Memorial Day Sale

To the Editor:

As reported in Monday's Post-Standard, Pope Benedict XVI, looking upon the Auschwitz death camp, asked "Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" The answer is that He didn't tolerate it: He sent Americans to end it. And Americans did end it, paying the price for Europe's lack of resolve and military impotence. It is ironic that this is reported on Memorial Day. Just thank God for America and the American soldier. Where would freedom be without them?

David

This letter, if nothing else, proves that it is possible to be ignorant to the point of it being offensive.

Don't get me wrong. It's not the sentiment of the letter I object to. I too am grateful for the dedication of our soldiers. There is no doubt that our armed forces are necessary, and that every soldier does a dirty, thankless, necessary job. It's not really ironic that the story appeared on Memorial Day (unless one is writing a song for Alanis Morrisette). It is appropriate, however, to remember the dangers of nationalism and imperialism, and how American soldiers fought and died against the arrogance of power in Europe, struggling alongside their brothers in arms from Allied nations.

The problem with David's letter is that it shows an ignorance of history, and more disturbing, it displays the nationalism and exceptionalism that the Greatest Generation fought against. God did not 'send' Americans anywhere, unless He personally planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The concept of America as the Great Global Cowboy does not date back to World War II... America was just as hesitant to become involved as the European Allies. Only when American soil was attacked did America become involved. And while American soldiers were certainly a key element in the Allied victory, it takes a particularly nasty brand of historical revision to make the claim that America saved Europe in spite of the impotence of our Allies.

What does David mean by a 'lack of resolve'? What actions should Europe have responded to earlier? Germany's unilateral military campaigns? German troops occupying other nations in the name of national security? Germany's drumming up of nationalism through the use of internal scapegoating and legislated discrimination? The rumors of secret detention facilities where torture and death were regular occurences? Americans need to be cautious about chastising Europe for not responding sooner to German aggression, as America becomes more and more ominously similar to pre-World War II Germany. People get antsy about comparing any political entity to Nazis, and to some extent, that caution is reasonable. It is not reasonable, however, to ignore the lessons of history. Regardless of what you call the ruling party, what pre-war Germany taught us is that through the manipulation of nationalism and propaganda, a nation can be made to accept the unacceptable. We may not want to call anyone Nazis, but we had better be willing to compare our national sentiment to that of the nation the Nazis were able to sway.

David probably thinks that his letter is simply a tribute to the American soldier. I'm willing to believe that he doesn't even recognize the ignorance or nationalist zealotry in his own words. That, however, is the very essence of the problem. Active nationalist groups have always existed in America, spreading hatred and intolerance. Far more dangerous is the subconscious seeping of those sentiments, unnoticed and unspoken. Americans, it is often said, dislike self-reflection. The same was often said of Germans in the early twentieth century.

Ah, Waddaya Know From Funny, Ya Bastard?

Hot on the heels of telling us that Stephen Colbert was not funny, the right is once again doing us the very kind favor of informing us what is and is not entertaining. This time, it's half-rate NY Times columnist John Tierney letting us know that, despite anything we may have heard, Al Gore's new documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" is a complete failure in every sense, and we should not be entertained or moved by it.

If Al Gore's new movie weren't titled "An Inconvenient Truth," I wouldn't have quite so many problems with it.

He should have gone with something closer to "Revenge of the Nerd." That's the heartwarming angle to global warming. A college student is mesmerized by his professor's bold measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Our hero carries this passion into Congress, where no one listens to him, and then works up a slide show that he inflicts on audiences around the world, to no discernable effect.

But then his slide show becomes a horror movie -- and it turns into a cult hit. The nerd becomes the toast of Hollywood, Sundance, and Cannes. He is cheered at premieres across America. Audiences sit enraptured through a film staring graphs of CO2 concentrations and close-ups of ice cores.

So begins Mr. Tierney, who fortunately doesn't resort to middle-school style name-calling, and instead focuses on the actual content of the documentary.

No, just kidding. He calls Al Gore a nerd twice, while poking fun at a documentary that is more about informing than entertaining. I'm assuming he decided to edit out the part where he doesn't want Al to sit at his 'cool' lunch table. It's not that I'm shocked that Tierney stoops to using anti-intellectualism to make his point; God knows it's an effective strategy these days. I'm just surprised he couldn't be bothered to hide it a little, or at least elevate it to a level beyond pubescent posturing.

Gore doesn't quite come off as likable in the film -- he still has that wooden preachiness and is especially hard to watch when he tries to be funny. Yet you end up admiring him for his nerdy persistence. He turned out to be right about something important: Global warming is a problem worth worrying about.

Here we go with the Colbert strategy. Even though YOU think Al Gore might be likable and funny, he's really not, and if you think he is, you're obviously not as cool as the rest of us. Pay no attention to his already classic Saturday Night Live bit from a few weeks ago, or the fact that he his recent appearances have gone a long way to shake his reputation as wooden and humorless. We on the right have been claiming he's a bore since 2000 in an attempt to make him unelectable, and we certainly don't want to have to stop now.

Oh, and also, nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd.

But the story he tells in the movie is hardly "an inconvenient truth." It's not really true, and it's certainly not inconvenient for him or his audience.

Does John Tierney really want a savvy reader to think he's an idiot? I don't believe it. Tierney knows that the title of the movie doesn't refer to a truth that's politically inconvenient for Gore, but one that is inconvenient to the ease of life and wealth in the industrialized west. Pretending that he doesn't understand the context of the title is just lazy.

In his morality tale, global warming has been an obvious crisis-in-the-making for decades, and there are obvious solutions that could have been adopted without damaging consequences. But supposedly America, almost alone among industrialized nations, has refused to do anything because the public has been bamboozled by evil oil companies and Republicans -- especially one villain who, we're reminded, got fewer popular votes than Gore did in 2000.

Yeah, imagine the nerve of Al Gore implying that the American industrial complex has tried to fool the public about the state of global warming. Go ahead and follow that link. That's the marketing campaign the energy corporations have devised in response to "An Inconvenient Truth." The level to which they patronize the viewer and pander to ignorance is, frankly, disgusting. The ploy of the clip is so transparent, I have to believe that most Americans can see through it. I hope so, anyway.

