Archive for ‘Opinion’

December 25th, 2009

America-Land of Lost Dreams

of the United States Declaration of Independence
Image by kolix via Flickr

In 1963 Martin Luther King made his famous “I have a dream” speech. Two years later many of those who shared his dream rioted for six days in Watts. What happened, what changed?

Nothing. And that was the problem.

Those who heard King’s speech and wanted to share his dream were hoping that the ideal he expressed would one day soon become a reality. The nation’s founding fathers expressed many of the same ideals. Living only 300 years after the arrival of the pilgrims, they were aware of what we seem to have forgotten these days, that the pilgrims didn’t come here to establish a democratic society which would guarantee freedom and equality to all Americans. They were escaping religious intolerance, seeking a land free of other Europeans where they could set up their own religious society and practice their own intolerance toward anyone not of their faith. As we’ve witnessed so many times throughout human history, an oppressed minority wanted to be the oppressive majority. The pilgrims didn’t want freedom for everyone, just for themselves and those like them. Three hundred years failed to produce much of a change in attitude. Sure, Thomas Jefferson wrote “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” in the Declaration of Independence, but it’s clear he equated “all men” with the rich, White male class to which he and all the members of the Constitutional Congress belonged.

Another nearly 300 years has passed since that time, and again very little has changed. We like to think that we live in a classless society, that everyone has the opportunity to succeed and obtain wealth and influence. We talk about our democracy, ignoring the fact that a representative republic is not necessarily a democracy. We live in a dream, a fantasy world perpetrated by the rich, White males in power to keep us from seeing reality.

The sad reality is that in the 21st century America, not all people are created equal, that we are not all endowed with certain unalienable rights. Not all Americans are free to pursue life, liberty or happiness. America has classes, and while a few fortunate souls may be able to break free of their “place in society” and improve their lot, far too many others are locked into an endless struggle to live from paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford an education that might allow them to better their circumstances. Too many Americans born into poverty live their entire lives in poverty, and usually condemn another generation to the same fate by not being able to provide for their children a life any better than they endure.

And who are the rich, White males who still hold power in the U.S.? The majority of them are men who haven’t earned their wealth themselves and therefore have no empathy for those unlike themselves. They are born into wealth and privilege, and no matter how badly they screw up or embarrass themselves they are seldom demoted from their class. Members of the upper class enjoy privileges denied the rest of us. Their children are welcomed at the best universities and they, of course, can afford to send them. Our children are fortunate if they can afford junior college. Their children go to West Point, ours to Ft. Hood. They enjoy the perks of wealth and power the rest of us can only dream about.

Many people on both the left and right of the political spectrum are lamenting the collapse of the American dream. Well folks, that’s because that’s all it’s ever been, a dream. We have failed to establish “freedom and liberty for all” as a concrete fact in this country. We have allowed rich, White males to retain their positions of power and influence because we were grateful for the scraps of opportunity we were thrown. We accepted our lot because we were told that to rock the boat would mean the end of our country. We were warned that malcontents and radicals threatened our way of life. And who told us these lies? The rich, White men in power who knew that equality for all would mean less privilege for them. So they made sure to tax themselves less, govern themselves less and ensure that we never read the rest of the Declaration. For instance, the following complaint against King George could be applied to many politicians today: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” Those in power also fear our taking seriously these words from the Declaration, written immediately after “…all men are created equal…”:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I was 15 years old in 1969. In my teens I was a radical anti-government liberal. I had watched Kennedy be assassinated, listened to King’s speeches, watched the Watts riots on TV and Nixon be elected president. I saw the war in Vietnam as a death pool for the children of average citizens. The kids of the rich, White males stayed at home and went to university. The rich, White males chanted, “America, love it or leave it”. I wanted to change it because I loved it. Like a father watching his son sink into addiction and making every effort to turn them around, I wanted to aid in the “intervention” of America, to help it become the country we all dreamed it could be. The 60s radicalized me, made me determined to try and make the dream a reality. I failed, my generation failed, and succeeding generations have failed.

We are leaving our children a country mired in class, privilege and inequality. We have failed to establish a direction for our country while allowing it to become a debtor nation. We have failed to uphold the ideals of our founders and have even failed to keep the dream alive. Now we face the ugly results of our failure.

