Posts
Speech is Free...but not free from consequences.
12 years ago
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Relying On Police: Trust versus Faith
trust (noun): firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something
faith (noun): strong belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
"Sure, you liberals all hate cops until you need one, and then you call them up expecting their help!"
In the spirit of full disclosure--and this will really shock people who know me--I am what most people would call a liberal (though I'd prefer to call myself a "progressive"). This means that I disagree with many, but not all, "conservative" viewpoints. I've been part of many online debates/ discussions/arguments during which I let emotion rule me, and said things that were as divisive and ultimately useless as my conservative counterparts did.
But divisiveness is not going to help anyone addressing the hot-button issue of police overreach. Instead, I'd like to explain why I, as an American--not a progressive American, but an American--grow increasingly concerned each time I hear about a policeman killing a civilian and getting away with it.
We know criminals break the law. That's the whole point of criminals. They don't respect the law, they don't follow the law, they don't care about the law. On the opposite end, we have police, who vow to protect and serve.
This brings me back to the two definitions I started with above: trust, and faith.
We rely on the police not because we have faith in them, but because we trust them. Trust is based on things you can see and experience: their reliability, their truth, their strength, their ability.
When a bad cop--let me repeat that, a BAD cop--breaks the law, and is allowed to walk away unpunished, our trust in the police erodes. When another bad cop breaks the law and is allowed to walk away unpunished, our trust erodes some more. And the next time, it erodes some more...
Each time a police officer is allowed to commit a criminal act with impunity, the reliability, strength, truth, and ability of the police is shaken. Soon we can no longer trust that the police will protect us. Instead, we must have faith that they will...and as we all know, faith is belief in something that you can have no proof of.
Note that I am not judging all police. I am sure the vast majority of police officers are decent people. But surely anyone can see that when bad police flout the law, kill civilians and get away with it--protected by district attorneys who fail to get indictments even when the entire incident is caught on video (Daniel Pantaleo/Eric Garner), or when they admit to having witnesses make false testimony before the grand jury (Darren Wilson/Mike Brown)--your trust will be shaken.
Conservative or liberal, moderate or progressive...that's not hard to understand. Is it?
Friday, June 28, 2013
"Open Rebellion Against God's Law"
Following the Supreme Court's historic decision this week striking down DOMA, openly gay PA state Representative Brian Sims rose Wednesday on the PA House floor to deliver some remarks, but he was not allowed to speak---nor were two of his Democratic colleagues who rose to support him---because of a procedural block by GOP Representative Daryl Metcalfe. Metcalf's explanation?
"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," Metcalfe told WHYY of Philadelphia.
"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," Metcalfe told WHYY of Philadelphia.
That was very nice of Rep. Metcalf to save Rep. Sims from waging open rebellion against God's law, wasn't it? And without even hearing a single word of Rep. Sims' remarks? I'm very concerned, though, about the possibility that Rep. Metcalf himself might accidentally wage open rebellion against God's law, so I emailed him (dmetcalf@pahousegop.com, incidentally). Here is what I wrote:
Rep. Metcalfe:
Your
objections which silenced Democratic Representative Brian Sims from
speaking about DOMA were based on your opinion that he was in "open
rebellion against God's law".
I
assume you are a Christian? In that case, here are a few examples of
God's law you might want to familiarize yourself with, lest you
accidentally wage open rebellion against God's law yourself.
On practicing your religion in public so that others will witness your righteousness, Jesus said in Matthew 6:1, "Be
careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be
seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in
heaven."
On having love and empathy for those who are different from yourself, he said in John 13:34, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
And
on speaking out against what you perceive as another's sins, when you
are yourself, being human, necessarily sinful, in Matthew 7:5 Jesus
said, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Additionally,
in raising your personal religion as an objection to Rep. Sims
comments, and in stating that "There's no free speech on the floor", you
seem to be in open rebellion against a law of the United States of
America, which you have vowed to protect as a member of the Pennsylvania
legislature, which is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States of America. This Amendment prohibits the United States
from establishing a state religion, which means that your personal
religion does not rule the land. It also means that Rep. Sims does, in
fact, enjoy the right to free speech. It reads:
Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I
hope that these examples will help you avoid accidentally finding
yourself in open rebellion against the laws of God or the United States
of America.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Flood
Here is the text of Rep. Metcalf's auto-reply:
Thank you for your email.
I personally receive and read the communications that are sent to this address.
I appreciate the time that you have taken to contact me.
If your message expresses your view on legislation or a specific policy, please be assured that your input will be considered.
You will be contacted
by one of my staff if you have sent a constituent service request or
have shared a concern that requires further action by my office.
Serving the 12th District,
Daryl Metcalfe
State Representative
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Well...I certainly hope he personally reads my communication before he accidentally wages open rebellion against God!
Friday, December 9, 2011
Rick Perry's War On America
If you're living under a rock, then maybe you haven't seen Texas Governor Rick Perry's 'hail Mary' play for conservative voters, entitled "Strong".
Strolling through what appears to be a wooded park, wearing a suede jacket that has been ironically identified as a ringer for Heath Ledger's costume in Brokeback Mountain, Perry tells us:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian. But you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion, and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong...it can make her strong again. I'm Rick Perry, and I approve this message.
Perry's video became instantly controversial, and it's easy to see why. It sounds homophobic (can we coin a new word for bigots like Perry? I propose homomisic, "gay hating"). It's ridiculous...who is stopping kids from celebrating Christmas? And it ties Obama to yet another atrocity he isn't committing, a "war on religion", and conveniently ties liberals to this fanciful war in one snappy sentence.
Perry's claims are alternately loathsome and absurd, but there's a more subtle message here that every American should be wary of. It's a popular theme with many conservative political candidates based on a fallacy of their own invention. That fallacy is the idea that the United States of America has a single religious heritage which has been somehow attacked, destroyed, or subjugated during Barack Obama's Presidency.
America does not now have, nor has it ever had, a single religion. Any schoolchild can tell you that many of America's first European settlers were fleeing religious persecution and settled here to worship as they pleased, but their own faiths were in no way compatible. They were Pilgrim Fathers (Brownist English Dissenters), Puritans (English Protestants), Quakers, Mennonites, Dunkers, Schwenkfelders, Moravians, Roman Catholics, Jews, and Anglicans.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', ensuring not only that Americans will always be free to practice the religion of their choice, but that the United States itself does not and will not endorse any particular religion. Article Six provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".
The forty-four Presidents of the United States represent no less than 12 different religious affiliations, the third most common being "none" (after Episcopalian and Presbyterian). Notable Presidents who had no specific religious affiliation include Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Jefferson and Ben Franklin are considered by many to have been more properly Deists than Christians. Deism became prominent during the Age of Enlightenment among Christians who believed in God, but could not accept supernatural miracles, the infallibility of scripture, or the Trinity.
The phrase "In God We Trust" has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864, but it was not adopted as the official U.S. motto until 1956, a full 169 years after the Constitution was written. The country's previous unofficial motto was the wholly secular E pluribus unum, "Out of many, one". The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892, but was not officially adopted as the country's pledge until 1942...and the phrase under God was not added until 1954, just 57 years ago.
In recent surveys 83% of Americans claimed to belong to a religious denomination, 60-75% of them being Christian. Between 4 and 5.5% of Americans are non-Christian...and another 15% of adult Americans claim to have no religious belief, or no affiliation, at all. And despite this seemingly high level of religiosity, in a 2008 poll only 9% of American adults said religion was the most important thing in their lives, compared to "family" at 45%, and "money" and "career" at 17%.
In 2011, the National Council of Churches of Christ published the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, which includes data on religious bodies reporting 60,000 or more members. In the U.S., no less than 73 different religious bodies were represented. President Obama is himself a Christian, and was a dedicated member of the United Church of Christ for more than 20 years until the media's focus on Reverend Jeremiah Wright's controversial statements led to his leaving it.
In short, America has no single religion or religious heritage to attack. In order to accuse Obama, or liberals, or atheists, or what have you, of attacking America's "faith", it is necessary for Governor Perry to wax poetic about an idyllic, fading America that has never existed outside of his imagination.
What exactly is this vague America Perry is nostalgic for? And why does he claim Barack Obama is at war with it? Republicans of every stripe loathed Bill Clinton, but none claimed he was at war with faith or religion.
I propose that the religiously unified America Rick Perry reminisces about was the America in which white male Christians had a stranglehold on our political power, our media, and our public dialogue. This cheerful America was firmly in place in the early 1950's, until African-Americans began to throw off the yoke of second-class citizenship they had worn since the Emancipation Proclamation. Still, white Christian men were safely ensconced in the White House until 2008, when Barack Obama took the oath of office. Obama, to my knowledge, is also the only President whose religion has been openly questioned (including accusations that he is secretly Muslim), and whose birth certificate's authenticity has been repeatedly challenged, in a public dialogue led exclusively by conservative and Republican politicians and media pundits. Coincidence?
The widening reach and influence of social media platforms such as Facebook won't make Rick Perry any happier. No one religion, political party, or philosophical outlook can control the voices of 800 million people interacting globally every day. No significant percentage of 800 million people will agree that homosexuals should not be serving in the U.S. military, or that Barack Obama is waging war on faith, or that Christian fundamentalism is the appropriate mission of the United States or its presidents.
If America can be said to have a heritage, it can be stated quite simply, and, in words primarily drafted by (Deist) President Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, it is this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.
In the 235 years since those words were written, the citizens of the United States have been admirably, messily, and gloriously striving to make the promise of those words a reality. In 2011 a particular segment of Americans, gays, have achieved an equality never previously enjoyed, with 6 states and the District of Columbia legalizing gay marriage, and President Obama repealing the Clinton-era "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which prevented gays from serving openly in our military. This makes gays a prominent target of conservative religious politicians such as Perry, who are always looking for a new enemy to replace the ones which are no longer socially acceptable scapegoats: blacks, women, or what have you.
Rick Perry's already weak political star should fade fast in the wake of "Strong", but as it does, Americans must not only continue to reject Perry's portrait of an America where those who don't look, think, and pray like him are the enemy: we must reject this mythical America wherever it rears its ugly, divisive head. To paraphrase his now-infamous words, democracy is what made America strong, and it can make America strong again. Not Rick Perry's democracy, but our democracy...yours, mine, gays', straights', Christians', atheists', and everyones in between.
Strolling through what appears to be a wooded park, wearing a suede jacket that has been ironically identified as a ringer for Heath Ledger's costume in Brokeback Mountain, Perry tells us:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian. But you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion, and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong...it can make her strong again. I'm Rick Perry, and I approve this message.
