I would like to thank Margaret for posting a link to this story on her blog. I’d like to do the same. It is a fascinating chronicle about the life of a young gay man in rural Oaklahoma and should be a wake up call to the gay rights movement, which, it seems, has recently done itself more harm than good.
Category Archives: Commentary
Annoying Euphemism of the Day – Plus Free Rant!!
If someone came up to me and said, “I have a conflict about something,” I would not assume he meant, “I have a war [going on] about something.” This brings me to the second installment of annoying euphemism of the day. Though by the dictionary, the term conflict can be used to mean battle, it is a usage that I find insincere. A conflict arises when one has very little money, and must chose to pay either his cable bill or his high speed internet bill. The conflict arises because one can not do both, and thus has to chose one at the sacrifice of the other.
WHEN THE GLOBE’S LARGEST SUPERPOWER IS FIGHTING POOR PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE FREEDOM FIGHTERS IN THE 3RD WORLD, IT IS NOT A CONFLICT. IT IS A WAR.
Although I would like to say this euphemism is just a right wing trick, to keep us buying our hummers and shopping at Wal*Mart, the left is using it as well. Evidence today on the Ed Shultz show when he referred to the Iraqi war as a conflict. Let’s make no beans about it, boys and girls. With over 1,000 of our soldiers, and roughly 10x as many as their soldiers dead, what we have is a war, albeit a lopsided one.
That we can refer to the situation in Iraq as anything less than a war is simply unthinkable. Furthermore, we are told constantly, that in order to fight the WAR on terrorism, we must become more paranoid, distrustful of others, and open to the government than ever. If our WAR on terror is a war that is fought in unconventional terms, than surely poor young men and women riding in tanks and toting machine guns would qualify under the old definitions.
I believe this major euphemism is employed to cover our guilt. That is, now, we can fight war abroad and not have to sacrifice materially at home. Sure that other, vaguer war is forcing us to sacrifice what is perhaps most dear to this country, but even with our troops dying daily in foreign and hostile lands, we cry out when gas prices go up 10 cents to the gallon. Simply, those of us lucky (wealthy) enough to chose not to join the armed forces face absolutely no hardships in daily American life. We have all the exotic fruit we could possibly imagine at the local grocery store (oops, I mean Super Wal*Mart,) and plentiful supplies of sweatshop clothing from countries we couldn’t point out on maps.
We have reached the point in the consumer society whereby so long as our choice in goods and services remains at a certain acceptable level, externalities such as wars can be reduced to mere conflicts. I do like my country, for its ideals, but we have come a very long way since the 18th century. Though the easy life is now available to more people than ever, I think we have become masters of delusion. Just like Viagra may allow sex where there is no longer desire, calling war conflict only further thickens the haze that surrounds us in these 50 states.
On Born Again Christians
Ladies and gentlemen, if I may, an external link to a website written by Colin Melbourne of “Born Again Christian Info.” (LINK)
I think reading this, now, I am even more disgusted by the idea of being born again.
First, I disagree that we were all born sinful, or evil. That seems to be a way simply to separate the believers from the non-believers. I believe we are all born neutral and that whether we decide to become good or bad people, or somewhere in between, is partly to do with how we are raised and partly to do with our life decisions.
Secondly, I take offense at the notion that by buying into something completely unknown, your previous actions can be totally erased. For instance, it mentions that those who do not accept the lord (JC,) yet do good, are still sinners. This sounds like a basis for persecution on abstract ideals rather than action if I’ve ever heard one. Conversely, this tells us that no matter how bad you have been, or even if you are about to die, you can be saved. Really? Then why not just go do all my bad stuff, and then, when convenient, say before death or campaigning for political office, be saved? Seems like an excuse to live an evil life for as long as you want and then be allowed to say a simple sorry and have your slate wiped. This is foolish. The choices we make reflect upon our character, period. I’ve done bad and I’ve done good – I live with it. I would never wish to exonerate myself from all my previous mistakes, willful or not, just as much as I wouldn’t wish to believe that all my future actions, having taken the oath, would be above scrutiny.
