Why We Shouldn't Forget Our Past

This is in reference to recent posts by PeaceBang and Never Say Never to Your Traveling Self

Hafida Sofia of the latter blog prosed the question of why a Unitarian need ever care about Christianity. This was my response on the comments and I've added some more to fully flesh this out to a full post.

I think that to have a good understanding of where Unitarians came from, one ought to have a good grounding in Christian thought.

I draw an analogy to music. I’m a musician, and unless I’d taken the time to do the historical research into what had transpired before me, I know I wouldn’t nearly have had the skill and the originality to make a new contribution to the art that wasn’t hackneyed and totally cliche.

That’s what I find true with today’s music–it has no appreciation for the classics and relies on too few primary sources and far too many secondary sources.

That, in a nutshell, is why I believe it’s important for every Unitarian to have a thorough grounding in Christianity. The best artists, the best poets, the best theologians are the ones who take the time to examine as many different sources as possible and by doing so, form a brand new sound/genre/theory that although it is once indebted to its sources, but so multifaceted that it proves itself to be brand new, fresh, and ultimately relevant for a great long while.

Both Christianity and Unitarianism strike to find the best ways to stay relevant in today's 21st century world where most people are largely un-churched and increasingly cynical towards any sort of organized religion. Where I draw the line between Unitarianism and Christianity is that Unitarianism seeks to use the scientific process to improve itself to the point that real perfection can be reached. As I've said before, I feel that is highly unrealistic. The Liberal Christianity I ascribe to seeks to touch the lives of many people who are thirsting and searching, with the full understanding that there is no real perfection and it's unrealistic to think otherwise.

A Brief Note of Caution

I can now say that I know someone who has been the victim of identity theft: Me. At some point yesterday night, someone rang up nearly $250 worth of charges on my credit card without my permission.

Within the past two days, my MySpace account has been hacked into twice. I was asked to change my password once and I foolishly used part of my PIN number as one of the new passwords and my theory is that someone used that information to ring up those charges. My new password is so esoteric that I doubt anyone could figure it out.

I had to go to the bank today and fill out about ten forms. I do intend to press charges as well if law enforcement and/or the bank can find out exactly who used my card to run up these charges. A major inconvenience in itself, this is further complicated by the fact that it may be up to 60 days before I get my money back. However, there's a chance that I might know something within 10 days, if I am deemed not at fault. And by this the bank means that they can solidly determine that I never let anyone use my card (which I didn't) and I never took the card out of my possession (which I didn't).

Interestingly enough, the charges were to a Chevron station and to a strip club in Atlanta. Someone must have had a good time. That's at least four lap dances and a tip.

The odd thing about it was that the only way someone could have used my card is if they had an actual copy of the thing. Making online purchases requires an additional three digit number to be entered as an additional layer of protection. I know that new cards were shipped out to my address, but the ones that arrived I made a point of shredding before I left to go back to Birmingham.

What is most suspect is the fact that this theft happened late last night. I haven't lived in Atlanta in nearly a month and a half. I have an alibi and three witness to prove that I was here and not in Atlanta last night.

Since I do use P2P software on a regular basis to swap mp3s, my theory is that someone got into my account by latching onto my IP address. Still, there's a lot of unanswered questions. A friend of mine suggested that perhaps someone who works for amazon.com, USPS, or UPS is the culprit, being that I do make frequent purchases online. However, my last purchase was well over three weeks ago. The question that remains is why now?

Let this be a cautionary tale that you should use different passwords for every social networking site you use, plus any e-mail programs you might use. Also, use p2p software with caution and make sure you scan for spyware and viruses after every time you use them. You never know who's looking in. Thank God my MySpace account reveals few personal details about myself.

This just gives me another reason to hate MySpace.

On Classism

A major problem that liberal religion faces is Classism. Far more than internalized racism and oppression, which I admit are still pertinent issues, classism taints the perception and perspective of many people. I include myself among the throngs.

Wikipedia defines Classism as any form of prejudice or oppression against people as a result of their actual or perceived social class (especially in the form of lower or higher socioeconomic status). It is similar to social elitism.

For more, click here.

I admit that I am guilty of classism, as are many educated people. The irony of my own personal prejudice is that my roots are decidedly humble. I have to remind myself every day that my own parents came from working-class roots.

My paternal grandfather had a sixth-grade education. My paternal grandmother had an eighth- grade education. Both of them worked long hours, six days a week, in often laborious and unhealthy servitude. They both worked over forty years in a textile mill. My father was the first person in his family to secure both a high school diploma and college degree. This is why he is one of my heroes.

My maternal grandfather and grandmother owned their own business, but it was no less humble. They drilled water wells. Well drilling is one of the dirtiest, most thankless jobs ever. It requires a large amount of physical strength as well as acumen. Neither my Grandfather nor my Grandfather went to college, but they made a point to insist that their four children go to college. And they did.

My father, through his own hard work, rose above his station and lived the American dream, raising myself and my two sisters as respectable middle-class. So it's deeply hypocritical of me to be so harshly critical and judgmental of the salt-of-the-earth types that make up the backbone of this country. I've analyzed why I have this bias, and I suppose I can trace it back to my Mother who filled my head full of prejudicial notions of superiority. When I travel to more working-class regions of the country, I feel decidedly ill at ease. I can't say that I feel superior to working class citizens, but I am acutely aware of their own prejudices, which are more often than not products of ignorance.

I've never figured out an adequate way to address my own discomfort but I feel that keeping myself accountable is the best possible defense. I believe it's up to every individual to call themselves out and I am deeply uncomfortable when any organization, religious or otherwise, takes it upon themselves to take the tough love approach. I learned the hard way that people only change when they themselves take the time and effort to do so.

