15 May 2008

I'm Gay For Chris Matthews

...after watching this video, in which Matthews intellectually rapes a right-wing radio dunderhead, Kevin James, for being completely ignorant of the history he was trying to use to impugn Barack Obama. I don't know who this guy is, but it looks to me like the closest he'll ever come to fame is having the same name as Kevin James (the comedian). After this agonizing horror show, I'd be amazed (and a little disappointed) if he hasn't already committed suicide. I love you Chris Matthews, for calling at least ONE of these buffoons out on their endless bullshit...

10 May 2008

18 Is Enough

I'm thrilled to be a father, I really am. I try not to blab endlessly about it like so many parents, but truth be told, my son brings me immeasurable joy. That said, I'm still aware that procreation is essentially an act of self-love coupled with a biological impulse to spread one's seed. While my wife and I have decided that one is enough, I don't harbor any ill will toward people who choose to have more children (aside from the fact that the more children they have, the less educated and affluent they tend to be--which raises some obvious questions). I do often wonder why people choose to pop out kids without the same kind of discretion they might employ when deciding whether or not to by one, two, or three flat-screen plasma televisions with surround-sound systems. After all, having a kid is free, right?  Fuck, wait, push, baby!

These people, on the other hand, make me jealous of China's one-child policy as a substitute for individual common sense.

And, of course, they think that God wants them to have 18 children. Let me tell you something, folks. If there was a god, he'd be appalled at your epic narcissism. He'd tell you to put on a fucking condom and get some sleep. Fortunately there is no god - there's just me to condemn your mind-boggling egotism and wonder whether I have a duty to protect my own child by bringing more of them into the world before your idiot Christian spawn have a chance to take over and make his life more miserable than you're making mine.

I've always been cautious to avoid outright advocacy of abortion, but people like you (along with self-righteous Floridians with their bright yellow, "choose life" license plates with adorable little crayon-drawn child faces) are making me a big fan of the procedure. Spare us. Either sign up for a lifetime membership at Planned Parenthood (abort 5, get the 6th free!) or pick up a gallon of Astroglide at Costco and stick to butt sex, will ya?

30 April 2008

Crazy Jeremiah

Even amid the uproar surrounding Barack Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, no one seems to be talking about the most preposterous components of his ideology. I mean, we all know he said "god damn America," and blamed U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks, but that's just the tip of the iceberg with this whack-job. Did you know, for example that Jeremiah Wright believes that 2000 years ago God (the same one he called upon to "damn America,")(and who is obviously still intimately involved in our daily lives) inseminated a virgin who subsequently gave birth to a man who performed miracles (including raising a man from the dead and walking on water) and was killed for proclaiming to be the "messiah," (even though he really was) but who managed to rise from the dead and ascend (body and all) to heaven, thus clearing the way for the souls of human beings to join him upon death (as long as they had professed their belief in all of the above)(and been baptized in an approved church)(and repented for any gay or out-of-wedlock sex they may have had while on earth) until such time as the dead/ascended guy comes back in an apocalyptic nightmare in which the flames of eternal hellfire will engulf unrepentant Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Unitarians, Buddhists, Mormons, Scientologists, Quakers, homosexuals, abortion providers, Democrats, gerbils, and possibly all the members of Christian sects that turn out to be wrong about their interpretation of the Bible? (And all of that while someone with wings plays a trumpet...or bugle.)

When will the mainstream media begin to reveal how deeply delusional Reverend Wright would have to be to believe all of that? It's one thing to riff on the question of whether the Reagan administration was criminally negligent (purposefully or not) in its response to the AIDS crisis (possibly because it was only killing gays and blacks). It's another matter altogether to believe that a big, bearded man in the sky made up a rule (for Himself, mind you) that human beings couldn't go to heaven until He sent a human version of Himself to earth, by way of a virgina (that's a virgin vagina), to be barbarously killed by a bunch of evil Jews. (One must wonder why the benevolent, all-powerful, almighty big Guy couldn't simply say "Uh...okay everyone...listen up. I hereby decree that from now on [dramatic pause] you can come to heaven when you die!" instead of subjecting us all to Mel Gibson's inevitable, dreadful recreation of the consummation of said rule.) I suppose if He'd taken that less complicated path there wouldn't be any "proof" of his existence in the form of the Jesus story as told by a ragtag collection of writers in an ancient and incoherent book.

I do hope the media will immediately challenge the mental stability of any candidate who associates with anyone who believes this sort of gibberish, let alone any candidate who personally believes any of it.


27 April 2008

Republicans Are From Mars, Democrats Are Fucking Idiots

Let me say this as simply as I can: Republicans are wrong about everything. Those at the top of the economic ladder are Republicans because of policies that enable and institutionalize corporate fascism. Those in the middle and on the bottom are Republicans because the party has been efficient at exploiting their ignorance and confusing their priorities (i.e. stopping the homos takes precedent over putting dinner on the table; bombing brown people is more important than affordable health insurance). I have nothing but loathing for the former and frustrated pity for the latter.

That said, when it's time to do what's best for their party, everyone lines up behind the party line for one or more of the following six reasons:

1. A Republican in the White House will make life much easier for rich people by keeping business regulations to a minimum, by cutting taxes on the richest Americans whenever possible, and by doing everything possible to prevent liberals from spending any money on those who need it the most.

2. A Republican in the White House will make it easier to rid the U.S. of as many immigrants as possible by relinquishing many of our own liberties in the name of national security.

3. A Republican in the White House will, at the very least, continue to pay lip service toward crazy Christian evangelical freaks by threatening the established freedoms of women and by continuing to withhold the unrealized freedoms of homosexuals.

4. A Republican in the White House will ensure that the Supreme Court continues to tip dramatically to the right, ever improving the prospects of insatiable business interests, anti-immigration activists (and bigots in general), and crazy Christian evangelical freaks.

5. A Republican in the White House will continue to enrich war profiteers by interminably extending the war in Iraq, by endlessly threatening war on Iran, and by generally overhyping the threats that face us so that we’ll need to keep buying bigger, badder bombs.

6. Having a Republican in the White House will drive Democrats fucking insane.

Republican voters don't much care which wing of their party their nominee comes from. As long as that cute little (R) appears after his name - because, let's face it, they'd never consider a woman - they can rest assured that the issues they care most about will be in good hands (even though most of them are tragically confused about what issues they should care most about).

While I've always been proud of Democrats for being more independent than that, this primary season I'm leaning toward the opinion that a significant number of them are a bunch of petulant schoolchildren who can't see the forest for the stark raving bitch that is threatening to cut down all the trees by staying in this race a moment longer. This is no longer about the democratic process or about issues. Hillary is turning this into a cutthroat, 5th grade popularity contest, begging her supporters to post nasty MySpace messages against an opponent who is obviously nicer, hipper, and just plain better. Oh, and by the way…he’s winning. She's hoping she can cause enough chaos that reasonable people will cease to care, leaving only her pathetic cadre of bullies motivated enough to actually vote.

Look...Joe Biden was my favorite candidate. To this day I believe that he is the most qualified and the most capable of standing up to John McCain. Too fucking bad for me, huh? My second choice would have been Chris Dodd. My third choice would have been Bill Richardson. Those three guys have more experience and gravitas in their left nipples than either of the remaining Democratic candidates. That doesn't mean that Barack and Hillary don't possess the potential to be great Democratic presidents. This is just how the process works. We all have to realize that, as Democrats, we have our own set of key principles that ought to unite us behind our nominee, whomever he or she may be:

1. A Democrat in the White House will make life easier for the working person by regulating business, by exacting appropriate taxes from the rich and giving breaks to the middle and lower classes, and by striving for economic justice by doing everything possible to help those who need it the most.

