Thanksgiving and America

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

Ever noticed how the word "Thanksgiving" has the same kind of "so simple that anyone with a 2nd grade education could understand this" quality as the term "Homeland Security"? Heh, in any event...

Thanksgiving is probably the only truly American holiday. July 4th comes close, but then again, lots of nations celebrate an independence Day. We have other oddities such as Memorial Day and Labor Day, and perhaps Presidents Day, but these are more like simple excuses to have a day off rather than things we celebrate. On Thanksgiving, though, nearly everyone drops everything and spends time with family, and most likely has a meal that uses some variation on the turkey-cranberry sauce-stuffing paradigm. It's a much bigger deal than your average excuse to sleep late day.

Thanksgiving is oddly reflective of our nation's quasi-secular/quasi-religious nature. Here we have a holiday where one is presumably giving thanks to a certain "God", and yet unlike most religious holidays the traditional idea of a Thanksgiving revolves more around turkey and stuffing than spending time in a place of worship.

Thanksgiving is also representative of our nation's various obsessions with the oddest events. Here we are essentially celebrating how a bunch of nutty religious dissidents got thrown out of England, were afraid of the cultural freedom of the Dutch, and made the hilarious unwise decision to shake the bees nest of fate by setting up a colony in America without having a clue how to survive. Following the deaths of most of the colonists, the following autumn they decided to celebrate the fact that some natives had shown them how to go another winter without finishing the starving to death business. This cooperation between two cultures is supposed to be inspiring or something, even though we know the rest of the story where the successors of these religious dissidents go on to generally kill or otherwise oppress most of the natives on the continent.

It may come off like I'm somehow demeaning Thanksgiving, but I'm not. Generally, the older a holiday is, the more bat-shit insane the story behind it becomes (Random Thought: Ever notice how in a lot of Natvity scenes, the newborn baby Jesus is the size of a two year-old?). Holidays, in a sense, are not about the reason the holiday exists. The usefulness of using holidays to preserve the memory of the past probably started to dwindle when the printing press was invented in the West. Today, what holidays are really about lies in how the people of the present day celebrate that holiday. The memory of Saint Patrick is in very few people's mind on St. Patrick's Day and only the barest few people here in the U.S. know anything about Cinco de Mayo beyond the fact that the number 5 and the month of May are involved. These holidays are really socially condoned occasions to get smashed. With New Year's Eve we've taken this idea to it's logical conclusion and we celebrate the occasion of an accumulator register adding a one..."year++...Let's party!!!"

Thus, what's comforting to me about Thanksgiving and reassuring to me of the condition of our society is how it's still a holliday genuinely devoted to family and togetherness (unlike Christmas which has become genuinely devoted to getting free stuff). This is family values in it's true form, not the "people smiling too much who hate gays" form. This is a holiday that reflects the place of love in our society and also that despite some appearences, we truly appreciate what we have. We have New Year's to celebrate life. We have Independence Day to celebrate liberty. On Thanksgiving, we celebrate the pursuit of happiness.

I Don't Know Which One Scares Me The Most

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

As you probably are aware NBC News recently aquired footage of a Marine in Iraq shooting an injured insurgent who had apparently already surrendered in the head.

This, in itself is pretty disturbing.

Now, however, right-wing bloggers are circulating a petition stating:

It is my opinion that NOTHING should happen to this American Marine. He should be returned to his unit or be given an honorable discharge. We don't need our young men and women taking an extra second to decide if its right to shoot an enemy terrorist when that could mean that one of our soldiers could lose their life. The lives of our soldiers should be the single most important factor in this war against terrorism. The rights of terrorists can come second.

As of this posting, over 130,000 people have signed that petition. I'm sure this is my current lack of sleep talking, but that almost makes me want to cry.

No human being has ever died for a thing. People fight over and die for ideas. America is nothing without the ideas we claim to stand for. Freedom, justice, morality, ethics, reason, due process...They are all just words unless you make them happen. We may not always live up to these ideals, but unless we try to make them happen, our words, our worth nothing. I cannot see how someone can claim to "love America" and at the same time sign a petition urging that we look the other way at a war crime. Moreover, a war against terrorism must be a war for humanity, not against it.

A Lament For a Noble Dream

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

Web design expert/CSS guru/Cleveland resident Eric Meyer has posted a touching dirge-like short essay on his dissapointment with the passage of Ohio's Issue 1 and other anti-gay marriage laws like it...

"This isn’t an attack on America, and it isn’t a promise to leave, and it isn’t a story with any kind of decent ending. It’s a glimpse into one citizen’s inner disappointment. It’s an attempt to exorcise some of my frustration, and to plead a case, however clumsily. It’s a lament for a noble dream, one we seem to have forgotten in the heat and noise of our harried, fearful lives."

