person who certified Bush's electoral victory in Florida, a decision later overturned by the state supreme court (then even later overturned by the national one) and then again by any number of non-partisan studies since. Before I continue, I should also mention that she is so crazy, many of her own party don't support her.
Her most recent madness came while she was campaigning and giving an interview to the Florida Baptist Witness publication. Just so I can't be accused of taking things out of context, here's what she said...
"...that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
and also...
"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they dont know better, we are leading them astray and its wrong."
I guess I'll start from the top...that old "lie" that is our concept of the seperation of church and state. It's just like that story about Washington chopping down the apple tree...pure poppycock. Our founding fathers never wanted there to be separation of church and state. That's why when they wrote our laws, based in part on English law, they decreed that the Anglican church would be the official state religion and then proceeded to copy the bible word-for-word onto what we would later colloquially call our "Constitution". God already has a grade A form of governance. He's like the President, but for life, and Jesus is like his Vice President. And the Holy Ghost is like the Speaker of the House I guess. They never wanted these things separate. They wanted religion to dictate our laws, and for the law to enforce religion. That's why murder is a crime. That's why stealing is a crime. That's also why it's a crime not to honor my father or to desire my neighbor's possessions. Oh, wait a minute...
Sure, religion influences and is entwined with a person's moral and political values, and certainly if a person believes that something is a sin, then they would probably also think it should be illegal. However, there is the small matter of the fact that not everyone has the same religion, and even the ones that do often disagree, and that unless Jesus was elected to the House of Representatives, that no one in our government is capable of speaking for God or Allah or Vishnu and dictating how we should choose to live. The separation of church and state ensures (in theory) that decisions in government are based on reason and the good of all people and not simply the religious assertions of a few, while at the same time making sure that government never interferes in people's free expression and practice of their religious faith, whatever that may be (unless it harms another, which is why we no longer have sacrifices). But, you know what, I guess it is all a lie, because God has chosen our leaders, and as a Representative of both her district and the one true God, she must know what she's talking about.
So let's get into that. She says that our leaders are chosen by God. Not that God encourages people to run or gives them a calling, or that God informs people's decisions...no, God has hand-picked all of our leaders, and doesn't He just think it's adorable how we go through the motions of holding elections when it's so unnecessary. In fact, on election day, I usually head on down to the pulpit and pray "Dear Lord, in your infinite wisdom, please use your infinite power and wisdom to fill out millions of ballots across the country and tell us who you have decided we want to lead us." And you know what, God always elects someone, and whether I know it or not, that person is the best person for the job, and who am I to question the creator of all things.
It's an odd campaign strategy in a democracy to go out and tell people that they don't choose their leaders. Why is she campaigning then? If God chooses our rulers, then shouldn't she show some faith and let God decide whether she should be one of them? Is she doubting the power of Yahweh by thinking that she, and not He, can convince the voters? If God wants her to rule, it'll happen, amen.
Which then brings us to the part that really inspires. Apparently, only Christians are wise enough to rule. Not Jews, or Muslims, and most definitely not Hindus or Buddhists. Nope, only Christians, because everyone who is not a Christian believes that every woman should be required to have an abortion and that the fetus should then be eaten whole before going out and stealing, murdering, and engaging in forced sodomy or, as non-christians call it: Friday night. Its true though, it really is. All Christians always do the right thing, and all non-christians are constantly trying to make sure that everything sinful and debaucherous is legal, if not legally required. That's why the Jewish people in Congress are always trying to overturn federal murder statutes, and why Atheists are always complaining about how it should be legal to steal. Note to Mrs. Harris: IF YOU HAVE A MORAL PROBLEM WITH ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY, JUST SAY SO. Don't call everyone else a godless sodomite, and don't call any Christian who disagrees with you a false Christian. Though she backtracked and said she supports other religions, especially those wonderful Jews, she still believes that Christians hold the moral high ground.
You know what the difference between a good person and a good Christian is? A belief in Christ. Really, that's what it boils down to, meaning that it's possible to be a good and moral person and still not be a good Christian, so why can't people vote for a non-Christian and still be voting for a capable and noble person? Well, according to my buddy Kathy, it's because when you elect people who aren't true Christians, they legislate sin which then leads the average, dumb people astray by making them think sin is a good thing. Perhaps her Lexicon is out-of-date or her Dictionary has a tear across the page in the "A" section where the word "average" appears, but I think by definition it means, in the case of people, "typical, the norm". You know what is typical in the United States? Christians. 77 percent of the population of our country identify as Christians. 77 percent sounds pretty average to me. Considering that the next highest representation (aside from 'no affiliation') is Jewish with 1.3 percent, seems like the average person in the U.S. is Christian. Most of our leaders are Christian. So, is she saying that the average citizen, a Christian, is being led astray by the Christians in government, the ones that God appointed? Is she saying that the whole world is now going to become a new Babylon of abortions and gay marriages because Christians aren't electing enough Christians?
So after all that, I guess my point is that if you have objections to things, be they abortions, gays, liberals, social programs, free speech in the media, etc., and you expect to do something about it in Congress, perhaps it's best to start forming a real argument and deciding a.) why it is you believe what you do, b.) whether that's the best thing for all Americans, and c.) what's the best way to convince the people who disagree with you. Instead, your friend and mine in Florida decided it would be best to call people stupid, to call people heathens, and to tell people that Christians, and only Christians, are good people and that if you let a single Muslim get elected, that you are killing an unborn child.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Me Fail English? That's Unpossible.
Education really is a silver bullet. It can be a cure for poverty, for violence, for crime. The problem is that information, much like speech, needs to be complete and unfiltered to be of significant value. That's the reason that children who are taught in authoritarian environments (think terror states and dicatorships) end up with a skewed version of "truth" and gain none of the benefits I mentioned at the top. In the United States, we've had many debates recently over what our children should be taught, and who should decide what to teach. Should educators decide what is relevant, or what is factually viable, or should people and the government decide what they do and do not want their children to know? Some people assume that if you teach a child about Evolution that they'll reject religion, or that if you teach a child about sex that they'll start having it. I can safely say that both of those are untrue.
After a two-week research study in Texas, they found that children who are given proper sex education (and not merely the "wait until marriage" part) are more likely to wait to have sex, and more likely to wait until they are married then children who aren't. What this says is that giving children information doesn't mean that they are going to put that information into practice, it simply means that having that information allows them to make responsible and informed decisions. With anyone and especially with children, telling them not to do something if only because you say so will only make them want to do it more. Explaining things to people and allowing them to make the decision on their own means that not only are they more likely to do the right thing, but because they came to the conclusion themselves, that they will understand it and stick to it.
If we truly live in an information age, then we need to start acting like it and stop trying to hide the unpleasant truths. Instead, we should be seeking to make sure that all avenues to information aren't blocked and that instead of just getting one person's opinions we are getting the whole truth. That means allowing open discussion, open exchange, and not restricting information simply because we don't like it or we don't think people can handle it. This also goes for politicians, pundits, and journalists who think that ignoring the other side of an argument will make it untrue.
After a two-week research study in Texas, they found that children who are given proper sex education (and not merely the "wait until marriage" part) are more likely to wait to have sex, and more likely to wait until they are married then children who aren't. What this says is that giving children information doesn't mean that they are going to put that information into practice, it simply means that having that information allows them to make responsible and informed decisions. With anyone and especially with children, telling them not to do something if only because you say so will only make them want to do it more. Explaining things to people and allowing them to make the decision on their own means that not only are they more likely to do the right thing, but because they came to the conclusion themselves, that they will understand it and stick to it.
If we truly live in an information age, then we need to start acting like it and stop trying to hide the unpleasant truths. Instead, we should be seeking to make sure that all avenues to information aren't blocked and that instead of just getting one person's opinions we are getting the whole truth. That means allowing open discussion, open exchange, and not restricting information simply because we don't like it or we don't think people can handle it. This also goes for politicians, pundits, and journalists who think that ignoring the other side of an argument will make it untrue.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Two Minus Three Equal Negative FUN!