2. A Democrat in the White House will make it harder for jingoistic bigots to annihilate the civil liberties that made our nation great and will strive to restore a sense of national pride in our historically diverse population.

3. A Democrat in the White House will shun the hateful dreams of crazy Christian evangelical freaks and will strive to protect, establish, and expand the freedoms of women and homosexuals.

4. A Democrat in the White House will stop the rightward listing of the Supreme Court, nominating judges that will darken the prospects of insatiable business interests, anti-immigration activists (and bigots in general), and crazy Christian evangelical freaks.

5. A Democrat in the White House will responsibly bring our misguided, imperialistic venture in the middle-east to an end, thus ceasing the rampant fleecing of our tax dollars that has been undertaken by the friends and colleagues of Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and by cultivating a sense of rational perspective to our view of the complicated world we live in.

6. A Democrat in the White House will drive Republicans fucking crazy.

Whereas the Republican candidates had some real substantive differences on a number of other issues, the remaining Democratic candidates have very little to argue about. That’s why they’re not arguing about issues. That’s why it is just patently absurd for anyone to continue supporting a candidate who has, for all intents and purposes, lost this contest - a candidate who has chosen, out of sheer desperation, to tear down our likely candidate until she is officially declared the loser. What’s worse, they’re not just supporting this loser. They’re entrenching themselves in her candidacy by building up animosity—within themselves and among others—against the would-be winner. They’re playing the part of jaded, elementary school freaks who marginalize themselves as a way of lashing out at the normal kids.

What are you fighting for? What distinguishes Hillary Clinton, in terms of fundamental Democratic ideals, from Barack Obama? I’m not interested in the petty personality quibbles. It’s too late for that. Besides, you’re going to have to face up to the fact that Hillary’s personality has taken a beating with nearly everyone in the weeks since she started acting like goddamned Medea. (I don’t even want to talk about Bill. It’s just too sad, man. Too fucking sad.)

For the past few months I’ve been utilitarianistically insisting that I would campaign and vote for whoever the Democratic nominee turned out to be. (I liked to joke that Hillary could kill Obama and hide the body in her trunk and I’d still vote for her.) In the past 24 hours, however, I think I've seen the light. If Hillary were to somehow wrest this nomination away, I would have to support McCain – not because I wouldn't rather see him die of old age before the election - but so we can elect a worthy candidate (perhaps Obama, if Biden is no longer available) in 2012. In fact, I may just dedicate my life to defeating this dried up old bitch until she’s dead and can no longer run against the best interests of the American people.

The good news (sort of) is that she isn’t going to wrest the nomination away. The bad news is that by continuing to support her in these late (and ultimately inconsequential primaries), by allowing her to stay in the race, her loyalists are aiding and abetting the potential assassination of Barack Obama’s candidacy. This is not the time people. Are your attention spans so short? Are you really ready to hand this election to McBush out of loyalty to your woman?   

Stop being a pack of fucking idiots and think for two goddamned seconds about what’s going on here. If everyone just decided to sink or swim with their favorite candidate, where the hell would we be? I’d still be on the Joe Biden train, lashing out at Hillary and Barack. Kucinich would still have legions of fans lashing out at Hillary, Barack, and Biden. The Mexicans would still be with Richardson. Whatever the shortcomings of this process, it doesn't have to be the nightmare you're making it.   

Pull your heads out of your asses and stop living up to the stereotype of Democrats as a bunch of self-defeating jackasses. Do you ever want health care? Do you ever want your wages to go up? Do you ever want to get out of Iraq? Do you want abortion to remain legal? Do you want the crazy Christian evangelical freaks to sit down and shut the fuck up for a while? Do you want to stop torturing and bomb-bomb-bombing brown people? Do you want to begin to undo the eight years of misery that you brought upon yourselves by not supporting Al Gore or John Kerry fervently enough to beat the shit slinging monkey of a dickwad who currently occupies the office?

If so, may I humbly suggest that you take just one lesson out of the Republican playbook and ditch the bitch?

Now.

26 April 2008

Sabotage

I must admit that a motive this insidious had not occurred to me yet, but it may be the only possible explanation for Hillary's continued participation in the race...

23 April 2008

She Can't Win

22 April 2008

Pennsylvania

UPDATE: Let me try to rephrase my earlier comments. While the Clinton campaign should feel plenty of shame for their tactics (even though they could argue that if Obama can't weather the attacks against Clinton, how will he handle them against McCain?), it's the voters of Pennsylvania who should feel the most embarrassment about last night's results. Pennsylvania had a chance to rescue the Democratic party by putting one last nail in a coffin that has already been built, sanded, varnished, padded, and carried to a hole that has already been dug. Instead, they stubbornly stuck by their corpse of a candidate and boldly said "No! We're Democrats! We will not act in the best interest of our party and our nation. We will petulantly defy your attempt to impose the obvious nominee upon us! We will stick with Hillary until the end, whether she's the candidate or not, even if that means handing the election to John McCain!"

Make no mistake, if the tables were turned, I would be lambasting the Obama camaign. All I care about in this world right now is the end of Republican rule, particularly by neo-conservatives with a wildly expansive view of executive power. All I'm saying is that the voters of my home state had a choice last night. They could have allowed the Democratic party to move forward with a historic candidate with progressive ideas who has virtually secured the nomination. Instead, they chose to prolong this self-destructive fight by choosing a historic candidate with progressive ideas who has virtually no chance of gaining the nomination (and whose only chance of gaining the nomination involves all-out internecine warfare that could well lose us the general election).

Shame on you, Pennsylvania. You failed to realize how high the [cheese]stakes are.

(That was incredibly lame. Sorry.)

_________________________________________________________

Two things about Hillary's "victory" tonight:

Republican strategists like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan are peddling a peculiar narrative tonight that goes something like this: If Obama can't win states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, how can he possibly win the general election? Obviously, it's in their interest to instigate further Democratic infighting, but I don't understand how anyone is entertaining this question seriously. This is a PRIMARY, folks. DEMOCRATS are choosing between DEMOCRATS. Obama alleged inability to "close the deal" (as Scarborough said about 873 times), despite the fact that he narrowed a huge margin down to single digits, has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to win, as a Democrat, in a general election against a Republican. Any serious-minded person who is currently supporting either Democratic candidate will, without any reservation, at the very least, vote AGAINST John McCain (and an extension of the Bush presidency) by voting for whomever the Democratic nominee is. Any Democrat who is currently supporting either Democratic candidate who fails to do that should be tried and hung for treason on McCain's inauguration day.

Secondly, Hillary's attempt to wrest this nomination from the all-but-presumptive nominee by using the kind of fear tactics that Karl Rove engineered for Bush (and is currently advising McCain with) is in danger of revealing, once and for all, that even the Democratic electorate is a sea of ignoramuses. If Hillary's supporters are willing to sabotage this election just because their sista' couldn't pull it out, they have forgotten what they are fighting for. Someone has to win this primary. There are rules by which this can be accomplished. Barack Obama is currently winning by every measurable standard. Your girl stand an infinitesimally small chance of changing that. Please, please, please...stop trying to scare people the way George Bush did in 2004 just to get her over this first finish line. It's reckless, self-destructive, and just plain stupid.