Chistopher Hitchens: Dissenter Within Dissenters

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

By now, I have come to realize that I am quite the commited liberal. If people like me (freethinking, non-religious, etc) are to exist in the future, liberalism is the only path to follow. If we have a true comittment to a more equal society, liberalism is the only path to follow. If we want a truly moral society based on rationality and individualism rather than what an old book tells us to do, then liberalism is the only path to follow.

With that said, there is a certain element of self-delusion in modern liberalism. There is that "faith" that because we're right, because we know we're right and we know why we're right, than rationally others will agree with us. Perhaps that would be true if philosophy was required in every school, but until then, you cannot beat religious zeal in the "faith" department. The recent election is a testament to that.

As a result, I think people like Christopher Hitchens, who takes the same set of assumptions and facts that most liberals work with and arrive at a different conclusion, are supremely important. Some people looke at Christopher Hitchens and see a traitor to the liberal cause. That's not really true. Rather, he is more like a dissenter within the dissenters. He does the soul-searching that perhaps we should be doing more often.

Today, Hitchens's column at Slate is entitled "Bush's Secularist Triumph", which is sure to raise some ire in the liberal community. However, as always, Hitchens weaves a fascinating argument. The enemies of secularism, he warns, are not the fundimentalists, the homophobics, and the creationists...The real enemies of secularism are the Islamicists, those who wish to create fundimentalist states, such as Osama Bin Ladin. In that sense, he argues, Bush has done more for secularism than any modern liberal.

I'm not saying I agree with this argument totally. What I like about it is that Hitchens picks up on the fundimental sort of paradox in modern liberalism. Modern liberals are very quick to define a sense of objective right and wrong in domestic affairs. The Civil Rights movement is an excellent example here. The motivation behind that movement was clearly that racism and segregation were wrong, no matter what the argument. There was a very clear moral component at work there. And yet when it comes to foreign policy, the argument is that we should not interfere in other countries, that we should let other cultures define themselves. What happened to objective right and wrong? Hitchens does a very good job highlighting the problem here:

"From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

Now, I don't for a second believe that the people that represent those views represent the core of modern liberalism. On the contrary, they are merely a very vocal minority. However, liberals have not disowned these people either, and that's Hitchens objection. If secularism really is the goal, and it is the goal because it breeds more peaceful, more open, and more free societies, why isn't just as much of a goal overseas as it is on American soil? Hitchens scolds that:

"Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL. I dare say that there will be a few domestic confrontations down the road, over everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the display of Mosaic tablets in courtrooms and schools. I have spent all my life on the atheist side of this argument, and will brace for more of the same, but I somehow can't hear Ralph Ingersoll or Clarence Darrow being soft and cowardly and evasive if it came to a vicious theocratic challenge that daily threatens us from within and without."

And what we have here, is the very definition of dissent.

Friedman Gets It

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

I think it's fair to say that the NYT's Thomas Friedman gets the point...

My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for different ends.

Whither Jesusland?

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

I found myself, after Tuesday night, doing some serious thinking. I suspect that many others did some serious thinking as well...

But now what we are seeing is an angry backlash, one that blames religion for Bush's victory. You may have seen the joke cartoon going around about seperating the U.S. into the "United States of Canada" and "Jesusland" to the south...

Here's a better example. This is what Jane Smiley said in a piece today on Slate:

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Now, as an atheist, when I read something like that, I do have a degree of sympathy for that point of view...In my own mind, I have wrestled with ideas like this, that perhaps religion truly is the "opiate of the masses". There have been times when I have gotten seriously angry thinking about religion. However, I was quick to realize that hate and intolerance are not the answer here. My anger will change nothing. I will never gaze upon a United States where a majority of people consider themselves agnostic or atheistic. That's the way it is. I have accepted that I live in a country where religion plays a serious role in everything.

Would it be better if we lived in a more secular society? Yes, in fact it would. The important word there is society. A more secular society is not one where people are forced to give up their religion, but one where the government and the structure of society is neutral to one's religion.

Jane Smiley is wrong. The ignorance we are facing today in America is not religion, but the idea that only one religion can be truly American (in my mind I imagine a man with a southern accent speaking into a poor telephone reciever about how this is a "Christian nation" on some talk radio show...). The problem with "Jesusland" is not the "Jesus", it's the "land". The problem is that religious people don't seem to understand the value of not embedding a certain brand of faith in everything.

What the religious people in this country have to understand is that Seperation of Church and State is pro-religion. It's pro every religion, including that 66% of the world that isn't Christian. That's the idea. If one stops viewing policy in a "Jesus-centric" light, one sees that we need a government that is neutral to religious matters can does not make decisions based on an intrepretation of faith.

Attacking the faith of millions of Americans will not accomplish that goal.

55 Million

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

Before everyone gets too depressed with Bush winning...Just think, 55 million Americans got the message and voted against him. 55 million.

Ohio...*sigh*

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

What I state I live in...In a single night we ban gay marriage or anything that even looks like it after 5 shots of Jager and we give the election to Bush...