This is a big reason I left the Unitarian church. I felt that if their current model of Anti-Oppression and Anti-Racism, which I disagreed with strongly on principle, was to succeed then it needed to seriously address Classism before it even touched on racism and oppression. After all, nothing would put we religious liberals and educated folk on the spot faster than confronting our own classism. And it's an exercise that black and white, gay and straight, male and female, could all come to terms with. Instead of the left eating itself alive, I propose that the left make a serious effort for all its members to take a long hard look that goes beyond the current M.O.

________________________________________________________________
Addendum: consider these lyrics.

Pulp- "Common People"

She came from Greece, she had a thirst for knowledge
She studied sculpture at Saint Martin's College
That's where I caught her eye.

She told me that her Dad was loaded

I said "In that case I'll have a rum and coca-cola"

She said "fine"
And in thirty seconds time she said,

"I want to live like common people
I want to do whatever common people do,
I want to sleep with common people
I want to sleep with common people like you"

Well what else could I do?

I said "I'll see what I can do"

I took her to a supermarket
I don't know why
But I had to start it somewhere

So it started there.

I said "Pretend you've got no money"

But she just laughed
And said "oh you're so funny".

I said "yeah?
Well I can't see anyone else smiling in here".

Are you sure you want to live like common people?
You want to see whatever common people see?

You want to sleep with common people,
You want to sleep with common people like me?

But she didn't understand,
She just smiled and held my hand.

Rent a flat above a shop,
Cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool,
Pretend you never went to school.

But still you'll never get it right
'cos when you're laid in bed at night

Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your Dad he could stop it all.

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do

You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view,

And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Sing along with the common people,
Sing along and it might just get you thru'

Laugh along with the common people
Laugh along even though they're laughing at you

And the stupid things that you do.
Because you think that poor is cool.

Like a dog lying in a corner,
They will bite you and never warn you

Look out, they'll tear your insides out
'cos everybody hates a tourist

Especially one who thinks
It's all such a laugh

And the chip stains' grease
Will come out in the bath

You will never understand
How it feels to live your life

With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go

You are amazed that they exist
And they burn so bright

Whilst you can only wonder why
Rent a flat above a shop

Cut your hair and get a job
Smoke some fags and play some pool

Pretend you never went to school
But still you'll never get it right

'cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall

If you called your dad he could stop it all

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
You'll never fail like common people

You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And then dance and drink and screw

Because there's nothing else to do

Gay Jihadist?

Open Letter on Embedded Blogger Mark Sanchez

This is when the far right makes me sick.

Conservative ex-marine reactionary activist Matt Sanchez, a darling of the right-wing blogosphere, was recently revealed as having starred in gay pornography. Left-wing bloggers pointed out the hypocrisy of a soldier who fought in combat, yet could have been dishonorably discharged had he come clean with his past under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The right wing blogosphere lept to his defense, claiming that he shouldn't be unduly persecuted for his private life and conduct. I find that immensely amusing, considering many of these same right wing bloggers were probably calling for the head of President Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings.

Now Sanchez has come out, pardon the pun, stating that LGBT activists are gay jihadists. This angers me severely because as Nate Nelson points out, quite aptly, it renders the term "jihadist" as merely an epithet: no more, no less. Sanchez, to add injury to insult, calls the "militant gay movement" shallow. Furthermore, he claims that the movement is a threat to Mom, God, and Apple Pie. This is totally inexcusable hate-mongering to the worst degree.

I have a few bones to pick with that analysis. Shallow? No more shallow than the rest of the country, which comprised overwhelmingly by heterosexuals seems to want to often do its best imitation of a cow chewing cud, placated by material goods and technology. While I agree that militancy of any form is dangerous, just as anything in its pure form is toxic, I hasten to characterize the entire LGBT rights movement as a threat. And lest I seem to contradict myself, by that statement I mean that we ought to ignore militancy on both the left and the right. I don't at all consider most LGBT activists as militant, but I'm merely referring to the few fringe elements, particularly the "radical outers".

Radicals can be found on either side of the line but if we characterize one side by its extremists, we do ourselves a great disservice. Common ground can easily be found between the right and left if we don't let our mutual fears and worst-case scenarios overwhelm us.

H/T Nate Nelson

Sounds About Right

You Are 80% Democrat

You have a good deal of donkey running through your blood, and you're proud to be liberal. You don't fit every Democrat stereotype, but you definitely belong in the Democrat party.

How Democrat Are You?

Opening Pandora's Box

As an unapologetic Democrat and liberal, I see Joe Lieberman as a traitor to the cause. While it is true that if he chooses to caucus with the Republicans he will tip the balance of power in the Senate back in the direction it once was, what I find most deplorable is the hypocritical two-step he seems to be dancing at the moment.

EDIT: Thanks to some sharp-eyed readers at Daily Kos, I came to understand that the balance of power in the Senate cannot be shifted back to Republican control, based on new rules set forth by the Senate in the past few months.

Lieberman escalates attacks on Iraq Critics

I do not agree with his assertion that the Democratic party is merely the anti-Bush party. It has tried to end this conflict through diplomatic action, but the President has put his foot down. Furthermore, the more stubborn Bush is, the more he tears apart the Republican party. If Bush would agree to pull our troops out of Iraq in the next several months, the Democrats would lose a key position issue that so far has kept them in the good graces of the majority of the American people.

I cannot in good conscience support a war that was based on false pretenses and outright fabrications. If we get out now, then yes, I agree Iraq will fall into utter chaos, but it’s imploding right now and our brave men and women are getting killed and wounded.

We couldn’t win a civil war against the Viet Cong and we can’t make Shiites and Sunnis get along, either. We may have opened Pandora’s Box and my fear is that we merely have created the perfect pretext for an all out war in the Middle East: Iran on the side of the Shiites and Saudi Arabia on the side of the Sunnis. Already a war by proxy is being fought in Iraq. Perhaps all-out conflict was inevitable, but neither was it fair for us to expedite the process.

What I am almost dismayed to learn is that we have plans to give billions of dollars of military aid to Saudi Arabia. This is despite the fact that most of the 11 September hijackers were Saudis, as is Osama Bin Laden. This is despite the fact that the only reasons the Saudis even tolerate us is because we bankroll their economy by relying so heavily on their crude oil supplies. In addition,we gave even more military aid to Israel.

