I am the type of person who moves quickly and multitasks as he does almost everything. I’m proud of the fact that I can do remedial things quicker each time that I do them. So it thoroughly annoys me when others move slowly doing things that they don’t want to, but have to do. Sure, I understand that there are some things that we all want to take slow, enjoy, and experience the full journey, but for the most part, lots of things in life are just remedial and necessary. Spending any more time on them than is necessary takes away from time that could be spent doing things that are a lot more enjoyable. This leads me to believe that either some people have nothing better to do than bland daily crap, or they are so oblivious to the existence of others they tend to accidentally run them over.
Since moving to an elderly-infested area of the country, my ever-increasing efficiency has only amplified. I believe that this has happened because of the constant reminders of the waste of time that are slow moving individuals. What bothers me more is that we all have the ability to move fast, if we choose to do so. Just like anything else, it is something that you can learn.
I learned how to move quickly while working in restaurants when I was younger. I was a waiter for several years in more places then I care to admit. And what I learned is that you always, always, think ahead. You learn very quickly to look for things that you can do on your way to something else while thinking about what your next task will be once you reach that destination. The goal of this is to create a single movement in all of your action: A never-ending fluidity of efficiency. This multitasking builds a consciousness of your time in relation to the tasks that you need to get done and a complex familiarity with your environment.
Now I know that I’m not he only one who does this. I see people all of the time, mothers of multiple children, people who have worked retail for years, and general busy people who know how to manage their lives, who move in the same way that I do. To me, there is no excuse for these other people to crowd certain stations of necessity (ATMs, checkouts, gas stations, on the road…). The quicker that all of us can get the things done, the quicker we can all settle back into slowly enjoying the things that we really cherish. So if you see me coming your way and I yell "MOVE!", remember that I’m doing it to inspire you to make the most out of your life.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Entry for March 28, 2008
God is Santa Clause for adults. Both live in a mythical place that you only see in movies, grant wishes as long as you’re "good", and constantly watch you to see if you're behaving. The only difference is that children are smart enough to demand real bribes.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Your Faults Are Perfect
I saw an interview with Joel Olsteen a couple weeks ago and have been stuck trying to figure out this guy. He was voted Most Influential Christian in America in 2006 by The Church Report, operates one of those mega-churches, and all without ever really quoting the Bible or any other religious text. His only educational training is a BA in television production. Nevertheless, he sells millions of books to Evangelicals who want to learn how to live a better life and be the best people that they can. Yesterday, sitting in a cramped room listening to people discussing their futures in tentative somber tones, someone decided to interject a positive aphorism. It was ill-timed and came across as overly fake, but we appreciated the attempt to steer the conversation away from the mournful and back towards something positive. It was in this second that I finally understood Joel Olsteen and his ilk.
What he represents is the logical eclecticism of our time, and this type of person has never had an original thought. They piece together time-worn tricks, give them a new paint job, and are in business. And it is a booming business. It’s a grift called Happiness. The world is a big scary place with a history of suffering and fear. Enter Olsteen, who tells them that they have nothing to fear, this life or hereafter, and that God commands them to be happy. Day in, day out, he keeps pushing it: Don’t be afraid, be happy.
He does so under the auspicious of a higher understanding. He tells people that what they want to do is divine because God wants them to be happy. This is absolute nonsense and is the concept of “altruism” at its worst. People do what they want to do, every time. If it pains them to make a choice, if the choice looks like a sacrifice, you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness. It is the necessity of deciding between two things you want when you can’t have both. The ordinary person suffers every time they choose between spending a buck on some gadget they don’t really need or tucking it away for their kids, between getting up to go to work or losing their job. But they always choose what hurts the least or pleasures the most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices on a larger scale.
Olsteen tells people to be happy and the best that they can be by dressing it up in basic Biblical language and hoping that his followers assume the rest. Part is sickly sweet, more is nonsense, and some just hateful. It reminds me of how I was taught about Sodom and Gomorra and why Lot was saved from those wicked cites when Yahweh smote them. Peter describes him as a just, Godly, and righteous man, vexed by the filthy conversation of the wicked. Saint Peter must be an authority on virtue, since to him were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is hard to see what made Lot such a paragon. He divided a cattle range at his brother’s suggestion. He got captured in battle. He skipped out of town to save his own skin. He fed and sheltered two strangers, but his conduct showed that he knew them to be VIPs - and by my understanding, it would have counted for more if he had thought that they were beggars. Aside from these items and Saint Peter’s character reference there is only one thing in the Bible on which we can judge Lot’s virtue (virtue so great that Heavenly intercession saved his life). The rest is from Genesis 19:8, in case you don’t believe me.
Lot’s neighbors beat on his door and wanted to meet these blokes from out of town. Lot didn’t argue; he offered a deal. He had two daughters, virgins, and told this mob that he would give them these girls and they could use them any way that they liked. He pleaded with them to do any damn thing they pleased - only quit beating on his door. So these men, “old and young”, gang raped his own young, tender, and scared girls. This is why he is considered a righteous man.
Or the story of Elisha (Al-Yasa in Islam). Elisha was so all-fired holy that touching his bones restored a dead man to life. He was a bald-headed, cold coot. One day children made fun of his baldness, so God sent bears to tear forty-two children into bloody bits (Second chapter, Second Kings). The Bible is loaded with this stuff. Crimes that turn your stomach and asserted to be divinely ordered or divinely condoned, along with hard common sense and workable rules for social behavior. I could point out these type of things in a number of other religions, but I’m not going to blanket condemn all religions based on ancient and outdated beliefs. It is conceivable that one of these mythologies is the word of God. The kind of God who rends to bits forty-two children for sassing His priest, but a God nonetheless. My point is that people like Joel Olsteen preach a sweetened and lightened version of scripture. He’s a good Joe who wants people to be happy. Happy on Earth plus eternal bliss in Heaven. He doesn’t expect you to chastise the flesh. Oh no, this is the giant-economy package. If you drink and gamble and dance and wench, come to church and do it under holy auspices. Do it with your conscience free. Have fun at it. Live it up! Get happy! It’s a Better You!
Of course, there is a charge. Olsteen’s God expects to be acknowledged. Anyone stupid enough to refuse to get happy on His terms is a sinner and deserves anything that happens to them. But this rule is common to all gods and their pitchmen. Their snake oil is orthodox in all respects. Now I enjoy a good uplifting lecture as much as the next sucker, I generally despise crowds, and don’t let snobs tell me where to go on Sundays. But that does not mean that I can’t laugh a people trying to reconcile the Old Testament with the New, the Buddhist doctrine with Buddhist apocrypha, or Olsteen’s happy-love message with anything substantial or credible. His ethic is sugar-coated for people who can’t take psychology straight -- he is simply tapping the zeitgeist. The only difference between his message and a large, yellow smiley face is that he has the assumed a pulpit built on an established belief, perverted as it may be.
So I finally understand his appeal. We live in a time where things are plentiful. People want to hear that gluttony is good and that they are right in their actions. They want justification for doing as they damn-well please. Moreover, they want to be patted on the back for being good at being selfish. Olsteen delivers and is reinforced by repetitive rhetoric, oozing with vacant cheerfulness, and telling everyone that they are the best that they can be. Proving that we are all happiest when someone else does us the pleasure of lowing the bar.
