I'm too lazy to find a good link, but I just read my favorite Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid say:
"Alberto Gonzales is qualified. He's attorney general of the United States and a former Texas judge. But having said that he's qualified, I don't know if he'd have an easy way through."
And what do we think about this? Is Gonzales such a bad choice? This might just be a clever ploy by Reid, to show that he supports a likely Bush candidate who he knows will be heartburn for ultra-conservatives (the kind of ploy which makes me like Reid more every time); but perhaps he's sincere. So is Gonzales a bad choice?
Sure, there's the torture memo thing. And sure, there's the Texas executions thing. But were those his ideas of good policies? Or was he just doing the job he was hired to do? After all, no matter what you think of the torture memo, it's impossible to know what his real opinion was. Typical of all conservative policies, the policy came first, and the justification followed. Gonzales' job wasn't to figure out whether torture was justified. His job was to find that justification. Not that I like that, and not that I'd accept that job. But that was his job, and he did it.
And there's no reason to assume that he'd necessarily do the same if given the judge job. He seems like an intelligent guy, and he'd probably be his own man. And it's even possible that he might even be the moderate that we need. He might be a tad bit ethically challenged, I suppose, for accepting the Bush job. But after all, he is a lawyer, and lawyers often defend unethical clients. It comes with the territory. And if he really didn't agree with his torture justification, doesn't that show that he's intelligent enough to separate his personal feelings from his job duties? Isn't that an important trait in a judge?
Besides could you honestly say that you'd turn down a similar job working for a Democrat President, if it meant you'd have to justify the unjustifiable? It's not quite the same, but if you worked for Clinton, would you have looked for legal justifications of Clinton's false testimony and public statements? Or would you have quit the job, or faced possible punishment? I don't know. It's easy to be ethically superior when you're talking about somebody else's choices; especially if that person is on the other side.
Am I suggesting that we support him? I don't know. But I do like the politics of us showing support for someone who Bush supports, but who the right-wing extremists deplore. It makes us look moderate and reasonable, and makes them look like the freaks they are. That's not good enough if Gonzales is a really bad choice. But if he's not such a bad choice, then maybe we should follow Reid's lead. I can't really think of much he's let us down on, and he's got good political instincts. It's something to think about, anyway.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Church v. State
I'll get into this more, but up front, I wanted to discuss an important concept: The basis for a healthy society is that we all have the right to be free and happy, but only to the point of not infringing upon other people's right to be happy and free. Our rights do not extend to denying other people the same rights that we enjoy. And rights that one person have must extend to all other people, as much as possible. That is the basis for society, and it is entirely mandatory. One simple test for any law or right: Is this something that I would want my enemy to use, or does this rule only work properly when I use it? This is a fundamental concept of the understanding of rights, laws, society, and democracy which no discussion can exclude.
I mention this because Joseph at PublicOrgTheory.com brought up a recent article in the NY Times Magazine titled A Church-State Solution, by Noah Feldman, a professor at the New York University of Law and fellow at the New America Foundation. This article discusses the issue of separation of church and state, and what to do about it. In short, Professor Feldman believes that we should permit Christians to display their religion on government buildings, school prayers, public parks, etc; while denying them taxpayer funds for any activities. And the reason we should allow them to display their religion is because we are denying them basic expressions of their beliefs by disallowing it. He believes that this compromise, while disliked by both sides, is more fair and a better resolution than the current battles being waged today.
And I disagree fully with Professor Feldman. I believe that he gives an overly simplistic view of history, a flawed view of the groups involved, and most importantly, an incorrect idea of what society means and how things should work. Beyond that, I believe that his compromise is typical of the Compromise Battleground of the day, in which one side has a different standard for the goalposts than the other side. In this case, we see Professor Feldman offering a compromise to evangelicals by giving them special rights which are denied to everyone else, rights which are based entirely upon a false sense of victimhood and persecution. In essence, the right they are being denied is the right to deny others equal rights. And that is a basic violation of the principles of human rights, as I gave above.
The main point of all this: Do Christians have a right to place their symbols in government buildings, and in government places? Professor Feldman completely ignores this question, and assumes that it is an unqualified yes. His point is that, because Christians need to evangelize, we are discriminating against them if we deny them that right. But he never doubts that they have this right. It's a built-in premise which he never addresses, and it completely shapes his entire argument. If Christians do have this right, and if we are discriminating against them by denying it, then of course we need to stop discriminating against them. But what if they don't have that right? Then Feldman's solution is completely wrong.
And as I argue below, rather than bestowing basic rights to an abused minority, Professor Feldman is restoring special rights to an abusive minority. Making a proposition in a vacuum absent the actual issues, Feldman is a compromiser inventing his own problem; striving to find middle-ground between two savage opponents. But some things cannot be compromised. Some things are not negotiable. And that includes our basic rights. Without context, Feldman's piece implies the issue is a childish battle of symbols; bruised egos looking to save face. And his solution is to allow one side to have their meaningless symbols. But if we listen to both sides, we quickly see that this is not about the symbols. This is a battle for America; and thus, the world.
And to sum up for those short on time, the reason we cannot compromise is because we are the compromise position. We "legal secularists" aren't trying to force our values or symbols on anyone. We're simply denying other groups the ability to do that. All groups. We want a level playing field which favors no one. We represent a truce between all sides which acknowledges that no group has special rights over any other group. That is what offends the evangelicals. They believe this is a Christian Nation, which should represent Christian values; and they say this every day. So the battle isn't between two groups trying to impose their values on one another, as the professor's compromise assumes. The battle is between the compromise position and a group which despises the compromise, because it denies them the special rights they see as their due. And any compromise beyond that is an injustice to America, democracy, and the world.
Obligatory Disclaimer
And let this serve as the obligatory disclaimer of the post: I am not referring to all Christians when I write this. It only applies to the Christians it applies to. I believe that most Christians do not think as the evangelicals do. Additionally, many Christians who sympathize with the evangelicals are being hoodwinked by them, and wouldn't actually support their agenda, were they to really understand it. "Family Values" makes a great rhetorical argument, but things get a bit iffy in the specifics. And if you don't understand what I mean by "evangelical", well tough. Go read the good professor's article. I'm fine using whatever definition he's giving it.
Frankly, I don't think this disclaimer is necessary, as all intelligent people should assume that it applies; but I don't like to take any chances with this stuff. Too many people will grab on to any opportunity they can find to avoid debating the substance of my arguments; and latch onto the technicalities and perceived generalities. I've had too many arguments end with "Oh, I thought you meant all Christians. You should have clarified it first." Blaming me because they over-generalized what I was saying. And I'm just not having it anymore. You've been warned.
Bullying Victims
Here's the thing. People love to see themselves as victims. No matter how big or strong or abusive someone is, they always like to see themselves as the underdog. The little guy who stood up against the powerful, and prevailed. This is often the rationalization people use to justify their abusive actions. And the more powerful somebody is, the more they'll invoke their own defeats and denials in defense of their abuses.
Nixon felt justified in wire-tapping McGovern because he believed that Kennedy and Johnson had wire-tapped him. Warhawks feel justified in bombing innocent Muslims because other Muslims bombed innocent Americans. And conservatives believe that distorting the news is acceptable because the "liberal" media has always been doing this to them. Nobody sees themselves as the aggressor. They're either getting vengeance or protecting themselves.
And in a way, they're right. Everyone's got a story. Everyone's been a victim. Everyone's been hurt. And nobody's evil. Nobody can see themselves as being the "bad guy". Everyone can find justification for their actions by believing that their rights were being trampled, and that they were just acting in self-defense. Even Hitler had his excuses. Hitler believed the Jews had intentionally ruined and humiliated Germany. And the land he took? That was either land that rightly belonged to Germany, or was direly necessary for Germany's security. In his crazy mind, he was a victim fighting back against the man.
And everyone does that. Our brains are just not equipped to see ourselves as being "evil", even when we are doing evil. So it shuffles the information into a way which focuses on the bad things which happened to us, and minimizes the damage that we cause. That's just an unfortunate part of human nature, and I don't exclude myself from this.
And Christians do the same thing. They're by far the majority. The specific numbers fluctuate, but it is safe to say that over 75% of Americans are Christian. Yet the evangelicals portray themselves as the victims of non-Christians. And Professor Feldman accepts that status without question. As he wrote:
"Observing the political clout of the values evangelicals, many legal secularists cannot imagine how the former could possibly feel marginalized from American society. They must realize, however, that the evangelicals' political strength has not often extended to the cultural realm, about which values evangelicals care the most. These evangelicals feel defensive not only because they believe they are losing the culture war and have trouble enacting religious values into public policy -- though, in fact, they have made some strides on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage -- but because they have difficulty making the religious sources of their ideas acceptable in the cultural-political conversation."
And I agree with him that this is how evangelicals think. But does that make it correct? Are evangelicals a victim because they don't get enough power? Are their rights being denied in the culture war? Again, Professor Feldman doesn't touch this issue and assumes it closed, but we can't possibly discuss this issue without asking these questions. It's not enough that these people perceive themselves to be victims. It needs to be reality too, or no rights have been denied. And to determine if their rights are being denied, we have to determine what exactly it is that they are being denied.
What an Evangelical Wants
So exactly what is it that the evangelical Christians want? Is it just the Ten Commandments in the Courtroom? Is it just prayer in school, or at football games? Is it just nativity scenes in front of the city hall? No, of course not. Those are just symbols of what they want. They want America to be theirs. They want their rules written into law. They want their values placed before all others. They want Christianity to reign supreme over our country. One nation, under God. That's what they are being denied, and all these little battles are efforts to make that reality.
This isn't a strawman I invented to have someone to attack. This isn't the "slippery slope" argument. This is exactly what they tell us every day. They're not after empty symbolism and cheap theatrics. They want to tell us what kinds of movies and television we can watch. What kinds of video games we can play. They want to deny me the ability to drink alcohol, and jack-off to my porn. They want to dictate what is taught in our science and history classes. And they want to tell us who we can't marry and when we can't divorce. And most of all, they believe the government should play a strong role in our personal lives, based entirely on what they think our personal lives should be. They're not losing the culture wars because we're forcing our stuff on them. They're losing because they can't force their stuff on us, and they hate it.
And we know that these are the things that they want, because these are the things they have denied us before. When they complain of modern culture destroying America, this is exactly what they're talking about. They're not saying they want the symbolism back. They want the power back, which they believe to be their right. That's what we're denying them, and they tell us this every day. They believe they deserve these public symbols for the same reason they deserve all these other things.
So this isn't about a god damn statue in a courthouse. That's a symbol they use to showcase their argument. It's not an empty symbol to them, and it's not a feel-good gesture to remind them of the historical basis of laws. This is an active symbol of them claiming what they believe to be theirs. This is an assertion of rights. A statement saying: These laws are God's laws. They intend the Ten Commandments to be an active symbol to let everyone know that. They believe our laws to be their laws, and that they know best how to use them.
Personal Dictatorships
Overall, they want America to represent their interests and their values and their vision of America. And who doesn't want that? I'd like my personal rules to become law. I'd like my values placed before all others? I want America molded into my vision. And who the hell doesn't? When you're stuck in rush-hour traffic, don't you dream of having your own personal expressway that only you could drive on? Of course! We all have our desires and our dreams. We all want to be the dictator.
But these aren't our rights, and this isn't a dictatorship or oligarchy or whatever. This is a democracy, and in a democracy we have certain rules and certain ways of doing things. And that includes having a judiciary that can overrule the whim of the majority, when needed. This is the way our system works, and I don't believe that we need to compromise with any group if that means that they have special rights which are denied to others.
These are the rights that they're being denied. This is how we are "victimizing" them. And I can live with denying people those rights. Because at it's heart, democracy is a power-sharing compromise which gives all the people equal say in how things are run. It's a compromise which says that we all share the same rules and privileges. And while people can game the system by combining their votes together and voting as a bloc, the basic principle must continue to give everyone the same rights. And that means that Joe Evangelist can't deny me the right to watch The Last Temptation of Christ, and I can't deny him the right to watch The Passion of the Christ. And we can all watch Christ crucified any damn way we like (within reason).
This is position of the "legal secularists", which gives all members of society equal standing in the law. This is the compromise that our citizens agreed to when we chose democracy as our form of government. And this is what the evangelicals are trying to knock down. We can't compromise with this position, without compromising everything else.
I mention this because Joseph at PublicOrgTheory.com brought up a recent article in the NY Times Magazine titled A Church-State Solution, by Noah Feldman, a professor at the New York University of Law and fellow at the New America Foundation. This article discusses the issue of separation of church and state, and what to do about it. In short, Professor Feldman believes that we should permit Christians to display their religion on government buildings, school prayers, public parks, etc; while denying them taxpayer funds for any activities. And the reason we should allow them to display their religion is because we are denying them basic expressions of their beliefs by disallowing it. He believes that this compromise, while disliked by both sides, is more fair and a better resolution than the current battles being waged today.
And I disagree fully with Professor Feldman. I believe that he gives an overly simplistic view of history, a flawed view of the groups involved, and most importantly, an incorrect idea of what society means and how things should work. Beyond that, I believe that his compromise is typical of the Compromise Battleground of the day, in which one side has a different standard for the goalposts than the other side. In this case, we see Professor Feldman offering a compromise to evangelicals by giving them special rights which are denied to everyone else, rights which are based entirely upon a false sense of victimhood and persecution. In essence, the right they are being denied is the right to deny others equal rights. And that is a basic violation of the principles of human rights, as I gave above.
The main point of all this: Do Christians have a right to place their symbols in government buildings, and in government places? Professor Feldman completely ignores this question, and assumes that it is an unqualified yes. His point is that, because Christians need to evangelize, we are discriminating against them if we deny them that right. But he never doubts that they have this right. It's a built-in premise which he never addresses, and it completely shapes his entire argument. If Christians do have this right, and if we are discriminating against them by denying it, then of course we need to stop discriminating against them. But what if they don't have that right? Then Feldman's solution is completely wrong.
And as I argue below, rather than bestowing basic rights to an abused minority, Professor Feldman is restoring special rights to an abusive minority. Making a proposition in a vacuum absent the actual issues, Feldman is a compromiser inventing his own problem; striving to find middle-ground between two savage opponents. But some things cannot be compromised. Some things are not negotiable. And that includes our basic rights. Without context, Feldman's piece implies the issue is a childish battle of symbols; bruised egos looking to save face. And his solution is to allow one side to have their meaningless symbols. But if we listen to both sides, we quickly see that this is not about the symbols. This is a battle for America; and thus, the world.
And to sum up for those short on time, the reason we cannot compromise is because we are the compromise position. We "legal secularists" aren't trying to force our values or symbols on anyone. We're simply denying other groups the ability to do that. All groups. We want a level playing field which favors no one. We represent a truce between all sides which acknowledges that no group has special rights over any other group. That is what offends the evangelicals. They believe this is a Christian Nation, which should represent Christian values; and they say this every day. So the battle isn't between two groups trying to impose their values on one another, as the professor's compromise assumes. The battle is between the compromise position and a group which despises the compromise, because it denies them the special rights they see as their due. And any compromise beyond that is an injustice to America, democracy, and the world.
Obligatory Disclaimer
And let this serve as the obligatory disclaimer of the post: I am not referring to all Christians when I write this. It only applies to the Christians it applies to. I believe that most Christians do not think as the evangelicals do. Additionally, many Christians who sympathize with the evangelicals are being hoodwinked by them, and wouldn't actually support their agenda, were they to really understand it. "Family Values" makes a great rhetorical argument, but things get a bit iffy in the specifics. And if you don't understand what I mean by "evangelical", well tough. Go read the good professor's article. I'm fine using whatever definition he's giving it.
Frankly, I don't think this disclaimer is necessary, as all intelligent people should assume that it applies; but I don't like to take any chances with this stuff. Too many people will grab on to any opportunity they can find to avoid debating the substance of my arguments; and latch onto the technicalities and perceived generalities. I've had too many arguments end with "Oh, I thought you meant all Christians. You should have clarified it first." Blaming me because they over-generalized what I was saying. And I'm just not having it anymore. You've been warned.
Bullying Victims
Here's the thing. People love to see themselves as victims. No matter how big or strong or abusive someone is, they always like to see themselves as the underdog. The little guy who stood up against the powerful, and prevailed. This is often the rationalization people use to justify their abusive actions. And the more powerful somebody is, the more they'll invoke their own defeats and denials in defense of their abuses.
Nixon felt justified in wire-tapping McGovern because he believed that Kennedy and Johnson had wire-tapped him. Warhawks feel justified in bombing innocent Muslims because other Muslims bombed innocent Americans. And conservatives believe that distorting the news is acceptable because the "liberal" media has always been doing this to them. Nobody sees themselves as the aggressor. They're either getting vengeance or protecting themselves.
And in a way, they're right. Everyone's got a story. Everyone's been a victim. Everyone's been hurt. And nobody's evil. Nobody can see themselves as being the "bad guy". Everyone can find justification for their actions by believing that their rights were being trampled, and that they were just acting in self-defense. Even Hitler had his excuses. Hitler believed the Jews had intentionally ruined and humiliated Germany. And the land he took? That was either land that rightly belonged to Germany, or was direly necessary for Germany's security. In his crazy mind, he was a victim fighting back against the man.
