I'm Not Dead Yet

I know, I know, and I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to slack off quite so spectacularly. It seems real life has been a thorn in the side of everyone lately... and by everyone, I mean my favorite bloggers and myself.

Yes, real life has got me by the short and curlies. Lots of changes going on. Some are exciting, some are just scary, but they are all managing to consume a whole lot of time.

Also, the future of this site is in question. It would seem that I may not be living in Central New York much longer, and since I originally chose a very specific theme for this blog, I'm not exactly sure I can 'commute', so to speak.

Finally, I've got a nasty case of the anger burnout. I keep wanting to care, but part of me has been voting to just say screw it, nobody cares... I don't really buy what that voice is selling, but frankly, it gets hard to maintain a level of urgency that goes completely against an apathetic, unconcerned culture. So, while I'm not actually less frustrated and angry, I'm finding that maintaining a high volume setting has gotten harder and harder.

It's not permanent, I'm sure. I can't stay quiet for long. But I'm drained, and I need to get my voice back.

American Cowardice

Three letters today, from the Reader's Page of Newsweek. These letters are in response to a recent article regarding the NSA domestic surveillance program. These letters make me sick. In an age where the term antipatriotic is bandied about far too frequently, I still don't hesitate for a moment to label this line of thinking as the most antipatriotic, dangerous sentiment currently enjoying a solid foothold in the American consciousness.

Your May 22 cover asks a good question: "What Else Don't We Know?" Well, before September 11 we didn't know there was a band of bloodthirsty killers in our country plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol and kill as many Americans as they could. The era of fearing Big Brother is over. There is a real threat now - not to our precious privacy rights (an interesting idea for a people who seem to need to broadcast the most intimate aspects of their lives on television or advertise themselves on MySpace.com), but to our lives. The terrorists hate us and they want us dead. We have a choice: hold up sophomoric ideas of a more innocent time or accept the responsibilities of our current time. If we chose the first, we can expect more 9/11s.

Michael

Your cover headline screaming spying on your calls is unacceptably misleading. The only spying being done by the NSA is keeping a record of the numbers that someone has called, both from and to the telephones involved, for data-mining purposes. Both numbers are entered into a massive database without the recording of a single word. This is exactly the same information that is recorded by the telephone companies for billing purposes, and is similar to the data mining done by supermarkets and credit-card companies. Most citizens have nothing to hide in the numbers being called from their telephones, and if this technology can prevent another terrorist attack on us, I vigorously support its continued utilization.

M. Robert

Here in the Midwest no one cares about the government's "Spying on Your Calls." I could not imagine the government or anyone else wanting to listen in on everyday, mundane calls that people make. But if this is all it has to do, then let it do it. After 9/11 whatever the government does is just fine by me. After all, we have had no attacks since then.

Frank

The emphasis is mine, meant to designate the exact sentence in each letter that caused my throat to fill with bile. I realize that these people are just ignorant, undereducated, and scared. That doesn't make their opinion less dangerous, however, nor does it soften the blow to the core of this nation that would result if a solid majority of Americans were equally willing to sacrifice the heart of our nation for a flimsy sense of security. I'm not going to resort to telling these people to get out of the country, because that's trite and misguided. I will, however, call them anti-American cowards, and state vociferously that it is only with the most shameful weakness imaginable that anyone could agree with them.

I don't really have too much else to say about these sentiments. This is how the terrorists will beat us. If we'd rather be safe than free, then we give up who we are as a nation, and what makes us great. If we think that little civil liberty abuses are no big deal, or not big enough to worry about, we allow a leak that will slowly but surely become a flood. The patriots who built this nation stood firm against the threats of their enemies, refusing to compromise their principles for any reason. What a sad legacy that Americans today are willing to accept autocracy when faced with such relatively weak enemies.

Writing Good About Them Damn Homos

Sorry it's been quiet around here of late. It seems everyone is taking a bit of a blogging break, and in my case, it has to do with just being incredibly busy for the last week or so.