We are playing a dangerous game.

As much as I consider myself to be the anti-capitalist, I think the only way we can avoid an all-out conflageration is if we expand capitalism throughout the Middle East. So long as these nations have a piece of the pie, they will not spawn terrorists in great numbers. The only way to do this is to allow Middle Eastern nations the ability to develop a middle class. (This is in contrast to our country, whose middle class is shrinking. Maybe they can learn a thing from Russia or China). Nonetheless, the disparities betweens the Haves and Have-Nots in the Middle East is marked.

Furthermore, if indeed Hillary Clinton (or a Democrat) wins the White House, I am not unconvinced that terrorists will launch another attack on our shores just to test his/her will. It may not be to the scale of 11 September. It may be a dirty bomb or something similar. If that occurs, I believe that we would then have no choice but to start another war. I'm not entirely convinced that the nuclear option won't be at least put on the table.

War with whom or against whom, I do not know. But if war is inevitable, may we learn from the lessons of Iraq and wage a war merely to protect our interests and not to colonize.

The hard truth is that Saudi Arabia is not our ally, and neither is Israel. I think that increasingly, in an era of terrorism, we need to resort to isolationism and self-reliance, else we find ourselves forever mired in the chaos that I see as the Middle East in the foreseeable future.

As many have stated, wealth alone is not enough to curb terrorism. Indeed, the latest batch of UK terrorists were well-educated, wealthy doctors.

But the key is for Islam to reform itself and curtail its radicals. That's what we're all hoping. I’m not sure there’s anything any outside nation can do. I take the approach that we ought to just cut ties with the region and let them go on their merry way, blowing themselves to bits.

That may sound inhumane and cruel, but it may be the only solution that makes any sense.

I'll be honest with you, dear readers. As more and more countries obtain the bomb and as the Middle East continues to remain unstable, there are days when I wonder if we aren't going to end up destroying ourselves through nuclear action. Admittedly, that is a very bleak, doomsday scenario but I think it's increasingly plausible.

h/t Nate Nelson

Canadian/US Relations

We on the American left have for many decades had a certain envy of Canada. We see our neighbor to the north as somehow more pure, less tainted by cynicism, more cooperative with each other, more communal rather than individualistic. We like their more liberal take on politics, we admire their system of Universal Health Care, we yearn for less crime and poverty, and we find their take on life much more live and let live.

So it was that I had a pleasant conversation a Canadian lady with whom I went to undergrad. She is one of the most trusting, kind-hearted, optimistic souls I have ever met. I envy her because I've always seen the glass as half-empty rather than half full. I look at her and wish I could be capable of being everyone's friend. I wish I didn't form all of these judgments about people before I meet them. I wish I wasn't seduced by the dark side. I wish, I wish, I wish.

The last point I'd like to explore in more detail. We Americans are a Puritanical, guarded sort. We are highly judgmental people. I think the paradox intrinsic in Americans is in our world-weary sense of skepticism and in our constant fear of the worst case scenario. Americans are often fear based people. Nothing could be more Jonathan Edwards. Yet, we are super sensitive underneath our hard exteriors. If you strip it away, our guarded behavior is little more than a defense mechanism. We know how much it hurts to be deceived. We know the sting of being injured by a caustic remark. So we build an ego shell around ourselves so formidable that we almost believe it to be genuine and authentic, rather than artifice. We begin to believe our own lies.

Canada didn't fight for its independence. Preferring compromise to revolution, it gradually won full autonomy from Great Britain. It maintains a Parliamentary system of government, which I believe America ought to adopt. The Founding Fathers were so intent on ridding themselves of all traces of their mother country that I believe they threw the baby out with the bathwater in that regard. There's something seductive about revolution and chaos and upheaval. Yet, I find it both thrilling and repelling at the same time. That's why I'm an American.

I know that compromise and delayed gratification aren't nearly as sexy as bombast and instant gratification, but maybe that's where we Americans go wrong. We on the left pander for compromise rather than gunshot, but how many of us wanted blood revenge after terrorists felled two towers of the World Trade Center and crashed a plane into the Pentagon? How many of us would totally renounce our stance against the death penalty if someone whom we dearly loved was killed in an act of senseless violence?

Today's conversation really caused me to question my own motives. Why am I so often seduced by the dark side? What about me has a masochistic streak that finds negativity so simultaneously attractive and repelling? Why can't I go about life the way she does--seeing the good in people rather than assuming the worst? Why not give people the benefit of the doubt? What can it hurt?

Part of this is due to my upbringing, but I see the same sorts of attitudes in most Americans. We're such hyper-individualists in this society, which can be both good and bad. A country founded in rugged individualism often lacks a certain sensitivity to its fellow person. We tend to think that if bad things happen to other people, then they must have done something to deserve it. We're super critical of flaws we find in other people and all we're really saying is that recognize in them our own failings and shortcomings.

We might consider the Canadian too idealistic, too naive, too pie-in-the-sky. We might consider the Canadian easily manipulated. There was a time in my life where I wanted to strip innocence away and reveal life the way it is. I despised those who wore rose-colored glasses. But as I've come to understand through the course of my life is that life is what you make of it. It can be a very good place or a very bad place, but it's all in your perception of it. And in seeking to destroy all that was good about life, I was living my life according to the old maxim that misery loves company.

I know this doesn't apply to all Canadians and I know whomever reads this might comment that he/she has known Canadians with bad attitudes and a judgmental streak a mile wide. I don't think the exception proves the rule. And I know that comparing Canada to America is often like comparing apples with oranges. For starters, they're a fraction of the size we are, population-wise. Furthermore, they live in a society which is not nearly as diverse as ours. They don't call it the Great White North for nothing.