And everyone does that. Our brains are just not equipped to see ourselves as being "evil", even when we are doing evil. So it shuffles the information into a way which focuses on the bad things which happened to us, and minimizes the damage that we cause. That's just an unfortunate part of human nature, and I don't exclude myself from this.
And Christians do the same thing. They're by far the majority. The specific numbers fluctuate, but it is safe to say that over 75% of Americans are Christian. Yet the evangelicals portray themselves as the victims of non-Christians. And Professor Feldman accepts that status without question. As he wrote:
"Observing the political clout of the values evangelicals, many legal secularists cannot imagine how the former could possibly feel marginalized from American society. They must realize, however, that the evangelicals' political strength has not often extended to the cultural realm, about which values evangelicals care the most. These evangelicals feel defensive not only because they believe they are losing the culture war and have trouble enacting religious values into public policy -- though, in fact, they have made some strides on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage -- but because they have difficulty making the religious sources of their ideas acceptable in the cultural-political conversation."
And I agree with him that this is how evangelicals think. But does that make it correct? Are evangelicals a victim because they don't get enough power? Are their rights being denied in the culture war? Again, Professor Feldman doesn't touch this issue and assumes it closed, but we can't possibly discuss this issue without asking these questions. It's not enough that these people perceive themselves to be victims. It needs to be reality too, or no rights have been denied. And to determine if their rights are being denied, we have to determine what exactly it is that they are being denied.
What an Evangelical Wants
So exactly what is it that the evangelical Christians want? Is it just the Ten Commandments in the Courtroom? Is it just prayer in school, or at football games? Is it just nativity scenes in front of the city hall? No, of course not. Those are just symbols of what they want. They want America to be theirs. They want their rules written into law. They want their values placed before all others. They want Christianity to reign supreme over our country. One nation, under God. That's what they are being denied, and all these little battles are efforts to make that reality.
This isn't a strawman I invented to have someone to attack. This isn't the "slippery slope" argument. This is exactly what they tell us every day. They're not after empty symbolism and cheap theatrics. They want to tell us what kinds of movies and television we can watch. What kinds of video games we can play. They want to deny me the ability to drink alcohol, and jack-off to my porn. They want to dictate what is taught in our science and history classes. And they want to tell us who we can't marry and when we can't divorce. And most of all, they believe the government should play a strong role in our personal lives, based entirely on what they think our personal lives should be. They're not losing the culture wars because we're forcing our stuff on them. They're losing because they can't force their stuff on us, and they hate it.
And we know that these are the things that they want, because these are the things they have denied us before. When they complain of modern culture destroying America, this is exactly what they're talking about. They're not saying they want the symbolism back. They want the power back, which they believe to be their right. That's what we're denying them, and they tell us this every day. They believe they deserve these public symbols for the same reason they deserve all these other things.
So this isn't about a god damn statue in a courthouse. That's a symbol they use to showcase their argument. It's not an empty symbol to them, and it's not a feel-good gesture to remind them of the historical basis of laws. This is an active symbol of them claiming what they believe to be theirs. This is an assertion of rights. A statement saying: These laws are God's laws. They intend the Ten Commandments to be an active symbol to let everyone know that. They believe our laws to be their laws, and that they know best how to use them.
Personal Dictatorships
Overall, they want America to represent their interests and their values and their vision of America. And who doesn't want that? I'd like my personal rules to become law. I'd like my values placed before all others? I want America molded into my vision. And who the hell doesn't? When you're stuck in rush-hour traffic, don't you dream of having your own personal expressway that only you could drive on? Of course! We all have our desires and our dreams. We all want to be the dictator.
But these aren't our rights, and this isn't a dictatorship or oligarchy or whatever. This is a democracy, and in a democracy we have certain rules and certain ways of doing things. And that includes having a judiciary that can overrule the whim of the majority, when needed. This is the way our system works, and I don't believe that we need to compromise with any group if that means that they have special rights which are denied to others.
These are the rights that they're being denied. This is how we are "victimizing" them. And I can live with denying people those rights. Because at it's heart, democracy is a power-sharing compromise which gives all the people equal say in how things are run. It's a compromise which says that we all share the same rules and privileges. And while people can game the system by combining their votes together and voting as a bloc, the basic principle must continue to give everyone the same rights. And that means that Joe Evangelist can't deny me the right to watch The Last Temptation of Christ, and I can't deny him the right to watch The Passion of the Christ. And we can all watch Christ crucified any damn way we like (within reason).
This is position of the "legal secularists", which gives all members of society equal standing in the law. This is the compromise that our citizens agreed to when we chose democracy as our form of government. And this is what the evangelicals are trying to knock down. We can't compromise with this position, without compromising everything else.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Silly Parts of the Bible, Part I
I've read the bible. I spent twelve years going to Sunday School. I had to sit, stand, and kneel through countless masses, completely bored out of my skull. I was even Confirmed as a Catholic, for whatever that's worth. So I've earned the right to say this out loud: There are many silly parts of the bible. No serious person could claim otherwise. Try as they might, anyone worth anything would agree that there are some silly parts of the bible. I'm not trying to ridicule them or anything. I would just like an honest acknowledgement that some parts of the bible are a bit loony. I'm not necessarily saying that this casts any doubt on any other particular parts of the bible. I'm just saying that these particular parts are silly. And this is simply undeniable.
With that in mind, I am going to attempt to give some kind of overview of these parts in a series titled "Silly Parts of the Bible". It's quite possible that I'll never write another one of these again, so don't cry if this doesn't make it as a recurring series.
For tonight's episode, I'll be shooting fish in a barrel by reading from our beloved Deuteronomy. For anyone who missed it, I've gone over this turf before with This Gay Thing back in April; but this time, I wanted to go ahead with a full focus on this crazy nightmare of a book. But before doing so, let me just say that I really am a true believer in Moral Relativity; as is everyone else, whether they acknowledge it or not. I'm not talking about the childish "Anything Goes" version of Moral Relativity that the political parsons spout off about, blaming liberals for 9/11 and child-raping priests; both incidents involving Moral Absolutists going a bit haywire, I might add. I'm talking about the idea that different people in different situations use a different code of ethics, depending upon the situation they are in. That's what Moral Relativity means. It's just a basic acknowledgement that there are no catch-all rules and that every action must be judged based upon the intent and situation of the actor. This is a truth that everyone inherently knows and uses. "There, but for the grace of God, goes I" is a familiar phrase that comes to mind.
After all, if a group is trapped on a mountain peak or desert island, we might be a tad bit more understanding of them for eating one of their dead, than if it had been a Sunday BBQ in the Hamptons. That's just a fact. And there's a different set of rules that apply when you're camping in the wilderness than when you're at your local Piggly Wiggly. Foraging, for example, is considered a big no-no at the supermarket. Everyone knows that. And curse words which might get you labeled "Immoral" if used in a bible study or kindergarten classroom might later win you admission to an exclusive club or activity. That's only natural, and everyone works by these rules.
And that idea can certainly be extended to all morality. After all, the difference between "killing" someone and "murdering" them is based entirely on the circumstances. And that applies to everything else. And as we shall discover this evening, the laws laid out in Deuteronomy are not the kind of thing that any modern society should adopt. Not only do they seem absurd, arbitrary, and cruel; many of them will land you straight in jail. Even the Honorable Roy Moore might disagree with you if you pitilessly cut off the hand of a dude's wife because she grabbed your testicles when you were fighting her husband. You can quote Deuteronomy 24:11 all you want, but the good judge just won't have it. Or at least we should certainly hope he won't.
A Brief Summary
As a brief summary for you damn dirty atheists out there who don't already know about Deuty, here's the description that it gives itself: "This book records Moses' address to the people of Israel when they were camped in the valley of the Arabah in the wilderness of Moab, east of the Jordan River. The speech was given on February 15, forty years after the people of Israel left Mount Horeb--though it takes only eleven days to travel by foot from Mount Horeb to Kadesh-barnea, going by way of Mount Seir! (skipping ahead) Here, then, is Moses' address to Israel, stating all the laws God had commanded him to pass on to them:" This might not be exactly what your bible says, but I'm just quoting from my Catholic Living Bible, which is a "Thought-for-Thought Translation". Much better than that crusty old King James stuff that's harder to read than Shakespeare. And if you don't have a good bible, get one. I got this as a Confirmation present from my Confirmation sponsor, and it even has my name inscribed on the cover in gold; so I know it's got to be good.
It goes on and states a bunch of laws. And to give some further context, here's what Isaac Asimov has to say about it in Asimov's Guide to the Bible. And if I haven't mentioned it before, Asimov's Guide is an absolute must-read. I can't stress enough how much you need to read that book cover to cover a few times before you say anything about the bible. I'm serious. It's that important. You don't have to read it all in one sitting, and I actually recommend against it; but if you can understand the full thing, you'll be a much better person. I guarantee it! If you're too cheap to buy it, most libraries have a copy. You won't regret it.
According to Isaac: The book does not advance Israelite history but purports to be the record of a series of addresses given by Moses on the eve of his death and of the Israelite entry into Canaan. These addresses recapitulate the events of the Exodus and restate key portions of the law as it was received from Sinai.
But Asimov casts doubt on the idea that these were actually Moses' laws. It is more likely that these were the cumulative laws, as of 621 B.C.; which is when they were discovered and made into the law of the land. After all, Moses was born about 600 years earlier. Are we really supposed to believe that no one thought to change any of these laws in over 600 years? They didn't even try to muck with this thing once? Seems unlikely to me. And look at Deuty 24:11 above. Are they really trying to tell us that that was part of the law that God passed to Moses? Really? I'm sorry, but that really kind of sounds like something they came up with on the fly. Some woman grabbed a dude's testicles during a fight, and they came up with a rule that said her hand had to come off. And frankly, I don't necessarily blame them for that. Some things are always taboo.
Or take Deuty 22:10, about not plowing with an ox and a donkey harnessed together; or 22:11, which warns about not wearing clothes which were made of two kinds of thread, like wool and linen. I know the Lord is all-knowing and everything, but that really sounds a bit on the micro-managing side of things. Call me a heretic, but I don't think these were actually Moses laws. I think someone might have added them at some point in the 600 years before they were given to Josiah and he made them the law of all Judah. I don't think that diminishes their importance, I just want a bit of perspective on this stuff.
But back to Asimov: This came at a time when there was periodic strife between the temporal and spiritual power in the kingdom and when there had been two recent reigns that were disastrous for the Yahvists. On the other hand, there was now an impressionable young king on the throne, Josiah.
Perhaps it occurred to some among the priesthood to prepare an organized exposition of the laws which, in Yahvist eyes, ought to govern the king and the people, writing into it a clear spiritual supremacy. This writing, as the "book of the law" was then providentially "discovered" in the Temple and brought to the king. The doctrine, placed in the mouth of Moses, treated as of great antiquity, and put forward most eloquently, was bound to impress the king.
It did, and the priestly plan succeeded in full. Until then, Yahvism had been a minority sect, often persecuted, and sometimes in danger of being wiped out altogether. Now, for the first time, it assumed an ascendancy, and, thanks to the enthusiastic co-operation of Josiah, it was made the official religion of the land.
There had been backsliding after Josiah's death, but Yahvism had been made powerful enough to meet the challenge of the Exile, which followed soon after. The Yahvistic priests, during the Exile, as they edited the old traditions and codified the laws, incorporated Deuteronomy virtually intact into the Hexateuch.
After the Exile, Yahvism, the minority sect, had become Judaism, the national religion of the people. Through its daughter religions, Christianity and Islam, Yahvism came to dominate the religious life of well over a billion people in the time that has passed since then. If Deuteronomy is dealt with briefly in this book because it is not primarily concerned with history, that does not mean it may not be the most important part of the bible in some ways; or even the most important piece of writing in the world.
And thus some context on Deuteronomy.
Ah fuck it, this was only meant to be a fun little segment pointing out a few obviously silly parts in the bible, and I went ahead and wrote a whole fucking post. That's my old liberal demon always trying to give context and understanding to even the most childish and entertaining endeavors.
Oh well, I don't feel like cheapening this post by going ahead with my original idea, so I guess I'll just end it here. Maybe I'll get around to writing this stuff after all, though this is actually my second try at it, and I just can't seem to get the hang of it. I'm just trying to have a little fun, but I can't seem to stop writing. So maybe you'll see the piece I was planning to write, or maybe you won't. I think I'm giving up on it for now, but if you want to do some independent reading, find Deuteronomy in your bible and scan through it randomly. You'll find stuff there that makes Charlie Manson almost sound reasonable. Just try it, it's fun.
I'll just leave you with this nugget, found at Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
"If a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they punish him, then his father and mother shall take him before the elders of the city and declare, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and won't obey; he is a worthless drunkard." Then the men of the city shall stone him to death. In this way you shall put away this evil from among you, and all the young men of Israel will hear about what happened and will be afraid."
Once again, you can try this one out on your local Ten Commandments toting judge, but you'll probably be a little hard-pressed at making it stick. Even the elders are a little reluctant about the whole "Stoning the Drunkard" method of child-rearing these days, and often don't even put their hearts into it when they're pummelling your son to death with large rocks. But maybe that's just the old devil Moral Relativity sucking the life out of them. Maybe if we could put a little less emphasis on rock & roll and sex, and a little more emphasis on family values and Absolutist Morality, we'll have more successful stonings of our stubborn and rebellious drunks. And God will surely smile on America then. Or smite us. You never can tell.
With that in mind, I am going to attempt to give some kind of overview of these parts in a series titled "Silly Parts of the Bible". It's quite possible that I'll never write another one of these again, so don't cry if this doesn't make it as a recurring series.
For tonight's episode, I'll be shooting fish in a barrel by reading from our beloved Deuteronomy. For anyone who missed it, I've gone over this turf before with This Gay Thing back in April; but this time, I wanted to go ahead with a full focus on this crazy nightmare of a book. But before doing so, let me just say that I really am a true believer in Moral Relativity; as is everyone else, whether they acknowledge it or not. I'm not talking about the childish "Anything Goes" version of Moral Relativity that the political parsons spout off about, blaming liberals for 9/11 and child-raping priests; both incidents involving Moral Absolutists going a bit haywire, I might add. I'm talking about the idea that different people in different situations use a different code of ethics, depending upon the situation they are in. That's what Moral Relativity means. It's just a basic acknowledgement that there are no catch-all rules and that every action must be judged based upon the intent and situation of the actor. This is a truth that everyone inherently knows and uses. "There, but for the grace of God, goes I" is a familiar phrase that comes to mind.
After all, if a group is trapped on a mountain peak or desert island, we might be a tad bit more understanding of them for eating one of their dead, than if it had been a Sunday BBQ in the Hamptons. That's just a fact. And there's a different set of rules that apply when you're camping in the wilderness than when you're at your local Piggly Wiggly. Foraging, for example, is considered a big no-no at the supermarket. Everyone knows that. And curse words which might get you labeled "Immoral" if used in a bible study or kindergarten classroom might later win you admission to an exclusive club or activity. That's only natural, and everyone works by these rules.
And that idea can certainly be extended to all morality. After all, the difference between "killing" someone and "murdering" them is based entirely on the circumstances. And that applies to everything else. And as we shall discover this evening, the laws laid out in Deuteronomy are not the kind of thing that any modern society should adopt. Not only do they seem absurd, arbitrary, and cruel; many of them will land you straight in jail. Even the Honorable Roy Moore might disagree with you if you pitilessly cut off the hand of a dude's wife because she grabbed your testicles when you were fighting her husband. You can quote Deuteronomy 24:11 all you want, but the good judge just won't have it. Or at least we should certainly hope he won't.
A Brief Summary
As a brief summary for you damn dirty atheists out there who don't already know about Deuty, here's the description that it gives itself: "This book records Moses' address to the people of Israel when they were camped in the valley of the Arabah in the wilderness of Moab, east of the Jordan River. The speech was given on February 15, forty years after the people of Israel left Mount Horeb--though it takes only eleven days to travel by foot from Mount Horeb to Kadesh-barnea, going by way of Mount Seir! (skipping ahead) Here, then, is Moses' address to Israel, stating all the laws God had commanded him to pass on to them:" This might not be exactly what your bible says, but I'm just quoting from my Catholic Living Bible, which is a "Thought-for-Thought Translation". Much better than that crusty old King James stuff that's harder to read than Shakespeare. And if you don't have a good bible, get one. I got this as a Confirmation present from my Confirmation sponsor, and it even has my name inscribed on the cover in gold; so I know it's got to be good.
It goes on and states a bunch of laws. And to give some further context, here's what Isaac Asimov has to say about it in Asimov's Guide to the Bible. And if I haven't mentioned it before, Asimov's Guide is an absolute must-read. I can't stress enough how much you need to read that book cover to cover a few times before you say anything about the bible. I'm serious. It's that important. You don't have to read it all in one sitting, and I actually recommend against it; but if you can understand the full thing, you'll be a much better person. I guarantee it! If you're too cheap to buy it, most libraries have a copy. You won't regret it.
According to Isaac: The book does not advance Israelite history but purports to be the record of a series of addresses given by Moses on the eve of his death and of the Israelite entry into Canaan. These addresses recapitulate the events of the Exodus and restate key portions of the law as it was received from Sinai.