But of course, Al is right, no matter how much people like John Tierney want to make excuses now. We've been getting warnings about global warming for decades, and, especially on the right, we blew them off. I know, because I was one of the people listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of peer-reviewed scientific studies. I used to sneer at environmentalists who proposed drastic changes to the industrial model that America has prospered from. Eventually, though, science catches up with the rhetoric. There ARE obvious solutions, though no one claims they are without consequences. They're difficult. They're expensive. They're.. ahem... INCONVENIENT. They are also necessary. Ten years ago, I would have scoffed at the notion that rising temperatures would lead to double the number of high-intensity hurricanes in the Atlantic, including one that would devastate the bulk of the Gulf Coast. What potential disasters that we scoff now will be realities in another decade? Rush's fan base can chuckle at the Al Gore Apocalypse clock on the Rush Website, itself based on a misquotation and pandering to the uneducated. What happens, however, when the world's most efficient carbon dioxide absorber, the rainforests, reach a temperature at which the level of decay exceeds the rate of photosynthesis, and the 'trees that breathe it in' start to actually emit more carbon dioxide than they absorb? There is a point when that will happen, it may happen within the next ten years, and it may be the point of no return.

America is like a smoker whose health is deteriorating, but who refuses to quit smoking because he 'doesn't have lung cancer yet.' We know what the problem is. We know what is causing the problem. We know what we have to change to fix the problem. The reality we don't want to face is that the longer we keep going without making those changes, the more likely that lung cancer is to settle in. The question is not whether or not there is a point of no return. There is. The question is, how far will we push our luck, and how long will our luck hold out.

These are no longer arguments the right can rail against without sounding ignorant and self-delusional. Instead, Rush keeps his silly little Apocalypse clock up, and John Tierney tries to convince us that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a flop. The environmentalists quote science, and the corporate apologists engage in juvenile antics and manipulative marketing. They are also losing ground. Al Gore's documentary could have never been released a decade ago. Global Warming was still a fringe concern. The message is getting out, thanks to the efforts of people like Gore. The movie is just part of the movement, and the movement has not been a flop.

Gorillas in the Myth

To the Editor:

The hype over "The "Da Vinci Code" illustrates one obvious truth: The last remaining form of accepted bigotry in our society is to attack Christians in general and Catholics, in particular. Would Hollywood ever produce a movie that so directly attacked the basic teachings of Islam or Judaism or even Druids?

Of course not. Mocking Catholicism today is as socially acceptable as denigrating blacks and Jews was in the past. Today's social elitists, like those in the past, don't think twice. But, as a Catholic, I will not simply stand by and watch my faith attacked by these bigots; I plan to fight back. I will pray for them.

Brian

Before I get into the bulk of this letter, and why it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that Christians are the only group of people against whom bigotry is socially condoned, I just want to comment on how offensive it is to me, as a Christian, that Brian and so many others actively engage in the practice of passive-aggresive praying. If you're praying for someone out of a sense of revenge or aggression, you're just posturing. There's nothing spiritually positive about those emotions, and using them to fuel your personal meditations with God is just this side of sacriledge. Praying for one's perceived enemies is not 'fighting back,' it's meeting aggression with peace, and counteracting hatred with love. It is the polar opposite of fighting back.

That said, the rest of this letter is absolute tosh. Just the argument that The Da Vinci Code is an attack or an insult against Catholics and Christians raises my hackles. I'm not going to point out that the story is fiction, as most have, because I really don't think that the perceived validity of the information is even relevant. Simply presenting information that does not agree with the beliefs of others is not an insult. The Da Vinci Code does not 'attack' the basic teachings of Christianity any more than The Passion of the Christ attacked the basic teachings of Judaism, which include the belief that the Messiah has not yet come and was not, by extension, manifest in Jesus. While The Da Vinci Code exaggerates certain aspects of Christ and Mary Magdeline for dramatic purposes, it is based on information that is just as fictional as The Da Vinci Code, but widely accepted and believed by Christians. Mary Magdeline may not have been Jesus's wife, but she was also not a prostitute, though perhaps a majority of Christians believe that she was. There is nothing to indicate this in the Scripture, and in fact it was a myth invented by Pope Gregory the Great to create an icon for penance. Today, arguments still rage about the subserviant role of women within the church, but few Christians understand the cultural relevance of Jesus including women among his trusted followers, or even know that many of the earliest Christian missionaries, including Mary Magdeline, were women. Pointing out these inaccuracies in the widely accepted histories of Christianity is not an attack against the beliefs of Christians, and believing that they are simply points to the precarious state of uncertainty and insecurity many Christians maintain by shutting out all voices but that of their immediate church leaders. Much of the blame for the disasters that have befallen the Christian faith, including hatred, fanaticism, embraced ignorance, and perhaps the entire Southern Baptist Convention, can be placed directly on the shoulders of those who demonized dissent and debate in the early church.

Equally disturbing is the mantra of "Christians are the last acceptable targets of bigotry." That's just utter horseshit. In how many states are Christians barred from marrying, or adopting children, or even engaging in intercourse? Absolutely none. But those Christians are more than happy to impose that kind of bigotry on homosexuals. Do you ever see children dressed up as mockeries of Christians on Halloween? I never have, though inevitably I see young girls dressed up as mockeries of followers of Wicca. I've never heard anyone use the phrase 'to Christian a deal' or 'stingy as a Christian,' but these phrases are easily recognized as common parlance if 'Christian' is replaced with 'Jew.' Right in your own letter, you include a subconscious judgement statement about Druids by including the word 'even' before them, as if they were somehow more acceptable targets of bigotry than Muslims or Jews. The truth is that Christians in the US are the most sensitive to anything they consider to be offensive to them because, as the single largest interest group in the United States, they are subject to the least prejudice. 'Today's social elitists,' if defined as non-Christians, still make up less than fifteen percent of the population. There aren't enough of them to bully Brian, no matter how powerful he thinks they are. More Christians will go to see The Da Vinci Code than non-Christians, and if that weren't the case, the movie wouldn't have been made, because it would have been impossible to make a profit otherwise. Christians are the proverbial 500-pound gorilla, and not accepting their obvious impact on society is self-delusion in its most blatant form.

