The Great White North indeed
Canada legalized same-sex marriage today.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Is "Religious Retardation" An Accurate Term? Or just Evangelical Loondom?
"If facts matter, then some certainty has been established about the case of Terri Schiavo: She was in a persistent vegetative state, she could neither see nor swallow, there was no reasonable hope for improvement, and her husband, Michael, had not abused her." (From an editorial in National Catholic Reporter)
Once, a few months ago, I felt ambivalent about letting Terry Schiavo "die." I even wondered whether it was indicative of a "culture of death." Not anymore. A combination of getting the historical facts of the case, listening to the science, and watching the loony hypocrites set me straght. Even if the history and science had been less certain than they are, the loonies would have made sustained rational support for their cause next to impossible. In this way, and in so many other ways, the loonies are the ushers of the true culture of death in America.
It's time for Jeb Bush and his ilk to leave Michael Schiavo the hell alone. This is beyond absurd. Having lost the court battle, having lost the science and medical battle, Bush is now initiating an investigation of impossible-to-prove charges that Shiavo acted with indifference towards his wife Terry. Bush is doing this in order to placate his loony Christian base. It's disgusting and inexcusable. There's no other way to describe it.
The statute of limitations means Schiavo likely can't be charged for anything even if something is trumped up. But of course, that's not the point. Jeb Bush will be able to face his assembly of loonies and say "brothers and sisters, at least I tried!"
One Christian blogger asks whether Christians owe an apology to Schiavo. It seems reasonable that they do, although some of the comments posted in response display the same moral retardation as Hannity, Frist, Randall Terry, et al.
Oh, and Mark Fuhrman! Yeah, he's become an advocate for Terry Schiavo's empty shell as well. Don't you love this country? You can be a brutal, racist, lying nutcase washed-up failure of a cop and still be a hero to the loonies.
I just don't get it. Most illicit drugs don't make you nearly as stupid, irresponsible, violent or destructive as Evangelical Loondom. Why regulate one and not the other?
"If facts matter, then some certainty has been established about the case of Terri Schiavo: She was in a persistent vegetative state, she could neither see nor swallow, there was no reasonable hope for improvement, and her husband, Michael, had not abused her." (From an editorial in National Catholic Reporter)
Once, a few months ago, I felt ambivalent about letting Terry Schiavo "die." I even wondered whether it was indicative of a "culture of death." Not anymore. A combination of getting the historical facts of the case, listening to the science, and watching the loony hypocrites set me straght. Even if the history and science had been less certain than they are, the loonies would have made sustained rational support for their cause next to impossible. In this way, and in so many other ways, the loonies are the ushers of the true culture of death in America.
It's time for Jeb Bush and his ilk to leave Michael Schiavo the hell alone. This is beyond absurd. Having lost the court battle, having lost the science and medical battle, Bush is now initiating an investigation of impossible-to-prove charges that Shiavo acted with indifference towards his wife Terry. Bush is doing this in order to placate his loony Christian base. It's disgusting and inexcusable. There's no other way to describe it.
The statute of limitations means Schiavo likely can't be charged for anything even if something is trumped up. But of course, that's not the point. Jeb Bush will be able to face his assembly of loonies and say "brothers and sisters, at least I tried!"
One Christian blogger asks whether Christians owe an apology to Schiavo. It seems reasonable that they do, although some of the comments posted in response display the same moral retardation as Hannity, Frist, Randall Terry, et al.
Oh, and Mark Fuhrman! Yeah, he's become an advocate for Terry Schiavo's empty shell as well. Don't you love this country? You can be a brutal, racist, lying nutcase washed-up failure of a cop and still be a hero to the loonies.
I just don't get it. Most illicit drugs don't make you nearly as stupid, irresponsible, violent or destructive as Evangelical Loondom. Why regulate one and not the other?
Monday, June 27, 2005
Poorness beyond identity politics...
Don't know if we've heard the last of this. The full story is here.
Don't know if we've heard the last of this. The full story is here.
An unemployed man and his wife set themselves on fire in front of Chile’s La Moneda presidential palace Thursday to protest their impoverished condition and the government’s failure to provide them with adequate assistance.
Vladimir Poblete, 39, and Ana Perez, 56, driven to desperation, took a bus to Plaza Constitucion in front of the palace in the morning. Wrapping themselves in a tattered Chilean flag, they doused themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire in front of startled onlookers and scores of police.
Engulfed in flames, they managed to reach the base of a statue of Chile’s former President Salvador Allende, who was murdered in the US-backed military coup of September 11, 1973.
Poblete was reported in grave condition Friday, having suffered severe damage to his lungs from breathing in fire and heat. He was being kept alive on a ventilation machine. His wife suffered burns to her face, neck and hands, but was expected to recover.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Is Persuasion Dead?
In response to Matt Miller's June 4 New York Times editorial on the death of persuasion, I recently composed these brief and incomplete thoughts:
In two years of research, and teaching of three graduate seminars related to this subject, I've come up with a list of possible factors in the "death" of civil political conversation. I don't agree with all of them, but here they are:
1. Demoralization of disenfranchized groups: they no longer see the point in gentlemanly petitioning of the powers-that-be. Their interpretation of history tells them that dialogue achieves very little, and that confrontation and the threat of institutional destabilization achieves a great deal more.