But Asimov casts doubt on the idea that these were actually Moses' laws. It is more likely that these were the cumulative laws, as of 621 B.C.; which is when they were discovered and made into the law of the land. After all, Moses was born about 600 years earlier. Are we really supposed to believe that no one thought to change any of these laws in over 600 years? They didn't even try to muck with this thing once? Seems unlikely to me. And look at Deuty 24:11 above. Are they really trying to tell us that that was part of the law that God passed to Moses? Really? I'm sorry, but that really kind of sounds like something they came up with on the fly. Some woman grabbed a dude's testicles during a fight, and they came up with a rule that said her hand had to come off. And frankly, I don't necessarily blame them for that. Some things are always taboo.
Or take Deuty 22:10, about not plowing with an ox and a donkey harnessed together; or 22:11, which warns about not wearing clothes which were made of two kinds of thread, like wool and linen. I know the Lord is all-knowing and everything, but that really sounds a bit on the micro-managing side of things. Call me a heretic, but I don't think these were actually Moses laws. I think someone might have added them at some point in the 600 years before they were given to Josiah and he made them the law of all Judah. I don't think that diminishes their importance, I just want a bit of perspective on this stuff.
But back to Asimov: This came at a time when there was periodic strife between the temporal and spiritual power in the kingdom and when there had been two recent reigns that were disastrous for the Yahvists. On the other hand, there was now an impressionable young king on the throne, Josiah.
Perhaps it occurred to some among the priesthood to prepare an organized exposition of the laws which, in Yahvist eyes, ought to govern the king and the people, writing into it a clear spiritual supremacy. This writing, as the "book of the law" was then providentially "discovered" in the Temple and brought to the king. The doctrine, placed in the mouth of Moses, treated as of great antiquity, and put forward most eloquently, was bound to impress the king.
It did, and the priestly plan succeeded in full. Until then, Yahvism had been a minority sect, often persecuted, and sometimes in danger of being wiped out altogether. Now, for the first time, it assumed an ascendancy, and, thanks to the enthusiastic co-operation of Josiah, it was made the official religion of the land.
There had been backsliding after Josiah's death, but Yahvism had been made powerful enough to meet the challenge of the Exile, which followed soon after. The Yahvistic priests, during the Exile, as they edited the old traditions and codified the laws, incorporated Deuteronomy virtually intact into the Hexateuch.
After the Exile, Yahvism, the minority sect, had become Judaism, the national religion of the people. Through its daughter religions, Christianity and Islam, Yahvism came to dominate the religious life of well over a billion people in the time that has passed since then. If Deuteronomy is dealt with briefly in this book because it is not primarily concerned with history, that does not mean it may not be the most important part of the bible in some ways; or even the most important piece of writing in the world.
And thus some context on Deuteronomy.
Ah fuck it, this was only meant to be a fun little segment pointing out a few obviously silly parts in the bible, and I went ahead and wrote a whole fucking post. That's my old liberal demon always trying to give context and understanding to even the most childish and entertaining endeavors.
Oh well, I don't feel like cheapening this post by going ahead with my original idea, so I guess I'll just end it here. Maybe I'll get around to writing this stuff after all, though this is actually my second try at it, and I just can't seem to get the hang of it. I'm just trying to have a little fun, but I can't seem to stop writing. So maybe you'll see the piece I was planning to write, or maybe you won't. I think I'm giving up on it for now, but if you want to do some independent reading, find Deuteronomy in your bible and scan through it randomly. You'll find stuff there that makes Charlie Manson almost sound reasonable. Just try it, it's fun.
I'll just leave you with this nugget, found at Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
"If a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they punish him, then his father and mother shall take him before the elders of the city and declare, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and won't obey; he is a worthless drunkard." Then the men of the city shall stone him to death. In this way you shall put away this evil from among you, and all the young men of Israel will hear about what happened and will be afraid."
Once again, you can try this one out on your local Ten Commandments toting judge, but you'll probably be a little hard-pressed at making it stick. Even the elders are a little reluctant about the whole "Stoning the Drunkard" method of child-rearing these days, and often don't even put their hearts into it when they're pummelling your son to death with large rocks. But maybe that's just the old devil Moral Relativity sucking the life out of them. Maybe if we could put a little less emphasis on rock & roll and sex, and a little more emphasis on family values and Absolutist Morality, we'll have more successful stonings of our stubborn and rebellious drunks. And God will surely smile on America then. Or smite us. You never can tell.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Happy Fourth Larry!!
Hey, I don't know who he is, but if you care about fireworks, want to see lots of fireworks pictures, or just like to see how big firework displays are set up, then you can't miss this website of Larry Crump's. He died in 2002, but he lives on at his website. Catch a peek, and don't forget to click on the links. You might not regret it.Fireworks make people happy!!!
--Larry Crump
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Scientific Smear Job
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it's not a theory. It's an argument against a theory. Its primary purpose is to debunk evolution, and even then, only does it by misstating evolution or by pretending that a few gaps in a theory completely undermine it. In essence, it's not a theory; it's a smear job.
And this is complete garbage. Science is nothing if not self-doubting. That's the essence of science. Far from the monolithic conspiracy many anti-intellectuals suppose it to be, science is curiosity and doubt formalized into a coded study. So there is no reason that doubts and questions and gaps in evolution need to be formed into a competing theory. Imagine Einstein using his ideas on Relativity and whatnot as a refutation of Newton, rather than an addendum. If evolution can't incorporate these questions and gaps, then it isn't science. But it doesn't gloss over those differences. In many cases, it answers them fully. And in other cases, it is still in development. Only in the minds of creationists do these "flaws" warrant the complete usurpation of evolution that they imagine.
This is due to differences in their intellectual processes, which require fully conceived answers to all questions. This is why, at its most basic, religion must be in opposition to science. Science is made of questions looking for answers. Religion is made of answers looking for questions; and they're not allowed to ask the questions that don't already fit the answer. That is why they consider gaps in evolutionary theory as fatal; because they fail to understand the basic premise of science. Rather than an ever-growing body of knowledge, they see it as an upstart religion that just hasn't gotten its act together yet. As if we had tried to present a solid theory of life, but screwed up on the details and are just making stuff up as we go along. To them, each scientific revision is a laughable error. Each gap a ridiculous oversight. Just as God created the universe in six days, they expect scientific dogma to be bestowed upon us from above in its entirety. It is ironic that they fail to understand the evolving nature of science itself. For them, not only did man not evolve, but his theories didn't either. To them, science is just yet another attempt to destroy their god.
But in no case should these questions and inconsistencies be considered a separate theory. And again, their mistake is that they see science as another religion. Many religious people consider minor differences over unknowable historical events and insignificant rituals as irreconcilable differences; requiring different factions, each competing with (and often hating) the others. With Intelligent Design, they continue with these same standards of intolerance. But scientific inquiry has no such demands. Legitimate questions, disagreements, and revisions are all part of the scientific method. These aren't competing powers attempting to woe the masses to their side with pre-conceived answers; these are people working together to find the answers. While scientists may have their personal feuds, at the end of the day, they're all on the same team. A Christian who perseveres with their beliefs against overwhelming opposition is considered a martyr. A scientist who does the same is just a bad scientist.
Worst of all, the only reason why ID is even considered to be a theory is because it really is intended to be the scientific replacement of creationism. Creationism is a theory. It's non-scientific and evangelizing in nature, so it can't be taught in school, but it is a theory. But ID is not a theory. Separate from creationism, it exists only in relation to its ability to debunk evolution. And if it isn't just a repackaged creationism, it can't be taught as a theory. Because it's not one. Its intent is to deceive, providing intellectual cover for those not capable or willing to understand evolution. It thrives on ignorance and can only work in the absence of scientific knowledge. It's intent isn't to educate, but to confuse. That is why the fundamentalists like it, and why it can't be taught in school. These people aren't trying to make religion into a science; they're trying to make science into yet another religion. And all due to ignorance on the very subject that they need to understand most: Science.
Post Script: This shouldn't be necessary, but I just wanted to say that this post only applies to fundamentalist Christian-types who believe in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design. But to my knowledge, these Christians are a minority, and most Christians believe in evolution. Even the Pope supports evolution (or at least the last one did, I'm assuming the new guy does too). So you should always take that into consideration on all this stuff. Extremists are always loudest because there are so few of them. So you should always strive to marginalize the extremists, and not lump them into the majority. But then again, perhaps fewer Christians would believe in evolution had the "other alternatives" been taught in school; which is exactly what the extremists are working at.
And this is complete garbage. Science is nothing if not self-doubting. That's the essence of science. Far from the monolithic conspiracy many anti-intellectuals suppose it to be, science is curiosity and doubt formalized into a coded study. So there is no reason that doubts and questions and gaps in evolution need to be formed into a competing theory. Imagine Einstein using his ideas on Relativity and whatnot as a refutation of Newton, rather than an addendum. If evolution can't incorporate these questions and gaps, then it isn't science. But it doesn't gloss over those differences. In many cases, it answers them fully. And in other cases, it is still in development. Only in the minds of creationists do these "flaws" warrant the complete usurpation of evolution that they imagine.
This is due to differences in their intellectual processes, which require fully conceived answers to all questions. This is why, at its most basic, religion must be in opposition to science. Science is made of questions looking for answers. Religion is made of answers looking for questions; and they're not allowed to ask the questions that don't already fit the answer. That is why they consider gaps in evolutionary theory as fatal; because they fail to understand the basic premise of science. Rather than an ever-growing body of knowledge, they see it as an upstart religion that just hasn't gotten its act together yet. As if we had tried to present a solid theory of life, but screwed up on the details and are just making stuff up as we go along. To them, each scientific revision is a laughable error. Each gap a ridiculous oversight. Just as God created the universe in six days, they expect scientific dogma to be bestowed upon us from above in its entirety. It is ironic that they fail to understand the evolving nature of science itself. For them, not only did man not evolve, but his theories didn't either. To them, science is just yet another attempt to destroy their god.
But in no case should these questions and inconsistencies be considered a separate theory. And again, their mistake is that they see science as another religion. Many religious people consider minor differences over unknowable historical events and insignificant rituals as irreconcilable differences; requiring different factions, each competing with (and often hating) the others. With Intelligent Design, they continue with these same standards of intolerance. But scientific inquiry has no such demands. Legitimate questions, disagreements, and revisions are all part of the scientific method. These aren't competing powers attempting to woe the masses to their side with pre-conceived answers; these are people working together to find the answers. While scientists may have their personal feuds, at the end of the day, they're all on the same team. A Christian who perseveres with their beliefs against overwhelming opposition is considered a martyr. A scientist who does the same is just a bad scientist.
Worst of all, the only reason why ID is even considered to be a theory is because it really is intended to be the scientific replacement of creationism. Creationism is a theory. It's non-scientific and evangelizing in nature, so it can't be taught in school, but it is a theory. But ID is not a theory. Separate from creationism, it exists only in relation to its ability to debunk evolution. And if it isn't just a repackaged creationism, it can't be taught as a theory. Because it's not one. Its intent is to deceive, providing intellectual cover for those not capable or willing to understand evolution. It thrives on ignorance and can only work in the absence of scientific knowledge. It's intent isn't to educate, but to confuse. That is why the fundamentalists like it, and why it can't be taught in school. These people aren't trying to make religion into a science; they're trying to make science into yet another religion. And all due to ignorance on the very subject that they need to understand most: Science.
Post Script: This shouldn't be necessary, but I just wanted to say that this post only applies to fundamentalist Christian-types who believe in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design. But to my knowledge, these Christians are a minority, and most Christians believe in evolution. Even the Pope supports evolution (or at least the last one did, I'm assuming the new guy does too). So you should always take that into consideration on all this stuff. Extremists are always loudest because there are so few of them. So you should always strive to marginalize the extremists, and not lump them into the majority. But then again, perhaps fewer Christians would believe in evolution had the "other alternatives" been taught in school; which is exactly what the extremists are working at.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Supreme Court Longshot Prediction
Ok, this isn't necessarily what I think will happen, but I think it's not outrageous, so I'll give it anyway.
Here's the deal, the greatest gift ever given to conservative leadership was the Roe v Wade decision. Hands down, no doubt about it. I agree with the decision, but it really gave an easy bumper-sticker argument for conservatives. They get to attack it over and over, and it is truly the glue that binds the movement. Plus, it allows them to continue passing anti-abortion legislation written so that it will be voted against by "murderous Democrats" and overturned by "activist judges"; giving them a three-fer. In short, Roe v. Wade is a cottage industry for the cons, and they use it well.
Thus said, if Roe is overturned, the gravytrain is over and it's back to basics on many levels. Sure, there are other issues, and sure they can still milk abortion for some impact; but it's largely over. If the other issues were as powerful and influential, they'd be using them. But nothing matches the black/white impact of abortion with these people. And while there will continue to be minor skirmishes for many years, they'll have lost the main impact. Remember, if even a meager 5% of conservatives stop voting Republican, we've got the Whitehouse. And I suspect that Roe is a bigger vote getter than that.
And on top of that, many moderates lean Republican because they don't see them as being the loons that they are. And somehow, they don't see Roe as being an issue. But all bets are off if Roe is overturned. An anti-Roe judge would be a clear sign of where the Repubs really stand. Plus, it would outrage many libs and seriously motivate them. We don't have that now, because we won. But overturning Roe would change all of that.
So basically, an anti-Roe judge will slightly dampen Republican turnout, would lose them their best argument, and would mobilize fiery liberals and sway a few moderates. There can be little doubt of that, and it's enough to win the Whitehouse and perhaps a few seats in Congress too. This is Rove's worst nightmare.
My Half-Ass Prediction
And so here's my half-ass prediction: I think that Bush is going to pick a fiery hardline conservative who will eventually prove to support Roe v. Wade but be an extreme right-wing nutjob on everything else. Bush will pretend that he hadn't asked the nominee about his Roe opinion or wasn't using it as a litmus test, just as he claimed during the election. Or maybe they'll even be open about it, and say that they didn't want to divide the country; and that they're picking someone that matched O'Connor's Roe vote, so as to not overturn anything.
This would, of course, upset the hardline Social Conservatives, but what are they going to do about it? Vote Democrat? Hell, they'd be more likely to vote Democrat if Roe was overturned than if Roe was upheld due to a Republican. Besides, Bush isn't running for re-election, and the Republican Congressmen could suggest that they didn't like Bush's choice, and even try to pin it on "obstructionist Dems" and their dangerous grip on Washington. Again, the SoCons would be upset, but so the fuck what? It's better for Repubs than them being satisfied and not voting. Again, only a minor drop in voting would give us the Whitehouse.
So anyway, that's my prediction. They'll pick a pro-Roe judge who wreaks havoc on everything else. Without any doubt, the judge Bush picks will be an extreme economic hardliner. But there's no reason to assume that, besides Roe itself, that the judge won't be an extreme fundamentalist hardliner. Roe is the keyword, and if the replacement isn't anti-Roe, we won't be able to rally as much of a defense. So we could get nationwide voucher programs, federally-supported religions with no federal oversight, or whatever; and the media would treat him as a moderate. Of course, the SoCons will complain no matter what he does, as long as he's anti-Roe; but they'll forgive Bush, just like always.
Anyway, I'm not saying this is the most likely choice. I'm just saying it has a good possibility, so I thought I'd share it. And there's not a chance that Rove hasn't thought about it, so it's just a matter of how much they're willing to piss-off the religious right.
Here's the deal, the greatest gift ever given to conservative leadership was the Roe v Wade decision. Hands down, no doubt about it. I agree with the decision, but it really gave an easy bumper-sticker argument for conservatives. They get to attack it over and over, and it is truly the glue that binds the movement. Plus, it allows them to continue passing anti-abortion legislation written so that it will be voted against by "murderous Democrats" and overturned by "activist judges"; giving them a three-fer. In short, Roe v. Wade is a cottage industry for the cons, and they use it well.
Thus said, if Roe is overturned, the gravytrain is over and it's back to basics on many levels. Sure, there are other issues, and sure they can still milk abortion for some impact; but it's largely over. If the other issues were as powerful and influential, they'd be using them. But nothing matches the black/white impact of abortion with these people. And while there will continue to be minor skirmishes for many years, they'll have lost the main impact. Remember, if even a meager 5% of conservatives stop voting Republican, we've got the Whitehouse. And I suspect that Roe is a bigger vote getter than that.
And on top of that, many moderates lean Republican because they don't see them as being the loons that they are. And somehow, they don't see Roe as being an issue. But all bets are off if Roe is overturned. An anti-Roe judge would be a clear sign of where the Repubs really stand. Plus, it would outrage many libs and seriously motivate them. We don't have that now, because we won. But overturning Roe would change all of that.
So basically, an anti-Roe judge will slightly dampen Republican turnout, would lose them their best argument, and would mobilize fiery liberals and sway a few moderates. There can be little doubt of that, and it's enough to win the Whitehouse and perhaps a few seats in Congress too. This is Rove's worst nightmare.
My Half-Ass Prediction
And so here's my half-ass prediction: I think that Bush is going to pick a fiery hardline conservative who will eventually prove to support Roe v. Wade but be an extreme right-wing nutjob on everything else. Bush will pretend that he hadn't asked the nominee about his Roe opinion or wasn't using it as a litmus test, just as he claimed during the election. Or maybe they'll even be open about it, and say that they didn't want to divide the country; and that they're picking someone that matched O'Connor's Roe vote, so as to not overturn anything.
