Failblog

Wow, July. That was a while ago. I've frequently thought of things I would like to talk about but I always end up ranting to whoever is around and then lose the fire to type it all out. Plus I figure anyone who cares what I think enough to read this, I probably have talked to about it anyway. This is mostly self-defeating because I honestly would like to be a solid blogger, like my friend Cynthia.

So with that redundant explanation, let's move on.

Usually, to get me to write, you have to make me angry. Not mad, being mad burns out quickly. Honesy-to-God righteous indignation, that's a gift that keeps on giving.

So first, let me introduce a new word for everyone.

Conflate, verb. The noun is "conflation." It is when you mistakenly equate two things that are separate. That is, you think things are the same when they are not. This is done on a nigh daily basis, usually benignly and frequently without any consequence other than the individual being (sometimes understandably) confused.

Other times, it could very well lead to bloodshed.

A few weeks ago, my brother asked me what I thought of the whole "Mosque at Ground Zero" controversy. Due mostly to being buried under work and getting future plans worked out, I had honestly no idea what he was talking about, and therefore didn't feel I could make an educated response.

My first response, and one of the points that I don't feel is REALLY under contention is that they are legally allowed to build a worship center anywhere they want, without federal intervention.

So the issue becomes not "can they" but "should they?" I said I thought it was a community issue, they should talk it out in a civil manner that would be educational to all parties and if the community was simply too offended, then maybe it shouldn't be built. My brother said something that seems to be a common feeling in this country. He said "It offends me as an American."

This bothered me a bit but again, I didn't know all the facts, so I didn't think I should respond. There also seemed to be a feeling that the President was siding with the Muslims and endorsing the worship center, which isn't his place.

Well, now I've done some checking and feel I can speak to the issue better.

First, I remind the class that freedom of religion means everyone's religion, not just the ones we like. In the end, our opinions don't really matter because if they want to build it, they will, and that is their constitutional right. End of story.

Secondly, this worship center isn't AT Ground Zero, it is not being built on the rubble of the Trade Centers. It's a few blocks away and there are already other Mosques, at least one, that is actually closer. I think saying "Mosque at Ground Zero" is purposefully inflammatory and misleading, and like so much of this contrary, dependent on the ignorance of the populace. So the idea that this is a conscious slap in America's collective face is already refuted. I do not believe the Muslims behind building this center--most of whom have shown themselves to be moderate--are trying to hurt anyone. I admit, they should have been prepared for this to become a firestorm, and maybe they did, but I don't think they chose the location for that reason.

Thirdly, *I* am NOT offended as an American. To be honest, I'm much more offended by the visceral, usually ignorant, sometimes downright hateful, but mostly just knee-jerk reaction of the Americans I've heard. This sort of issue should be handled with sensitivity, civility and respect. Instead, we get "Not In My Backyard" on a national level. Guess what? It's THEIR backyard, too. I have always been proud of America's inclusiveness, that our national identity is made up of a variety of flavors. However, this means America will only work if we choose to let it. And sometimes people don't seem to want to do that.

So why are people offended? This is where our friend "conflation" comes in. People seem to have mixed up "Muslim" with "terrorist." While it *should* go without saying, I'm going to anyway: they are NOT the same. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. Maybe a few thousand are "violent extremists." That means the vast majority are peaceful, probably similar to us in more ways than they are different.

The Muslims who are pushing for this center are, as far as I know, peaceable, moderate people, who just want to worship their way.

This is why wars on ideas never work and have so many unfortunate consequences. It is also the problem of terrorism. The rules are different, we can fight conventionally. We aren't fighting the Muslims or the Afghanis or the Iraqis. We are fighting terrorists and criminals.

Someone once said that humans are the instruments of ideologies. While this is true, I argue that ideologies are also the tools of people. After all, there are people who claim to subscribe to the same ideologies I do, yet act in a way that I find morally reprehensible. I'm sure many Muslims feel the same.

It bothers me that people don't recognize bombing abortion clinics, and events like that, as domestic terrorism. It seems the height of hypocrisy. But, they retort, those people are evil and doing evil things. We are getting rid of armful elements.
What do you think the terrorists think THEY'RE doing? And you can't say, "but they're wrong and we're right" because that means not only are you a hypocrite, you're also incredibly arrogant.

