When you were elected to the office of the presidency in November of 2000, I was basically indifferent. At the time I was a high school senior with more important things on my mind: graduation, prospective colleges, optimistic dreams of an uncertain and potentially exciting future. To me, the presidential election was a mere inconvenience; something that would occasionally preempt my favorite shows.
When you stood at ground zero on September 11, 2001, I became a believer in your words, your messages and your promises. I realized that indifference was not an option in such uncertain times, and I became overwhelmed with inspiration as you spent the next several weeks decrying the evils of terrorism and proclaiming the steadfastness of the American people when faced with adversity. As I remember, your approval rating was through the roof, and no one approved of your job performance more than myself.
What went wrong, Mr. President?
When you began presenting The United Nations and the American public with intelligence information regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you assured us all that you wanted to resolve the matter peacefully with the cooperation of Saddam Hussein. I had a feeling even then that you were setting wheels into motion for an inevitable armed conflict with Iraq, but I continued to support you. Surely the government knows more about these things than the likes of me. I defended you even as the body count continued to rise, long after your infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner made international headlines.
When you began proposing a federal constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages once and for all, I personally felt that such a measure was repressive, ill-advised and irresponsible, but I continued to support you. 'After all,' I reasoned with myself, 'nobody agrees with their leaders on every issue.' So I consciously looked the other way on those matters on which you and I disagree: gay marriage, abstinence education, abortion and so many aspects of your foreign policy, among other things.
I even looked the other way as your administration and inner-circle began to crumble. Perhaps some like Colin Powell were just smart enough to cut their losses and leave with dignity, but others like Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby and arguably the worst wartime Secretary of Defense in American History (I'm referring of course to Donald Rumsfeld, although Robert Gates hasn't proven much better) have systematically dismantled any credibility that still remained in our Executive Branch of government.
And now Iraq is a complete mess with no signs of real improvement, our economy is spiraling toward a recession, the international community has understandably turned its back on us and our own nation is more divided than it has been since The Civil War. What is truly amazing is that you managed to accomplish all of this in less than eight years. I am sorry, Mr. President, but I have run out of excuses to defend you. I believed in you, and you let me down. You let us all down.
Mon, 12 May 2008 18:36:46 -0500
Jerry Lewis is the Man
Some of you may remember that I recently made a post about autograph collecting, and I expressed my intention to write a fan letter to Jerry Lewis (which I did). What's truly amazing is that I posted that entry on March 22nd, and mailed the letter about three days later. Now I've received a response and it hasn't even been three weeks. That must be a new record.
But seriously I don't want to cheapen it by implying that this was merely part of some autograph-collecting crusade. As I've expressed before, Jerry's work has had a profound impact on me, and having a personalized, autographed photo from the man himself is an intensely beautiful thing for me. I once even wrote a song inspired by his memoir, Dean and Me, which has been recorded four times and has gone on to become one of the most popular Embers of Avalon songs. Needless to say, today is a good day.
Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:06:04 -0500
Jellicle Songs For Jellicle Cats
Over the weekend I went with some of my dearest relatives to see a production of Andrew Lloyd Webber's hit musical Cats at the California Performing Arts Center in San Bernardino. I admit that it has never been one of my favorite musicals, and in fact I have traditionally regarded it as my least favorite Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, but I typically won't pass up an opportunity to see live musical theater, whatever it may be. To my surprise, I ended up having a pretty amazing time, and seeing the show in person gave me a totally new appreciation for it. The choreography is some of the most difficult and complex I have ever seen, and the ending (I'm embarrassed to say) really made me pretty emotional. It sort of makes me want to seek out some of the other Webber musicals that I've been disappointed with (namely Sunset Boulevard and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat) and give them a second chance as well.
I have often wondered how a show as bizarre and esoteric as Cats could be one of the longest running musicals on Broadway, but now I think I understand a little better. It also got me thinking about how musical theater buffs like myself will often overlook much of Webber's genius and focus more on composers like Stephen Sondheim (a genius in his own right) who make more of a conscious effort to create intellectual works of musical art. Webber deserves a lot of credit, though. Not only is he responsible for the two longest running shows in Broadway history (Phantom of the Opera and the aforementioned Cats), and birthed such timeless, epic shows as Evita and Jesus Christ Superstar, but he has also composed music for some of the most beautiful and memorable songs of the twentieth century, songs like Don't Cry For Me Argentina, I Don't Know How To Love Him, Phantom of the Opera, Music of the Night, Unexpected Song and of course Memory, which has been covered by artists ranging from Barbara Streisand to Barry Manilow. His shows have been translated into dozens of languages and performed worldwide. The fact that he could make an obscure show about cats in a junkyard one of the most popular shows in Broadway history is a testament to how much of a genius he truly is (not to mention a fearless risk taker).
And yet many musical elitists (I'm referring to the Frank Rich types, those individuals who snub their noses at any show that isn't related to either Stephen Sondheim or some composer who has been dead for forty years) not only fail to acknowledge Webber's immense contributions to musical theater, but even revile him as being a "pop" composer who appeals to the brainless masses far too intellectually inept to grasp the profundity of a "real" musical. In some circles, if you confess to being a fan of Cats or Phantom, you might as well just write 'moron' across your forehead, because that is how you will be immediately branded anyway. I generally make it a point to ignore the musical elitists, because there really is no point in arguing with them. They have convinced themselves of their superiority to such a degree that any attempts to challenge their infallible opinions will appear as a completely foreign language. And if you accuse them of being elitist, the common answer is something to the extent of, "I'm not an elitist; I just know what I'm talking about."
And while there is certainly no denying that Webber's musicals are typically geared toward a wide audience, does that make him any less of a genius? Let his record speak for itself. The immeasurable success that Webber has experienced, and the amount of people who have been impacted by his work, is not something that one can learn by taking a survey or arranging a focus group. That sort of thing comes from within, and if his growing legacy is any indication, then Andrew Lloyd Webber will undoubtedly go down in history alongside Cole Porter, Rodgers & Hammerstein and Leonard Bernstein.
Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:12:53 -0500
Say What You Will About Thrift Stores...
...but I am completely addicted to them. On Holt Avenue in Pomona, there are two really great ones that my friends and I like to peruse on a regular basis. If you have the patience to sift through mountains of crap, you are pretty much guaranteed to find some really excellent buys. It's sort of like a treasure hunt, really, and in many ways the hunt is more exciting than the purchases themselves. That doesn't take away from the fact that I am in fact cheap, but perhaps that makes the hunt all the more exciting. If I can find a pair of pants for 5 dollars that would cost me 20 at Target, I call that a victory.
So yesterday I went with some friends to both of the thrift stores I just described, and was reminded that with thrift store shopping also comes heartbreak. For instance, I found a like-new Bad Religion (one of my favorite bands on Earth) t-shirt for $1.99, and my heart nearly skipped a beat; it was black and everything. Just one problem: it was an XL. Being the Medium that I am, I hung my head in shame and continued walking. There was also a great pair of Puma shoes in my size that looked practically new; Kumphak informed me that these shoes cost a lot of money in retail stores, and I should snatch them up since they were only five dollars. I would have too, except they were gray. So it would seem that thrift store shopping is a lot like dating. Sometimes your dreams come true, and sometimes you walk away brokenhearted.
That's right, boyyyyy
Thrift stores are great places to take glamor shots. You can put the clothes right back on the rack when you're finished.
Don't be deceived. I'm actually not as happy as I appear.
Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:10:43 -0500
It's So Hard To Say Goodbye
My dad sent me this YouTube link today. It was one of Roby Duke's (see previous blog entry) final performances, three days before his tragic passing. In this short but breathtaking video, Roby is finishing up a set at Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks, playing one of his best known and most beautiful songs, I Shall See God. At the very end of the song, Roby looks up at the congregation and quietly says, "He's a good God." So incredibly humbling and profoundly moving. It's very difficult for me to watch this video without getting emotional. I encourage you to watch for yourself and see what an amazing talent we have lost.
Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0500
I Shall See God...
Roby Duke was a truly remarkable man. I am nearly twenty-five years old as of today, and I have been listening to Roby's music for the past fifteen of those years. I don't think I can name another artist who has stuck with me for so long in such a meaningful way. When I was a child, my dad used to play his music in the car everywhere we went. It seemed like the albums Down To Business, Not The Same and Bridge Divine were in constant rotation. This was back when cassette tapes were still common, and I remember getting very excited whenever the tape would reach one of my favorite songs, like Walk in the Park, I Shall See God, or I Come To You O Lord. These songs were such an ever-present part of my life that even as I look back now, I realize that they physically define many aspects of my childhood, like music from the soundtrack of my life. As I recall church sleepovers, family outings and long car rides, I can still hear the symphony and vocal harmonies from the bridge of I Come To You O Lord.
As a young adult, I became so nostalgic for these old songs that I began actively seeking the music on CD. Most of the albums were out of print, and I paid as much as forty dollars for some of them on eBay, but it was more than worth it, and it is a music collection that I cherish to this day. Roby had a voice like no other and a songwriting ability that continues to blow my mind. He was a demon on the guitar and an angel on the mic...
And now I have just learned that this sweet man has passed on to be with the Lord whom he praised with such passion and conviction in all of his music. He was 51 years old, far too young to leave us. I am incredibly saddened by this news, but I'll always treasure the musical footprints he has left behind. My uncle (another devoted, long-time fan) called me to tell me the (albeit belated) news, and shortly thereafter my dad called as well. The three of us exchanged somber phone calls recalling our memories of Roby as though he was a member of our own family. In a way he was. We've all been so heavily impacted by his music, his message, his humility, and the profound depth of his expression, I can hardly put it into words.
One of the greatest struggles for any lyrical songwriter is trying to properly articulate the right feelings and emotions in such a way that the melody perfectly complements the lyrical narrative. This is not an easy thing to pull off, but Roby was the master. When he sang, you knew exactly where he was coming from, and it was as though his heart would physically beat through his melodies. You knew he loved the Lord, and that he was passionate about life.