If, perhaps when, our country falls into anarchy and chaos, it won’t be because we allowed gays to marry or gave women the vote. It will be a direct result of our failure to heed the admonition of the Declaration of Independence to remove an oppressive and non-representative form of government and install one that gives the power, privileges and opportunities to all citizens regardless of status, sex or color. We have accepted what is instead of fighting for what could be. We have adopted a new dream, more like a nightmare, in which we count ourselves fortunate to be able to scrape by every day while the upper class enjoys the fruit of our labor. We have become a nation of slaves. Slaves with no dream of freedom.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

June 24th, 2009

The Left’s Limbaugh

Keith Olbermann:

While I tend to agree with many of your opinions, you come off as mean spirited, as if your desire was to become the Limbaugh of the left. I don’t respect Rush’s rudeness and egotism, his shallow intelligence and tendency to foam at the mouth while pontificating. I dislike his style, and because of that I spare myself the agony of listening to him any more often than absolutely necessary.

Speaking of Limbaugh, Keith, may I add that I see far too much of him watching your show. If the man is as easily dismissed as intelligent opposition as you almost nightly contend, and I agree his can be, why continue to give him additional exposure on your program? The less exposure he gets the better. Let him talk, but don’t make those of us who tune in to hear you have to listen to so much of him.

OK, enough about him.

Keith, I feel your frustration. I share it. But I try not to feed it.

No matter how well you can defend your opinions, when you show more interest in humiliating the opposition than informing me of the facts I get uncomfortable. I’ve never liked bullies, even after I reached an age where they no longer bothered me personally (30-something). I don’t like smart bullies. I don’t like bullies of any stripe. And you, sir, are a bully.

Maddow and Stewart seem to be able to bring me the same information you do without the uncomfortableness. They use satire and humor to expose the same silliness that appears to giving you a near heart attack. They make me think about issues, you want an emotional reaction. That’s one of the many things I dislike about religion, it thrives on emotion. I’m not unemotional, but I certainly try to balance my emotions with thoughtful consideration.

By the way, none of you conduct an interview as well as Charlie Rose or James Lipton.keith_olbermann

February 6th, 2009

Athesim and Science

Atheism display at Borders
Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

There appears to be, in the minds of many theists, a determination to wed atheism and science, though
unnecessary and not supported.

An atheist is any non-believer in gods. There are atheists who think
crystals hold some sort of magical properties, those who see auras,
Mystics, Buddhists, all kinds of folks who only share in common a lack
of belief in gods. “All atheists worship science or have faith in
science” is as inaccurate as saying “all theists blindly follow their
leaders and know nothing of their own beliefs.”

Atheism does not espouse a set of morals, it does not determine what
else you do and don’t believe. It doesn’t endorse any political party
or manner of determining reality. An atheist can believe the scientific
explanation of the universe and reality or they can believe we were put
here by aliens, they might believe in ghosts and Earth spirits or they
may try to live by logic and reason. Atheists can be really smart and
abysmally stupid, and everywhere in between.

My humanistic attitudes are far more influential on my behavior and
belief system than my atheism. Atheism addresses a single disbelief
among hundreds I hold. It does give me the freedom of mind to
appreciate science while at the same time enjoying medieval polyphonic
motets, to learn from religion while not falling back under its spell,
to examine any claim and subject it to the standards I’ve adopted in my
life. It facilitates these things, but I do none of these things “in
the name” of atheism or even because of my atheism. I loved medieval
music as a Christian and I love it still.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

January 31st, 2009

Are we loathsome?

The Beast has published their annual list of the 50 most loathsome people in America. As always it’s extremely funny but thought-provoking as well. I doubt you’ll agree with every entry, I didn’t. But it’s hard to deny their substantiation has merit. Perhaps the most compelling entry is this:

43. You

Charges:You think it’s your patriotic duty to spend money you don’t have on crap you don’t need. You think Hillary lost because of sexism, when it’s actually because she’s just a bad liar. You think Iraq is better off now than before we invaded, and don’t understand why they’re so ungrateful. You think Tim Russert was a great journalist. You’re hopping mad about an auto industry bailout that cost a squirt of piss compared to a Wall Street heist of galactic dimensions, due to a housing crash you somehow have blamed on minorities. It took you six years to figure out what a tool Bush is, but you think Obama will make it all better. You deem it hunky dory that we conduct national policy debates via 8-second clips from “The View.” You think God zapped humans into existence a few thousand years ago, although your appendix and wisdom teeth disagree. You like watching vicious assholes insult each other on TV. You support gun rights, because firing one gives you a chubby. You cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment. You think the fact that 43% of whites could stomach voting for an incredibly charismatic and eloquent light-skinned black guy who was raised by white people means racism is over. You think progressive taxation is socialism. 1 in 100 of you are in jail, and you think it should be more. You are shallow, inconsiderate, afraid, brand-conscious, sedentary, and totally self-obsessed. You are American.