Third. Christ was persecuted back in the day, in an age where, compared to our relatively enlightened state of being now, people were very narrow minded on both sides. Christ suffered, but that’s about all I’m willing to accept. So, if you have sinned, Christ did not pay for your sins. How could someone who was killed in the past have already atoned for what you have done in the present? It’s a foolish concept. If you have sinned, you must pay for your sins. Likewise, if you are guilty, you are guilty, not Christ. If you are sick or infirm, Christ will not make you better. Though he may give you the spiritual warmth which will in turn give you the courage to muster forward, medicine and science will go just as far if not further. And, if you are lonely, Jesus did not die to be your friend. If you are lonely, you need to do something about it – as harsh as that advice may seem.
Fourth, the idea that in order to be saved and become a good person destined for heaven, all one must do is turn to Christ, smacks of little more than idolatry. Just believing will bring you redemption? Jeez. If they had said that you had to jump though a few hoops, perhaps I’d take it a little more seriously.
What bothers me about this whole mode of thinking is that it values thought and intention more than action. What we do, not what we think in private, determines how others, and perhaps even some deity, look upon us. To be good is to be rational, driven by reason and respect for others, and attempt to do good for ourselves and others. This is not a difficult theoretical task. To do good is to take pride in your work and to hold yourself to the highest standards, all while seeking no harm to others. Those who fight and kill in the name of Jesus Christ, Allah, or what have you, are not good people. To make a strong case for belief by making one’s life follow the dictates of these beings or others is the only legitimate way, I see, to proselytize.
It is really simple in theory. But in real life, following the simple dictates of reason and personal responsibility are difficult. We will all fail at times. But our goal is to not fail, and that takes hard work and determination on our part. The responsibility is ours, as is the burden. If we can accept that nobody can absolve us for sins committed past present and future, then perhaps we will work harder to not commit them in the first place.
Quality Construction
I worked once with Habitat for Humanity. Why only once? Two reasons. One, I was too busy, and two, the quality of the housing being built for these people sucked. Now, today I go clicking over to the Globe to find this article on the Big Dig. As it turns out, all the tunnels have major structural flaws and will have to be repaired at what will undoubtedly be tremendous costs. Read the article HERE.
After this disspaointing and, frankly, enraging article, I decided to visit Nate’s website. He had a particularly good editorial linking his personal goings on with the fate of something called the High Line Railroad in Manhattan. I remember hearing about this a while back, but thanks to Nate’s article, I re-discovered the project’s amazing website. Click HERE to check it out.
What’s interesting about these two seemingly unrelated incidents is Quality. The High Line, built from 1929 – 1934, is still standing today, and is in fact strong enough to begin its second life as a unique public park. The Big Dig, which consisted of a construction period of roughly 15 years, is now just being completed (though anyone who actualy drives in Boston would harken to qualify the meaning of “complete.”) Anyway, it has now been discovered that large and critical sections of the project will have to be re-built! And it’s brand new!
So, over 75 years later, though our technical know how has increased, the quality of our work has decreased. Whereas the High Line will soon begin its new life, the new Central Artery Tunnels will already be undergoing major structural repairs. It’s a sad commentary on the nature of worksmanship and the larger ideal of public works projects in this country.
Money, Politics and You – Part I
Okay, so most of the people I know are not too happy that W has got himself another 4 years at the helm of this country. If you read my last post, I noted that at the time I was feeling disappointed, and that the anger would come later. Well it has. But, this time around, I am going to attempt to do something productive with that anger.
As such, this will be the first in hopefully many entries about what we, that is progressives/democrats/non-Jesus freaks, can do to stem the tide of the right wing neocon movement in this country. Although my ideas may come across as mere drops in the bucket, I feel that collective action around a unified cause will have results… I mean, look how we got into this mess in the first place.