In addition, Roby has come to be somewhat of a kindred spirit to me. He was a man with profound faith, but who often expressed discontent with many aspects of the church. He loved composing, producing, and participating in the entire music-making process. In these ways, I have found incredible common ground with him and have been deeply moved by his words over the years. In other ways, I have envied him. I often fear that I take life for granted, but Roby lived with such inspiring passion. He understood who he was as a child of God, and that was what drove him. I sometimes need reminding of these simple truths, as many of us do, and what a wonderful thing it is to have Roby's music to constantly remind us.
As I write this, I am listening to one of my all-time favorite Roby songs, Take No Sorrow. To me it's one of the most beautiful pop songs ever written, and the lyrics never fail to astound me. I used to think that the song was written about his divorce, but I later read in an interview that the song was written in response to being replaced as producer for a pop music group. This might seem like a trivial issue on the surface, but it's quite profound when you actually listen to the song and consider how beautifully he captures the pain of rejection in a very universal way. This is a powerful song whether you're struggling with domestic issues, feelings of inadequacy, a recent loss or even unrequited love.
That was Roby's gift; but I think that the gift is two-fold. It was a gift from the Lord to Roby, and subsequently a gift from Roby to the world. I know that I feel blessed having Roby's music, and it pains me to know that he will never compose again in this life. He was one of the good ones. No...one of the great ones, and while I mourn his profound loss, I rejoice in knowing that he is truly home.
The picture you see to the left is of the historic Mission Inn in Riverside CA, an immaculate old hotel with a unique history and even more unique architecture. I have a lot of great memories at that place: sleeping in reportedly-haunted rooms, attending parties and brunches, getting drunk on Tanqueray, all that kid stuff. I was turned on to the place by my dad and his fiancé, who not only frequent the place but also collect old trinkets from the Inn. It's an incredibly beautiful hotel, but also kind of spooky, which makes it all the more appealing.
I have been so impacted by this amazing place that it has become the prime inspiration for my new novel, The Black Portrait Estate. The "story" is actually about five stories in one, all taking place in a mysterious hotel known as The Black Portrait Estate, over the course of a weekend. The "main character," if you will, is the Estate itself, much like how the "main character" in Victor Hugo's masterpiece Notre Dame de Paris (or, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, as it has been dumbed down for those of us in the English-speaking world) is the cathedral, and not (despite popular understanding) the hunchback, the gypsy, the cleric or anyone else.
There is great power in a place of history. An inanimate landmark can in many cases have more character than the living people who inhabit it. My grandmother was telling me recently about all of the amazing cathedrals she has visited in London, Paris and Florence, among other places. The way she described them really made them seem alive, as though they sheltered physical remnants of all those who had contributed to their existence and their history: the stone masons, the knights, the priests, the followers, and even the literature and art that was borne from their influence. I envision The Black Portrait Estate as such a place, but existing in a completely different universe of imagination, which, when you really get down to it, is what makes even tangible landmarks spectacular.
Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:30:47 -0500
Just thinking out loud here...
I want to record a cover of Dramarama's Anything, Anything. That song is the reason they invented the term "bad-ass."
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:07:02 -0500
Give Up The Grudge
I went with some friends to Ontario Mills this afternoon. We had an early dinner at Hooters (half-priced wings during Happy Hour!) and then headed to AMC to watch the latest Japanese horror import, Shutter. I usually like to check out the new J-horror releases because I love a good ghost story, even though the vast majority of these films are really bad. For every gem like The Ring and The Grudge, there are a dozen duds like Dark Water, One Missed Call and Pulse.
This latest import wasn't as abysmal as some of the others, but nevertheless it was far from being a masterpiece. One of my friends, Toshiko, speaks fluent Japanese and so she was able to interpret much of the Japanese dialogue that revealed facts about the film that were never otherwise brought to light, which is kind of cool, I suppose. It makes me feel as though I'm privy to information that other white boys are not. But at this point I'm rambling.
The point I want to make is that it seems like they're phoning in these horror movies. Later this year, they're supposed to be releasing an American remake of the Asian classic A Tale of Two Sisters, one of my favorite eastern horror films, and I shudder to think how they'll destroy that one. Hollywood has decided that Asian horror films are a major cash cow, no matter how poorly they are remade. A good horror movie, though, is so much more than women in corpse makeup jumping out of closets. It's about atmosphere, and most importantly it's about subtlety, because in order for a movie to scare us, we must be made to believe that it could actually happen to us. The last truly good horror movie I saw was The Orphanage, and I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. I think that the reason for it's brilliance is that it is an authentic Spanish import, and the formula morons in Hollywood haven't had a chance to get their hands on it...
...yet.
Be afraid.
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:30:01 -0500
I Never Thought I'd Say This...
...but I sort of relate to Barack Obama (but only slightly). Said Obama during his now famous race speech: I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Now, it's easy to call Obama a hypocrite, a panderer, a man who will do or say whatever it takes to maintain the support of the American public during this contentious primary season. I have to admit, though, that the more I think about it, the more I know where he's coming from. Being that I am a social libertarian (for the most part) in an evangelical church, I have had my share of disagreements with my pastor. In recent weeks, for examples, the church has been encouraging people to provide their signatures in favor of the California Marriage Amendment, the so-called "Voter's Right To Protect Marriage Initiative." Now, I am just as much a Christian as anyone else in the congregation (though some of my more conservative friends might dispute that notion), and I personally oppose this measure, quite vehemently.
My question to anyone in support of barring same-sex marriage is this: What would such an amendment accomplish for the betterment of society? Folks like Dr. James Dobson will tell you that for a society to accept gay marriage sets a precedent that opens the door for polygamy, group marriage, and somewhere down the line perhaps even bestiality. Then you have to (heaven forfend!) allow gays to adopt kids, which will cause the kids to become all screwed up in the head, and before you know it we're living in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now, I don't pretend to understand the psychology of a homosexual (although those of you familiar with my love of musical theater have probably had your suspicions about me); I do not have feelings of homosexuality, and the legality or lack thereof has no direct impact on my existence, so this is not some personal vendetta of mine. This is simply a matter of recognizing that the government has a place in society, and the marriage business is not it. It might surprise some people to learn that the federal government had no established place in marriage until 1920, and even state governments didn't get involved until after the Civil War, when slaves were freed and some feared the evils of interracial unions. The only way to prevent such unions and effectively institute anti-miscegenation laws was to keep an eye on who was marrying who. Prior to that time, marriage was simply a personal matter; there were no government licenses, and nobody felt as though their union was invalid because of a lack of federal recognition. So if conservatives wish to be angry about the government undermining the sanctity of marriage, then they should be upset about their government ever having gotten involved in the first place. Our leaders have done more to undermine the sanctity of marriage over the past 150 years by using heterosexual unions than most people even begin to realize. Marriage as it is defined today is more of an IRS matter than a spiritual union.
But since the damage is already done, the government has a responsibility to extend equal rights to everyone. I don't believe we can ever return to the days when marriage was truly a personal matter, and allowing gays to marry is not going to usher in the great tribulation. In fact evangelical Christians are shooting themselves in the foot by opposing such unions because we are only further alienating people who already think we're bigots, and since so many Christians are concerned with "making disciples of all nations," this really isn't helping matters.
And just another quick word about Barack Obama. I can happily say that although I believe my pastor to have some misplaced priorities, he in no way embodies the vitriol and hatred of Obama's former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If he did, I would have nothing to do with that church, as my ability to respectfully disagree with someone can only go so far. When a man can passionately refer to American troops with the statement, "America's chickens are coming home to roost," that is beyond reprehensible. If it were discovered that a Republican candidate attended Westboro Baptist Church, that person's political career would be over immediately, and rightfully so. Something to think about.
Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:57:00 -0500
To whom it may concern
One of my many, many hobbies is to collect autographs from actors/musician/public figures whom I admire. I've built a fairly modest collection over the years: Elisa Donovan, Sarah Michelle Gellar, James Taylor, Eric Idle, Ashley Judd, Larry Elder, The Eyeliners, The Halo Friendlies, Save Ferris, Meredith Bishop, Giada de Laurentiis, Penn and Teller, Nigella Lawson, Tammy Bruce, Joy Electric and others. Most are personalized, some are not. They have come as a result of fan letters, concerts and book signings, mostly (I always do well at the LA Times Festival of Books). I haven't actually written a fan letter since high school, not because I feel like I'm too old, but I probably fell out of the habit because it can get expensive buying all of those stamps and manila envelopes, and then having to wait sometimes several months for a reply.
Still, I've been thinking more and more about it lately. I really used to enjoy writing fan letters, and of course getting responses. I've decided to get back into the habit, since everybody needs to collect something (or so I am told), and my collection has slowed down quite a bit. I've made a list of people that I really want to write to:
Jerry Lewis (my idol) Kristin Chenoweth (the love of my life) Bernadette Peters (one of the most gifted performers on Earth) Milla Jovovich (I like her acting, but I love her music) Kate Beckinsale (beauty personified)
And that's probably all I can afford right now, but more will follow...
Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:42:59 -0500
Where there never was a hat...
After months of deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that Stephen Sondheim's hit musical Sunday in the Park with George is the single greatest artistic masterpiece of the 20th century. I'm exaggerating, of course, but only slightly. I was watching the DVD again this evening, a performance of the show recorded on Broadway circa 1986 with the original cast, Mandy Patinkin and Bernadette Peters in the lead roles. And for the record, I gush over this musical for many reasons, and not only because I'm madly in love with Bernadette Peters (a woman who, despite the forces of nature, simply does not age).
For those of you who don't know, Sunday in the Park is a fictional account of the life of the famous painter Georges Seurat, during that period in his life when he worked to create his masterpiece, A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. It's a story of isolation, obsession, love, loss, art, conformity, regret and a longing for recognition that transcends generations. Anyone who has ever struggled with their art (whether music, literature, painting, or any creative endeavor) can relate to this profound story, and anyone who has ever loved can relate as well.