What he represents is the logical eclecticism of our time, and this type of person has never had an original thought. They piece together time-worn tricks, give them a new paint job, and are in business. And it is a booming business. It’s a grift called Happiness. The world is a big scary place with a history of suffering and fear. Enter Olsteen, who tells them that they have nothing to fear, this life or hereafter, and that God commands them to be happy. Day in, day out, he keeps pushing it: Don’t be afraid, be happy.
He does so under the auspicious of a higher understanding. He tells people that what they want to do is divine because God wants them to be happy. This is absolute nonsense and is the concept of “altruism” at its worst. People do what they want to do, every time. If it pains them to make a choice, if the choice looks like a sacrifice, you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness. It is the necessity of deciding between two things you want when you can’t have both. The ordinary person suffers every time they choose between spending a buck on some gadget they don’t really need or tucking it away for their kids, between getting up to go to work or losing their job. But they always choose what hurts the least or pleasures the most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices on a larger scale.
Olsteen tells people to be happy and the best that they can be by dressing it up in basic Biblical language and hoping that his followers assume the rest. Part is sickly sweet, more is nonsense, and some just hateful. It reminds me of how I was taught about Sodom and Gomorra and why Lot was saved from those wicked cites when Yahweh smote them. Peter describes him as a just, Godly, and righteous man, vexed by the filthy conversation of the wicked. Saint Peter must be an authority on virtue, since to him were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is hard to see what made Lot such a paragon. He divided a cattle range at his brother’s suggestion. He got captured in battle. He skipped out of town to save his own skin. He fed and sheltered two strangers, but his conduct showed that he knew them to be VIPs - and by my understanding, it would have counted for more if he had thought that they were beggars. Aside from these items and Saint Peter’s character reference there is only one thing in the Bible on which we can judge Lot’s virtue (virtue so great that Heavenly intercession saved his life). The rest is from Genesis 19:8, in case you don’t believe me.
Lot’s neighbors beat on his door and wanted to meet these blokes from out of town. Lot didn’t argue; he offered a deal. He had two daughters, virgins, and told this mob that he would give them these girls and they could use them any way that they liked. He pleaded with them to do any damn thing they pleased - only quit beating on his door. So these men, “old and young”, gang raped his own young, tender, and scared girls. This is why he is considered a righteous man.
Or the story of Elisha (Al-Yasa in Islam). Elisha was so all-fired holy that touching his bones restored a dead man to life. He was a bald-headed, cold coot. One day children made fun of his baldness, so God sent bears to tear forty-two children into bloody bits (Second chapter, Second Kings). The Bible is loaded with this stuff. Crimes that turn your stomach and asserted to be divinely ordered or divinely condoned, along with hard common sense and workable rules for social behavior. I could point out these type of things in a number of other religions, but I’m not going to blanket condemn all religions based on ancient and outdated beliefs. It is conceivable that one of these mythologies is the word of God. The kind of God who rends to bits forty-two children for sassing His priest, but a God nonetheless. My point is that people like Joel Olsteen preach a sweetened and lightened version of scripture. He’s a good Joe who wants people to be happy. Happy on Earth plus eternal bliss in Heaven. He doesn’t expect you to chastise the flesh. Oh no, this is the giant-economy package. If you drink and gamble and dance and wench, come to church and do it under holy auspices. Do it with your conscience free. Have fun at it. Live it up! Get happy! It’s a Better You!
Of course, there is a charge. Olsteen’s God expects to be acknowledged. Anyone stupid enough to refuse to get happy on His terms is a sinner and deserves anything that happens to them. But this rule is common to all gods and their pitchmen. Their snake oil is orthodox in all respects. Now I enjoy a good uplifting lecture as much as the next sucker, I generally despise crowds, and don’t let snobs tell me where to go on Sundays. But that does not mean that I can’t laugh a people trying to reconcile the Old Testament with the New, the Buddhist doctrine with Buddhist apocrypha, or Olsteen’s happy-love message with anything substantial or credible. His ethic is sugar-coated for people who can’t take psychology straight -- he is simply tapping the zeitgeist. The only difference between his message and a large, yellow smiley face is that he has the assumed a pulpit built on an established belief, perverted as it may be.
So I finally understand his appeal. We live in a time where things are plentiful. People want to hear that gluttony is good and that they are right in their actions. They want justification for doing as they damn-well please. Moreover, they want to be patted on the back for being good at being selfish. Olsteen delivers and is reinforced by repetitive rhetoric, oozing with vacant cheerfulness, and telling everyone that they are the best that they can be. Proving that we are all happiest when someone else does us the pleasure of lowing the bar.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
My Son's New Website
My son’s website, sebastianhamilton.com, is now up and running. It has a blog, pictures, videos, and general updates as to his wellbeing and growth. As he has spent a lot of time working on it, please check it out.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Being Dad
Everyone dances best with their most comfortable disguise. Our masks exist to define who we are and how we want to be seen. So when I was finally face to face with my new child that I realized that I did not know who I would be to him. Dad, sure, but how do I define that? What of my personality do I promote or suppress to help guide his development? And will I be able to dance with him?
Immediately drumming through my head is the line, “Be who you desire your children to become.” Well, yes. But as with any parent, I want so much more for him. I want to see him succeed in whatever it is that he chooses to do. Not to fill my own lost dreams or hidden ambitions, but because he wants to. Truly wants to. Above all else, I want him to be happy and content. So I need to be able to portray that at a level competent enough to convince him that it is possible. But I do not know how.
He is almost three weeks old and his personality is starting to develop. His cries are becoming distinct and I hear his future voice in his experimental yelps. I know that these times will pass quickly. I’ll see him quickly grow, learn, and develop. I will not be able to keep up. My masks will eventually fail, I will not dance quickly enough, and he will be on his own. Yet I must try.
The inevitability of the situation is that there is only a short window in which I can make an impact on him. Everything else that he takes from me is the memory of who he believed that I was versus how well his grown self is able to see through me. More than anything else, I do not want to fail him. This fear haunts my soul deeper than anything that has ever touched me. It is as if someone has reached inside of me and taken hold of everything that I am and will only release me once my performance has been weighed.
The entire situation makes me wish that I could be a greater man, one up for this challenge, and someone who knows that they could not fail.
Immediately drumming through my head is the line, “Be who you desire your children to become.” Well, yes. But as with any parent, I want so much more for him. I want to see him succeed in whatever it is that he chooses to do. Not to fill my own lost dreams or hidden ambitions, but because he wants to. Truly wants to. Above all else, I want him to be happy and content. So I need to be able to portray that at a level competent enough to convince him that it is possible. But I do not know how.
He is almost three weeks old and his personality is starting to develop. His cries are becoming distinct and I hear his future voice in his experimental yelps. I know that these times will pass quickly. I’ll see him quickly grow, learn, and develop. I will not be able to keep up. My masks will eventually fail, I will not dance quickly enough, and he will be on his own. Yet I must try.
The inevitability of the situation is that there is only a short window in which I can make an impact on him. Everything else that he takes from me is the memory of who he believed that I was versus how well his grown self is able to see through me. More than anything else, I do not want to fail him. This fear haunts my soul deeper than anything that has ever touched me. It is as if someone has reached inside of me and taken hold of everything that I am and will only release me once my performance has been weighed.
The entire situation makes me wish that I could be a greater man, one up for this challenge, and someone who knows that they could not fail.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Entry for March 03, 2008
Some people make you try to become a better person, while others make you feel as if you are trying too hard.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Bigger, Faster, and More EXTREME!!!