The urban areas tried, hell yes they tried...Cuyahoga County, Summit County, Franklin County, Mahoning County, Montgomery County...All the urban areas but Hamilton County basically. So, if you're unhappy with the President you have for the next four years, blame Cincinatti.

...And here is Robert Novak making an ass of himself on CNN...Now we have to listen to the increasingly assinine conservatives blow afterburner-heated air...Ugh...

Election Hysteria

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

It seems to me that there is some sort of rule that everyone has to go totally batshit insane right before a major election.

I mean, look at these quotes...

First off, George Will, who I have long respected as a thinker, despite his conservatism...But then he said this yesterday:

"Which candidate can be trusted to keep faith with these people? Surely not the man whose party is increasingly influenced by its Michael Moore faction.

As opposed to the man whose party has their head so firmly shoved up the fundimentalist Christian right's ass that he backed an ammendment to put homophobia into the Constitution? Mr. Will, the student of history he is, must see the utter idiocy of ammending the Constitution to restrict people's rights rather than to expand them. Will follows that up with this beauty...

"Kerry is more than merely comfortable with liberalism's preference for achieving its aims through judicial fiats rather than political persuasion — by litigation rather than legislation. That preference for change driven by activist judges rather than elected representatives expresses liberalism's condescension about the normal American's capacity for thriving without government tutelage."

I always wondered what GOP talking points would look like if they had SAT vocabulary words thrown in. Unfortunately, it's the "activist judges" talking point that gives it away.

However, George Will's comments are peanuts compared to this...On the 27th, right-wing blogger Roger Simon informed the world that...

If the Kerry does win, the mainstream media will have gotten him elected with their biased coverage and they will pay for it more than they could imagine. And it will be the blogosphere and you, our supporters, who will make them pay. Our strength will grow incremently with a Kerry victory in terms of influence and even economic power. And both will be at the expense of the mainstream media. Yes, we too have "plans."

That's not only hillarious, it's a more than a bit disturbing. So, Mr. Simon, Abu Graib should mean nothing to the American people? 380 tons of missing world class high explosive should mean nothing to the American people? The complete lack of any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq should mean nothing to the American people? The hillarious refusal of the Bush Administration to admit it's faults should mean nothing to the American people? Nevermind the implication of some sort of revenge for the decision of the people. He seems to be missing the point of democracy here. Any way you look at it, that quote is positively psychotic.

The news isn't all bad...Contrarian and occasional Bush supporter Christopher Hitchens had this to say today:

"Neither electoral outcome can alter that. It's absurd for liberals to talk as if Kristallnacht is impending with Bush, and it's unwise and indecent for Republicans to equate Kerry with capitulation. There's no one to whom he can surrender, is there? I think that the nature of the jihadist enemy will decide things in the end."

Someone talking sense on the eve of an election?...The explanation here is that Hitchens isn't yet a naturalized citizen and cannot vote for President yet...Thus, he must be immune to election hysteria.

Re: Documentaries

***Originally Posted to Modern Politics and You***

Hmmm...I have a class to get here, so I'll make this quick.

I think the root of my problem with F9/11 is not the politics of the movie (I mean, all Moore wants us to do is vote for Kerry, and I'm already doing that for my own reasons). My real problem is that my intellectual life has been very much shaped and molded by excellent documentaries...Cosmos, Connections, The Day The Universe Changed, Ascent of Man, and many others have all been very important influences for me. All of those series, while they merely stated a series of facts, did so with the purpose of advancing the notion of a more secular, science based society...The idea of trusting in technology and not theology. In that respect, they are all very controversial works.

The beauty of them though, is that they were, under microscopic inspection, right with the details. They create a sort of thread with fact and history and weave it into a tapestry of a worldview. You can challenge the message, but you can't challenge the facts. It works like any well reasoned argument.

There's a bond of trust there between the viewer and the filmmaker.

Morris's Fog of War does something similar in the realm of political dissent. There were very obvious parallels there between the historical view he presented of the Vietnam War, and the mistakes that were being made then, and then the mistakes that Morris saw happening with our current policy in Iraq.

Michael Moore rips all that to shreds. All he cares about is the message, and he will make any accusation, use any innuendo or mold any circumstancial evidence that he needs to produce that message. "Documentaries" like that belittle and soil the legacy of the documentary format by breaking the bond of trust with the viewer. Moore doesn't even make an attempt to establish that trust with the viewer.

Moore has defended this problem by claiming that his works are comedy, not documentary. That, in itself is bullshit. He won an Oscar for a "documentary" (somehting that confoundes me to this day). Everyone knows he makes "documentaries"...He cannot simply change that by claiming a different format. As long as he is making "documentaries", he still soiling the format, no matter what excuse he uses.

If Moore wants to make brilliant, brilliant comedy, he can go right ahead. But as of yet, he has not. He's still making these petty "documentaries".

Now, the people who have decided to counter Moore with Moore-like material, are just as much part of the problem as Moore is. They are solving nothing.