Sunday, March 09, 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
On Not Repeating Past Mistakes
As we have traversed this period of history encompassing the first and second “gulf wars” and the events of 9/11/2001, we have heard from many corners caveats about repeating past errors. Frequently, where US military action is concerned, we hear about not repeating “the mistakes of Viet Nam.” It seems, however, that this may be one of those phrases that enters the murky waters of “common knowledge” and we cease to seek agreement on its meaning before we toss it into our conversations. I for one have used the phrase and even, I find, assumed that the listener knows what I mean. I think it is not an issue confined to me, however. I think it may be a pervasive cultural phenomenon that we all know what “the mistakes of Viet Nam” were and we use the phrase rather casually. It is my own reflection on my personal use of the phrase that leads me to ponder this question: What are the mistakes of Viet Nam? Today, I’ll talk about the first mistake that I’ve identified. I'll post others later but feel free to add to it in the comments.
Threat Exaggeration
My self-examination ran roughly along a temporal line. What errors did we make first? It seems highly probable that the earlier mistakes laid an important foundation that allowed Viet Nam to become the runaway train it so disastrously became. What preceded our involvement and coaxed us onto our path. Then, as now, we started with threat exaggeration.
Our involvement in Viet Nam fell on the heels of the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950’s. Interestingly, then, as now, we misidentified the threat prior to exaggerating the chosen target. The threat of totalitarian, repressive government was misidentified with the economic system that it accompanied in its major forms in that time period, communism or socialism. The threat was seen as pervasive and as inseparable from totalitarianism. Hysteria ruled, culminating in Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. The military threat that countries such as the USSR and the PRC posed was grossly overestimated resulting in gross over-reaction on our part. We began to see the threat as so pervasive that we thought ourselves the only people capable of saving the world from certain doom. Our worldview became increasingly paranoid. We developed a mythical view or ourselves as savior to the world and we marched our boys off to fight the falling dominoes in the grand communist conspiracy.
It is hard to say how much the exaggeration is intentional. I believe that it is to some degree but I also recognize that as humans we have some of these tendencies written into our DNA. The tendency to mythologize our tribe as the favored of god is not a uniquely American trait. The tendency for xenophobia and suspicion of the motives of outsiders and other tribes is probably hard wired into us as well. One of the mistakes we make is not acknowledging our programming in order that we may rise above it, when appropriate. Would not a survival benefit have accrued in past times to those whose threat assessment software was tuned a little to the paranoid side? It seems obvious that personal survival and even tribe survival would be enhanced by threat exaggeration as opposed to threat minimization.
To accomplish realistic threat assessment, we have to ask ourselves the pertinent questions. What evidence do I have that the threat has been appropriately identified? What evidence do I have to support the assessment of the threat level?
In the 1950’s we laid the foundation for Viet Nam by misidentifying the threat as communism rather than totalitarianism. Half a century later we still operate on this mistaken assumption. We will support the most brutal of totalitarian regimes for the sake of democracy, as long as they don’t pursue socialist/communist policies. Out of the other side of our mouths, we deplore all the same actions by brutal regimes that operate under the banner of socialism/communism. In order to support our misguided belief we live with the obvious conflict that capitalist propaganda, capitalist disrespect for human rights, capitalist torture, and capitalist repression of dissent is all “good” merely because it isn’t communism.
Our collective paranoia is institutionalized in organizations like the CIA. They get paid to be paranoid. Reason tells us we need wise leaders who can evaluate evidence and consider the source. Think then, about a regime taking power for whom even our institutionalized cold war paranoia is not paranoid enough! Is it any wonder they have brought us to this point?
When the First Indochina War ended with the Geneva Conference in 1954, the country was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh controlled the North and the south was given to EMPEROR Bao Dai, who had been installed as Emperor by the Japanese. The condition of the treaty was for democratic elections to take place in 1956 to restore a unified Viet Nam. Wow! That sounds like the kind of stuff we like! Elections! In 1955, the megalomaniacal Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem deposed Emporer Bao. When Ho Chi Minh said lets talk about those elections, it was the south that refused to adhere to the treaty signed in Geneva. So the US rode in to save the democratic elections, right! Of course not, because our fear and paranoia turns us away from the lofty democratic goals to which we give lip service. If totalitarianism was our enemy, we would have found elections a reasonable path. Our real enemy was the exaggerated threat of communism and so no democratic deal was strong enough to keep us from living out our domino theory destiny.
So here we find ourselves today. Is the threat radical terrorist, who happen to identify with the religion called Islam or is it Islam? The Joseph McCarthy’s of the 21st century tell us that it is Islam. They say it is violent religion and you can see that in the koran. They often say this with a bible, probably the most violent work of religious literature, in hand. They tell us congressional representatives who are Muslim can’t be trusted. They tell us that the enemy is pervasive among us. Be afraid! They tell us that it isn’t these extremists we need to go after but rather the states that identify with this religion are our ultimate target. Then, based on this hysteria, they lead us into foreign adventures doomed to failure. They trample democratic principles, at home and abroad, under the banner of the paranoia they’ve created.
Once again, the seed of our undoing lies in an inability to localize the actual threat and to control our own paranoid tendencies. Our paranoia has led us back to THE VERY SAME CONCLUSION that we drew in the pre-Viet Nam era; That we must become the aggressors in order to make the world safe for democracy and we must limit freedom in order that the world may be free like us! Anyone who wishes to examine the runaway paranoia and ask for a more realistic threat assessment is treated with the same tribal instinct that was leading us astray 50 years ago. Their loyalty to the tribe is questioned. Their loyalty to the King is questioned. They become presumed members of the conspiracy against us. Ultimately, they are derided and dismissed.
The voice of reason is easily lost in the cries of battle and the exhortations to rally round the flag. The ability to reason is easily overwhelmed by our urge to paranoia and tribal protection. We watched our brave young men sacrificed on the altar of our communist paranoia then and we vowed to learn. We vowed not to repeat our mistakes. This is just the first of the lessons that we as Americans have to admit we didn’t learn from Viet Nam.
Threat Exaggeration
My self-examination ran roughly along a temporal line. What errors did we make first? It seems highly probable that the earlier mistakes laid an important foundation that allowed Viet Nam to become the runaway train it so disastrously became. What preceded our involvement and coaxed us onto our path. Then, as now, we started with threat exaggeration.