Two things that caught my attention this week mixed in my head and formed some sort of strange clarity. The first was a comment made on 60 Minutes by Danish professor Dr. Christianson on why a recent study has named the Danes the happiest people on earth. When they asked if he could explain the study he sited the fact that Danes have expectations that are pretty modest and followed it up with, “You know, I was thinking about what if [sic] it was the opposite and Demark was number 20 and another country was number 1. I’m pretty sure that Danish Television would say, ‘Well, number 20 is not too bad. You know, it’s still in the top 25!’”
The other thing that caught my eye was Extreme Screamin’ Dill Pickle Pringles. Upon first notice I thought, “Why the hell do I need my potato chips to be ‘extreme’”? That was, until a dad wearing a NASCAR hat and a full orange camouflage getup in a grocery store said to his tracksuit-wearing 12 year old son, “No, get that Extreme one. It has more technology in it”. I recoiled, laughed, and looked around to make sure that someone else had heard it. Alas, it was the grocery store at 2pm on a Tuesday and I was the only one to hear the comment.
Meanwhile, somewhere in the dark recesses of my cortex the two things melded and I was forced to ask myself, “Is this why we are never truly happy?” Do we always need things to be bigger, faster, and (Mike help us) more extreme? If we are always chasing what is better, do we never enjoy what we have? Is there a way to end this vicious cycle?
Hmmm a thought problem, let’s step back and look at the differences. We know the US so let’s look back to the 60 Minutes segment to see if there was any information about the Danes that could point out some difference. A couple minutes later I found the corresponding website to the segment and read that all Danish education, through college, is free. They are paid to stay home and raise their children. They have universal healthcare, subsided childcare, and eldercare. There is next to no poverty class and the wealth is spread throughout the close-knit classes. Plus, they have a standard six weeks of vacation and still maintain a higher productivity level than the US. The drawback? They pay 50% taxes.
If countries were people, most of Europe would be in their middle age or slightly older. Africa, the Middle East, and most of South America would still be in their infant to preteen years. And the United States would be a teenager struggling to figure out who they are. I think that Oscar Wilde said it best when he quipped, “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. “
So as we try to find out who we are here in the US, we constantly redefine what it means to be us. We work to make things bigger so they overshadow our personalities, we make things faster to distract ourselves from standing still, and we need things to be in a constant state of more extremeness because it helps us see ourselves as on the cutting edge and constantly new. That way, we will never really need to figure out who we are since the state of change doubles as an identity.
This inability to slow down and define ourselves (other than as ever-changing), has led to a self-centered culture where we will help only when it is either in our best interests or to help publicly define us as compassionate. Sure, there are certain individuals who do not fit this norm, but the vast majority do. We are a society that chases our own individual American Dreams and never an American Dream for all. Here in the US you either sink or swim on your own; and if you don’t like, your family’s financial standing will let you know how far you have to sink.
I guess that as we age as a country, we will learn to look to one another as assets. Maintaining a healthy life, a strong liberty, and an open pursuit of happiness for all individuals may give us all the chance to thrive, but the only way that we will all see that dream come true is if we care and help each other. If only we were old enough to forget that happiness doesn't come as a result of getting something we don't have, but rather of recognizing and appreciating what we do have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061222092845.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml
The other thing that caught my eye was Extreme Screamin’ Dill Pickle Pringles. Upon first notice I thought, “Why the hell do I need my potato chips to be ‘extreme’”? That was, until a dad wearing a NASCAR hat and a full orange camouflage getup in a grocery store said to his tracksuit-wearing 12 year old son, “No, get that Extreme one. It has more technology in it”. I recoiled, laughed, and looked around to make sure that someone else had heard it. Alas, it was the grocery store at 2pm on a Tuesday and I was the only one to hear the comment.
Meanwhile, somewhere in the dark recesses of my cortex the two things melded and I was forced to ask myself, “Is this why we are never truly happy?” Do we always need things to be bigger, faster, and (Mike help us) more extreme? If we are always chasing what is better, do we never enjoy what we have? Is there a way to end this vicious cycle?
Hmmm a thought problem, let’s step back and look at the differences. We know the US so let’s look back to the 60 Minutes segment to see if there was any information about the Danes that could point out some difference. A couple minutes later I found the corresponding website to the segment and read that all Danish education, through college, is free. They are paid to stay home and raise their children. They have universal healthcare, subsided childcare, and eldercare. There is next to no poverty class and the wealth is spread throughout the close-knit classes. Plus, they have a standard six weeks of vacation and still maintain a higher productivity level than the US. The drawback? They pay 50% taxes.
If countries were people, most of Europe would be in their middle age or slightly older. Africa, the Middle East, and most of South America would still be in their infant to preteen years. And the United States would be a teenager struggling to figure out who they are. I think that Oscar Wilde said it best when he quipped, “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. “
So as we try to find out who we are here in the US, we constantly redefine what it means to be us. We work to make things bigger so they overshadow our personalities, we make things faster to distract ourselves from standing still, and we need things to be in a constant state of more extremeness because it helps us see ourselves as on the cutting edge and constantly new. That way, we will never really need to figure out who we are since the state of change doubles as an identity.
This inability to slow down and define ourselves (other than as ever-changing), has led to a self-centered culture where we will help only when it is either in our best interests or to help publicly define us as compassionate. Sure, there are certain individuals who do not fit this norm, but the vast majority do. We are a society that chases our own individual American Dreams and never an American Dream for all. Here in the US you either sink or swim on your own; and if you don’t like, your family’s financial standing will let you know how far you have to sink.
I guess that as we age as a country, we will learn to look to one another as assets. Maintaining a healthy life, a strong liberty, and an open pursuit of happiness for all individuals may give us all the chance to thrive, but the only way that we will all see that dream come true is if we care and help each other. If only we were old enough to forget that happiness doesn't come as a result of getting something we don't have, but rather of recognizing and appreciating what we do have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061222092845.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Out Foxed
This week, Fox Broadcasting Company appealed the 1.2 million dollar fine that was imposed on its 169 affiliates by the FCC for violating federal indecency laws. In its order, the FCC said that simply pixilizing female breasts and buttocks during a raunchy bachelor party scene in an April 2003 episode of the defunct reality program "Married to America" did not indemnify broadcasters from commission action.
All of this happened days after Fox and Friends anchor Juliet Huddy asked Colonel David Hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV for airing what she deemed to be “indecent”.
So there you have it, one part of the company fighting to show and say almost anything on TV while the other has commentators who openly suggest that those who support such uncensored indecency should be bombed.
Fox News, defending the world from the indecency that is Fox Broadcasting. …
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb23/0,4670,FoxTVFinesFCC,00.html
All of this happened days after Fox and Friends anchor Juliet Huddy asked Colonel David Hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV for airing what she deemed to be “indecent”.
So there you have it, one part of the company fighting to show and say almost anything on TV while the other has commentators who openly suggest that those who support such uncensored indecency should be bombed.
Fox News, defending the world from the indecency that is Fox Broadcasting. …
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb23/0,4670,FoxTVFinesFCC,00.html
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Entry for February 19, 2008
You thought all was quiet in the dead of the night,
But babies don’t wait for the first morning light.
They come when they want, their schedules their own.
And before you know it, you’re taking them home.
But babies don’t wait for the first morning light.
They come when they want, their schedules their own.