Perry's video became instantly controversial, and it's easy to see why. It sounds homophobic (can we coin a new word for bigots like Perry? I propose homomisic, "gay hating"). It's ridiculous...who is stopping kids from celebrating Christmas? And it ties Obama to yet another atrocity he isn't committing, a "war on religion", and conveniently ties liberals to this fanciful war in one snappy sentence.
Perry's claims are alternately loathsome and absurd, but there's a more subtle message here that every American should be wary of. It's a popular theme with many conservative political candidates based on a fallacy of their own invention. That fallacy is the idea that the United States of America has a single religious heritage which has been somehow attacked, destroyed, or subjugated during Barack Obama's Presidency.
America does not now have, nor has it ever had, a single religion. Any schoolchild can tell you that many of America's first European settlers were fleeing religious persecution and settled here to worship as they pleased, but their own faiths were in no way compatible. They were Pilgrim Fathers (Brownist English Dissenters), Puritans (English Protestants), Quakers, Mennonites, Dunkers, Schwenkfelders, Moravians, Roman Catholics, Jews, and Anglicans.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', ensuring not only that Americans will always be free to practice the religion of their choice, but that the United States itself does not and will not endorse any particular religion. Article Six provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".
The forty-four Presidents of the United States represent no less than 12 different religious affiliations, the third most common being "none" (after Episcopalian and Presbyterian). Notable Presidents who had no specific religious affiliation include Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Jefferson and Ben Franklin are considered by many to have been more properly Deists than Christians. Deism became prominent during the Age of Enlightenment among Christians who believed in God, but could not accept supernatural miracles, the infallibility of scripture, or the Trinity.
The phrase "In God We Trust" has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864, but it was not adopted as the official U.S. motto until 1956, a full 169 years after the Constitution was written. The country's previous unofficial motto was the wholly secular E pluribus unum, "Out of many, one". The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892, but was not officially adopted as the country's pledge until 1942...and the phrase under God was not added until 1954, just 57 years ago.
In recent surveys 83% of Americans claimed to belong to a religious denomination, 60-75% of them being Christian. Between 4 and 5.5% of Americans are non-Christian...and another 15% of adult Americans claim to have no religious belief, or no affiliation, at all. And despite this seemingly high level of religiosity, in a 2008 poll only 9% of American adults said religion was the most important thing in their lives, compared to "family" at 45%, and "money" and "career" at 17%.
In 2011, the National Council of Churches of Christ published the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, which includes data on religious bodies reporting 60,000 or more members. In the U.S., no less than 73 different religious bodies were represented. President Obama is himself a Christian, and was a dedicated member of the United Church of Christ for more than 20 years until the media's focus on Reverend Jeremiah Wright's controversial statements led to his leaving it.
In short, America has no single religion or religious heritage to attack. In order to accuse Obama, or liberals, or atheists, or what have you, of attacking America's "faith", it is necessary for Governor Perry to wax poetic about an idyllic, fading America that has never existed outside of his imagination.
What exactly is this vague America Perry is nostalgic for? And why does he claim Barack Obama is at war with it? Republicans of every stripe loathed Bill Clinton, but none claimed he was at war with faith or religion.
I propose that the religiously unified America Rick Perry reminisces about was the America in which white male Christians had a stranglehold on our political power, our media, and our public dialogue. This cheerful America was firmly in place in the early 1950's, until African-Americans began to throw off the yoke of second-class citizenship they had worn since the Emancipation Proclamation. Still, white Christian men were safely ensconced in the White House until 2008, when Barack Obama took the oath of office. Obama, to my knowledge, is also the only President whose religion has been openly questioned (including accusations that he is secretly Muslim), and whose birth certificate's authenticity has been repeatedly challenged, in a public dialogue led exclusively by conservative and Republican politicians and media pundits. Coincidence?
The widening reach and influence of social media platforms such as Facebook won't make Rick Perry any happier. No one religion, political party, or philosophical outlook can control the voices of 800 million people interacting globally every day. No significant percentage of 800 million people will agree that homosexuals should not be serving in the U.S. military, or that Barack Obama is waging war on faith, or that Christian fundamentalism is the appropriate mission of the United States or its presidents.
If America can be said to have a heritage, it can be stated quite simply, and, in words primarily drafted by (Deist) President Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, it is this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.
In the 235 years since those words were written, the citizens of the United States have been admirably, messily, and gloriously striving to make the promise of those words a reality. In 2011 a particular segment of Americans, gays, have achieved an equality never previously enjoyed, with 6 states and the District of Columbia legalizing gay marriage, and President Obama repealing the Clinton-era "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which prevented gays from serving openly in our military. This makes gays a prominent target of conservative religious politicians such as Perry, who are always looking for a new enemy to replace the ones which are no longer socially acceptable scapegoats: blacks, women, or what have you.
Rick Perry's already weak political star should fade fast in the wake of "Strong", but as it does, Americans must not only continue to reject Perry's portrait of an America where those who don't look, think, and pray like him are the enemy: we must reject this mythical America wherever it rears its ugly, divisive head. To paraphrase his now-infamous words, democracy is what made America strong, and it can make America strong again. Not Rick Perry's democracy, but our democracy...yours, mine, gays', straights', Christians', atheists', and everyones in between.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Today's Uplifting Facebook Meme: Screw Haiti!
You've seen all of the various memes spread like wildfire through facebook stati? You know, like, all the ladies' bra colors and which historical figure you're most like? Interesting, harmless, momentarily distracting. Have you seen this really lovely one?:
America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this!!
Wow. America's in bad shape, huh? We're the only country out of the world's 190-or-s0 countries with homeless people, hungry children, unmedicated elderly, and untreated mental illness! Gee...
Now, you see, statements like these are exactly why Americans are so often loathed by our fellow world citizens. I'm not saying we don't have problems here---and I'm not a big fan of letting them grow progressively worse while we spend all our time and money trying to meddle (and help) everyone else in the world---but our problems are relatively paltry. Don't sit in front of your computer facebooking thinking that you're worse off than the Haitians. While we all start drawing up our grocery lists so we can stuff our faces during the Superbowl, there are people all around the world who would give their left foot to have 1% of what we do.
America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this!!
Wow. America's in bad shape, huh? We're the only country out of the world's 190-or-s0 countries with homeless people, hungry children, unmedicated elderly, and untreated mental illness! Gee...
Now, you see, statements like these are exactly why Americans are so often loathed by our fellow world citizens. I'm not saying we don't have problems here---and I'm not a big fan of letting them grow progressively worse while we spend all our time and money trying to meddle (and help) everyone else in the world---but our problems are relatively paltry. Don't sit in front of your computer facebooking thinking that you're worse off than the Haitians. While we all start drawing up our grocery lists so we can stuff our faces during the Superbowl, there are people all around the world who would give their left foot to have 1% of what we do.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Why Don't You Grow Up?
When I got out of work today some folks were stumping for Republican Senatorial candidate Scott Brown, who's running against Democrat Martha Coakley for the seat that belonged to the late Ted Kennedy.
Most of them simply carried "Scott Brown for Senate" signs, but one guy had a handmade sign that read, "OBAMA YOU CAN'T SAVE MARTHA".
Hey mister...at this point in history a Senate seat is a serious thing. Whatever your positions are, there are a lot of major issues on the burner. How about candidates just campaigning on their policies instead of mocking their opponents? How about those candidates' supporters acting a little less juvenile? Didn't you make fun of enough kids when you were in elementary school? Didn't get it out of your system yet? Why don't you just grow up already?
Most of them simply carried "Scott Brown for Senate" signs, but one guy had a handmade sign that read, "OBAMA YOU CAN'T SAVE MARTHA".
Hey mister...at this point in history a Senate seat is a serious thing. Whatever your positions are, there are a lot of major issues on the burner. How about candidates just campaigning on their policies instead of mocking their opponents? How about those candidates' supporters acting a little less juvenile? Didn't you make fun of enough kids when you were in elementary school? Didn't get it out of your system yet? Why don't you just grow up already?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
How Long Do We Blame Bush For the War?
My short answer: not forever, but I'm not letting him off the hook just yet.
The White House blasted former Veep Dick Cheney for claiming that President Barack Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.
"He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war," Cheney said in a statement. "He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."
Obama knows we're at war. He's made public statements about the war. But of course that's not the issue, and Cheney knows it. He's playing to the right wing as usual, hoping to distract people from the fact---unavoidable---that he and his President started this war, and had no idea how to win it. Sadly, this bait-and-switch actually works. Witness the following comment on CNN.com's article about Cheney's comments:
to Gary in Portsmouth who said: "I just hope the rest of America get's it. I am glad we don't have a President with a fast food mentality. I love intelligent well thought out decisions. There safe and reduces the possibilities of undue, unnecessary harm."
The White House blasted former Veep Dick Cheney for claiming that President Barack Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.
"He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war," Cheney said in a statement. "He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."
Obama knows we're at war. He's made public statements about the war. But of course that's not the issue, and Cheney knows it. He's playing to the right wing as usual, hoping to distract people from the fact---unavoidable---that he and his President started this war, and had no idea how to win it. Sadly, this bait-and-switch actually works. Witness the following comment on CNN.com's article about Cheney's comments:
to Gary in Portsmouth who said: "I just hope the rest of America get's it. I am glad we don't have a President with a fast food mentality. I love intelligent well thought out decisions. There safe and reduces the possibilities of undue, unnecessary harm."
Well, I doubt the families of the 114 American's who died in Afghanistan during the 93 days it took for Obama to announce his "well thought out decision" see it the way you and your liberal friends do - and then add the additional American's who will also die over there in the extra months it will take to add the troops requested because of that delay.
For those of us with family members fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama's "dithering" was extremely stressful.
Actually, 117 Americans died serving in Afghanistan while Obama considered McChrystal's request for more troops. And 634 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan during Bush and Cheney's tenure, along with 4228 in Iraq, for a total of 4862, while Bush and Cheney did---what? Did they ever deign to show us what their strategy actually was? Explain what milestones they were trying to reach? Describe what their oft-discussed "winning" would actually look like?
No. Because "winning" in Iraq and Afghanistan was never the Bush administration's aim. Their aim was to democratize the Mideast so they could start making good old-fashioned American money there. These aims go back to the rarely-discussed Project For a New American Century (google it---but prepare to be disturbed), at least.
As long as the authors of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are walking this earth, they'll be playing the same old Neocon bait-and-switch...at the same time casually trivializing the lives of the very American services members they so often claim to champion.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
American Idol Voters Get It Right: Anything Else Is Impossible
On Wednesday night, American Idol "dark horse" contestant Kris Allen seemed to come from out of nowhere to steal the crown from judges' darling Adam Lambert, and on Thursday a lot of people are asking questions. How did this happen? Is the show rigged? Did conservative groups reportedly rallying to vote for Kris---or against Adam---color the result? And why can't a gay singer win American Idol?