The brilliance of this Sondheim musical, though, lies not so much in the theme, but in the subtext. When you can take a line as simple as "where there never was a hat," and analyze the hell out of it until you've practically cracked the very meaning of life, you know you're dealing with a true masterpiece. Songs like "We Do Not Belong Together," "Finishing the Hat" and "Move On" are some of the most powerful and touching numbers that modern musical theater has to offer. As I was watching the DVD tonight, I was once again struck by my favorite lines, sung so mellifluously by Bernadette Peters: "Stop worrying if your vision is new; let others make that decision, they usually do; you keep moving on." I think I'm comfortable enough in my manhood to admit that I cannot get through that song without weeping.
Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:24:35 -0500
Farewell UCR....I think.
Today I attended my last class at UCR. It's weird, and I feel like a chapter of my life has ended, but I realize that it's only sad in a bittersweet kind of way. Like, it kind of bummed me out to think that I may never step foot in another classroom, but at the same time I was thinking, "Dear God, I hope I never have to step foot in another classroom." That was after taking a three-hour final, though (see yesterday's entry). Now I'm just going to enjoy a brief, self-appointed spring break and start looking for a real job.
In other news, the new Foxglove Hunt CD is amazing. It sounds like Joy Electric and Fine China tossed into a blender with a sprinkle of New Order (and yes, I fully realize that most of you will have no idea what that means, but definitely check them out regardless).
Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:42:09 -0500
And so it comes to a close.
Tomorrow is my last day of college....finally.
That is....if I don't screw up my anthropology final. The Spanish final I'm not worried about, but the anthropology final will be a killer. The professor is allowing us one page of notes (one sheet, two sides). Basically, we can include any information we think might help us on the test. So here are my notes:
Side A
Side B
Clearly I am dead set on passing this very difficult test and finally breaking free from the shackles of college once and for all. Time to get a real life!
Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:39:26 -0500
Some Thoughts on Globalization
In his article In Defense of Globalization, BBC journalist Henri Astier asserts that globalization, though an abstract and undoubtedly flawed concept, is highly beneficial for the world at large. Whereas opponents of globalization will often argue that global trade practices-especially those involving large corporations-are exploitative of impoverished nations and promote pollution, child labor and a plethora of other societal problems, Astier contends that the existence of free trade, and the limiting of so-called "protectionism" are necessary to solve, rather than exacerbate these problems.
Astier offers a particularly fascinating perspective on the subject being that he is a French journalist who vehemently supports global trade practices, and as he puts it, "...the French Right and Left are equally hostile to markets..." By making such a statement, Astier presents himself, in a way, as a man without a country. Despite the pressures and proclivities of his homeland and most likely his upbringing, Astier remains steadfast in defending a controversial position on a controversial subject. This truly is a testament to his convictions, and for the record, I agree with him.
His assessment about French attitudes regarding trade is supported by the attitudes of the current French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. A New York Times Editorial entitled Two Sides of Mr. Sarkozy, dated November 18, 2007, describes President Sarkozy's recent address to the European Union Parliament, in which he proposed a program for "protectionist walls" around Europe. According to the Editorialist, "[Sarkozy's] approach would discriminate against foreign companies and third world farmers." The Editorialist goes on to write, "...he will do all he can to keep Turkey out of the European Union. If Mr. Sarkozy's ideals prevail...they would inflict long-term damage on France and Europe."
The idea of protectionism is important to consider in analyzing the finer points of globalization. Astier deals with the matter at length in his article, among other facets of this complicated issue. There are a few particular statements in the article that succinctly illustrate some very thought-provoking ideas. For instance, he writes, "Free traders have always defended liberty, and condemned empire as an extension of protectionism." He also notes (facetiously referring to anti-globalist activists), "All the problems found in capitalist societies, from pollution to inane television programmes, disqualify capitalism itself, which is compared to a perfect system that does not exist." I find this statement particularly notable in that it acknowledges the fact that many anti-globalists fail to offer realistic or practical alternatives, and many are arguably cautious about free trade due largely to their negative predispositions toward unbridled capitalism.
At the heart of the article, though, is one particularly profound quote which I would like to address. Astier boldly states, "Globalization is in fact part of the cure, as it helps remove the real cause, poverty." This statement was made to address child labor in particular, but is relevant to the theme of the entire article, and is alluded to throughout. I touched upon this idea earlier, but certainly such an audacious contention requires further explanation, lest it should appear like a mindless bumper sticker slogan. Astier goes into much detail about how specific impoverished nations and even entire continents have benefited from mutually-beneficial global trade. He refers to Asia rising from the ashes of hunger and poverty, and expresses a belief that Africa has the potential to do the same, "given the right policies." "Eighteenth-century Europe," he declares, "was poorer than most of Africa is today."
In making his arguments, Astier alludes to the works other economists. One such economist, who is heavily acknowledged throughout, is Jagdish Bhagwati, an author and professor at Columbia University. Many of Astier's assertions about the benefits of globalization are made with reference to Bhagwati's scholarly works. Curious to find further elaborations-as Astier admittedly only touches upon the works to which he alludes-I visited Bhagwati's website and began reading through some of his articles. Two that particularly struck me were America's Bi-Partisan Battle Against Free Trade and Technology, Not Globalization, Is Driving Wages Down.
These articles, both of which are fairly recent (the former from April 9, 2007, and the latter from January 3, 2007), elaborate on the themes and arguments in Astier's article. For example, in America's Bi-Partisan Battle, he expands heavily on Astier's criticisms of protectionism, stating "they [supporters of protectionism] use fairness in trade to befuddle an ill-informed citizenry into protectionism." He goes on to describe preferential trade agreements, which seek to promote a form of trade that is riddled with checks and balances, taking factors into concern such as the economies of nations with which the US seeks to engage in trade. This, he argues, is not free trade at all, but the illusion of free trade, which often wins popular support as it is presented with supposedly-altruistic intentions.
This position on protectionism further complicates the issue of globalization. As Astier mentions in his article, globalization is a complex word with many connotations, and when you consider also that there is a divide between 'fair trade' and 'restricted trade,' even more questions are raised. Even if international trade is heavily restricted, any such trade is still 'global,' and Astier mentions also that critics of globalization do not oppose all globalization, however the issue of globalization as argued by individuals like Astier and Bhagwati is emphasized specifically in the context of free trade, and therefore protectionism is seen as a hindrance.
For this reason, I wish to note that globalization itself, for the sake of this essay, should be interpreted as a statement in regard to free trade, because although literal definitions might allow for any number of interpretations, the globalization debate in today's society is largely a matter of free trade vs. protectionism (to whatever extent), of which I personally support the former. Bhagwati warns that the seduction of protectionism is the comfort of safety, of economic security, and of international altruism, however this comfort is illusory.
Why?
Astier deals with this at length, how the inhibition of free trade prevents developing nations from becoming prosperous. Without free trade, they are unable to harness their resources through mutually-beneficial transactions with other nations and elevate themselves to a higher economic status. There are still those who argue that protectionism is necessary to prevent exploitation of nations and individuals, but Astier points out that these protections very seldom address the root problems. As I mentioned earlier, it is poverty, and not globalization, that brings about child labor, and as Astier points out, the absence of globalization does not bring an end to child labor, but merely drives it underground. Child labor is a social issue that must be dealt with through laws and measures set forth by the nations in which such practices exist, but globalization is inconsequential in this matter. The same can be said of environmental issues. Factories may pump pollution into the air, but that itself is not an argument against free trade, nor does it have anything to do with the matter. Environmental regulations are issues that must be dealt with on their own merits.
But what of those people who argue that globalization hurts workers? Astier points out that in fact the standard of living has been raised in many countries due to free trade and the economic incentives thereof. Many large, powerful corporations have expanded their ventures overseas into developing nations such as India, and although some criticize these "outsourcing" practices, struggling nations have found them very beneficial. In a BBC article entitled, Multinationals Lead India's IT Revolution, dated January 24, 2007, reporter Steve Schifferes writes, "[Corporations] have found that it is cheaper to outsource many white collar tasks - such as accounting, IT support, and payrolls - to locations overseas." Referring specifically to India, Schifferes describes how the nation has benefited immensely from global trade practices in recent years, currently exporting 25 billion dollars per year worth of the above-listed services. This number is expected to rise to 60 billion dollars by 2010.
There are those, however, who contend that these outsourcing practices are a threat to domestic wages. In response, I refer to the second Bhagwati article that I listed earlier, entitled Technology, Not Globalization, is Driving Wages Down. In the article, Bhagwati boldly asserts that "all empirical studies including those done by some of today's top trade economists...show that the adverse effect of trade on wages is not substantial." He goes on to explain that stagnating wages are largely the result of technological advances that eliminate entry-level jobs. This creates less demand, consequently affecting wages.
I wish to repeat that both Astier and Bhagwati openly concede that globalization is not without its negative impacts. No enterprise is perfect, but these writings and others demonstrate that the benefits of globalization far outweigh the negatives. As Henri Astier declares ever so eloquently, "That trade brings wealth and that a country hurts itself by blocking imports is among the best-established ideas in the social sciences."
Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:15:09 -0600
Keith Olbermann - the antidote to Bill O'Reilly
Or so it would seem. It's funny to watch the ongoing feud between Fox's O'Reilly and NBC's Olbermann. Olbermann frequently bestows O'Reilly with the honor of "Worst Person In The World," and O'Reilly has been known to drop callers from his radio show simply for mentioning Olbermann's name. Each man is convinced that the other is a flaming dick, and well, they're both right. I mean, observing this feud is like watching two enraged capuchins toss their feces at one another.
O'Reilly is a loose cannon who speaks with the authority of the gods, sexually harasses his employees, frequently interrupts his guests and even threatens to "tear [them] to fucking pieces" on occasion. Olbermann is a bully who enjoys taking cheap shots, stalking pornstars (not that that's a bad thing, since pornstars aren't people like you or me) and administering seemingly-endless vitriolic rants against whoever happens to be grinding his gears on a given evening.