To return to the narrative: in talking to her today, I questioned myself. Why am I so critical? Why am I so guarded? Why do I expect the worst first, rather than giving people the benefit of the doubt? What about me is seduced by negativity, rather than casually dismissing it and instead seeing the world as the good place it can often be.

When I was a Unitarian, I found myself among good company, I thought. We were a motley band of cynics, pessimists, depressives, melancholics, and hand-wringers. Although that was comfortable, I've begun to question whether or not that was healthy. In my own relationships with people, maybe I need to take an example from my Canadian friend and be more open-minded and less apt to believe in self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, thinking this way only keeps me upset. Maybe I need to surround myself with positive people, rather than the people I chose for most of my life to be my closest confidants who although they had a heart of gold and good intentions, lived life expecting to be hurt.

This is true not just of Unitarians but also of Americans, but I find this outlook especially true to UUs.

I'm tired of being Chicken Little. All it does it keep me upset and edgy. Maybe it wouldn't hurt me to be a tad more trusting. After all, what do I have to lose? Maybe life is meant to be enjoyed, after all.

News Flash!

Comrade Kevin takes a break from saving the world to focus on something potentially interesting.

The category: Famous Last Words.

My personal favorite are the words attributed to Oscar Wilde.

• My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or the other of us has to go.
  • Note: Wilde said this in the Left Bank hotel in Paris where he passed away on November 30, 1900. The wallpaper has also since gone and the room re-furnished in the style of one of Wilde's London flats. Famous last words.

Use the above link from Wikiquote to appease your morbid curiosity and learn something in the process, if you so choose.

Propaganda or Truth?

Those of you who watched last Monday's Democratic Presidential YouTube debates noticed that every potential candidate was quick to commend our troops while condemning the war. Only senile old coot/loose cannon Mike Gravel dared state that our troops were dying in vain. The truth of the matter is that Gravel is right and he could say it because he has nothing to lose.

My friend Judy's younger brother is fighting in Iraq right now as a sniper. She forwarded me this link.

Two Compassionate Soldiers Give Iraq Child Hope

You must understand that this is the sort of article I would never read. I don't trust anything the Department of Defense tells me and one of my most favorite bumper stickers is the one that states: Sure you can trust the Government. Just ask an Indian.

I think those of us on the anti-war left need to be very careful about how we condemn this War. It was founded on lies and cherry-picked intelligence, but if this article is to be believed, there is good happening in Iraq in spite of the base evil that characterizes our very presence in the region. But then again, I do believe that most peoples' nature is towards good, or at least towards what society deems as "good". It might be heartfelt or it might be obligatory, but that's the reason why, even in times of war, an enemy combatant will sneak across enemy lines to clandestinely assist a fallen foe.

When I was attending the Birmingham Unitarian church, a man rose during the Circle of Lights to express joy that the Iraqis had successfully undergone free elections for the first time in their history. He was greeted with an unpleasant silence and the unspoken disapproval of the rest of the Congregation. What he said took much courage. I'm not sure if I agree with him but you've got to admire someone who would take such a risk. I admit to being ambivalent about this subject. Wars are complex beasts. I think there beats inside the breasts of most Americans the hope that other countries in the world will be able to secure the same sort of liberties that we have the fortune of having and often take for granted. I'm not sure, however, that good intentions on the part of President Bush could ever make a country who has never tasted anything close to Democracy magically become one after one election. Democracy takes time and after all, the Democracy that we enjoy was a long time coming. The seeds of it were planted in the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. It took a long process of wars and 500 years of general evolution before the idea of Democracy had the support of most people.

I think it would be most unrealistic to expect that 500 years of evolution can be superseded and condensed into one year and one purple-thumbed election.

However, this is not to say that acts of common decency and kindness don't occur, even during unpardonable, totally unnecessary acts of combat. I firmly believe that evil and good are shades of grey and we must be careful not to resort to the same black and white viewpoint that George W. Bush and his neo-cons espouse.

R.I.P. Ingmar Bergman

As some of you know, Comrade Kevin is a major film buff. Thus, I found it very sad to hear of the death of what I consider to be one of the greatest directors of all time, Swedish auteur Ingmar Bergman.

Let me qualify the statement by saying that I am not a fan of everything Bergman directed. He sometimes fell prey to the sort of mental masturbation that is common in art and in academia, but no one can deny that he was a master craftsman and a truly original presence in cinema. And I find pretension and over-reaching far more forgivable sins than sloth.

In these days of digital cameras and YouTube, I often yearn for the sort of craftsmanship that characterized many of Bergman's works. It used to be that to be a director, one needed to learn the trade of filmmaking the same as any skilled artisan. Nowadays, any yahoo with a camera can make a movie and try to pass it off as great art. It used to be that every major player on a set went through rigorous and extensive training as well as personal study to perfect his/her craft. The cinematographer and director particularly, honed their craft because they were committed to making something fresh and original. Many studied under the tutelage of their betters for years before daring to step out on their own. Nowadays, it seems to me that directors and cinematographers only learn the cursory details necessary to direct films and spout forth a million popcorn films for the masses, each designed for the implicit purpose of making money. Digital filmmaking is so easy that it cuts out the need to strictly structure a film.

To an extent, Hollywood has always been this way. The star system of early Hollywood, particularly in the silent era, churned out many a potboiler. I am reminded of the example of Clara Bow, who in her heyday released six to seven pictures a year, all of which stuck to the same saccharine, fluffy, hackneyed plots. It just seems to me that true auteurs such as Bergman and Kubrick are becoming increasingly rare these days.

Digital filmmaking is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that it greatly simplifies the process of making a film. It's a curse in that it greatly simplifies the process of making a film. My personal opinion is that I'd much rather leave art in the hands of the professionals and I fail to appreciate the kitsch factor that characterize so many films that come out these days.

Bergman's films remain fresh to these eyes even some fifty years after their conception. This is a testament to his hard work. For every Ingmar Bergman there are a million dilettantes whose works have a shelf life shorter than milk.