While I was away, there was a bit of a blow-up at the Post Standard, revolving around the ratio of pro-administration letters and anti-administration letters. It is certainly not a new issue, and I've run some of the accusations of opinion manipulation here. The argument hasn't changed or evolved, so it's not really worth picking apart more recent entries. It has simply reached the point where there are more people writing to complain about the dearth of far-right opinions than there are people writing far-right opinions.

What strikes me is the sense of entitlement that these people feel. While George W. Bush has an approval rating below 25% in Central New York, and there is far more to oppose than support about the administration lately, there's another important aspect that everyone seems to be tip-toeing around: those on the far right are less educated, less communicative, and far more likely to write a letter that has no business being published simply by the standards of professional writing. If your letter displays no ability to communicate via the written word, the newspaper should not be expected to publish it. Unfortunately for those on the far right, they got all the Larry the Cable Guy fans, while the left got at least the vast majority of English majors.

As an example, I present the following letter from today's paper.

To the Editor:

The biggest issue is still going on: same sex marriage: Yes, there may be some states that will do a ceremony. But there are other states that won't do it.

I think it's disgusting to see two of the same go hand-in-hand. It does clearly say in the Bible that for every man there is a woman, and vice versa.

When it comes in this category, Bush denies to have same sex marriages banned? I believe that he quoted this awhile back and I do agree: let's have it banned. Will this world ever get straightened out? God only knows.

Skip

I admit, you can decipher the gist of Skip's message, even through the punctuation errors, grammar mistakes, and vocabulary issues. Yes, Skip has an opinion, and while that opinion is ignorant and bigoted, that alone shouldn't keep it out of the newspaper. Employing a sentence as poorly constructed as, "When it comes in this category, Bush denies to have same sex marriages banned?" absolutely should. What comes in what category? How do you deny to do something? Why is this a question? What the fuck is Skip trying to say? If you can't write better than this, your written opinion shouldn't be inflicted on others.

As for Skip's illuminating stance on same-sex marriage, well, he does a great job proving the point that bigotry, ignorance, and a lack of education go just as hand-in-hand as any gay couple. At least he's more honest about it than most... he doesn't try to dilute his bigotry with claims of defending the institution of marriage or theories of cultural collapse. He just thinks it's 'disgusting.' Of course, it wasn't long ago that the majority of Americans thought that interracial couples were disgusting. Hell, Skip was probably one of them. Unfortunately for Skip and his ilk, we live in a republic founded on civil liberties, where the ignorance and weak stomachs of the many should never trample the rights of the few. Amendments to the Constitution have never been made to impose new discriminations, a trend the President would shamefully like to end as a pandering move to idiots like Skip.

Does it clearly say in the Bible that 'for every man there is a woman, and vice versa'? I'm unfamiliar with the passage Skip is 'quoting' here, but since 51% of the world's population is female, it doesn't quite hold up to literal scrutiny as well as Skip might have hoped. Additionally, Jesus called on men to live in celibacy if the choice was right for them, cutting the number of eligible husbands even further. If there were a woman for those men, wouldn't it be a bit cruel to deny them their soul mate? Regardless, since you can't base a secular law on just a bible passage and personal bigotry, Skip's entire argument is moot.

Will this world ever get straightened out? Probably not, but progress is made. Slavery was abolished. African Americans and women were granted their due civil equality. Native Americans were allowed to practice their religion again. Couples of any racial makeup are allowed to marry. Eventually, gays will be allowed the same rights taken for granted by straight couples. Progress will be made, though certainly it would be made far more quickly if those of us fighting for it didn't have to battle ignorant assholes like Skip, who care more about their own sense of superiority than the advancement of civil justice.

Frankly, the President's stance on this issue is disgusting. George W. Bush, while far from a genius, received an enviable education, and I don't believe for a minute that his position is motivated by anything other than a desire to further the nationalist agenda at the expense of any minority whose persecution is deemed socially acceptable. That he would stir up ignorant Americans to hate and discriminate against a minority for something that is not within their power to change makes him a contemptible villain, a modern day Simon Legree. History is not kind to bigots. Thirty years from now, most Americans will deny having self-righteously called for the discrimination of homosexuals. The majority will be liars. Skip will still be stupid.