But, you know what? Both men are entertaining. Of course, Olbermann will never have a fraction of O'Reilly's audience, but that's another story. Like it or not, prime time cable news is about 10 percent information, 90 percent sensationalism, as well it should be. If I want "just the facts," I'll watch my local news, or that "living in the last days" news show on the Christian channel. When I watch cable news, I don't want Dan Rather putting me to sleep with a monotone lullaby about the conflict in the middle east. I want to see someone get his ass handed to him.
Left-wing, right-wing, I don't care, frankly. You can insult me, you can badger me, just don't bore me. I am a product of the fast-paced television age. I prefer rice that cooks in three minutes and I get nervous if I have to spend more than thirty seconds in an elevator, and frankly I don't have the attention span for Cronkite-style snooze news. Welcome to 21st century America. And before you start blubbering about how Mr. O'Reilly is a right-wing blowhard, or how Mr. Olbermann is a liberal in sheep's clothing, just remember that these men perform a far greater service than the mere providing of information: these men provide us with a dark, boiling cynicism that prevents us from getting too cozy with those wicked creatures whom we sometimes refer to as "Our fellow man."
Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:08:43 -0500
Forum Dude's Guide To Successful Online Debate
The key to conducting a successful online debate has many factors. For instance, if your opponent defends his position using an article from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, don't fall into the trap of actually responding to the content of said article. Simply look for a different article more suited to your point of view, and then use that information as though it automatically refutes your opponent's article. Remember, less is more.
Think tanks can be a fantastic resource when looking for articles that back up your point of view. One of my favorites is the Center for American Progress. The advantage here is two-fold. Not only do you have the convenience of using someone else's comprehensive research at the simple click of a mouse without having to waste your time bothering with primary sources, but you also give the illusion that you are in fact citing a reputable study, and who can argue with that? Groups like the CAP are especially useful as they work under the guise of non-partisanship, making the illusion even greater. However, if you notice that your opponent is also using information from think tanks, be sure and point that out. Just as long as no one catches the hypocrisy of your action, it will make your opponent appear less credible.
Then, when all else fails, you can just write off the facts you don't like as "irrelevant," even when it directly pertains to your opponent's point that you are so eager to refute. And when you find that you can't refute his statements with actual pinpoint logic, you can always just look online for an unscientific study (or even an unscientific poll). Even if the study (or poll) doesn't actually prove anything other than the prevailing biases of academia, use it anyway. It couldn't hurt.
And just in case you fear that maybe your message isn't getting across, it's always a good idea to offer occasional reminders of how brilliant you are in a chosen field (history, for instance), and, by contrast, how dumb or ignorant your opponent is. This is the first strategy taught in most debate classes. Even if your ability to cite history is limited to copying and pasting random links that you found on Google under the search words "Bush crappy record," it still never hurts to try and convince your opponent that you are in fact smarter than they are. If nothing else, it will at least make you feel better, and confidence is the key to victory.
And don't worry too much about content. There are lots of dedicated researches who have already done all the dirty work for you, so all you need to do is sit back, post a few hyperlinks and scatter a few one or two-sentence captions to explain each one. And as mindless as that may sound, don't let it deter you from reminding your opponent of your brilliance. After all, he doesn't believe the things you believe, so you don't have to prove a thing to him! If you try to elaborate on your positions or offer any original ideas or detailed justifications, you'll just tire yourself out. Remember, dedicated researches have already done that work for you. The search engine is your best friend!
Lastly (and this is key), never, EVER let your opponent have the last word. If you run out of ideas, or feel that you no longer have anything of substance to offer, just keep arguing. This is a great time for you to employ strategy #1 as I outlined in the first paragraph, citing random second-hand sources as though they are irrefragable evidence of your position, while at the same time mocking your opponent's sources (and, more imporantly, your opponent).
If you follow these simple steps, I guarantee you will be successful in debate. After all, sooner or later your opponent will have to grow tired of your ranting and just walk away. And when you have the last word, my friend, you win! Be sure to let your opponent know it, and celebrate your brilliant victory!
Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:12:47 -0500
The Goth Paradox
I have always been drawn to gothic music: the over-the-top spooky fashions, the gloomy, poetic lyrics, and of course, all those minor chords. When I was fifteen, I discovered Marilyn Manson's Antichrist Superstar CD, and it was like opening Pandora's Box. I was in love, and for a while I didn't really care if any other music existed on Earth. It was haunting, dark, angry, disdainful, loud, rebellious, beautiful, anarchistic, carefree, inspirational, mysterious and complex all at the same time.
My dad, however, didn't share my enthusiasm, and understandably so.
I, for one, thought I had hidden the CD quite cleverly, but apparently kids have been hiding forbidden objects between their mattresses since the time of Moses, so it was only a matter of time before my dad found me out, and then it was bye-bye Manson (and for a while, it was bye-bye social life). In spite of this musical repossession, I still had a very keen interest in gothic music. A seed had been planted, and it was growing by the day. Of course, I knew that the only way my dad would ever approve of my listening to such music was if I managed to find some with a Christian message. Fat chance, right?
Then I discovered Rackets and Drapes.
The first time I listened to Rackets and Drapes, I was blown away. These guys were dressing like Manson, singing about child molesters, domestic violence and abortions, and they were Christians. I was sixteen when I acquired a copy of their Candyland CD, and it would forever change my outlook about the boundaries of Christian music, as well as my outlook on the Christian music scene in general. What really fascinated me was the fact that these candid, incredibly-controversial musicians were more open about their faith than many of the less-threatening Christian alternative acts like MxPx and Ghoti Hook. From there I went on to discover other great Christian goth acts like Saviour Machine, Torn Skin, Circle of Dust and others. Arguably, many of these groups helped to forge my love of electronic music in general, not only within the goth scene but beyond.
What interests me is the paradox of trying to reconcile Christian faith and ministry with social characteristics typically associated with issues like Satanism, Wicca, existentialism and the macabre. The key difference, obviously, is found in the lyrical content. A casual observer might look at Cradle of Filth and Rackets & Drapes and think that the two bands were cut from the very same mold. An analysis of the lyrics, however, reveals that the two bands represent vastly different worldviews. It becomes a matter of who-or what-is being glorified through the music.
There is certainly nothing new about the idea of Christian musicians adapting to counter culture. Back when heavy metal music was still being actively decried as a tool of Satan, bands like Stryper were rocking "To Hell With the Devil." They had their share of controversy, and even today there are still some in the Christian community who are uncomfortable with the idea of "Christian rock" in general, but regardless of where you stand on the issue, the boys from Stryper were out there glorifying Christ in a culture where Satan was often used as a mascot and long-haired rockers were admired for their sexual promiscuity. If anything, Stryper were the true rebels. Alice Cooper once said in a London Sunday Times interview, "Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that's a tough call. That's real rebellion."
There's nothing like creating a counter culture within a counter culture.
But how far is too far? How deeply can a band immerse itself into a given culture without assimilating to the ways of that culture? The dark side to the goth-Christian fusion is the fact that many such artists have a history of blurring the lines, usually after establishing themselves within the industry. I'll give you some examples.
Rackets and Drapes has always been a controversial act, but late in their career they began to grow especially edgy (and for them, that's saying something). At one point they posted a viciously anti-Islamic article on their website, at another point they decorated the front page of their website with an animated image of a naked woman-presumably a stripper-shown from behind, rear end fully exposed. They also showed strong support for the transgender movement, linking their website to The Gender Tree and incorporating artwork that suggested a keen fascination for women's clothing. My purpose here isn't to argue whether or not these things-in any given context-are acceptable for a self-described Christian band; I would venture that you are intelligent enough to make up your own mind on that. I would, however, make the argument that if there was an award for Christian artists pushing the envelope, Rackets and Drapes would win in a landslide. Whether right or wrong, this serves to further complicate the line between gothic and Christian music.
My second example is Evanescence. When they started out in the late 90s, they frequently opened for Christian bands and performed for youth groups, ultimately developing a reputation as a Christian band. This reputation was further established by comments made early on by former guitarist and cofounder Ben Moody, who once said in an interview with Stranger Things magazine, "The message we as a band want to convey more than anything is simple-God is love." Later on, though, the band began to deny ever having any affiliation with the Christian music industry whatsoever.
Similar could be said of Klayton (AKA Klay Scott, AKA Scott Albert, AKA Dred, AKA Deathwish), founder and frontman of Circle of Dust and Celldweller. Rather than denying any former ties with the CCM, however, Klayton has simply-and very publicly-severed all ties. In a profanity-laced interview with HM magazine, he declared quite candidly:
"I was born and raised in a 'Christian' household. I had no choice. When you're a kid, you do as you're told. (My parents did what they felt right and I hold no blame towards them whatsoever. ) I spent most of my youth in church learning to fear eternal damnation if I looked at someone the wrong way or entertained an 'evil' thought. God forbid I was even remotely human. Enter pubescence and 'young adulthood.' By this point my brainwashing is almost complete. I am a droid doing 'the work of the Lord'???? No, doing big church-man's version of 'the work of the Lord' actually. Now I'm getting older and starting to commit the unforgivable crime - I'm doubting."
Blasphemous or humbling? You decide. After examining all of these examples, I have come to some basic conclusions. Gothic music traditionally stems from a sort of despair or disenfranchisement, and even though it may traditionally be considered inappropriate for Christians in the music industry to think outside the long-established box, I would go so far as to say that without that element of inappropriateness (however acceptable or disgraceful it may be), there could be no good gothic music in the Christian scene. If you need proof, just look at the "goth"-influenced music by bands like Skillet, Mortal and Audio Adrenaline (remember "Some Kind of Zombie?"). These artists, as talented as they may be, cannot do gothic music because they're too much at peace with the world. Gothic music has always appealed to those who truly struggle in life, whether it be with faith, identity, self-esteem or purpose. These sorts of characteristics are common among Christians and non-Christians alike, the only difference being that Christians are often afraid to express them due to guilt or fear of rebuke. So in true Shakespearean fashion, the Christian goth scene is a place for outsiders in the Christian community just as the mainstream goth scene is a place for outsiders in the larger society.