The Post-Bush Executive Branch

This American Life, always a great show, recently did an episode entitled The Audacity of Government, which you should listen to immediately. It outlines the irrationally aggressive tactics the Bush administration has used to get their way on a number of bizarrely obscure issues. While it meant to convey the importance of restoring the executive branch to a more restrained role in a post-Bush era, it got me thinking that perhaps Democrats, once/if we retake the White House, should embrace the tactics that have been wielded against us for the last eight years. Why not use executive authority to wage a real War on Poverty, using billions of dollars per month to solve some of our domestic problems instead of solving Iraq's problems? Why not use the Justice Department to selectively prosecute Republican candidates and fire uncooperative attorneys? Why not do whatever the fuck we want and simply declare it all the prerogative of the President during a time of war [on poverty, corporate greed, religious infringement on state institutions, etc.]? Sure it's against our nature to operate this way, but I'm not so sure that we should rush to jettison the vast new powers that Bush has granted the office of the President.

21 April 2008

The Audacity of Pope

Joey Ratzinger is getting rave reviews for his whirlwind visit to the U.S. as the most blessed and holy Pope Benedict XVI. He seems to have pulled off quite a PR coup, smiling more than expected, refraining from outright bashing of homosexuals, and generally muting the harsh characteristics that defined most of his life within the Roman Catholic club.

Most importantly, he had the courage to apologize (in person!) to a selected few (out of thousands) of the victims of the massive sexual abuse scandal that has been molesting and tainting his organization for years now. Everyone seems very impressed by this and by his pledge to stop hiding the pedophiles in various rectory closets around the world.

Here's what no one seems to notice: Pope Joe has done nothing to address the fact that individual priests aren't really the problem. The Catholic priesthood, as it is conceived, is the problem. It is a haven for guilt-ridden homosexuals who want to repress their sexuality and for mentally ill deviants who ostensibly hope to repress their desire to rape children, but who end up finding out that the priesthood offers them exactly the kind of authority that is most useful to pederasts.

If Catholicism must survive in this world, it must, at the very least, deal with the fact that it is just downright silly to subject its ministers to vows of celibacy, cloistering them in dark, quiet rectories with other sexually confused and oppressed men.

While I'm at it, why does the media refer to him as Pope Benedict? When Daniel Craig goes around the world, people don't refer to him as James Bond, nor to Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. Why is the legitimate media referring to his character name? In the eyes of non-Catholics, he is not The Pope. He is Joseph Ratzinger, former member of the Hitler Youth and current wearer of funny costumes.

17 April 2008

In Defense of Incestuous Child Rapists

I am waiting with bated breath for the cavalry to ride to the rescue of these fundamentalist Mor(m)ons out in west Texas. I fully expect that the champions of religious freedom will lift their mighty voices in defense of these poor victims - by which I mean the men who have every right, under the tenets of their religion, to marry, fuck, sell, and swap their own daughters and/or cousins.

Any American who wants the U.S. to ban the union of same sex couples must stand on principle for this important cause. After all, their argument is just an inversion of the Mor(m)ons' plight, based on strictures culled from one holy book or another. If one thinks that the laws dictated in their chosen religious text should be applied to civilization, one must accept the reciprocal conclusion that all prescriptions contained within these sacred texts must be allowed by civilization.

Any American who thinks that the government has no right to prevent prayer in schools, or the teaching of "intelligent" "design" "theory," should seize upon this important test case on excessive governmental interference in the practice of worshiping the almighty as any American sees fit (as long as it was written down in some book that was "published" before 1900).

Similarly, anyone who has ever advocated that a child should be tried for a crime as an adult has already laid the groundwork for the legalization of sex with minors. As my daddy always used to say, "If they're old enough to get thrown in jail, they're old enough to suck my dick." (Is that a syllogism? 'Cause that would be funny. Get it? Syllo-JISM? [sic]) This ought to lead to some very positive synergy between the libertarian crowd and the religious right. Anyone who is for personal responsibility, by adults and children alike, has a cock in this fight.

Besides, who are we to say that these young girls were actually raped by the elders of their church? Perhaps they were simply brainwashed to believe that the words contained in an old, holy book were the actual words of the almighty lord and savior and the only way to salvation - the duty of any good parent, be they Christian, Muslim, or Mormon. If that's the case, then they may have submitted themselves willingly to the sexual whims of their dads and/or uncles and/or granddaddies and/or cousins. If that's wrong...well, then I don't want to be right.

I look forward to the mighty roar that is bound to burst forth at any moment from all corners of the country. Surely they see the inescapable link that they share with these poor persecuted Mor(m)ons and are presently preparing rallies in Washington, bus trips to San Angelo, Texas, midnight prayer vigils, post-church potluck suppers to raise money for the legal defense, and 527 ads to demonstrate that Barack Obama is against religious freedom for incestuous child rapists (as evidenced by the absence of a flag pin on his lapel).

Onward, Christian soldiers!




New Rules

A classic edition of New Rules from Real Time with Bill Maher - especially his commentary at the end. Enjoy!

13 April 2008

Word of the Week

e-lite
-noun
   

1.

a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status. 

b. The best or most skilled members of a group.

2.   

The word most frequently used to describe Barack Obama's recent comments about small-town voters in Pennsylvania.

synonyms:

best, cream, flower, elect, high society, jet set, beau monde, nobility, upper class

antonyms:

dregs, scum, refuse, riffraff, deadbeats, underclass, great unwashed, hoi polloi

Since Obama's comments were made public on Friday afternoon, every conservative pundit alive (and Hillary Clinton) has been foaming at the mouth to call him an elitist. First, let's take a look at Obama's statement in full:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I must say that I agree with all the pundits (and Hillary). This statement reveals to me that Barack indeed enjoys superior intellectual status; that he has a finely-tuned, compassionate appreciation for the plight of the working class in America; that he has the composure to weather irrational antipathy toward someone of his race; that his understanding of these complex social issues probably makes him better equipped to unite and heal our nation than an intractably partisan panderer who refuses to acknowledge what lies beneath the surface.

So I'm confused, because the pundits (and Hillary) seem to be using the word "elite" in a pejorative sense. I don't get it. Do they know what "elite" means? Do they actually intend to disparage him with this word? Are they implying that deadbeats are preferable?  They did this to Al Gore and John Kerry as well and I was in a state of constant puzzlement...especially when the general population accepted the derogatory interpretation and accordingly cast their votes for the riffraff that still occupies the office.

I don't have the statistics on this, but I can only assume that elite institutions like Columbia and Harvard are seeing precipitous declines in their enrollment numbers. Now that I think about it, maybe they're right. Perhaps we can soon relegate the likes of Shakespeare, Mozart, and NPR to seamy, isolated enclaves of elite intellectuals (where there are plenty of Starbucks and Whole Foods, of course). For too long these braniacs have blithely urged American children to set their sights on too high a horizon. How will we keep this nation great if all anyone wants to do is discuss great literature over freshly brewed cups of Casi Cielo?

Much as I would like to stay in character a bit longer, I'm fresh out of anti-intellectualism. (Which reminds me, you should all read Susan Jacoby's new book, The Age of American Unreason.)  It's clear enough that the conservative elite would like the populace to immerse themselves in lowest common denominators, but to actively disparage intelligence by revering hillbillyism requires a pair of balls that I would never like to be hit in the face by.   