This would, of course, upset the hardline Social Conservatives, but what are they going to do about it? Vote Democrat? Hell, they'd be more likely to vote Democrat if Roe was overturned than if Roe was upheld due to a Republican. Besides, Bush isn't running for re-election, and the Republican Congressmen could suggest that they didn't like Bush's choice, and even try to pin it on "obstructionist Dems" and their dangerous grip on Washington. Again, the SoCons would be upset, but so the fuck what? It's better for Repubs than them being satisfied and not voting. Again, only a minor drop in voting would give us the Whitehouse.
So anyway, that's my prediction. They'll pick a pro-Roe judge who wreaks havoc on everything else. Without any doubt, the judge Bush picks will be an extreme economic hardliner. But there's no reason to assume that, besides Roe itself, that the judge won't be an extreme fundamentalist hardliner. Roe is the keyword, and if the replacement isn't anti-Roe, we won't be able to rally as much of a defense. So we could get nationwide voucher programs, federally-supported religions with no federal oversight, or whatever; and the media would treat him as a moderate. Of course, the SoCons will complain no matter what he does, as long as he's anti-Roe; but they'll forgive Bush, just like always.
Anyway, I'm not saying this is the most likely choice. I'm just saying it has a good possibility, so I thought I'd share it. And there's not a chance that Rove hasn't thought about it, so it's just a matter of how much they're willing to piss-off the religious right.
I Have Not Yet Been Nominated
Just to put a temporary stop to the endless rumor-mongering, I'll just state flatly: No, President Bush has not officially asked me to be Justice O'Connor's replacement. But let's just say that I've been promised that my loyal readers would be the first to know when that happened. So keep a close eye here, and I'll tell you when to pop the champagne.
P.S. And to quash the other big rumor floating around: No, I gave no avowal as to not revisiting Bush v Gore, and yes, I'm very big into retroactive rulings; though I might be keeping a bit mum on all that until after the confirmation hearings. So sit tight, and wait for something big.
P.S. And to quash the other big rumor floating around: No, I gave no avowal as to not revisiting Bush v Gore, and yes, I'm very big into retroactive rulings; though I might be keeping a bit mum on all that until after the confirmation hearings. So sit tight, and wait for something big.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Alien Arrogance
I generally don't do celebrity gossip, and I'm not going to start now. But Kevin Drum handed us a quote from the illustrious Tom Cruise regarding aliens which I just can't pass up. I quote: Asked in an interview with the tabloid daily Bild if he believed in aliens, Cruise said: "Yes, of course. Are you really so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe?
I don't care about Tom Cruise. I think I've only seen two Tom Cruise movies in my life, and I really don't remember much from either. I haven't been avoiding him, it's just that he doesn't star in the kinds of movies that I like. Specifically, I like films with good acting, and I've gotten the strong impression that Mr. Cruise doesn't do that kind of film. I'm more of a Gary Oldman, Willem Dafoe kind of guy. But I can't stand this Alien Arrogance argument, so that's what I'm going to address.
But before I get started, let me just say that I love science fiction. It's just about the only fiction I can read. I'm not talking about Flash Gordon stuff. I'm talking about hardcore science fiction, where you have to know a thing or two about science to really follow what's happening, and you might even learn something new. Arthur C. Clarke is my favorite, and I own almost everything he's written (which is a lot). But there are a few others I like, almost all of it written before 1970. In fact, some of the stuff I read was so cutting edge that it turned out to be totally wrong, and I should just be glad that the author had the guts to admit it afterwards, or I'd have the wrong idea about the Moon, Venus, and whatnot. But I wasn't planning to go to any of those places, and that knowledge probably doesn't affect my day job; so it probably wasn't important in any case. All I'm saying is that I'm not alien adverse, and I'm not scared of new or weird ideas.
Now, I don't know if there are space aliens. I have no idea. If an alien presented himself to me, I'd have a hard time not believing. I might ask to see his intergalactic passport, just to make sure he wasn't jiving me; but as long as everything appeared in order, I'd be a believer. But just as with everything else, until I have reasonable proof to believe something, I won't believe it. That's the only prudent course of action, and I'm sticking to it. I don't believe in ghosts, gods, fairies, talking rabbits, honest conservatives, or aliens. I'm not saying I believe they don't exist; I'm just saying that the default position is a big "I don't know". (Well, except for the honest conservatives, which I know can't exist in reality)
Alien Arrogance
Thus said, I hate the Alien Arrogance argument. You know the one I'm talking about, and Cruise didn't invent it. But it's pure crap. It makes no sense, and is a perfect example of reverse reasoning. Someone believes that something is true, based entirely on faith, and they invent a rational argument to explain it. Now, I don't have a problem with faith-based people, as long as they stay out of my garbage. But I can't stand it when they pretend to have reason and proof on their side.
Here's the brief summary of the argument. The universe is filled with billions upon billions upon billions of stars, and it is certain that those stars have planets. And because the number of stars, and therefore the number of planets is so large, it is entirely improbable (and thus impossible) that those planets don't have life on them. And anyone who ignores the improbability of this is just an arrogant nut who refuses to see the truth and is blinded by their egotism. So it's bad enough that they falsely invoke probabilities that they can't possibly know, but they had to go ahead and insult the skeptics; and I'm just not having it.
I've heard this argument from nutjobs and I've heard it from scientist-types, and it's wrong from any of them. The reason is simple: We have no idea how likely life is. By using the term "improbable" they are imposing a standard of probability into the picture, which makes it sound scientific. But we have no idea of how probable life is, or even a clue on how to guess at the probability. It's impossible to know, thus invalidating their entire argument.
Maybe life is always inevitable. Maybe if an asteroid had wiped out life here, it would keep recurring again and again. Maybe it's just a matter of time, and that the probability of life is so high that all you have to do is wait another million years and it'll pop up again. A million years is nothing in real terms.
But the thing is, we have no idea how likely life is. No idea. Maybe it's probable to happen every million years, or even every hundred years. Maybe we have all kinds of life on earth right now which isn't related to each other. That doesn't really make sense. In fact, I could be crazy, but it seems to me that all life on earth is related and came from the same source. Maybe we wiped out the other ones, but it seems like earth has been around long enough that, if life were probable, we'd have quite a few strains of unrelated life. But maybe life can only come in one form, and we'd never know the difference; so that's not conclusive at all.
But the point is, we have no idea how likely life is, so we can't know the probability of life on other planets. You can't say "it is improbable that life doesn't exist elsewhere", because we have no idea of what the probability could be. We can't even guess at the probability. Maybe the odds are one in a gazillion gazillion gazillion. Or maybe life is entirely improbable, and that it shouldn't have happened here. Or maybe there is a God, and he only created us. That's what Christians are supposed to believe, and if it's true, then the probability of life on other planets is exactly zero. But who knows? Nobody can guess at this stuff.
Intelligent Life?
And here's the other part of that. Even if there is life, why should we assume that it's intelligent? Why should we assume that they even made it past the plant level? Maybe it can't be past the single-cell level, except for here on Earth where there is some extremely rare element which only exists on Earth or in our Solar System. What are the odds of that? Who knows! It's impossible to know. Yet somehow, these alien theorists jump right ahead from "probability of any life" to aliens zooming our planet looking for farmers to probe. Incredible!
What we do know is from here on Earth. The planet's been here for 4.5 billion years or so (a very long time, but still not too long by real standards), but we're the only animals who seem to have figured out how to do anything cool. Sure, dolphins and pigs and cats are intelligent; but what do they have to show for it? Nada. They get some damn fish and roll around in mud eating our leftovers. 4.5 billion years, and we're the only ones who have figured out how to make video games. And man has had relatively the same level of intelligence (as compared with other animals) for at least 10,000 years and probably more. Yet we only figured out the internet 15 years ago! Sounds improbable.
And how many species had the same chance? Billions. There are billions of different species and whatnot, many which we still don't know. And we're the only ones to build cars, and airplanes, and forks, or even have a real concept about farming and whatever. I mean, come on. We know there's life here. Fairly intelligent life. Yet we're the only ones to figure this shit out. What's the probability of that? Obviously one in billions, or whatever. Very slim odds indeed. So why should we assume that the other planets are doing any better? Why are we automatically "arrogant" for doubting this?
Or to put it a different way. We know of a planet (ours) which is 100% certain to have life, to have complex life, to have animal life, to have intelligent animal life, and to have intelligent animal life that has cool things like video games and pornography. We know that the conditions are 100% probable that it'll happen here. But after billions and billions of years, we're all that there is to show for it. Countless organisms have lived here. Thousands of years of intelligence. And we're all that we've got. Even the animals that are related to us, like chimps, haven't figured this stuff out. Sure, they can ride bicycles and juggle and upstage Clint Eastwood in his own movie, but we had to train them for that. They're almost identical to us genetically, but they could never build a bicycle or make any decent porn. Yet they live on a planet which we are 100% positive is capable of supporting such life. And we have no concept of how probable even basic life is on other planets, and these people call me arrogant!
Summary
So to sum up: We have no idea how probable life is, no idea how probable animal life is, and no idea how probable intelligent, sentient, car-building life is. No idea. No concept of probabilities. No idea on any of that. And that's not even to mention the idea of aliens visiting us from other planets, which relies on the assumption that interstellar travel is even possible. Our advanced science hasn't a clue on how to do that, and none of the other billions of species on this intelligence-capable planet can even spell the word "science" without a good dictionary and a lot of help. Maybe the aliens are more advanced, or maybe not. We can't even theorize about the possibilities. So where do these people get off pretending to use "probability", when they can't possibly know. And why the insults?
So am I saying that aliens don't exist? Of course not. All I'm saying is that it's idiotically bad logic to presume that intelligent life exists, or any life for that matter. I don't mind if they admit to being faith-based, but they have no business pretending to use "probability" and reason to justify their beliefs. It's no good when Christians do this, and it's even worse for science-based people to do it. And worst of all for these people is to refer to my beliefs as "arrogant" or any other insulting thing. I don't put up with that kind of talk, especially not when I'm right. That kind of thing bugs me everytime, and this Cruise flap is what finally got me to write about it. Or maybe I've already written this before. I often feel like I'm repeating my old posts, so forgive me if I've already written this before.
And just so it's understood, even if aliens do come down and show me their intergalactic passport and whatnot, nothing I've said in this post needs to be corrected. Even if life is very probable, we don't know what those probabilities are and everything I say is still correct. So all you Alien Arrogance theorists can just suck it!
I don't care about Tom Cruise. I think I've only seen two Tom Cruise movies in my life, and I really don't remember much from either. I haven't been avoiding him, it's just that he doesn't star in the kinds of movies that I like. Specifically, I like films with good acting, and I've gotten the strong impression that Mr. Cruise doesn't do that kind of film. I'm more of a Gary Oldman, Willem Dafoe kind of guy. But I can't stand this Alien Arrogance argument, so that's what I'm going to address.
But before I get started, let me just say that I love science fiction. It's just about the only fiction I can read. I'm not talking about Flash Gordon stuff. I'm talking about hardcore science fiction, where you have to know a thing or two about science to really follow what's happening, and you might even learn something new. Arthur C. Clarke is my favorite, and I own almost everything he's written (which is a lot). But there are a few others I like, almost all of it written before 1970. In fact, some of the stuff I read was so cutting edge that it turned out to be totally wrong, and I should just be glad that the author had the guts to admit it afterwards, or I'd have the wrong idea about the Moon, Venus, and whatnot. But I wasn't planning to go to any of those places, and that knowledge probably doesn't affect my day job; so it probably wasn't important in any case. All I'm saying is that I'm not alien adverse, and I'm not scared of new or weird ideas.
Now, I don't know if there are space aliens. I have no idea. If an alien presented himself to me, I'd have a hard time not believing. I might ask to see his intergalactic passport, just to make sure he wasn't jiving me; but as long as everything appeared in order, I'd be a believer. But just as with everything else, until I have reasonable proof to believe something, I won't believe it. That's the only prudent course of action, and I'm sticking to it. I don't believe in ghosts, gods, fairies, talking rabbits, honest conservatives, or aliens. I'm not saying I believe they don't exist; I'm just saying that the default position is a big "I don't know". (Well, except for the honest conservatives, which I know can't exist in reality)
Alien Arrogance
Thus said, I hate the Alien Arrogance argument. You know the one I'm talking about, and Cruise didn't invent it. But it's pure crap. It makes no sense, and is a perfect example of reverse reasoning. Someone believes that something is true, based entirely on faith, and they invent a rational argument to explain it. Now, I don't have a problem with faith-based people, as long as they stay out of my garbage. But I can't stand it when they pretend to have reason and proof on their side.
Here's the brief summary of the argument. The universe is filled with billions upon billions upon billions of stars, and it is certain that those stars have planets. And because the number of stars, and therefore the number of planets is so large, it is entirely improbable (and thus impossible) that those planets don't have life on them. And anyone who ignores the improbability of this is just an arrogant nut who refuses to see the truth and is blinded by their egotism. So it's bad enough that they falsely invoke probabilities that they can't possibly know, but they had to go ahead and insult the skeptics; and I'm just not having it.
I've heard this argument from nutjobs and I've heard it from scientist-types, and it's wrong from any of them. The reason is simple: We have no idea how likely life is. By using the term "improbable" they are imposing a standard of probability into the picture, which makes it sound scientific. But we have no idea of how probable life is, or even a clue on how to guess at the probability. It's impossible to know, thus invalidating their entire argument.
Maybe life is always inevitable. Maybe if an asteroid had wiped out life here, it would keep recurring again and again. Maybe it's just a matter of time, and that the probability of life is so high that all you have to do is wait another million years and it'll pop up again. A million years is nothing in real terms.
But the thing is, we have no idea how likely life is. No idea. Maybe it's probable to happen every million years, or even every hundred years. Maybe we have all kinds of life on earth right now which isn't related to each other. That doesn't really make sense. In fact, I could be crazy, but it seems to me that all life on earth is related and came from the same source. Maybe we wiped out the other ones, but it seems like earth has been around long enough that, if life were probable, we'd have quite a few strains of unrelated life. But maybe life can only come in one form, and we'd never know the difference; so that's not conclusive at all.
But the point is, we have no idea how likely life is, so we can't know the probability of life on other planets. You can't say "it is improbable that life doesn't exist elsewhere", because we have no idea of what the probability could be. We can't even guess at the probability. Maybe the odds are one in a gazillion gazillion gazillion. Or maybe life is entirely improbable, and that it shouldn't have happened here. Or maybe there is a God, and he only created us. That's what Christians are supposed to believe, and if it's true, then the probability of life on other planets is exactly zero. But who knows? Nobody can guess at this stuff.
Intelligent Life?
And here's the other part of that. Even if there is life, why should we assume that it's intelligent? Why should we assume that they even made it past the plant level? Maybe it can't be past the single-cell level, except for here on Earth where there is some extremely rare element which only exists on Earth or in our Solar System. What are the odds of that? Who knows! It's impossible to know. Yet somehow, these alien theorists jump right ahead from "probability of any life" to aliens zooming our planet looking for farmers to probe. Incredible!
What we do know is from here on Earth. The planet's been here for 4.5 billion years or so (a very long time, but still not too long by real standards), but we're the only animals who seem to have figured out how to do anything cool. Sure, dolphins and pigs and cats are intelligent; but what do they have to show for it? Nada. They get some damn fish and roll around in mud eating our leftovers. 4.5 billion years, and we're the only ones who have figured out how to make video games. And man has had relatively the same level of intelligence (as compared with other animals) for at least 10,000 years and probably more. Yet we only figured out the internet 15 years ago! Sounds improbable.
And how many species had the same chance? Billions. There are billions of different species and whatnot, many which we still don't know. And we're the only ones to build cars, and airplanes, and forks, or even have a real concept about farming and whatever. I mean, come on. We know there's life here. Fairly intelligent life. Yet we're the only ones to figure this shit out. What's the probability of that? Obviously one in billions, or whatever. Very slim odds indeed. So why should we assume that the other planets are doing any better? Why are we automatically "arrogant" for doubting this?
Or to put it a different way. We know of a planet (ours) which is 100% certain to have life, to have complex life, to have animal life, to have intelligent animal life, and to have intelligent animal life that has cool things like video games and pornography. We know that the conditions are 100% probable that it'll happen here. But after billions and billions of years, we're all that there is to show for it. Countless organisms have lived here. Thousands of years of intelligence. And we're all that we've got. Even the animals that are related to us, like chimps, haven't figured this stuff out. Sure, they can ride bicycles and juggle and upstage Clint Eastwood in his own movie, but we had to train them for that. They're almost identical to us genetically, but they could never build a bicycle or make any decent porn. Yet they live on a planet which we are 100% positive is capable of supporting such life. And we have no concept of how probable even basic life is on other planets, and these people call me arrogant!