I want to reiterate yet again that I am not trying to argue whether this is right or wrong; I'm speaking from a strictly observational standpoint, and personally I think that a convincing case could be made on either side. On the one hand, you could argue that even the Bible is filled with melodramatic musing and self-loathing by deeply-flawed and even sinful people (King David, anyone?) which serves to strengthen the faith of others, and on the other hand you can make the argument-and a truly valid argument at that-that the Christian music scene ought to be a safe haven for parents concerned about their children's listening habits, and should therefore be held to higher standards of content. Either way, gothic music will remain a podium for the frustrated, the confused and the downtrodden to express their grievances, and I will make the argument that if there was only joy, peace and optimism in the world, and everybody had their act together, then gothic music could not exist in any format.
Sorry, Skillet.
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:20:47 -0500
Christian Punks Are More Punk Than ConPunk (part 1)
Let me elaborate on that...
What I mean to say is this: Christian punk bands (as a collective unit) have more in common with today's punk rock establishment than does the Conservative Punk movement.
They are more left-wing than you may think.
A LOT more.
Recently I was at an In 'N Out burger having lunch with a friend, and we began conversing about punk rock as we often do, being that it is an interest shared by us both. Just as a joke, I declared that I wasn't fond of Bad Religion because their lyrics are too "Christian" for me (you probably don't even have to be familiar with Bad Religion's music to get the joke; just look at the name of the band). Anyway, my friend then made an interesting statement: Knowing of my political leanings, he said, "The only thing that annoys me more than a conservative 'punk' is a Christian 'punk'" (he actually did use his fingers to put the word 'punk' in quotes).
Anyway, I found this interesting, as the vast majority of today's well-known "Christian punk" bands have more in common politically with my liberal friend than I do as a "conservative punk." Now maybe you're saying at this point, "Hold the phone! So-called Christian punk bands are just a bunch of mindless evangelicals trying to use the punk rock sound to proselytize." Well, yes, that does happen, but no more often than secular punk bands glorify fiscal libertarianism (which...I can think of four).
But I see you need some convincing, and that is only fair. Let me start by giving you an example. The lyrics are noticeably Christian in nature, but cast that aside and you practically have an Anti-Flag song. But of course, this song is not by Anti-Flag; it's by Dogwood, a band that once performed at my church when they were slightly less famous:
-----
Doubled over from mankind's venomous bite.
When the wind rises, Humanity is in jeopardy. A meltdown awaiting, A knee-jerk reaction.
Our future depends upon one man's decision.
Infamous button, Luring the push. Will I be around, For the appointed touch? How long until, The world fizzles out? Closer to the inevitable end.
Progressing yet nearer, I fear for the kids. Taking advantage, Of other countries. Not much time left,
To watch our nation fall. What can we do as worthless creatures? That's what we're to believe.
Fallout, That's that we're headed for.
Jesus, Come soon and take us all away.
America abusing it's power like never before.
Progression to and end, Our time is at hand. [repeat x3]
-----
Okay, sure that's just one example, but a valid one. The members of Dogwood are also active supporters of "Food Not Bombs," as indicated on their website (http://www.dogwood.ws). Should I offer another example? Believe me, I have plenty. Before I proceed however, let me just offer a disclaimer. It is not my intention to demean any of these bands or to say that they are "un-Christian" for supporting liberal causes. Far from it. Most of these bands I admire and some I have loved for years, even though I may not see eye to eye with them. My only objective here is to point out some of the misconceptions people have about "Christian punk," and maybe break down some stereotypes while giving you something to think about. In addition, all of the bands I mention are representative of traditional and non-mainstream punk instrumentation styles. I'm not including any Good-Charlotte-style pussy punk (i.e. Relient K, not that there is anything wrong with them).
Anyway, if you just stumbled upon the lyrics to this next song, who would you think it was written by?:
-----
We built this country on "democracy" We stole this land through hypocrisy We found ourselves some liberation And we hid our guilt on the reservation What we want we must possess It's time for us to take your address You cannot stop our progress Send your complaints to Congress We declared all men's equality While the blacks still lived in slavery They fought in wars for our cause But still couldn't vote by our laws We change the rule when we decide Our moral values are cast aside Your oppression is justified Cause we're the ones who preside Now it's 1994 Nothing's changed much from before We break promises left and right What we can't buy, we take by might Some would say we victimize But we just try to capitalize Your only hope we'll monopolize So we can build our enterprise It's all in your books All you need to do is take a look If you don't know what Our country's done Here's history lesson #1
-----
Here's a hint: It ain't NOFX. The above lyrics are from "History Lesson 101" by Crashdog, probably my favorite Christian punk band. Throughout their decade-long career, Crashdog were known for such in-your-face political lyrics, mixed of course with proud declarations of Christian faith.
Then there is Squad Five-O. Dear oh dear. As a teenager, I actually used to watch these guys hosting the Christian skate show G-Rock on TBN, and they still proudly declare their Christian faith, but you might not know it judging by the lyrics to this next song, entitled "Bye American," taken from their most recent CD:
-----
Who pumps your gas, cooks your meals, works your fields Builds your skyscrapers, prints your newspapers, it's your next door neighbors In the ghetto city, gated community, In the hills of Appalachia or Beverly Metropolitan, charlatan, American Words don't mean shit and souls wear too thin My faith is lost from the burning cross To the "American owned and operated" swastika There's no pursuit of happiness in a land that's void of love Why should God bless America? Who cleans your gutter and your sewer And is gonna die sooner Working fingers to the bone Than in an office on the phone Underestimated Overlooked too long Don't tell me nothing's wrong It seems like all the good is gone Who stokes the factory fires Gets nothing to retire 75 and standing on a greasy fryer Metropolitan, charlatan, American Words don't mean shit and souls wear too thin My faith is lost from the steeple to the cross To the satellite evangelical thug There's no concern for selflessness, just smother push and shove Why should God bless America? I'm a citizen of the world that was made The maker's marks of soul on me they get over the shame Oh mercy all my ways
-----
Anyway, I could literally post enough lyrics to fill an encyclopedia, but you get the idea. If you're interested in checking out other Christian bands with similar lyrics (and I'm not including emo bands because frankly they don't interest me), there is Ninety Pound Wuss, Ballydowse, the Dingees, Spudgun and a whole slew of others. Bill Power, former Tooth and Nail Records A&R and Blenderhead vocalist, is an avid supporter of the Punk Voter movement; Mark Salomon, current lead singer of Stavesacre and former lead singer of The Crucified and Outer Circle, expresses strong liberal tendencies on his newest album, "How To Live With A Curse"; even Mike Herrera of MxPx has written lyrics critical of the government.
In fact, these are the only examples I could find of specific right-wing tendencies from punk rockers in the Christian scene:
1) Mikey Huntington, lead singer of the Huntingtons, announced on his blog in November of 2004 that he had voted for George W. Bush. 2) Judita Wignall, singer of the Halo Friendlies, writes on her MySpace page that one of her favorite books is "The 10 Things You Can't Say In America." She also bashed Ted Kennedy in one of her blog entries, which I thought was pretty cool.
Seriously, that's all I could find. I'm not joking. And both of the aforementioned bands aren't even very spiritual as far as their lyrics are concerned. Of course, there are plenty of punk-influenced bands that avoid discussing politics altogether in order to stay away from controversy, but is that really punk? In closing, I leave you with one more set of lyrics, just to show you that your preconceived stereotypes aren't COMPLETELY off the mark. Yes, there are a few Christian bands out there that are just...well, crazy. Case in point: Officer Negative (yes, THE Officer Negative). Great melodies, creepy lyrics. Here's an example:
-----
Jesus come to me, I need your help! Satan's attacking me!
I hate satan, I hate satan, I love Jesus, I love Jesus
I will stand and begin to fight The enemy of my Lord Satan you won't get my friends or family Satan you won't get me
With the sword, of the spirit I will chop your head off
I am a child of God And he loves you
-----
For as critical as I am of the left, I would much rather listen to Crashdog trashing America than I would listening to Officer Negative chopping Satan's head off. But hey, to each his own. In closing (at least for now), don't be too turned off when you hear a band described as "Christian punk," especially you liberals. Give them a chance. They may consist of zealots like Officer Negative, but there is a really good chance that they just might have a lot in common with your own ideals and priorities. And for the Christian readers, don't assume that a band is un-Christian simply because they don't fall on the same end of the political aisle as yourself. Remember, even the disciples bickered and fought amongst themselves. The fact that we can disagree with each other is evidence that we're not all a bunch of drones. Otherwise, we're just weirdos with liberty spikes and plastic swords waiting to get up in the devil's business.
More to come...
Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:58:07 -0500
The Case For Capitalism
I have long been fascinated by the invisible line that exists between anarchism and communism. I tend to envision the two concepts as being like neighboring countries, let's say France and Germany. When looking at the two nations on a globe, you may notice that they are separated by nothing more than a paper-thin arbitrary line, and yet when you spin the globe only slightly, it becomes apparent that an entire world encompassing thousands upon thousands of miles exists between them. Such can most certainly be said of anarchism and communism.
On the surface it would appear that the two movements are polar opposites, one rooted in rugged individualism, the other in cooperative communal harmony; one in chaos, one in order. However despite what you may have learned from the school of John Lydon, most anarchists consider their intentions-as well as their movement at large-to be largely absent of chaos. Likewise, there are few self-proclaimed communists who would fully dismiss the virtue of the individual.
If anything, the differences between the two movements are dwarfed by their vast similarities. Both seek to abolish the state as a controlling force, both emphasize the need for individuals to work together to make society function, both are rooted in secular philosophy, and both are highly skeptical of uneven distribution of wealth, usually uniting around a common enmity toward the class system. Most notably, both movements are fiercely and bitterly opposed to capitalism. The exception, of course, would be anarcho-capitalism, which I would venture to say is a far more realistic vision of anarchy, but I'll save that argument for a future article. Anarcho-capitalism is hardly the mainstream of the anarchist movement, and so for the sake of this article I'll stick with the purist forms of each respective movement.