My dad is a hardcore Republican; a card-carrying member. He used to tell me that he had been a Democrat when he was younger, but then I would joke that when he got older he got bitter and Republican. He didn't so-much appreciate that. Even though I almost never agree with his politics, he's a smart, well-educated man who was accepted to Rutgers and Princeton, and served in the Army, and for the life of me I can't understand why he seriously defends some of the people in his own party who are not only ill-informed, but dumb and actually working against his own party's platform. I used to tell him "Dad, I know you're a Republican and I think that's really cute and all, but really...George Jr...is that really the best you guys could come up with?"
Case in point: Today our president decided to use the full power of his office to veto a bill for the first time. What horrible, liberal, welfare-socialist bill was this you ask? It was supported by a 63-37 margin (253-193 in the house) and sponsored by those left-wing nutjobs....Arlen Spector and Bill Frist? Yes, the bill was put forth and supported by anti-choice Republicans, people who have agreed with the President nearly 100 percent of the time and are the cream of the neo-con crop.
This bill would have loosened regulations on funding for Stem Cell research so that diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's might one day be cured by using stem cells generated from discarded embryos. Whenever a women stores embryos at a fertility clinic, or has embryos taken out for in-vitro fertilization, the unused embryos are normally just thrown away, which no one seems to have a problem with and no one in their right mind considers murder (because if they did then women would be murderers at least once a month). However, studying or using those embryos to cure disease is, in the eyes of one G.W., apparently is equal to or worse than grabbing children out of their cribs and ripping their limbs off in order to create Frankenstein-like abominations. Believe me, Bill Frist isn't suggesting that we hold women down and take all of their embryos to do with as we please, and the Republican from Pennsylvania doesn't think we should be harvesting stem cells from fetuses in the womb. All they are suggesting is maybe we should look into saving lives that have already been created, born, and blessed by god by using cells that were going to be discarded anyway.
Bill Frist and Arlen Spector are both morally opposed to abortion, just like the President. And, agree or disagree, at least Bill and Arlen (and all of the Republicans that support this bill) recognize that life at least needs sperm, a womb, and about 9 months gestation. Is the President suggesting that every embryo is a life? If so, does he think that we should be striving to make sure that every single egg a woman has is given the chance to be fertilized and grown into a full-grown human? Not only is that idea silly, but its actually sort-of frightening.
Sure, go ahead, take those extra embryos and try to find a woman who wants to "adopt" it and use it to have a child; there are many infertile women who will jump at the chance. But, as a species, I think we have far more embryos than we ever could or even should use (oh the financial burdens of having hundreds of children each). Why not then use these extra embryos, already out of the womb and never intended to become lifeforms themselves, to save lives. I'm not suggesting we grow clones and steal their organs, and I'm not suggesting that we start draining women of the embryos they're not planning on using. I'm not even suggesting that we start mass-producing stem cells...I'm just saying why can't we do some research and see if it would even be possible to improve the health and lives of people that everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree are lifeforms. Not every embryo and every sperm is a life. There are many gray areas, but can we not all agree that as long as those two things stay separate that neither of them counts as a lifeform? When a man is murdered, you don't count all of his sperm as living entities, otherwise newspaper headlines would read "Apparent Suicide Kills Billions". Now that's just silly.
Also silly: For once I am agreeing with Bill Frist. BILL FRIST! The guy who thought the woman who's brain had literally shrunk was not brain damaged because he watched a videotape of her not moving. That Bill Frist. Thanks a lot George. You've got me siding with that guy. Just sign the damn bill.
Case in point: Today our president decided to use the full power of his office to veto a bill for the first time. What horrible, liberal, welfare-socialist bill was this you ask? It was supported by a 63-37 margin (253-193 in the house) and sponsored by those left-wing nutjobs....Arlen Spector and Bill Frist? Yes, the bill was put forth and supported by anti-choice Republicans, people who have agreed with the President nearly 100 percent of the time and are the cream of the neo-con crop.
This bill would have loosened regulations on funding for Stem Cell research so that diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's might one day be cured by using stem cells generated from discarded embryos. Whenever a women stores embryos at a fertility clinic, or has embryos taken out for in-vitro fertilization, the unused embryos are normally just thrown away, which no one seems to have a problem with and no one in their right mind considers murder (because if they did then women would be murderers at least once a month). However, studying or using those embryos to cure disease is, in the eyes of one G.W., apparently is equal to or worse than grabbing children out of their cribs and ripping their limbs off in order to create Frankenstein-like abominations. Believe me, Bill Frist isn't suggesting that we hold women down and take all of their embryos to do with as we please, and the Republican from Pennsylvania doesn't think we should be harvesting stem cells from fetuses in the womb. All they are suggesting is maybe we should look into saving lives that have already been created, born, and blessed by god by using cells that were going to be discarded anyway.
Bill Frist and Arlen Spector are both morally opposed to abortion, just like the President. And, agree or disagree, at least Bill and Arlen (and all of the Republicans that support this bill) recognize that life at least needs sperm, a womb, and about 9 months gestation. Is the President suggesting that every embryo is a life? If so, does he think that we should be striving to make sure that every single egg a woman has is given the chance to be fertilized and grown into a full-grown human? Not only is that idea silly, but its actually sort-of frightening.
Sure, go ahead, take those extra embryos and try to find a woman who wants to "adopt" it and use it to have a child; there are many infertile women who will jump at the chance. But, as a species, I think we have far more embryos than we ever could or even should use (oh the financial burdens of having hundreds of children each). Why not then use these extra embryos, already out of the womb and never intended to become lifeforms themselves, to save lives. I'm not suggesting we grow clones and steal their organs, and I'm not suggesting that we start draining women of the embryos they're not planning on using. I'm not even suggesting that we start mass-producing stem cells...I'm just saying why can't we do some research and see if it would even be possible to improve the health and lives of people that everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree are lifeforms. Not every embryo and every sperm is a life. There are many gray areas, but can we not all agree that as long as those two things stay separate that neither of them counts as a lifeform? When a man is murdered, you don't count all of his sperm as living entities, otherwise newspaper headlines would read "Apparent Suicide Kills Billions". Now that's just silly.
Also silly: For once I am agreeing with Bill Frist. BILL FRIST! The guy who thought the woman who's brain had literally shrunk was not brain damaged because he watched a videotape of her not moving. That Bill Frist. Thanks a lot George. You've got me siding with that guy. Just sign the damn bill.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Nothing Sells Tickets Like a Spectacle
Looking over the news coverage, I was shocked to see that people are using sensationalism and fear to boost interest in foreign affairs. Shocked. This sort of thing has never been done before, and it is a sure sign that the stalwart credibility of our national media is finally showing some flaws. I am, of course, being ironic. I am not at all surprised, though I really didn't see this coming.
Before any close election, and even the ones that aren't, you can always rely on the pundits to change the topic or skew the argument. The last Presidential election is a prime example of how the simple repetition of a few falsehoods was enough to make people think that a decorated war hero would be a poor commander or our nation, yet the man who led the country into a poorly planned war that the majority of Americans were opposed to at the time of the election would defend the nation with his own bare hands.
This time the numbers are much worse for the Republicans, so the tactics are a bit more grandiose. Turn to any news channel, any program, where a prominent Republican appears and they will most likely use the words "World War III" to describe the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, terror threats around the globe, and continued animosity with Iran and North Korea. You may ask how exactly that constitutes a world war when only two of those nations are actually fighting, and Iran and North Korea have been threats for a decade, while terror threats don't equate with the ability to carry out those threats. Not to say that all of these things aren't serious and shouldn't be of the greatest importance, but what I am saying is that a great disservice is done by using hyperbole and mischaracterization to incite fear and panic in the American people.
This is a time for diplomacy, for well-planned and restrained military action, for international cooperation and reform, and for complex issues to be treated accordingly. This is not a time to shout "fire" in a crowded theater so that everyone can be trampled and half of us burned to death. As soon as you say "World War III", you conjure up images of a nuclear holocaust and global annihilation. You also draw a clear picture of organized alliances where there are none. So, basically, what you do is turn a colorful and complex mosaic into a black and white cartoon where everyone is against us and everyone must be dealt with by force or else we are all screwed.