Our involvement in Viet Nam fell on the heels of the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950’s. Interestingly, then, as now, we misidentified the threat prior to exaggerating the chosen target. The threat of totalitarian, repressive government was misidentified with the economic system that it accompanied in its major forms in that time period, communism or socialism. The threat was seen as pervasive and as inseparable from totalitarianism. Hysteria ruled, culminating in Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. The military threat that countries such as the USSR and the PRC posed was grossly overestimated resulting in gross over-reaction on our part. We began to see the threat as so pervasive that we thought ourselves the only people capable of saving the world from certain doom. Our worldview became increasingly paranoid. We developed a mythical view or ourselves as savior to the world and we marched our boys off to fight the falling dominoes in the grand communist conspiracy.
It is hard to say how much the exaggeration is intentional. I believe that it is to some degree but I also recognize that as humans we have some of these tendencies written into our DNA. The tendency to mythologize our tribe as the favored of god is not a uniquely American trait. The tendency for xenophobia and suspicion of the motives of outsiders and other tribes is probably hard wired into us as well. One of the mistakes we make is not acknowledging our programming in order that we may rise above it, when appropriate. Would not a survival benefit have accrued in past times to those whose threat assessment software was tuned a little to the paranoid side? It seems obvious that personal survival and even tribe survival would be enhanced by threat exaggeration as opposed to threat minimization.
To accomplish realistic threat assessment, we have to ask ourselves the pertinent questions. What evidence do I have that the threat has been appropriately identified? What evidence do I have to support the assessment of the threat level?
In the 1950’s we laid the foundation for Viet Nam by misidentifying the threat as communism rather than totalitarianism. Half a century later we still operate on this mistaken assumption. We will support the most brutal of totalitarian regimes for the sake of democracy, as long as they don’t pursue socialist/communist policies. Out of the other side of our mouths, we deplore all the same actions by brutal regimes that operate under the banner of socialism/communism. In order to support our misguided belief we live with the obvious conflict that capitalist propaganda, capitalist disrespect for human rights, capitalist torture, and capitalist repression of dissent is all “good” merely because it isn’t communism.
Our collective paranoia is institutionalized in organizations like the CIA. They get paid to be paranoid. Reason tells us we need wise leaders who can evaluate evidence and consider the source. Think then, about a regime taking power for whom even our institutionalized cold war paranoia is not paranoid enough! Is it any wonder they have brought us to this point?
When the First Indochina War ended with the Geneva Conference in 1954, the country was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh controlled the North and the south was given to EMPEROR Bao Dai, who had been installed as Emperor by the Japanese. The condition of the treaty was for democratic elections to take place in 1956 to restore a unified Viet Nam. Wow! That sounds like the kind of stuff we like! Elections! In 1955, the megalomaniacal Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem deposed Emporer Bao. When Ho Chi Minh said lets talk about those elections, it was the south that refused to adhere to the treaty signed in Geneva. So the US rode in to save the democratic elections, right! Of course not, because our fear and paranoia turns us away from the lofty democratic goals to which we give lip service. If totalitarianism was our enemy, we would have found elections a reasonable path. Our real enemy was the exaggerated threat of communism and so no democratic deal was strong enough to keep us from living out our domino theory destiny.
So here we find ourselves today. Is the threat radical terrorist, who happen to identify with the religion called Islam or is it Islam? The Joseph McCarthy’s of the 21st century tell us that it is Islam. They say it is violent religion and you can see that in the koran. They often say this with a bible, probably the most violent work of religious literature, in hand. They tell us congressional representatives who are Muslim can’t be trusted. They tell us that the enemy is pervasive among us. Be afraid! They tell us that it isn’t these extremists we need to go after but rather the states that identify with this religion are our ultimate target. Then, based on this hysteria, they lead us into foreign adventures doomed to failure. They trample democratic principles, at home and abroad, under the banner of the paranoia they’ve created.
Once again, the seed of our undoing lies in an inability to localize the actual threat and to control our own paranoid tendencies. Our paranoia has led us back to THE VERY SAME CONCLUSION that we drew in the pre-Viet Nam era; That we must become the aggressors in order to make the world safe for democracy and we must limit freedom in order that the world may be free like us! Anyone who wishes to examine the runaway paranoia and ask for a more realistic threat assessment is treated with the same tribal instinct that was leading us astray 50 years ago. Their loyalty to the tribe is questioned. Their loyalty to the King is questioned. They become presumed members of the conspiracy against us. Ultimately, they are derided and dismissed.
The voice of reason is easily lost in the cries of battle and the exhortations to rally round the flag. The ability to reason is easily overwhelmed by our urge to paranoia and tribal protection. We watched our brave young men sacrificed on the altar of our communist paranoia then and we vowed to learn. We vowed not to repeat our mistakes. This is just the first of the lessons that we as Americans have to admit we didn’t learn from Viet Nam.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
On greater sharing of language between Americans
Here is a link on ThinkProgress to a conversation between BillO and his "ombudsperson" named Dhue, unless he's fired her for not putting out and then he may have, by now, hired Huey or Luey.
Their theory...too many "haters" are contacting the ombudsperson about facts! Facts that are incorrect! Bill cheers for the "regular viewers" to write in and tell him how right he is instead. And there we have for all to see the Fox News definition of acountability, and I'd dare say the conservative definition as the current resident of the white house appointed the same sort of ombudsperson at CPB.
Of course, the problem is simply that the definition of ombudsperson accepted by the English-speaking world differs dramatically from the definition amongst the neocon faithful. It is a very common aspect of cult behavior; Creating "cult-speak" that the non-initiated find baffling and vacuous. The problem with communication seems to be that the neocon faithful are unaware that their definition of ombudsperson differs from the rest of the English-speaking world. When people are speaking a similar, but significantly different language, trouble almost certainly ensues. Really, it is a recipe for disaster that is being repeated day after day between liberals and conservatives.