I'm sure many of these terrible acts are committed by people claiming they are doing God's will. But in the end, they are just fallible humans, choosing to enforce their personal beliefs on others. At that point, it doesn't even MATTER if they were right or not. A God that asks you to cowardly bomb undefended individuals, however you disagree with them, is not a God worthy of worship. There are better ways to make your case, to further your cause.
My point is that the truly broken inside would have found a way to be violent anyway. The fact that they use their religion as a smokescreen does not make it that religion's fault. There's good and bad in all of us, and there are good and bad elements to every group. We are all imperfect humans.

So I wanted to say: Dear America, this shouldn't offend you. Get over your small minded, ignorant hangups and learn to respect the views of others. The Worship Center is *not* a victory for the terrorists, your close-minded self-aggrandizing response is. Put simply, you're making us look bad.

And that would have been that.

Until yesterday.

The whole thing with the Mosque was mildly irritating but at least I could more or less understand where people were coming from. 9/11 is still a raw nerve, still a deep scar in our national soul. I feel some leniency should be given to the high running emotions that go with it.

That does not, nor does anything else, justify burning Q'urans to "memorialize it." I honestly can't even wrap my head around this. The level of "not okay" is in the stratosphere. I don't like it when people burn American flags. I remember becoming incensed when some kids at my university were using the Bible as a kick ball.
For one thing, NO book, not even Twilight, should be so mistreated. Books should be respected, if only for being books. For another thing, it is extremely disrespectful. You can respect other views even if you don't share them, even if you're opposed to them. When we start deciding who does and does not get to have what views is when we reach a new dystopic low.

So, of course, when I found out this was being done by a "church" I was furious. This is exactly what I was talking about. Now, if I tell someone I'm a Christian, I have to disclaim it and say "but I'm not THAT kind of Christian." It's stomach-turning that I should have to do that.

As General Patreaus has already said, this could have serious consequences for our soldiers. It could effectively set us back by years. We are already failing to win the hearts of the Afghan people so of course they don't want to help us. Now we run the risk of turning millions of otherwise peaceful people into radicals. I mean, what would YOU do if someone was going to burn YOUR holy book? There's no excuse for this.

Now, under freedom of religion, I concede that this could be protected. However, under freedom if speech, it's not. Hate speech is not protected by the Constitution, and that's exactly what this is.

As if all this wasn't bad enough, the Florida pastor who is spearheading this has already shown himself to be less than reputable when he was sent away from one church for dipping into it's funds for his own personal use. I don't find that really relevant to this issue though, it's horrid enough on it's own.

It makes me plenty angry, but do I wish ill on them? No. I don't want them to be bombed, vandalized or hurt in any way. I just want them to recognize that the God they claim to follow is one of love and that only he who is perfect should cast the first stone.

I think people, not just Americans, but all people, should just get over themselves.

And I truly hope things don't get worse.

A few responses

I meant to get around to doing this a while back but between a very busy week and my internet going down, I had been unable to get to it.

The subject for this week are: The Correspondents Dinner and this whole Miss California nonsense. I may or may not start talking about the whole CIA VS Pelosi goofiness as well, depending on how much steam I have by the end.

I always look forward to the Press Corp dinner, ever since Stephen Colbert let former President Bush have it with both barrels. I don't know what they were thinking when they invited him, but he obviously had guts. So Miss Wanda Sykes had a lot to live up to. I considered her an intriguing choice for this year's dinner considering her race and sexuality, both undoubtedly taken into consideration and I was skeptical she would be able to perform at the same level, mostly because I'm not all that familiar with her work.

Before we get to that though, I'd like to say that I was quite impressed with President Obama. We already knew he was likable and the fact that he could also be funny by being self-deprecating and yet 'ballsy' enough to poke fun at those who those who criticize him made me that much more appreciative. When Bush did it last time I watched, he gave me the impression of a bully and while I still chuckled every now and again, it was not nearly as enjoyable. I won't go into details because I'm sure most of you have seen it, but I appreciated the President's humor.

I DID laugh at Wanda Sykes, so did the people with me. Sometimes just out of amused shock, sometimes because she was truly clever.
"Governor Palin was supposed to be here but she pulled out last second. Someone should really tell her that's not how abstinence works" was one of my favorite lines (and the aforementioned governor will come up later as well).

But of course, there was the great controversy: What she said about Rush Limbaugh.
First...like Keith Olbermann, I disagree with her and her use of those jokes. 9/11 is something that is never joked about, and I think she realized that right after she spoke. It doesn't matter who you're talking about, you simply do NOT joke about the Towers. I know people want to make this big deal about the President smiling but I don't think he agreed with it. He's in a public situation, the pressure is on, and I know *I* laughed the first time, mostly out of shock. I just don't think too much should be read into that.

