Theocratic Living and Design

Readers:

I have been absent for a spell and I am sorry for not providing you with my thrice-weekly rant. However, I see my apology is unnecessary because Auditus filled with void with some good humor and clear thinking related to our ongoing argument with Michael Eden. I really do not think I am up to equaling Auditus’ post on the matter, but I will offer up some thoughts inspired by his own.

Some years back a friend of mine who labels herself an evangelical Christian asked me about my religious views. When I told her that I was happily agnostic she questioned my intellectual commitment because, to paraphrase her, thinking about God is the most essential of questions. I disagreed with her then and I more strongly disagree with Eden and other evangelical folk now. For me trying to argue about one’s faith and attempting to persuade others to change their views on the subject is often a colossal waste of time. Why so, you ask? The reason is that arguing about disprovable faiths gets in the way of living. What I mean is that, for me at least, the point of life is trying to figure out what one can do, how to best live with oneself and others, and what sort of a positive change can be made in the circumstances into which we are cast. I find the idea of a text that purportedly conveys all the answers to life’s questions is anathema to free thinking, self-direction, and intellectual curiosity.

And to digress further, living in a religious plurality should mean that we do not compel others to accept the markers and quotations of another’s (or any) religion in our courthouses, capitals, or public squares. For people like Michael Eden, his bible and his Christ should always be given pride of place, yet never would he allow a competing religion the same honor. I want to argue that none of these faith-based trappings be added to any public structures or places, though I do not have an issue when the marker or quotation was added many years ago and thus has a long and, one hopes, uncontested history. If people want to decorate their private property, their vehicles, and themselves with such ornaments then feel free. When it comes to public spaces, however, I say we should adopt the policy of keeping a neat house. Such a house would be free of the religious decoration favored by folk like Michael Eden. Were he allowed to design and control our public spaces then we would quickly find ourselves inhabiting the monochromatic and stifling land of theocracy. Why don’t you pray over that one, Eden? As for myself, I will go about the business of living and trying to understand existence on my own terms.

Could this be ...?

Thesaurus theorized last week that our blogger nemesis, Michael Eden, is most likely blogging under a pseudonym (I was mildly annoyed I had not thought of this first).  If you consider Eden’s world view and religiosity, his name makes complete sense.  Michael, or the Archangel Michael, in Hebrew means “who is like God” and leads God’s army against Satan’s forces in the Book of Revelation.  The creation narrative that emerges in the Book of Genesis introduces us to the Garden of Eden, or the “Garden of God,” and among the many items, The Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil).  Hence, we have Michael Eden, the blogger ferreting out the evil of liberalism as far as the eye can see (and more often way, way beyond both the eyes and intellect can see).

Eden’s rage and violence and hatred for those that do not share his very specific world view suits his alias quite perfectly.  So, since this is not his real name, I wonder if we can figure out who the real Michael Eden is.

Maybe it is the legendary football analyst Pat Robertson, who recently stated regarding Peyton Manning’s signing with the Denver Broncos and Tim Tebow’s subsequent trade to the New York Jets: “You just ask yourself, OK, so Peyton Manning was a tremendous MVP quarterback, but he’s been injured.  If that injury comes back, Denver will find itself without a quarterback. And in my opinion, it would serve them right.”  While there is plenty of room for interpretation, is Pat’s implication that the bad karma created by the trading of God’s quarterback will be demonstrated by harm/injury coming to another quarterback?  Sounds a lot like the violence Eden wishes upon those that disagree with him.

Or maybe it is preacher Dennis Terry of the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church who recently introduced GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum at a campaign rally raging against no longer being able to pray in public (really?) and went on to say (his voicing getting louder and louder), “Listen to me, if you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we do things, I have one thing to say… GET OUT!  … We don’t worship Buddha! I said we don’t worship Buddha, we don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God’s son Jesus Christ … The church needs to be the conscience of the nation [so] put God back in our state house.”  Candidate Santorum blithely clapped along to Terry’s rant and the imposition of Terry’s beliefs as the only beliefs for our country is applauded. 

Now, if we used the right’s argumentative framework for President Obama over the last four years or so, I could make an argument about the company one keeps (you know, Obama’s relationship with a Harvard professor or a charismatic preacher or Weather Underground terrorist).  But guess what, such an argument is a FALLLACY, so I am not going to project the ideas of Terry on to Santorum because this is the inductive fallacy of argument by association, similar to the hasty generalization where the qualities of one thing or person are inherently attributed as qualities to a separate thing or person, quite often by an irrelevant association (thus we get the classic fear, misinformation tactic of guilt by association).

But what I can do is note that not too long ago candidate Santorum stated that the separation of church and state made him “want to throw up.”  The association to Perry is thus unnecessary.  And by the way, why does Christianity always believe it has cornered the market on values and decency, I am tired of their proclamations of what is good and evil and the condescension, righteousness, and judgment by some in the Christian business and the narrow vision they do want to impose on the rest of us. 

Are you a parent?

So, this was my Thursday night this week.  I drive my 78-year old parents to see their grandson and my nephew perform in his fourth grade musical. 

[A brief aside, I live in a Midwestern college town (population fluctuates around 150K) that for some has become too diverse and thus too dangerous to live and as such three, yes three, white flight towns have sprung up over the last two decades, south, west and east of my micro-urban metropolis – all three of the towns have been in existence for more than two decades but the populations have exploded in the last 20-30 years.  My brother and his family moved to one of these towns a few years ago.]

When we arrive for the musical, the gymnasium is packed, there are enough seats for my parents and my brother’s family, but because of my height (and long legs and gut) the only seat available was a distance from my family and would have left me quite uncomfortable, so I chose to stand off to the side next to the bleachers.   Shortly after I arrived in my spot for the performance, a man appeared out of the right corner of my eye.  He introduced himself and I replied in kind and we shook hands.  We shared one or two bits of small talk, his small talk included his acknowledgment that he was a retired member of an area police department and also pointed out that one of his former colleagues and a current police officer was standing five feet in front of me / us.

This brief banter was high-jumped when I was asked the following: “So, do you just like watching little kids sing or are you a parent?”  [I believe the following is justly warranted: what the fuck!?!]  As the Brits say, I was gobsmacked.  My emotions immediately rose to 212 degrees Fahrenheit and the best I could muster in response was: “I am the uncle of the musical’s narrator.”  The man seemed pacified by this and I was now safe and allowed to watch the performance.

But how could I watch the performance as one of the most bizarre fucking things that has ever happened in my life just occurred.  I would say that I gave three-fourths of my attention to the musical, which was quite good for its continuity, simple but in-time musicianship, several wonderful singing voices, great enthusiasm, and the personal highlight: my nephew’s animated and excited narration / acting. 

The other fourth of my attention was given over to the emotional response and rising blood pressure I was feeling and my unsuccessful attempts to cut through this emotion and think rationally about what just happened.  Images and ideas that flashed in front of me: tell this asshole to go fuck himself, ask this tiny motherfucker to step outside, tell him he needs to stop watching Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator,” mock his weak-ass mustache covering the hair-lip, or simply ask: where do you get off?  But none of these happened except in my imagination.

I did not share this episode with my brother or his family after the performance, as I did not want to dampen my nephew’s night and his great job overcoming performance anxiety as already noted – a great acting job for a ten-year old!  But I did share this bizarre occurrence with my parents as I drove them home.  My mom said: “that guy needs to go back to school” (I am not sure what that means, I think she meant to say he was an ignorant fool?).  My dad said: “Well, at least there is someone looking out for the kids?”  Maybe the implication of my dad’s statement is that the question does not apply to you and needs no explanation?  Now I want to give him the benefit of the doubt because I am not sure he got what just happened to me, but fuck that, I was rudely harassed by a man that went out of his way to point out that he was a retired police officer and that a current police officer was standing in front of me.  This was clearly his attempt to establish his authority of the situation and use that authority to intimidate me. 

I debated starting off this post with the obvious condemnation of crimes against children and the lifelong destruction that accompanies these crimes.  I thought of going into detail about how there was nothing in my clothing, appearance or behavior that would warrant such a question / accusation.  I thought of going off on a rant about false accusations and the harm it causes for the accused.  But again, fuck that, all data shows us that the more families, including extended families, are involved in children’s education and activities as positive support, the better their development both intellectually and socially for those children.  This was my intent last night – to drive my nephew’s grandparents to watch and celebrate and support an important event in his life.  And for that good deed, the event has been marred by some ignorant fool.     

The sad turn against women in the U.S.

In 1988, Indiana basketball coach Bobby Knight stated in an interview: “If rape is inevitable, why not sit back and enjoy it.”  As I reflect back on my teen years today, this moment stands out as one of my earliest “a-ha” moments about women in the United States and their legacy of second-class citizenship.   I still had U.S. history books that beyond a cursory discussion of Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Tubman, the history and subject of women was relegated to foot notes and supporting roles in the birth and evolution of our country. In addition, I had grown up in a household that had the remnants of 1950s patriarchy –  my mom was both the mother in a somewhat June Cleaver-way but thankfully also a professional women working at both a prominent University as a professor as well as several hospitals in a leadership position (the symbolism and significance not lost on a boy growing up).  She represents that bridge between rampant misogyny of the first two-thirds of the twentieth century and the rise of first-wave feminism and discussions of equality.  But my dad certainly carried with him many of the biases of his generation: women are too emotional, are not natural leaders, not smart enough in science, head of the household and bringing home the bacon, blah blah blah.  And these biases have by no means disappeared and at times I have to question how much it has dissipated as well.

Thankfully I grew up in an era and a college town where these attitudes were quickly changing on many fronts: how girls/women were taught in schools, leadership roles in important local institutions, and the explosion in female attendance to university across all social classes.  Of course this was also against the backdrop of the defeat of the ERA, very few congresswomen and senators in national politics, one woman on the Supreme Court, and a glass ceiling a mile wide and a mile thick.  And I no doubt have to check myself as well, my most consistent slip into misguided and antiquated gender roles is when I turn into  the "protector" role where I try to solve the problem and is clearly based on old practices and assumptions I was socialized into at home and by society.  

But here we are in 2012, quite a few years forward and it feels like we are stepping back in time, does it not if you watch and listen to the proposed legislation coming out of Washington and across countless state legislatures?  Here are two quotes in the last week from prominent politicians:

“Just close your eyes.”  Tom Corbett, Governor of Pennsylvania, discussing the mandatory ultrasound bill for women.

“Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that.”  Mitt Romney, potential Republican presidential candidate.

I am utterly confused by this turn of events?

Speaking of resignations ...

I came across this incredibly dangerous and tragic and enraging story while having my oatmeal and raspberry yogurt this morning.  It is Susie Madrak's personal story of resigning from most likely one of her first jobs as an 18-year old, here is the link to the full story as well as an excerpt below:  http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/your-papers-please-part-ii-arizona-bi

“When I was 18, I worked for a publishing company that was a little bit strange.  The female department head was a fundamentalist Christian and a member of Jews for Jesus who used to hold Tuesday morning prayer meetings before work.  It was well known that if you never did attend a prayer meeting, you could forget about getting a raise.

My immediate supervisor was a young woman named Janice. One morning, while Janice was in the restroom, the department head went rummaging in her purse and found her birth control pills. Instead of talking to her, she called all the editorial clerks and assistants into her department and announced that we were no longer permitted to socialize with the editors, and that we were nothing more than “Jezebels, sluts and whores of Babylon.”  (I found this particularly ironic since one of my co-workers graduated from a genteel and well-known Southern women’s Christian college. She’d confided in me that both her father and grandfather—church elders—had raped her. The father raped her shortly after she tearfully confided in him that she’d been raped by her grandfather. “The family that prays together,” etc. ...)

The department head also announced that if it was discovered that anyone was using birth control pills, she would be fired immediately. And that if anyone didn't like it, well, she could just resign.  So I went back to my desk and typed up a resignation letter.  I also took another piece of paper, drew a swastika and taped it to the department head’s door.  (What can I say?  I was young.)”  

What happened to the Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights in this country?  Have we forgotten: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Of course we have forgotten, any number of laws and legislation have been passed, notably for national security reasons, to diminish this FUNDAMENTAL right.

Susie’s employer had absolutely NO business riffling through an employee’s purse, and she was not looking for weapons or other workplace dangers, but birth control!  After this complete invasion of privacy she attempted to SHAME this girl specifically and proceeded to create a division between editors and their assistants – divide and conquer, us versus them.  And finally concluded this public spectacle with the announcement that she would fire employees for using birth control.  Am I living in another country, is this a movie where I fell asleep on a train and entered some type of bizarro world?

Susie shared this story because Arizona the legislature is debating HR2625 at the moment and some folks just removed the following passage from the legislation: “A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.”  Although not a lawyer, I believe this law would endorse and support the actions of Susie’s boss above.  Another sad day in the good ole’ U. S. of A.

The Devil in Eden

I could not resist this pun, and Michael Eden does seem possessed by an evil spirit of some sort. Mr. Eden is my subject of choice today, particularly because I was so distressed by Auditus’ last post that I feel I need to tell Eden off yet again.

My issue is that finding a proper epithet for him is difficult. You see, most insulting terms involve animals, excrement, genitalia, distant locations, and the like. When reflecting on an apt term to describe him, however, I note that every one I might apply has some underlying use, and being useful is one quality that Michael Eden lacks. Consider that excrement is the body’s waste, and removing it from the body is useful. Animals have uses, both to each other and the greater environment. I could say much the same about sex organs, various countries, and all of those other terms that are used to disparage. The problem with Mr. Eden is that he is useless. He offers no description of how the world might look better. I have read through numerous postings on his blog and there is nothing positive. Instead one finds line after line of criticism, personal attack, invective, and hatred. What, I am left to wonder, would Eden’s ideal world look like? He spends far too much time tearing things down instead of describing how he would like matters to be. I want to know how his ideal place would be governed and what living there would be like. My fear is that were he pressed he would use some unspecific term like “heaven.” And there we have it--I know how to describe Eden. To play punningly with his misguided religious fervor, I would describe him as holy useless. Indeed, he considers himself to be faithful, devout, and possessed of his creator’s spirit. But that is only Eden’s unbalanced opinion. I find little of merit in his posturing. In fact, he seems cut from the same sort of overzealous cloth of nearly every other religious fanatic, whether the person’s faith be labeled as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any of a dozen other systems of belief.

Michael Eden is holy useless. He is a massive waste of time, a purveyor of half-truths, misstatements, lies, falsehoods, and fallacies. The great comfort one can take is that those Eden likely despises most—zealots from other faiths—have more in common with him than many of his fellow citizens. I hope he enjoys this distasteful intellectual company; many of us with a more moderate temperament and ethical commitment would rather not have him around. Let us shun this holy useless individual.

Post Mortem, Civil Discourse, Part II

No excuses of training in the mountains outside of Boone, North Carolina can explain my blog hiatus this time.   No, this hiatus I attribute primarily to the fact that it is both midterm of the semester as well as the beginning of teaching a M-Th second-half-of-the-semester 8 week course, both of which are successfully kicking my ass at the moment - but really we can always make the time.  But I was also, and I am somewhat annoyed with myself to admit, a bit disheartened by our Eden exchange highlighted below.  Not disheartened as Eden claimed in one of his posts because “he was mean to me” – probably one of the best clues to his “I know you are but what am I” child-like argumentation skills.  Disheartened about the state of deliberation in this country, the “I am right and you are evil” practice that at times appears to dominate the public square, at least certain public squares.  And this is not one of those claims of “I have never seen political rhetoric so heated” because Peter Porcupine (and his Porcupine Gazette) and Benjamin Franklin Bache were shredding one another and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson two hundred plus years ago.  Disheartened mostly by what I thought was a sincere effort to have a productive, civil conversation with folks that disagree.

So, if you have been reading below, you are aware that Thesaurus brought to our attention the blog StartingThinkingRight and its proprietor Michael Eden a while ago.   Thesaurus proposed contacting Eden to engage in a deliberative debate via our respective blogs about a societal issue of his choosing as we thought this would (1) be a worthwhile, across-the-aisle conversation, (2) expand the nature of our blog, (3) be a cure for our momentary stagnation here, and (4) a chance to write and think and constructively argue with and critique another blogger and he likewise do the same for us. 

Thesaurus’ respectful invitation:

“Your opinions differ radically from my own, which is why I want to invite you to debate an issue of our mutual choosing. Think of this as a respectful blog debate regarding politics, religion, and/or citizenship. Are you willing to attempt such an endeavor?”

 The invitation was received with the following response from Eden:

“Why can’t you just leave a dang comment on an article that actually attempts to refute the facts I provide and demonstrate your own case instead of being hoity toity?

You kind of remind me of the evil Syndrome character in “The Incredibles” who just can’t stop himself from “monologuing” (the common weakness in all super-villains such that they defeat their good hero enemy but then give them time to escape because the evil guy just can’t shut up).”

Thus, an invitation to a respectful blog debate was perceived as “hoity toity”(?) and the claim of “monologuing” (?) and finally an ad hominem attack.  The communication above speaks for itself.

So, we moved on, mildly amused by his immediate claims of being “hoity toity” – code for elitist in his world – and elites are the problem in America as we know; and the first of many ad hominem attacks as a diversion.

Nevertheless, I checked into his site one or two more times out of curiosity and came across his hateful and fallacious argument about gay adoption.  I posted a simple reply to his argument noting that his argument was a hasty or sweeping generalization as he equated one instance of pedophilia as evidence for why ALL gay people should not be allowed to adopt, and also commented on the hateful language in his email.    

He replied by blasting me with adjectives like “evil” “useless” “stupid” and “idiot” to name a few.  And of course he did not respond to my simple claim about his argument and produced a bizarre red herring argument about homosexuals and their ability to pro-create.  I attempted two more times to re-focus his attention back to my initial claim of the fallacy at the core of his argument, and each one of these posts was again blasted with more name-calling and more red herrings and eventually conflated my posts with another post.  Other than a mildly snarky comment about his use of all caps in his writing and his poor spelling ability, not once in my three posts did I personally attack him and thus committing his favorite argumentation appeal: the ad hominem fallacy.  And he never once simply stated: “you’re right that is a hasty generalization” – you can never admit you’re wrong anymore, the Bush Doctrine II.

As I noted above, I let this get to me a bit and became frustrated with blogging for the last week or so. But I think I get it, the explosion of blogs, notably political affairs blogs, began during President G.W. Bush’s presidency.  He was pummeled daily from multiple blogs that began to gain an audience, popularity and were more and more turned to as sources by mass media outlets.  These blogs rarely, maybe never in some instances, spoke of W. in a positive manner – it was a relentless, at time vicious, negative campaign.  On the extreme, Bush even became immersed in conspiracy theories about an “inside job” on 9/11 or his questionable military record.  Clearly Eden and many like him have adopted the same strategy for President Obama – bash him every day for everything from his American-ness, the birth certificate insanity, socialist plans for the United States, and so on.

But this is the playbook for the past three presidencies: the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies – the opposition party begins a relentless campaign to de-legitimize the president before even entering office.  So it was Vince Foster and Whitewater with Clinton, it was National Guard and the Florida debacle for Bush, and now the stakes have raised as Obama has to prove his citizenship, his democratic principles, and on and on.  I am not sure how many previous presidents had to endure such similar, widespread and widely reported campaigns, beyond our three most recent presidents, but it is distressing, damaging, and stifling for our democracy.  This had a momentary impact on me these last two weeks as well.  Hope it doesn’t happen again.

Thoughts on Work and Quitting

All of the conversation generated by Greg Smith’s departure from Goldman Sachs, or more accurately the letter he wrote for the New York Times that detailed the reasons behind his resignation (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html), makes me reflect on my own departures from a few jobs I have held over the years. This is not a complete list, but marks a few of my high and low points of working for others.

1) The Travel Industry.
While I would like to say that I sagaciously saw the writing on the wall regarding the imminent demise of the established travel industry, the truth of the matter was that I was fatigued by my workplace and wanted to return to school. Going on to get a graduate degree allowed me to exit gracefully with good will on all sides, though I confess I wanted to tell the CEO and president how insulted I felt by working for people who literally made millions off of my efforts and threw only a few thousand dollars my way. In fact, our two chief executives routinely bought cars that were three times my annual salary, yet were penurious with bonuses, vacation days, and raises. Worse yet, I was often given the role of assistant when I would travel overseas with the CEO and/or president, even though the client and I knew that I was the one doing all of the work for which they paid us six figures. Swallowing my pride for many years meant that I had long savored the bitter pill of resentment. Despite that acrid taste, I gave the company several months notice and left on good terms. My feeling at the time was that I should never intentionally burn a bridge that I may later need to cross should circumstances turn against me. I still stand by that decision, but the anger I felt toward myself (for selling myself short and rarely demanding what I thought was fair) and my frustration with the chief executives took years to subside.

2) The Arts, Part 1.
Without question, this was the best job I ever held; I had near total autonomy, traveled the western United States speaking to groups of arts administrators, felt challenged to improve my skills as an employee, and was decently paid for my efforts. Yes the hours I put in were long, and yes I felt that the executive director wanted to see just how many tasks he could assign me before I collapsed, but I loved my job. Being able to support the arts and work with interesting people was a major source of my pleasure, yet so was the success I felt at the conclusion of a project. I gave up my rather ideal position in order to do more graduate work, particularly as the job had grown less challenging for me and thus less interesting. There are some moments when I regret my choice to leave, but mostly I stand by my decision. My departure from the organization was without bitterness—they even threw me a party.

3) The Arts, Part 2.
I returned to working in the arts after having completed my coursework for a Ph.D. At that point I was really unsure if I wanted to write the dissertation and knew that I needed to earn some money if we wanted to keep our standard of living. While the organization was superficially glad to have me back, much had changed. The direction the ED was taking seemed less connected to artistic production and more on the generation of profit. Moreover, the work I was given was supervised and less interesting. In short I chaffed in my role as the in-house problem solver and miscellaneous project assistant. My behavior took the form of blatant honesty and an unwillingness to tolerate the group fantasy underlying many ill-conceived partnerships. At least my displeasure prompted me to return to graduate school. My letter of resignation was curt, but evidenced no ill will or anger. I received another farewell party, but the relationship with the organization was over.

I have taken several lessons away from these three experiences. First, I should never willingly sell myself short or tolerate behavior that causes me excessive bitterness. I am willing to take some abuse for good pay, but I do not believe any employee ought to be treated as a serf or servant, meaning always at the mercy of a superior master. Second, my desire to be challenged means that I must be alert to the threat of continued boredom. Locating a job that continues to challenge and develop me is essential, but so is my own ability to find ways to challenge myself within a position when I grow complacent. My third lesson concerns self-direction: I live best when I make my own path, not when I take familiar routes. If I can direct my own future instead of waiting for it to be unfurled before me then I am more likely to appreciate what changes await me. This little confession about my work experience is less startling than the one made by Mr. Smith, but at least I can say I have always tried to work and quit in a graceful manner.

Music and Movies

Honestly, today I really do not feel like writing a long entry; instead I am opting to make it a short blog day, albeit one with a soundtrack. In my head this morning are two great songs: “I’m Always in Love” by Wilco and “A Punch Up at a Wedding” by Radiohead. My discovery of these tracks some years ago must be credited to Auditus, whose admirable musical tastes are the only reason that I know about them.

With those cords playing in the background, let us discuss movies. For the past two weeks my spouse and I have been trying to catch up on our public movie viewing. Last week we saw The Descendants and I have to say that the script and Clooney’s acting were remarkable. There are those critics out there like Richard Roeper who feel that someone other than Clooney would have made for better casting, but I disagree. What Clooney brought to the role was a restrained sense of rebellion against the dissolution of family and marital trust. His performance hinted at an underlying anger and frustration, but also at a more powerful need to rise above them. In some ways, this fictional father was the one I might have wanted. Good on you, George.

Just last Saturday night we managed to attend a showing of Hugo. Scorsese clearly loves film, and Hugo was nothing if not an extended paean to the imagination and staggering creativity of early filmmaking. How could one not be blown away by the inventive results of Melies’ films?

Many current examples fall far short of what he was doing over a century ago. Also, Hugo takes the mechanistic and imagistic qualities of film as its subject matter, making this movie an exploration of filmic epistemology. While not as emotionally resonant for me as The Descendants, I will give Hugo and its creators praise for their impressive treatise on film history and the ways it has trained generations of audiences to "see" the moving image and shaped our imaginations.

Michael Eden Smackdown

I tried; I really tried, but when Auditus alerted me to our foe’s latest offensive comments my political hiatus came to an end. What, you ask, happened? Michael Eden crassly implied on his blog that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children (http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/just-in-case-you-thought-child-adoption-by-homosexuals-was-a-good-idea/). Why does this conservative crusader and complete waste of time get to claim one group should not be allowed to have children? I could make the same sort of silly request that intolerant, intellectually flawed, and repulsive individuals not be permitted as parents, but who am I to make the rules for the rest of society?

My anger was such that I decided to confront said person on his blog and tell him how stupid I think he is. I even went so far as to tell him that I believed him to be a closeted, self-hating gay man who really had liberal tendencies.

Why else would he spew bile and falsehoods all the time unless he has some seriously repressed desires and attractions? He, as predicted, responded with more personal attacks.

My next act was to do the one thing he claims his blog does: confront opinion with “facts.” In this case, however, I offered him documented research from the Williams Institute, noting “There was a noteworthy absence of parental/caregiver physical and sexual abuse in the self-reports of adolescents with lesbian mothers." (Here is the link: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gartrell-Bos-Goldberg-NLLFS-Nov-20101.pdf.) This data is in contrast to the 26% “of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.” (Here is that link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html.) Given these results, gay parents seem like a good idea to me.

So what did the savior of the theocratic right do? He ignored my comments and did not bother to post them. In other words he censors the responses to his blog by approving them (apparently based on their inability to threaten his position) before they are posted online. Such tactics of exclusion clearly mark out a fearful demagoguery because any information contrary to Eden's position must be avoided. This is why I can claim with some confidence that Michael Eden uses unethical rhetorical tactics and cannot marshal compelling evidence to refute opposing claims.

Because of Eden’s behavior I am back in the brawl, and as such I am making a clarion call for all to hear that Michael Eden is a poor excuse for a political commentator, whatever one’s position might be. We have invited him to a respectful debate, we have responded with the sort of evidence he claims he wants to see, and still he will not engage.

You, Mr. Eden, are a small-minded, evangelical nutjob, and as a result you have become our ideological whipping boy. We call you out as the fearful, inarticulate, and unethical rube that you are. Moreover we just want to say that you mislead your readers, harm your fellow citizens, and make us ashamed to have you as part of the electorate. Please do us all a favor and go elsewhere to begin the religious and cultural war that you so plainly want to start. As for those of us not in agreement with you, we think you are a waste of resources, but still defend your right to speak publicly, even though it may consist primarily of falsehoods. And on a personal note, we loathe you. Bring it on you backwater pulpit-banger. We will mop up the page with your cowardly prose and false analogies. Oh, and FUCK YOU!

Post Mortem, Civil Discourse

While I was hopeful [for a moment] that engaging fellow citizens via the blogging universe in an honest, civil debate might be productive and fun, it sadly never got off the ground.  The debate started and ended with assumptions about positions, name calling and unsubstantiated claims of demonization, etc.  Score another one to the: I am right and you are evil model of debate that weighs down our public square(s).

The first complaint directed at me from Anonymous was that I made announcements, offered opinions that I “automatically take as final.”  So, I am left to imply from this claim that you, Anonymous, believes every issue requires a fair and balanced approach?  I am left to assume that you believe every issue has two equally worthy sides?  This is the practice of false balance; the best example of this is the evolution and intelligent design debate (sure this won’t sit well with the Eden crew, but only one thing sits well with them).  Sorry Anonymous as this is simply not possible all the time, not all positions are equal in each debate.  So I stand by my “opinion” that your argument that all media, except for Fox News and talk radio, are liberally-biased is WRONG - not evil, just wrong.  And I will repeat, your liberal-media trope is actually a rhetorical bogeyman that is not true (you want actual proof, evidence of this,  read: Rich Media, Poor Country OR Manufacturing Consent – end of story).  I will repeat for you one final time, this does not mean there are no liberal personalities or editorial pages within this “media” you decry, but to say that all media is liberal breaks down on so many fallacious lines, including but not limited to the logical fallacies of bifurcation, sweeping generalization, faulty cause/sign/dilemma, straw man, and so on.  The only actual bias is money, starts and ends there!