2. Distrust of institutional means of political discussion. After Cointelpro, various black bag jobs, political assassinations and coups in other countries, etc., we have seen too many instances of institutional power resorting to "extra-persuasive" or "extra-discursive" means of crushing disagreement or alternative politics.
3. The guise of civility: As Robert Scott and Donald Smith wrote over 30 years ago, a rhetorical theory suitable to our age must account for the fact that civility and decorum often act as masks for the preservation of injustice. (I'm paraphrasing here, but their quote is virtually the same). Miller's call for more persuasive communication seems at best quaint and at worst blind to how standards of "politeness" seem to cover up systemic and ideological hegemony, and often great brutality. People blame journalists or activists for being "divisive" when they point out the corrupt, immoral, "divisive" actions of officials, etc.
4. The decline of "fairness doctrine"-based attempts to provide balance in the media. I'm NOT saying the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea (although this essay argues it was. But the decline of concern over genuine pluralist balance has been part and parcel of media consolodation.
5. The fact that ideas and conversations are basically contextualized by material relations, which means that in a world of growing antagonisms between and among social classes, nobody should be surprised that few people attempt to persuade others in different classes or perspectives.
6. Society's growing religious intolerance and the growth in popularity of totalistic religious dogma. When your religion has all the answers, it's difficult to accept other people's questions. When your religion has all the answers and eternity hangs in the balance, questioning those answers is, by definition, counterproductive, threatening, and destructive.
7. Brutal is as brutal does: Is it any surprise our young people (and even their parents) turn to violence as solutions to disagreements, etc., when (a) that's what our country does, and (b) that's what talk radio does, because it sells?
Just some ideas as to why "persuasion" is dying. I think the communication/rhetoric discipline has been slow to realize the way in which external and foundational factors contextualize and limit the utility of "pure persuasion," but I think those scholars who realize that we no longer live in Aristotle's world (if we ever did) will find some useful, if somewhat depressing things to say.
In response to Matt Miller's June 4 New York Times editorial on the death of persuasion, I recently composed these brief and incomplete thoughts:
In two years of research, and teaching of three graduate seminars related to this subject, I've come up with a list of possible factors in the "death" of civil political conversation. I don't agree with all of them, but here they are:
1. Demoralization of disenfranchized groups: they no longer see the point in gentlemanly petitioning of the powers-that-be. Their interpretation of history tells them that dialogue achieves very little, and that confrontation and the threat of institutional destabilization achieves a great deal more.
2. Distrust of institutional means of political discussion. After Cointelpro, various black bag jobs, political assassinations and coups in other countries, etc., we have seen too many instances of institutional power resorting to "extra-persuasive" or "extra-discursive" means of crushing disagreement or alternative politics.
3. The guise of civility: As Robert Scott and Donald Smith wrote over 30 years ago, a rhetorical theory suitable to our age must account for the fact that civility and decorum often act as masks for the preservation of injustice. (I'm paraphrasing here, but their quote is virtually the same). Miller's call for more persuasive communication seems at best quaint and at worst blind to how standards of "politeness" seem to cover up systemic and ideological hegemony, and often great brutality. People blame journalists or activists for being "divisive" when they point out the corrupt, immoral, "divisive" actions of officials, etc.
4. The decline of "fairness doctrine"-based attempts to provide balance in the media. I'm NOT saying the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea (although this essay argues it was. But the decline of concern over genuine pluralist balance has been part and parcel of media consolodation.
5. The fact that ideas and conversations are basically contextualized by material relations, which means that in a world of growing antagonisms between and among social classes, nobody should be surprised that few people attempt to persuade others in different classes or perspectives.
6. Society's growing religious intolerance and the growth in popularity of totalistic religious dogma. When your religion has all the answers, it's difficult to accept other people's questions. When your religion has all the answers and eternity hangs in the balance, questioning those answers is, by definition, counterproductive, threatening, and destructive.
7. Brutal is as brutal does: Is it any surprise our young people (and even their parents) turn to violence as solutions to disagreements, etc., when (a) that's what our country does, and (b) that's what talk radio does, because it sells?
Just some ideas as to why "persuasion" is dying. I think the communication/rhetoric discipline has been slow to realize the way in which external and foundational factors contextualize and limit the utility of "pure persuasion," but I think those scholars who realize that we no longer live in Aristotle's world (if we ever did) will find some useful, if somewhat depressing things to say.
Monday, June 20, 2005
In recognition of a very important issue, I'm letting my friend Shea Donato post today's Underview blog. Thanks, Shea, for the work you are doing on Bibi's plight.