Summary
So to sum up: We have no idea how probable life is, no idea how probable animal life is, and no idea how probable intelligent, sentient, car-building life is. No idea. No concept of probabilities. No idea on any of that. And that's not even to mention the idea of aliens visiting us from other planets, which relies on the assumption that interstellar travel is even possible. Our advanced science hasn't a clue on how to do that, and none of the other billions of species on this intelligence-capable planet can even spell the word "science" without a good dictionary and a lot of help. Maybe the aliens are more advanced, or maybe not. We can't even theorize about the possibilities. So where do these people get off pretending to use "probability", when they can't possibly know. And why the insults?
So am I saying that aliens don't exist? Of course not. All I'm saying is that it's idiotically bad logic to presume that intelligent life exists, or any life for that matter. I don't mind if they admit to being faith-based, but they have no business pretending to use "probability" and reason to justify their beliefs. It's no good when Christians do this, and it's even worse for science-based people to do it. And worst of all for these people is to refer to my beliefs as "arrogant" or any other insulting thing. I don't put up with that kind of talk, especially not when I'm right. That kind of thing bugs me everytime, and this Cruise flap is what finally got me to write about it. Or maybe I've already written this before. I often feel like I'm repeating my old posts, so forgive me if I've already written this before.
And just so it's understood, even if aliens do come down and show me their intergalactic passport and whatnot, nothing I've said in this post needs to be corrected. Even if life is very probable, we don't know what those probabilities are and everything I say is still correct. So all you Alien Arrogance theorists can just suck it!
Damn Dirty Cowards
Kevin Drum is completely right. He's only talking about Tony Blair, but it applies to our guy too. If Bush and Blair really believe that the Downing Street Memos and other leaked items are being taken out of context and misconstrued, then they should have no problem with showing us the rest of the documents. All of them. I'm not talking about recent stuff or CIA top secret files, but just the standard kind of stuff that the Whitehouse bandies about. I mean, is it really probable that Whitehouse memos from two years ago could be so crucial to our national security? That they could give away critical information regarding Iraq and Bin Laden's whereabouts? Really? I doubt it.
If anything, it's more about saving face diplomatically and politically, than it is of critical anti-terror intel. I mean, really. What memo could we have about Bin Laden or whomever from 2002 that would give away our current plans? And they could still remove the names, cities, etc, without removing much else (assuming they can create the PDF properly).
If anything, knowing this kind of stuff might freak them out. Bin Laden might hear that one of his guys is an informant; but which one?! And is he already dead?! And would they really trust that we're telling the truth? That could certainly freak Osama out. And that goes for all those terrorist bastards. It's like a psy-ops mindfuck. The real problem is if we don't have a Bin Laden informant, and we'd just be letting him know that. Then again, he could never trust that we were being honest, so he'd probably ignore this all together.
So what we're really talking about are the down and dirty secrets. The diplomatic stuff. Perhaps we'd find out what the US gave to Pakistan and Libya and Syria and whoever, in exchange for their temporary aid and reforms. Those are the secrets they really want to hide. But aren't those things we really should know? We probably don't need to know the names, but shouldn't we know what we, the people, have been agreeing to? As a democracy, shouldn't we at least know what price we're really paying? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? How can we be an informed electorate if some of the most important things are kept secret from us? And the more important the secret, the more they get to keep it from us!
But that's not a democracy. That's crap. That's not how this is supposed to work. That's not what the contract says. And it's no good to us thirty years from now, assuming we could even get it then. We have a right to know this stuff now. President Bush is agreeing to things in our name. He's our employee. We have a right to know how the company's doing.
And we all know the real reason why Presidents don't like to release this stuff: It's political dynamite. We'd get access to everything, and really see how sketchy the basis for our poll-boosting terror alerts were. You know, the ones that made you a dirty traitor if you suggested they were for political reasons; though Ridge often didn't believe they were necessary and which seem to have stopped completely now that the election is over. Oh, and don't forget the big hubbub days before the election, when Bin Laden released a tape which MEMRI and Fox News pimped as a threat to all states which voted for Bush; an interpretation that the lovable Juan Cole thoroughly rejected. Maybe MEMRI was right about that threat, but Osama was full of shit about attacking. Or more likely, it wasn't Osama who was full of shit. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear some memo stuff on that?
Anyway, I made the mistake of starting this post shortly before The Daily Show started, and even though it was a rerun, I watched it and some other stuff, and now I've lost my steam. So I'll just end it here. Oh yeah, I've re-read over this post, and realize my mistake. If such memos ever existed, they certainly don't now. That's the very kind of stuff that shredders were invented for. C'est la vie.
Oh, and I forget to tie-in the title of the post into the actual post. I was just thinking that the reason Bush and Blair would rather complain about misconstrued context, rather than releasing more memos which provide that supposedly missing context, was because they are damn dirty cowards. It's not national security. It's to avoid national scandal. Maybe someday when I'm some fancy politician or even president (if you're lucky), I'll want to keep all my old memos and whatnot private; but I certainly hope not. It's a lot easier to shout about accountability and open government when you're on the outside looking in. But it really shouldn't be hard at all. If the people shouldn't know something, then maybe you shouldn't have done it. That's the basis for true democracy, and it needs to be applied now.
If anything, it's more about saving face diplomatically and politically, than it is of critical anti-terror intel. I mean, really. What memo could we have about Bin Laden or whomever from 2002 that would give away our current plans? And they could still remove the names, cities, etc, without removing much else (assuming they can create the PDF properly).
If anything, knowing this kind of stuff might freak them out. Bin Laden might hear that one of his guys is an informant; but which one?! And is he already dead?! And would they really trust that we're telling the truth? That could certainly freak Osama out. And that goes for all those terrorist bastards. It's like a psy-ops mindfuck. The real problem is if we don't have a Bin Laden informant, and we'd just be letting him know that. Then again, he could never trust that we were being honest, so he'd probably ignore this all together.
So what we're really talking about are the down and dirty secrets. The diplomatic stuff. Perhaps we'd find out what the US gave to Pakistan and Libya and Syria and whoever, in exchange for their temporary aid and reforms. Those are the secrets they really want to hide. But aren't those things we really should know? We probably don't need to know the names, but shouldn't we know what we, the people, have been agreeing to? As a democracy, shouldn't we at least know what price we're really paying? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? How can we be an informed electorate if some of the most important things are kept secret from us? And the more important the secret, the more they get to keep it from us!
But that's not a democracy. That's crap. That's not how this is supposed to work. That's not what the contract says. And it's no good to us thirty years from now, assuming we could even get it then. We have a right to know this stuff now. President Bush is agreeing to things in our name. He's our employee. We have a right to know how the company's doing.
And we all know the real reason why Presidents don't like to release this stuff: It's political dynamite. We'd get access to everything, and really see how sketchy the basis for our poll-boosting terror alerts were. You know, the ones that made you a dirty traitor if you suggested they were for political reasons; though Ridge often didn't believe they were necessary and which seem to have stopped completely now that the election is over. Oh, and don't forget the big hubbub days before the election, when Bin Laden released a tape which MEMRI and Fox News pimped as a threat to all states which voted for Bush; an interpretation that the lovable Juan Cole thoroughly rejected. Maybe MEMRI was right about that threat, but Osama was full of shit about attacking. Or more likely, it wasn't Osama who was full of shit. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear some memo stuff on that?
Anyway, I made the mistake of starting this post shortly before The Daily Show started, and even though it was a rerun, I watched it and some other stuff, and now I've lost my steam. So I'll just end it here. Oh yeah, I've re-read over this post, and realize my mistake. If such memos ever existed, they certainly don't now. That's the very kind of stuff that shredders were invented for. C'est la vie.
Oh, and I forget to tie-in the title of the post into the actual post. I was just thinking that the reason Bush and Blair would rather complain about misconstrued context, rather than releasing more memos which provide that supposedly missing context, was because they are damn dirty cowards. It's not national security. It's to avoid national scandal. Maybe someday when I'm some fancy politician or even president (if you're lucky), I'll want to keep all my old memos and whatnot private; but I certainly hope not. It's a lot easier to shout about accountability and open government when you're on the outside looking in. But it really shouldn't be hard at all. If the people shouldn't know something, then maybe you shouldn't have done it. That's the basis for true democracy, and it needs to be applied now.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Democrats: America's Team
Here's an embarrassing story. In junior high, I played football, and I sucked. I don't know why, but I sucked. I could run, I could catch, I could tackle, and I played football after school with friends and I was good. But on the team, with pads on and everything, I sucked. Frankly, I think it was just because I loved playing football, but I hated the drills and running and it just exhausted me and I couldn't think straight. Or something like that.
And for some time, the coach put me on the defensive line, which I hated (I wanted to be a running back). And while we scrimmaged during practice, I'd hit my opposing lineman hard and we'd tussle around like everyone else. And then one day my opponent realized that I wasn't actually going after the guy with the ball. I was just smacking my guy, but that was all. I guess I just liked smacking him, but I wasn't going after the guy with the ball. I don't know why. Like I said, I played football a lot, but somehow I wasn't thinking straight or something.
And so on one play, the ball was snapped, but my opponent just sat down. He didn't try to stop me. He didn't try to hit me, or block me, or tussle with me. He just sat down. And I didn't know what to do, so I just stood there. I didn't charge past like I knew I should have. I just stood there, because it was such a weird thing. And he did that several times, and it was always the same reaction. I was only hitting him because he was trying to block me. And if he wasn't going to block me, I wasn't going to hit him. And afterwards, I was really embarrassed by that and almost didn't feel like mentioning it now, even though it happened two decades ago. But it applies to this post about confrontation, so I thought I'd start off with that story.
And you can see where I'm going with this. Too often, when you're in a debate or fight or office-struggle or whatever, the main reason you're fighting is because someone is opposing you. Not necessarily because you need to convince them, or prove something. It's reflexive to defend yourself while being attacked, and it's natural to want to oppose an opponent; even if they're a good friend. That's just human nature, which probably made more sense in the caveman days than modern times.
But oftentimes, if someone's charging to knock down your door, it's best to just open the door yourself and watch them fall on their face. Sometimes, the only thing keeping your opponent standing are your punches. And too often, the harder you punish someone, the more you encourage them to keep fighting. That's the basis for most insurgencies, and it's what won Bush his re-election.
More Anecdotes
And you know what I'm talking about. You're drunk and you get in some big fight with your best friend over the dumbest of things. Something totally inane, pointless, and unprovable; but you just can't let it go. You might not care a lick about what's being debated, but you'll be damned if your friend won't admit that you're right.
Many years ago, I spent several drunken hours debating a good friend on whether the best offense was a good defense or vice versa. I was totally right, but it was stupid and pointless. I believe it ended with me head-butting the guy (as an example of a good offense); which ended the debate, so I guess I won. We remained friends after that, but it was really embarrassing. I mean, we started the debate while walking to a bar (already slightly drunk), continued the debate at the bar, and the head-butt came after the bar closed and we were back at my apartment again. And it was totally stupid, and again, I'm somewhat embarrassed to even mention this now. In my defense, it was a long time ago and I'm not quite so stupid now.
And too often, even the best of us defend something solely because we feel attacked. I once read a biography of Monty Python's Terry Gilliam (which might be a bad biography, because I liked him a lot less than before), and Gilliam described moving to England in the 60's because he disliked America, but found himself defending America whenever people discovered he was American and bad mouthed it. He didn't like defending America, but felt compelled to do so anyway. And I've heard the same thing from people who go abroad these days. You might not like what America does, but you'll be damned to have some outsider denounce your country. But it's not necessarily patriotism doing this. It's the sense of being attacked, and we all do it one time or another.
The Point
And this is all a long round-about way of getting to my point. Confrontation: Don't do it. And wholesale attacks of Bush, Republicans, America's actions, etc., are also really really bad ideas.
Am I saying we should roll-over and do whatever they want? Of course not. I'm just saying that you should always always always avoid making people defensive and back them into a corner. People will defend the most outrageous things when their emotions take over. An atheist might defend the religious parents they're always bad-mouthing for being too religious. An environmentalist might attack environmentalists for being so overbearing. I've seen arguments in which the participants literally flip sides and start arguing for the other side's position, just because that's where the argument went. They lose sight of the original argument, and will say absolutely anything to win the debate.
And Rove & Co. are experts at taking advantage of that dynamic. In fact, reflexive opposition is the entire basis for Rove's political mechanizations. That's how he operates. Getting two sides in opposition and working hard to get enough votes to win, while allowing a big enough opposition for your people to hate. That's how it's done. It's not that they get their people to hate the other side, though that is an expected outcome. It's that they get their people to believe that the other side hates them, and is out to get them. They emphasize liberal attacks on conservatives and America, so that people believe that the liberals are out to destroy them and their way of life; and that a vote for Bush is a vote of preservation. And that an attack on Bush is an attack on them. That's how it works, and Rove is a master of it.
That's why Bush's nominees are always controversial, because he wants us to say nasty things about them. That's why Bush's policies are so offensive, because he wants Democratic opposition. That's why they do just about everything. They know that they don't have a popular agenda. They know that the "common man" should oppose the conservative agenda. They know that most people believe in the Liberal ideals, and so they use Democratic opposition as a mobilizing force; to get people to support things they should oppose. And they use it well.
They will even invent Democrat opposition, and search high and low for a Ward Churchill to demonize as the "typical liberal". They'll take innocuous statements by Dean and Durbin and re-write them into scathing attacks on America and our troops. I suspect that one reason why Bush and Co. didn't care about waging war in Afghanistan was because most liberals supported it (I certainly did); and so it couldn't be used to demonize the left.
They don't want to be blamed for partisan politics, so they carefully walk the line so that both sides look guilty. Because that's what they want. Divisive politics which allow emotions to overrule logic and common-sense. And too often, we play right into their hands, and give them the partisan rancor they need to survive.
A Solution
And that cannot be the basis for liberal maneuverings. We're the inclusive guys. We believe in a healthy society which helps all people. We believe that everyone should be treated fairly and given many chances to succeed. We believe in respect for other people, and equal rights for all. And that just can't work with the divisive politics that the conservatives use.
We're the party of society, and they're the party of the individual. We're the party of union strength, collective bargaining, and class-action suits; and they're the party of oligarchs whose strength goes unmatched. We're the party of teamwork, and they're the party of division. We're the party of democracy, and they're the party of the Powerful. And so the strategy that they use to destroy us will ruin us if we use it. If we play the politics of division and confrontation, we will lose.
And so what am I saying? Should we have supported Bush's horrible war? Hell no. Should we laydown for Bush's dangerous tax cuts? Of course not. Should we keep our mouths shut about Bush's disgraceful nominees? Don't be stupid. We just shouldn't make this personal. We shouldn't attack Bush personally. And we should avoid unprovable conspiracy theories, and stick with the facts.
Maybe Bush just didn't realize that his tax cuts favored the rich so heavily. God knows that he never read any of that stuff; maybe he misunderstood what it said. And perhaps he wasn't really aware of the state of intelligence regarding Iraq. And it's possible that Bush's vetting process of nominees isn't so good, as we saw with Bernard Kerik. We know the truth, and so we should work with Bush on correcting this stuff, and getting the correct information out there. We should assume that Bush is being honest, and that he just didn't know any of this stuff, and perhaps just isn't up to the task of running our country. And when Halliburton's contracts appear to be a big ripoff to our country and perhaps causing harm to our troops, we need to inform our fine president of this, and give some helpful advice on what needs to be done to correct this.
The President is a very very busy man, and as he's said before, it's hard work. There can be no harm in offering constructive criticism to help him with his burdensome task.
Teamwork
But the main thing, we need to show that we're all on the same team. We're all Americans trying to make America great. That's what liberals are about, and that's what we need to stand with. We might have some differing ideas about what needs to be done, but we're all in basic agreement as to the outcome. Because that is the truth. Bush might lie to us about tax cuts and the war, (and every other god damn thing) but that's just because he thinks he needs to, in order to improve America. We think he's wrong, but we shouldn't assume that he's evil. Because we don't know if he is, and it's not the Liberal Way to assume that people are evil. That's just not how we do things, and it doesn't play to our advantages.
So we shouldn't allow ourselves to be run over. But we shouldn't give them the imagined opposition that they need to deceive our fellow Americans. The truth about Bush's incompetence will come out, and every personal attack we hurl at Bush and Republicans and anything that can be construed as an attack of our troops or America, those are all things that just add fuel to Rove's fire, and prevent people from seeing the truth. As Digby pointed out last week, Rove isn't playing Chess; he's playing Dodgeball. There's nothing complicated about what he's doing. He's counting on an offensive opposition to keep his supporters in line.
Rove & Co. want "liberal lunatics" offending people. They wanted war protesters blocking traffic and shouting insults at Bush during rallies. They want PETA splashing red paint, and "tree huggers" chaining themselves to trees, and "human shields" going to Iraq, and gays trying to get married. They want "Hollywood elites" like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon opposing Bush. They want liberals laughing at NASCAR and deriding religion. And it doesn't matter how few people do these things, because most of all, they want "Joe Sixpack" to believe that his lifestyle is under assault by liberals, and that he needs to fight back. Without that, they're nothing but a party of rich white guys demanding more power. We need to not give them that opposition.
So we can't allow them to have their way, but we have to show that we're all on the same team. Despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, America is a liberal nation; whether they know it or not. Red-staters might claim allegiance to Bush, but they love their social programs and federal spending. Stop making these closet liberals defend the conservative fantasies that Rove requires to ruin our nation. Stop fueling the right-wing attack machine. We're all on the same team. Act like it.