At some point, it must be acknowledged that we speak 2 related dialects of a language called English but we certainly don't speak the same language. The first step to improving communication is understanding that we speak different languages and beginning the arduous task of creating a Liberal English-Conservative English dictionary and train translators to work, first and foremost in the congress. Then a translator should add subtitles in Liberal English on Fox News. I theorize that once enough data on this new dialect is collected, we will find that it differs significantly from any dialect of English currently spoken. I suspect we will realize in the future that watching a minimum amount of Fox News was a unnecessary requisite for fully understanding the dialect. Unfortunately, this activity also seems to erase the knowledge of standard English/Liberal English. Therefore, it becomes impossible for someone to expose themselves to the requisite time to fluency and still be able to relate the new meanings back to other speakers of standard English. This complicates the path to translation greatly. In my experience, which I know is merely anecdotal evidence to begin theorizing and not data, speakers of conservative English are unaware that they were ever educated in standard English. Bill O'Reilly and Ms. Dhue are good examples. They seem completely suprised that announcing an ombudsman would initiate any emails concerning the inaccurate facts promoted by the show.Yet anyone who was aware of the standard English definition of ombudsperson would expect exactly that. This amnesia for the previous dialect is very interesting and does not seem to be common in language groups were multiple dialect knowledge is needed for functioning. Many Chinese, for example are fluent in Mandarin (putonghua or the "official" language) despite the fact that most of them speak a different dialect at home. (I wonder if it has to do with their being more distinct differences between Chinese dialects or that this new English dialect is disseminated in such a way that tricks the mind into believing this was always the definition of ombudsperson. Obviously, a large number of people not fluent in the language of this cult, made the assumption that he was using the word in the standard way, unaware of what ombudsperson means in this cults vocabulary.
The process of creating this dictionary is going to take long hours of reading exchanges between people on Fox News (merely because it is that richest source of this new dialect) deducing the intended meaning of their speech and trying to check via other shared words if we have made the correct deduction. Of course, the time to fluency would have to be carefully avoided or the person would be entirely convinced that the cult-speak was standard English.
To try to help, at least in this instance where it is clear the difference in dialect left both sides suprised, I wrote the following email to Ms. Dhue. I hope it will be a first step towards Americans being able to communicate with each other and solve problems together.
*******************************************************************************
I read with great amusement the conversation between you and BillO about your job as ombudsperson.
The problem can be easily solved. You have taken the title of ombudsperson, which suggests that your job is to check the false "facts" endorsed by Mr. O'Reilly on his show. Therefore, people who speak English are naturally going to assume that you wish to be made aware of the multitude of falsehoods that are promoted every day on Bill's shows. Of course, the "regular people" to whom he refers don't understand that calling them "regular people" is a well known way to promote falsehood by making people feel a part of the "in crowd". If what a person says is true they have no reason to suggest (without any data of course-unless of course you can supply the itinerary for his trip to meet all the "regular" people who watch his show and confirm their unanimous endorsement) that all "regular people" (definition please) agree with the falsehood, i.e. the statement at odds with reality.
The position you and Bill described today would be more accurately called "Defender of the Faith". Obviously, if the Catholic church publically announced a content related ombudsman, they would get all sorts of mail pointing out that most of their assertions have no basis in reality. And on the third day he rose again? How is an ombudsman going to check the facts on that? It is simply an article of faith, as is most of the content of the show that your title suggests you hold accountable to the truth. I'm sure they wouldn't wish to deal with that mail and thus they don't have an ombudsman, they have a defender of the faith. (I know they've tried to change the name but not with much public ado.)
Of course, those writing to the defender of the faith that Mr. O'Reilly promotes would be the letters you are looking for. The "regular people" who watch the show and believe will tell Bill how great he is, how right he is, how valuable his work to convert the masses to neocon fascism has been. I hope that you see the difference clearly...ombudsman checks statements against facts...defender of the faith checks statements against an irrational belief system and finds "truth" when the statement matches the belief system regardless of its relationship to reality. You and Bill very clearly made that distinction today.
If defender of the faith is distasteful, I have suggested another option in the subject line...OmBill'sperson would get what you tried to communicate today across. You could also consider the rather clumsy OminBill'sPocketperson. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it would have a relationship to his past conduct that many of us would watch the show just to hear him say!
Oh! Judging from the aging of Bill's demographic, my medical opinion would be that a majority of them are not regular. Maybe his website could add a BillOLax to help him be talking to more regular people when he promotes this faith based system. May I suggest a picture of Bill with is face distorted in a mighty grunt for the packaging?
I think that as long as you retain the title of ombudsperson, English speaking people's will assume you check facts and send you reams of emails each day that merely represents how far from reality the views expressed on the show are. If you don't want reality based emails and you want the emails from the "regular people", which I assume means other members of the neocon fascist faith group, then a simple change to a more accurate title would, I'm sure get all of that nasty reality out of your inbox!
I'm glad I could help with this problem that is obviously troubling both of you.
*****************************************************************************
I hope we can start the process of reconciliation. My next thought goes to the realization that these cult members are reading the constitution in conservative English. God knows what that sounds like when translated to standard English. Maybe there is a need for a national standard English that everyone must know. Children may be being taught at home that the constitution was written in this new dialect. The fact that this dialect is of recent vintage and could not be the language of the founders needs to be disseminated as well.
Their theory...too many "haters" are contacting the ombudsperson about facts! Facts that are incorrect! Bill cheers for the "regular viewers" to write in and tell him how right he is instead. And there we have for all to see the Fox News definition of acountability, and I'd dare say the conservative definition as the current resident of the white house appointed the same sort of ombudsperson at CPB.
Of course, the problem is simply that the definition of ombudsperson accepted by the English-speaking world differs dramatically from the definition amongst the neocon faithful. It is a very common aspect of cult behavior; Creating "cult-speak" that the non-initiated find baffling and vacuous. The problem with communication seems to be that the neocon faithful are unaware that their definition of ombudsperson differs from the rest of the English-speaking world. When people are speaking a similar, but significantly different language, trouble almost certainly ensues. Really, it is a recipe for disaster that is being repeated day after day between liberals and conservatives.
At some point, it must be acknowledged that we speak 2 related dialects of a language called English but we certainly don't speak the same language. The first step to improving communication is understanding that we speak different languages and beginning the arduous task of creating a Liberal English-Conservative English dictionary and train translators to work, first and foremost in the congress. Then a translator should add subtitles in Liberal English on Fox News. I theorize that once enough data on this new dialect is collected, we will find that it differs significantly from any dialect of English currently spoken. I suspect we will realize in the future that watching a minimum amount of Fox News was a unnecessary requisite for fully understanding the dialect. Unfortunately, this activity also seems to erase the knowledge of standard English/Liberal English. Therefore, it becomes impossible for someone to expose themselves to the requisite time to fluency and still be able to relate the new meanings back to other speakers of standard English. This complicates the path to translation greatly. In my experience, which I know is merely anecdotal evidence to begin theorizing and not data, speakers of conservative English are unaware that they were ever educated in standard English. Bill O'Reilly and Ms. Dhue are good examples. They seem completely suprised that announcing an ombudsman would initiate any emails concerning the inaccurate facts promoted by the show.Yet anyone who was aware of the standard English definition of ombudsperson would expect exactly that. This amnesia for the previous dialect is very interesting and does not seem to be common in language groups were multiple dialect knowledge is needed for functioning. Many Chinese, for example are fluent in Mandarin (putonghua or the "official" language) despite the fact that most of them speak a different dialect at home. (I wonder if it has to do with their being more distinct differences between Chinese dialects or that this new English dialect is disseminated in such a way that tricks the mind into believing this was always the definition of ombudsperson. Obviously, a large number of people not fluent in the language of this cult, made the assumption that he was using the word in the standard way, unaware of what ombudsperson means in this cults vocabulary.