Mukhtaran Bibi
The BBC has reported another incident in the long list of tragedies inflicted upon Mukhtaran Bibi (also known as Mukhtar Mai in the media) by the Pakistani government. For those who are unfamiliar with Bibi, she made international headlines a while back thanks to Nicholas Kristof who reported her gang rape ordered by her village's tribal council. In Kristof's initial story (done in the fall of 2004), he detailed how it is customary for Pakistani women sentenced to such punishment to commit suicide afterwards. However, Bibi did not commit suicide. Instead, she opened up a trauma center for women in Pakistan, which is funded by donations worldwide that poured in after her story rocked the world. Kristof wrote about how an unofficial group of assassins had Bibi in their sights, yet she continues to run the trauma center. The courage of this woman is not difficult for anyone to see, and her story has inspired women all over the Third World. Bibi's efforts are only a single instance of women empowering themselves in the Third World, yet they have given hope to women all over the Third World.
Not only did she have the courage to continue living in a culture that told her she should be dead, but with the support of a local Islamic leader, she also testified against her attackers, and helped to convict six of them. Unfortunately, her attackers were set free and now Bibi is dealing with an entirely new roadblock set in her path by the government.
Today, Bibi continues to be harassed by the council that condemned her to be gang raped. The same government that has faced international condemnation by people all over the world who were both shocked and horrified by the story has made attempts to block Bibi's movement out of (and in) Pakistan. Bibi applied for a US visa and was "pressured" by the Pakistani government to pass on the invitation to come into the US...whatever that means. The BBC further reports that Bibi has complained of a "virtual house arrest" and Musharraf's government has gone into overdrive trying to enact public relations damage control on his government's image. He is currently touring Australia and New Zealand, and according to some journalists, his supporters claim that "heads will roll" once he gets back and deals with the elements in his
government that have caused Bibi's further dehumanization. However, that remains to be seen. Given the history of the government's apathy towards Bibi's situation, it is difficult to accept its newfound "interest" as anything sincere.
Amnesty International has now jumped all over this story, and will probably be developing possible methods for people like you and me to help out. The biggest question for those of us sitting here reading all of the coverage of this story is what can we do to help? One of the easiest ways to help Bibi is to donate money to her trauma center in Pakistan. Nicholas Kristof has listed several sources through which you can donate money.
I suggest the Mercy Corps because they are taking a very active role not only in Bibi's quality of life, but for the quality of life for all women in Pakistan. Mercy Corps has also been named one of America's best charities, and is certainly a worthy charity to donate a bit of your money to. This is all in the link I provided, but for a quick rundown of the general donation process:
* Over 91% of the money you donate goes to the humanitarian relief.
* Every dollar you give helps them secure $16.51 in donated food
and other supplies.
* It allows you to donate to a specific cause or just generally
where it's most needed.
* Online donations are very safe and secure
In Bibi's particular case, they give an address directly on the website where you can send a check or money order as a donation to this cause. That address is:
Mercy Corps
Mukhtaran Bibi Fund
Dept. W
PO Box 2669
Portland, OR 97208-2669
You can also donate online if you wish. Either way, your money will make it to Mukhtaran Bibi, and will be used to support this very important cause.
Please take a bit of time out of your day and a little bit of money from your checking account for this cause. This isn't just for Mukhtaran Bibi. It is for the women of Pakistan as well. It is for the women in the Third World who are dehumanized, raped, beaten, murdered, ostracized, and oppressed every single day. Every day women all over the world are forced to endure the worst atrocities imaginable in silence. Mukhtaran Bibi chose to defy that fate, and every woman in
the Third World deserves the chance to do so as well. She is a symbol to all the women in the Third World who wish to live a better life than the one they currently have. Supporting Bibi is supporting all women of the Third World and their wishes to no longer live in silence. Please help with this cause.
Shea Donato
Mukhtaran Bibi
The BBC has reported another incident in the long list of tragedies inflicted upon Mukhtaran Bibi (also known as Mukhtar Mai in the media) by the Pakistani government. For those who are unfamiliar with Bibi, she made international headlines a while back thanks to Nicholas Kristof who reported her gang rape ordered by her village's tribal council. In Kristof's initial story (done in the fall of 2004), he detailed how it is customary for Pakistani women sentenced to such punishment to commit suicide afterwards. However, Bibi did not commit suicide. Instead, she opened up a trauma center for women in Pakistan, which is funded by donations worldwide that poured in after her story rocked the world. Kristof wrote about how an unofficial group of assassins had Bibi in their sights, yet she continues to run the trauma center. The courage of this woman is not difficult for anyone to see, and her story has inspired women all over the Third World. Bibi's efforts are only a single instance of women empowering themselves in the Third World, yet they have given hope to women all over the Third World.
Not only did she have the courage to continue living in a culture that told her she should be dead, but with the support of a local Islamic leader, she also testified against her attackers, and helped to convict six of them. Unfortunately, her attackers were set free and now Bibi is dealing with an entirely new roadblock set in her path by the government.