And before you know it, you’re taking them home.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Change
The word of the year is shaping up to be “Change." It’s being sold from the lips of politicians, in the latest music, and from the heads of sporting organizations. The reason for this is because America has lost most of our heroes. Where there were once sports giants, we see only drug and cheating scandals, the popular music that is being sold to us is so formulaic and stale that we look to top rated karaoke TV shows for new “artists," and our leading politicians have the respect and approval slightly better than a villain in a Dickens novel. Truth be told, the number of people we can still look up to is few.
Most of this is our own fault. There is nothing that the American public likes more than building people up only to knock them down. Think of a child creating a tower of blocks. He may construct them with absolute care and purpose, but in no time at all he will reemerge as a two foot tall Godzilla in Oshkosh overalls on a self-fulfilling mission for total tower destruction. We as a public are that child with our heroes.
So following our recent failed attempts at nation building and restructuring the world as we see it, we have decided to internalize the problem and create some new American Gods. We can see the beginning of them forming now. And the nominee for the leader of this change seems to be Obama. He is not another legacy, a case of nepotism, or simple repetition. What he represents is a break with what has become our slide towards mediocrity caused by our comfort and want for predictability.
In recent months Obama has shifted away from in-depth policy discussions in the debates to speaking only of Hope and Change through vague, yet extremely uplifting, generalities. His campaign seems to understand that we have become disgusted with wanting something so banal, pandering, and readily identifiable because we can no longer settle for sub-par idols. They know that we need a hero, someone to believe in again, and that above all else our country wants to hear, “And Now for Something Completely Different.” He is fulfilling these needs that by trumpeting change and backing it up with well publicized, yet no longer openly sold, ideas.
America wants a presidential election where the two candidates represent who we were and who we will become. We want a chance to prove that we are not our recent leaders, we are not religious fanatics hell-bent on Authoritarianism, we do not stand for self justified idiocy at home and aboard, and more than anything else, we are not George Bush.
This fall, I will be voting for Barack Obama because he represents the change that I want to see in America.
Most of this is our own fault. There is nothing that the American public likes more than building people up only to knock them down. Think of a child creating a tower of blocks. He may construct them with absolute care and purpose, but in no time at all he will reemerge as a two foot tall Godzilla in Oshkosh overalls on a self-fulfilling mission for total tower destruction. We as a public are that child with our heroes.
So following our recent failed attempts at nation building and restructuring the world as we see it, we have decided to internalize the problem and create some new American Gods. We can see the beginning of them forming now. And the nominee for the leader of this change seems to be Obama. He is not another legacy, a case of nepotism, or simple repetition. What he represents is a break with what has become our slide towards mediocrity caused by our comfort and want for predictability.
In recent months Obama has shifted away from in-depth policy discussions in the debates to speaking only of Hope and Change through vague, yet extremely uplifting, generalities. His campaign seems to understand that we have become disgusted with wanting something so banal, pandering, and readily identifiable because we can no longer settle for sub-par idols. They know that we need a hero, someone to believe in again, and that above all else our country wants to hear, “And Now for Something Completely Different.” He is fulfilling these needs that by trumpeting change and backing it up with well publicized, yet no longer openly sold, ideas.
America wants a presidential election where the two candidates represent who we were and who we will become. We want a chance to prove that we are not our recent leaders, we are not religious fanatics hell-bent on Authoritarianism, we do not stand for self justified idiocy at home and aboard, and more than anything else, we are not George Bush.
This fall, I will be voting for Barack Obama because he represents the change that I want to see in America.
In Defense of John McCain
We have all heard an election-load of John McCain bashing in the far Right Wing press lately. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the lesser infotainers are working feverously to make their listeners believe all sorts of things about McCain. They are going after him like a pack of starving dogs that have spotted fresh meat. Last week Limbaugh went as far as to say that a McCain nomination would "destroy the Republican Party," and that "[he] can see possibly not voting for the Republican nominee".
You have to wonder if these people would have allowed Ronald Reagan to be nominated. After all, in his farewell address in 1989 Reagan talked about free trade and immigration when he said, "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here." Or how about his famous line, “concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty” in reference to a sustained political majority? Does that sound like someone that Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter would have supported for president?
So why are they fighting so hard to keep McCain out? Is it that he is a moderate conservative by today’s standards? Is it because he is willing to step across the isle to make peace to ensure that legislation gets passed? Or is it because they don’t understand that putting the party above the needs of the country is what got them in this mess in the first place? Maybe it is because they are afraid of moderation and fear a country that no longer sees only red and blue.
After seeing the results on Super Tuesday, it is apparent that the public at large is no longer buying the message that these far right wing media personalities are presenting. The voters see McCain for what he is: a stereotypical old-school conservative who prides himself on honesty, being fiscally conservative in most cases, not being beholden to special interests, and with a resume that says, "been there, done that" instead of "found a way out and profited from it”.
The other fallout from Super Tuesday is that it is now apparent that the light on both mainstream Neoconservatives and Authoritarians is fading. Everywhere we look there are signs of desperation. Books such as Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg wildly explain how all liberals are actually Nazis, Ann Coulter threatens to back Hillary Clinton, and the radio is abuzz with angry hosts bashing McCain for having moderate tendencies and occasionally agreeing with (gasp) the other side.
I for one welcome the change in Republican leadership. Too long has the far Right Wing Media held captive the party by making the public believe that the being a Republican means that you do what you are told and that victory must come at the cost of the nation. This week the voters chose McCain as the best chance for restoring both dignity and creditability to the Republican Party, let’s hope that the media catches up soon.
You have to wonder if these people would have allowed Ronald Reagan to be nominated. After all, in his farewell address in 1989 Reagan talked about free trade and immigration when he said, "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here." Or how about his famous line, “concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty” in reference to a sustained political majority? Does that sound like someone that Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter would have supported for president?
So why are they fighting so hard to keep McCain out? Is it that he is a moderate conservative by today’s standards? Is it because he is willing to step across the isle to make peace to ensure that legislation gets passed? Or is it because they don’t understand that putting the party above the needs of the country is what got them in this mess in the first place? Maybe it is because they are afraid of moderation and fear a country that no longer sees only red and blue.
After seeing the results on Super Tuesday, it is apparent that the public at large is no longer buying the message that these far right wing media personalities are presenting. The voters see McCain for what he is: a stereotypical old-school conservative who prides himself on honesty, being fiscally conservative in most cases, not being beholden to special interests, and with a resume that says, "been there, done that" instead of "found a way out and profited from it”.
The other fallout from Super Tuesday is that it is now apparent that the light on both mainstream Neoconservatives and Authoritarians is fading. Everywhere we look there are signs of desperation. Books such as Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg wildly explain how all liberals are actually Nazis, Ann Coulter threatens to back Hillary Clinton, and the radio is abuzz with angry hosts bashing McCain for having moderate tendencies and occasionally agreeing with (gasp) the other side.
I for one welcome the change in Republican leadership. Too long has the far Right Wing Media held captive the party by making the public believe that the being a Republican means that you do what you are told and that victory must come at the cost of the nation. This week the voters chose McCain as the best chance for restoring both dignity and creditability to the Republican Party, let’s hope that the media catches up soon.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
My Editor
One of my best friends has turned into my editor, and this is a good thing. She corrects almost all of my blog posts, essays, publications, and important emails. I really don’t know what I would do without her. It’s strange to have one of your friends in a semi-professional role, but she seems to fit it well.