I gotta admit, I thought it was really funny when she said: "I hope America fails, I hope his kidney's fail, how about that?"

Do I think that's an appropriate thing to say? No, and I feel kind of bad for acquiescing with it. Making personal attacks like that are just not good ideas.
Do I think he deserved it? HECK, yes. I cannot imagine how many Christians can listen to such a hateful man. He completely has attacks like these coming, considering how much he attacks others. This is the guy who called THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES "Barack the Magic Negro".

This makes me so angry. I can understand disagreeing with those in power, in fact, I encourage it, I think it shows what a great country I live in that you are ALLOWED to do that. I can even understand going so far as to call someone stupid or immoral, that makes you sound like a moron, but it's okay.
But RACE comments? I'm sorry, you've lost all credibility with me. Attacking someone's character with real, valid proof, that's fine. But being racist and hateful to get ratings...makes apparently a well listened to monster.

So I think she definitely stepped out of line, but part of me is sympathetic because he's been out of line for awhile. I'm pretty sure he couldn't even see the line with a telescope at this point. His following still baffles me.

So that's the dinner. All in all, I think it was cool, but I agree with those who felt some of it was ruined by inappropriate comments.

Then there's this Miss California thing. /sigh I can't believe this is even news worthy.

Okay, first of all: I think Carrie's critics are not attacking her 'anti gay marriage' message. I'm sure there are those who disagree, but that is not what the issue is. I can't really speak for them though, so I will try to just say what I think.
Saying what she thought of gay marriage was not a big deal to me.
What IS aggravating is her going on and on about how she was punished for speaking her mind and how dare people step on her First Amendment right.

First of all...She broke the contest rules, she had surgery before the pageant and she joined a political organization after, all of which is against the rules. If she's punished, it would be for that. But she WASN'T. She gets to KEEP being Miss California, so nothing happened to her.
Second of all: The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with this. The First Amendment simply says that the GOVERNMENT can't stop her from saying things. But the government didn't, her EMPLOYERS did...and they are well within their legal right to do so.
Which brings us back to...Miss Palin. Yes, I'm so glad she's sticking up for the blonde. But seriously...this is why I didn't want McCain to win. I did not want that woman within two hundred yards of executive power. Besides being just as corrupt as the 'far left' that she liked to lambaste...but she also likes to sound incredibly stupid. Again bringing in this non-existing First Amendment issue...

On the other side, we have...David Shuster. As most of you are aware...I do not like him. For all sorts of reasons, his voice is annoying, he is not good at hiding the 'reading off the teleprompter' issue and...well, he did not handle this story well in my opinion. He was incredibly emotional and just unprofessional. I wanted to tell him 'You know, I bet Fox is hiring, because you sound like one of them'.

But in the end what this all comes down to is: Who really cares what Miss California says? Yes, this is a shallow pageant, no it is not going to go away. Get over it.

~~

Now for this whole thing about Speaker Pelosi. I do not know a lot about this case, so I cannot speak definitely. But first they said she was debriefed...which she'd already said, and which they couldn't contradict.

Do I think Speaker Pelosi is lying? Probably to some extent, I have little faith in any politician. But do I think they said 'Hey, Nancy, we're waterboarding people, is that cool?' and she said 'Oh yeah, no problem'? No, I don't think so. I admit it's...disconcerting how she keeps saying 'Oh yeah...um...' and then changes her story so that it doesn't contradict but adds more details. I want to know why she didn't just say all this to begin with. On the other hand, there are some things she can't tell us and I don't think that says she's hiding something. It would be illegal for her to disclose all information, that's why you have to sign all these papers swearing you won't talk about it. So perhaps that played a part.
What aggravates me is that even if her story isn't lining up, the evidence against her is questionable at best because most of it is being given by the CIA....which is the organization she is accusing of lying. Yes, they should definitely defend themselves, but if it is just going to be a game of 'he said, she said'...I gotta admit, I'm not really convinced by either party.

Most of all, what bothers me is how partisan this all seems to be. The way the whole issue got brought up was the Reps saying 'But wait, SHE knew about it too, that makes it okay!'.
In Keith's words: "This is NOT about party. This is about the rape of our ideals. And if a Democrat is equally culpable...then they can go to hell, too."
I don't care what party those involved were in. Torture is NEVER okay. Just because someone in the Dems party MAY have known about it does not make the Reps who were in charge (IE, Bush, Cheney and them) any less responsible. This all seems like a way to divert attention and it aggravates me. But hopefully it all works out soon.

Any thoughts, fellow philosophers?