This week, I’ve moseyed on over to a website called Open Secrets, an outfit that concerns itself with campaign finance disclosure. I pulled up the top twenty donors to both the Bush and the Kerry campaign. First the overviews:
1) Of the top twenty donors on each side, George W Bush’s top ten each donated over $300,000.00 Only John Kerry’s top two donors broke this mark.
2) 16 of Bush’s top twenty donors were large financial companies. (The other two included a business law firm and a large electricity generation conglomerate serving the southeastern US.)
3) Of the previously noted 16 financial institutions giving to the Bush campaign, six of them also gave to the Kerry campaign. In each instance, though, the Bush campaign received significantly more from the same institution.
4) Five of the top donors to the Kerry campaign were universities (three private, two public.)
5) Like the financial institutions, one popular company which makes, among other things, operating systems, played both sides. However, unlike the financial companies, this one donated more to Kerry than Bush
6) Four of Kerry’s top twenty donors were large, predominantly corporate, law firms.
Naming Names:
Bush’s top 10 (all over $300,00.00) :
Morgan Stanley
Merrill Lynch
Pricewaterhouse Coopers
UBS Americas
Goldman Sachs
MBNA
Credit Suisse First Boston
Lehman Brothers
Citigroup
Bear Sterns
Kerry’s Top 10:
University of California
Harvard University
Time Warner
Goldman Sachs
Microsoft
Citigroup
Law Firm
UBS Americas
JP Morgan Chase
Stanford University
Putting it all together:
Working only within the top twenty donors to both campaigns, I have removed those companies that have given to both. On the right, I am left with nothing but financial companies and the electricity generation company. On the left, there are: universities, law firms, two major media outlets, and a large international computer maker. What does this all prove? Well beyond the obvious, that academia is filled with lefty communist pinkos and that there really is a liberal media, not much. The trends shown by this little investigation are not at all earth shattering.
For instance, those who control large sums of money tend to favor the Republicans. Why? Generally Republicans are associated with a culture that is pro-business and anti-social spending. This ideal of rugged individualism, as applied to economics, makes the Republicans understandably more favorable to those who already control capital.
On the other hand, the large involvement of academia within the Democratic party sends a different message. The universities in Kerry’s top 20 were: UCal, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, and the University of Michigan. This list itself is interesting, in that both elite private schools and public schools are on it. Whereas a place such as Harvard or Stanford could be written off as just as institution where the wealthy send their children, the presence of UCal and U Michigan sends a different message, emphasizing the power of strong, rigorously run state education systems. Although any college graduate will have an appropriate level of cynicism when viewing the entire notion of higher education, it is hard to deny that the experience often serves as a springboard for socially progressive ideas and actions. Both state systems and private institutions, while having to admit some students just to foot the bill, do offer enormous opportunities for those who have the talent but not the cash.
Recommendation:
Since financial institutions tend to favor Republicans, why not check up on the institution you do your banking and trading with? For instance, if you have an account in one of the “mega banks,” ask yourself, “is that giant network of ATM’s really worth it if the money they get from me is going to neocons like Bush?” If you think not, then find a socially progressive bank and do your business with them. For instance, check out this funky local bank chain serving the Boston metropolitan area: Wainwright Bank. Though their website is a bit hokey, their commitment to progressive social activism and corporate responsibility is commendable.
What’s most disturbing about the fact that the Republican party is so rich is that its biggest supporters are constantly funded by the likes of you and me. Sure we aren’t writing a check to the GOP, but when we patronize institutions that are heavily right weighted, we are doing ourselves a grave disservice.
Coming up next:
Although today’s “lesson” focused on the biggest corporate donors, next time, we’ll take a look at some other (non top 20) corporations and where their money goes. We’ll break down the relationship between the parent company and the item on the shelf at your local supermarket, and start to think about how we can consume for our future.