Next, your most prominent claim is that we lack “sources, numbers, and backed-up statements.”  Here I cannot deny your claim, but guess what Anonymous, we had not even chosen a topic for debate, let alone begun the conversation.  If this debate had actually occurred, I assure you my arguments would be grounded by this evidence you so closely cherish.  But, this is a BLOG, much like a diary or journal, and I am not sure how many journals have footnotes, but I am sorry my post about cooking or a fictional remembrance of a night in Mexico were lacking the evidence and support that validates human communication for you.  Your love for numbers is quite troubling since the same batch of data you treasure so much can easily be manipulated to say just about anything (countless folks smarter than me have demonstrated that statistical data can be problematic for so many reasons, including but not limited to: loaded questions, biased questions, discarding of contrary data, false causation, data manipulation, and on and on).  But we love numbers, they are so easy to use in order simplify complicated issues and determine who is to blame for our problems in life.  And if you cannot see and understand the biased, one-sided nature in so many of Eden’s sources, there is nothing else I can say in this regard.  But simply tagging articles to his arguments does not establish its validity.

And, finally, the uncritical eye you have brought to Eden´s use of source material, well, I am not going to spend much more time on this because it is a waste of time, my time because I have no belief that you are capable of reading this with an open mind, and a waste of your time because this blog post does not reinforce your beliefs already.  Nonetheless I encourage you to become an internet investigator of credible sources, here is a link to questions you should ask for yourself when evaluating evidence, try reading one of the following: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/02/; http://help.library.ubc.ca/researching/evaluating-internet-sources/

Seeing how you never responded to my civil questions that asked for clarification on your many claims against me and this blog makes this most likely a wasted blog entry, but it gives me a chance to regrettably close up shop for a moment on the hope for civil debate among those that disagree.  Instead of using this fundamental principle and practice as an example of our representative government, you and Eden can continue your child-like rants of name-calling and Eden's violent hopes to befall some of our fellow citizens with statements like “Obama is a fascist” AND “I just wish the rectum of every single liberal could look like this ten year old boys’ does” AND “Barack Obama will be the Antichrist’s most useful idiot” AND “The next time you see a beatific mother lovingly holding her baby, kindly suggest to her that she ought to instead pursue the liberal path and slam it on the ground and bash its brains out.”[1]  

---

[1] Anonymous, here is my evidence, all phrases taken from http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/

More Dinosaur Inspired Thoughts

Today is dinosaur day two, or the second day in a row that I feel like discussing my interest in dinosaurs. However, instead of dredging up material from my youth or facts about particular types of dinosaur, I want to talk about those individuals who have helped me to reclaim my interest in these prehistoric creatures. First, because she deserves to have pride of place, is our (I am including Auditus here) friend JKZ. Never one to disown her own enjoyment in things childish, juvenile (Jersey Shore, baby), or silly, JKZ deserves mention because she is fond of using the word “roar” to express frustration, displeasure, humor, and a desire to lay waste to stupid individuals. Once she learned that I liked dinosaurs a whole series of images and jokes about them were exchanged between us. And bless her, she even sent me a photo of a stuffed dinosaur wishing me luck before my comprehensive exams. I also want to state the obvious fact that she is very smart, funny, and concerned about the future of society. JZC rocks, especially the sedimentary type of rock in which one finds dinosaur skeletons.

The other person to whom I owe a dinosaur debt is Jennifer F. Hall, the talented artist, blogger, and pastry goddess. Also known as the Philly Art Girl, Clever Girl, and a variety of other pseudonyms, Ms. Hall has an abiding love for things saurian. Yet she is also far more than a dinosaur lover; she makes great art, writes a wickedly funny narrative, and makes me sorry that I do not know her personally. You need not take my word for it, just check out her site: http://phillyrawrblog.blogspot.com/

What have we learned today? I think, if there is a message hiding in these short words of praise, that rekindling passions from one's childhood is better done in the company of good friends and clever strangers. Stated differently, scales, sharp teeth, and long tails can also serve as connections between playful and curious people.

Roar-a-saurus

Confession: I still have a fondness for dinosaurs. This means not much has changed on this front since I was a little boy, but so what? They are still awe inspiring, fascinating creatures that help all sorts of folk appreciate natural history, science, and the theory of evolution. All of which leads me to say, with much fondness for JKZ, roar.