As a Christian, I am embarassed by other Christians who, evidently nostalgic for a time when Christians could prove their faith by being martyred by public stoning or being fed to lions, want to invent an imaginary society in which they are not, if not the most influential group, certainly one of them. American Christians, much like American nationalists, prefer to think of themselves as the underdog, and understandably so... the same bravado and conceit that are admirable in an underdog are much less admirable when worn by the undisputed seat of power. Admitting their cultural dominance would require them to modify their behavior. Easier to embrace ignorance and pretend that the 500-pound gorilla is being bullied by the kids on the playground. Poor, poor gorilla.

When Idiots Attack

During a discussion recently, a friend asked me why I was supporting the left so fervently these days. I told him the reason as I see it; my values have remained constant while the culture has shifted significantly to the right, causing me to support those on the left who are now close to the historical center of US politics. He said that the left is never close to center, because the left has a lot of kooks. "You never see real kooks on the right," he said, without a trace of irony. I have sent him an e-mail, inviting him to read this letter and, if he's willing to be honest with himself, retract his statement.

This letter, penned by Martin, is longish and off-the-charts batshit, so I'm going to tackle it one piece at a time. The entire letter is reprinted here, however.

To the Editor:

Enough is enough. Mexico should be labeled a "terrorist state" and its president identified as a threat to the security of the United States. What is happening between Mexico and the United States is tantamount to an invasion!

Okay, really, whoever is in charge of Martin's medication, it's time for a bump in the dose. Has it already been so long since 9/11/01 that Martin has forgotten what a terrorist attack looks like? Terrorists tend to do things like hijack planes, blow up buildings, and shoot people. You know, things that instill terror. I have yet to meet anyone who has an irrational phobia of someone picking their lettuce or cleaning their hotel room. Terrorism is an active, political stance. Migrant working is a reactive, economic condition. Immigration is not terrorism, and frankly, as much as it might tick us off, the immigrants are not breaking any Mexican laws, and it's not Mexico's responsibility to fix the problem. It might set a bad precedent for us to label another nation a 'terrorist state' for not doing our work for us, eh Martin?

What we need is a 20-mile-wide "no man's land" on the Mexican side of the border, much like Israel maintained in Lebanon to protect itself from attack from terrorists in that country, where no one is allowed to wander, under threat of death.

Okay, but in order to do that, we would need to take control of Mexican land, most likely through military force. Just so you're aware, Martin, that is the very definition of an 'invasion.' Since you've already made clear that invasions are a bad thing, this might not be something we want to do. Besides the fact that it's absolutely batshit insane, it would also put us in about the same position Germany was in prior to World War II, when it was invading its neighbors for the causes of scapegoating and nationalism. We still get angry at Europe for not bitch-slapping them at the time... we call them, at best, appeasers, and at worst, pussies. You're basically calling for America to follow in those proud Nazi footsteps of nationalist imperialism to support fascist neo-liberal economics. Good idea, jackass.

Put our military to use flying patrols through this region, like they did in Iraq in the "no fly zone" following Desert Storm. This is certainly not a "complicated issue."

Yeah, because God knows our military needs something to do. We just haven't been keeping them busy enough. It's about time they earned their keep. And yeah, we wouldn't want to put too much thought about where and why we put American military lives in danger. That's just overcomplicating things.

"Illegal" is illegal, no matter how you might want to look at it. Illegal immigrants take from this country without making any significant contribution back to its welfare.

'Illegal' and 'illegal' are the same word, Martin. It follows that they might share a definition, no matter how one wants to look at it. There are, however, different degrees of illegality. If you get caught speeding, you don't serve the same sentence as Charles Manson, even though you both engaged in illegal activity. Oversimplification is a fun neocon tactic, but it's not really something we should use to justify the invasion of neighboring countries.

Working hard for next-to-nothing is not making a significant contribution to the welfare of this country. Like trade reform, this only facilitates an assault on our standard of living, rather than actually solving some serious problems that we face here.

Just for the record, this paragraph structure is Martin's, not mine. I have no idea what he's referring to when he says that "...this only facilitates an assault..." or what it has to do with contribution to the greater welfare, or why the first statement about contribution to welfare was separated from the second in a different paragraph. I suppose he may mean that illegal immigration is an assault on our standard of living, but I can't figure out what he's comparing to trade reform. Regardless, he's completely incorrect in claiming that illegal immigrants working for low wages make no contribution to the economic welfare of the nation. To the shame of law-breaking employers across the country, Hispanic immigrants fill the economic asset niche of extremely-low-wage labor, something we used to handle through a lovely little tradition called slavery. It is in no way a new concept in this nation, and it is no more a threat to the American society than African slaves, Irish laborers, or Chinese railroad employees ever were. As long as employers are allowed to take advantage of a minority population for economic gain, you can bet there will be an underclass for them to take advantage of. There will also be ignorant assholes who want to scapegoat the underclass for everything, because it's easy and it feeds prideful nationalism. You're no different than the Know-Nothings of the early 1800s, Martin, and your opinions are no less backwards and dangerous.

Illegal immigrants take advantage of what this country offers them that their own countries do not. To reward them with anything but deportation is to reward them for breaking the law. It is time to identify what this country is about; what our "culture" is and what it requires of each of its citizens.

Martin

I will bet you a donut that Martin doesn't have a passport, because this level of ethnocentrism tends to be the result of cultural ignorance. When Martin is willing to ride hundreds of miles on the roof of a train car, where bandits steal everything he owns and rape women and young boys he has with him, evading corrupt Mexican police who will try to get whatever the bandits didn't, then travel by foot through miles of searing desert where boiling heat, dehydration, or a redneck with a rifle could all cause him to be a vulture buffet, then, assuming he makes it that far, work for a pittance in the most degrading and menial work available, at that point Martin can pass judgment on people 'taking advantage' of a situation.