The process of creating this dictionary is going to take long hours of reading exchanges between people on Fox News (merely because it is that richest source of this new dialect) deducing the intended meaning of their speech and trying to check via other shared words if we have made the correct deduction. Of course, the time to fluency would have to be carefully avoided or the person would be entirely convinced that the cult-speak was standard English.
To try to help, at least in this instance where it is clear the difference in dialect left both sides suprised, I wrote the following email to Ms. Dhue. I hope it will be a first step towards Americans being able to communicate with each other and solve problems together.
*******************************************************************************
I read with great amusement the conversation between you and BillO about your job as ombudsperson.
The problem can be easily solved. You have taken the title of ombudsperson, which suggests that your job is to check the false "facts" endorsed by Mr. O'Reilly on his show. Therefore, people who speak English are naturally going to assume that you wish to be made aware of the multitude of falsehoods that are promoted every day on Bill's shows. Of course, the "regular people" to whom he refers don't understand that calling them "regular people" is a well known way to promote falsehood by making people feel a part of the "in crowd". If what a person says is true they have no reason to suggest (without any data of course-unless of course you can supply the itinerary for his trip to meet all the "regular" people who watch his show and confirm their unanimous endorsement) that all "regular people" (definition please) agree with the falsehood, i.e. the statement at odds with reality.
The position you and Bill described today would be more accurately called "Defender of the Faith". Obviously, if the Catholic church publically announced a content related ombudsman, they would get all sorts of mail pointing out that most of their assertions have no basis in reality. And on the third day he rose again? How is an ombudsman going to check the facts on that? It is simply an article of faith, as is most of the content of the show that your title suggests you hold accountable to the truth. I'm sure they wouldn't wish to deal with that mail and thus they don't have an ombudsman, they have a defender of the faith. (I know they've tried to change the name but not with much public ado.)
Of course, those writing to the defender of the faith that Mr. O'Reilly promotes would be the letters you are looking for. The "regular people" who watch the show and believe will tell Bill how great he is, how right he is, how valuable his work to convert the masses to neocon fascism has been. I hope that you see the difference clearly...ombudsman checks statements against facts...defender of the faith checks statements against an irrational belief system and finds "truth" when the statement matches the belief system regardless of its relationship to reality. You and Bill very clearly made that distinction today.
If defender of the faith is distasteful, I have suggested another option in the subject line...OmBill'sperson would get what you tried to communicate today across. You could also consider the rather clumsy OminBill'sPocketperson. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it would have a relationship to his past conduct that many of us would watch the show just to hear him say!
Oh! Judging from the aging of Bill's demographic, my medical opinion would be that a majority of them are not regular. Maybe his website could add a BillOLax to help him be talking to more regular people when he promotes this faith based system. May I suggest a picture of Bill with is face distorted in a mighty grunt for the packaging?
I think that as long as you retain the title of ombudsperson, English speaking people's will assume you check facts and send you reams of emails each day that merely represents how far from reality the views expressed on the show are. If you don't want reality based emails and you want the emails from the "regular people", which I assume means other members of the neocon fascist faith group, then a simple change to a more accurate title would, I'm sure get all of that nasty reality out of your inbox!
I'm glad I could help with this problem that is obviously troubling both of you.
*****************************************************************************
I hope we can start the process of reconciliation. My next thought goes to the realization that these cult members are reading the constitution in conservative English. God knows what that sounds like when translated to standard English. Maybe there is a need for a national standard English that everyone must know. Children may be being taught at home that the constitution was written in this new dialect. The fact that this dialect is of recent vintage and could not be the language of the founders needs to be disseminated as well.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Modern American Journalism
Here is the problem with the media in a nutshell. It is definitely not liberal bias.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
What's O'Hanlon Been Handlin'
Mr. O'Hanlon has taken to the op-ed pages again to defend the op-ed that he couldn't defend when Glenn Greenwald asked him the relevant questions that the media as a whole couldn't come up with. Scary!
He's calling it "The Work Behind Our Iraq Views" and it is quite a work! In it he once again refers to himself as a critic of the administration's war policies in responding to an op-ed by Jonathon Finer ("Green Zone Blinders"), despite this statement to Greenwald:
Mr. O'Hanlon has held himself out as an academic, a learned man drawing conclusions based on good data, albeit data supplied by those who profit from his positive conclusions. But he's shown himself to be a person willing to shade the truth and even to have different truths (about himself, no less) on different days of the week. But he's also shown himself to be one capable of the lie of omission to advance his preconception. He fails to address the more substantive critiques of his conclusions (if preconceptions can be graced with such a word).
He does not address the issue of seasonal adjustment of mortality data, which when applied erases the basis of his conclusions. He does not address the obviously fascist idea that the military has data that has to be secret but that contradicts the real data and shows that all is well in Iraq. In what sphere of academia does this pass for intelligent discussion?
The ony one I can think of is the sphere of public opinion where the public has been "softened" with the psuedo-science and anti-science that the bush administration has promoted for the past six and a half years. All of their attacks on science and suppression of facts and aspersions cast on those who believe data have been the air campaign, bombing the minds of America into submission, to prepare for the ground war, led by generals like O'Hanlon. The "shock and awe" of climate change denial, intelligent design, and the wonderfully effective "abstinence only" programs has come to its fruition and a landing has been made by the forces of "we don't need no stinkin' facts!" Inc.
Let me summarize for you the "work" that Mr. O'Hanlon did according to his latest op-ed. He did, in fact, briefly leave the green zone, he did, in fact, listen to the military's "data", he went to school, and he knows people who know people who told him things. Now if I said that I had found a cure for cancer and I should be believed because I have been to cancer wards, I have looked at "data" supplied by the people who want to sell the cure, I've gone to school, and I know people who know people who told me positive things about it...I would be laughed at by my colleagues. But in Mr. O'Hanlon's world, it seems to be something he is quite proud of.
It inspires me to write this FICTIONAL, SATIRICAL defense of his academic credentials in the style of the real Mr. O'Hanlon.