So, coming up to this next election, rather than discussing prudent strategy and necessary domestic reforms, rather than talking about ways to limit troop deployments and stabalize democracies, and rather than working to return to fiscal and social responsibility we are going to be talking about the Apocalypse and who you want at the helm of our John Connor/Omega Man/Beyond Thunderdome future...the unflinching Republicans who stay the course no matter what public opinion, reason, or the actual outcome suggests...or the weak willed Democrats who just want to be loved and give the world a hug. Does that sound over simplistic? Watch Meet the Press and listen to Newt Gingrich, because that's basically what they're setting us up for. They think we're ignorant and easily swayed, and you know what? They just might be right.
Before any close election, and even the ones that aren't, you can always rely on the pundits to change the topic or skew the argument. The last Presidential election is a prime example of how the simple repetition of a few falsehoods was enough to make people think that a decorated war hero would be a poor commander or our nation, yet the man who led the country into a poorly planned war that the majority of Americans were opposed to at the time of the election would defend the nation with his own bare hands.
This time the numbers are much worse for the Republicans, so the tactics are a bit more grandiose. Turn to any news channel, any program, where a prominent Republican appears and they will most likely use the words "World War III" to describe the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, terror threats around the globe, and continued animosity with Iran and North Korea. You may ask how exactly that constitutes a world war when only two of those nations are actually fighting, and Iran and North Korea have been threats for a decade, while terror threats don't equate with the ability to carry out those threats. Not to say that all of these things aren't serious and shouldn't be of the greatest importance, but what I am saying is that a great disservice is done by using hyperbole and mischaracterization to incite fear and panic in the American people.
This is a time for diplomacy, for well-planned and restrained military action, for international cooperation and reform, and for complex issues to be treated accordingly. This is not a time to shout "fire" in a crowded theater so that everyone can be trampled and half of us burned to death. As soon as you say "World War III", you conjure up images of a nuclear holocaust and global annihilation. You also draw a clear picture of organized alliances where there are none. So, basically, what you do is turn a colorful and complex mosaic into a black and white cartoon where everyone is against us and everyone must be dealt with by force or else we are all screwed.
So, coming up to this next election, rather than discussing prudent strategy and necessary domestic reforms, rather than talking about ways to limit troop deployments and stabalize democracies, and rather than working to return to fiscal and social responsibility we are going to be talking about the Apocalypse and who you want at the helm of our John Connor/Omega Man/Beyond Thunderdome future...the unflinching Republicans who stay the course no matter what public opinion, reason, or the actual outcome suggests...or the weak willed Democrats who just want to be loved and give the world a hug. Does that sound over simplistic? Watch Meet the Press and listen to Newt Gingrich, because that's basically what they're setting us up for. They think we're ignorant and easily swayed, and you know what? They just might be right.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Someone Should Do Something About All the Problems
Adding to the list of election year stunts, the Republican majority has pushed the anti-Flag desecration Amendment to the floor of the Senate for debate. Let me clear up right at the front that anything I say is not an attack on Republicans only, especially since many of them are smart and decent enough to oppose this nonsense, and some Democrats are just desperate and dumb enough to support it.
This is another thing that I just don't understand. At least when people are opposed to gay marriage they have some sort of moral or religious reason to back it up; in this case I don't think "You shall not burn your own flag" fell anywhere near the Ten Commandments. Burning the American flag, or desecrating it, are forms of free expression, which is a foundation for, if not what our country stands for, than at least for the ideals we pretend to stand for. Do I think it's a bit misguided? Yes, if only because it's too easy a target and represents too many different things to serve as a proper protest in most cases. It represents our government in it's present form, it represents our history, it represents ideals that we strive for, and unless you are ready to protest all of those various things, all it does is make a mess of your argument and distract from whatever valid points you have. Also, it's incendiary (pun intended). Some people get irrationally upset over the burning of a flag, as though you had dug up a veteran and then burned the corpse. Perhaps it's because violent protests overseas often involve the burning of U.S. flags. So, really, if you're trying to make a legitimate argument, burning the flag immediately shuts a lot of people's ears and makes them equate you with a terrorist, so it's not an effective means of creating change. That's why I'm opposed to it. Otherwise, I think people should be free to do whatever they want with the flag.
Why? Well, because freedom of expression is a cornerstone of any democracy, and specifically ours, and ensuring that this right is protected is the only way to ensure that truth will be protected and change will be allowed to come when it is needed. Also, the desecration of a flag has no consequence other than a little smoke, so unless this is meant to protect the environment, it's foolish. Burning a flag is not some gateway rebellion that will lead to armed conflict, it is simply a symbolic way of expressing anger or disappointment.
Some people like to think that the American flag is some holy object, deserving of greater respect than our leaders or our laws, and certainly more important than even our Constitution. I had a professor in college who, not long after the September attacks asked our class how many people had American flags in their windows or on their cars. It was roughly 80-90 percent of the class. When he asked how many of us had voted in the Presidential election, it was four of us. Four out of 40. Clearly the 10 percent of us who weren't flag waving were too busy actually participating in the Democracy to participate in such shallow displays. If anything, I think it's more disrespectful to paste a photocopy of the flag in the window of your SUV. It's more tacky and insulting to print it on your t-shirt or as a design on your underwear. It's shallow and ironic to buy up cheap flags at Wal-Mart, made in China. If the flag is deserving of such protection as a Constitutional Amendment, then perhaps we should devote more time to protecting the things it stands for in our minds.
I think it's more damaging to the integrity of our nation and our flag to ban its desecration. The flag is a symbol. It is the physical expression of an idea or an institution. Are we saying that this expression should be protected, but that any counter expression should not? Are we saying that the good things about our country should be said loudly and proudly, but the negative things should be hidden and kept silent under punishment of law?
I think burning the flag sends the wrong message, but it is not my right nor the right of anyone else to tell people what message they want to send. If someone wants to express themselves this way, so be it. Make laws to ensure that it is done safely, or with precaution, but to make an Amendment banning any form of free expression certainly sends the wrong message, not only to us but to the world. When we are desperately trying to convince the world that we are great lovers of freedom and liberty, this is not the message we should be sending.
On a side note, if the Senate should get so far as to pass this, which I certainly hope they won't, then I think it should be amended to protect the flag from being defiled by hypocrites and cowards. In order to buy a flag, you should be required to take a test on the Constitution. You should only be allowed to buy flags made in America. You should be able to prove that, if you are over 18, that you voted in the last election, Presidential or otherwise, unless you were in the hospital or in the midst of battle. The right to own or display a flag should not be permitted for people who commit corporate crime or lie to the American people. The right to wave the flag should be kept from people who care only about the symbol and nothing about the ideas for which it stand. And, it should be kept from anyone who supports a war with a country that they can't point to on a globe.
This is another thing that I just don't understand. At least when people are opposed to gay marriage they have some sort of moral or religious reason to back it up; in this case I don't think "You shall not burn your own flag" fell anywhere near the Ten Commandments. Burning the American flag, or desecrating it, are forms of free expression, which is a foundation for, if not what our country stands for, than at least for the ideals we pretend to stand for. Do I think it's a bit misguided? Yes, if only because it's too easy a target and represents too many different things to serve as a proper protest in most cases. It represents our government in it's present form, it represents our history, it represents ideals that we strive for, and unless you are ready to protest all of those various things, all it does is make a mess of your argument and distract from whatever valid points you have. Also, it's incendiary (pun intended). Some people get irrationally upset over the burning of a flag, as though you had dug up a veteran and then burned the corpse. Perhaps it's because violent protests overseas often involve the burning of U.S. flags. So, really, if you're trying to make a legitimate argument, burning the flag immediately shuts a lot of people's ears and makes them equate you with a terrorist, so it's not an effective means of creating change. That's why I'm opposed to it. Otherwise, I think people should be free to do whatever they want with the flag.
Why? Well, because freedom of expression is a cornerstone of any democracy, and specifically ours, and ensuring that this right is protected is the only way to ensure that truth will be protected and change will be allowed to come when it is needed. Also, the desecration of a flag has no consequence other than a little smoke, so unless this is meant to protect the environment, it's foolish. Burning a flag is not some gateway rebellion that will lead to armed conflict, it is simply a symbolic way of expressing anger or disappointment.