Today, Bibi continues to be harassed by the council that condemned her to be gang raped. The same government that has faced international condemnation by people all over the world who were both shocked and horrified by the story has made attempts to block Bibi's movement out of (and in) Pakistan. Bibi applied for a US visa and was "pressured" by the Pakistani government to pass on the invitation to come into the US...whatever that means. The BBC further reports that Bibi has complained of a "virtual house arrest" and Musharraf's government has gone into overdrive trying to enact public relations damage control on his government's image. He is currently touring Australia and New Zealand, and according to some journalists, his supporters claim that "heads will roll" once he gets back and deals with the elements in his
government that have caused Bibi's further dehumanization. However, that remains to be seen. Given the history of the government's apathy towards Bibi's situation, it is difficult to accept its newfound "interest" as anything sincere.
Amnesty International has now jumped all over this story, and will probably be developing possible methods for people like you and me to help out. The biggest question for those of us sitting here reading all of the coverage of this story is what can we do to help? One of the easiest ways to help Bibi is to donate money to her trauma center in Pakistan. Nicholas Kristof has listed several sources through which you can donate money.
I suggest the Mercy Corps because they are taking a very active role not only in Bibi's quality of life, but for the quality of life for all women in Pakistan. Mercy Corps has also been named one of America's best charities, and is certainly a worthy charity to donate a bit of your money to. This is all in the link I provided, but for a quick rundown of the general donation process:
* Over 91% of the money you donate goes to the humanitarian relief.
* Every dollar you give helps them secure $16.51 in donated food
and other supplies.
* It allows you to donate to a specific cause or just generally
where it's most needed.
* Online donations are very safe and secure
In Bibi's particular case, they give an address directly on the website where you can send a check or money order as a donation to this cause. That address is:
Mercy Corps
Mukhtaran Bibi Fund
Dept. W
PO Box 2669
Portland, OR 97208-2669
You can also donate online if you wish. Either way, your money will make it to Mukhtaran Bibi, and will be used to support this very important cause.
Please take a bit of time out of your day and a little bit of money from your checking account for this cause. This isn't just for Mukhtaran Bibi. It is for the women of Pakistan as well. It is for the women in the Third World who are dehumanized, raped, beaten, murdered, ostracized, and oppressed every single day. Every day women all over the world are forced to endure the worst atrocities imaginable in silence. Mukhtaran Bibi chose to defy that fate, and every woman in
the Third World deserves the chance to do so as well. She is a symbol to all the women in the Third World who wish to live a better life than the one they currently have. Supporting Bibi is supporting all women of the Third World and their wishes to no longer live in silence. Please help with this cause.
Shea Donato
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Great News for Voting Rights
Iowa will restore voting rights for ex-felons. Read the story here.
Mark Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project and author of Race to Incarcerate, has a compelling article on the subject here.
This is a topic that is germaine to a larger discussion about the prison industrial complex. At a time when we are incarcerating people at a higher rate than ever before, and those who are incaracerated tend to be among the most disenfranchised members of society, the political benefits of voter disenfranchisement to ruling class politics are obvious. The prison industrial complex is part and parcel of the "new global economy."
Three years ago, I was introduced to the Prison Moratorium Project through an incredible hip hop CD called No More Prisons.
Sites about No More Prisons (book and CD) and the Prison Moratorium Project:
http://www.nomoreprisons.org/
http://www.nomoreprisons.net/
http://www.horizonmag.com/3/no-more-prisons.asp
http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2000/2000-4-21-1.49PM.html
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/18/18018.html
http://www.backbonecampaign.org/Blog.cfm?ID=56
http://www.prisonactivist.org/
http://www.prisonactivist.org/pmp/
http://www.exodusnews.com/Books/Review023.htm
http://www.criticalresistance.org/index.php?name=links
Mr. Politician, tell me who you represent?
He says I represent big industry cause they're the ones that pay my rent
Why should I back a poor community that's mostly black?
When it's a fact, I need some cash to get elected back
The bank account of the prison is the account that's feeding mine.
They need more prisoner's to make more money
So I invent another crime
Or increase the penalties for crimes that already exist
The public will love me for it as I put handcuffs on their kids
But don't blame me because the ship's about to sink
Blame the media and yourself for letting them tell you how to think
If you say that you're not influenced than your lying through your teeth
You're frightened by the cover but don't know what's underneath
Can't drive through the ghetto cause it makes you feel unsafe
When your block gets too dark you move to another place
Better think of something cause there is no place to hide
It will affect us all it's just a matter of time
Lock'em up cause it only brings us money
63% incarcerated by 2020
Little rich kid, he got caught and paid a fine
While the poor black youth got himself a 3 to 5
No more room? Well than I'll build another prison
Create another job get re-elected to my position
The war on drugs if you read between the lines
Is a way to enslave people for non-violent crimes
Abolish slavery? Fuck that, we'll reinvent it
There's crack in the black community so why should we prevent it?