Interviewer: It has been alleged that you spent most of your time in the Rathskeller* while in school. Is this true?
O'Hanlon: Absolutely not! I was taken on several tours of the campus by the administration and I was able to confirm that classes in Political Science were actually going on.
I: And did you attend any of these classes?
O: No, but I did know several of the people who attended classes and they confirmed that they were quite informative. This was a good school, let me remind you! I spoke at length with several students who were directed to me by the administration and they all had wonderful things to say about the classes that they had attended. Let me remind you that some of these tours lasted HOURS! The amount of data I collected about Political Science in those tours was incredible!
I: But you didn't actually attend the classes or collect any actual data about Political Science prior to getting your degree?
O: You know I think there is much to much emphasis on this. I am an academic. I have a special mojo that allows me to take poor data and combine that with my vast social connections and come out with the right conclusions.
I: And in terms of Political Science, what are the "right" conclusions?
O: Why the ones that please my employer and get me airtime as an "expert". Any idiot knows that!
Can't argue with that logic!!
*Back in the olden days, when the drinking age was 21, colleges had bars, often in the basement and frequently called a Rathskeller.
He's calling it "The Work Behind Our Iraq Views" and it is quite a work! In it he once again refers to himself as a critic of the administration's war policies in responding to an op-ed by Jonathon Finer ("Green Zone Blinders"), despite this statement to Greenwald:
if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it's certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment.He is a critic. He's not a critic. What week is this? Did he forget his morning Kool Aid the day he spoke to Greenwald?
Mr. O'Hanlon has held himself out as an academic, a learned man drawing conclusions based on good data, albeit data supplied by those who profit from his positive conclusions. But he's shown himself to be a person willing to shade the truth and even to have different truths (about himself, no less) on different days of the week. But he's also shown himself to be one capable of the lie of omission to advance his preconception. He fails to address the more substantive critiques of his conclusions (if preconceptions can be graced with such a word).
He does not address the issue of seasonal adjustment of mortality data, which when applied erases the basis of his conclusions. He does not address the obviously fascist idea that the military has data that has to be secret but that contradicts the real data and shows that all is well in Iraq. In what sphere of academia does this pass for intelligent discussion?
The ony one I can think of is the sphere of public opinion where the public has been "softened" with the psuedo-science and anti-science that the bush administration has promoted for the past six and a half years. All of their attacks on science and suppression of facts and aspersions cast on those who believe data have been the air campaign, bombing the minds of America into submission, to prepare for the ground war, led by generals like O'Hanlon. The "shock and awe" of climate change denial, intelligent design, and the wonderfully effective "abstinence only" programs has come to its fruition and a landing has been made by the forces of "we don't need no stinkin' facts!" Inc.
Let me summarize for you the "work" that Mr. O'Hanlon did according to his latest op-ed. He did, in fact, briefly leave the green zone, he did, in fact, listen to the military's "data", he went to school, and he knows people who know people who told him things. Now if I said that I had found a cure for cancer and I should be believed because I have been to cancer wards, I have looked at "data" supplied by the people who want to sell the cure, I've gone to school, and I know people who know people who told me positive things about it...I would be laughed at by my colleagues. But in Mr. O'Hanlon's world, it seems to be something he is quite proud of.
It inspires me to write this FICTIONAL, SATIRICAL defense of his academic credentials in the style of the real Mr. O'Hanlon.
Interviewer: It has been alleged that you spent most of your time in the Rathskeller* while in school. Is this true?
O'Hanlon: Absolutely not! I was taken on several tours of the campus by the administration and I was able to confirm that classes in Political Science were actually going on.
I: And did you attend any of these classes?
O: No, but I did know several of the people who attended classes and they confirmed that they were quite informative. This was a good school, let me remind you! I spoke at length with several students who were directed to me by the administration and they all had wonderful things to say about the classes that they had attended. Let me remind you that some of these tours lasted HOURS! The amount of data I collected about Political Science in those tours was incredible!
I: But you didn't actually attend the classes or collect any actual data about Political Science prior to getting your degree?
O: You know I think there is much to much emphasis on this. I am an academic. I have a special mojo that allows me to take poor data and combine that with my vast social connections and come out with the right conclusions.
I: And in terms of Political Science, what are the "right" conclusions?
O: Why the ones that please my employer and get me airtime as an "expert". Any idiot knows that!
Can't argue with that logic!!
*Back in the olden days, when the drinking age was 21, colleges had bars, often in the basement and frequently called a Rathskeller.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Long, Long Haul
I am aghast, as are many others, at the writings of Stu Bykofsky in a Philadelphia newspaper calling for another 9/11 to unite our country. There are so many things wrong with the article, not the least of which is the fascist idea that if we just had an enemy, real or imagined, to inflame our nationalist, stateist, xenophobic fears we could be the strong fatherland that god intended us to be and rule the world. Many people worry that the holocaust will be forgotten. Well, whether Bykofsky is a Jewish or Polish (or both or neither) name, it is sad to see that the rhetoric of the fascist state would win support under such a name.
I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,
"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."
Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.
Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.
In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?
No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.
The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.
Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?
An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.
I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,
"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."
Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.
Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.
In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?
No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.
The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.
Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?
An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
JetBlue, O'Reilly, and Dictionary Usage
Another day, another dumb blunder from Faux News and Bill-O. It would be hilarious entertainment if there wasn't the sad backdrop of realization that there are people in this country who take Bill-O seriously.
As many of you probably already know the man who would be McCarthy attacked DailyKos as a Hate Site, comparing them to Nazis for the contents of some unmoderated diaries on the site. We all know there is nothing more "hateful" to the progress of a good authoritarian state than free speech! One in particular was quite an egregious pronouncement of hate...someone called the pope a primate!
I emailed Billy to ask, since I'm sure he can use a dictionary and knows that a primate could be a mammal in the group that includes humans or the highest bishop in a church, whether it was the characterization of the pope as human or as the highest bishop in his church that Bill-O found hateful. I was hoping to be able to clarify for everyone just which usage he was objecting to but, alas, he hasn't responded. Still looking for his dictionary I presume. (Bill! It's over there under the loofah!)
I was even hoping that Bill would give me contact info for whatever group informs his views on the pope. He must either believe that the pope is to be thought if as a diety and not at all human (unless of course pope Naziburger is actually a robot, I didn't think of that until now! So that's where Hitler's Brain went!) or he must belong to a sect professing an alternative Catholic hierarchy and holding that someone other that the Bishop of Rome is the primate of the Catholic church. I thought I was going to be able to bring you a great report on whichever group Billy belonged to but no such luck.