Some people like to think that the American flag is some holy object, deserving of greater respect than our leaders or our laws, and certainly more important than even our Constitution. I had a professor in college who, not long after the September attacks asked our class how many people had American flags in their windows or on their cars. It was roughly 80-90 percent of the class. When he asked how many of us had voted in the Presidential election, it was four of us. Four out of 40. Clearly the 10 percent of us who weren't flag waving were too busy actually participating in the Democracy to participate in such shallow displays. If anything, I think it's more disrespectful to paste a photocopy of the flag in the window of your SUV. It's more tacky and insulting to print it on your t-shirt or as a design on your underwear. It's shallow and ironic to buy up cheap flags at Wal-Mart, made in China. If the flag is deserving of such protection as a Constitutional Amendment, then perhaps we should devote more time to protecting the things it stands for in our minds.
I think it's more damaging to the integrity of our nation and our flag to ban its desecration. The flag is a symbol. It is the physical expression of an idea or an institution. Are we saying that this expression should be protected, but that any counter expression should not? Are we saying that the good things about our country should be said loudly and proudly, but the negative things should be hidden and kept silent under punishment of law?
I think burning the flag sends the wrong message, but it is not my right nor the right of anyone else to tell people what message they want to send. If someone wants to express themselves this way, so be it. Make laws to ensure that it is done safely, or with precaution, but to make an Amendment banning any form of free expression certainly sends the wrong message, not only to us but to the world. When we are desperately trying to convince the world that we are great lovers of freedom and liberty, this is not the message we should be sending.
On a side note, if the Senate should get so far as to pass this, which I certainly hope they won't, then I think it should be amended to protect the flag from being defiled by hypocrites and cowards. In order to buy a flag, you should be required to take a test on the Constitution. You should only be allowed to buy flags made in America. You should be able to prove that, if you are over 18, that you voted in the last election, Presidential or otherwise, unless you were in the hospital or in the midst of battle. The right to own or display a flag should not be permitted for people who commit corporate crime or lie to the American people. The right to wave the flag should be kept from people who care only about the symbol and nothing about the ideas for which it stand. And, it should be kept from anyone who supports a war with a country that they can't point to on a globe.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Some People Just Don't Get It
When I was in France, I discovered the burden and the gift of a language barrier. Well, that's not entirely true. I first discovered it in high school. See, I attended a good and competitive middle school (well, comparatively). When I got to high school, I discovered that not everyone had that same benefit. For instance, since I had been taking typing and computer courses all through middle school, I was already proficient by the time I entered typing my Freshman year (it was required) and I was shocked to find that most of my classmates seemed to have barely even seen a computer before (keep in mind this was way back in 1995). Within a month, I completed every assignment the teacher had planned for the semester, plus a few she made up. After that, I spent the rest of the time goofing off and helping my friends cheat on their assignments. So, to get back to my point, I also found that I had a better vocabulary than most of these kids, so I had to dumb myself down to be understood most of the time. It was frustrating.
Anyway...France. With my limited knowledge of French, plus my insecurities about sounding like an idiot, it was burdensome to try and communicate for fear of not being understood (without resorting to English, which most of them spoke anyway). On the plus side, I found how great it is to be able to walk around and not have to listen to people's inane chatter all of the time because I couldn't understand them anyway. It was quite a shock when I came home and could no longer block out the ramblings of random people as they perused the aisles of Barnes and Noble.
Unfortunately, living in a heavily populated city, it is completely inescapable, especially when your iPod freezes up on you and you've finished the only book you were carrying (always bring a back-up). It's hard to say which is worse, the people who feel the need to express every thought they have as loudly as possible no matter how mundane ("This subway is so cold" "I had chicken for lunch, I like chicken.") or the people who try to hold lofty conversations about subjects they know nothing about.
The thing that really bugs me is that people just don't understand the world around them. Either they are not paying attention, ignoring the news, and stopping in the middle of the sidewalk, or they are willfully ignoring the world around them, choosing not to think about why it is that things are the way they are. I don't just mean on a global scale, I mean on a personal one. Do you know how much of the day I spend analyzing my own actions and the actions of others? Its a lot, and yet they can just stumble through life without a care, knocking into you and getting in your way, ruining your new suit and making a mess. Ignorance is bliss, but the greater bliss is in being completely self-centered but thinking otherwise. But anyway, let's talk about me.
Anyway...France. With my limited knowledge of French, plus my insecurities about sounding like an idiot, it was burdensome to try and communicate for fear of not being understood (without resorting to English, which most of them spoke anyway). On the plus side, I found how great it is to be able to walk around and not have to listen to people's inane chatter all of the time because I couldn't understand them anyway. It was quite a shock when I came home and could no longer block out the ramblings of random people as they perused the aisles of Barnes and Noble.
Unfortunately, living in a heavily populated city, it is completely inescapable, especially when your iPod freezes up on you and you've finished the only book you were carrying (always bring a back-up). It's hard to say which is worse, the people who feel the need to express every thought they have as loudly as possible no matter how mundane ("This subway is so cold" "I had chicken for lunch, I like chicken.") or the people who try to hold lofty conversations about subjects they know nothing about.
The thing that really bugs me is that people just don't understand the world around them. Either they are not paying attention, ignoring the news, and stopping in the middle of the sidewalk, or they are willfully ignoring the world around them, choosing not to think about why it is that things are the way they are. I don't just mean on a global scale, I mean on a personal one. Do you know how much of the day I spend analyzing my own actions and the actions of others? Its a lot, and yet they can just stumble through life without a care, knocking into you and getting in your way, ruining your new suit and making a mess. Ignorance is bliss, but the greater bliss is in being completely self-centered but thinking otherwise. But anyway, let's talk about me.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Football Makes More Sense in Europe
That was one thing that always bothered me when I was a kid, the fact that what we here in the colonies refer to as football seems oddly named since the ball spends most of the time in someone's hand, and spends almost no time making contact with someone's foot. We just have to be difficult, though, don't we. It would be one thing if we invented the damn sport and gave it a different name than everyone else, but we didn't, and not only that, we don't seem to like it very much.
So why am I talking about Soccer? The obvious reason is that it's the World Cup once again, and my TiVo is eagerly awaiting me to finish watching the Iran v. Mexico game and to start watching the U.S. v. Czech Republic game. Its also a good time to reflect on the fact that, much like with our foreign policy, everyone else in the world seems to agree on this one thing, and we couldn't care less. I'm also amused by the fact that something exists that could allow us to say "The United States was defeated by the Czech Republic".
The thing I've always liked about Soccer is that it takes a great deal of skill and control. Running while also trying to manipulate a ball with you feet, and also defending that ball...that's nigh-on impossible for most people. Plus, play is more or less continuous. One of the most irritating things about American Football (aside from the fans and the music) is the fact that much of the game involves throwing the ball a few feet, then someone running with the ball a few more feet, and then that person being tackled followed by a minute or two of discussion and people dusting themselves off. I can understand the American love of aggression, but is it all that interesting when our desire to see someone assaulted by 5 other juggernauts should outweigh our desire to watch a sporting event where each play lasts more than a few seconds?
Maybe it's just me, though. I find most sports fun to play but boring to watch. One exception might be golf, which I find to be neither fun to play nor fun to watch. Pitch and putt, that's fun. Walking for miles on end to hit a tiny ball at a tiny cup tends to be less than thrilling, and it's hard to be excited by a sport which is a favored pasttime of the elderly. Even still, I can't entirely fault someone for playing it if it holds their interest, but watching it on television? You spend minutes just watching the person prepare to hit to ball. Minutes of a person just standing there, hunched over with their club, while no one talks or moves and nothing happens. Then they swing and we can neither see the ball nor where it went and as far as we're concerned they could have just planted a ball somewhere else and told us that's where it landed. It's mind-numbing.
What if we combined golf and soccer, or to be more precise, what if we played soccer on a regulation golf course? Two teams of 11 players kicking their way through sand traps and water hazards perhaps with an occassional golf cart driving through and taking out a player. Now that's a sport Americans can get behind.
So why am I talking about Soccer? The obvious reason is that it's the World Cup once again, and my TiVo is eagerly awaiting me to finish watching the Iran v. Mexico game and to start watching the U.S. v. Czech Republic game. Its also a good time to reflect on the fact that, much like with our foreign policy, everyone else in the world seems to agree on this one thing, and we couldn't care less. I'm also amused by the fact that something exists that could allow us to say "The United States was defeated by the Czech Republic".