Instead we'll just arrest them try to keep them all unskilled
We just built a brand new prison and the beds have to be filled
This industry is growing fast we're going to make some money
63% in the year 2020, of all black men age 18 to 34
Will be incarcerated, spend their life behind a cell block door
But wait there's more
We'll cut the budget's of all the programs that were designed
to help the poor cause we don't love them no more
Not like we ever did. Locking up our Native Americans
Puerto Ricans, Asians don't forget about the Mexicans
If you're poor and white well then we'll get you too
It will help us hide our racism make it harder for you to sue
So go ahead, speak out. Maybe you'll find someone who listens
Want to change the world? Well why not start with
NO MORE PRISONS
("No More Prisons" by the Lunchbox Superheroes)
Iowa will restore voting rights for ex-felons. Read the story here.
Mark Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project and author of Race to Incarcerate, has a compelling article on the subject here.
This is a topic that is germaine to a larger discussion about the prison industrial complex. At a time when we are incarcerating people at a higher rate than ever before, and those who are incaracerated tend to be among the most disenfranchised members of society, the political benefits of voter disenfranchisement to ruling class politics are obvious. The prison industrial complex is part and parcel of the "new global economy."
Three years ago, I was introduced to the Prison Moratorium Project through an incredible hip hop CD called No More Prisons.
Sites about No More Prisons (book and CD) and the Prison Moratorium Project:
http://www.nomoreprisons.org/
http://www.nomoreprisons.net/
http://www.horizonmag.com/3/no-more-prisons.asp
http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2000/2000-4-21-1.49PM.html
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/18/18018.html
http://www.backbonecampaign.org/Blog.cfm?ID=56
http://www.prisonactivist.org/
http://www.prisonactivist.org/pmp/
http://www.exodusnews.com/Books/Review023.htm
http://www.criticalresistance.org/index.php?name=links
Mr. Politician, tell me who you represent?
He says I represent big industry cause they're the ones that pay my rent
Why should I back a poor community that's mostly black?
When it's a fact, I need some cash to get elected back
The bank account of the prison is the account that's feeding mine.
They need more prisoner's to make more money
So I invent another crime
Or increase the penalties for crimes that already exist
The public will love me for it as I put handcuffs on their kids
But don't blame me because the ship's about to sink
Blame the media and yourself for letting them tell you how to think
If you say that you're not influenced than your lying through your teeth
You're frightened by the cover but don't know what's underneath
Can't drive through the ghetto cause it makes you feel unsafe
When your block gets too dark you move to another place
Better think of something cause there is no place to hide
It will affect us all it's just a matter of time
Lock'em up cause it only brings us money
63% incarcerated by 2020
Little rich kid, he got caught and paid a fine
While the poor black youth got himself a 3 to 5
No more room? Well than I'll build another prison
Create another job get re-elected to my position
The war on drugs if you read between the lines
Is a way to enslave people for non-violent crimes
Abolish slavery? Fuck that, we'll reinvent it
There's crack in the black community so why should we prevent it?
Instead we'll just arrest them try to keep them all unskilled
We just built a brand new prison and the beds have to be filled
This industry is growing fast we're going to make some money
63% in the year 2020, of all black men age 18 to 34
Will be incarcerated, spend their life behind a cell block door
But wait there's more
We'll cut the budget's of all the programs that were designed
to help the poor cause we don't love them no more
Not like we ever did. Locking up our Native Americans
Puerto Ricans, Asians don't forget about the Mexicans
If you're poor and white well then we'll get you too
It will help us hide our racism make it harder for you to sue
So go ahead, speak out. Maybe you'll find someone who listens
Want to change the world? Well why not start with
NO MORE PRISONS
("No More Prisons" by the Lunchbox Superheroes)
Monday, June 06, 2005
"Team Jesus Christ"
Sheesh, I can't seem to shake this theme lately. Nick's comment on my last post was, essentially, "how is this part of some kind of significant trend?"
Maybe this story provides a little more of a representative example...induction is a tough thing, you know...
Sheesh, I can't seem to shake this theme lately. Nick's comment on my last post was, essentially, "how is this part of some kind of significant trend?"
Maybe this story provides a little more of a representative example...induction is a tough thing, you know...
THE REPORTS OF the religious climate at the Air Force Academy are unsettling: A chaplain instructs cadets to try to convert classmates by warning that they "will burn in the fires of hell" if they do not accept Christ...freshman cadets who decline to attend after-dinner chapel are marched back to their dormitories in "heathen flights" organized by upperclassmen. A Jewish student is taunted as a Christ killer and told that the Holocaust was the just punishment for that offense. The academy's head football coach posts a banner in the locker room that proclaims, "I am a Christian first and last. . . . I am a member of Team Jesus Christ."...critics say the response was belated and grudging, treating the problem as one of a few instances of insensitivity by out-of-line cadets rather than, as they see it, a broader culture of intolerance fostered from the top down...Cadets need to know that they can serve the Air Force, and their country, even if they haven't signed up for Team Jesus Christ.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Right Wing Religious Barbarism Update
It was never my intent to keep posting on this subject. Even after election '04, concern about religion and politics was about #24 on my list. But this is another painfully clear illustration of where we are right now:
It was never my intent to keep posting on this subject. Even after election '04, concern about religion and politics was about #24 on my list. But this is another painfully clear illustration of where we are right now:
On May 10, the Sheriff of Hamilton County, Ohio—which includes Cincinnati—delivered a fascistic tirade against “the forces of moral corruption,” at a public rally in the heart of the city’s downtown district. According to Sheriff Simon Leis, Jr., Cincinnati and police departments across the US are engaged in a battle against Satan and his minions—i.e., “liberal judges,” “atheists,” homosexuals, “feminists” and “liberals.”