And for some time, the coach put me on the defensive line, which I hated (I wanted to be a running back). And while we scrimmaged during practice, I'd hit my opposing lineman hard and we'd tussle around like everyone else. And then one day my opponent realized that I wasn't actually going after the guy with the ball. I was just smacking my guy, but that was all. I guess I just liked smacking him, but I wasn't going after the guy with the ball. I don't know why. Like I said, I played football a lot, but somehow I wasn't thinking straight or something.
And so on one play, the ball was snapped, but my opponent just sat down. He didn't try to stop me. He didn't try to hit me, or block me, or tussle with me. He just sat down. And I didn't know what to do, so I just stood there. I didn't charge past like I knew I should have. I just stood there, because it was such a weird thing. And he did that several times, and it was always the same reaction. I was only hitting him because he was trying to block me. And if he wasn't going to block me, I wasn't going to hit him. And afterwards, I was really embarrassed by that and almost didn't feel like mentioning it now, even though it happened two decades ago. But it applies to this post about confrontation, so I thought I'd start off with that story.
And you can see where I'm going with this. Too often, when you're in a debate or fight or office-struggle or whatever, the main reason you're fighting is because someone is opposing you. Not necessarily because you need to convince them, or prove something. It's reflexive to defend yourself while being attacked, and it's natural to want to oppose an opponent; even if they're a good friend. That's just human nature, which probably made more sense in the caveman days than modern times.
But oftentimes, if someone's charging to knock down your door, it's best to just open the door yourself and watch them fall on their face. Sometimes, the only thing keeping your opponent standing are your punches. And too often, the harder you punish someone, the more you encourage them to keep fighting. That's the basis for most insurgencies, and it's what won Bush his re-election.
More Anecdotes
And you know what I'm talking about. You're drunk and you get in some big fight with your best friend over the dumbest of things. Something totally inane, pointless, and unprovable; but you just can't let it go. You might not care a lick about what's being debated, but you'll be damned if your friend won't admit that you're right.
Many years ago, I spent several drunken hours debating a good friend on whether the best offense was a good defense or vice versa. I was totally right, but it was stupid and pointless. I believe it ended with me head-butting the guy (as an example of a good offense); which ended the debate, so I guess I won. We remained friends after that, but it was really embarrassing. I mean, we started the debate while walking to a bar (already slightly drunk), continued the debate at the bar, and the head-butt came after the bar closed and we were back at my apartment again. And it was totally stupid, and again, I'm somewhat embarrassed to even mention this now. In my defense, it was a long time ago and I'm not quite so stupid now.
And too often, even the best of us defend something solely because we feel attacked. I once read a biography of Monty Python's Terry Gilliam (which might be a bad biography, because I liked him a lot less than before), and Gilliam described moving to England in the 60's because he disliked America, but found himself defending America whenever people discovered he was American and bad mouthed it. He didn't like defending America, but felt compelled to do so anyway. And I've heard the same thing from people who go abroad these days. You might not like what America does, but you'll be damned to have some outsider denounce your country. But it's not necessarily patriotism doing this. It's the sense of being attacked, and we all do it one time or another.
The Point
And this is all a long round-about way of getting to my point. Confrontation: Don't do it. And wholesale attacks of Bush, Republicans, America's actions, etc., are also really really bad ideas.
Am I saying we should roll-over and do whatever they want? Of course not. I'm just saying that you should always always always avoid making people defensive and back them into a corner. People will defend the most outrageous things when their emotions take over. An atheist might defend the religious parents they're always bad-mouthing for being too religious. An environmentalist might attack environmentalists for being so overbearing. I've seen arguments in which the participants literally flip sides and start arguing for the other side's position, just because that's where the argument went. They lose sight of the original argument, and will say absolutely anything to win the debate.
And Rove & Co. are experts at taking advantage of that dynamic. In fact, reflexive opposition is the entire basis for Rove's political mechanizations. That's how he operates. Getting two sides in opposition and working hard to get enough votes to win, while allowing a big enough opposition for your people to hate. That's how it's done. It's not that they get their people to hate the other side, though that is an expected outcome. It's that they get their people to believe that the other side hates them, and is out to get them. They emphasize liberal attacks on conservatives and America, so that people believe that the liberals are out to destroy them and their way of life; and that a vote for Bush is a vote of preservation. And that an attack on Bush is an attack on them. That's how it works, and Rove is a master of it.
That's why Bush's nominees are always controversial, because he wants us to say nasty things about them. That's why Bush's policies are so offensive, because he wants Democratic opposition. That's why they do just about everything. They know that they don't have a popular agenda. They know that the "common man" should oppose the conservative agenda. They know that most people believe in the Liberal ideals, and so they use Democratic opposition as a mobilizing force; to get people to support things they should oppose. And they use it well.
They will even invent Democrat opposition, and search high and low for a Ward Churchill to demonize as the "typical liberal". They'll take innocuous statements by Dean and Durbin and re-write them into scathing attacks on America and our troops. I suspect that one reason why Bush and Co. didn't care about waging war in Afghanistan was because most liberals supported it (I certainly did); and so it couldn't be used to demonize the left.
They don't want to be blamed for partisan politics, so they carefully walk the line so that both sides look guilty. Because that's what they want. Divisive politics which allow emotions to overrule logic and common-sense. And too often, we play right into their hands, and give them the partisan rancor they need to survive.
A Solution
And that cannot be the basis for liberal maneuverings. We're the inclusive guys. We believe in a healthy society which helps all people. We believe that everyone should be treated fairly and given many chances to succeed. We believe in respect for other people, and equal rights for all. And that just can't work with the divisive politics that the conservatives use.
We're the party of society, and they're the party of the individual. We're the party of union strength, collective bargaining, and class-action suits; and they're the party of oligarchs whose strength goes unmatched. We're the party of teamwork, and they're the party of division. We're the party of democracy, and they're the party of the Powerful. And so the strategy that they use to destroy us will ruin us if we use it. If we play the politics of division and confrontation, we will lose.
And so what am I saying? Should we have supported Bush's horrible war? Hell no. Should we laydown for Bush's dangerous tax cuts? Of course not. Should we keep our mouths shut about Bush's disgraceful nominees? Don't be stupid. We just shouldn't make this personal. We shouldn't attack Bush personally. And we should avoid unprovable conspiracy theories, and stick with the facts.
Maybe Bush just didn't realize that his tax cuts favored the rich so heavily. God knows that he never read any of that stuff; maybe he misunderstood what it said. And perhaps he wasn't really aware of the state of intelligence regarding Iraq. And it's possible that Bush's vetting process of nominees isn't so good, as we saw with Bernard Kerik. We know the truth, and so we should work with Bush on correcting this stuff, and getting the correct information out there. We should assume that Bush is being honest, and that he just didn't know any of this stuff, and perhaps just isn't up to the task of running our country. And when Halliburton's contracts appear to be a big ripoff to our country and perhaps causing harm to our troops, we need to inform our fine president of this, and give some helpful advice on what needs to be done to correct this.
The President is a very very busy man, and as he's said before, it's hard work. There can be no harm in offering constructive criticism to help him with his burdensome task.
Teamwork
But the main thing, we need to show that we're all on the same team. We're all Americans trying to make America great. That's what liberals are about, and that's what we need to stand with. We might have some differing ideas about what needs to be done, but we're all in basic agreement as to the outcome. Because that is the truth. Bush might lie to us about tax cuts and the war, (and every other god damn thing) but that's just because he thinks he needs to, in order to improve America. We think he's wrong, but we shouldn't assume that he's evil. Because we don't know if he is, and it's not the Liberal Way to assume that people are evil. That's just not how we do things, and it doesn't play to our advantages.
So we shouldn't allow ourselves to be run over. But we shouldn't give them the imagined opposition that they need to deceive our fellow Americans. The truth about Bush's incompetence will come out, and every personal attack we hurl at Bush and Republicans and anything that can be construed as an attack of our troops or America, those are all things that just add fuel to Rove's fire, and prevent people from seeing the truth. As Digby pointed out last week, Rove isn't playing Chess; he's playing Dodgeball. There's nothing complicated about what he's doing. He's counting on an offensive opposition to keep his supporters in line.
Rove & Co. want "liberal lunatics" offending people. They wanted war protesters blocking traffic and shouting insults at Bush during rallies. They want PETA splashing red paint, and "tree huggers" chaining themselves to trees, and "human shields" going to Iraq, and gays trying to get married. They want "Hollywood elites" like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon opposing Bush. They want liberals laughing at NASCAR and deriding religion. And it doesn't matter how few people do these things, because most of all, they want "Joe Sixpack" to believe that his lifestyle is under assault by liberals, and that he needs to fight back. Without that, they're nothing but a party of rich white guys demanding more power. We need to not give them that opposition.
So we can't allow them to have their way, but we have to show that we're all on the same team. Despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, America is a liberal nation; whether they know it or not. Red-staters might claim allegiance to Bush, but they love their social programs and federal spending. Stop making these closet liberals defend the conservative fantasies that Rove requires to ruin our nation. Stop fueling the right-wing attack machine. We're all on the same team. Act like it.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The Search For Moral Relativism
I know my loyal readership should be all over this one, so I've got a test for you: Can anyone find me a true Moral Relativist on the Left? I mean someone who really does believe that "anything goes", and that we can do whatever we feel like and there's not a problem? That polluting and murder are acceptable.? That torture is ok? That it's ok for our government to lie to us? That there isn't such a thing as morals and that everyone is allowed to do whatever they want to do without impunity? I know that conservatives attack us on this regularly, but I have a hard time imagining that it exists.
And call me crazy, but it seems to me that the Right has more of the moral relativists. They've got bigots who have different morals depending on the color of your skin, or country, or religion. They've got torturers. They think that Abu Ghraib was just people "letting off steam". And to me, that's moral relativism. The idea that there are different moral rules depending on who you're talking about.
And who've we got? We've got PETA. And I'm pretty sure your typical Christian Conservative is more likely to need an abortion than a PETA-ite is to eat a T-bone. Am I right or what? And Greenpeace? They don't really strike me as the "anything goes" crowd. And it seems like every liberal I know has their standards of right and wrong, and are quite firm in defending them.
So am I crazy? Are you people moral relativists, and you haven't told me? God knows I'm a self-righteous bastard who likes to sit on my high-horse and tell everyone else what they're doing wrong, so I know that I'm not the moral relativist they're complaining about. So is it one of you? Can you point me towards one? I've gots to know. Something tells me that this is going to turn out to be one of those strawmen badguys the Right invented as someone to attack. Typical.
And call me crazy, but it seems to me that the Right has more of the moral relativists. They've got bigots who have different morals depending on the color of your skin, or country, or religion. They've got torturers. They think that Abu Ghraib was just people "letting off steam". And to me, that's moral relativism. The idea that there are different moral rules depending on who you're talking about.
And who've we got? We've got PETA. And I'm pretty sure your typical Christian Conservative is more likely to need an abortion than a PETA-ite is to eat a T-bone. Am I right or what? And Greenpeace? They don't really strike me as the "anything goes" crowd. And it seems like every liberal I know has their standards of right and wrong, and are quite firm in defending them.
So am I crazy? Are you people moral relativists, and you haven't told me? God knows I'm a self-righteous bastard who likes to sit on my high-horse and tell everyone else what they're doing wrong, so I know that I'm not the moral relativist they're complaining about. So is it one of you? Can you point me towards one? I've gots to know. Something tells me that this is going to turn out to be one of those strawmen badguys the Right invented as someone to attack. Typical.
Are You Experienced?
Do you remember that first time you listened to The Doors or Pink Floyd or Velvet Underground or whatever, and you just thought "Whoa! Where the hell did that come from?" I'm not talking about just hearing a tune on the radio. I'm talking about hearing the full-on album and having it all make perfect sense. And you wondered how you had lived your life so long without having heard that before, and it all seemed wonderful and new.
Years later, you might still enjoy that album, and you've long since gotten the rest of their albums, but it's kind of lost that edge. It's become somewhat cliche. The tunes still feel right, but the magic isn't quite there. You might get drunk late one night and try out Morrison Hotel or The White Album, and it hits all the right notes, but it's no longer special or new. It no longer has that same charm. But it isn't the music that's changed. It's you. The music is still special, but you've just become immune to it. Spoiled. You've incorporated it into your being, and it's no longer separate from you. It's part of what defines you, but you don't even notice it much anymore. You take it for granted, and just assume that everyone else already knows all about it and takes it for granted too. You assume that they've heard the music, but just prefer to listen to something else. You just kind of assume that everyone else is kind of like you.
But at one time it was new to you, and you forget that it might be new to other people. You forget that some people have never heard of the Velvet Underground or Stereolab. You forget that some people haven't heard Electric Ladyland or Atom Heart Mother. Hell, there are billions of people who have never heard those albums. Or Dave Brubeck. Or Chet Baker. Or Billie Holiday. You forget that some people have never experienced that. Some people have no idea that it even exists, or what they might be missing. They may have heard a few tunes, but they didn't understand them. It was just background noise. Pleasant background noise. And there are millions upon millions of Americans who wouldn't know what I was talking about. And if you tried to play it for them, they'd just hear noise and confusion and would shut-out the possibility of understanding that music.
And you forget about that. You forget that some people haven't read the philosophers you've read. You forget that some people have never experienced your wonderful poli-sci professor, or that history teacher who made it all make sense. Some people have never read about Watergate. Or never heard of Iran-Contra, or understood what happened. And who never took a sophisticated economics class. Or understood statistics. And you forget how many people lack a fundamental understanding of these things. Who fail to grasp these things on even the most basic level.
And they don't understand what you're talking about. Millions of people whose History teacher is Rush, with Economics from Hannity. Where Bill O'Reilly really is an independent, who shows you behind the spin. And Brit Hume is your trusted anchor who has never led you astray. Or even those who truly enjoy the White Women stories that CNN tosses at us, and who are glad the Jackson Trial replaced those boring political stories. They may have chuckled when Paula Zahn accused Scott Ritter of drinking Saddam's Kool-aid, and love the faux fighting on Crossfire. Some people were made for mass media, and they drink in everything they see.
They are empty vessels waiting to be filled, and they trust their sources far more than they could trust you. These people are their instructors. These people tell them what to think and why. And they may not have heard of the Velvet Underground, or listened to a Patsy Cline album, or understand Keynesian Economics, or grasped the intricacies of international diplomacy; but they know what they like. And it's exactly what they're supposed to like, and they think you're a fool for not knowing any better.
There are millions of people who fit this description. Millions. And it isn't their fault. They're not necessarily stupid. And they're not necessarily mean. They just haven't been exposed to what you've been exposed to, and you can't blame them for that. You can't. Once upon a time, you didn't know this stuff either. And Hendrix might have scared you. And Lou Reed might have offended you. And you would have been confused and angry and untrustful and resentful. And you would have blindly repeated what you had been told, and you would have assumed that your opponent is just foolish or ignorant for not understanding the basic things you had been taught. Nobody wants to be stupid. It just kind of happens.
And that's what you have to remember when you're talking to these people and trying to understand their problems. I'm not saying they're dumber than us, or that our culture is better than theirs, or that we're necessarily better than them (though honestly, we really are). I'm just saying that many of the things that we take for granted are foreign to these people. They believe what they hear about liberals because they haven't experienced enough of the real thing. Ignorance is a root cause of all bigotry. And they're already so guarded and so offensive that it's hard for us to restrain ourselves. It's hard for us not to lash back. We just want to shake them and say "What the hell's wrong with you, jackass! Why can't you understand!"
Be we should refrain. We must. They think it's customary to fling vitriol and confusion at the other side, and we make the mistake of returning fire. And we should remember that they haven't seen what we've seen. And they don't know what they're missing. They only know what they're told, and they believe it. They have their information sources and they're sticking to them. If Rush didn't say it, it probably didn't happen. And they think we're the exact same way.
But we can't blame them for that. Someone who's lived in a cave their whole life can't be blamed for living in a cave. That's all they know. And we need to understand that. Not to belittle them, and not to "win". But to bring them in on the truth. To show them why we believe these things. To make them understand us. It's not enough to assume they understand. They don't. And it's your responsibility to show them. To let them understand.
And to do that, you need to listen. Listen to them, to understand what it is that they're confused about. To understand where they've been led astray. That is the only way you can get through to them. They've been inoculated against attacks on Gitmo and Abu Ghraib or any criticisms of Bush. You need to learn how to get through that. To penetrate the wall that the Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's build-on each day. To break on through that, so that they will want to tear it down themselves. So that they'll want to see what else is out there. To experience the world. To see the good, bad, and ugly. And really begin to put the pieces together, and understand how everything works. That's all anyone wants. We just need to show them why that's not happening. That's all they want. Billie Holiday is not background music, and they need to understand why.
Years later, you might still enjoy that album, and you've long since gotten the rest of their albums, but it's kind of lost that edge. It's become somewhat cliche. The tunes still feel right, but the magic isn't quite there. You might get drunk late one night and try out Morrison Hotel or The White Album, and it hits all the right notes, but it's no longer special or new. It no longer has that same charm. But it isn't the music that's changed. It's you. The music is still special, but you've just become immune to it. Spoiled. You've incorporated it into your being, and it's no longer separate from you. It's part of what defines you, but you don't even notice it much anymore. You take it for granted, and just assume that everyone else already knows all about it and takes it for granted too. You assume that they've heard the music, but just prefer to listen to something else. You just kind of assume that everyone else is kind of like you.