The thing I've always liked about Soccer is that it takes a great deal of skill and control. Running while also trying to manipulate a ball with you feet, and also defending that ball...that's nigh-on impossible for most people. Plus, play is more or less continuous. One of the most irritating things about American Football (aside from the fans and the music) is the fact that much of the game involves throwing the ball a few feet, then someone running with the ball a few more feet, and then that person being tackled followed by a minute or two of discussion and people dusting themselves off. I can understand the American love of aggression, but is it all that interesting when our desire to see someone assaulted by 5 other juggernauts should outweigh our desire to watch a sporting event where each play lasts more than a few seconds?
Maybe it's just me, though. I find most sports fun to play but boring to watch. One exception might be golf, which I find to be neither fun to play nor fun to watch. Pitch and putt, that's fun. Walking for miles on end to hit a tiny ball at a tiny cup tends to be less than thrilling, and it's hard to be excited by a sport which is a favored pasttime of the elderly. Even still, I can't entirely fault someone for playing it if it holds their interest, but watching it on television? You spend minutes just watching the person prepare to hit to ball. Minutes of a person just standing there, hunched over with their club, while no one talks or moves and nothing happens. Then they swing and we can neither see the ball nor where it went and as far as we're concerned they could have just planted a ball somewhere else and told us that's where it landed. It's mind-numbing.
What if we combined golf and soccer, or to be more precise, what if we played soccer on a regulation golf course? Two teams of 11 players kicking their way through sand traps and water hazards perhaps with an occassional golf cart driving through and taking out a player. Now that's a sport Americans can get behind.
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Do These Effectively Hide My Thunder?
Whenever you step on a subway in New York City, you stand a good chance of being treated to a performance of some kind. In some cases it comes in the form of a well-rehearsed pan-handle. Often, it's the racist man with the suitcase full of bootleg CDs, or the tag-team duo of movie pirates selling DVDs of whatever terrible horror movie came out this week. The best though, and by best I mean 'the worst' just like 'bad' means 'cool', is the subway musician. My roommate once got to see a man perform acrobatic feats on the subway, and I would have much rather enjoyed that. No, this is the worst kind.
I should step back here and mention that I love subway performers, meaning those who perform in the stations and not on the trains. Its a nice cultural quirk to be able to step off a train at Times Square and see a talented musician performing a rythmic masterpiece on nothing more than a few overturned buckets, or wait for a train in the village with a violinist as your companion. It adds flavor to the day, but also has the added bonus of being avoidable if you don't particularly want to listen to it. You can walk to the other end of the tracks and continue your conversation or listen to your iPod. On the actual train, you are trapped. It's so confined and loud that not only can you not hear whatever music you were enjoying previously in your headphones, but you can't hear anything else over the noise. You can't concentrate enough to read, and in fact, your eardrums stand a good chance of rupturing. You can't leave the car because, in the confined space, they are blocking your way.
Sometimes its merely a few guys singing acapella, or one person with a boombox. What do I get? I get the two guys who step onto the train with 3 large bongo drums and two folding chairs so that they may block anyone from being able to get on or off the train, and they set up shop right next to me, as if to say "Fuck you, Chris, you're not reading another word, and don't even pretend to be able to hear Bruce Springsteen's new album (side note: it is excellent) They proceed to play an 8 minute percussive piece interspersed with occasional breaks during which they would yell out some phrase or object, seemingly at random. At first you thought they had some running theme as they shouted "Africa" and "James Brown", though by the time they got to "Pillow Cases" and "Backgammon" all semblance of poetry was lost. They were then distraught as they moved up and down the length of the train with hands outstretched that no one wanted to give them money for this performance which no one either wanted or enjoyed. They claimed we weren't "showing the love".
I believe in the impromptu performance. I believe in working your way up from nothing. I believe in struggling to survive on talent alone. I do not believe in expecting to get paid for forcing yourself upon people. First, it's rude to assume people want to listen to you, and to interupt their day and their ability to easily get on or off a subway in order to force them to listen. It's also rude to ask them for money when, especially in an urban area, they understand the idea of street performers; if they liked you and had money to spare, they would give it to you without being asked. Then, to act indignant that they don't pay you, as though they don't have bills to pay and mouths to feed with what little their real jobs pay them. Some of us work for a living, and even then don't have a lot of money to spare. If I stood up on the subway tomorrow and started singing "The Lusty Month of May", no one would pay me, and I'd be lucky to make it off the train alive, and I'd be foolish to expect otherwise.
It also reminds me of a time when I was in Philadelphia and my tire blew out. Pulled to the side of the road in a less than reputable neighborhood, I jacked up my car and changed the tire. A drunk on a nearby stoop called out to ask if I needed help (and no, I'm not just assuming he was drunk...he was holding the bottle and could be smelled from a block away). I politely said no thanks, and continuted my task. Once I was nearly complete, all but one lug nut put back on the new tire, he comes over and, despite my protestation, takes the tire iron out of my hand, turns the nut literally one final time, and then asks if I can give him some money for the help...help that was unnecessary, unwanted, and in fact not help. What happened to the American work ethic of hard work for decent pay and what happened to the idea of being a good samaritan? As a progressive, I believe in helping the least among us, and supporting people in their efforts to improve their situations. These people are not helping.
I should step back here and mention that I love subway performers, meaning those who perform in the stations and not on the trains. Its a nice cultural quirk to be able to step off a train at Times Square and see a talented musician performing a rythmic masterpiece on nothing more than a few overturned buckets, or wait for a train in the village with a violinist as your companion. It adds flavor to the day, but also has the added bonus of being avoidable if you don't particularly want to listen to it. You can walk to the other end of the tracks and continue your conversation or listen to your iPod. On the actual train, you are trapped. It's so confined and loud that not only can you not hear whatever music you were enjoying previously in your headphones, but you can't hear anything else over the noise. You can't concentrate enough to read, and in fact, your eardrums stand a good chance of rupturing. You can't leave the car because, in the confined space, they are blocking your way.
Sometimes its merely a few guys singing acapella, or one person with a boombox. What do I get? I get the two guys who step onto the train with 3 large bongo drums and two folding chairs so that they may block anyone from being able to get on or off the train, and they set up shop right next to me, as if to say "Fuck you, Chris, you're not reading another word, and don't even pretend to be able to hear Bruce Springsteen's new album (side note: it is excellent) They proceed to play an 8 minute percussive piece interspersed with occasional breaks during which they would yell out some phrase or object, seemingly at random. At first you thought they had some running theme as they shouted "Africa" and "James Brown", though by the time they got to "Pillow Cases" and "Backgammon" all semblance of poetry was lost. They were then distraught as they moved up and down the length of the train with hands outstretched that no one wanted to give them money for this performance which no one either wanted or enjoyed. They claimed we weren't "showing the love".
I believe in the impromptu performance. I believe in working your way up from nothing. I believe in struggling to survive on talent alone. I do not believe in expecting to get paid for forcing yourself upon people. First, it's rude to assume people want to listen to you, and to interupt their day and their ability to easily get on or off a subway in order to force them to listen. It's also rude to ask them for money when, especially in an urban area, they understand the idea of street performers; if they liked you and had money to spare, they would give it to you without being asked. Then, to act indignant that they don't pay you, as though they don't have bills to pay and mouths to feed with what little their real jobs pay them. Some of us work for a living, and even then don't have a lot of money to spare. If I stood up on the subway tomorrow and started singing "The Lusty Month of May", no one would pay me, and I'd be lucky to make it off the train alive, and I'd be foolish to expect otherwise.
It also reminds me of a time when I was in Philadelphia and my tire blew out. Pulled to the side of the road in a less than reputable neighborhood, I jacked up my car and changed the tire. A drunk on a nearby stoop called out to ask if I needed help (and no, I'm not just assuming he was drunk...he was holding the bottle and could be smelled from a block away). I politely said no thanks, and continuted my task. Once I was nearly complete, all but one lug nut put back on the new tire, he comes over and, despite my protestation, takes the tire iron out of my hand, turns the nut literally one final time, and then asks if I can give him some money for the help...help that was unnecessary, unwanted, and in fact not help. What happened to the American work ethic of hard work for decent pay and what happened to the idea of being a good samaritan? As a progressive, I believe in helping the least among us, and supporting people in their efforts to improve their situations. These people are not helping.