...Leis denounced “proselytizing parasitic groups” like “gay and lesbian coalitions, rabid feminist groups, and the American Civil Liberties Union.” ...called on the return of “God and the Ten Commandments back [into] our schools and the workplace” to address America’s social problems.
...Leis’s speech ranged from alarmist and wildly inaccurate claims (such as, “Depression among children is up 1000 percent”) to outlandish theories whose cause-and-effect correlations collapse under the most minimal reflection (like blaming Supreme Court decisions “made in the 60s” for the spread of AIDS). ...The City Beat article interviewed Jay Twomey, a University of Cincinnati professor in the English department who teaches “Bible as Literature,” as well as other courses. Dr. Twomey discovered during his research that Sheriff Leis apparently plagiarized the bulk of his speech, lifting such lines as “satanic pestilence,” “rabid feminists,” and “perversion of the Internet” from a rant given by former Sheriff John McDougal of Lee County, Florida. ...
[Sheriff McDougal’s speech can be found online here: http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/9517/sheriff.htm.]...
Monday, May 30, 2005
Class, Political Orientation, and France's Rejection of the EU Constitution
The most relevant paragraph from Peter Schwarz's report on the French referendum:
The most relevant paragraph from Peter Schwarz's report on the French referendum:
According to one poll, three quarters of all wage workers, two thirds of all employees, and the majority of farmers voted “no,” while executives and academics generally voted “yes.” More than 80 percent of the supporters of the government parties (Chirac’s UMP and the “free market” liberal Union for the French Democracy—UDF) voted for the constitution, while a majority of Socialist Party and Green supporters voted “no,” in defiance of the recommendations of their respective party leaders.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
cleaning out the memory hole
IN FACT, in 2002, an FBI agent did write a memo claiming American interrogators flushed a Koran down the toilet during an interrogation in Guantanamo. The Pentagon denies the credibility of the memo. Newsweek retracted its story not because the story had been demonstrated to be false, but because the seriousness of that specific charge warranted greater verification. Neither Newsweek nor any of the "liberal" American media would ever doubt, or refuse to run, allegations of atrocities by nations designated as rivals or enemies of the United States. Such a level of scrutiny and contriteness is afforded only to the Patron.
I PREDICTED THE SPURS AND THE PISTONS in the NBA final. We'll see what happens. It seems safe to assume the Spurs at least. As a lifelong Utah Jazz fan, I know all too well how badly they beat ya.
THERE'S A THREAD going on about religion on a small listserve I'm on, and there's also this thread going on between me, Trond and Scott on a couple of the Underview posts below this one. The listserve conversation, portions of which I hope Russell will post or digest on his blog, was sparked by the death of Paul Ricoeur, but has evolved into a discussion about the validity of religious experience and the reasonableness of faith. The latter subject is what Trond, Scott and I are hashing out on this blog. It occurred to me that it's been a long time since I have really explained my views on religion, even to myself. In a way, it's scary to do so publicly because so many different people "credential" you on your acceptance or rejection of religious faith, the way you represent religion as a whole, the willingness you have to suspend judgment--especially on political matters--and embrace an essentially unverifiable faith. For now, it's easiest for me to say, echoing Unitarian Universalism, that I believe in covenants, not creeds. But I know that's inadequate, and at some point I'll have to be more specific. I'll just add this: No religious institution or community is exempt from the same critique of institutions, and their location in political economy, that I level at every other institution, and if I had my way, those institutions (albeit not necessarily their creeds) would be regulated--Just as we regulate toxic chemical industries, food, drugs and porn.
IN FACT, in 2002, an FBI agent did write a memo claiming American interrogators flushed a Koran down the toilet during an interrogation in Guantanamo. The Pentagon denies the credibility of the memo. Newsweek retracted its story not because the story had been demonstrated to be false, but because the seriousness of that specific charge warranted greater verification. Neither Newsweek nor any of the "liberal" American media would ever doubt, or refuse to run, allegations of atrocities by nations designated as rivals or enemies of the United States. Such a level of scrutiny and contriteness is afforded only to the Patron.
I PREDICTED THE SPURS AND THE PISTONS in the NBA final. We'll see what happens. It seems safe to assume the Spurs at least. As a lifelong Utah Jazz fan, I know all too well how badly they beat ya.