Let's identify what this country is about, Martin. This country is about immigration. Unless you are full-blooded Native American, your ancestors immigrated here, probably with very little money. Today, people like you want to keep people from the opportunities that your forefathers employed to let you live as comfortably as you do. There are no longer quick trips through Ellis Island for citizenship. Citizenship is a long, expensive process, unattainable for the tired, poor, hungry, huddled masses yearning for freedom. The way you encourage legal immigration is by making it a better option than illegal immigration, not by flying jets over Mexico, you ignorant fuck. It most certainly is a complicated issue, but one could start by easing the financial restrictions on legal immigration while actually enforcing American businesses -- made up of actual American citizens accountable to American laws, unlike, say, the president of Mexico -- to follow the laws regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants. Nobody will be willing to sneak over miles and miles of desert if there's no job waiting for them on the other side, Martin. You don't even need jets for that. You just need an administration that doesn't sleep in the crotch of corporate America's jockstrap. My guess is, though, that you'll keep on helping those corporations out, because, well, you're a moron. That's unfortunate, because as Thomas Jefferson said, the success of a democracy is dependant on a well-informed citizenry. What our country requires of each of its citizens is a refusal to bow to willful ignorance, Martin. What our country requires is a reduction in numbers of people like you, who would rather be ignorant than contribute.

iTruthiness

Why do I love Apple?

Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondent's Dinner Speech has been added to iTunes as an audiobook file.

Why am I feeling a little more optimistic tonight?

Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent's Dinner is the second best-selling album of the day on iTunes.

Evidently, he was funnier than Bush's 29% thought.

It's Happening...

This is scary, scary, scary shit. Not so much that it's happening. We expect this now. It's scary that nobody cares. Americans would rather be uninformed of corruption in the government then to have to deal with the responsibilities of living in a democracy.

Thomas Jefferson is puking.

I will say this straight out: I would rather die in a terrorist attack than see America continue to relinquish the freedoms upon which she was founded. I would happily give up my life for the United States of America, as conceived by the founding fathers: a nation in which security would never take precedence over liberty. The terrorists can blow up a building every five years and it never has to jeopardize our freedoms, so long as we refuse to let them scare us into giving up what we cherish. The United States of America today is an embarassment, quietly giving up freedoms for a false sense of safety. Maybe George W and company don't want authoritarian power. Maybe their intentions are good. It doesn't matter. America has proven to the world that our grand ideals are quickly abandoned at the first sign of physical danger. Even if this administration doesn't push us over the edge, the example has been set. Somebody will eventually step in and use the lessons learned in the last five years to finish the job.

Sean Hannity Crushed by Immense Irony

Just a small bite today from Sean Hannity, interviewing a representative from the Westboro Baptist Church. Now, granted, the Phelps crew could not possibly be more vile than they are, but in pointing this out, Sean made a statement that he could really stand to consider thoroughly the next time he defends an administration that wants to use religion to put segregation and discrimination into a constitutional amendment for the first time in American history.

"You want to make your political and religious point... You want to inject pain and heartache... I can't think of... Man, I'm gonna be honest, we've had a lot of nutty people on this show over the years... You are as mean and as sick and as cruel as anybody that I've ever had on this program. And the fact that you use religion to justify your hatred this way... it's frankly... it's mind numbing."

The emphasis is mine, but the words are all Sean Hannity. I couldn't agree more, Sean. Using religion to support hatred and intolerance is dispicable. Please remember that you said so.

Print My Letter! I'm Important Too!

Wow.

To the Editor:

In January, I submitted a letter to this newspaper concerning the terrorist surveillance program and the absurdity of those who believe that terrorists, once on our shores, have some right to privacy as they plot against us. I submitted the letter nine separate times over the course of three months. The paper did not print it or answer why. I, of course, know why - the point offered was contrary to the view of the editorial staff and exposed some of the dangers of liberalism.

Now I hope this paper will see fit to print this letter. I sincerely hope it will be printed in its entirety in the Saturday edition next to the political cartoons. You see, once upon a time in America, when our nation was at war, newspapers across the country actually published cartoons that rallied Americans to support our efforts. Some cartoons even mocked our enemies. Today we see a different story. The cartoons printed portray our leadership as evil and mock our troops. Some cartoons actually vilify our troops as if the few involved in abuses at Abu Ghraib were representative of our entire military. What we do not see in these cartoons are any representation of the actual evils of our enemy. In fact, our enemies are rarely portrayed at all, as if they don't exist. Newspapers seemingly do not wish to be viewed as taking our side. Be assured, you are not.

David

Maybe they didn't print your letter because it was just as poorly written and as pointless as this one. More so, actually, because they printed this one. The paper prints letters that are far more vitriolic and anti-liberal than yours all the time... not as often as I'd like, given what I do here, but certainly often enough to show that they're willing to run them. Most of my entries here reflect one or two instances of some nut-bag fanatic right-winger getting his letter published. And that's just the raisin cakes... I don't bother with letters from rational, moderate conservatives, which are printed at least as frequently.

Your original letter was about the absurdity of thinking that terrorists in this country shouldn't be spied on. I don't think anyone would disagree with you, frankly. If the government were getting warrants to listen to the conversations of known terrorists, there wouldn't be an issue. Your original letter probably showed the same lack of comprehension this one does, which may explain why you had to pester the paper ten times to get something published. The issue is not, and never has been, about the legal process of spying on terrorists. The issue is that the government is spying on tens of millions of Americans to try to find out if any of them might be terrorists, all the while stepping on the civil liberties of innocent people, and without the warrants required to conduct such activity legally. We want them to listen in on the terrorists, but not at the expense of the freedom and liberty we're supposed to be defending. Does that make the job harder? Absolutely. Freedom and liberty always make justice and order more difficult to maintain. People willing to take those risks founded the United States of America. If the government could search every house in America, they could probably uncover a lot of terrorists. Should they be allowed to do so? Should they be allowed to tear your house apart to find out if you're a terrorist? Where do you draw the line? How much freedom are you willing to give up for a mission that is ostensibly to defend freedom? I keep hearing that our soldiers are in Iraq defending our freedom, but I haven't had any freedom taken away by an Iraqi yet. I've had plenty revoked by my own government.