I called Kris Allen as the winner when they were at the top nine---the week he first covered "Ain't No Sunshine"---and his startlingly original cover of Donna Summer's "She Works Hard For the Money" during the top seven disco week only solidified my pick. It was a gut reaction based on one thing: I liked him best. I liked his acoustic guitar work. I liked his voice. I liked his arrangements. I liked his humbleness.
But none of these are the reason Kris won, or at least not the only reason. Kris won because winning American Idol (like so many reality show contests) comes down to numbers. Where did those numbers come from? Did extreme conservatives come out in droves for Kris? There's no way to know. But there's one thing we do know: if you have a favorite you vote for, and your favorite is eliminated, you have to pick a new favorite if you want to continue voting. It's the ultimate runoff election, this season culminating in "nearly" 100 million votes on Tuesday night, and the runoff went to Kris.
To be more particular, in my mind there are three major factors to who wins American Idol.
Factor #1: Who gets which eliminated contestants' votes? This becomes more pertinent as we draw closer to the end, so let's just consider the final four: Allison Iraheta, Danny Gokey, Kris Allen, and Adam Lambert, and pretend there were only 100 votes available.
Allison was routinely in the bottom three, and Danny never was until his elimination, so let's assume Allison had the smallest share of 100 votes, and Danny the highest. Let's give Danny 40 votes, Allison 10. Give Adam 30 votes (assuming voters generally preferred him over Kris, though we don't know that's the case) and Kris 20.
When Allison was eliminated, who did her fans start to vote for? Let's say it was Adam, just for yuks. Give Adam those 10 votes during the top three. That makes it Danny 40, Adam 40, Kris 20. Now Danny is eliminated. Anyone want to go out on a limb and say Danny's fans started voting for Adam? No? Okay, then during the finale it would be Adam 40, Kris 60.
And this disregards the nine previous weeks. When Matt Giraud was eliminated, who did his fans start voting for? Michael Sarver? Lil Rounds? Anoop Desai? Scott MacIntyre?
Factor #2: Who best handles the (usually) insipid and trite original song? This year we suffered through a composition co-written by new American Idol judge Kara DioGuardi. This song alone is a reason to fire Kara for next season, as if there weren't already plenty of reasons (and did it really take three people to write that crap?).
So who handled it best? Like everything Idol, it's subjective, and I've already admitted I'm a Kris fan...but I also know bad notes when I hear them, and Kris suffered through several during his rendition of "No Boundaries". But it was also one of Adam's weakest performances, sounding shrill and unintelligible. Also, who's more believable singing a (supposedly) inspiring, I'll lift you up-style song, Kris or Adam? I'm gonna go with Kris. And Kara all but apologized to Kris for the fact that the song was in a key too high for him.
Factor #3: People who tune in to see the finale who don't watch any other episodes. What would they have seen? Here's what I'm guessing. They saw Adam Lambert, who they've no doubt heard is the runaway favorite, doing his usual: a little screeching, some tongue protrusions, wearing eyeliner, doing one very solid number ("Mad World"), one hot mess ("A Change Is Gonna Come") and slipping on the original tune. And they saw Kris Allen, a kid-next-door, playing acoustic guitar and piano, nailing one song ("Ain't No Sunshine"), performing admirably if unremarkably on another ("What's Goin' On"), and struggling with the new song. And I'm guessing they might also have wondered if Kris (or Adam) was the best the show could come up with this year. And America being America...they most likely went for Kris.
But the "big" question remains: why can't a gay contestant win American Idol? (This assumes that Adam is gay, which he's never said...okay, never mind. He's gay.) A better question would be this: why didn't this particular gay contestant win American Idol?
Was he too flamboyant? Was it the eyeliner? The androgynous hair? The theatricality? I don't know, but I can tell you this...of the many friends I have who are Idol watchers and theatre people, a majority of them actually did not prefer Adam, perhaps for the same reason I didn't. Everything he did seemed so rehearsed, so calculated, so much a character or a mask, that I never really felt like I was seeing Adam himself. When he sang "Tracks of My Tears" I thought to myself: if he was wearing clown makeup, a la Pagliacci, it wouldn't be out of place. But if I want to watch acting, I'll watch a movie or tune in to a t.v. show or take in a play. When I watch a singer, I want to see the singer's real personality. Kris Allen delivered that every week, without fail, and with great consistency he also delivered more original arrangements than anyone else except, arguably, Adam.
There's also this: I can't hear an Adam Lambert album in my head. I don't know what kind of song he'd record, I don't know who he is or what he wants to say. On the other hand, I do hear a Kris Allen album. And I, apparently like many other Idol fans this season, am looking forward to buying one.
I called Kris Allen as the winner when they were at the top nine---the week he first covered "Ain't No Sunshine"---and his startlingly original cover of Donna Summer's "She Works Hard For the Money" during the top seven disco week only solidified my pick. It was a gut reaction based on one thing: I liked him best. I liked his acoustic guitar work. I liked his voice. I liked his arrangements. I liked his humbleness.
But none of these are the reason Kris won, or at least not the only reason. Kris won because winning American Idol (like so many reality show contests) comes down to numbers. Where did those numbers come from? Did extreme conservatives come out in droves for Kris? There's no way to know. But there's one thing we do know: if you have a favorite you vote for, and your favorite is eliminated, you have to pick a new favorite if you want to continue voting. It's the ultimate runoff election, this season culminating in "nearly" 100 million votes on Tuesday night, and the runoff went to Kris.
To be more particular, in my mind there are three major factors to who wins American Idol.
Factor #1: Who gets which eliminated contestants' votes? This becomes more pertinent as we draw closer to the end, so let's just consider the final four: Allison Iraheta, Danny Gokey, Kris Allen, and Adam Lambert, and pretend there were only 100 votes available.
Allison was routinely in the bottom three, and Danny never was until his elimination, so let's assume Allison had the smallest share of 100 votes, and Danny the highest. Let's give Danny 40 votes, Allison 10. Give Adam 30 votes (assuming voters generally preferred him over Kris, though we don't know that's the case) and Kris 20.
When Allison was eliminated, who did her fans start to vote for? Let's say it was Adam, just for yuks. Give Adam those 10 votes during the top three. That makes it Danny 40, Adam 40, Kris 20. Now Danny is eliminated. Anyone want to go out on a limb and say Danny's fans started voting for Adam? No? Okay, then during the finale it would be Adam 40, Kris 60.
And this disregards the nine previous weeks. When Matt Giraud was eliminated, who did his fans start voting for? Michael Sarver? Lil Rounds? Anoop Desai? Scott MacIntyre?
Factor #2: Who best handles the (usually) insipid and trite original song? This year we suffered through a composition co-written by new American Idol judge Kara DioGuardi. This song alone is a reason to fire Kara for next season, as if there weren't already plenty of reasons (and did it really take three people to write that crap?).
So who handled it best? Like everything Idol, it's subjective, and I've already admitted I'm a Kris fan...but I also know bad notes when I hear them, and Kris suffered through several during his rendition of "No Boundaries". But it was also one of Adam's weakest performances, sounding shrill and unintelligible. Also, who's more believable singing a (supposedly) inspiring, I'll lift you up-style song, Kris or Adam? I'm gonna go with Kris. And Kara all but apologized to Kris for the fact that the song was in a key too high for him.
Factor #3: People who tune in to see the finale who don't watch any other episodes. What would they have seen? Here's what I'm guessing. They saw Adam Lambert, who they've no doubt heard is the runaway favorite, doing his usual: a little screeching, some tongue protrusions, wearing eyeliner, doing one very solid number ("Mad World"), one hot mess ("A Change Is Gonna Come") and slipping on the original tune. And they saw Kris Allen, a kid-next-door, playing acoustic guitar and piano, nailing one song ("Ain't No Sunshine"), performing admirably if unremarkably on another ("What's Goin' On"), and struggling with the new song. And I'm guessing they might also have wondered if Kris (or Adam) was the best the show could come up with this year. And America being America...they most likely went for Kris.
But the "big" question remains: why can't a gay contestant win American Idol? (This assumes that Adam is gay, which he's never said...okay, never mind. He's gay.) A better question would be this: why didn't this particular gay contestant win American Idol?
Was he too flamboyant? Was it the eyeliner? The androgynous hair? The theatricality? I don't know, but I can tell you this...of the many friends I have who are Idol watchers and theatre people, a majority of them actually did not prefer Adam, perhaps for the same reason I didn't. Everything he did seemed so rehearsed, so calculated, so much a character or a mask, that I never really felt like I was seeing Adam himself. When he sang "Tracks of My Tears" I thought to myself: if he was wearing clown makeup, a la Pagliacci, it wouldn't be out of place. But if I want to watch acting, I'll watch a movie or tune in to a t.v. show or take in a play. When I watch a singer, I want to see the singer's real personality. Kris Allen delivered that every week, without fail, and with great consistency he also delivered more original arrangements than anyone else except, arguably, Adam.
There's also this: I can't hear an Adam Lambert album in my head. I don't know what kind of song he'd record, I don't know who he is or what he wants to say. On the other hand, I do hear a Kris Allen album. And I, apparently like many other Idol fans this season, am looking forward to buying one.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
LA Times Writer Wants American Idol to Address Societal Issues
Ann Powers of the LA Times just wrote an intriguing and very curious story called "American Idol needs to open the closet door". Here's a link:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-american-idol10-2009mar10,0,5548765.story
Miss Powers thinks American Idol is in a unique position due to its incredibly large, voluntarily captive audience. It is her position that the show ought to use its twice-weekly forum to help break down society's barriers regarding homosexuality, race, and ethnicity.
American Idol, she says, being a "family show", has danced for too long around its gay contestants' sexuality. It has not done enough to advance the cause of minority contestants. Further, in focusing on predominantly white "soul" singers, it continues the pattern of white performers stealing black musical styles, and edging those black performers out.
These positions can all be refuted, to an extent. Only someone living, to pardon the expression, in a closet, would not have recognized season seven's Danny Noriega or this season's Nathaniel Marshall as gay. We don't need an interview package in which they declare their love for another man to get that. And did anyone see any evidence that Danny or Nathaniel had been asked to tune down the flamboyance so as not to tip off anybody in Middle America?
Without statistics in front of me I'm willing to agree that the majority of American Idol contestants, at least in the live-broadcast stage of the show, have been white. What I also don't have, and I don't imagine Miss Powers does either, is a statistic as to what percentage of overall applicants, at the open-city calls, are minorities. Nor do I expect they're asked to fill out a questionnaire detailing their complex racial background.
Regarding the transition of American popular music from its beginnings to the early 21st century, and the appropriation of black musical styles by white performers, I must seriously question the notion that the countless white kids who audition---no older than 28 and as young as 16---have a solid grasp on the issue, or an agenda to usurp anyone's racial and musical heritage. I bet the minority contestants don't either. In fact, I'd say that since the current contestants have only been in our world since 1981 at the earliest, they may not see musical styles as immutable and homogeneous, but liquid, dynamic, and "racially blind". And isn't that how it should be?