Now in his show B-O had a staffer ambush the JetBlue CEO and challenge him about their donation of 10 tickets to the YearlyKos blogger convention. The JetBlue CEO handled things fairly well considering the circumstances. I wrote to JetBlue corporate communications and expressed my support and understanding that they had been ambushed by a horrible and dishonest "journalist" and they actually wrote back thanking me for seeing through the charade.
However, within 24 hours of being bombarded, I'm sure, by the utterly non-hateful B-O supporters JetBlue asked that their logo be removed from the YearlyKos ads/banners and issued a statement that voiced assent to the idea that Kos is a hateful site. Bad move.
I wrote back to JetBlue and expressed my disappointment. I summed up what I thought of the move and I offered them free access to use it in their ads if they wish to count on B-O's dwindling demographic for their business. But if you see it, you'll know this slogan is my baby!
JetBlue: If you're smart enough to define primate (or even to look it up), we'd prefer you use some other airline!
As many of you probably already know the man who would be McCarthy attacked DailyKos as a Hate Site, comparing them to Nazis for the contents of some unmoderated diaries on the site. We all know there is nothing more "hateful" to the progress of a good authoritarian state than free speech! One in particular was quite an egregious pronouncement of hate...someone called the pope a primate!
I emailed Billy to ask, since I'm sure he can use a dictionary and knows that a primate could be a mammal in the group that includes humans or the highest bishop in a church, whether it was the characterization of the pope as human or as the highest bishop in his church that Bill-O found hateful. I was hoping to be able to clarify for everyone just which usage he was objecting to but, alas, he hasn't responded. Still looking for his dictionary I presume. (Bill! It's over there under the loofah!)
I was even hoping that Bill would give me contact info for whatever group informs his views on the pope. He must either believe that the pope is to be thought if as a diety and not at all human (unless of course pope Naziburger is actually a robot, I didn't think of that until now! So that's where Hitler's Brain went!) or he must belong to a sect professing an alternative Catholic hierarchy and holding that someone other that the Bishop of Rome is the primate of the Catholic church. I thought I was going to be able to bring you a great report on whichever group Billy belonged to but no such luck.
Now in his show B-O had a staffer ambush the JetBlue CEO and challenge him about their donation of 10 tickets to the YearlyKos blogger convention. The JetBlue CEO handled things fairly well considering the circumstances. I wrote to JetBlue corporate communications and expressed my support and understanding that they had been ambushed by a horrible and dishonest "journalist" and they actually wrote back thanking me for seeing through the charade.
However, within 24 hours of being bombarded, I'm sure, by the utterly non-hateful B-O supporters JetBlue asked that their logo be removed from the YearlyKos ads/banners and issued a statement that voiced assent to the idea that Kos is a hateful site. Bad move.
I wrote back to JetBlue and expressed my disappointment. I summed up what I thought of the move and I offered them free access to use it in their ads if they wish to count on B-O's dwindling demographic for their business. But if you see it, you'll know this slogan is my baby!
JetBlue: If you're smart enough to define primate (or even to look it up), we'd prefer you use some other airline!
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Mosuo
In another post designed to stem the growing tide of xenophobia in America, a link to a great video about the Mosuo people of Tibet. A matriarchal, matrilineal society that practices an interesting system of "walking marriage". The full 20 minute video is very good. It is a little sad to see what is happening to the society now that the Chinese government has made them a tourist attraction. Enjoy!
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/introduction_to.html
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/introduction_to.html
Happy Coming Out Day!
Today is national coming out day. I hoped that over the last decade we would have become more civilized and extended basic rights to more of our citizens. Unfortunately, the current Reich has decided that a better way to increase the fairness of our society is to take everyone's rights away. Some of us may forget that our gay friends still lack some of the most basic rights that our society affords when we are busy worrying about ALL of our civil rights being trashed in the name of "Bush-Fear", a rather malignant fever going around these days.
Many people speak out against homosexuality being against the teachings of Christ. It was so important to Christ...that he never said a word about it. There is condemnation in the old testament, so if your Jewish I understand your religious objection. It is also clear that Paul wasn't a fan of the gay lifestyle, but why should his opinion trump the big man in the religion? I think it is time to think critically about this. Unless you follow all 613 commandments in the OT, don't talk to me about the OT and unless you call yourself a Paulian and not a CHRISTian, don't tell me that Paul's hangups ought to be Christ's doctrines. Take a deep breath and accept that for all of recorded history the world seems to be created about 90% heterosexual and 10% homosexual. Do you think that if this was an error, God might have picked up on it and changed his/her ways by now?
Have you ever thought critically about the way that we tend to overlay our prejudices onto life's events? If you are a woman and a man "hits on you", we call that a man doing what men do. No big deal. If you are a guy and a women "hits on you", how much more frequently do we apply some pejorative like "nympho", "slut", or at least "a bit forward." (Myself, I just say "Yes Ma'am!). If you aren't interested, however, don't we just say "No thank you?" But if you are a guy and a guy hits on you - can you just say "No thank you?" I've done it. It works! Many men seem to have a different reaction however. What do they do if someone offers them some unwanted food, like weinerschnitzel and they don't like weinerschnitzel?? Well, maybe that's the same question.
These are three exactly analagous situations and yet, many people's perceptions are very different.
If you listen to some of the religious leaders who yak against homosexuality, you will hear that a person making such an inquiry on a same sex basis is some type of recruiter for some supposed "alternative lifestyle." Why aren't men hitting on women considered to be heterosexual recruiters? Is sexuality like enlisting in the Army? They need recruiters? Why aren't there "Be As Gay As You Can Be" ads on TV? I don't know about you but I didn't need any recruiting to my sexual preference.
I read some conservative web sites that suggest that all homosexuals are promiscuous and this is the great sin of their "lifestyle." In fact, homosexual individuals run the same gamut as heterosexual individuals; Some are quite prolific sexually and some could take it or leave it. But it seems all the rage among conservative people these days to be "faithful" to their "beliefs" no matter how enormous the collection of facts that contradict them. Have I used enough quotation marks tonight?
In fact our closest primate relative (WARNING: Creationists should stop reading here and go pray for me!) the bonobo has a society where sex is a very important and frequently used tool. Conflict is often settled with sexual relations between the parties and the bonobo society is characterized by promiscuous females. Now scientifically, the term promiscuous doesn't carry the connotation that it carries in our everyday jargon. In this sense it merely means females who mate with multiple males. No value judgment added. I guess that in some ways our society is a reflection of just how much shame it takes to overcome our DNA. Now I should have put overcome in quotes because we don't really overcome it do we? We just move it to a lower level and let it operate under the table where it can cause a lot more trouble.