So with all of the aforementioned similarities established, what predominate belief or idea separates anarchism from communism? Some would argue that a primary difference is common ownership vs. individual initiative, and there is certainly some truth to that, but I fear I am oversimplifying. Some would argue that the two movements are separated by self-governance vs. collective cooperation, the basic root of democratic socialism. Again, I am oversimplifying, and I plan to oversimplify even more as I propose my own theory on the matter.
My belief is this: the most fundamental divide existing between anarchism and communism is a differing understanding of human nature. At the risk of generalizing, an anarchist is more likely to believe the best in human nature, whereas a communist is more likely to hold a pessimistic view. Before you start challenging my conclusions, just hear me out. I intend to explain my reasoning at length, as well as my concerns about the repercussions of both worldviews (which is really why I felt compelled to write this piece in the first place).
One fundamental tenet of anarchism is the belief that human beings are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs without the ever-watching eye of authority (which is, itself, a man-made and usually fear-based concept). To the anarchist, authority is unnecessary because (among other things) it is rooted in intimidation, and is a means by which unworthy human beings exploit and enslave one another. Since the methods by which authority is decided are completely arbitrary (even in the case of democracy), authority is hardly a necessary element for a productive society.
I confess that I myself toyed with the idea of anarchism (or at least, minarchism) for a brief time, perhaps due to a combination of my love for old school punk rock and an enjoyment of old Ayn Rand novels. It ultimately occurred to me, however, that human nature most certainly is not good, or even decent for that matter. Dinesh D'Souza once said that a baby does not lack the will to do harm, but only the strength, and D'Souza has never been more right. What I ultimately came to accept is that human nature needs restraint. "Chaos" isn't the goal of anarchy; only the inevitable result.
Karl Marx, for all his faults, was at least smart enough to understand that in order for his vision of communal harmony to ever be possible, there would first be required a long period of (what I would venture to call) brainwashing and social conditioning, what Marx referred to as socialism. Okay, granted, most communists and socialists wouldn't refer to it quite that way, but that is really what it boils down to. Spend enough time drugging your subjects with soma, a la Brave New World, and you might succeed in shattering human nature just enough to create a beautiful and blissful automatonic society.
Marx understood (perhaps more than most modern day communists) that human nature is inherently selfish. Capitalism caters to a carnal desire within each of us to better ourselves with little concern for the collective, in short, to look out for number one. Marx's solution was therefore to bridge the gap between capitalism and communism through a period of socialism, in which human nature could theoretically be harnessed and reengineered.
Why am I repeating myself? Because I strongly wish to emphasize the idea of socialism as envisioned by Karl Marx. I fear that many of today's well-meaning socialists have no idea just what the movement was intended for. Aldous Huxley couldn't have illustrated it better. Since I have already established that the philosophies of communism and anarchism represent two extreme ends of a spectrum (separated by a very narrow line), the question remains, what is the happy medium? In our modern culture, it seems to come down to capitalism and socialism. The feudalistic age is dead (and I say good riddance to it), and there is scarcely a relevant monarchy left on Earth, so we ought to establish then whether capitalism or socialism is the better method of operating a productive society. Conveniently, I believe this is a question I have already answered.
While neither of the two systems is perfect, I sincerely believe that capitalism, by default, is the better method. "But hey Chris," I can hear you saying, "we already knew you would say that. You're a rightwing nutjob. What's your point?" Once again, this is a question I have already answered. If you know anything about me, it should come as no surprise that I would favor a capitalist society over one that is governed by socialist policy, but my point here is to illustrate specifically WHY I favor capitalism, and once again it boils down to human nature.
Socialism, by and large, is an effort to drown the effects of human nature by authoritarian means. Do you remember when you were a child and were asked to perform some menial task by your parent(s)? You replied, "Do I have to?" and your parents replied, "No, you get to." That's basically how socialism works. You realize that certain things are expected of you, and that you have absolutely no choice in the matter but to conform to the will of the powers that be, but you are told-and are made to understand-that it is for your own good, and for the good of society. Many people have no problem whatsoever with this notion, even here in America. I suppose that's exactly what Marx and Engels hoped to accomplish. The irony, however, is that the Communist Manifesto sought to create the perfect libertarian society (communism) by proposing some of the fiercest authoritarian policies known to man (socialism). Am I the only one who sees the contradiction? When you do the math, it becomes clear that communism minus socialism equals anarchism, because unless you can quell people's selfish carnal instincts, chaos will inevitably rule the day.
So let us recap. Socialism is 1) repressive 2) an attempt to reengineer human nature through authoritarianism 3) the sole stepping stone for communism, and 4) an immense historical failure on all fronts (I'll have to elaborate on this in a future article as I fear I have already rambled on excessively), then it should be an absolute no-brainer that a socialist system of government is not the most effective way to promote a productive society. And since we have already established that anarchism is no better (and hardly any different, despite Marxist criticisms), then that leaves capitalism by default, the worst system of government on Earth (except for all the others).
Capitalism most certainly has its flaws, some of which I have already touched upon. There is the vast potential for exploitation, people are rewarded for systematic greed, and overall it is pretty dog-eat-dog. Nevertheless, when you consider the alternatives, it really doesn't seem so bad. I don't intend to begin rambling on about the American dream or the potential of a free market, although I can certainly think of a few distinct advantages off the top of my head. I support capitalism because I do not believe that human nature can be reengineered, nor do I believe that it contains enough goodness or purity to be left to its own devices. The brilliance of capitalism is that it caters to people's selfish desires and harnesses that seemingly negative energy for positive use, through economic growth and expansion that provides jobs, keeps prices competitive and fuels some of the world's most powerful economies. Oscar Wilde once said, "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Truer words were perhaps never spoken, and while we may be only as civilized as our fallible natures will allow, our rise to decadence is a long-standing testament to the potential of the capitalist way of life.
More on this later.
Thu, 25 May 2006 22:38:58 -0500
Confessions of a Former Emo Kid (and a final farewell to Lady Punk Rock)
As one who has been long immersed within the punk rock culture (at least to varying degrees), I have seldom divulged the following information to anyone. Although the adolescent genre commonly referred to as emo is unquestionably the offspring of Lady Punk Rock, it is an illegitimate offspring at best, like the bastard child that nobody likes to talk about. Simply put, if you meet someone who prides himself on being a diehard NOFX fan, chances are he doesn't own any My Chemical Romance t-shirts. Likewise, if you meet a diehard fan of My Chemical Romance, he probably doesn't know a lot of NOFX, and if he does, or claims to, then it is probably because he seeks acceptance within the larger scene, and not because Fat Mike "rocks his socks," so to speak.
This is how it should be, because emo and punk rock, while related in certain idiosyncratic ways, represent two very different attitudes and outlooks. The former sees the glass as half empty, and the latter sees the glass as delightfully breakable. If I may offer another illustration, the emo kid is like the punk rocker's whiny little brother who always hangs around and tries to act the part, but can never manage to reach the same level of contentment because the only area of his big brother's life he does NOT mimic is his initiative, rather opting to just mope around wondering why life isn't going his way.
I don't know about you, but I would much rather model myself after the big brother. The paradox however is that the little brother modeled himself after the big brother as well, at least in theory. As I touched upon before, the little brother's downfall was forgetting one key ingredient: personal initiative. As I write this, I think to myself how much I hate using the word initiative, because it is largely ambiguous. Taking initiative can mean crossing the street as cars are passing, or it can refer to fulfilling a task before one is asked to do so. For the sake of this post, I don't wish to employ either of those two definitions, at least not in a literal sense. When I refer to taking initiative, I am focused on the idea of deciding-rather than just looking for-one's own destiny. This is the heart of punk rock, DIY, and the most central element that sets the genre apart from bleeding-heart emo. It is this theory that drew me into the world of punk rock back in 1999, at the age of 16. There was a time before that, however, and that is where my confession begins.
So, without any further hesitation or needless circumlocution, here goes. I, Kris Avalon, being of sound mind, was once an emo kid. Let me elaborate. I was an emo kid in terms of philosophy. I didn't necessarily listen to emo music in high school; I wasn't attending Jimmyeatworld concerts or anything like that. It was an attitude, a belief that I was a victim of my circumstances and that there was nothing I could do to change them. My only options were to complain about my circumstances with the hope that I could bless others with just a shred of the same self-imposed misery that I was feeling, and to write poetry about slitting my wrists (though of course I would never have the fortitude to actually try it).
Why won't girls go out with me? How come I don't get invited to parties? Why does my dad have to be so strict? That jerk doesn't understand me at all! Why is the world so bleak?
For a time, these were common questions and exclamations for me. Granted, I never really talked to any girls or hung out with people who threw parties (me associate with shallow jocks?! the scandal!), and my home life really wasn't that bad, but nevertheless I had myself thoroughly convinced that I was suffering the greatest plight since Auschwitz, and at no fault of my own.
Then one day I was strolling through a Wherehouse Music store with one of my friends, quietly lamenting the tragedy of my small allowance, when I happened upon the used CDs. At the time the employees allowed customers to open the used CDs and listen to them, and so I would often go to the store specifically to sample unfamiliar music. On this particular day I found a CD with a peculiar title: "So Long and Thanks For all the Shoes." It was by a band called NOFX, a name I recognized only because one of my acquaintances had a patch with those letters on his backpack. Feeling curious, I placed the disk into the store's CD player and was instantly brought to my knees (perhaps not literally) by the opening notes of "Punk Rock Elite."
It's funny, because when I think back to all of the turning points in my life, every one of them in some way involves music. This day was no exception. I was mesmerized by the CD as I listened to it, one song after another. Some of the songs were fast, some were a bit slower, some had heavy distortion, some resembled ska, but the whole collective album seemed cohesive in the sense that it was one continuous celebration of just not giving a shit. They weren't the greatest looking guys, nor the wealthiest or most famous, but it was evident that they enjoyed their lives, and I wanted a part of it.