But ultimately I have to question the notion that American Idol can, or should be expected to, address complex societal issues like homophobia and racial bias. American Idol is escapist television, entertainment. It is, as Simon Cowell likes to say, a "singing contest". It's not an "out gay singer contest", or a "black singer contest", or an "only-sing-in-a-genre-consistent-with-your-racial-background contest". And television producers aren't in the business of altering society's mores. They're in the business of getting ratings and making money.
Miss Powers, consciously or not, recognizes that at this point in human civilization, only the major media and those who control it have the power to address the issues she's concerned about (or any societal issue) on a grand scale. And, perhaps rightfully, she decries the media's disinterest in doing something worthwhile with its significant power. But what exactly does it say about us as a society that we ask our commercial, revenue-driven popular entertainment to act as a public moral arbiter? Exactly how much personal responsibility should we, as individual citizens, families, and communities, cede to a necessarily amoral industry, namely the pop culture machine?
It's easy to imagine the future as Miss Powers (and I) would like it to be: a society in which every person, gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, what have you, can live as they wish, without fear of harm or recrimination. And in that future, I expect television---if it still exists as we know it---will accurately reflect that society. Until then, television, and American Idol, can only reflect the society we live in: in which homosexuality for the large part is politely tolerated, in which minorities are overshadowed by whites, and in which whites have so often, and rarely with apology, appropriated the intellectual and artistic property, not to mention the actual property, of other cultures.
For now, we have to be hopeful that some of American Idol's voters, perhaps even a majority of them, are not watching through the filter of some presumed sexual and racial bias. Perhaps they don't think of the contestants as gay singers, or white singers, or black singers, but just singers. Perhaps they simply want entertainment, and in the end, to help choose a winner whose music would fit in nicely on their iPod.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-american-idol10-2009mar10,0,5548765.story
Miss Powers thinks American Idol is in a unique position due to its incredibly large, voluntarily captive audience. It is her position that the show ought to use its twice-weekly forum to help break down society's barriers regarding homosexuality, race, and ethnicity.
American Idol, she says, being a "family show", has danced for too long around its gay contestants' sexuality. It has not done enough to advance the cause of minority contestants. Further, in focusing on predominantly white "soul" singers, it continues the pattern of white performers stealing black musical styles, and edging those black performers out.
These positions can all be refuted, to an extent. Only someone living, to pardon the expression, in a closet, would not have recognized season seven's Danny Noriega or this season's Nathaniel Marshall as gay. We don't need an interview package in which they declare their love for another man to get that. And did anyone see any evidence that Danny or Nathaniel had been asked to tune down the flamboyance so as not to tip off anybody in Middle America?
Without statistics in front of me I'm willing to agree that the majority of American Idol contestants, at least in the live-broadcast stage of the show, have been white. What I also don't have, and I don't imagine Miss Powers does either, is a statistic as to what percentage of overall applicants, at the open-city calls, are minorities. Nor do I expect they're asked to fill out a questionnaire detailing their complex racial background.
Regarding the transition of American popular music from its beginnings to the early 21st century, and the appropriation of black musical styles by white performers, I must seriously question the notion that the countless white kids who audition---no older than 28 and as young as 16---have a solid grasp on the issue, or an agenda to usurp anyone's racial and musical heritage. I bet the minority contestants don't either. In fact, I'd say that since the current contestants have only been in our world since 1981 at the earliest, they may not see musical styles as immutable and homogeneous, but liquid, dynamic, and "racially blind". And isn't that how it should be?
But ultimately I have to question the notion that American Idol can, or should be expected to, address complex societal issues like homophobia and racial bias. American Idol is escapist television, entertainment. It is, as Simon Cowell likes to say, a "singing contest". It's not an "out gay singer contest", or a "black singer contest", or an "only-sing-in-a-genre-consistent-with-your-racial-background contest". And television producers aren't in the business of altering society's mores. They're in the business of getting ratings and making money.
Miss Powers, consciously or not, recognizes that at this point in human civilization, only the major media and those who control it have the power to address the issues she's concerned about (or any societal issue) on a grand scale. And, perhaps rightfully, she decries the media's disinterest in doing something worthwhile with its significant power. But what exactly does it say about us as a society that we ask our commercial, revenue-driven popular entertainment to act as a public moral arbiter? Exactly how much personal responsibility should we, as individual citizens, families, and communities, cede to a necessarily amoral industry, namely the pop culture machine?
It's easy to imagine the future as Miss Powers (and I) would like it to be: a society in which every person, gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, what have you, can live as they wish, without fear of harm or recrimination. And in that future, I expect television---if it still exists as we know it---will accurately reflect that society. Until then, television, and American Idol, can only reflect the society we live in: in which homosexuality for the large part is politely tolerated, in which minorities are overshadowed by whites, and in which whites have so often, and rarely with apology, appropriated the intellectual and artistic property, not to mention the actual property, of other cultures.
For now, we have to be hopeful that some of American Idol's voters, perhaps even a majority of them, are not watching through the filter of some presumed sexual and racial bias. Perhaps they don't think of the contestants as gay singers, or white singers, or black singers, but just singers. Perhaps they simply want entertainment, and in the end, to help choose a winner whose music would fit in nicely on their iPod.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Where Is the Pope's Moral Leadership?
We have a problem here in the twenty-first century. We have no real leaders (although I have a lot of faith in Barack Obama).
Apparently even the Catholic pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, the moral leader of the world's estimated 1.1 billion Catholics, cannot be expected to do the right thing. In a decree issued this Saturday, the Pope reversed the excommunication of British Bishop Richard Williamson and three other clerics who count themselves as members of the Society of Saint Pius X.
Bishop Williamson and his associates are notable for their denial that millions of Jews died in Nazi gas chambers. A Swedish TV interview with Richardson aired just a few days earlier confirmed that the 68-year-old Bishop Williamson stands by his views.
"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against -- is hugely against -- 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," he said.
"I believe there were no gas chambers," he added, and, "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers."
"Shameful" was Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee's reaction. By "welcoming an open holocaust denier into the Catholic Church without any recantation on his part, the Vatican has made a mockery of John Paul II's moving and impressive repudiation and condemnation of anti-Semitism," he said.
In a striking impression of typical DC double-speak, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi called Williamson's remarks "absolutely indefensible" but that the Vatican's decision was designed to normalize relations with the Society of Saint Pius X, and has nothing to do with the bishop's personal views.
The Pope is supposed to be highest moral authority of God on earth for all Catholic people. By tacitly endorsing a Holocaust denier, he doesn't simply risk alienating more liberal Catholics, Jews, and anyone with a sense of moral decency: anything short of a direct repudiation of bigots like Williamson can only be seen as a tacit encouragement for that bigotry. By reversing Williamson's excommunication, Pope Benedict XVI passes on an opportunity to step firmly into the 21st century: an era where those who live to oppress and eradicate others must finally be, themselves, eradicated.
Apparently even the Catholic pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, the moral leader of the world's estimated 1.1 billion Catholics, cannot be expected to do the right thing. In a decree issued this Saturday, the Pope reversed the excommunication of British Bishop Richard Williamson and three other clerics who count themselves as members of the Society of Saint Pius X.
Bishop Williamson and his associates are notable for their denial that millions of Jews died in Nazi gas chambers. A Swedish TV interview with Richardson aired just a few days earlier confirmed that the 68-year-old Bishop Williamson stands by his views.
"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against -- is hugely against -- 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," he said.
"I believe there were no gas chambers," he added, and, "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers."
"Shameful" was Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee's reaction. By "welcoming an open holocaust denier into the Catholic Church without any recantation on his part, the Vatican has made a mockery of John Paul II's moving and impressive repudiation and condemnation of anti-Semitism," he said.
In a striking impression of typical DC double-speak, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi called Williamson's remarks "absolutely indefensible" but that the Vatican's decision was designed to normalize relations with the Society of Saint Pius X, and has nothing to do with the bishop's personal views.
The Pope is supposed to be highest moral authority of God on earth for all Catholic people. By tacitly endorsing a Holocaust denier, he doesn't simply risk alienating more liberal Catholics, Jews, and anyone with a sense of moral decency: anything short of a direct repudiation of bigots like Williamson can only be seen as a tacit encouragement for that bigotry. By reversing Williamson's excommunication, Pope Benedict XVI passes on an opportunity to step firmly into the 21st century: an era where those who live to oppress and eradicate others must finally be, themselves, eradicated.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Atheist Groups Continue to Protest Too Much
"At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
That's the text of a sign created by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, erected near a nativity display in the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington. The sign was ripped down by an unknown person or persons and later found in a ditch by someone who turned the sign over to radio station KMPS-FM. Freedom From Religion founder Annie Laurie Gaylor pointed out the irony of a vandal breaking one of the famous Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not steal", in swiping her sign. Atheists always have a pithy line at the ready.
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again. I'm pretty close to atheist...I guess I'll just say I don't know what's out there but I doubt it's an all-knowing being that created us all and waits to sit in judgement on high. And I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in the FFRF's sign, not the least of which is the idea that religion can harden hearts---see, for example, the recent passing of Prop 8 in California---and enslave minds.
But the efforts of the FFRF and other atheist groups that have been erecting billboards coinciding with Christmas (amongst them Washington, DC's American Humanist Association) continue to rub me the wrong way. My biggest problem is, they can't seem to own up to their own ad campaigns.
The AHA's Fred Edwords claimed that their organization had budget money left over in December and that's when they decided to use it, and it had nothing to do with Christmas. However, their ad depicts a shrugging black guy in dreads wearing an out sized Santa Claus suit, under the slogan "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." Nothing to do with Christmas, huh, Fred?
Dan Barker, a co-founded of the Olympia group, had this to say: "When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message. On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."
Dan has some pretty curious ideas about the nativity. Having been raised Catholic, I'm pretty sure that's not what the nativity is about. It's about a light being born in a dark time. It's about hope. From Dan's position, that hope is based on a lie. That's his opinion, which is his right to have and express. But it doesn't change the meaning of the Christian nativity into some ominous threat of submission and violence.
But Dan evades the question. Exactly why does he feel the need to put up something critical of people's holidays? Why not create an ad campaign that literally has nothing to do with Christmas? Every time these atheist groups attack one of the most important Christian holidays, it just makes them look petty and cruel. If their object is to attract all of the unpleasant and superior atheists, they might do okay. They just shouldn't expect me to sign up with them anytime soon.