And finally on a National Coming Out day when Mark Foley probably isn't celebrating his recent outing, let's all remember that if we are going to make a connection between sexual preference and pedophilia that homosexuals are underrepresented among pedophiles. If we abhor any group for their greater proclivity for pedophilia, that could only be the heterosexuals. I vote for calling pedophiles pedophiles and leaving sexual preference out of the discussion.
Many people speak out against homosexuality being against the teachings of Christ. It was so important to Christ...that he never said a word about it. There is condemnation in the old testament, so if your Jewish I understand your religious objection. It is also clear that Paul wasn't a fan of the gay lifestyle, but why should his opinion trump the big man in the religion? I think it is time to think critically about this. Unless you follow all 613 commandments in the OT, don't talk to me about the OT and unless you call yourself a Paulian and not a CHRISTian, don't tell me that Paul's hangups ought to be Christ's doctrines. Take a deep breath and accept that for all of recorded history the world seems to be created about 90% heterosexual and 10% homosexual. Do you think that if this was an error, God might have picked up on it and changed his/her ways by now?
Have you ever thought critically about the way that we tend to overlay our prejudices onto life's events? If you are a woman and a man "hits on you", we call that a man doing what men do. No big deal. If you are a guy and a women "hits on you", how much more frequently do we apply some pejorative like "nympho", "slut", or at least "a bit forward." (Myself, I just say "Yes Ma'am!). If you aren't interested, however, don't we just say "No thank you?" But if you are a guy and a guy hits on you - can you just say "No thank you?" I've done it. It works! Many men seem to have a different reaction however. What do they do if someone offers them some unwanted food, like weinerschnitzel and they don't like weinerschnitzel?? Well, maybe that's the same question.
These are three exactly analagous situations and yet, many people's perceptions are very different.
If you listen to some of the religious leaders who yak against homosexuality, you will hear that a person making such an inquiry on a same sex basis is some type of recruiter for some supposed "alternative lifestyle." Why aren't men hitting on women considered to be heterosexual recruiters? Is sexuality like enlisting in the Army? They need recruiters? Why aren't there "Be As Gay As You Can Be" ads on TV? I don't know about you but I didn't need any recruiting to my sexual preference.
I read some conservative web sites that suggest that all homosexuals are promiscuous and this is the great sin of their "lifestyle." In fact, homosexual individuals run the same gamut as heterosexual individuals; Some are quite prolific sexually and some could take it or leave it. But it seems all the rage among conservative people these days to be "faithful" to their "beliefs" no matter how enormous the collection of facts that contradict them. Have I used enough quotation marks tonight?
In fact our closest primate relative (WARNING: Creationists should stop reading here and go pray for me!) the bonobo has a society where sex is a very important and frequently used tool. Conflict is often settled with sexual relations between the parties and the bonobo society is characterized by promiscuous females. Now scientifically, the term promiscuous doesn't carry the connotation that it carries in our everyday jargon. In this sense it merely means females who mate with multiple males. No value judgment added. I guess that in some ways our society is a reflection of just how much shame it takes to overcome our DNA. Now I should have put overcome in quotes because we don't really overcome it do we? We just move it to a lower level and let it operate under the table where it can cause a lot more trouble.
And finally on a National Coming Out day when Mark Foley probably isn't celebrating his recent outing, let's all remember that if we are going to make a connection between sexual preference and pedophilia that homosexuals are underrepresented among pedophiles. If we abhor any group for their greater proclivity for pedophilia, that could only be the heterosexuals. I vote for calling pedophiles pedophiles and leaving sexual preference out of the discussion.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Disciples From the Left: More From the "Values Voters Summit"
Disciples From the Left: More From the "Values Voters Summit"
Here is an interesting post on the plan to get the "values voters" out to vote for the right. The plan....lie!
I guess the religious right not only dismisses that namby-pamby Sermon on the Mount stuff but they're also not to keen on the Thou shalt not part of those liberal commandment thingys.
Thanks to Jim Johnson at Disciples From the Left.
Here is an interesting post on the plan to get the "values voters" out to vote for the right. The plan....lie!
I guess the religious right not only dismisses that namby-pamby Sermon on the Mount stuff but they're also not to keen on the Thou shalt not part of those liberal commandment thingys.
Thanks to Jim Johnson at Disciples From the Left.
Who's got a Boehner?
Awful news about Representative Foley these past few days. At least the man passed legislation against himself? I guess that makes him better than Bush, who passed legislation to decriminalize his past criminal behavior! It is a funny ethical scale the have over there on the right.
The media seems obsessed with asking whether his Boehner was aware of what was going on. I don't understand this and I notice that they spell Boner different over there on the right. Well, Boner or Boehner, I think if he's asking young boys to undress I'm thinking his Boehner's quite aware of the situation...Oh wait, I guess they have some other guy named Boehner over there on the right, sorry about that. I'm thinking they better check his email if the man is walking around calling himself Boehner!
At least all of us who were confused about the Lewinsky thing now see what was so objectionable to the Republicans about that situation. She was over 18 and legally she could consent to sex. Apparently if Clinton had molested a child the Republican leadership would have happily kept it under wraps. Just another stupid Clinton mistake! I hope they pick that up on Faux News! This demands some coverage!
The media seems obsessed with asking whether his Boehner was aware of what was going on. I don't understand this and I notice that they spell Boner different over there on the right. Well, Boner or Boehner, I think if he's asking young boys to undress I'm thinking his Boehner's quite aware of the situation...Oh wait, I guess they have some other guy named Boehner over there on the right, sorry about that. I'm thinking they better check his email if the man is walking around calling himself Boehner!
At least all of us who were confused about the Lewinsky thing now see what was so objectionable to the Republicans about that situation. She was over 18 and legally she could consent to sex. Apparently if Clinton had molested a child the Republican leadership would have happily kept it under wraps. Just another stupid Clinton mistake! I hope they pick that up on Faux News! This demands some coverage!
Friday, September 29, 2006
I Blame Superman
I blame Superman for the current state of affairs. We heard it first from him, over and over. Every time the show came on!
Faster than a speeding bullet!
More powerful than a locomotive!
Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound!
Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird! It's a plane!
No, its Superman!
Strange visitor from another planet who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man. Superman! Who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a quaint metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for
Truth!