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Theocracy...FOR KIDS!
I can't tell if this blog is merely preaching to the choir or screaming at statues. I doubt I'm going to be changing your mind with this is my point, though I feel compelled just to give my two cents, or whatever the equivalent is with inflation.
Given that we are only a few months from another election (and yes, midterm elections are just as important as Presidential ones) it's time for us to roll out our favorite nonsense issues to distract people from the real ones which are not exciting or sexy enough. I should mention that this is not simply a strategy of the Republicans, though they certainly are adept at it. Just like in the last Presidential election when poor people were tricked into voting for the man who cuts taxes for the rich because otherwise a war veteran would welcome terrorists into the country with open arms and homosexuals would use their fairy wands to turn all of your children into slutty, drug-fueled transexuals.
So what's this year's issue? Much like the Da Vinci code, the Marriage Defense Amendment is now out in paperback and climbing the charts again. Before I get in to the actual argument, let me say this...why is this necessary? Much like Christmas, the political extreme is saying Marriage is under attack, because of gay marriage, and the only thing to stop it is an amendment to the Constitution. Given that gay marriage is banned in nearly the entire country, and that the states that do ban it won't recognize it even if you gays are married where it is legal, how is this a national issue? If a few gays being allowed to marry in one state is an attack, then it's like attacking China by starting a fire in a garbage can at one of their ports. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton no less, already allows every state to ban gay marriage and defy the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, so do we really need an Amendment? That's like saying we need an Amendment against Dinosaur attacks.
Here's the other issue...Amendments tend to protect certain rights so that laws can't be passed to infringe on them; freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to not work on a plantation for no money. Notably, the one Amendment that went so far as to tell us what rights we don't have was the fiasco now known as Prohibition, which was such a mistake that we had to pass a whole other Amendment to repeal it. If you want to pass laws, go nuts, but Constitutional Amendments are reserved for important things.
But they wouldn't want to do that. See, a Constitutional Amendment would never pass because it takes overwhelming support, and its hard to round-up overwhelming support for turning ten percent of the population into second-class citizens, especially when what they do has absolutely no effect on anyone else. A law could possibly squeak by and actually pass which would do two things...it would force Conservative judges, such as those on the Supreme Court, to actually judge the legal merits of gay marriage and conclude that there is no legal merit to a law banning it. Second, it would take away the issue as something that can be wheeled out every two years to distract people and rile an already decided base.
Here's the thing...this is the land of the free, is it not? So why are our laws more restrictive than nearly every other western democracy? We believe in free speech, but not on television during certain hours and on certain channels. We believe in seperation of church and state, unless of course the state tries to make decisions based on public health and safety or the will of the people instead of the Bible. We believe that government shouldn't interfere in our lives, except in the cases of your phone calls, your reproductive rights, and your marriage.
Some people are morally opposed to homosexuality and, you know what, let them be. If you believe that it's a sin, then don't do it and don't be friends with people who are gay (though also make sure you don't talk to people who eat pork or work on the sabbath, which are actually regarded as worse in both The Bible and The Torah) Here's the thing...you can't inflict your morals on others. Laws are meant to protect people from one another. You're free to fire a gun, but not at another person because that endangers them. You're free to say whatever you want, but not incite a riot because that endangers people. Two women wanting to live together and file taxes together endangers no one. It doesn't even effect anyone else. If two men got married tomorrow, would your parents divorce? Would your sister's marriage be invalidated? Would you be barred from ever dating a woman again? No, of course not. It would have no effect on your life or my life whatsoever. If marriage is under threat, it's under threat from celebrities like Britney Spears who get married multiple times and then divorced a few days later, making it just glorified dating. It's under threat from people who marry for money, or people who murder their spouses, or people who get married simply because they knocked someone up and spend the rest of their lives resenting and abusing their spouse and children.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that Republicans are actually pro-promiscuity. They don't want homosexuals to enter into legally binding monogamous relationships. They would prefer that gay people be denied that option, encouraging them not to work through relationship problems that married people would to avoid divorce, but instead to just jump ship when things get rough and then date someone else. Given that neo-cons support abstinence till marriage, what they are saying is that, since gay people can't get married, then they might as well just tap as much booty as they can and not even consider having a serious relationship...because that would be an attack on heterosexuals.
Yes, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. It was also traditionally not between people of different races. It was also traditionally not based on love but on economic interests, class structure, or the arrangements of parents. Things change. We become more free, more reasoned. Opening marriage to homosexuals doesn't open a Pandora's Box to polygamy and beastiality. It simply extends freedom: the same freedom the rest of us have already. Would children be better-raised in a loving home with married parents regardless of their genders, or a house with two parents who don't love each other but live a lie because society prevents them from living as god created them?
Freedom comes to all eventually. In the long run, progress occurs, dictators always fall, and repression always fails. One day, gay people will marry just as us straight people will marry, and not only will it not hurt the institution of marriage, it will improve our society as a whole. Why wait for that day and continue to live in a dark age?
Given that we are only a few months from another election (and yes, midterm elections are just as important as Presidential ones) it's time for us to roll out our favorite nonsense issues to distract people from the real ones which are not exciting or sexy enough. I should mention that this is not simply a strategy of the Republicans, though they certainly are adept at it. Just like in the last Presidential election when poor people were tricked into voting for the man who cuts taxes for the rich because otherwise a war veteran would welcome terrorists into the country with open arms and homosexuals would use their fairy wands to turn all of your children into slutty, drug-fueled transexuals.
So what's this year's issue? Much like the Da Vinci code, the Marriage Defense Amendment is now out in paperback and climbing the charts again. Before I get in to the actual argument, let me say this...why is this necessary? Much like Christmas, the political extreme is saying Marriage is under attack, because of gay marriage, and the only thing to stop it is an amendment to the Constitution. Given that gay marriage is banned in nearly the entire country, and that the states that do ban it won't recognize it even if you gays are married where it is legal, how is this a national issue? If a few gays being allowed to marry in one state is an attack, then it's like attacking China by starting a fire in a garbage can at one of their ports. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton no less, already allows every state to ban gay marriage and defy the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, so do we really need an Amendment? That's like saying we need an Amendment against Dinosaur attacks.
Here's the other issue...Amendments tend to protect certain rights so that laws can't be passed to infringe on them; freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to not work on a plantation for no money. Notably, the one Amendment that went so far as to tell us what rights we don't have was the fiasco now known as Prohibition, which was such a mistake that we had to pass a whole other Amendment to repeal it. If you want to pass laws, go nuts, but Constitutional Amendments are reserved for important things.
But they wouldn't want to do that. See, a Constitutional Amendment would never pass because it takes overwhelming support, and its hard to round-up overwhelming support for turning ten percent of the population into second-class citizens, especially when what they do has absolutely no effect on anyone else. A law could possibly squeak by and actually pass which would do two things...it would force Conservative judges, such as those on the Supreme Court, to actually judge the legal merits of gay marriage and conclude that there is no legal merit to a law banning it. Second, it would take away the issue as something that can be wheeled out every two years to distract people and rile an already decided base.
Here's the thing...this is the land of the free, is it not? So why are our laws more restrictive than nearly every other western democracy? We believe in free speech, but not on television during certain hours and on certain channels. We believe in seperation of church and state, unless of course the state tries to make decisions based on public health and safety or the will of the people instead of the Bible. We believe that government shouldn't interfere in our lives, except in the cases of your phone calls, your reproductive rights, and your marriage.