That's the text of a sign created by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, erected near a nativity display in the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington. The sign was ripped down by an unknown person or persons and later found in a ditch by someone who turned the sign over to radio station KMPS-FM. Freedom From Religion founder Annie Laurie Gaylor pointed out the irony of a vandal breaking one of the famous Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not steal", in swiping her sign. Atheists always have a pithy line at the ready.
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again. I'm pretty close to atheist...I guess I'll just say I don't know what's out there but I doubt it's an all-knowing being that created us all and waits to sit in judgement on high. And I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in the FFRF's sign, not the least of which is the idea that religion can harden hearts---see, for example, the recent passing of Prop 8 in California---and enslave minds.
But the efforts of the FFRF and other atheist groups that have been erecting billboards coinciding with Christmas (amongst them Washington, DC's American Humanist Association) continue to rub me the wrong way. My biggest problem is, they can't seem to own up to their own ad campaigns.
The AHA's Fred Edwords claimed that their organization had budget money left over in December and that's when they decided to use it, and it had nothing to do with Christmas. However, their ad depicts a shrugging black guy in dreads wearing an out sized Santa Claus suit, under the slogan "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." Nothing to do with Christmas, huh, Fred?
Dan Barker, a co-founded of the Olympia group, had this to say: "When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message. On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."
Dan has some pretty curious ideas about the nativity. Having been raised Catholic, I'm pretty sure that's not what the nativity is about. It's about a light being born in a dark time. It's about hope. From Dan's position, that hope is based on a lie. That's his opinion, which is his right to have and express. But it doesn't change the meaning of the Christian nativity into some ominous threat of submission and violence.
But Dan evades the question. Exactly why does he feel the need to put up something critical of people's holidays? Why not create an ad campaign that literally has nothing to do with Christmas? Every time these atheist groups attack one of the most important Christian holidays, it just makes them look petty and cruel. If their object is to attract all of the unpleasant and superior atheists, they might do okay. They just shouldn't expect me to sign up with them anytime soon.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is a Great Shopping Deal Worth More Than a Human Life?
I'm disturbed beyond belief to even be writing this blog entry. Having enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving with my family, I go online to catch up on what's been happening and read one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
At a Long Island Wal-Mart this morning at 5 a.m., the huge crowd gathered for the company's early-bird deals swarmed into the store when the doors were unlocked, trampling a 34-year-old temporary Wal-Mart employee to death.
Nassau County police Lt. Michael Fleming said that security officers who had been monitoring the crowd---which began forming as early as 9 p.m. Thanksgiving night---were concerned about its size and the organization of the queue. He also said that criminal charges have not been ruled out, but bringing them might be almost impossible due both to the difficulty of identifying individuals on the store security video, and to the fact that many of those in front were pushed by others from behind.
"I don't know what it's worth to Wal-Mart or to any of these stores that run these sales events," Fleming said, "but it has become common knowledge that large crowds do gather on the Friday after Thanksgiving in response to these sales and in an effort to do their holiday shopping at the cheapest prices. I think it is incumbent upon the commercial establishments to recognize that this has the potential to occur at any store."
Listen, I'm not big Wal-Mart fan, but I'm not going to hold Wal-Mart morally responsible. Individuals in a crowd have to take it upon themselves not to become a mob. I know that none of those responsible for this as-yet unidentified man's death are reading this blog, so I'm going to send out a mental curse on all of them. On Christmas morning when they're unwrapping their new cell phones and digital video cams and big-screen TV's, may they all be haunted by the vision of that man's blood on their hands.
At a Long Island Wal-Mart this morning at 5 a.m., the huge crowd gathered for the company's early-bird deals swarmed into the store when the doors were unlocked, trampling a 34-year-old temporary Wal-Mart employee to death.
Nassau County police Lt. Michael Fleming said that security officers who had been monitoring the crowd---which began forming as early as 9 p.m. Thanksgiving night---were concerned about its size and the organization of the queue. He also said that criminal charges have not been ruled out, but bringing them might be almost impossible due both to the difficulty of identifying individuals on the store security video, and to the fact that many of those in front were pushed by others from behind.
"I don't know what it's worth to Wal-Mart or to any of these stores that run these sales events," Fleming said, "but it has become common knowledge that large crowds do gather on the Friday after Thanksgiving in response to these sales and in an effort to do their holiday shopping at the cheapest prices. I think it is incumbent upon the commercial establishments to recognize that this has the potential to occur at any store."
Listen, I'm not big Wal-Mart fan, but I'm not going to hold Wal-Mart morally responsible. Individuals in a crowd have to take it upon themselves not to become a mob. I know that none of those responsible for this as-yet unidentified man's death are reading this blog, so I'm going to send out a mental curse on all of them. On Christmas morning when they're unwrapping their new cell phones and digital video cams and big-screen TV's, may they all be haunted by the vision of that man's blood on their hands.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
We'll Idolize Celebrities, But Only On Our Terms
If you've ever made the mistake of tuning into Showbiz Tonight, or clicking to see highlights online, then you've been subjected to A.J. Hammer and his "panel" of apparent showbiz experts analyzing the day's celebrity "news".
Their most recent topic was Brangelina...oh, look what I did, I did showbiz speak. What I meant was, their topic was Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie revealing "too much" about their child rearing tribulations.
On Oprah, when asked how fatherhood's changed him, Brad said, "I'm impervious to poop, snot, urine, I'm ah---vomit" and served up other "precious" gems. TMI or cute? Panel decision: cute! But Angelina's discussion of her breastfeeding trials with a British journalist, including a very innocent reference to the "football hold"? TMI! The panel then goes on to disparage Brad and Angelina for not having a team of people to whisk away the vomit, poop, etc. God forbid Brad and Angelina actually deal with these things for themselves! And how dare Angelina breastfeed? Surely she can afford formula, and a nursemaid to give serve it up?
The celebrity machine has put Brad, Angelina, and countless others up on an absurdly high pedestal, simply because they chose to be actors/singers/what have you. Once up there, being only human, some celebrities are going to embrace celebrityhood, for good or ill. Some, like Angelina and Brad, whose every word and gesture is hungrily consumed, may rightly assume that their fans want to actually hear what they think and do. Conveniently, the celebrity machine that built them up is right there to tear them down for it.
What really got me in this discussion was the all-too-typical and puritanical aversion to discussions of breastfeeding, which human beings have been doing for countless millenia! According to these leeches, Brad Pitt miming eating a puked-up piece of hot dog is actually preferable to Angelina saying "football hold".
When I waste five precious minutes of my life watching this junk, I'm always struck by how pathetic these entertainment "reporters" are. They get up at the crack of dawn, get themselves trussed up in suits and glamorous gowns to stand in front of a camera to blab about Britney's junk and Paris' BFF's and Angelina's boobs and Lindsey's girlfriends. If I spent a few hours trying, I bet I couldn't think of a lower profession. Their mothers must be so proud.
Their most recent topic was Brangelina...oh, look what I did, I did showbiz speak. What I meant was, their topic was Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie revealing "too much" about their child rearing tribulations.
On Oprah, when asked how fatherhood's changed him, Brad said, "I'm impervious to poop, snot, urine, I'm ah---vomit" and served up other "precious" gems. TMI or cute? Panel decision: cute! But Angelina's discussion of her breastfeeding trials with a British journalist, including a very innocent reference to the "football hold"? TMI! The panel then goes on to disparage Brad and Angelina for not having a team of people to whisk away the vomit, poop, etc. God forbid Brad and Angelina actually deal with these things for themselves! And how dare Angelina breastfeed? Surely she can afford formula, and a nursemaid to give serve it up?
The celebrity machine has put Brad, Angelina, and countless others up on an absurdly high pedestal, simply because they chose to be actors/singers/what have you. Once up there, being only human, some celebrities are going to embrace celebrityhood, for good or ill. Some, like Angelina and Brad, whose every word and gesture is hungrily consumed, may rightly assume that their fans want to actually hear what they think and do. Conveniently, the celebrity machine that built them up is right there to tear them down for it.
What really got me in this discussion was the all-too-typical and puritanical aversion to discussions of breastfeeding, which human beings have been doing for countless millenia! According to these leeches, Brad Pitt miming eating a puked-up piece of hot dog is actually preferable to Angelina saying "football hold".
When I waste five precious minutes of my life watching this junk, I'm always struck by how pathetic these entertainment "reporters" are. They get up at the crack of dawn, get themselves trussed up in suits and glamorous gowns to stand in front of a camera to blab about Britney's junk and Paris' BFF's and Angelina's boobs and Lindsey's girlfriends. If I spent a few hours trying, I bet I couldn't think of a lower profession. Their mothers must be so proud.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I'm Confused: Isn't Business About Survival of the Fittest?
As the Federal government continues to consider various bailouts, many segments of the American economy are looking for a piece. In the words of Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), "Somebody heard that we're giving out free money in Washington. They're showing up from all over the place. "
Up for heated debate is whether Washington should bail out Detroit's Big 3 automakers: Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, the latter of which is in the greatest danger of running out of money during the next few months, if not sooner. The ramifications of the American automaking industry failing, almost everyone seems to agree, are enormous: plants and American auto parts makers closing and the attendant unemployment and loss of health coverage, a shortage of parts for vehicles already sold, increased foreign imports, higher prices, lack of great consumer incentives, the list goes on and on.
It almost seems unconscionable not to bail out the Big Three, and yet many experts and politicians, including Mitt Romney, the former Republican Presidential candidate (the one with the economic cred), actually support the alternative, allowing them to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or even fail.
I won't pretend to understand the complexities of the situation. I don't truly understand money, I've never made a lot of money, I'm sure I never will. I wish human beings had never invented money. But there is one thing about the auto bailout that's got me really confused. Isn't business actually supposed to be about the survival of the fittest? Figure out what consumers want---or in some cases, more importantly, what they need---and give it to them, or else fail?
Executives for the Big Three claim they have better cars in the pipeline, such as hybrids, that will help break our ties to foreign oil, and I'm sure they do. But the question is, where was this pipeline when we needed it, when the Big Three were feeding the American fascination with, and addiction to, enormous gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks? The idea that we need to break our "oil addiction" isn't a new one. In 1974 President Richard Nixon said that our country
"should not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." Now, American automakers aren't the only bad guys here, but what significant moves have they really made in the intervening 34 years?
Some argue that weaning ourselves off of foreign oil is not only impossible, but actually not desirable (see http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-seven-myths-of-energy-independence.html or http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce11212006.html). Alright, let's say that's true. That still doesn't leave American automakers off the hook. Forward-thinking engineers have developed incredibly fuel efficient cars. Here's an article on one, created by WV: http://gas2.org/2008/03/12/the-worlds-most-fuel-efficient-car-285-mpg-not-a-hybrid/.
Here's another, created by two engineers in their spare time: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/230-mpg-car/4197588660.