I will hand her my work and she will do an odd thing. There in front of me, she will transform from a normally effervescent little blonde girl into the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Rev. Maclean, from Norman Maclean classic semi-autobiographical, and world’s best fishing novella, A River Runs Through It. And I will end up standing there staring at me feet and waiting for a curt "good, now make it half as long" or similar criticism of whatever it was that I thought was at least passable.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to having an excellent editor in your professional life. After spending hours working on something that I think is witty or intelligent, she will read through it and, instead of commenting on its absolute brilliance, will say something along the lines of, “you missed one comma and a couple apostrophes”. To which I will glare at her and immediately troll for some sort of compliment. “So, what did you think?”
“It’s good,” she’ll say, “This third sentence doesn’t make any sense. Work on that.” Then I go back and make revisions. Honestly, I’m never sure how anything I write will be received because of her cool and businesslike manner.
She has recently decided to head back to school and pursue an MFA. I anticipate her becoming a world-class fiction writer and can only hope that she charges the same amount to review my work when that happens.
So if you have read any of my work (blogs, essays, newspaper articles, whatever’s…) thank Kate for helping me to make my jejune cerebration coherent. (And for usually stopping me from writing sentences like the previous one).
Disclaimer: This post was in no way edited by Kate. Sorry.
I will hand her my work and she will do an odd thing. There in front of me, she will transform from a normally effervescent little blonde girl into the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Rev. Maclean, from Norman Maclean classic semi-autobiographical, and world’s best fishing novella, A River Runs Through It. And I will end up standing there staring at me feet and waiting for a curt "good, now make it half as long" or similar criticism of whatever it was that I thought was at least passable.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to having an excellent editor in your professional life. After spending hours working on something that I think is witty or intelligent, she will read through it and, instead of commenting on its absolute brilliance, will say something along the lines of, “you missed one comma and a couple apostrophes”. To which I will glare at her and immediately troll for some sort of compliment. “So, what did you think?”
“It’s good,” she’ll say, “This third sentence doesn’t make any sense. Work on that.” Then I go back and make revisions. Honestly, I’m never sure how anything I write will be received because of her cool and businesslike manner.
She has recently decided to head back to school and pursue an MFA. I anticipate her becoming a world-class fiction writer and can only hope that she charges the same amount to review my work when that happens.
So if you have read any of my work (blogs, essays, newspaper articles, whatever’s…) thank Kate for helping me to make my jejune cerebration coherent. (And for usually stopping me from writing sentences like the previous one).
Disclaimer: This post was in no way edited by Kate. Sorry.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Welcome to Michigan, Please Lie to Us
Several weeks ago Mitt Romney won our Republican primary by blatantly misleading the people of Michigan. I can’t see how anyone living within our state borders believed him. It was put best by last weekend’s Wait, Wait... Don’t Tell Me on NPR:
During election time people get stupid and believe a) wildly unbelievable crap and b) that the president actually has the power to change most things.
The president is head of only one branch of the government. Sure, the Bush Administration has worked very hard to dissolve the other two branches, but they still exist and will remain. Moderation and balance will always be restored, but that is a different argument. So this leaves the President with the ability to make or stop wars, appoint individuals to political posts, and make appeals directly to the public for either support or condemnation of certain policies. Any serious changes must be approved in the Senate and pass through the Justice system. This check and balance assures, for the most part, that the president does not have nearly enough power to make and serious changes alone.
So during any election you are going to hear a bunch of election promises that are destine to be broken. These broken campaign promises lead to an overall apathy with voters, a stereotype of lying politicians, and, eventually, a lower voter turnout. Election promises in this country have been around since we have had elections and will always continue, but it is the seeing these promises as the BS that they are that quells their tide and ultimately defeats their pushers.
Mitt Romney promised the impossible to Michigan because he was under incredibly strong pressure to win this state. There is no way that the jobs that we have lost are coming back. The new plants have been built elsewhere, new employees have been trained, and profits have increased for the companies. There is no reason why these companies would ever move back. He knows this and we know this. So why, why did he do it?
Was it that our local inhabitants are so desperate to believe that there will be jobs coming back to Michigan that they are willing to set aside reality and believe these empty promises?
Have we lost so much hope in ourselves that fantasy presents itself as a viable alternative?
Or is it that he knew that we would rather be openly lied to then to have to deal with the reality of our current situation?
I am afraid that it is all three. So here, let me welcome all future political candidates to Michigan and remind them to please lie to us, because it’s obviously what we want to hear.
Governor Mitt Romney won Michigan, a state where his father was governor and where he promised the people he'd bring twenty billion dollars in subsidies, that he would bring back all the auto manufacturing jobs lost during the last few decades, and that he would spend his fortune to build a dome over the greater Detroit area so that they could grow palm trees. That's good and it worked but the big question is with three major primaries in three winners who are going to be the nominee. Given that every leading candidate is hated by a larger constituency than the one that supports him, we anticipate a brokered convention this summer with a nomination finally going to a signed eight by ten photo of Ronald Reagan hanging on a coat rack.
During election time people get stupid and believe a) wildly unbelievable crap and b) that the president actually has the power to change most things.
The president is head of only one branch of the government. Sure, the Bush Administration has worked very hard to dissolve the other two branches, but they still exist and will remain. Moderation and balance will always be restored, but that is a different argument. So this leaves the President with the ability to make or stop wars, appoint individuals to political posts, and make appeals directly to the public for either support or condemnation of certain policies. Any serious changes must be approved in the Senate and pass through the Justice system. This check and balance assures, for the most part, that the president does not have nearly enough power to make and serious changes alone.
So during any election you are going to hear a bunch of election promises that are destine to be broken. These broken campaign promises lead to an overall apathy with voters, a stereotype of lying politicians, and, eventually, a lower voter turnout. Election promises in this country have been around since we have had elections and will always continue, but it is the seeing these promises as the BS that they are that quells their tide and ultimately defeats their pushers.
Mitt Romney promised the impossible to Michigan because he was under incredibly strong pressure to win this state. There is no way that the jobs that we have lost are coming back. The new plants have been built elsewhere, new employees have been trained, and profits have increased for the companies. There is no reason why these companies would ever move back. He knows this and we know this. So why, why did he do it?
Was it that our local inhabitants are so desperate to believe that there will be jobs coming back to Michigan that they are willing to set aside reality and believe these empty promises?
Have we lost so much hope in ourselves that fantasy presents itself as a viable alternative?
Or is it that he knew that we would rather be openly lied to then to have to deal with the reality of our current situation?
I am afraid that it is all three. So here, let me welcome all future political candidates to Michigan and remind them to please lie to us, because it’s obviously what we want to hear.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Good Morning
I don’t sleep very much, maybe a couple of hours every night, and any more and I’m exhausted and worthless all day. It’s just the way that I am and I’m comfortable with it. During the time when everyone else sleeps, I usually read or write and that makes me happy. The other morning, while watching the sun rise over a fresh blanket of snow, I realized that most people will never know the quiet of the morning and how it is a constant balance of delicate silence and unlimited potential. It is that time, before the world wakes, that is mine. I covet it and it really is truly precious to me. I wish that I could share with each of you the serenity of the hours you waste asleep, but I’m sure you would all just extol the virtues of a good deep rest. So, for now, I get my time and hope that all of you wake rested and prepared for a new day.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Entry for January 23, 2008
On any given day the news is barely interesting enough to maintain someone’s interest for the shortest period of time. This is because everyday news pales in comparison to the average person’s life, is far less interesting, and rarely pertains directly to them. This leaves those in the news business trying all sorts of things in an attempt to grab the attention of viewers. No where is this more obvious than during an election season. Like eight-year-olds chasing a ball around a soccer field, organization is completely lost and the only objective is to frantically follow wherever the target may bounce.