But at one time it was new to you, and you forget that it might be new to other people. You forget that some people have never heard of the Velvet Underground or Stereolab. You forget that some people haven't heard Electric Ladyland or Atom Heart Mother. Hell, there are billions of people who have never heard those albums. Or Dave Brubeck. Or Chet Baker. Or Billie Holiday. You forget that some people have never experienced that. Some people have no idea that it even exists, or what they might be missing. They may have heard a few tunes, but they didn't understand them. It was just background noise. Pleasant background noise. And there are millions upon millions of Americans who wouldn't know what I was talking about. And if you tried to play it for them, they'd just hear noise and confusion and would shut-out the possibility of understanding that music.
And you forget about that. You forget that some people haven't read the philosophers you've read. You forget that some people have never experienced your wonderful poli-sci professor, or that history teacher who made it all make sense. Some people have never read about Watergate. Or never heard of Iran-Contra, or understood what happened. And who never took a sophisticated economics class. Or understood statistics. And you forget how many people lack a fundamental understanding of these things. Who fail to grasp these things on even the most basic level.
And they don't understand what you're talking about. Millions of people whose History teacher is Rush, with Economics from Hannity. Where Bill O'Reilly really is an independent, who shows you behind the spin. And Brit Hume is your trusted anchor who has never led you astray. Or even those who truly enjoy the White Women stories that CNN tosses at us, and who are glad the Jackson Trial replaced those boring political stories. They may have chuckled when Paula Zahn accused Scott Ritter of drinking Saddam's Kool-aid, and love the faux fighting on Crossfire. Some people were made for mass media, and they drink in everything they see.
They are empty vessels waiting to be filled, and they trust their sources far more than they could trust you. These people are their instructors. These people tell them what to think and why. And they may not have heard of the Velvet Underground, or listened to a Patsy Cline album, or understand Keynesian Economics, or grasped the intricacies of international diplomacy; but they know what they like. And it's exactly what they're supposed to like, and they think you're a fool for not knowing any better.
There are millions of people who fit this description. Millions. And it isn't their fault. They're not necessarily stupid. And they're not necessarily mean. They just haven't been exposed to what you've been exposed to, and you can't blame them for that. You can't. Once upon a time, you didn't know this stuff either. And Hendrix might have scared you. And Lou Reed might have offended you. And you would have been confused and angry and untrustful and resentful. And you would have blindly repeated what you had been told, and you would have assumed that your opponent is just foolish or ignorant for not understanding the basic things you had been taught. Nobody wants to be stupid. It just kind of happens.
And that's what you have to remember when you're talking to these people and trying to understand their problems. I'm not saying they're dumber than us, or that our culture is better than theirs, or that we're necessarily better than them (though honestly, we really are). I'm just saying that many of the things that we take for granted are foreign to these people. They believe what they hear about liberals because they haven't experienced enough of the real thing. Ignorance is a root cause of all bigotry. And they're already so guarded and so offensive that it's hard for us to restrain ourselves. It's hard for us not to lash back. We just want to shake them and say "What the hell's wrong with you, jackass! Why can't you understand!"
Be we should refrain. We must. They think it's customary to fling vitriol and confusion at the other side, and we make the mistake of returning fire. And we should remember that they haven't seen what we've seen. And they don't know what they're missing. They only know what they're told, and they believe it. They have their information sources and they're sticking to them. If Rush didn't say it, it probably didn't happen. And they think we're the exact same way.
But we can't blame them for that. Someone who's lived in a cave their whole life can't be blamed for living in a cave. That's all they know. And we need to understand that. Not to belittle them, and not to "win". But to bring them in on the truth. To show them why we believe these things. To make them understand us. It's not enough to assume they understand. They don't. And it's your responsibility to show them. To let them understand.
And to do that, you need to listen. Listen to them, to understand what it is that they're confused about. To understand where they've been led astray. That is the only way you can get through to them. They've been inoculated against attacks on Gitmo and Abu Ghraib or any criticisms of Bush. You need to learn how to get through that. To penetrate the wall that the Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's build-on each day. To break on through that, so that they will want to tear it down themselves. So that they'll want to see what else is out there. To experience the world. To see the good, bad, and ugly. And really begin to put the pieces together, and understand how everything works. That's all anyone wants. We just need to show them why that's not happening. That's all they want. Billie Holiday is not background music, and they need to understand why.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Five Easy Steps to a Better America
This isn't anything new, but it bears repeating: Conservatism is a fantasy. The ideology is based entirely on fantasy. They buy-in to this myth about how the world works, and everything else is forced to fit into that fantasy. I don't say that as a partisan puke spewing out venom at my opponent. This is the straight-up truth and is completely undeniable. Conservatives aren't evil or stupid people (not most of them, anyway). They're simply misled by a pleasing fantasy that feels better than the reality they're faced with daily. It's self-contained and gives justification for them to do exactly what it is that they want to do...whatever that is.
They're like an overweight person who's fallen for a quickie diet which lets them eat all they want and still lose weight. We need to show them the pounds they've put on. We need to show them the reality.
And we all know what that fantasy entails. Things are worse now than they've ever been; and to make things better, all we need to do is undo the "unnatural" things that screwed everything up. Additionally, everything will work itself out by natural forces, if we let them, and that man is mucking everything up by trying to stop natural forces. Things are as they should be, and anything we're doing goes against what should be. And oddly enough, that goes for what man does too. Man is part of nature, they reason, and so pollution, man-made extinctions, war, etc., are all parts of nature which man should not interfere with. And if they'll admit that the globe is warming, they will insist that this too is a natural force, and that man needn't worry about it.
So basically, man can do anything he wants...except for stopping other men from doing what is "natural". Of course, none of this applies to low-brow criminal activities, which should be stopped; but white collar crime is ok as it's part of nature and is dealt with by the all-powerful market forces.
And this fantasy is a complete package. Each conservative tailor-makes it for their own specific beliefs, but the overall remedies are the same; like any get-quick-rich scheme or insta-diet. If you do "X", you'll look better, feel better, and receive more cash than you'll be able to spend. And if "X" happens to be the exact things that these people already wanted, all the better. The Ice-Cream Diet takes the form of a political belief, and it's ruining the figure of our great nation.
A Pleasing Fantasy
And it is a very pleasing fantasy. It dictates that all of the good things that you have in life are due to your own hardwork and diligence. As if we did something to deserve to be born a white person in America. It wasn't good fortune that made me well-fed and well-educated. That's just how things were supposed to turn out. And if you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't have been born to lazy people who don't deserve good stuff. Or, if you weren't born to lazy people, you're just suffering from "white guilt" and need to stop blaming yourself and start blaming everyone else.
Because it also states that anything bad that happens to us is due to outside elements which aren't doing what they're supposed to do. Whatever happens, it's not our fault. If you can't get a job, blame the Mexicans or Blacks. And if your kids don't respect you and become drug users, that's Hollywood's fault. If your wife is unhappy with her lot in life, that's because of the feminists putting ideas into her head. And unwinnable wars? That could only be due to traitorous libs who undermine our troops and give aid to the enemy to damage conservatives politically. And so on. Everything bad is someone else's fault, and you can bet your bottom dollar that that "someone else" is a liberal.
In fact, to most conservatives, the term "liberal" just means anyone who does anything stupid, evil, or bad. If someone sues a business for their own personal mistake, they're a liberal. If a youth does something wicked or disgraceful, they were raised by liberals. And liberals are to be blamed for the radical Muslim hatred of the West and for sympathizing with radical Muslims and encouraging their radical behavior. To conservatives, liberals are America's bogeyman. An all-purpose nemesis whose only concern is perpetrating evil and ruining America, for reasons which never need to be identified. As one famous conservative stated, "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
And the last piece of that puzzle is that it gives justification for all the bad things they do. It's ok to ignore the poor, to pollute the air, to wage religious wars, and to deny basic human rights to "enemies"; because that is what it is natural for us to do. Conservatives and America are blameless for anything they do, and all behavior is justified. These people are truly the moral relativists of the day.
So who can deny such an awesome reality? One that gives you rationalization to fulfill all of your worst character traits, while blaming others for your problems...including the ones directly attributable to your behavior? It is extremely addictive, and once someone chooses to believe in this pleasing fantasy, it is difficult to wean them from it.
Self-Doubt As A Positive Force
And are conservatives the only ones who fall victim to this? Of course not. We all do it. We all believe stories which are convenient to our life-theories. We all are too prone to dismiss bad news stories, and automatically assume that there are extenuating circumstances which disprove "bad" stories. We all fall victim to that. That's why we shouldn't trust ourselves too much.
Man is a rational animal, but even more, we are a rationalizing animal. We put order where there is no order. That's how movies work. That's how magic works. That's how stories work. That's the source of conspiracy theories. Our mind finds connections and relationships, whether they exist or not.
And this is generally a good thing. It's good that we can "connect the dots", and bring order out of chaos. It's good that we can be discriminating in the information we use, and can distinguish real information from the background noise. But it's something that should be watched against. Doubt is a powerful thing, and it's something that we should never leave behind. It's good to act confident and secure, but it's also important to have our moments of doubt, when we double and triple check our beliefs and ways of thinking. No one is immune to sloppy thinking, and it is often difficult to know when you fall victim to it.
And that's what separates us from our conservative brethren. They have their complete fantasy, and it loathes self-doubt. For them, doubt is weakness. Doubt can destroy. And rightly so, because if they learned to doubt and double-check what they were told, they could no longer believe it. It can only be believed on faith, because it's not real. They can't pick and choose what facts to believe. It's a carefully structured dream. They have to have their facts filtered by Fox and Rush and the rest of them, and nothing else is admissible as evidence. Because one stray fact can bring the whole thing tumbling down.
Morning In America
And that's the thing. Because their ideology is based entirely on fantasy, there is no real structure holding it up. Anything can destroy it. If they start seeing Bush for the incompetent bullying coward he really is, it all falls apart. If they start seeing the war in Iraq as unwinnable and based upon fraud, it all falls apart. If they realize that taxcuts can be dangerous, or that our deficits are crippling, or that poor people deserve help and can become better citizens; it all falls apart. Because that's how fragile their fantasy is. It has no real foundation. It must be entirely self-contained.
And it will fall apart, if we operate carefully. If we stop giving them an opportunity to lash out at us, and stop attacking and insulting them. If we can get them to listen to us, it will fall apart. It won't happen immediately, but once there's a crack in the wall, it will all eventually fall. And the victim will soon be disillusioned and angered. But the main thing is that we can't allow ourselves to be baited by their defense mechanisms. Their fantasy is self-contained and has oodles of boobytraps which can cause us to lash out at them and allow them to ignore reality. We can't let that happen. A pageful of truths can be completely dismissed by one misplaced insult or misstatement.
And I believe that the best way to do that is to get these people to start doubting their information sources. To stop trusting Fox and Rush, and realize that they've been fooled. And they won't do that from open confrontation. If you confront people, they will defend anything. No. We need to be friends with them, and not allow bias or hatred to blind them to the truth. These people are sleepwalking through life, and we need to carefully wake them up without freaking them out. All we need to do is to let doubt creep in. Everything else will follow afterwards. These people are living in a dream. It is time for us to wake them from that dream. It's time for morning in America.
They're like an overweight person who's fallen for a quickie diet which lets them eat all they want and still lose weight. We need to show them the pounds they've put on. We need to show them the reality.
And we all know what that fantasy entails. Things are worse now than they've ever been; and to make things better, all we need to do is undo the "unnatural" things that screwed everything up. Additionally, everything will work itself out by natural forces, if we let them, and that man is mucking everything up by trying to stop natural forces. Things are as they should be, and anything we're doing goes against what should be. And oddly enough, that goes for what man does too. Man is part of nature, they reason, and so pollution, man-made extinctions, war, etc., are all parts of nature which man should not interfere with. And if they'll admit that the globe is warming, they will insist that this too is a natural force, and that man needn't worry about it.
So basically, man can do anything he wants...except for stopping other men from doing what is "natural". Of course, none of this applies to low-brow criminal activities, which should be stopped; but white collar crime is ok as it's part of nature and is dealt with by the all-powerful market forces.
And this fantasy is a complete package. Each conservative tailor-makes it for their own specific beliefs, but the overall remedies are the same; like any get-quick-rich scheme or insta-diet. If you do "X", you'll look better, feel better, and receive more cash than you'll be able to spend. And if "X" happens to be the exact things that these people already wanted, all the better. The Ice-Cream Diet takes the form of a political belief, and it's ruining the figure of our great nation.
A Pleasing Fantasy
And it is a very pleasing fantasy. It dictates that all of the good things that you have in life are due to your own hardwork and diligence. As if we did something to deserve to be born a white person in America. It wasn't good fortune that made me well-fed and well-educated. That's just how things were supposed to turn out. And if you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't have been born to lazy people who don't deserve good stuff. Or, if you weren't born to lazy people, you're just suffering from "white guilt" and need to stop blaming yourself and start blaming everyone else.
Because it also states that anything bad that happens to us is due to outside elements which aren't doing what they're supposed to do. Whatever happens, it's not our fault. If you can't get a job, blame the Mexicans or Blacks. And if your kids don't respect you and become drug users, that's Hollywood's fault. If your wife is unhappy with her lot in life, that's because of the feminists putting ideas into her head. And unwinnable wars? That could only be due to traitorous libs who undermine our troops and give aid to the enemy to damage conservatives politically. And so on. Everything bad is someone else's fault, and you can bet your bottom dollar that that "someone else" is a liberal.
In fact, to most conservatives, the term "liberal" just means anyone who does anything stupid, evil, or bad. If someone sues a business for their own personal mistake, they're a liberal. If a youth does something wicked or disgraceful, they were raised by liberals. And liberals are to be blamed for the radical Muslim hatred of the West and for sympathizing with radical Muslims and encouraging their radical behavior. To conservatives, liberals are America's bogeyman. An all-purpose nemesis whose only concern is perpetrating evil and ruining America, for reasons which never need to be identified. As one famous conservative stated, "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
And the last piece of that puzzle is that it gives justification for all the bad things they do. It's ok to ignore the poor, to pollute the air, to wage religious wars, and to deny basic human rights to "enemies"; because that is what it is natural for us to do. Conservatives and America are blameless for anything they do, and all behavior is justified. These people are truly the moral relativists of the day.
So who can deny such an awesome reality? One that gives you rationalization to fulfill all of your worst character traits, while blaming others for your problems...including the ones directly attributable to your behavior? It is extremely addictive, and once someone chooses to believe in this pleasing fantasy, it is difficult to wean them from it.
Self-Doubt As A Positive Force
And are conservatives the only ones who fall victim to this? Of course not. We all do it. We all believe stories which are convenient to our life-theories. We all are too prone to dismiss bad news stories, and automatically assume that there are extenuating circumstances which disprove "bad" stories. We all fall victim to that. That's why we shouldn't trust ourselves too much.
Man is a rational animal, but even more, we are a rationalizing animal. We put order where there is no order. That's how movies work. That's how magic works. That's how stories work. That's the source of conspiracy theories. Our mind finds connections and relationships, whether they exist or not.
And this is generally a good thing. It's good that we can "connect the dots", and bring order out of chaos. It's good that we can be discriminating in the information we use, and can distinguish real information from the background noise. But it's something that should be watched against. Doubt is a powerful thing, and it's something that we should never leave behind. It's good to act confident and secure, but it's also important to have our moments of doubt, when we double and triple check our beliefs and ways of thinking. No one is immune to sloppy thinking, and it is often difficult to know when you fall victim to it.
And that's what separates us from our conservative brethren. They have their complete fantasy, and it loathes self-doubt. For them, doubt is weakness. Doubt can destroy. And rightly so, because if they learned to doubt and double-check what they were told, they could no longer believe it. It can only be believed on faith, because it's not real. They can't pick and choose what facts to believe. It's a carefully structured dream. They have to have their facts filtered by Fox and Rush and the rest of them, and nothing else is admissible as evidence. Because one stray fact can bring the whole thing tumbling down.
Morning In America
And that's the thing. Because their ideology is based entirely on fantasy, there is no real structure holding it up. Anything can destroy it. If they start seeing Bush for the incompetent bullying coward he really is, it all falls apart. If they start seeing the war in Iraq as unwinnable and based upon fraud, it all falls apart. If they realize that taxcuts can be dangerous, or that our deficits are crippling, or that poor people deserve help and can become better citizens; it all falls apart. Because that's how fragile their fantasy is. It has no real foundation. It must be entirely self-contained.
And it will fall apart, if we operate carefully. If we stop giving them an opportunity to lash out at us, and stop attacking and insulting them. If we can get them to listen to us, it will fall apart. It won't happen immediately, but once there's a crack in the wall, it will all eventually fall. And the victim will soon be disillusioned and angered. But the main thing is that we can't allow ourselves to be baited by their defense mechanisms. Their fantasy is self-contained and has oodles of boobytraps which can cause us to lash out at them and allow them to ignore reality. We can't let that happen. A pageful of truths can be completely dismissed by one misplaced insult or misstatement.