Obama's words, if honestly examined, reveal a deep affection and concern for the people he is talking about. He is thoughtfully examining this question: Why would these people even consider--for a single, solitary moment--voting for another Republican after eight years of taking it in the ass? His response is infinitely more charitable and productive than the one I'm inclined to offer. His response actually makes me feel guilty for growing so callous about these people...which makes me think that he might just have what it takes to cure what ails us.

 

11 April 2008

Delusions and Deceptions

I’ve recently noticed the ubiquitous use of a particular argument in defense of religion—in periodicals, books, and reviews of books; in discussions among family and friends; from pundits, politicians, and celebrities. It goes something like this: While doctrinal religion may be outmoded, science is every bit as unable to disprove the existence of a spiritual realm as it is unable to tell us absolutely everything about the universe. Proponents of this argument also like to point out that some scientific studies have found benefits associated with religious or spiritual belief and participation in religious communities. These benefits range from the psychological and physical well being of individuals (often attributed to diminished stress levels in believers), to the more cooperative, altruistic behavior of citizens within a community.

Let’s dispose of the latter point quickly. This is a bit like saying that alcoholism has certain benefits, such as the reduced stress levels of alcoholic individuals and the increased amount of merriment they generate in social settings, while ignoring the fact that alcoholism has catastrophic consequences for individuals, families, and societies. More importantly, it fails to acknowledge that, whatever science may be unable to disprove, whatever the alleged benefits of religion, whatever the alleged consequences of irreligion, no amount of rationalization will ever render any particular set of religious beliefs more true. (Besides, mightn’t any benefit actually just be evidence that it’s easier to join the parade than to be right? I would estimate that my quality of life is diminished by about 30% just from living in a world where most people believe in a bunch of crazy shit. And that’s just from the extreme cognitive dissonance that results from observing their irrational, hypocritical, unproductive behavior—never mind their attempts to impose their beliefs upon everyone around them. Perhaps I could regain those precious lost points by getting myself re-brainwashed into one cult or another, or by simply convincing myself that it’s all harmless and hunky-dory, or by binge drinking Drano. For now, I’d rather be right and miserable than ignorant and happy.)

Getting back to the broader point: One recent essay best exemplifies the argument and it will be my pleasure to dissect it here for you. It is an excerpt published in Harpers (April, 2008) from David Berlinksi’s book, The Devil’s Delusion: Athiesm and Its Scientific Pretensions. The author’s primary strategy consists of repeatedly setting up straw men and then taking target practice on them. He begins with the title of his book, which paints all atheists into the same corner, ignoring the vast majority of us who don’t require science to prove the unprovable in order to justify our failure to choose from a smorgasbord of puerile fairy tales within which to immerse our identities.

Berlinksi starts by demeaning all efforts at progress: “Like democracy or justice, science is a word exhausted by its examples.” This, of course, leads to the conclusion that we should consider an immediate return to tyrannical monarchy (which undoubtedly had its advantages and none of the unfortunate failings of systems which strive to achieve better results). “Since the great scientific revolution…we have been vouchsafed four powerful and profound scientific theories—Newtonian mechanics, James Clerk Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics. These are isolated miracles, great mountain peaks surrounded by a range of low, furry foothills.” It appears that Berlinski means to disparage those low, furry foothills, and to hold them up as proof that science isn’t nearly as cool as geeky scientists think it is. He deems it irrelevant that those four powerful and profound “miracles” were built upon the low, furry foothills that came before them, and that new, powerful and profound “miracles” will likely be built upon today’s low, furry foothills—all of them increasing our knowledge in incremental but important ways.

“These splendid artifacts of the human imagination have made the world more mysterious than it ever was. We know now better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is here...We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial doctrine about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial we have no other doctrines. We can say nothing of interest about the human soul.”

Berlinski’s attempt at patronization would be offensive it it weren't so embarrassingly transparent. He gives compulsory praise to the accomplishments of “the human imagination,” careful to couch the language in ethereal tones, so as to appropriate them into his mystical worldview, while writing them off as artifacts. “We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial doctrine about the manner in which the brain functions,” careful to portray science as the same sort of doctrinal enterprise that prevents Catholics from eating meat (except for fish) on Fridays…during Lent, (or maybe the kind that leads some Pilipino Christians to have themselves crucified each year on Good Friday). These are the first signs that rhetoric is the only weapon in his arsenal. He can bring no evidence to the table, but he can talk in circles.

“On these and many other points as well, the great scientific theories have lapsed. The more sophisticated the theories, the more inadequate they are. This is a reason to cherish them. They have enlarged and not diminished our sense of the sublime.” Well…the great scientific theories have lapsed only insofar as they have failed to address themselves specifically to Berlinski’s questions, all of which are grounded in a perspective that takes the paranormal for granted. “We can say nothing of interest about the human soul,” because many of us do not presupposes the existence of a mystical entity called the soul.

Knowing that the accomplishments of science cannot be ignored, he strives to reduce it to a loveable little bugger, working its poor butt off to answer the great mysteries of life while he and his esteemed colleagues watch with compassionate pity, knowing that it’ll never get there without some sort of stopgap belief system involving a watchmaker. What Berlinski either doesn’t understand or wishes to confuse his audience about is the fact that Science is not trying to answer his questions. Science is trying to answer the next question. Science takes what we know and tries to reach the next plateau. Science takes what we think we know and deliberately tries to disprove it, hoping to either confirm or invalidate its hypotheses before moving on to the next stage. Science is too busy dealing with reality to give two shits about Berlinski’s silly questions.

“If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories. They do not mention a word about God.” Nor, Mr. Berlinski, do they mention a word about the existence of albino leprechauns in my underwear drawer, but I daresay that science stands tacitly and comfortably opposed to the veracity of that rumor. “They do not treat of any faith beyond the one that they themselves demand. They compel no ritual beyond the usual rituals of academic life, and these involve nothing more than the worship of what is widely worshipped.” Again, rhetorical efforts to bring science down to the level of religion—by conflating acceptance of scientific theories with faith; by equating religious rituals with scientific method; by likening respect for empirical evidence with the worship of invisible beings—bespeak either a profound ignorance about the actual work and intentions of science or a deliberate attempt to mislead the masses.

“Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God’s existence.” I challenge the author to find me a single reputable scientist who claims to have proved that God does not exist. He may find a handful, like Richard Dawkins, who go perhaps a bit too far in making the case that the probability of God’s existence is very low, (which strikes me as comparably futile to proving that God does exist), but that is a very different proposition from the one Berlinski is attempting to link all atheists to. Besides that, it takes more than a little intellectual dishonesty to pretend that he doesn’t understand the conceptual approach that Dawkins and his colleagues have taken. Their work can be read both as a response to and a satirization of the pseudoscientific drivel of Behe, Dembski, and Berlinski—the Intelligent Design crowd.

Berlinski uses W.K. Clifford’s injunction that “It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence,” to illustrate his interpretation of science’s position on God. “If God exists,” he imagines the atheist to argue, “then His existence is a scientific claim, no different in kind from the claim that there is tungsten to be found in Bermuda. We cannot have one set of standards for tungsten and another for the Deity. If after scouring Bermuda for tungsten we cannot find any of the stuff, then we give up on the claim.” While I couldn't agree more that we should have uniform standards for the validation of knowledge, Berlinski’s analogy has a fatal flaw. We know of a substance called tungsten. We know of a place called Bermuda. We know nothing of this (or any) Deity. He is conjured out of thin air and cannot be evaluated in any context, using any standard, by any rational person.