Now you're bitching about cartoons? Maybe they're not depicting our enemy because nobody is exactly sure who our enemies are. Sure, there's Osama Bin Laden, but we gave up looking for him, so he can't be that important. There's Musab al-Zarqawi, but he's been focusing on stirring up Shiite/Sunni violence, not fighting American soldiers. Who can we use as a symbol of the enemy? We're supposedly at war, but we have historically fought wars against other nations, not shadowy, undefined, unorganized criminal groups. Our enemies wear no uniforms, carry no banner, and have no capital. We know the enemy exists. We also know that our enemy had no presence in Iraq until after we'd invaded. Remember, the war in Iraq was begun over concerns that Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, not because the terrorists were in Iraq. Iraq is not our enemy. Iraqis are not our enemy. We aren't at war with an enemy. We're not at war at all. We're involved in an occupation that is supposed to make us feel safe. What we are in fact doing is giving terrorists the best recruitment tool they could ask for. Our troops in Iraq are only fighting the terrorists who choose to go there. The rest of the recruits? We don't know where they are, and you can't fight a war against an enemy you can't even locate.

Regardless, maybe cartoons in the newspaper shouldn't be your main concern. They're not really for you. Political cartoons were originally created to make unpopular statements that couldn't be written, or to attack established political or social powerhouses that could not be easily reigned in. That tradition has had its ups and downs, but today we are seeing an established, deeply entrenched majority government in this country that is more secretive than any in recent history, and that views the media and other tools of the public as obstacles in the way of its power. The role of the political cartoon is antiestablishment, not cheap propaganda. If that's what you're looking for, there's plenty of it available. Fox News, talk radio, conservative journals and right-wing newspapers are chock full of all the line-toeing and administrative ass-kissing you could want. Satire, however, is a tool used by the underclass against the more powerful. The more power the current administration brings to bear against our liberties, the less likely you will be to find satire to your liking.

Trying Not To Throw Things

Hey all. Sorry the entries haven't exactly been regular of late. Part of it is due to the lack of source material... back when I started, there was a crazy letter on the reader's page pretty much every day. Now it's maybe one or two a week. People seem to be less stupid, which I guess is a good thing, but admittedly, I'm just not feeling it lately.

I'm not about to throw in the towel yet, but I'm definitely feeling fatigue. I feel like I've been swimming upstream nonstop for years now, and while progress has been made, it's been painfully slow, and maybe mostly cosmetic. Are we improving on a fundamental level? Are things really getting better? I guess lately, I really don't think so.

This country doesn't love democracy. We claim to, but a nation doesn't love democracy if the best it can muster is a 35% voter turnout for national elections. This country doesn't love freedom. We claim to, but the majority are still willing to have freedoms taken away for a false sense of security, as if bad things will stop happening if they give up the liberties this nation was intended to protect. I can't tell you how many times I've heard permutations of "If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be worried" in the last few days. That is a defense of authoritarianism, and a direct affront to the very concept of a free democracy. This country doesn't love justice. We claim to, but only when it's convenient. The scourge of entitlement and self-importance has become epidemic. We seem to want the rules to apply to everyone but ourselves.

Can we ever go back? Can we really return to the American experiment, or is this the final spiral? The patriot in me wants to believe we can turn it around, but the cynic looks around and sighs, certain that with so few people acknowledging their roles in the issues, or even that the issues exist, there's not a whole lot of hope. That's what it really comes down to... hope. Are we really very far removed from a fuedal society now? The majority work for a pittance of the spoils, and fight for the scraps grudgingly thrown at them by the corporate elite who live as far removed from the common folk as lords in castles. We allow ourselves to be deprived of liberties so long as we are made to feel protected. We no longer say 'Live free or die.' We cower when we are attacked, and willingly give up liberty in the hopes that we won't die. The lords of the land gladly take the opportunity to revoke those liberties, parading their armies about to make us feel secure because it costs them little, and basking in the riches our redoubled efforts make for them. We've traded our hope for the far easier commodity of dependance. We are everything that this nation was founded in opposition to. Without that hope... without that love of freedom and democracy and justice... without a hatred for greed and corruption and tyranny... what are we? We are the antithesis of the Constitution. We are the bane of the Bill of Rights. We are the enemies we claim to fight.

I know, I'm a downer tonight. Sorry about that. It's probably a passing thing. I'm just tired. I'm tired of being made angry every day. I'm scared that the American experiment will fail completely in my lifetime. Maybe it already has.

I hope not.

A Southern Man Don't Need Reality Around Anyhow

Just because they're kinda funny, a selection of user reviews of Neil Young's Living With War from iTunes:

you have got to be kidding me.... by tjl
Has it become so popular to hate Bush that artist are now trying to make a buck of it? Get a grip. Leave the politics to the politicians and keep it out of my music. If I wanted politics and lies, I would read my liberal bias national newspapers...

National Newspapers? What, like USA Today? It has pretty pictures, and lots of color, but it's not really smart enough to carry a bias. Of course, neither is tjl. He stumbles on plurals.

What a Loser by Anonymous
If Neil Young doesn't like our country then he can get out. What an anti-American piece of crap. Skynyrd was right " a southern man doesn't need him around anyhow."

Lynyrd Skynyrd was unavailable to comment on Neil Young's new hit album, as they were busy preparing for their backwater casino show in Alpine, California. I will assume that they would remind Mr. Anonymous that anti-war does not equate to anti-American until such time as we fall under martial law. Also, that only lazy bastards don't bother to at least post under a handle.

A Sham of an Album!!! by tedro
Too bad the 60's are over. Sounds to me like Neil Young is a little washed up on this album. Protest songs are out of touch. Music on the album lack creativity and well, what is to be expected by a 60+ year old "rocker". Time to retire!!!

Neil Young was unavailable to comment on his music being out of touch, as he was busy celebrating the fact that the album was the second best selling album on the day of its release on iTunes. Also, he probably doesn't give a shit what tedro thinks. Perhaps, young tedro, the album wasn't for you. Time to go listen to your Toby Keith albums!!!

Go live in Russia, Neil! by ju
I can't believe this guy is making money by downing our President and what our troops are doing to keep us free. Who are you going to call the next time the terrorists hit us on our soil? Any future president will be apprehensive to defend our nation due to extremists like Neil Young. Enjoy the freedom we now have because it may be the best we will ever experience. Wake up !!

Who am I going to call the next time terorists strike here? Well, technically I don't have the number, but my inclination will be to call the Bush administration and ask why we wasted so much time and money in Iraq instead of focusing on security and finishing the job in Afghanistan. I was talking to a friend about this review over the phone, and we both agreed that ju had a point about this being the Golden Age of American freedom, but the NSA guy on the line said we were being cynical.