And I believe that the best way to do that is to get these people to start doubting their information sources. To stop trusting Fox and Rush, and realize that they've been fooled. And they won't do that from open confrontation. If you confront people, they will defend anything. No. We need to be friends with them, and not allow bias or hatred to blind them to the truth. These people are sleepwalking through life, and we need to carefully wake them up without freaking them out. All we need to do is to let doubt creep in. Everything else will follow afterwards. These people are living in a dream. It is time for us to wake them from that dream. It's time for morning in America.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Message to Democrats and/or Liberals
Regarding bringing knives to gunfights. Don't do it. Additionally, if they put one of your guys in the hospital, you should put one of their guys in the morgue. That's the Chicago Way, and I really think it could work for us.
But don't be confrontational. It looks tacky. You're above the fray. You're not playing games. You're just taking care of the nation's business. Children will be children, but adults should still be adults. Act like one.
But don't be confrontational. It looks tacky. You're above the fray. You're not playing games. You're just taking care of the nation's business. Children will be children, but adults should still be adults. Act like one.
Friday, June 24, 2005
I'm Not Dead
No, I'm not dead. Just busy busy. And I honestly don't have much worth saying lately. Maybe something will come to me. But just remember to stick it to them, question their motives, and don't be caught flat-footed. Everything else is just timing.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Busting Up The Baddies
Interestingly, I was researching something for a theory I invented over coffee this morning. I was envisioning how Bush thought of the evil dictators and terrorists in the world. And I imagined that he thought of them as some sort of board of directors type group which meets regularly to discuss their evil plans. Much like the opening scene to Naked Gun, when all of the bad guys in the world were in their meeting together; and then Leslie Nielson busted it up and beat up all the bad guys; victoriously saving the world.
And Eureka! That was it. That's what made Bush go to war. It gave him the concept of all those evil dictators together, conspiring. Of course the Axis of Evil was there, and Bin Laden, and Zarqawi, and all of them; all planning 9/11 together and future terror attacks. And he saw himself as Detective Frank Drebin, busting up the baddies with his anti-terror, Iraq thing.
Thus, our President.
And that just made too much sense, so I guessed that other people have made that connection before. So I did a little research on that theory. And while I didn't confirm that, I did stumble upon this absurdly inane news story by Anderson Cooper of CNN, from back in August 2003. Maybe I'm spoiled because I never watch CNN or any other TV news, but this was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Not because it's wrong. But because it was so irrelevant and meaningless.
"Much has been made about the differences Between Bush and President Clinton, but it turns out both agreed on screening "Naked Gun" movies. Bush, "Naked Gun 2 1/2," President Clinton "Naked Gun 33 1/3." Not sure what Clinton thought about the sequence in "33 1/3" that mocks the Hollywood A-list right here. After all, many were said to be staunch Clinton supporters. And Bush's choice, "Naked Gun 2 1/2" because it pokes fun at his own mom. Wonder what Freud would say about that. Or for that matter, Roger Ebert. The president of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. It's nice know they can take time out for the movies. Do you think they have to pay for the popcorn? I wonder."
Isn't this why we invented Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine? Good thing there wasn't anything important going on in the world back then. Like an illegal war, or anything.
And thus, our media.
And Eureka! That was it. That's what made Bush go to war. It gave him the concept of all those evil dictators together, conspiring. Of course the Axis of Evil was there, and Bin Laden, and Zarqawi, and all of them; all planning 9/11 together and future terror attacks. And he saw himself as Detective Frank Drebin, busting up the baddies with his anti-terror, Iraq thing.
Thus, our President.
And that just made too much sense, so I guessed that other people have made that connection before. So I did a little research on that theory. And while I didn't confirm that, I did stumble upon this absurdly inane news story by Anderson Cooper of CNN, from back in August 2003. Maybe I'm spoiled because I never watch CNN or any other TV news, but this was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Not because it's wrong. But because it was so irrelevant and meaningless.
"Much has been made about the differences Between Bush and President Clinton, but it turns out both agreed on screening "Naked Gun" movies. Bush, "Naked Gun 2 1/2," President Clinton "Naked Gun 33 1/3." Not sure what Clinton thought about the sequence in "33 1/3" that mocks the Hollywood A-list right here. After all, many were said to be staunch Clinton supporters. And Bush's choice, "Naked Gun 2 1/2" because it pokes fun at his own mom. Wonder what Freud would say about that. Or for that matter, Roger Ebert. The president of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. It's nice know they can take time out for the movies. Do you think they have to pay for the popcorn? I wonder."
Isn't this why we invented Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine? Good thing there wasn't anything important going on in the world back then. Like an illegal war, or anything.
And thus, our media.
Fouled Up From The Beginning
Quote from LA Times article on Republican Rep. Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones and his growing anxiety about the Iraq war:
Jones "was right to go after the administration," said retired Marine Col. Jim Van Riper, a veteran of Vietnam and Desert Storm who supported the U.S. presence in Iraq but faulted the war plan. "Rumsfeld and the neo-cons have fouled it up from the beginning."
Damn straight. And that's the angle we needed to be pushing all along. We need to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. The followers from the leaders. I mean, when we criticize the Iraq war, we need to not sound like we're criticizing its supporters too. The more we're confrontational about this stuff and trying to lay blame, and wishing that the supporters of the war "eat it", the less they'll be willing to face facts and change course. But wrong is wrong, and these people will slowly see that, if we let them do it on their own.
And that's the thing. The Bush Admin suckered them bigtime. They should be angry at Bush. And the Bush Admin's incompetence is even worse. This war was a bad idea from the start, and while things turned out much better than they might have, they could have turned out much better, had the Bush administration not hired so many ideologically blind people.
But again, if we focused more on what is happening in Iraq, and not on laying blame on Republicans and Bush, the typical Republican supporter would be far more willing to consider the truth. But the moment we start tossing invectives and accusations, they close off immediately. An abused woman will defend her abusive husband. The first step is getting them to want to see the truth and to know that what happened is wrong.
And overall, it would have always been better for us to portray Bush as a well-meaning, but sadly incompetent boob who was in over his head and denying reality. After the successful Nice-Guy Bush marketing, it was just too much for people to believe that he's some neo-con mastermind who's out to steal oil and rule the world. Cognative dissonance forced them to scoff at us. They just couldn't imagine our dopey nice guy President as a ruthless tyrant.
We can't mind-read Bush, so we shouldn't have doubted his motives. We should have doubted his judgment; his ability. Because, whether or not Bush meant for good things to happen, they certainly did not happen. He wrongly started something that he couldn't finish, and if we can get enough of his former supporters to see that; he will be finished.
Jones "was right to go after the administration," said retired Marine Col. Jim Van Riper, a veteran of Vietnam and Desert Storm who supported the U.S. presence in Iraq but faulted the war plan. "Rumsfeld and the neo-cons have fouled it up from the beginning."
Damn straight. And that's the angle we needed to be pushing all along. We need to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. The followers from the leaders. I mean, when we criticize the Iraq war, we need to not sound like we're criticizing its supporters too. The more we're confrontational about this stuff and trying to lay blame, and wishing that the supporters of the war "eat it", the less they'll be willing to face facts and change course. But wrong is wrong, and these people will slowly see that, if we let them do it on their own.
And that's the thing. The Bush Admin suckered them bigtime. They should be angry at Bush. And the Bush Admin's incompetence is even worse. This war was a bad idea from the start, and while things turned out much better than they might have, they could have turned out much better, had the Bush administration not hired so many ideologically blind people.
But again, if we focused more on what is happening in Iraq, and not on laying blame on Republicans and Bush, the typical Republican supporter would be far more willing to consider the truth. But the moment we start tossing invectives and accusations, they close off immediately. An abused woman will defend her abusive husband. The first step is getting them to want to see the truth and to know that what happened is wrong.
And overall, it would have always been better for us to portray Bush as a well-meaning, but sadly incompetent boob who was in over his head and denying reality. After the successful Nice-Guy Bush marketing, it was just too much for people to believe that he's some neo-con mastermind who's out to steal oil and rule the world. Cognative dissonance forced them to scoff at us. They just couldn't imagine our dopey nice guy President as a ruthless tyrant.
We can't mind-read Bush, so we shouldn't have doubted his motives. We should have doubted his judgment; his ability. Because, whether or not Bush meant for good things to happen, they certainly did not happen. He wrongly started something that he couldn't finish, and if we can get enough of his former supporters to see that; he will be finished.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Republicans, and What the Hell's Wrong With Them
As we all now know, there is little doubt that Terri Schiavo wasn't going to recover, and wasn't trying to communicate with us, or even aware that we existed. If anything, she was perhaps in some sort of dreamland or a hellish netherworld. Or maybe God had already taken her soul into Heaven. Or maybe she knew nothing at all. Who knows? But whatever it was, she wasn't with us.
And I'll just set aside the theological issues involved. Such as, why were Christians preventing a good woman from going to Heaven? Even if we could bring her back, wouldn't Heaven still have been better than anything earth has to offer? And what about reincarnation? Perhaps we were preventing her from starting all over again with a fresh body. Who knows?
But that's not for tonight. Tonight, I'll be talking about my favorite topic: Republicans, and what the hell's wrong with them.
And in this case, I'm talking about the Social Conservative Republicans. For many Republicans, opinions on this ranged from ambivalence to anger at their fellow Republican's behavior. We often think of Republicans as a monolithic group which agrees in every way. But that's a big mistake. Because many of these people would hate their fellow Republicans, if only they'd stop hating us long enough to see who they've joined with. And that's certainly the case with this issue. The Social Conservatives were on their own with this one, and many neo-cons, traditional conservatives, and South Park Republicans didn't want any part of this. Especially the second two groups, which are libertarian-based.
And these people were upset by what they saw, and got an inside glimpse at how the right-wing propaganda machine works. Not necessarily that they'd join our side, but that they'd be less willing to get duped again. And that's what all of this involved: a major duping.
A Major Duping
Because here's the thing about this Schiavo issue: We like to think that the Social Conservatives are just nuts, right? That they're just weirdo ideological freaks who want a different America than the one we want. But it's not necessarily like that. And this Schiavo issue is a prime example.
If you spoke with anyone who was against ending Mrs. Schiavo's life, they were most likely misled and/or confused about what her condition really was. Some thought it likely that she could recover. Many believed that she was actually active, and could even talk. Some believed she was simply mentally retarded and/or lazy. And almost all believed that this condition was caused by her evil husband, and that the proof of this was quite conclusive. On top of that, there was confusion over legal and medical issues. On which judges could view the evidence; which tests had been performed, etc.
And even now, many still hold onto the idea that Mrs. Schiavo could have recovered, that the autopsy was inconclusive or incompetently performed, and that perhaps it was the starvation which destroyed Mrs. Schiavo's brain. They already have their facts, and they're willing to make stuff up if they need to.
And the main thing is: None of this is opinion based. All of this is fact based. And these people had the wrong facts; including the stuff they made-up. They're not necessarily batty people who are always against pulling the plug. Some are, some aren't. But that had nothing to do with this. The truth is, these people didn't know the truth. They were lied to.
They might be nutbags, I don't know. But in this case, they made the right decision based upon the faulty information they were told. If Mrs. Schiavo could easily have recovered, as these people were told, then we shouldn't have pulled the plug. If she was clearly active and able to talk, as these people were told, then we shouldn't have pulled the plug. If Mr. Schiavo was slowly murdering her, while dominating the hospital staff and openly displaying his cold-blooded greed (as was discussed here); then we should have locked him up and ignored his plans.
And so there was nothing necessarily kooky about what these people wanted. Had their information been accurate, we'd be the fools and they'd be the heros. But it wasn't, and we weren't. We were right. They were wrong. And if we could just get them to acknowledge the facts, most of them would probably agree with us that the right thing happened. Because while the protesters at the hospice and the chatterers on TV talked about "Culture of Life" and all that jazz, many of the people who opposed Mrs. Schiavo's death did so based upon bad information; and they aren't against pulling the plug on hopeless cases. They just didn't know the facts, and believed that they did.
Factual Disagreements
And that's how it is with all this stuff. If there is a God, and He wants us to do all those things the stereotypical Christian believes; then we're fools for not believing and for not instituting His laws here on earth. And if tax cuts are always good for the economy, and taxes always bad; then we're fools for not cutting taxes. And if Terri Schiavo was half as alive and conscious as these people were led to believe, we are murderers for allowing her to die.
And that's the thing. Almost all of our disputes are like that. These are not ideological disputes. These are factual disputes. And factual disputes should be easily solved. All you need are the facts and a non-confrontational way to convey them. I've run into a wall repeatedly trying to overcome the barriers which stop these people from seeing the truth; so don't come to me for any easy answers on this. I'm just telling you what the problem is. The solution is different for each individual and issue.
But the main thing to remember is that the people you are arguing with are victims of propaganda. They allowed themselves to become victims, much like how drug addicts allow themselves to get hooked. But just because this was self-inflicted doesn't mean we shouldn't help them. And all they need is the truth. The truth will set them free.
And I'll just set aside the theological issues involved. Such as, why were Christians preventing a good woman from going to Heaven? Even if we could bring her back, wouldn't Heaven still have been better than anything earth has to offer? And what about reincarnation? Perhaps we were preventing her from starting all over again with a fresh body. Who knows?
But that's not for tonight. Tonight, I'll be talking about my favorite topic: Republicans, and what the hell's wrong with them.
And in this case, I'm talking about the Social Conservative Republicans. For many Republicans, opinions on this ranged from ambivalence to anger at their fellow Republican's behavior. We often think of Republicans as a monolithic group which agrees in every way. But that's a big mistake. Because many of these people would hate their fellow Republicans, if only they'd stop hating us long enough to see who they've joined with. And that's certainly the case with this issue. The Social Conservatives were on their own with this one, and many neo-cons, traditional conservatives, and South Park Republicans didn't want any part of this. Especially the second two groups, which are libertarian-based.
And these people were upset by what they saw, and got an inside glimpse at how the right-wing propaganda machine works. Not necessarily that they'd join our side, but that they'd be less willing to get duped again. And that's what all of this involved: a major duping.
A Major Duping
Because here's the thing about this Schiavo issue: We like to think that the Social Conservatives are just nuts, right? That they're just weirdo ideological freaks who want a different America than the one we want. But it's not necessarily like that. And this Schiavo issue is a prime example.
If you spoke with anyone who was against ending Mrs. Schiavo's life, they were most likely misled and/or confused about what her condition really was. Some thought it likely that she could recover. Many believed that she was actually active, and could even talk. Some believed she was simply mentally retarded and/or lazy. And almost all believed that this condition was caused by her evil husband, and that the proof of this was quite conclusive. On top of that, there was confusion over legal and medical issues. On which judges could view the evidence; which tests had been performed, etc.
And even now, many still hold onto the idea that Mrs. Schiavo could have recovered, that the autopsy was inconclusive or incompetently performed, and that perhaps it was the starvation which destroyed Mrs. Schiavo's brain. They already have their facts, and they're willing to make stuff up if they need to.
And the main thing is: None of this is opinion based. All of this is fact based. And these people had the wrong facts; including the stuff they made-up. They're not necessarily batty people who are always against pulling the plug. Some are, some aren't. But that had nothing to do with this. The truth is, these people didn't know the truth. They were lied to.
They might be nutbags, I don't know. But in this case, they made the right decision based upon the faulty information they were told. If Mrs. Schiavo could easily have recovered, as these people were told, then we shouldn't have pulled the plug. If she was clearly active and able to talk, as these people were told, then we shouldn't have pulled the plug. If Mr. Schiavo was slowly murdering her, while dominating the hospital staff and openly displaying his cold-blooded greed (as was discussed here); then we should have locked him up and ignored his plans.
And so there was nothing necessarily kooky about what these people wanted. Had their information been accurate, we'd be the fools and they'd be the heros. But it wasn't, and we weren't. We were right. They were wrong. And if we could just get them to acknowledge the facts, most of them would probably agree with us that the right thing happened. Because while the protesters at the hospice and the chatterers on TV talked about "Culture of Life" and all that jazz, many of the people who opposed Mrs. Schiavo's death did so based upon bad information; and they aren't against pulling the plug on hopeless cases. They just didn't know the facts, and believed that they did.
Factual Disagreements
And that's how it is with all this stuff. If there is a God, and He wants us to do all those things the stereotypical Christian believes; then we're fools for not believing and for not instituting His laws here on earth. And if tax cuts are always good for the economy, and taxes always bad; then we're fools for not cutting taxes. And if Terri Schiavo was half as alive and conscious as these people were led to believe, we are murderers for allowing her to die.
And that's the thing. Almost all of our disputes are like that. These are not ideological disputes. These are factual disputes. And factual disputes should be easily solved. All you need are the facts and a non-confrontational way to convey them. I've run into a wall repeatedly trying to overcome the barriers which stop these people from seeing the truth; so don't come to me for any easy answers on this. I'm just telling you what the problem is. The solution is different for each individual and issue.
But the main thing to remember is that the people you are arguing with are victims of propaganda. They allowed themselves to become victims, much like how drug addicts allow themselves to get hooked. But just because this was self-inflicted doesn't mean we shouldn't help them. And all they need is the truth. The truth will set them free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