THERE'S A THREAD going on about religion on a small listserve I'm on, and there's also this thread going on between me, Trond and Scott on a couple of the Underview posts below this one. The listserve conversation, portions of which I hope Russell will post or digest on his blog, was sparked by the death of Paul Ricoeur, but has evolved into a discussion about the validity of religious experience and the reasonableness of faith. The latter subject is what Trond, Scott and I are hashing out on this blog. It occurred to me that it's been a long time since I have really explained my views on religion, even to myself. In a way, it's scary to do so publicly because so many different people "credential" you on your acceptance or rejection of religious faith, the way you represent religion as a whole, the willingness you have to suspend judgment--especially on political matters--and embrace an essentially unverifiable faith. For now, it's easiest for me to say, echoing Unitarian Universalism, that I believe in covenants, not creeds. But I know that's inadequate, and at some point I'll have to be more specific. I'll just add this: No religious institution or community is exempt from the same critique of institutions, and their location in political economy, that I level at every other institution, and if I had my way, those institutions (albeit not necessarily their creeds) would be regulated--Just as we regulate toxic chemical industries, food, drugs and porn.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Progressives and Religion: Response to a Response
My friend Trond Jacobsen has always been more tough-minded than me, and his eloquence makes his forcefulness go down easier. But in this instance, it is my turn to be tough-minded, in insisting that we not set up such rigid dichotomies between science and faith. Neither history or politics compels us to do so, and the false consciousness he attacks is the result of what particular religious institutions do in particular historical circumstances, due to particular social contradictions.
The reason those revolutionary priests in Nicaragua made such decisive contributions to their communities, the reason their contributions outweighed those of orthodox Marxists or other progressives in the United States (by and large, at least) is that what they did had more social weight; to use a rather worrisome term, they were in the thick of history. Circumstances existed where they could rationally, and passionately, choose a practical convergence of faith and method, acknowledging humanity's objective circumstances as well as subjective, problematic yearnings.
Maybe all spirituality is just bunk. Maybe it's all just a bad bit of cheese we ate the night before, as Scrooge said. Maybe it's false consciousness explained away by a radical anthropology. If that's the case, I can only answer:
1-that it will not go away just because a few people are brave enough to declare themselves atheists;
2-that that same irrational faith will and does make its way into the science of atheists, even some self-identified Marxists (it will go underneath their consciousness and take a different, and if history is any guide, possibly nefarious form);
3-that religion, superstition, spiritualism, what have you will possibly, then, go away when we reach a particular state of emancipatory development, but in the meantime, see #1.
Trond argues that humanist religions are weak-willed religions that, while not being oppressive per se, are distractions whose contributions to progressive politics are "exogenous to their more metaphysical assumptions." Of course, in the very rational language of academic debate, his argument is pure defense. These "softline" religions don't make things even remotely worse, and in quite many instances make things better, sometimes in spite of their adherents' faith, and (whether we socialist eggheads want to admit it or not) sometimes because of it.
But beyond that, I'm not sure what type of spiritual community he's attacking. I can only speak for my own experience among them, but Unitarians and Universalists are far from "crystal sniffers." A UU fellowship might not turn a crystal sniffer away, but you can be sure the sniffer would get a good dose of rational criticism, a lot of questions, and along the way, a social conscience and lots of training in social action. It's far more likely that, in the midst of this religious rationality, the sniffer would discover that crystal sniffing isn't all that useful, that it's a rather shallow kind of fetishization, and that there are more constructive (and probably less expensive) ways to access one's subjective yearnings.
I fully agree that humanity, life in general, cannot survive without a huge dose of science. My disagreement comes in my holding that the wholesale abandonment of faith is itself irrational and, I would think, unscientific. This is not only because for the past hundred years, the parameters and rules of science have expanded to include hitherto excluded elements of subjectivity, uncertainty, and (in praise of Douglas Adams) infinite improbability, although these shifts are important. More than this, it is because I am unconvinced that something as intrinsic to human consciousness as mystical, ineffable connectivity is really the cause of the kind of paralysis and oppressive apologia Trond rightly laments.
If Che Guervara, who certainly proved capable of killing when he held it necessary, can say in all earnestness that the revolutionary is motivated by great feelings of love, I can reasonably hold that spirituality, far from being the inevitable handmaiden of oppressive religion, can motivate us to do great things, very rational things. You won't find too many people out there with stronger feelings than mine about the separation of church and state or people's responsibility to check their metaphysics at the door before participating in political life. And I would not exempt any religious hierarchy from the materialist criticism I apply to all social hierarchy. But ultimately, religion should belong to the people. That doesn't preclude criticizing it, scrapping it, changing it, making fun of it, forcing it to be accountable to rational human conduct. It just means I'm not going to talk about abolishing it. That's a decision the children of the revolution can make. Maybe they won't need to. As Engels said in the context of whether a socialist society would choose to limit population growth: Leave it up to them. They will presumably be at least as smart as we are.
The truest statement in his reply is that "faith and religious and metaphysics function in the current social order in a net regressive fashion." I can't help but think this betrays an acknowledgment, however grudging, that this question is much more about the social order than "religion." I think we have a better chance of turning people away from brutal and hateful (or socially regressive) enactment of their religious beliefs by acknowledging the sublime than by sneering at it.