It may have been intended as humor, but I’d say it gives all Americans something to consider and not just reject out-of-hand.

January 27th, 2009

You’re an idiot

I moderate a debate forum that’s reasonably active, usually anywhere from 10-30 people logged in at any time. One of the members, one who has been around for a while and has posted frequently, posted the following comment to another member.

“HeyU, you’re an idiot.”

I’m not providing too much context because not much is necessary to grasp the inappropriateness of this comment. This was posted by an atheist directed toward a theist (religion is always a “hot” topic) in a privately owned forum open to registered users. Anyone can register, but all have to agree to a TOA that spells out the rules and structure of the forum. They have to agree to this in order to register. The first and second rules are: 1) No threats, personal insults or attacks. 2) Respect other opinions. I think #1 is rather self-explanatory.

You can’t call someone an idiot. You can think they’re an idiot. You can treat them like an idiot, explaining everything in small, short words in an overly-gratuitous manner. The British in the 30s and 40s perfected the art being outrageously disrespectful in the most gracious manner. But it’s a rare breed that can pull that attitude off successfully online. A textual environment is a context, and within different social contexts there are different rules, different expectations. Join a chatroom and immediately start hawking software for sale and see what happens. Do it on the street and the rules are different. Do it in front of a Fry’s and you’ll likely ring a few sales. forum

So the pertinent context is: uttering an insult in a private forum in violation of acknowledged rules. I sent the following warning.

What were you thinking? You know the rules. You know how to debate (I suspect). You know you can’t say this to another member.

This isn’t a bully pulpit, it’s a debate forum with rules and procedures. I don’t really care what you think of any other member of Volconvo. Your personal assessment of HeyU has no bearing on any debate here. Negative personal comments are always and completely off topic.

Your inability to be civil and participate within a defined structure is well understood by the mods and I would presume to you as well. At the moment your participation in the forum is more troublesome than constructive. I’d truly like to see that change. You have the potential to be a knowledgeable spokesman for your values, beliefs and opinions. In a live debate your style would be totally appropriate. But in this context it’s disruptive and distracting. I miss reading a lot of your content because I’m busy chuckling over your latest barb, some often deserved skewing of pomposity. But just because I get a laugh from these witticisms that doesn’t mean I don’t also realize they violate the rules. I have one blog I write just to have an outlet for the frustration and incredulity I feel after reading some of the threads here. However, those emotional reactions to gross irrationality belong there, not here.

A forum is an exchange. If you elicit emotional reactions to your points, their emotions will over-ride their meager critical thinking skills and the wall goes up, the lights go out. And if you attack emotionally you’ll reap offense, which starts a cycle of attack/offense that is longer debate. I should know, I’ve started threads like that before and a couple got closed. I’m not perfect, but I do try to have control over my emotions and argue opinions. I try my best to ignore who I’m responding to, preferring to quote the words and rebut only them.

So please, from someone who appreciates what you have to say but insists that it be said in accordance with the rules…chill. Write a blog about it. Get it out of your system. There are all kinds of places on the internet where you can say what you want any way you want, but this forum is the owner’s place on the web. His rules apply. We have to respect them, he has the means to enforce a rather final penalty on those who refuse to abide by them. And we agreed to abide with that when we registered. The TOA are a binding contract.

I’ve been a mod for quite a few years now on various forums. One of the first lessons I learned is that you cannot excuse rule violations just because you agree with the opinion expressed by the violator. I was a cop for a couple of years. I was a horrible cop, but the one way I was good was that I never took sides or offense when dealing with the public. Most of the encounters were emotional, and you had to over-ride emotion with reason and calmness. If you get excited, they become hysterical. It’s a pointless and sometimes dangerous escalation. And it’s counter-productive. So I learned not to do that. I release the frustration in some safe, legal way.

So: I may agree with most of what you say, but I’m not going to let that influence my enforcement of the rules any more than if I violently disagreed with you.

So what say you?

January 16th, 2009

Something to think freely about

P.Z. Myers and Daniel C. Dennett, in The Reality Club over at edge.org (H. Allen Orr for the defense), have penned rebuttals to Orr’s review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.You really should click over and read the whole interchange. Myers and Dennett are not at a loss for words, so it’s quite a lengthy though wonderfully erudite exchange of opinion.

