That's... Okay

I pointed to this video in the previous post, but I have to comment on it a bit further.



The bubble Friedman is talking about here is a fantasy. I was a staunch Republican back then, and nobody thought this way. Nobody. It's completely revisionist history. Nobody ever said terrorism was okay. It never happened. There was never even a moment during the 90's when American culture said terrorism was anything other than heinous. Even Bill Clinton was blowing up aspirin factories to appease Americans who feared and hated terrorism, even if they had no real concept at the time of where the terrorism really was.

What Friedman is mistaking for a bubble of terrorism acceptance was something different. It was compassion and empathy for people. It was an attempt to separate terrorists and the people they lived among. It was a driving desire to retain our humanity in the face of inhumanity, and not assume everyone wearing a turban or praying to Allah was a dangerous fanatic who wanted to kill us. I wasn't part of that bubble. I really wasn't. I thought that bubble stemmed from naiveté and misguided attention-seeking. Now that the bubble has burst, and all vestiges of that enlightenment have been swept into the fringes of the 'liberal America-haters', I realize that I was wrong. I was an asshole. I was the problem.

Now, we live in a country where a supposedly respectable columnist can get on television and defend the war with the same rationale most of us originally used to oppose it. It was punitive aggression. The target was chosen arbitrarily. It was just an attempt to spread fear of American force, and establish American dominance in the region. It had nothing to do with 9/11. It had nothing to do with spreading democracy. It had nothing to do with overthrowing a dictator. It was just flexing a muscle that needed flexing, even if it meant the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

And that's... Okay.

Movin' On

Well, it's official: I'm moving in two weeks. Syracuse will be behind me, and this blog will no longer really be viable. Obviously I haven't been very active recently anyway... things have just been too crazy with the move and about a thousand other things.

I appreciate the input people have given me over the last eleven months, and I'm glad I've been entertaining to at least a few folks. Once things settle down, I may start a new blog or try some other method for inflicting my opinions on the world, but I have no idea what or where that will be. If you want to be kept informed, shoot me an e-mail and I'll be sure to let you know.

Thanks to everyone who has enjoyed this blog, and appologies to those I've offended.

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.

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.