“While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching question of life, death, love, and meaning, the religious traditions of mankind have a good deal to say, and what they do say forms a coherent body of thought.” Really? I must admit that I am so dumbfounded by the straight-faced assertion that the religious traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, et al form a coherent body of thought, that I have nothing of value to say in response. If, however, you think that science has nothing of value to say on “the great and aching questions,” you’ve not been paying attention to the people who actually do science. Game theory is used to study the motives of people in myriad interactions; Brain mapping and neuroimaging give us a glimpse into the physiological side of human emotions; Economics can help us understand the way we respond to psychological incentives; Evolutionary biology helps us to understand the genetic basis for many of our baser predilections, in the context of human (and pre-human) history. Drugs—legal and illegal, natural and manmade—can chemically trigger, enhance, diminish, and/or abolish the full range of feelings that are often attributed to the existence of a soul. (We can actually watch this happen with the help of high-tech equipment—undoubtedly assisted by more than one of the four powerful and profound miracles.) Any man who has ever experienced profound sadness while taking a shit, or any woman who has ever broken down in tears immediately after an orgasm, have experienced the depth of our understanding about the neurological basis of our emotions, (thanks to the nerves in his prostate and her clitoris, respectively).

Here's the sad part. Berlinski trots out his academic credentials by explaining “The universe in its largest aspect is the expression of curved space and time. Four fundamental forces hold sway. There are black holes and various infernal singularities. Particles pop out of quantum fields. Elementary particles appear either as bosons or fermions. The fermions are divided into quarks and leptons. Quarks come in six varieties, but are never seen, confined as they are within hadrons by a force that perversely grows weaker at short distances and stronger at distances that are long. There are six leptons in four varieties.” This would be impressive if he didn’t immediately make himself a martyred apostate of his own mind.

“This is not an ontology that puts one in mind of a longshoreman’s view of the world. It is remarkably baroque, and it is promiscuously catholic. For the atheist persuaded that materialism offers him a no-nonsense doctrinal affiliation, materialism in this sense comes to the declaration of a barroom drinker who says, I’ll have whatever he’s having, no matter who he is or what he is having. What he is having is what he always takes, and that is any concept, mathematical structure, or vagrant idea needed to get on with it.”

So why did you waste all that time at Princeton and Columbia, Dr. Berlinski? Shall we assume that you are a recovering barroom drinker?

We know so much more than Berlinski wants to acknowledge. He is so desperate to establish an intellectually coherent context for his own need to believe that he has no choice but to sacrifice knowledge at the altar of faith. His attempt to cast all science as pseudoscience is a dangerously reckless conflation—one that helps explain why more Americans believe in a virgin birth than in the theory of evolution. It makes people more susceptible to deceptions of all kinds and then invites them to participate in the charade with spiritual impunity.

His argument is not designed to defend Christianity and hold it up as the correct belief system. (Even the good doctor realizes that it is impossible to construct such a defense.) His only option is to put forth a case that is ultimately (and desperately) designed to protect Christianity by defending anything which science cannot disprove. Perhaps he justifies this equivocation by telling himself that his book is primarily geared toward the current American conversation about belief. Regardless, he seems not to realize that his argument is ripe for exploitation by extremists of all stripes.

I’ve spent this much time with Berlinski because, while his argument is not new—in fact it was first made popular in America in the late 1800's by Herbert Spencer, a British critic and contemporary of Charles Darwin—he embodies the most current incarnation of this mentality.  It has become effective across the religious spectrum, from the devout evangelical who believes, ironically, that it forms a scientific basis for his belief, to the passive agnostic who does not wish to impose her skepticism upon believers. It says, in its simplest form, “Hey…until you can explain exactly how and why the universe began, what’s the harm in letting people believe what they want to believe?” How about genocide, jihad, ethnic bigotry, slavery, oppression, discrimination against homosexuals and women, the spread of AIDS (via the discouragement of contraceptive use), the sexual abuse of children (in cultish Mormon sects, and in the safe haven for closeted homosexuals and pedophiles known as the Catholic priesthood), the manual retardation of schoolchildren achieved by creating confusion about the validity of evolutionary theory? Show me a way to avoid those catastrophic consequences and even I might be willing to let people believe what they want to believe.

The catch-all argument proffered by Intelligent Designists, like Berlinski, offers believers a cafeteria-style selection of defensive plays, all of which are rooted in a perversion of science, philosophy, and epistemology. They cannot be consistently or rationally executed. If a traditional approach to the validation of knowledge is not sufficient, many bad outcomes must be expected. If people are encouraged to search for whatever greater truths most appeal to them, with no regard for the ludicrousness of the source material, the motives of its past or present protagonists, or the consequences of implementing their prescriptions, then one must be willing to sustain the kinds of unpleasantries listed above, all of which can be justified by any number of interpretations of religious texts and sermons.

The current debate about religious belief is ultimately about the value we place on knowledge. Yes, knowledge can be used for good or for bad, but it is inherently neither good nor bad. Knowledge simply is. (Serious epistemological discussions address the question of what, exactly, knowledge is, while detracting nothing from the fact that, for practical purposes, a duck is a duck, or that the [round] earth rotates around the sun.) The best way to encourage and ensure its use for good is to place a high value on it. The best way to promote or sanction its use for bad is to undermine its worth. Berlinski is working to devalue it for his  He may have the best of intentions. Others do not. 

06 April 2008

Now Will Someone Please Take That Goddamned Gun Away?

Charlton Heston, 1924-2008

03 April 2008

The Letter I'd Write If I Were The President

Dear Iraq,

Let me tell you a story…

My father comes from a very large family. He is the middle of nine children. For whatever reason(s)—no need to delve into complicated psychological histories here—my immediate family has always felt a little disconnected from the rest of his siblings and their families. We just don’t quite fit it, and frankly, I consider that a compliment.

The rift opened a little wider about fifteen years ago, when the animosity escalated, mostly between my mom and several members of my dad’s family. Family friends were involved, alliances formed and broken, holidays ruined. I don’t really remember any of it. Truth be told, no one really remembers any of it. No one remembers what anyone was actually fighting about. No one really knows WHY they don’t like certain individuals anymore —especially a younger generation which has only been told THAT they don’t like so-and-so.

Truthfully, I don’t think it’s worth the effort to repair the situation. I know I’m not particularly invested in whether I’m ever in the same room with most of them again. So you might be wondering what I have to say that could be of any value to your beleaguered nation. Well, you see, there’s one important distinction between our stories: To date, my family’s situation has not resulted in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. Yours has.

Now listen—I’ve been against this war from the get go. I think it was a mistake to get involved in your screwed up little country in the first place. I think George W. Bush is a dangerous fucking idiot and/or lunatic who didn’t (and still doesn't) know the first thing about your past, present, or future, and that he should probably be tried and executed for war crimes for, at the very least, his criminal negligence. That said, any rational, objective observer would have to conclude that, in the grand scheme of things, we did you a favor by deposing the murderous tyrant who used to be your president. Granted, life in Iraq may have been better under his murderous, tyrannical rule, but let’s face facts, he was a bad dude who deserved what he got.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us, the United States and our ragtag collection of allies, stranded in the desert, watching you work out pathetic, ancient squabbles, instead of seizing the opportunity you’ve been given to finally get fantastically rich off the oil you were born on top of. It leaves us trying to save face before the world because you can’t see how absurd it is to continue fighting over some bullshit that happened almost 1500 years ago. We’re done feeling sympathetic about how deep these divisions run. It’s time to act in your own self-interest.