By far I enjoyed the following, written by Myers, the most of any single paragraph or two.

Dawkins goes so far as to accuse those who conflate Einstein’s abstraction with the the kind of personal god worshipped by hundreds of millions of people of “intellectual high treason.” I don’t quite agree with that, but it certainly is intellectual foolishness. I like Orr’s work, I usually greatly enjoy his reviews, but in this case he is, perhaps unconsciously rather than deliberately, confusing the pantheistic cosmic force he is unnecessarily defending from Dawkins’ argument with the righteous anthropomorphic Supreme Being that is actually refuted.

p.z. myers

p.z. myers

And yes, I know it is the nature of religion that everyone who believes will automatically state that their god isn’t the complicated caricature of the Bible or the Torah or the Koran and will retreat to the safety of the Ineffable (but Simple) Pantheistic/Deistic God until the challenge from the atheist subsides. Once the critic is safely out of earshot, though, then they will pray to the fickle deity for the new raise or that their favorite football team will win, and they will wonder if the cruel Old Testament God will torture them for eternity for transgressions against antique laws of propriety. Until that atheist glances their way again  …  then once more, they will describe God as an abstraction, as Love, as something so nebulous that it is safely removed from any specific attack. It’s familiar territory. Get into an argument with someone over Christianity or Islam or any of the dominant monotheistic faiths, and you’ll see them flicker back and forth between the abstract and the real god of their religion — their only defense is to present a moving target.

I belong to a forum where debating religion is encouraged. What Myers describes is precisely how 95% of debates with theists go.

November 4th, 2008

A reason to hope?

I’m usually critical, skeptical, not easily given to optimism. I know enough about humanity and its history to be fairly confident in my pessimism.

Tonight, however, I’m wondering if this next year might prove my worst expectations false. Perhaps Americans have noticed the damage that’s been done to our country by Bush/Cheney and decided to change direction. Maybe our descent into near-theocracy will reverse course. It’s possible that we will return to older American values; financial security, peace internationally, peace domestically, low unemployment, high productivity, innovation.

If it turns out that proposition 8 in California is passed, I’m saddened but not surprised. Disappointed but not defeated. What is been done can be undone.

The “Yes on 8″ crowd made it abundantly clear that their sole intent was to impose religious belief upon California state law. In the last three weeks their ads have constantly appealed to religious objections to homosexuality generally, but made no effort to provide any substantiation for their non-religious claims. Their only interest has been in spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. They provided no reason to justify the denial of rights to gays to marry and establish families. These great supporters of family values. They don’t support all family values.

Obama should remind us that progress is possible. It may take longer than we’d like. Progress may bring as much pain as pleasure. That’s life.

If there were enough people in America to elect Obama, there ought to be enough people in California to support gay marriage. I understand that accepting an Obama presidency doesn’t in itself violate Christian sensibilities the way gays do.

The issue’s been raised. This time was too soon, the idea received a knee-jerk reaction fueled by religious intolerance and bigotry. But now more people are going to think about this, and many of them will reconsider the lines they’ve been fed. They’ll start to question theological presumptions that in some mysterious way gay marriage will somehow impact on their lives. The longer they think about their support of 8, the more likely they’ll come to their senses. They’ll realize that to allow does not imply an endorsement.

At some point, I hope soon, Americans will follow Barak’s example on the state level and below.

We’ll see. The times, they are ‘a changin’. New possibilities have been exposed. Conditions exist to breed hope.

Then again, my pessimism may eventually be proven justified and I’ll be calling myself a fool for having any hope at all. Change isn’t always just for the good. Change-for-the-sake-of-change and change-for-the-worse are just as possible.

October 13th, 2008

15 words that certainly should never be used by free thinkers

There are certain words that should be avoided by atheists, rationalists and free thinkers in their writings and conversations. They can, however, be frequently found in the writings of theists, the irrational and those who prefer not to think. (Yes, the headline was meant to be ironic and sarcastic.)

This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list. I’m simply suggesting the most common words I encounter in religious and philosophical discussions. They reflect a certainty about reality that thinking people don’t accept. I’ll present them without comment, but please feel free to provide your own.

  1. Truth
  2. Absolute
  3. Proof
  4. Right
  5. Wrong
  6. Immoral
  7. Unconditional
  8. Unquestionable
  9. Undoubtedly
  10. Never
  11. Always
  12. Sin
  13. Evil
  14. Damned
  15. Certain

Tags: