As I've said before my most American quality is that I'm stupidly optimistic. I like to think that I look at data, people, and situations and generally try to see the best coming forth. But with that I try to balance it out with preparation for a worst case scenario. Right now, my optimism is shattering.
I want to be wrong right now. I want to believe that my fears, great and small, are unfounded and that I my growing pessimism is folly. But like I said, I look at data.
I fear that Donald J. Trump is going to irreparably harm the United States of America and the world at large. He could be helping to set the stage for a literal Third World War and a new age of civil rights abuses in this country.
Two or three years ago a friend told me that I was mistaken that Russia was the nation that posed the biggest threat to the US. He agreed that Vladimir Putin was an awful, authoritarian person but that we faced bigger problems with China. At the time he may have been right. But flash forward to December 2016 and we have highly reputable reports that Russians have hacked into both Republican and Democratic National Committees servers and used that information to sway the election to allow Donald Trump to win. And this is following his very open respect for Putin and an alignment with Russia. His current choice for Secretary of State is Rex Tillerson, a long time friend of Putin. And just like Putin when faced with charges of steroid abuse in his country's Olympians Trump hasn't denied any of this, he's simply mocking people for making the claims. Puppet or comrade, Trump is siding with the country that has most directly worked to compromise American democracy.
I understand why there are people who hate capitalism. Some hate money altogether but the truth is that it has a multifaceted purpose. One of those purposes is peace. People who hate each other can put aside their differences when there is mutual benefit to their commercial interactions. This is why free trade is such an important part of international politics. When two or more nations are placed in a situation through trade in which they can find mutual benefit, whether it's the stuffing of coffers or simply the coddling of an otherwise adversary, a peace can be found. And by peace I don't mean harmonious love. By peace I simply mean the absence of war.
Trump doesn't give two fucks about peace and, based on his campaign promises he isn't a fan of free trade either. He is trying to destroy our trade relationship with the country my friend most feared, China. Tariffs, taxation, seeking "fairness," whatever you want to call it Trump is trying to disrupt a flow of commerce with the greatest manufacturing force in the world and that's economically dangerous. But you know what else is dangerous? Taking phone calls from Taiwan's president and thereby disregarding 40 plus years of tenuous diplomatic relationships with the country most capable of causing America military harm.
Do I need to go on? YES?! Okay, how about Muslims? You know who hates Muslims more than Americans? Europeans. And if Trump colludes with Russia to assist the Assad regime in Syria to fight ISIS there will be a greater exodus of refugees and with his "extreme vetting" he promises they are more likely to go north than west. Boy, that won't act to destabilize European relations, will it?
And speaking of destabilizing...how about the fact that the vast majority of his Cabinet appointees have all expressed a vested interest in weakening and dismantling the very Departments with which they are to head? And not in some sort of libertarian fighting-government-overreach sort of way. But in a I'm-not-qualified-or-I-have-sued-this-Department-or-have-opposing-commercial-interests sort of way. I'm not even putting forth my worst case scenario here. I'm not even trying to put my most pessimistic spin on it. This is the reality any critical thinking person would have to acknowledge.
We need to fight to defend our civil liberties, to understand the meaning of "black lives matter," to allow our LGBT community to just live their fucking lives. We have to protect reproductive rights and fight theocracy. But I fear that we may be so fatigued from those struggles that we are unable to solidly plant our feet in a peace movement and that our fragmented society will be used as a tool to flaming the fires of war.
So what will the gust of wind that will blow the house of cards over? Iran bombing Israel? Israel bombing Egypt? A terrorist attack? Another stupid fucking phone call with Taiwan? I don't know. And I hope I never find out.
I want to be wrong so hard. I want people to be able to look back at this blog and say "Chuck, you were a X and you totally interpreted the current events incorrectly."
I suggest X = "silly goose" OR "dumb motherfucker." Either one has a poetry to it I can appreciate.
I'll be happy to be wrong. More than anything in the world I want to be wrong. And I'll put some skin in the game. In four years if we avoid war, if our economy is booming, if our unemployment is low, if our civil liberties are secure, if women can safely get abortions, if native lands are protected, if incarceration is down, if we return to community policing, if we have healthy trade relationships with the rest of the word, if cyber security is fortified, and America can guarantee that democracy will be preserved and our elections are safe and trustworthy, I'll vote for Trump. But for that to happen something needs to happen to seriously restore my optimism.
Call me what you will.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Thursday, July 17, 2014
R.A.M.O.N.E.S.
I don't often quote myself but on the morning of July 12th I awoke and found a news article on The Ramones Family Retrospective Facebook page about Tommy Ramone's death and posted this status update:
"If your legacy was that you in were the greatest American rock 'n roll band then I think you did all right. Goodbye, Tommy, the last Ramone standing."
People "Liked" my comment because it was something that resonated with them. One dude made a comment about another band, Grand Funk Railroad, possibly holding the title of "greatest American rock 'n roll band" but for me it's a no-brainer.
Their hometown, New York City, is my idea of the quintessential American city: culturally fragmented yet somehow unified, capitalistic, and burgeoning with possibility and pain. There wasn't a single ideology represented by the Ramones. There wasn't an activist spirit. They didn't write an advice column. They didn't ask you to identify with them. They just said what was going on.
Sometimes they wanted to pick up chicks in school. Sometimes they wanted to go to the beach. Sometimes they wanted to hock their stuff for heroin. Sometimes they fucked dudes for money but would kill you if you questioned their sexuality. They were a bunch of reprobates doing something that is purely American: playing rock n' roll for fun. F-U-N
They played a Trashmen cover. They played a Rivieras cover. They played a Ronettes cover. They were uniquely positioned in that they were able to take dashes of the speed and pop sensibilities of early rock, the energy of garage rock, and fragments of America's psychotronic cultural history without being hippies, without being ironic, and without popular approval. They set the stage for a hundred thousand bands that learned to reduce rock down to it's necessary components and shoot from the hip but none of there followers ever seemed to make you want to clap your hands and dance like they did.
To me, that's America. We struggle with racism, sexism, homophobia, drug abuse, homelessness, war, a growing police state and all sorts of absolutely fucked up things but, goddamnit, we know how to have a good time even at our own expense. Let's face it, sniffing glue is a pretty terrible idea but if you know how to write a catchy song about it I'll play that shit loud enough to shake a grave.
"If your legacy was that you in were the greatest American rock 'n roll band then I think you did all right. Goodbye, Tommy, the last Ramone standing."
People "Liked" my comment because it was something that resonated with them. One dude made a comment about another band, Grand Funk Railroad, possibly holding the title of "greatest American rock 'n roll band" but for me it's a no-brainer.
Their hometown, New York City, is my idea of the quintessential American city: culturally fragmented yet somehow unified, capitalistic, and burgeoning with possibility and pain. There wasn't a single ideology represented by the Ramones. There wasn't an activist spirit. They didn't write an advice column. They didn't ask you to identify with them. They just said what was going on.
Sometimes they wanted to pick up chicks in school. Sometimes they wanted to go to the beach. Sometimes they wanted to hock their stuff for heroin. Sometimes they fucked dudes for money but would kill you if you questioned their sexuality. They were a bunch of reprobates doing something that is purely American: playing rock n' roll for fun. F-U-N
They played a Trashmen cover. They played a Rivieras cover. They played a Ronettes cover. They were uniquely positioned in that they were able to take dashes of the speed and pop sensibilities of early rock, the energy of garage rock, and fragments of America's psychotronic cultural history without being hippies, without being ironic, and without popular approval. They set the stage for a hundred thousand bands that learned to reduce rock down to it's necessary components and shoot from the hip but none of there followers ever seemed to make you want to clap your hands and dance like they did.
To me, that's America. We struggle with racism, sexism, homophobia, drug abuse, homelessness, war, a growing police state and all sorts of absolutely fucked up things but, goddamnit, we know how to have a good time even at our own expense. Let's face it, sniffing glue is a pretty terrible idea but if you know how to write a catchy song about it I'll play that shit loud enough to shake a grave.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
I Hope They All Die
** Even though I have read all of the books in the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series that have been released up until this point I am going restrict any commentary on the subject in this or any future possible blog entries to events chronicled on the show "Game of Thrones." This decision is based on two things 1) more people are familiar with the television series than the novels and 2) they change things in the adaptation, often dramatically so. **
Excluding the dozen or so characters in the GOT world that I loved who have been murdered, mortally wounded in battle, or executed so far none of my favorite characters are dead. This primarily means the characters that, like most fans, I have latched on to early in both the books and the show: Tyrion, Arya, Danaerys, and Jon Snow. Likewise, less likable characters but still highly intriguing characters like Petyr Baelish, Varys, and the whole Lannister clan have also escaped death. I guess it's because I'm so engrossed by the richness and thoroughness of their characterization that I find myself so emotionally attached to Stannis and the Hound but it's great that a reader and viewer can care about what happens to them.
It's because of this love of these characters that I can't wait to see them die. Of course I have my own questions about each and every character (will Bran ride a dragon? will we find out about Jon's true parentage?) but the fact that they all are in constant peril excites me. Danaerys, is one of the most popular characters; she's certainly the one fans want to see amass even greater power. Now imagine what drama, what emotion would be pulled from fans if she died. George R. R. Martin creates the most spectacular, imaginative deaths for his characters and if he were to kill off Dany that it would have to be the most shocking and narratively significant event in all of the ASOIAF universe.
Of course it would be met with fan outrage. That's the point! OUTRAGE. It would be so emotionally jarring that readers would feel like they've lost a friend and hero. I cried while both reading, and years later viewing, the execution of Ned Stark. As an artist who hopes to create an emotional experience with my audience I truly admire and respect the audacity of a writer like Martin who would be willing to put both the lives of his characters and the hearts of his fans in peril.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Star Wars de Mayo
Holidays are made up anyway so I don't know why this one should mean anything to me but I don't celebrate "Star Wars Day." Not on May the 4th anyway. "STAR WARS" came out on May 25, 1977 so I celebrate on that day. At least I did up until 7 years ago.
On May 25, 2007 my friend Blake and I decided we would watch ALL SIX MOVIES in one day. Not in one sitting because this was back when I smoked pot so we had to take a burrito break between trilogies. But regardless, we watched all six in one day.
This was an all-around terrible decision. Not only did it further entrench our displeasure with the so-called prequel trilogy but it really made watching the original trilogy a chore. After 7 and half hours of awful shit we weren't able to slip into that nostalgic pleasure that is brought on by watching those movies. It was a mind-numbing, brutal experience and I haven't watched a "STAR WARS" movie since then. Why would I? Even if I could I wouldn't be able to watch the original trilogy on Blu-ray so it means that I have to except an inferior experience no matter what.
On May 25, 2007 my friend Blake and I decided we would watch ALL SIX MOVIES in one day. Not in one sitting because this was back when I smoked pot so we had to take a burrito break between trilogies. But regardless, we watched all six in one day.
This was an all-around terrible decision. Not only did it further entrench our displeasure with the so-called prequel trilogy but it really made watching the original trilogy a chore. After 7 and half hours of awful shit we weren't able to slip into that nostalgic pleasure that is brought on by watching those movies. It was a mind-numbing, brutal experience and I haven't watched a "STAR WARS" movie since then. Why would I? Even if I could I wouldn't be able to watch the original trilogy on Blu-ray so it means that I have to except an inferior experience no matter what.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Screw That Guy
I had this one friend who killed himself a few years ago. He hanged himself (pictures are hung, humans are hanged). On the day his divorce was finalized he placed a bolt into the archway leading from his dining room to his kitchen, tied a noose to it, and hanged himself with his dog watching. Friends found him the next day when he didn't report into work. The most awkward moment of my life was when I met up with his elderly mom a couple of days later at his house and she asked, "is this where Shawn hung himself?" I let the grammatical error slide.