So listen up. We out, brutha Iraq. We’ve already lost over 4,000 of our own soldiers and untold billions of our own dollars to the cause. If you want to kill each other until kingdom come—which it won’t—then be our guests. We’ll stand back and protect our own interests, hell maybe we’ll even try to get our hands on some of that oil as compensation for our efforts, but we’re done refereeing your silly little family problems.

Grow up, put down your weapons, pop some pills, fuck some virgins—whatever you need to do to cool your fucking jets and stop spilling blood all over the goddamned place. If you absolutely need to kill a few more fellow brown people, start with the clerics (who look to me like they all would have been Trekkies if they’d been born in the U.S.) who are perpetuating and fomenting the violence in order to maintain their status as crazy-religious-freaks-in-charge. Hell, just kill anyone who tells you to kill someone else until there’s no one telling you to kill anyone anymore.

Either way, we’re done with this. You’ve got 90 days before we pack up and ship out. You’ve had five years but apparently you decided that would be best spent doing jack shit to improve your situation. We wish you the best, we really do. We’re sorry we fucked up and killed the guy who was torturing, raping, killing, and oppressing your people. I’m not being sarcastic. If we’ve learned anything, I hope it’s that we can’t just waltz into primitive societies like yours and hope to accomplish anything, (especially ones that have managed to acquire rocket-propelled grenades). Lesson learned.

Best of luck, Iraq. I hope we’ll have the opportunity to welcome you into the world community someday—before global warming kills us all.

Peace,
CP
President of the United States

26 March 2008

Hillary - Get The Fuck Out Now

It is with great sadness (and with humble capitulation to KBO) that I must officially cut off the lingering support I have offered Hillary Clinton these past couple of months. I have defended her tactics and promulgated her finer qualities and positions. While I will most certainly vote for her in a McCain vs. Clinton general election, I would prefer that she GET THE FUCK OUT NOW, please.

Two events precipitated this decision. The first were these remarks by would-be first gentleman, Bill Clinton:

I loved you Bill, and I daresay that I have never uttered a negative syllable about you or your presidency, even if it was a tad conservative for my taste. I have long worshiped at the altar of your charisma, but this marks the end of my adoration for you. We all know that you're a fucking genius and that you mean to say every single word that comes out of your mouth. There is no question about what you meant to imply by these remarks. You tapped into the rising tide of suspicion about Obama that is being sewn among our ignorant electorate, even though you know goddamned well that it's all complete horseshit.  This makes you no better than Karl Rove or any of the yapping heads on Fox "News." You've hurt me, Bill. You've hurt America. Even Monica's tonsils don't know the half of what you've done to us.

Now Hillary has decided to jump on the bandwagon. It appeared that she had made the wise decision to steer clear of it...until this week, when she began to denounce and repudiate Obama's failure to leave his church. Cunt. I understand that it wouldn't have made any sense at all for you to take the real high road by defending Wright, (especially after Obama put on his skirt, bent over, and pretended to repudiate Wright's totally inoffensive comments), but you could have at least stayed the fuck out and refused to be a part of this sad chapter in the history of American race relations.

I'm tired of writing about this, so for now I'd like to refer you to some excellent writing on the same topic. Two great posts at Winter Patriot - The Sermon Obama Repudiated Was One We All Needed To Hear and Obama's Brilliant Speech Of Hope And Unity Scares Me Half To Death - should quench your thirst for more on this nightmare.

21 March 2008

On Preachers

I have a horrible, sinking feeling about this episode, like it is the beginning of the end for Obama, whether it ultimately happens in the primary or in general election. I think the American people were subconsciously waiting for a convoluted situation that would allow them to express their underlying bigotry in a non-obvious way. This is just such a situation. By attacking Obama's preacher, by basing their discomfort with Obama on his association with Wright, they can finally deny the Obama phenomenon while feeling self-righteous about their outward lack of bigotry. The polls are currently beginning to bear this out and I am growing sadder and more ashamed of my country with every dropping poll point.

Will someone please explain to me why it has been accepted as objective fact that Jeremiah Wright's statements were worthy of the shitstorm that has erupted over them? Everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, have just accepted and perpetuated the apparently obvious fact that his comments were the rhetorical equivalent of a dead hooker in Obama's trunk, without bothering to examine them in any broader context. Everyone simply moved on to the really important questions, like "Has Obama distanced himself enough from these horrible, detestable, vitriolic, anti-American statements?" or "Will this story continue to haunt Obama?" These are questions that fit neatly into the narrative of the electoral horse race, without contributing an iota to the real discussion about America's past, present, and future.

I keep watching these YouTube clips thinking that maybe, just maybe, I'll find something that helps me understand what people are so hysterical about. I just can't find it. All I see is a fiery social leader channeling and mirroring the very complex emotions that the black community, a community that was legally segregated only 50 years ago, justifiably feels about their country. Wright doesn't threaten America in his sermons, he calls America on her shit. He challenges her to do better and to come to terms with her past, to understand why her black citizens might still have profound suspicions about her promises of liberty and equality.

Leave it to Mike Huckabee, with whom I disagree on nearly every topic under the sun (including the very origin of the aforementioned orb), to bring some compassion to this debate: "As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you — we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told 'You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie, you have to go in the back door to go into the restaurant, you can't sit out there with everyone else, there's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office, here's where you sit on the bus.' And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder, and resentment, and you have to just say 'I probably would too...in fact, I probably would have had...more of a chip on my shoulder.' "

Are Mike Huckabee and I the only two people in America who see through the bullshit indignation of commentators like Joe Scarborough, who in the same clip wonders incredulously how "Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK."  Would it amaze you to know, Joe, that I work with a woman (in your home state of Florida) who actually said to me recently, "Well, there's black people and then there's niggers. I mean, nigger just means ignorant. It's in the dictionary." This is a person who is in school to be a medical receptionist. Not glamorous, mind you, but not trailer park material either. Would it surprise you, Joe, to know that there are still many, many people in America who think this way? And yet, in a stroke of staggering irony, she's exactly the kind of person who is most offended by Wright's sermons.

My point is that Jeremiah Wright just isn't all that crazy, as preachers go. Believe me, I think the first mistake is giving a microphone to anyone who has imaginary friends. But preachers say crazy shit every goddamned day. If you want crazy, try on this sermon by McCain's favorite pastor, John Hagee, preaching that the U.S. State Department is inviting a "bloodbath" from god by pressuring Israel to give up land to the Palestinians:

Or better yet, how about this classic, in which Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that America got "probably what we deserved" on 9/11.

You want crazy? Watch this and get back to me...

18 March 2008

God Damn The Right

Far be it from me to defend a preacher, but the uproar over Jeremiah Wright is a shameful, cynical circus. His words are being condemned from the right with the worst kind of disingenuous indignation while the left pussies out again and allows the real villains to get away with it. Allow me to elucidate this mess...

The right-wing blowhards who are most upset about the scandalous YouTube clips they've watched are pretending to be deeply wounded by Wright's perceived racial divisiveness. Never mind that they've never been within 30 miles of a black church; that they cannot even begin to place his words within anything resembling context; that they don't know the first goddamned thing about having racism directed at their people. None of this matters to them. They've found an opportunity to pounce and jubilantly announce that white people are the victims of bigotry too! See?!