Note again that these two cars use fuel, not electric or hybrid energy. They have been designed to be more fuel efficient, lighter, and more streamlined. What is the Big Three excuse for not having delved into this sort of experimental car-making before it was too late for them to do so?
The obvious answer is that they have been operating with an outmoded business model, a business model that simply cannot cut it in the 21st century. And now, as they face extinction, they ask the Federal government for an enormous bailout, to the tune of $25 billion dollars (of taxpayer money). They believe they can turn their businesses around.
Those who would allow the Big Three to fail believe that their absence would leave a vacuum that would be filled by forward-thinking companies with an innovative, modern business model. And maybe it would. But this leaves the question: who, in business or government, truly has the expertise to make the call? Who is willing to take that risk, a risk we might all pay for dearly?
Update:
Lawmakers called Big Three execs to the carpet for flying expensive private jets to Washington for bailout talks instead of taking more economical commercial flights. "There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) told them. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."
What did the execs have to say about this? They tried to shame lawmakers into thinking they were dwelling on petty matters. "Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," said GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson in a statement.
Plainly Wilkinson, and the Big Three executives, fail to see the hypocrisy of promising more responsible business practices when they can't even economize on flights to DC. Is the difference in cost between a private flight and a commercial one significant compared to the incredible shortfall the Big Three are facing overall? No, of course not. But economizing here would have a been a simple, and easily accomplished, symbol of their good intentions. So far, the signs are not good.
Up for heated debate is whether Washington should bail out Detroit's Big 3 automakers: Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, the latter of which is in the greatest danger of running out of money during the next few months, if not sooner. The ramifications of the American automaking industry failing, almost everyone seems to agree, are enormous: plants and American auto parts makers closing and the attendant unemployment and loss of health coverage, a shortage of parts for vehicles already sold, increased foreign imports, higher prices, lack of great consumer incentives, the list goes on and on.
It almost seems unconscionable not to bail out the Big Three, and yet many experts and politicians, including Mitt Romney, the former Republican Presidential candidate (the one with the economic cred), actually support the alternative, allowing them to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or even fail.
I won't pretend to understand the complexities of the situation. I don't truly understand money, I've never made a lot of money, I'm sure I never will. I wish human beings had never invented money. But there is one thing about the auto bailout that's got me really confused. Isn't business actually supposed to be about the survival of the fittest? Figure out what consumers want---or in some cases, more importantly, what they need---and give it to them, or else fail?
Executives for the Big Three claim they have better cars in the pipeline, such as hybrids, that will help break our ties to foreign oil, and I'm sure they do. But the question is, where was this pipeline when we needed it, when the Big Three were feeding the American fascination with, and addiction to, enormous gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks? The idea that we need to break our "oil addiction" isn't a new one. In 1974 President Richard Nixon said that our country
"should not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." Now, American automakers aren't the only bad guys here, but what significant moves have they really made in the intervening 34 years?
Some argue that weaning ourselves off of foreign oil is not only impossible, but actually not desirable (see http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-seven-myths-of-energy-independence.html or http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce11212006.html). Alright, let's say that's true. That still doesn't leave American automakers off the hook. Forward-thinking engineers have developed incredibly fuel efficient cars. Here's an article on one, created by WV: http://gas2.org/2008/03/12/the-worlds-most-fuel-efficient-car-285-mpg-not-a-hybrid/.
Here's another, created by two engineers in their spare time: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/230-mpg-car/4197588660.
Note again that these two cars use fuel, not electric or hybrid energy. They have been designed to be more fuel efficient, lighter, and more streamlined. What is the Big Three excuse for not having delved into this sort of experimental car-making before it was too late for them to do so?
The obvious answer is that they have been operating with an outmoded business model, a business model that simply cannot cut it in the 21st century. And now, as they face extinction, they ask the Federal government for an enormous bailout, to the tune of $25 billion dollars (of taxpayer money). They believe they can turn their businesses around.
Those who would allow the Big Three to fail believe that their absence would leave a vacuum that would be filled by forward-thinking companies with an innovative, modern business model. And maybe it would. But this leaves the question: who, in business or government, truly has the expertise to make the call? Who is willing to take that risk, a risk we might all pay for dearly?
Update:
Lawmakers called Big Three execs to the carpet for flying expensive private jets to Washington for bailout talks instead of taking more economical commercial flights. "There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) told them. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."
What did the execs have to say about this? They tried to shame lawmakers into thinking they were dwelling on petty matters. "Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," said GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson in a statement.
Plainly Wilkinson, and the Big Three executives, fail to see the hypocrisy of promising more responsible business practices when they can't even economize on flights to DC. Is the difference in cost between a private flight and a commercial one significant compared to the incredible shortfall the Big Three are facing overall? No, of course not. But economizing here would have a been a simple, and easily accomplished, symbol of their good intentions. So far, the signs are not good.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Obama Already Going Back On A Promise
Full disclosure---if you know me, you know this already---I voted for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best man for the job. That's because he is. But I am not going to spend the next four to eight years wearing blinders, either. When I see him doing something I don't like, I will call him on it.
On the campaign trail, Senator Obama said, "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." And rgarding their negative influence on politics: "That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America."
Well...the New York Times has published a list of former lobbyists, or those who have close ties to lobbyists, who are working for Obama, either on his transition team, or who have accepted White House positions. What's the Obama camp's excuse? No previous administration has had stricter rules and regulations on who they hire (if you've seen their job application, which is available for perusal on the Obama website, change.gov, that's easy to believe). And of course, these folks aren't currently lobbyists, though some were lobbying as recently as this year.
Sorry, but that's not good enough. On the campaign trail, very recently, Barack Obama mocked John McCain's claims that he would show lobbyists the door. Obama said that, “after nearly three decades in Washington, John McCain can’t see or won’t acknowledge what’s obvious to all of us here today: that lobbyists aren’t just part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem.”
Hard to believe that Barack Obama has suddenly decided that lobbyists can instead be part of the solution. Maybe it's a simple matter of realizing that lobbyists are incredibly knowledgeable within the scope of their own special interests, and he can't pass on tapping into that knowledge. I am concerned, though, that he is playing with fire. Let's hope it's not the American people who get burned.
On the campaign trail, Senator Obama said, "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." And rgarding their negative influence on politics: "That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America."
Well...the New York Times has published a list of former lobbyists, or those who have close ties to lobbyists, who are working for Obama, either on his transition team, or who have accepted White House positions. What's the Obama camp's excuse? No previous administration has had stricter rules and regulations on who they hire (if you've seen their job application, which is available for perusal on the Obama website, change.gov, that's easy to believe). And of course, these folks aren't currently lobbyists, though some were lobbying as recently as this year.
Sorry, but that's not good enough. On the campaign trail, very recently, Barack Obama mocked John McCain's claims that he would show lobbyists the door. Obama said that, “after nearly three decades in Washington, John McCain can’t see or won’t acknowledge what’s obvious to all of us here today: that lobbyists aren’t just part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem.”
Hard to believe that Barack Obama has suddenly decided that lobbyists can instead be part of the solution. Maybe it's a simple matter of realizing that lobbyists are incredibly knowledgeable within the scope of their own special interests, and he can't pass on tapping into that knowledge. I am concerned, though, that he is playing with fire. Let's hope it's not the American people who get burned.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Catholic Guilt Gets Political For Greenville Priest
Father Jay Scott Newman, a Catholic priest in Greenville, South Carolina, has a controversial take on Barack Obama's Presidential victory: he asks his parishioners to repent for voting for Obama before they receive Holy Communion.
For any non-Catholics reading, the rite of Communion is the most important part of the Catholic Mass. In eating the host (a small piece of unleavened bread), Catholics believe through faith that they are consuming the body of Christ. By the letter of the law, one should undergo the Sacrament of Confession (admitting your sins to the priest, and having them absolved) before receiving the Host. It seems Father Newman counts voting for Barack Obama as a sin that must be addressed before undergoing the holy rite.
Of course, Father Newman's stated basis for this position is Barack Obama's pro-choice philosophy; since the Catholic church's position is that abortion is murder, voting for Obama---at least according to Father Newman--is therefore a sin. No word on whether Newman's diocese backs him up on that.
Here's the thing, though. We have a separation of church and state, and though that only means that the state does not endorse any particular religion, and not that churches can't have political opinions, I have a real problem with clergy addressing politics during their religious ceremonies. Church---at least Catholic church--is the place to which you go to worship your God and commune with Christ. It is meant to be an ideal place, a spiritual refuge from a troubled secular world. The political choices of his parishioners---the choices they make when dealing with the state and the messy and often unpleasant problems the state has to deal with--shouldn't be assailed by Father Newman when they come to him for solace.
Father Newman's position on abortion, and therefore Obama, is black-and-white...since he lives entirely within the realm of religion and faith, it can be. Barack Obama's position---and the position of some in Father Newman's flock, who have to live in the real world---must by necessity be far more complex. And to endure the times in which we live, many choices which were once labelled "sins" might be more appropriately called "necessary evils".
For any non-Catholics reading, the rite of Communion is the most important part of the Catholic Mass. In eating the host (a small piece of unleavened bread), Catholics believe through faith that they are consuming the body of Christ. By the letter of the law, one should undergo the Sacrament of Confession (admitting your sins to the priest, and having them absolved) before receiving the Host. It seems Father Newman counts voting for Barack Obama as a sin that must be addressed before undergoing the holy rite.
Of course, Father Newman's stated basis for this position is Barack Obama's pro-choice philosophy; since the Catholic church's position is that abortion is murder, voting for Obama---at least according to Father Newman--is therefore a sin. No word on whether Newman's diocese backs him up on that.
Here's the thing, though. We have a separation of church and state, and though that only means that the state does not endorse any particular religion, and not that churches can't have political opinions, I have a real problem with clergy addressing politics during their religious ceremonies. Church---at least Catholic church--is the place to which you go to worship your God and commune with Christ. It is meant to be an ideal place, a spiritual refuge from a troubled secular world. The political choices of his parishioners---the choices they make when dealing with the state and the messy and often unpleasant problems the state has to deal with--shouldn't be assailed by Father Newman when they come to him for solace.
Father Newman's position on abortion, and therefore Obama, is black-and-white...since he lives entirely within the realm of religion and faith, it can be. Barack Obama's position---and the position of some in Father Newman's flock, who have to live in the real world---must by necessity be far more complex. And to endure the times in which we live, many choices which were once labelled "sins" might be more appropriately called "necessary evils".
Saturday, November 15, 2008
If the Gay Movement's Flag Is the Rainbow, Prop 8's Must Be Yellow
Time just published an article called "What Happens If You're On the Gay 'Enemies List' "---and yeah, great, add flames to the fire that there's a "gay agenda"---about a strategy some Proposition 8 opponents have been undertaking.