Sunday Fun

My mind is fried from a night spent out late around town. Thus, I have nothing profound to say today. And as a good friend of mine pointed out, the way to attract visitors to one's blog is to occasionally post something that doesn't sound like a newspaper column and/or John Kerry.

I did meet some interesting people at the Obama meeting and after several hours of fascinating conversation, I decided to finally take my Meyers-Briggs Personality Type.




Obama is pushing Habitat For Humanity, so next Saturday, out of the goodness of my heart I will participate in manual labor for the good of the tired, poor masses yearning to have a new home. I am less than enthused that I will have to wake up at 6 am, an hour I reserve for the elderly and those who have small children. I will try to enjoy myself in spite of how undeniably NOT an morning person I am.

Christian guilt has returned (ah, how easily it comes back) and I am skipping church this morning. Shame on me. I post my favorite Wallace Stevens poem as a means of thumbing my nose at society.

A High-Toned Old Christian Woman

Poetry is the supreme fiction, madame.
Take the moral law and make a nave of it
And from the nave build haunted heaven. Thus,
The conscience is converted into palms,
Like windy citherns hankering for hymns.
We agree in principle. That's clear. But take
The opposing law and make a peristyle,
And from the peristyle project a masque
Beyond the planets. Thus, our bawdiness,
Unpurged by epitaph, indulged at last,
Is equally converted into palms,
Squiggling like saxophones. And palm for palm,
Madame, we are where we began. Allow,
Therefore, that in the planetary scene
Your disaffected flagellants, well-stuffed,
Smacking their muzzy bellies in parade,
Proud of such novelties of the sublime,
Such tink and tank and tunk-a-tunk-tunk,
May, merely may, madame, whip from themselves
A jovial hullabaloo among the spheres.
This will make widows wince. But fictive things
Wink as they will. Wink most when widows wince.

Saudi Arms Deal in the Making

US Plans Huge Saudi Arms Deal

I suppose what angers me most about this decision is when I realize how many Saudis were part of the 11 September terrorist attacks. For the sake of oil and for maintaining stability in the region, we are willing to give vast amounts of monetary aid to a country that has been guilty of committing some of the most grievous human rights offenses. Public beheadings, persecution of LBGT citizens, and instances of having women stoned to death based on dubious evidence are but only a few examples to cite.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: The Saudis are not our friends. They look down on our form of government. They believe we are wrong to give women the right to vote and the right to exist on equal standing with men. They find homosexuality unforgivable and abysmal. They don't maintain much semblance of social mobility: one finds that the country is divided between the haves and the have nots, with few people in between.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and this is a clear cut instance of that.

As Judy suggested, and I agree, I wonder if we will have to go to war with the Saudis at some point or another. It is entirely possible, considering that we once supported Iraq during its war with Iran back in the 1980s. After all, we have a nasty habit of supporting regimes who are diametrically opposed to what we hold dear as Americans just for the sake of maintaining our interests. If the Bush doctrine were to be upheld against the Saudis if by chance they threatened to cut the supply of crude oil, then we would launch a preemptive strike against them just as we did Iraq.

If one reads read the article further, we find that there is a substantial chunk of military aid headed in the direction of Israel as well, lest we leave them out as well. Big surprise there. But as many have pointed out: Israel is not our friend, either. They appreciate our military aid, but they are a largely socialistic state who perpetuate genocide against a native people they displaced.

H/t to the British media for keeping us informed (like I'm surprised) and to Judy for finding it out for me.

And because it's Friday...

Let me see if I can channel my inner Oscar Wilde and produce some witticisms.

I stole this idea from Surviving the Workday: Spirituality at Work

Poet Observations

1. Gritty realist poets look down on nature poets because they believe nature poetry is one of the most hackneyed, overwrought forms of art ever conceived.

Nature poets look down on gritty realist poets because they believe gritty realist poetry is one of the most hackneyed, overwrought forms of art ever conceived.

Both are wrong.

2. Male poets are highly androgenous creatures. That doesn't imply that they're homosexual or bisexual.

3. The key with poetry is to make autobiography sounds like fiction. The key with prose is to make fiction sound like autobiography.

4. If a poet hasn't had at least one nervous breakdown by the age of twenty-five, then his or her credentials will be called into question.

5. Almost all poets smoke pot, have smoked pot, or would entertain the proposition at some point or another.


Add your own and have fun with the joke.

A Conclusion

I'd like to bring to an end the diatribe I began regarding my ambivalence towards sports.

Granted, we have become more civilized over the years. We have progressed past the times of the Romans and ceased to find it thrilling entertainment to watch two men brawl to the death. In medieval times, every man carried a knife, which was good thinking considering the alcohol consumption in those days was far more than it is today. Without modern sanitation, drinking the water from a pond or stream could be a risky endeavor. These days, we certainly don't hear about all the peasants who were thrown in jail immediately following the festival of St. Someone-or-Other for getting drunk and brawling with sticks.

Instead of settling our differences with fists, knives, clubs, and guns we invented the idea of sports and debate. Both of which are far superior substitutes to outright violence.

The only thing that concerns me is that occasionally our primal instincts rear their ugly head, despite all the years of so-called civilization. As many of you have been reading, the current quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, Michael Vick, is embroiled in a scandal regarding dog fighting. That is the most barbaric thing I have ever heard of but I know that it goes on all the time. It's a phenomenon found most in the working class.

I remember I took a trip out to Northern California once: a little town called Grass Valley. Formerly a mining town, it had disintegrated into a white trash haven full of potheads and punks who found San Francisco too expensive to afford. While I was there, I talked with a woman at a coffee shop. She had adopted a pit bull but had to have him put down. The reason being is that the dog had been trained to fight. While the dog was a puppy, he had been subjected to his former owners banging shoes loudly against a garage door. The dog had undergone other torturous, evil acts to condition him to fight. When the lady adopted him, she tried every way she could to undo the programming but had to have the dog put to sleep. After the dog totally trashed her kitchen, knocking dishes off the countertop, destroying the contents of her pantry, she realized any amount of proper care she could provide the dog was a moot point.