Wrong, assholes. Whereas America seems to have settled into something resembling a reluctant cease-fire in the battle of the sexes, we remain hugely fucked-up when it comes to race. America has not yet given a generation of African Americans the tools needed to rise above the station we bestowed upon them. We kept them in chains, physical and legal, until 1865 and 1964, respectively, while white Americans spent three hundred years getting extraordinarily wealthy. Then we had the fucking balls to say, "Well, now you've got everything you wanted. I guess there's nothing to complain about anymore. Best of luck!" It would be hysterical if it wasn't such a sick fucking joke - watching all the right-wing dickheads pretending that they don't understand the frustration and rage that boils over in black communities. They look at certain aspects of black culture (the staggering number of black men who end up in jail, rap music, the disaffected attitude of the fast food workers they are forced to encounter, etc.) and assume that it speaks for itself, without taking into account that the black culture they are talking about is both a consequence of and response to the oppression they've endured since we dragged them over here in the first place.

So when Jeremiah Wright preaches what Barack Obama calls "a social gospel" to a congregation of African Americans who are moving in the right direction while continuing to experience and work through their discontentment, I understand. Besides that, his words simply were not all that offensive. As I said in my previous post, anyone who pretends not to understand the rhetorical, theatrical device that produced the words "god damn America," is either full of shit or hopelessly obtuse. Anyone who can't contextualize Wright's description of the "U.S. of KKK A.," where "the government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants [them] to sing 'God Bless America'," is completely ignoring the reality of the black experience in America. Anyone who cannot abide any interpretation of history that might implicate America in the Islamic rage that led to 9/11 (while believing that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had it right when they blamed it on the homos, adulterers, and feminists), is just an empty-headed jingoist.

I wish Obama had not felt compelled to distance himself from Wright in his speech today (unless it was to distance himself from Christianity altogether), or to equate his remarks with the passively racist remarks of his own white grandmother. I wish he'd had the nerve to stand up and say "No. Sorry. This is bullshit. I will not apologize for the remarks of a dear friend just because you've chosen to demonize him. I will not pander to your phony indignation by pretending he said something horribly offensive." I wish America was ready to hear what needed to be said. All things considered, he probably made the best possible move for his campaign and he was brave enough to embrace Wright while denouncing his allegedly offensive words. Kudos for that, I suppose.

More importantly, this is all yet another abhorrently duplicitous ploy by the right. No one with half a brain is actually offended by Barack Obama's association with this man, nor or they actually offended by the man's words. It is another chapter in the Right's perpetuation of The Interminable Illusion of Indignation. But this is worse than just pretending to be indignant about MoveOn.org's General Betray-Us ad. This betrays what little progress America has made in race relations. This episode features the darkest of cynics foisting a maliciously misinterpreted myth upon simpleminded bigots who are being led to feel justified about their inbred hatred of all things non-white. This episode is playing off the bogus fears that have been insinuated about Obama's secret, Islamic hatred of America. This episode, if successful, would make America indisputably worthy of the damnation it finds so hateful.

17 March 2008

Why Spitzer, Ferraro, & Wright Shouldn't Have Quit

 Let's start with Elliot. This is simple - Prostitution shouldn't be illegal. If I'm allowed to make my living with my fingers, Ashley Dupre should be allowed to earn money with her vagina. Or whatever orifice she chooses, for that matter. It goes without saying that sexual slavery is a detestable crime, as is ANY kind of slavery, but that should not be conflated with run-of-the-mill prostitution, which is a victimless crime. Anyone who argues otherwise is assuming that no one would choose prostitution as a career, or ignoring the fact that prostitution might be preferable to working at McDonald's. Stop pretending that prostitution is ever going away and make it safe for the individuals who practice and patronize it. Until it becomes illegal to buy a woman expensive gifts (or cheap drinks) with the expectation of getting laid, we need to stop penalizing people who commit the same offense with cash.

Geraldine Ferraro didn't say anything all that offensive. Just as Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she wasn't a woman (who married Bill Clinton), Barack's color is inextricably part of his massive appeal. It's not like she said "I wouldn't want to lynch him if he wasn't black." I'm not sure how her words were racist, OR how they differ in any way from Jeremiah Wright saying "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger," which implies that Barack's color matters very much. Barack can't have it both ways, with his operatives selling his blackness to blacks, while denouncing the harmless words of a woman who knows a thing or two about being a barrier-breaking candidate. If the Obama campaign wasn't so busy playing wounded little bird in response to everything the Clinton campaign says or does, they might have had the wherewithal to say, "That's true. Isn't it amazing how far we've come? Thanks for pointing it out!" Or, they could have grown some balls for once and said, "We'd personally prefer to be succeeding because Barack is black than because he married a philanderer and rode that gravy train as far as possible."

On the other side, Jeremiah Wright has nothing to apologize for except his ignorant devotion to Jesus Christ, which is doing as much harm to his congregants as the white men he likes to denounce from his pulpit. His use of the phrase "god damn America," has been endlessly pilloried despite the fact that, in context, it was just a rhetorical device used to button up a point. It was a stand-in for "shame on America." What a sad testament to our national retardedness that we can't process something like this with an ounce of intellectual credibility. Wright also argued that America's chickens were "coming home to roost," on 9/11, as a result of our violent past. No one noticed that this is a much more coherent argument than the one that god was punishing us for harboring homosexuals and feminists. When did we become a country that refuses to look at ourselves critically? Why is unshakable pride the only acceptable state of being for an American citizen?

Gotta run. More to come...

03 March 2008

The Shame of Hussein

I hate to dignify bigotry with my time, but the smear campaign that is just gearing up against Barack Obama must be dealt with head-on and immediately. Let's first acknowledge that every aspect of these claims are rooted in racism, as they are all seeking to exploit the fact that Barack Obama is not white. The propagators of these myths are not interested in whether he is black, Muslim, African, or Chinese. They only know that large swaths of Americans are ignorant enough to believe whatever they're told about a man who doesn't look like all of our past presidents. I am writing this because I am astounded by the number of people I've met who have heard these claims and believe them until I am forced to lecture them at length about the dubious veracity of email forwards. (Newsweek's Jonathan Alter recently reported that Ross Perot had even bought into the infamous email. Alter corrected him.)

I'm going to let Snopes do the heavy lifting on the low-hanging fruit, such as his alleged refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or to place his hand over his heart, or his swearing in on the Qu'ran. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama is not a secret radical Muslim, though I wish I could also say that he is not a Christian (or one who, at the very least, panders to the Christian majority). He was not sworn in on the Qu'ran - Keith Ellison, our first and only Muslim congressman, was. (Again, I wish that ancient books about magic sky gods were not involved in the first place, but if they must be, I don't really see the relevance of this incorrect allegation, unless its target audience is tainted by profound bigotry...which it is). These lies are merely the groundwork for a broader, more subtle campaign against a non-white candidate for the Presidency of the United States. One could argue that racism is not the primary motive of this campaign, but it is certainly being used as weapon in the battle.

Let's start with the current right-wing narrative, which is attempting to paint Barack and Michelle Obama as unpatriotic, ashamed Americans. Michelle Obama recently said "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." Now let's accept for a moment that she meant exactly what she said (rather than employ an ounce of common sense and honesty about what she probably intended). The inference that is being drawn by conservative pundits is that Michelle and, by extension, Barack have been ashamed of their country for some time. This leads the talking heads to the conclusion that the Obamas hate America (undoubtedly because they are radical Muslims). The individuals propagating this storyline know that their audiences aren't sophisticated enough to understand or to care about the distinction between hatred and shame.