That's all fucked up. Leaving all that emotional baggage to his ex, not letting anyone know that his dog would need to be fed. And perhaps worst of all was that he was this mega collector with awesome stuff and a pile of debt that he left his mom to deal with. All she had in her life was her son and he traded her that for some dumb shit. As it turns out two months later she got a heat stroke in one of his storage spaces, fell and knocked her head and died. The last time I saw her alive was when she was on the front row of his memorial service and I spoke about missing my friend.
This dude was like my big brother and I haven't forgiven him for killing himself and leaving things the way he did. I hope I can some day but here we are, over 3 years later, and I still get pissed. When folks post on Facebook how much they miss him and their conversations and whatnot I feel disconnected from that person. Maybe it's a flaw on my part, I don't know. But this is the first time I've publicly shared these feelings with anyone and since no one reads my blog anyway I figured I would get it out there.
That stupid fucker would have loved "Drive" and the last two seasons of "Breaking Bad." The dog found a new home.
That's all fucked up. Leaving all that emotional baggage to his ex, not letting anyone know that his dog would need to be fed. And perhaps worst of all was that he was this mega collector with awesome stuff and a pile of debt that he left his mom to deal with. All she had in her life was her son and he traded her that for some dumb shit. As it turns out two months later she got a heat stroke in one of his storage spaces, fell and knocked her head and died. The last time I saw her alive was when she was on the front row of his memorial service and I spoke about missing my friend.
This dude was like my big brother and I haven't forgiven him for killing himself and leaving things the way he did. I hope I can some day but here we are, over 3 years later, and I still get pissed. When folks post on Facebook how much they miss him and their conversations and whatnot I feel disconnected from that person. Maybe it's a flaw on my part, I don't know. But this is the first time I've publicly shared these feelings with anyone and since no one reads my blog anyway I figured I would get it out there.
That stupid fucker would have loved "Drive" and the last two seasons of "Breaking Bad." The dog found a new home.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
They Throw Everything At Him
A friend once asked me for some advice on a script she was developing about a professional wrestler. She wasn't interested in the "hows" of professional wrestling, such as "how does one become a wrestler" or "what is the thought process when creating the unusual art that is professional wrestling?" Her line of questioning focused more on "who becomes a wrestler" and more importantly "why does a person become a wrestler?"
Clearly that answer is unique to each individual involved and as you can imagine everyone in our industry is a bit of an odd bird. I sometimes joke that the people in wrestling range from the unique to the mentally ill. Though involvement may sometimes be for the wrong reasons almost all of us do it because we simply feel like we have to.
There is a unique experience that comes from professional wrestling that is found in no other art form that I know. There is the ballet-like expression of human emotion through physical movement, there is improvisation interwoven through conspired melodies like jazz. But to combine them into one form with a beautiful, sometimes malevolent, intention of manipulating people into states of cathartic fury is unlike any other I've seen.
Though she had seen the film already I advised her to watch Darren Aranofsky's The Wrestler. Though it does illustrate a darker side of professional wrestling, the side of drugs and damaged relationships, it also shows the kind of personality that thrives in that business. Due to it's numerous allusions to the Jesus story I sometimes call the film "The Passion of the Ram." Randy "The Ram's" side is pierced in his match against Necro Butcher, he has a messianic pathology that leads him to sacrifice everything for the enjoyment of his fans, and eschewed by society and scourged in the ring. A direct comparison is even made by the character Cassidy who quotes the Bible by way of the film The Passion of the Christ:
"He was pierced for our
transgressions, He was crushed for
our iniquities. The punishment that
brought us peace was upon Him, and
by His wounds we were healed."
It is as if the sacrificial lamb has reached full adulthood and has become The Ram. I know that my involvement in wrestling makes me predisposed to enjoying this film but I'd advise you to look up Penn Jillette's "Penn Points" in which he reviews this movie. He is an artist with whom I have great admiration and I think his time as a performer gives him a special understanding of the picture.
I've heard many criticisms of our "sport" and consider myself an ambassador for our business. My character, my "gimmick" if you will, is "The Voice of Reason" because it is a reflection of who I am in real life. I do not believe in supernatural powers and am an advocate for science and skepticism. I do not use drugs or alcohol because, as a human, I am already driven by enough irrational thinking and I feel that as person of some minor influence (particularly to children) that I should demonstrate that toughness is more than just physical.
Clearly that answer is unique to each individual involved and as you can imagine everyone in our industry is a bit of an odd bird. I sometimes joke that the people in wrestling range from the unique to the mentally ill. Though involvement may sometimes be for the wrong reasons almost all of us do it because we simply feel like we have to.
There is a unique experience that comes from professional wrestling that is found in no other art form that I know. There is the ballet-like expression of human emotion through physical movement, there is improvisation interwoven through conspired melodies like jazz. But to combine them into one form with a beautiful, sometimes malevolent, intention of manipulating people into states of cathartic fury is unlike any other I've seen.
Though she had seen the film already I advised her to watch Darren Aranofsky's The Wrestler. Though it does illustrate a darker side of professional wrestling, the side of drugs and damaged relationships, it also shows the kind of personality that thrives in that business. Due to it's numerous allusions to the Jesus story I sometimes call the film "The Passion of the Ram." Randy "The Ram's" side is pierced in his match against Necro Butcher, he has a messianic pathology that leads him to sacrifice everything for the enjoyment of his fans, and eschewed by society and scourged in the ring. A direct comparison is even made by the character Cassidy who quotes the Bible by way of the film The Passion of the Christ:
"He was pierced for our
transgressions, He was crushed for
our iniquities. The punishment that
brought us peace was upon Him, and
by His wounds we were healed."
It is as if the sacrificial lamb has reached full adulthood and has become The Ram. I know that my involvement in wrestling makes me predisposed to enjoying this film but I'd advise you to look up Penn Jillette's "Penn Points" in which he reviews this movie. He is an artist with whom I have great admiration and I think his time as a performer gives him a special understanding of the picture.
I've heard many criticisms of our "sport" and consider myself an ambassador for our business. My character, my "gimmick" if you will, is "The Voice of Reason" because it is a reflection of who I am in real life. I do not believe in supernatural powers and am an advocate for science and skepticism. I do not use drugs or alcohol because, as a human, I am already driven by enough irrational thinking and I feel that as person of some minor influence (particularly to children) that I should demonstrate that toughness is more than just physical.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
The Muppets and R'hllor
The following is an unedited instant message conversation between myself and my friend and co-worker Jarred Lee http://deafrogue.blogspot.com/.
I make no apologies for my grammatical errors, FYI.
I make no apologies for my grammatical errors, FYI.
Charles: so what is it about the Muppets that you connect with? why do you love them so much?
Jarred Lee: I always liked how real they seemed. Their distinct personalities mixed with the format of The Muppet Show and the different Muppet movies
Charles: i think that's why i like Miss Piggy
Charles: because she seems like she and maybe Kermit are the most complex characters
Charles: i was reading her back story and i was actually quite wrong about the body image thing
Charles: it's crazy how much Frank Oz put into developing her
Jarred Lee: Yeah, they always felt more like actors, themselves, than puppets
Charles: I know I wasn't aware of this as a child but I think the thing that got me was that the Muppets just intrinsically good.
Charles: Even Crazy Harry, you know?
Charles: He was disruptive but he wasn't trying to hurt anyone. He was just chaotic.
Charles: I think that was a reflection of the kind of man Jim Henson was.
Charles: A man that believed in the goodness of people and the power of imagination.
Charles: I actually get teary-eyed when I think of the beauty of it.
Charles: There's just so much cynicism in the world. So much hate.
Charles: And he was the exact opposite of it.
Charles: And if you look at "The Dark Crystal" or "Labryinth" you'll see he's not afraid of representing darkness.
Charles: But he also believes in the power to illuminate. Which I find truly precious.
Jarred Lee: Very well-said
Jarred Lee: Even as children, I think that we're mostly capable of sensing a deeper meaning to things, and I feel that that came across very clearly with Jim Henson's creations.
Charles: I think you're very right.
Jarred Lee: Which aided their almost universal acclamation and appreciation
Charles: People want something to aspire to, I believe. They want inspiration.
Charles: That's my great criticism of the secular community (and why I'm not fully a part of it). Is that they so often criticize religion without realizing that fundamental truth.
Charles: Yes, I dislike religion and find great fault with it. But I don't find fault with the human need for inspiration.
Jarred Lee: I completely agree. As humans, I feel that we need something to put our faith in. My main issue with religion has always stemmed from my rejection of theism. I believe that a moral values and social etiquette can exist without the belief in deities. I've always felt that religion's descent into pettiness stems from the competitive nature of theistic beliefs.
Charles: Continue, please. I'm curious about this line of thought because I personally like what I consider "true" competition.
Jarred Lee: Well, I believe that religions are social constructs at their core. From what I've observed and read, the basic ideas of "good" and "evil" (read: right and wrong) seem to fairly static across the major religions. From what I can tell, only religions that have appeared in opposition to other religions seem to differ in that regard. That leads me to believe that defining those values are intrinsically important to the formation of any religion.
Jarred Lee: But, as a social construct, there has to be an element of control, as well. Religion has a limitless potential for influence, so it's only natural that the creators of a religion would look to the supernatural for that element, as its influence is impossible to argue and can be elevated to any level on a whim. With that said, from a religious perspective, it is difficult to make allowances for supernatural forces that exist outside of your religion.
Jarred Lee: That's what I am referring to when I talk about the competitive nature of theistic religions
Charles: The night is dark and full of terrors, am I right?
Jarred Lee: lol
Jarred Lee: Yes
Saturday, February 9, 2013
The Grunt and Groan Game
Endeavoring to write about professional wrestling has proven to be far more difficult than I expected. Not because I don't have much to say about it but because I have TOO MUCH to say about it. Think about that for a second. Look at the length of my previous blog posts (and read them if you haven't because I can be quite clever at times). I actually am having trouble writing about wrestling because I just have too much to say about it. But just as I try to tell younger performers trying to get an understanding of our art: in wrestling less really is more.
Very simply, fans go to wrestling events for the cathartic experience of living vicariously through someone they love defeating someone they hate in physical combat. It is a business in that promoters are investing time and money into getting patrons to come and exchange capital for their product. It's an art because it is based on reaching into a real, fantastic world and seeking to invoke real, heightened emotions.
I love professional wrestling. As a fan, as a participant, as an ambassador of the sport, I love professional wrestling. The physicality, the drama, the brutality, the pageantry. The empathy, the manipulation, the danger, the surprise. When wrestling is great it provides an interactive experience that no other athletic endeavor or entertainment field can duplicate.
A number of possible blog entries came to mind. I could write about the reality of wrestling. I could write about the appeal of wrestling. I could write about the "violent" nature of wrestling. What makes a good wrestling show? Why do I call it an art form? Perhaps if people comment on this post I will reply with specific posts.
One thing I will not do: tell you HOW we do what we do. In my opinion too much of the wrestling business has been exposed already and I feel an almost sacred responsibility to protect some of our secrets. Penn & Teller do the Cups and Balls trick not to show you how to be a magician but to show you how hard their job is and just to offer a little insight into their art. Similarly I am willing to share "why" we do some of the things we do but if you want to know the "how" I suggest you do what I did and go to wrestling school.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Chuck, You Is Crazy!
**This blog will permanently destroy any "tough guy" or "cool guy" credibility I may have pretended to have but maybe it will be helpful to someone who needs the encouragement.**
In conversation I will occasionally say, "I know I'm not crazy; my therapist said so." I love the ironic sound of this phrase but it's actually very true. I may be irrational at times, I may have strange, emotional, nostalgic moments. I may not always connect to people the same way other people do but I'm certainly not "crazy" in the sense that I'm a danger to others and myself. But I have had at important times in my life sought the services of mental health professionals in order to address immediate and long-standing emotional issues.
I was hesitant at first to seek out professional help because, like many people, I had this perceived notion that mental health problems are like the conditions of a hypochondriac and, ironically, "all in your head" inasmuch as that it's something I was just making up. The only people you ever see in movies seeking mental health treatment were catatonic, violent, drug abusers, or purely delusional. It seemed that if you didn't think you were Napoleon you were just a regular ol' person and that you should be totally fine and that to suggest otherwise is to admit an unspeakable personal weakness. Fortunately, I was encouraged by good people, a family member and friend, who had found therapy beneficial and that gave me the strength to try to face my fears. While I'm not sure if the diagnosis is 100% correct I was diagnosed with a condition in therapy that at least gave me a jumping point to find avenues towards improving my emotional and behavioral health.
You see, the brain is so unfathomably complicated that it's currently impossible to explain how it works but everyday we learn more and more about how it functions and how it affects our behaviors and our decisions. We do know some things like our ability to use pure reason plays a very, very small part in most of our actions and choices individually. It stands to reason then that every single person on the planet probably has a few, if not several million, neurological misfirings and connections which cause us to think and behave in ways that may not be most beneficial to our physical and mental health, much less for how they affect other people. And, if that's the case, it seems rather sensible to me that people might want to take time to see if there may be things they can do allow their brain to function in a more healthy way just as they would their heart and lungs.
Recently "the failure of the mental health community" has become one rallying cry in regards to the apparent, though I think sensationalized, rash of acts of mass violence by individuals. This may be my irrational brain causing me to say this but it seems that a more immediate issue is the violent individuals' inability to address their own mental health issues. Perhaps when you're psychological function is that far gone you are incapable of recognizing that you may need a different mental health strategy and that's totally fair. I'm not sure if the same thing can be said for a person who posts twice a day on Facebook about their drinking habits, their misanthropic preference of dumb animals over their fellow human, or the often hate-fueled disgust for people with different political or sociological perspectives.
Perhaps we have this hold over belief that mental health is associated with sin and that we're unhappy because we aren't following God's will or something. Fortunately, we've pretty much eradicated that belief when it comes to physical health issues (contrary to what the Bible says, I might add) so maybe it's time that society starts looking to more reasonable answers. Perhaps your "relationship with God" operates differently than mine did but my experience involved scores of hours of requests to alleviate my youthful self hatred and loneliness to an unanswering God. But, as I eventually learned, just as an obese person can't pray away the fat, a depressed person can't pray away the pain.
There is so little we know about the brain and psychology is such a young, strange science that we know we are ignorant and wrong about some or a lot of things. I can live with that because I know that the heart behind it is the question, "how can we make people healthier, better people?" You don't have to be on the verge of shooting up a school to seek to improve your psychological health. You just need the strength to say, "I wonder if I could do this better?
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
An Angry Holiday Letter
**Attention, anyone can read this but I'm specifically aiming this diatribe at atheists and agnostics. In this typically long-winded blog I'm going to share some stories and attempt to tie them together into a cohesive thought here so bear with me if you have the time.**
Some of you may recall that I used to pride myself as "the atheist who loves Xmas." Well, I'm not anymore. I don't celebrate Xmas or Christmas. I take some stuff way too seriously and holidays are one of them. Since "the holiday season" has become so politicized I decided I would take a formal position on the matter.
So, instead of saying "well...I don't really celebrate Christmas because I'm not into Santa or Jesus but I like the lights and blah blah blah" I've found a great alternative: HumanLight. Some people in New Jersey started it and since then it's been sponsored by the American Humanist Association. Basically, since it falls on December 23rd it's like the secular humanist's bootleg Christmas. Yes, I know it's a stupid fucking name. Truthfully, I'm stumped when it comes to thinking of a better one but it's at least as good as "Easter" or "Arbor Day." If you're a secular humanist you've got something to put on your calendar. Note: it's the day AFTER my birthday which should also be on your calendar so you can remember to give me stuff.
But here's the thing: it's for secular humanists, right? So we have a holiday now where we get to all be proud about being humanists without the "burden" or whatever of religion? What does that mean? That we show the light of our....well, that's what I'm wondering. The light of our what?
Get this: I'm an atheist. I actively believe there is no god. In my opinion, that in no way speaks to my character or the quality of person I am. It may affect my decisions and actions but just because I don't believe in the supernatural in any way means I'm a "good" or "bad" person. Despite what that moron Paul may have said in a letter, my works actually do matter. But, you know, I don't think all atheists really get this idea.
See, a few weeks ago I went to an atheist meetup. Was I there to engage in intellectual discourse? Well, sure. I mean, mostly I was there hoping there might be some hot, single atheist babes who didn't think being involved in the professional wrestling business was appalling but, yeah, sure, I was there for the discourse. Certainly there was some of that (not so much the hot babes) but there was one thing I definitely found: self righteous atheist snarkiness.
You know, I get it. Religion is stupid. It teaches things and ideas that are untrue and often harmful. Tell me something I don't know. But you know what, just because you aren't religious you aren't all of the sudden better than the people who are religious. In fact, if all your anti-religious experience grants you is the ability to make jokes about Mormons then chances are you might not actually have a whole lot going for you.
Jump forward to a few weeks later. I was invited to a breakfast by a fellow skeptic and was fortunate to meet some very cool people. Snarkiness was not present at this discussion but there was, thankfully, some disagreement. The idea was presented that there was a deep concern about the presence of libertarianism within the skeptic community. For one thing, I don't think having a diversity of opinion within the community is a bad thing but for another HEY! I'm a libertarian! In fact, I describe my beliefs as being "atheist libertarianism."
Without putting too fine a point on it, basically someone said that though she is an atheist she still maintains some of her Christian morality and that as such she still supports the idea of having a safety net. Mind you, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a safety net but I retorted by saying (and I paraphrase), "I still have some of my Christian morality as well but the tradition I came from was the Salvation Army and even though most of those people support conservative economics they devoted much of their lives to supporting social services and saw helping those in need as part of their duty as Christians."
Flash forward to yesterday: a friend of mine, perhaps one of the most compassionate humans I've ever known, texted me asking if she should give money to the Salvation Army because she wanted to know if the money went to the church or social services. I'm sure that to most atheists the answer is very clear: no, the Salvation Army is a church and they shouldn't get any of my money. Almost certainly my issues with the SA are personal and deeper than yours so when I say I don't give money to them believe me when I say have legitimate reasons. But for you? You could do better but you could do a hell of a lot worse too.
But then it hit me, all three of the stories have this same connective idea: what does it mean to be a secular humanist? I mean, we have a holiday with a stupid name now, right? So what are we celebrating about our belief? That we think we're smarter than Christians? I can tell you right now that I don't want any part of that bullshit.
Listen, I'm not going to attempt to argue that libertarianism maximizes resources and expands economic growth for all people in the long run. Frankly, I'm not sure that it does and there is evidence to the contrary. But I can tell you what I want out of my own life and what I'd like for others: I want to be able to be free to make my own decisions, live my life as I best see fit, use my time how I want, make whatever I want out of my life to the best of my ability, take care of myself and those that I love, and when I'm able, help out people who are in greater need than myself. That's all I want. I don't mind people telling me what they think is best for me but I sure as hell don't want to be forced to do anything. I don't want anyone to be forced into doing anything they don't want to do. If that's the ugly presence of libertarianism, idyllic and naive as it may be, I can live with that.
But what I can't live with is people calling themselves "secular humanists" and then not really giving a fuck about their fellow Homo sapien. There probably should be a safety net provided by the state. But if you ask me, it should be a last line of defense. The reason we're even alive as a species is because evolution granted altruism as part of our genetic make up. We're here because we had to take care of each other. Is it enough? Maybe not, but goddamn it, let's at least fucking TRY.
The people in the Salvation Army are wrong about us needing Jesus. Cool. But you know what, I've seen Salvationists who would LITERALLY take their shirt off for a person in need. No, gays aren't going to hell and it's a stupid, horrible belief to hold. But, goddamn, those assholes cared about their fellow human beings. To me THAT is really what it means to be a humanist.
Secular humanists, I'm not saying you need to change your politics because as far as I know you're right. But I will ask you to do is to give a fucking shit about your fellow humans and do something about it. We're smart enough to know that evolution brought us to this point on Earth, we ought to be smart enough to figure out that we can be personally involved in helping to make the lives of other humans better.
Honestly I don't really want to be kind to the world. I want to be fucking Lex Luthor. I want to be so smart, so driven, so crazy I can challenge goddamn Superman. Really, I'm not even that nice of a person. Ask the guy at the gas pump who yells, "hey, big man!" if I open up my wallet to him. But since my stupid monkey brain keeps telling me "you're supposed to care about those dumb schleps within your species" I try to find some ways to exhibit compassion.
So if you're a secular humanist I expect the same out of you. I'm not saying stop giving to your fucking save-the-pit bull campaign ('cause some of those chicks wear skimpy outfits and make calendars with which you can put my birthday on) but how about this: give to a save-the-human charity every now and then. My favorite is Doctors Without Borders but there are plenty of great ones out there, probably even better ones. You've got time and resources to go online and waste it reading my bullshit so you must have something going for you.
What's that? You're like me and mooching off the Internet at work? Then give blood or something. That's apolitical, that's secular. I've even gotten some cute phlebotomists' numbers out of the deal. There are lots of ways of addressing material needs and until we have an Atheism Army that runs orphanages and handles disaster relief you might have to bite the bullet and do it in a less appealing way.
My point, briefly - Dear Atheists,
Stop being so goddamned snarky and help out your fellow fucking human.
No government, NGO, non-profit or even corporation is going to make this place better if we aren't willing to do the good ourselves first. Maybe if we're all so smart and just so goddamned humanistic that one day we won't be arguing about a safety net we'll actually be runnin' this damn thang. Maybe it won't be goddamned megachurches I see running winter-time clothing and toy drives in my 'hood. I know a lot is institutional and just being compassionate and godless won't change that, but it sure as hell is a step in the right direction.
Some of you may recall that I used to pride myself as "the atheist who loves Xmas." Well, I'm not anymore. I don't celebrate Xmas or Christmas. I take some stuff way too seriously and holidays are one of them. Since "the holiday season" has become so politicized I decided I would take a formal position on the matter.
So, instead of saying "well...I don't really celebrate Christmas because I'm not into Santa or Jesus but I like the lights and blah blah blah" I've found a great alternative: HumanLight. Some people in New Jersey started it and since then it's been sponsored by the American Humanist Association. Basically, since it falls on December 23rd it's like the secular humanist's bootleg Christmas. Yes, I know it's a stupid fucking name. Truthfully, I'm stumped when it comes to thinking of a better one but it's at least as good as "Easter" or "Arbor Day." If you're a secular humanist you've got something to put on your calendar. Note: it's the day AFTER my birthday which should also be on your calendar so you can remember to give me stuff.
But here's the thing: it's for secular humanists, right? So we have a holiday now where we get to all be proud about being humanists without the "burden" or whatever of religion? What does that mean? That we show the light of our....well, that's what I'm wondering. The light of our what?
Get this: I'm an atheist. I actively believe there is no god. In my opinion, that in no way speaks to my character or the quality of person I am. It may affect my decisions and actions but just because I don't believe in the supernatural in any way means I'm a "good" or "bad" person. Despite what that moron Paul may have said in a letter, my works actually do matter. But, you know, I don't think all atheists really get this idea.
See, a few weeks ago I went to an atheist meetup. Was I there to engage in intellectual discourse? Well, sure. I mean, mostly I was there hoping there might be some hot, single atheist babes who didn't think being involved in the professional wrestling business was appalling but, yeah, sure, I was there for the discourse. Certainly there was some of that (not so much the hot babes) but there was one thing I definitely found: self righteous atheist snarkiness.
You know, I get it. Religion is stupid. It teaches things and ideas that are untrue and often harmful. Tell me something I don't know. But you know what, just because you aren't religious you aren't all of the sudden better than the people who are religious. In fact, if all your anti-religious experience grants you is the ability to make jokes about Mormons then chances are you might not actually have a whole lot going for you.
Jump forward to a few weeks later. I was invited to a breakfast by a fellow skeptic and was fortunate to meet some very cool people. Snarkiness was not present at this discussion but there was, thankfully, some disagreement. The idea was presented that there was a deep concern about the presence of libertarianism within the skeptic community. For one thing, I don't think having a diversity of opinion within the community is a bad thing but for another HEY! I'm a libertarian! In fact, I describe my beliefs as being "atheist libertarianism."
Without putting too fine a point on it, basically someone said that though she is an atheist she still maintains some of her Christian morality and that as such she still supports the idea of having a safety net. Mind you, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a safety net but I retorted by saying (and I paraphrase), "I still have some of my Christian morality as well but the tradition I came from was the Salvation Army and even though most of those people support conservative economics they devoted much of their lives to supporting social services and saw helping those in need as part of their duty as Christians."
Flash forward to yesterday: a friend of mine, perhaps one of the most compassionate humans I've ever known, texted me asking if she should give money to the Salvation Army because she wanted to know if the money went to the church or social services. I'm sure that to most atheists the answer is very clear: no, the Salvation Army is a church and they shouldn't get any of my money. Almost certainly my issues with the SA are personal and deeper than yours so when I say I don't give money to them believe me when I say have legitimate reasons. But for you? You could do better but you could do a hell of a lot worse too.
But then it hit me, all three of the stories have this same connective idea: what does it mean to be a secular humanist? I mean, we have a holiday with a stupid name now, right? So what are we celebrating about our belief? That we think we're smarter than Christians? I can tell you right now that I don't want any part of that bullshit.
Listen, I'm not going to attempt to argue that libertarianism maximizes resources and expands economic growth for all people in the long run. Frankly, I'm not sure that it does and there is evidence to the contrary. But I can tell you what I want out of my own life and what I'd like for others: I want to be able to be free to make my own decisions, live my life as I best see fit, use my time how I want, make whatever I want out of my life to the best of my ability, take care of myself and those that I love, and when I'm able, help out people who are in greater need than myself. That's all I want. I don't mind people telling me what they think is best for me but I sure as hell don't want to be forced to do anything. I don't want anyone to be forced into doing anything they don't want to do. If that's the ugly presence of libertarianism, idyllic and naive as it may be, I can live with that.
But what I can't live with is people calling themselves "secular humanists" and then not really giving a fuck about their fellow Homo sapien. There probably should be a safety net provided by the state. But if you ask me, it should be a last line of defense. The reason we're even alive as a species is because evolution granted altruism as part of our genetic make up. We're here because we had to take care of each other. Is it enough? Maybe not, but goddamn it, let's at least fucking TRY.
The people in the Salvation Army are wrong about us needing Jesus. Cool. But you know what, I've seen Salvationists who would LITERALLY take their shirt off for a person in need. No, gays aren't going to hell and it's a stupid, horrible belief to hold. But, goddamn, those assholes cared about their fellow human beings. To me THAT is really what it means to be a humanist.
Secular humanists, I'm not saying you need to change your politics because as far as I know you're right. But I will ask you to do is to give a fucking shit about your fellow humans and do something about it. We're smart enough to know that evolution brought us to this point on Earth, we ought to be smart enough to figure out that we can be personally involved in helping to make the lives of other humans better.
Honestly I don't really want to be kind to the world. I want to be fucking Lex Luthor. I want to be so smart, so driven, so crazy I can challenge goddamn Superman. Really, I'm not even that nice of a person. Ask the guy at the gas pump who yells, "hey, big man!" if I open up my wallet to him. But since my stupid monkey brain keeps telling me "you're supposed to care about those dumb schleps within your species" I try to find some ways to exhibit compassion.
So if you're a secular humanist I expect the same out of you. I'm not saying stop giving to your fucking save-the-pit bull campaign ('cause some of those chicks wear skimpy outfits and make calendars with which you can put my birthday on) but how about this: give to a save-the-human charity every now and then. My favorite is Doctors Without Borders but there are plenty of great ones out there, probably even better ones. You've got time and resources to go online and waste it reading my bullshit so you must have something going for you.
What's that? You're like me and mooching off the Internet at work? Then give blood or something. That's apolitical, that's secular. I've even gotten some cute phlebotomists' numbers out of the deal. There are lots of ways of addressing material needs and until we have an Atheism Army that runs orphanages and handles disaster relief you might have to bite the bullet and do it in a less appealing way.
My point, briefly - Dear Atheists,
Stop being so goddamned snarky and help out your fellow fucking human.
No government, NGO, non-profit or even corporation is going to make this place better if we aren't willing to do the good ourselves first. Maybe if we're all so smart and just so goddamned humanistic that one day we won't be arguing about a safety net we'll actually be runnin' this damn thang. Maybe it won't be goddamned megachurches I see running winter-time clothing and toy drives in my 'hood. I know a lot is institutional and just being compassionate and godless won't change that, but it sure as hell is a step in the right direction.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
A Memorial Day Thought
A couple of weekends ago a friend and I were driving through an Atlanta neighborhood and he pointed out a Civil War monument I had never seen before. I told him about how my grandmother used to show me this photograph of an ancestor of mine who fought for the Confederate States of America. I wish I paid more attention to her than I had for I can't remember his name. I don't know anything of his accomplishments on or off the battlefield. Likewise, I don't know much about the Patterson brothers who fought in the American Revolution that led my family to Georgia. But despite my ignorance of their lives I still felt that perhaps I might join some organization like the Sons of the Confederacy or Sons of the American revolution to honor their memories.
This was completely foreign to my friend. Why, he implored, would a person want to link himself to something of such legendary error as defending the evil institution of slavery? It's clear that I am opposed to slavery and, ultimately, I support the idea of a unified United States of America. So why would I want to honor those who fought to continue one of the greatest moral injustices that humans can, and still, engage in?
At first, I couldn't really answer him. He's right in that whatever positive reasons the Confederacy may have had for secession are vastly out weighed by the burden of slavery. But somehow, I still cannot hate the soldiers of the Confederacy just as I cannot hate the soldiers of the Union. Slavery is deplorable but I also think the total war tactics employed by the Union, and particularly those of Gen. Sherman, are also immoral. The Union will be forever known as the force that freed the slaves in America but also as the force that torched and destroyed the South in order to do it.
My father served in the Vietnam War. He was always a quiet man so I was never sure if his overall silence about the war was because of his general disposition or because he intentionally kept us in the dark about his time there. Years later after I graduated college I found out that my father was ill. He had been diagnosed with diabetes as an adult and then later with Hepatitis C. As it turns out my father contracted the disease during his time in the war. I don't know where he got the disease, Malaysia or Vietnam, but I do know that he was infected while using drugs that he never used before or after his military service. Although I do not know the details I do know that this was a common event for men who were asked to do things and see things which caused them great mental distress and they did what they could to anesthetize themselves.
The Vietnam War was not a just war nor was my father's involvement in it. He committed no crimes and did not volunteer to engage in war. The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT decided that he and many other men were not free moral agents but property of the state. Their liberty was not a consideration as they were forced into virtual slavery, given guns, and then sent to fight for causes that many knew nothing about and many opposed. While my father did not die in war and it was his own decisions that led to his early death I will always consider my father a combatant who died because of war.
I loved my father dearly. I honored and respected my father. I even loved my father's service in the military. He did not see things in the extreme way I did. Rather, he saw himself as a man who simply answered the call that the country he loved so dearly made. He was a hero to me as a father. And even though he fought in a war we now consider to be morally questionable he was also a hero to our country.
Soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, guardsmen. They are heroes. Ask any friend that's been with me to see it and they can confirm that if I'm in line at a grocery store, filling my gas tank, or getting a sandwich that I will stop what I'm doing to say 'thank you' to any man or woman in uniform. They make a living defending freedom and that's just about the coolest thing ever.
But sometimes these men and women are asked to do things I think is wrong. Sometimes these heroes are sent to places that I think the United States should avoid. But duty and honor are their callings, their job descriptions. They are the fighting men and women of the greatest military on the planet and are Grade-A ass kickers and I'm grateful that they are here.
That's how I feel about the Confederates. It's also I how I feel about the Union soldiers. Most southerners did not own a slave. Far fewer owned many slaves. But many men died on their behalf. Consider this sentence: wealthy, politically connected southern aristocrats convinced poorer, less sophisticated men to fight their battles for them. I could have easily replaced "southern" with "northern" and the sentence would be true.
My dad did not give a shit one way or the other about the Viet Cong. He may have known Communism was evil but he may not have known why. Regardless my dad, Charles Barrett Porterfield, had no business being entangled in the struggle to prevent it's spread to Asia. But politicians forced my father to do what millions of slain heroes have done: fight rich people's battles for them.
I've got nothing against wealth or the wealthy. I do have a problem with some wealthy people conspiring with people of great political power to send people like my father out to fight and possibly die. Most combatants in history have been men. Whether they were a Mongol, a Zulu, a Greek, an American, a Nazi, an Apache they were all individual, human beings that could have been someones father or brother or husband or lover and were absolutely someones son. Killed for a cause they may or not have believed I do not know if I have the moral fortitude to decide whether any or all died in vain. I do wish that whatever the issue at hand was that it had not come to war.
Maybe the Civil War was the only way to end slavery. Perhaps World War II limited the combine genocides of the Nazis and Soviets to 70 million when it could have been hundreds of millions. My cousin, a captain in the awesome US Navy, is involved in military intelligence and could probably tell me things that would make me accept a Nobel Peace Prize one week and then send tens of thousands of sons to a front line the next. But, goddammit, I have to believe there is another way. I argue that it's through free and fair trade that international conflict is reduced but if a politician espouses anything other than anti-war rhetoric then they will never have my vote.
My dad did not die during a war but war caused my dad to die. On this Memorial Day I'm going to remember him specifically and every warrior collectively who carried a gun or lifted a sword or drew a bow or flew a plane or sailed a warship and fought with (mostly) his all to fight for his country. May your sweat and blood be the foundation with which we forge a world in which our differences lead to competition and cooperation rather than violence and force.
This was completely foreign to my friend. Why, he implored, would a person want to link himself to something of such legendary error as defending the evil institution of slavery? It's clear that I am opposed to slavery and, ultimately, I support the idea of a unified United States of America. So why would I want to honor those who fought to continue one of the greatest moral injustices that humans can, and still, engage in?
At first, I couldn't really answer him. He's right in that whatever positive reasons the Confederacy may have had for secession are vastly out weighed by the burden of slavery. But somehow, I still cannot hate the soldiers of the Confederacy just as I cannot hate the soldiers of the Union. Slavery is deplorable but I also think the total war tactics employed by the Union, and particularly those of Gen. Sherman, are also immoral. The Union will be forever known as the force that freed the slaves in America but also as the force that torched and destroyed the South in order to do it.
My father served in the Vietnam War. He was always a quiet man so I was never sure if his overall silence about the war was because of his general disposition or because he intentionally kept us in the dark about his time there. Years later after I graduated college I found out that my father was ill. He had been diagnosed with diabetes as an adult and then later with Hepatitis C. As it turns out my father contracted the disease during his time in the war. I don't know where he got the disease, Malaysia or Vietnam, but I do know that he was infected while using drugs that he never used before or after his military service. Although I do not know the details I do know that this was a common event for men who were asked to do things and see things which caused them great mental distress and they did what they could to anesthetize themselves.
The Vietnam War was not a just war nor was my father's involvement in it. He committed no crimes and did not volunteer to engage in war. The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT decided that he and many other men were not free moral agents but property of the state. Their liberty was not a consideration as they were forced into virtual slavery, given guns, and then sent to fight for causes that many knew nothing about and many opposed. While my father did not die in war and it was his own decisions that led to his early death I will always consider my father a combatant who died because of war.
I loved my father dearly. I honored and respected my father. I even loved my father's service in the military. He did not see things in the extreme way I did. Rather, he saw himself as a man who simply answered the call that the country he loved so dearly made. He was a hero to me as a father. And even though he fought in a war we now consider to be morally questionable he was also a hero to our country.
Soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, guardsmen. They are heroes. Ask any friend that's been with me to see it and they can confirm that if I'm in line at a grocery store, filling my gas tank, or getting a sandwich that I will stop what I'm doing to say 'thank you' to any man or woman in uniform. They make a living defending freedom and that's just about the coolest thing ever.
But sometimes these men and women are asked to do things I think is wrong. Sometimes these heroes are sent to places that I think the United States should avoid. But duty and honor are their callings, their job descriptions. They are the fighting men and women of the greatest military on the planet and are Grade-A ass kickers and I'm grateful that they are here.
That's how I feel about the Confederates. It's also I how I feel about the Union soldiers. Most southerners did not own a slave. Far fewer owned many slaves. But many men died on their behalf. Consider this sentence: wealthy, politically connected southern aristocrats convinced poorer, less sophisticated men to fight their battles for them. I could have easily replaced "southern" with "northern" and the sentence would be true.
My dad did not give a shit one way or the other about the Viet Cong. He may have known Communism was evil but he may not have known why. Regardless my dad, Charles Barrett Porterfield, had no business being entangled in the struggle to prevent it's spread to Asia. But politicians forced my father to do what millions of slain heroes have done: fight rich people's battles for them.
I've got nothing against wealth or the wealthy. I do have a problem with some wealthy people conspiring with people of great political power to send people like my father out to fight and possibly die. Most combatants in history have been men. Whether they were a Mongol, a Zulu, a Greek, an American, a Nazi, an Apache they were all individual, human beings that could have been someones father or brother or husband or lover and were absolutely someones son. Killed for a cause they may or not have believed I do not know if I have the moral fortitude to decide whether any or all died in vain. I do wish that whatever the issue at hand was that it had not come to war.
Maybe the Civil War was the only way to end slavery. Perhaps World War II limited the combine genocides of the Nazis and Soviets to 70 million when it could have been hundreds of millions. My cousin, a captain in the awesome US Navy, is involved in military intelligence and could probably tell me things that would make me accept a Nobel Peace Prize one week and then send tens of thousands of sons to a front line the next. But, goddammit, I have to believe there is another way. I argue that it's through free and fair trade that international conflict is reduced but if a politician espouses anything other than anti-war rhetoric then they will never have my vote.
My dad did not die during a war but war caused my dad to die. On this Memorial Day I'm going to remember him specifically and every warrior collectively who carried a gun or lifted a sword or drew a bow or flew a plane or sailed a warship and fought with (mostly) his all to fight for his country. May your sweat and blood be the foundation with which we forge a world in which our differences lead to competition and cooperation rather than violence and force.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Similarly Inclined
I've been reading this terrific book by Michael Shermer called "The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Affect our Economic Minds" (Times Books, 2007). It is no surpise that I find this and his other books compelling because a) like Shermer I'm a skeptic who seeks scientific explanations for events and b) Shermer advocates for free market economics for a variety of social and moral reasons. This falls squarely into the category of "preaching to the choir" as I am an atheist libertarian like Michael Shermer himself. Both of us have been persuaded by the same arguments regarding philosophy and ethics and we share a similar perspective of how the world does and can operate. I am aware that there are equally learned and brilliant people who criticize Shermer and his philosophies but I have yet to read or hear any messages that I find to be more persuasive than those that he espouses. Since I have drastically changed my mind about these subjects before (remember, I used to be a socialist Christian) I always like to leave open the possibility that I may, and most likely will, alter my beliefs about the world.
So here's my question: what's so hard about taking the perspective that a person may be wrong about things and that it's just part of being a human? All the time I see conservatives deriding liberals as being mentally disabled and stupid and I see liberals calling conservatives hateful and ignorant. Maybe it's because of my libertarian bent that I take issue with this because I tend to support economic conservatism and am therefore lumped together anti-abortion, pro-religion zealots. Perhaps it's because I think people should be able to choose what they put in their bodies, be it drugs, fast food or cocks, that I'm considered a morally permissive sinner bound for Hell. I have no idea what the best choices for you are. I certainly don't think that corporations or the government know what is best for you. I do think that we as individuals are more than capable of making relatively good decisions for ourselves and the more autonomy we are given the better off we are. At least I am until I am given sound reasoning to think otherwise.
I know I've written about this before but I'm just fucking tired of name-calling. I'm particularly tired of people thinking they have a moral upper hand because of their beliefs. I shouldn't be surprised about this because in "The Mind of the Market" Shermer discusses studies recently conducted in which people were asked to rank their virtue in comparison of others, including their friends in which they consistently ranked themselves as being more moral and compassionate than others. There are a number of reasons for this but it ultimately comes down to humans' irrational ability to justify their own actions, right or wrong. Having been associated with both religious and non-religious groups I can tell you that no one has a monopoly on self-righteousness. I think atheist libertarianism offers the best, most constructive worldview currently available but that doesn't make me a better person by any measure.
So here's my question: what's so hard about taking the perspective that a person may be wrong about things and that it's just part of being a human? All the time I see conservatives deriding liberals as being mentally disabled and stupid and I see liberals calling conservatives hateful and ignorant. Maybe it's because of my libertarian bent that I take issue with this because I tend to support economic conservatism and am therefore lumped together anti-abortion, pro-religion zealots. Perhaps it's because I think people should be able to choose what they put in their bodies, be it drugs, fast food or cocks, that I'm considered a morally permissive sinner bound for Hell. I have no idea what the best choices for you are. I certainly don't think that corporations or the government know what is best for you. I do think that we as individuals are more than capable of making relatively good decisions for ourselves and the more autonomy we are given the better off we are. At least I am until I am given sound reasoning to think otherwise.
I know I've written about this before but I'm just fucking tired of name-calling. I'm particularly tired of people thinking they have a moral upper hand because of their beliefs. I shouldn't be surprised about this because in "The Mind of the Market" Shermer discusses studies recently conducted in which people were asked to rank their virtue in comparison of others, including their friends in which they consistently ranked themselves as being more moral and compassionate than others. There are a number of reasons for this but it ultimately comes down to humans' irrational ability to justify their own actions, right or wrong. Having been associated with both religious and non-religious groups I can tell you that no one has a monopoly on self-righteousness. I think atheist libertarianism offers the best, most constructive worldview currently available but that doesn't make me a better person by any measure.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Give Obama a Break
About 16 months ago I published a blog regarding a report that stated that President Obama made more biblical and Jesus references in a year than President Bush did during his entire presidency. If you go back and look at the comments you'll see that a lot of my friends, mostly self-identified liberals, argued that Obama was using religion as a way of reaching out to a part of the electorate and that he didn't really believe in Christianity. In private conversations some even argued that he probably didn't even believe in god.
Conservatives call Obama a Muslim and liberals are calling him an atheist. To me what this boils down to is that they all are calling him a liar and some are okay with it and some aren't. Either way they both argue that he's lying to get votes.
A couple of weeks ago this article came out about the Obamas finding a church home: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html
So he and his family are Christians. Please stop calling the guy a liar. If he were really Muslim he would believe that deception is wrong and wouldn't go to church. If he were really an atheist he would see through the bullshit of religion and would either criticize it or use a different method of arguing his point.
Again, Obama is a fucking Christian. Period. He espouses Christian beliefs. I disagree with a lot of President Obama's ideas including but not limited to his belief in God but I'm not calling the guy a fucking liar. Personally I think his politics are heavily influenced by Christianity and that may be one reason why I disagree with him but I don't think the guy is lying about something as important as his religious beliefs. He is a goddamn, motherfucking Christian. Stop saying he's a liar.
Conservatives call Obama a Muslim and liberals are calling him an atheist. To me what this boils down to is that they all are calling him a liar and some are okay with it and some aren't. Either way they both argue that he's lying to get votes.
A couple of weeks ago this article came out about the Obamas finding a church home: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html
So he and his family are Christians. Please stop calling the guy a liar. If he were really Muslim he would believe that deception is wrong and wouldn't go to church. If he were really an atheist he would see through the bullshit of religion and would either criticize it or use a different method of arguing his point.
Again, Obama is a fucking Christian. Period. He espouses Christian beliefs. I disagree with a lot of President Obama's ideas including but not limited to his belief in God but I'm not calling the guy a fucking liar. Personally I think his politics are heavily influenced by Christianity and that may be one reason why I disagree with him but I don't think the guy is lying about something as important as his religious beliefs. He is a goddamn, motherfucking Christian. Stop saying he's a liar.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Good Ol' Fashioned Hatefulness
Dear Overtly Hatemongering Asshole:
People are going to disagree with you so you should learn to accept it. You don't have to like the person and you certainly should be adamantly opposed to her or his ideas if you find them to be illogical or unsubstantiated but as a citizen of a free country you must accept that there will be differences of opinions. Even a person who believes the same things as yourself will interpret it and represent it in a different fashion than you simply because her or his life experiences, neurology, genetics, and choices are different.
If you are like myself then you believe in the free market of ideas. I don't want to silence those that disagree with me because I feel strongly that my beliefs are supported by rational argumentation and that the person who posits an opposing view will, in the long run, be proven either right or wrong. Germ theory wasn't immediately accepted but as it stood up to repeated testing and scrutiny it eventually became the accepted explanation of disease transmission. Freedom of speech is essential to the liberation of thought and the advancement of society. I may think that much of FOX News is propaganda for their agenda. But I also think that when a person calls for their "satanic death" like John Cusack has recently it shows a lack of confidence in the logic behind his or her arguments.
But what it also demonstrates to me is that some people are hate mongers. It used to be that when a person was a hate monger you expected that individual to be wearing white robes and burning crosses. From the extremists on the right I hear is how Barack Obama is a simultaneously a communist and a fascist (which is like being fire and water) and that they want him dead. From the left I hear people openly hoping that something awful befalls the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Yes, many of their ideas are wrong. Yes, they have made personal life choices that you or I would not make. But they are still human fucking beings. Palin isn't chopping up homosexuals with chainsaws. Obama isn't blasting bankers with a tank. Beck's politics may be influenced by a fraudulent religion but he isn't financially defrauding people. They all endorse ideas and policies that may be harmful for society but they aren't bad people. Say you hate their ideas. Call them assholes. But being an asshole is not immoral and it doesn't mean that wishing a person harm is justified.
Personally, I have no room for this in my life. I am war with ideas not people. If a person wants to place position themselves on the side that advocates or wishes physical harm to come to another person for expressing ideas then I do not want you to be my friend. If you cannot be civil don't be in my life. A grown up doesn't want Glenn Beck to die. A grown up tries to find the most compelling argument and lets the free market of ideas to take over.
People are going to disagree with you so you should learn to accept it. You don't have to like the person and you certainly should be adamantly opposed to her or his ideas if you find them to be illogical or unsubstantiated but as a citizen of a free country you must accept that there will be differences of opinions. Even a person who believes the same things as yourself will interpret it and represent it in a different fashion than you simply because her or his life experiences, neurology, genetics, and choices are different.
If you are like myself then you believe in the free market of ideas. I don't want to silence those that disagree with me because I feel strongly that my beliefs are supported by rational argumentation and that the person who posits an opposing view will, in the long run, be proven either right or wrong. Germ theory wasn't immediately accepted but as it stood up to repeated testing and scrutiny it eventually became the accepted explanation of disease transmission. Freedom of speech is essential to the liberation of thought and the advancement of society. I may think that much of FOX News is propaganda for their agenda. But I also think that when a person calls for their "satanic death" like John Cusack has recently it shows a lack of confidence in the logic behind his or her arguments.
But what it also demonstrates to me is that some people are hate mongers. It used to be that when a person was a hate monger you expected that individual to be wearing white robes and burning crosses. From the extremists on the right I hear is how Barack Obama is a simultaneously a communist and a fascist (which is like being fire and water) and that they want him dead. From the left I hear people openly hoping that something awful befalls the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Yes, many of their ideas are wrong. Yes, they have made personal life choices that you or I would not make. But they are still human fucking beings. Palin isn't chopping up homosexuals with chainsaws. Obama isn't blasting bankers with a tank. Beck's politics may be influenced by a fraudulent religion but he isn't financially defrauding people. They all endorse ideas and policies that may be harmful for society but they aren't bad people. Say you hate their ideas. Call them assholes. But being an asshole is not immoral and it doesn't mean that wishing a person harm is justified.
Personally, I have no room for this in my life. I am war with ideas not people. If a person wants to place position themselves on the side that advocates or wishes physical harm to come to another person for expressing ideas then I do not want you to be my friend. If you cannot be civil don't be in my life. A grown up doesn't want Glenn Beck to die. A grown up tries to find the most compelling argument and lets the free market of ideas to take over.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
What I was thinking while the guy on the other end of the line was blowing a gasket...
I got super pissed off yesterday when I was listening to NPR and they started talking about public policy and obesity. According to NPR and the federal government I'm borderline obese because if I add 2 pounds to my body, whether it be derived from fat or muscle is irrelevant, I become obese. They also said it wasn't my fault but probably the environment I live in so somebody, and since they said public policy and Federal government I suspect it means that they need to change the world around me instead of me changing my behavior. What it boils down to is the government wants to be god. Well, Uncle Sam, I'm a motherfucking atheist and I don't have, don't need and don't want a master in the fucking sky.
It's not that I don't believe in a space Santa raining us with blessings. It's that I don't believe anything in the universe or the universe itself gives a shit about any of us. This isn't a benevolent cosmos. It's an indifferent cosmos. If it has anything to offer it is nothing but emptiness and, as we humans seem to understand, pure fucking misery. And the only reason we have anything that appears to be good in this world is because humans are fucking good, fucking animals and when we aren't busy doing things for ourselves we're usually doing it for somebody else. So catch this fly ball: we humans don't deserve shit. Not from our family, not from our friends, not from our peers, not from any fucking body or any fucking institution. I hate it when people demand that the government try to fix everything like A) they've been blessed with some knowledge on what life for individuals or society is supposed to be like and B) they have the fucking right to do it. The improvement of this world, the so-called bettering of our society is achieved by letting humans just be what they are: good. And if they aren't good, if they tear apart everything, they destroy everything, they exploit everything, they devour and destroy the entire planet and every living thing on it they still aren't being bad. They are just following in what appears to be a teensy weensy itsy bitsy part of this impending thing that looms billions of years in our future called the Big Rip.
So in conclusion, if you don't think people are good then you can go fuck yourself. Stop being such a fucking asshole and realize that these people sitting around are just as self-centered as you are and have their own shit to deal with.
It's not that I don't believe in a space Santa raining us with blessings. It's that I don't believe anything in the universe or the universe itself gives a shit about any of us. This isn't a benevolent cosmos. It's an indifferent cosmos. If it has anything to offer it is nothing but emptiness and, as we humans seem to understand, pure fucking misery. And the only reason we have anything that appears to be good in this world is because humans are fucking good, fucking animals and when we aren't busy doing things for ourselves we're usually doing it for somebody else. So catch this fly ball: we humans don't deserve shit. Not from our family, not from our friends, not from our peers, not from any fucking body or any fucking institution. I hate it when people demand that the government try to fix everything like A) they've been blessed with some knowledge on what life for individuals or society is supposed to be like and B) they have the fucking right to do it. The improvement of this world, the so-called bettering of our society is achieved by letting humans just be what they are: good. And if they aren't good, if they tear apart everything, they destroy everything, they exploit everything, they devour and destroy the entire planet and every living thing on it they still aren't being bad. They are just following in what appears to be a teensy weensy itsy bitsy part of this impending thing that looms billions of years in our future called the Big Rip.
So in conclusion, if you don't think people are good then you can go fuck yourself. Stop being such a fucking asshole and realize that these people sitting around are just as self-centered as you are and have their own shit to deal with.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The New Face of Free Speech
What the fuck just happened? Did I get sucked into the Twilight Zone?
When I was in high school I remember there being two highly controversial news stories surrounding freedom of speech: the National Endowment of the Arts funding a traveling art exhibit which included the works of Robert Mapplethorpe (which offended the conservative right) and Ice T's rock group Body Count releasing the song "Cop Killer" (which offended just about everyone). There were some other hot issues in there too like "Piss Christ" and the advent of shock jocks but these two stories always seemed to be mentioned whenever the subject of freedom of speech came up.
Maybe it was the post-Reagan bliss that a lot of burgeoning young liberals were experiencing but at the time I remember it being people on the left defending this controversial speech. Warner Bros. was lambasted as sell-outs for taking "Cop Killer" off the market and the liberals cheered when Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati was prosecuted for "pandering obscenity" for showing Mapplethorpe's art and found not guilty. Conservatives (like Tipper fucking Gore) helped to organize things like PMRC and worked to demonize public funding of the arts. It seemed like if you were a liberal then you were a proponent for free speech.
Flash forward to today. A couple of days ago I saw an editorial (I don't know what else to call it since there was only one person being interviewed about the 'news story') on CNN about how the words of conservative talk show hosts are hate mongers saying things which can incite violence from the right and that she questions the constitutionality of their diatribes. She may be right that some of them are hate-mongers and she may even be right that some are calling for violence even though no specific examples were given. But if they are how is that different from the ultraviolent lyrics of "Fuck Tha Police?" The last time I checked "There will be a sea of cops dying in LA" wasn't meant as an olive branch.
Or what about words that the left use to justify violence? Should the actions of the Animal Liberation Front nullify the words of "The Sexual Politics of Meat?" Or does the Unabomber's violence mean that one cannot criticize industrialization? Thomas Jefferson openly called upon violent rebellion when he said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Yes, it is ugly, unruly speech but I cannot fathom anyone who supports the words of the First Amendment wanting to place limits upon it's protections. Well, that is unless it's The New York Times:
"The court has already heard arguments in a challenge to a federal law barring material support to terrorists, which prohibits some kinds of speech in support of controversial causes. We hope it narrows the statute’s scope, carefully sorting through what kinds of assistance are protected speech, and what are the sorts of aid the government can properly prohibit."
"The Court and Free Speech," April 23, 2010
(emphasis added)
How about none? What if there is no speech the government can "properly" prohibit?
But what's crazier to me is how conservatives now position themselves as the defenders of free speech. They aren't actually going to do anything about it like dismantle the powers of the FCC but they will be glad to sing the praises of anyone making anti-Islamic statements (but not necessarily anti-religion) or anti-gay commentary. Maybe they actually do support freedom of speech but it just seems far too convenient that these ideologically charged issues would be the ones they cite. It remains to be seen if they are such fervent supporters of civil liberties that they will push to do away with speech codes on public school and university campuses.
Whether you're a conservative, a liberal, or something else you owe it to yourself and your beliefs to support unhindered freedom of speech. Don't get bullied into thinking that your thoughts and voice are criminal even if some other person's actions are. If you advocate for the silence of your opponents now know that your words will be on the chopping block within a generation.
Oh, by the way, I'd really like to say that I want to shoot a gurgling load of my jizz down Tipper Gore's throat but I'm afraid that it may contribute to global warming so I'll refrain.
When I was in high school I remember there being two highly controversial news stories surrounding freedom of speech: the National Endowment of the Arts funding a traveling art exhibit which included the works of Robert Mapplethorpe (which offended the conservative right) and Ice T's rock group Body Count releasing the song "Cop Killer" (which offended just about everyone). There were some other hot issues in there too like "Piss Christ" and the advent of shock jocks but these two stories always seemed to be mentioned whenever the subject of freedom of speech came up.
Maybe it was the post-Reagan bliss that a lot of burgeoning young liberals were experiencing but at the time I remember it being people on the left defending this controversial speech. Warner Bros. was lambasted as sell-outs for taking "Cop Killer" off the market and the liberals cheered when Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati was prosecuted for "pandering obscenity" for showing Mapplethorpe's art and found not guilty. Conservatives (like Tipper fucking Gore) helped to organize things like PMRC and worked to demonize public funding of the arts. It seemed like if you were a liberal then you were a proponent for free speech.
Flash forward to today. A couple of days ago I saw an editorial (I don't know what else to call it since there was only one person being interviewed about the 'news story') on CNN about how the words of conservative talk show hosts are hate mongers saying things which can incite violence from the right and that she questions the constitutionality of their diatribes. She may be right that some of them are hate-mongers and she may even be right that some are calling for violence even though no specific examples were given. But if they are how is that different from the ultraviolent lyrics of "Fuck Tha Police?" The last time I checked "There will be a sea of cops dying in LA" wasn't meant as an olive branch.
Or what about words that the left use to justify violence? Should the actions of the Animal Liberation Front nullify the words of "The Sexual Politics of Meat?" Or does the Unabomber's violence mean that one cannot criticize industrialization? Thomas Jefferson openly called upon violent rebellion when he said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Yes, it is ugly, unruly speech but I cannot fathom anyone who supports the words of the First Amendment wanting to place limits upon it's protections. Well, that is unless it's The New York Times:
"The court has already heard arguments in a challenge to a federal law barring material support to terrorists, which prohibits some kinds of speech in support of controversial causes. We hope it narrows the statute’s scope, carefully sorting through what kinds of assistance are protected speech, and what are the sorts of aid the government can properly prohibit."
"The Court and Free Speech," April 23, 2010
(emphasis added)
How about none? What if there is no speech the government can "properly" prohibit?
But what's crazier to me is how conservatives now position themselves as the defenders of free speech. They aren't actually going to do anything about it like dismantle the powers of the FCC but they will be glad to sing the praises of anyone making anti-Islamic statements (but not necessarily anti-religion) or anti-gay commentary. Maybe they actually do support freedom of speech but it just seems far too convenient that these ideologically charged issues would be the ones they cite. It remains to be seen if they are such fervent supporters of civil liberties that they will push to do away with speech codes on public school and university campuses.
Whether you're a conservative, a liberal, or something else you owe it to yourself and your beliefs to support unhindered freedom of speech. Don't get bullied into thinking that your thoughts and voice are criminal even if some other person's actions are. If you advocate for the silence of your opponents now know that your words will be on the chopping block within a generation.
Oh, by the way, I'd really like to say that I want to shoot a gurgling load of my jizz down Tipper Gore's throat but I'm afraid that it may contribute to global warming so I'll refrain.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
A Few Words on Art
During a weekend visit by my friend Shane we had the most wonderful opportunity to talk for hours about a variety of topics and I'd like to thank him for the inspiration of this blog.
Artists suck. Okay, that's an untrue, horrible generalization but I thought that knowing my audience they would either stop right there and never talk to me again or they'd want to know what would make me have that momentary fit of intolerance. And since I consider myself to be an artist of sorts I better clarify my intent.
In all of it's forms I think art is a valuable, important aspect of the human experience. On an individual level it's a (usually) thoughtful person's attempts at reaching out and communicating and translating a part of themselves. It could an be an external expression of her views and feelings about herself, her friends, her community, life, the universe, anything imaginable. Her art may say things she thinks are true or untrue or both. It may represent everything from the most beautiful to the most horrifying aspects of life. It doesn't have to be "right" or "perfect" but it does allow the artist the opportunity to create something that exists outside of herself and can stand on it's own. Most of my friends share a love of many of the same works of art because they speak to us and because what we identify with in the art is a projection of our self and world perceptions.
On a broader level art is part of the artifacts with which a society is remembered and judged. It's like the status update of a culture: it gives clues, puzzle pieces which when assembled reflect the broader picture of what that society is really about. Works created by artists of different ideologies may still show the mosaic of ideas that create the intellectual and social landscape of the society. If one wants to see how fragmented and diverse the American psyche is one can look at the artistic output of one city and compare it to another and you'll see what a broad spectrum of ideas that make up our national identity.
But what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of art is it's purely non-essential quality. It absolutely doesn't have to exist but it does. In effect, it's entirely useless. It doesn't supply nutrition, it doesn't protect against the elements, it doesn't give warmth or protection. It's completely unnecessary to our survival but we can't stop it from happening. The horses of Chauvet Cave didn't supply sustenance or function to increase the chance of humans to compete for resources with other organisms but reflected the growing intellectual and communicative prowess of our species. We don't have to make art to live but because we live we make art.
A society that produces great art is a reflection of that society's greatness. It exists because of an excess of resources and talent. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had very little opportunity to make art because they were busy, well, hunting and gathering so that they and kind weren't dead. Jump forward about 30,000 years to a feudal society, like feudal China for instance, and you'll see an exponential growth in the amount of art. It's not just because the population is greater but because they were more efficient in providing the basic tools for survival for their communities. Simply put, they had more free time on their hands and since idle hands do the devil's work they made art.
Jump forward to today and you'll see a mind-boggling number of self-described artists. Art-collecting.com has a list of nearly 100 art galleries in Atlanta alone. That doesn't even count the number coffee shops, tea houses, tattoo and curio shops that sell art by original artists. And that's just for visual art. When you consider the number of musicians, writers, filmmakers, and theatrical artists this city has you can tell this is a town that doesn't concern itself with whether we our crops will yield enough food to feed our families. I'd argue that even if Georgia had no Arts Council, and unfortunately that decision is in the hands of politicians, you couldn't stop Atlanta from having a thriving artists' community.
So back to why artists suck. I'd think it would be obvious: we don't need 'em but they can't admit it. The most self-important artists think that they serve an integral role in the survival of their society and that they alone are commissioned to be the prophets of our times. Alan Moore will always on my list of favorite comic book writers but, frankly, I decided I didn't really like the guy when I read an interview with him in which he argued that artists are gifted with a special spiritual power to see the other realms of the universe. He can't simply say, "I'm more talented and thoughtful than many in my field" but instead suggests that his soul/mind has tapped into another magical universe and that he is some sort of vessel for other-worldly communication. Get a grip, Moore.
I often equate artistic arrogance to athletics. Athletes have skills that entertain and captivate large numbers of people. They perform well and receive the adulation of others. They are praised for their accomplishments and, quite understandably, they internalize this praise. But they often mistake the praise of their performance as praise for themselves as humans. Their coddling and revenue generation make them seem superhuman. I think the same thing can ring true for artists. Seriously, how many actors have you encountered that think they have a greater connection with their fellow human because they can convincingly pretend to be someone else? Or how many musicians have you known that have quit bands because they weren't getting the personal satisfaction they think they deserve as an artist?
I love art. I collect books and movies. I listen to a wide spectrum of music. I buy art when I can afford it. I even have art permanently tattooed into my body. When I write, whether it is a blog like this or a screenplay, I feel that I am making art. I'm trying to communicate a portion of myself and my worldview. I openly put my mind and thoughts out for the world to see and actually welcome the criticism and dialogue that comes from it. Just as I am willing to change my life and my opinions my art reflects that journey. And maybe this is my self-important arrogance shining through here, but I for one most certainly do not suck.
Artists suck. Okay, that's an untrue, horrible generalization but I thought that knowing my audience they would either stop right there and never talk to me again or they'd want to know what would make me have that momentary fit of intolerance. And since I consider myself to be an artist of sorts I better clarify my intent.
In all of it's forms I think art is a valuable, important aspect of the human experience. On an individual level it's a (usually) thoughtful person's attempts at reaching out and communicating and translating a part of themselves. It could an be an external expression of her views and feelings about herself, her friends, her community, life, the universe, anything imaginable. Her art may say things she thinks are true or untrue or both. It may represent everything from the most beautiful to the most horrifying aspects of life. It doesn't have to be "right" or "perfect" but it does allow the artist the opportunity to create something that exists outside of herself and can stand on it's own. Most of my friends share a love of many of the same works of art because they speak to us and because what we identify with in the art is a projection of our self and world perceptions.
On a broader level art is part of the artifacts with which a society is remembered and judged. It's like the status update of a culture: it gives clues, puzzle pieces which when assembled reflect the broader picture of what that society is really about. Works created by artists of different ideologies may still show the mosaic of ideas that create the intellectual and social landscape of the society. If one wants to see how fragmented and diverse the American psyche is one can look at the artistic output of one city and compare it to another and you'll see what a broad spectrum of ideas that make up our national identity.
But what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of art is it's purely non-essential quality. It absolutely doesn't have to exist but it does. In effect, it's entirely useless. It doesn't supply nutrition, it doesn't protect against the elements, it doesn't give warmth or protection. It's completely unnecessary to our survival but we can't stop it from happening. The horses of Chauvet Cave didn't supply sustenance or function to increase the chance of humans to compete for resources with other organisms but reflected the growing intellectual and communicative prowess of our species. We don't have to make art to live but because we live we make art.
A society that produces great art is a reflection of that society's greatness. It exists because of an excess of resources and talent. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had very little opportunity to make art because they were busy, well, hunting and gathering so that they and kind weren't dead. Jump forward about 30,000 years to a feudal society, like feudal China for instance, and you'll see an exponential growth in the amount of art. It's not just because the population is greater but because they were more efficient in providing the basic tools for survival for their communities. Simply put, they had more free time on their hands and since idle hands do the devil's work they made art.
Jump forward to today and you'll see a mind-boggling number of self-described artists. Art-collecting.com has a list of nearly 100 art galleries in Atlanta alone. That doesn't even count the number coffee shops, tea houses, tattoo and curio shops that sell art by original artists. And that's just for visual art. When you consider the number of musicians, writers, filmmakers, and theatrical artists this city has you can tell this is a town that doesn't concern itself with whether we our crops will yield enough food to feed our families. I'd argue that even if Georgia had no Arts Council, and unfortunately that decision is in the hands of politicians, you couldn't stop Atlanta from having a thriving artists' community.
So back to why artists suck. I'd think it would be obvious: we don't need 'em but they can't admit it. The most self-important artists think that they serve an integral role in the survival of their society and that they alone are commissioned to be the prophets of our times. Alan Moore will always on my list of favorite comic book writers but, frankly, I decided I didn't really like the guy when I read an interview with him in which he argued that artists are gifted with a special spiritual power to see the other realms of the universe. He can't simply say, "I'm more talented and thoughtful than many in my field" but instead suggests that his soul/mind has tapped into another magical universe and that he is some sort of vessel for other-worldly communication. Get a grip, Moore.
I often equate artistic arrogance to athletics. Athletes have skills that entertain and captivate large numbers of people. They perform well and receive the adulation of others. They are praised for their accomplishments and, quite understandably, they internalize this praise. But they often mistake the praise of their performance as praise for themselves as humans. Their coddling and revenue generation make them seem superhuman. I think the same thing can ring true for artists. Seriously, how many actors have you encountered that think they have a greater connection with their fellow human because they can convincingly pretend to be someone else? Or how many musicians have you known that have quit bands because they weren't getting the personal satisfaction they think they deserve as an artist?
I love art. I collect books and movies. I listen to a wide spectrum of music. I buy art when I can afford it. I even have art permanently tattooed into my body. When I write, whether it is a blog like this or a screenplay, I feel that I am making art. I'm trying to communicate a portion of myself and my worldview. I openly put my mind and thoughts out for the world to see and actually welcome the criticism and dialogue that comes from it. Just as I am willing to change my life and my opinions my art reflects that journey. And maybe this is my self-important arrogance shining through here, but I for one most certainly do not suck.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Reform the Care of Your Health
Barring the complete loss of mental faculties of President Obama or a decision by the Supreme Court that reverses the course of health care reform it's pretty safe to say that the health care package passed by the House of Representatives will become the new game in town. It's a time of rejoicing for some and denouncement for others. For some close to me they know that during the time of debate (which will continue into perpetuity I'm sure) that I have expressed my own skepticism regarding the nature and effectiveness of proposals placed before us. I have had doubts regarding the economic feasibility of such a potentially expensive package and have questioned whether the rights and responsibilities of individuals was placed in high enough regard in the minds of those crafting the bill. Given the success of the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and Terror it's not unreasonable to have misgivings about the United States' government capability to deliver all of their health care promises and simultaneously reduce the deficit through taxation on potential GDP.
To tell you the truth, I hope I'm wrong. Due to pure stubbornness I'm sure that there are some who want this to fail miserably but I personally have no roosters in this cock fight. My ego will not be shattered if everything works out wonderfully. I would love it America becomes a healthier, more industrious nation without a single person sacrificing an iota of his or her freedom. Some people far more intelligent than myself, or at least far more politically connected than myself, seem to think so. Of course more intelligent people than myself bought into the idea that American soldiers "will be greeted as liberators" in Iraq and that Endangered Species Act would prevent species from going extinct but I digress. And regardless of whether it's the most economically, philosophically, and morally sound approach that the government could take I will always be optimistic about my ability and the ability of humans in general to overcome obstacles and make the most of a given situation. I'm not losing sleep because I think that human progress has come to a halt. This may be naive of me to say but I'd like to think that if it proves to be ineffective that maybe we can try a different approach in the future.
So if I feel so good about things, why am I even bothering to write a blog about this hugely divisive issue after the fact? Because now that we have an idea of what our political future is like we need to look at what our own personal futures will be like. This may be an unwelcome comment but I think some (which is a loaded term in and of itself) proponents of Democratic-led healthcare were, well, dicks. We know that a lot of Republicans were dicks with their whole death-panel/Obama-is-more-dangerous-than-Hitler rhetoric so that's been addressed. But no matter what your political ideology is you have to agree that any argument with integrity must be accompanied by culpability. First, some context.
See, I used to live with this guy who hated Blacks because he thought that they were shiftless, lazy criminals but he himself was cocaine dealer (I didn't know until a couple of months in) who only cared about Florida football. Obviously because his mind was muddled with white powder and white power I couldn't take anything this guy said seriously. I've made A LOT of mistakes in my life. I put myself through decades of obesity, failed to exercise, and ate literally tons of fast food. Then I became a pot head. You know who doesn't take their health seriously: a fat ass, Taco Bell eating pot head. Now I'm far from living a perfectly healthy lifestyle now but now I go to the gym regularly, actually eat fruits and vegetables, and completely gave up the use of illegal drugs and alcohol. That's now. Maybe in the future things could change again, but right now I try to place some importance on my health.
I put this in context because I'm aware that a person's health and his or her necessity for health care are intertwined. You can't change your genetics (yet) and you can't make everyone a cautious driver but there are some major things you can do to preserve your health. I chose to look in the mirror and ask myself what can I do to improve my health. You may imagine, then, that when I am presented with rhetoric to reform health care from a person I think that they way he or she takes care of his or herself is going to affect the calibers with which I use when evaluating his or her argument. Maybe that's not fair but I remember a Facebook posting from a person I know who was a smoker who drank heavily and used cocaine demanding her "free goddamn health care" I immediately de-friended the person. I had no respect for her argument and felt that she was probably not a person whose life and words would be personally edifying for me. Maybe I'm a dick too.