This format only works to give fodder for the real bread and butter of the cable channel news networks. I will never quite understand the appeal of the talking heads of the infotainment world. It’s the same thing on almost all channels. A loud host talking far more they have coherent thoughts to support all to set up a fight between the in-your-face over 40 neoconservative talk show host yelling, pointing, and claiming that he’s right because everyone else is wrong while the liberal guest or co-host rolls his eyes and counters with some statement about “facts” before trailing off in exasperation once he has gotten in several shots about the conservatives view of reality and/or intelligence.
The conservative is either a pseudo-bad-ass who is against a world that won’t see reality and the liberal is someone who tries to talk over everyone, taking the moral and intellectual highroad, while simultaneously destroying his own argument. The same thing is on every channel, with the political bend coming from who the channel matches against whom and who has control over the mic.
What seems to further baffle me is that not only do these infotainers propagate the conservative and liberal stereotypes, normal people feel the need to carry on in their same vein -- as if they too need be that shallow, desperate, and one-dimensional in order to understand what it is that they are arguing. This may be the free world, but free thinking is usually in short supply.
All of this then roles back into the assault that the daily news does on our senses. The positions are assumed; the vague, leading, or horrible questions lobbed; and the waiting for any blood is sought so hungrily that everyone sits, salivating mouth in hand, waiting to be fed another morsel of mildly interesting that they can describe as the best tasting, most interesting thing that has ever been experienced. I, for one, find all of it unpalatable.
This format only works to give fodder for the real bread and butter of the cable channel news networks. I will never quite understand the appeal of the talking heads of the infotainment world. It’s the same thing on almost all channels. A loud host talking far more they have coherent thoughts to support all to set up a fight between the in-your-face over 40 neoconservative talk show host yelling, pointing, and claiming that he’s right because everyone else is wrong while the liberal guest or co-host rolls his eyes and counters with some statement about “facts” before trailing off in exasperation once he has gotten in several shots about the conservatives view of reality and/or intelligence.
The conservative is either a pseudo-bad-ass who is against a world that won’t see reality and the liberal is someone who tries to talk over everyone, taking the moral and intellectual highroad, while simultaneously destroying his own argument. The same thing is on every channel, with the political bend coming from who the channel matches against whom and who has control over the mic.
What seems to further baffle me is that not only do these infotainers propagate the conservative and liberal stereotypes, normal people feel the need to carry on in their same vein -- as if they too need be that shallow, desperate, and one-dimensional in order to understand what it is that they are arguing. This may be the free world, but free thinking is usually in short supply.
All of this then roles back into the assault that the daily news does on our senses. The positions are assumed; the vague, leading, or horrible questions lobbed; and the waiting for any blood is sought so hungrily that everyone sits, salivating mouth in hand, waiting to be fed another morsel of mildly interesting that they can describe as the best tasting, most interesting thing that has ever been experienced. I, for one, find all of it unpalatable.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Coffee Shop Inhabitants (add to me)
While sitting at a coffee shop I realized that there are several distinct personalities that tend to frequent this type of establishment. So I started the list below and it has since been added to by people more talented than I am. Please feel free to add to it:
The first and most obvious is the Loud Talker. This male, and it's usually a male, talks to everyone in a voice more properly suited for a canyon echo. All within ear shot cannot only hear the entire conversation that the Loud Talker is conducting, they've created an internal dialog with him over a) how they would respond to the other side of the conversation and b) all of the different ways in which they would like to tell him to shut up.
The next is the Living Room Dweller. Conducting business usually reserved for the privacy of ones own house on a work at home day, this model tends to spread out and claim all areas surrounding him. No topic is off limits, no conversation inappropriate, and no business accessory has been excluded from his table. This model is inclined to take off shoes, hoard all power outlets, and, somehow, make an entire fax machine materialize out of his bag.
There is always the 2+ Gaggle of Gossiping Girls who, no matter of what age will chitter on endlessly about the most inane things possible and increasing decibel and pitch. At some point their conversation we'll degrade into a high-speed squeaking with only an occasional comprehensible word about celebrity, personal hygiene, or shopping.
You can always identify the iPod Human because of the white wires leading from their dramatically places iPod directly to their down turned head. Occasionally this person will fumble with said iPod in a combination gesture to make sure that you see that they do indeed own an iPod and because they cannot find the right song to express the ambiguity of their contentment that they have a soundtrack to life and you must deal directly with people in your non-musical hell.
The Writer is there to be inspired to write. To let the pages flow in a rhythmic procession of nuance and substantiated prose while building to a crescendo of literary gold that can only be fueled on by caffeine and the knowledge that everyone is watching them write. They know that without the external stimulation through everyone's acknowledgment of the fact that they are indeed writing, the writer would be writing for nothing besides themselves.
The Regular is there like clockwork on a specific day at a specific time. He or she knows the name of every one of the proprietor's children, grandchildren, and pets, and will be the first to bring in any newspaper clipping containing mention of any of the above. The Regular's drink is always out on the counter before he or she steps into the establishment and, speaking in tones almost on par with the Loud Talker, ensures that everyone knows that he or she knows the owner and his or her family personally. This makes the Regular a more important customer than anyone else. On the day that the Regular doesn't show at the prescribed time, it is assumed that he or she has gotten into some horribly disfiguring accident and the coffee shop will expressly fold without his or her patronage.
If you are missing any of the current events magazines or newspapers from the rack, they are undoubtedly at the table of the Waspy Couple. This husband and wife, usually middle-aged, is easily spotted at the coffee shop after church on Sundays in their finest. They will calmly discuss the week's news over swapping each section of the paper, and not a visit to the coffee shop goes by without the husband asking the wife, at least once, to remind him to pencil in this or that auction or event into his calendar when he gets home. No topic is off limits or, like the Living-Room Dweller, inappropriately too private. Though they do not expel bank account numbers to the entire shop, they will make sure the whole place knows how much they donated to the trendiest charity last month.
The Student has decided that the school library, a room built with the sole purpose of allowing a student to have the resources, space, and comfort for optimal studying, is just not up to the standard of their educational needs and has sought out a busy coffee shop as a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately, the Student will spend most of their time casting divisive glances and threatening sighs towards everyone else who dares to breathe too loudly in this public place. Not lasting long, the Student will give up and move to a new coffee shop every 30 minutes.
LAN Party Over Here! is almost always present in the form of several younger people, located within feet of each other, typing frantic messages to the person within arms reach. Also easily recognizable because of the occasional outbursts of synchronized laughing and occasionally laptop swapping. Expect this group to consume the largest amount of caffeinated beverages and make the biggest mess. Most coffee shop LAN Party Over Here! groups emanate from being outcast from one, if not all of the group members' parents' homes.
An uplifting member of the coffee shop culture is the Happy to be Breathing. They are overjoyed at everything. If the little old woman asks the little old man if he wants a prune spiced bran muffin, he will excitedly say, "Yes! I'd love a prune spiced bran muffin!" and after consuming said muffin he will wipe the saliva off the corners of his mouth with a hankie and proclaim, in as booming a voice as his shriveling vocal chords can manage, "That was the best prune spiced bran muffin I've ever had!"