My friend Trond Jacobsen has always been more tough-minded than me, and his eloquence makes his forcefulness go down easier. But in this instance, it is my turn to be tough-minded, in insisting that we not set up such rigid dichotomies between science and faith. Neither history or politics compels us to do so, and the false consciousness he attacks is the result of what particular religious institutions do in particular historical circumstances, due to particular social contradictions.
The reason those revolutionary priests in Nicaragua made such decisive contributions to their communities, the reason their contributions outweighed those of orthodox Marxists or other progressives in the United States (by and large, at least) is that what they did had more social weight; to use a rather worrisome term, they were in the thick of history. Circumstances existed where they could rationally, and passionately, choose a practical convergence of faith and method, acknowledging humanity's objective circumstances as well as subjective, problematic yearnings.
Maybe all spirituality is just bunk. Maybe it's all just a bad bit of cheese we ate the night before, as Scrooge said. Maybe it's false consciousness explained away by a radical anthropology. If that's the case, I can only answer:
1-that it will not go away just because a few people are brave enough to declare themselves atheists;
2-that that same irrational faith will and does make its way into the science of atheists, even some self-identified Marxists (it will go underneath their consciousness and take a different, and if history is any guide, possibly nefarious form);
3-that religion, superstition, spiritualism, what have you will possibly, then, go away when we reach a particular state of emancipatory development, but in the meantime, see #1.
Trond argues that humanist religions are weak-willed religions that, while not being oppressive per se, are distractions whose contributions to progressive politics are "exogenous to their more metaphysical assumptions." Of course, in the very rational language of academic debate, his argument is pure defense. These "softline" religions don't make things even remotely worse, and in quite many instances make things better, sometimes in spite of their adherents' faith, and (whether we socialist eggheads want to admit it or not) sometimes because of it.
But beyond that, I'm not sure what type of spiritual community he's attacking. I can only speak for my own experience among them, but Unitarians and Universalists are far from "crystal sniffers." A UU fellowship might not turn a crystal sniffer away, but you can be sure the sniffer would get a good dose of rational criticism, a lot of questions, and along the way, a social conscience and lots of training in social action. It's far more likely that, in the midst of this religious rationality, the sniffer would discover that crystal sniffing isn't all that useful, that it's a rather shallow kind of fetishization, and that there are more constructive (and probably less expensive) ways to access one's subjective yearnings.
I fully agree that humanity, life in general, cannot survive without a huge dose of science. My disagreement comes in my holding that the wholesale abandonment of faith is itself irrational and, I would think, unscientific. This is not only because for the past hundred years, the parameters and rules of science have expanded to include hitherto excluded elements of subjectivity, uncertainty, and (in praise of Douglas Adams) infinite improbability, although these shifts are important. More than this, it is because I am unconvinced that something as intrinsic to human consciousness as mystical, ineffable connectivity is really the cause of the kind of paralysis and oppressive apologia Trond rightly laments.
If Che Guervara, who certainly proved capable of killing when he held it necessary, can say in all earnestness that the revolutionary is motivated by great feelings of love, I can reasonably hold that spirituality, far from being the inevitable handmaiden of oppressive religion, can motivate us to do great things, very rational things. You won't find too many people out there with stronger feelings than mine about the separation of church and state or people's responsibility to check their metaphysics at the door before participating in political life. And I would not exempt any religious hierarchy from the materialist criticism I apply to all social hierarchy. But ultimately, religion should belong to the people. That doesn't preclude criticizing it, scrapping it, changing it, making fun of it, forcing it to be accountable to rational human conduct. It just means I'm not going to talk about abolishing it. That's a decision the children of the revolution can make. Maybe they won't need to. As Engels said in the context of whether a socialist society would choose to limit population growth: Leave it up to them. They will presumably be at least as smart as we are.
The truest statement in his reply is that "faith and religious and metaphysics function in the current social order in a net regressive fashion." I can't help but think this betrays an acknowledgment, however grudging, that this question is much more about the social order than "religion." I think we have a better chance of turning people away from brutal and hateful (or socially regressive) enactment of their religious beliefs by acknowledging the sublime than by sneering at it.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
More on Islamo-Fascism
From the English version of Der Spiegel comes this disturbing March 2 article:
"In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity. How can such a horrific and shockingly archaic practice be flourishing in the heart of Europe? The deaths have sparked momentary outrage, but will they change the grim reality for Muslim women?"
Read the entire article here.
And here are some some anti-violence groups from a variety of religious perspectives:
Sikh Women
Muslim Peace Fellowship
Christians and Muslims for Peace
Just Peace
Global Peace Works, for peace among differing religions
Council for a Parliament of World Religions
Center for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict
From the English version of Der Spiegel comes this disturbing March 2 article:
"In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity. How can such a horrific and shockingly archaic practice be flourishing in the heart of Europe? The deaths have sparked momentary outrage, but will they change the grim reality for Muslim women?"
Read the entire article here.
And here are some some anti-violence groups from a variety of religious perspectives:
Sikh Women
Muslim Peace Fellowship
Christians and Muslims for Peace
Just Peace
Global Peace Works, for peace among differing religions
Council for a Parliament of World Religions
Center for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