Some people are morally opposed to homosexuality and, you know what, let them be. If you believe that it's a sin, then don't do it and don't be friends with people who are gay (though also make sure you don't talk to people who eat pork or work on the sabbath, which are actually regarded as worse in both The Bible and The Torah) Here's the thing...you can't inflict your morals on others. Laws are meant to protect people from one another. You're free to fire a gun, but not at another person because that endangers them. You're free to say whatever you want, but not incite a riot because that endangers people. Two women wanting to live together and file taxes together endangers no one. It doesn't even effect anyone else. If two men got married tomorrow, would your parents divorce? Would your sister's marriage be invalidated? Would you be barred from ever dating a woman again? No, of course not. It would have no effect on your life or my life whatsoever. If marriage is under threat, it's under threat from celebrities like Britney Spears who get married multiple times and then divorced a few days later, making it just glorified dating. It's under threat from people who marry for money, or people who murder their spouses, or people who get married simply because they knocked someone up and spend the rest of their lives resenting and abusing their spouse and children.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that Republicans are actually pro-promiscuity. They don't want homosexuals to enter into legally binding monogamous relationships. They would prefer that gay people be denied that option, encouraging them not to work through relationship problems that married people would to avoid divorce, but instead to just jump ship when things get rough and then date someone else. Given that neo-cons support abstinence till marriage, what they are saying is that, since gay people can't get married, then they might as well just tap as much booty as they can and not even consider having a serious relationship...because that would be an attack on heterosexuals.
Yes, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. It was also traditionally not between people of different races. It was also traditionally not based on love but on economic interests, class structure, or the arrangements of parents. Things change. We become more free, more reasoned. Opening marriage to homosexuals doesn't open a Pandora's Box to polygamy and beastiality. It simply extends freedom: the same freedom the rest of us have already. Would children be better-raised in a loving home with married parents regardless of their genders, or a house with two parents who don't love each other but live a lie because society prevents them from living as god created them?
Freedom comes to all eventually. In the long run, progress occurs, dictators always fall, and repression always fails. One day, gay people will marry just as us straight people will marry, and not only will it not hurt the institution of marriage, it will improve our society as a whole. Why wait for that day and continue to live in a dark age?
Monday, June 5, 2006
That Corpse is Just Full of Surprises
A few random thoughts to keep the synapses firing and the eyes focusing. First, a narrative...
This weekend featured both the strangest bachelor party and one of the better weddings I've been to, which is not all that many, though enough to know that its worth the extra money to hire a band if only to avoid the Chicken Dance. My roommate's brother's bachelor party was Friday night and featured...I kid you not...all the orange soda you could drink and XBox games like it was 1999. Sure, some might say that it more closely resembled a 12 year old's birthday party than a final hedonistic hurrah of bachelor boisterism, but those people would of course be right. Still, I enjoyed the experience in much the same way you enjoy seeing that one guy who shows up for casual day wearing a hawaiian shirt and jeans when it is, in fact, not casual day. Oh the sights these eyes have seen. Two days later came the wedding, beginning early in the morning with the groom riding shotgun in my car as we discussed the finer points of Jack Bauer's bad-ass-itude and the gradual decline in quality of McDonald's greasy delights (these topics were the groom's choice, and who is to argue on his wedding day?). Then, in sheer defiance of all traditional ideas of luck, the bride and groom not only saw each other before the wedding, but had all of their wedding photos taken prior to the wedding, while also wearing the wedding bands. The wedding itself was brief, if only because it's hard to combine Italian and Jewish traditions into a single ceremony without a lot of butchering of languages and unintentional racism. The food was good, and I got to hang out in the bridal party VIP room for cocktail hour due to the fact that I was escorting the groom's sister, and then my friends and I became the resident jerks of the wedding, mocking all that we saw. It was a great wedding though, and to Pete and Melanie, I saw Mozol Tov.
That took up more room than I was planning, so I'll keep it to a sentence per topic.
My father should stop attempting to convert me into a neo-conservative ideologue simply because he has given up on reason (which is sad, considering his Princeton education has now gone to waste).
Religious groups should stop protesting things, because all it ever does is increase people's interest in those things and give them free advertising (i.e. Da Vinci Code, Passion of the Christ, South Park, popular music.)
It's racist to assume that all Italian people love the song "That's Amore" and that we enjoy cannolis, even if they are delicious.
Based on the paleness of my skin, my last name seems to now be the only thing representing my Italian heritage while my Irish heritage is taking over like some sort of X-gene, giving me a super ability to drink and burn in daylight.
There is a distinct and important difference between bluegrass & folk music and country music, namely that country music is awful and listening to it makes you wish that we had let the south secede after all.
No one has ever used the phrase "I don't want to bother you" and actually meant it, though at least they had the honesty to acknowledge how intrusive they were being.
Politicians won't stop rolling out the same b.s. legislation just before an election until the voters stop falling for their "keep the gays and mexicans at bay by voting for us" strategy.
And finally, people you went to elementary school with will turn out almost exactly as you expected but look nothing like they used to, thus making it very confusing when you run into them a decade later.
Thank you for bothering to read all of that, because I certainly wouldn't.
This weekend featured both the strangest bachelor party and one of the better weddings I've been to, which is not all that many, though enough to know that its worth the extra money to hire a band if only to avoid the Chicken Dance. My roommate's brother's bachelor party was Friday night and featured...I kid you not...all the orange soda you could drink and XBox games like it was 1999. Sure, some might say that it more closely resembled a 12 year old's birthday party than a final hedonistic hurrah of bachelor boisterism, but those people would of course be right. Still, I enjoyed the experience in much the same way you enjoy seeing that one guy who shows up for casual day wearing a hawaiian shirt and jeans when it is, in fact, not casual day. Oh the sights these eyes have seen. Two days later came the wedding, beginning early in the morning with the groom riding shotgun in my car as we discussed the finer points of Jack Bauer's bad-ass-itude and the gradual decline in quality of McDonald's greasy delights (these topics were the groom's choice, and who is to argue on his wedding day?). Then, in sheer defiance of all traditional ideas of luck, the bride and groom not only saw each other before the wedding, but had all of their wedding photos taken prior to the wedding, while also wearing the wedding bands. The wedding itself was brief, if only because it's hard to combine Italian and Jewish traditions into a single ceremony without a lot of butchering of languages and unintentional racism. The food was good, and I got to hang out in the bridal party VIP room for cocktail hour due to the fact that I was escorting the groom's sister, and then my friends and I became the resident jerks of the wedding, mocking all that we saw. It was a great wedding though, and to Pete and Melanie, I saw Mozol Tov.
That took up more room than I was planning, so I'll keep it to a sentence per topic.
My father should stop attempting to convert me into a neo-conservative ideologue simply because he has given up on reason (which is sad, considering his Princeton education has now gone to waste).
Religious groups should stop protesting things, because all it ever does is increase people's interest in those things and give them free advertising (i.e. Da Vinci Code, Passion of the Christ, South Park, popular music.)
It's racist to assume that all Italian people love the song "That's Amore" and that we enjoy cannolis, even if they are delicious.
Based on the paleness of my skin, my last name seems to now be the only thing representing my Italian heritage while my Irish heritage is taking over like some sort of X-gene, giving me a super ability to drink and burn in daylight.
There is a distinct and important difference between bluegrass & folk music and country music, namely that country music is awful and listening to it makes you wish that we had let the south secede after all.
No one has ever used the phrase "I don't want to bother you" and actually meant it, though at least they had the honesty to acknowledge how intrusive they were being.
Politicians won't stop rolling out the same b.s. legislation just before an election until the voters stop falling for their "keep the gays and mexicans at bay by voting for us" strategy.
And finally, people you went to elementary school with will turn out almost exactly as you expected but look nothing like they used to, thus making it very confusing when you run into them a decade later.
Thank you for bothering to read all of that, because I certainly wouldn't.
Monday, May 29, 2006
I Don't Understand the Question, and I Won't Respond to It
It takes a certain kind of person to slap you in the face, and then tell you that you walked into it. We've all been in that position, of course. How does someone attack you, and then act like it was the other way around? Well, pretty easily it seems.
We're well trained in the art of acting the victim. Its the way that Christians can act like they are persecuted when they are in the majority everywhere in the U.S. Its the way Republicans can act like the underdogs when they control all three branches or federal government. Its also similar to the way in which advocates for "little people" (one of those rare cases where the politically correct language seems more insulting) can celebrate the fact that a child rapist recently received 10 years probation instead of prison because he was, to paraphrase the judge, too short to survive in prison. On a side note, is he acknowledging that our prisons are so screwed up that people are likely to be killed in there and there's nothing we can do to stop it? And, does that also mean that criminals should walk free because we may not necessarily want them to die?