That was the beginning of my journey with punk rock. DIY was my new philosophy, and I can proudly say that I left my emo ways behind. In fact, my senior year of high school was even enjoyable for the most part (aside from the stresses of choosing a college and hoping for acceptance). Punk has done a lot of great things for me. It has lifted me from the trammel of self-loathing, helped me to start taking control of my own circumstances (today I'm going for my bachelor's degree, I have a great job, a novel which has been submitted for publishing consideration, and my music career is moving forward with each new day) and ultimately altered my outlook on life for the better. I even thought about getting a DIY tattoo, but I might wait on that one.
So if there are any emo kids out there who are reading this, please don't take offense. It is not my intention to demean anyone specifically. I enjoy listening to Dashboard Confessional, My Chemical Romance, Panic! at the Disco and Story of the Year quite immensely, and unlike many who align themselves with punk rock culture, I'm not at all ashamed to admit it. I love many genres of music and pride myself on being unusually eclectic, but my concern is more with the attitudes than with the music itself. I can agree that The Used have written some great songs, but if your outlook on life is based on or reflected in their lyrics, then you, my friend, have a problem. You only live once, and it's up to you to make things happen. Don't sit around whining about your circumstances. Get out there and change the world. Ask yourself why things are so bleak, and then examine possible ways in which you can improve your situation. DIY. It sounds idealistic, I know, and I don't mean to make light if you are the type of person who has suffered real tragedy, but if you're anything like I was (and I daresay, even if you are worse off), there is hope for you yet. You need not even enjoy punk rock music to enjoy the punk rock mentality.
And it is that mentality to which I am forever indebted. Who would have ever thought that a subculture rooted in drugs, violence and untethered hedonism could be a beacon of such immense personal wisdom? Thank you, Lady Punk Rock. I will never forget the lessons you have taught me, nor will I take them for granted or allow them to cease from guiding me in my day-to-day life. You lifted me during dark times and taught me what it truly means to live. It is probably true that very few of your apprentices have followed the same political path that I have chosen, but you are the reason that I am a Republican, a libertarian, and all that seems the antithesis of punk. It is possible that you may have intended for me to follow the punk rock mainstream and fight for left-wing causes, I will never know for sure. I have a hard time believing it, though, because it is you, Lady Punk Rock, who has taught me to look to myself, to forge my own destiny, to fight for my own prosperity and stand on my own two feet. If I am to accept that I am not a victim of my circumstances, as you taught me in the early days, then I am also to accept that I am responsible for my own life: its circumstances, its hardships, its outcomes. I am reminded of Larry Elder, the popular radio talk show host. His parents were both Democrats, but as they instilled within him morals of self-determination and personal responsibility, they had no idea they were raising a Republican. You have done the same for me, Lady Punk Rock, and while it may not have been your intention to mold me into a Republican, you have done just that, and I thank you for it.
So farewell, Lady Punk Rock. There is little more that you can teach me. I thank you once again for the influence you have had in my life, and I promise to keep in touch. The music that you continue to spawn will always remain in my collection, and your spirit will always remain within me. I may not be performing punk music anymore, but do know that the candle of your punk rock essence will always continue to burn brightly in my heart. You have been a loyal friend and companion, and we have shared some great moments together.
So long and thanks for all the love.
Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:39:06 -0500
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
Being that I am of both the Republitarian persuasion and the Christian persuasion, I have been wanting, for quite some time now, to write a post dealing with the correlation between my faith and my politics. I have, unfortunately, put it off, and put it off, and put it off some more. However recently in the Conservative Punk message board I became involved in a debate with one of the regular liberal posters about a comic found in Al Franken's book Lies, entitled "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus," and a rebuttal to it that can be found at lyingliar.com, some of which I myself contributed, originally from my Planet Franken website (http://planetfranken.tripod.com/). There was a lot of nitpicking back and forth, but the basis of the topic is this: Would Jesus, given his nature, have supported or opposed supply side economics? Or, more importantly, would he have taken a side at all? To give you an idea of my own position on the issue, the following is what I wrote as my initial response in the message board:
----------------
If you want to go through and pick apart every word in the Supply Side Jesus article, knock yourself out, but I have neither the time nor the interest, so I'll just speak briefly about the root of it. The question is whether Jesus would support supply side economic policies the way many conservatives do. Al Franken seems to suggest that it is against Jesus' character, and likewise many liberals have argued that Jesus would have supported government programs to help the poor. While I don't agree with this (Jesus always spoke on the individual level and appealed to people's hearts and consciences, not to mention being an advocate of free will), and while I think it is foolish for any of us to try linking Jesus with any branch of economic theory (he simply wasn't concerned with such things), it is a valid argument to make.
The problem that myself and others have with the Supply Side Jesus comic is not unlike the problem you had with Dennis Prager's "Are you a liberal" list, but it even takes it one step further. Not only does the comic put a fiercely negative (dare I say slanderous) spin on the beliefs and priorities of conservatives, suggesting that conservatives are all obsessed with their own greed and couldn't care less about anyone else, but it does so by employing the image of someone whom many conservatives take great inspiration from and find to be a sacred figure. Yes, I know, Al Franken claims his book to be "satire," and that's fair enough, but the arguments must nevertheless be examined on their own merit. After all, satire often contains the most passionate agendas of all (which is why Oscar Wilde spent a great deal of time in prison).
Al Franken made his point and he is certainly at liberty to do so. I even enjoy his musings from time to time, and as far as liberal commentators go, I think he is one of the more entertaining figures out there. Nevertheless, "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus" is nothing more than a snide attempt to mock religious conservatives by using their own faith against them, taking bible verses out of context and advocating big government by suggesting that those who support supply side economics are driven entirely by greed. If Dennis Prager had written anything similar against liberals, you of all people would be fuming.
And the problems with the comic are numerous. I have outlined many of them before, but it really comes down to the idea of suggesting that people who support supply side economics are, in effect, going against the teachings of Jesus. This is the central problem right here. If Jesus thought that government was the answer to poverty and such things, he could have appealed directly to Caesar and not wasted his time teaching the masses to be generous and pure of heart. Generosity isn't paying your taxes (and NO, I'm not saying I'm against taxation); generosity is having the heart to give and to show love when nobody is holding a gun to your head. Most conservatives I know care very deeply about the poor. My church does a great deal for the poor in our community and even internationally.
While we're on that subject, most of the people whom I know personally in my church don't view economic policy as a top priority when voting. They pay their taxes, live day to day, and vote primarily based on who supports the pro-life movement and cherishes traditional values, even if he or she is a big domestic spender. If anything, Al Franken went after the wrong people in his satiric piece against supply side economics. It would have made more sense had he gone after wealthy businessmen, and not the Christians of Middle America, the majority of whom couldn't be any further from the mind of "Supply Side Jesus."
And yes, there are Christians like myself (and to a lesser extent, the president) who support supply side economics (but if you haven't figured it out, I'm not at all like most Christians), but the majority have other priorities. The pastor of my church is a hardcore Republican, but he doesn't know GDP from GMC. He feels that it is his job to serve his community and the children of God, and to stand up for what he believes are godly values. And this guy has done a hell of a lot more for the poor through his money, love and personal attention than Al Franken has by signing the check for his income taxes and patting himself on the back. I'm just saying...
And maybe (after you get over the initial disgust from remembering that most conservative Christians are pro-life) you're saying to yourself, "Well yeah, maybe not all conservative Christians are concerned with supply side economics, but the point is that a large portion of people who do support supply side economics claim to be Christian." Sort of like the "All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic" response, and it is well put. If you thought of that one, give yourself a pat on the back. To respond, however, I say that it's basically inconsequential. Many people just tend to support whatever their chosen political party supports, many people hold on to the values with which they were raised, and then there are many (like Chuck Norris, for instance) who spend years supporting Republican policies and then convert to Christianity later in life.
There are any number of reasons why any number of people would support any number of policy combinations, but I say it is inconsequential because I still don't believe-unlike Franken-that it is Un-Christian to support supply side economics. I would never suggest that Jesus "advocates" such policy, that would be foolish, but I think that's my point. Jesus didn't come to earth to change government. He came to earth to change people's hearts and minds, and to give people an opportunity for salvation. He didn't promote "programs" (or a lack thereof), he promoted love, humility, generosity, compassion, forgiveness...these things transcend government. I don't support supply-side economics because I think it's God's will, but nor do I think I am in opposition of God's will by supporting limited government. My political philosophies are for my country, and my personal philosophies are for my God.
Alan Colmes makes a very similar argument to the Supply Side Jesus bit in his book "Red, White and Liberal." He has a chapter called "Jesus Was A Liberal," and while I don't agree with the majority of the points he makes, I respect him for making them, mainly because they were articulated clearly and thoughtfully, completely free of any slander or smear. I was able to think critically about his points and examine my own beliefs because I didn't feel as though he was trying to make a mockery of my livelihood. But, I suppose that's why Al Franken hates Alan Colmes so much, and why he embarrassed himself at a 2003 White House Correspondents Dinner by making a scene and excoriating Colmes for not being liberal enough.
The point is, if you honestly want to persuade people to consider your liberal positions on a conservative site, it might serve you well to cut out the smear and arrogance. Yes, Al Franken and Ann Coulter are a lot of fun as far as political pornography goes, but you can't just come around smearing people and acting like the cock of the walk ("Yeah, I can refute this idiot's argument, no problem."), and then act shocked and appalled when people get in your face about it. Something to think about. I mean, hey, if you prefer that approach, then by all means knock yourself out, but then don't accuse us of being mean or unfair when we respond in a less than flattering manner. I only bring it up to clarify why I responded the way I did earlier.
Anyway, if you still believe that Al Franken's slanderous comic is worth defending, let me just ask you this: Do you believe that to support supply side economics is immoral? OR, if you consider yourself a moral relativist, do you believe that supply side economics falls into a Christian definition of immorality? I hope I have been clear in my explanations as to why I do not hold that view, but that is largely what the argument boils down to. "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus" is a sardonic attempt to demonstrate that supply side economics is in contrast to what Jesus taught, a notion which I find extremely erroneous. If, however, you disagree, and feel that such policy is without justification from a Christian or moral standpoint, then let's just go from there.