Just another Anti-American LEFTIST. by Aronius
As a long time Mac user, I find it insulting that Apple promotes an anti-American artist in it's iTunes promo email. Neil Young is just another leftist that is mad that his leftist buddies are out of power. If John Kerry was in office, they wouldn't say a word. Apple needs to stop promoting artists that insult half of America, and undermine our efforts to free people from dictators and oppression. They can all move to Canada of France.
Personally, I never have cared for his whinny voice or lousy singing.
To all true Americans, don't buy this album or support Neil Young and his communist buddies.

Hahahahaha! Dude, do you have ANY clue about where Mac's politics are? Here's a fun anecdote I heard from a friend of my wife's who used to work in the upper management division of Apple: Back in the nineties, Apple was all set to build a campus in Dallas, Texas. Dallas had really sweetened the pot for them, and Apple had already had the plans drawn up and were ready to go. Then they pulled out at the last minute. Why? For one reason - they could not get health care coverage for partners of gay employees in Texas. They told Dallas to screw and built elsewhere. This is why I love Apple.

What liberals do best: complain, complain, complain... Any answers, though, Neil? by DirkNowitzki
Much like Barbara Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, George Clooney and a look-at-me parade of other self-important liberal entertainers before him, Neil Young, awash in an egocentric druggie haze, fails to realize that most of America could care less about his political opinions. And to have these very opinions delivered via a collection of horribly dated, folk-music tracks that reek of misguided hippie idealism (and a lifetime spent agonizing over poetry and literature... instead of actually working for a living) dooms the record to insignificance and obscurity. Pass the tambourine, dude... we're protestors!

Evidently, the Stephen Colbert incident has ushered in a new era for the pasty-faced, weak-willed administration appologists... an era of childlike refusal to acknowledge the tide of public sentiment. Insignificance and obscurity? Hmmm... It was the second best selling album on iTunes today... SOMEBODY is downloading it. Also on the top ten list for the day are Pearl Jam's self-titled protest album at number four and Bruce Springsteen's Pete Seeger tribute at number ten. P!nk's album, including "Dear Mr. President", is still on the list at number fifty-nine, keeping it well above Toby Keith's self-titled new release at number eighty-four.

Also, it's good to see old-fashioned ignorant anti-intellectualism at work. I love the implication that one can not both work for a living and enjoy literature. Classy.

Evidently, iTunes is a dumping ground, where pundits who aren't yet ready for the blogosphere go to make their bones without having to deal with feedback or readership. Fascinating stuff.

Dolphins are Smarter than George W. Bush

A fascinating new study has shown that dolphins, like some humans, are capable of naming each other and recognizing the names of relatives. Dolphin names (made up of the bottlenose dolphin's signature chirps and whistles) were played synthetically through an underwater speaker, without any intonation or other vocal cues outside of the sound itself. In most cases, the sound was recognized by relatives of the dolphin named. This would indicate a very sophisticated sense of self and other in bottlenose dolphins, and while not exactly a language, does indicate the use of 'proper nouns' so to speak.

In a similar experiment, synthetic human names were played through a speaker in the White House to gauge reactions by members of the Bush administration. Names such as "Jack Abramoff", "Jeff Gannon", "Scooter Libby", and "Harriet Meyers" were repeatedly spoken in a neutral, passive voice through loudspeakers throughout the administration offices. Surprisingly, members of the senior administration seemed not to recognize the names at all, and though some appeared uncomfortable, there was no outward indication that anyone in the White House understood the meanings of the names or who they represented.

I think the conclusion for the Republican party is obvious.

No Excuse

This report, just out from Save The Children, should be a wake-up call for... well, just about everyone, except for the pharmacuedical and medical insurance companies, who politely request that you ignore the relevant data.

If you claim to be pro-life, and your motives are pure, and you are not calling for some form of all-encompassing health care, then you, my friend, are a tool of the corporations and the far-right politicians who do their bidding.

Consider the following list of nations and their infant mortality rates per 1000 live births in 2004:

Sweden - 3
Finland - 3
Norway - 4
Czech Republic - 4
Australia - 5
Canada - 5
United Kingdom - 5
Cuba - 6
Slovakia - 6
Hungary - 7
United States - 7

The United States ranks lower than the rest of the industrialized world. We're tied with Hungary. We're below Cuba and Slovakia. Our system of health care allows more children to die than countries with a fraction of our resources, just to allow the health industry to rake in more money.

Need some more numbers? How about lifetime risk of maternal mortality, comparing the same countries?

Sweden - 1 in 29,800
Slovakia - 1 in 19,800
Canada - 1 in 8,700
Finland - 1 in 8,200
Czech Republic - 1 in 7,700
Australia - 1 in 5,800
Hungary - 1 in 4,000
United Kingdom - 1 in 3,800
Norway - 1 in 2,900
United States - 1 in 2,500
Cuba - 1 in 1,600

Well, at least we beat Cuba in that category. Barely. Want to know a few other countries where mothers are less likely to die from complications of pregnancy? Kuwait (1 in 6,000). Serbia (1 in 4,500). Croatia (1 in 6,100). We're not in the same category as these countries. We rank far below them.

This is despicable. This is the United States, and we have more resources at our disposal than any other nation on Earth. We are allowing mothers and infants to die for failed political and economic ideology. Why should our babies die almost twice as often as babies in the Czech Republic? Why should pregnant women be almost four times more likely to die as expectant mothers in Slovakia? There's no excuse for it, and anyone who claims to love this country and what it stands for should feel an intense pang of shame over these embarrassing numbers.

7 infant mortalities out of 1,000 live births, by the way, translates to real numbers as over 28,700 dead infants in the United States, just in 2004. That is the human cost of corporate greed and the apathy of the electorate.

Don't Care How, I Want It Now

To the Editor:

Your May 1 cartoon by Tom Toles of the Washington Post was your umpteenth use of one of that anti-American's sketch artist's works depicting our country's supposed wrongdoings.

Add this frequent twisted pictorial satire to your almost daily attacks on our government through the use of biased, savage, anti-American columns by left-wingers, and you have the reason Bill O'Reilly labeled your paper as a "leftist" organization.