I ponder the victim state as Voyager II approaches the termination shock which it will cross within the year and countless victims of hurricanes and earthquakes pick up the pieces of their lives. There are bigger things to contend with, a vast chasm of things yet to do and to learn, yet we constantly focus on the little things and allow them to overwhelm us with self-doubt, self-hatred, selfish egotism and all the trappings of a people who have long since overcome the challenges of daily survival and now have too much time on their hands.
Honestly, I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for a lot of people, especially when no one takes responsibility for their own actions and expects special treatment from the universe. I'd say its a relief to be apathetic, but since I'm not, the idea of falling into it is distressing. So, sometimes, just sometimes, I have to take a breath, count to ten, turn the other cheek and let the frustration subside, because there's just no convincing some people. Unfortunately, nothing is solved if we don't keep trying.
On a lighter note, ice cream is delicious and is right up there with the printing press and penicillin when it comes to the greatest works of humankind. In fact, find a way to make books out of ice cream with antibiotic properties and I'd say we've got ourselves a nobel prize. A million dollars sure could buy a lot of ice cream.
We're well trained in the art of acting the victim. Its the way that Christians can act like they are persecuted when they are in the majority everywhere in the U.S. Its the way Republicans can act like the underdogs when they control all three branches or federal government. Its also similar to the way in which advocates for "little people" (one of those rare cases where the politically correct language seems more insulting) can celebrate the fact that a child rapist recently received 10 years probation instead of prison because he was, to paraphrase the judge, too short to survive in prison. On a side note, is he acknowledging that our prisons are so screwed up that people are likely to be killed in there and there's nothing we can do to stop it? And, does that also mean that criminals should walk free because we may not necessarily want them to die?
I ponder the victim state as Voyager II approaches the termination shock which it will cross within the year and countless victims of hurricanes and earthquakes pick up the pieces of their lives. There are bigger things to contend with, a vast chasm of things yet to do and to learn, yet we constantly focus on the little things and allow them to overwhelm us with self-doubt, self-hatred, selfish egotism and all the trappings of a people who have long since overcome the challenges of daily survival and now have too much time on their hands.
Honestly, I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for a lot of people, especially when no one takes responsibility for their own actions and expects special treatment from the universe. I'd say its a relief to be apathetic, but since I'm not, the idea of falling into it is distressing. So, sometimes, just sometimes, I have to take a breath, count to ten, turn the other cheek and let the frustration subside, because there's just no convincing some people. Unfortunately, nothing is solved if we don't keep trying.
On a lighter note, ice cream is delicious and is right up there with the printing press and penicillin when it comes to the greatest works of humankind. In fact, find a way to make books out of ice cream with antibiotic properties and I'd say we've got ourselves a nobel prize. A million dollars sure could buy a lot of ice cream.
Thursday, May 4, 2006
David Blaine Needs to Get a Better Hobby
I suppose I'm not the most qualified person to tell anyone how they should spend their free time, but really, is it worth taking the long bus trip from the nursing home to see a jackass in a fishbowl because he just can't seem to get enough attention?
In other news, a recent poll of annoying driver habits, conducted by an insurance company, brought to light the fact that all people are hypocrites. Among the top-ten annoying habits people cited were talking on cell phones and switching lanes without signaling. This is much like when Entertainment Weekly polled people on which annoying habits bothered movie-goers and people listed 'talking during the movie' and 'ringing cell phones'. Yes, these are annoying, but these polls would lead us to believe that only a few people do these things and the rest of us are annoyed. The fact is, nearly everyone is doing it, and though they get annoyed when everyone else is doing it, they either ignore it or think it's justified when they themselves do it. There is a great deal of self-involvement in modern society, and even when people do something kind or charitable, it's still all about them. Don't get me wrong, I love myself. I'm one of my favorite people. I care a great deal about my own happiness. However, when I'm out in the world, I do whatever I can to avoid getting in people's way or bothering the people around me. As far as I am concerned, until one of us acknowledges one another, we should be practically invisible to one another.
For instance, when you're standing on an escalator, don't stand side-by-side with your friends or spread out with your bags blocking the entire thing. Some people don't need to go for a little ride in the middle of their day and actually use the escalator in order to speed up their commute. Let people walk by. It's sad that taking the stairs would actually be faster than an escalator because you're always stuck behind the person who thinks that modern conveniences are amusement park rides and sight-seeing tours.
I also don't quite understand the point of the car alarm. I'm sure when the idea was first brainstormed that it seemed like a great idea. However, this is America, where people tend to turn a blind eye to such things, especially when out of the 400 times you hear a car alarm go off in the course of your year, about .1 percent of those times is it because someone was trying to break into it. The rest of the time it's caused by either the owner trying to get into the car, or someone walking too close to the car, or perhaps a light breeze or the sneeze of a passing squirrel. Especially living in a city, they go off constantly, and their owners are never in a rush to reset them. Why should my sleep/peace/television viewing be disturbed because of someone else's paranoia?
Are these merely the ramblings of a cranky, cantankerous old man who now fears and hates the modern world full of teenagers and rap music? No. These are the daily annoyances of someone who goes out of their way not to be rude or obnoxious. I say 'excuse me' and 'thank you'. I'm polite to waitstaff and retailers. I walk at a brisk pace and watch where I'm going, also watching to make sure the things I'm carrying aren't hitting people. I am a considerate person who finds the greatest frustration in the fact that most other people aren't bothering to even try to be considerate, and then look at me like I'm nuts when I try to walk around them. Everyone loves an anti-hero, the loose cannon who plays by his own rules. But no one likes the obnoxious jerk who doesn't realize they're obnoxious. If you're going to be a jerk, be proud. Otherwise, please, get out of my way.
In other news, a recent poll of annoying driver habits, conducted by an insurance company, brought to light the fact that all people are hypocrites. Among the top-ten annoying habits people cited were talking on cell phones and switching lanes without signaling. This is much like when Entertainment Weekly polled people on which annoying habits bothered movie-goers and people listed 'talking during the movie' and 'ringing cell phones'. Yes, these are annoying, but these polls would lead us to believe that only a few people do these things and the rest of us are annoyed. The fact is, nearly everyone is doing it, and though they get annoyed when everyone else is doing it, they either ignore it or think it's justified when they themselves do it. There is a great deal of self-involvement in modern society, and even when people do something kind or charitable, it's still all about them. Don't get me wrong, I love myself. I'm one of my favorite people. I care a great deal about my own happiness. However, when I'm out in the world, I do whatever I can to avoid getting in people's way or bothering the people around me. As far as I am concerned, until one of us acknowledges one another, we should be practically invisible to one another.
For instance, when you're standing on an escalator, don't stand side-by-side with your friends or spread out with your bags blocking the entire thing. Some people don't need to go for a little ride in the middle of their day and actually use the escalator in order to speed up their commute. Let people walk by. It's sad that taking the stairs would actually be faster than an escalator because you're always stuck behind the person who thinks that modern conveniences are amusement park rides and sight-seeing tours.
I also don't quite understand the point of the car alarm. I'm sure when the idea was first brainstormed that it seemed like a great idea. However, this is America, where people tend to turn a blind eye to such things, especially when out of the 400 times you hear a car alarm go off in the course of your year, about .1 percent of those times is it because someone was trying to break into it. The rest of the time it's caused by either the owner trying to get into the car, or someone walking too close to the car, or perhaps a light breeze or the sneeze of a passing squirrel. Especially living in a city, they go off constantly, and their owners are never in a rush to reset them. Why should my sleep/peace/television viewing be disturbed because of someone else's paranoia?
Are these merely the ramblings of a cranky, cantankerous old man who now fears and hates the modern world full of teenagers and rap music? No. These are the daily annoyances of someone who goes out of their way not to be rude or obnoxious. I say 'excuse me' and 'thank you'. I'm polite to waitstaff and retailers. I walk at a brisk pace and watch where I'm going, also watching to make sure the things I'm carrying aren't hitting people. I am a considerate person who finds the greatest frustration in the fact that most other people aren't bothering to even try to be considerate, and then look at me like I'm nuts when I try to walk around them. Everyone loves an anti-hero, the loose cannon who plays by his own rules. But no one likes the obnoxious jerk who doesn't realize they're obnoxious. If you're going to be a jerk, be proud. Otherwise, please, get out of my way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