I have no desire to follow you through multiple threads on the same topic, and as such I have no intention of doing so. I don't even recall much of what I wrote two years ago, and there's certainly no point in nitpicking about the various sub-points in Bushnell's article. So if you are genuinely interested in the correlation between Christian theology and supply side economics, let's just focus on that, right here. You lay out your opinions on the topic and I'll lay out mine. Anything else in this context would be an utter waste of time.
Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:54:40 -0600
Not Nickelodeon Too!!!
I like Nickelodeon. In fact, I'll admit that when it comes to TV shows, I'm like a little kid. Spongebob, Fairly Odd Parents, Drake & Josh, Jimmy Neutron, All That, Rugrats...I'm secure enough in my manhood to admit that I totally dig that stuff. I eat it up. I was even pissed off when they canceled Hey Arnold! With that said, it should come as no surprise that I often flip over to Nick just to see what's on.
Well tonight I did just that, during that half hour of limbo between the Simpsons and Family Guy when Fox is airing "The War At Home" (which I can't stand), and imagine my surprise when I saw not Drake Bell, not Spongebob Squarepants, but one of the head honchos over at FAIR, interviewed as part of a Nick News report. It was a short segment, part of some top ten countdown about what concerns kids about television. This particular segment was regarding bias in media.
That's a fair (pardon the pun) topic for discussion, and it warms my heart to know that young kids are aware and concerned about this phenomenon, but what upset me is the fact that FAIR is a shining example of everything that is wrong with the media today. I'm not suggesting that they don't have a place in society; I think right and left leaning watchdog groups are beneficial because they each hold the other side accountable, but to use such a watchdog group as a source analyzing general media bias is just ridiculous. It's like hiring a Zionist to give a balanced lecture on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Can you imagine the outcry if Nick News had instead interviewed Bernard Goldberg? I think a few liberals would be more than a little steamed, and understandably so. There are hundreds of reputable journalists and plenty of non-partisan organizations that could have been used. I mean, honestly, was the Pew Research Center closed for renovation?
John Stossel (a biased reporter) was right when he referred to FAIR as a far left organization. I visit their website regularly to see what's going on, and I don't think I've ever seen an article denouncing left-wing bias or inaccuracy. In fact, I checked their archives for coverage of the memogate scandal, and the only complaints I could find about Dan Rather were charges that he is TOO PRO WAR. You can't make this shit up. If Bill O'Reilly had done the equivalent of what Dan Rather did with the apocryphal memos, the journalists at FAIR would have ripped him a new one and devoted an entire chapter to it in "The Oh Really Factor Volume 2." And for the record, the FAIR archives are surprisingly lacking in coverage about Mary Mapes as well.
And I repeat, this isn't anything against FAIR itself. As I said before, they do serve a purpose in society, and bias isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're straight about it and it's intended to serve a specific goal. Hell, I certainly don't pretend to be unbiased, but then again, I wouldn't recruit myself to give a non-partisan lecture about any specific topic either. I would at least hope to be beside someone who disagrees with me for the sake of balance.
Anyway, getting back to the Nick News report. This gentleman (I wish I could remember his name, some old guy with a white beard), who seemed amicable enough, spoke briefly about the crucial need for honesty and integrity in the media, and it sort of felt like I was watching Eminem give a lecture about how we need to end domestic violence. He spoke about how we never had an honest debate about the war in Iraq and how most of the news articles leading up to the war were in favor of the conflict (citing, suspiciously, a report from his own organization, and remember, his organization thinks Dan Rather is too pro-war, which should tell you something). He was absolutely right when he said that a big part of the problem is the profit-based nature of journalism. I couldn't have agreed with him more there. Most of the journalists I know here in LA are wealthy left-wing socialites who scream about the rich-poor gap while using their laptops as tax write-offs.
And what about Linda Ellerbee, the lovely, grandmother-like Nick News host? I've been watching her on that channel since I was a kid. She taught me about how children live in other countries, and how to respond if some pervert ever tries to abduct me. I have great respect and admiration for her. Still, this isn't the first time she has used questionable material on her show. A few years ago she championed the gay rights movement alongside Rosie O'Donnell, explaining to a circle of children how there are many different kinds of families, and all are equal. I basically agreed with her there, but felt that the subject matter was highly innapropriate for ten-year-olds given its sensitive nature and differing values regarding the topic. I just figured that was something that parents should deal with.
So to provide some much needed balance on Nickelodeon, I had an idea. How about: "The O'Reilly Factor For Kids," THE TV SERIES! Airing weekday mornings on Nick Jr. Listen to Bill tackle the tough topics, like how to deal with the pinheads at school, how to be slim and trim just like Bill, and how to cope with your left-wing fifth grade science teacher.
Then let's see how long before the letters start pouring in...
Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:57:48 -0500
I Hate To Say It, But Rummy's Got To Go!
Did anyone catch Bill O'Reilly's interview with Donald Rumsfeld last night?
I watched it with the hopes that Secretary Rumsfeld would shed some light on current progress in Iraq, respond boldly to common accusations and just put things into perspective. Unfortunately, the only thing he put into perspective was the fact that he is completely inept and unfit for his position. Now to be fair, some people just have a difficult time speaking articulately in a public setting, I understand that. But for god's sake, this guy couldn't answer a few simple questions that he's undoubtedly been asked a million times already. He spent the entire half hour clearing his throat, waving his hands like he was doing sign language and parroting such classic one-liners as "Saddam gave twenty-five thousand dollars to suicide bombers" and "Abu Musab al Zarqawi was treated in Iraq."
Well, duh.
Now I'm not saying Rummy's heart isn't in the right place. Personally I like the guy, and I agree with him on a great many things, but he's not a vacuum cleaner salesman. He is the Secretary of Defense, the solid rock of the pentagon, America's most authoratative symbol of militarism. If he can't stand strong and make a solid, definitive case for the war in Iraq, then I think it's time we sacked him and hired Christopher Hitchens, because apparently there are freelance journalists who understand the conflict better than Rumsfeld. Am I the only one who finds that just a little bit scary? When Hitchens defended the war on Al Franken's radio show, I literally felt chills, and even Franken was rendered speechless. However when Rumsfeld faced Bill O'Reilly last night (a guy who basically shares the same views as himself), he couldn't even answer a few simple questions without stuttering.
I'm not saying that Rumsfeld was wrong, and I'm certainly not saying that he was lying; I'm merely saying that he was weak in his presentation, for which there is no excuse. O'Reilly only asked the questions that are on everyone's mind (for instance, why are we safer now with Saddam out of power?), all of which have been asked million times. There were no surprises; no curveballs.
I think one likely reason for the weaknesses in Rumsfeld's argument is the fact that the administration already has its foot in its mouth. Early on, they chose to overemphasize the WMD argument, making it appear as though we were going to war merely for the sake of destroying Saddam's arsenal. Many Americans bought it. So now, if Rumsfeld were to emphasize other important factors, such as Saddam's many Gulf War resolution violations (which play a key role in examining Saddam's credibility and the threats he posed), or the ominous relationship between Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal, then it would appear as though the administration were backpeddaling (and understandably so). The mistakes they made in the beginning will continue to haunt them.
Nevertheless, Rumsfeld would have been infinitely more convincing had he been careful to avoid the cliches, or at least back up his cliches with a bit of support or explanation. For instance, yes, Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers....in Israel (as O'Reilly pointed out). There's no secret that Saddam is a vicious anti-semite bent on Israel's destruction, but how does that relate to us? O'Reilly wanted to know how WE as Americans are safer. Well, Rumsfeld COULD have pointed out that most of the suicide bombers supported by Saddam Hussein were from groups like Hezbollah (whose slogan is "Death to America") and Hamas, thus making Saddam Hussein one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful funders of Islamic terrorism. Apparently, though, he didn't want to overload our brains with too much information.
So even though Rumsfeld was technically correct, his words didn't inspire much confidence (at least in me), because they were just words. He made very few connections, offered very few specific details, and in fact appeared--at least by his body language and hesitation--uncertain of his own convictions. Is this really who we need as our Secretary of Defense? I have been patient with Secretary Rumsfeld for a long time, but I think that at this point he is just playing into the hands of his critics. The war critics want us to make simple, monosyllabic statements because their lack of substance makes them easy to tear apart. The war, however, is not simple. It cannot be summed up in five-second soundbytes. Bush is just as guilty of this as Rumsfeld, but I was hoping that our Secretary of Defense--in regard to military action--would at least be capable of moving beyond the charming but lowbrow utterances of our president. Donald Rumsfeld, however, has demonstrated time and time again that he just isn't up to the task.
I say he needs replacement. What do you say?
Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:00:29 -0600
How the Left Stole Christmas
A Parody of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," by Dr. Seuss New words by Kris Avalon
Every Who Down in Who-ville Liked Christmas a lot...
But the Folks Who lived just Left of Who-ville, Did NOT!
The Left hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season! Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason. It could be that their heads weren't screwed on quite right. It could be, perhaps, that their shoes were too tight. But I think that the most likely reason of all May have been that their brains were two sizes too small.
But, Whatever the reason, Their brains or his shoes, They stood there on Christmas Eve, hating the Whos, Staring down from their caves with a sour, grouchy frown At the warm lighted windows below in their town.
"All those holiday trees!" they snarled with a sneer. "Tomorrow is x-mas! It's practically here!" Then George Soros growled, his fingers nervously drumming, "I MUST find a way to keep Christmas from coming!" For, tomorrow, he knew...
...All the Who girls and boys Would wake up bright and early. They'd rush for their toys! And then! Oh, the noise! Oh, the noise! Noise! Noise! Noise! That's one thing he hated! The NOISE! NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!
Then the Whos, young and old, would sit down to a feas