Justice!
And the American Way!
More powerful than a locomotive!
Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound!
Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird! It's a plane!
No, its Superman!
Strange visitor from another planet who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man. Superman! Who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a quaint metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for
Truth!
Justice!
And the American Way!
There it is right there, drummed into our heads week after week...truth...justice...and the American Way. At one time truth and justice were a part of the American Way but now Superman's evil plan has come to fruition and the subliminal message has taken hold of America. Under his evil power the government of the US was able to give up truth and justice and yet still can convince themselves that they preserve the American Way because as Superman taught us there is truth and there is justice and then there is something else called the American Way.
I say that, despite his super powers, we can defeat Superman's diabolical scheme and make truth and justice a fully integrated part of the American Way once again. It takes courage to stand up to a superhero, but we can do it merely by voting out every member of congress who voted to remove truth and justice from the American Way and then removing the party that currently controls the executive branch as soon as we possibly can.
I blame Superman for this mess and I'm not voting for him either!
By the way, I hope to post a lot of serious stuff about critical thinking here at critical thinking but I can't be serious all the time! Hopefully, some days there will be fun. If you come back and it sounds like I've lost my mind, think satire, sarcasm or then again, I may have lost my mind!
I say that, despite his super powers, we can defeat Superman's diabolical scheme and make truth and justice a fully integrated part of the American Way once again. It takes courage to stand up to a superhero, but we can do it merely by voting out every member of congress who voted to remove truth and justice from the American Way and then removing the party that currently controls the executive branch as soon as we possibly can.
I blame Superman for this mess and I'm not voting for him either!
By the way, I hope to post a lot of serious stuff about critical thinking here at critical thinking but I can't be serious all the time! Hopefully, some days there will be fun. If you come back and it sounds like I've lost my mind, think satire, sarcasm or then again, I may have lost my mind!
Mourn America
Mourn America
I know I'm piggybacking on Jesus' General two days in a row but stop by and pay your respects to a once great nation. But be careful what you say because the Unitary Executive now has the power to lock any of us up, any time, for anything (or for nothing). Remember the good old days when we used to complain about how awful it was that the USSR did this stuff and we used to look down on Pravda for being a "news" agency that just mouthed the words of the ruling party. I know many of the same patriots who deplored Pravda and the USSR, who now love Faux News and Bush. It really is amazing what a full circle we've traversed in my lifetime on this.
I, like many others, believed that we learned something from Viet Nam and from the authoritarian excesses of the Nixon administration and it is so sad to see that we learned absolutely nothing.
Can anyone think of a greater victory for Bin Laden than to watch us remake ourselves into the Soviet Union of the 50's/60's because we're so afraid of him that we can no longer think critically?
I know I'm piggybacking on Jesus' General two days in a row but stop by and pay your respects to a once great nation. But be careful what you say because the Unitary Executive now has the power to lock any of us up, any time, for anything (or for nothing). Remember the good old days when we used to complain about how awful it was that the USSR did this stuff and we used to look down on Pravda for being a "news" agency that just mouthed the words of the ruling party. I know many of the same patriots who deplored Pravda and the USSR, who now love Faux News and Bush. It really is amazing what a full circle we've traversed in my lifetime on this.
I, like many others, believed that we learned something from Viet Nam and from the authoritarian excesses of the Nixon administration and it is so sad to see that we learned absolutely nothing.
Can anyone think of a greater victory for Bin Laden than to watch us remake ourselves into the Soviet Union of the 50's/60's because we're so afraid of him that we can no longer think critically?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Jesus' General
Jesus' General
has a good rundown of the torture bill and a little further down the page a good quote from some guy named Thomas Jefferson on suspending habeus corpus.
has a good rundown of the torture bill and a little further down the page a good quote from some guy named Thomas Jefferson on suspending habeus corpus.
What's our Policy on Democracy
This is a brief post to kick off the blog...hope you all enjoy and offer some insightful comments.
Watching the Bush administration one has to wonder what their policy on democracy is exactly. It seems that nations who currently have a Unitary Executive (The Artists formerly known as Dictators) are felt to need democracy and the nations currently suffering under the weight of democracy, like the good ol' US of A, need to have a Unitary Executive. It would seem that this administration is willing to go to any lengths to accomplish both aims. Obviously, they feel that violence is appropriate in accomplishing both goals and they have done violence to bodies, violence to minds, violence to careers and reputations, violence to science, violence to logic, and violence to the constitution. Obviously they feel that the Unitary Executive of the US should have all the characteristics of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq, such as secret prisons and torture.
The thought to ponder is: What happens after we establish democracy in Iraq and a Unitary Executive in the US? You know the one who is in the process of granting himself the right to torture and absolving himself and his cronies from responsibility for abuses already commited so that his egomania might rival that of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq? Wouldn't the theory seem to require that the democratic government of Iraq would be required at that point to attack the US to overthrow the Unitary Executive and re-establish democracy here and put the neo-unitary exec on trial for war crimes? At that point does Haliburtons Iraq division get all the contracts to bring democracy back here?
Is this the perpetual motion war machine that represents the business plan for institutions like Haliburton for the next century?
Or maybe we all need to do a little more critical thinking about the people we've put in power in this country?
Watching the Bush administration one has to wonder what their policy on democracy is exactly. It seems that nations who currently have a Unitary Executive (The Artists formerly known as Dictators) are felt to need democracy and the nations currently suffering under the weight of democracy, like the good ol' US of A, need to have a Unitary Executive. It would seem that this administration is willing to go to any lengths to accomplish both aims. Obviously, they feel that violence is appropriate in accomplishing both goals and they have done violence to bodies, violence to minds, violence to careers and reputations, violence to science, violence to logic, and violence to the constitution. Obviously they feel that the Unitary Executive of the US should have all the characteristics of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq, such as secret prisons and torture.
The thought to ponder is: What happens after we establish democracy in Iraq and a Unitary Executive in the US? You know the one who is in the process of granting himself the right to torture and absolving himself and his cronies from responsibility for abuses already commited so that his egomania might rival that of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq? Wouldn't the theory seem to require that the democratic government of Iraq would be required at that point to attack the US to overthrow the Unitary Executive and re-establish democracy here and put the neo-unitary exec on trial for war crimes? At that point does Haliburtons Iraq division get all the contracts to bring democracy back here?
Is this the perpetual motion war machine that represents the business plan for institutions like Haliburton for the next century?
Or maybe we all need to do a little more critical thinking about the people we've put in power in this country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)