I completely disagreed with Obama's statement during his debates with McCain that we are all going to have to sacrifice for the sake of America's future. I think all of us already make sacrifices but they are voluntary; that's what makes it a sacrifice. When something's taken away from you without your consent or as a form of retribution when you've wrong someone that's not a sacrifice that's an act of oppression. But let's go along with this inane idea that perhaps we all need to make a sacrifice for America. If you believe in this health care package that is going to be signed into law by President Obama, I want you to step up to the plate too. Barack smokes and drinks so he can't make this call to action, but I can. If you think Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and that Floridian guy who said that Republicans want you to die are correct I want you to start by giving up cigarettes; especially hot chicks because smoking ages you and makes you less attractive. I also want you to stop drinking heavily. If you aren't able to drink less than, say, a twelve pack in a week you may need to seek professional help. This shit ain't easy, I know. Neither is earning over $200,000 a year but Congress is okay telling those people how their money should be used. Given the political reality we face right now I desperately want to be wrong. But when it comes to the idea that nobody is more responsible than you for the quality of your health I know I'm right.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Pray for Haiti?
(Because of the recent tragedies that have befallen Haiti I've been trying to process the ethical and social realities that compose the so-called human condition. Writing blogs has been one way in which I make attempts to understand the world and place current events within perspective and the Haitian earthquake and aftermath has been no exception. But what has been different is that I have thus far chosen not to post my blogs on the subject. Much of what I have written is in anger and sadness and I think it's wise for me to refrain from posting too much about my own life. Additionally many of the behaviors that I am critical of were exhibited by people I like and who like me and I expect that it could potentially cost me some valuable social capital were I to share all of my feelings. Along these lines I will add that I don't give a fuck about late night television talk show hosts and I couldn't care less who they work for or how much money they make. The lives of Haitians is of far greater consequence to me and I think it should be for you too. Also, since none of you are the DJ that I heard on 95.5 The Beat wondering aloud why more media attention and money has been paid to Haiti than to New Orleans after Katrina (neither of which are true) it's a wasted breath to discuss this.)
Pat Robertson is a dick. That's not a revolutionary thought. Even amongst the most religious of my friends I can't imagine anyone I know would dispute that claim. His moronic comments about Haiti's earthquake being the result of a pact made with Satan to keep out the French were insidious and vile. His words were, however, the result of a strange and perverted sense of consistency. Pat Robertson believes in the supernatural and believes that other-worldly forces play a part in the events of day-to-day activities. He calls it 'God' but regardless of the terminology Robertson believes that unseen forces affect what happen to humans and the rest of the universe. Either by action or inaction these forces determine what happens in the lives of one or all. He followed up his statements about Haiti by saying that 'God' did not directly cause the earthquake to happen but, presumably, it chose not to prevent the earthquake. As ludicrous as it sounds to me Robertson realizes that if one believes that supernatural forces are involved in the lives of individuals then the deaths of over 200,000 people must have somehow been influenced by these same forces.
As a person who believes strictly in a material world I have neither the luxury or burden of explaining why 'God' or 'Allah' or any other supernatural force either caused or allowed such a tragedy to happen. Likewise I have no supernatural force to supplicate my earnest emotions regarding the people in Haiti. I contributed money to a couple of different disaster relief funds because all I could see was that humans populated an island that sits on a moving fault line and that they were suffering. I did not ask somebody else to ease their suffering because I am aware that cash buys more medical supplies and food than prayer does.
I'd like to offer you a challenge. I spent far too much as an evangelical Christian in my youth to bother with trying to convert people to my non-religious philosophy. There are others who can make far more eloquent philosophical arguments on the matter than myself and it usually seems to be a fruitless activity on my part.
I spent over a decade living and maintaining a religious identity. I have a pretty good idea of what it is like to view the world through a lens that imagines seeing supernatural influences on everything. If you do think the world is guided by unseen forces I would like to invite you to use your imagination and explore a different viewpoint. Imagine that the world we live in has no supernatural influence, no holy guidance, no divine purpose. For a few days, maybe even a few weeks try to imagine that there are only material forces behind everything. Take note of how it may make you change your perspectives on the people you interact with and of the history unfolding around you. I'm not asking you to convert to atheism I'm simply asking you to walk a mile in an atheist's shoes. I've walked several miles in the shoes of a believer and I feel like my life is more fulfilled because I haven't just entertained one perspective. To be very direct I'd like to add that if you worship a divine being that would punish you for an eternity for simply entertaining the thought that it doesn't exist you should ask yourself if such an intolerant force is worthy of your worship.
If you're still looking for something to give up for Lent might I suggest keeping chocolate and forgoing religion!
Pat Robertson is a dick. That's not a revolutionary thought. Even amongst the most religious of my friends I can't imagine anyone I know would dispute that claim. His moronic comments about Haiti's earthquake being the result of a pact made with Satan to keep out the French were insidious and vile. His words were, however, the result of a strange and perverted sense of consistency. Pat Robertson believes in the supernatural and believes that other-worldly forces play a part in the events of day-to-day activities. He calls it 'God' but regardless of the terminology Robertson believes that unseen forces affect what happen to humans and the rest of the universe. Either by action or inaction these forces determine what happens in the lives of one or all. He followed up his statements about Haiti by saying that 'God' did not directly cause the earthquake to happen but, presumably, it chose not to prevent the earthquake. As ludicrous as it sounds to me Robertson realizes that if one believes that supernatural forces are involved in the lives of individuals then the deaths of over 200,000 people must have somehow been influenced by these same forces.
As a person who believes strictly in a material world I have neither the luxury or burden of explaining why 'God' or 'Allah' or any other supernatural force either caused or allowed such a tragedy to happen. Likewise I have no supernatural force to supplicate my earnest emotions regarding the people in Haiti. I contributed money to a couple of different disaster relief funds because all I could see was that humans populated an island that sits on a moving fault line and that they were suffering. I did not ask somebody else to ease their suffering because I am aware that cash buys more medical supplies and food than prayer does.
I'd like to offer you a challenge. I spent far too much as an evangelical Christian in my youth to bother with trying to convert people to my non-religious philosophy. There are others who can make far more eloquent philosophical arguments on the matter than myself and it usually seems to be a fruitless activity on my part.
I spent over a decade living and maintaining a religious identity. I have a pretty good idea of what it is like to view the world through a lens that imagines seeing supernatural influences on everything. If you do think the world is guided by unseen forces I would like to invite you to use your imagination and explore a different viewpoint. Imagine that the world we live in has no supernatural influence, no holy guidance, no divine purpose. For a few days, maybe even a few weeks try to imagine that there are only material forces behind everything. Take note of how it may make you change your perspectives on the people you interact with and of the history unfolding around you. I'm not asking you to convert to atheism I'm simply asking you to walk a mile in an atheist's shoes. I've walked several miles in the shoes of a believer and I feel like my life is more fulfilled because I haven't just entertained one perspective. To be very direct I'd like to add that if you worship a divine being that would punish you for an eternity for simply entertaining the thought that it doesn't exist you should ask yourself if such an intolerant force is worthy of your worship.
If you're still looking for something to give up for Lent might I suggest keeping chocolate and forgoing religion!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Cursed Facebook, Inspid MySpace
The other day I saw that there was a Facebook group for people who "refuse" to pay for Facebook. I wonder if this is that they think Facebook should be free because they think using the service is something they should be entitled to; like their rights would be violated because a private service that they probably use daily to communicate and network with others is somehow guaranteed by the Constitution.
I sure as shootin' don't want to pay to use Facebook but I think that it consolidates a lot of my social networking desires in such a tight package that I would have to pay for it. I'd want better service it there was a fee but I'm sure they have done a lot of cost/benefit analysis regarding the drops in ad revenue and brand value they would experience by requiring paid membership and they will make the best decision possible. For the time being it's free and all I have to do is look at some ads. And I'd like to point out, though, that these advertisements are far superior to the ones I that I used to receive from MySpace. The following is an older blog post from 2007 about an issue I had with MySpace marketing. I don't know if it's any better now because I was only visiting the site to see if one of my older blogs was still posted there and didn't look around too much.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Would Someone Explain to MySpace what ’Demographics’ Are
I'm sure by now, oh MySpace users, that you've noticed that this dear site analyzes your various entries searching for keywords for marketing purposes. For instance, if you have entered 'superheroes' in one of your interest fields (as I have in the past) you will get adds for comic book sellers on your MySpace homepage. Thanks to our good friends at News Corp. and their directed advertising practices if you select 'Atheist' as your 'Religion,' you can expect ads from companies that offer 'God's Promise in His Word' and debate 'Evolution vs. Creation.' Atheist, people. I do not believe in God. Get it? I used to, now I don't. Pretty simple. Perhaps Christian webmasters have never actually met an atheist, but most of us don't want to subscribe to your daily devotional newsletter. Unless we can win an XBOX360.
++UPDATE++I now have 'Sponsored Links' that ask if I am 'Struggling with Lust,' 'Believe in Evolution?' and am 'Puzzled by Christianity.' Is this Christianity saying 'fuck you,'? Well, grow up, Christianity. We're getting tired of your nonsense. You're like a child who wants to keep telling us the details of an unfunny joke.
++And now 'Cool Jesus Christ T Shirt.' Really? Nothing makes a fashion statement like '100% Human 100% Divine Color Black, Long Sleeve'
+++This shit is ridiculous: "Want to Share Your Faith?", "Puzzled by Christianity", etc. It has actually gotten so bad, in my opinion, that I have written MySpace to complain. And I guess I will have to again
I sure as shootin' don't want to pay to use Facebook but I think that it consolidates a lot of my social networking desires in such a tight package that I would have to pay for it. I'd want better service it there was a fee but I'm sure they have done a lot of cost/benefit analysis regarding the drops in ad revenue and brand value they would experience by requiring paid membership and they will make the best decision possible. For the time being it's free and all I have to do is look at some ads. And I'd like to point out, though, that these advertisements are far superior to the ones I that I used to receive from MySpace. The following is an older blog post from 2007 about an issue I had with MySpace marketing. I don't know if it's any better now because I was only visiting the site to see if one of my older blogs was still posted there and didn't look around too much.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Would Someone Explain to MySpace what ’Demographics’ Are
I'm sure by now, oh MySpace users, that you've noticed that this dear site analyzes your various entries searching for keywords for marketing purposes. For instance, if you have entered 'superheroes' in one of your interest fields (as I have in the past) you will get adds for comic book sellers on your MySpace homepage. Thanks to our good friends at News Corp. and their directed advertising practices if you select 'Atheist' as your 'Religion,' you can expect ads from companies that offer 'God's Promise in His Word' and debate 'Evolution vs. Creation.' Atheist, people. I do not believe in God. Get it? I used to, now I don't. Pretty simple. Perhaps Christian webmasters have never actually met an atheist, but most of us don't want to subscribe to your daily devotional newsletter. Unless we can win an XBOX360.
++UPDATE++I now have 'Sponsored Links' that ask if I am 'Struggling with Lust,' 'Believe in Evolution?' and am 'Puzzled by Christianity.' Is this Christianity saying 'fuck you,'? Well, grow up, Christianity. We're getting tired of your nonsense. You're like a child who wants to keep telling us the details of an unfunny joke.
++And now 'Cool Jesus Christ T Shirt.' Really? Nothing makes a fashion statement like '100% Human 100% Divine Color Black, Long Sleeve'
+++This shit is ridiculous: "Want to Share Your Faith?", "Puzzled by Christianity", etc. It has actually gotten so bad, in my opinion, that I have written MySpace to complain. And I guess I will have to again
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)