Your paper also manipulates the Readers' Page to give the impression the majority of readers agree with your ideology.

Richard

To the Editor:

If you are planning to make any changes in comics, I would suggest you remove "Chickweed Lane" altogether. I don't read it, but it's above WordWarp, which I do, and any time I've even glanced at it, it's certainly not comical by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps a reader survey that might lead to some revamping of the comics would be a good idea.

Shirley

These two letters are both from the Sunday edition of the Post-Standard. Both of them irritated me, though in both cases, I had trouble figuring out exactly what it was that got under my skin. In piecing it together, I admit that I made a bit of an assumption about Shirley; while she doesn't make her issues with "9 Chickweed Lane" clear, I assume her problem lies in the progressive content of the strip. There are multiple gay characters, a divorced and dating mother, and a priest and nun who question their lives after falling in love. Yes, I know, I am jumping to a conclusion, but I have to assume that "not comical" means something more than not funny, as Shirley doesn't complain about "Rex Morgan", "Gil Thorp", or "Family Circle".

I have never heard anyone from the center or left call for the removal of regular newspaper features for political reasons. It seems to be exclusive to the social conservative movement to have such an overblown sense of self-importance and entitlement that they assume everything in the paper should be custom tailored to maximize their enjoyment. Richard starts out by attacking Tom Toles' piece from Monday, which while certainly not complementary of the current administration, is in no way anti-American, nor does it have anything to do with the "country's supposed wrongdoings." Richard also has an issue with all the "biased, savage, anti-American columns" the paper runs... of course, everything on the opinions page is supposed to be biased, the paper doesn't run anything that would qualify as savage on either side of the political arena, and anti-American is, as is usual with the fanatical right, just Richard's euphemism for anti-Richard. Regardless, while the paper does run moderate left-wing columns, they also run moderate right-wing columns as well. Today, for instance, you have the liberal pundit Paul Krugman and the conservative academic Suzanne Fields. The paper always runs two opinion columns, and they are always on opposite sides of, though a comparable distance from, center. Maureen Dowd may run next to Cal Thomas, while Ellen Goodman might appear opposite of David Brooks. It's actually a very fair system, and a valuable one. While I generally disagree with the likes of Suzanne Fields and Cal Thomas, I would never call for them to be removed from the paper, as I appreciate the opportunity to hear multiple takes on the issues. This seems to be the way most in the center and on the right feel, and it has not always been the case that the right did not see the value in diverse viewpoints. Richard, however, wants the paper to make him feel good more than he wants to be informed. His self-delusion is evident in his final sentence... "Your paper also manipulates the Readers' Page to give the impression the majority of readers agree with your ideology." Not only is this statement a gross, baseless accusation of manipulation, but it's based on a patently false thesis; that the majority of the paper's readers are social conservatives and therefore "disagree" with the paper's "ideology." Syracuse is a solidly blue city, and Central New York is predominantly light blue. The majority of people disagree with Richard, not the newspaper. Richard obviously likes to maintain a make-believe existence where everyone else shares his ignorance, and the newspaper doesn't support him in doing so. Richard, the answer is simple. Stop reading the paper, turn on Fox News, sit back, and wallow in your ignorance as much as you like. Fox News exists for that very reason. The Post-Standard does not.

Shirley is less vitriolic, but just as self-important. She doesn't find "9 Chickweed Lane" funny, so it should be removed from the paper. I read "9 Chickweed Lane" along with "Get Fuzzy", "Non-Sequitur", and "The Boondocks". I would like to be able to read my favorite comics, even if Shirley doesn't particularly care for them. I'm sure there are people who like "Family Circus", "B.C.", "Marmaduke", and even, God bless 'em, "Mallard Fillmore". I think those comics are lame, unfunny, and in some cases, offensive. I don't begrudge those who enjoy them, however. I simply, and this is key, don't read them. I frankly don't feel too sympathetic that poor Shirley has to read a comic she doesn't enjoy if she happens to look up from her Word Warp. Sometimes, in a restaurant, I'll look up and see a baseball game on a television, or even Fox News. I don't get up and walk out. I finish my meal and ignore the television. It's not that hard. I can do it. I know you can too, Shirley.

As support for the neo-cons withers away, those who bought into the ignorance of the far right are stuck. They're being mocked openly not because their opponents are mean, unfair, or biased, but because every day it becomes more and more obvious that they've supported crooks, criminals, and liars, but the prideful few still refuse to budge and admit the mistake. As reality becomes more and more difficult to ignore, they wrap themselves in a security blanket of disinformation, profitably provided to them by Fox News and the rest of the far-right media. When holes appear, say, in the pages of their local newspaper, their protective fantasy is jeopardized. What amazes me is that they've buried themselves so deeply in their mythology that they can't even hear how ridiculous they sound.

Again, this kind of thing was a huge factor in my decision to leave the Republican Party. They have aligned themselves far too closely with the social conservatives, and the social conservatives have turned into a pack of whiney, selfish, petulant brats. I learned to stop acting like these people before I was ten. I'm certainly not going to suffer it from adults.

Why I Appreciate the Talented Mr. Colbert

Yes, yes, the Stephen Colbert thing is being handled by far more talented people than myself. I know, so I'm not going to go into it too much. If you haven't seen it, you definitely should, and can find it here. Amy over at Radioactive Quill has been doing a fabulous job compiling articles from both sides of the discussion, interspersed with her own unique, snarky, always entertaining commentary. Head over there if you want deep critique. She has beaten me to the punch and done a far better job than I could have.

I will simply, briefly give my perspective:

I laughed my ass off for almost the entire speech, with the exception of the very end, where it did drag on just a little. I have heard nearly every right-wing gasbag I've listened to since tell me that Stephen was not funny, and I shouldn't have found him funny, because he was just rude. Why was he rude? He was rude because he satirized the president and the administration apologists in the media, cutting 'too close to the bone' (read: too close to the painful truth) while Bush and his spin machine had to sit there and listen, unable to defend themselves. That, I have been told, is just rude.