The first and most obvious is the Loud Talker. This male, and it's usually a male, talks to everyone in a voice more properly suited for a canyon echo. All within ear shot cannot only hear the entire conversation that the Loud Talker is conducting, they've created an internal dialog with him over a) how they would respond to the other side of the conversation and b) all of the different ways in which they would like to tell him to shut up.
The next is the Living Room Dweller. Conducting business usually reserved for the privacy of ones own house on a work at home day, this model tends to spread out and claim all areas surrounding him. No topic is off limits, no conversation inappropriate, and no business accessory has been excluded from his table. This model is inclined to take off shoes, hoard all power outlets, and, somehow, make an entire fax machine materialize out of his bag.
There is always the 2+ Gaggle of Gossiping Girls who, no matter of what age will chitter on endlessly about the most inane things possible and increasing decibel and pitch. At some point their conversation we'll degrade into a high-speed squeaking with only an occasional comprehensible word about celebrity, personal hygiene, or shopping.
You can always identify the iPod Human because of the white wires leading from their dramatically places iPod directly to their down turned head. Occasionally this person will fumble with said iPod in a combination gesture to make sure that you see that they do indeed own an iPod and because they cannot find the right song to express the ambiguity of their contentment that they have a soundtrack to life and you must deal directly with people in your non-musical hell.
The Writer is there to be inspired to write. To let the pages flow in a rhythmic procession of nuance and substantiated prose while building to a crescendo of literary gold that can only be fueled on by caffeine and the knowledge that everyone is watching them write. They know that without the external stimulation through everyone's acknowledgment of the fact that they are indeed writing, the writer would be writing for nothing besides themselves.
The Regular is there like clockwork on a specific day at a specific time. He or she knows the name of every one of the proprietor's children, grandchildren, and pets, and will be the first to bring in any newspaper clipping containing mention of any of the above. The Regular's drink is always out on the counter before he or she steps into the establishment and, speaking in tones almost on par with the Loud Talker, ensures that everyone knows that he or she knows the owner and his or her family personally. This makes the Regular a more important customer than anyone else. On the day that the Regular doesn't show at the prescribed time, it is assumed that he or she has gotten into some horribly disfiguring accident and the coffee shop will expressly fold without his or her patronage.
If you are missing any of the current events magazines or newspapers from the rack, they are undoubtedly at the table of the Waspy Couple. This husband and wife, usually middle-aged, is easily spotted at the coffee shop after church on Sundays in their finest. They will calmly discuss the week's news over swapping each section of the paper, and not a visit to the coffee shop goes by without the husband asking the wife, at least once, to remind him to pencil in this or that auction or event into his calendar when he gets home. No topic is off limits or, like the Living-Room Dweller, inappropriately too private. Though they do not expel bank account numbers to the entire shop, they will make sure the whole place knows how much they donated to the trendiest charity last month.
The Student has decided that the school library, a room built with the sole purpose of allowing a student to have the resources, space, and comfort for optimal studying, is just not up to the standard of their educational needs and has sought out a busy coffee shop as a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately, the Student will spend most of their time casting divisive glances and threatening sighs towards everyone else who dares to breathe too loudly in this public place. Not lasting long, the Student will give up and move to a new coffee shop every 30 minutes.
LAN Party Over Here! is almost always present in the form of several younger people, located within feet of each other, typing frantic messages to the person within arms reach. Also easily recognizable because of the occasional outbursts of synchronized laughing and occasionally laptop swapping. Expect this group to consume the largest amount of caffeinated beverages and make the biggest mess. Most coffee shop LAN Party Over Here! groups emanate from being outcast from one, if not all of the group members' parents' homes.
An uplifting member of the coffee shop culture is the Happy to be Breathing. They are overjoyed at everything. If the little old woman asks the little old man if he wants a prune spiced bran muffin, he will excitedly say, "Yes! I'd love a prune spiced bran muffin!" and after consuming said muffin he will wipe the saliva off the corners of his mouth with a hankie and proclaim, in as booming a voice as his shriveling vocal chords can manage, "That was the best prune spiced bran muffin I've ever had!"
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Baby Registry & Shower
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Incredible article from the Humanist
The Post-Theological Umbrella
by David Niose
Published in the Humanist, January/February 2008
Surely one of the biggest barriers keeping humanism from being a more prominent force in the United States is its nontheistic character. Two relevant surveys provide compelling proof that Americans just don't feel good about openly rejecting belief in a divinity:
The University of Minnesota results no doubt help to explain the results of the ARIS survey. That is, the fact that atheists are so vilified explains why only less than 1 percent of the population will identify as atheist, even though over 13 percent will identify as secular/nonreligious.
For humanist activists trying to advance their worldview in a culture that discourages open nontheism, there have traditionally been two ways of dealing with this issue. Some do so by trying to hide the nontheistic nature of humanism, avoiding discussion of nontheism with the hope that maybe nobody will notice it. This approach rarely works, however, because most discussions of humanism with nonhumanists inevitably result in the question: So are humanists atheists?
Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public's perception of the atheist identity. This is a worthy goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.
This question of atheism, and specifically how the public's poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: "When people ask me about atheism," she said, "I just tell them I consider myself post-theological."
How brilliant, I thought. Rather than discuss and debate the existence of God, she focuses attention on the concept of theology itself. She dismisses not God, but the entire notion of theology as an area of inquiry that is worthy of consideration. By calling herself post-theological, she isn't making the rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in her identity; she is pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality.
In fact, my friend's historical view of theology is accurate. Before humans reached the level of intelligence necessary for theological inquiry, our ancestors were in what might be called the "pre-theological" stage. Like other animals, our distant ancestors lacked the intelligence necessary to achieve theological thought. But at some point in our historical development humans became intelligent enough to ask deep questions about the world, such as: How did we get here? Who made this place? Why does the sun rise, and why does lightning strike? What happens to us when we die? These are big questions that can only be asked by an animal with remarkable intelligence.
Interestingly, though the human animal became smart enough to ask such deep questions, it wasn't smart enough to answer them accurately. And that's where theology came in. Lacking true scientific knowledge to answer these deep questions, humans instead speculated, inventing myths, superstitions, and tribal doctrines to provide answers. In doing so, they left the pre-theological stage and entered the theological stage of their development.
It's noteworthy that humans aren't the first animals to reach the theological stage. Scientists tell us that our older cousins, the Neanderthals, buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers. Hence, we can see that theological speculation is a natural stage in the development of extremely advanced animals.
It's also noteworthy that theology, once invented, had significant survival value as a human institution. That is, the religious rituals and beliefs of a clan or tribe became imbedded in its culture, helping to bind the in-group together and separate it from out-groups that had different beliefs and rituals. And as human organization and civilization changed, becoming more complex, theological concepts have been able to adapt and change as well, always serving numerous social and political purposes. This process continues even today.
From pre-theological to theological, the human species still faces another stage in its development. As it continues to acquire knowledge and understanding of the universe, the human animal finds that it is answering many of the deep questions that were once left to religious speculation--questions of universal origins, natural history, the development of life, and the explanation of natural phenomena. In fact, having filled many of the gaps in knowledge that were once explained by religion, and having confidence that the remaining gaps can be explained without religious superstition as well, some humans now conclude that the entire theological approach no longer has relevance. Such humans are reaching the post-theological stage.
From the standpoint of a humanist activist, it's important to recognize that the post-theological view is one that focuses on the big picture, not the singular issue of the existence or nonexistence of a divinity. In fact, the post-theological view can even acknowledge the psychological inclinations that are common in a still-theological society, where religious belief has traditionally been widespread. Since the vast majority of us grew up in households that were theological, we recognize that the transition from the theological mindset to the post-theological mindset isn't easily made, at a personal level or societal level.