On AntiGayBlacklist.com, gay marriage supporters have been publicizing the names of contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, names of their businesses, etc., so that those who voted no on Prop 8 can decide whether to stop, or avoid, patronizing them. Is this nice? No. But neither is banning gay marriage.
According to Time, the Yes on 8 website was also publishing names of their donors until recently, when they took the lists down. Hey, they're proud until gays start naming the same names, then they're being attacked. No fair!
What does the Yes on 8 campaign manager, Frank Schubert, say about these gay blacklists? "It's really awful," he said. "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."
Oh, Frank...so, it's okay for you to trample on the civil rights of gays, because it's part of the political process! Oh, those damn gays...why don't they just lay there and be trampled like we want them to? They're so uncooperative. Why, oh why, are they being so mean to us? I mean, all we want is to permanently deny them the ability to enter into a committed marriage with another consenting adult...is that so bad?
I hate to break it to Frank and the rest of the Prop 8'ers. You're going to have a really, really hard time passing a law to ban gay people having freedom of speech. So if you're going to contribute money to a campaign to deny them marriage, you're going to have to listen to them call out your name. And anyway, what are you ashamed of? If you believe what you believe, shout it from the rooftops. Don't be a coward twice over.
On AntiGayBlacklist.com, gay marriage supporters have been publicizing the names of contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, names of their businesses, etc., so that those who voted no on Prop 8 can decide whether to stop, or avoid, patronizing them. Is this nice? No. But neither is banning gay marriage.
According to Time, the Yes on 8 website was also publishing names of their donors until recently, when they took the lists down. Hey, they're proud until gays start naming the same names, then they're being attacked. No fair!
What does the Yes on 8 campaign manager, Frank Schubert, say about these gay blacklists? "It's really awful," he said. "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."
Oh, Frank...so, it's okay for you to trample on the civil rights of gays, because it's part of the political process! Oh, those damn gays...why don't they just lay there and be trampled like we want them to? They're so uncooperative. Why, oh why, are they being so mean to us? I mean, all we want is to permanently deny them the ability to enter into a committed marriage with another consenting adult...is that so bad?
I hate to break it to Frank and the rest of the Prop 8'ers. You're going to have a really, really hard time passing a law to ban gay people having freedom of speech. So if you're going to contribute money to a campaign to deny them marriage, you're going to have to listen to them call out your name. And anyway, what are you ashamed of? If you believe what you believe, shout it from the rooftops. Don't be a coward twice over.
Athiest Groups Continue to Act Un-Christian
A couple of days ago I blogged about an atheist, or perhaps more appropriately, anti-deist group, the American Humanist Association, who are running billboards on Washington DC buses this "Holiday" promoting the theory that decency and god-worship needn't be joined at the hip. I still agree. Some white supremacists think hating minorities is their God-given right. The Nazis claimed to be Christian, for the most part. And I've known plenty of non-believers who were as decent as anyone I've ever known.
But in light of another anti-deist ad campaign---Colorado's Metro State Atheists---as an all-but-in-name atheist, I continue to question their methods and their stated explanations, if not their actual motivations.
The AHA asked, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." Well, if that's what you think, then why are you saying anything that could, even potentially, make Christians feel bad about their treasured holiday? By contrast, MSA is erecting billboards that depict billowy white clouds in a blue sky---the pop-culture vision of heaven---and this script: "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."
This leaves Christmas out of it, which is a step up. But as always these groups have a spokesperson, and when asked, they'll speak. MSA's Joel Guttormson said (italics mine), "And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot. To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."
I guess a lot of people don't think before they speak, but a spokesperson ought to. Guttormson doesn't deny that they chose the Christmas season for their billboards, in fact he admits it, but then tries to invent a rationale that to my mind doesn't exist. What "church and state issues" constantly crop up at Christmas? TV networks fall under the FCC, and you can see both A Charlie Brown Christmas with its entirely Christian message, and Santa Claus Is Coming To Town's secular angle. What "church and state issues" are they talking about?
But also to let non-believers known that they are not alone. I'm sorry, but they know that. Every atheist has met another atheist or non-believer. They know they're not alone. And who's ostracizing them anyway?
Of the billboards, Christan radio host Bob Enyart said, "The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous. Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator." This probably had the atheist group chortling with laughter. Faith---the quality through which you believe in the existence of that being whose existance can't be proved---is the evidence that he exists? But it's Enyart's belief, as much as it is the atheist's belief that he is dead wrong.
In the end, I want to know this: what do the Metro State Atheists, American Humanist Association, and their fellow atheist organizations want? Just to let non-believers know they're there, as a resource? Try a website. Lots of atheists are online, since they believe in science, not faith. Do they want to start some sort of anti-faith that leaves God out of it, but sets down some guidelines for living a good, moral life? Let's see it! Instead, they make billboards. They court controversy. They want to engage in a debate with Christians about the existence of God.
You can't win this debate. People believe in God. Maybe they won't always, but they do now, and they have believed in God, or gods, for millenia. Lack of proof doesn't deter. These atheists "know" there's no God, just as much as Christians "know" there is. But the MSA and AHA know they won't win. They want to pick a fight. They want attention, they want to say, "Over here, look at me...do I have your attention? I don't believe in God, and furthermore...there is no God!" It's scandalous. It's shocking. It's publicity.
If I was going to start at atheist group, you know, a good, moral one that is not Christian, I'd want it to be...well, not like Christianity, right? One of the beefs these atheist groups have with Christianity, I guarantee, is its hypocrisy: preach love, wage wars; preach love, discriminate against gays; preach poverty, rake in the bucks (the list could go on and on).
So, just to be subversive and funny, I'd teach my atheist flock to do something Christians frequently don't: follow the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene. In Matthew chapter 6, verse 5-6, he said: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..."
If the AHA and MSA know deep down that they're right, and that Christians are wrong (crazy, superstitious, blind, stupid?)...why all the public display? Why, exactly, do they feel the need?
But in light of another anti-deist ad campaign---Colorado's Metro State Atheists---as an all-but-in-name atheist, I continue to question their methods and their stated explanations, if not their actual motivations.
The AHA asked, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." Well, if that's what you think, then why are you saying anything that could, even potentially, make Christians feel bad about their treasured holiday? By contrast, MSA is erecting billboards that depict billowy white clouds in a blue sky---the pop-culture vision of heaven---and this script: "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."
This leaves Christmas out of it, which is a step up. But as always these groups have a spokesperson, and when asked, they'll speak. MSA's Joel Guttormson said (italics mine), "And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot. To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."
I guess a lot of people don't think before they speak, but a spokesperson ought to. Guttormson doesn't deny that they chose the Christmas season for their billboards, in fact he admits it, but then tries to invent a rationale that to my mind doesn't exist. What "church and state issues" constantly crop up at Christmas? TV networks fall under the FCC, and you can see both A Charlie Brown Christmas with its entirely Christian message, and Santa Claus Is Coming To Town's secular angle. What "church and state issues" are they talking about?
But also to let non-believers known that they are not alone. I'm sorry, but they know that. Every atheist has met another atheist or non-believer. They know they're not alone. And who's ostracizing them anyway?
Of the billboards, Christan radio host Bob Enyart said, "The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous. Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator." This probably had the atheist group chortling with laughter. Faith---the quality through which you believe in the existence of that being whose existance can't be proved---is the evidence that he exists? But it's Enyart's belief, as much as it is the atheist's belief that he is dead wrong.
In the end, I want to know this: what do the Metro State Atheists, American Humanist Association, and their fellow atheist organizations want? Just to let non-believers know they're there, as a resource? Try a website. Lots of atheists are online, since they believe in science, not faith. Do they want to start some sort of anti-faith that leaves God out of it, but sets down some guidelines for living a good, moral life? Let's see it! Instead, they make billboards. They court controversy. They want to engage in a debate with Christians about the existence of God.
You can't win this debate. People believe in God. Maybe they won't always, but they do now, and they have believed in God, or gods, for millenia. Lack of proof doesn't deter. These atheists "know" there's no God, just as much as Christians "know" there is. But the MSA and AHA know they won't win. They want to pick a fight. They want attention, they want to say, "Over here, look at me...do I have your attention? I don't believe in God, and furthermore...there is no God!" It's scandalous. It's shocking. It's publicity.
If I was going to start at atheist group, you know, a good, moral one that is not Christian, I'd want it to be...well, not like Christianity, right? One of the beefs these atheist groups have with Christianity, I guarantee, is its hypocrisy: preach love, wage wars; preach love, discriminate against gays; preach poverty, rake in the bucks (the list could go on and on).
So, just to be subversive and funny, I'd teach my atheist flock to do something Christians frequently don't: follow the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene. In Matthew chapter 6, verse 5-6, he said: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..."
If the AHA and MSA know deep down that they're right, and that Christians are wrong (crazy, superstitious, blind, stupid?)...why all the public display? Why, exactly, do they feel the need?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
On Palin Press Conference, CNN Makes Much of Very Little
CNN.com posted a very cloak-and-daggery story today about the Republican Governor's Association press conference helmed by Governor Sarah Palin. Originally Gov. Palin was to handle the press conference alone, then it had been "decided"---says a typically unnamed source---that the other governors attending the meeting would stand behind her silently. The reason this change was made? It's a "long story", quothe the anonymous source, and though Palin was scheduled to take questions for about 20 minutes, Gov. Rick Perry cut it off after four questions. Why? "We were running behind schedule," a GOP official insisted (italics mine).
Boy, these unnamed GOP sources sure have a lot to say about Sarah Palin, don't they? Who are these folks who have so little qualms about casting aspersions on the losing VP candidate? Making vague implications of behind-the-scenes awkwardness and diva-like behavior? Do you think maybe this sort of internal strife had some impact on the success of the McCain campaign?
Not that I'm ready to totally let Sarah Palin off the hook. The theme of the press conference was that the Presidential race is over, that the RGA is looking to the future, and they don't subscribe to "extreme partisan" behavior. That's hard to jive with Palin persisting on the William Ayers topic with Larry King amongst others, just this week, which is in its turn hard to jive with Palin saying she'd be honored to work with Obama. But---and this is a shocker---I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe her qualms about Ayers really do persist, and are, in her view at least, germane. And maybe despite them, she really is willing to work with Barack Obama and support his Presidency.
Let's hope the media can resist the salacious spell of these unnamed "sources" in the GOP who seem so willing to undermine her.
Update:
It looks like some of Sarah Palin's own fellow Republican governors are jumping on the "anonymously dish about Sarah" bandwagon. According to "some" of the GOP governors, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, it was awkward: "I'm sure you could see it on some of our faces". Another one of the govs said that it, "unfortunately sent a message that she was the de facto leader of the party".