Bullshit. You know why I don't feel bad for them? I don't feel bad for them because they felt for twenty minutes the way I've felt for four years. Every time the President uses his bully pulpit to claim that he is protecting me, or that Americans don't buy global warming, or that homosexuals are ruining American values by asking for civil treatment, or that fellow Americans are dying in Iraq to fight terrorism, or that the neo-con movement represents mainstream centrist America, I feel just like he did for a mere twenty minutes. Every time Rush Limbaugh pigeonholes those who disagree with him as liberal loons, every time Bill O'Reilly makes up a statistic out of thin air to support a lie, every time Anne Coulter dodges logic with racism, every time Michelle Malkin panders to her nationalist fan base, I have to sit here with the same stony look of anger worn by President Bush for just one third of one hour. They reach millions, and I have nothing but a speck in the blogosphere to use as a sounding board. What they felt for twenty minutes has been boiling inside me since the invasion of Iraq.

If George Bush and the hypocrites in the right-wing media are hurt, they have only themselves to blame. This era of partisanship and refusal to compromise was carefully, willfully ushered in by the very people who want us to feel bad for them now that it's bitten them in the ass. I don't. I can't.

Christ® Brand Religion: Now with More Hate Flavor!

Coming soon to Syracuse, NY: The Marketing of The Christ

Tomorrow marks the beginning of the Greater Syracuse Christian Film Festival. There will be more than 80 free showings of Christian films through May 11th, and after each film, hosts will proselytize to the audience and invite them to commit to Christ.

Now, frankly, I don't have a huge problem with that, per se. I hate that it is called a Christian film festival instead of what it is; that is, an Evangelical Christian film festival, but if the Evangelicals want to get together to watch movies, I'm fine with that. So what makes this so gross? The marketing.

Tom Saab, founder and director of Christian Film Festivals of America:

"It's like pulling teeth to get a nonbeliever to come to a crusade. Free of charge to see a good movie; it's easy."

Wow. It's not about attracting people through discussion and ideas. Trick 'em with freebies! Nice.

Barbara Nicolosi, director of Act One, a company that trains aspiring Christian filmmakers:

"Over the last five years, it's suddenly become OK to embrace movies [like 'Lord of the Rings' and 'The Chronicles of Narnia']... Christian films like 'Left Behind' and 'Omega Code,' they get off track by making a subculture product that only has relevance for folks in the choir. It's not what cinema should be used for."

Evidently, the cinema should be used for clever advertising and subliminal manipulation. I have no problem with Christian-themed movies... my problem is that there is a company for training people how to properly shoot and market their Christian films to maximize subliminal impact. That's absolutely insidious. Christianity, in it's pure, nonfanatical form, is a beautiful religion that doesn't need manipulative marketing.

Branding is for coffee and diapers, not spirituality. Evangelical Christianity is becoming the religious arm of Capitalism, the irony of which should be lost on no one. Take this stunning example: a summary quip on one of the films being shown at the festival.

Treasures in Heaven: Animated film featuring the story of Zacchaeus from the Gospel of Luke. Zacchaeus had become rich by taking more taxes from people than the law allowed. He met Jesus and turned his life around.

What horseshit! Nothing in the Gospel of Luke indicates that Zacchaeus was skimming off the top. Tax collectors were seen as villains because they took money from fellow Jews as employees of the Roman Empire, not because they were thieves. They were wealthy because Rome paid them well, as the job carried with it a guarantee of being ostracized by the community. Zacchaeus does say that he will return fourfold any money he might have gained through false accusation, but also gives half of his possesions to the poor. The moral of the story of Zacchaeus is not that over-taxation is wrong, but that the accumulation of personal wealth is shallow and ultimately unfulfilling. Jesus Christ never came out against taxes... he told his apostles to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.' He did command them to forfeit all their worldly possessions to follow him, however, and that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Director Tom Saab is quoted as saying that the churches involved are all 'evangelical Bible-believing churches.' Evidently, that means only when it's convenient to their selfish, materialistic beliefs. When it's not, they just change it around to mean what they want it to mean.

Without a doubt, the most nausea-inducing excerpt from the Post-Standard piece is the following:

All are welcome at the festival, he said. People who respond to the altar call - which Saab calls an invitation to Christ - will be matched with evangelical churches.
"We're not going to send people who give themselves to Christ to a liberal Protestant church that OKs abortion and accepts homosexuality," he said.

Amazing that this Christian event revolves around topics Christ himself never spoke of, isn't it? Even in promoting a Film Festival marketed as a gift to the community, they can't quite manage to keep the hatred under wraps. They're not just marketing a spirituality, but as evidenced in Mr. Saab's own confession of motivation, they are recruiting to a political cause, and worse yet, a political cause that espouses hatred of others. This Film Festival isn't just meant as a way to bring people to Christ, it's a way to carefully herd people into the most narrow-minded, spiritually numbing, prideful version of Christianity before they actually find out what Christ actually taught. True Christian evangelism seeks only to introduce people to belief in Christ and his teachings, as laid out in the Gospel. Fanatical evangelical Christians, however, see that as a secondary goal, What is their primary goal? I don't suppose Tom Saab might have spelled it out for us, right?

[Saab] said that the churches that helped publicize the festival, are providing volunteers or making donations are all "evangelical Bible-believing churches." He defines that as "any church that puts the word of God as the ultimate authority and all manmade doctrines and regulations come second to God's holy word."

That, my friends, is a call for theocracy. In order to be involved in the festival, churches had to agree. Little wonder then that, according to the paper, their request for a list of donors and contributing churches was refused.

General Cuke Hits the Jackpot

I hope General Cucumber won't mind (and if you do, GC, just let me know and the link comes down) but his site recently got bombed by the bigot squad. Check out the comments to this post at Action is Eloquence. What a spectacular display of ignorance poorly disguised with rationailzed hatred.

Never mind that most of them are too pansy to post a name of any sort. Never mind that none of them seem capable of understanding the argument GC made. (Granted, it's a complex argument, but GC delivered a defense of historical Islam, and it was received as an appology for terrorism. Even if you can't parse the whole argument, you should be able to figure that much out.) What is absolutely stunning is the level of blind, venomous hatred underlying every word. If you think there's no potential base for an American Taliban, look no further than these idiots.

And give General Cuke some love, too. I know how annoying it is to have even one ignorant anonymous troll. GC has his hands full of them.