Because of this recognition, and because the post-theological view is not one that must overtly attack the notion of God itself, the umbrella of post-theological identity can be a big one. As the 2001 ARIS survey showed, very few who were raised in our theologically inclined society will openly accept the "atheist" identity, even though over 13 percent will identify as not religious. But it's likely that many who aren't religious would gladly accept the term post-theological as a less threatening alternative.
In fact, one can even have a post-theological outlook while acknowledging a personal psychological tendency to sympathize with theistic notions. So long as one recognizes those notions for what they are--psychological leftovers from the recent past--one can associate with the post-theological movement without a feeling of inconsistency.
Open rejection of a divinity is very difficult for most Americans because "God" has personal characteristics that are often etched deeply into the psyche. To some who were raised in a religious environment, there can be a feeling that the concept of God, and even more specific concepts such as Jesus as the son of God and the Virgin Mary, are an integral part of one's being, making the direct rejection of them possible only for the most disciplined and rational.
But an indirect rejection, via the embrace of the post-theological way of thinking, is less personal and perhaps allows for the psychological wiggle room that many find necessary. If that's difficult to grasp, consider the following alternatives. It's relatively rare that one hears a typical American state: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself an atheist" because the label "atheist" is so scorned. But that same person saying: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself post-theological" might not be so hard to imagine.
The post-theological identity should be seen as an umbrella term, one that includes not only those who openly identify as atheist, agnostic, and humanist, but also many of those 13 percent, and possibly more, who are simply ambivalent and apathetic about religion. With these natural allies joined under the same umbrella, movement-building can only be made easier.
David Niose, a lawyer in Massachusetts, is a board member and the treasurer of the American Humanist Association and facilitator of Greater Worcester Humanists
by David Niose
Published in the Humanist, January/February 2008
Surely one of the biggest barriers keeping humanism from being a more prominent force in the United States is its nontheistic character. Two relevant surveys provide compelling proof that Americans just don't feel good about openly rejecting belief in a divinity:
A University of Minnesota survey in 2006 found atheists are the most distrusted and disliked minority group in the country.
An American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) from 2001 indicates that over 13 percent of the population identifies as secular/nonreligious, but only 1 percent identify as atheist, agnostic, or humanist.
The University of Minnesota results no doubt help to explain the results of the ARIS survey. That is, the fact that atheists are so vilified explains why only less than 1 percent of the population will identify as atheist, even though over 13 percent will identify as secular/nonreligious.
For humanist activists trying to advance their worldview in a culture that discourages open nontheism, there have traditionally been two ways of dealing with this issue. Some do so by trying to hide the nontheistic nature of humanism, avoiding discussion of nontheism with the hope that maybe nobody will notice it. This approach rarely works, however, because most discussions of humanism with nonhumanists inevitably result in the question: So are humanists atheists?
Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public's perception of the atheist identity. This is a worthy goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.
This question of atheism, and specifically how the public's poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: "When people ask me about atheism," she said, "I just tell them I consider myself post-theological."
How brilliant, I thought. Rather than discuss and debate the existence of God, she focuses attention on the concept of theology itself. She dismisses not God, but the entire notion of theology as an area of inquiry that is worthy of consideration. By calling herself post-theological, she isn't making the rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in her identity; she is pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality.
In fact, my friend's historical view of theology is accurate. Before humans reached the level of intelligence necessary for theological inquiry, our ancestors were in what might be called the "pre-theological" stage. Like other animals, our distant ancestors lacked the intelligence necessary to achieve theological thought. But at some point in our historical development humans became intelligent enough to ask deep questions about the world, such as: How did we get here? Who made this place? Why does the sun rise, and why does lightning strike? What happens to us when we die? These are big questions that can only be asked by an animal with remarkable intelligence.
Interestingly, though the human animal became smart enough to ask such deep questions, it wasn't smart enough to answer them accurately. And that's where theology came in. Lacking true scientific knowledge to answer these deep questions, humans instead speculated, inventing myths, superstitions, and tribal doctrines to provide answers. In doing so, they left the pre-theological stage and entered the theological stage of their development.
It's noteworthy that humans aren't the first animals to reach the theological stage. Scientists tell us that our older cousins, the Neanderthals, buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers. Hence, we can see that theological speculation is a natural stage in the development of extremely advanced animals.
It's also noteworthy that theology, once invented, had significant survival value as a human institution. That is, the religious rituals and beliefs of a clan or tribe became imbedded in its culture, helping to bind the in-group together and separate it from out-groups that had different beliefs and rituals. And as human organization and civilization changed, becoming more complex, theological concepts have been able to adapt and change as well, always serving numerous social and political purposes. This process continues even today.
From pre-theological to theological, the human species still faces another stage in its development. As it continues to acquire knowledge and understanding of the universe, the human animal finds that it is answering many of the deep questions that were once left to religious speculation--questions of universal origins, natural history, the development of life, and the explanation of natural phenomena. In fact, having filled many of the gaps in knowledge that were once explained by religion, and having confidence that the remaining gaps can be explained without religious superstition as well, some humans now conclude that the entire theological approach no longer has relevance. Such humans are reaching the post-theological stage.
From the standpoint of a humanist activist, it's important to recognize that the post-theological view is one that focuses on the big picture, not the singular issue of the existence or nonexistence of a divinity. In fact, the post-theological view can even acknowledge the psychological inclinations that are common in a still-theological society, where religious belief has traditionally been widespread. Since the vast majority of us grew up in households that were theological, we recognize that the transition from the theological mindset to the post-theological mindset isn't easily made, at a personal level or societal level.
Because of this recognition, and because the post-theological view is not one that must overtly attack the notion of God itself, the umbrella of post-theological identity can be a big one. As the 2001 ARIS survey showed, very few who were raised in our theologically inclined society will openly accept the "atheist" identity, even though over 13 percent will identify as not religious. But it's likely that many who aren't religious would gladly accept the term post-theological as a less threatening alternative.
In fact, one can even have a post-theological outlook while acknowledging a personal psychological tendency to sympathize with theistic notions. So long as one recognizes those notions for what they are--psychological leftovers from the recent past--one can associate with the post-theological movement without a feeling of inconsistency.
Open rejection of a divinity is very difficult for most Americans because "God" has personal characteristics that are often etched deeply into the psyche. To some who were raised in a religious environment, there can be a feeling that the concept of God, and even more specific concepts such as Jesus as the son of God and the Virgin Mary, are an integral part of one's being, making the direct rejection of them possible only for the most disciplined and rational.
But an indirect rejection, via the embrace of the post-theological way of thinking, is less personal and perhaps allows for the psychological wiggle room that many find necessary. If that's difficult to grasp, consider the following alternatives. It's relatively rare that one hears a typical American state: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself an atheist" because the label "atheist" is so scorned. But that same person saying: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself post-theological" might not be so hard to imagine.
The post-theological identity should be seen as an umbrella term, one that includes not only those who openly identify as atheist, agnostic, and humanist, but also many of those 13 percent, and possibly more, who are simply ambivalent and apathetic about religion. With these natural allies joined under the same umbrella, movement-building can only be made easier.
David Niose, a lawyer in Massachusetts, is a board member and the treasurer of the American Humanist Association and facilitator of Greater Worcester Humanists
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