Regarding this process of evolution: I wonder where we are going. Two arguments are currently in vogue: one states that our technology is evolving at too fast a clip--far too quickly for our minds to be able to perceive. The other states that we are merely moving closer and closer towards telepathy. I admittedly flip-flop on this argument, much like capital punishment. There are certainly valid arguments to both points.

I conclude with one of my favorite quotes from James Thurber: It's better to know some of the questions than all the answers. May it be so.

After A Time

After yesterday's Bill Hicks induced rant, I feel subdued today. It's pointless to stay angry at things which one cannot change. As a true Scorpio, I rant and rave and then five minutes later it's gone. My emotions are constantly in a state of flux. Yet, I must admit it felt good to get it all off my chest.

I came to this realization last night after having totally lost my temper. To keep things stirred up in the Hoover system hurts us all. It hurts the school children, it hurts the reputation of the town, it hurts the teachers, and it hurts the property value of everyone who owns their own house around here. If Hoover continues to be inundated with bad press, then who will want to move here? Who will want to enroll their kids in the city system?

There comes a point in time where you just want things to die down and stop being so dramatic. One of the reasons I came to the conclusion that I could not be a lawyer is that I realized I don't have the emotional stamina to live inside a tornado. I don't thrive on confrontation and though I am highly competitive, such intensity drains me rather than invigorates me.

I deliberately try to keep my innermost thoughts and opinions off this blog. I try to keep confessional issues of my own off this blog. So I'm going against my better judgment when I reveal this to you. One of reasons I am sports-phobic is that it absolutely tears me up inside when my team loses. Some people can blow it off. Some people yell and fuss and use sports as a cathartic exercise. Once the game is over, they resume their lives. I've never been that way. All it does it keep me upset so I've learned to follow sports with a casual interest and not let it ruin my day.

There's nothing wrong with sports, per se. It's just that when it becomes about all the wrong things like money, power, greed, and personal gain that it becomes tainted. Ideally, sports teach teamwork, self-discipline, self-reliance, and perseverance. Ideally, sports become a way that communities and people from all social classes and walks of life can find common purpose.

The problem arises when tribalism and factionalism cause powerful emotions like anger, resentment, and jealousy to spiral out of control. Then we are no different from our Barbarian ancestors. It reminds me that we are not really that far away from being uncivilized ourselves and the ways in which we are rational and civilized hold an often very tenuous grasp upon us.

I know I've included this poem on two separate occasions in this blog, but I'll include it again. It's been a leitmotif in my own life and almost an incantation. Think about how often we recite the Lord's Prayer or the Serenity Prayer. Some of us do it daily, or if not daily, certainly weekly. This poem holds special resonance for me.

After a Time
by Catherine Davis

After a time, all losses are the same
One more thing lost is one thing less to lose;
And we go stripped at last the way we came.

Though we shall probe, time and again, our shame,
Who lack the wit to keep or to refuse,
After a time, all losses are the same.

No wit, no luck can beat a losing game;
Good fortune is a reassuring ruse:
And we go stripped at last the way we came.

Rage as we will for what we think to claim,
Nothing so much as this bare thought subdues:
After a time all losses are the same.

The sense of treachery--the want, the blame--
Goes in the end, whether or not we choose,
And we go stripped at last the way we came.

So we, who would go raging, will go tame
When what we have we can no longer use:
After a time, all losses are the same;
And we go stripped at last the way we came.

Skewed Priorities

I have a confession to make. I am a closet sports fan.

And the reasons for my remaining reticent about this are many. Mostly they stem from the fact that I am often outraged at how dearly we pay for our entertainment. We, for the sake of distraction, seem to forget all sense of ethics, logic, and sanity.

This distaste of sports was further strengthened and solidified when I was in undergrad. I took a sex education class full of football players. We were asked, periodically, to submit written reports on assigned topics. Football players would read these reports, which they had obviously not written themselves, and mispronounce key words and stumble all over themselves during the delivery.

We knew that graduate assistants had written these reports for the athletes, but to challenge the administration on this point was totally futile. One professor stood up against the system and ended up being fired in the process. She refused to pass two athletes and found herself with a choice: change their grades and remain employed, or stick to your convictions and be let go. As the old saying goes: sometimes you just can't fight city hall.

I felt bad for these athletes, many of which came from small towns all over the country with one dream: to play Pro Football. Statistics have shown than the odds of going pro are very slim. We are depriving most athletes of a quality education when we do not take the time to properly educate them. If they don't make the pros (and most won't) then they are left with nothing. What tools do they have with which to build a career? Most meander at dead-end jobs and some even resort to petty crime.

Since I've moved back home, a scandal has broken out at my high school alma mater, Hoover High. Allegations of grades being changed for athletes arose about two weeks ago. As every day progresses, more and more allegations of impropriety have come into public knowledge. Now it appears that several thousand dollars worth of contributions are unaccounted for. The question that remains is, who has got the money?

The principal of the High School, who was there as an assistant when I was in school (and who I never liked), has been threatened with termination. The front page headlines this morning reveal that he has threatened to sue the school board if he is indeed let go.

The principal was high school roommates with the football coach, who has built himself the best dynasty money can buy. Under his tenure, Hoover has won several state championships in a row. It has obtained national attention both for this success and because it was prominently featured on two seasons of an MTV reality television show called Two-a-Days.

Now all hell has seemingly broken loose. I believe the next thing to be revealed will concern the dubious moral standards of the head coach, Rush Propst. It is rumored that despite being married, he has a mistress in a adjacent city and has spawned three kids with her. To add insult to injury, his wife, who he been nothing but cruel towards, is physically disabled.

Very soon, I predict, this will become a national scandal and many of you readers will hear about this.