Let me tell you who's not going to be the leader of the Republican party, de facto or otherwise...any of these wimps who dish about each other anonymously to CNN. I mean, only so many GOP governors appeared at this press conference. How anonymous do you think can you be? If any of these people consider themselves to be a leader, where were their voices when it was proposed that Palin do all the talking? If you're going to lead, lead. Or keep your anonymous mouth shut.
Boy, these unnamed GOP sources sure have a lot to say about Sarah Palin, don't they? Who are these folks who have so little qualms about casting aspersions on the losing VP candidate? Making vague implications of behind-the-scenes awkwardness and diva-like behavior? Do you think maybe this sort of internal strife had some impact on the success of the McCain campaign?
Not that I'm ready to totally let Sarah Palin off the hook. The theme of the press conference was that the Presidential race is over, that the RGA is looking to the future, and they don't subscribe to "extreme partisan" behavior. That's hard to jive with Palin persisting on the William Ayers topic with Larry King amongst others, just this week, which is in its turn hard to jive with Palin saying she'd be honored to work with Obama. But---and this is a shocker---I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe her qualms about Ayers really do persist, and are, in her view at least, germane. And maybe despite them, she really is willing to work with Barack Obama and support his Presidency.
Let's hope the media can resist the salacious spell of these unnamed "sources" in the GOP who seem so willing to undermine her.
Update:
It looks like some of Sarah Palin's own fellow Republican governors are jumping on the "anonymously dish about Sarah" bandwagon. According to "some" of the GOP governors, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, it was awkward: "I'm sure you could see it on some of our faces". Another one of the govs said that it, "unfortunately sent a message that she was the de facto leader of the party".
Let me tell you who's not going to be the leader of the Republican party, de facto or otherwise...any of these wimps who dish about each other anonymously to CNN. I mean, only so many GOP governors appeared at this press conference. How anonymous do you think can you be? If any of these people consider themselves to be a leader, where were their voices when it was proposed that Palin do all the talking? If you're going to lead, lead. Or keep your anonymous mouth shut.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Who Needs Christ at Christmas?
The American Humanist Association has invested $40,000 dollars to spread an anti-deist message using billboards on Washington, D.C. buses, to be sung to the tune of Santa Claus is coming to town, to wit:
"Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
Hey, I'm all for this. I was raised Catholic but, like many, strayed during college, and came to doubt religion and ultimately belief in the Judeo-Christian God, or any god. Some twenty years further on, my anti-god convictions are a little more blurry. I mean, who am I to say? Pretending to have that kind of knowledge is a little...well, godlike, right? And considering the complexities of life, nature, the universe, what have you, is it possible that everything is actually just random?
Complex and esoteric religious debates aside, the second part of the American Humanist Association's sentiment---just be good for goodness' sake---is incredibly valid. So being good will get you the ultimate reward in heaven? Maybe, if there is one. But why not be good simply because you ought to? Shouldn't knowing that you are doing what is right and moral be its own reward? Shouldn't that be enough to satisfy you in this life?
There is, however, another side to this issue. Why does the American Humanist Association (or any anti-deist or anti-religious group) feel the need to assert itself to the tune of $40,000 when it comes to one of the most treasured Christian celebrations, Christmas?
Fred Edwords, the AHA spokesman, said, "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."
I don't know, Fred. Christmas has occurred every year in my house, where my spouse is Catholic and my daughter is being raised to be open-minded, and I don't feel even the tiniest bit alone. The Christmas season has two sides, religious and secular, and the line between them is pretty thoroughly blurred. I'm not sure who, really, is being left out. And let's say atheists and agnostics are being left out of Christmas? You don't believe in Christ anyway, right? So why do you want to be a member of a club that won't have you? And need I point out that an ad campaign that makes Christians feel bad about their faith is a little contrary to your stated mission of being good for goodness' sake?
The American Humanist Association should note the way we approach Christmas here in the early 21st century through our agreed mode of mass communication, the media. Christmas is already significantly less Christian than it used to be.
Ad writers are not allowed to call it Christmas, instead it's "holiday". Have a great "holiday". This apparently encompasses everything from Thanksgiving all the way to Christmas and maybe New Year's, and it has a decidedly un-Christian (and awfully un-warm) feel to it. As a mostly atheist, I can't stand the sound of it, but more than that, I think it's the most obnoxious form of political correctness ever. Christians celebrate Christmas, not "holiday". Jews celebrate Hanukkah, not "holiday". If you know someone's Christian, say "Merry Christmas". If you know someone's Jewish, say "Happy Hannukah". If you don't know what someone is, "Enjoy your holidays" at least makes sense...there is no holiday called "Holiday".
So, not that they asked for it, but here's my final bit of advice for the American Humanist Association. If you don't like being left out at Christmas---and again, since you're actively anti-Christian, you actually should be left out of Christmas---form your own anti-church and create your own all-inclusive, non-denominational winter holiday. Maybe you can steal one from the godless media, and call it Festivus: A Holiday for the Rest of Us.
"Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
Hey, I'm all for this. I was raised Catholic but, like many, strayed during college, and came to doubt religion and ultimately belief in the Judeo-Christian God, or any god. Some twenty years further on, my anti-god convictions are a little more blurry. I mean, who am I to say? Pretending to have that kind of knowledge is a little...well, godlike, right? And considering the complexities of life, nature, the universe, what have you, is it possible that everything is actually just random?
Complex and esoteric religious debates aside, the second part of the American Humanist Association's sentiment---just be good for goodness' sake---is incredibly valid. So being good will get you the ultimate reward in heaven? Maybe, if there is one. But why not be good simply because you ought to? Shouldn't knowing that you are doing what is right and moral be its own reward? Shouldn't that be enough to satisfy you in this life?
There is, however, another side to this issue. Why does the American Humanist Association (or any anti-deist or anti-religious group) feel the need to assert itself to the tune of $40,000 when it comes to one of the most treasured Christian celebrations, Christmas?
Fred Edwords, the AHA spokesman, said, "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."
I don't know, Fred. Christmas has occurred every year in my house, where my spouse is Catholic and my daughter is being raised to be open-minded, and I don't feel even the tiniest bit alone. The Christmas season has two sides, religious and secular, and the line between them is pretty thoroughly blurred. I'm not sure who, really, is being left out. And let's say atheists and agnostics are being left out of Christmas? You don't believe in Christ anyway, right? So why do you want to be a member of a club that won't have you? And need I point out that an ad campaign that makes Christians feel bad about their faith is a little contrary to your stated mission of being good for goodness' sake?
The American Humanist Association should note the way we approach Christmas here in the early 21st century through our agreed mode of mass communication, the media. Christmas is already significantly less Christian than it used to be.
Ad writers are not allowed to call it Christmas, instead it's "holiday". Have a great "holiday". This apparently encompasses everything from Thanksgiving all the way to Christmas and maybe New Year's, and it has a decidedly un-Christian (and awfully un-warm) feel to it. As a mostly atheist, I can't stand the sound of it, but more than that, I think it's the most obnoxious form of political correctness ever. Christians celebrate Christmas, not "holiday". Jews celebrate Hanukkah, not "holiday". If you know someone's Christian, say "Merry Christmas". If you know someone's Jewish, say "Happy Hannukah". If you don't know what someone is, "Enjoy your holidays" at least makes sense...there is no holiday called "Holiday".
So, not that they asked for it, but here's my final bit of advice for the American Humanist Association. If you don't like being left out at Christmas---and again, since you're actively anti-Christian, you actually should be left out of Christmas---form your own anti-church and create your own all-inclusive, non-denominational winter holiday. Maybe you can steal one from the godless media, and call it Festivus: A Holiday for the Rest of Us.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Aspiring Gay Spouse? Dead Orthodox Jew? The Mormons Know Best!
“...I will go and do what the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”
---The Book of Mormon
Well, I haven't read the commandments in a while, but I'm pretty sure that none of them is, "Get all up in everyone's business!"
The involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in California's Proposition 8 has been well publicized, and from their own viewpoint, understandable. They believe that God is the creator of everything, and that He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore they oppose legalizing gay marriage.
From a moral standpoint, this is absurd. Everyone doesn't subscribe to the Mormon church's teachings, and therefore shouldn't be subject to them. And on a legal level, the Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, so none of the teachings of any church, Mormon or otherwise, should be allowed to influence the law. You run a church, and you don't want gay people to marry? Don't marry them. The state, on the other hand, has every right, and religious persecution shouldn't be allowed to hinder that.
But wait! The Mormons don't just have a vested interest in keeping gays single. They also undertake the fascinating work of baptizing dead Jews by proxy---including those who died in the Holocaust! Holocaust survivors have asked the Mormon church to discontinue this practice on very reasonable grounds, amongst them: that baptizing Holocaust victims could encourage Holocaust deniers; that it dishonors these Jews because they were killed specifically because of their religion; and because in the future these Jews might be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust.
What's the Mormon church's position on being asked to cease and desist? They decline, thank you. "We don't think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines," Mormon Elder Lance B. Wickman said. "If our work for the dead is properly understood ... it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It's merely a freewill offering."
Elder Wickman, George Orwell would be proud. Holocaust survivors shouldn't ask you to stop turning dead Jews into Mormons because it goes against your religion! Even in the long annals of entirely self-serving rationalizations made by organized religion, that is an all-time classic.
---The Book of Mormon
Well, I haven't read the commandments in a while, but I'm pretty sure that none of them is, "Get all up in everyone's business!"
The involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in California's Proposition 8 has been well publicized, and from their own viewpoint, understandable. They believe that God is the creator of everything, and that He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore they oppose legalizing gay marriage.
From a moral standpoint, this is absurd. Everyone doesn't subscribe to the Mormon church's teachings, and therefore shouldn't be subject to them. And on a legal level, the Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, so none of the teachings of any church, Mormon or otherwise, should be allowed to influence the law. You run a church, and you don't want gay people to marry? Don't marry them. The state, on the other hand, has every right, and religious persecution shouldn't be allowed to hinder that.
But wait! The Mormons don't just have a vested interest in keeping gays single. They also undertake the fascinating work of baptizing dead Jews by proxy---including those who died in the Holocaust! Holocaust survivors have asked the Mormon church to discontinue this practice on very reasonable grounds, amongst them: that baptizing Holocaust victims could encourage Holocaust deniers; that it dishonors these Jews because they were killed specifically because of their religion; and because in the future these Jews might be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust.
What's the Mormon church's position on being asked to cease and desist? They decline, thank you. "We don't think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines," Mormon Elder Lance B. Wickman said. "If our work for the dead is properly understood ... it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It's merely a freewill offering."
Elder Wickman, George Orwell would be proud. Holocaust survivors shouldn't ask you to stop turning dead Jews into Mormons because it goes against your religion! Even in the long annals of entirely self-serving rationalizations made by organized religion, that is an all-time classic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)