Shame, or the absence of pride where it once existed (or should, by rights, exist), occurs when an individual knows that they should have lived up to a higher standard. It is uniquely felt by individuals about themselves, or about communities (such as families) from which their identities are inextricable. I am disgusted by Putin's recent actions, but I am not ashamed of him. I feel sorry for Britney Spears, but I am not ashamed of her. Pride in someone or something must first exist in order for shame to manifest itself. If Michelle Obama was ashamed of her country, one thing I can deduce is that she once felt proud of it. This strikes me as the valid, valuable experience of a patriot.

It also raises questions for those who are criticizing her: Are there any circumstances under which it would be acceptable to be ashamed of your country? Must a patriotic citizen always be proud, regardless of the actions of her leaders and fellow citizens? If so, what is the value of pride? Hitler criticized the German citizens who were ashamed of his actions. Were they unpatriotic Germans? Sure, that's the most extreme example I could have cited, but the point remains the same. Pride is meaningless once it becomes obligatory.

This ties into the complaint that Barack doesn't wear an American flag pin on his lapel. This is where Obama deeply impresses me. Instead of capitulating to this idiotic argument, which would be the easier path, he explains: "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead,I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Any kunckle-headed boob (except, apparently, Jack Kingston - see the previous post) can wear a pin on their jacket or slap a magnetic, yellow ribbon on the back of their Escalade. All this tells me about someone is that they're probably not doing a goddamned thing to improve their beloved country other than displaying those trifling gestures. I would like to propose that all true patriots pierce the tips of their penises (or their clitorises) with American flag pins. Then we'll see who really loves their country, won't we?

I know it seems like I've digressed from the issue of racism, but I think if you look closely, you'll see that these issues are interconnected. These surface charges would have no weight without the underlying tension about Obama's race and religion. Once the collective consciousness has been tainted by fear-mongering rumors, people are more susceptible to suggestions that seem to confirm their own prejudices and fears.

One need only consider right-wing nutjob Bill Cunningham rallying the McCain troops with the repeated use of Obama's middle name, Hussein. There is only one possible explanation for his decision to repeat the name "Barack Hussein Obama," and it's really one of the most stupefyingly cynical things I've ever witnessed. Cunningham, who may be a malevolent motherfucker, but who is no idiot, knows that his target audience is simpleminded enough and/or bigoted enough to make a connection, consciously or subconsciously, between Barack Obama and Saddam Hussein, or to Islamic culture generally. There is no other explanation, otherwise the American public might be more familiar with the middle names of Al Gore and John Kerry, neither of whom had middle names that would have raised red flags in the pathetically tiny brains of Cunningham's xenophobic fans. (I wonder if Mr. Cunningham could even produce those names if asked.)

You see how this goes. These dark, twisted fuckers insinuate and raise their eyebrows and plant the seeds of fear in their the fertile soil of their emptyheaded listeners. They create a web of confusion and distraction so that those who are higher up in the food chain can make broader, if equally inane, insinuations. Bill Cunningham chants the name "Hussein" so that the Stepford Republicans will wonder whether Obama is related to the late Saddam Hussein, who ended up hanging from the same sort of noose that Bill O'Reilly has decided not to lynch Michelle Obama from "unless there's evidence." This sets John McCain up to more effectively question Obama's patriotism (after apologizing for Cunningham's remarks) on the basis of a completely unrelated matter, which only seems significant in light of the confusion that has been sewn by loudmouthed underlings.

I'm still ashamed of my country and will continue to be until dickheads like Bill Cunningham, Bill O'Reilly, and Jack Kingston either cease to exist or cease to have an impact on the masses of ignorant citizens who are kept ignorant by their own reliance on dickheads like Bill Cunningham, Bill O'Reilly, and Jack Kingston for their information.

29 February 2008

4 Things That Pissed Me Off This Week

1. I find it amusing that many of the conservative pundits who are writing hagiographic obituaries for William F. Buckley are the same ones who couldn't get enough jokes out of John Edwards' $400 haircut. What do these two things have to do with each other? According to David Brooks, "Buckley was not only a giant celebrity, he lived in a manner of the haut monde. To enter Buckley’s world was to enter the world of yachts, limousines, finger bowls at dinner, celebrities like David Niven and tales of skiing at Gstaad."

No one dares to wonder whether Buckley's conservatism might have had anything to do with the fact that he was born to an oil baron and spent his life in the lap of luxury - in stark contrast to the lives of people like John Edwards, who were born poor and have not allowed their achieved wealth to compromise their political philosophies. I have nothing but respect for Buckley's vast intellectual powers, but his politics were the product of privilege. Nevertheless, his brand of conservatism is certainly preferable to that of the hacks and buffoons who will presently try to use his death as a rallying point for a crippled Republican party.

2. Speaking of buffoons, John McCain pulled an incredible stunt this week. He used Obama's answer to a hypothetical question to portray him as ignorant. Here's what McCain said:

I'm not embarrassed to tell you that I did not watch the Democrat debate last night, but I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws -- after the American troops are withdrawn -- then he would send military troops back, if Al Qaeda established a military base in Iraq. I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq, and my friends if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country. And I'm not going to allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda.

It's pretty remarkable when Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and want to withdraw from Iraq and then say you will go back to Iraq if they have a base there. That's -- when you examine that statement it's pretty remarkable."

Okay, except here's what Russert asked:

"I want to ask both of you this question, then. If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaida resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

And here's Obama's answer:

Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places.

For starters, McCain doesn't even execute his own strategy competently. If he wanted this to work, he would have just used Obama's quote to make it look as if he didn't know what he was talking about. Instead, he gives away the game by restating the hypothetical within his own attack. Then he condescendingly tells Obama "I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq." No shit, asshole.

Obama, struck back coolly and brilliantly, pointing out that they wouldn't be there if McCain and shit-for-brains hadn't stumbed in there like a couple of drunk, redneck sailors at a gay biker bar - ready to beat the shit out of some queers but getting raped instead.

3. In the New York Times' blog "Campaign Stops" today, commentator Dan Schnur struts his disdain for the Clintons with a total disregard for his own intellectual credibility. "As an equally loyal fan of the Republican Party and of the Green Bay Packers football team," he says, "I had come to regard the Clintons the same way I’ve always thought about the Dallas Cowboys. I don’t like them. I root against them. I want them to lose and occasionally find myself wanting bad things to happen to them."

Then, without flinching, he admits "Many of my fellow Republicans don’t believe it, but Mrs. Clinton has actually fashioned a relatively centrist career as a senator." He then proceeds to root against Hillary, supporting Obama, despite his more liberal voting record. Check out the macho brain muscles on this guy -  so blinded by his fanatical support for Republicans (and the obligatory hatred of the Clintons that goes along with that) that he can't see his own deranged logic.

Incidentally, his column, entitled "Why I'm Afraid Of The Clintons" never really explains WHY he's afraid of the Clintons. It just explains that he's afraid she'll comeback and win. Keep up the good work, Dan.

4. This is just hilarious, plain and simple. Jack Kingston (R-GA), who likes to make himself look like a douchebag as often as possible - and who did a marvelous job of that on Real Time with Bill Maher last week - tops himself in this clip in which he tries to impugn Barack's patriotism. Enjoy...

22 February 2008

The Last Supper