All of this just to have a successful sports program. It reminds me of the sort of people who said they felt a sense of pride when we successfully conquered Iraq. Allow me briefly to paraphrase from one of my idols: Bill Hicks. Who are these people with such a sense of low self-esteem that they need a WAR to feel good about themselves? Who are these people with such a low self-esteem that they need a winning football program to feel good about themselves?

Instead of a war or a winning sports team, may I suggest: Sit-ups? Fruit cup? Exercise? Inner Peace? 6 to 8 glasses of water a day? Community service?

I'm not telling you how to live your lives, I'm just saying this: use your options.

We think nothing of paying our hard-earned dollars to distract us from our lives. What are we afraid of? Must we live lives of quiet desperation? Is it fair that a schoolteacher makes per year a fraction of what a professional athlete takes home in a month?

There's nothing wrong with sports, per se. They can be a positive outlet for athlete and spectator alike, but when they become all about money and nothing about positive values like community, teamwork, and discipline then their whole appeal is lost to me.

It seems as though the whole purpose of school has been lost. Academics are somehow less important than who can suit up and play on Friday night. I feel sorry for the students of the Hoover City System, because they will be the ones who will suffer the most. Due to the selfishness of the Board of Education and a corrupt sports program, they will no doubt be distracted from their studies and not get the quality education they deserve.

It's about the kids, for God's sake! When did we forget this?

I can't fight the system, but I can refuse to support the skewed priorities with my money and my attention.

Part of me says: this is the South and this is Alabama. Football is king. The legendary football Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant was far from a stellar individual. He was a heavy drinker, smoker, gambler, and womanizer. But he won ballgames. And here in the South, that's all that matters.

I had a conversation once with a woman who, back in the 1960s, had her mailbox destroyed when an intoxicated starter plowed into it with his car. By eight o'clock the next morning, Bryant and several assistants showed up with a checkbook, offering to pay out whatever it would cost to repair the mailbox. Along with the money was the implication that she wouldn't let what had transpired become public knowledge. I'm sure instances like these happened all the time.

It's pointless to fight the system. You make no headway and end up getting yourself frustrated in the process. In this regard, sports are no different than politics. As Bismark famously pointed out, "The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night."

Swallowing Pride

I watched all two hours of the Democratic YouTube Debates last night and I have to tell you that I was left feeling deeply demoralized. Although we are still months away from the election and months away from the first primary, I don't see how anyone is going to take the nomination away from Hillary Clinton. It seemed to me as if all the other candidates were jockeying for Vice President and/or cabinet posts. I still support Obama, but his inexperience showed as he was clearly not at ease during the debate and lacked the sort of poise that Mrs. Clinton displayed.

I don't like Hillary and I never have. So I'm trying to reconcile within myself whether I can, yet again, swallow my pride and vote for her in November of 2008.

• Biden came across as his amusingly blunt self. I admit that I laughed when he characterized an assault rifle-toting questioner as sick and in need of help. I agree with him and have always felt nervous around anyone who refers to a gun as their "baby". This wasn't just any gun: this wasn't a shotgun or even a handgun. This was a scary looking instrument designed to kill.

• Kucinich lost my vote and my respect when he stated that he believed in reparations for slavery. I strongly disagree with this position for a variety of reasons. For one, how would we pay for them? For another, paying reparations is tantamount to paying ransom and we all know that we value what we work for and earn far more than anything given to us. Lastly, it's in the same vein as this ridiculous white guilt complex that spawns such ill-conceived notions as Anti-Racism/Anti Oppression. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Let it die.

• Gravelle looked like a senile old coot and reminded me of Ross Perot's VP nominee in 1992, Stockdale. He foolishly took on Obama early in the debate and so awkwardly attacked him that Obama was able to brush him off without much effort.
  

• All other candidates failed to make strong impressions on me. Some of the minor candidates made good points but failed to break out of the pack

I will say this, though. I am glad that all 9 potential nominees came out strongly against No Child Left Behind. It's one of the worst pieces of legislation that has ever been passed and I've seen it give my mother fits at her job as a public school administrator.

Putting One's Foot Down

When I was younger I was much more inclined to see the world in shades of grey. Part of this was, of course, adolescent rebellion, but as I have moved closer to thirty I have developed some strong convictions. I can compromise on some matters but on certain matters I have to put my foot down. Case in point.

In this post, Nate Nelson proposes an interestingly diplomatic method of teaching sex education. In short, he believes that both abstinence-only and comprehensive sexual education models can peacefully co-exist. It is laudable of Mr. Nelson to seek a means to pull together two seemingly contradictory points of view. I do not believe, however, that such a compromise is possible.

To me, abstinence-only education is totally insufficient because it often resorts to scare tactics. In high school, I was subjected to slides of random strangers with advanced stages of syphilis. The football coach who served as some semblance of health education referred to venereal diseases in down-home fashion: The state makes me tell you guys about VD. These bad boys. You don't want 'em.

When I went through high school RE, I attended AYS. I found it to be most informative and unflinchingly honest. This was what I needed. I will say, with a great degree of pride, that none of the young ladies in my group became pregnant and none of the young men contributed to an uh-oh pregnancy.

As I think back further into my past, in fifth grade, I went through the obligatory sex education provided by the public school I attended that advanced no strong position either way, yet told us the minimum necessary information to cover all the bases mandated by the state. I remember being frustrated at how little I actually learned. As I got older, I came to understand that faced with such a loaded topic as sex education, the school system opted for the path of least resistance in an effort to avoid being sued.

That is another issue in itself, that I will touch on briefly. Public schools have become so fearful of lawsuits and bad press that they will bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of parents. Many of these are totally frivolous and completely nonsensical, but god forbid little Johnnie or Janie be deprived of whatever his or her parents want for their little bundle of joy. 80% of these lawsuits would be laughed out of court and never progress past the beginning stages of litigation. Schools have become parent-pleasers and that's part of the reason why so many kids have been raised without any sense of boundaries. They've gotten everything they wanted and their whole lives have been micromanaged by well-meaning, but highly misguided parents.

I do tend to see some things in terms of right versus wrong. I see abstinence education as wrong because 1) it is insufficient 2) it is unrealistic 3) it is no longer relevant. Pandora's Box has already been opened. As I've mentioned before in previous entries, we have become a hyper-sexual culture and I think a reason (among many) why mental illness, personality disorders, and eating disorders are so prevalent amongst today's youth is created by this schizophrenic, psychotic, distorted view of sexuality that is perpetuated in the name of greed, cowardice, and ignorance.

h/t to Uneek

Pulled From Today's Headlines

Today, The New York Magazine published an article on juvenile sex offenders and the problems that have been created by this lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key mentality that is so pervasive in society. I admit this article enraged me in many ways.

How Can You Distinguish a Budding Pedophile From A Kid With Boundary Problems?

The same logic that was responsible for three strikes and you're out as well as for prosecuting minors for capital murder is firmly in place in this circumstance as well. What enraged me more than anything is that, as I stated in my previous entry, we like to treat the effects of a problem as a quick fix, rather than examine the causes. Perhaps examining the causes would take more effort. Perhaps examining the causes would force us to examine ourselves and many of us would much rather take the coward's way out and opt for a feel-good, knee-jerk response.

I blame the media for sensationalizing childhood sexual abuse. To an extent, being open with this admittedly socially taboo topic is a step in the right direction, but television shows like Nancy Grace and To Catch a Predator have effectively preyed on our sense of moral outrage for the sake of ratings. We love to call gotcha. We love it when evildoers are put in their place and in this respect these shows are no different than any other programs which resort to cheap theatrics and hyperbole to make a profit. This is in the same vein as the "pretty white rich blonde female in distress" theme that gave us nauseatingly endless coverage of Natalee Holloway and Jon Benet Ramsey.

To conclude, one of my favorite movies is a documentary on Idi Amin entitled General Idi Amin Dada. The closing credits state that we, as humans, should consider ourselves complicit in allowing bloodthirsty dictators such as Amin to thrive and survive unchallenged. We, the human race, created Amin. We created Hitler. These were not simple accidents. Clearly there is a part of all of us that despite the guise of so-called civilization remains barbaric and carnal.

There is a part of each and every one of us that is to blame when even one child is molested.

A Survivor's Story

I must admit that I've mulled over posting this for a while. For starters, it's not easy for me to talk about but I think the time has come for me to address this topic, painful though it may be.

The recent discussion in the blogosphere prompted by Barack Obama's assertion that sex education ought to begin in childhood compels me to speak. I agree with him. In the last decade alone, I have seen media become more and more sexualized. I'm speaking primarily about the internet, popular music, and television, but this culture as a whole has become hyper-sexualized. What was taboo in the '90s is tame compared to today. For example, I remember the controversy about Sir Mix-A-Lot's song "Baby Got Back" and the accompanying music video. Today, it wouldn't cause anyone to bat so much as an eyelash.

I'm glad we're having this discussion. A mere thirteen years ago, after all, Joycelyn Elders was forced out of her position as President Clinton's Surgeon General for proposing that sex education ought include an additional focus on masturbation. Still, I admit to having my doubts. I wonder what has changed since that time and if the American people are finally willing to confront that we live in a society where sex and sexual images are pervasive. Yet, we are still very much a Puritanical nation which condemns sex as shameful but thinks nothing of using sex as a means to make money.

A fellow blogger posed the question as to whether or not childhood sex education could help children from being exploited by pedophiles. I'll be honest. I don't know. To better illustrate this point, I need to refer to my own story of survival.

When I was a young boy, I was molested by the father of my two playmates. As is typical in such matters, I don't remember the abuse. The mind locks down on the memories as a means of protection--it's a coping mechanism invoked by the brain during times of intense trauma. So to answer her question: I'm not sure any amount of foreknowledge would have prevented the abuse. My parents tried to keep me safe in every way they could, but the abuse happened anyway. They weren't negligent or unfit to raise me.

In honesty, short of locking your child up in his or her room, there's absolutely no 100% fail-proof method.

Had I known what was happening to me, could I have prevented it? I doubt it. My trust was violated by an adult. I might have been better able to conceptualize it and know that it was wrong but being that I was a painfully shy, withdrawn, highly introverted child I was an easy target. Out of shame, I never vocalized what had happened to me for years. It was only later, through analyzing particularly unusual comments made by my playmates during the time the abuse was going on as well as noticing substantial gaps in my memory that I became aware of what had transpired.

Let's get real here. We humans are apt to treat the effects of a problem rather than confront the causes. So let's get to the heart of the matter. What causes pedophilia? Has it been around since the beginning of time or can it be traced it back to a particular point in history? What are its root causes? Does it serve any sort of biological purpose? Is this a phenomenon which occurs only in Western society?

It's well and good to see pedophilia and childhood sexual abuse as evil and a social taboo but that really doesn't answer these questions.

150 years ago, the legal age of consent was somewhere between the ages of 10 and 12. Those were different times, however. This nation was based primarily on agriculture and producing lots of children was considered essential because many hands were needed to tend to farming. Many infants died in childbirth and many perished at young ages due to diseases that modern medicine has since figured out how to cure, if not outright prevent.

As times changed, the age of consent increased. In most states, the age of consent is 16. As time went on, people began to believe that until a child had reached the age of consent, he or she was not capable of making a mature decision whether or not to engage in consensual sexual contact. Society changed. As we moved towards an industrial age, the concept of adolescence emerged. Instead of rapidly transitioning from childhood to adulthood, with no in between, a period of exploration, questioning, and challenging the status quo developed and became socially acceptable. It has been proposed that childhood and adolescence have increased in length since then, as we have shifted from an industrial society towards an information based society.

Another question that comes to mind is this: were children in 1850 more or less equipped to deal with sexual matters than children of today? Or is the reverse true?

I am left with only questions with no concrete answers.